The Jehu Revolution in the Northern Kingdom of Israel

Jonathan Miles Robker
The Jehu Revolution

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Herausgegeben von
John Barton · F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp
Reinhard G. Kratz · Markus Witte
Band 435
De Gruyter
Jonathan Miles Robker
The Jehu Revolution

A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom
and Its Ramifications
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-028489-8
e-ISBN 978-3-11-028501-7
ISSN 0934-2575
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.dnb.de.
” 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Acknowledgements
The journey to complete this dissertation was a long and arduous one, covering a
period of some three years, from March of 2008 until May of 2011, when I
completed my Rigorosum. Over the course of this academic wending, too many
people have rightfully earned my gratitude to all be listed here, but several
deserve to be noted in a special way.
First and foremost, I must extend my thanks to my family for their support
and for understanding my longing to complete this degree in Germany, far away
from the land I since birth have called my home. To my second family, the
Hildenspergers of Scheppach, I must extent my eternal gratitude for the wel-
coming spirit and cheerful, uplifting attitude that has always greeted me there.
To Anja I continue to offer thanks for the support that you have given me, both
with linguistic matters in Latin and Spanish, and with the practical support you
have provided me in day-to-day living, in spite of my sometimes less-than-
sunny disposition.
From a scholastic perspective, my gratitude is extended to Professor Dr.
Jürgen van Oorschot and Professor Dr. Hans-Christoph Schmitt, both of whom
have undertaken the extensive task of guiding my research from the conception
of this project. Further, my thanks are extended to Professor Dr. Markus Saur for
his encouraging words at the right times. Finally, I offer thanks to the members
of the alttestamentliches Forschungsseminar in the years 2006–2010 in Erlan-
gen, especially Dr. Lars Allolio-Näcke, Andrea Beyer, Philipp Herrmanns-
dörfer, Dr. Gerhard Karner, Delia Klingler, and Sarah Schulz for questioning,
criticizing, and probing my hypotheses in a friendly, collegial atmosphere.
On the practical side of life, I extended my deepest gratitude to Villigst for
their financial support. Without the stipend they were gracious enough to extend
to me, this research could not have been undertaken, not to mention the research
trips to London, Jerusalem, Tartu, and Helsinki, which of course, without the
financial support of Villigst, would have remained the dream they turned out to
be. For their diligent work in correcting part or the whole of the manuscript, I
thank Anja Hildensperger, Delia Klingler, Jonathan Kühn, Nicholas Loup, and
Frani Scheler. Their work was both efficient and thorough, yet any errors that
remain are my responsibility alone.
Further, I must extend my thanks to Prof. Dr. Siegfried Kreuzer and Prof.
Dr. Aaron Schart, who gainfully employed me in Nordrhein-Westfalen, yet still
provided me with enough freedom to complete the final phase of editing this
VI Acknowledgements
manuscript for publication. My gratitude is also offered to the editors of the

series BZAW for accepting this dissertation into their series and to the publishers
at de Gruyter, especially Dr. Albrecht Döhnert and Sabina Dabrowski, as well as
Steve from technical support at Nota Bene, for their assistance with the for-
matting and editing of the final manuscript.
Finally, I would like to offer my thanks to the individuals who took the time
to remind me that life is more than composing a dissertation or earning a doc-
toral degree. The residents of the WEH and my students in the Fachbereich
Theologie in Erlangen must be recognized in this capacity. My special thanks
goes out to the Akademischen Rat Dr. Gerhard Karner, Delia Klingler, Eduard
W. Schlichtinger, and Markus Westhauser for the many hours of discussion,
sometimes heated, and relaxation that we could all enjoy. My love and thanks
are extended to Anja Hildensperger for all of her support in every facet of my
life.
Thank you.
Jonathan Robker
Wuppertal, 18 June 2012
The abbreviations used in this dissertation follow the SBL Handbook of Style.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. V
Chapter 1: Introduction: Objectives and Methodology ......................................1

The Problem...................................................................................................1
Objectives ......................................................................................................2
Methodology ..................................................................................................6
Excursus: The Greek Text of Kings ...............................................................8
Chapter 2: The Literary Jehu: A Construct and its Ramifications ................... 17

The Oldest Biblical Jehu Tradition: 2 Kings 9–10*..................................... 17
Literary Criticism......................................................................................... 35
Analysis of Style .......................................................................................... 58
Date of Composition .................................................................................... 62
Form and Sitz im Leben ............................................................................... 65
Chapter 3: The Jehuide Dynasty ...................................................................... 70

Excursus: A Judean Redaction or a Judean Source? .................................... 81
2 Kings 13:1–9* ........................................................................................... 83
Translation and Textual Considerations .................................................. 83
Narrative Considerations ......................................................................... 84
2 Kings 13:10–14:22*.................................................................................. 86
Narrative Considerations ......................................................................... 90
1 Kings 20:1–34* ......................................................................................... 99
Narrative Considerations ....................................................................... 105
2 Kings 14:23–29* ..................................................................................... 110
Translation and Textual Considerations ................................................ 110
Chapter 4: The Israel Source in the Book of Kings: From Jeroboam II

through Joram ................................................................................................ 117
David and Solomon: 1 Kings 1:1–11:25* .................................................. 117
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* ............................................................ 118
VIII Table of Contents

Nadab through Joram: 1 Kings 15:25–16:34 + 22*; 2 Kings 1* ............... 130
The Plausibility of a Political Source in the Time of Jeroboam I .............. 157
Concluding Remarks.................................................................................. 164
Chapter 5: Historicity and the Bible: Evaluating the Biblical Materials for
Reconstructing Israel’s History ...................................................................... 166
Introduction................................................................................................ 166
The Israel Source ....................................................................................... 166
Other Material in Kings ............................................................................. 171
Hosea ......................................................................................................... 174
Amos .......................................................................................................... 181
Chronicles .................................................................................................. 188
Josephus ..................................................................................................... 193
Concluding Remarks and Evaluations ....................................................... 195
Chapter 6: Akkadian Sources ......................................................................... 197

Shalmaneser III .......................................................................................... 197
The Campaign of 853 ............................................................................ 201
The Campaign of 849 ............................................................................ 210
The Campaign of 848 ............................................................................ 211
The Campaign of 845 ............................................................................ 213
The Campaign of 841 ............................................................................ 215
The Campaign of 838 ............................................................................ 223
Summary of Shalmaneser III ................................................................. 225
Adad-nārārī III and Shalmaneser IV .......................................................... 225
The Assyrian Texts .................................................................................... 229
Chapter 7: Levantine Epigraphy: Tel Dan, Mesha, Zakkur, Samarian

Materials ........................................................................................................ 232
Textual Sources in Syria and Palestine ...................................................... 232
The Mesha Inscription ............................................................................... 232
General Matters and Dating .................................................................. 232
Translation ............................................................................................ 233
Historical Considerations and Reconstruction ...................................... 236
The Tel Dan Inscription ............................................................................. 240
Reconstruction and Translation ............................................................. 246
The Zakkur Inscription .............................................................................. 275
Table of Contents IX

Translation ............................................................................................ 275
Samarian Stele Fragments ......................................................................... 278
The Samaria Ostraca .................................................................................. 279
General Information and Dating ............................................................ 279
Contents ................................................................................................ 280
Historical Considerations ...................................................................... 282
Conclusions................................................................................................ 283
Chapter 8: Conclusions .................................................................................. 285

Historical Reconstruction .......................................................................... 285
Impulses for Further Study ........................................................................ 301
Appendix: The Israel Source .......................................................................... 303

Bibliography .................................................................................................. 315
Index of Biblical Citations ............................................................................. 333
CHAPTER 1
Introduction:
Objectives and Methodology
The Problem
The text of Kings has always played a significant role in any reconstruction of
Israel’s history, particularly in cases where interest has developed surrounding
specific events rather than general social or economic trends. Many of the his-
torical textbooks reflecting on Israel’s history offer a basic recounting of the
biblical narrative, with greater or lesser complexity and artistic flair. The narra-
tive about Jehu’s political putsch in 2 Kings 9–10 represents a famous example
of such a narrative from the book of Kings being often cited in historical recon-
structions of Israel’s history. 1 The story of Jehu, one of the most violent in all
of the Bible, recounts his rise to power via the slaughtering of his predecessor,
his predecessor’s ally, and their respective families. Other sources from the
ancient Near East, most especially the Akkadian sources from Shalmaneser III
and the so-called Tel Dan Inscription, have suggested that the biblical image of
Jehu may not be entirely trustworthy. In order to develop an informed opinion
about the reliability of the narrative of Kings, first it must be established what
material in the story is what age. Only then can it be adequately interrogated as
to whether it can provide details to the modern historian about the ninth cen-
tury in Israel. This leads us to a number of problems: 1) What is the oldest nar-
rative about Jehu in 2 Kings 9–10? 2) Did this narrative originally exist in iso-
———————————
1 For an example of an extremely brief recounting of the biblical narrative of Jehu’s revolt,
based largely on the biblical image with some references to the Akkadian materials, cf. Jan
Alberto Soggin, Einführung in die Geschichte Israels und Judas: von den Ursprüngen bis
zum Aufstand Bar Kochbas (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991), 146–
48. For a much more artistic rendering of the biblical narrative, cf. Herbert Donner, Von
der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen mit einem Ausblick auf die Geschichte des
Judentums bis Bar Kochba (vol. 2 of Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn
in Grundzügen; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 274–80.
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
lation or was it part of a more substantial whole? 3) How old is the oldest nar-
rative about Jehu? 4) What can its Tendenz tell us about its reliability and use-
fulness in reconstructing Israel’s history? 5) How does this narrative in Kings
relate to other sources of information regarding the history of the ancient Near
East in the ninth century? 6) When considered together, compared and con-
trasted, can these sources be used to reconstruct a plausible history for the
events supposedly surrounding Jehu’s political revolution in Israel in the ninth
century? Further study and explication remains necessary, as the academic lit-
erature addressing these matters in the last 20 years has failed to produce any
kind of consensus. This study seeks to answer these questions in a manner that
does justice to all of the relevant sources.
Objectives
Two major objectives define this work: on the one hand, this study attempts to
reconstruct the textual history of the narrative in 2 Kings 9–10 and any related
texts within the book of Kings. Initially, this seemed to be a simple enough
task, as only limited levels of redaction can be read out of the narrative. How-
ever, in the course of the development of this reconstruction of the textual his-
tory, it became obvious that the narrative in 2 Kings 9–10 was originally part
of a much larger whole, from which it cannot be separated without exceptional
violence to the text. Many readers will immediately say, “of course! This story
is one narrative link in the Deuteronomistic history!” However, the Deutero-
nomistic text is not the oldest narrative of which the story in 2 Kings 9–10 was
but a part. 2 This will all become clear in the course of this study.
On the other hand this undertaking attempts to offer a historical reconstruc-
tion of the events surrounding the revolt of Jehu as described in 2 Kings 9–10.
This reconstruction will not be based solely on the biblical materials, but will
consider epigraphic materials. Again, this may seem to be an easy task at the
outset, but there are many sources that play a role in such a reconstruction.
Beyond this, the historical context of Jehu’s revolt must be established before
one can consider the historicity of the narrative account of these events in
2 Kings. One must further look beyond the immediate time-frame of Jehu’s
———————————
2 The oldest narrative identified in the course of this study is referred to as the Israel Source.
Objectives 3
supposed revolution (i.e., 842–841 BCE) to see if there is evidence outside of

the Bible to support such claims. In this matter, other textual finds become
especially relevant. 3 I believe that the various sources reflecting on the history
of Israel at that time must be compared and contrasted with no single source
being given priority over all others all of the time. Rather, the sources must be
studies and criticized independently, then contrasted, in the hopes that a com-
posite image can be constructed, offering a plausible historical reconstruction
for Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries.
From these objectives, the nature of the study should become clear: this is
a primarily historical study, whether one considers the reconstruction of the
events behind the narrative or the reconstruction of the history of the narrative.
This is not a primarily theological work, but does have important ramifications
for any history of Israel’s religion. More significantly, this study will make a
new (or renewed) suggestion about how the text of Kings came to exist. While
the extra-biblical sources can be dated with more or less certainty, the dating of
the Kings narrative presents an especially thorny issue. This is also true for the
narrative of the Jehu revolution, which has been dated into the Neo-Babylonian
period by some scholars 4 and within the dynasty of Jehu by others. 5 These
dates represent a difference of at least one hundred and fifty years, a time in
which a tradition could change a considerable amount. While it is clear that the
current version of the biblical narrative concerning Jehu has been through a
number of redactions, transforming the final draft of the text into a narrative
———————————
3 It is not a major objective of this work to compare and contrast all of the various histories
of Israel written relying on Kings. Since this study considers the original source materials,
only limited references to scholastic postulations in the textbooks remains necessary. This
is especially true since many of the histories of Israel pre-date the discovery of the Tel Dan
Inscription, e.g., Donner, Geschichte; Soggin, Einführung; John Bright, A History of
Israel (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1960); and Gösta W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient
Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (JSOTSup 146; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), just to name a few.
4 E.g., Thomas C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Histori-
cal and Literary Introduction (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 154, who suggests
that in the Neo-Babylonian period, the narrative of 2 Kings 9:1–10:27* was part of the
Deuteronomistic literature.
5 E.g., Susanne Otto, Jehu, Elia und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die
Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen (BWANT 152; Stuttgart: Verlag W.
Kohlhammer, 2001).
culminating at the earliest in the Persian period, 6 there are clear indications that
the oldest narrative level of the text comes from a much earlier period.
My suggestion here, which will be supported with significant evidence in
the following chapters, is that one must reckon with some pre-Deuteronomistic
source(s), at least one of which came from political circles in the Northern
Kingdom. I am not the first to suggest a pre-Deuteronomistic source for mate-
rial in the Book of Kings. Others, especially Weippert, Mayes, Campbell,
Provan, Lemaire, Halpern and Vanderhooft, and Schniedewind have all
assumed as much, placing the composition of the original text in either the time
of Jehoshaphat or, more often, Hezekiah. 7 Conspicuously, all of these authors
presume Judean compositional priority for the oldest reconstructable level of
the narrative. 8 One must question whether such a presumption is necessarily
———————————
6 One should remember that the text used as the base in the diplomatic edition BHS, Codex
Leningradensis, comes from the eleventh century CE, i.e., some 2000 years after the events
it describes in the narrative of 2 Kings 9–10. The last major redaction of this text may
have been around the beginning of the Common Era; cf. Adrian Schenker, Älteste
Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen
Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (OBO 199; Fribourg: Academic Press,
2004).
7 Cf. Helga Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und
Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher,” Bib 53 (1972): 301–39; A. D. H.
Mayes, The Story of Israel Between the Settlement and the Exile: A Redactional Study of
the Deuteronomistic History (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1983); Anthony F. Campbell S.J.,
Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10)
(CBQMS 17; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986); Iain W.
Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings (BZAW 172; Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1988); André Lemaire, “Toward a Redaction History of the Book of Kings,” in
Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Gary
N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 446–
71; Baruch Halpern and David S. Vanderhooft, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th
Centuries B.C.E,” HUCA 62 (1991): 179–244; William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible
Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: University Press,
2004). One should note that there are voices against this approach; cf. e.g., Erik Aurelius,
Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts (BZAW 319; Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter,
2003), 21–57, who dates the oldest layer of the Deuteronomistic history into the exilic
period. His denial of the possibility of a narrative of Kings from the time of Hezekiah (or
even earlier) is based on a refutation of the reliability of using the variant Deuteronomistic
evaluations of various kings to date redactional levels. My study does not require consider-
ation of these evaluations in order to demonstrate that a level of narrative from the time of
Hezekiah (and even earlier) can be plausibly postulated.
8 Schniedewind remains unclear on this point, suggesting that the materials originated in
Hezekiah’s time, but that the work at that time was largely editorial: “If there was an inte-
gration of northern literary traditions in Jerusalem, it makes more sense to place the pro-
cess in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Samaria, with its concomitant influx of refu-
Objectives 5
legitimate. While the idea of a pre-Deuteronomistic source is not an especially

novel idea, considering the possibility of an Israelite heritage—especially a
textual provenance outside the auspices of prophetic circles—for such a text is.
In my opinion, the biblical (and to a certain degree, archaeological) evidence
suggests just such a postulation.
In this matter I am perhaps more “conservative” than many of my contem-
poraries. What I mean by this is, that I believe that a text must have some sub-
stance in order to be worth passing down as a textual tradition. I find it improb-
able that fractions of sentences were passed down over hundreds of years in
order to one day be compiled into a larger literary structure. To me, it seems
more probable that narratives (some longer and some shorter) would be passed
down over time, occasionally being expanded by later redactors. Some narra-
tives may come from royal sources; some may be legends. Some presumably
come from Israel, while others presumably come from Judah. Such a conclu-
sion does not preclude a number of redactions in the history of a text; it does
however tend to diminish (to a greater or lesser degree) the activity attributed
to the various redactors. Exactly how I anticipate the development, redaction,
and historical circumstances behind narrative texts will hopefully become obvi-
ous in the considerations of the various pericopes, beginning with that found in
2 Kings 9–10.
The original text of 2 Kings 9–10* did not exist in a narrative vacuum, but
was passed on within a larger narrative. This assertion is based on stylistic and
literary links between the text of 2 Kings 9–10* and other texts within the cur-
rent corpus of Kings. Once these texts have been established in the oldest
reachable level of composition, one can consider the historical reasons for the
existence of the text and historical reliability of its claims. As the original nar-
rative of 2 Kings 9–10* did not spring into existence from a cultural vacuum,
the texts of neighboring cultures must also undergo a similar examination. This
brings us to considerations of methodology.
———————————
gees to the south, than to place it a century later amid religious reforms aimed at eradicat-
ing northern cultural influences.” (Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book , 89)
“There seems to have been a pre-exilic account written during the period of Hezekiah that
probably reflected upon the fall of Samaria and the survival of Jerusalem.” (Schniedewind,
How the Bible Became a Book , 79)
Methodology
The study at hand is divided into two easily identifiable parts. The first part
examines the biblical text of Kings, while the second part focuses on a critical
evaluation of the biblical materials, as well as the extra-biblical materials rele-
vant to Israelite history, as historical sources. As will become immediately
obvious, the examination of the biblical materials consumes much more space
than the other individual sources discussed. A twofold problem underlies this
necessity: 1) the extensive amount of the biblical material; and 2) the long
redactional history of the biblical material reflected in the various textual tradi-
tions passed down through the millennia. 9 For these reasons, the examination
of the biblical witnesses must consume a disproportionate amount of the study.
However, the other sources will be examined as thoroughly and with a similar
methodology in order to assure a reliable usage of the data acceptable for a his-
torical reconstruction.
The underlying method for the majority of the work in part one can be
summarized in three words: historical-critical method. By historical-critical
method I mean the traditional approach to regarding biblical texts considering
especially text- and literary-critical matters. In recent history, some considera-
tions of the Jehu Revolution have been published which focus only on the
Endgestalt of the text. 10 While focusing on the final draft is a legitimate
method for theological or ethical approaches to a text, it is inappropriate for
any historical reconstructions other than that of the final redactor of the text.
Complicating the text- and literary-critical issues of Kings are the two
major textual traditions of these book: Greek (in Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and
———————————
9 The history of the book of Kings remains a particularly thorny issue, especially when one
considers the various Greek editions of the text; cf. especially Schenker, Textgeschichte
and Jong-Hoon Kim, Die hebräischen und griechischen Textformen der Samuel- und
Königebücher: Studien zur Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,1 – 19,9 (BZAW 394;
Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009).
10 E.g., David T. Lamb, Righteous Jehu and His Evil Heirs: The Deuteronomist’s Negative
Perspective on Dynastic Succession (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)
and Lissa M. Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval
and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10) (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies; New York & London: T &T Clark International, 2007).
Methodology 7
the “Lucianic” texts 11) and Hebrew (most importantly the Leningrad and
Aleppo Codices). “For the most part the Vorlage [of LXX] must have corre-
sponded to the MT, otherwise they could not be regarded as representatives of
the same Scriptures.” 12 “Sie [MT und LXX vom Königebuch] decken sich auf
weite Strecken so genau, dass sie meistens, grob gesprochen in etwa 80% der
Gesamtsubstanz, denselben Text darstellen.” 13 In spite of these largely similar
traditions, some differences must be addressed and studied in order to deter-
mine not only the oldest level of the text, but also the shape of some of the
redactional levels as well. 14 For this reason the biblical texts will first be
researched in terms of text-critical problems: where are there differences in the
traditions of the text? How did such differences come about? Do these differ-
ences represent intentional changes? What does any possible intention tell us
about the context of the person editing the text? Can the differences be chrono-
logically organized? etc. Each of the text-critical problems must be addressed
on its own; i.e., there is no specific guiding principle presuming the over-
———————————
11 This study refers to Lucian both as Lucian and as the Antiochene text (= Ant.) due to the
identification of texts matching Lucianic readings in Josephus, Vetus Latina, early Chris-
tian authors, and Qumran; this implies the existence of a pre- or proto-Lucianic text before
the fourth century CE. Cf. John Wm. Wevers, “Proto-Septuagint Studies,” in The Seed of
Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek (ed. W.S. McCullough; Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1964), 69: “There was thus a Lucianic text before Lucian, in fact, at least
200 years before Lucian. There is to my mind no doubt that the Antiochian text was an
early revision of the Septuagint text.” And more recently, cf. Siegfried Kreuzer, “Transla-
tion and Recensions: Old Greek, Kaige, and Antiochene Text in Samuel and Reigns,” Bul-
letin of the International Orgainization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 42
(2009): 34–51. For an overview of Lucian, cf. Kristin De Troyer, “Der lukianische Text,”
in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der
Griechischen Bibel Band 2 (ed. Siegfried Kreuzer and Jürgen Peter Lesch; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2004), 229–37. For the importance of Lucian in reconstructing the textual
history of Kings, cf. especially Natalio Fernández Marcos, “Der antiochenische Text der
griechischen Bibel in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (1–4 Kön LXX),” in Im
Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen
Bibel Band 2 (ed. Siegfried Kreuzer and Jürgen Peter Lesch; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
2004), 177–213 and Kreuzer, “Translation and Recensions”.
12 Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know About the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?”
in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (by Anneli Aejmelaeus; Leuven: Peeters,
2007), 73.
13 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 1.
14 Cf. Raymond F. Person, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Litera-
ture (Society of Biblical Literature / Studies in Biblical Literature; Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2002), 31–50 for an illuminating discussion of how textual criticism aids in the recon-
struction of redaction history within the Deuteronomistic History.
whelming merit of a singular textual tradition, whether Greek 15 or Hebrew. 16

The older reading can sometimes be found in a Greek tradition; sometimes one
finds it in MT. 17 In both instances, one must decide based on the evidence in
each individual case.
Excursus: The Greek Text of Kings
Before any legitimate redaction-critical study of the book of Kings can be undertaken,
one must consider the textual history of Kings. The most important evidence for the
development of the text of Kings can be found within the Greek tradition and their pre-
sumed Vorlage(n). “There are four major stages in the development of the Greek text in
Samuel and Kings: the Old Greek, proto-Lucian, the KR [ καιγε recension], and the
Hexaplaric recension.”18 The three major Greek traditions considered here are the
Lucianic tradition (Ant.), Vaticanus (B), and Alexandrinus (A). While some matters are
consistent in all three of these traditions (e.g., the reversal of material found in 1 Kings
20–22 MT), there are different levels of recensional activity that can be identified in
each of these traditions, which must be identified and studied in order to arrive back at
the oldest Greek translation of the book of Kings (= Old Greek, traditionally
“Septuagint”) and hence its Hebrew Vorlage. Several studies have played an important
role in the identification of recensional activity in the Greek tradition.
Based on some translational features, Thackeray divided the Greek tradition of
Reigns (= Samuel and Kings) into five sections: α (1 Reigns/Samuel), ββ (2 Reigns/
Samuel 1:1–11:1), βγ (2 Reigns/Samuel 11:2–3 Reigns/1 Kings 2:11), γγ (3 Reigns/
1 Kings 2:12–21:43 LXX), and γδ (3 Reigns/1 Kings 22:1–4 Reigns/2 Kings 25). He
initially thought that the α, ββ, and γγ sections were translated first, with the other por-
tions being translated at a later date. 19 This position was later revised following
———————————
15 And by extension, its presumed Hebrew Vorlage. “If and only if we have at our disposal
the original Greek text of the translators is there any hope of reaching the Vorlage… If and
only if we are acquainted with the way the translators proceeded from their Vorlage to the
translation can we hope to trace the same way back in the opposite direction, from the
translation to the Vorlage.” (Aejmelaeus, “Hebrew Vorlage,” 72)
16 “It is generally thought that the MT represents a well preserved and in most cases the origi-
nal text. It must, however, be realized that a generalization like this is only valid if it is
based on observations made on the details of the text. The general probability of a text pre-
serving original readings is the sum of individual cases of original readings.” (Aejmelaeus,
“Hebrew Vorlage,” 104)
17 “For the textual critic concerned with establishing the original text, this variation means
that there are no self-evident probabilities as to where to find it. In one book the MT has
been corrupted, in another perhaps the Vorlage had been. But these textual conditions can-
not and should not be anticipated by an overall conception of OT textual criticisms before
the texts have been studied in detail.” (Aejmelaeus, “Hebrew Vorlage,” 72)
18 James Donald Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of
Kings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 21.
19 Cf. H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8
(1907): 262–78.
Excursus: The Greek Text of Kings 9
Barthélemy, who identified the kaige recension, named after the translation of the
Hebrew ‫ וגם‬with the Greek καιγε, and present in particular in the Kings text as found in
Vaticanus. 20 Since the time of Barthélemy, the βγ and γδ sections of Reigns in
Vaticanus have been identified as the kaige sections of the text, reflecting recensional
activity seeking to correct the Greek text on the basis of a contemporary Hebrew
Vorlage,21 which could be dated into the last century before the Common Era. 22 This
implies that texts from the kaige recension could per definitionem not represent the Old
Greek translation of Kings, which in turn implies that the Old Greek text of these por-
tions of Kings must either be sought elsewhere or no longer exist.
Siegfried Kreuzer believes that the Antiochene tradition (often also called the
Lucianic recension) represents the Old Greek in general, especially when contrasted
with the portions of Vaticanus that underwent the kaige recension.23 This is based on
the identification of a pre-Lucianic Antiochene text, which has been generally accepted
in Septuagint studies. 24 Kreuzer: “Dieser antiochenische Text war nicht von der kaige-
Rezension erfasst und er repräsentiert ein älteres Stadium des Septuaginta-textes der
Bücher der Königtümer, das der ersten, ursprünglichen Form der Septuaginta sehr nahe
steht.”25 In another context, Kreuzer also concludes that “the Antiochene text is older
than the kaige recension, going back at least to the first century B.C.E.”26 While Kreuzer
can provide some examples where this may be true, the study at hand will demonstrate
that it is more methodologically sound to consider texts on a case by case basis, rather
than presuming the historical priority of one Greek tradition over all others.
Other factors also play a significant role, such as the relationship of the individual
manuscripts to the Hexapla of Origen. In the Codex Vaticanus, “…Hexaplaric influ-
ence in III. Kgs [sic!] is apparently but a negligible factor, whereas in IV Kgs. it is cer-
tainly an influence with which one must reckon.” 27 The text of Alexandrinus, on the
other hand, follows the Hexaplaric text in 3 Reigns 11–12, distinguishing it from both
Vaticanus and the Antiochene tradition. 28 “[T]he recensional activity did not begin with
———————————
20 Dominique Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963).
21 This recensional activity was probably not undertaken by a single individual: “…the και γε
revision was a project or tradition of non-uniform revisions made by a group of authors
which was to include a slight Hebraising revision in favour of the proto-Masoretic text…”
Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version
of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2000), 148.
22 Cf. Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context , 152.
23 Cf. e.g., Siegfried Kreuzer, “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the
Recensions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige
Recension),” in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cog-
nate Studies: Ljubljana, 2007 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture, 2008), 239–53.
24 For an introductory discussion, cf. Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context , 232–36 and
the literature cited there.
25 Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2009), 301.
26 Kreuzer, “Translation and Recensions,” 49.
27 John Wm. Wevers, “A Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus in the Books of
Kings,” ZAW 64 (1952): 189.
28 Cf. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development , 18–21.
Origen, nor was it even motivated by Jewish-Christian polemics, but goes back to a
period quite close to the origins of the translation itself, when the LXX was transmitted
within the Jewish communities and had not yet cut the umbilical cord that tied it to the
Hebrew text.”29 This further suggests plurality in the textual history of Kings, extending
into the Common Era.
Beyond the Greek traditions, one must consider their relationship to extant Hebrew
manuscripts, particularly Medieval manuscripts and the manuscript tradition of
Qumran.
In the end we must conclude that the Hebrew variants have perpetuated pre-
Masoretic traditions which were the basis for certain readings in and the later
Greek recensions. Possibly most significant of all are the many instances of strik-
ing agreements of Luc with the Hebrew variants, since Lucian revised on the
basis of a Hebrew text older than — whether mediately or immediately is of lit-
tle present concern to us. 30
The attestations of readings known from the Greek tradition in medieval Hebrew manu-
scripts confirm the plurality of Hebrew traditions, even in late pre-masoretic times.
This, therefore, implies the importance of the Greek traditions in determining readings
older than those known from the Codex Leningradensis; the Greek traditions, when
compared to Hebrew manuscripts, affirm textual plurality in the book of Kings. “It is
now apparent that the uncritical position that all extant Hebrew mss. go back to one
original text, namely, , and that its variants are all post-, can no longer be held, at
least, as far as the Books of Kings are concerned.” 31 Rather, the position must be taken
that there were several strongly-related versions of the book of Kings known from the
earliest times of translation:
…the translation [into Greek] was completed at a particular time in history and
later the Hebrew texts of some of the books were re-edited with expansions, revi-
sions or alterations of a different kind. Editions were put into circulation that were
later replaced by new revised editions of the same book, revised editions which
became official in the canonisation process of the Hebrew text. As a result, the first
editions have only been preserved for posterity either by chance, as in the case of
the texts found in Qumran, or else because they were transmitted by non-Jewish
communities, such as the Christian community in the case of the LXX. 32
Bearing these factors in mind, one must give the Greek traditions of Kings substantial
attention in any reconstruction of the text and redaction history of Kings, as they attests
an older version of Kings than that found in the Aleppo Codex and the Codex
Leningradensis.
At this point, a brief notice about the editions used for this paper is in order.
The starting point for the text-critical work is of course the Biblia Hebraica
———————————
29 Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context , 71.
30 John Wm. Wevers, “A Study in the Hebrew Variants in the Books of Kings,” ZAW 61
(1948): 75.
31 Wevers, “Hebrew Variants,” 76.
32 Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context , 79–80.
Methodology 11
Stuttgartensia (BHS) edition of Kings. 33 At times, however, I have moved

beyond this and consulted facsimile editions of the two most important Hebrew
manuscripts: Codex Leningradensis and the Aleppo Codex. 34 When referring
to issues in the Septuagint, the Rahlfs edition has generally been consulted
first.35 However, in instances where the Rahlfs edition or the critical apparatus
of BHS is unclear, facsimile editions of the Greek relevant manuscripts—i.e.,
Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (Sinaiticus for Kings does not exist)—have been
consulted.36 For the Greek Antiochene text (i.e., the “Lucianic recension”), the
critical edition from Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz has served as the
basis.37
The narrative structure of the book of Kings is distinct in the three relevant
textual traditions, each one having slight, but significant differences within the
framework of the book of Kings. As the refrain-like structure remains distinct
in the various traditions, this factor should be examined more closely than has
traditionally been done. The structures of MT, Ant., and LXX (i.e., Vaticanus
and Alexandrinus) are each distinct and may present evidence relevant for any
redaction history of Kings. This is particularly true when one considers the
Greek tradition vis-à-vis the Hebrew tradition. Previous scholarship has gener-
ally ignored this text-critical matter when composing a literary and redaction
history of Kings.
Following the translation and text-critical analysis and having established
what I will argue is the oldest attainable version of the narrative based on text-
critical matters, we can turn our attention to literary criticism. This refers not
especially to a “close-reading” of the text known primarily from Anglophone
contexts, but rather to the traditional methodological approach known prima-
———————————
33 Alfred Jepsen, ‫ = ספר מלכים‬Liber Regum (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Stuttgart:
Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1974).
34 Cf. David Noel Freedman, The Leningrad Codex (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998)
and Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem, The Aleppo Codex (http://www.aleppocodex.org) .
35 Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpres
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979).
36 Cf. Bibliorum SS. Graecorum Codex Vaticanus 1209 (Cod. B) Pars Primae Testamentum
Vetus Tomus II (Pagg. 395–944) (Codices e Vaticanis Selecti: Phototypice Expressi;
Mediolani: Hoepli, 1906) and The Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsim-
ile: Old Testament Part II — 1 Samuel–2 Chronicles (London: British Museum, 1930).
37 Natalio Fernández Marcos and Josë Ramón Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia
Griega II 1–2 Reyes (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC: Departamento de Filología
Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo, 1992).
rily in German contexts: are there literarily identifiable redactional levels in the
text? How are they chronologically related? Who was responsible for these
redactions, if any historical context can be identified? etc. Only after these con-
siderations have been finished can we consider historical matters about the text.
This methodology will distinguish and identify the oldest level of the biblical
narrative and sketch its development over the millennia.
Contrary to some attempts to sketch a historical development of the bibli-
cal texts, the work at hand seeks to avoid beginning with a historical or literary
framework and then applying this to the texts, putting various pieces into pre-
viously identifiable redactional constructs. What this means is that texts with
the words “prophet” or “man of God” will not be a priori assigned to a level of
redaction known primarily in the German literature as DtrP. 38 Rather, the text
will first be examined to see if information warranting such a construct can be
found within the text. This represents a return to the more traditional historical-
critical method, relying on the text first in order to develop redactional levels,
rather than relying on scholastically postulated redactional levels to take apart a
text and assign various portions into various levels. There is one exception to
this rule: Deuteronomism.
The plausibility of a Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Kings is
very high. 39 Such a redaction in Kings must not necessarily have occurred at
———————————
38 Cf. Ernst Würthwein, “Erwägungen zum sog. deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Eine
Skizze,” in Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (ed. Ernst Würthwein; Ber-
lin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 5–6. For an excellent and useful example of such
a literary-critical analysis of the Kings text, cf. Ernst Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige
1. Kön. 1–16 (ATD 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985) and Ernst
Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 (ATD 11; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
39 In the interest of space, I have avoided offering a Forschungsgeschichte of the
Deuteronomistic History. For a recent history of the research addressing the
Deuteronomistic History, cf. Jeremy M. Hutton, The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The
Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History
(BZAW 396; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 79–101. In the course of this work, it will
become clear that I find the position of Alfred Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches
(Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1953), with some significant changes, as
being the most plausible reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding the composition
of the Deuteronomistic History. The observations in this study could also be used as sup-
porting evidence for the thesis of Würthwein that Kings provided the oldest narrative level
and the impetus for the writing of the Deuteronomistic history, though the dating of mate-
rials in his thesis must be reconsidered in light of the evidence presented here; cf.
Würthwein, “Erwägungen”.
Methodology 13
the same time as, for example, a Deuteronomistic redaction of Judges. How-
ever, there are texts within the book of Kings which clearly have the flavor of
Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic theology. 40 Texts that clearly have been
influenced by the theology of (or behind) Deuteronomy will be regarded as
coming from the Deuteronomistic level of redaction. Further, from the texts
considered here, it seems that there was presumably only one Deuteronomistic
redaction, and that this was probably during the “exilic” period. While a num-
ber of redactional levels of the book of Kings can be identified, some of them
coming before the Deuteronomist and some of them coming after the
Deuteronomist, the tensions within these various levels suggest that only one of
them be identified as “the” Deuteronomistic redaction. 41
What language can be legitimately identified as Deuteronomistic? “For this
purpose, there is a scholarly consensus that Weinfeld’s appendix of Deutero-
nomic phraseology is the most extensive, comprehensive, and careful compila-
tion on the topic of Deuteronomic language. 42 As such, it will be used as the
basis for the work below where issues of Deuteronomic language are con-
———————————
40 While not everyone maintains this distinction, it is worth mentioning that one could poten-
tia lly i den ti fy two types of text ual corp ora rela ted to Deuteronomy a nd th e
Deuteronomistic History: Deuteronomic (i.e., related to the postulated D source of the
Urkundenhypothese) and Deuteronomistic (those texts inspired by or redacted to be theo-
logically consistent with Deuteronomy and found in the corpus of the Deuteronomistic his-
tory). Due to the lacking security surrounding any D source within the Pentateuch, such a
distinction can largely be considered as out of date. For a discussion, cf. Person,
Deuteronomic School, 4–7. While I agree with Person’s collapsing of these terms, I have
chosen—in contradistinction to him, but referring to the same materials—to refer the
material as Deuteronomistic, referencing the term Deuteronomic only when discussing the
works of others.
41 This is contrary to Person, Deuteronomic School , 31–50, who argues for multiple
Deuteronomistic redactions, most especially for one in the Persian period. My disagree-
ment here remains largely within the confines of taxonomy. I prefer to think of this as a
redaction inspired by the Deuteronomistic redaction and would hope that we could identify
it with a unique nomenclature. One wonders if it might be connected with a potential
Enneateuch redaction. Further, as will become clear in the course of the study, some redac-
tional work—most specifically smoothing texts and making them more consistent—
apparently continued well into the Hellenistic period, which becomes apparent when one
compares MT and LXX. Since this redaction also contains elements that one could ident-
ify as “Deuteronomistic” (e.g., fulfillment of prophecy, repetitive style), we would also
have to refer to this as a Deuteronomistic redaction, even though it would have been centu-
ries after the first Deuteronomistic redaction, which Person himself admits should be
found in the “exilic” period; cf. Person, Deuteronomic School, 28.
42 Person is referencing Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 320–65.
cerned.”43 As this was true at the time of Person’s writing, so it is true today.
While in some instances that will be handled individually in the specific con-
texts of the text- and literary-critical analyses I disagree with Weinfeld’s
assessment, it still represents the starting point from which the conversation
about Deuteronomistic textual provenance should begin. Chapters 2–4 of this
paper regard the relevant text- and literary-critical matters reflected in the
Kings text, which has a long and difficult textual history. 44
How much can we trust the oldest reconstructed level of the biblical narra-
tive?45 This matter will be handled in chapter 5, dealing not only with the nar-
rative of Kings, but also briefly with Amos, Hosea, Chronicles, and the materi-
———————————
43 Person, Deuteronomic School, 21.
44 Here, one must consider two works of the last decade, namely those of Schenker and Kim.
These works come up with two solutions for the textual history of Kings based on the rela-
tionship between MT and LXX. While Schenker suggests a continuing tradition between
the two texts (“Die hier vorgelegte Untersuchung möchte den Nachweis führen und zur
Diskussion stellen, dass ein solcher [literarischer] Zusammenhang [zwischen LXX und
MT] tatsächlich besteht, und dass daher mit einer solchen Bearbeitung zu rechnen ist, die
ihre Vorlage an einigen strategischen Punkten in sparsamster Weise retouchiert hat, ferner,
dass diese Bearbeitung literarischer (und somit auch theologischer) Art ist, und dass sie für
uns im MT bewahrt ist, während uns ihre hebräische Vorlage in der alten LXX in
griechischer Gestalt aufgehoben und greifbar geblieben ist.” [Schenker,
Textgeschichte, 2]), Kim identifies parallel traditions going back to a common Hebrew
source at some time before the composition of Ur-LXX and Proto-MT (Kim,
Textformen, 402–16). This should serve to demonstrate just how hotly debated (and inse-
cure) the textual history of Kings is. In my opinion, one can determine the relative age of
the variant readings between LXX and MT, without being completely sure of the chrono-
logical priority of the entire textual tradition. E.g., The MT narrative of Jeroboam’s rise to
power looks to be older than LXX’s recounting of the same narrative; cf. Chapter 4. For a
brief introduction to the Qumran evidence of multiple concurrent traditions of what later
became biblical books, cf. Eugene Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at
Qumran,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on
the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James Vanderkam; Notre Dame, Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 77–93.
45 I am perfectly willing to admit that the oldest level of narrative presented in this study is a
reconstruction. What does that mean? It is a reconstruction in that it cannot be proven
(with current methodology and material remains) that this text ever existed historically in
the form presented here. This postulated text remains a reconstruction, just as Noth’s pos-
tulated Deuteronomistic History must remain a reconstruction. As with every reconstructed
text, I am offering a postulation of an original narrative and a postulated redactional his-
tory that best fits the evidence in my understanding. I am perfectly willing to consider
alternative reconstructions, should the evidence merit such. Further, I am willing to offer
this as a theoretical possibility in the hopes that it increases discussion about the textual
history of the Bible and most especially the book of Kings. I hope that I am not so dogmat-
ically bound to my theories that I consider revision impossible.
Methodology 15
als from Josephus referencing this period. In order to offer a legitimate recon-
struction of Israelite history in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, the extra-
biblical literary materials reflecting on this period must be questioned to
uncover the level of their reliability; the Akkadian materials will be handled in
Chapter 6, while Chapter 7 will address the Syrian and Palestinian materials.
The chronological framework of these texts must be established, as must be
their individual authors or benefactors 46—inasmuch as this is possible. Poten-
tial motivations for writing the text will play a role in discovering how reliable
its portrayal of ancient Near Eastern history is. In this matter, a discussion of
the genre of the texts becomes relevant.
After a consideration of the various relevant source materials for a history
of Israel, they will be compared and contrasted 47 to one another in the hopes
that a clearer reconstruction of the historical events behind the texts shall
emerge.48 This resulting reconstruction of Israelite history during the ninth and
eighth centuries BCE49 along with the conclusions of my research and the impe-
tus for further research can be found in Chapter 8. While much of this histori-
cal construction will reflect opinions offered previously in the secondary litera-
ture, some new elements will emerge. Most importantly from a methodological
standpoint is the evaluation of materials based on comparison with other texts:
———————————
46 As I seriously doubt that the monarchs wrote the inscriptions themselves, we are not really
looking for the authors as much as we are looking for those who financed the composition.
47 The evaluation of each source must first and foremost occur in a vacuum. The comparison
and contrasting of various sources should occur after this and aid in identifying tensions or
contradictions. These tensions or contradictions must then be evaluated and the history of
Israel reconstructed. Prematurely compressing witnesses into other witnesses should be
avoided, unlike the cases presented in V. Philips Long, “How Reliable Are Biblical
Reports? Repeating Lester Grabbe’s Comparative Experiment,” VT 52, no. 3 (2002): 367–
84, where sources are immediately read into one another.
48 As with the literary history of the biblical texts, the reconstruction of historical events is
just that: a reconstruction based on the evidence. Claims of truth about the historicity of
the events described in the texts is limited to the theoretical level and should be used as a
basis for discussion of the plausibility of the historical events. Again, this theory may need
revision as further evidence becomes available, but I have sought to offer the most plausi-
ble reconstruction based on the information available.
49 The dates presented here follow Mordechai Cogan, “Chronology,” in The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, vol. 1 (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York; London; Toronto; Sydney;
Auckland: Doubleday, 1992), 1002–11, contra Lic. Joachim Begrich, Die Chronologie der
Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher (Beiträge
zur Historischen Theologie; Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1929) and
Alfred Jepsen and Robert Hanhart, Untersuchungen zur israelitsch-jüdischen Chronologie
(BZAW 88; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1964), 1–48.
what is substantiated in multiple witnesses? What is denied by other witnesses?

And what is unique in each witness? These findings will then be used to help
evaluate the sources and increase the plausibility of the reconstruction. This
generally follows the methodological approach offered by Grabbe, 50 though I
approach the matter differently in that I first undertake a literary-critical analy-
sis of the biblical sources before using them and I distinguish more explicitly
between the often monolithic appearance of the extrabiblical materials; the
contrast should not remain only between biblical and extrabiblical materials,
but each witness—biblical or extrabiblical—should be compared and con-
trasted with each other witness.
In the course of the study, it will become clear that a larger narrative was
composed in the eighth century BCE focusing on the history of Israel. This doc-
ument, which can be reconstructed from portions of the current text of Kings,
can be used to some degree for a critical historical reconstruction of the events
surrounding the events of Jehu’s political machinations. Other data, critically
evaluated, also aid in this reconstruction. The most logical place to begin this
study is with a critical evaluation of the narrative of the Jehu Revolution as
recounted in 2 Kings 9–10.
———————————
50 Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (Lon-
don: T & T Clark, 2007) and Lester L. Grabbe, “The Kingdom of Israel from Omri to the
Fall of Samaria: If We Only Had the Bible…,” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of
the Omri Dynasty (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 54–99.
CHAPTER 2
The Literary Jehu:
A Construct and its Ramifications
This chapter will propose a redaction history for 2 Kings 9–10 and examine the
literary character Jehu as presented in that narrative. The first logical step in
this process is examining the traditional text of 2 Kings 9–10 using the
historical-critical exegetical method in order to arrive at the earliest stage of the
Jehu story. In order to accomplish this task, textual variants and literary expan-
sions will be explored. This will be done in order to arrive at the earliest identi-
fiable text about the Jehu Revolution. Following the identification of this level
of the text, a brief examination of the narrative will be undertaken, as well as
considerations offered about its time of composition and Sitz im Leben.
The Oldest Biblical Jehu Tradition: 2 Kings 9–10*1
1) And Elisha the prophet called to one of the sons of the prophets and said to
him: Gird your loins and take this jug of oil in your hand and go to Ramoth-
Gilead. 2) When you arrive there and see Jehu ben Jehoshaphat ben Nimshi 2
there, you will go and take him from the midst of his brothers and bring him
into the innermost chamber. 3) Then you will take this jug of oil and pour it
———————————
1 For the purposes of this translation, the text will be marked as follows: glosses ;
Deuteronomistic; Judean.
2 In 9:2, ‫ בן יהושפט‬is missing in the Peshitta and it follows ‫ בן נמשי‬in Ant. The editors of
BHS recommend deleting it. However, since Leningradensis agrees with all other Hebrew
manuscripts and the Septuagint, it seems more probable that Peshitta deleted ‫ בן יהושפט‬and
Ant. simply transposed it in order to make the patronym here match that in v. 20 and
1 Kings 19:16, i.e., the macro-context determines the reading of L as lectio difficilior. This
is also true for the occurrence in 9:14. Based on the reconstruction of this verse in M.
Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Textes (DJD 3;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 110, it seems probable that the Qumran text
6QKgs also attests this reading.
18 Chapter 2: The Literary Jehu
upon his head and say: Thus says ‫יהוה‬: I am anointing you king over 3 Israel.
Then you will open the door and flee and not tarry. 4) So the servant the ser-
vant4 the prophet went to Ramoth-Gilead. 5) He arrived, and behold! The com-
manders of the army were sitting and he said: there is something for me [to
give] to you, 5 commander! Then Jehu said: To whom from among all of us?
And he said: To you, commander. 6) Then he arose and entered the house and
poured the oil on his head and said to him: Thus says ‫ יהוה‬the god of Israel: I
am anointing you king over the people of ‫יהוה‬, over Israel. 7) You will strike6
———————————
3 In v. 3 a problem confronts the reader that occurs on a number of occasions within the
pericope in question, namely the confusion of the prepositions ‫ אל‬and ‫על‬. In this instance,
the context determines that the preposition be translated as “over,” Hebrew: ‫על‬. Yet con-
trary to expectation, MT reads ‫אל‬. According to Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und
Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, in Verbindung mit H. Zimmern,
W. Max Müller und O. Weber, bearbeitet von Frants Buhl (Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag, 1962), 38, one can translate the preposition ‫ אל‬with the word “over,” as
this occurs a number of times in the Hebrew Bible. It has also been suggested that this
prepositional usage typifies the dialect of “Israelian Hebrew;” cf. Gary A. Rendsburg,
Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2002), 32–36 and 111.
This seems more plausible when one considers the Akkadian preposition eli % [UGU],
which can have the meaning “upon, over;” cf. Rykle Borger, Mesopotamisches
Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004), 395 #663 and the Black Obe-
lisk of Shalmaneser III line 85. With this in mind, it becomes unnecessary to emend the
text of MT. The same is true for the two occurrences of this phenomenon in v. 6 and the
ones in vv. 12 and 14, as well as the occurrence in 2 Kings 10:15.
4 The word “servant/youth” ( ‫ )הנער‬in v. 4 must be deleted in at least one occurrence, as it
occurs twice, causing the nonsensical phrase “the servant the servant the prophet went”.
The duplication presumably crept in as a result of dittography. In this instance the texts of
some Hebrew manuscripts (16, to be exact, according to Wevers, “Hebrew Variants,” 53),
as well as and , commend the emendation. In terms of textual criticism, we must
assume that only one ‫ הנער‬is to be removed; if the other occurrence of the word is to be
removed falls outside of the realm of textual criticism and will be handled below in the lit-
erary critical examination of the text on page 38.
5 Ant. adds that the message is “secret” κρυ' φιος as an explanatory gloss. Cf. Alfred Rahlfs,
Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta-Studien III; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1911), 276.
6 The Greek in v. 7 reads καὶ ε ξολεθρευ' εις, which the editors of BHS have reconstructed as
the Hebrew ‫והכרתה‬, meaning “and you will cut off”. Presumably the translators of LXX
changed this passage, either knowingly or unknowingly to be consistent with the promise
of Elijah, offered in 1 Kings 21:21. Here, one also finds the verb “to cut”; Hebrew: ‫כרת‬. In
the Greek, one finds the same term: ε ξολεθρευ' σω. It seems probable that this was a willful
emendation to the text in order to fit it in the Deuteronomistic schema of prophecy and ful-
fillment. Cf. v. 8.
The Oldest Biblical Jehu Tradition: 2 Kings 9–10* 19
the house of Ahab, your lord, that I might avenge 7 the blood of my servants the
prophets and the blood of all the servants of ‫יהוה‬8 from the hand of Jezebel. 8)
And the whole house of Ahab will perish 9 and I will cut off from Ahab every-
one who pisses against a wall, bound and free, in Israel. 9) And I will make
the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam ben Nebat and like the house of
Baasha ben Ahijah. 10) And Jezebel shall the dogs eat in the field of Jezreel
and there will be no one to bury [her]. Then he opened the door and fled.
11) And Jehu went out to the servants of his master and [someone] said 10
to him: Peace? Why did this madman come to you? And he said to them: You
know the man and his complaint. 12) And they said: A lie! Please tell us. And
he said: this and that he said to me, saying ‘thus says ‫יהוה‬: I am anointing you
king over Israel. 13) So they hurried and each took his garment and set it under
———————————
7 The Septuagint amends the verb ‫ ונקמתי‬to read in the second person instead of the first.
This change occurred presumably to maintain consistency about who is acting in the sen-
tence. Since the first verb is in the second person, the translators of LXX continued this
syntax by making the second verb in sentence also in the second person. Cf. again v. 8.
One could also explain this in theological terms, should that be preferable: the translators
of LXX sought to protect God from the concept of vindictiveness. God does not avenge the
death of the prophets; rather Jehu enacts revenge on those responsible for the death of the
prophets. In verse 8 one finds the same phenomenon.
8 The editors of BHS suggest that the phrase ‫ ודמי כל עבדי יהוה‬be omitted. They offer no tex-
tual evidence for this suggestion. If necessary, we will return to this point in the discussion
of literary criticism.
9 In v. 8, lectio difficilior once again favors MT. Rather than read a verb at the beginning of
the verse, LXX reads “and through the hand of” καὶ ε κ χειρο' ς. This makes the opening of
the verse parallel to the end of the previous verse: the prophets and servants of ‫ יהוה‬will be
avenged from the hand of Jezebel and Ahab in the Greek text, as opposed to only Jezebel
in Hebrew text. While this difference seems huge in English, in Hebrew it would only
mean a difference of two consonants: ‫ ומיד‬vs. ‫ואבד‬. One could also explain this as a
parablepsis that occurred during the transmission or recopying of the text. To note here is
also that the majority of ancient witnesses corroborate against LXX; the Syriac, Targum,
and Vulgate all read with MT. With this in mind, no conspicuous reason to change the
Hebrew text remains.
10 While Leningradensis records a singular ( ‫)ויאמר‬, many other manuscripts, the Sebirin [it
should be noted briefly here that the notice of the Sebirin is neither in Leningradensis nor
in Aleppo at this point; one does find it in the Bomberg Biblia Rabbinica], and the transla-
tions read the plural (‫)ויאמרו‬. Lectio difficilior supports Leningradensis, here being under-
stood as “someone said” instead of just “he said”. In order to clarify this, some of the tradi-
tions changed it to the plural, reading “they said.” Alternatively, one could explain this
through haplography; the scribe writing Leningradensis failed to write the ‫ ו‬at the end of
the word. This suggestion gains plausibility when one considers the similar forms of ‫ ו‬and
‫ר‬, especially in the paleo-Hebrew script. Either of these would be an acceptable explana-
tion. It remains ultimately unclear which reading is the most accurate. I prefer to read it in
the singular.
him on […] 11 the stairs and they blew the horn and said: Jehu rules! 14) So
Jehu ben Jehoshaphat ben Nimshi conspired against Joram. Now Joram was on
guard in Ramoth-Gilead, he and all Israel, from before Hazael King of Aram.
15) And Joram the King returned to recover in Jezreel from the wounds that
the Arameans inflicted upon him 12 in his fighting with Hazael King of Aram.
And Jehu said: If your life is with me, 13 let no refugee go out from the city to
go report 14 [this] in Jezreel. 16) And Jehu rode and came to Jezreel, for Joram
———————————
11 The word ‫( גרם‬bone), does not make sense in this context. The text literally reads “to the
bone of the stairs,” a nonsensical phrase. One could offer the suggestion from Hebrew that
the text should read ‫גרן‬, but “threshing floor” makes as little sense as the current text. Even
looking to cognate languages provides little assistance. The Akkadian garrum, “totality,”
is a possibility, but such a usage is unknown in Hebrew. Arabic is a bit far afield, although
one could offer it as a possibility, namely “a natural depression in stone” (from √jrn); cf.
John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press
ltd, 1970), 543. This requires both a change in root and comes from a language more dis-
tantly related. Based on all of these considerations, I find that the best solution is a crux,
that this word is not able to be reconstructed with any certainty. It will be left out. Cf. LXX
γαρεμ. The corruption of Ant. Manuscript 82 ( γὰρ ε« να) is also based on this untranslated
word in Greek; cf. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien III , 223–24.
12 The verb ‫ יכהו‬in v. 15 has caused some people to suggest emendations. This process of cor-
rection began even within the Bible. While the same form of this verb is found in the par-
allel passage of 2 Kings 8:29, 2 Chronicles 22:6 has corrected the form to read ‫הכהו‬. The
authors of Chronicles clearly understood this verb as past tense, and therefore chose the
perfect, as opposed to the imperfect as recounted in 2 Kings. However, due to the flexibil-
ity of both tempora and aspect in Hebrew grammar, I see no need to change this text to
align with the text of Chronicles. Alternatively, one could consider a possible confusion of
the letters ‫ ה‬and ‫ י‬in the paleo-Hebrew script.
13 Before the word ‫ נפשכם‬many manuscripts add ‫את‬. The only emendation that seems to help
with the understanding of the passage is the suggestion of LXX; it adds the phrase μετ’
ε μουñ to the sentence, thus making it more understandable. The Hebrew here would have to
read ‫אתי‬, just one letter different from the form recorded in many other manuscripts. In this
case lectio difficilior favors Leningradensis. However, one almost must make use of the
LXX, lest one remain unable to translate the text. It seems most likely that the LXX
Vorlage preserved the original text, which the scribes of the other sources miscopied. I will
recommend the use of ‫אתי‬, though I admit that this conclusion must remain speculative.
Cf. Wevers, “Hebrew Variants,” 53, who also suggests that the two Hebrew words ‫ אתי‬and
‫ נפשכם‬were transposed before the final ‫ י‬of ‫ אתי‬was lost.
14 Leningradensis and Aleppo read ‫ְלִַּגיד‬, where it is clear that a letter is missing. The
masoretes had already solved this problem and recorded the ‫ ה‬that was missing between
the ‫ ל‬and the ‫ג‬. This also corresponds with many other manuscripts. In this case, one must
conclude that Leningradensis and Aleppo contain an error within the tradition. It will have
to remain unclear how this came about, but presumably the ‫ ה‬was missing in the Vorlage
that Leningradensis used, but the scribes were careful enough to note this absence in the
masorah qatanah.
the king of Israel was recovering in Jezreel from the arrow wounds that the
Arameans had shot him in Ramat 15 in battle with Hazael king of Aram, 16 for he
was a mighty man and a military man. 17 And Ahaziahu King of Judah came
down to see Joram.
17) And the sentinel was standing on the tower in Jezreel and saw the
abundance of Jehu in his approach. And he said: I see an abundance! 18 And
Joram said: Take a chariot and send [it] to meet them and he should say,
‘peace?’ 18) And the charioteer went to meet him and said: Thus says the king,
‘peace?’ And Jehu said: What [is this] to you about peace? Wheel around to
follow me! So the sentinel reported [this], saying: the messenger went up to
them,19 but did not return. 19) Then he sent a second charioteer and he came up
to him20 and said: Thus says the king: ‘peace?’ 21 And Jehu said: What [is this]
to you about peace? Wheel around to follow me! 20) And the sentinel reported
———————————
15 Cf. 15a, which was originally a copy of a portion of this verse. There “in Ramat” is absent;
it was presumably added to make 9:16 consistent with 8:29.
16 Emend this verse to read with B and Ant. The duplicate information found in this verse
and 14–15 suggests that someone may have removed it from MT at a later date.
17 Although Ant. provides the more succinct reading, namely without the phrase “for he was
a mighty man and a military man,” it seems more likely that someone would later remove
this positive image of the king of Aram than that someone would add it at a later date;
therefore, the reading of Vaticanus will be maintained here.
18 The scribes misread a ‫ ה‬as a ‫ ת‬in the second occurrence of the noun ‫שפעת‬. This led them to
record the form in the construct state, which doesn’t make any sense in this context. This
error becomes more understandable, as the text had just used this root in precisely this
form. While the construct was warranted in the first case, it remains unwarranted in the
second case. Leningradensis must be emended here. Ant.’s explanatory gloss is unneces-
sary; cf. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien III , 276.
19 The form ‫ עד הם‬must be changed to ‫עדיהם‬, as the editors of BHS suggest. The form
recorded in Leningradensis [and Aleppo, which reads identically, but adds a notice in the
masorah qatanah that we are dealing with a hapax legomenon] is otherwise unknown.
Potentially, the scribe misread his source, mistaking the ‫ י‬for a . For this reason, it seems
most appropriate to change the text. One must change the text to fit the evidence we pos-
sess about the Hebrew language and suggest that there was presumably a textual corrup-
tion here.
20 The LXX presumably retains the original singular “to him”. The Hebrew text emended the
suffix based on the immediate context, i.e., the plural suffixes in verses 18 and 20.
21 ‫ שלום‬should be emended to ‫ השלום‬as it is in many other manuscripts. The oldest manu-
scripts containing this reading are numbers 1 ( Bodlejan. Laud. A172,162) and 4 (Hunting.
11,12) of the Kennicott coalation according to Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi, Vol. I:
Prolegomena et Clavis Codicum Seu Descriptio Manuscriptorum Editorumque Codicum
Sacri Textus Libri Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. Vol. II: Libri Numeri, Deuteronomium,
Josue, Judices, Samuel, Reges (Reprinted from the Parma 1784–1785 ed.; Amsterdam:
Philo Pr., 1969), LIX and 238. This emendation brings it in line with the parallels vv. 18
and 22. Haplography is the simplest explanation.
[this], saying: He went up to them, 22 but didn’t return. And the steering is like
the steering of Jehu ben Nimshi, because he is steering like a madman.
21) So Joram said: Mount up! And he mounted 23 a chariot.24 And Joram
King of Israel and Ahaziahu King of Judah went out, each in his own chariot
and they came out to meet Jehu and found him at the lot of Naboth the
Jezreelite. 22) And when Joram saw Jehu, he said: Peace, Jehu? And he said:
What peace25 as long as 26 the whoredoms of Jezebel your mother and her
———————————
22 The text of Leningradensis should be emended at v. 20 as the editors of BHS suggest.
While they did not include any textual evidence to support their claim that ‫ עד אליהם‬should
be changed to ‫עדיהם‬, this seems to be the most logical conclusion, especially when one
considers the evidence of LXX which only has the one preposition: ε« ως. The scribe of
Leningradensis was presumably influenced by the two previous verses, in which ‫ עד הם‬and
‫ אליהם‬each occur one time in connection with the army. This led him to this curious form.
23 Two traditions (Ant. and ) recount Joram’s command in the plural, while other traditions
(LXX without Vaticanus, Vulgate, and again ) use the plural of the verb in order to
describe the action taken. This depersonalizes the command. Whereas in the Hebrew text
Joram commands the single tower guard to ready his chariot, which the guard then does,
the Syriac (and other traditions) suggest that Joram commands whomever was standing
there, apparently a plurality in that textual tradition. This plurality then goes and readies
the chariot. While this makes more logistical sense, it moves the action away from the
character of the tower guard. Up to this point in the story, he is the only person with whom
Joram interacts. While lectio difficilior could be used to support an argument for the
Syriac and Ant. (the mysterious plurality of people who are present), the consistency of the
other ancient sources seems to testify against such a decision. Only the Syriac and Ant.
read this way, with the others unable to offer a consistent image. For these reasons, it
seems best to maintain the integrity of the Hebrew text vis-à-vis the other witnesses.
24 The Hebrew text reads, “and he prepared his chariot,” whereas the LXX and Syriac read “a
chariot.” Presumably a scribe of the Hebrew text added the suffix ‫ ו‬at some point, bringing
the text in line with vv. 21b and 24, which also contain the word “his chariot.” The
Hebrew preempts this comment in v. 21b, by stating that the guard prepared Joram’s char-
iot, and not just any chariot, in v. 21a. For this reason, the Greek and Syriac texts should
be given priority.
25 In v. 22 there is a clear case of dittography. When the scribe meant to write ‫מה שלום‬, he
instead doubled the ‫ ה‬and thus wrote ‫מה השלום‬. This presents the simplest explanation for
how this sentence became so incoherent. Both the LXX and the Targum comply with this
interpretation strengthening the case for the removal of the superfluous article.
26 The LXX (and the Vulgate, relying on LXX) translated ‫ עד‬with the word ε» τι, “still.” This
makes sense in the context of the passage and it has the advantage of allowing one to
maintain the consonantal text of the Hebrew, changing only the vowel and thus reading ‫עד‬ ֹ
instead of ‫ַעד‬. Therefore, it should be regarded as a legitimate understanding of the conso-
nantal text by the translators of LXX. Two Hebrew manuscripts use the preposition “with”
‫עם‬, which seems to be difficult to maintain in this capacity both in terms of semantic range
and quantity of sources. For these reasons, it seems best to stick with LXX, as per the rec-
ommendation of the editors of BHS.
sorceries persist? 23) Then Joram turned his hands 27 and fled and said to
Ahaziahu: Treason, Ahaziahu! 24) And Jehu filled his hand with the bow and
struck Joram between his shoulders so that the arrow came out from his heart
and he collapsed in his chariot. 28
25) Then he said to his adjutant 29 Bidkar: Lift [and] throw him into the lot
of the field 30 of Naboth the Jezreelite, for remember 31 when you32 and I were
———————————
27 Instead of the plural “his hands,” the Vulgate and one Hebrew manuscript read the singu-
lar “his hand.” This means the one Hebrew manuscript left out the ‫י‬. Haplography
explains this easily enough. The Vulgate either had access to such a copy of the Hebrew,
or misread the word, either from the Hebrew or the Greek, since the plural and singular
forms of the words are very similar in both cases. At any rate, it would seem that the text
of and should be preserved.
28 Lectio brevior favors MT in v. 24, reading “in his chariot” (five consonants) instead of
“onto his knees” (seven consonants [plus maqqeph]), as could be postulated based on the
Septuagint. The MT formulation also makes more sense in this context, making it clearer
that Joram is dead. He died in his chariot, which precludes the possibility that he merely
fell “onto his knees.” There are several occurrences of the phrase “fell upon his knees” in
the so-called Deuteronomistic History, including every remaining occurrence of the root
‫ כרע‬in the Book of Kings: Judges 7:5; 7:6; 1 Kings 8:54 and 2 Kings 1:13. The difference
in these phrases is not as overwhelming in Hebrew as it is in English: ‫ ברכבו‬vs. ‫על ברכיו‬.
With this in mind, it is easy to see how the translators of LXX or the tradents of its
Vorlage could easily record “onto his knees” instead of “in his chariot.”
29 Bidkar should be identified as “his adjutant,” thus Leningradensis must be emended to
read ‫ שלשו‬instead of ‫שלשה‬. The masoretes suggest this correction in Qere recorded in the
masorah qatanah; some manuscripts maintain this reading. Cf. further Paul Haupt, “The
Phrase ‫ רכבים צמדים‬in 2 Kings 9:25,” JBL 21, no. 1 (1902): 76 and Yigael Yadin, The Art
of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery (trans. M.
Pearlman; London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), 298, who identify the ‫ שלשו‬as the
shield-bearer based on graphic evidence; i.e., three people rode in (royal) chariots: a driver
(in this case Jehu), a warrior/king (Ahab), and a “third” (shield-bearer; Bidkar). While this
explanation works for 2 Kings 9:25, it cannot be understood in this capacity in 2 Kings
10:25.
30 Some manuscripts, as well as the Peshitta and the Vulgate, are missing “the field of” ‫שדה‬.
Lectio difficilior favors Leningradensis in this case, as the inclusion of this word causes a
virtual doublet, a feature removed in the Peshitta and the Vulgate, simplifying the reading.
LXX contains the same virtual doublet. For these reasons, the other textual witnesses
should be regarded as corrupt against Leningradensis.
31 This verb reads as an imperative in Leningradensis, whereas most other versions and one
Hebrew manuscript read it as a participle: ‫כר‬ֹ ְ‫ ז‬vs. ‫זוֵֹכר‬. The usage of the imperative forms a
parallel with the opening of Jehu’s speech, which uses an imperative to address Bidkar.
Scribal error may be to blame, as the defective spelling of the two forms (at least in terms
of the consonantal forms) would be identical: ‫זכר‬.
32 How the ‫ את‬following ‫ אתה‬came to be in the text is a bit of a mystery (copyist error via
dittography?); nonetheless it seems probable that it should be deleted.
riding side by side 33 behind his father Ahab and ‫ יהוה‬raised up against him this
oracle: 26) For the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons I saw yesterday,
oracle of ‫יהוה‬, I will repay to you in this lot, oracle of ‫ !יהוה‬Now lift [and] throw
him into the lot, as per the word of ‫יהוה‬. 27) And Ahaziahu King of Judah saw
[this] and fled on the path of Beth-Haggan, but Jehu pursued him and said:
Him too! And he struck him 34 upon his chariot 35 in the ascent to Gur, that is
Ibleam, but he fled to Megiddo and died there. 28) And his servants brought
him36 to Jerusalem and buried him with his fathers37 in the city of David. 29)
———————————
33 It is also unclear why Ant. and the Targum record ‫ צמדים‬as a singular. They apparently did
not understand it in the sense of “side by side,” as it can be translated in the English. Cf.
Gray, Kings, 545 n. h.
34 Leningradensis must presumably be emended in v. 27; in it Jehu merely gives the com-
mand to kill Ahaziahu, without this action ever being explicitly taken. Two methods exist
for correcting this: either changing the text to match the Greek or changing the text to
match the Syriac. The Greek text reads “him too. And he killed him,” meaning that the
Hebrew text would only have to be changed from ‫גם אתו הכהו‬to ‫גם אתו ויכהו‬. The other
alternative would be to add the phrase “and they killed him” after Jehu’s command to kill
him; this represents the textual tradition of the Syriac and some manuscripts of the Vul-
gate. Lectio brevior favors the reading of the LXX. This seems to be the most probable
explanation. At some point in the transmission of the Hebrew text, a scribe misread ‫וי‬as ‫ה‬.
The Septuagint contains the original tradition, with Jehu shouting “him too!” and then
recounting that Jehu killed Ahaziah. The Syriac then expanded this to include Jehu’s com-
mand and then the fact that his soldiers, not Jehu himself, killed Ahaziahu.
35 The editors of BHS suggest deleting ‫ אל המרכבה‬without offering any textual evidence. This
is presumably because the preposition ‫ אל‬would have to have the meaning “in” or “upon”
in this context. However, as we have seen above, there are a number of instances in which
‫ אל‬can have the meaning “upon.” Therefore, it seems premature to dismiss this possibility,
especially since the Septuagint contains this phrase in its translation of the Hebrew text; cf.
text-critical note on verse 3a.
36 The Greek explicitly adds the word “chariot” to the beginning of the verse, reading “and
his servants set him upon the chariot and brought him to Jerusalem.” This corresponds
with the Syriac. However, it is unnecessary to emend the text in this fashion. The Hebrew
can be read “and his servants brought him (via chariot) to Jerusalem.” This occurs because
the Hebrew root √‫ רכב‬can be used in noun forms as “chariot” but in verb forms as “to ride
or drive,” referring to both animals and chariots. The Greek translates this root inconsis-
tently, cf. 2 Kings 9:16 ( «ιππευσεν) and 9:28 (ε πεβι' βασαν…ε πὶ τὸ α«ρμα). Therefore, it
seems probable that the translators of the text added the phrase “upon the chariot” to the
text to clarify how the servants brought Ahaziahu’s corpse to Jerusalem. Because of
Hebrew semantics, in this case the use of the Hiphil, there is no need to include the char-
iot, which can already be implicitly read in the verb. For this reason, I suggest following
MT.
37 The phrase “with his fathers” is missing in LXX. In this case, the Septuagint presumably
has the older reading, when one considers a few factors. First and most obviously, lectio
brevior favors this reading. Secondly, the book of Kings uses the phrase “with his fathers”
almost exclusively for kings who died peacefully. Since Ahaziahu did not die peacefully, it
seems unlikely that they would have incorporated this phrase with the notice of his death.
And in the eleventh year of Joram ben Ahab, Ahaziahu reigned over Judah. 30)
Then Jehu entered Jezreel. When Jezebel heard, she put antimony on her eyes
and made her head good and looked down from the window. 31) And Jehu
entered into the gate 38 and she said: Peace, Zimri, murderer of his lord? 32) He
raised his face39 to the window and said: Who is with me? Who? Then two
three40 eunuchs41 looked down to him. 33) And he said: cast her down. 42 And
they cast her down such that some of her blood splattered onto the wall and
onto the horses and they trampled her. 43 34) Then he went in and ate and drank
———————————
Presumably this phrase made its way into the text at a point when this conventional struc-
ture of referencing the burial (or sleeping) with the fathers was no longer apparent to the
scribe. The Septuagint offers the original reading.
38 The Hebrew reads “Jehu entered the gate,” whereas the Greek reads “Jehu entered the
city.” In this case, lectio difficilior would seem to favor the Hebrew text. The translators
changed “the gate” to read “the city” so that it would be clear to the reader that this is the
city gate, and that by entering it, Jehu is entering the city of Jezreel. MT should be main-
tained.
39 Leningradensis reads “he raised his face,” whereas one other Hebrew manuscript, Ant.,
and the Syriac of the London Polyglot (from 1654!) read “he raised his eyes.” Based on the
quality and quantity of the witnesses, Leningradensis (with LXX) remains the preferred
reading. The others presumably changed it to make it more dramatic; by concentrating on
his eyes, the text offers imagery conducive of a Peter Jackson film. The drama of the verse
is further increased in the Septuagint, which reads significantly differently than the
Hebrew text. Septuagint: “And he raised his face to the window and saw her and said ‘who
are you? Come down to me!’ And two eunuchs bent down towards him.” Hebrew: “And he
raised his face to the window and said ‘who is with me? Who?’ And two eunuchs looked
down to him.” In the Greek, Jehu makes a personal challenge to Jezebel, whereas he
merely seeks someone to do his dirty work in the Hebrew. It is also interesting that the
Greek text adds “and he saw her,” perhaps remembering the action of Elisha in 2 Kings
2:24. The Greek emended the text to recount a personal encounter between the two,
whereas Jehu just ignores Jezebel in the Hebrew. The Hebrew text reads like the older text
in this instance, having been changed during the transmission to read more dramatically.
40 The number three, ‫שלשה‬, should be removed from the text. It remains without any context.
If it were connected with any kind of conjunction, then it could be maintained, as is the
case in the Latin. However, since this is not the case and it is missing in LXX, it seems
better to remove it.
41 For the insecurity regarding whether or not these officials were castrated eunuchs or
merely some kind of court official, cf. Sakkie Cornelius, “‘Eunuchs’? The Ancient Back-
ground of Eunouchos in the Septuagint,” in Septuagint and Reception (ed. Johann Cook;
Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009), 321–33.
42 In keeping with the suggestions of the Masoretes and many other Hebrew manuscripts,
‫ שמטהו‬should be read ‫ שמטוה‬. This was potentially a scribal error unique to the tradition
responsible for Aleppo and Leningradensis.
43 The word ‫ וירמסנה‬has been translated as a plural in the versions. The pre-masoretic scribes
apparently misread ‫ ו‬as ‫נ‬: ‫ וירמסוה‬vs. ‫וירמסנה‬. The Masoretes then interpreted this form as a
third person masculine singular with a nun-energicum and a third person singular feminine
suffix.
and said: please attend to that cursed woman and bury her, for she is the daugh-
ter of a king. 35) And they went out to bury her, but did not find her, except for
her skull and [her] feet and the palms of [her] hands. 36) Then they returned
and told him, and he said: the word of ‫ יהוה‬is this, which he spoke by the hand
of his servant44 Elijah the Tishbite, saying: in the portion of Jezreel shall the
dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel. 37) So the corpse of Jezebel was 45 like dung on
the surface of the earth 46 in the portion of Jezreel 47 such that no one could say:
this was Jezebel.
10:1) And Ahab had 70 sons in Samaria. Then Jehu wrote letters and sent
[them] to Samaria to the princes of Israel 48 the elders and to the guardians of
———————————
44 Leningradensis and Aleppo identify Elijah as the servant of ‫ יהוה‬in v. 36, while Vaticanus
and Alexandrinus do not. It is much more likely that the scribes would add a comment that
Elijah is the servant of ‫ יהוה‬than that someone would remove it. For these reasons, I recom-
mend removing this from the text.
45 The opening verb of the verse should be changed in accordance with the Qere and many
manuscripts from ‫ והית‬to ‫והיתה‬. This is a minor transition that brings the subject and verb
in agreement. Contra Jerome T. Walsh, “Short Note: On ‫ היה‬in 2 Kings 9:37,” VT 60, no. 1
(2010): 152–53, whose translation of this word as “chasm” or “destruction” seems less
plausible than the minor change of the verb. There is also no need to translate this verb in
the future tense, cf. 2 Kings 14:14, which cannot be understood as a future tense!
46 Two Hebrew manuscripts read ‫ האדמה‬instead of ‫השדה‬. The Peshitta and the Vulgate imply
a Vorlage reading similarly. Since these words have a similar semantic range, this decision
is especially difficult. Lectio difficilior would seem to favor the traditions outside of
Leningradensis and the LXX. Potentially, the scribes responsible for the tradition of
Leningradensis could have changed the word to make it accord with the prophecy that they
knew from 1 Kings 21:24 (MT) and 2 Kings 9:25. Here the word ‫ השדה‬also occurs. For
these reasons, I favor the reading ‫האדמה‬, but would like to state that I am far from positive
that this is the best reading.
47 The Antiochene tradition is missing the phrase ‫ בחלק יזרעאל‬in v. 37 and presumably repre-
sents the older tradition. MT and the other witnesses of the LXX presumably added this
phrase in order to make the passage better match 1 Kings 21:23 (MT).
48 The Hebrew suggests that Jehu sent letters princes of Jezreel in Samaria. Why would it be
necessary for Jehu to send letters to Samaria in order to contact the princes of Jezreel? One
Hebrew manuscript and the LXX (with the exception of Ant.) record “Samaria.” Ant.
reads “of the city,” which the editors of BHS also commend. Another possibility exists.
This could be a transmission error of the name Israel. When one compares the Hebrew,
‫ יזרעאל‬vs. ‫ישראל‬, the difference becomes apparent, namely two consonants. In terms of pro-
nunciation, the names are remarkably similar. This corruption was presumably very early
in the transmission, which led all of the other ancient authorities astray. I am not suggest-
ing the necessity of an oral tradition, merely that this could represent that this text was
misunderstood aurally. As one person read this text to another, the text was misunderstood.
Such a correction leads to a minor surgery in the text as opposed to the bypass that would
be caused by reading either ‫ שמרון‬or ‫ העיר‬instead of ‫יזרעאל‬. The burden of proof lays with
those who would try to change the text this substantially. In the context of the verse, Israel
would also make sense; Jehu sent letters to the “princes of Israel” in the capital, Samaria.
Ahab, saying: 2) And now, when this letter comes to you, you have the sons of
your lord and you have chariotry and horses and a fortified city 49 and weap-
onry. 3) Then seek the best and most upright of the sons of your lord and set
[him] upon the throne of his father and fight on behalf of the house of your
lord. 4) Then they were very very 50 afraid and they said: Behold! Two kings
couldn’t stand before him, how then should we remain standing? 5) The one
over the house and over the city and the elders and the nourishers sent to Jehu,
saying: we are your servants and all that you say to us, we shall do. We will
make no one king. Do 51 what is good in your eyes. 6) So he wrote a second 52
letter to them, saying: If you are on my side and heed my voice, take the heads
———————————
This seems to be a logical conclusion. I see no need to edit the text further in this verse,
although the editors of BHS suggest either adding “sons” or deleting Ahab following the
word guardians and adding a ‫ ו‬before the elders. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and the Vulgate
do not include the word “sons” and the text is perfectly understandable, albeit somewhat
difficult, without this word. The traditions that include it understood the Hebrew ‫ אמנים‬as
something like a nurse, which would only make sense if the sons were included. However,
the Hebrew can also have the sense of “guardian,” which has also been used in the Latin.
For this understanding, there is no need for the word “sons” or for the removal of the word
“Ahab.” The presence of the copula before “the elders” presumably represents an attempt
to smooth the text in order to incorporate a later gloss. Cf. Literary Criticism on page 46.
49 Only two late Hebrew manuscripts support the conjecture of changing the word “city” to
“cities” to match LXX and the Vulgate. Yet in context, it would seem that Jehu is making
an implicit threat against the aforementioned city of Samaria, not referring to all cities in
Israel outside of Jezreel. He is after the capital and those who are left in it.
50 One occurrence of ‫ מאד‬probably needs to be deleted from MT. This brings the text in line
with most other ancient authorities (with the exception of Alexandrinus). Alternatively,
one could suggest its originality in order to strengthen the fear of the princes of Israel.
51 While MT reads the imperative, LXX reads the first person plural, i.e., is “we will do” as
opposed to “do.” The LXX Vorlage presumably contained an emended text such that the
two occurrences of the verb ‫ עשה‬in the Hebrew of this verse would be the same in the
Greek: ποιη' σομεν. By doing this, they created a parallelism not present in the canonical
Hebrew text.
52 A few manuscripts read ‫ שני‬in v. 6 instead of ‫שנית‬, corresponding with the reading of LXX,
at least according to the editors of BHS. This change makes the adjective form correspond
with the noun in terms of gender; ‫ ספר‬often appears as a masculine where the gender of the
noun can be determined with certainty. The assertion of the editors of BHS that the Greek
reading corresponds with the masculine reading of some Masoretic manuscripts doesn’t
really hold water. The only way one can maintain that there is a relation is by mentioning
that the noun and adjective both are inflected in the same gender; the problem is that in
Greek it is a neuter noun, βιβλι' ον, and not a masculine. If the author of the Hebrew text
understood the noun ‫ ספר‬as being feminine, then this suggestion of the editors of BHS can-
not be maintained. From other languages of the ancient Near East, there is evidence that
related noun can be feminine or both feminine and masculine; cf. Akk. našpartum and
especially t.uppum. In this case, it seems better to stick with the text of Leningradensis.
of the men of the sons of your lord 53 and come 54 to me in Jezreel by this time
tomorrow. And the sons of the king were seventy men with the great ones of
the city who were raising them. 55 7) When the letter came to them, they took
the sons of the king and slaughtered 56 seventy men and set their heads in bas-
kets and sent [them] to him in Jezreel. 8) Then the messenger came and told
him, saying: They sent the heads of the sons of the king. And he said: Set them
in two piles [by] the door of the gate 57 until morning. 9) Then in the morning,
he came out and stood and spoke to the whole people: You are righteous.
Behold! I conspired against my lord and killed him. But who struck all of
these? 10) Know then that nothing of the word 58 of ‫ יהוה‬that ‫ יהוה‬spoke against
the house of Ahab will fall to the ground. And ‫ יהוה‬did as he said by the hand
of his servant Elijah. 11) Thus Jehu struck all the remnants of the house of
Ahab in Jezreel and all his mighty ones 59 and all his friends and his priests 60
until no survivor remained for him. 12) Then he arose and came and arrived 61
———————————
53 The phrase ‫ ראשי בני אדניכם‬was apparently the phrase behind the Antiochene tradition,
which should be accepted as the oldest tradition here. The Masoretic Tradition represents a
later expansion and matches the kaige tradition of Kings found in Vaticanus.
54 Lectio difficilior favors Leningradensis regarding the verb ‫באו‬, which the LXX reads in the
Hiphil. Someone changed the text, perhaps to read in line with the rest of the story; cf. v.
8: the messenger claims that they sent the heads, not that they came themselves.
55 The recommended deletion of the phrase ‫ובני המלך שבעים איש את גדלי העיר מגדלים אותם‬
remains unfounded and therefore should be rejected, at least on the basis of text-critical
methodology. It can be considered within the literary-critical analysis; see page 46.
56 In v.7, a few Hebrew manuscripts, as well as LXX and the Peshitta, include the direct
object suffix on the verb ‫שחט‬, which is only implicit in Leningradensis. Lectio difficilior
and lectio brevior favor Leningradensis. The others presumably attempted to smooth out
the syntax by adding the suffix ‫ם‬.
57 Lectio difficilior favors MT; the translators presumably read the phrase ‫ פתח השער‬and
understood it as a doublet, thus replacing ‫ השער‬with τηñ ς πο' λεως.
58 Ant. and the Vulgate read “words of ‫יהוה‬,” whereas all other ancient witnesses record
“word of ‫יהוה‬.” These two traditions are to be rejected and the traditional text of MT and
LXX maintained.
59 Ant. reads “his redeemers” instead of “his mighty ones” in verse 11. This appears to be a
reinterpretation of the Jehu story in light of the Torah. To assure that no one rises up
against Jehu with legitimate legal recourse, Ant. comments that all of his redeemers were
executed, instead of all of his warriors. This reinterpretation reflects Numbers 35:19,
which establishes a method of legal revenge in cases of murder. To preclude this occurring
in his version of the story, Ant. has changed the text. MT with all other ancient witnesses
is to be maintained; cf. also Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien III , 197.
60 reads “the priests of his idols;” cf. Schenker, Textgeschichte, 146. Based on lectio
brevior one should maintain MT.
61 does not contain the element “and he arrived” and should thus be maintained as the ear-
liest reading.
to Samaria. He62 was in Beth-Eked of the shepherds on the way. 13) And Jehu
found63 the brothers of Ahaziahu King of Judah and said: Who are you? And
they said: We are the brothers of Ahaziahu. We are going down to greet the
sons of the king and the sons 64 of the queen-mother. 14) Then he said: Take
them alive! So they took them 65 alive66 and slaughtered 67 them to the well 68 [in]
Beth-Eked, 42 men. And not one survivor remained 69 of them. 70 15)71 He went
from there and found Jehonadab ben Rechab approaching him. And he blessed
him and said to him: Is your heart upright [with my heart] as my heart is with
your heart? And Jehonadab said: It is and [Jehu said: if] it is, give me your
hand. And he gave him his hand and he brought him to him onto his chariot.
16) And he said: Come with me and see my zeal for ‫יהוה‬. And each rode 72 in
his own chariot.
———————————
62 Contrary to the suggestion of the editors of BHS, there is no need to reconstruct a ‫ ו‬before
the word ‫הוא‬, as is recorded in Ant., Peshitta, and the Vulgate. LXX and all but one manu-
script of read to the contrary.
63 The opening of v. 13 reads differently in Ant. and the Vulgate than in and ; the shorter
readings in Ant. and Vulgate remove the subject of the sentence, which is emphasized in
the Hebrew traditions of the text, a literary device used by the author of the text on a few
occasions (cf. 9:1 and 9:11). The textual witnesses against Ant. and the Vulgate are to be
maintained.
64 One Hebrew manuscript replaces the word “sons” in the phrase “sons of the queen-
mother” with a repeating of the phrase “to wish peace to”. Due to the weightiness and
number of the witnesses that attest against this reading, it should be rejected.
65 The opening is missing in several witnesses ( , MW and a few Hebrew manuscripts); this
is presumably because of homtel, as the editors of BHS correctly suggest.
66 Ant. and two nineteenth century editions of the Peshitta do not contain the word “alive.”
Due to the limited quality and quantity of these witnesses, one should reject this change.
67 One minuscule of the LXX reads singular for the verb ‫שחט‬: ‫ וישחטם‬instead of ‫וישחטום‬.
Once again, this should be rejected.
68 The word “well” is missing in one Hebrew manuscript, LXX, and some manuscripts of the
Targum. This ‫ בור‬presumably represents an addition from a later time, though it must
remain unclear why someone would add this phrase to the text. It appears to have made its
way into the tradition some time in between the translation of LXX and .
69 The Targum reads the last verb as a passive. The weight of the textual witnesses against
this reading refutes its plausibility as the older reading.
70 The last two words have been reversed in Ant., the Syriac, the Vulgate, and some manu-
scripts of the Targum. This makes no difference in the understanding of the text and the
weightiest witnesses testify against it; therefore, Leningradensis will be maintained.
71 At some point in the tradition, the text of Leningradensis was corrupted at this verse. For
that reason, the Greek text will be followed here.
72 Homtel is the best explanation for the ‫ ו‬at the end of the word ‫ וירכבו‬in v. 16. Since the
next two words end with ‫ אתו( ו‬and ‫)ברכבו‬, it is understandable that another ‫ ו‬could sneak
into the Hebrew text during the process of transmission. All other ancient authorities read
contrary to , and they should therefore be used on this occasion.
17) Then he arrived at Samaria. And he struck all of the remnants of Ahab
in Samaria until his [last] survivor, as per the word of ‫ יהוה‬that he spoke to
Elijah.73 18) Then Jehu assembled the whole people and said to them: Ahab
served the Baal a little; Jehu 74 will serve him much! 19) So call now all the
prophets of the Baal and all of his priests and all of his servants 75 to me. Let no
one be absent, for there will be a great sacrifice for the Baal. Everyone who is
missing will not live. But Jehu was acting with deceit in order to destroy the
servants of the Baal. 20) And Jehu said: Consecrate 76 an assembly for the Baal.
And they called 77 [it to order]. 21) And Jehu sent to all Israel and all of the ser-
———————————
73 Two Hebrew manuscripts and the Peshitta read “house of Ahab” instead of “Ahab.” Lectio
brevior favors Leningradensis, as does lectio difficilior ; cf. 9:7–9; 10:10, 30. The verb
form ֹ‫ ִה ְשִמידו‬requires no emendation, as suggested by the editors of BHS. While the form
can be read ֹ‫ַה ְשִמידו‬, there is nothing that requires such a reading (cf. Deut 28:48).
74 Some Greek and a few Hebrew manuscripts add a ‫ ו‬before the name Jehu in v. 18b. There
is no need to add this letter. Ant. and the Vulgate change the verse such that the name Jehu
does not appear in v. 18b; i.e., Jehu refers to himself in the first-person instead of in the
third-person. This was probably a stylistic change that also de-emphasizes Jehu’s contrast-
ing himself and Ahab as in the canonical Hebrew narrative. No argument mandates that
these changes be made.
75 All of the text-critical problems of v. 19 revolve around the phrase ‫כל עבדיו‬. It appears that
there was some flexibility in understanding this and its location in the verse. Two Hebrew
manuscripts and Ant. put it after the phrase “and all of his priests.” A few manuscripts,
plus Ant., and most ancient authorities outside of LXX add the conjunction ‫ ו‬at the begin-
ning of the phrase. Many Hebrew manuscripts read ‫ ֲעָבָדיו‬instead of ‫עְֹבָדיו‬, which makes lit-
tle difference in the meaning, but is still worth noting. It is possible that Ant. records the
original reading in this case; it would make more sense for someone to move the phrase
“his servants” to be adjacent to “Prophets of Baal” than it would make to separate the two
of them. The understanding of the prophet as a servant of a god is an idea that has some-
times been identified as Deuteronomistic, as would appear to be the case in this pericope
(cf. 2 Kings 9:7). This parallelism was accepted and used in most of the ancient witnesses
(including the majority of the non-Leningradensis Masoretic texts). For this reason, lectio
difficilior favors the Antiochene reading of the text, as it is more probable that someone
would create a parallelism rather than destroy one. In the instance of the vocalization of
the root √‫עבד‬, one must read with Leningradensis; at some point in the tradition the text
was changed from ‫ עְֹבָדיו‬to ‫ ֲעָבָדיו‬in order to match the form in e.g., 2 Kings 9:7.
76 One Hebrew manuscript, the Targum, and Peshitta emended verse 20 to make Jehu’s com-
mand match the action taken at the end of the verse: ‫ קדשו‬was rewritten as ‫ קראו‬to match
‫ ויקראו‬at the conclusion of the verse.
77 The plural form recorded at the end of the verse in is a singular in LXX and the Vulgate.
Presumably this is because Jehu was talking to “the people” (v. 18), which can be under-
stood as a plural or a collective singular (cf. German das Volk). There is no need to emend
the Hebrew text here.
vants of the Baal came. There 78 was no one left who did not come. And they
entered into the house of the Baal and filled the house of the Baal from mouth
to mouth. 22) And he said to the one over the wardrobe: Bring out clothes for
all of the servants of the Baal. And he brought out attire for them. 79 23) Then
Jehu and Jehonadab ben Rechab entered the house of the Baal. And he said to
the servants of the Baal: Search and see that there is none 80 amongst you from
the servants of ‫יהוה‬, but rather only servants of the Baal. 24) 81 And they came 82
to make sacrifices and the burnt offerings and Jehu had set 80 83 men outside
and had said: the man who allows someone to escape 84 from the men I am
bringing against you, his life instead of his life. 25) When he finished offering
———————————
78 The ‫ ו‬that is missing in a few manuscripts, LXX, two Targumin, and the Vulgate is of little
importance in terms of meaning in that it serves only a conjunctive purpose here. In spite
of this, it seems that one should remove it from Leningradensis to return to the shorter
reading. Since Hebrew has some flexibility here, this should not be regarded as a signifi-
cant problem.
79 The Septuagint understands the last word of the Hebrew text to be the subject of the sen-
tence in v. 22b. In the Hebrew text it is an unmarked direct object (i.e., not written with
‫)את‬. The suggested change of the editors of BHS consists of a word otherwise unknown in
the Hebrew Bible: ‫ ;מלביש‬therefore, I would reject this suggestion. It would seem rather
that the Hebrew word ‫ מלבוש‬was misunderstood by the translators of LXX, who did not see
it as the garments to be brought out, but rather as the one who was to bring them out. No
change is necessary in this verse.
80 The Septuagint and the Vulgate are missing the word ‫פה‬. They presumably avoided it to
prevent what they understood as a doubling. It would make less sense for someone to add
this word later in transmission than to suspect that someone would intentionally remove it.
81 Ant. has a dramatically different text at this verse: 24a has been transposed behind 24b
and then expanded so that the verse reads “and Jehu set for himself 3000 men in secret and
said ‘the man who allows someone to escape from the men I am bringing against you, his
life instead of his life!’ And they entered into the temple of the abhorrence to make the
offerings” in Ant. The smoothing effect of this (clarifying who is entering the temple in the
contextually difficult circumstance), the negative tone of “abhorrence,” and the length of
the text preclude the Antiochene text being the older witness. Contra Schenker,
Textgeschichte, 49–50.
82 Ant. recounts the verb form at the opening of v. 24 as being identical to the form at the
beginning of v. 23. This distinguishes the change in the verb form as an intentional emen-
dation of the Hebrew text; therefore, Ant. should be rejected in this case. The plural here
refers back to the “servants of the Baal” and not Jehu himself! Contra Bernhard Stade,
“Miscellen,” ZAW 5 (1885): 278.
83 Ant. (with Legionensis of the Vetus Latina) records the number of people gathered at the
celebration as 3000. The Syriac recounts 380. These numbers are presumably later exag-
gerations of the number of soldiers Jehu commanded to kill the worshipers of Baal.
84 The correction suggested by the editors of BHS for the verb ‫ ימלט‬should be accepted. The
Masoretes made a mistake in the pointing here, reading ‫ יִָּמֵלט‬instead of ‫יְַמ ֵּלט‬.
the burnt offering, Jehu said […] 85 and to the adjutants: Come in! Strike them!
No man shall exit! And they struck them with the mouth of the sword […] and
the adjutants cast out and went until the city of 86 the house of the Baal. 26) And
they brought out the pillar 87 of the house 88 of the Baal and burned it. 27)89 And
they tore down the pillars 90 of the Baal 91 and they tore down his house. 92 And
———————————
85 There is no clear sense of the phrase ‫הרצים ושלשים‬, which also found its way into the
Greek: τοιñς παρατρε' χουσιν καὶ τοιñς Ει σελθο' ντες. While it is possible to leave the second
word (cf. Bidkar in 9:25), it is totally unclear what the first word should mean in this con-
text. Therefore I suggest a crux. No sensible reconstruction of the text here is possible and
the suggestions of the editors of BHS seem to be grasping at straws. The best attempt to
ameliorate this textual problem can be found in Haupt, “2 Kings 9:25,” 77, who contrasts
these infantry (= runners) with shield-bearers. While the identification of the infantry here
would make perfect sense, the shield-bearers would be out of context, being presumably
outside of chariots.
86 Remove ‫ עיר‬to follow the shorter text of Ant.
87 A few (24 according to Wevers, “Hebrew Variants,” 54) Hebrew manuscripts read ‫מצבת‬
instead of ‫מצבות‬, i.e., the singular instead of the plural. Since all of the other ancient wit-
nesses attest this reading, it will be accepted and Leningradensis emended. This finding
contradicts Schenker’s claim that exegetes frequently emend this text in MT “ohne
Anhaltspunkt in den Textzeugen…” (Schenker, Textgeschichte, 155). The suggestion of
the editors of BHS (and Stade, “Miscellen,” 278) that one should probably read ‫ אשרת‬is
totally unwarranted in this context, relying only on the claim in 1 Kings 16:33; cf. Imman-
uel Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige erklärt (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testa-
ment; Freiburg, Leipzig und Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1899), 154.
88 The word “house” is missing in the Septuagint. This presumably represents the earlier
form of the text, the “house” having been added to match up with the preceding verse.
89 In spite of the guideline of lectio brevior, this verse has been largely restored to the form
implied by Ant.: ‫ויתצו את מצבות הבעל ויתצו ביתו ויקח יהוא את מצבת הבעלוישבר אתה וישלך אתה‬
‫משמאל בעלים וישם את בית הבעל למחראות עד היום‬. The duplications and the focus on Jehu
make this reading the more probable.
90 A few Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint read “pillars” in the plural here. Lectio
difficilior would suggest that Leningradensis remain unchanged, leaving the tension with
the previous verse. However, there is a more important lectio difficilior to consider,
namely that of Huntington, which reads the singular in the previous verse, but the plural in
v. 27; cf. de Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti Librorum , LIX and 240. Since
Huntington corresponds with LXX, the plural will be regarded as the original reading. The
Ant. descriptive gloss “all” should be regarded as a later expansion.
91 Without offering textual evidence, BHS suggests that v. 27a α is an addition. This assertion
is problematic in a text-critical apparatus and should be handled under literary-criticism.
92 Ant. reads “his house,” which appears to be the oldest reading. The phrase “and they tore
down the house of Baal” is missing in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The oldest of these
comes from about the year 800 (cf. de Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti
Librorum, LIX and 240), but all of the other witnesses are younger than Leningradensis.
According to the editors of BHS it is also absent in Septuaginta Originalis, a problematic
theoretically reconstructed text (the assumption here is based on Origen and one other
text). They may have viewed this phrase as a kind of duplication of the end of the verse
and thus removed it.
Jehu took the pillar of the Baal and smashed it and threw it to the left of the
Baaleim and made the house of Baal into a latrine 93 until today. 94 28) Thus
Jehu destroyed the 95Baal from Israel. 29) Only the sins of Jeroboam ben
Nebat that he caused Israel to sin, Jehu did not turn from following them.
96
The calves of gold in 97 Bethel and in Dan. 30) And ‫ יהוה‬spoke to Jehu:
Because you did well, doing what is upright in my eyes, like98 all that is my
heart you did to the house of Ahab, sons of the fourth [generation] will sit for
you upon the throne of Israel. 99 31) But Jehu did not guard to walk in the
———————————
93 The problem with the word ‫ למחראות‬is unclear. The Qere and a few other manuscripts offer
‫ למוצאות‬as a reading, but there is no apparent difference in meaning. Otto, Jehu, 40 n. 46
suggests that the Ketib is the more vulgar reading, and therefore original. This seems plau-
sible. Cf. Gray, Kings, 562.
94 The phrase ‫ עד היום הזה‬occurs 13 times in the book of Kings. For this reason, it is under-
standable that the scribes or translators of the other texts and the scribes of the two Hebrew
manuscripts with this variant reading would reconstruct ‫ הזה‬at the end of the verse,
whether consciously or otherwise. For this reason, I believe that it should be left out and
regarded as a later addition to the text.
95 The witnesses contrary to Leningradensis (et al.) in v. 28 presumably changed the text with
the presupposition of the destruction of Israel described in 2 Kings 17 (cf. especially v.
16). Because Israel was destroyed, Baal must not have been completely wiped out. For this
reason, two Hebrew manuscripts and one Greek minuscule emended the text such that
Jehu only destroyed the Baal Temple in Samaria without entirely removing the worship of
Baal. Interestingly, Baal does not come up in any other texts about Israel outside of the
Omride dynasty. So, in terms of the narrative of Kings, Jehu really does remove Baal from
Israel. Ant.’s expanded reading should also be regarded as secondary; cf. Alfred Rahlfs,
Septuaginta-Studien III , 197.
96 The editors of BHS regard v. 29b as an addition without any textual basis to support this
fact. Considerations about this verse will be offered in the literary-critical analysis begin-
ning on page 50.
97 Because of dittography, a scribe wrote ‫ בית אל‬when he should have written ‫בבית אל‬. Cf.
many Hebrew manuscripts, the Sebir and the translations.
98 One Hebrew manuscript, the Sebir and one minuscule read ‫ בכל‬instead of ‫ככל‬. This pre-
sumably occurred merely as a mistaken reading, confusing ‫ כ‬and ‫ב‬. Leningradensis and the
other readings seem to merit priority in this case.
99 At this point in the narrative, 115 (Palimpsest Vindobonensis) inserts the story of Eli-
sha’s death (2 Kings 13:14–21 MT) into the narrative; for a transcription, cf. Bonifatius
Fischer, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen
Bibeltexte (by Bonifatius Fischer; Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1986), 378–79. Lectio brevior
contradicts its placement here. One lectio difficilior would favor its location here (as cited
by Schenker, Textgeschichte, 136–37), namely the fact that the prophecy remains unful-
filled by Jehu. On the other hand, another lectio difficilior speaks against its location here:
namely the reduction in Elisha’s age necessitated by the current placement of this narrative
in all other manuscripts (contra Schenker, Textgeschichte, 137). Jehu’s failure to eliminate
Aram, as predicted by the text of 115, would be a good lead in to the material recounting
his losses of territory at the hands of Hazael in 2 Kings 10:32–33. The transposition of this
story in 115 ultimately reflects more negatively on Jehu: because he failed to do as Eli-
Torah of ‫ יהוה‬the god of Israel with all his heart. He did not turn from upon 100
the sins of Jeroboam that he caused Israel to sin. 32) In those days, ‫ יהוה‬began
to trim off [some] of Israel. And Hazael struck them at every border of
Israel, 33) from the Jordan, the rising of the sun, the whole land of the
Gilead, the Gadites and the Reubenites 101 and the Manassites, from Aroer
that is on the Wadi 102 Arnon and the Gilead and the Bashan 34) And the
rest of the deeds of Jehu and all that he did and all 103 his might, are they not
written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 35) And
Jehu slept with his fathers and they buried him in Samaria. Then his son
Jehoahaz reigned in his stead. 36) And the days that Jehu reigned over Israel
were 28 years in Samaria. 104 In the second year of Athaliah, ‫ יהוה‬made Jehu
ben Nimshi king. 37) And Ahaziahu was a son of 22 years at his accession
and one year he reigned in Jerusalem. 38) And the name of his mother was
Athaliah bat Ahab, king of Israel. 39) And he walked in the way of the house
of Ahab and did the evil in the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬like the house of Ahab, for he was a
relative of the house of Ahab. 40) And Ahaziahu went up against Hazael
king of Aram in battle. 41) Then Jehu ben Nimshi conspired against
———————————
sha expected from him, rather than destroy Aram, Israel suffers at their hands. N.b. Ant.
does not recount Elisha’s death here. It must remain necessarily unresolved whether this
story was repeated regarding Joash in 115, as the pages for this pericope no longer exist;
cf. Fischer, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis,” 323.
100 In order to make the text more understandable, a few manuscripts and the Targum have
emended the text from ‫ מעל‬to ‫מכל‬, which is also the reading according to the Oriental
Masoretes. Cf. LXX: ε πα' νωθεν.
101 In writing ‫ָהֻראוֵבִני‬, the scribe of L caused both the ‫ א‬and the ‫ ו‬to quiesce by writing ‫ֻראו‬
instead of ּ‫ראו‬. This mistake is one of pointing. Either the scribe added a ‫ ו‬where none was
necessary, or he wrote the wrong vowel into the consonantal text. Since this error can be
emended without changing the consonantal text of , this shouldn’t bother us any further.
For the best reading of this account, cf. Aleppo: ‫ָהראוֵּבִני‬.
102 The other problem in v. 33 is the addition of the word ‫ שפת‬in two Hebrew texts, LXX,
Cod ex Am b r osi a n u s , a n d som e Ta r gu m ma n u s c r i p t s. L e c t i o b r ev i o r f a vor s
Leningradensis. Also, the absence of this word in the Vulgate makes it suspicious, as if it
is something unique to the Greek, but unknown in the Hebrew Vorlage used by Jerome.
For these reasons, I favor a reading with Leningradensis.
103 A few Hebrew manuscripts, one Targum manuscript, and the Vulgate do not read the word
“all” before “his might.” Based on these limited witnesses against Leningradensis and
LXX, it seems more likely to maintain the text of Leningradensis and LXX; the word “all”
should be kept.
104 The Antiochene text has an expansive addition here, placing the circumstances of Jehu’s
revolt within a Judean context and generally repeating information found in the preceding
story. The verse numbers followed here are consistent with the Antiochene text offered in
Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz, Biblia Griega, 114–15.
Literary Criticism 35
Joram ben Ahab king of Israel and struck him in Jezreel and he died. 42)
And Jehu also shot Ahaziahu king of Judah upon his chariot and he died.
43) And his servants brought him to Jerusalem and buried him with his
fathers in the city of David.
Literary Criticism
The goal of this section is more than just a close reading of the text, which is
most familiar in an English language context. Rather, the text will be examined
in order to determine if any redactional levels exist and how such redactional
layers are chronologically related. Traditional methodology dictates that indi-
ces for such redactions included tensions or even contradictions within the text,
doublets, and repetitions. I will focus on these matters in the pericope in ques-
tion, but at this point, I would also like to state that I find the general unity of
the text to be more probable than some literary critics of the past, most notably
Yoshikazu Minokami and Ernst Würthwein, and therefore am more hesitant to
divide the text up into infinite layers, each from a separate redaction level. 105
Naturally some instances demand the postulation of redaction, but dividing the
text without sufficient textual warrant is irresponsible and may overlook some
of the artistic and structural agency of the original author. 106
The first question: why begin the text at 9:1 and not at 8:28 or 29? First,
we have to deal with a partial repetition here. When one compares 8:29 with
9:15a and 10:37–43 (Ant.), it is obvious that one text has been copied to the
———————————
105 One wonders what kind of people would pass down such minimal material in some of
these instances. Relying on many layers of redactional and compositional work implies
that the text of Kings developed similarly to a story created out of a party game, with each
participant adding one sentence. This seems an unlikely reconstruction of the composition
history of Kings.
106 For an exceptional understanding of the account of Jehu’s revolution as a uniform text, cf.
Rudolf Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt (Handkommentar zum Alten
Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 227–43. In my opinion, as will
become clear, Kittel does not go quite far enough in his redactional analysis of 2 Kings 9–
10.
others.107 The shorter text is 9:15a; it is missing the curious term ‫ברמה‬, which
does not make sense in this context, since previously the battle had been at ‫רמת‬
‫גלעד‬. This would favor 9:15a as the original text. 108 Also, in the context of the
end of chapter 8, one realizes that the text of 8:28–29 has been composed to
incorporate the Jehu Revolution into its new literary context, namely that of
Ahaziahu of Judah. 109 Ahaziahu is the subject of 8:28, Joram just going with
him into battle. 110 In this matter, the notification in 2 Kings 9:28–29 becomes
relevant, providing a kind of closing frame for Ahaziahu of Judah in the midst
of the story about the Jehu Revolution. A similar instance of an Israelite story
being adapted into a Judean framework can be found in the material about
Joash of Israel and Amaziah of Judah in 2 Kings 13:10–14:22. 111 Further, one
should also note various spellings of Joram in 8:28–29: he is ‫ יורם‬in the copied
original and its envelopment in the current context (2 Kings 8:28–29a), but
‫ יהורם‬in the expansion of the text in 8:29b, which seeks to explain why
Ahaziahu was with Joram in Jezreel. These factors seem to suggest a later date
for 8:28–29, which apparently used 9:14b–15a as a basis and then expanded it
in order to fit the Jehu story in the current context of Kings. Another factor to
consider is the curious spelling of Hazael in 8:28–29: ‫ !חזהאל‬This spelling is
only used 6 times: 112 once in 2 Chronicles 22:6 (which clearly used 2 Kings
8:29 as its Vorlage—n.b. ‫ )!ברמה‬and 5 times in 2 Kings 8. This also suggests
that 8:28–29 is a later composition used subsume the story of Jehu’s revolution
into Judean history. A final consideration is worth note: 2 Kings 9:1 begins
———————————
107 This position is of course contrary to Immanuel Benzinger, Jahvist und Elohist in den
Königsbüchern (BWANT; Berlin; Stuttgart; Leipzig: Kohlhammer, 1921), 56–57, who
identifies this duplication as evidence of a dual tradition and therefore assigns the verses to
two different sources. What he fails to do is consider the Greek tradition, which provides
the best solution to this problem; see below. Even though Benziger’s two source theory is
inaccurate in this point, looking for E and J in Kings, he is not far removed from an accu-
rate source-critical evaluation of Kings–namely two sources (or one source undergoing an
extensive redaction) followed by subsequent redactions.
108 Cf. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988), 108–9.
109 Cf. Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Dritte unveränderte Auflage;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967), 84.
110 Cf. Martin Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie (BZAW 281; Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1999), 197.
111 Cf. the discussion to this passage in chapter 3 beginning on page 86.
112 N.b. Masorah qatanah. In Aleppo this form is only used five times; the spelling in 8:28 is
‫חזאל‬.
with inverted sentence structure. The subject, Elisha, precedes the verb. This
can be an indication that a new narrative is beginning. 113 Based on these con-
siderations, it seems that the beginning of the pericope is to be found in
2 Kings 9:1. 114 2 Kings 8:28–29 places the narrative of Jehu in a Judean con-
text, as does the material in 10:37–43 L.115
The question then arises how the narrative of the Jehu Revolution relates to
the Elisha legends. 116 Since Elisha only appears in 9:1, with his speech continu-
ing through 9:3, one is left with the impression that Elisha plays only a subsidi-
ary role within the text. It is not even Elisha himself who goes to Jehu; rather
he sends one of the sons of the prophets. 117 Additionally, the text identifies Eli-
sha as “the prophet,” which may seem unimportant initially, but “prophet” is
actually a relatively unusual term for him. Generally, the Elisha legends ident-
ify him as “the man of God,” ‫איש האלהים‬.118 The text of Kings only recognizes
Elisha as “the prophet” in this story, occasionally in a few of the later legends
about the Arameans, 119 and the redactional expansion of the tale of the war
———————————
113 Cf. 1 Kings 1:1; 11:26; 15:25; 20:1.
114 Contra Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 328. Würthwein’s arguments in favor of
regarding the text in 2 Kings 8:28–29 as original are not persuasive given the other evi-
dence at hand. Cf. Albert Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt
(Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament; Münster i. Westf.: Aschendorffsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912), 121. Since this assumption provides the basis of
Würthwein’s literary criticism for all of chapter 9, removing it causes his literary critical
analysis to collapse, as the exposition of the Jehu revolution would be missing should one
remove 2 Kings 8:28–29 and then begin the story only at verse 9:14a as Würthwein does.
For this reason, Würthwein’s literary critical analysis of this chapter should be avoided.
For a more complete discussion of the problems of Würthwein’s argumentation, cf. Otto,
Jehu, 60–65. The suggestion of Barré (cf. Lloyd Milton Barré, “The Rhetoric of Political
Persuasion: An Examination of the Literary Features and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9–
11” [Ph.D. diss., Nashville: Vanderbilt University, 1986], 23–25) that 14b–15a represent
the originally beginning of the narrative but were later placed in the middle of the narrative
fails to convince and should be rejected. Lectio difficilior and the lack of textual evidence
preclude his reading as the original. 2 Kings 9:14–15 have the appearance of a narrative
aside, reminding the reader of some previous event before continuing in the narrative; cf.
below.
115 Cf. the discussion to these verses and 9:14–16 below.
116 Cf. Kittel, Könige, 227–28.
117 Any attempt to remove the son of the prophet from the text using the tools of literary criti-
cism does irreparable damage to the text. Try as I might, I cannot remove him from the text
and therefore must assume that he is original to the pericope. Any attempt to remove him
would require removing the entire exposition of the story and decapitating the narrative.
118 26 times. Cf. 2 Kings 4:16, 21, 22, 25 (2x), 27 (2x); 5:7, 8, 14, 15, 20; 6:6, 9, 10, 15; 7:2,
17, 18, 19; 8:2, 4, 7, 8, 11; and 13:19.
119 2 Kings 5:3, 8, 13; and 6:12.
against Moab, 120 a text used to highlight the significance of Jehoshaphat, which
is obviously not original in that context. One should also note that only at this
point in the entire Hebrew Bible does the narrator speak of Elisha as “the
prophet.” 121 It seems likely therefore that this identification of Elisha as a
prophet can be used to distinguish the story of Jehu from the other Elisha tales.
Only on this occasion does Elisha not have visions or perform miracles or other
rituals, which places him in a completely different narrative function than the
other stories about him. True, he bases his statements on the words of ‫יהוה‬,
however, it is never reported how, when, or where Elisha received these words
from ‫יהוה‬. For these reasons, I suggest that the author of this recounting of the
Jehu Revolution and the author(s) of the Elisha stories are not identical. The
texts must have been redacted together at a time later than their initial composi-
tion. “[T]he connection with the Elisha cycle is peripheral.” 122The third point
that needs consideration is the use (and repetition) of ‫ הנער‬in 9:4. Previously,
the text had mentioned “one of the sons of the prophets” ( ‫ )אחד מבני הנביאים‬and
not “the servant” (‫)הנער‬. The use of ‫ הנער‬in this case represents both a gram-
matical error (should the phrase be understood as being in the construct state as
the Vulgate and Targum understood it) 123 and an attempt to prevent confusion
about the subject. Previously Elisha was identified as the prophet. To prevent
anyone from confusing Elisha with the son of the prophet, someone presum-
ably added the word ‫הנער‬. This would also bring the text in line with other Eli-
sha stories familiar to the reader of the text in its current edition: namely the
texts about Gehazi, Elisha’s servant. 124 The inclusion of this word therefore
———————————
120 2 Kings 3:11. Cf. Erasmus Gass, “Topical Considerations and Redaction Criticism in 2
Kings 3,” JBL 128, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 65–84.
121 Every other time that Elisha is identified as a prophet, it comes from the mouth of another
character: ‫ יהוה‬in 1 Kings 19:16; a servant of the King of Israel in 2 Kings 3:11 (deter-
mined by context); the Israelite maid servant of Naaman’s wife in 5:3; Elisha himself in
5:8; Naaman’s servants in 5:13; and one of the servants of the King of Aram in 6:12.
122 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 119.
123 The word would be definite in two different manners: through the article and through the
determinative of the nomen rectum ‫הנביא‬
124 Cf. 2 Kings 4–5 and, most importantly, 8.
represents a gloss, 125 presumably at or after the inclusion of the Jehu Revolu-
tion into the Elisha cycle. 126
Secondary additions are also conspicuous in the vv. 6–10. The text has
been expanded such that the words of the son of the prophet no longer accu-
rately reproduce the words of Elisha (in 9:3) and Jehu (in 9:12). This implies a
tension in the text, which must be addressed. These additions have traditionally
been identified as Deuteronomistic, which seems plausible. 127 At any rate, they
provide the motive for the murder of Ahab’s family in theological and histori-
cal terms, in this instance based particularly on the Elijah narrative. 128 The ele-
ments to be removed from the Jehu story: ‫ אלהי ישראל‬and ‫ עם יהוה‬in v. 6 and the
whole of vv. 7–10a. 129
The material in 14b–15a can be found in two other related accounts: 8:28–
29 and 9:16 . Verses 14b–15a have often been interpreted as disturbing their
current literary context. 130 We have already seen that 8:28–29 do not belong to
the original narrative of the Jehu revolution, however we must consider the
———————————
125 Cf. Kittel, Könige, 229, who identifies the gloss somewhat differently.
126 I find the argument of Schenker, Textgeschichte, 127–28, that the “prophet = servant” here
should be regarded as Elijah returned to earth, highly suspicious. Schenker does not ade-
quately consider the textual evidence here and leaves the modern exegete wondering why,
if it were the case that Elijah returned to earth to anoint Jehu, the text does not make this
more explicit. The theory of Elijah’s implicit return being found exclusively in MT here is
too speculative for me. Rather, a literary critical solution should be sought.
127 Cf. 1 Kings 14:11 and 16:4. Cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 118 and Steven L.
McKenzie, “Dog Food and Bird Food: The Oracles Against the Dynasties in the Book of
Kings,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic His-
tory (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville; Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2000), 407–9.
128 Cf. 1 Kings 18:4; 19:10, 14; and 21:21–24.
129 This is contra Lamb, Righteous Jehu , 54–56, who suggests that all of 6–10 is
Deuteronomistic. This is improbable as verse 5 cannot lead directly into verse 11 without
doing irreparable damage to the text. Lamb offers this suggestion in order to demonstrate
that the Deuteronomist placed special emphasis on Jehu. However, as the anointing of
Jehu has nothing inherently Deuteronomistic about it, it would be better to only remove
the clearly Deuteronomistic elements from the text. Had Lamb offered a thorough literary-
critical analysis of the text, he may have arrived at other conclusions.
130 Cf. e.g., Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments; vierte unveränderte Auflage (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.,
1963), 286–87.
relationship between 14b–15a and 16 .131 Trebolle-Barrera has successfully

argued that the version of 2 Kings 9:16 (minus “in Ramath”) is older than
MT.132 Presumably at some point in the textual history of Kings, someone
jumped from the information about Jehu’s conspiracy against Joram into the
background story of Joram prematurely. Parablepsis could have been the cause,
or a familiarity with the narrative, such that a copyist at some point included
14b–15a at a point in the narrative earlier than where it normally stood, namely
at 9:16. This led to a duplication of the text that was later corrected in MT,
albeit by accepting the younger text and deleting the original. It is not entirely
possible to determine at what redactional level 14b–15a entered the text. As
Vaticanus reads the longer form of 9:16, it is possible that the secondary dupli-
cation was corrected in MT at some point after the καιγε-recension, though this
cannot be more specifically ascertained. The original narrative included the
pertinent information about Joram and Ahaziahu’s presence at Jezreel only in
verse 16.
Several factors have led commentators to regard verses 25–26, or at least
some portions of them, as secondary to the story of Jehu’s revolt. 133 Susanne
Otto regards these two verses as a later expansion of the text combined with v.
21b.134 The references to Naboth provide her singular allowance to this conclu-
sion. Minokami puts the verses on a couple of different redactional levels, 26b
being an “early Chronistic” 135 expansion of 25–26a and the rest of the material
coming from an earlier secondary redaction, since v. 27 can be easily con-
nected to v. 24 without any conspicuous tensions; and the usages of the termi-
nology ‫ נאם יהוה‬and ‫ משא‬bother Minokami. 136 Würthwein maintains similar
———————————
131 As Würthwein (Ernst Würthwein, “Die Revolution Jehus: Die Jehu-Erzählung in
Altisraelitischer und Deuteronomistischer Sicht,” ZAW 120, no. 1 [2008]: 32–33) does not
even consider the Greek version of 4 Reigns 9, especially in these verses, his position must
be rejected. The problems he identifies are all within the Hebrew version of the text, and
are less problematic in the older Greek manuscripts.
132 Cf. Julio C. Trebolle-Barrera, Jehú y Joás: Texto y composición literaria de 2 Re 9–11
(Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984), 121–25.
133 E.g., Yoshikazu Minokami, Die Revolution des Jehu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1989), 34–39; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Elisa; traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 1972), 26–27; and McKenzie, “Dog Food,” 410–12.
134 Cf. Otto, Jehu, 56.
135 Minokami, Jehu, 34.
136 Cf. Minokami, Jehu, 38–39.
arguments. 137 Some matters suggest that these opinions may not be totally
accurate.
Relying on the references to Naboth is not a satisfactory methodology for
removing the elements. Simply because we have another tradition about
Naboth elsewhere in the Bible, we are not justified in assuming that whoever
redacted this material together would have simply added it here to make a bet-
ter fit.138 This becomes especially obvious when one considers how poor the
join is: the terminology differs (‫ חלקה‬in 2 Kings 9:21–26 vs. ‫ כרם‬and ‫ נחלה‬in
1 Kings 21), the situation differs (Naboth’s sons were also killed according to
2 Kings 9, whereas 1 Kings 21 does not mention any offspring), 139 and the
recipient of the prophetic announcement against Ahab differs (Elijah in
1 Kings 21 vs. Jehu [also witnessed by Bidkar] in 2 Kings 9). 140 Bearing this in
mind, it seems unlikely that 2 Kings 9:21–26 and 1 Kings 21 came from the
same author or redactor. “…[T]he story of Naboth’s death in 1 Kgs 21 is
entirely different from the account in 2 Kgs 9,25–26.” 141 That leaves three
alternatives.
The first option is that the author of 2 Kings 9 knew the story of 1 Kings
21. If this were the case, one wonders why he chose to so dramatically change
———————————
137 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 332–33.
138 Cf. Odil Hannes Steck, Überlieferung und Zeitgeschichte in den Elia-Erzählungen
(WMANT 26; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 32–38, who considers the
oldest connections between these two narratives being based on oral tradition (therefore
the need for an “überlieferungsgeschichtliche Näherbestimmung;” cf. Steck,
Überlieferung und Zeitgeschichte , 32–33).
139 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 98–100 argues that the Ant.’s identification of Naboth having a
son as recounted in 3 Reigns 20:27 is original to the text on the basis of lectio difficilior. I
find this argumentation unconvincing: the more difficult reading would remain silent
about any potential heir of Naboth, as is the case in both LXX and MT. The inclusion of
Naboth’s son in the text represents a secondary addition to the text in order to preclude
someone raising just that question: if Naboth died, why didn’t his son simply inherit the
vineyard? Ant. answers: because Ahab killed him, too. Lectio brevior also favors the read-
ing of MT and LXX.
140 J. Maxwell Miller, “The Fall of the House of Ahab,” VT 17 (1967): 314 adds to this list of
conspicuous differences: “…the former account [1 Kings 21] unquestionably assumes that
the murder [of Naboth] took place during Ahab’s reign, while the latter implies that the
event occurred immediately before ( ‫ )אמש‬Jehoram’s death.” This supposition ignores the
fact the oracle was set up as being originally delivered during Ahab’s reign; there is no
contradiction between 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9 on this matter. Miller’s statement here
remains simply incorrect.
141 Nadav Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the
Omrides,” Bib 78 (1997): 168.
the elements of the story to fit his needs. A similar argument could be made
about the author of 1 Kings 21 knowing the story of 2 Kings 9. 142 The third
alternative is that each of these traditions about Ahab and his relation to
Naboth developed independently of one another. This seems to be the most
likely option given the available evidence. 143 Three texts work together to com-
bine these two traditions about Naboth: 2 Kings 9:10a + 36 (see below) and
1 Kings 21:23 + 27–29, which transfers the downfall of Ahab to the downfall
of Ahab’s house, i.e., into the generation of his son(s). These texts, and only
these texts, make the connection of the stories in 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9
explicit; and they display a secondary character in their contexts. It seems that
the redactor who added 2 Kings 9:10a + 36 knew 1 Kings 21 and the redactor
who added 1 Kings 21:23 + 27–29 144 was familiar with 2 Kings 9, suggesting
that they may have been the same person.
The issue that really seems to bother such exegetes is the prophetic nature
of the text in 2 Kings 9:25b–26. However, this text is unique in Kings, in that a
king (or at least a non-prophet) recounts a prophetic word to his subordinate
(and, by proxy, to the listener or reader of the text 145) without making any ref-
erence to the prophet who received this word. In this instance, it appears that
Jehu received the prophetic word, not Elijah! If the author were familiar with
this Elijah tradition, he presumably would have included some reference to it.
As evidence to support this claim, one must consider the other notices of pro-
phetic fulfillment in the story of Jehu: 9:36; 10:10; and 10:17. All three of
———————————
142 Miller (Miller, “House of Ahab,” 316) ascribes to this position, asserting the historical pri-
ority of 2 Kings 9 vis-à-vis 1 Kings 21. White (Marsha White, “Naboth’s Vineyard and
Jehu’s Coup: The Legitimation of a Dynastic Extermination,” VT 44, no. 1 [January
1994]: 69) also dates 2 Kings 9 as the older tradition, considering the tale in 1 Kings 21 to
be a retelling of the story through the lens of the David and Bathsheba story in 2 Samuel
11–12.
143 Cf. Gray, Kings, 548 and B. D. Napier, “The Omrides of Jezreel,” VT 9 (1959): 377.
144 It is entirely possible, however, that the redactor who added 1 Kings 21:27–29 MT was
familiar with the Jehu narrative already including the Deuteronomistic elements in 2 Kings
9:10a + 36. This becomes all the more likely as Jepsen (Alfred Jepsen, “Ahabs Busse: Ein
kleiner Beitrag zur Methode literarhistorischer Einordnung,” in Archäologie und Altes
Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling [ed. Arnulf Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch; Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1970], 145–55) has satisfactorily demonstrated that 1 Kings
21:27–29 MT appear to have come from a post-Deuteronomistic, pre-Chronistic redaction.
145 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 333.
these make explicit reference to Elijah, unlike the prophetic notice in 9:25b–
26. This suggests that Elijah was not the recipient of this prophecy. 146
The remarkably positive image of Jehu as the recipient of this prophecy
has led Otto to date this “redaction” within the dynastic monarchy of the Jehu-
ides,147 even though she dates the original story as coming from the reign of
Jeroboam II. 148 Such a rapid writing and editing of a text (two editions within a
maximum of 40 years, both from the same social milieu) seems rather hasty.
Either the redaction or the original text, but not both, should be dated to the
time of Jeroboam II. 149 It seems more likely that the verses mentioning Naboth
were original within the text, providing it with a sense of more historical reli-
ability by naming the property of Naboth as the location of the actual revolu-
tion and providing the name of Jehu’s officer. 150 Verses 25–26 do not disturb
the context; they serve a narrative function, 151 briefly pausing the action before
allowing it to race forward with the second regicide, and are original to the
tale.152
“[2. Kön.] 9,29 ist offensichtlich ein Einschub, dessen synchronistische
Angabe aus 8,25 vgl. mit 3,1 errechnet ist ohne Berücksichtigung der dabei
vorliegenden antedatierenden Zählweise.” 153 Verse 29 disturbs the context in
———————————
146 Cf. Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Elisa, 122–23 n. 246. Contra Wray Beal, Prophet, 50–51.
Wray Beal regards the Jehu story in its context as part of the uniform Deuteronomistic
History and therefore sees a priori the connectedness of this text to 1 Kings 19 and 21.
The current work undertakes, among other things, a redaction history as part of its analysis
and must therefore disregard redactional connections as being original to the text.
149 While Otto does not explicitly date her redaction to the time of Jeroboam II, she does not
deny this option either. I believe that she would agree that the six month reign of Zecha-
riah as recorded in Kings (2 Kings 15:8) would be too short of a time to responsibly date a
redaction of such a text, especially if one believes that the dynasty was losing its hold dur-
ing that period.
150 By providing the exegete with historical sounding evidence nothing has been said about
the actual historicity of the events described.
151 Cf. Saul M. Olyan, “Hasalôm: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9,” CBQ 46, no. 4
(October 1984): 667–68, who recognized that this verse serves a justification for Jehu’s
revolt.
152 The other argument raised against the originality of vv. 25–26 is of a practical nature:
Ahaziahu would not wait around until after the body was thrown from the chariot before
turning and fleeing. Evidence for the narrative function I have suggested can also be found
in such a practical approach in my opinion: in terms of practicality, Ahaziahu wouldn’t
have waited until Joram was dead in order to flee; he would have abandoned the cause as
soon as Jehu drew his bow, had the only consideration been practicality.
153 Noth, ÜGS, 84 n. 2.
its current form. It is almost identical with the introduction of Ahaziahu’s reign,
recounted in 2 Kings 8:25 and the conclusion in 10:43 (Ant.), but there are
some differences that are worth noting. First of all, two different years are men-
tioned: in 8:25 it is 12, 154 but in 9:29 it is universally recorded as 11. The text
of 9:29 has also been reduced from that of 8:25, by removing the phrase
‫ מלך ישראל‬after the name Ahab. Also Ahaziahu has a patronym in chapter 8
that is absent in 9:29. The name Ahaziahu is spelled differently: ‫( אחזיה‬9:29)
vs. ‫( אחזיהו‬8:25). From this information, it seems probable that we are dealing
with two different sources in 9:29 and 8:25, or a reduction of 8:25 into 9:29.
When considering these options, one must also note that 9:28 is inextricably
bound to 9:29. Bearing the literary considerations in mind, this seems to sug-
gest that after someone created the framework for Kings, a later redactor added
this notice at 9:28–29 in order to create something like a closing frame for
Ahaziahu King of Judah. A similar phenomenon can be found in 2 Kings 14,
where it appears that a story about an Israelite king has been incorporated into
the framework of a Judean king. 155 By adding 9:28–29 after someone had
already added 8:25, a (presumably) Judean redactor moved the story of Jehu’s
revolution into a Judean context. In this regards, one can also consider
Würthwein’s view: “Von späterer Hand nachgetragen ist die Notiz, daß Ahasja
von Megiddo nach Jerusalem überführt und dort beigesetzt wurde, ebenso die
von seinem Regierungsantritt im 11. Jahr des Joram, wobei mit Absicht
gegenüber 8,25 korrigiert wird, um das Regierungsjahr Ahasjas unter-
zubringen.” 156 If 8:25 represents a later addition at the beginning of 2 Kings 9,
then 9:28–29 represent an even later corrective addition to the text. 157
Interestingly, v. 31 suggests that the author of the Jehu narrative was famil-
iar with the tradition of Zimri killing Elah. As no further attempt is made to
elucidate this story, the author apparently presumes that the audience also
knows this tale. This could represent a potential narrative connection to the
———————————
154 Ant. and the Peshitta emend this to 11; Lectio difficilor favors the reading 12.
155 Cf. the discussion to this passage in chapter 3 beginning on page 86.
156 Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 333.
157 Cf. Barré, “Political Persuasion,” 28–29 for a similar opinion.
Zimri story recounted in 1 Kings 16, which will be explored in ch. 4. 158 Again I
find no grounds here for removing this from the narrative, as there is no literary
critical basis for extracting it.
Verse 36 appears to be an addition to the original text, expanding on Eli-
jah’s oracle pronounced in 1 Kings 21:23 (MT). This suggests a literary rela-
tion to the expansions in 2 Kings 9:6–10, which also contains allusions to the
Elijah narratives. They turn Jehu into an instrument of the revenge of ‫יהוה‬, an
apparently self-aware and willing instrument at that. These words of prophetic
fulfillment are later additions to the text, presumably added on the occasion of
the binding of the Elijah legends with the history of Israel. Verse 36 must be
removed from the tale in order to arrive at the original narrative. Verse 37
seems to be independent from verse 36, however. Elijah’s pronunciation
against Jezebel in 1 Kings 21:23 did not contain any reference to dung ( ‫)דמן‬.
While Weinfeld regards this phrase as being Deuteronomistic, 159 the usages
that he identifies as Deuteronomistic in Jeremiah are distinct from the usage in
2 Kings. The one non-Deuteronomistic attestation of this root in Jeremiah is
Jeremiah 9:21, which is coincidentally the usage that most resembles the usage
in 2 Kings 9:37. Psalm 83:11 also attests this root, suggesting that it is not an
idiom exclusive to Deuteronomistic contexts. In terms of syntax, one might be
———————————
158 Cf. page 130. Gustav Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung in Israel: Untersuchungen zum
Jahvisten und Elohisten (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1952), 398: “Für die Gesamtbeurteilung
der Quellen von Reg ist II 9:31 von Bedeutung, wo Isebel auf den Königsmörder Simri
anspielt; daraus folgt, dass die Geschichte Simris I 16:9–10 in derselben Quelle gestanden
hat, wie die mit der Elisageschichte verbundene Geschichte vom Aufstande Jehus…” As
we have seen, the connection to the Elisha stories is peripheral, but otherwise Hölscher has
noticed an important fact. Saul M. Olyan, “2 Kings 9:31—Jehu as Zimri,” HTR 78, no. 1–
2 Ja-Ap (April 1985): 203–7 argues for a literary pun (based on √‫“ זמר‬to prune”) involving
this announcement and the story of Naboth’s vineyard. This position, while currently accu-
rate due to the final structure of Kings, would be out of place in the original narrative, as it
has been demonstrated that 1 Kings 21 MT and 2 Kings 9 developed independently. Fur-
ther, in his argumentation, he references “the historical Zimri, to whom Jezebel no doubt
alludes,” (Olyan, “Jehu as Zimri,” 204) looking to the historical circumstances behind
these revolts in order to explain the text, although he ultimately settles on the literary
explanation offered above. More significantly than any historical Zimri for this text is the
literary Zimri implied. Only if one knows the biblical texts can the contrast between Jehu
and the failed dynasties of his predecessors (Zimri, placed appropriately in the mouth of
Jezebel) become so prominent. The literary character Zimri is more important for our
understanding of Jezebel’s comment than any historical personage.
159 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 349.
tempted to read the verb as a future tense, as did LXX. 160 However, this under-
standing is not required by the text. For another example of a similar phenome-
non, cf. 2 Kings 14:14. Here the verb should be a simple past tense with the
copula and not understood as being in the future tense. The need for a future
understanding of the verb stems from the introduction of Elijah’s prophetic
remarks in v. 36. What the reader finds in v. 37 originally represented the nar-
rator’s opinion of Jezebel. 161 2 Kings 9:37 parallels verse 10:27, each of which
concludes one episode of Jehu’s story. They lead the reader to the conclusion
that Jehu’s enemies are “shit.”
Chapter 10 presents a few suspicious passages. The first verse that really
merits attention is v. 1b. 162 The text was poorly passed down in this verse,
making a reconstruction of the text more difficult. However, when one consid-
ers the evidence presented by Otto, 163 and my textual reconstruction above, one
arrives at the more plausible original text. The elders and the guardians are sec-
ondary in this context, which is all the more conspicuous based on the missing
copula before ‫הזקנים‬. In 6b Otto (and others) suggests correctly that this half-
verse has the appearance of being a secondary gloss. 164 For further evidence,
one should consider the tension of the 70 sons of the king in v. 6b (context dic-
tates this as either Joram or Jehu, but not Ahab) vis-à-vis the 70 sons of Ahab
in v. 1.
In v. 10 it seems that the Deuteronomist has been at work again, here antic-
ipating again that Jehu sees himself as the fulfillment of prophecy. The explicit
reference to Elijah seems to suggest that this verse was also included as the cul-
mination of the prophetic injunctions against Ahab, added in this instance by
the person who connected this story with the Elijah stories. It also disturbs the
context and tempers Jehu’s feigned surprise at the death of all of these sons of
Ahab. For these reasons, it should be regarded as secondary in this context and
removed from the narrative. Verse 11 should be removed as Deuteronomistic
———————————
160 Cf. Barré, “Political Persuasion,” 29–31 and 58 for a translation using the future, though
Barré regards v. 37 as original. Walsh, “ ‫ ”היה‬also suggests emending the text here in order
to avoid a future understanding of the verb. Such a future tense is unnecessary, though not
totally impossible. The text of 9:37 requires no emendation in the way Walsh suggests.
161 Contra McKenzie, “Dog Food,” 412–13.
162 Contra McKenzie, “Dog Food,” 413, who considers v. 1a as secondary.
163 Cf. Otto, Jehu, 35–36 n. 28.
164 Cf. Otto, Jehu, 68. Contra Stade, “Miscellen,” 275–76.
as well. The use of the phrase ‫ עד בלתי ה שאיר לו שריד‬suggests a Deutero-

nomistic origin. 165 This phrase is frequently used in Deuteronomistic contexts,
e.g., Josh 10:33 and 11:8. The similarity to v. 17b suggests a relationship
between these two verses. 166
The two tales of Jehu on his way from Jezreel to Samaria may not be origi-
nal in this context, 167 but nothing explicitly demands their removal; the pres-
ence of these narratives provides the text with no particular tension. It is diffi-
cult to ascertain why someone would add such subjects at a later date. No
prophecy has been fulfilled, as we have seen in some instances of the additions
up to this point. No expressly Deuteronomistic idiom can be identified. Rather,
it would seem that these stories are original, demonstrating Jehu’s power on the
one hand—his destruction of the princes of Judah—and his piety on the
other168—his confrontation with Jehonadab ben Rechab. These two pieces rep-
resent the tale in a liminal position. In addition to his geographical relocation
from Jezreel to Samaria, Jehu’s “mission” changes from a purely political to a
religious task. With the destruction of the princes of Judah, the final political
disruption has been described. With the introduction of the zealous Jehonadab
ben Rechab, the reader is prepared for the expulsion of Baal that follows. This
suggests a stylistic device by the original author, a device that would be
destroyed by their removal. Both represent Jehu in a positive light, 169 some-
thing that later redaction has dimmed in the final version of the tale (see
below). Thus, I would also suggest maintaining these two tales in the structure
of the narrative. 170 The one exception is the use of the word ‫ בור‬in v. 14, which
———————————
166 Cf. Otto, Jehu, 45–47.
167 Cf. Stade, “Miscellen,” 276–78 and Benzinger, Könige, 149 for such a position.
168 In contrast to some other scholars, I would suggest that “piety” remains an insufficient jus-
tification for identifying a text as Deuteronomistic. One must consider who is being
identified as pious; since Jehu remains a decidedly un-Deuteronomistic king in the final
version of the text, one must ask why the Deuteronomist would add material making him
especially pious.
169 This could be evidence of a northern provenance for these stories.
170 Contra McKenzie, “Dog Food,” 413–15, whose graphic display of the similarities between
1 Kings 15:29; 16:11–12 and 2 Kings 10:11, 17 fails: the most similar portions of these
texts are that which I cut out of 2 Kings 10:17 as secondary; the rest remains decidedly
dissimilar.
is missing in one manuscript and , and should therefore be regarded as a sec-

ondary gloss. 171
2 Kings 10:17b fits within the redactional layer responsible for the intro-
duction of Elijah into the narrative. Jehu’s political ambitions are put in the
context of a prophetic announcement in this verse, which distinguishes it as
secondary and justifies its removal. The use of the phrase ‫את כל הנשארים לאחאב‬
‫ בשמרון עד השמידו‬in 17aβ demonstrates a strong relationship to v. 11, which has
previously been identified as Deuteronomistic. Therefore v. 17b will be
regarded as secondary.
I reject the suggestion that the entirety of the tale in 2 Kings 10:18–27 does
not belong within the original context of the Jehu narrative. 172 Jehu remains the
powerful protagonist; the style is similar; the parallel ending between 9:37 and
10:27 suggests a strong literary tie. In terms of genre, both tales recount the
heroic exploits of Jehu; in terms of tone, they both reflect positively on him.
Further, the doublet that Würthwein identifies in 10:21b and 23 173 does not
represent a tension in the text. 174 In 21b the worshipers of Baal enter the tem-
ple. In 23 Jehu and Jehonadab enter the temple. This means it is not a doublet,
but rather refers to two distinct groups. The text contains no conspicuous ele-
ments that suggest that 10:18–27 should be cut off from the rest of the text and
regarded as independently inserted or secondary.
Verses 26–27a present a kind of virtual doublet, in which v. 26 probably
represents the original text, at least as it is presented in some Hebrew manu-
scripts and the LXX. This was then expanded and redacted into v. 27. In v.
27a, the narrator re-used the verb that opens 27b and repeated information
from 26, but understood the temple of Baal as having more than one pillar. The
original text was unfamiliar with a plurality of pillars; 175 it was then presum-
ably changed to correspond with 2 Kings 17:10 (cf. Hos 10:1–2). The polemic
———————————
171 Cf. Textual Criticism to this verse, above in note 68.
172 Cf. e.g. Christoph Levin, Der Sturz der Königin Atalja: Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas
im 9. Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk GmbH, 1982), 86 n. 9; Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 340–42; Minokami,
Jehu, 96–97; and Juha Pakkala, “Jeroboam’s Sin and Bethel in 1Kgs 12:25–33,” BN 112
(2002): 89 n. 19, who without further comment writes: “It is probable that v. 17 was origi-
nally continued by v. 30 so that v. 18–29 would derive from a later editor.”
175 Cf. Benzinger, Könige, 154 and above, note 87.
Deuteronomistic language is clear in 2 Kings 17 (cf. also 1 Kings 14:23),

therefore the plurality of pillars will be regarded as Deuteronomistic in 2 Kings
10. The verb √‫ נתץ‬occurs repeatedly in the story of “Josiah’s Reform” in
2 Kings 23, and matches the usage in v. 27a, i.e., tearing down cultic objects,
but not whole temples, as we find in 2 Kings 10:26. Verse 27b represents a dif-
ferent usage, found also in 2 Kings 11:18. In summary, it appears that the
Deuteronomist added 27a into the text, making the people’s action a bit more
like that of Josiah’s. In order to do this, he re-used the vocabulary already pres-
ent in the text. This refocusing on the people deprives Jehu of some of the posi-
tive support in the original narrative, placing it on his followers instead, as
implied by the plural verb.
The additional material in 10:27 (Ant.) seems to be original to the narra-
tive. It remains most implausible that someone would add the comments that
Jehu personally smashed the pillar of Baal, after his servants burned it, and cast
it aside. Its affinity with the material about Josiah (cf. especially 2 Kings 23:6–
7 and 14–15) should be explained as a casting of Josiah’s reign in terms famil-
iar from the Jehu revolution as opposed to the other way around. One should
note the much more expansive narrative recounting the purgation in Josiah’s
reign when compared to that of Jehu. Josiah’s cultic purge remains much more
in line with the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic idiom; Deuteronomy 7:5 and
12:3 prescribe the regimen that must be undertaken against foreign cults: 1)
their altars (‫ )מזבח‬must be broken down (‫ ;)נתץ‬2) their pillars (‫ )מצבה‬must be
smashed (‫ ;)שבר‬3) their sacred poles (‫ )אשרה‬must be cut down (‫ ;)גדע‬and 4)
their idols (‫ )פסיל‬must be burnt (‫)שרף‬.176 The only person identified with these
four verbs in histories of Israel and Judah is Josiah; cf. 2 Chr 34:4–7. Josiah
fulfills three of the four demands in Deuteronomy 12:3 in 2 Kings 23:14–15,
whereas Jehu in 2 Kings 9:26–27 (Ant.) fulfills one: he smashes ( ‫ )שבר‬the pil-
lar (‫)מצבה‬. He does not cast down (‫ )נתץ‬the altar (‫ )מזבח‬or burn (‫ )שרף‬the sacred
pole (‫)אשרה‬. For these reasons, it seems more likely that the Jehu narrative
inspired later redactors to cast their protagonists (cf. also Jehoash in 2 Kings
11:18 and Hezekiah in 18:4) in a light similar to Jehu than the other way
around. Later editors of the text found this positive image of Jehu problematic
———————————
176 Deuteronomy 12:3 reverses the last two: the sacred poles ( ‫ )אשרה‬should be burnt (‫)שרף‬,
while the idols (‫ )פסיל‬must be cast down (‫)גדע‬.
and began deleting portions of it. Therefore the Antiochene text of 2 Kings
9:27 is presumably the oldest. The first portion of the verse (27a MT) is
Deuteronomistic, but the rest belongs to the oldest narrative about Jehu.
Verse 10:29 represents a clear Deuteronomistic redaction. It contradicts
the verses that surround it, both of which speak positively of Jehu, namely that
he wiped the Baal out of Israel and that ‫ יהוה‬spoke to him.
According to 2 Kings 9–10, Jehu showed himself to be a wholly faithful Yahwist,
so zealous for Yahweh (10.16) in fact that he slaughtered every worshiper of Baal
in the Northern Kingdom and destroyed the temple of Baal in the capital city of
Samaria (10.21–27)… Thus, in his summary evaluation, Dtr (whose sources did
not indicate that Jehu also destroyed the idols and the sanctuaries at Bethel and
Dan) criticizes Jehu for following in the ‘sins of Jeroboam’—that is, ‘the calves of
gold which were in Bethel and in Dan’. 177
The same can be said of v. 31, which I would ascribe to the same redactor as
29.178 In order to temper the greatness of Jehu as presented in this story, the
redactor added comments that Jehu did not fulfill the law and turn from the sin
of Jeroboam. This is clear Deuteronomistic language and belongs to that stage
of the redaction of the story. These verses will be removed as secondary expan-
sions.
The fact that ‫ יהוה‬speaks to Jehu in 10:30 will not be removed. While some
have identified this as Deuteronomistic or a post-Deuteronomistic gloss, 179 I
find this improbable. In the whole of Kings, ‫ יהוה‬is said to have only spoken to
two other kings, namely David and Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 8:18, 23; 9:3; 11:11).
———————————
177 Mark W. Bartusch, Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and
Ancestor (JSOTSup; London; New York, NY: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 216.
178 This opinion contradicts D. Carl Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testa-
ment mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Sammlung
theologischer Lehrbücher; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1912), 363, who incor-
rectly identifies 31b as a Wiederaufnahme of 29, thus cutting 30–31a out of the original
narrative.
179 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 343. Another example of such thinking: “In order
to account for the special status implied by the duration of this line on the throne, Dtr
employs the concept of the ‘royal grant’ to explain the unshakable nature of Jehu’s house-
hold.” (E. Theodore Mullen, “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the
Books of Kings,” JBL 107, no. 2 [1988]: 194) Contrast that with: “This promise [2 Kings
10:30], with its obvious positive connotations, interrupts the standard deuteronomistic
evaluation of the king.” (Mullen, “Dynastic Grant,” 197) And: “…Dtr notes at a later point
in the narrative that such efforts [removing Baal from Israel] had not been completely suc-
cessful (2 Kgs 13:6)” (Mullen, “Dynastic Grant,” 198). Mullen thus creates a disparate
image of the Deuteronomist. He offers no further comment on this apparent contradiction.
Either the Deuteronomist added 29 and 31 or 30, but not both.
There is no mention of such a conversation with either Hezekiah or Josiah,

which one would expect if the ideology of ‫ יהוה‬speaking with kings were espe-
cially Deuteronomistic. Why should Jehu have this honor ascribed to him by
the Deuteronomist, an honor reserved only for David and Solomon otherwise?
More probably one must suspect a pre-Deuteronomistic tradition containing
‫ יהוה‬talking to Jehu that was adapted by the Deuteronomist or another pre-
Deuteronomistic editor. 180 The only suspiciously Deuteronomistic element of
the verse are the two words ‫הי שר בעיני‬, which are often used in a
Deuteronomistic context. 181 Only four texts in the Hebrew Bible have ‫ יהוה‬mak-
ing this statement in reference to ‫’יהוה‬s own eyes,182 which suggests that this
usage is distinct from the stereotypical Deuteronomistic usage. 2 Kings 10:30
remains unique among these four uses in that it is the only usage of this phrase
in which ‫ יהוה‬is not speaking to a prophet. 183 This phrase can also be found out-
side of the Deuteronomistic History, in Exodus 15:26 ( ‫)הישר בעיניו‬. This sug-
gests at least the possibility that 2 Kings 10:30 does not have to be
Deuteronomistic. Further, the term ‫ הטיבת‬only occurs here in 2 Kings 10:30 and
1 Kings 8:18. While 1 Kings 8:18 is a Deuteronomistic text, the sparsity of this
usage demonstrates that this was not standard phraseology for the Deutero-
nomist. One would expect to find this more often, were such the case. The syn-
———————————
180 Presumably this may have also required a change in God’s promise to Jehu, which is
restated when it is fulfilled in 2 Kings 15:12, with the term “fourth generation” spelled
plene. I would suggest that the text originally read “forty sons (or generations), ‫בנים ארבעים‬,
which was emended by removing the ‫ ם‬and the ‫א‬. This promise would be much more sub-
stantial and fitting with the positive and powerful description of Jehu presented in this
text. It would have been changed to make the text correspond with the reality of the
dynasty. This led to the curious √‫רבע‬, which occurs in a very limited number of texts in
this form, none of which contain the word “sons” directly before: Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num
14:18; Deut 5:9; and 1 Kings 7:5 (here meaning “square”). However, since this is most
speculative, and I have no textual authorities on which to base it, I will merely mention it
as a possibility without using it further in my exegesis. The promise of a dynasty of four
generations—actually five, counting Jehu—is still greater than what any other dynasty in
Israel had achieved. This promise of four generations could also imply a historical context
seeking to found the accession of Zechariah ben Jeroboam II, if one considers the findings
of Tadmor regarding Assyrian inscriptions being composed in order to support the acces-
sion of one’s son to the throne. Cf. Hayim Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology in the
Royal Assyrian Literature,” in History, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in
Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures (ed. Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld; Jerusalem:
The Magnes Press: The Hebrew University, 1983), 36–57.
181 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 335 and 1 Kings 11:33 and 38.
182 1 Kings 11:33; 14:8; 2 Kings 10:30 and Jeremiah 34:15.
183 In the other occurrences, ‫ יהוה‬speaks to Ahijah of Shiloh and Jeremiah.
tax of these usages is completely distinct, even though it is ‫ יהוה‬speaking in

both instances. 184 In the original story about Jehu, it is not surprising that Jehu
communicates with ‫ ;יהוה‬as we have already seen, he was familiar with a proph-
ecy against Ahab in 9:25–26. Klostermann regards the phrase ‫ככל אשר בלבבי‬
‫ עשית לבית אחאב‬as a secondary gloss, basing ‫’יהוה‬s original promise only on
Jehu’s interaction against Ahab’s descendents and ignoring his crusade against
the Baal-cult.185 This position is tenable and opens the consideration of a Dtr
gloss in the verse. The removal of such a gloss would also alleviate the curious
syntax of the verse, being as ‫ יהוה‬provides too many reasons for the continua-
tion of Jehu’s dynasty. The usage of ‫ בית אחאב‬can only be found in
Deuteronomistic contexts in Kings, most importantly in the Jehu narrative in
2 Kings 9:7–9 and 10:10. 186 On the one hand this ignoring of Jehu’s cultic pur-
gation would be consistent with the Deuteronomistic additions in this pericope
(cf. 10:29 and 31), while on the other hand the unconditional nature of ‫’יהוה‬s
promise to a Northern King remains outstanding in Deuteronomistic history.
Therefore, the phrase ‫ ככל אשר בלבבי עשית לבית אחאב‬will be removed from
2 Kings 10:30 as secondary. Finally, 2 Kings 10:30* stands in tension with the
surrounding verses, namely 29 and 31, which are both clearly Deutero-
nomistic.187 This implies either more than one contradicting Deuteronomist
editor (something which cannot be founded on the basis of this text alone) or a
single Deuteronomist framing a positive assessment of Jehu with two negative
comments to remove some of the splendor of this positive evaluation. At this
juncture and based on the evidence at hand, it appears that 2 Kings 10:30*
belongs to the original story of Jehu’s revolution. 188 Its overwhelmingly posi-
tive image of Jehu also fits with the tone of the rest of Jehu’s story.
———————————
184 In 1 Kings 8:18 Solomon cites an otherwise unknown conversation between David and
‫יהוה‬.
185 Cf. August Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Kurzgefaßter Kommentar
zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments sowie zu den Apokryphen;
Nördlingen: C.H. Beck, 1887), 426.
186 For the ideological implications of this term, cf. Tomoo Ishida, “The House of Ahab,” in
History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel (ed. Tomoo Ishida; Leiden; Boston; Köln:
Brill, 1999), 97–100 (= Tomoo Ishida, “The House of Ahab,” IEJ 25 [1975]: 135–37).
187 Note the phrases ‫חטאי ירבעם בן נבט‬, ‫לא סר יהוא מאחריהם‬, ‫ללכת בתורת יהוה‬, ‫בכל לבבו‬, and ‫לא סר‬
‫מעל חטאות ירבעם‬. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 334 and 337.
188 Cf. James A. Montgomery, Author, Henry Snyder Gehman, Editor, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 411–
12, who find two hands at work here, but leave positive and negative comments in each.
In order to tarnish Jehu’s reputation, a redactor added vv. 32–33, claiming

that Jehu lost extensive territories to Hazael of Aram. In the current context it
reads like the result of his apostasy mentioned in 10:31. Presumably the inclu-
sion of these historical notes at this point in the story stems from the same pen
as 10:31. The concluding notes in 10:34–36 do not necessarily have to be from
the Deuteronomist, although most exegetes anticipate all such concluding notes
belonging to one level of redaction. Martin Noth claims that Dtr “seinem gan-
zen Geschichtswerk ein festes chronologische Gerüst zu geben sich bemüht
hat.”189 This, however, is incomplete even in the book of Kings, not to mention
Samuel, Judges, and Joshua. This style is easy enough to copy, however; there
is nothing to prevent it from having been original here and then used and
expanded in other contexts. One should also consider Jepsen’s criticism of
Noth’s Dtr: “Wenn Dtr. den chronologischen Rahmen wirklich freigeschaffen
hat, auf Grund der ihm vorliegenden Quellen, wenn er also auf diesen Rahmen
Wert legte, warum hat er ihn dann an manchen Stellen umgegangen, [sic!] wie
bei der Revolution Jehus?” 190 Verses 34–36 provide the concluding summary
to Jehu’s reign in this case and are unique in terms of format. 191 Without this
information, the tale remains somewhat incomplete. Verse 30 would not be an
inappropriate ending for a story, as the reader would be left wondering if ‫’יהוה‬s
promise were fulfilled or not. With this anticipation, one would have to expect
the story to continue. The reader is prepared for this as well with the death of
Jehu in vv. 34–36, which may have originally continued on to the reign of his
son in 2 Kings 13:1. Beyond this, one should note that the phrase “and all his
might” ‫ וכל גבורתו‬directly contradicts the preceding statements in vv. 32–33,
which describe Jehu’s defeat and loss of land. For these reasons, one should
regard verses 32–33 and 34–36 as coming from the different hands.
At this point we should also briefly consider the extensive plus in the
Antiochene tradition at the end of 10:36. When compared to Leningradensis,
———————————
189 Noth, ÜGS, 74. As an example of such an implicit understanding: “We have seen that for
each king whose reign is summarized by a reference to his fighting, his might, or both, the
Dtr relates in some detail the historical basis of the reference.” Na’aman, “Prophetic Sto-
ries,” 168.
190 Jepsen, Quellen, 100–101.
191 The closest stylistic match to this concluding frame can be found in the concluding notice
of David’s reign in 1 Kings 2:10–11, although there are still some distinctions between the
two notices.
Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, v. 36 offers the following additional information

in the Antiochene text: In Athaliah’s (!) second year, ‫ יהוה‬made Jehu king! The
reference to Athaliah seems out of place here, both contradicting 9:27
(“Ahaziahu king of Judah”) and framing Jehu’s narrative within a Judean con-
text. The material about Ahaziahu in verses 37–43 is strikingly reminiscent of
the opening of his reign in 2 Kings 8:25–28; 9:14a + 29—even repeating the
Deuteronomistic evaluation in 10:39 offered already in 8:28—and offers a
summary of the relevant material presented about Jehu from a Judean perspec-
tive.192 Two factors should be considered here: 1) it is more likely that a later
redactor/recensor (i.e., one preceding MT, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) would
remove this second occurrence of this information rather than that someone
would later add it. 193 Three factors suggest this: a) it suggests that Athaliah was
a legitimate queen of Judah, a fact not present in 2 Kings 11; b) it suggests that
‫ יהוה‬personally made Jehu king of Israel, something not said about any other
king of Israel or Judah, other than Saul, something which ‫ יהוה‬regretted;194 it is
implausible that later redactors would add this material, but understandable that
someone would remove it; c) the notice in 10:37–43 regarding Ahaziahu of
Judah could have been viewed as an unnecessary duplication of the material
present in all traditions at 8:25–29 + 9:1–29 and was therefore removed. 2)
Trebolle-Barrera has successfully demonstrated that at a later phase in the his-
tory of the book of Kings, the material found in the “Lucianic” plus was
divided up and spread throughout the narrative of Jehu’s revolution. 195 This
later material can be found in 8:25–29 + 9:14a + 9:29, with some minor addi-
tions, and implies that these verses are therefore secondary in their current con-
text. The irony is that at a later stage in the history of the text of Kings, these
later scattered notices were accepted into the text, whereas the original material
was deleted in the tradition of Vaticanus, Leningradensis, et al. The deletion
———————————
192 To these passages and the following material about the Antiochene plus at 4 Reigns 10:36,
cf. Trebolle-Barrera, Jehú y Joás, 110–18.
193 Contra Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in
the Books of Kings (VTSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 33 and Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-
Studien III, 276–77.
194 Cf. e.g. 1 Samuel 15:11.
195 Cf. Trebolle-Barrera, Jehú y Joás, 118–25 and Julio C. Trebolle-Barrera, “Redaction,
Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah:
Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon
McConville; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 482–83.
must have occurred in the Hebrew text at some time before the καιγε-
recension, which would have removed it from the parallel Greek tradition in
order to make it more consistent with the contemporary Hebrew text. 196 The
duplication caused by the dissemination of the various Judean elements of
4 Reigns 10:37–43 into 2 Kings 8–9 eventually led to the deletion of the older
material only found in the “Lucianic” textual tradition.
The question then becomes how the texts 10:32–33, 34–36, and 37– 43 are
related to one another. In verses 32–33 the reader encounters material similar
to verses 29 and 31. Verses 32–33 have the same overall negative opinion of
Jehu. This distinguishes them from verses 30 and 34–36. The concluding
notice mentioning that the kingship in Israel passed onto Jehu’s son fits the
context of the promise of ‫ יהוה‬in v. 30 and would be an appropriate continua-
tion; the reader discovers that at least the first part of the promise of ‫ יהוה‬was
fulfilled. In terms of language, there is nothing inherently Deuteronomistic in v.
34–36 unless one accepts the framework of Kings as Deuteronomistic from the
outset. The only material that can be considered an addition within vv. 34–36
is the synchronistic notice regarding Athaliah found in the Antiochene plus.
This material clearly comes from a Judean context, recasting the Israelite mate-
rial about Jehu within Judean history. It should be removed as secondary. 197
With all of this in mind, one can consider verses 34–36* as the continuation of
verse 30, with verses 32–33 being added later to tarnish the reputation of Jehu.
This may have been pre-Dtr, post-Dtr, or Deuteronomistic, but at this level
since nothing suggests that it is not Deuteronomistic and since it contributes to
the overall negative image of Jehu that the Deuteronomist favored, it will be
regarded as Deuteronomistic. 198 The material may also be from a source that
———————————
196 As Josephus does not comment on this material, presumably it had been removed from the
tradition by the time he familiarized himself with it; cf. Christopher T. Begg and Paul
Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 8–10 (Flavius Josephus: Translation and
Commentary 5; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005), 164 n. 595.
197 For a discussion of the opening Judean frames of Kings within the redaction history of the
book, cf. Ch. 3.
198 2 Kings 10:32–33 could also represent a Judean text; cf. 2 Kings 12:18–19, which pre-
sumes the same historical situation and has a very similar style to the notice in 10:31–33.
The only information in 2 Kings 10:32–33 that makes a Deuteronomistic theologizing
impression is 32a, which casts Hazael’s actions in a theological light, usurping his destruc-
tion of Israel into ‫’יהוה‬s doing. Whether 10:32–33 is Deuteronomistic in its whole or only
in a portion cannot be ultimately decided with any certainty, but what remains certain is
that 10:32–33 definitely represent secondary additions in their current context. I find it
the redactor thought to be historical, i.e., one must not assume that the informa-
tion added at a later date must be regarded as less historically accurate than the
older material. The redactor may have chosen this information merely to suit
his needs at this point. The material in 37–43 makes a distinctly Judean impres-
sion, especially as it offers material traditionally found in Judean opening
frames, and is not original in this context. 199
Several additional factors should also be considered regarding the conclud-
ing frames in the book of Kings. First, the style of the notes of Israel and Judah
differ somewhat, although not in all cases. In Judean notices, half of them (8 of
16) include extra information in between the phrases that begin ‫ ויתר‬and ‫וישכב‬
or [‫ויקבר]ו‬. These cases include information about war with Israel (Rehoboam
and Abijam; neither of these narratives further explicate the war at any point),
sickness (Asa), removal of temple prostitutes (Jehoshaphat), a naval venture
(Jehoshaphat [missing in LXX at 22:47–50, but present at 16:28 d–g]), revolu-
tions (Jehoash and Amaziah); Rezin and Pekah coming against Jerusalem
(Jotham), and Josiah’s conflict with Necho. 200 No king of Israel receives simi-
lar syntactically independent notices within his concluding frame. Additionally,
all of the kings of Israel are more or less negatively evaluated (the only one
who has the word ‫ ישר‬reference him is Jehu), yet many of them seem to have
redeeming characteristics, such as might (‫)גבורה‬. Other items include building
activities (Ahab) and returning cities to Israel’s sphere of power (Jerobeam II).
———————————
plausible that 32a is Deuteronomistic, whereas 32b–33 are Judean, but this position is
admittedly tenuous.
199 For the discussion of the redaction history of the opening frames of Kings, cf. Ch. 3.
200 Additionally, one should consider that the Deuteronomistic evaluations of a king do not
necessarily correspond with the narrative material presented about the king in the book.
These Judean examples make this particularly obvious. The material in their concluding
notices is often negative, but their evaluations are positive (Asa’s diseased feet, revolt
against Jehoash and Amaziah, the advances of Rezin and Pekah against Jotham, and
Josiah’s defeat at the hands of Necho), whereas others are evaluated negatively, but take
actions according to the closing frames that could be regarded positively (Rehoboam and
Abijam fighting against Jeroboam). The only king who is positively evaluated and under-
took positive activities is Jehoshaphat. This might suggest that the Deuteronomist may not
have been responsible even for the first composition of the closing frames of the Judean
kings. One could consider these syntactically independent notices in the Judean frames as
coming from a later redaction. These explanatory notices relate strongly to Chronistic
texts; the more expansive narratives relating this information in Chr evince such a rela-
tionship. Similar findings (i.e., an exilic date for the notices recounted in independent
clauses) can be found in Halpern and Vanderhooft, “Editions of Kings,” 215–16.
This positive image of some Israelite kings in the frames of Kings seems to
suggest that they are pre-Deuteronomistic, as the information about the king
commend an evaluation inconsistent with that of the Deuteronomist. This pre-
cludes a Deuteronomistic origin for the closing frames of the kings of Israel.
For these reasons, one can consider the concluding notice of Jehu’s reign as
original, belonging to the pre-Deuteronomistic source of the story of Jehu’s
Revolution.
The Elijah and Deuteronomistic redactional material appears to come from
a single redactional layer when one considers the similarities between 2 Kings
10:10, 1 Kings 8:56, and Joshua 21:45 (note the use of the imperfect only in
2 Kings 10:10, however). The same can be said of the similarity between
2 Kings 10:17b and 1 Kings 15:29b. These texts all have the appearance of
being Deuteronomistic. Ultimately, the strong connection between 10:10–11
and 17a βb suggests a singular redaction being responsible for the
Deuteronomistic language and the relationship to the Elijah narratives. 201
Thus, the text 2 Kings 9–10 can be readily divided into four layers:
1) The original narrative about Jehu
2) The Judean material
(10:32b–33[?], 36*–43 [Ant.] = 9:14b–15a + 9:28–29)
3) The Dtr redaction 202
———————————
201 This suggestion fits with the statement of Davies regarding the Deuteronomistic history:
“So the narrative of Joshua–Kings, we might say, becomes increasingly ‘prophetic’ as the
narrative proceeds, but also as time goes on .” (Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The
Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures [Library of Ancient Israel; London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1998], 114)
202 This list of verses is largely consistent with the list of Deuteronomic Phraseology from
Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–59. The phrases that he identifies as Deuteronomic that are
found in this material are ‫עבדיו הנביאים‬/‫( עבדי‬9:7), ‫בחלק יזרעאל‬/‫הכלבים יאכלו את איזבל בחל‬
(9:10 and 36), ‫האדמה‬/‫( לדמן על פני השדה‬9:37), ‫( לא נפל דבר‬10:10), (‫( סור )מאחרי( מחט)ת‬10:29
and 31), ‫( הלך תערת יהוה‬10:31), and ‫לבב‬/‫( בכל לב‬10:31). Some of the phrases that he identif-
ies as Deuteronomic are found in other places in 2 Kings 9–10, but are not included in my
list of Deuteronomistic verses. These include references in the verses 10:4, 18 and 30.
Weinfeld regards the phrase ‫ לא עמדו לפניו‬as being Deuteronomistic, referencing the Josh
10:8; 21:42 [sic! Actually 44]; 23:9 and Judg 2:14 in the Deuteronomistic History. There
are some important usage differences that should be identified here. First, all other
instances in DtrG relate to Israel’s relations with its neighbors, whereas 2 Kings 10:4
relates to a specific action of one person and the two kings he killed. Second, with the
exception of Judges, all of the other verses use the singular. Third, only in 2 Kings 10:4
does one find inverted syntax. These factors suggest that another author may have been at
work in 10:4 than in the other texts. The usage of ‫ עבד את הבעל‬in 2 Kings 10:18 is also dis-
(9:6*–10a, 36; 10:10–11, 17a βb, 26, 29, 31–32a)

4) The glosses
(The addition of ‫ הנער‬in v. 9:4; ‫ ברמת‬in 9:16 ; and ‫ בור‬in 10:14)
What remains unclear at this point is if and/or how the glosses are chronologi-
cally related to the redactional layers. From this pericope alone it is not possi-
ble to determine if they are older, of the same age, or younger than the redac-
tional layers. It is also unclear if the additions in 9:28–29 are from the
Deuteronomistic redaction or a gloss. Since it has become apparent that the
concluding frames of the book of Kings are not from the Deuteronomist, it is
entirely possible that he added the notes in 9:28–29 in an attempt to iron out
textual inconsistencies created by the absence of a closing frame for Ahaziahu
of Judah. 203 Since 9:28–29 does not contradict any of the Deuteronomistic
material and seems to relocate material from an earlier Judean redaction, I will
consider it Deuteronomistic, since no other evidence for a redaction in 2 Kings
9–10 has yet been identified. While it is still possible that these verses were
added by another redactor, based on the texts considered thus far, we do not
have the necessity of positing a second redactor in this pericope.
Analysis of Style
A few stylistic elements are worth mentioning in connection with this narrative.
One recurring element jumps out immediately in the first sentence of the story:
the structure of an inverted syntax (subject + perfect). The exegete encounters
this phenomenon in 9:1, 11, 14b, 25b β, 27, and 31; 10:1, 7, 204 13, 18aβ, 18b,205
and 19b. This unifying stylistic element runs through the composition, empha-
———————————
tinct from the other usages in Judg 2:11, 13; 3:7; 10:6, 10; 1 Sam 12:10; 1 Kings 16:31;
22:54; and 2 Kings 17:16. Judges 10:10 and 1 Sam 12:10 are the only other usages spoken
by characters (both times it is Israel, though in the Samuel occurrence it is technically
Samuel quoting Israel); the usages here are a recognition of sin. All other references occur
as part of Deuteronomistic frameworks or conclusions. These texts represent a kind of
homily. The usage in 2 Kings 10:18 is from the mouth of Jehu to deceive the followers of
Baal and ultimately leads to their destruction.
203 The tension created by the continued absence of such a notice for Joram of Israel could be
a demonstration of the relative disregard the Deuteronomist had for the kings of Israel,
especially the Omrides.
204 While 10:1 and 7 are not really in the inverse form of subject + perfect, being that they are
verbless clauses, they open with Ahab’s name and reference his sons, emphasizing them.
205 The two examples in 10:18 are found in direct speech.
Analysis of Style 59
sizing the characters (most importantly Jehu), and providing a transition

between the scenes. Such usage has been regarded as an element of pre-Exilic
Northern Hebrew prose style. 206
The narrative style of the story reveals itself in the drama and dialogue of
the account. “Sie [die Erzählung] will nicht die Vergangenheit als solche
festschreiben, sondern sie vergegenwärtigen, den Leser nicht lediglich
informieren, sondern zum unmittelbaren Zeugen werden lassen.” 207 By making
the reader a witness of the account, the recounting of the events serves to dem-
onstrate what happens to Jehu’s opponents: they are destroyed. This indirectly
reminds readers of what will happen to them if they stand against Jehu or his
dynasty. The narrator bases this violence on the initiation of ‫יהוה‬, whose
prophet calls for Jehu’s anointing. Further, Jehu himself recounts a personally
received prophetic word to the reader of the account. 208 Finally, ‫ יהוה‬rewards
Jehu for his action with a direct affirmation of his hegemony and the promise
of a long dynasty. Thus the violence of this story becomes theologically moti-
vated and justified. These factors all suggest a propagandistic tendency in favor
of Jehu and his dynasty within the account of 2 Kings 9–10*. 209
Also in line with a propagandist tendency in this story are some of the gen-
eric or unverifiable statements. Some elements that would suggest a historical
setting are missing: where is Elisha when he sends his disciple to find Jehu?
Some elements favor Jehu and cannot and could not be proven: when did Jehu
receive the prophecy about Ahab mentioned in 9:25–26 and did it come
directly to him? Were there other witnesses besides this Bidkar? These factors
suggest a propagandistic background for this original text. The narrative
addresses potential criticisms with prophetic or divine authority, but gives very
limited details about the time and place of such events, thus thwarting attempts
to prove their veracity.
———————————
206 Cf. Mats Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew
Prose (Studia Semitica Upsalensis; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990), 50–
57.
207 Levin, Sturz, 80.
208 Cf. Patricia Berlyn, “The Rebellion of Jehu,” JBQ 35, no. 4 (2007): 218, who notes the
positive connotation of the narrative reminder of the prophecy in 2 Kings 9:25–26: “This
reminder—whether recollection or invention or a blend thereof—could be repeated to
other audiences in the hours and days ahead.” I would extend this beyond the hours and
days ahead, to the years and centuries to come.
209 Contra Kittel, Könige, 228.
As important as what the author chose to write about is what the author
chose not to describe. Two major historical facts, implied or explicitly enumer-
ated in extra-biblical documentation, were completely left out. First of all one
should consider the Assyrian records of Shalmaneser III, which explicitly state
that Jehu paid tribute to Assyria. 210 While on other occasions, biblical authors
(even within the book of Kings; cf. 1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 15:19; 17:3; 18:15)
describe the payment of a tribute to foreign monarchs, no such datum is
recounted for Jehu. 211 This remains highly suspicious and seems indicative of
the pro-Jehu tendency of the narrative. The second historical datum avoided by
the text is the relationship between Hazael and Jehu implied by the Tel Dan
Inscription. 212 While the Tel-Dan Inscription suggests that Jehu may have been
under the patronage of Hazael at the time of his accession, the biblical text in
no way mentions this, as it would once again place Jehu in an unfavorable
light. The reticence of the biblical witness about these two facts further sug-
gests a source favorable to Jehu and his dynasty.
One encounters little information about most characters in the story,
though one can clearly distinguish between two groups of people: Jehu and his
supporters vs. his detractors. The narrative opens with the introduction of the
first character: Elisha the Prophet. Although he remains in the background of
the story, his position at the outset demonstrates his importance to the develop-
ment of the narrative. 213 He is provided only with an epithet: the prophet. 214
Other than recognize him as the agent responsible for Jehu’s revolution, having
received a divine mandate not recounted in the extant narrative, the text offers
essentially no information about him. The next character in the story is the pro-
———————————
210 For an extensive discussion of the relevant Assyrian materials, cf. Chapter 6.
211 To me, this suggests that if the Deuteronomist had access to such reports about Jehu, he
would have used it to further his agenda against this king of Israel. More likely, this speaks
to the fact that the Deuteronomist did not know about Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser III.
This is contra Lamb, Righteous Jehu, 128, who believes that the Deuteronomist not only
had access to this information, but intentionally chose to ignore it. Based on the negative
Deuteronomistic evaluations in 2 Kings 10:29 and 31, I find this opinion problematic.
212 Cf. the extensive discussion in chapter 7 beginning on page 240.
213 Indeed, his name (+ copula) is the first word in the Hebrew text.
214 One should also note that Elisha in this context distinguishes himself from the majority of
the “legitimate” prophets in the Northern Kingdom in that he stands in support of a
dynasty. For other examples of this, cf. Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29–39), the unnamed prophet
in 1 Kings 20:13–22, and Jonah (2 Kings 14:25). For an “illegitimate” prophet in favor of
the Northern monarch, cf. Zedekiah in 1 Kings 22:11.
Analysis of Style 61
phetic disciple, sent by Elisha to carry out Jehu’s actual anointing. Jehu, the
third character introduced, remains the real focus. He quickly gains followers
(his officers), overcomes two kings, conquers Jezreel, kills Jezebel, takes
Samaria through an exchange of letters without personally shedding any blood,
executes the royal family of Judah, joins forces with Jehonadab ben Rechab,
and ultimately exterminates the cult of Baal from Israel, receiving the favor and
unconditional dynastic promise—for at least four successive generations—of
‫יהוה‬. The narrative tone favors him greatly and presents him in a positive light.
This suggests propagandistic tendencies towards Jehu. Other minor characters
play supporting roles in Jehu’s rise: his officers, Bidkar, Jezebel’s eunuchs, the
royal supporters in Samaria, Jehonadab ben Rechab, the unnamed 80 men sta-
tioned outside the Baal temple, and ‫יהוה‬. All of these characters support the
positive image of Jehu.
Alternatively, the enemies of Jehu are reduced to nothing. Joram, having
been wounded by the Arameans, 215 ultimately finds his end after foolishly
going out to meet Jehu. “Joram is really quite powerless before Jehu, Yahweh’s
anointed.”216 The same can be said of Ahaziahu, who unquestioningly follows
Joram to his demise. Jezebel prepares herself to be seen as a queen, but is
thrust out of her window by her own treacherous eunuchs. She ends up like
dung. Ahab’s whole family is murdered by their spineless servants, who capitu-
late to Jehu’s demands without questioning whether they might be strong
enough to hold out against him. Ahaziahu’s family is mercilessly slaughtered in
———————————
215 I.e., Joram is weak. N.b., he is defending Ramoth-Gilead in the original version of the nar-
rative and did not march out to conquer it as in 8:28–29 and as may be gleaned from the
Tel Dan Inscription (see below, Chapter 7, page 240ff.). Joram’s aggression is probably
historical; cf. Hayim Tadmor, “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its After-
math,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the
Ancient Near East (ed. Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts; Baltimore and London: John
Hopkins University Press, 1975), 40; contra Nadav Na’aman, “Forced Participation in
Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West,” in Ah, Assyria…Studies
in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim
Tadmor (ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 82–83.
If Hazael and Joram both wanted to maintain the anti-Assyrian policies of their predeces-
sors, there would be no cause for Hazael to invade to force Joram to participate in an anti-
Assyrian coalition, as Na’aman suggests. The continuing “enmity” between Jehu and
Hazael after Jehu’s ascension indicates this. This means that Na’aman thinks that Hazael
attacked Israel to force Joram to continue a policy he had maintained “for almost a dec-
ade” and then attacked Jehu because he didn’t advance the policy of his predecessor!
216 Olyan, “Hasalôm,” 664.
their ignorance about the deaths of their kin at the hands of Jehu and his fol-
lowers. Finally, the disciples of Baal are led like lambs to the slaughter, where
none of them was to escape. Jehu’s followers went even further, destroying the
cult objects and the temple. Nothing remained of Jehu’s enemies. This oblitera-
tion of his opposition further evinces the text’s positive support of Jehu.
The text of 2 Kings 9–10 does not answer all of the reader’s questions
about the characters presented in it, presumes that the reader is already familiar
with some background information, and allows some narrative reticence to
remain. “…2. Reg. 9.10 (wozu 8. 28s. nur in sachlicher aber nicht in formeller
Beziehung steht) hat einst Prämissen gehabt, die gegenwärtig abgeschnitten
sind.”217 The tale introduces Joram in 9:14, but doesn’t identify him as king of
Israel until verse 16 LXX. 218 The narrator never makes an explicit connection
between Joram and Ahab. For that matter, the reader is never formally intro-
duced to Ahab and is left to wonder about who this person is and why he is so
important. The same should be said of Zimri, who is mentioned in passing, but
whose story must have been known to the audience of the text. Especially when
one considers personages from times previous to the narrative historically,
there are quite a few gaps about who the people were. This suggests that some
material preceded this narrative, implying, when combined with the literary
critical assessment of 2 Kings 10:34–36, that the narrative about the Jehu Rev-
olution was neither the exposition nor the denouement of a story, but was
somewhere in the middle. With material potentially preceding 2 Kings 9–10*
and material following it, one should consider the possibility of a unified
source containing this material about Israel, as opposed to several singular sto-
ries about Israelite kings united at a later date by a redactor.
Date of Composition
Several factors help to identify the compositional date of this literary work.
First and foremost, one should consider the image of Jehu and the tone of the
narrative. A prophet sent by Elisha anoints Jehu king over Israel (9:6); Jehu
———————————
217 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs , 286.
218 N.b., the text identifies Hazael as king of Aram and Ahaziahu as king of Judah, each the
first time they are mentioned in 2 Kings 9. This suggests that 2 Kings 9 may have been the
first time they, in contrast to Joram, Ahab, and Zimri, were introduced by name.
Date of Composition 63
commands Israel’s army (9:5); his soldiers declare him king following his
recounting of the prophets actions (9:13). Jehu effectively and efficiently elimi-
nates his enemies (9:24, 27, 33, et al.). He removes a foreign deity from Israel
(10:28). He has a collegial relationship with the zealot Jehonadab ben Rechab
(10:15–16). These elements should be regarded as demonstrating a positive
attitude towards Jehu. A positive evaluation of such horrific violence and reli-
gious intolerance may seem unlikely in a post-Enlightenment environment; 219
however, these aspects of the text reveal that Jehu should be regarded as a
mighty warrior and religious zealot for ‫יהוה‬. The pinnacle of this image is the
fact that ‫ יהוה‬not only talks to him, but unconditionally promises him sub-
sequent generations on the Israelite throne (10:30). The tone reflects positively
on Jehu in the composition, but was later reduced by the addition of negative
materials and evaluations.
When would one expect to find a positive depiction of Jehu? It would
seem to make little sense for someone to write such a characterization in the
exilic or postexilic periods; at such a date there would be no need to justify and
even support the actions of such a king of Israel. 220 The same argument can be
used to suggest that it seems unlikely that someone would compose such a text
even after the destruction of Samaria in 722. It seems more likely to consider a
date within the dynasty of Jehu, 221 presumably before the ascension of Zecha-
riah to the throne, being that his brief reign would probably not afford the lux-
ury of time that would permit the composition of such a text, assuming that the
political climate may have been moving against him. The most probable date of
composition should therefore be regarded as the lengthy and presumably (at
least initially) wealthy reign of Jerobeam II, 222 the fourth king of the dynasty of
Jehu. Tadmor has demonstrated that in Assyria some autobiographical inscrip-
tions were composed legitimating one king’s reign in order to secure the posi-
———————————
219 Grabbe, Ancient Israel, 5 aptly criticizes such interpretive value judgements placed on the
text: “The monarchy, social status, the economic situation, class divisions, urbanism and
the like are all presented from the point of view of what a modern liberal, middle-class bib-
lical scholar with a social conscience would consider acceptable.”
220 Against potential detractors who would ask if the limited evidence of the Babylonian and
Persian periods warrants such an opinion, I would comment that, as historians, we have
the obligation to work with the evidence that we have and not the luxury of postulating
based on the evidence we don’t have.
221 Cf. Miller, “House of Ahab,” 307.
222 Cf. Miller, “House of Ahab,” 322.
tion of his son on the throne as his successor. 223 The narrative of Jehu’s politi-
cal revolution would fit into this same scheme, especially when one regards
2 Kings 10:30 as belonging to the oldest level of the narrative. One can find
support for this date in the books of the prophets Hosea and Amos as well. 224
In the book of Hosea, one finds criticisms of the reign of Jehu, most specif-
ically the “blood of Jezreel” (Hos 1:4). One may also consider the implications
of Hosea’s remark “They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes
without my knowledge” (Hos 8:4) in light of Jehu’s anointing in 2 Kings 9:6
and his being made king by ‫ יהוה‬in 4 Reigns 10:37 L. The story in 2 Kings
9:1–6 could be understood as a response to criticisms from people like Hosea
during the reign of Jerobeam II (cf. Hos 1:1). The same could be said for the
“blood of Jezreel” in Hos 1:4; 225 the story in 2 Kings 9 should demonstrate that
contrary to Hosea’s opinion, this act was desired and ultimately good for Israel.
The pronouncement regarding Israel’s relationship to the Baal recounted in
Hos 2 was answered and made impotent by the assertion that Jehu removed the
cult of the Baal from Israel in 2 Kings 10:28.
Similar parallels can be read from the book of Amos, however here they
more generally focus on Jerobeam II. The most explicit examples of this are
found in Amos 7. From these texts, one finds promises that Jerobeam II and/or
his house will be violently destroyed (cf. especially 7:9 and 11). The promise
of ‫ יהוה‬from 2 Kings 10:30 rebuts such an accusation. The story of Jehu’s pur-
gation of the Baal cult in 2 Kings 10:18–28 may address the general criticisms
of the cult in Israel found in the book of Amos (e.g., Amos 4:4–5 and 5:4–
———————————
223 Cf. Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology”.
224 Cf. the discussion in chapter 5.
225 Cf. Stuart A. Irvine, “The Threat of Jezreel (Hosea 1:4–5),” CBQ 57, no. 3 (Jl 1995): 502–
3: “Hos 1:4–5 dates from ca. 750 B.C.E. and anticipates two imminent disasters: the fall of
the dynasty of Jehu (v 4b α), and the territorial reduction of Israel to the hill country south
of the Jezreel Valley (vv 4bβ–5)… Hosea cites Jehu’s massacre of the house of Ahab as
the specific reason for divine judgment. The prophet resorts to this assertion as a way of
countering the recently composed propaganda of Jeroboam’s court in 2 Kings 9–10.”
While in general I can agree with this statement, I find it more probable that the Kings
account was written in response to the prophet; the divine promise to Jehu in 2 Kings
10:30 demands that the son of Jeroboam II maintain the dynasty. Such a statement would
be most appropriate in a setting where this succession had been called into question, as the
book of Hosea does.
Form and Sitz im Leben 65
6);226 Amos’ critique of the cultic practices of Israel becomes unwarranted,

being as Jehu removed the foreign elements from the Israelite cultic practices
in the opinion of the author of the original Jehu narrative. 227 Like the words of
Hosea, Amos’ words supposedly come down from the time of Jerobeam II (cf.
Amos 1:1). Bearing these prophetic pronunciations in mind, one could consider
the time of Jerobeam II as a probable time-frame for the composition of the
narrative about Jehu’s Revolution.
Form and Sitz im Leben
Subsequent to the establishment of a probable time of composition, we can turn

our attention to the genre and the Sitz im Leben of the narrative and ultimately
consider the position of the composers of the text. The most appropriate place
to begin is a consideration of the genre of the composition.
Stylistically speaking, the tale of the Jehu Revolution is narrative prose. It
is well composed and recounts the story in the third-person with an omniscient
point of view; cf. 2 Kings 10:19b, where the narrator explicitly recounts Jehu’s
thoughts and intentions, namely to deceive the followers of Baal. The narrator
also moves quickly from scene to scene, opening with Elisha, then jumping to
Jehu’s camp, then offering an aside, eventually using τειχοσκοπι'α to describe
Jehu’s approach to Jezreel, before moving on to the palace and eventually on to
Samaria. The concluding frame at the end of Jehu’s reign points the reader to
the next episode in the narrative. The genre of the story should therefore be
simply regarded as narrative prose.
In terms of content, the story focuses on the character Jehu, recounting his
rise from a position in the military to become king of Israel. It is a political
account, and not a prophetic narrative, which would focus more on characters
———————————
226 Cf. Tchadvar S. Hadjiev, The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos (BZAW
393; Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2009), 19: “The most important point is that the
actual way in which [Amos] 4:4–5 and 5:4–6 (as well as 5:21–24) are worded and the con-
text in which they are placed at present suggests a North-Israelite 8 th century cultic
polemic, not a 7 th or 5th century Judean one.”
227 Though it must be admitted that the book of Amos offers no explicit condemnation of the
cult of Baal, the critique of the religious practices of Israel is apparent. Further reaction
against such suggestions that Israel’s cultic practices were inappropriate may be found in
the announcement of Jehu’s anointing; the anointing comes from ‫יהוה‬, the same God
whom Amos supports.
of the prophets. 228 In the case of 2 Kings 9–10*, the narrative fleetingly men-
tions prophets, however, they vanish after playing their role in the story. Addi-
tionally, it would be inappropriate to identify the story as a myth; although a
deity is an active character in the narrative, he is not the protagonist and only
appears in a brief supporting role. The political nature of the story becomes
apparent from the kind of episodes recounted. It opens with Jehu’s anointing to
a political office, continues through the steps he and others take to make his
possession of this office a reality, and concludes with his first act as king:
removing the temple of Baal from Samaria. This suggests a kind of revolution
literature, focusing on the political advancement of the main character. From
what we can glean from the narrative at hand, the author saw himself as the
proponent of a historical narrative, and not of fiction. Gray: “The narrator,
however, preserves his sense of historical perspective in avoiding the tempta-
tion to make vengeance for Naboth and the fulfilment of Elijah’s prophecy
(1 K. 21.19) the main motive of Jehu.” 229In the course of this story, it becomes
apparent that the narrator must be familiar with some other historical traditions
of the kings of Israel, most specifically with Ahab (who is not identified as the
builder of the Baal temple in the story in 2 Kings 9–10*) and Zimri (introduced
by Jezebel only as the murderer of his lord in 9:31). These of course are in
addition to the main plot line of the story, namely the revolution of Jehu. This
kind of high style, narrative proximity to the events, 230 and familiarity with
royal Israelite traditions suggest a composer within or near the royal court of
Israel. As the closing of this narrative references the “book of the deeds of the
———————————
228 Contra Gray, Kings, 537. Cf. Lemaire, “Redaction History,” 460: “When…the prophets
are mentioned in this history, it is because they were in direct relation to the king, either as
counselors or in opposition to him.” I also disregard the position of Michael S. Moore,
“Jehu’s Coronation and Purge of Israel,” VT 53, no. 1 (2003): 97–114 as the evidence to
suggest that the Jehu narrative of 2 Kings 9–10 parodies the Ugaritic Baal-Anat cycle is
lacking. For example, how can one demonstrate that this legend was known in Israel at any
time during the monarchic, post-monarchic, Persian, or Hellenistic period? Examining the
parallels he offers in Moore, “Jehu’s Coronation,” 106–7 doesn’t help, as it immediately
becomes clear that many elements are quite general (both tales references “heads”) and
more importantly Anat parallels both Jehu and Jezebel: i.e., both victor and victim parallel
the same character in the Ugaritic legend. Curious.
229 Gray, Kings, 538.
230 The narrator recounts almost as if he or she were an eyewitness to the accounts, even to the
point of suggesting simultaneous presence at multiple locations, i.e., looking from the wall
of Jezreel, but still able to recount the conversation between Jehu and Joram’s messenger;
recounting Jehu’s entrance to the city and Jezebel’s application of make-up in the palace.
days of the kings of Israel,” the narrative material here cannot be equivalent to
that source, even though uncovering more specifics about the book of the deeds
remains theoretically impossible. 231
The narrator supports Jehu and his actions regardless of their brutality, or
rather, even focusing on this brutality; there are no accounts of Jehu and his
clever domestic policies. Rather, the reader is introduced to a powerful Jehu
who has a variety of allies: the prophet Elisha and his disciple, his loyal sol-
diers, the turncoats that Joram sent to inquire of Jehu’s intentions, the palace
eunuchs who defenestrate Jezebel, Jehonadab ben Rechab, and the soldiers
who help storm the temple of Baal. The narrator represents Jehu as a man of
action and not as a man of words. Jehu succeeds in his undertakings in the orig-
inal narrative. The narrator also puts emphasis on Jehu by setting his name in
the initial position of several sentences; the name Jehu introduces six passages
in this story, taking a position before the verb. 232 Further focus is brought to
bear on Jehu by his double patronym. Interestingly, the book of Kings only ref-
erences a few individuals with a dual patronym, 233 even fewer of which are
kings of either Israel or Judah. Of the two kings of Israel with a double
patronym (Jehu and Joash) and the one king of Judah with a double patronym
(Amaziah), Jehu is the only one who has his double patronym recounted
twice.234 This suggests narrative emphasis on Jehu even within the book of
———————————
231 Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories,” 158 may indeed be right, when he states: “To facilitate ref-
erence to the mixed sources available to him, he referred to all his source-material as ‘the
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel/Judah.” I.e., every source used that was not
part of his Vorlage is included under this rubric. This suggests that no specific sources,
but rather the total amalgamation of sources, were referenced.
232 2 Kings 9:11, 24, 31; 10:13, 19, and 24.
233 Ben-Hadad (1 Kings 15:18), Jehu (2 Kings 9:2 and 14), Joash (14:8), Amaziah (14:13),
Shaphan (22:3), Shallum [Hulda’s Husband] (22:14), Gedaliah (25:22) and Ishmael
(25:25).
234 One should also note that the other king of Israel with a double patronym is in the dynasty
of Jehu and this double patronym leads the reader to Jehu again, being as he is the final
father in chain of Joash ben Jehoahaz ben Jehu. Amaziah’s double patronym occurs in the
same narrative context as Joash’s and leads back to Amaziah’s grandfather Ahaziahu, the
king of Judah whom Jehu reportedly killed in 2 Kings 9. Two kings of Israel (Jehu and
Joash) defeated two kings of Judah (Ahaziahu and Amaziah, respectively). The second of
these conflicts occurred in the second generation after the first of these conflicts. This nar-
rative link suggests at least the potential of both narratives being the products of the same
composer—a composer who leads the reader back to the first conflict between Israel and
Judah in the time of Jehu by using the double patronyms for both of the kings involved in
the second conflict.
Kings. Jehu possesses military might and handily eliminates his foes, both
political and cultic.
This image of Jehu contrasts strongly with the image of Joram and the
other supporters and members of the “house of Ahab.” While Jehu succeeds in
all of his undertakings, the reader is left with a somewhat bumbling and inept
image of Joram. 235 Joram goes out to defend Ramoth-Gilead (9:14b) against an
aggressive move of Hazael of Aram, 236 i.e., he must defend his own borders,
something not required of Jehu in the original narrative. While he is on this
defensive, the Arameans injure him and force him to withdraw. During his
recovery and while Jehu is revolting against him, Joram sends two messengers
to Jehu, who never come back. Rather than prepare for battle or assume the
worst, the injured king goes out in his chariot (it is never mentioned that he
even bothered to arm or armor himself), riding out to find out personally what
is going on. This rather silly decision leads to his demise. The other members
of Ahab’s family don’t come out looking much better: Jezebel is killed by
eunuchs who presumably had been supporters of the family, the remnants of
Ahab’s supporters kill of the remnant of Ahab’s family without even consider-
ing the possibility of fighting Jehu, the rest of Ahab’s family is slaughtered
without the narrator so much as suggesting that anyone made an effort to stop
this action in self-defense. All in all, the narrator strongly contrasts Jehu with
the impotent, cowardly, and wavering family and supporters of Ahab’s dynasty.
This narrative reconstruction leaves the reader with an overwhelmingly nega-
tive view of Ahab’s family in contrast to the heroic image of Jehu.
Considering the positive image of Jehu, his military and cultic successes,
and the negative image of Joram and Ahab’s family and supporters, I would
suggest the text be understood as a kind of propaganda composed in the reign
of Jerobeam II to counter developing opposition to his dynasty and their prac-
———————————
235 Na’aman’s statement “...Joram is not accused of any misdeed in the story of Jehu’s rebel-
lion (2 Kgs 9). His slaying is explained as a fulfilment of the divine prophecy about Ahab,
made after the murder of Naboth and his sons (vv. 25–26)” (Na’aman, “Prophetic Sto-
ries,” 161) remains technically true. However, while the text places no blame on Joram, it
definitely does not present him in a positive, or even a neutral, light.
236 The question of historicity is irrelevant at this point. Who actually was the aggressor at this
battle or whether this battle ever even took place will be a subject to be handled in the his-
torical analysis in later chapters. For our current purposes, it is enough to recognize that
the narrator suggests in the story that Joram was on the defensive against Hazael.
tices as represented in the books of Hosea and Amos. 237 Such a function sug-
gests a setting amongst the nobility or upper classes of Israel, precisely the peo-
ple whom Hosea and Amos criticize most explicitly (cf. Hos 5:1–2; Amos 4
and 6). Bearing these considerations in mind, it seems that the most probable
setting for the composition of the narrative that was the basis of 2 Kings 9–10
is within the royal court of Jerobeam II in order to counter developing resent-
ment during his reign. Having suggested this and noted that the story of Jehu
seems to represent neither the exposition nor the denouement, one can consider
other texts within Kings that have the same narrative genre and that may have
been written under similar pretenses during the same period. The discussion
will be most fruitful if the continuation of the Jehu narrative is examined next.
Since 10:36 seems to commend the continuation of the narrative in the context
of a Jehuide reign and 2 Kings 11 presupposes the narrative context of 9:28–
29, which were demonstrated to have been secondary, 238 the most likely and
immediate candidates for such a consideration are the narratives focusing on
the dynasty of Jehu prior to and possibly including the reign of Jerobeam II.
These texts will be the first focus of the next chapter, while any texts that might
have preceded the Jehu narrative will be addressed subsequently.
———————————
237 This is not to suggest that Amos and Hosea were the only people criticizing such practices
and the rulers of Israel. Rather, they are the representatives of growing disenfranchisement
during this period—the only ones that we have recorded in the Bible. It seems obvious that
they must not have been the only people of such a sentiment, being as their words were
passed on and expanded by later generations. This suggests that at least some other people
were incontent during the reign of Jeroboam II. Therefore the court of Jeroboam II began
the process of countering such opinions with the composition of stories such as that of
Jehu’s Revolution.
238 Cf. Trebolle-Barrera, Jehú y Joás, 185–89 and Levin, Sturz, 79–82, who are also of the
opinion that chapter 11 cannot be the continuation of 2 Kings 9–10. Contra Gustav
Hölscher, “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion,” in Eucharisterion:
Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Hans Schmidt and
Emil Balla; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 186. Barré, “Political Persua-
sion,” 11–16, who suggests that 2 Kings 11 is in fact the continuation of 2 Kings 9–10,
must be rejected. He sees these narrative as being joined via their common subject matter
(the destruction of the Omrides) and their contrasting images of political “revolution” in
Judah and in Israel. This position must be rejected immediately due to the fact that the text
of 2 Kings 9–11 nowhere identifies Athaliah as coming from Omride lineage. This pre-
cludes 2 Kings 11 in Barré’s proposal from focusing on the destruction of the Omride fam-
ily. Rather, 2 Kings 11:1 presupposes the existence of 2 Kings 9:28–29: if Athaliah were
in Jerusalem, as the narrative maintains, then she would only see what had happened to her
son Ahaziahu, when his body was returned there, exactly the information provided sec-
ondarily in 2 Kings 9:28–29.
CHAPTER 3
The Jehuide Dynasty
Several texts focusing on the Jehuide kings in 2 Kings 13–14 deserve further
analysis and will be our focus in this section. The recounting of the reigns of
the three kings to be discussed in these chapters all open with frames of the for-
mat: ‫ מלך יהודה‬PN YN ‫בשנת‬, i.e., with a synchronizing notice making reference
to the reigning king of Judah and placing the reign of the respective king of
Israel within that context. 1 This notice is then followed by the data concerning
the reign of the Israelite monarch and his Deuteronomistic evaluation. In gen-
eral, these regnal formulas are regarded as Deuteronomistic in their entirety,
but it is unclear whether such a presumption is justified. 2 A closer evaluation of
the opening regnal frames of Kings is necessary.
The opening frame of a king’s reign has traditionally been regarded a
priori as Deuteronomistic. 3 One should question whether this tradition is justi-
fied based on the available evidence. Within the opening frames of the individ-
ual kings, only the evaluations make a distinctly Deuteronomistic impression.
Labelling the entire frame Deuteronomistic seems to be reacting prematurely. 4
———————————
1 Where YN is the given number of years and PN is the name of the King of Judah.
2 Jepsen regarded the framework of the book of Kings as belonging to a source incorporated
into Kings by Dtr. Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 30–40. His arguments, although not perfect in
every respect, do make it plausible that Dtr was relying on a source for this material. Cf.
Jepsen, Quellen, 100–101 and above beginning on page 55.
3 Cf. Albert Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch
zum Alten Testament; Münster i. Westf.: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1911), XXV; or redactional, cf. Benzinger, Könige, VII and XIII and Kittel, Könige, VI.
Helga Weippert, “‘Deuteronomistische’ Beurteilungen”; Halpern and Vanderhooft,
“Editions of Kings”; and Lemaire, “Redaction History” oppose this tendency.
4 Contra Šanda, 1. Könige, XXIV: “das Urteil über die einzelnen Könige unzertrennlich
verbunden [ist].” Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories,” 159 notes: “Dtr must have had particular
reasons for deciding whether kings were religiously ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It seems to me that
most of the value-judgments were established either on the basis of information drawn
from sources, or, in the case of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah, from the author’s personal
knowledge.”
Chapter 3: The Jehuide Dynasty 71
The circularity of the argumentation that the Deuteronomist’s style is repeti-

tive, this of course being primarily based on the “repetitive” frames of Kings,
implying that the frames are Deuteronomistic, need not be further explored.
For these reasons, let us consider the opening frames of the reigns of the Kings
by focusing on their style and other elements. 5
While Judah’s opening frames remain exceptionally rigid, Israel’s demon-
strate more flexibility. 1 Kings 15:25; 22:52; 2 Kings 3:1 and 15:13 begin with
the name of the king, as do 1 Kings 16:8 and 15 in LXX (i.e., the synchronism
is missing or located elsewhere). Ahab’s also begins with his name in the cur-
rent form, but it is clear that it has been expanded at least once, as the current
opening is missing in LXX. This syntactical flexibility suggests that the syn-
chronisms may be secondary, as their position within the material about the
kings of Israel varies. Approximately 13 of the opening formulas of the kings of
Israel demonstrate a format inconsistent with that of Judah, i.e., they do not
begin with synchronism. Note also that Ahab has two different synchronisms,
depending on whether one follows MT or LXX. 6 While 1 3 of the Israelite
frames demonstrate flexibility in the order that the material is presented, only
one Judean frame demonstrates such flexibility: Jehoash in 2 Kings 12:1–2,
whose age precedes his synchronism. 7 The Judean frames read synchronism,
age at ascension, length of the reign, and the name of the mother. The only
other possible exception to this rule would be Jehoshaphat, but LXX retains the
original form of his regnal formula in 3 Reigns 16:28 a–d.8 The consideration of
the various formats of the regnal notices could be indicative of redactional
———————————
5 A brief overview of this material can also be found in Šanda’s discussion of the redactor;
cf. Šanda, 1. Könige, XXI–XXV.
6 LXX appears to be the older text in this case.
7 This emphasizes his youth and also serves as a kind of closing frame for the reign of
Athaliah.
8 The double frame for Jehoshaphat also demonstrates the generally older LXX tradition in
Kings. The duplication of Jehoshaphat’s opening formula was removed by a later redactor
responsible for the Masoretic tradition, as was Jehoram’s in 2 Kings 1:18 a–d in LXX.
Regarding especially the γγ-section of Kings, cf. Andrzej S. Turkanik, Of Kings and
Reigns (FAT II 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). For this portion, he comments: “It is
possible, therefore, to assume a Vorlage not identical but similar to our MT.” (Turkanik,
Kings and Reigns, 3) For the identification of the different translators ( α, ββ, βγ, γγ, γδ), or
at least the various sections of the Greek text of Reigns, cf. Thackeray, “Greek
Translators,” 263–64.
72 Chapter 3: The Jehuide Dynasty
activity.9 The material that should be regarded as secondary in the instance of

the Israelite formulas are the synchronisms with the reigns of the kings of
Judah.10
The curious phrase ‫ שנה‬YN ‫ בשנת‬occurs in 13 of the 18 Israelite synchro-
nisms. Nadab, Baasha, Ahaziah, Joram, and Hoshea lack this phrase in their
opening framework. I see no obvious connection between these kings. It is
present for the Judean kings Ahaziahu (though it is missing in some manu-
scripts), Jehoash (though not in his regnal formula, cf. 2 Kings 12:7), Azariah
and Ahaz. These kings are not any more uniform than the Israelite kings with
the same phenomenon. Of the 11 Judean synchronisms, only 2 have it all the
time. The only other time this phrase occurs in the Bible is Gen 7:11, where it
provides Noah’s age. This may have been a dialectic feature of Israelite
Hebrew, which would explain its dense occurrences in the material about Isra-
elite kings but virtual absence elsewhere in the Old Testament and ancient Ori-
ent.11 Rendsburg does not address this possibility. 12 This linguistic feature may
also suggest redactional levels or different origins for the Judean and Israelite
materials or a chronological development and updating of the text. 13 It is con-
———————————
9 Cf. Halpern and Vanderhooft, “Editions of Kings” for a similar discussion regarding the
regnal frames of the kings of Israel and Judah. While I largely agree with the findings of
Halpern and Vanderhooft, it will become clear that their thesis necessitates some changes;
most importantly, I will attempt to reconstruct a text prior to Hezekiah and presume that
there were also redactions following the first exilic redaction. The other alternative to
redactional activity would be to suggest that they come from various sources. Cf. Begrich,
Chronologie, 173–75. While I still see this as plausible, other considerations, especially
the elements that change based on context (see the discussion on patronyms below), make
a stronger case for a redaction.
10 Steuernagel, Einleitung, 352–53 argues that the first redactor, the one who redacted the
material about Judah and Israel together, must have found the lengths of the reigns of the
various kings in his sources and was therefore able to create the synchronistic notices.
While I agree with this idea, Steuernagel, Einleitung, 346, however, identifies this first
redactor as belonging to the time between 620–607, much too late; see below.
11 This is however not the usage known from the Samaria Ostraca. There one finds simply
the usage ‫ ;בשת‬cf. Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig, Die Althebräischen Inschriften:
Teil 1: Text und Kommentar (vol. I of Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik ;
Johannes Renz; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 89–109. This
usage is most similar to that known from Phoenician inscriptions; cf. J. Hoftijzer and K.
Jongeling, Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Volume 2 (Handbook of
Oriental Studies; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 1170–71. The construct usage as found in the
regnal frames is attested in the ninth century in KAI 232.
12 Rendsburg, Israelian Hebrew.
13 One might also assume that the text would be updated to reflect contemporary usage.
spicuous that every instance of the usage in Kings occurs before the reign of
Hezekiah.
The use of patronyms is interesting. In the Judean material (allowing for
the two exceptions of Ahaziahu in 2 Kings 8:25 and Ahaz in 16:1) the listing of
a king’s patronym depends on the current context of the pericope, i.e., when
material about Israel precedes material about Judah, the current version of the
text provides the Judean monarch’s patronym. 14 If the context of the story does
not require the reader to be reminded who the father of the Judean king in
question is, no patronym is provided. For this reason, patronyms entirely cease
as an element of the frame after the reign of Hezekiah. LXX also follows this
rule, even when MT has no need to: cf. 1 Kings 14:21 MT and 3 Reigns
12:24a. Israelite kings, except Zimri and Omri, generally have a patronym in
the frames of Kings irrespective of their current literary context. 15 These
absences are not based on context and they are the only kings of Israel without
patronyms. What this usage of patronyms suggests is that whoever wrote the
frames of Kings already had the material about Israel in a literary form. Based
on where he inserted information about Judah determined the appearance of the
patronyms in the Judean frameworks. The exceptions to this rule (Ahaziahu
and Ahaz) are curious. One possible explanation for Ahaziahu: one wonders if
this passage was moved from another context or was preceded by material
about Israel that has since been incorporated into the Elisha narrative or else-
where; cf. 4 Reigns 10:37–43 (Ant.). Possible explanations for Ahaz: he was
the last Judean king before the material about Samaria’s fall? He was the father
of Hezekiah, who also receives a special introduction? 16 Might this story also
have originally been set in a different literary context, i.e., was Pekah’s story
originally between Jotham’s and Ahaz’s or, more probably, did Ahaz’s intro-
———————————
14 This factor was not considered in D.J.A. Clines, “X, X Ben Y, Ben Y: Personal Names in
Hebrew Narrative Style,” VT 22 (1972): 266–87.
15 Zimri and Omri have no patronyms elsewhere in the text. For Omri, Gray takes this to
mean that he was probably of Canaanite origin; cf. Gray, Kings, 364. He does not suggest
such a possibility for Zimri. This curious suggestion should be rejected based on the
current standards of research (i.e., no such tension between native Canaanites and
immigrant Israelites in the ninth century can be demonstrated with any plausibility).
16 Only Hezekiah’s opening formula begins with ‫ויהי‬.
duction originally follow the fall of Samaria? 17 These explanations must unfor-
tunately remain quite theoretical, as there are virtually no textual witnesses to
support them.
These synchronisms could have been added at any date after the initial
composition, but seem to be most likely from a Judean context. 18 This might
suggest a date after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, but does not necessarily
imply a pre-Deuteronomistic date. The regnal formulas change subsequent to
the account of Hezekiah (whose regnal introduction is unique, using the syn-
chronic notice attested elsewhere, but introduced by the verb ‫ )ויהי‬and become
much more systematic, changing to the form: age at ascension, length of reign,
and the name of the king’s mother. 19 Hezekiah’s unique introduction could sug-
gest a redaction of this Israelite material during his reign following the destruc-
tion of the Northern Kingdom, but this redaction may also be uniform with the
Deuteronomistic redaction or with any subsequent redaction.
The usage of the root √‫ מלך‬merits explication in this context. The formula-
tion in these frames mandates the interpretation of √‫ מלך‬in this context as
“began to reign,” a translation necessitated only in these formulas in Kings and
———————————
17 For a discussion of this possibility, cf. the discussion presented by Schenker,
Textgeschichte, 167–70, which—based on the Vetus Latina—identifies Ahaz’ narrative as
originally following the material about Samaria’s end under Hoshea. “Als Ergebnis bleibt
die starke Vermutung, das Kapitel über König Achas von Juda sei im hebräischen Modell
der ursprünglichen LXX auf 2 Kön 17 gefolgt, und es sei die im MT bewahrte
Neuausgabe, die diese beiden Kapitel umgestellt habe.” (Schenker, Textgeschichte, 169)
18 For over 100 years it has been known that the synchronisms in the book of Kings, how
they related to each other, and their use for reconstructing chronology are problematic. If
they rely on two distinct sources, one would have fewer problems addressing this tension.
While regarding the synchronisms as redactional, Curtis (Edward Lewis Curtis, “The Old
Testament Reckoning of Regnal Years,” JBL 14, no. 1/2 [1895]: 129) comments: “They
[the synchronisms] represent not a system of dating but an endeavor to adjust two unequal
series of numbers.” This suggests redactional activity within the frame and not a single
redaction responsible for the frame. An example: “The sum of the years of the kings of
Israel from Jeroboam to Jehu exceed[s] that of the years of the kings of Judah by three
years for the same period.”
19 Cf. 2 Kings 18:2; 21:1, 19; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:8 and 18. 1 Kings 14:21 demonstrates that
this is pretty standard Judean usage, but during the period of the two kingdoms, there is
usually a synchronic notice as well. The three opening frames in Samuel (1 Sam 13:1 MT
and Ant.; 2 Samuel 2:10 and 5:4) reflect similar usage, demonstrating a relationship
between theses texts and the Judean frames. This is also the usage accepted by the
Chronicler, with the exception of 2 Chr 25:1 and 29:1. Cf. n. 20.
in the form ‫)ב(מלכו‬.20 All of the other attestations of this root simply mean
“reign (as king or queen).” By the addition of the synchronic reference (i.e.,
‫ )בשנת‬to the beginning of the regnal notice, the editor changed the meaning of
the verb ‫ מלך‬from a constative to an ingressive, or alternatively from an atelic
to a telic perfect. 21 By removing the secondary synchronic information, one
returns to the original understanding of the regnal notice. Two attestations in
LXX reflect this older reading in 3 Reigns 16:8 and 15; in these cases there is
no synchronistic notice in the opening frames of Baasha and Zimri—nor are
there Deuteronomistic evaluations.
The only elements in the frames of Kings that can readily be identified as
Deuteronomistic are the evaluations of the reign of the king. The original
source material used by the Deuteronomist presumably would not have con-
tained these Deuteronomic theological evaluations of individual monarchs. 22
One finds supporting evidence for the secondary nature of these evaluations in
that some are absent. Since no opening regnal formulas are provided for Solo-
mon, Jerobeam I and Jehu, they are spared negative evaluations at the begin-
———————————
20 Of the 348 occurrences of verbal forms of √‫מלך‬, 115 are Qal perfect; of these 115 only 27
justify a translation “became king.” All of these occurrences are in the synchronistic
frames of Kings: 1 Kgs 15:1, 9, 25, 33; 16:8, 23, 29; 22:41, 52; 2 Kgs 8:16, 25; 9:29;
12:2; 13:1, 10; 14:1, 23; 15:1, 8, 13, 17, 23, 27, 32; 16:1; 17:1; 18:1. The usages in 2 Chr
25:1 and 29:1 seem to be corruptions of the respective texts in 2 Kgs 14:2 and 18:2. The
usage of the inf. cs. does generally seem to have the meaning of “accession,” especially as
used in Kings.
21 Cf. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 30.2.1.
22 Contra Lemaire, “Redaction History,” 453–57. Lemaire imagines a recording of the
synchronistic histories of Judah and Israel in the time of Jehoshaphat based on his analysis
of the regnal evaluations of the kings of Israel and Judah. This would cover Israel up to the
time of Joram. “The two kingdoms were reconciled to each other in the middle of the ninth
century… This context of reconciliation and political alliance between Judah and Israel
explains the willingness of a Judean redactor to write down in the same book the histories
of both kingdoms after their division. In a similar way, under Hezekiah, the desire to
welcome Northern Israelites after the fall of Samaria explains the continuation of the same
synchronic double history.” (Lemaire, “Redaction History,” 456) While this initially
sounds perfectly reasonable, Lemaire seems to overlook the material his supposed source
would contain about Israel; all such information about Israel would have been decidedly
negative. Does one refer to one’s ally in terms like “He did what was evil in the sight of
‫יהוה‬, walking in the way of Jeroboam and continuing in the sin that he caused Israel to
sin”? Even if only part of this were kept, one can in no way regard such statements as a
positive reflection on Israel. The narrative portions would also not be indicative of positive
discourse about Judah’s neighbor to the north.
ning of their reigns. 23 The current text of Kings fails to identify three Israelite
kings as doing that which is evil in the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬in their opening formulas:
Elah, Zimri, and Shallum. 24 For whatever reason, the Deuteronomistic redactor
chose not to add negative regnal evaluations for these kings. 25 Omri represents
another special case, since the opening formula of his reign begins with the
synchronism, then has his years of reign, then includes further information
about his reign, 26 and only then does it offer a negative Deuteronomistic evalu-
ation. The same cannot be said for any other king of Israel. This flexibility of
the inclusion and location of an Israelite king’s evaluation may suggest that the
Deuteronomistic evaluations come from a time secondary to the synchronisms.
Additional evidence for this suggestion may be found in the fact that Saul,
Ishbaal, and David do not have these evaluations, though they do have opening
formulas (1 Sam 13:1 MT and Ant.; 2 Sam 2:10 and 5:4–5, respectively) in the
general format of the Judean kings, 27 all of whom have evaluations. Therefore,
the Judean synchronistic formulas may have been composed at a time before
the Deuteronomistic redaction responsible for the royal evaluations, 28 and it
therefore becomes plausible that someone took Israelite material, added Judean
material and the synchronistic notes to it, and that the Deuteronomist expanded
this unified history of Judah and Israel to include regnal evaluations and other
information pertinent to his theology. 29
———————————
23 Other Deuteronomistic texts provide the negative evaluations. Cf. 1 Kings 11 for Solomon;
13:33–34 for Jeroboam I; and 2 Kings 10:29, 31 for Jehu.
24 Contra Mullen, “Dynastic Grant,” 205: “Dtr does not even record an evaluation for
Shallum, something that was done for every other king of Israel.” This statement is
inaccurate.
25 Lamb suggests the brevity of their reigns as the reason. Cf. Lamb, Righteous Jehu, 19 n.
17. However, Zechariah has a Deuteronomistic notice in spite of only reigning for six
months, a reign that was 75 percent (following the biblical numbers) shorter than that of
Elah.
26 Namely the purchase and fortification of Samaria.
27 They are, however, missing the names of their mothers and Saul and Ishbaal have no
capital listed.
28 The Judean (and later) redactions responsible for the final edition of Kings are not the
subject matter of this study, as I am concentrating my work on Israelite material. I
anticipate that there were several redactions of the Northern material, beginning at the time
of the fall of Samaria and continuing into the Persian or even Hellenistic period. The
exploration of these further levels of Judean redaction will be left for a later examination or
as material for colleagues to address in the future.
29 Such a dual system was proposed as well by Shoshana R. Bin-Nun, “Formulas from Royal
Records of Israel and of Judah,” VT 18 (1968): 414–32.
This reconstruction of the redaction history of Kings demonstrates that the

Deuteronomist may have adapted the sources less than some people expect. 30
Some have found surprising flexibility in these “Deuteronomistic” frames of
Kings; some of the more expansive identifications of Deuteronomistic elements
in these formula lead to strange expectations. One such example is Würth-
wein’s pre-Deuteronomistic material about Jerobeam II. 31 He concludes that
the only phrase that is not Deuteronomistic in the pericope of 2 Kings 14:23–
29 is 2 Kings 14:25a: ‫“ הוא השיב את גבול י שראל מלבוא חמת עד ים הערבה‬He
restored the boundary of Israel from Lebo-Hamat to the Sea of the Arabah.” 32 I
find it highly unlikely that anyone would use only such a statement from source
material, being that the source material does not even explicitly name the sub-
ject. Only relying on the current context can anyone understand this reference
as being to Jerobeam II. If one works more cautiously in terms of literary criti-
cism, regarding the text as uniform unless circumstances dictate the opposite
must be true, some such curiosities may be avoided. By removing only the con-
spicuously Deuteronomistic elements from such a text, one arrives at a much
more understandable and probable text.
At this point Jepsen’s argumentation comes to mind:
Die beiden Tatbestände, einmal die Auswahl der Notizen, die von dem
Thema des RI aus nicht recht verständlich zu machen ist, zum anderen ihr
plötzliches Aufhören in der Zeit Hiskias lassen sich wohl nur so erklären, daß
wir annehmen, dem R I habe eine bis in die Zeit Hiskias reichende Quelle
vorgelegen, die er wörtlich aufnahm, seiner Geschichte der Könige zugrunde
legte und nach seinem Ermessen ergänzte.33
Jepsen recognized two sources behind the book of Kings, which he identified
as S and A. He identifies S as the synchronic chronicle, which represents an
(essentially) unbroken chain of the synchronistic and related information about
———————————
30 Contra e.g., Kittel, Könige, 129, who presents the entire history of Baasha as a
Deuteronomistic composition. This assertion of course affirms Cross’ conclusion, that
“…essentially, the Deuteronomistic history is a work of the late Kingdom, suffering only
minor modification by a member of the Deuteronomistic school in the Exile.” (Frank M.
Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic
History,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel [ed. Frank M. Cross; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973], 289)
32 Cf. the discussion to this pericope below. The suggestion of James A. Montgomery,
“Archival Data in the Book of Kings,” JBL 53 (1934): 46–52 that such constructions come
from a re-working of inscriptions seems improbable to me, especially as to date we have
such limited lapidary material from Israel.
33 Jepsen, Quellen, 10.
the kings of Israel and Judah. Basically, this source included the frames of the
book of Kings with the limited pieces of information related to them. Missing
from this source is, for example, a concluding notice for Joram of Israel. This
source consisted of information from the time of David to the time of Heze-
kiah. 34 Jepsen sees Judah in the time of Hezekiah (composed between the
destruction of Samaria and the siege of Sennacherib, i.e., ~705–701) as the ori-
gin for S. The objective was to contrast the kingdoms of Israel and Judah:
unstable vs. stable. 35 He further notes that “jede theologische Reflexion
fehlt,”36 meaning he regards this as a purely secular work.
Jepsen’s second identified source was the annals of the kings of Israel and
Judah (A), which consisted of some longer passages and anecdotes, generally
focusing on the temple in Jerusalem, other works of architecture, heroic deeds,
and revolutions. 37 Priests in Jerusalem composed A during Manasseh’s reign as
a complete history of Israel and Judah at least from the time of Solomon to
Manasseh.38 Once Jepsen worked out these two sources, he found three levels
of redaction of the text. The first redactor, R I, who composed briefly after the
destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, should be associated with a priestly
context.39 The second redactor, R II (= Noth’s Dtr), 40 could be identified in the
prophetic context working in the region of Benjamin during the exile, and
focusing on Palestine as the only true place of worship. 41 The final redaction,
RIII, was Levitical and composed at the end of the 6th century. focusing on the
exclusive rights of the Levitical priests. 42 Some problems remain with his the-
ory, and a potentially better reconstruction of sources seems possible.
One serious problem with his re-constructed sources is that some of the
“unique” aspects of each are found in the other: Jepsen regards ‫ אז‬as an stylistic
element of both S and A! 43 The usage of precise geographical information is a
———————————
34 One can read his reconstructed source in its entirety; cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 30–36.
35 Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 38.
36 Jepsen, Quellen, 39.
37 Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 54–56.
38 Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 57 and 60.
sign of A.44 Previously it was also an indication of S. 45 To resolve this apparent

tension, Jepsen suggests that A used the same or similar written sources as S. 46
S and A were distinct literary works, but relied on the same sources! 47 It seems
as if there could be a more plausible explanation for these circumstances.
In contradistinction to Jepsen, I would not consider the text preceding the
time of Hezekiah or Manasseh to originally contain both Judean and Israelite
information. Since we have seen that the Judean information was edited onto
the Israelite information, it would seem more reasonable to consider an Israel-
ite source as the Vorlage in or about the time of Hezekiah. 48 As seen above,
this source about Jehu has the appearance of coming from the time of Jero-
boam II and presumably included stories up to the time of his reign, as will be
demonstrated below. This source was also not an attempt to prognosticate
about the history of Israel free of biases, but rather has the appearance of
focusing positively on the dynasty of Jehu.
Many of the stylistic or vocabulary items that Jepsen identifies can more
accurately be divided geographically, i.e., they appear either in a Judean or an
Israelite context, but rarely in both. 49 Some examples should help to illustrate
this point. 1) The root √‫קשר‬: Judean usage is distinct from Israelite usage with
only one exception in 2 Kings 15:30 (i.e., after the fall of the Jehu dynasty and
therefore outside of my postulated Israel Source; 50 Jehu’s is unique to the book
———————————
45 Cf. Jepsen, Quellen, 39 n.1.
48 To the sources of the book of Kings: “dazu [zu den Quellen aus Israel] gehörten ausser
einer Reihe anderer Werke entweder die samarier Annalen selbst oder eine Abschrift von
ihnen, die auch 722 sehr wohl nach Jerusalem gekommen sein kann.” (Kittel, Könige, XI)
A somewhat similar, though more convoluted reconstruction of the sources behind the
period of the divided monarchies in the book of Kings can be found in Steuernagel,
Einleitung, 359. He regards the annalistic material from the frames to have been added by
the first redactor of Kings, but to have been taken from the same source as the narrative
material about the kings. He considers the same possible origin for materials from the
second redactor; i.e., material from the same source (either Ephraimite or Judean in his
nomenclature) entered into the book of Kings on three occasions: the composition of the
source material, the first redaction, and the second redaction. Cf. the chart on Steuernagel,
Einleitung, 360. I find it more likely to imagine an Israelite source being expanded by a
Judean and other redactors, who presumably had access to sources beyond the initial
Israelite source or who composed the secondary materials themselves.
49 This summary references his listings.
50 Judean usage tends to favor a duplication, literally, “rebelled a rebellion;” cf. 2 Kings
12:21 and 14:19. This usage matches 15:30.
of Kings). 2) Relations to other nations: Almost all are found in an Israelite

context before Hezekiah’s reign. 3) Relations between Judah and Israel: All
currently within Judean contexts! 4) Economic relations: all Judah; 5) personal
issues of kings: All Judean; 6) ‫ומלחמה היתה בין‬: this phrase only occurs in
Judean contexts! 7) ‫אז‬: Only two usages in Kings would belong to the postu-
lated Israel Source (1 Kings 16:21 and 2 Kings 14:8 [now in a Judean con-
text])! 8) ‫הוא‬:51 All of Jepsen’s examples are outside of any posited Israelite
source except for 2 Kings 14:25a. 9) All Judean examples: ‫בין…ובין‬, ‫בעת ההיא‬,
and ‫נוס‬. 10) All Israel: ‫( צור‬all different forms). 52 These examples should help
to illustrate that Jepsen’s thesis of a pre-Deuteronomistic source from around
the time of Hezekiah would be more likely understood as a product from Israel
with Judean additions or as coming from two geographically distinct sources.
This has been demonstrated not just with syntax, but also with vocabulary and
grammatical phenomena.
At this point, we have only considered texts up to the time of Jeroboam II
and it would therefore be premature to suggest what information this Vorlage
contained in the time of Hezekiah. Since the concluding notice of Jehu was
apparently in this source and since it references the “book of the deeds of the
days of the kings of Israel,” we should not consider this source to be the book
referenced in the closing notices of the kings of Israel either. 53 Rather, it would
seem that the author of Hezekiah’s Israelite Vorlage may have used some
information from “the book of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel” to
develop his own source. 54 This idea is also consistent with Noth’s understand-
ing of how Dtr used his sources; it wasn’t the “books of the deeds of the days
———————————
51 A sign of an ancient source already by Kittel, Könige, X. Cf. Benzinger, Könige, VIII.
53 Contra Person, Deuteronomic School, 25–26, who seems to believe that these “books of
the deeds of the days of the kings...” represent the primary (and irretrievable) sources
behind the book of Kings. While I would agree with him that these “books of the deeds of
the days of the kings” are irretrievable, they do not seem to be the source immediately
behind the redactions of Kings, as the earliest reconstructable Israelite narrative already
references them, demonstrating that they were not the primary source for Kings, but at best
a secondary or parallel source of information. Whether or not such a book was used as the
source for Judean material could still be possible, but it does not seem that likely that
much was taken from these accounts in Israel.
54 Contra Steuernagel, Einleitung, 348, who regards all of the information in the book of
Kings (with the exception of 1 Kings 1–2) as most probably coming from these chronicles.
Excursus: A Judean Redaction or a Judean Source? 81
of the kings” that he used, but rather a Bearbeitung of these books. 55 The
results of these analyses lead to a necessary consideration of the history of the
redaction of the book of Kings. The theory that seems most plausible is the
expansion of an Israelite story in the time of Hezekiah (or somewhat later) to
include information about Judah. The material adapted from the Northern
Kingdom would have already included opening and closing frames for the
kings of Israel (at least for those included in its story; which kings those were
remains to be determined). This Judean redaction would have added the syn-
chronistic notices to the opening frames in order to line up the histories of the
two kingdoms, thus making a new “edition”. 56 This may seem initially implau-
sible, but when one considers the so-called “Synchronic Chronicle” from Baby-
lon, one finds a similar phenomenon going back into the eighth century BCE,
assuming Grayson’s statements be positively evaluated: “...the astronomic dia-
ries and the source of the Babylonian Chronicle Series began to be compiled in
great detail beginning with the reign of Nabu-Nasir,” 57 i.e., 747–734 BCE.58
This redaction in the time of Hezekiah predated the Deuteronomistic redaction.
Excursus: A Judean Redaction or a Judean Source?
The question must be asked whether the Judean redaction in the time of Hezekiah com-
posed the material about Judah or edited a Judean source together with the Israel
Source into a new whole. While it is impossible to decide this issue with any certainty
———————————
55 Cf. Noth, ÜGS, 77; also Benzinger, Könige, VII.
56 Considering what kind of redaction work takes place on texts, van der Toorn suggests: “As
in the case of paratextual expansions, that is, those at the beginning or the end of the text,
intratextual expansions have their most plausible setting in the context of a new edition, as
opposed to a reproduction, of a traditional text.” Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and
the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
2007), 128; i.e., the Judean version of the text wasn’t a simple copy made of the original
Israelite material, but rather an expanded and redacted text, with a new exposition and
denouement.
57 A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2000), 13.
58 Granted, the colophon of the current edition of the Synchronistic Chronicle dates it in the
22nd year of Darius I (Grayson, ABC, 17). However, Grayson assumes that this is just the
edition of the current copy and that it has been copied from an earlier original, which the
copyist states in the colophon, cf. Column IV, Lines 39–43 (Grayson, ABC, 87). Either the
scribe has written this knowing that it is a lie or we can accept what he wrote. I find no
serious reason to doubt this assertion that the current edition of the text was copied from
an older original.
based on the material presented in this study, there are four pieces of evidence that
could suggest the existence of a Judean pendent to the Israel Source prior to the redac-
tion of the Israelite material into a Judean narrative in the time of Hezekiah. 1)
Rehoboam’s introduction in 1 Kings 14:21 contains no synchronistic information,
though this may be for ideological reasons, protecting Solomon from the actual loss of
Israel; 2) the oldest version of Ahaziahu of Judah’s reign, as recounted in 4 Reigns
10:36–43, contains no synchronic information about Israel and places Jehu’s accession
to the throne during the reign of Athaliah; 3) the opening of Jehoash of Judah’s reign
recounts his information in a form atypical for a Judean king, placing his age before the
synchronic material; 4) the seamless transition from the reign of Amaziah into the reign
of Azariah in 2 Kings 14:18–22 could be indicative of a source containing uninter-
rupted material about these two rulers. These factors could imply at least a list of kings
of Judah and their regnal information that existed before the redaction in the time of
Hezekiah. Because considerations of space precludes a full examination of this matter, I
introduce it briefly only in the hopes that it will be more deeply explored in the future.
From our observations about the redactions of the Jehu Revolution’s story in
2 Kings 9–10 it becomes apparent that this first redaction of the Israelite mate-
rial did not include the material about Elijah, as this material was added to the
story of the Jehu Revolution at the same time as the Deuteronomistic material.
That is, we are considering a royal, and not a principally prophetic text.
Beyond the redaction in the time of Hezekiah, one must reckon with one or
more Deuteronomistic or post-Deuteronomistic redactions. These may have
begun in the time of Josiah, but before that time it would be inappropriate to
speak of Deuteronomistic literature. 59 The final redaction(s) of this text would
have followed in the subsequent centuries. 60 After considering the history of
the redactions of the book of Kings, we can return our focus to the material
about the Jehuide kings of Israel to see if there is more material to be consid-
ered in this Israelite source than just the material about Jehu.
———————————
59 For considerations of a seventh-century beginning for the Deuteronomistic History, cf.
Römer, So-Called DH, 67–106. Although I do not agree with all of Römer’s conclusions, I
find his theory for the early beginning for the collection of Deuteronomistic literature to be
one of the most plausible offered to date.
60 The focus of this dissertation is not a redaction history for the book of Kings (nor for all of
DtrH), and therefore I will leave these statements vague in the hopes that others (or I at
some later date) will have the opportunity to address them in more detail.
2 Kings 13:1–9* 83
2 Kings 13:1–9*
Translation61 and Textual Considerations
1) In the 23rd year of Jehoash ben Ahaziahu King of Judah, Jehoahaz ben
Jehu reigned over Israel 62 in Samaria 17 years. 2) And he did what was evil in
the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬and walked after the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat that he
caused Israel to sin; he did not turn from them. 3) And the anger of ‫ יהוה‬burned
against Israel and he gave them into the hand of Hazael King of Aram and into
the hand of Ben-Hadad ben Hazael all the days. 4) Then Jehoahaz prayed
before ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ יהוה‬listened to him, for he saw the oppression of Israel, for the
king of Aram oppressed them. 5) And ‫ יהוה‬gave Israel a savior and they 63 came
out from under the hand of Aram; and the sons of Israel dwelt in their tents as
in previous times. 6) Only they did not turn from the sins 64 of the house of 65
Jeroboam that he caused Israel to sin; 66 in it67 they walked. And also the
Asherah stood in Samaria. 7) 68 For there did not remain 69 for Jehoahaz a peo-
ple except for 50 riders and ten chariots and 10,000 infantry, for the king of
Aram destroyed them and made them like the dust for threshing. 8) And the
———————————
61 The text is marked as follows: Judean; glosses; Deuteronomistic.
62 The phrase “over Israel” is missing in the LXX.
63 reads a singular verb instead of the Hebrew plural from √‫יצא‬. This then changes the
meaning from “they came out from under the hand of Aram” to “he came out from under
the hand of Aram.” In order to make this more understandable, Ant. went one step further,
reading the text as ‫ַויִֹצֵאם‬, i.e., a Hiphil plus the 3mp object suffix. While the difference may
appear relatively insignificant, here it seems that Vaticanus provides the more difficult
reading. It is possible that the scribes behind the Vaticanus tradition understood Israel here
in the singular, cf. 1 Kings 20:20. Notice for example the use of the definite article with
Israel in v. 5 τω and in v. 6 το ν. Alternatively, this may be a singular that should be
understood as a plural; a similar phenomenon was found in 2 Kings 9:11. It seems more
likely that Israel was understood as a singular. This will be the reading accepted in this
reconstruction. For clarity, this must still be rendered with “they” in English.
64 Singular in Alexandrinus. Most weighty witnesses attest the plural, which is followed here.
65 The phrase “the house of” is missing in some Hebrew manuscripts and the Peshitta. The
best witnesses read with Leningradensis, which is followed here.
66 Read with most manuscripts and the Qere; the ‫ א‬presumably elided at some point in
transmission.
67 Most of the best witnesses considered for textual criticism read the plural here, bringing it
in line with the plural of “sins” earlier in the verse.
68 Ant. has this verse following verse 23, suggesting that it is a later addition. This placement
of verse 7 after verse 23 is a clear attempt to smooth the text and should be considered a
later emendation.
69 The translations read this verb in the passive: “there was not left”. This makes little
difference in meaning.
rest of the deeds of Jehoahaz and all that he did and his might, are they not
written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 9) And
Jehoahaz slept with his fathers and they buried him in Samaria. And his son
Joash reigned in his stead.
Narrative Considerations
The only story that we have about Jehoahaz of Israel refers to Israelite suffer-
ing under the Aramean kings Hazael and Ben-Hadad until ‫ יהוה‬gave Israel a
savior. Many have identified the language of this story in its entirety as
Deuteronomistic. While there is some Deuteronomistic language in verses 2
and 6,70 the rest of the text remains free of this stereotypical language. Others
have suggested that this pericope is based on or related to the book of Judges. 71
However, if this were the case, the scribe responsible for copying the motif and
style didn’t do a very good job. While there is a thematic echo because of the
oppression and salvation motif, this is as far as the similarity goes. The lan-
guage of Judges is significantly different: 72 first Israel does what is evil, then
‫ יהוה‬gives (or sells; cf. Judg 3:8) them into foreign hands, usually they cry out
to ‫יהוה‬,73 and then ‫ יהוה‬raises (hi. ‫ )קום‬judges (‫ )שפטים‬to save them. In the story
about Jehoahaz in 2 Kings 13, it is only Jehoahaz who does evil (in the current
form of the text, this presumably being an addition), then ‫’יהוה‬s anger burns
against Israel, who is given into the hand of its enemies. Then come the most
important differences: Jehoahaz prays to ‫יהוה‬, who listens because of the
oppression of Israel and gives (Qal: ‫ )נתן‬them a savior (‫)מושיע‬, who, in contra-
———————————
70 According to Weinfeld, the following phrases in this passage are Deuteronomic: ‫וילך אחר‬
‫חטאת ירבעם בן נבט‬, ‫לא סר ממנה‬, and ‫אך לא סרו מחטאות בית ירבעם‬. Cf. Weinfeld,
D e u t e r o n o m y , 3 3 7 a n d 3 4 0 . R e g a r d i n g t h e p h r a s e ‫ כ ל ה י מ י ם‬, c f . We i n f el d ,
Deuteronomy, 358. Verse 7 lacks any conspicuously Deuteronomistic elements, but its
relation to verse 6 should not be doubted due to the similar Tendenz of the negative
portrayal of the king of Israel as weak. 2 Kings 13:7 does not readily continue verse 5,
suggesting another provenance for verse 7. While the Deuteronomist may have adapted v.
7 from older material (cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 360–61), there is no
evidence that it came from the Israel Source.
71 e.g., Gray, Kings, 592; Mullen, “Dynastic Grant,” 201.
72 This summary analysis is based on Judges 2:11–19.
73 Cf. Judg 3:9, 15; 6:6; and 10:10.
2 Kings 13:1–9* 85
distinction to the judges of Israel, remains unnamed in Kings. 74 It seems here

that a different person or group of people was responsible for each tradition,
the notice here and the recurring formulae in Judges. The information about
Jehoahaz should therefore not be so easily accepted as a purely Deutero-
nomistic story. “[I]t should not be dismissed as a late invention, for it may well
derive from genuine Israelite pre-Deuteronomistic traditions, whether oral or
written.”75 In spite of the crisis of the Aramean conflicts, the original text sug-
gests a positive image of Jehoahaz in the source material; his prayer is
answered in Israel’s time of need. The Deuteronomistic notes in 2 Kings 13:2
and 6–7 attempt to tarnish this image. 76 Like his father Jehu, Jehoahaz is
described in the closing notice in v. 8 as having might ( ‫)וגבורתו‬, which stands
directly in contradiction to vv. 6–7. 77 For these reasons, only the verses 2, 6,
and 7 of this pericope will be regarded as Deuteronomistic, thus leaving the
content of the story in 2 Kings 13:1*, 3–5 and 8–9. The added material in verse
1 comes from the Judean redactor responsible for all of the synchronic notices.
Two levels of redaction can be readily found for this material: one Judean
redaction that added the synchronistic notice and the Deuteronomistic redac-
tion. This redaction history conspicuously matches that of 2 Kings 9–10.
———————————
74 This suggests a certain propagandistic tendency. The narrator leaves an important detail
like the identity of the savior a mystery. Potentially, this could suggest an identity that the
narrator may have wanted to keep hidden in order to prevent any potential alienation of the
audience. In this category, the most likely candidate would be Adad-N ārārī III. For a brief
discussion of this possibility, cf. Edward Lipi ński, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History,
Culture, Religion (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta; Leuven: Peeters Publishers &
Department of Oriental Studies, 2000), 395. In the Deuteronomistic redaction of the text,
one could regard the savior as Elisha; cf. Gray, Kings, 595, although one would
presumably expect the author to mention him, as he has previously been introduced.
Additionally, this savior could suggest a subtle reference to the victory of Joash over the
Arameans, which seems most probable based on the context; cf. below.
76 Cf. Lamb, Righteous Jehu, 181–84.
77 Someone in the Antiochene tradition apparently noticed this contradiction and therefore
moved v. 23 after v. 7 in order to bridge this gap more effectively. Cf. Cogan and Tadmor,
II Kings, 144.
2 Kings 13:10–14:22*
Translation78 and Textual Considerations
10) In the 37th 79 year of Jehoash King Judah Joash ben Jehoahaz reigned
over Israel in Samaria 16 80 years. 11) And he did what was evil in the eyes of
‫יהוה‬. He did not turn from all of the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat that he caused
Israel to sin. In it 81 he walked. 12) And the rest of the deeds of Joash and all
that he did and his might that he battled with Amaziah Kings of Judah, are they
not written on the scroll of the deeds of the days of the king of Israel? 13) And
Joash slept with his fathers and Jeroboam his son sat upon his throne. And
Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel.
{14) And Elisha was sick with his illness that would kill him. And Joash
king of Israel went down to him and cried on his face and said: My father! My
father! Israel’s chariotry and cavalry! 82 15) And Elisha spoke to him: Take a
bow and arrows. And he took for himself a bow and arrows. 16) And he spoke
to the king of Israel: Lay your hand upon the bow. And he laid his hand on the
bow. And Elisha set his hand upon the hands of the king of Israel. 17) And he
said: open the window to the east. And he opened the window. And he said:
Shoot! And he shot. And he said: An arrow of salvation for ‫ יהוה‬and an arrow
of salvation against Aram. You will strike Aram in Apheq until [they are] fin-
ished! 18) And he said: Take the arrows. And he took [them]. And he said to
the king of Israel: 83 Strike the ground! And he struck three times and stopped.
19) And the man of God grew angry against him and said: If you had struck
five or six times, then you would have struck Aram until [their] end. But now
you will strike Aram [only] three times. 20) Then Elisha died and they buried
———————————
78 To the textual markings up to this point will be added {Elisha narrative}.
79 The year number reads variously in some LXX traditions. They represent attempts to make
sense of the synchronic dating system and put it into an understandable schema.
80 Only the Peshitta reads 13, which will be rejected here.
81 The translations and 2 manuscripts read the object in the plural and represent later
emendations in order to make the text consistent. Lectio difficilior favors L.
82 Literally: “The chariotry of Israel and his horses!” The LXX reads the singular “horse”
both here and in 2 Kings 2:12. The singular of horse can be understood as a collective,
meaning cavalry. That is the reason I have chosen this translation here.
83 “To the king of Israel” is missing in one Septuagint papyrus and the Peshitta. The
weightier witnesses favor including it in spite of lectio brevior.
2 Kings 13:10–14:22* 87
him. And raiding bands 84 of Moab used to enter 85 the land [at] the beginning
of the year86. 21) And as they were 87 burying a man and behold! They saw the
raiding party and threw the man into Elisha’s grave. And the man 88 [he] went
and touched the bones of Elisha and lived and got up onto his feet. }
22) And Hazael king of Aram 89 oppressed Israel all of the days of Jehoa-
90
haz. 23) But ‫ יהוה‬was gracious to them and had compassion on them and
turned to them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob .91 And
he92 did not want to banish them and did not cast them from his presence until
now. 24) Then Hazael King of Aram died and his son Ben-Hadad reigned in
his stead.
25) So Joash ben Jehoahaz reconquered the cities from the hand of Ben-
Hadad ben Hazael that he had taken in battle from the hand of Jehoahaz his
father. Three times Joash struck him and returned the cities of Israel.
14:1) In the 2nd year of Joash ben Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah
ben Jehoash king of Judah reigned. 2) He was 25 years old at his ascen-
———————————
84 One manuscript and the Targum read the singular, with only one raiding band.
85 Two attempts have been made to emend this verb: 2 manuscripts read it in the perfect
plural Qal; the Targum agrees with its subject here and reads in the singular. L requires no
emendation when one considers the possibility of an iterative imperfect: Moabite raiding
bands entered Israel repeatedly, at the beginning of every year, or similar.
86 Read with LXX. Cf. 1 Kings 20:22, 26 (= 3 Reigns 21:22, 26) for a similar usage. Contra
Schenker, Textgeschichte, 145, who translates this as “a year came,” meaning that a year
had gone by since Elisha had been buried. There is no need to separate this syntagma from
the preceding material as he has done to necessitate his understanding of the text. Rather,
it is more likely that a ‫ ב‬was accidentally left out of the Hebrew: ‫בבא שנה‬.
87 The Sebir reads: “And they were burying…” The MT reads: “And it was as they were
burying…” There is little (if any) difference in meaning. MT seems to have the preferred
reading.
88 The subject remains unnamed in LXX and one Targum manuscript. This is the preferred
reading, which was expanded to remove potential misunderstandings about the text: Who
got up and walked? “The man” is a later gloss.
89 Hazael’s identifier “King of Aram” is missing in LXX. It is a later gloss to remind readers
who Hazael was. In the original context (i.e., before the insertion of the Elisha legend),
Hazael’s identity would have been clear from the previous story. The phrase “King of
Aram” will be regarded as an explanatory gloss.
90 Ant. transposes verse 7 here. See note 68 above.
91 Although present in all major witnesses (including the copula before Isaac in LXX, the
Peshitta, and the Vulgate), this unique covenental notice seems more appropriately dated
to a later period, once the Patriarch narratives had been combined and completed. It also
disturbs the context and makes the subject of the next clause unclear. Cf. following note.
92 LXX reads the tetragrammaton as the subject here. This should be regarded as a later
addition to clarify the subject; it is not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Hazael who did not want
to banish them.
sion and reigned 29 years in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was
Jehoaddin93 from Jerusalem. 3) He did what is upright in the eyes of ‫יהוה‬,
only not like David his father. Like all that Jehoash his father had done, he
did. 4) Only the Bamoth he 94 did not turn from. The people still sacrificed and
offered at the Bamoth. 5) Once he had the kingship firmly in his grasp, he
struck his servants who had struck his father. 95 6) But the sons of the strik-
ers he did not kill, as is written on the scroll of the Torah of Moses that ‫יהוה‬
commanded Israel, saying fathers shall not be killed 96 for sons and sons shall
not be killed for fathers, for each shall die according to his sin. 97 7) He struck
Edom in the Valley of Salt: 98 10,000. And he seized the stone in battle. He
named it Jokteel until this day.
8) Then Amaziah [king of Judah] 99 sent messengers to Joash ben Jehoahaz
ben Jehu king of Israel, saying: Come! Let us meet face to face! 9) And Joash
king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying: A briar in Lebanon sent
to a cedar in Lebanon, saying: give your daughter to my son as a wife. Then a
wild animal of Lebanon went out and trampled the briar. 10) Truly you struck
Edom and your heart raised you up. Be honored and remain in your house.
100
Why should you venture into evil and fall, you and Judah with you? 11) But
Amaziah didn’t listen, so Joash 101 the king of Israel went up and they met face
to face, he and Amaziah king of Judah, 102 in Beth-Shemesh, which belongs to
Judah. 12) And Judah was defeated before Israel and they fled, each to his
———————————
93 Emended to read with ketib and .
94 Emended to read with LXX; it is not the people, but rather Jehoash or Amaziah who did
not turn from the sin.
95 Lectio brevior favors LXX, which is followed here; i.e., “the king” is absent.
96 Following L here for both occurrences of the verb.
97 Sin is plural in LXX and the Peshitta. The meaning remains the same.
98 LXX apparently understood ‫ גיא ]ה[מלח‬as being a place name: Gaimele ( Γαιμελε). This
could be a reference to a specific valley of salt (which is what the name means), or to
another place. There is no clarity on which reading is to be preferred. Since it does not
play a crucial role in my argumentation, I will leave this discussion for another time.
99 Cf. Peshitta and Gray, Kings, 606 n. a.
100 Some witnesses are missing the copula that L has. This makes no difference in translation,
but it has been left out in order to allow the English to read better.
101 The name Joash is missing in Vaticanus. This may be the original reading, focusing on his
title.
102 There is no need to move or remove this phrase, as BHS suggests. Though the syntax is a
little unusual, this alone is no reason to emend the verse, as some witnesses (2 Greek
papyri and the Peshitta) attest.
2 Kings 13:10–14:22* 89
tent. 103 13) And Joash king of Israel captured Amaziah ben Jehoash ben
Ahaziahu King of Judah 104 in Beth-Shemesh. Then he 105 entered Jerusalem and
broke through the wall of Jerusalem at 106 the gate of Ephraim up to the corner
gate: 400 cubits. 14) And he took all of the gold and 107 the silver and all of the
vessels found in108 the house of ‫ יהוה‬and the treasures of the house of the king
and the sons of the king as hostages. Then he returned to Samaria. 15) And the
rest of the deeds of Joash 109 that he did and his might and 110 that he fought with
Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds of the
days of the kings of Israel? 16) And Joash slept with his fathers and was buried
in Samaria with the kings of Israel. And Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.
17) And Amaziah ben Jehoash king of Judah lived 15 years after the
death of Joash ben Jehoahaz king of Israel. 18) And the rest of the deeds
of Amaziah, are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of
the kings of Judah? 19) And they conspired a conspiracy against him in
Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish. And they sent after him to Lachish and
killed him there. 20) And they lifted him upon the horses and he was bur-
ied in Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. 21)And the whole
people of Judah took Azariah 111 and he was 16 years old and they made
———————————
103 Read the singular with the Ketib, LXX, and the Peshitta. Both usages are attested
elsewhere in the Bible, making the decision especially difficult. It seems to be an idiom
whose exact usage became unclear over time. Logically, it would seem to make more sense
for each person to have one tent than for each one to have multiple tents, as the Qere and
some other witnesses read. Therefore LXX will be used.
104 “King of Judah” appears as though it may be a late gloss, cf. Vaticanus. For this reason it
has been removed. “In light of the formal style of presentation, there is no reaston [sic!] to
consider ‘son of Jehoash son of Ahaziah’ as a scribal expansion.” (Cogan and Tadmor, II
Kings, 156)
105 Read with the Qere and the best witnesses.
106 ‫ ב‬should be understood here as “at” and therefore does not require emendation. LXX knew
the preposition ‫ב‬, which will be used here. Cf. Nahum M. Sarna, “The Interchange of the
Prepositions Beth and Min in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 78, no. 4 (December 1959): 313,
which, however, demonstrates the similar understanding and interchangeability of the
prepositions ‫ ב‬and ‫מן‬.
107 The gold appears to be a later gloss. Cf. LXX.
108 The text should be emended to include a missing ‫ ב‬before house, making it read “in the
house.”
109 Lectio brevior favors MT and LXX.
110 The copula is absent in some witnesses, which does not change the meaning. It is
maintained here.
111 Azariah is identified as Uzziah in the Peshitta and 2 Chr 26:1. Cf. 2 Kings 15:1. Lectio
difficilior favors MT, LXX, et al.
him king instead of his father Amaziah. 22) He built Elath and brought it
back to Judah after the king slept with his fathers.
The reign of Joash of Israel as presented in the current form of the book of
Kings presents more difficulty than that of Jehoahaz. Apparently greater addi-
tions of textual material were inserted between the beginning and the end of his
story. The most conspicuous evidence of this is the double ending that he has,
once in 2 Kings 13:12–13 and again in 2 Kings 14:15–16. At first glance one
also notices the (redacted) story of Elisha in 13:14–21 and the story of
Amaziah of Judah in 14:1–22. These elements all suggest a more complicated
textual development than that of 2 Kings 13:1–9. In spite of this, using the
tools of literary criticism, we can suggest the original content of the story. In
the current context, the best place to start examining the literary structure and
redaction history of this text is the last story within the pericope; my analysis
begins with 2 Kings 14:1–22. 112
Chapter 14 opens with a stereotypical Judean regnal format: synchronism
(v. 1), age at ascension (v. 2a), length of reign in Jerusalem (v. 2a), the king’s
mother’s name (v. 2b), and the Deuteronomistic evaluation (vv. 3–4). The
material about Amaziah then continues, including information about his execu-
ting the enemies of his father and victories against Edom. This material clearly
has a Judean interest and perspective. Only at v. 8 does the text begin consider-
ing relations between Judah and Israel. The transition is clearly marked by the
particle ‫אז‬. This pericope covers all of verses 8–14, and then the text contains
the (currently second) concluding notice of Joash of Israel’s reign in vv. 15–16.
Finally, verses 17–22 provide concluding information about the reign of
Amaziah of Judah, thus framing the information about Joash within a Judean
context, at least in this pericope. This concluding section causes one to specu-
late about the redaction history of this passage.
“Es scheint, dass auch 14,8–14 ursprünglich eine samarische und keine
judäische Erzählung gewesen ist…” 113 Several factors suggest an Israelite ori-
———————————
112 For a very brief, yet similar conclusion to the following (minus the commentary on
1 Kings 20), cf. Hölscher, “Quellen,” 187.
113 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs , 287.
2 Kings 13:10–14:22* 91
gin for the material in 8–14, which was then appropriated by Judeans and
reworked to become a story about Amaziah of Judah instead of being about
Joash of Israel. 114 First, in v. 8, Joash’s double patronym merits notice. He is
one of the few individuals in Kings who has a double patronym. The only kings
that have them are Ben-Hadad of Aram (1 Kings 15:18), Jehu (2 Kings 9:2 and
14), Joash (2 Kings 14:8), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:13). 115 So, of all the kings
of Israel and Judah, the only ones who have a double patronym are Jehu and
Joash of Israel and Amaziah of Judah. The usage of the double patronym sug-
gests a connection between this text and 2 Kings 9. Why? First of all, the honor
that the double patronym lent Jehu is also granted to his grandson through
Joash’s immediate connection with his grandfather. Further, the connection is
demonstrated by the reference to Ahaziahu of Judah, the very king whom Jehu
defeated as part of his rebellion. This suggests that the two stories of 2 Kings 9
and 2 Kings 14 are related; just as Jehu defeated Ahaziahu, so his grandson
defeats Ahaziahu’s grandson.
This brings us to the second conspicuous element of this story, namely the
overwhelmingly positive image of the king of Israel. He handily defeats the
king of Judah (v. 12) in a battle in Judean territory, 116 even going so far as to
plunder not only the temple of Jerusalem, but also the king’s house, even tak-
ing his sons as prisoners (v. 14a). Joash distinguishes himself through his wit,
telling a parable in order to make his point to Amaziah (v. 9), contrasting him
with Amaziah, who just wouldn’t listen: ‫( ולא שמע אמציהו‬v. 11). This affirming
image of the king of Israel indicates a high probability that the story comes
from an Israelite context friendly towards the Jehuide kings, just as found in
2 Kings 9–10*.
———————————
114 For similar positions, cf. Šanda, 1. Könige, 165; Benzinger, Könige, 163–64; Würthwein,
1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 370–73; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 156.
115 The non-royal persons provided with a double patronym are Shaphan (2 Kings 22:3),
Shallum the husband of Hulda (2 Kings 22:14), Gedaliah (2 Kings 25:22), and Ishmael
(2 Kings 25:25).
116 Note the use of “in Judah” in reference to Beth-Shemesh; cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II
Kings, 156; Gray, Kings, 602. It remains entirely unclear why Amaziah of Judah sought to
meet with Joash of Israel; cf. Martin Noth, “Jerusalem and the Northern Kingdom,” in
Jerusalem Through the Ages: The Twenty-Fifth Archaeological Convention October 1967
(Israel Exploration Society; Jersusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1968), 34, who notes
that it was not “with the purpose of regaining rule over the Northern Kingdom for the
house of David.”
Syntactically, one notices the high-density of the perfect (both Qal and
Hiphil in this pericope), the narrator not relying merely on the waw-imperfect
narrative form. Examples of this phenomenon are found in vv. 8 ( ‫)שלח‬, 9 (‫)שלח‬,
10 (‫ הכית‬and ‫)ונפלתה‬, 11 (‫)לא שמע‬, 13 (‫)תפש‬, and 14 (‫)ולקח‬. This syntax may be
indicative of a single author composing 2 Kings 9–10* and 14:8–16.
In the end, however, the reader notices that the negative story about
Amaziah of Judah has been surrounded by positive information about this king.
In vv. 5–6 the reader discovers that Amaziah killed his father’s murderers, but
not their families (this contrasts him with the Israelite kings, who always
explicitly do just that in the Deuteronomistic version of their history), and then
moved on to conquer Edom (v. 7), a fact that the Israelite texts presumes and
supports (v. 10). 117 Even after the notice of his own murder, the text concludes
with the positive notice about him, namely that his son succeeded him and built
Elath. This notice may stand in tension with the fact that Joash is reported to
have taken the sons of the king hostage (v. 14), providing some further evi-
dence for a secondary Judean redaction of primarily Israelite material, though
the information provided does not definitively represent a contradiction within
the text.
Also conspicuous within this text is the virtual absence of Deutero-
nomistic language outside of the evaluation of Amaziah of Judah and the
explicit quote of Deuteronomy in 14:6. This suggests that this tale in its origin
was not Deuteronomistic and further implies that the redaction responsible for
making this story Judean was also not identical with the Deuteronomistic
redaction. Once again, the evidence commends an Israelite source edited by a
Judean redactor before the Deuteronomistic redaction.
Finally the concluding frame of Joash requires examination. As mentioned
previously, Joash has two concluding notices in the book of Kings in MT and
Vaticanus, once in 13:12–13 and once in 14:15–16. The question becomes
which one of these frames is original and which one is secondary. The first
issue to consider is the differences between the two formulas:
———————————
117 The circumstances behind any such conflict must remain shrouded in mystery; cf. John R.
Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup 77; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 122–28.
However, the mention of Edom in the Calah inscription of Adad-Nīrārī III suggests that
˘
some political instance known as Moab did exist in this region at that time.
2 Kings 13:10–14:22* 93
2 Kings 13:12–13 2 Kings 14:15–16

‫ויתר דברי יואש וכל אשר עשה‬ ‫ויתר דברי יהואש אשר עשה‬
‫וגברותו אשר נלחם עם אמציה‬ ‫וגברותו ואשר נלחם עם אמציהו מלך יהודה‬
‫מלך יהודה‬
‫הלוא הם כתובים על ספר דברי הימים‬ ‫הלא הם כתובים על ספר דברי הימים‬
‫למלכי ישראל‬ ‫למלכי ישראל‬
‫וישכב יואש עם אבתיו‬ ‫וישכב יהואש עם אבתיו‬
‫וירבעם ישב על כסאו‬
‫ויקבר יעאש בשמרון עם מלכי ישראל‬ ‫ויקבר בשמרון עם מלכי ישראל‬
‫וימלך ירבעם בנו תחתיו‬
There are some important differences in this chart that need to be explained.
First and foremost are the additions to the formula recounted in chapter 13 as
opposed to what is found in chapter 14. Chapter 14 represents lectio difficilior
in the cases where there are minor differences, 118 i.e., by adding ‫ וכל‬to 14:15,
later scribes systematized the reading in chapter 14 with that of chapter 13.
The most important differences are the phrases unique to each version. The
notice in chapter 13 does not conclude with the typical closing formula,
whereas the account in chapter 14 is missing the notice about Jeroboam sitting
on the throne. The other differences revolve around the spellings of the names
and the plene vs. defective spelling of ‫הלא‬. Throughout the history of this text,
several attempts were made to correct this situation.
The ultimate resolution of this conflict can be found in Ant., which
removed both of these occurrences and instead put the occurrence from chapter
14 at the end of chapter 13, thus making it match the systematic scheme for
most of the book of Kings. As this is a conspicuous corrective to the more dif-
ficult readings of MT and LXX, it should be rejected as the oldest reading.
Lectio difficilior favors the reading in ch. 13, as it is more inconsistent with the
other readings of the frames of Kings. On the other hand, it is impossible to
remove the reading in ch. 14 as secondary based on literary critical grounds. It
———————————
118 The textual witnesses favoring the addition of ‫ וכל‬to 14:15 are later than L. Also since L,
reads in line with LXX, it seems more plausible to stick with it than to reject it in favor of
the reading that brings the formula more in line with the others. On the other hand, one
should remove ‫ ו‬from 14:15 before the second ‫ אשר‬in order to read with LXX.
appears that at some point following the incorporation of the Israelite material
into Amaziah’s story, someone added another concluding frame for Joash in
ch. 13. This occurred most likely at or before the incorporation of the Elisha
story into the material about Joash. 119 The redactor did not entirely copy the
style of the concluding frames that he found in the Israel Source, instead using
a new formula to describe Jeroboam’s ascension to the throne. The usage in
13:13 reminds the reader more of the usage regarding Solomon in 1 Kings 2:12
than of the usage familiar for the kings of Israel. The formula as presented in
2 Kings 14:15–16 has the appearance of being the more systematic, later for-
mula of the two, having been wholly incorporated into the Judean material with
the rest of 8–16. An editor presumably copied the original form of the conclud-
ing frame from 14:15–16 to 13:12–13, but this second frame was later edited to
be of a more consistent form with the rest of frames of Kings. The evidence of
Ant. at 14:16 suggests that the comment that Jeroboam acceded the throne was
known at that point in its Vorlage. The systematizing process found its culmi-
nation in Ant., which largely removed both accounts discussed here and instead
put a singular account at 4 Reigns 13:25. Therefore, the summation of this evi-
dence suggests that the original closing notice of Joash’s reign was that found
in MT at 13:12–13, but at the location known in Ant. at 14:(15–)16.
The fact that LXX records both of these versions in its translation speaks
to the age of the redaction responsible. A related phenomenon can be found in
4 Reigns 1:18 a–d of the LXX, the existence of which causes another double
framework for one of the kings of Israel, in this instance the opening notice of
Joram ben Ahab. Conspicuously, both of these double frames are found sur-
rounding the Elisha narratives. Joram, who in LXX ascends the throne before
the primary introduction of Elisha’s activities in 2 Kings 2, has a doubled
opening frame in 2 Kings 3. The same phenomenon can be found in Joash’s
frames in 2 Kings 13 and 14 at the end of Elisha’s life. This suggests that LXX
may represent an earlier tradition at these points, leaving more evidence of the
———————————
119 Cf. Otto, Jehu, 238–39 and 239 n. 387 and the literature cited there. The consideration
that the Elisha texts must have been added after the Deuteronomistic redaction (cf. Otto,
Jehu, 199) becomes unnecessary once one recognizes that the Detueronomist was not
responsible for the regnal frames of Kings. This observation further suggests that it may
have been the Deuteronomist who added the Elisha stories into the book of Kings, when
one considers the redactional nature of 2 Kings 13:18–19 regarding the original Elisha
story in 2 Kings 13:14–17 and the notice in 2 Kings 13:25b. N.b., the Elijah redaction =
Dtr in 2 Kings 9–10!
2 Kings 13:10–14:22* 95
Elisha accounts being added secondarily. MT began to iron this problem out,
but its task remained incomplete, Joash being left with two conclusions. Jeho-
shaphat of Judah represents the same phenomenon in 3 Reigns 16:28 a–h and
22:41–51. This suggests that someone intentionally reconstructed the frames to
surround and incorporate both the Elijah (Jehoshaphat of Judah and Joram of
Israel) and Elisha (Joram of Israel and Joash of Israel) legends. The frames
existed before the inclusion of these stories, but the redactor who added them
seems to have generally developed a second frame for the kings at the point of
introduction (or conclusion) as a kind of Wiederaufnahme. Following the trans-
lation of the text into Greek, the textual traditions developed in different direc-
tions; MT removed the doubled opening frames for Jehoshaphat and Joram,
whereas Ant. keeps Joram’s opening and removes the doubled concluding
frame for Joash and places the remaining singular frame at a more logical
point. Each tradition demonstrates a unique attempt to solve the same problem
and make the text read more consistently.
As in the pericope in 2 Kings 9–10*, one also notes the missing informa-
tion about Joash, namely that he paid tribute to Adad-N ārārī III.120 The narrator
here chooses not to focus on this potentially negative aspect of the reign of
Joash, ignoring it so that the reader would not even know of it, were it not for
the records of the Assyrians. This reticence concerning negative aspects of
Joash of Israel matches the tendentious nature of the author of the account of
Jehu’s revolution, suggesting a potential link between these two narratives.
Such an observation strengthens the considerations regarding a uniform Israel-
ite source favorable to the dynasty of Jehu.
In summary, the pericope 14:1–22 contains Israelite material in vv. 8–16,
combined with material from a Judean source/redaction, and finally a
Deuteronomistic redaction framing the story in vv. 1–7 and 17–22. 121 The Isra-
elite material once again demonstrates the same overtly positive image of the
king of Israel. He is clearly the protagonist of the story, with the later Judean
redaction editing this positive image into a story about the fall of a king of
Judah, moving the focus away from Joash to Amaziah. Further, the story dem-
———————————
120 Cf. the Tell-al-Rimah inscription and the discussion beginning below on page 226.
121 Cf. Gray, Kings, 603 and Kittel, Könige, 260. However, some of the material in 14:17–22
may come from a Judean source or redaction.
onstrates literary connections to the story of 2 Kings 9–10* and presumably

originated in the same source.
The next major block of material about Joash of Israel to consider can be
found in 2 Kings 13:14–21. For the second (and final) time, Elisha appears in a
pericope under consideration. It seems plausible that up to two redactors han-
dled this text. 122 The original story can be found in 2 Kings 13:14–17. The
expansion(s) then follow in 18–21, or in 18–19 and then again in 20–21. The
opening of this Elisha pericope also reminds the reader of the story of Elijah’s
ascension in 2 Kings 2, cf. ‫ אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו‬in 2 Kings 2:12 and 13:14.
The content of the story is similar to what the reader encounters in the Elisha
stories in 2 Kings 2–8 as opposed to that which we have seen in 2 Kings 9.
Further, verse 17 stands in tension to verse 25b: Elisha only claims three victo-
ries for Joash, but never that these victories will allow him to reconquer terri-
tory. The Elisha narrative suggests striking Aram until it no longer exists,
whereas v. 25b has a much more concrete and limited scope, i.e., returning pre-
viously lost cities to Israel. This suggests that these two verses are not from the
same source. Verses 18–19 have the appearance of trying to smooth out this
apparent contradiction; cf. further 13:24 Ant. which attributes three victories at
Apheq to Joash, something not known in Vaticanus or MT in this verse. Should
the reconstruction offered below be found correct, verse 13:17 remains in ten-
sion with the battles of Joash described in what is currently 1 Kings 20; while
the Elisha tradition is familiar with three victories in Apheq, 1 Kings 20 only
recognizes one of the three victories over Aram occurring at Apheq; cf.
1 Kings 20:26–29. A few factors suggest that this Elisha story was not present
in the oldest narrative about Joash: 1) the political stories are only familiar with
Joash’s three strikes against Aram (2 Kings 13:25); 2) the story of Jeroboam II
presumes that Joash did not entirely destroy Aram, as the biblical text appar-
ently credits Jeroboam with this honor (2 Kings 14:28); 3) 2 Kings 13:18–19 is
a clear attempt to reconcile 2 Kings 13:14–17 with 2 Kings 13:25, a reconcilia-
tion that would not be necessary if they were taken from the same source; 4)
Elisha (who is not identified as “the prophet” here; cf. 2 Kings 9:1) acts in this
pericope as a kind of augur, which is unfamiliar within the Israel Source,
which, while it does recognize prophets, only recounts signs of their handling
———————————
122 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 365–66 and Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Elisa, 80–
82.
2 Kings 13:10–14:22* 97
when the narrative addresses matters of irregular coronation (cf. Jehu’s anoint-
ing in 2 Kings 9:6 and Ahijah’s garment in 1 Kings 11:30 vis-à-vis Jonah’s
word of prophecy in 2 Kings 14:25). For these reasons, the passage of 2 Kings
13:14–21 will be regarded as an insertion into the story originally focusing on
Joash of Israel. 123
The last material about Joash of Israel to consider in 2 Kings 13–14 is
2 Kings 13:22–25, which includes a brief notice about Hazael and Ben-Hadad.
A few textual and literary critical observations should help in our analysis of
this passage. Interestingly, the phrase “king of Aram” is missing in the LXX
suggesting that this was missing in its Vorlage.124 It may not have been neces-
sary from a narrative perspective to establish who Hazael was in that case. This
would support a context in which the story of his death follows the account of
Jehoahaz;125 that narrative explicitly references Hazael as the “king of Aram”
(2 Kings 13:3). The Ant. attempt to rectify the tension between 13:7 and 13:5
by moving 13:7 before 13:23 should be abandoned as secondary. 126
Three points merit consideration regarding literary criticism. First is
Weinfeld’s consideration that 13:23 contains Deuteronomic language, specifi-
cally in the phrase ‫ולא השליכם מעל פניו‬.127 His other examples of this phrase are
in 2 Kings 17:20 and 24:20 (= Jer 52:3) as well as Jer 7:15; however, this
usage in 2 Kings 13:23 is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the only
example provided in the Deuteronomistic literature that has been negated by
the narrator. 2 Kings 13:23 is an affirmation of the existence of Israel, possibly
as a response to criticism against Israel or someone’s anticipation of its down-
fall. The other occurrences all reference the destruction of Israel (or Judah).
The usage of ‫ עד עתה‬suggests a date of composition in which Israel still stood,
———————————
123 The independent redaction history of the Elisha narrative is not a focus of this work and
does not play a major role in the argumentation here. Although I find it probable that an
originally favorable narrative regarding Joash was transformed into a unfavorable narrative
towards him, I will leave such argumentation and considerations for another time, since
that does not play a role here. A similar redactional notice could be made about the
resurrection material in vv. 20b–21.
124 Lectio brevior favors this reading as the original.
125 Contra Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 150: “It appears that these verses [22–25] are not
misplaced fragments from the preceding units of the chapter. They have been so
constructed an so placed within the chapter as to exemplify the theme ‘prophecy
fulfilled’...”
126 MT and LXX preserve the more difficult reading.
which cannot be said of any of the other texts. 128 It therefore seems more likely
that later texts were familiar with this comment in 2 Kings 13:23 and accepted
it, adapting it to their own situations. The first example of this would be in
2 Kings 17:20, which is the most similar usage (missing only the negation ‫לא‬
and the preposition ‫)על‬, which may come from a time after the fall of Samaria
but before a Deuteronomistic redaction. 129 Bearing these considerations in
mind, I would commend a pre-Deuteronomistic usage of this phraseology in
2 Kings 13:23.
The second literary consideration regards style and syntax. In these few
short verses, one is once again struck by the predominance of the perfect, in
this case both in Qal in Hiphil. The examples are ‫( לחץ‬v. 22), ‫ אבה‬and ‫השליכם‬
(v. 23), and ‫ לקח‬and ‫( הכהו‬v. 25). Considering v. 23, one is reminded of the
style and content of 13:5, suggesting a relationship between the two. They are
both favorable towards the Israelite Jehuide kings and reflect a special rela-
tionship between ‫ יהוה‬and (the king of) Israel. This in turn reflects back to the
Jehu story, especially 2 Kings 10:30 and ‫’יהוה‬s promise to Jehu. A similar sty-
listic relationship can be found between 2 Kings 13:25a and 2 Kings 10:28,
both of which possess a summary character about one factor of the king’s
reign. Once the secondary Elisha narrative has been removed, the summary
nature of 13:25 becomes superfluous; no preceding story suggests a need for
this summary. This opens the possibilities that the recounting can currently be
found elsewhere or that it no longer exists.
When one considers the passage 2 Kings 13:22–25 alone, one is struck by
the third literary consideration, namely the curiously incomplete nature of the
text. Verse 24 introduces the audience to the character of Ben-Hadad and the
fact that he is the successor of Hazael. Verse 25 then provides an exceptionally
abbreviated notice of the victories of Joash. Between these two verses, 24 and
25, one would expect to find a story relating Ben-Hadad and Joash King of
Israel. Further, 2 Kings 13:25 reads like a summary notice at the end of a narra-
tive of great accomplishment, cf. 2 Kings 10:28. For these reasons it seems log-
———————————
128 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 369, where Würthwein translates ‫ עד עתה‬as “bis
dahin” (italics in original), which seems to be an inappropriate translation, cf. Gesenius,
HAH, 629. Würthwein must maintain this translation in order to fit the text into his dating
scheme and to maintain the text as part of DtrN. The referent verse 17:20 seems to take up
the tradition here and rework it to accurately reflect contemporary circumstances.
129 The usage in Ps 51:13 of ‫ אל תשליכני מלפניך‬may represent the latest usage.
1 Kings 20:1–34* 99
ical to consider the two stories recounting war between Aram and Israel that do
not seem to fit in their current narrative contexts. The missing narrative ele-
ment between 13:24 and 25 potentially can be found in 1 Kings 20 and/or 22.
The stories recounted in 1 Kings 20 and 22 have sometimes been identified
as not fitting in their current literary contexts based on historical argumenta-
tion; Akkadian sources make it improbable that Ahab ever battled against
Aram.130 More likely they remained allies. However, this is a dissatisfactory
argument from a literary standpoint, as it is based on an a priori historical eval-
uation of the biblical text. Should one wish to demonstrate a narrative rela-
tionship between 1 Kings 20 and/or 22 and 2 Kings 13, this must be done on
literary terms. This remains true should one wish to establish a literary rela-
tionship between 2 Kings 13 and only one of the texts of 1 Kings. The most
obvious place to start would be 1 Kings 20, 131 as the injury and death of the
king of Israel in 1 Kings 22—two factors not enumerated in the concluding
notice of this campaign in 2 Kings 13:25—should preclude it being the sought
after narrative.
1 Kings 20:1–34*
Translation and Textual Considerations
1)132 And Ben-Hadad 133 king of Aram134 gathered his entire army—and thirty-
two kings were with him—and cavalry and chariotry. And he went up and
———————————
130 Cf. e.g., J. Maxwell Miller, “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars,”
JBL 85 (1966): 443. Na’aman, “Forced Participation,” 86 comments that “[t]he evidence
for the re-dating of these legends [1 Kings 20:1–21; 2 Kings 6:24–7:20] is so conclusive
that no further comments are necessary.”
131 Cf. Gray, Kings, 602 and Alfred Jepsen, “Israel und Damaskus,” AfO 14 (1942): 157.
132 The Septuagint, which offers the earlier tradition in my opinion, reverses the order of 1
Kings 20 and 21. The flexibility of the location of these chapters may give some indication
of their secondary status in this context. Which of the two traditions, Greek or Hebrew, has
the earlier version cannot be settled with any certainty. I favor LXX, but this is more a
matter of opinion than of argument. It is interesting that even when the traditions of
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Ant. diverge on some points in Kings, all of them maintain
this order.
133 Some manuscripts and the LXX read Ben-Hadar instead of Ben-Hadad. This would be an
easy enough mistake to make, as ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬are very easily confused, whether in the Hebrew
block script as we read it today or paleo-Hebrew.
134 The phrase “King of Aram” is only missing in one Septuagint minuscule.
besieged Samaria and waged war against it. 2) Then he sent messengers 135 to
Ahab the king of Israel to the city. 136 3) And someone 137 said to him: Thus
speaks Ben-Hadad: Your silver and your gold, it is mine! And your wives and
your good 138 sons, they are mine! 139 4) And the king of Israel answered and
said: As per your word, my lord, O king! I and all that is mine are yours! 5)
Then the messengers returned and said: Thus speaks Ben-Hadad, saying: I 140
sent to you saying your silver and your gold and your wives and your sons, 141
to me you will give [them]. 6) Therefore, at this time tomorrow I will send my
servants to you and they will search your house 142 and the houses of your ser-
vants and all that is pleasant in your 143 eyes they will place in their hands and
take [it]. 7) So the king of Israel sent to all the elders of the land 144 and said:
Please recognize and see this evil he seeks; for he sent to me for my wives and
for my sons and my silver and my gold. 145 Nothing did I withhold from
amongst them. 8) And they said to him, the elders and the whole people: Do
not listen and do not consent. 9) And he said to the messengers of Ben-Hadad:
———————————
135 The messengers are absent in the LXX and have the appearance of being a later
explanatory gloss, making verse 2 more consistent with verse 5.
136 The phrase “to the city” is missing in Ant. and the Peshitta. They attest a more difficult
reading, as they have no explicit mention of the king of Israel being in Samaria before this
point. In MT, the last the reader has heard of Ahab, he is in Jezreel (1 Kings 18:46; this is
also true of LXX although less clear, cf. 3 Reigns 20:1 vs. 7). Therefore, the reading of
Ant. and the Peshitta will be maintained.
137 Cf. Sebirin, 2 Kings 9:11, and notes on this verse above.
138 The adjective is missing in LXX and is secondary.
139 The BHS suggests reading “they are yours” without any textual support. This suggestion
will be rejected due to the absence of supporting evidence.
140 In LXX, the “as” of MT [‫ ]כי‬is the 1cp pronoun, added for emphasis. This seems to be the
preferred reading, as parablepsis from the following ‫ כי אם‬could have lead the scribe to
write ‫ כי‬instead of ‫אנכי‬.
141 According to BHS this occurrence of sons is missing in LXX and 2 Manuscripts.
However, it is present in Rahlfs and this is the favored reading. It will be maintained.
142 The quality of the witnesses recording “houses” are of poorer quality (i.e., 13th–15th
Century) than either L or LXX. Therefore, in spite of the plural reading of , the plural will
be rejected.
143 Lectio difficilior favors MT against LXX. MT also represents the more spiteful reading of
Ben-Hadad’s comment; his servants will not remove what they like, but what the king of
Israel values. LXX reads more sensibly, and therefore should be regarded as a correction of
MT. Cf. further Theophile J. Meek, “1 Kings 20:1–10,” JBL 78, no. 1 (March 1959): 73–
74 and the literature cited there referencing the usage of ‫מחמד‬.
144 Lectio brevior suggests reading with LXX. N.b., The phrase “elders of the land” occurs
nowhere else in Bible.
145 Lectio difficilio and lectio brevior both favor LXX.
1 Kings 20:1–34* 101
Tell my lord the king: 146 all that you sent to your servant the first time I will do,
but this thing I am not able to do. And the messengers went and brought the
word. 10) And Ben-Hadad sent to him and said: May the gods do thus and thus
more to me if the dust 147 of Samaria suffices for handfuls for the whole of my
infantry. 11) Then the king of Israel answered and said: Say: One girding up
should not boast like one who loosens! 12) And when he heard 148 this word—
and he was drinking; he and 149 the kings in the booths 150—he said to his ser-
vants: Set up siege works! 151 And they set up siege works against the city.
13) And behold! One prophet drew near to Ahab 152 the king of Israel and
said: Thus speaks ‫יהוה‬: Have 153 you seen this whole 154 great multitude?
Behold! I am giving it into your hand today so that you will know that I am
‫ !יהוה‬14) And Ahab said: With whom? And he said: Thus speaks ‫יהוה‬: With the
youths of the princes of the provinces. 155 And he said: Who will start the bat-
tle? And he said: You! 15) Then he assembled the youths of the princes of the
provinces and they were 232; 156 and following them he assembled the whole
people, all of the sons of Israel: 7000.
16) So he 157 went out at noon, and Ben-Hadad was drinking himself drunk
in the booths—he and the kings (the 32 kings) 158 helping him. 17) And the
youths of the princes of the provinces came out first. And they sent and told the
king of Aram, 159 saying: Men are coming out of Samaria. 18) And he said: If
———————————
146 LXX reads simply “your lord.” In spite of lectio brevior, lectio difficilior favors MT.
147 LXX’s “foxes” represents a misunderstanding and mistranslation of the text. MT will be
maintained.
148 There is no need to emend MT here, though LXX reads “when he had answered him”. The
meaning is virtually synonymous and may come from the same version of the text,
representing merely a translational interpretation.
149 One manuscript and the LXX add the word “all.” Lectio brevior favors L.
150 The phrase ‫ והוא שתה הוא והמלכים בסכות‬disturbs the contexts, pre-empting verse 16 and will
therefore be regarded as a secondary gloss.
151 Add “siege works” with LXX. Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 234 n. 3 and 239 n.
29.
152 Vaticanus is the most important witness missing the name Ahab.
153 The text of L must be emended to read with most manuscripts.
154 Again, Vaticanus will be followed.
155 LXX probably represents some translational freedom again. The Syriac should be
abandoned as the older tradition due to the smoothing nature of the translation.
156 Alexandrinus’ 300 is a smoothing of the text. The 32 here is also suspicious, as it is also
the number of the kings that are with Ben-Hadad in the final version of the text.
157 Correct to read with LXX.
158 ‫ מלך‬functions as plural here; cf. LXX.
159 Lectio brevior favors LXX. N.b., Συρια is the standard translation of ‫ארם‬.
they are coming out for peace, take them alive! But if they are coming out to
battle, take them alive! 19) And these 160 came out from the city: the youths of
the princes of the provinces and the army that followed them. 161 20) And each
struck his man so that Aram fled, but Israel pursued them. And Ben-Hadad
King of Aram escaped upon a horse and cavalry. 21) And the king of Israel
came out and took 162 the cavalry and the chariotry and he struck Aram a mighty
blow.
22) Then the prophet drew near to the king of Israel and said to him:
Make yourself strong 163 and know and see that which you will do, for at the
beginning of the year the king of Aram will come up against you. 23) Then the
servants of the king of Aram said to him: Their gods are gods of the moun-
tains.164 Therefore, they were stronger than us. But should we battle them in
the plains, surely we will be stronger than them. 24) And do this thing: take
away the kings, each from his place and set governors in their place. 25) And
you! Count 165 out an army for yourself like the army that fell from with 166 you,
and cavalry like the cavalry, and chariotry like the chariotry and let us fight
with them167 in the plains. Then we will be stronger than them. And he listened
to their voice and did thus.
26) So at the return of the year, Ben-Hadad assembled Aram and went up
to Apheq168 to fight against 169 Israel. 27) And the sons of 170 Israel were mus-
tered and provisioned 171 and went to face them. Then the sons of 172 Israel
———————————
160 Lectio difficilior favors MT.
161 The lacking textual evidence suggests ignoring the recommendation of BHS to move the
phrase “and the army that followed them” to follow verse 20a α.
162 Lectio difficilior favors LXX, which is followed here. It could have also been an aural
mistake, when someone misunderstood ‫ ויקח‬as ‫ויך‬.
163 Lectio brevior favors LXX against both MT and the Vulgate.
164 LXX smooths this verse in order to make it more consistent with v. 28; MT will be
maintained.
165 The imperative speaks against emending the text in order to be in line with LXX, cf. v. 24.
166 Emend text to read with witnesses against L.
167 Emend text to follow the MT manuscripts against L.
168 “Since the name is so common in the Syro-Palestinian toponymy one can hardly be sure as
to the exact location of the city mentioned in I Kings 20:26–30 and II Kings 13:17.”
(Na’aman, “Forced Participation,” 89 n. 36)
169 The meaning of “with” remains unclear; it can imply animosity or alliance. Read with
LXX, which understood the meaning of animosity implied by the narrative context.
170 “The sons of” preceding Israel appear to be recensional additions; see below.
171 Missing in LXX.
172 Absent in LXX.
1 Kings 20:1–34* 103
camped across from them 173 like two little flocks of female goats, while Aram
filled the land. 28) Then the man of God approached and spoke to the king of
Israel and said: Thus says ‫יהוה‬: Because Aram said that ‫ יהוה‬is a god of the
mountains and that he is not a god of the plains, I will deliver all of this great
assembly into your hand and they will know that I am ‫ !יהוה‬29) So these
encamped opposite these [for] seven days, but on the seventh day the battle
drew near and the sons of 174 Israel struck Aram: 100,000 175 infantry in one
day! 30) Then the remnant fled to the city of Apheq and the wall fell upon
27,000 176 men of the those remaining. And Ben-Hadad fled and went into the
house of the bed chamber, into the innermost room. 177 31) Then he spoke to his
servants: I know178 that the kings of the house of 179 Israel, for 180 they are kings
of grace. Let us put sacks around our hips and cords around our heads 181 and
go out to the king of Israel. Maybe he will spare our lives. 182 32) So they put
sacks around their hips and cords around their heads and spoke 183 to the king
of Israel: Your servant Ben-Hadad said: Please spare my life! And he said: Is
he still alive? He is my brother! 33) And the men were auguring and hurriedly
snatched [it] from him 184 and said: Ben-Hadad is your brother! And he said:
Come! Bring him to me! So Ben-Hadad came out to him and he brought him
up onto the chariot. 34) And he said to him: the cities that my father took from
your father, I will return [to you] 185 and you will set street-markets in Damas-
———————————
173 The Peshitta smooths the texts, removing the camp of the Israelites. It reads merely that
Israel went out to face Aram like two little flocks of goats. Cf. v. 29.
174 Lectio brevior favors LXX.
175 Ant.’s 120,000 is a later expansion of the number.
176 The lower quality of the one witness attesting 25,000 suggests it should be disregarded as
the original text.
177 Although Lectio difficilior favors MT, the reading of LXX should be taken so that the text
can be understood. At some point in the transmission the phrase ‫ אל העיר‬was copied
accidentally due to its previous occurrence in the verse.
178 Lectio difficilior and lectio brevior both favor LXX. It is now Ben-Hadad who takes the
commanding role, whereas it had previously been his servants; cf. vv. 23–25.
179 “The house of” is a later gloss, cf. LXX and Peshitta.
180 Lectio brevior mandates reading with witnesses against L.
181 Read with attestations contra L.
182 Read with translations contra L.
183 Read with LXX. MT tries to smooth out the text by clarifying that they first had to go to
the king of Israel and that he was not already present.
184 Emend text contra L.
185 LXX makes the return explicit, thus emending the text. MT should be favored as original.
cus like the ones that my father set in Samaria. [And he said:] 186 I will send you
away with a covenant. And he cut for him a covenant and sent him away.
35) And one man from among the sons of the prophets said to his compan-
ion: In the name of ‫ יהוה‬please strike me! But the man refused to strike him. 36)
And he said to him: Because you did not listen to the voice of ‫יהוה‬, behold!
When you are going from with me, the lion will strike you. And he went from
beside him and the lion found him and struck him. 37) Then he found another
man and said: Please strike me! And the man dealt him a blow and bruised
[him] 38) Then the prophet went and stood before the king upon the road and
disguised himself with the bandage 187 over his eyes. 39) When the king passed
by, he called out to the king and said: your servant went out into the midst of
battle and behold! A man turned aside 188 and a man came to me and said:
Guard this man! If he is found missing, then it will be your life for his life or
you will have to pay a talent of silver. 40) While your servant was looking
around,189 behold and behold! He was no more! Then the king of Israel spoke
to him: Thus is your judgement! You have determined [it]! 41) Then he hur-
ried and took the bandage away from upon 190 his eyes. Then the king of Israel
recognized him, that he was among the prophets. 42) And he said to him: Thus
says ‫יהוה‬: because you released from [your?] hand 191 the man of my destruc-
tion, your life will replace his life and your people will replace his people. 192
43) So the king of Israel went to 193 his house194 sullen and vexed and came to
Samaria.
———————————
186 This could be an instance of an unmarked transition of the speaker. However, for the sake
of clarity, I have included the missing material. The ‫ ויאמר‬may have been removed for
ideological reasons: it makes the victory of the king of Israel less overwhelming and puts
Ben-Hadad in command of the situation. Cf. also Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New York:
Doubleday, 2001), 469.
187 The variant reading in LXX presents no real difference in meaning. However, lectio
difficilior favors the reading with the definite article, which makes little sense here.
189 Lectio difficilior favors LXX.
190 There is no need to emend the text to read with the Qere.
191 Lectio difficilior favors L and the related attestations. In an attempt to make more sense of
this passage, Alexandrinus et al. add “my,” whereas Vaticanus et al. add “your.”
Contextually, “your” would seem to make the most sense.
192 Literally: “Your life will be for his life and your people for his people.”
193 Read ‫ אל‬instead of ‫!על‬
194 In the Masoretic text it appears that someone has intentionally tried to make 1 Kings 20:43
a direct parallel to 1 Kings 21:4.
1 Kings 20:1–34* 105
Narrative Considerations 195
In general, one can accept Würthwein’s literary critical analysis, though it

should sometimes be based on other observations. 196 My divergent opinions
will be briefly considered here. No apparent reason exists from the outset to
separate the two stories (vv. 1–21 and 26–34 + 43*) into two originally distinct
narratives.197 In fact, the opposite is true, as noted in the formal continuation
found in v. 26: “So at the return of the year...” Either one must regard this ele-
ment as secondary (for which insignificant literary arguments exist) or one
must regard it as part of a larger narrative. Verse 26 continues the narrative of
verse 21 without any tension, which therefore makes it more unlikely that any
redactor would cut a text out of another larger narrative and have the good for-
tune of it matching exactly the pericope he needs. Because of the continuation
of characters (Ben-Hadad and the king of Israel) and narrative content (war
between Israel and Aram), in addition to the consistent style and narrative
bonds as in v. 26, it seems more likely that 1 Kings 20:1–34* represented one
link in a larger narrative that was later expanded. 198 “The present narrative [in
1 Kings 20] is in all probability a fragment of a much larger whole.” 199 Würth-
wein correctly identifies the prophetic material 200 and the material about “the
man of God” as secondary, even suggesting that there were two distinct redac-
tions: 13–14 + 22–25 versus 28. 201 Note the difference between “the prophet”
in 13–14, 22 (which presumes the existence of v. 26, i.e., is secondary to 26)
and “the man of God” in 28 (which presumes and may belong to the same level
of redaction as 23–25). These stories take on an interesting character in the
totality of the narrative in that they put a series of advisers around both of the
———————————
195 The following narrative considerations come partially from Jonathan Miles Robker, “Satire
and the King of Aram,” VT 61, no. 4 (2011): 646–56.
196 For the following, consult Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 233–34; for a similar
appreciation of the redaction-history of 1 Kings 20 (and 22, as well as 2 Kings 3), cf. J.
Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Louisville,
Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 288.
197 Contra Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 236.
198 Cf. already Klostermann, Könige, 374: “Der Anfang läßt Zshang vermissen.”
200 Cf. also Miller, “Elisha Cycle,” 446: “...the accounts of the victories as they appear in
1 Kings 20 and 22 seem to have undergone changes which reflect the interests of the
prophets. Namely, the victory accounts have received secondary accretions which give
credit for the victories to the prophets and thus de-emphasize the rôle of the king.”
201 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 236–37 and Kittel, Könige, 164.
respective kings. The king of Israel is advised by an unnamed prophet and “the
man of God,” whereas Ben-Hadad is advised by “servants.” This leads the
exegete to wonder (contra Würthwein) if the advisory material regarding the
“elders of Israel” in 7–8, which clearly disturbs the context of the story, is also
secondary and from one of these levels of redaction. In the first interaction
between Ben-Hadad and the king of Israel in vv. 1–4, the king of Israel appar-
ently did not find it necessary to call on the mysterious elders (who incidentally
appear only in 7–8 and then disappear for the rest of the narrative). 202 The hard
transition of the unnamed subject in v. 9 makes this argument even more plau-
sible, as does the negative light it sheds on the king of Israel; he becomes a
character who seeks the affirmation of others and can no longer make decisions
on his own. First he must rely on the elders, then on the prophet, and finally on
“the man of God.” These elements all demonstrate a tendency against the
power of the monarchy as opposed to the rest of the text, in which the king of
Israel alone is the great hero. Note also the secondary addition of the elders
into the text of 2 Kings 10:1 and 5; cf. Chapter 2 page 46 above. Therefore, I
suggest that it at least becomes plausible that vv. 7–8 are secondary and should
be removed from the original narrative, making it read more smoothly and giv-
ing it a more consistent image of the king of Israel.
The material in 1 Kings 20:35–42 is obviously not original to the story, as
Würthwein notes. 203 However, this should be expanded to include v. 43, which
———————————
202 In this sense, the elders seem to represent an idealized version of the governance of Israel
from a later period; contra Werner (David Werner Amram, “The Zekenim, or Council of
Elders,” JBL 19, no. 1 [1900]: 45), who unquestioningly regards the elders as a historical
institution in this text: “...we find that the term [elders of Israel] is used to denominate
temporary and extraordinary assemblages of the elders of the different towns, as when
Ahab summoned the elders of his kingdom to meet and confer with him concerning the
invasion of the kingdom by Benhadad (1 Kings 20 7–8).” When one considers the
appearances of the elders in the Hebrew Bible, one is struck by several outstanding
features; for example, the 20 attestations in the book of Deuteronomy and the seven
attestations in Ezra (outstanding when compared to the mere 11 attestations in the whole
of Kings!). The appearances in Kings generally have the flare of the Deuteronomistic
redactor (cf. comments to 2 Kings 10:1 and 5 above and 1 Kings 8:1, 3; 2 Kings 23:1) or
occur in the Elijah and Elisha material (cf. 1 Kings 21:8, 11 and 2 Kings 6:32). The
concept of the elders of Israel as a political reality has the appearance of a later ideal
retrojected into Kings by a redactor. Cf. the discussion in J Conrad, “ ‫זקן‬,” in
Theologisches Wörterbuch Zum Alten Testament Band II: ‫ גלולים‬- ‫( חמץ‬ed. G. Johannes
Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren; Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz: Verlag W. Kohlhammer,
1977), 644–50.
203 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 243–44 and Benzinger, Könige, 121.
1 Kings 20:1–34* 107
Würthwein only partially regards as secondary. 204 In the original order pre-
served in LXX, 3 Reigns 21:43 establishes the setting of the narrative of Jeho-
shaphat’s aiding the King of Israel (1 Kings 22) as Samaria, after the (cur-
rently) confusing setting established in the story of Naboth’s vineyard. 205 The
literary style distinguishes itself from the narrative in 1 Kings 20:1–34* even in
the most superficial reading. Further, v. 43 does not “return” ‫ שוב‬the king of
Israel to Samaria, as one would expect based on 20:2 and 20:26; rather, he
“goes” ‫ הלך‬and “arrives” ‫ בוא‬there from some unnamed location. Narratively
speaking, verse 43 anchors vv. 35–42 in their context and has the appearance
of a redactional gloss, moving the narrative to the next stage, more than it has
the appearance of being original to either of the narratives (vv. 1–34* or 35–
42). Verse 43 will be regarded as secondary to both 1–34* and 35–42.
Würthwein incorrectly (and somewhat baselessly) identifies 1 Kings 20:21
as a gloss.206 In terms of style, it is consistent with 2 Kings 14:14 and functions
in a similar narrative fashion. It also reminds the reader of 2 Kings 13:25b in
terms of style and even the roots in question. 1 Kings 20:21b has a summary
function and concludes the narrative of 1 Kings 20:1–21. It is original to the
narrative.
Finally, one should reject Würthwein’s explanation of 1 Kings 20:30a β as
a gloss. The argument that “[d]er Fall der Stadtmauer…kaum vorstellbar [ist]”
doesn’t really hold water. 207 This argument is based on an Enlightenment his-
toricizing hermeneutic that seeks to reject wonderous elements of the story as
ahistorical. We have yet to establish any historical claims of the text, and there-
fore verse 30aβ will be regarded as original. Also n.b., the only textual differ-
ences found in 30aβ regard merely the number of casualties, never the presence
or location of the verse.
Can a plausible narrative link be established between 1 Kings 20 and
2 Kings 13? The answer seems to be yes. Stylistically the two narratives are
very similar. In terms of content 1 Kings 20* fills the narrative gap between
2 Kings 13:24 and 25. The positive image of the king of Israel as a great war-
rior matches in both 1 Kings 20 and 2 Kings 13:24–25. 1 Kings 20:1 continues
———————————
205 Cf. 1 Kings 21:1 (MT) and 3 Kingdoms 20:1 (LXX).
206 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 234 n. 8 and 239.
207 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 240–41.
the narrative strand of 2 Kings 13:24 without any tension. This would make the
verses read in a style consistent with the narratives regarded up to this point;
when one king dies, the narrative of his son and successor follows. In this case,
the distinction would be that it now focuses for the first time on a king not of
Israel. 2 Kings 13:24 and 1 Kings 20:1 fit seamlessly together: ‫וימת חזאל‬
…‫מלך ארם וימלך בן הדד בנו תחתיו ובן הדד קבץ את כל חילו‬. On the other hand, one
finds the exact same ability to connect the story at the conclusion of 1 Kings
20:34 with 2 Kings 13:25: after his battle with Ben-Hadad at Apheq and the
conclusion of their treaty, Joash returns to Samaria, taking back the conquered
cities. 2 Kings 13:25b reads like a summary notice in the style of 1 Kings
20:21b. N.b. the notice about Joash’s striking ( √‫ )נכה‬Aram three times in
2 Kings 13:25b and the triple use of the verb ‫ נכה‬in 1 Kings 20, in verses 20,
21, and 29. 208 This seems too convenient and consistent to be regarded merely
as coincidence. The timbre of the greatness and prowess of the king of Israel is
also consistent with the image of Joash recounted in 2 Kings 14, as is his witty
commentary in 1 Kings 20:9 (cf. 2 Kings 14:9). 1 Kings 20* fills a gap in the
text of 2 Kings 13*. 209
A position contrary to the one enumerated above has been offered by
Miller, who suggests that 1 Kings 20 and 22 represent the conflicts with Aram
identified in the Elisha narrative of 2 Kings 13:14–21 and that they should be
dated to the reign of Jehoahaz. 210 However, certain elements of his argumenta-
tion make it clear that his dating of this material to the reign of Jehoahaz
remains inconsistent with the textual evidence. First, the statement that “…the
deuteronomist places the end of the Syrian domination of Israel during Jehoa-
haz’s reign” 211 is simply not true. One only needs to consider 2 Kings 13:25 to
———————————
208 The root ‫ נכה‬was actually used four times in the original narrative (as opposed to five times
in the canonical Hebrew narrative), which was restored in verse 21 to read with LXX.
However, since two occurrences of the verb reflect an idiom ( ‫)והכה מכה‬, they will be
regarded as one occurrence.
209 For a reconstruction of the redaction history of the chapters 1 Kings 20–21, cf. below in
Chapter 4.
210 “The most likely place to look [for an account of a third victory over Aram] is in I Kings
22 1–38 where appears the extremely composite account of a battle fought with Syria at
Ramoth-gilead.” (Miller, “Elisha Cycle,” 444) This suggestion fails to take account of the
triple usage of the root ‫ נכה‬in 1 Kings 20* and will therefore be disregarded as an accurate
search for the completion of the battle narrative between Joash and Aram. Additionally,
one should note the variant locales of these battles: Apheq vs. Ramoth-Gilead.
211 Miller, “Elisha Cycle,” 450.
1 Kings 20:1–34* 109
know that this is not the case. His strongest argument in favor of his position is
the contention that the text identifies the son of the king of Israel in 1 Kings 22
as Joash (cf. v. 26), which fits better with Jehoahaz. However, two factors pre-
clude this assumption: 1) v. 26 represents a redactional expansion of the text of
chapter 22; and 2) syntactically it is unclear which king’s son is named Joash;
in direct speech, it seems unlikely that the king of Israel would call his son ‫בן‬
‫המלך‬.212 No positive evidence has been provided for the reassignment of the
Elisha narrative to the reign of Jehoahaz. The cited passage “Israel escaped
from the hand of the Syrians” (2 Kings 13:5) 213 has not been considered in a
text critical analysis (LXX maintains the original reading). The reference to
Jehu’s loss of territories comes from another source, 214 thus explaining the con-
tradiction that Jehu, and not Jehoahaz, lost the territory. Finally, since there is
no synchronic notice about the reigns of Hazael and Ben-Hadad respective to
the reign of Jehoahaz, there is really no contradiction between the statements
about the two Aramean kings made in 13:3 and 24. Rather, verse 24 switches
the focus to the confrontation between Joash and Ben-Hadad that is currently
recounted in 1 Kings 20, whereas the account of the savior in the time of
Jehoahaz remains intentionally vague as to when this event is supposed to have
occurred. For these reasons, the position offered above seems preferable. 215
The literary critical analysis leaves the following material in the oldest nar-
rative about Joash of Israel: 2 Kings 13:10*, 22–24*; 1 Kings 20:1–6*, 9–12*,
16–21*, 26–27*, 29–34*; 2 Kings 13:25; 14:8–14; 13:12–13. The redaction
history of the material about Joash largely matches the redaction history dem-
onstrated for 2 Kings 9–10.
———————————
212 If the son of the king of Judah should be known as Joash/Jehoash, could this text originally
have been about Ahaziahu of Judah, whose son was named Jehoash, at least according to
the biblical narrative? Cf. 2 Kings 11:2.
213 Miller, “Elisha Cycle,” 442.
214 See above on page 53 to 2 Kings 10:32–33.
215 The question as to who would make such drastic changes in the order of the text will be
handled in the next chapter.
2 Kings 14:23–29*
23) In the 15th year of Amaziah ben Jehoash King of Judah Jeroboam ben
Joash reigned over Israel 216 in Samaria 41 years. 24) And he did what was evil
in the eyes of ‫יהוה‬. He did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat
that he caused Israel to sin. 25) He restored the border of Israel from Lebo-
Hamath until the Sea of the Arabah as per the word of ‫ יהוה‬god of Israel that he
spoke by the hand of his servant Jonah ben Amittai the prophet, who was from
Gath-Hepher, 26) for ‫ יהוה‬saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter. 217
Whether bound or free, 218 there was no helper for Israel. 27) And ‫ יהוה‬did not
say [that ‫ יהוה‬would] blot out the name of Israel from under the heavens. And
he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam ben Joash. 28) And the rest of the
deeds of Jeroboam and all that he did and his might that 219 he battled and that
he returned Damascus and Hamath to Judah in 220 Israel, are they not written
upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 29) And Jero-
———————————
216 Emend the text to read with LXX, et al. This represents a copyist error, dittography:
‫בן יואש‬.
217 Emend to read with LXX, et al. The ‫ ה‬was presumably transposed to the end of the word to
change it from “bitter” to “disobedient,” and thus making a comment on the behavior of
Israel.
218 There is no certainty concerning the meaning of ‫עצור ועזוב‬. However, this translation seems
more plausible to me than some others that have been suggested; cf. e.g., Ernst Kutsch,
“Die Wurzel ‫ עצר‬im Hebräischen,” VT 2 (1952): 57–69; P. P. Saydon, “The Meaning of
the Expression ‫ָעצּור ְוָעזּוב‬,” VT 2 (1952): 371–74; and Shemaryahu Talmon and Weston W.
Fields, “The Collocation ‫ משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬and Its Meaning,” ZAW 101 (1989): 85–
112. Saydon accurately describes the problem even today (though talking about the
situation in antiquity) when he comments that “the expression lost its original meaning
and came to be used as a proverbial saying emphatically denoting an unlimited
universality.” (Saydon, “‫ָעצּור ְוָעזּוב‬,” 374.) The opinion of Talmon/Fields (“ruler-deliverer;”
cf. Talmon and Fields, “‫משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬,” 110) would not make sense in the context
of 2 Kings 14:26.
219 It is not necessary, though it would be preferable syntactically, to add the copula as the
Peshitta and Ant. do. Lectio difficilior favors the other witnesses, including L.
220 This mention of Judah is totally out of place and represents a later gloss. Cf. and Cogan
and Tadmor, II Kings, 162. The thesis presented in Nadav Na’aman, “Azariah of Judah
and Jeroboam II of Israel,” VT 43, no. 2 (April 1993): 231, although interesting, requires
too much textual editing and reconstruction to merit validation ( ‫ ואת חמת ליחודה בישראל‬to
‫)ומלחמות יהודה בישראל‬.
2 Kings 14:23–29* 111
boam slept with his fathers, with the kings of Israel. And Azariah ben
Amaziah reigned after his father. 221
Würthwein considers essentially this entire pericope to be of Deuteronomistic

origin. 222 His only exception is the phrase ‫הוא השיב את גבול ישראל מלבוא חמת‬
‫ עד ים הערבה‬in v. 25. 223 It would make little sense for a redactor to take such an
abbreviated datum and insert it into a framework. 224 Excluding the material
before this half-verse would reduce it to an anonymous blurb that could have
been about anyone. Rather, this material is bound explicitly to the character of
Jeroboam II and informs the reader about the climax of his hegemony, at least
from the perspective of the author. The only material that should be regarded
as Deuteronomistic in this pericope is verse 24 and the glosses in verse 25. 225
Even the use of ‫ עצור ועזוב‬in v. 26 should not be designated as Deutero-
nomistic,226 as the usage here is unique. All of the other usages of this phrase in
Kings are negative, 227 i.e., promises that ‫ יהוה‬will destroy whole houses. In the
pericope in question, however, the reference to the ‫ עצור ועזוב‬is used to rein-
force the positive relationship between ‫ יהוה‬and Israel; in spite or because of
the absence of the ‫עצור ועזור‬, ‫ יהוה‬helps Israel by the hand of Jeroboam (cf. v.
27). This represents a direct contrast to the other usages of ‫ ;עצור ועזוב‬rather
———————————
221 Vaticanus and Alexandrinus will be followed here as the older reading. This means that
the notice of Jeroboam II’s burial and the accession of his son are missing from the oldest
reconstructable text. Ant. reads with MT (29b: ‫)וימלך זכריה בנו תחתיו‬, with the addition of
the notice of his burial in Samaria. The Hebrew Vorlage of 4 Reigns 14:29b must have
read: ‫וימלך עזריה בן אמציה תחת אביו‬. BHS is missing any notice about this irregularity.
222 Cf. further Kittel, Könige, 262, who actually identifies this entire passage as redactional,
contrary to Kittel’s previous assertion of ‫ הוא‬as a sign of annalistic material; cf. 14:25 and
Kittel, Könige, X.
224 Contra Šanda, 2. Könige, 174.
226 Contra Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 352.
227 One positive usage of this phrase is attested in the book of Deuteronomy 32:36, i.e., the
Song of Moses. The usages in Deut and 2 Kings remain distinct, with Deut 32:36
presumably representing the later text. Deut 32:36 reduced the usage in 2 Kings 14:26
from ‫ ואפס עצור ואפס עזוב‬to ‫ואפס עצור ועזוב‬. The double usage of ‫ אפס‬in 2 Kings 14:26 is
unique in the Hebrew Bible, with the singular usage as found in Deut 32:36 being the
more common, cf. Num 22:35 and Isa 46:9. This suggests that Deuteronomy relied on 2
Kings as opposed to the other way around, if a textual relationship be mandated.
than destroy a dynastic house, ‫ יהוה‬saves Israel by the hand of the king. “Such a
presentation of YHWH’s concern for Israel and the positive appreciation of
Jeroboam’s role in their rescue, using the terminology of salvation already
observed in 2 Kgs 13:5, […] does not accord with the negative Deutero-
nomistic judgment of Israelite kings.” 228 Therefore, no a priori reason to sus-
pect the idiom ‫ עצור ועזוב‬as being exclusively Deuteronomistic exists, as there
is nothing inherently Deuteronomistic about this idiom. 229
In this pericope, one finds the same phenomena we have seen elsewhere in
the narratives about the Jehuide kings: an original narrative focusing on the
positive aspects of the king’s reign, which has been expanded by a Judean syn-
chronistic notice and a Deuteronomistic evaluation of the king’s reign. In this
case, the positive work of the king is the restoration of Israel’s border up to
Damascus and Hamath. The text claims that Jeroboam ruled over quite an
expansive territory, from at least the Dead Sea (Sea of the Arabah) to Lebo-
Hamath230 (even ultimately expanding this border up to Hamath itself). Further,
one again sees the special relationship between ‫יהוה‬, Israel, and especially its
king. Additionally, and as was the case with Jehu himself, the author instructs
the reader about prophetic support for the king, this time in the personage of
Jonah ben Amittai. The fact that Israel would not be destroyed during his reign
reinforces this king against potential detractors. 231 One wonders as well if the
———————————
229 For that matter, the usage in 2 Kings 14 may be the basis for the other (Deuteronomistic)
usages; contra Kutsch, “‫עצר‬,” 61, who regards 2 Kings 14 as the latest text demonstrating
this usage.
230 The identification of this location remains insecure, in spite of attempts to clarify it. It
apparently should be sought somewhere in the Lebanon Valley, north of Israel and even of
Damascus. For a survey of the evidence and the identification of Lebo-Hamath as Lebo in
the Lebanon Valley, cf. Benjamin Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Nothern Border of
Canaan,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (ed. Shmuel Ah. ituv and Baruch
A. Levine; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 189–202 and Othmar Keel, Max
Küchler, and Christoph Uehlinger, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und
Studien-Reiseführer zum Heiligen Land , vol. 1: Geographisch-geschichtliche Landeskunde
(Zürich: Benzinger, 1984), 247 and the literature cited there.
231 Cf. e.g., Amos 8:2. I would reverse the position of Frank Crüsemann, “Kritik an Amos im
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Erwägungen zu 2. Könige 14 27,” in Probleme
biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Hans Walter Wolff;
München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), 57–63, i.e., Amos 8:2 answers 2 Kings 14:27. Such
a suggestion resolves any problems that one would have accounting for 14:27 as a
Deuteronomistic text, if one allows it to pre-date the Deuteronomistic redaction. As this
passage in the Israel Source became known, someone eventually recorded the prophecy of
Amos that Israel was on its way to demise. This makes more sense than the Deuteronomist
2 Kings 14:23–29* 113
“forty and one” year reign of Jeroboam stems from an editorial gloss added to
an originally idealized 40 year reign, as was later asserted for both David and
Solomon;232 the length of Jeroboam II’s reign has caused chronological prob-
lems, leading some to postulate a co-regency, where no evidence exists for pos-
iting such a co-regency. 233
None of these contents is new to the reader of this reconstructed Israel
Source. Even Cogan and Tadmor suggest such a source, although from pro-
phetic circles: “Rather than taking vv. 25–27 as retrospective rationalization of
Jeroboam’s victories, they should be seen as an affirmation based upon con-
temporary eighth-century Israelite material. These verses are another example
of the existence of a prophetic, pre-Deuteronomistic tradition, which included,
as it seems, appraisals of Israel’s kings and dynasties.” 234 As we have seen in
the Israelite material thus far, the judgments of Israelite kings maintain an
undeniably Deuteronomistic character, and therefore should be regarded as
such contra Cogan and Tadmor. Further, the name-dropping of a prophet does
not imply the existence of a prophetic source for this material, but as we saw in
2 Kings 9, implies a political source referencing prophets to its own ends.
While Cogan and Tadmor accurately look to an eighth century Israelite source,
they erroneously suspect a prophetic, instead of political, milieu.
There is, however, one unique factor in this pericope that must be men-
tioned. In the older textual tradition, maintained by BA, one notices that Jero-
boam’s narrative ends not with a description of his burial and the accession of
his son, but with a reference to the accession of the son of the king of Judah.
Both manuscripts of this passage read in a similar manner: ΚΑΙ ΕΚΟΙΜΗΘΗ
ΙΕΡΟΒΟΑΜ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΤΕΡΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΜΕΤΑ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΙΣΛ ΚΑΙ
ΕΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΕΝ ΑΖΑΡΙΑΣ ΥΙΟΣ ΑΜΜΕΣΙΟΥ ΑΝΤΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ
———————————
editing the narrative about Jeroboam II to become a reaction against the book of Amos, a
book in which prophecies about the collapse of Israel were proven to be accurate; cf. Otto
Eissfeldt, “Amos und Jona in volkstümlicher Überlieferung,” in Kleine Schriften vierter
Band (ed. Otto Eissfeldt; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1968), 140–41.
232 Cf. 1 Kings 2:11 and 11:42.
233 Cf. Gray, Kings, 72–73 and 614.
234 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 162–63.
ΑΥΤΟΥ.235 This also matches the pattern that we have seen of Israelite mate-
rial being incorporated into Judean material by a later redactor, cf. 2 Kings
8:28–29 + 10:36 + (Ant.) and 14:1–22. Curiously, commentators remain reticent
about this fact. 236
The absence of any notice of Jeroboam’s burial and the ascension of his
son is unique and suggests that this material about Jeroboam may have been
written during his lifetime. The most likely resolution to the narrative would
have been the summary of Jeroboam’s greatness without the reference to his
death. In this case, one would then have to assume that the Judean redactor
responsible for the addition of the material about the accession of Azariah on
to the throne of Judah would have also updated the conclusion of Jeroboam’s
material to include his death, but not his place of burial. The reign of Jeroboam
II thus presents the terminus a quo. It thus seems that the Israel Source ended
in 2 Kings 14:28, concluding with an overview of the mighty deeds of Jero-
boam II in anticipation of his sons acceding to the Israelite throne. 237
Since some may find such a suggestion problematic, a probable terminus
ad quem must be found in the reign of Menachem, with a Sitz im Leben among
writers and the wealthy who remembered the stability of the time of Jeroboam
II and the Jehuides with longing, after the turbulent time that followed his
reign. This fits with the date that was suggested for the other material about the
Jehuide dynasty. If the source came from the time of Jeroboam II, the narrative
presumably would have functioned as propaganda for his reign (and in antici-
pation of the future reign of his son) in light of criticisms arising during his ten-
ure on the throne of Israel. Under Menachem, the story would find its function
———————————
235 So Alexandrinus. The only differences between Alexandrinus and Vaticanus here
(Sinaiticus isn’t extant for Reigns) are the abbreviation of Israel in Alexandrinus as ισλ
and the spelling of Amaziah as Αμεσσειου in Vaticanus. Cf. Alexandrinus OT II, Folio
232 Verso; Vaticanus II, 465; and Eberard Nestle, Veteris Testamenti Graeci Codices
Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum Textu Recepto (Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus, 1887), 47. Lucian
reads with MT. Cf. Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz, Biblia Griega, 125.
236 Cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 162; Klostermann, Könige, 443; Gray, Kings, 616–17;
Benzinger, Könige, 166; Kittel, Könige, 262–63; Šanda, 2. Könige, 173–74; James A.
Montgomery and Henry Snyder Gehman, Kings, 444–46 and Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–
2. Kön. 25, 375.
237 Cf. Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology”, who identifies the dynastic tendency of some
Assyrian texts, which seek to affirm the succession of the king’s son. The Israel Source
also seeks to affirm Zechariah’s accession to the throne.
2 Kings 14:23–29* 115
as a reminder of the good and stable times under the Jehuide kings, a time lost
in the subsequent struggles for the kingship.
The favorable image of the Israelite king conforms to what we have seen
thus far, as does his prophetic support and affirming relationship to ‫יהוה‬. The
style of this pericope conforms to the style of the other material about the Jehu-
ide kings. One notes e.g., the use of the perfect in v. 25 and v. 26. Considering
these factors, a textual relationship between these narratives becomes plausible
on a pre-Deuteronomistic level. That means that we are dealing with an Israel-
ite source focusing on the Jehu Dynasty and coming from the eighth century
BCE.
The timbre and length of the material about Israel subsequent to Jero-
boam’s reign (2 Kings 15:8–31 and 17) changes dramatically. The notices
about the kings become briefer; there is no longer evidence of a special rela-
tionship between ‫ יהוה‬and the kings of Israel. 238 No prophets show up to offer
their support for the king or for Israel; no savior comes to lead them from
under the hand of Pul/Tiglath-Pileser or Shalmaneser V; the kings of Israel are
forced to pay tribute, which is for the first time reported in the text. This sug-
gests a secondary addition to the text, completing the history of Israel and con-
trasting the reigns of the last kings with those of the Jehuide and Judean kings.
While this could have occurred in an Israelite context after the fall of the
Northern Kingdom, it seems more likely that this would have occurred at the
same time as the initial Judean redaction of the text of the Israel Source, i.e.,
during the reign of Hezekiah, contrasting the stable kingdom of Judah to the
unstable and ultimately failed kingdom of Israel.
However, as mentioned above in the discussion about 2 Kings 9–10 on
page 62, there is evidence that the narrative of the Jehu revolution is not the
beginning of the story, but only an important link in the chain of the narrative.
This becomes especially apparent when considering the characters mentioned
in the Jehu revolution, most specifically Ahab, Jezebel, and Zimri. Because of
this, one should consider the Israelite material in the book of Kings that pre-
cedes the Jehu revolution, but is not part of the Elijah and Elisha narratives.
This leaves 1 Kings 1–12*; 14:19–20; 15:25–16:34*; 22*; and 2 Kings 1* and
———————————
238 In fact the name ‫ יהוה‬appears only in the remaining material about the Israelite kings in the
Deuteronomistic evaluations and the notice of the fulfillment of the prophecy made to Jehu
in 15:12.
3*.239 Is there evidence in this material that supports its inclusion in an Israelite
source from the time of Jeroboam II? The most obvious place to begin this
search is the opening of Kings.
———————————
239 1 Kings 13:1–15:24 (with the exception of 14:19–20) clearly come from a Judean
perspective and will therefore be disregarded. Material belonging to the Elijah cycle has
been identified (for the purposes of this work) as 1 Kings 17–19; 21 (MT); and 2 Kings 1–
2*, which has some overlap with the Elisha cycle in 1 Kings 19* and 2 Kings 2–8* and
13*. The Elijah material in 2 Kings 1 seems to have been redacted onto pre-existing
Israelite material, cf. 2 Kings 1:1–2a; 17*–18. A similar comment might be made about
material in 2 Kings 3, cf. Gass, “2 Kings 3”, though I doubt that 2 Kings 3* was originally
part of the Israel Source.
CHAPTER 4
The Israel Source in the Book of Kings:
From Jeroboam I through Joram
David and Solomon: 1 Kings 1:1–11:25*
While I find it probable that the tale in 1 Kings 1–2* remains inseparable from
some texts within the book of Samuel (see especially 2 Samuel 11*), 1 its pres-
ence in the book of Kings provides reason to examine it here. 2 What one finds
in this passage is the preparation for the separation of the kingdoms of Israel
and Judah in 1 Kings 12*. The overwhelmingly negative attitude toward David
and Solomon in the original story indicates a northern provenance, 3 although I
don’t find it necessary to place its time of composition within the reign of Solo-
mon or at its conclusion. Würthwein’s reconstruction of the original narrative
can be accepted without too much reconsideration. As the text in 1 Kings 1–2*
prepares the reader for the events unfolding in 1 Kings 12, a text which comes
from a separate Israelite source, 1 Kings 1–2* can safely be regarded as exter-
nal to or independent from the political source composed in the eighth century
and focusing on the dynasty of the Jehuide kings. While 1 Kings 1–2*
(together with 2 Samuel 11*) focus on the questionable origin of Solomon (and
the sexual indiscretion and eventual impotence of David), 1 Kings 11* focuses
on his downfall and on his succession by the divinely chosen and prophetically
ordained king of Israel: Jeroboam I. It seems likely, therefore, that the so-
called Succession Narrative was not part of the Israel Source composed in the
———————————
1 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16, 1–2.
2 The Antiochene tradition records 3 Reigns 1:1–2:11 as the conclusion of 2 Reigns, thus
dividing the books of Reigns exactly between the reigns of David and Solomon. The
Antiochene tradition should not be regarded as the older tradition in my opinion. It would
make more sense for someone to divide the books this way than for a later editor to myste-
riously and baselessly place the end of David’s reign in another book; contra Thackeray,
“Greek Translators,” 264–66.
3 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16.
118 Chapter 4: The Israel Source in the Book of Kings
eighth century, but rather should be subjected to its own investigation, some-
thing avoided in this work for reasons of space. The stories about Solomon in
1 Kings 3–11* have been recognized as generally favorable to Solomon and
therefore will be disregarded as stemming from Israelite provenance. While
David is not mentioned at all in the Israel Source, the only information needed
about Solomon in the Israel Source can be gleaned from the narrative of
1 Kings 11:26–40*, the narrative of the origin of the kingdom of Israel in the
perspective of the eighth century author.
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20*
1 Kings 11 portrays Solomon in a negative light, especially in the material

relating to Jeroboam I. Preceding the proclamation of Jeroboam as king of
Israel, some of the material about Solomon seems to have a particularly
Deuteronomistic tenor, cf. especially 11:2 and 9–13, which establish the theo-
logical necessity of Jeroboam’s casting off of Solomon. The pericope in vv.
14–25, while missing specifically Deuteronomistic phraseology, has the
appearance of being even younger (and possibly more honest), describing
problems with Solomon’s reign even from the outset, cf. 25. 4 In contrast to
this, the material about Jeroboam I may be older, although it has definitely
been redacted by the Deuteronomist. This will all become more obvious in the
exegesis of this pericope.
As for the material in 1 Kings 12, there are definitely multiple sources and
hands at work here. For an example of how one can divide this material, the
position of Ernst Würthwein should be considered. 5 Though some changes are
necessary, particularly regarding 12:26–33, his position will be accepted as the
guiding principle behind the examination of 1 Kings 12. Chapter 13 of 1 Kings
clearly demonstrates a Judean point of view, and will therefore not be taken
under examination in the textual and literary critical analysis. The tale
recounted in 1 Kings 14:1–18 also demonstrates a peculiarly Judean perspec-
tive (i.e., negative towards Jeroboam) and Deuteronomistic tone (consider
especially verses 7–11 and 16) and will be regarded as such. 6 The narrative in
———————————
4 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16, 130.
5 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16, 150–52.
6 I.e., a Judean narrative expanded by the Deuteronomist.
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* 119
1 Kings 14 (except for vv. 19–20) is inconsistent with the tone towards Jero-
boam I in the Israel Source. The same must be said of 1 Kings 14:21–31.
1 Kings 14:19–20 concludes the reign of Jeroboam I, fits the pattern of the
concluding notice of Jehu, and should be regarded as part of the original Israel-
ite source. These factors will become clear in the exegesis of the passages in
question.
11 26) And Jeroboam ben Nebat, an Ephraimite from Zaredah—the name of

his mother was Zeruiah, 7 a widow—served Solomon. And he raised his hand
against the king. 8 27) And this is the account of how he raised his hand against
the king: Solomon built the Millo; he shut the breach in the city of David, his
father. 28) And the man Jeroboam was a mighty warrior. When Solomon saw
that the young man was a man of works, 9 he set him over the forced labor of
the house of Joseph. 29) At about this time Jeroboam went out from Jerusalem,
and the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the path and he brought him
aside from the path 10 (he had clothed himself in a new garment) and these two
were alone 11 in the field. 30) Then Ahijah seized the new garment that was
upon him12 and tore it [into] 13 twelve rags 31) and said to Jeroboam: Take for
———————————
7 Cf. Gray, Kings, 290 n. a.
8 Remove this gloss to read with LXX B (lectio brevior).
9 Correct to read with LXX (lectio brevior).
10 The longer text is presumably original, homtel being responsible for the omission in MT.
Cf. Šanda, 1. Könige , 318 and Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The
Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Volume 1: The Reign of
Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (Harvard Semitic Monographs.52; Atlanta, Ga.: Schol-
ars Press, 1993), 183.
11 MT presumably adapted the text due to the omission earlier in the verse, implying that the
text should be emended to follow LXX.
12 Syntactically, it remains unclear whose garment this is. S. Min Chun, “Whose Cloak Did
Ahijah Seize and Tear? A Note on 1 Kings Xi 29–30,” VT 56, no. 2 (2006): 268–74 plau-
sibly argues that in fact it is Jeroboam’s cloak that is torn.
13 L reads without the preposition; to make the text more understandable, the preposition ‫ל‬
was inserted, just as has been indicated by the English “into,” which was added in brackets
to make the text more comprehensible in translation. Later Hebrew manuscripts sought to
emend this; cf. de Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti Librorum , 215. LXX reads
without the preposition both in 11:30 and 12:24 o.
yourself ten14 rags, for thus says ‫ יהוה‬God of Israel: Behold! I am tearing the
kingdom from the hand of Solomon and I am giving you ten of the tribes 32) —
But one15 tribe there will be for him because of my servant David and because
of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel 33)
because he 16 has abandoned me and bowed down to Ashtoreth, the god of the
Sidonians, 17 to Chemosh god 18 of Moab, and to Milcom the god 19 of the sons
of Ammon; and he did not walk in my ways to do the upright in my eyes and
my statutes and judgments 20 like his father David. 34) But I will not take the
whole21 kingdom from his hand, but I will make him prince 22 all the days of his
life because of David, my servant, whom I chose to keep my commandments
and statutes. 35) And I will take the kingdom from the hand of his son and
give23 you ten tribes. 36) But to his son I will give one tribe 24 on behalf of
David my servant to be a light all the days before me in Jerusalem, the city
that I chose for myself, to set my name there. 37) You I will take and you will
reign all that your soul desires and you will be king over Israel. 38) And if you
listen25 to all that I command you and walk in my ways and do what is upright
in my eyes to guard my statutes and my commandments just like David, my
servant, did, then I will be with you and will build you a reliable house just
like I built for David and I will give you Israel. 39) For this I will afflict the
seed of David, but not forever.26 40) And Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam, so
———————————
14 There is no evidence or need to emend the text here as suggested by BHS. The suggestion
is based on the tension caused by the secondary addition of v. 32 MT; in the original of the
text (missing this expansion), there was no tension and thus there is no need to emend it
here. Cf. e.g., LXX.
15 MT presents the more difficult text over and against LXX in this thorny issue; the text will
not be emended.
16 Read the singular with the translations all three times in this verse. MT presumably sought
to ameliorate the negativity towards the person of Solomon by blaming a group.
17 N.b., the Aramaic plural form here, suggesting either a later date of composition for the
text or a textual corruption of MT.
18 Lectio brevior favors MT.
19 Lectio brevior again favors MT.
20 This is clearly a later gloss and should be removed. Cf. LXX.
21 The limited number of witnesses suggests avoiding an emendation here.
22 Although lectio difficilior would favor at this point, it more likely represents a textual
corruption.
25 There is no need to emend MT here to conform to LXX, although both readings are possi-
ble.
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* 121
he27 arose and fled to Egypt, to King Shoshenq 28 of Egypt and he was in Egypt
until Solomon died. 41) And the rest of the deeds of Solomon and all that he
did and his wisdom, are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of 29 Solo-
mon? 42) And the days that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel 30
were 40 years. 43) And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried 31 in the
city of David, his father. And Rehoboam, his son, reigned in his stead. 32
12 2) When Jeroboam ben Nebat heard and he was still in Egypt were he
fled from before the king Solomon ,33 he returned from Egypt. 20a) When all
Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned 34 they sent and called him to the
assembly,35 they made him king over all 36 Israel. 25) Then Jeroboam built
Shechem in the mountains of Ephraim and dwelt there. Then he went out from
there and built Penuel.
26) And Jeroboam said in his heart: Now the kingdom will return to
the house of David 27) if this people goes up to do offerings at the temple
of ‫ יהוה‬in Jerusalem. Then the heart of the 37 people will return to their
lord38 to Rehoboam King of Judah. 39 And they will kill me and return to
———————————
27 Cf. LXX. MT sought to clarify this very hard subject transition by adding the gloss “Jero-
boam,” making sure the reader knew that it was he, and not Solomon, who fled.
28 The consonantal text here is problematic. It appears that a scribe confused ‫ ו‬and ‫י‬, an
understandable mistake. Cf. LXX and MT 14:25. The Egyptian name is Shoshenq. The
text here has been emended to reflect this.
29 Ant. adds “the days of,” clearly trying to emend the text to be more similar to the other
regnal notices recounted in the book of Kings. Cf. e.g., 1 Kings 14:19 and 29.
30 LXX provides the favored reading. MT reinforces the idea that Solomon ruled over both
Israel and Judah, an ideological expansion of the text.
31 LXX reads plural active for the verb here. The choice of the older text is especially diffi-
cult. Since MT makes sense, I find no need to emend the text.
32 For the additional material in this verse, it seems best to regard MT as the more brief, diffi-
cult and, therefore, older tradition (the narrative needs to get Jeroboam back to Israel for
chapter 12, a fact only implicit in MT).
33 The older witnesses, including L, read ‫המלך שלמה‬. Cf. de Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris
Testamenti Librorum, 215 and LIX.
34 LXX presumably added “from Egypt” to make this point clearer in the new, secondary
context surrounding this verse.
35 This gloss presumes the existence of the secondary addition of the council called to make
Rehoboam king and therefore must be deleted as a redactional expansion.
36 “All” was removed from LXX for ideological reasons.
37 Remove ‫ הזה‬to read with LXX.
38 This is clearly a Judean expansion of the text. The theological reflection “they will return
to ‫ יהוה‬and their lord Rehoboam...” as presented in BA is clearly an addition. Cf. MT and
Ant.
39 The identification of Rehoboam as King of Judah expresses an Israelite perspective.
Rehoboam King of Judah. 40 28) Then the king 41 went42 and made two calves
of gold and said to the people: 43 Long enough have you gone up to Jerusa-
lem. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.
29) And he set the one in Bethel and the other he set in Dan. 44 30) And this
thing became a sin and the people walked before the one up to Dan. 45 31) And
he built a house 46 of ‫ במות‬and made priests from the ends of the people that
were not from the sons of Levi. 32) Then Jeroboam made a holiday in the
eighth month on the fifteenth day of the month like the holiday in Judah and
he went up to the altar that 47 he had made in Bethel to sacrifice to the calves
that he had made. And he installed priests of the ‫ במות‬that he made in Bethel.
33) And he went up to the altar that he had made 48 in Bethel49 on the fif-
teenth day of the eighth month, in the month 50 that he alone devised. 51
And he made a holiday for the sons of Israel and went up to the altar to
offer incense.
———————————
40 Read with LXX: lectio brevior. Contra Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 205.
41 The weightiest witnesses ( BA and MT) all favor reading the subject as “the king” as
opposed to Lucian’s “Jeroboam”. Removing the title “king” from Jeroboam could be an
ideological consideration. Contra Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The
Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Volume 2: The Reign of
Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (Harvard Semitic Monographs.53;
Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1994), 26.
42 Read with Alexandrinus. The idea of the king taking counsel is based on the assembly
recounted in the portions of chapter 12 that are not of the same origin as our text. Note the
parallel construction in verse 6.
43 Read with LXX. MT’s “them” seems to presume the existence of 12:12–13, which leave
the reader with a secondary impression. The text was emended in the Masoretic tradition
to fit in its secondary context. Contra Henrik Pfeiffer, Das Heiligtum von Bethel im
Spiegel des Hoseabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 28, who regards
the introduction of the speech as secondary, leaving a quote without syntactical context.
n.b., his missing text-critical consideration of the LXX.
44 There is no need to remove Dan from this text; contra Eduard Nielsen, Shechem: A
Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: GEC Gad, 1959), 195–96.
45 MT probably preserves the older reading contra Ant., which could be understood as an
explanatory expansion. Cf. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 206.
46 MT presents the more difficult reading, cf. 13:32. The LXX variant can readily be
explained as a transposition of ‫ י‬and ‫ת‬: ‫ בית‬vs. ‫בתי‬.
47 Emend to read with LXX. Contra Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 206.
48 Missing in the London Polyglott, but the weightier witnesses support keeping it. Cf.
Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 206.
49 Late gloss missing in LXX. Cf. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 206.
50 LXX reads “on the holiday” ( ε ν τηñ, ε ορτηñ, ) instead of “in the month”. This can be based on
the ideological preference of the LXX, focusing on the existence of the holiday rather than
the date. Cf. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 206–7 (Bartusch’s Greek must be emended
from ε ν τηñ, ε οπρτηñ, [sic!] to ε ν τηñ, ε ορτηñ, ).
51 Read with LXX and Qere; cf. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 207.
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* 123
14 19) And the rest of the deeds of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he
ruled, behold! They are written on the scroll of the deeds of the days of the
kings of Israel. 20) And the days that Jeroboam reigned were twenty-two years.
Then he slept with his fathers and his son Nadab reigned in his stead.
The variant traditions of MT and B (which generally matches Ant.) provide the
exegete with the first major issue in this pericope. 52 LXX provides much of the
same narrative material, but in a different order and with much of it in a double
tradition. This suggests recensional work. What should first be determined is
which textual tradition provides the older story. 53 In this instance, I tend to
favor MT and A, 54 as B and Ant. seems to have more of a bias against Jero-
boam I and his reign, 55 as well as smoothing the text into a more logical
whole.56 This is not only true when one compares MT 11:26–43 to B + Ant.
12:24a–z, but even when one compares the MT of chapter 11 to the B + Ant. of
chapter 11. 57 Texts like 3 Reigns 12:24 b make such a bias immediately present;
Jeroboam’s mother changes from being a widow in 11:26 to being a whore in
———————————
52 For a very brief, yet effective introduction and resolution of this problematic, cf. Cogan,
1 Kings, 355–56.
53 Cf. D.W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Rival Version of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” VT 17
(1967): 187–89 for a similar consideration of the text. Saying that the MT version is older
does not preclude the existence of an old story behind the LXX tradition; in 1 Kings 11–12
we should consider the strong possibility that multiple traditions of the story were known.
Cf. the discussion in Howard N. Wallace, “Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and
2 Kings,” Bib 67, no. 1 (1986): 22–27.
54 The text of Alexandrinus more closely follows that of MT in 3 Reigns/1 Kings 11–12. This
is presumably not based on a redaction of the Greek text in order to make it closer to MT,
but rather seems to have its roots in Origen’s recension; i.e., Alexandrinus follows Origen
in 3 Reigns 11–12 and is therefore more similar to Leningradensis. Cf. Siegfried
Silberstein, “Ueber den Ursprung der im Codex Alexandrinus und Vaticanus des dritten
Königsbuches der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung überlieferten Textgestalt,” ZAW 13
(1893): 1–75 and Siegfried Silberstein, “Ueber den Ursprung der im Codex Alexandrinus
und Vaticanus des dritten Königsbuches der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung überlieferten
Textgestalt (Schlus),” ZAW 14 (1894): 1–30.
55 Contra Moses Aberbach and Leivy Smolar, “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power,” JBL 88
(1969): 69–72.
56 For a similar opinion regarding the priority of the MT, cf. Wesley I. Toews, Monarchy and
Religious Institution in Israel Under Jeroboam I (Monograph Series / The Society of Bib-
lical Literature; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 26–28.
57 N.b., the Wiederaufnahme in LXX 11:43: καὶ ο βασιλεὺς Σαλωμων ε κοιμη' θη μετὰ τω ñν
πατερω ñ ν αυ τουñ and the note to this effect in Gooding, “Rival Version,” 179.
12:24b. By including information from 12:2 MT within the closing frame of the
reign of Solomon in 11:43 LXX, the redactor responsible for the differing
material in 12:24 LXX effectively removed Jeroboam’s patronym from the
story of Israel’s departure from Judah, thus adding weight to the suggestion
that Jeroboam’s mother was a whore. The text aligns Jeroboam to the house of
the king of Egypt through marriage, providing an identity for the wife of Jero-
boam.58 Such an addition makes a secondary (or Judean) impression. 59 Other
than these differences, the narrative in LXX presents largely the same material
as in MT, although in a different order. The story of Jeroboam’s son dying (3
Reigns 12:24 g–n = 1 Kings 14:1–18) represents a later reorganization of the
text, as it presumes Jeroboam’s cultic activities (12:26–33 MT and LXX) and
regards his revolution against Solomon in a negative light. This must be the
case, as there is no evidence that he has done anything else to merit the con-
demnation of ‫ יהוה‬in the current context of the story as presented by LXX. This
leaves the reader with a secondary and Judean impression as well. 60 Based on
———————————
58 Benzinger, Könige, 83 is especially worth noting, as his lucid argumentation about this
passage still holds.
59 Cf. Gray, Kings, 289.
60 At least the tradition in LXX appears to come from a later period. It is presumably also an
ancient tradition, but went through a distinct redactional history from the tradition in MT.
Cf. Knoppers, Two Nations Vol. 1, 169–86.
For a contrary position, cf. Adrian Schenker, “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans le
texte massorétique et la Septante ancienne,” in IX Congress of the International Organiza-
tion for Septuagint and Cognate Studies; Cambridge, 1995 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 171–76 and Adrian Schenker, “Jeroboam and the Division
of the Kingdom in the Ancient Septuagint: LXX 3 Kingdoms 12.24 a–z, MT 1 Kings 11–
12 ; 1 4 a nd t he Deut er onomi st ic H is tory,” i n I sr ae l C o ns tr uc ts I ts Hi st or y :
Deuteronomistic History in Recent Research (ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and
Jean-Daniel Macchi; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 214–57. For a similar
position, cf. Benzinger, Könige, 97–98. Schenker reverses one of the principle tenets of
exegesis, transforming lectio difficilior probabilior into lectio simplicilior probabilior : “If
the broader context of one of these two accounts actually does violence to one of its narra-
tive components, whereas in the neighbouring form, the same component would be inte-
grated perfectly, in harmony with its context, it is probable that the suitable context would
be original, while the context presenting inadequacies shows the re-use of pre-existing
material, originally intended for another organization of the whole.” (Schenker, “Jeroboam
and the Division,” 217). His subsequent distinction between narrative and text criticism
will not hold. It would make little sense for a narrator to make his text less sensible than it
would be for the text to become progressively more sensible. Were the alternative the case,
newer editions of books would have more errors and tensions in them rather than fewer,
which is hopefully not the case. Tensions should be eliminated over time, meaning that the
text would become increasingly systematic over time. The more systematic appearing ver-
sion of the text in this case follows LXX, suggesting that MT has the original material,
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* 125
these few changes, it seems more likely that someone would have emended the
older text found in MT making Jeroboam appear worse than that someone
would improve his image by taking away notices that his mother was a whore
and he was the son-in-law of Pharaoh (a Pharaoh who invaded and defeated
Judah, according to 1 Kings 14:25, whether one reads MT or LXX).
The text of 1 Kings 11:26–43 MT reads as a uniform text, expanded with
Deuteronomistic material and glosses. 61 The Deuteronomistic redactional mate-
rial includes all of verses 32–36, 38–39, and the gloss ‫ אלהי ישראל‬in verse 31. 62
Of verses 31–39, only verse 37 demonstrates no Deuteronomistic language. 63
When one removes the Deuteronomistic elements, one arrives at a cogent text
reflecting on how Jeroboam came to rule Israel. His positive image (the pro-
phetic support and divine election) contrasts strongly with the negative image
of Solomon (his desire to murder Jeroboam in spite of the divine will that has
———————————
with LXX offering a revised version in a parallel location. Cf. Kittel, Könige, 106–7. The
historical considerations behind Horst Seebass, “Zur Königserhebung Jerobeams I,” VT 17
(1967): 325–33 are inconsistent with the literary analysis presented here.
61 For a similar original narrative, cf. Helga Weippert, “Die Ätiologie des Nordreiches und
seines Königshauses (I Reg 11 29–41 ),” ZAW 95 (1983): 346–55. Contra Toews, Monar-
chy, 31–32, who identifies 26–28 + 40 as being distinct from the material about Ahijah.
This is based largely on his understanding that some kind of revolutionary action must
have followed verse 28 in order for Solomon to want to kill Jeroboam in verse 40. How-
ever, I find such a postulation completely unnecessary. The prophetic ordination of one’s
successor outside of the family line would provide reason enough (at the very least from a
literary perspective) for Solomon to seek Jeroboam’s life. Such a commentary reflects neg-
atively on Solomon, who in this passage demonstrates that his will to maintain the king-
dom for his son runs contrary to the will of ‫ יהוה‬as embodied by the prophet Ahijah.
62 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 324–25, 333, 335–37, and 354. Weinfeld’s identification of
‫ קרע את הממלכה מיד‬as Deuteronomistic in verse 31 should be disregarded (Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy, 355). Once again one must differentiate between the distinct usages of this
phrase in the Deuteronomistic History. The usages in 1 Kings 11:11 and 13 preempt the
occurrence in 11:31, providing a more explicit theological framework for 11:31; this
implies they were composed later than 11:31. Similar comments could be made about the
effort to temper the positive usage of this phrase in 11:31 by composing 14:8. The same
can be seen in 2 Kings 17:21; this text, which contradicts 1 Kings 11:31, states that it was
the Israelites, and not ‫ יהוה‬who made Jeroboam king. 1 Samuel 15:28 and 28:17 corre-
spond to this usage. The usage in 11:31 is unique in the formulation of ‫ הנה‬+ participle,
whereas all other examples use finite verbs. Only 1 Kings 11:31 (and the corrupted text of
1 Samuel 28:17) use the term “hand,” whereas all the others reference either the house of
David or use the prepositional combination ‫מעל‬. Therefore, I would suggest that 1 Kings
11:31 is the oldest example of this usage, which later adapted to suit other needs.
63 Contra Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories,” 167, who regards the entirety of 29–39 as a
Deuteronomistic addition.
appointed him king over Israel) in the original narrative. 64 This Israelite narra-
tive includes verses 26–31* (minus glosses), 37, and 40. 65 The absence of spe-
cifically Deuteronomistic language in the regnal framework of Solomon makes
it difficult to determine if it is Deuteronomistic or comes from the Judean
redactor. It clearly disrupts the context of the narrative and therefore does not
come from the Israel Source. I hold it for more probable that it comes from the
Judean source or redaction, as it lacks Deuteronomistic language about Solo-
mon (whether positive or negative) and is largely consistent with the other
Judean frames in Kings.
The question that arises from the conclusion of the narrative is where it
continues. 66 Ernst Würthwein appears to have correctly identified the sub-
sequent material: 12:2, 20a, and 25. 67 Further, I agree with him that chapter
12:1, 3b–19*, although definitely from a northern author, 68 are not from the
same source as the Israelite source responsible for 2, 20a and 25. 69 The Judean
heritage of 21–24 seems obvious. 70 Where my opinion diverges from that of
Würthwein is regarding the material in 12:26–33. While some of it can be
regarded as Deuteronomistic (e.g., 30–31), there is no need to regard all of it as
expressing a perspective unique to Jerusalem. 71 The reason the exegete expects
this is that we are so used to the mentioning of the calves of Bethel and Dan
being regarded negatively in the Deuteronomistic history, that we tend to over-
———————————
64 “[Es ist] recht wahrscheinlich, dass hinter Jerobeam ein Profet [sic!] steht, wie hinter
David und Jehu.” (Kittel, Könige, 99)
65 With the exception of v. 37, Kittel, Könige, 100–101 already proffers this opinion. Cf.
Cogan, 1 Kings, 344 concerning the probability of an older northern tradition.
66 Cf. already Benzinger, Könige, 87.
67 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16, 150–51. Cf. already Klostermann, Könige, 345–46 for the
recognition that these verses belong together.
68 Cf. Kittel, Könige, 101, who adds that it must be date before 722 based on v. 19. This
position is contra Noth, “Jerusalem,” 33, who refers to this passages (especially 1 Kings
12:19) as the “Jerusalemite tradition” without further comment.
69 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16, 150.
70 Cf. already Šanda, 1. Könige, 347.
71 Contra Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–16 , 162 and Cogan, 1 Kings, 361, who expands: “The
remainder of this unit [i.e., 12:26–32 in its entirety] is written from a Judean point of view
and is highly polemical, reflecting Dtr dogma on Jerusalem’s centrality.” My opionion
here must necessarily remain distinct from D.W. van Winkle, “1 Kings xii 25–xiii 34: Jer-
oboam’s Cultic Innovations and the Man of God from Judah,” VT 46, no. 1 (1996): 101–
14, who regards 1 Kings 12:25–13:34 as a uniform text, disregarding redactional levels.
Tensions in the text are not considered as relevant to van Winkle’s argumentation. For a
consideration regarding the older readings of LXX in this pericope, cf. Schenker,
Textgeschichte, 36–40.
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* 127
look that there is little negative evaluation of the commission and erection of
these statues in this pericope. Only the explicitly Deuteronomistic redactional
additions possess such a tone. Otherwise the text merely mentions the cultic
activity of Jeroboam I without loading it with the values of the Deutero-
nomist.72
The Judean perspective can be readily identified in vv. 26–27, “long
enough have you gone up to Jerusalem” in v. 28, 73 and “like the holiday in
Judah” in v. 32. 74 The recognition of the Wiederaufnahme in v. 33aα leads one
to suspect redactional work as well. The material in 30 and 31 is clearly
Deuteronomistic; 32b makes its relationship to these two verses obvious via the
association of the ‫ במות‬with Jeroboam. Verse 33 then offers another summary
conclusion of the account and changes the offering of Jeroboam from a burnt
offering (‫ )זבח‬to an incense offering (‫ )קטר‬in preparation for the story in 1
Kings 13, cf. 13:1b. 75 Bearing this in mind, one arrives at the original content
of the story about Jeroboam’s cultic activities: 1 Kings 12:28*–29, and 32a. 76
The Deuteronomistic redaction can be found in 30–31 and 32b. The other
material represents Judean glosses, whether pre- or post-Deuteronomistic. In
the original narrative of 1 Kings 11–12*, the narrator considers four factors in
the cultic activities of Jeroboam I: 1) the sponsoring of two divine images in
the form of golden calves, one at Bethel and one at Dan; 2) the establishment
of a festival of sacrifice in Israel; 3) the erection of an altar at Bethel; and 4)
the king’s sacrificial offering. 77 The original narrative proffered no overt evalu-
ation of these activities, whether positive or negative. That the king is the one
who offers the sacrifice mirrors Jehu in the account of 2 Kings 10, though Jehu
———————————
72 Cf. Gray, Kings, 312. Knoppers, Two Nations Vol. 2, 30–33 also identifies only minimal
Deuteronomistic redaction in this passage.
73 Pakkala, “Jeroboam’s Sin,” 88 noted the Judean perspective in verses 27–28 at least: “The
main offence of the passage is revealed by the strongly Jerusalemite perspective: Jeroboam
poses a serious challenge to Jerusalem and its temple. This is well illustrated in v. 27–28.”
Cf. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 211: “The result [of the redaction] is that Jeroboam is
guilty by anachronism.”
74 For the old age of 32a, cf. Benzinger, Könige, 89.
75 Würthwein correctly deals with 12:33 and chapter 13 together. Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 1–
16, 168–69; Benzinger, Könige, 91; and Kittel, Könige, 112.
76 Cf. Kittel, Könige, 107.
77 For the potential antiquity of such cultic ideals, cf. Knoppers, Two Nations Vol. 2, 35 and
there acts with deception. No comment is made in either of those narratives

that it is unusual that a king, as opposed to a priest, offers a sacrifice. 78
This position remains distinct from that offered by Pfeiffer. 79 For several
reasons, Pfeiffer’s reconstruction of the original text (25, 28ab β, 29, and 33b)
must be rejected as improbable. First, the missing notice of a quotation is very
suspicious. One cannot plausibly posit an original text that reads: “And he
made two golden calves: Behold, your god, Israel, who brought you up from
out of the land of Egypt” (my translation of Pfeiffer). 80 He ignores the conspic-
uous connection between 12:33 and 13:1. Further, in verse 33 he introduces an
altar that was nowhere else mentioned in the pericope. Either the text is incom-
plete, incomprehensible, or must be understood in a much larger context.
Finally, he ignores the text-critical issues of the pericope. When one considers
the change MT made vis-à-vis the LXX in 12:32 ( ‫ אשר‬to ‫)כן‬, the probability of
a redactor making an intentional change becomes obvious. In 3 Reigns 12:32,
the text ascribes the building of the altar at Bethel to Jeroboam. MT has inten-
tionally changed this understanding in order to make it accord with Genesis 35,
in which Jacob built the altar at Bethel. 81 The idea that Jeroboam, as opposed
to one of the patriarchs, built the altar at Bethel was presumably undesirable
for the scribes of the Hebrew tradition. Therefore, they changed it to fit more
appropriately within the larger context of the developing Tanakh.
The tale of Jeroboam ends rather abruptly with his death notice (sur-
rounded in its current context by Judean and Deuteronomistic material) in
1 Kings 14:19–20. Especially since this death notice references his activities as
a warrior, one wonders if material about him is missing, as there is no military
tradition associated with him in the reconstructed Israel Source. Later authors
and redactors of the Hebrew Bible included some military traditions about him,
———————————
78 Let’s consider the accurate observation offered by Knoppers: “Far from being innovative
and impious, royal support of religious institutions was the norm throughout the ancient
Near East…A king’s (re)construction of a sanctuary or palace exemplified vigor, adminis-
trative skill, and authority.” (Knoppers, Two Nations Vol. 2, 35)
79 Cf. Pfeiffer, Bethel, 26–29.
80 Cf. Pfeiffer, Bethel, 29.
81 N.b., the use of ‫ מזבח‬in Genesis 35, whereas the more famous story at Genesis 28 reads
‫מצבה‬.
Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20* 129
but always present him negatively. 82 The image of Jeroboam seems to have
become more negative or ignored over time, 83 suggesting that it is possible that
some material about him may be missing. However, since we have no concrete
evidence supporting such a theory, only an opportunity, but no absolute neces-
sity, for such a postulation arises.
Can this material be dated to the eighth century and related to the Israelite
Source identified as originating during that time period? An affirmative answer
seems permissible for a number of reasons. The narrative about Jeroboam I is
reminiscent of the narrative about the Jehuide kings; everything that Jeroboam
does, he does for political reasons. 84 In terms of style, we find some similari-
ties.85 In terms of biases, one notices the positive image of Jeroboam as the
chosen king of ‫( יהוה‬via prophetic proclamation), as a builder, and as the
founder of the cult of Israel. These all remind the reader of Jehu and his
descendants, who also had special relationships with prophets and with ‫ יהוה‬and
purified the cult of the elements of the Baal. The narration would presumably
have the reader believe that the cult restored by Jehu’s intervention was that
established by Jeroboam I. 86 The tendentious nature of the text can also be
compared via negativa based on the topics not included, as with the informa-
tion about the Jehuide kings: “The fact that there is no mention of Shishak’s
expedition to Northern Israel, which is attested in the Pharaoh’s inscription at
Karnak and by the remains of his stele at Megiddo, indicates how selectively
———————————
82 This is a complicated issue. 1 Kings 12:21–24 (= 2 Chr 11:1–4) explicitly states that there
was no war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam at the behest of the man of God Shemaiah.
This may be the oldest tradition, coming from the Deuteronomist (notice how it accounts
for the Deuteronomistic portions of Ahijah’s promise to Jeroboam I). 1 Kings 14:30 (=
2 Chr 12:15b) explicitly states that there was a war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam,
which continued under the auspices of Abijam (cf. 1 Kings 15:6–7). These notices appear
to come from a post-Deuteronomistic redaction. The Chronicler developed this post-
Deuteronomitic war tradition further, offering an extended narrative of Jeroboam’s disas-
trous military defeat at the hands of Abijah (= Abijam of Kings), cf. 2 Chr 13:2b–20.
83 Notice the missing cultic information and the prophetic annunciation in 2 Chronicles.
84 Cf. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 210–11.
85 Note the missing opening frame and longer concluding frame like Jehu, the opening of the
story with ‫ ו‬+ a proper noun (cf. 2 Kings 9:1), and the use of the perfect (e.g., 1 Kings
11:27b, 29).
86 Attention should be drawn to the name Jeroboam, the only name of a king repeated in a
kingdom. This suggests a positive evaluation of Jeroboam I at the time of the naming of
Jeroboam II, otherwise it seems likely that another name would have been chosen. Alterna-
tively, one could postulate Jeroboam from the eighth century inventing Jeroboam of the
tenth century and casting him in his own (self-serving) image.
matter for Jeroboam’s reign has been used.” 87 In terms of topic, the Jeroboam
narrative addresses one of the concerns of the critical prophets Amos and
Hosea, namely the cult, e.g., Hos 4:12 and 8:4–6; Amos 4:4–5 and 7:10–17.
This also fits with the parameters we have found for the material about the
Jehuides; concretely, this text removes any perceived culpability for cultic
impurity from Jeroboam II (or his ancestors) and places it directly on the head
of Jeroboam I and indirectly at the feet of ‫יהוה‬, who commissioned Jeroboam I
via the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite—though admittedly the cult remains
absent in ‫’יהוה‬s promise to Jeroboam I as it can be reconstructed without rely-
ing merely on fanciful additions void of textual merit. The tale of Jeroboam I,
whom the text regards as a hero in its original version, indirectly supports the
Jehuide dynasty in that it removes some of the guilt that was apparently cast
upon them by their opponents.
Nadab through Joram: 1 Kings 15:25–16:34* + 22*; 2 Kings 1*
There is limited material that must be removed to arrive at the original narra-
tive contained in the Israelite source. This consists exclusively of the Judean
synchronic notices and the Deuteronomistic evaluations and other comments.
As these redactional levels remain easily identifiable, this section should pro-
vide little difficulty. As seen in the case of 1 Kings 20, 1 Kings 22 can be
regarded for the most part as having been relocated in a secondary narrative
context. Based on narrative relationships, this will be undone, placing the text
back in its original literary context.
15 25) And Nadab ben Jeroboam reigned over Israel in the second year of
Asa King of Judah and he reigned over Israel two years. 26) And he did
what was evil in the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬and he walked in the way of his father and in
his sin88 that he caused Israel to sin. 27) Then Baasha ben Ahijah of the house
———————————
87 Gray, Kings, 312–13.
88 As the plural is more consistent with Deuteronomistic usage (cf. 2 Kings 10:29, 31), MT’s
singular should be regarded as older.
Nadab through Joram: 1 Kings 15:25–16:34* + 22*; 2 Kings 1* 131
of Issachar conspired against him. Then Baasha struck him in Gibbethon,

which belongs to the Philistines. And Nadab and all Israel were besieging Gib-
bethon. 28) So Baasha killed him in the third89 year of Asa King of Judah
and reigned in his stead.90 29) Once he reigned, 91 he struck the whole 92 house
of Jeroboam; 93he left nothing that breathed of Jeroboam unto his extermina-
tion, as per the word of ‫ יהוה‬that he spoke by the hand of his servant Ahijah the
Shilonite. 30) Because of the sins of Jeroboam that he sinned and that 94 he
caused Israel to sin; with 95 his provocation he provoked ‫ יהוה‬the god of Israel.
31) And the rest of the deeds of Nadab and all that he did, are they not written
upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 32) 96 And there
was war between Asa and between Baasha King of Israel all of their days.
33) In the third97 year of Asa King of Judah Baasha ben Ahijah reigned
over all98 Israel in Tirzah twenty-four years. 34) And he did what was evil in
the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬and walked in the way of Jeroboam 99 and in his sin 100 that he
caused Israel to sin. 16 1) And the word of ‫ יהוה‬came to Jehu ben Hanani
against Baasha, saying: 2) Because I raised you up from the dust and made
you king over my people Israel, but you have walked in the way of Jeroboam
and have caused my people Israel to sin, to provoke me in their vanities, 101 3)
———————————
89 The witness that reads “4” seeks to rectify this number with the synchronic notice in v. 25.
There is no need to emend the text here; the one witness misunderstood the dating system
of the synchronic notices.
90 The absence of this last phrase in Vaticanus suggests that it is a later gloss to conform to
the system of the notice about the reigns of kings. One must also reject the expansion of
Ant. (“over Israel”) as secondary; cf. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien III , 219.
91 There is no need to emend the text here; the usage with ‫ ב‬is the more standard usage,
implying that lectio difficilior favors L.
92 This gloss should be removed to conform to LXX.
93 There is no need to emend the text here. The meaning does not change either based on the
addition of the copula.
95 Once again, there is no need to add the copula here.
96 This verse was added to conform the text at hand with 1 Kings 15:16; cf. LXX, which
does not preserve this verse.
97 The variant reading here once again demonstrates a different chronological understanding
than that of the initial redactors.
98 It is an ideological difference whether Baasha reigned over all Israel or not. Thus MT
should be regarded as the older reading.
99 LXX and the Peshitta presumably added “ben Nebat” for consistency. Thus MT should be
regarded as the older reading.
100 MT has been maintained as in 15:26.
101 The “vanities” of LXX is the inconsistent, and thus presumably older, reading.
behold! I will burn 102 Baasha and his house and I will make his 103 house like
the house of Jeroboam ben Nebat. 4) Those of Baasha killed in the city will be
eaten by the dogs and those of his killed in the field will be eaten by the birds
of the heavens. 5) And the rest of the deeds of Baasha and what he did and his
might, are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings
of Israel? 6) And Baasha slept with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah and his
son Elah reigned in his stead. 104 7) And also by the hand of Jehu ben Hanani
the prophet 105 the word of ‫ יהוה‬came against 106 Baasha and to his house:
Because107 of all of the evil that he did in the eyes of ‫יהוה‬, provoking him with
the works of his hands, being like the house of Jeroboam and because he struck
him.
8) 108 In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah Elah ben Baasha
reigned over Israel in Tirzah two years. 9) And his servant Zimri general of
half of the chariotry rebelled against him. He was in Tirzah drinking himself
drunk in the house of Arzah, who was over the palace in Tirzah. 10) Then
Zimri came and struck him and killed him in the twenty-seventh year of Asa
King of Judah and reigned in his stead. 11) Once he reigned, once he had
seated himself upon the throne, 109he struck the whole house of Baasha; 110he
left nothing of his that pissed against the wall or his redeemers or his com-
panion. 111 12) And Zimri destroyed the whole house of Baasha ,112 as per the
word of ‫ יהוה‬that he spoke against 113 Baasha 114by the hand of Jehu the
prophet. 13) Because 115 of all the sins of Baasha and the sins of his son Elah
that they sinned and that 116 he117 caused Israel to sin, to provoke ‫ יהוה‬God of
———————————
102 Read piel.
103 Restore text with LXX.
105 Read with Vaticanus, et al.
106 Here we find the confusion of ‫ אל‬and ‫על‬. In this case, one should read ‫“ = על‬against.”
107 Read without the copula, following the other manuscripts and the Peshitta.
108 LXX preserves the older reading of verses 8–10.
109 There is no need to add the copula here.
110 There is no need to emend the text here by adding the copula.
111 Lectio difficilior favors the singular, as do MT and LXX.
112 This passage is missing in the LXX, suggesting that it represents a later expansion of the
text.
113 Here one again finds the confusion of ‫ על‬and ‫אל‬. Cf. v. 7.
114 The weight of the evidence speaks against the Ant. reading here.
115 ‫על = אל‬.
Israel with their vanities. 14) And the rest of the deeds of Elah and all that he
did, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of
Israel?
15) In the twenty-seventh year 118 of Asa king of Judah 119 Zimri reigned
seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped against Gibbethon, 120
which belongs to the Philistines. 16) When the encamped people heard that
Zimri had rebelled and had also struck the king, they made Omri, 121 the general
of the army, king in Israel 122 on that day in the camp. 17) Then Omri went up
(and all Israel was with him) from Gibbethon and besieged Tirzah. 18) When
Zimri saw that the city had been captured, he went to the citadel of the house
of the king and burned over himself the house of the king with fire and died.
19) —because of his sins 123 that he sinned, doing the evil in the eyes of ‫יהוה‬,
walking in the way of Jeroboam 124 and in his sins 125 that he did to cause Israel
to sin.126 20) And the rest of the deeds of Zimri and his revolt that he revolted,
are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of
Israel? 21) Then the people of Israel divided into halves 127; half of the people
followed Tibni ben Ginath to make him king, while the other half followed
Omri. 22) And the people who followed Omri overpowered 128 the people who
followed Tibni ben Ginath and Tibni died; then Omri reigned after Tibni. 129
———————————
118 Other witnesses (most especially Ant.) offer different dating systems.
119 This datum is once again missing in LXX (without Ant., which has it; cf. Alfred Rahlfs,
Septuaginta-Studien III , 242), implying its secondary status.
120 For unclear reasons, the Peshitta reads “Gath” in this pericope. The quality and quantity of
the other witnesses testify against this reading.
121 According to BHS, the Greek traditions (other than Ant.) read the name as “Zambri.” This
is an inaccurate notice. The name is recorded as Αμβρι, which provides the exegete with
no real problems.
122 Read with Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.
123 Read with Qere, et al.
125 Read with LXX, et al.
127 Lectio brevior favors LXX; the gloss in Hebrew seeks to clarify that only two parties
develop.
128 The suggestion of BHS to emend the text here is unnecessary, should one understand √‫חזק‬
as meaning “to overpower” with the object being “the people” as marked by ‫ את‬instead of
meaning “be strong(er),” which would arguably require the comparative ‫מן‬. Lectio
difficilior favors MT here; cf. 1 Kings 20:23.
129 While lectio brevior favors MT, LXX may have the original reading, corrupted via homtel
based on the triple occurrence of ‫ אחרי‬in the verse. Cf. J. Maxwell Miller, “So Tibni Died
(1 Kings xvi 22),” VT 18 (1968): 394.
23) In the thirty-first year of Asa King of Judah Omri reigned over Israel
twelve years; in Tirzah he reigned six years. 24) He bought the mountain of
Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver and built up the mountain and
named the city that he built after Shemer, the owner of the mountain of
Samaria. 25) And he did what was evil in the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬and was more evil
than all his predecessors. 26) He walked in the whole way of Jeroboam ben
Nebat and in his sins 130 that he caused Israel to sin, provoking ‫ יהוה‬the God of
Israel in their vanities. 27) And the rest of the deeds of Omri 131and all that he
did and his might that he did,132 are they not written upon the scroll of the
deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 28) And Omri slept with his fathers
and was buried in Samaria. And his son Ahab reigned in his stead. 133
29) And Ahab ben Omri reigned over Israel 134 In the thirty-eighth year
of Asa King of Judah 135 And Ahab ben Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria
twenty-two years. 136 30) And Ahab ben Omri 137 did what was evil in the eyes of
‫ יהוה‬more than all of his predecessors. 31) And it was as he trifled 138 in his
walking in the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat, he took Jezebel bat Ethbaal, king
of Sidonians as a wife and he went and served the Baal and bowed to him. 32)
Then he made an offering place to Baal, 139 the house of the Baal he built in
———————————
130 Read with Ketib and the translations.
131 While Lectio brevior favors L, the translations and one pre-Leningradensis Hebrew manu-
script favor the longer reading. Therefore, the longer reading will be accepted instead of
lectio brevior. Cf. de Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti Librorum , 220 and LIX.
132 Lectio brevior favors LXX, eliminating this gloss.
133 The LXX includes an extensive plus here, placing the reign of Jehoshaphat within the con-
text of the opening of Ahab’s reign. This is presumably the older reading, MT having
deleted the duplicate material, but, as the information clearly comes from a Judean author
or redactor, it will not be addressed further here.
134 The opening of this verse is missing in LXX, which is the preferred reading.
135 LXX offers a different system of dating the reign of Ahab. Lectio difficilior favors MT,
which reads inconsistently with the text of 16:23.
136 Some manuscripts read twenty-four, while two read only twenty.
138 Emend to read with the translations; MT is incorrectly pointed.
139 Either the preposition ‫ ב‬is missing in MT due to haplography (which is how LXX trans-
lated it) or the ‫ מזבח‬must be understood in apposition to ‫ ;בית הבעל‬cf. Gray, Kings, 369. I
prefer the apposition, as Kings mentions no altar of Baal elsewhere in the text. The only
other possibility is that a scribe confused ‫ מזבח‬and ‫ מצבת‬either here or in 2 Kings 10:26
under Deuteronomistic influence; cf. 2 Kings 10:27, for which Gray offers precisely this
alternative solution (Gray, Kings, 558 n. f). Against the argument that the second instance
of Baal in verse 32 should be understood as ‫( אלהים‬Stefan Timm, Die Dynastie Omris:
Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 32–35), cf. John A. Emerton, “The House
Samaria. 33) And Ahab made the Asherah; and Ahab added to do [...] 140 to
provoke ‫ יהוה‬the God of Israel 141 more than all the kings of Israel before him.
34)142 In his days, Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho; with Abiram, his first born,
he founded it and with Segub, 143 his younger [son], he erected the gates, as
per the word of ‫ יהוה‬that he spoke by the hand of Joshua bin Nun.
22 39) And the rest of the deeds of Ahab and all that he did and the house
of ivory that he built and all the cities that he built, are they not written on the
scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 40) And Ahab slept with
his fathers. And his son Ahaziah reigned in his stead. 52) Ahaziah ben Ahab
reigned over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth 144 year of Jehoshaphat
king of Judah and he reigned over Israel two years. 53) And he did what
was evil in the eyes of ‫ יהוה‬and walked in the way of his father and in the way
of his mother and in the sins 145 of Jeroboam ben Nebat that he caused Israel to
sin. 54) And he served the Baalim 146 and bowed to them and provoked ‫יהוה‬
———————————
of Baal in 1 Kings xvi 32,” VT 47, no. 3 (1997): 293–300. Contra Schenker,
Textgeschichte, 47–49, who ignores the text-critical issue of the missing ‫ ב‬in the Hebrew
and based on this “tautology”—a Baal temple would necessarily have a Baal altar—
proceeds to reconstruct the LXX text as older. He then uses this to regard the Ant. reading
of 2 Kings 10:24 as older, although it is clearly a later expansion and smoothing of the
uneven text of MT and . In fact, there is no tautology in 1 Kings 16:32. Even should one
insert a ‫ב‬, no tautology would necessarily arise; the text would report three facts in that
case: 1) Ahab built an altar to Baal; 2) he put it in the Baal temple; and 3) Ahab built the
aforementioned temple of Baal. This makes more narrative sense (any temple of Baal men-
tioned in this verse would have to have its existence explained, as it does not exist from a
narrative standpoint until this verse), and should in fact, therefore, be regarded as a sec-
ondary reading. Add to this the overtly negative tone of οιòκος τω ñ ν προσοχθισμα' των in
LXX and it seems that MT maintains the older reading here.
140 Crux interpres.
142 Curiously, Ant. is missing this verse, which may indeed present the older reading, which
was later expanded. Vaticanus records the name Hiel differently. The Peshitta is to be
rejected as an ethical commentary on Ahab; it is a secondary adaptation.
143 Read with Qere. Cf. LXX.
144 Ant.’s dating system recounts this as the twenty-fourth year of Jehoshaphat.
145 Emend to read with LXX. The scribe, having previously written ‫ דרך‬twice, accidentally
wrote it a third time, leading to the incorrect reading recounted in MT.
146 While lectio brevior would technically favor MT (based on the absence of two conso-
nants), LXX maintains the original reading. In the larger context of Kings, the plural repre-
sents the more difficult reading here: up to this point, there has only been one Baal men-
tioned. Ahab is also only mentioned as serving one Baal. Therefore, the LXX will be main-
tained here over and against the MT. At a later stage, an editor of MT removed the plural
form to smooth the text of 1 Kings 22:54 and make it read more consistently with the one
Baal of Kings.
God of Israel like all that his father did. 147 2 Kings 1 1) And Moab rebelled
against Israel after the death of Ahab. 2) And Ahaziah fell through the roof of
his upper chamber in Samaria and was injured. 17) And he died as per the
word of ‫ יהוה‬that Elijah spoke. 148 Then Joram149 reigned in his stead in the sec-
ond year of Jehoram ben Jehoshaphat King of Judah, 150 for he had no son. 18)
And the rest of the deeds of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written on the
scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? 151 aAnd Joram ben Ahab
reigned over Israel in Samaria twelve years in the eighteenth year of Jeho-
shaphat King of Judah. bAnd he did what was evil in the eyes of ‫יהוה‬, only not
like his brothers and not like his mother. cAnd he brought out the pillars of
Baal that his father made and destroyed it. Only in the sins of the house of Jer-
oboam that he caused Israel to sin he joined, not departing from them. dAnd
‫ יהוה‬was enraged in anger against the house of Ahab.
1 Kings 22 1) And he rested 152 three years; there was no war between
Israel and Aram. 2) In the third year Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, went
down to the king of Israel. 3) And the king of Israel said to his servants:
Do you know that Ramoth 153-Gilead belongs to us, yet we refrain from
taking it from the hand of the king of Aram? 4) Then he said to Jehosha-
phat: Will you go with us 154 to fight [in] Ramoth-Gilead? And Jehosha-
phat said to the king of Israel:155 I am like you, my people is like your peo-
ple, my horses are like your horses.
———————————
147 LXX seems to have tried to clarify the curious syntax of its Vorlage.
148 Lectio brevior and Lectio difficilor both favor L et al.
149 Lectio brevior testifies in favor of MT.
150 Ant. made a clear attempt to smooth the text by removing this synchronic notice.
151 LXX appears to have the original continuation at this point, generally noted as 18 a–d. This
text will be followed here as the more difficult reading, cf. especially b. MT removed it as
duplicate information in order to smooth out the text. Cf. 2 Kings 3:1–3 MT.
152 Lectio difficilior and lectio brevior both favor LXX: the singular verb does not match the
plural subject in the current context.
153 LXX vocalizes the name as Ramath.
154 Read with the more difficult LXX: the questioning of his servants suggests the plural
understanding, although this change presents little difference in meaning.
[...]156
29) And the king of Israel (and Jehoshaphat 157 the king of Judah with
him) went up to Ramoth-Gilead. 30) The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat
the king of Judah: I will disguise myself 158 and go into battle and you put on
my159 outfit. So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle. 31)
Then the king of Aram commanded the generals of his chariotry who were his
thirty-two,160 saying: fight neither small 161 nor great, 162 but only the king of
Israel. 32) When the generals of the chariotry saw Jehoshaphat the king of
Judah,163 they said: surely he is the king of Israel! So they surrounded him to
fight. And Jehoshaphat [he] cried out. 33) When the generals of the chariotry
saw that he was not the king of Israel, they returned from pursuing him. 34)
But someone drew his bow to its full extent and struck the king of Israel
between the appendage armor and the breastplate. Then he said to his driver:
turn your hands and bring me from the battle, 164 for I am wounded. 35) 165 And
the battle increased that day and the king was propped up in his chariot facing
Aram until evening. And he died at the time of the going of the sun. 36)
Then the herald went into the camp at sunset, saying: each to his city and to
his land! 37) So the king died 166 and they brought 167 him to Samaria and they
———————————
156 The material in 1 Kings 22:5–28 is clearly from a Judean perspective (or was inserted even
later) and is not from the Israel Source. For this reason it has not been included here. For
the literary analytical decisions that led to this process, cf. Ernst Würthwein, “Zur
Komposition von I Reg 22 1–38,” in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost
zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet (ed. Fritz
Maass; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), 245–54 (= Würthwein, “Erwägungen”)
and Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 255.
157 L is incorrectly pointed here.
158 Restore this corrupted text to read with the translations. The error in MT is presumably a
result of Haplography; cf. 30b.
159 Restore to read with LXX.
160 Deuteronomistic (or later) gloss; cf. 2 Chronicles 18:30; 1 Kings 20:1, 16 and below.
161 Evidence suggests that 2 Chr 18 may be the older version. Cf. the discussion beginning on
page 142 below. The addition of the article really makes insignificant difference in the
meaning of the text. Lectio brevior and lectio difficilior both technically favor Kings at
this point.
162 See previous note.
163 MT removed the superfluous ‫ מלך יהודה‬after the name Jehoshaphat because of the current
context of the story. LXX should thus be regarded as the older reading.
164 Cf. LXX and discussion to the dating of this text below.
165 Restore this verse to comply with 2 Chronicles 18:34*. Cf. the summary on page 147
below.
166 Lectio difficilior favors MT here.
167 At some point in the tradition, MT mistakenly transposed ‫ א‬and ‫ ;ו‬cf. LXX.
buried the king in Samaria. 38) And [someone] 168 washed off the chariot 169
upstream of the pool of Samaria. And the dogs 170 licked his blood and the
prostitutes bathed, as per the word that ‫ יהוה‬spoke.171
The following material is clearly Deuteronomistic: 15:26, 29–30, and 34;

16:1–4, 11–13, 19, 25–26, 30–31a, 33; 22:53–54; and 2 Kings 1:17*, and 18 b-d
(cf. 3:2–3). 172 For the most part, this represents the Deuteronomistic evalua-
tions and other material conspicuously averse to the kings of Israel, most nota-
bly prophecies against the monarchs. 173 1 Kings 16:31 merits special consider-
ation regarding any potential relationship to the Deuteronomistic redaction.
According to Weinfeld, 174 this verse should be regarded as Deuteronomistic,
however, when one considers the evidence, special circumstances come to
light. Due to the phrasing in 16:31a, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge its
Deuteronomistic origin; the exegete encounters the phrase ‫הלך בחטאות ירבעם‬
‫ בן נבט‬in purely Deuteronomistic contexts. 175 However, the material that Wein-
feld regards as Deuteronomistic in 16:31b must be reconsidered. Weinfeld
finds relationships between 16:31b and other texts (most especially Judges)
———————————
168 LXX and the Vulgate change this to the plural here to make it more understandable. Lectio
difficilior favors MT.
169 The Ant. text represents a much later explanatory expansion: “And they washed the blood
from the chariot...” Cf. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien III , 194.
172 For the non-redactional nature of 15:27–28, cf. Benzinger, Könige, 101. Although Wein-
feld does not find Deuteronmistic language in 16:1, it introduces 2–4, which are
Deuteronomistic. Whoever added these verses must also have added the introduction in
16:1. 16:12 serves as the bridge between 16:11 and 13 and must be included, though not
in Weinfeld. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320, 321, 323, 324, 333, 337, 340, 344, 351,
352, 354, and 355.
173 Although this could lead one to suggest two Deuteronomists, one who evaluates the reigns
of the kings and one who addressed prophecies against them, such a two-fold solution
remains unnecessary. When one compares the prophetic material (1 Kings 15:29–30;
16:1–4, and 11–13) with the prophetic (i.e., Elijah) material of 2 Kings 9–10 (esp. 9:7–9,
36 and 10:10), the relationship becomes obvious. As the respective material in 2 Kings 9–
10 was demonstrably Deuteronomistic, it seems safe to rely on one Deuteronomist for this
material.
174 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–21 and 340.
based on the phrase ‫וילך ויעבד את הבעל וישתחו לו‬, which finds referents on the
one hand in Judges 2:11, 13; 3:7; 10:6, 10; 1 Sam 12:10; 1 Kings 22:54; and 2
Kings 17:16 176 and in Deuteronomy 8:19; 11:16; 29:25; Joshua 23:16; Judges
2:19; 1 Kings 9:6; Jeremiah 13:10; 16:11 and 25:6 on the other hand. 177 Upon
closer inspection, the distinction between these texts and 1 Kings 16:31
becomes apparent: on the one hand Baal occurs alone and in the singular only
in 1 Kings 16:31, 178 while the second phrase refers only to Baal in 1 Kings
16:31. So, worshipping Baal appears uniquely in this form in 1 Kings 16:31;
otherwise the text refers always to the Baalim, Ashtaroth, Asherot, some com-
bination of these, or the “other gods”. Bearing this in mind, it seems more
likely that the text originally contained this reference to Ahab’s reverence for
Baal, which was later expanded into a merely stereotypical Deuteronomistic
reference to the other deities whom Israel followed. 179 This reference to the
establishment of the Baal cult prepares the way for Jehu’s dismantling of it in
2 Kings 10*.
In terms of the Judean additions to the Israelite material, one finds the syn-
chronic notices in 15:25, 28, 33; 16:23, 29; 22:52; 2 Kings 1:17b, and 18 a (cf.
3:1). Otherwise, one recognizes only a few glosses that belong to this level of
redaction. Most likely one should regard the war notice in 1 Kings 15:32 as
Judean (cf. 15:16). Once these redactional materials, in addition to the
Deuteronomistic elements, have been filtered out of the text, one arrives at the
original Israelite narrative.
The glosses also present an interesting case. Many of them represent late
textual expansions and attempts to fully develop the synchronistic system of
Kings. This is particularly true of the glosses in 1 Kings 15:28 (adding “in his
stead” for consistency); 16:7 (this whole verse seems to be a later expansion of
the Deuteronomistic condemnation of Baasha); 16:8, 10, and 15 (late synchro-
nistic notes missing in LXX); and 16:11–12 (expansion in Dtr style, cf. 16:1–
4). This suggests at least two plausible layers of scribal activity at times after
the Deuteronomistic redaction: one between the Deuteronomistic redaction and
———————————
176 ‫ האשרות‬/ ‫ הבעלים ואשתרות‬/ ‫עבד הבעל‬. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320.
177 (‫הבעלים( והשתחוה )להם‬/‫ סר ועבד אלהים אחרים)הבעל‬/ ‫הלך‬. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 321.
Weinfeld also recognizes a similarity to Jeremiah 44:3, but this text stands out as signifi-
cantly distinct from the others in terms of phraseology.
178 For 1 Kings 22:54, cf. LXX and above, footnote number 146.
179 Cf. already Benzinger, Könige, 105.
the LXX (e.g., 1 Kings 16:7) and one following the translation of LXX (e.g.,
1 Kings 16:8, 10, 11–12*, and 15). Whether one can really identify these as
redactional levels seems improbable, but they do at least demonstrate the con-
tinued recensional development of the text over a longer period of time.
In terms of the pericopes included, it consists of the material concentrating
on the Israelite monarchs of the book of Kings, minus the Elijah 180 and Elisha
narratives 181 and the non-prophetic material in 1 Kings 22. 182 Considering
1 Kings 22 becomes an especially thorny issue. Würthwein’s appreciation of
the redactional history of 1 Kings 22:1–37 initially seems to be appropriate,
dividing the text into three parts: 1–2a; 2b–4 + 29–37*, and 5–28*. 183 “V.38 ist
auf 21,29b bezogener Zusatz.” 184 For almost a century it has been recognized
that 22:39–40 do belong in their current context in 1 Kings 22. 185 The first por-
tion is merely an introduction to the story in its current context and presumes
the existence of 1 Kings 20 before this story. 186 Würthwein’s older narrative in
2b–4 + 29–37* recounts a tale critical of Jehoshaphat of Judah and his syco-
phantic relationship to the cowardly king of Israel. While it seems clear that 5–
———————————
180 That the Elijah stories have generally been accepted as coming from another source, cf.
Benzinger, Könige, 105 and Kittel, Könige, 137.
181 The Elisha stories have the appearance of being both distinct from the Elijah stories and
the political material of Kings initially: “Während wir in der Eliageschichte eine
einheitliche Beschreibung des Wirkens Elias haben, ist die Elisageschichte eine
Anekdotensammlung.” (Benzinger, Könige, 129)
182 J. Maxwell Miller, “The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz (1 Kings 20 22 1–38),” ZAW 80
(1968): 337 asserts that 1 Kings 22 refers to the reign of Jehoahaz. He bases this on a few
assumptions that are not permissible: most importantly, he reflects on the fact that only
Jehoahaz’ son was named Joash (cf. 1 Kings 22:26); however this verse is a secondary
expansion of the original narrative of 1 Kings 22 and therefore cannot be considered (in
addition to the fact that it is syntactically unclear which king’s son is named Joash in the
verse in question; why would the king refer to his own son as ‫)?בן המלך‬. Further, he con-
siders the historical datum of the campaign of Adad-n ārārī III in 802 BCE; Miller,
“Jehohaz,” 341. Such a consideration is invalid in a literary examination of the text.
183 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 255–57. Contra Helga Weippert, “Ahab el
campeador? Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu 1 Kön 22,” Bib 69 (1988): 457–
79, who requires too many redactional levels for the development of the whole of ch. 22
and who posits a narrative cycle about wars between Israel and Aram without positing a
plausible historical context or Sitz im Leben for either the original narrative or the invented
Aram cycle. For these reasons, her thesis should be dismissed.
184 Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 255. Cf. also Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories,” 162 and
185 Cf. Hölscher, “Quellen,” 185; and more recently Halpern and Vanderhooft, “Editions of
Kings,” 183–88, and the literature cited there.
186 Cf. Helga Weippert, “Ahab el campeador?” 463.
28* represent a story distinct from that recounted in Würthwein’s framing nar-
rative, it still remains to be tested whether his whole reconstructed narrative
frame stems from a uniform story. 187
Regarding Würthwein’s original frame narrative, one wonders how plausi-
ble the existence of Jehoshaphat in these verses is. While Würthwein considers
him original for all of these verses, it seems more likely that such might not be
the case, especially for the passages in vv. 29–37*. In the LXX, Jehoshaphat is
mentioned by name in vv. 2 and 4. In verse 2, he is further qualified as the king
of Judah, while no such qualifier follows either occurrence of the name Jeho-
shaphat found in verse 4. Therefore, it is impossible to remove the name Jeho-
shaphat from verse 4 (at least as the object of a preposition in 4a; the other
usage could be eliminated leaving an implied subject to the verb of 4b). A sim-
ilar situation can be found in v. 8 of both LXX and MT: the name Jehoshaphat
is firmly anchored in its narrative context and therefore cannot be removed.
This suggests that Jehoshaphat was original to both 2b–4 and 5–28*. How is
the situation at the end of the pericope? In 29–37 LXX there is only one occur-
rence of the name Jehoshaphat that is not qualified by “king of Judah”: v. 32b,
in which Jehoshaphat serves as the subject of a sentence and could easily be
removed, making the sentence read with an implied subject. Context mandates
that this subject be the king of Judah, with or without the name Jehoshaphat.
While LXX has retained both the name and the title of Jehoshaphat in every
instance but 32b, MT has streamlined the text to remove what it saw as the
duplication in context: it is clear that Jehoshaphat is the king of Judah in ques-
tion. Therefore, it becomes unnecessary to mention it at every occurrence of his
name. Therefore, the qualifier “king of Judah” is missing in 30 and 32a MT,
making it impossible in the current text of MT to remove Jehoshaphat from the
text, which is presumably why Würthwein leaves him in. 188 If one relies on the
older text of LXX, it at least becomes possible that Jehoshaphat is a secondary
addition to the text. This allows for the possibility that 2b–4 and 29–37 are dis-
———————————
187 Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories,” 164 regards 19–28 as a Deuteronomistic redactional addi-
tion. He maintains this position in Nadav Na’aman, “Was Ahab Killed by an Assyrian
Arrow in the Battle of Qarqar?” UR 37 (2005): 461–74. This is possible, but need not be
further explicated for the purposes of this study. C.F. Whitley, “The Deuteronomistic Pres-
entation of the House of Omri,” VT 2 (1952): 148–49 seems to regard the entire chapter as
belonging together, but representing a corruption of a narrative originally about Joram and
Ahaziahu.
tinct traditions and do not mutually rely on one another; verses 29–37 could
have existed as a story independently from 2b–4.
There is a parallel recounting of this story elsewhere in the Bible, namely
in 2 Chronicles 18. There the text is somewhat different, especially when one
considers the opening of the story. 1 Kings 22:1–2a is clearly a redactional
addition to place 1 Kings 22 in its secondary context following 1 Kings 20.
The redactor of 2 Chronicles fashions an entirely different opening in 18:1.
2 Chronicles 18:2aα contains essentially the same pertinent information as
1 Kings 22:2b, but leaves the subject unnamed, relying on context, and names
the king of Israel as Ahab. This presumes that Chronicles was familiar with this
tale in the context of Ahab and presented it as such. Chronicles, in its general
lack of concern for the kingdom of Israel, does not have any verse that is simi-
lar to 1 Kings 22:3. 2 Chronicles 18:3 also contains virtually the same informa-
tion as 1 Kings 22:4, but in a slightly different form:
1 Kings 22:4 2 Chronicles 18:3

‫ַוֹּיאֶמר‬ ‫ַוֹּיאֶמר ַאְחָאב ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל‬
‫ֶאל ְיהוֹ ָשָפט‬ ‫ֶאל ְיהוֹ ָשָפט ֶמֶלְך ְיהּוָדה‬
‫מת גְִּלָעד‬
ֹ ‫ֲהֵתֵלְך ִא ִּתי ַל ִּמְלָחָמה ָר‬ ‫מת גְִּלָעד‬
ֹ ‫ֲהֵתֵלְך ִע ִּמי ָר‬
‫ַוֹּיאֶמר ְיהוֹ ָשָפט ֶאל ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל‬ ֹ‫ַוֹּיאֶמר לו‬
ָ‫ָּכמוִֹני ָכמוֹךָ ְּכַע ִּמי ְכַע ֶּמךָ ְּכסוַּסי ְּכסוֶּסיך‬ ‫ָּכמוִֹני ָכמוֹךָ וְּכַע ִּמךָ ַע ִּמי ְוִע ְּמךָ ַּב ִּמְלָחָמה‬
The apparent differences here are curious. First of all, the preposition has
changed from ‫ את‬in Kings to ‫ עם‬in Chronicles. While this has no real bearing
on meaning, it had important consequences for the remaining redaction history.
It appears that parablepsis subsequent to the change in the preposition led to
the mis-ordering of syntagmata in the last portion of the verse. Even from the
context, it is not clear why they are going to Ramoth-Gilead. This is only clear
if one restores ‫ למלחמה‬before Ramoth-Gilead from the ‫ במלחמה‬at the end of
2 Chronicles 18:3. This error was most likely caused by homtel, which is plau-
sible, considering the double occurrence of ‫ עמי‬in the verse. 189 The comment of
———————————
189 Alternatively, one could suggest that it was intentionally relocated in order to make Jeho-
shaphat the one looking for war. However, this seems less plausible than the corruption of
2 Chronicles 18:3b, which is hardly understandable in its current form. Contra Simon J.
De Vries, “The Three Comparisons in 1 Kings XXII 4B and Its Parallel in 2 Kings III 7B,”
VT 39 (1989): 288–90.
the king of Judah is corrupt in 2 Chronicles 18 and should be restored to the

longer (and more sensible) version found in 1 Kings 22:4. A series of problems
must have led to its confusion and transition into nonsense. First, one notices
the absence of the copula in LXX, which is probably original. Then, two ele-
ments seem to have switched places: ‫ כעמך‬and ‫כעמי‬, whereby the initial ‫ כ‬of the
second element was lost in the terminal ‫ כ‬of the first element via haplography.
The conclusion seems to be a corruption and was apparently transposed from
the previous phrase. This textual corruption led to the nonsensical phrasing at
the end of the 2 Chr 18:3: “I am like you and like your people is my people and
your people in battle.” Finally, Chronicles lacks the explicit subject and object
in the second half of the verse, while LXX of Kings is also missing the object.
Several observations might help lead us to the original text. Lectio brevior
favors 1 Kings 22:4a; 2 Chr 18:3 reads like an expanded and revised text,
explicitly naming the king of Israel (based on the context in 1 Kings and in
order to further explicate the name Ahab mentioned in 2 Chr 18:1–2) and add-
ing the title “king of Judah” after the name Jehoshaphat. The verb “to fight”
seems to have erroneously found its way onto the end of the 2 Chronicles 18:3
version. The text of 2 Chronicles 18:3b α reads like the original version based
on the tenet of lectio brevior (cf. LXX for the missing object in 1 Kings 22:4b),
while 3bβ should be restored back to the uncorrupted text of 1 Kings 22:4b β.
Therefore, one can plausibly reconstruct the older text of the verse: ‫ויאמר‬
‫אל יהושפט התלך אתי למלחמה רמת גלעד ויאמר לו כמוני כמוך כעמי כעמך כסוסי כסוסיך‬.
This reconstructed text implies that after the original text was accepted and
adapted by the author of Chronicles, someone edited the book of Kings again,
working independently from the tradition responsible for Chronicles, adding
the subject and object in 22:4b. There may be further evidence of such a phe-
nomenon in the pericope in question.
With these literary observations, it is more plausible that 1 Kings 22:2b–4,
in an older form that is only somewhat reconstructable, did not in fact belong
to the same narrative as 29–37*. At the oldest reachable level of narrative, the
name Jehoshaphat cannot be removed as secondary. This implies that whoever
wrote the verse 2b–4 seems to be composing them for the context preceding 5–
28*, where the pious Jehoshaphat leads the king of Israel (identified as Ahab in
v. 20) to seek the word of ‫ יהוה‬from the prophets. Chronicles already knew the
introduction to this story in this context and expanded it. Therefore, the redac-
tor responsible for adding 2b–4 may have been the redactor who originally
changed the story to be about Jehoshaphat and Ahab.
Further, 2b–4 maintain the appearance of a composition from a Judean
perspective, if the original narrative containing the story of a Judean and an
Israelite king going to war against Aram was originally about Joram and
Ahaziahu, as Whitley postulated, and will be accepted here. 190 First, one notes
the Judean perspective on the battle of Ramoth-Gilead. 4 Reigns 10:37–43
(Ant.)—a Judean text—presumes that Ahaziahu went out to war, allied with
Joram of Israel, in order to conquer Ramoth-Gilead from Hazael. In 4 Reigns
9:16, which belongs to the Israel source, Joram is guarding Ramoth-Gilead
from an attacking Hazael. The perspective of the aggressive Judean and Israel-
ite kings matches the position of 1 Kings 22:3, in which the king of Israel plans
an attack in order to re-conquer Ramoth-Gilead from the Arameans, and con-
tradicts the battle description in the Israel source. 191
As for 29–38*, some elements still remain to be examined as to whether or
not they really belong to the oldest level of the narrative. This becomes particu-
larly evident at the conclusion of the passage, in which the traditions in 1 Kings
22 and 2 Chronicles 18 diverge and take the narrative in two different direc-
tions. At this point it becomes pertinent to mention the striking similarity of the
passages in 1 Kings 22:5–28 and 2 Chronicles 18:4–27. While there are some
minor differences in the text, few of them merit any real attention. The most
divergent verses are 1 Kgs 22:8a ≅ 2 Chr 18:7a and 1 Kgs 22:15 ≅ 2 Chr
18:14. In both of these instances (as in the other few minor differences to be
found between these two passages) it seems that both of them dealt with prob-
———————————
190 Whitley, “House of Omri”; cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 255–57. Contra
Na’aman, “Assyrian Arrow”. Na’aman presumes that someone mistakenly placed this
story in its current context and thus chose the Arameans (instead of the Assyrians) as
Israel’s enemy based on its proximity to 1 Kings 20. I find it more likely that someone
intentionally moved this story to its current location; see the discussion beginning on page
153 below. I find it also unlikely that Shalmaneser III could have killed Ahab in battle
(intentionally or otherwise) and not have bragged about it in any of his texts. At some
point in his long reign, he would have had opportunity to describe it, and even as early as
the Monolith Inscription, he did not shy away from describing his humiliation of other
kings; cf. Monolith Inscription ii:52b–53a and 66b–75a.
191 The opening of the reconstructed battle narrative in 1 Kings 22:29–35a does not specify
who was the aggressor and therefore allows the possibility of belonging to the Israel
source.
lems of an older narrative in different manners. A fitting example of this should

serve to illustrate: in 1 Kings 22:15 one finds the form ‫הנלך‬, whereas the form
had previously appeared as ‫ האלך‬in 1 Kings 22:6. In both of these instances,
Chronicles read ‫הנלך‬, which in this case is the more logical (and inclusive, from
a Judean perspective) form.
Literary critical analysis must aid us in the reconstruction of the original
narrative recounted in 1 Kings 22:29–38*. Fortunately, we have four different
biblical traditions in order to aid in this process: 1 Kings 22 MT and LXX and
2 Chronicles MT and LXX. By relying on all four of these traditions, some
decisions about the oldest attainable level of the text may become easier. For
convenience, the four versions of 1 Kings 22:35 ( ≅ 2 Chr 18:34) have been
listed here:
1 Kgs 22:35 2 Chr 18:34 3 Reigns 22:35 2 Chr 18:34

MT MT LXX LXX
‫ַו ַּתֶלֲעה ַה ִּמְלָחָמה‬ ‫ַו ְּתַעל ַה ִּמְלָחָמה ַּביֹּום‬ καὶ ε τροπω' θη ο καὶ ε τροπω' θη ο
‫ַּביֹּום ַההּוא‬ ‫ַההּוא‬ πο' λεμος ε ν τηñ, πο' λεμος ε ν τηñ,
η με' ρα, ε κει'νη, , η με' ρα, ε κει'νη, ,
‫ְוַה ֶּמֶלְך ָהָיה ָמֳעָמד‬ ‫וֶּמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ָהָיה‬ καὶ ο βασιλεὺς καὶ ο βασιλεὺς
‫ַּב ֶּמְרּכָָבה נַֹכח ֲאָרם‬ ‫ַמֲעִמיד ַּב ֶּמְרּכָָבה‬ ηò ν ε στηκὼς ε πὶ Ισραηλ ηò ν
‫נַֹכח ֲאָרם‬ τουñ α«ρματος ε ξ ε στηκὼς ε πὶ
ε ναντι'ας Συρι'ας τουñ α«ρματος
‫ַויָָּמת ָּבֶעֶרב‬ ‫ַעד ָהָעֶרב‬ α πὸ πρωὶ ε«ως ε«ως ε σπε' ρας ε ξ
ε σπε' ρας ε ναντι'ας Συρι'ας
‫ַויִֶּצק ַּדם ַה ַּמ ָּכה‬ καὶ α πε' χυννε τὸ
‫ֶאל ֵחיק ָהָרֶכב‬ αιðμα ε κ τηñ ς
πληγηñ ς ει ς τὸν
κο' λπον τουñ
α«ρματος,
‫ויָָּמת ְלֵעת ּבֹוא‬ καὶ α πε' θανεν καὶ α πε' θανεν
‫ַה ָשֶמש‬ ε σπε' ρας, δυ' νοντος τουñ
η λι'ου.
καὶ
ε ξεπορευ' ετο τὸ
αιðμα τηñ ς τροπηñ ς
ε«ως τουñ κο' λπου
τουñ α«ρματος
Several factors should be enumerated here. First, and most importantly, the
pericope in 2 Chr 18 ends at verse 34; there are no implicit or explicit refer-
ences to the Elijah narratives succeeding the verse in question. The text goes in
a completely different direction and addresses what happened to Jehoshaphat.
This variation in the ending might be evidence for a common source for the
two narrative strands, or it might be evidence of the Vorlage text of Kings that
the redactor of Chronicles possessed. Secondly, the primary difference between
the Greek and Hebrew traditions of 2 Chr 18:34 is the position of the adverbial
phrase “until evening.” This demonstrates the flexibility of the Greek language
regarding adverbial clauses and makes no difference in meaning. Third, the pri-
mary difference between the first half of the verse in the Hebrew traditions is
the addition of ‫ ישראל‬after ‫המלך‬. This most likely represents a secondary expan-
sion to provide clarity about which king was shot, especially when one consid-
ers the Judean priority apparent in Chronicles. There is an apparent duplication
of the notice of the king’s death in the Hebrew text of 1 Kings: cf. 22:35 and
37. LXX recounts the passage differently. In this instance, the lectio difficilior
favors the reading of MT, with the Greek emending the text to prevent such a
duplication by turning v. 37 into a subordinate clause and thus continuing the
quote from the herald in v. 36. Further, 1 Kings 22:35b is an obvious redac-
tional preparation for the notice of the fulfillment of the prophecy in v. 38, 192
which in turn is clearly secondary to the story. 193 Therefore, 1 Kings 22:35b
should be regarded as secondary. Lectio brevior favors the LXX of 2 Chr
18:34aβ versus 3 Reigns 22:35aβ; cf. καὶ ο βασιλεὺς ηò ν ε στηκὼς ε πὶ τουñ
α«ρματος ε ξ ε ναντι'ας Συρι'ας α πὸ πρωὶ ε«ως ε σπε' ρας vs. καὶ ο βασιλεὺς Ισραηλ
ηò ν ε στηκὼς ε πὶ τουñ α«ρματος ε«ως ε σπε' ρας ε ξ ε ναντι' ας Συρι'ας. This suggests
that the Chr reading is the older in this case. 194 One should also note the use of
δυ' νοντος τουñ η λι' ου (= ‫ )בוא השמש‬in 2 Chr 18:34 and in 3 Reigns 22:36//
1 Kings 22:36, suggesting that the tradition of Kings was also previously famil-
iar with this conclusion of v. 35. Finally, regarding the Greek tradition of
———————————
192 Cf. Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 255 n. 4.
194 One could also consider the Ethiopic text of 1 Kings 22:35 as evidence of such a Greek
Vorlage of Kings, in that it also ends verse 35 as in Chronicles; cf. Henry S. Gehman,
“The Old Ethiopic Version of 1. Kings and Its Affinities,” JBL 50 (1931): 102. In this
case, the Ethiopic text would represent a transitional phase between the Chronicles
Vorlage and the later Septuagint text of Kings.
3 Reigns 22:35, there is conspicuous evidence of redactional work; the virtual

doubling of the phrase καὶ ε ξεπορευ' ετο τὸ αιðμα τηñ ς τροπηñ ς ε«ως τουñ κο' λπου
τουñ α«ρματος suggests the addition of material, in this case, the phrase καὶ
α πε' θανεν ε σπε' ρας. Lectio brevior favors all of the other traditions at this point.
Based on these observations, the following factors become apparent: 195
1) The second half-verse of 1 Kings 22:35 (i.e., where the most problems and
conspicuous redactional elements occur) has the appearance of being tacked
on. This is the reason that the several traditions record different elements in it.
The tale ended without v. 35b of the Kings text. This resolution allowed two
different redactors to take the text in two different directions. One focuses on
the prophetic fulfillment of Ahab’s death (Kings), while the others refocuses on
Jehoshaphat (Chronicles).
2) No two texts record the demise of Ahab/the king of Israel in the same way.
All four are different, with Chronicles in the Greek and the Hebrew traditions
being the most consistent.
3) Other than the conclusion, the texts of 1 Kgs 22 and 2 Chr 18 remain sur-
prisingly uniform. Of the few differences, even fewer are substantial.
4) With minimal emendation, 2 Chr 18:34 reads like the oldest version.
Based on these considerations, I would suggest that the following was the con-
clusion of the oldest reconstructable version of the story: ‫ותעל המלחמה ביום ההוא‬
‫ומלך היה מעמד במרכבה נכח ארם עד הערב‬. This is the tradition recorded in 2 Chr
18:34a, but with without ‫ ישראל‬specifying which king had been shot and using
the plene writing of √‫עמד‬. The second half of the verse in its original format
‫ וימת לעת בוא השמש‬seems to be redactional work incorporated by the person
who added this tale into a story about Michaiah ben Imlah and Jehoshaphat of
Judah. The conclusion confirms the prophecy of Michaiah by killing the king,
who was previously only wounded. It is also the tradition known by 1 Kings at
22:36 (‫)כבא השמש‬. The later 1 Kings 22:35b was reworked on at least two occa-
sions: before the LXX (making the dripping of the blood into the base of the
chariot explicit) and after the LXX into the final version of MT (reducing the
material present in LXX). This was the last level of recensional activity in this
pericope.
———————————
195 For some similar arguments concerning 1 Kings 20 and 2 Chronicles 18 (though he seeks
to identify Ahab’s place of death [in contrast to the place where he was wounded] as
Jezreel), cf. Napier, “Omrides,” 374–77.
What this story leaves unresolved in the oldest reconstructable version of

this verse is the ending of the king of Israel. What happens to him? What hap-
pens to the king of Judah? These questions remain unanswered in the oldest
version. This is the very reason that redactors could take the story in different
directions. The redactor of Kings put it in the context of the Elijah prophecies,
making a secondary connection between 1 Kings 22:35b + 38 and 21:19. 196
The redactor of Chronicles on the other hand converted the story into a minor
condemnation of Jehoshaphat, turning the attention of the story back toward
him after the verse in question and telling the reader that he returned to Jerusa-
lem. In Kings, Jehoshaphat just vanishes and no longer plays a role in the
story’s current narrative context.
In terms of dating, it would seem that 2 Chr 18:34 MT contains the oldest
reading (though admittedly the LXX is virtually as good as candidate, having
only reversed the order of two minor elements). This represents the tradition as
it was contained in the book of Kings when Chronicles relied on it as a
source.197 At a later date, the text of Kings was expanded to include explicit
references to the Elijah narrative. The most extensive version of this can be
found in 3 Reigns 22:35b. At an even later date, these redactional expansions
were streamlined into the text of 2 Kings 22:35b as presented in MT, which
removed the virtual duplication present in the LXX. In this case, it seems that
more recensors spent time working on the Kings tradition than on the later
Chronicles tradition. Therefore, the text of 2 Chronicles 18:34 will be regarded
as older.
The tradition of the herald in verses 1 Kings 22:36–37 makes a secondary
impression. Lectio difficilior favors the MT over and against LXX at this point.
LXX sought to remove the duplication of the king’s death notice by putting it
in the mouth of the herald. This text-critical decision maintains the content of
the herald’s message in v. 36: “each to his city and each to his land!” The
Chronicles version of this story apparently is unfamiliar with the announcement
of the herald. While the statement in 1 Kings 22:36 would fit well with the con-
———————————
196 The culmination of this connection to Elijah is found in 2 Hebrew manuscripts and some
of the Targum and Septuagint minuscules, which add ‫ביד אליהו‬.
197 This would support the proposition offered by Schenker, that “der Chronist eine Textform
der Königsbücher voraussetzt, die näher bei der in der ursprünglichen LXX implizierten
hebräischen Textbasis liegt; jedenfalls hat er nicht die protomasoretische Neuausgabe
benützen können.” (Schenker, Textgeschichte, 187–88)
tinuation of the story in 2 Chronicles 19:1 (i.e., Jehoshaphat’s return to Jerusa-

lem), it is conspicuously absent. Without narrative reason, Jehoshaphat aban-
dons the field of battle and returns to his house. This suggests a secondary ori-
gin for the mention of the herald. It was crafted based on the original conclu-
sion of 1 Kings 22:35 (= 2 Chronicles 18:34); n.b., ‫ בוא השמש‬in 2 Chronicles
18:34 and 1 Kings 22:36. Therefore, 1 Kings 22:36 further provides the neces-
sary transition to verse 37 and will be regarded as a secondary addition.
Verse 37 presumes the existence of 39–40 at this location and prepares the
reader for the final regnal notice of the king of Israel, whom context determines
as Ahab. Verse 37 further prepares the reader for the notice in v. 38, that the
dogs licked the blood of Ahab, as anticipated in the tale of Naboth’s vineyard
in 1 Kings 21:19. According to older versions of this story, Naboth’s vineyard
was in Samaria (cf. 3 Reigns 20:1 and 1 Kings 21:17). Thus, the blood of Ahab
must make it back to Samaria in order for the dogs to lick it up there. Verse 37
serves just this function, bringing Ahab’s body back to Samaria (presumably
with the chariot full of his blood). Therefore, v. 37 belongs to the redactional
level responsible for v. 38 and not to the original story in 29–35a.
With this analysis then, we can reconstruct the following narrative and
redactional layers for the story recounted 1 Kings 22: 1) the narrative of an
anonymous king of Israel and an anonymous king of Judah going to a battle at
Ramoth-Gilead, during which the king of Israel is injured (29–35a); 2) a pro-
phetic narrative about Jehoshaphat of Judah and Ahab of Israel in which
Ahab’s death has been prophesied (5–28); 198 3) the redaction combining these
two stories (2b–4 + 35b*); 4) the redaction placing the stories in the context of
the Elijah narratives and subsequent to 1 Kings 20 (1–2a + 36–38). This pat-
tern matches what we have found for the other passages of the Israel source
discussed thus far.
Based on this textual reconstruction, the following postulations can be
accepted for the redaction history of 1 Kings 22: vv. 1–2a establish the story in
its current context following the story of the battle against Aram in 1 Kings
20//3 Reigns 21. This, together with vv. 36–38, represents the last level of
———————————
198 Is it possible that this prophetic narrative also originally recounted an event from the time
of Ahaziahu of Judah? Cf. 1 Kings 22:26 and 2 Kings 11:2. This might imply that Jeho-
shaphat and Ahab actually are secondary to the tale, but based on the version of the narra-
tive available to us now, there is no way to reconstruct such a level of the text. This is
because of 1 Kings 22:4a, 8a, and 20, where the names cannot be removed.
redaction. Verses 2b–4 introduce Jehoshaphat and prepare the reader for the
inserted story of Michaiah ben Imlah in 1 Kings 22:5–28*. The same redactor
added verse 35b (in its original reconstructed form) in order to verify the death
of Ahab foretold in the prophecy and placed this narrative in its expanded for-
mat before the closing formula of Ahab as found in the Israel source. This level
of redaction belongs to the previously identified Judean level of redaction: the
new context converts a story previously about another king of Israel into a nar-
rative about a king of Judah and at the same time humiliates the king of Israel,
making him the aggressor who dies in a cowardly attempt to protect himself.
Already at this level of redaction the reader can agree with Würthwein: “Mit
welcher Schadenfreude wird man sich diese, ihrer Tendenz nach in Juda
beheimatete, Sage erzählt haben!” 199 In this level of redaction, the tale cur-
rently in 1 Kings 22 immediately followed the introductions of Jehoshaphat in
3 Reigns 16:28 a and Ahab in 1 Kings 16:29, 31b–32 and ended with the notice
of Ahab’s death in 1 Kings 22:39–40.
A later redactor expanded the text to make clear how the blood of Ahab
came from Ramoth-Gilead to Samaria in order to be licked by the dogs there.
For this reason, 1 Kings 22:36–38 were composed. They presume the existence
of Elijah’s conflict with Ahab recounted in 1 Kings 21 MT (= 3 Reigns 20). As
seen in the discussion of 2 Kings 9–10 above, the Elijah redaction was identi-
cal to the Deuteronomistic redaction. That makes the Deuteronomistic redac-
tion the terminus a quo for this redaction. Here, however, one may have to
anticipate another, even later redactor, who added 1–2a and 36–38 in order to
make this material fit better in its new context. 200 The evidence suggesting a
later date for this composition is the lack of this material in Chronicles. Either
the redactor of Chronicles removed the elements incorporating 1 Kings 22 into
the Elijah narrative or a post-Deuteronomistic redactor added them. Bearing in
mind that the redactor of Chronicles recounts nothing known about Elijah from
within the book of Kings, 201 it is entirely possible that he chose not to include
———————————
199 Würthwein, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 , 257.
200 Admittedly, 1 Kings 22:1–2a could have been added independently of 1 Kings 22:36–38.
There is no specific reason to demand their addition at the same time. For instance, one
could understand the reference in 2 Chronicles 18:2a as a sign that some form of 1 Kings
22:1–2a existed in the Vorlage of Kings used by the Chronicler. This would imply that 1–
2a were Deuteronomistic, while 36–38 potentially remained post-Deuteronomistic.
201 However in 2 Chronicles 21:12, Elijah writes a letter to Jehoram of Judah.
the implicit reference to the Elijah prophecy here. 202 The re-wording of
1 Kings 22:35b represents the only element that must come from a later date.
Since the LXX contains this ending, it represents the terminus ad quem for the
redaction of 35b. 203
The original Israelite narrative remaining in Kings can therefore be found
in 1 Kings 22:29–35a. This is presumably the oldest narrative tradition here
and prepares the reader for the Jehu Revolution, thus implying its status as a
portion of the Israel Source. While in the oldest reconstructable form the kings
of Israel, Judah, and Aram remain unnamed, it is the only information provided
in the Israel Source about Joram of Israel outside of the narrative directly relat-
ing to his death in 2 Kings 9. 204 It recounts his cowardly attempt to protect him-
self in battle, a plan which ultimately fails. For a similar transition between the
opening notice of a king and his immediate departure for war in the Israel
source, cf. Ben-Hadad’s notice of ascension in 2 Kings 13:24 and his campaign
against Samaria in 1 Kings 20:1 as reconstructed above. From 1 Kings 22:35a,
the Israel Source continued directly into 2 Kings 9:1. This offers an alternative
solution to Gray’s identification of the curious opening of the Jehu revolution
in 2 Kings 9: “…the account of the actual revolt ([2 K.] 9.15ff.) begins with a
statement as if de novo of facts already well known and recorded in vv. 1ff.
that Joram was at war with Hazael at Ramoth Gilead, where he had been
wounded and had returned to recuperate at Jezreel…” 205 At this point it only
seems appropriate to ruminate about the redaction history of 1 Kings 20–22
———————————
202 Beyond that, its literary referent would be missing in Chronicles.
203 Although, as demonstrated above, MT refined this further at an even later date.
204 This implicit reference to Joram was suggested by Na’aman, “Prophetic Stories,” 170:
“According to this assumption [an oral narrative source behind 1 Kings 22], the historical
heroes of the oral story were Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, and the narrative origi-
nally described how Joram was killed in the battle of Ramoth-Gilead. Such a hypothesis
may find support in the Aramaic inscription of Tel Dan, whose author, most probably
Hazael, claims that he killed in battle the king of Israel, Joram, and Ahazyahu, king of
Judah, contradicting the story in 2 Kgs 9, according to which the two kings were killed by
Jehu near the town of Jezreel.” One need not anticipate an oral story behind the text of 1
Kings 22 nor presume the historicity implied by the relationship to the Tel Dan Inscription
in order to see the literary relationship between 1 Kings 22* and 2 Kings 9*. The opening
of 2 Kings 9* picks up right where 1 Kings 22:35a ended, with 2 Kings 9:16 explaining
how it is that Joram and Ahaziahu came to be at Jezreel, as opposed to Ramoth-Gilead,
where they were the last time the reader encountered them, before Elisha set Jehu’s revolt
in motion.
and 2 Kings 13, since, as we have seen, they developed via an interrelated tex-
tual history. Let’s begin with 1 Kings 22. As seen above, the Israelite narrative
was subsumed into a Judean tale. This converted Joram’s battle against Aram
at Ramoth-Gilead into Ahab’s battle against Aram at Ramoth-Gilead. 206 The
implications of this transition of the narrative paved the way for the next step.
Subsequent to the Judean redaction of the narrative of what is currently
1 Kings 22, precedence had been established for conflict between the
Arameans and Ahab. This enabled the transfer of a portion of the narrative
about Joash of Israel and his victories against Aram into the context of 1 Kings
20, i.e., in the reign of Ahab. To smooth this out, the verses 22:1–2 were
added, establishing a direct link between the two narratives.
Following the tale of Elisha’s death and his promise of (only!) three victo-
ries over Aram in 2 Kings 13, it would make little sense to proceed with a long
and dramatic description of the victories of the king of Israel over Aram. Fur-
ther, while 2 Kings 13:17 anticipates three victories for Joash at Apheq,
2 Kings 13:25 mentions three victories of Joash, but not explicitly at Apheq.
These two factors would have created narrative tension and effectively demon-
strate that 2 Kings 13:14–19 (whether uniform or not) are not from the same
author as 13:25. This suggests that whoever added the Elisha narrative in
2 Kings 13 would have been the responsible party for the change in the narra-
tive order. Further, the victories in 1 Kings 20 were transformed into defeats by
the addition of 1 Kings 20:35–43, which removes any positive impression these
narratives would have left on the reader; the king of Israel has been morphed
from a military hero into a childish brat and condemned to death. 207 This sug-
gests that whoever added the Elisha narrative in 2 Kings 13 may also have been
the person responsible for the addition of the material in 1 Kings 20:35–42.
The tendency of the prophetic material and the mention of the elders in 1 Kings
———————————
206 In terms of the historicity of this claim, for all intents and purposes, the exegete is forced
to reject any historical claim in the Judean redaction responsible for making this story
about Ahab. The only possible method of finding any historical value behind the prophetic
tale of Michaiah ben Imlah is to posit a Judean alliance with Ahab against the Assyrians at
the Battle of Qarqar in 853, shortly after which Ahab died peacefully. Based on this event
however, a Judean story-teller composed the story of Michaiah ben Imlah in which Ahab
died in the battle. The composer would have also confused the enemies and the location,
were such the case.
207 The role of v. 43 within this complex is further emphasized, since it serves as the narrative
link to 1 Kings 21:4 in MT.
20:7–8 suggest a similar redactional Sitz im Leben to the material in 1 Kings

20:35–43 and may be from the same redactor. The redactor of 1 Kings 20
would have sought an appropriate king to turn into or affirm as a loser, and
Ahab would be the obvious choice from any Dtr or post-Dtr perspective. Since
he became the negative king par excellence by the time of the Dtr redaction, it
would only be logical that any later redactor place negative material within the
confines of his reign. This potential was further increased by the previously
relocated tradition creating a war between Aram and Ahab. So, why was the
text moved? To tarnish Joash’s image and further detriment Ahab’s. When was
it moved? At the time that the Elisha narrative was added. Who moved it? The
redactor responsible for the Elisha narrative in 2 Kings 13.
Now that the larger portions of 1 Kings 20 and 22 have been established in
their redactional history, we can turn our attention to 1 Kings 21. Since a
redaction history of the Elijah narratives remains outside of the purview of this
monograph, the text will largely be accepted as a unity. It does have links with
external texts that should be briefly examined. First, one notices the promise of
the dogs licking the blood of Ahab in Samaria in 1 Kings 21:19, which directly
connects to 1 Kings 22:36–38, which, as demonstrated above, is the latest text
added to 1 Kings 22. In combination, 1 Kings 21:19 and 1 Kings 22:36–38 cre-
ate a strong literary link between these two otherwise unrelated tales. Further,
in 1 Kings 21:23, one finds a direct link to and explanation of Jezebel’s miss-
ing corpse in 2 Kings 9:37; this also explains the redactional addition of 9:36.
1 Kings 21:27–29 prepare the reader for the untimely deaths of Ahab’s sons in
2 Kings 1 and 9. Bearing all of this in mind, it becomes clear that 1 Kings 21
plays an important role in holding the narrative strands of Kings together.
The redactor responsible for inserting 1 Kings 22:1–2a presumably was the
same redactor who removed 1 Kings 20 from its original context and placed it
in the context of Ahab’s life. It establishes the connection between the two
campaigns and strengthens their secondary unity. The strong literary link to
1 Kings 21:19 further suggests the introduction of 1 Kings 22:36–38 at this
time. The re-working of 1 Kings 22:35b may have come at a later date, as sug-
gested by the lectio brevior in 2 Chronicles 18:34b.
By moving all of these texts, the redactor was both able to construct the
fall of Ahab’s house from a theological perspective, turning a victory into a
defeat (while at the same time down-playing the victory of Joash over Aram) in
1 Kings 20 and destroying Ahab violently in war (while at the same time keep-
ing such a violent destruction of Joram of Israel). 208 This implies that 1 Kings
20–22 were redacted together into a story arc condemning both Ahab and his
house, while at the same time tarnishing the powerful image of the Jehuide
kings. These factors combine to suggest that it was the same redactor responsi-
ble for the incorporation of the Elijah materials in 1 Kings 17–19 and 21, 209 as
was seen from the discussion of 1 Kings 20 above. 210 The addition of these
texts to the reign of Ahab helps reinforce the conception of him as the worst
king of Israel, while at the same time reducing the positive aspects of Joash and
maintaining the violent downfall of Joram. This all has the ring of the
Deuteronomist, as was also seen in the examination of the Elijah materials in
2 Kings 9–10. “In the Deuteronomistic compilation, the passage [1 Kings
20:35–43], with the prophetic declaration on the forfeiture of ‘Ahab’s’ life,
leads up to the more pointed oracle of Elijah after the Naboth incident in ch. 21
(v. 19), with its fulfilment in ch. 22.” 211 The finer points of this redactional
work were presumably finished at a time when the book of Chronicles was
already being worked on. This became obvious in our discussion of 1 Kings
22:29–35a above and demonstrates that 1 Kings 22:35b in its current form is
probably a late text. 212
Returning to considerations of the literary nature, irrespective of their his-
torical value, the remarkable distinction between the Jehuide dynasty and the
other kings of Israel reveals itself quite obviously in the original Israelite
source. While the Jehuide kings are efficient and effective warriors and power-
———————————
208 This should answer the inquiry of Na’aman “...why would anyone at a later time invent a
story about his heroic death on the battlefield?” (Na’aman, “Assyrian Arrow,” 463) The
theological reasoning behind the redaction of the narrative is obvious, and whether an
exegete can describe the protagonist king who exchanges his clothing with the doting king
of Judah as “heroic” would require further explication and justification.
209 For the appreciation of 1 Kings 20 and 22 as distinct from the Elijah stories, cf. Benzinger,
Könige, 116.
210 One should note that Gray (borrowing from Noth, ÜGS, 80) sees a common redaction
(albeit prophetic in his argumentation) for 1 Kings 20; 22; 2 Kings 3 and 9–10. Cf. Gray,
Kings, 538.
212 Cf. further Jepsen’s identification of 1 Kings 21:27–29 MT as a post-Deuteronomistic,
pre-Chronistic text in Jepsen, “Ahabs Busse”. “…die Verse 27–29 erinnerten sehr an die
Art des Chronisten, Unheil und Heil durch Sünde und Buße zu erklären...” (Jepsen,
“Ahabs Busse,” 146)
ful kings, reigning for many years and managing to always put their sons on the
throne as their successors, the other kings of Israel fail to accomplish such
feats. Israel under the non-Jehuide kings remains an unstable kingdom, with no
successor remaining long on the throne of his father. Jeroboam and the early
Omride kings Omri and Ahab present the modest exceptions, as they still
receive some regard in the original Israelite source. Jeroboam’s story is briefly
narrated. However, Omri and Ahab’s images come across to the reader in a
tempered format; little is said about Omri and Ahab other than Omri’s building
of Samaria and Ahab’s reverence for Baal and marriage to Jezebel. The narra-
tor ignores some very positive information about Ahab, namely his particip-
ation in a (successful) coalition of states against Shalmaneser III at the Battle
of Qarqar in 853 BCE.213 Ahab’s two sons who succeed him are blatantly inept,
the one dying after falling from a rooftop chamber and the other being shot
while defending Israel’s border. 214 The original source material about Israel
introduces us to the other characters referenced in the Jehu revolution, yet por-
trays them in a negative light: Zimri lasts only seven days on the throne of
Israel; Ahab serves Baal; Jezebel is his foreign wife; Joram is identified as the
wounded king of Israel. None of the previous kings of Israel has a special rela-
tionship to ‫ יהוה‬like the Jehuides, or makes witty remarks like Joash. None of
them has his rebellion described in the level of detail found in the description
of Jehu’s revolt. None succeeds in overcoming his enemies, whether Aram or
Judah, as easily as Joash. The tendentious nature of the text fits consistently
with the image we have seen in the material about the Jehuide kings.
In terms of literary structure, one finds many of the same familiar elements,
such as the frames identifying the length of the reign of each king, the use of
personal names at the opening of accounts, the position of subjects and objects
at the opening of sentences, 215 and the use of the perfect. The narrator main-
tains the third-person perspective familiar from 2 Kings 9–14*. Like the other
texts we’ve encountered, every king of Israel (except for the impotent Joram,
———————————
213 Cf. the Monolith Inscription and Chapter 6 below. This biblical reticence about informa-
tion gleaned from Akkadian sources further suggests a relationship to the narratives about
Jehu and Joash. While the narrator ignores negative information about the Jehu dynasty,
he at the same time ignores positive information about the Omride dynasty.
214 Cf. the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which suggests that the sons of Ahab may have
still been members of a (successful) coalition against him. The narrator of the Israel Source
acknowledges no such positive information about these sons of Ahab.
215 Cf. Šanda, 1. Könige, 507–8.
whose demise is more artistically recounted than any other, thus precluding the
need for a closing frame) receives a closing statement referencing other works
and activities of the king, citing the location where such information should be
sought, should it be of interest. This is also in a standard format, being intro-
duced with the question ‫הלא‬, just as was the case with Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash,
and Jeroboam II. 216 This suggests a common literary thread.
The Deuteronomist did not merely create this material about the Israelite
kings or just adapt it from “historical” sources that he found. Rather, the
Deuteronomist was able to glean theology from the stories recounted in the
Israel Source. This becomes especially true regarding the texts about Ahab’s
family’s fall and the rise and maintenance of the Jehuide dynastic superiority in
the Northern Kingdom. The Deuteronomist could adapt Jeroboam I’s religious
activities into the sin of Jeroboam; he was able to adapt Ahab’s service to Baal
into the worship of foreign gods. The Israel Source supplies the exegete with
an extensive basis for developing a pre-Deuteronomistic, and even older (i.e.,
previous to the fall of Samaria), theology. Theologically, there is much to be
regarded here: in the oldest reconstructable level of text, ‫ יהוה‬remains the God
favorable to the dynasty of Jehu, supporting its members; the text regards no
other kings of Israel in this manner. The nature of the historical reliability, if
any, still must be examined in the second portion of this work.
A few words about the prophets in the Israel Source should help to distin-
guish their role. In the original Israelite narrative, the prophets who appear ally
themselves with the kings of Israel. Two of them (Ahijah and Elisha) ordain
new kings to take over the throne. Jonah ben Amittai demonstrates ‫’יהוה‬s sup-
port for Jeroboam II. This image contrasts sharply with the Deuteronomistic
image of the prophets in Israel. A superficial glance at the prophetic injunc-
tions added by the Deuteronomist suffices to demonstrate their loathing of the
kings of Israel. Even the supportive prophet added to 1 Kings 20 figuratively
takes the wind out of the sails of the king of Israel, preempting the king’s effec-
———————————
216 The only king of Israel in our source with a different literary citation is Jeroboam I. Cf. the
last kings of Israel, who as a rule have this referent in the form of ‫הנם‬, with the exception
of Menachem in 2 Kings 15:22. While the unique reference to Jeroboam I can demonstrate
special respect for the first king of Israel in this source by using ‫הנה‬, the later usages
remain inexplicable. Especially problematic is the return to the general usage of ‫ הלא‬for
Menachem. In the end there is no clear pattern for determining why Jeroboam and
Menachem are unique in their contexts. This is especially true of Menachem. All of the
kings of Judah with concluding frames recount ‫הלא‬.
The Plausibility of a Political Source in the Time of Jeroboam II 157
tiveness with the prophet’s advice. The same could be said of Elisha in 2 Kings
13, who turns three victories against Aram into only three victories against
Aram; the tale demonstrates that the prophet is more effective than the king.
These facts make it obvious that the Deuteronomistic prophets remained
detractors of the kings of Israel, while the prophets of the original Israel Source
support the king.
With these considerations, the general framework of the Israel Source is
apparent: one finds it in the Israelite material between 1 Kings 11* and 2 Kings
14*, excluding of course the Elijah and Elisha narratives. The narrative
recounts the history of Israel from the time of its (new or renewed?) foundation
under Jeroboam I to its zenith (from the author’s perspective) in the time of the
Jehuides and Jeroboam II. This work presented the core of the synchronistic
history of Judah and Israel from Hezekiah’s time that lay the groundwork for
the later Deuteronomistic and subsequent redactions.
The Plausibility of a Political Source in the Time of Jeroboam II
Several factors suggest the plausibility of a propagandistic narrative from the

time of Jeroboam II. 217 These can be found both in the text of the Bible and in
archaeological findings. In terms of the biblical narrative, one notes common
themes in the texts handled here suggesting a positive image of the Jehuide
kings contrasted with that of their incompetent predecessors. The kings who
accomplish the most and successfully maintain their positions on the throne are
Jehu and his sons, with Jeroboam playing a special role, restoring vast amounts
of territory to Israel. The only other king of Israel who comes away with a
remotely positive image is Jeroboam I, who became Israel’s first real king and
founded the cult of Israel at the behest of ‫יהוה‬, delivered through the prophet
Ahijah the Shilonite. His image is contrasted with the strongly negative image
of Solomon. Such positive reflections on the monarchy and history of Israel in
the book of Kings suggests a date before the fall of Samaria in 722 and even
before the end of the Jehuide Dynasty or, at the latest, before its adherents
died.
———————————
217 For a brief overview of the greatness of Israel in Jeroboam’s time, cf. Philip J. King, “The
Eighth, the Greatest of Centuries?” JBL 108, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 3–4.
The ruminations of the prophets Hosea and Amos indicate a probable date
of composition for the positive material about Israel in the book of Kings in the
time of Jeroboam II. In Kings one finds answers to criticisms against the mon-
archy of Jeroboam II offered by these prophets (see above to the explicit
points).218 Criticisms are levelled against the king and his dynasty, as well as
against the wealthy in the time of Jeroboam II. This factor increases the likeli-
hood of propaganda supporting the dynasty and reminding the reader or lis-
tener of the positive influence of Jeroboam and his ancestors, contrary to their
predecessors. This suggests a period of prosperity in the time of Jeroboam II, a
period that may have been coming to an end. A time of prosperity coming to an
end could lead to critique and social unrest, which in turn could cause the rul-
ing elements to counter with propaganda of their own. Such a waning prosper-
ity may also be suggested through archaeology.
When one considers the Samaria ostraca, it is striking how much material
has been found from the reign of Jeroboam II in contrast to the reigns of others.
The ostraca that can be dated to his reign come from 779/778 and 773, i.e., in
the ninth, tenth, and fifteenth years of his reign. 219 These documents, which
have the appearance of receipts, 220 suggest a period of prosperity during this
time, at least for the monarch. 221 The receiving of wine and oil from various
regions in the kingdom of Israel suggests a likely expanded monarchic power
and prosperity. Interestingly, there is currently no evidence for such prosperity
later in his reign, at least not that can be dated with any certainty. Therefore,
two important facts from the archaeological finds in Samaria support the plau-
sibility of a propagandistic source in the time of Jeroboam II: 1) a literate
———————————
218 For a consideration of the political importance of prophets in Mari, Assyria, and Judah
(and thus presumably and potentially in Israel), cf. J. Blake Couey, “Amos vii 10–17 and
Royal Attitudes Toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near East,” VT 58, no. 3 (2008): 301–9.
219 Cf. Renz and Röllig, HAE I, 84–86.
220 Renz and Röllig, HAE I, 81. An alternative understanding (i.e., the Samaria Ostraca are
not archival materials): “It is not out of the question that the finds at Lachish, Samaria, and
Arad reflect ‘waste basket’ material or the stuff of recycle bins rather than archives.
Records kept for the long term may have been written on more valuable and formal sur-
faces.” Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Orality and Literacy in Ancient
Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 63. No clear resolution of
this problem is possible with the current evidence; even if they are wastebasket scraps as
opposed to permanent records, the ostraca still attest the transfer of goods.
221 Such prosperity could have been interpreted by Hosea and Amos as oppression of the
poor.
bureaucratic organization within the environs of the king and 2) a prosperous

period in the first half or third of the reign of Jeroboam followed by a period of
indeterminate prosperity in the later period of his reign. Such a situation would
be a fruitful opportunity for the production of monarchist propaganda at a time
of waning royal prosperity and waxing criticism.
Three factors should be briefly addressed here. The first is literacy. 222
While it is unclear how many people in ancient Israel were literate, especially
in the modern sense, the Samaria ostraca demonstrate that someone must have
been literate in Israel during this period. 223 Someone presumably located in the
vicinity of the palace must have been responsible for writing these documents,
whether they were the permanent archival materials or merely receipts that had
ceased to have purpose. Someone must have also been able to read these mate-
rials, or else they would have had no purpose at all. This suggests the probabil-
ity that there were people who could read and write within the proximity of the
palace of Samaria during the reign of Jeroboam II. The question then becomes
where these people were educated.
Several works have sought to trace education in Israel. 224 The problem
with all of them is the paucity of concrete sources providing any information
about education in Israel. In reality there is no information about education in
Israel and therefore parallels must be drawn with Egypt and Mesopotamia.
From this it seems possible that at least two forms of education were possible:
———————————
222 Two works must be mentioned in connection with this topic, though they both tend to
focus on the Pentateuch and Judah: Niditch, Oral World and David M. Carr, Writing on
the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford ; New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005). These works present especially pertinent information regarding
literacy in an oral culture. In addition, one should refer to the debate concerning literacy in
ancient Greece for a parallel culture (albeit chronologically later than what I am suggesting
here), where literacy did not preclude orality; cf. Rosalind Thomas, Oral Tradition and
Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture;
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 15–34 and Rosalind Thomas,
Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Key Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge
[England]: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 1–14.
223 “The ability to write down a name (Judges 8:14) or to read a letter (Lachish Letter 3) may
have been quite common, but that does not mean Israel was a literate society. The trans-
mission of cultural lore—stories of origins, legends of ancestors and heroes, dos and
don’ts, professional skills and wisdom—was nearly always accomplished by word of
mouth.” (Toorn, Scribal Culture , 10) Other opinions exist: Richard S. Hess, “Writing
About Writing: Abecedaries and Evidence for Literacy in Ancient Israel,” VT 56, no. 3
(2006): 342–46 suggests that literacy was more widespread in ancient Israel.
224 Cf. most recently Toorn, Scribal Culture, 96–104.
private or “public”. Private education would refer to the training of scribes in

an apprentice setting, whereas “public” education would be based at the temple
or palace. Such institutions must have been in place by the ninth or eighth cen-
turies.225 As the Samaria ostraca were found in a palatial setting, it seems at
least likely that the state either trained or at least hired scribes for its needs.
This might not have only consisted of bureaucratic activities like writing or
recording material such as the Samaria ostraca; “…a small-scale writing-
education system does not preclude the creation of longer works. All that is
required is a few scribes and the felt need to create and perpetuate a writing-
stabilized cultural tradition that marks off the emergent hierarchy from
others.”226 The Israelite monarchy would have a vested interest in making sure
that such traditions were recorded and propagated in order to sustain its own
hold over the populace and to counter any developing malcontents. 227
Finally, one should consider the kind of material and the usage that such a
source would require; after all, such a text must have a pragmatic usage and
usability. The Israel Source was presumably too long for a lapidary
———————————
225 “Once there were monarchies and royal cities, a scribal class would have developed. Kings
could finance big inscriptional projects.” (Niditch, Oral World, 4) “The founding of a
northern monarchy, and especially its expansion under Omri-Ahab, was probably accom-
panied by at least a small-scale northern Israelite textual-educational system of the sort we
see in other kingdoms.” (Carr, Tablet of the Heart, 164) Cf. further Davies, Scribes and
Schools, 59–61.
226 Carr, Tablet of the Heart , 163 n. 191. Further: “The standard version of the Epic of
Gilgamesh is about 3,000 lines long. Modern experiments by Assyriologists who have
tried writing cuneiform themselves suggest that the ancient scribes would have needed less
than a minute per line. This means that writing out the whole of Gilgamesh would have
taken no more than fifty working hours—probably less.” (Toorn, Scribal Culture, 17) This
implies that Jeroboam II in the eighth century BCE could have afforded the composition
and copying of a text such as the Israel Source.
227 “Writing creates identity whether making a person immortal or rendering a space sacred.
The power of writing is thus highly respected. Professional scribes who would prepare
writing on formal monuments no doubt could read what they wrote. But the purpose of
writing in these cases is not primarily for record keeping or for future consultation or even
in order that the inscription be read in its own time… Such writing is monumental and
iconic.” (Niditch, Oral World, 58–59) Contra Davies, Scribes and Schools, 64, “There is, I
would suggest, enough ground for doubt that any substantial literary (as opposed to docu-
mentary) writing had been accomplished [in the monarchic period], let alone any process
of canonization.”
inscription.228 Rather, one should expect to find it on a more perishable mate-

rial such as parchment or papyrus. Papyrus would be an especially useful mate-
rial in the case of such a lengthy document due to the relatively low cost of
papyrus compared to parchment. 229 Lengthy papyri are known to have existed:
“[t]he longest individual [papyrus] roll ever preserved is the Harris Papyrus of
the twelfth century B.C.E.… It is 133 feet long, 16 3/4 inches wide, and con-
tains 79 sheets.” 230 This is far beyond the length that would be required to
record the Israel Source, as well as being far beyond the norm.
The standard scroll had twenty sheets of papyrus, which meant an average length
of 340 centimeters. A longer scroll required forty, sixty, or even more sheets, but
the gain in volume went to the detriment of user-friendliness. A scroll of 10 meters
(sixty sheets) was at the limit of practicability. A scroll of that size was not long
enough for Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles, however. The reason that we now have a
first and second book of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, respectively, is because
those texts were too long for a single scroll. Conceptually, Samuel and Kings
belong together as one work—or a single collection. Their division into four
scrolls—or four ‘books’ in our Bible—is directly related to the constraints of the
writing material.231
While Toorn’s observation regarding the books of Samuel and Kings may be
accurate for their final versions, it would not be true for the Israel Source; a
scroll of significantly shorter length would have sufficed to hold the Israel
———————————
228 This presumption also matches the conclusion of the survey in Simon B. Parker, “Did the
Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions?” VT 50, no. 3
(2000): 357–78, who admits that, while it is possible that lapidary inscriptions were used
as sources for the book of Kings, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that such was the
case.
229 “Papyrus was the least expensive material, although the practice of recycling written
scrolls indicates that none of the writing materials was cheap. The cost of a papyrus scroll
in antiquity is estimated to have been equivalent to one to two weeks’ wages for an ordi-
nary worker. This means that the cost of the writing materials were higher than the costs of
writing.” (Toorn, Scribal Culture , 19) Cf. however, R. Lansing Hicks, “ Delet and
Megillāh: a Fresh Approach to Jeremiah xxxvi,” VT 33 (1983): 59: “Certainly, papyrus
was plentiful and cheap in Egypt. But the topography and climate of Palestine combined
with the pastoral and agrarian culture of its peoples make domestic animal skin the mate-
rial of choice over the imported, and presumably [therefore] more costly, papyrus.” Ulti-
mately the issue cannot be decided definitively, but with a text of the length of the postu-
lated Israel Source, it would probably make little difference either way.
230 Niditch, Oral World, 73.
231 Toorn, Scribal Culture, 22.
Source—it could be written on about four sheets of A4 or letter-sized paper. 232

It would have been easy to carry a scroll containing the Israel Source even into
Judah when Samaria was conquered.
Even though such a papyrus may have existed containing the Israel Source,
it would not have been loaned from a library, but instead would have been used
as an aid for oral presentation, as is known from oral culture; 233 the written
source served as a crutch for the oral presentation of the work. 234 We would be
dealing with an oral presentation of a narrative tradition recorded so that it
could be accurately repeated on multiple occasions. 235 This eventually led to
the text taking on a more important role, 236 even perhaps being used as an ele-
ment for training new scribes, and thus indoctrinating them. 237
This leads us to the purpose of the Israel Source. Three probable reasons
for its composition should be considered: 1) support for Jeroboam II, or more
specifically support for the accession of his son Zechariah to the throne of
Israel following Jeroboam’s eventual death; 2) contradiction to critical voices
arising within Israelite society (e.g., messages found in the books of Amos and
———————————
232 Here, one should also consider the observations of Julio Trebolle Barrera (although based
on a hypothetical reconstruction of a Qumran scroll containing all of the former prophets
[4QKgs]): “In this case, the scroll would have contained a total of 160 columns, and its
length would have been 160 x 12.5 cm = 20 meters. This is highly speculative; but it may
not be impossible (Torah scrolls were still longer!).” (Eugene Ulrich, et al., Qumran Cave
4/IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings [DJD; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995], 182)
In this instance, one notes that it was possible to have a much longer scroll for much
longer works.
233 “The scroll served as a deposit box for the text; for daily use, people consulted their mem-
ory.” (Toorn, Scribal Culture, 23)
234 “In Israel, written compositions were not produced for private reading either. Written texts
reached their audience through oral delivery by a speaker.” (Toorn, Scribal Culture, 13)
235 “The main point here is that this element of visual presentation of texts is but one indicator
of the distinctive function of written copies of long-duration texts like the Bible,
Gilgamesh, or Homer’s works. The visual presentation of such texts presupposed that the
reader already knew the given text and had probably memorized it to some extent.” (Carr,
Tablet of the Heart, 5)
236 “The written text provides a portion of tradition that becomes set, an icon, perhaps a
sacred object that may be ritually studied sequentially or read in for special occasions, or
copied when the old papyrus begins to succumb to age.” (Niditch, Oral World, 76–77)
237 “This mode of textual education could be a way of maintaining and extending power over
subjects—whether in a small country like Israel or vast empires like those of Mesopotamia
and Egypt.” (Carr, Tablet of the Heart, 9) And “…as we look as how key texts like the
Bible and other classic literature functioned in ancient cultures, what was primary was not
how such texts were inscribed on clay, parchment, or papyri. Rather, what was truly cru-
cial was how those written media were part of a cultural project of incising key cultural-
religious traditions—word for word—on people’s minds.” (Carr, Tablet of the Heart, 8)
Hosea); and 3) indoctrination of the Israelite bureaucracy through copying and

promulgation of the text. To 1), Tadmor has demonstrated that autobiographi-
cal inscriptions of some Assyrian kings were written in order to support the
accession of that king’s son to the throne of Assyria and, not as has often been
accepted, to legitimate their own accessions. 238 Such a case is perfectly plausi-
ble for the Israel Source in the time of Jeroboam II, as becomes especially
apparent in the Israel Source through the prophetic and divine support of every
one of Jeroboam II’s ancestors. Therefore, a composition during the reign of
Jeroboam II appears preferable to me. To 2), see page 158 above. To 3), we
should consider Lemaire’s ruminations about the book of Kings:
The royal and didactic character of the various redactions/editions of the books of
Kings suggests that they were probably written for and used as a teaching instru-
ment to inculcate in the future civil servants of the kingdom a sense of national
consciousness and service to the king—that is, of royal ideology. They were also
used as a tool to explain the present political situation of a given administration,
based not only on great historical deeds but also on the errors of the past. This sig-
nifies that the history of the redaction of the books of Kings is probably best
explained as the growth of a historical reference work—we would say today a his-
torical textbook—used in the teaching of the royal school of Jerusalem. 239
This implies a quite plausible Sitz im Leben for the Israel Source. It addressed
three major concerns of Jeroboam II: the training and indoctrination of his
scribes, offering support and providing the legitimacy for his son and succes-
sor, contradicting his detractors within the population.
Miller and Hayes suggest a probable decline during the later reign of Jero-
boam II, which fits in the findings offered above:
Jeroboam’s expansion and the state’s new prosperity probably occurred during the
first twenty-five years of his reign and were aided by friendship with Assyria and
participation in the Assyrian economic realm. The last part of his career was a
troublesome time, with his kingdom undergoing a rapid decline. 240Miller and
Hayes continue by listing a series of supporting evidence for these claims that
make it more plausible, most importantly the lack of an effective Assyrian pres-
sure against Damascus later in the reign of Shalmaneser IV. 241 Such a recon-
struction fits with the biblical image of Jeroboam II as well, which offers
———————————
238 Cf. Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology”.
239 Lemaire, “Redaction History,” 460.
240 Miller and Hayes, History, 353.
241 Cf. Miller and Hayes, History, 354–56.
sweeping general claims about his might and how he expanded the kingdom,
but at the same time leaves the reader with the impression of a somewhat trou-
bled situation. Why would anyone even consider that ‫ יהוה‬might have said that
‫ יהוה‬would “blot out the name of Israel from under heaven” (2 Kings 14:27)?
Such a reference makes the most sense in a time of criticism, and not one of
perfect stability. Therefore, it seems most likely that the Israel source would
have been composed later in Jeroboam’s reign, as the power and prosperity of
the monarchy were waning in the face of internal conflict and criticism. It rep-
resents an attempt to avert such criticisms and place the blame on others, while
simultaneously demonstrating the power of the Jehuide dynasty in the hopes of
providing a stable transfer of power to Zechariah ben Jeroboam.
This Israel Source was taken from Samaria to Jerusalem, presumably at or
after the conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722. From here it became incor-
porated into a Judean literary context and expounded upon. 242 This redacted
work was successively expanded in the following centuries, leading ultimately
to the book of Kings in its Deuteronomistic context as we know it today.
Concluding Remarks
With this examination we can conclude the probability of a royal narrative

source covering the history of Israel from the time of Jeroboam I to the time of
Jeroboam II, having been composed during the reign of Jeroboam II with the
intention of supporting his dynasty and establishing the legitimacy of his son
and successor in the face of rising criticism. This narrative source can be
reconstructed from the book of Kings (often based on the Vorlage of the LXX)
in the material about Israel, excluding the material about Elijah and Elisha,
covering portions of 1 Kings 11–15; most of 16; 20; portions of 22; small por-
tions of 2 Kings 1; most of 2 Kings 9–10; 13–14. For the complete recon-
structed text of the Israel Source, as well as an English translation, cf. the
———————————
242 The re-usage of older materials in new literary contexts is known from ancient north-
western Semitic epigraphy, making such re-usage more plausible in Israel and Judah. Cf.
Simon B. Parker, “Ancient Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and the ‘Deuteronomistic’ Tradi-
tion in Kings,” in Die deuteronomistische Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religions-
geschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen
Propheten (ed. Markus Witte, et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter,
2006), 213–27.
Concluding Remarks 165
appendix. The next chapter will focus on comparing the Israel Source to other
texts in order to reflect upon the veracity of its claims about history.
CHAPTER 5
Historicity and the Bible:
Evaluating the Biblical Materials for Reconstructing
Israel’s History
Introduction
A number of biblical sources must be considered in order to offer a plausible

reconstruction of Israel’s history in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE. The first
source that should be considered is the reconstructed Israel Source, covering
materials from 1 Kings 11–16*; 20*; 22* and 2 Kings 1*; 9–10*; and 13–14*.
Within the book of Kings one should also consider the Judean redactional
materials, which are chronologically closer to the events described than any
later redactions. Outside of the book of Kings, one should consider the pro-
phetic materials recorded in the books of Hosea and Amos and the narrative of
Chronicles. Finally, I will briefly address materials recounted by Josephus.
These materials and their historical contexts can provide the historian with
some pertinent information about the history of Israel. Having said this, we can
now turn our attention to the oldest biblical narrative available to the historian
for the reconstruction of Israel’s history in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE:
the Israel source.
The Israel Source
A brief overview of the history of Israel as presented in the Israel Source is in

order. During the reign of Solomon, who is otherwise neither identified nor
qualified in the Israel Source, Jeroboam I was chosen by a prophet known as
Ahijah from Shiloh to reign over Israel. When Solomon discovered this, he
sought to kill Jeroboam, who then fled to Egypt, residing with the Pharaoh
Shoshenq until Solomon died. Once Solomon died, Jeroboam returned to
Israel, where he was (unanimously) crowned king over Israel. He built (or for-
The Israel Source 167
tified) the cities of Shechem and Penuel, as well as making two cult symbols
and altars in Dan and Bethel. The text does not clarify if Jeroboam I was the
first to construct cultic sites in these towns or if he was merely attributed with
renewing an older cult. 1 The Israel Source claims that he offered sacrifice at
the altar in Bethel and proclaimed a holiday before dying peacefully after a
reign of 22 years and being succeeded by his son.
The Israel Source presents little information about the next several kings.
Nadab followed his father, reigning for two years before he was killed by the
usurper Baasha, who in turn reigned for 24 years. Baasha was succeeded by his
son Elah, who again reigned two years before being murdered by Zimri. Zimri
could only maintain power for seven days before Israel descended into chaos,
with two factions seeking the throne. The faction under Omri, who inspired
Zimri’s suicide, was able to gain power over the faction of Tibni. Omri then
reigned for 12 years, and, after building the city Samaria, died peacefully and
was succeeded by his son. Ahab acceded to the throne of Israel and reigned for
22 years. The text provides limited information about him: that he married a
Phoenician princess named Jezebel, built an altar and a temple to Baal in
Samaria, and built an ivory house. After his peaceful death, the first of his sons
to reign took over the reins of the monarchy.
Ahaziah reigned for only about two years before he died, apparently after
an accident. During his reign, at least as the context of the Israel Source sug-
gests, Moab gained its independence from Israel. After Ahaziah’s untimely
death, Joram, Ahab’s other known son, took control of Israel. The Israel
Source claims that he went out to battle against Aram, where he was injured
after a cowardly attempt to preclude his identification as the king of Israel.
Having been shot by an arrow at the battle of Ramoth-Gilead, he returned to
Jezreel, where he sought to recover. During his recovery, Ahaziahu of Judah
came to visit.
At this point, the prophet Elisha sent one of his disciples to anoint the mili-
tary leader Jehu king over Israel at Ramoth-Gilead. After he was anointed, Jehu
revolted against Joram with the help of his military compatriots. Jehu immedi-
ately set out for Ramoth-Gilead, where Joram was recovering and killed both
him and Ahaziahu of Judah. After entering the city, he ordered Jezebel’s
———————————
1 Cf. Klaus Koenen, Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie (OBO; Freiburg, Schweiz;
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 39–48.
168 Chapter 5: Historicity and the Bible
defenestration. He then exchanged letters with the remnants of the king’s house
in Samaria, which ultimately led to the deaths of any who could challenge his
accession to the throne. After they had been wiped out and their heads sent to
him in Jezreel, Jehu set out for Samaria, encountering and executing the royal
family of Judah and then joining forces with Jehonadab ben Rechab on the
way. Once he arrived at Samaria with Jehonadab, Jehu set a ploy in motion to
kill the worshipers of Baal and the cult personnel. He feigned a great celebra-
tion and killed all who came, even destroying the temple of Baal and turning it
into a latrine. Because of his zealousness, ‫ יהוה‬promised Jehu that the next four
generations of his family would sit upon Israel’s throne. After this promise, the
text recounts no other data about Jehu’s 28-year reign.
Jehoahaz, Jehu’s son, reigned 17 years after his father. During his reign
Aram began to make territorial gains against Israel. However, due to the king’s
piety towards ‫יהוה‬, Israel was spared and not completely destroyed. ‫ יהוה‬pro-
vided Israel with an unnamed savior. Jehoahaz’ son Joash acceded to the
throne after the peaceful death of his father. The Israel source provides an
extensive narrative about Joash, similar to the narrative about Jehu.
After the death of Hazael, Ben-Hadad took over the reign of Aram and
began a siege of Samaria, where the army of the king of Israel struck his forces
twice. Following Ben-Hadad’s defeat at the gates of Samaria, Joash of Israel
went out to battle him at Apheq, where he defeated him a third time, winning
back cities lost during the reign of Jehoahaz. After this resounding success
against Aram, Joash received a message from Amaziah, the king of Judah and
grandson of Ahaziahu of Judah, who had been murdered by Joash’s own grand-
father Jehu. Amaziah apparently sought to compare himself to Joash, though
the motives for the meeting remain unclear. The two kings met at Beth-
Shemesh in Judah, where Joash dominated the Judeans, pushing them back to
Jerusalem, where he subsequently destroyed a portion of the wall and plun-
dered the city and temple, even taking the sons of the king as prisoners back to
Samaria. He died peacefully after a 16-year reign and was succeeded by his son
Jeroboam II.
Jeroboam II found prophetic support in the guise of Jonah ben Amittai and
was able to extend the boundaries of Israel up to Lebo-Hamath and to the Wadi
Arabah. ‫ יהוה‬made this victory possible and had not said that he would allow
The Israel Source 169
Israel to be destroyed. Jeroboam also dominated Damascus and Hamath. With

this notification, the Israel Source concludes. The material following this in
2 Kings presumably comes from the Judean redaction or an even later redac-
tion.
The Israel source has one important factor supporting its usage in a histori-
cal reconstruction: its age and therefore its chronological proximity to the
events it describes. As we saw in the previous discussion about the redaction
history of the Israel Source however, the tendentious nature of the text pre-
cludes our acceptance of all that it recounts as historically reliable. Overlook-
ing the positive image of the Jehuide dynasty contrasted against all other
dynasties remains impossible. One must recognize the difference in the amount
of narrative dedicated to Jehu and Joash as opposed to everyone else. The
extensiveness of these narratives about the greatest kings of Israel, regarded
and presented as such in the Israel Source at least, cannot be dismissed when
compared to the narrative materials about the other kings of Israel. Even in the
relatively brief narratives about Jehoahaz and Jeroboam II, one notices the pos-
itive image of these kings and their relation to ‫ יהוה‬as contrasted to the other
kings who receive such brief recounting. For these reasons, one must remain
somewhat suspicious of the historical reliability of the Israel Source.
Let us begin by categorizing the various materials in the Israel Source.
Materials Consistent with Other Sources: Much of the material consis-
tent with other sources is of a general nature. The Tel Dan Inscription confirms
the existence of Israel in the ninth century BCE and seems to confirm the exis-
tence of Joram, king of Israel. It further suggests animosity in the ninth century
between the kings of Israel and Hazael king of Aram, should he be correctly
identified as the author.
As the Tel Dan Inscription confirms the existence of the king of Israel, so
does the Mesha Inscription. Omri ruled Israel and dominated Moab according
to the Mesha Inscription, but, sometime after his death, Moab was able to gain
its independence from the kings of Israel, which matches the presentation in the
Israel Source.
The Samaria Ostraca suggest a time of prosperity, probably early in the
reign of Jeroboam II. This may be consistent with the image of the Israel
Source and seems to also be affirmed by the materials in the prophetic books of
Hosea and Amos.
The personal name Omri may be known from Akkadian sources—it is

marked with the Akkadian sign of a person Ü, in e.g., the Black Obelisk of
Shalmaneser III—but it is generally used within a geographical context, i.e., bīt
humri. The Akkadian sources confirm, to some degree, the chronological order
˘
of the kings of Israel, though in a minority of instances; Ahab, Jehu, and Joash
are known, in that order, from the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III and Adad-
nārārī III.
Many archaeological materials affirm the Israel Source. There was appar-
ently construction of a cultic site at the city of Dan during the period the Israel
Source assigns to Jeroboam I. 2 Samaria was largely constructed during the
period the Israel Source assigns to Omri. 3 Jezreel was an important Israelite
fortification during the Omride period. 4 The city of Dan changed hands a few
times in the ninth and eighth centuries, indirectly suggesting that Aram may
have dominated in the earlier days of the Jehuide dynasty, only to lose it again
in the later period of that dynasty.
Data Inconsistent with Other Sources: The Aramean author of the Tel
Dan Inscription (the best evidence to date suggests Hazael of Damascus)
claims to have killed Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu of Bethdwd, whereas the
Israel Source accredits Jehu with killing Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu of
Judah. The Mesha Inscription identifies the king of Moab as Mesha. His name
was apparently unknown in the Israel Source. The Samaria Ostraca suggest that
Jehu did not entirely destroy the Baal cult from Israel, as many of the names in
———————————
2 “The earliest evidence of a cultic character found in the course of the excavation [at Dan]
goes back only to the 10th century B .C. E., to the time of King Jeroboam I, the son of
Nebat.” (Avraham Biran, Biblical Dan [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew
Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994], 165) Biran believes that there may be
an older sanctuary at Dan, based on the biblical narratives without being able to verify this
matter with independent archaeological finds.
3 The oldest levels of findings in Samaria generally match this interpretation chronologi-
cally, though some older materials were found beneath the first primary building level,
suggesting a minor settlement before the expansion of the hill into the capital city of Israel
to the earliest excavators, cf. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible
Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred
Texts (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 180. Tappy (Ron E. Tappy, The Archaeology of
Israelite Samaria: Volume 1: Early Iron Age Through the Ninth Century BCE [Harvard
Semitic Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 15–101) wants to push the original date of
the Samarian wares back into the eleventh century; cf. Tappy, Israelite Samaria 1, 213.
4 Cf. the summary in David Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of
Omri and Ahab,” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (ed. Lester L.
Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 293–309.
Other Material in Kings 171
the Samaria Ostraca contain the theophoric element Baal. 5 Either these people
must have been extremely old at the time of the composition of the ostraca, or
the biblical image cannot be supported by these texts.
The Akkadian sources identify Israel as a coalition partner with Hadadezer
of Damascus and Irhuleni of H amath during the time of Ahab and presumably
˘
during the time of Joram. The Israel Source is also unfamiliar with the tribute
payments offered by Jehu to Shalmaneser III and by Joash to Adad-n ārārī III.
The Israel Source makes no mention of the Assyrians whatsoever.
Data Neither Confirmed nor Denied in Other Sources: The details of
Israelite history are neither confirmed nor denied in other sources. For exam-
ple, there are no historical records outside of the Israel Source confirming or
denying anything before the time of Omri. This means that the biblical materi-
als are the only source available for Israelite history during the reigns of
Jeroboam I, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri. Additionally, the reigns of
Jehoahaz and Jeroboam II remain unknown outside of the Bible. The rela-
tionship between ‫ יהוה‬as presented in the Israel Source can neither be con-
firmed or denied in the methodology of the historian.
Bearing this cursory summary in mind, we can turn our attention to the
other biblical witnesses relevant for the history of the ninth and eighth centu-
ries BCE.
Other Material in Kings
Without attempting to reconstruct the entire redaction history of the book of

Kings and its independent layers, there are some other materials in the book of
Kings that could potentially offer insight about Israel in the ninth and eighth
centuries BCE.6 However, much of the prophetic material in Kings reflects situ-
ations from later periods or attitudes that preclude its use as a reliable historical
source. The prophets known in Kings from outside of the Israel Source predict
the downfall of the dynasties of the north, thus making a secondary impression.
———————————
5 To the problematic claim of the reconstructed Israel Source that Jehu’s extermination of
the religion of Baal from Israel, cf. Werner Gugler, Jehu und seine Revolution:
Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen (Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996), 230–
35.
6 The material about Judah, insofar as it does not relate to Israel, is also outside of the con-
siderations of this study and will therefore not be examined here.
In 1 Kings 13, an unnamed “man of God” predicts Josiah’s desecration of the

Bethel altar some 300 years later. The material about Elijah and Elisha fre-
quently has legendary qualities, and they at least explicate events that cannot be
reconstructed in any reliable form; i.e., they reference miracles that can be nei-
ther proved nor disproved. For these reasons, the prophetic material (and the
material about the “men of God”) of Kings will be disregarded as unreliable, or
at the very least unable to be demonstrably proven beyond doubt.
However, there are a few other notices that merit consideration.
Rehoboam’s (1 Kings 14:30) and Abijam’s closing frames (1 Kings 15:7) and
Abijam’s (1 Kings 15:6) and Asa’s (1 Kings 15:16–22) narratives both suggest
war between Israel and Judah during this period. As the Israel Source remains
reticent about these conflicts and the text seems to be ideologically biased
against Jeroboam’s “rejection” of the Judean rulers, this material seems
untrustworthy. 7 A similar note could be made about the suggestion of a nautical
venture proposed by Ahaziah of Israel and rejected by Jehoshaphat of Judah.
This notice in 1 Kings 22:50 makes an untrustworthy impression, especially
when one considers that the king of Israel in the older Septuagint text of
3 Reigns 16:28 g remains anonymous. Therefore, this information should also
be rejected as historiographically irrelevant.
On the positive side, in the later history of Israel, there are some notices
which should be affirmed. The material about Joram (2 Kings 8:18) and
Ahaziahu of Judah (2 Kings 8:26 and 4 Reigns 10:38 Ant.) implies a family,
and presumably also political, alliance between the Omride dynasty and their
contemporaries on the throne of Judah. This information explains Ahaziahu of
Judah’s presence in Jezreel as mentioned in 4 Reigns 9:16. It remains likely
that this material goes back to either the Judean redaction (or source) from the
time of Hezekiah, increasing its plausibility. These references at least increase
the plausibility that Ahaziahu was actually present at Jezreel and that Jehu
killed him. His flight to and eventual death in Megiddo were probably incor-
rectly geographically located. If the Judean redactor or source knew otherwise,
it seems that such a suggestion could have been found there.
From the time of Jehu, one should consider the secondary material in
2 Kings 10:32–33, that Hazael conquered portions of Israel. Such a suggestion
———————————
7 N.b., the Israel Source apparently did mention some interactions between Judah and Israel,
as seen in 2 Kings 14:8–14.
Other Material in Kings 173
is also consistent with the notice in 2 King 12:17–18 about Judah (although the
conquest of Judah is not theologically based, as is the havoc wrought against
Israel; it is ‫ יהוה‬who uses Hazael to trim off pieces of Israel, but Hazael himself
who conquers Gath and turns on Jerusalem). This material remains relevant to
the history of Israel in the ninth century. Further the Judean redactor or source
also did not contradict or delete the confrontation between Joash of Israel and
Amaziah of Judah, increasing its plausibility. Such an encounter would have
only been a few generations before the redaction in the time of Hezekiah, sup-
porting its probability, in that the Judeans provided no information detracting
from this narrative.
Data Consistent with Other Sources: Judah’s relations with Israel, both
bellicose and diplomatic, as presented in 2 Kings 8–14 affirm the image known
from the Israel Source. The reference to Hazael’s destroying Gath in 2 Kings
12:18 can be affirmed by the archaeological record, 8 lending further credibility
to the assumption that Hazael destroyed large portions of Israelite territory, a
fact also suggested in the archaeological record. 9
Data Inconsistent with Other Sources: It seems improbable that Ahaziah
of Israel sought to undertake a nautical venture with Jehoshaphat of Judah. Fur-
ther, it seems improbable that there was war between Israel and Judah prior to
the conflicts in the time of the Jehuides; i.e., Jeroboam I and Baasha were
probably not involved in military conflict with Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa of
Judah.
Data Neither Confirmed nor Denied in Other Sources: None of the pro-
phetic material or the material about the “men of God” can be confirmed or
denied relying on other sources.
———————————
8 Cf. Aren M. Maeir, “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeo-
logical Perspective from Tell Es. -S.âfī/Gath,” VT 54, no. 3 (2004): 319–34.
9 Evidence for this can be found in the existence of Aramean artifacts in the remains of Dan,
most especially the Tel Dan Inscription; cf. the discussion of this lapidary inscription in
Chapter 6.
Hosea
The book of Hosea can provide the modern historian with information about
the period of the Jehuide kings and especially about the reign of Jeroboam II. 10
The consensus about the focus of the book of Hosea has developed around
three main points in the literature: critique of the cult, social and political cri-
tiques, and the anticipation of judgement. 11 The dates of the materials in Hosea
have generally been placed in the second half of the eighth century, at least for
the oldest materials. 12 Most of the information gleaned from the book of Hosea
for the purposes of this study can serve to illuminate the social climate during
———————————
10 Considerations of time and space forbid the reconstruction of a redaction history of the
book of Hosea here. This is especially true considering the difficulty that such a recon-
struction presents to the modern exegete; cf. Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des
Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition (BZAW 360; Berlin; New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 54–58 and Roman Vielhauer, Das Werden des Buches Hosea:
Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BZAW; Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2007). Most of the texts discussed here remain part of the oldest level of Hosea as
reconstructed by Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 229–40. The needs of my research only
mandate the explication of a few texts in order to identify tendencies within the book of
Hosea and plausible historical circumstances for these individual oracles. It is of no conse-
quence for my argumentation whether the oracles discussed here from the book of Hosea
actually come from a person named Hosea; the fundamental matter can be found more in
the need to appreciate the kinds of comments made in the book of Hosea about the period
in which it is said to have come into existence or in which the messages were said to have
been delivered. The person is not important; the message is. For the purposes of this study,
I reject the radical position of Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, Hoseastudien: Redaktionskritische
Untersuchungen zur Genese des Hoseabuches (FRLANT 213; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2006), who decides that the original composition of Hosea (post-722) consisted
of 1 verse and 7 partial verses; cf. Rudnig-Zelt, Hoseastudien, 261. Such a position begs
the question as to who would accept such a minor fragment as worthy of expansion into
the current book of Hosea. Her opening position is incorrect [“Sie {die Texte des
Hoseabuches} bieten keine Informationen, die einem Zeugen aus nächster Nähe
vorbehalten gewesen wären oder beziehen sich nicht zwingend auf Ereignisse in der
Geschichte des Nordreichs.” (Rudnig-Zelt, Hoseastudien, 11)]. She fails to convince that
texts like Hosea 1:4 (which e.g., apparently has no definite relationship to events in the
Northern Kingdom!) come from the “fortgeschrittenen, nachexilischen Zeit.” (Rudnig-Zelt,
Hoseastudien, 98) Her position will be rejected here as improbable.
11 Cf. Erich Zenger, ed., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 6. Auflage (Studienbücher
Theologie; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 527–28; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch
zum Alten Testament, 2. Auflage (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 371–73;
and Jan Christian Gertz, ed., Grundinformation Altes Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2009), 380–81.
12 Cf. Erich Zenger, Einleitung AT, 526 [750–722]; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch
AT, 369 [approx. 750]; and Gertz, Grundinformation, 377 [ch. 4–9 as oldest level, updates
post 722].
Hosea 175
the period of Jeroboam II without offering too many specific details reflecting
singular events. 13 However, some specific events can be reconstructed with the
aid of Hosea’s text.
The first oracle in the book of Hosea (Hos 1:3–5) clearly references the
“house of Jehu,” which should leave little doubt that it is aimed at criticizing
the kingship of Jehu and his successors. 14 The specific concern of the prophet
identifies the “blood of Jezreel” as the problem:
…for in a little while I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu and
I will destroy the dominion of the house of Israel. It will be on that day that I break
the bow of Israel in Jezreel. (Hos 1:4b–5) 15
The threatening tone remains obvious in this oracle against the Jehuide kings:
because of some action at Jezreel, not only the royal power ( ‫)ממלכות‬,16 but also
the military might (‫ )קשת‬of Israel, will be destroyed. Irvine has successfully
———————————
13 Many of the texts in Hosea have been dated into a context of the Syro-Ephraimite War. I
find this a dissatisfactory date, based mostly on intertextual references with the book of
Kings (most especially 2 Kings 15 and 17:3–4). For a text that supposedly should be so
interested in the Syro-Ephraimite War, it remains curious that the singular mention of
Aram (Hosea 12:13) has nothing explicitly to do with that war (although, I suppose meta-
phorically one could read something into the phrase “Jacob fled to the land of Aram”).
Other than this singular reference, no mention of Aram can be found in Hosea. Would that
really be the case if the Syro-Ephraimite war should be regarded as playing such a signifi-
cant role in the history of its development or should be the background of extensive oracles
preserved in its texts? Such a dating also seems to put too much emphasis on the super-
scription of the book of Hosea, especially regarding the Judean kings. According to Kings,
what has become known as the Syro-Ephraimite War began during the reign of Jotham of
Judah. Other than the superscription of Hosea, only one other text, which is at least as sus-
picious in terms of dating, combines Jeroboam II with Jotham of Judah: 1 Chronicles 5:17.
These two factors, combined with the matters discussed in the text below lead me to doubt
how much of the text of Hosea can be determined as coming from the Syro-Ephraimite
war.
14 For this reason, the positions of Wolff (Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea
[BK 24/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976], 10–11) and Jeremias (Jörg
Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea [ATD 24/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1983], 32), that this oracle comes either from Hosea himself (Jeremias) or one of his disci-
ples (Wolff) seems likely. The oracle becomes useless if from a time when the Jehuides
were no longer ruling in Israel, which suggests that it should be placed during the context
of their reigns. Contra Vielhauer, Hosea, 139–40, who understands this oracle in the con-
text of the incident in Naboth’s vineyard and thus must argue for a later date. This position
is not convincing, as no reference to Naboth’s vineyard can be found in Hosea 1:3–5.
15 Contrary to Wolff, Hosea, 20–21 and Rudnig-Zelt, Hoseastudien, 86, I see no reason to
regard verse 5 as secondary in this context.
16 Cf. Wolff, Hosea, 20 for the understanding of ‫ ממלכות‬as “Königsherrschaft” or
“Königtum.” Contra Helmut Utzschneider, Hosea: Prophet vor dem Ende (OBO 31;
Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitätsverlag, 1980), 69–80.
argued that this can reference no other event than the political revolt of Jehu
currently found in 2 Kings 9–10. 17 Like Amos, Hosea foresees the end of the
Jehuide dominion in Israel and this end will come violently. 18 More than a sub-
tle relationship between these two texts can be posited in that the narrative
found in 2 Kings 9–10 references Jehu, Jezreel, and his bow as the weapon,
three elements echoed here in the first oracle from the book of Hosea.
Another explicit reference to the life of the king is made in Hos 10:13b–15: 19
Because you trusted in your chariots, in your large number of soldiers, an uproar
will arise against your people and all your fortresses will be destroyed; like
Shalman’s20 destruction of Beth-Arbel 21 on the day of battle, a mother will be
smashed upon [her] sons. Thus I shall do to you, House of Israel 22 before your
great wickedness. At dawn, the king of Israel will surely be destroyed!
———————————
17 Cf. Irvine, “Jezreel” and Josef Schreiner, “Hoseas Ehe, ein Zeichen des Gerichts,” BZ 21
(1977): 179.
18 Wolff, Hosea, 20 explicitly cites a reference to Amos 7:9. The two texts clearly maintain a
similar position: the dynasty of Jehu will soon end.
19 “Die Abgrenzung des Spruches darf als sicher gelten” (Herbert Donner, Israel unter den
Völkern: die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. zur
Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda [VTSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964], 165). Con-
trary to Wolff, Hosea, 237–38 and Jeremias, Hosea, 133, I see no reason to date this text
between 733 and 727 (Wolff) or even after 727 (Jeremias). They are basing this on the
assumption that this text reflects conditions known from the so-called Syro-Ephraimite
War, which in my opinion and based on all other known evidence, does not seem to be the
case. This presumption seems to be partially based on the presumption that Shalman in v.
14 should be identified with Shalmanu of Moab (known from a tribute list from the time
of Tiglath-Pileser III) or even Shalmaneser V of Assyria; cf. Wolff, Hosea, 244 and
Jeremias, Hosea, 137. However, since the identification of Beth-Arbel is at the very least
problematic, and this event is otherwise completely unknown, there is nothing to preclude
Shalman being identified with Shalmaneser III or IV or some other person about whom we
have no further information.
20 It is unclear who this Shalman is. The LXX reading of αρχων (= ‫ )שר‬in front of this name
may be an indication of a royal personage, although it could also be an error in the reading
of ‫שד‬. Cf. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern , 167: “Salamanu von Moab aus der Zeit
Tiglatpilesers III. ist schwerlich gemeint.”
21 There are three different readings for ‫ ארבאל‬in the Greek tradition: 1) B = Ιεροβοαμ
(‫ ;)ירבעם‬2) A = Ιεροβααλ (‫ ;)ירבעל‬3) Ant. = Αρβεηλ (‫)ארבאל‬. This issue is essentially
impossible to resolve in terms of textual criticism. In my opinion, it seems that A may
have been emended in light of Judges 8 in Alexandrinus, where we also have an encounter
between Σαλαμανα and Ιεροβααλ (= Gideon) [this understanding can only be based on a
Greek text, as the Hebrew text reads ‫ שלמן‬in Hosea, but ‫ צלמנע‬in Judges]. The question
then becomes which text preceded it chronologically. The Vaticanus reading “Jeroboam”
does not make any sense syntactically; the MT and Ant. reading “Arbel” also fails to ren-
der any clear meaning. While this issue ultimately requires further clarification, based on
the lack of a better potential, I will accept the reading offered by the “Lucianic” text and
MT; cf. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 166.
22 maintains the older reading; this is a polemic against Israel, not the cult of Bethel.
Hosea 177
Again, the prophet is not mincing words but affirming that the king of Israel
will be killed after Israel’s defensive capabilities have been destroyed. The
unclear allusion in the text cannot aid in a historical reconstruction, since it is
unclear who or what Shalman and Beth-Arbel are. In spite of this, there is no
misunderstanding v. 15b.
From what quarter should the death of the king be expected? The text Hos
7:3–7 may shed some light on the matter. From this text, one gains the impres-
sion that the danger to the life of the king comes from some kind of assassina-
tion attempt within the upper echelons of Israel. 23 Most scholars date this to the
time of Hoshea, but again, I see no need from the outset to accept that such was
the case. While the Bible describes the period leading up to Hoshea’s reign as
particularly turbulent, with significant political intrigue, this was not the only
period in Israelite history (at least as far as the biblical narrative is concerned)
where such was the case. Rather, the biblical image suggests that there were
only two periods in Israelite history in which violent coups were not the rule:
the Omride and the Jehuide periods. 24 The evidence suggests that the book of
Hosea contains elements critical of the Jehuide kings, and 7:3–7 could also be
understood in this context. Hosea is anticipating the death of Jeroboam II, just
as seems to be the case in Hos 1:4. Hosea implies that the danger to Jeroboam
will come from quarters near to him, and not from some foreign power.
The book of Hosea presents a few other texts that imply a critique of the
contemporary political order. A few examples should suffice to conclude this
discussion of the primarily political component of the prophetic material found
in the book of Hosea. Hosea 5:13*; 25 8:9; and 12:2 imply some kind of politi-
cal relationship between Israel and Assyria (and maybe Egypt in the case of
———————————
23 Thus the interpretations of Wolff, Hosea, 158; Utzschneider, Hosea, 80–86; Jeremias,
Hosea, 92; and Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; Garden City, New York: Dou-
bleday & Company, Inc., 1980), 33.
24 For the difficulty of explaining the precise historical circumstances behind (at least the
core of) this oracle, cf. Vielhauer, Hosea, 91: “Allerdings sagt die Kontexteinbindung nur
bedingt etwas über den historischen Ort eines Traditionsstücks aus.” Vielhauer considers
the core of this oracle as coming from the oral tradition of the prophet Hosea, thus making
it one of the oldest texts in the book. A historical context within the reign of Jeroboam
should thus not be considered impossible; cf. Vielhauer, Hosea, 88–91.
25 The material about Judah and the second use of the name Ephraim seem to be secondary,
actualizing an originally Israelite text in a Judean context. The text must also be emended
to follow LXX, reading “Great King” instead of “contending king”; cf. Wolff, Hosea, 134.
12:2).26 While Wolff, Jeremias, and Vielhauer date these texts to 733 or later
and the events surrounding the so-called Syro-Ephraimite War or Hoshea’s
tribute to Shalmaneser V, there is nothing that mandates this. 27 For that matter,
5:13 directly contradicts such a context. Based on all of the other evidence we
have about the Syro-Ephraimite War, it was not Israel who contacted Assyria
for aid, as would be the case if one understood 5:13 in the context of this war.
Rather, Israel opposed the expansion of Tiglath-Pileser III, while Judah appar-
ently sought the aid of Assyria; cf. 2 Kings 16:8–9. Beyond this, 2 Kings 17:3
precludes the possibility that Hoshea willingly sent tribute to Shalmaneser V of
Assyria as is implied in Hos 5:13. Hosea 5:13; 8:9; and 12:2 do not imply trib-
ute taken by force, but rather criticize freely accepted Assyrian hegemony. 28
Israel’s willing obeisance is unknown in the Bible, but may be found in other
sources relevant to the period. 29
Israel’s political situation is not the only social element criticized in the
book of Hosea; a number of passages imply a critique of Israel’s religious life.
One example stands out: Hosea 2:13. This text has been dated to Hosea himself
and in those commentaries it is regarded as coming from around the time of
———————————
26 Unlike Wolff, Hosea, 273, I find it unnecessary to presume that the oil being delivered to
Egypt must be understood politically as an “Ölspende an Ägypten.” Jeremias’ suggestion
that Hosea 12:2 represents “das haltlose Schwanken Israels in der Außenpolitik”
(Jeremias, Hosea, 151) is based entirely on the biblical text 2 Kings 17:3–4; cf. Jeremias,
Hosea, 152; cf. also Donner, Israel unter den Völkern , 92. Hosea 12:2 could as easily
imply trade relations with Egypt.
27 Vielhauer does not explicate to which Assyrian monarch the people supposedly turned, but
still regards this text as coming from an eighth century context; cf. Vielhauer, Hosea, 66–
69. For Hosea 8:9 referencing Hoshea’s tribute to Shalmaneser V, cf. Wolff, Hosea, 183–
84 and Jeremias, Hosea, 109. For Hosea 12:2, cf. Wolff, Hosea, 270 and Jeremias,
Hosea, 151. One should also note how Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 50 has to essen-
tially create a plausible historical circumstance within the Syro-Ephraimite War for this
oracle based on his a priori acceptance of this text belonging within that historical context.
28 Contra Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 57, who understands the “Liebesgaben” in Hos
8:9 as being demanded by the Assyrian king. Wouldn’t that imply that they weren’t gifts?
One must reject his interpretation from the outset, as, based on limited (or in some cases,
no) witnesses, he completely rearranges the text to make it fit a specific pattern; cf.
Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 54–55. There is no need to re-write Hos 8:8–9. The end
of verse 9 is clearly understandable: Ephraim gifted [his] lovers.
29 Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 92 unintentionally and ironically offers further basis for
rejecting a date within the reign of Hoshea for Hos 12:2 when he comments, “es kann doch
nicht im Ernst davon die Rede sein, daß der Rumpfstaat Ephraim seinerseits eine B erīt mit
dem neuassyrischen Großreich geschlossen hätte.” Wo er Recht hat, hat er Recht. It seems
better to look for a better date for this text than the time of Hoshea.
Hosea 179
750 BCE, i.e., within the final years of the reign of Jeroboam II. 30 Wolff notes
that Hos 2:4–17 “setzen blühende wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse (7. 10. 11) und
ungestörte Gestaltung der Feste des Kulturlandes voraus (13. 15).” 31 Such pre-
requisites would also favor the oracle’s origin in the time of Jeroboam II. The
text implies cultic practices related to the Canaanite deity Baal without getting
into too many specific practices that could be accepted as anything other than
polemic.32 The exceptions are the new moon festivals and the use of incense.
Beyond the fact of the criticism itself, there is little that can be won from this
text historically.
In other texts in the book of Hosea, it seems that the critiques proffered
address both the religious and the political situation of Israel in the eighth cen-
tury BCE.33 Two examples should suffice. Hos 5:1–7* has been identified as an
oracle coming from the time of Jeroboam II, at least in its original form. 34 This
text predicts the downfall of Israel and demonstrates a critical eighth century
voice regarding the cultic and political practices in Israel. Hos 8:4–6* again
mentions the kings of Israel and the calf of Samaria. 35 While Wolff and
Jeremias date this text to the time around 733, 36 I again find little reason to pre-
sume this from the outset. Such a dating comes merely from the presumption
that the text must refer to some circumstance during the Syro-Ephraimite War,
a fact which cannot be gleaned from the text itself or from the context in which
it is currently found. This oracle claims that the kings of Israel were established
on their thrones without the divine sanction of ‫ יהוה‬and that the calf of Samaria
will be destroyed. Context suggests that this calf of Samaria be understood as
some kind of cultic object. The establishment of cultic centers in Israel contain-
ing bovine images is known from 1 Kings 12; however, that text only mentions
———————————
30 Cf., e.g., Jeremias, Hosea, 38–39 and Wolff, Hosea, 39.
31 Wolff, Hosea, 39.
32 Jeremias, Hosea, 45 n. 11 suggests that the plural “Baals” in v. 13 should be understood as
an overarching genre (German: Gattungsbezeichnung) to cover the various attested, geog-
raphically disparate Baals and other Canaanite deities without naming them all by name.
33 Cf. Koenen, Bethel, 184–90.
34 Cf. Wolff, Hosea, 122 and Jeremias, Hosea, 17.
35 Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 235–36 presumes that this entire passage is Deuteronomistic,
but I believe that at the very least one must admit that potentially pre-Deuteronomistic
material can be found in 8:4a and 6b. One should also consider the contrast between Hos
8:4a and 2 Kings 10:36b (Ant.); while one text claims that Israel made kings without ‫יהוה‬
(Hos), the other text explicitly claims Jehu’s accession as the result of ‫’יהוה‬s direct inter-
vention (2 Kings).
36 Cf. Wolff, Hosea, 175 and Jeremias, Hosea, 17.
Bethel and Dan. This fact has led commentators to suggest that the calf of
Samaria refers to the “royal cultic center” (an assumption based solely on
Amos 7) in Bethel and not to a real image in Samaria. 37 I find it more likely
that there may have also been a cult image of some sort in Samaria. There is no
need to presume, based on 1 Kings 12 and Amos 7, that there was not. These
critical comments recounted in Hosea suggest that the kings of Israel were not
divinely appointed (at least not by ‫ )יהוה‬and that their cultic symbol would be
destroyed.
A brief summary of some of our preliminary evidence from Hosea should
aid in our reconstruction of Israel’s history in the first half of the eighth century
and the literary history of Israel. Regardless of whether one accepts the histori-
cal context of the Syro-Ephraimite War for some of the texts discussed here,
there are at least some oracles that seem to reflect an attitude critical of the
political and cultic practices of Israel in the eighth century during the reign of
Jeroboam II (at the very least, one can consider Hos 2:13–15). This suggests
that there were at least some voices critical of the monarchy or the Jehuide
dynasty in the eighth century. Using the more extensive textual material offered
above, I would suggest that the following points were addressed to Israelites
(most specifically, the upper echelons) in the eighth century: 1) the cultic prac-
tices were unacceptable, especially as regarded Baal; 2) the cultic symbol of
Samaria, a calf, would be destroyed; 3) the kings of Israel were not chosen to
rule by ‫ ;יהוה‬4) political relations with Assyria were wrong and ineffective; 5)
for the blood of Jezreel, the dynasty of Jehu will be punished; 6) the king of
Israel will be killed, potentially by others in the upper echelons of Israelite
society.
With these factors in mind, one notices an amazing intertextuality between
the Israel Source of the eighth century and some of the oracles contained in the
book of Hosea. Let us consider the answers that the Israel Source offers to the
points raised in oracles contained in Hosea: 1) Jehu is said to have destroyed
Baal and the temple of Baal in Samaria; 2) the calves (at least those in Bethel
and Dan) were established by Jeroboam I, who 3) was (like Jehu and his
dynasty) chosen to rule Israel by ‫ יהוה‬and appointed by a prophet; 4) relations
———————————
37 Cf. Wolff, Hosea, 180; Jeremias, Hosea, 107 (who mentions the revolt of Jehu in the
eighth century!); and Robert Gnuse, “Calf, Cult, and King: The Unity of Hosea 8:1–13,”
BZ 26 (1982): 91–92.
Amos 181
with Assyria were ignored; 5) the blood of Jezreel was shed as a necessary con-
sequence of ‫’יהוה‬s establishing Jehu on Israel’s throne; and 6) Jeroboam II
would live out his reign and presumably be succeeded by his son. The book of
Hosea and, more specifically, some of the oracles it contains make the situation
behind the composition of the Israel Source more plausible. As a reaction
against critical voices, the text was composed to affirm the ruling dynasty and
aid in guaranteeing Zechariah’s accession to the throne.
In the background of the book of Hosea, one finds the supposedly danger-
ous relationship with Assyria in the eighth century. As I have argued above, I
find it unlikely that all of the texts regarding Assyria come from the Syro-
Ephraimite war—or even later—simply because that period is the first period
of Assyrian activity in the region around Israel as attested in Kings. Rather, I
would suggest that the material in Hosea adds plausibility to the relationship
between the Jehuide kings and Assyria as known from Assyrian records begin-
ning in the period of Shalmaneser III. The amicable relationship between both
polities definitely continued during the reign of Joash and, even if there were
no direct link between Assyria and Israel in the time of Jeroboam II (which I
find somewhat doubtful), one can hardly doubt that Israel profited from the
campaigns against Aram undertaken by Shalmaneser IV. The circumstances of
the Jehuide period in Israel provide a much better background for many of the
oracles concerning Assyria in the book of Hosea than one could find in the so-
called Syro-Ephraimite War.
At a bare minimum, we can consider some portions of Hosea aiming cri-
tiques at the king and cult of Israel. These critiques underwent direct contradic-
tion in the form of the Israel Source.
Amos
The book of Amos contains prophetical denunciations of the Northern King-

dom and its neighbors, some of which could help illuminate Israel’s history,
especially in the time of the Jehuide kings and most especially in the time of
Jeroboam II, when Amos is claimed to have been active as a prophet. 38 Several
points have been accepted as the focus of the book of Amos in the scholarly
textbooks: God’s judgement, social criticism, and criticism of the cult. 39 The
final date for the literary construction of the book of Amos remains somewhat
irrelevant for this study insofar as some of the material can be dated to the
eighth century BCE with some certainty. 40 There is also a literary relationship
———————————
38 After stating that the oldest text of Amos would be understandable in the reign of Jero-
boam II, Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 128 still decides to date it to the last decades before
the fall of Samaria. The proposition of Christoph Levin, “Amos und Jerobeam I,” VT 45,
no. 3 [July 1995]: 307–17, that Amos should be more or less identified with the anony-
mous “man of God” in 1 Kings 13, while interesting, ultimately fails to convince. In his
attempt to re-contextualize the passage Amos 7:10–17, two factors must be reconsidered:
1) he assumes that v. 11 renders v. 9 more specifically, as opposed to v. 9 rendering v. 11
more generally (cf. Levin, “Amos und Jerobeam,” 310). It must be regarded as more prob-
able that a redactor would add 7:9 to an earlier oracle containing 7:11, as neither king
known as Jeroboam in the Bible is said to have died violently, while the successors of both
of them do. 2) As an internal dating criterion, Levin fails to consider 1:3–5, the oracle
about Aram featuring Hazael and Ben-Hadad. It seems impossible to date this to a context
before the late ninth century.
39 Cf. Erich Zenger, Einleitung AT, 542–43; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch AT, 381–
85; and Gertz, Grundinformation, 389–90.
40 The consensus places the date of at least some of the Amos material within the eighth cen-
tury; cf. Erich Zenger, Einleitung AT , 539 [before 722]; Hans-Christoph Schmitt,
Arbeitsbuch AT, 380 [760–750]; and Gertz, Grundinformation, 388 [first half of the
eighth century]. It must remain outside of the scope of this monograph to reconstruct the
source, literary, and redaction history of the book of Amos. Two new works should be
mentioned as relevant here: Hadjiev, Book of Amos and Jason Radine, The Book of Amos
in Emergent Judah (FAT II 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). While one places the
context behind the oldest ascertainable literary work found in Amos in Judah (Radine) and
the other places it in Israel (Hadjiev), both date the earliest composition found in the cur-
rent book of Amos to within the eighth century BCE. I will accept an eighth century date
for some of the elements of Amos, and would suggest that even if the materials were first
written in a Judean context, as Radine suggests, they lose their homiletic value to some
degree if they were at least not based on circumstances known to have existed in Israel. If
the social problems of Israel in the eighth century did not exist, I find it unlikely that some-
one would invent them and then use this invention to admonish the population of Judah.
Therefore, the criticisms of Amos at least imply a plausible historical background where
such criticisms were necessary. Other recent attempts have focused on the redaction his-
tory of the book of the Twelve, with often overwhelmingly complicated results; cf., e.g.,
Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen and Jakob Wöhrle, Der Abschluss des
Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten
Sammlungen (BZAW 389; Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). Again, the redac-
tional layers in question here significantly pre-date any potential redaction unifying the
single works into the composition of the book of the Twelve. Further, it is not my concern
to develop a biography of the prophet Amos, should anyone bearing this name have
existed in the eighth century. The goal is to see if the text of the book of Amos can inform
us about the social background of Israel in the eighth century and nothing more.
Amos 183
between Amos and Hosea. While it is unclear exactly how the literary tradi-
tions of Amos and Hosea are related, “[o]ffenbar sind schon die ältesten
schriftlichen Texte der Amosüberlieferung von der bereits vorliegenden
Hoseaüberlieferung her überformt worden.” 41 Only a few texts will be consid-
ered in the hopes of gaining a general image of at least a portion of the social
situation behind the Book of Amos, which of course claims to reflect this
period.42
The first text I would like to consider is the oracle against Jeroboam II in
Amos 7:11 in which Amos is said to have presupposed the king’s violent
death.43 The problem with this oracle is that it represents a direct contradiction
to the manner of Jeroboam’s death known elsewhere in the Bible; cf. 2 Kings
14:28–29, where Jeroboam’s peaceful death is recounted. Though the current
literary location and narrative packaging of this oracle may be later inven-
tions,44 it seems most logical to me that this oracle itself must pre-date the
———————————
41 Gertz, Grundinformation , 388. Cf. Jörg Jeremias, Der Prophet Amos (ATD 24/2;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), XIX–XX.
42 The position that has made its way into textbooks tends to follow Jeremias, Amos and
regards Amos 7–9* + 1–2* as the oldest text, with 3–6* being added later; cf. Gertz,
Grundinformation, 388–89.
43 For the potential political implications of such a prophecy, cf. Couey, “Amos vii 10–
17,” 310–14. The second portion, reflecting Israel’s exile from the land could be indicative
of Dtr provenance; cf. 2 Kings 17:23 and Jakob Wöhrle, “‘No Future for the Proud Exul-
tant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept
Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 58 (2008): 615. However, one should note,
contrary to Wöhrle, that when comparing Amos 7:11 (and 17) to 2 Kings 17:23b, the 2
Kings passage reads like a fulfillment notice of the prophecy in Amos 7. Therefore, it is
just as likely that one must reverse the position of Wöhrle: Amos is not commenting on the
Deuteronomist; rather Dtr has used a prophecy from Amos (cf. 2 Kings 23:17a: “all of the
prophets” predicted the downfall of the Northern Kingdom, but curiously there is no evi-
dence internal to Kings to verify such a claim; Amos would offer such veracity). Finally,
the relationship found between Amos 7 and 1 Kings 13 (cf., e.g., Helmut Utzschneider,
“Die Amazjaerzählung [Am 7,10–17] zwischen Literatur und Historie,” BN 41
[1988]: 92–97) remains limited and the Amos narrative cannot be regarded as an expan-
sion upon the Kings tradition. They have completely difference foci: while Amos focuses
on the destruction of the king and Israel, 1 Kings 13 focuses on the destruction of the altar,
not to mention that it is a “man of God” from Judah in Kings as opposed to a “prophet” in
Amos (at least he is identified as such by Amaziah).
44 Jeremias, Amos, 106–7, however, argues convincingly—in my opinion—that the text is
anchored in its original position. We should also note that Hans Walter Wolff,
Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos (BK 24/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1969), 355 regards this passage as contemporary with Amos’ lifetime, at least at a most
basic level. Karl Möller, “‘Hear This Word Against You’: A Fresh Look at the Arrange-
ment and the Rhetorical Strategy of the Book of Amos,” VT 50, no. 4 (2000): 515–17
death of Jeroboam II. 45 While it must remain highly improbable that someone
would invent this inaccurate portrayal of Jeroboam’s death after the fact, it
does seem plausible that someone would seek to emend this prophetic word at
a later date. This would be the most logical explanation for the occurrence of
“house of Jeroboam” in 7:9 as opposed to “Jeroboam” in 7:11. 46 The burden of
proof remains on others to plausibly demonstrate why someone would later
invent an inaccurate or inconsistent account of Jeroboam’s death. 47 This text
implies that Jeroboam II must have had some detractors during his reign,
detractors who anticipated his death.
In the oracle against Damascus found in Amos 1:3–5, conflict between
Aram and Israel is presumed during the reigns of Hazael and Ben-Hadad. 48
Due to the limited references to these two figures in later biblical texts, 49 one
should consider their relevance essentially exclusive to the ninth and eighth
———————————
notes that this debate demonstrates Amos’ problem of convincing an important figure in
Israel of the need to heed his message.
45 Contra Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New York; London; Toronto; Sydney;
Auckland: Doubleday, 1989), 767 and Levin, “Amos und Jerobeam,” 308. This oracle’s
pre-dating the death of Jeroboam II also precludes this text being originally composed by a
Deuteronomistic redactor (without reliance on source material) for the context of Amos 7–
8, contra Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 111–12. Much of the issue here seems to stem from
people’s interest in reconstructing a biography of Amos based on this passage; cf. Ernst
Würthwein, “Amos-Studien,” ZAW 62 (1950): 19, who stresses the inadequacy of this
message in the context of the relationship between Amaziah and Amos. I find the histori-
cal context presupposed by such an oracle to be more important than the relational context
in which it was delivered.
46 Cf. Wolff, Joel und Amos, 357; Ulrich Dahmen and Gunther Fleischer, Das Buch Joel /
Das Buch Amos (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament; Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2001), 243; and Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 113. Contra
Karl Budde, “Zu Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos,” JBL 44 (1925): 77–78, who sees
v. 9 as the reason that 10–17 were inserted at this point from an earlier narrative.
47 I find it as unlikely that someone would emend the text of Amos at a later date to include
this contradictory information as that someone would write a history of nineteenth century
America in which Lincoln survived his second term. It just does not make sense.
48 Jeremias, Amos, 13–14 seems to understand it entirely in this light; cf. also Dahmen and
Fleischer, Amos, 146. As for the date, “[es] ist folglich nicht auszuschließen, daß wir es in
Am 1,3-5 mit einem aus der Zeit des Propheten Amos stammenden Spruch zu tun haben.”
(Dirk U. Rottzoll, Studien zur Redaction und Komposition des Amosbuches [BZAW 243;
Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996], 41)
49 Hazael is only mentioned here outside of the historical books; Ben-Hadad is known from a
virtually identical text in Jer 49:27 MT.
Amos 185
centuries BCE.50 For this reason, it follows that this text must have some very
old elements, even if it does not come from the eighth century in its current
form.51 By the reign of Adad-nārārī III, the “house of Hazael” seems to have
ceased to be a dominating factor in Syria. Therefore, this Amos text could offer
legitimately antique information about the political relationship between Aram
and Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE.52 It remains irrelevant for my
argumentation whether Amos’ prophecies about Aram came true; what remains
important is the military conflict between Aram and Israel during the reigns of
Hazael and Bar-Hadad of Damascus presupposed by texts such as Amos 1:3–5.
In an article from 2007, Barstad suggested that the text of Amos 1–2
should be read as evidence of an anti-Assyrian coalition from the time of Adad-
nārārī III or Shalmaneser IV. 53 While this suggestion remains quite intriguing,
it must ultimately be rejected. It would be difficult to conceive of an alliance in
which both Aram and Ammon engaged in war-crimes (as they would be called
from a modern perspective) against Gilead, which may have also been claimed
by Israel during the eighth century; cf. 1 Kings 20:26. Such a postulation man-
dates extensive explication; were they coalition partners or enemies? It seems
improbable that allies would engage in war-crimes against one another. Fur-
ther, and disregarding any potential connection to Israel within this coalition, it
seems unlikely that Edom would remain an ally of Moab, after Moab “burned
to lime the bones of the king of Edom” (Amos 2:1b NRSV). Finally, there is no
———————————
50 Wolff, Joel und Amos, 180–84 dates this text to roughly 760 BCE and suggests that it refer-
ences growing Aramean (and Ammonite) antagonism against Israel in Transjordan during
Jeroboam’s reign. This is quite possible. However, since the text explicitly mentions
Hazael and Ben-Hadad, one should consider the possibility that it only references past
crimes.
51 The observation of Volkmar Fritz, “Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos,” VT 37
(1987): 30–31, that the Arameans appear to have been inactive against Israel during the
reign of Jeroboam II seems to be correct. This however, does not preclude citing previous
examples of their military undertakings against Israel as precedence for a possible judge-
ment against Aram or even as evidence for a possible war with Aram; one should note that
Hazael apparently reversed the peaceful policy between Israel and Aram. Could one not
therefore anticipate such again?
52 Contra Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 93–102, who believes that the original oracles against
the nations were a secondary product, added to the book of Amos by the same redaction
that added cultic criticism. This begs the question as to why someone interested in the Isra-
elite cult would criticize foreign nations for what could essentially be called war crimes.
53 Hans M. Barstad, “Can Prophetic Texts Be Dated? Amos 1–2 as an Example,” in Ahab
Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; London: T&T
Clark, 2007), 21–40.
other material, whether external or internal to the Bible that suggests an alli-
ance at this time. Rather the opposite is true: Israel and Aram maintained dis-
tinct foreign policies vis-à-vis Assyria in the late ninth and early eighth centu-
ries, with Aram fighting and Israel submitting. 54
Amos’ disputation of the relevance of Israel’s military successes (Amos
6:11–14) conquering Lo-debar and Qarnaim, presumably during the reign of
Jeroboam II, suggests his disaffection with the Israelite monarchy of the
period. 55 In Amos’ opinion, in spite of these victories, another enemy will
come to conquer Israel “from Lebo-Hamath to the Wadi Arabah,” which finds
quite a distinct echo in 2 Kings 14:25. The only difference between the terri-
tory claimed by Jeroboam II in 2 Kings and the territory that will be conquered
according to Amos is the contrast between “sea” in 2 Kings 14 and “wadi” in
Amos 6. This striking similarity is too strong to be coincidental and a rela-
tionship between the texts must be postulated. Jeroboam’s mighty terrain will
be reduced. While it remains unclear who this nation should be, the context of
Amos and previous reference to Damascus (5:27) commend this polity as a
possibility.56 As Assyria is nowhere mentioned in Amos, it seems an unlikely
possibility.57
Amos 3:15 criticizes the wealthy and claims that their houses will be
destroyed.58 This passage, like 6:2–4, is interesting as well for its reference to
———————————
54 See the discussion below in Chapters 6–7.
55 Cf. Wolff, Joel und Amos, 334; Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 88–89 reckons this to the
oldest text of Amos. For the possible identification of Lo-debar in Gilead, cf. Martin
Metzger, “Lodebar und der tell el-mghannije,” ZDPV 76 (1960): 97–102. For the potential
location of Qarnaim in Bashan, cf. Diether Kellermann, “‘Ašt ārōt – ‘Ašt tōt Qarnayim –
e
Qarnayim,” ZDPV 97 (1981): 45–61.
56 Cf. Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 584: “…it is so hard to make a match that we cannot
be sure that Amos even had Assyria in mind as the gôy.” Further support for the
intertextual relationship can be found in Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 86, who also identif-
ies this verse as part of the oldest edition of Amos.
57 Cf. Amos 3:9 . In my opinion, in Amos 3:9 MT clearly presents the more difficult read-
ing, contra Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 405–6. Because Hosea often mentions Egypt
and Assyria together (e.g., Hos 9:3), in addition to the fact that Kings identifies Assyria as
the empire ultimately responsible for conquering Israel, it seems much more likely that
someone would change the curious ‫ אשדוד‬into ‫ אשור‬rather than the other way around.
Contra, e.g., Dahmen and Fleischer, Amos, 213.
58 Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 68–79 considers this verse part of the oldest Amos text.
Möller, “‘Hear This Word Against You’,” 506 sees this verse as the climax of the dis-
course of Amos 3, which is “best understood as some kind of reflection of the debate
between Amos and his eighth-century audience.” These positions contradict Hartmut N.
Rösel, “Kleine Studien zur Entwicklung des Amosbuches,” VT 43, no. 1 (1993): 95.
Amos 187
ivory in the homes of the rich. 59 For obvious reasons, this text has often been
connected with 1 Kings 22:39, which claims that Ahab built a house of ivory. 60
However, in Amos, it appears that there were many houses with ivory features,
and not just a unique palace in Samaria. This text represents an important
example of Amos’ critique of the wealthy in Israel. 61 Other texts include Amos
4:1–5, which includes critical references to the cultic practices of the wealthy. 62
These few examples should serve to illuminate how Amos can help in
some general manner to reconstruct Israel’s history. For the purposes of this
study, this should help for a bare minimum. Like Hosea, Amos features a num-
ber of critical points regarding Israelite society, especially the wealthy and the
———————————
59 Cf. Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 86–88, who identifies 6:4 as part of the earliest Amos
tradition. The archaeological findings at Gath almost make it probable that reference is
being made to Hazael’s destruction of this city in the ninth century (cf. Maeir, “Historical
Background and Dating of Amos VI 2”) and using this destruction as a parody of Israel:
“Are you greater than the remains of Gath, et al.?” One should also note that the critique of
ivory furnishings in Amos is not rooted in a critique of foreign influence or the cult: “Liest
man sie [Amos 3,15; 6,5] genauer, stellt man fest, dass sie weder von einer phönizischen
Fremdbeeinflussung der israelitisch-samarischen Funktionseliten handeln, noch deren
ökonomisches, soziales und evtl. rituelles Verhalten in irgendeiner Weise als ‘pagan’ oder
‘unisraelitisch’ darstellen.” (Christoph Uehlinger, “Die Elfenbeinschnitzereien von
S a m a r i a u n d d i e R e l i g i o n s g e s c h i c h t e Is r a e l s : V o r ü b e r l e g u n g e n z u e i n e m
Forschungsprojekt,” in Crafts and Images in Contact , vol. 210 [ed. Claudia E. Suter and
Christoph Uehlinger; OBO; Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2005], 158–59).
60 Cf. Wolff, Joel und Amos, 240.
61 “Samaria kannte die beschriebene Pracht. Dass Amos sie kritisierte, darf nicht
missverstanden werden als kultur- und luxusfeindliche Nörgelei eines Mannes vom Lande,
der das einfache Leben bevorzugte. Nein, was ihn zur Kritik treibt, ist die Tatsache, dass
aller Luxus und alle Pracht auf dem Rücken der breiten armen Unterschicht
zustandegekommen ist.” (Dahmen and Fleischer, Amos, 174)
62 Cf., however, Wöhrle, Frühe Sammlungen, 68–79, who essentially regards all potentially
cult-critical texts as secondary to Amos. I disagree with the position of Christoph Levin,
“Das Amosbuch der Anawim,” ZThK 94 (1997): 424–26, who argues that this text is
eschatological and comes from the second century BCE. While it is correct that one can
interpret this text circularly (i.e., it is from the eighth century and mentions poverty as a
problem, so there must have been a problem with poverty in the eighth century), one
should note that contrary to Levin, “Amosbuch der Anawim,” 433 there are at least some
indices that a problem with wealth in the ninth and eighth centuries developed. The
Samaria Ostraca might suffice in this capacity. It is not possible to say that there is no evi-
dence of social stratification in eighth century Israel outside of the book of Amos. His
argument that there are always poor can be used just as well against his: if there are always
poor, then why only in the second century and not in the eighth?
king himself. 63 Like Hosea again, the book of Amos should serve as some evi-
dence that in the late period of the Jehuide dynasty, some voices were critical
of social and cultic practices in Israel, going so far as to state that Israel and the
king personally would be destroyed. 64 In such an atmosphere, it again becomes
plausible that the monarch would offer patronage for the composition of a work
blocking criticism and placing him in a more favorable light. A certain level of
intertextuality can be posited between the Israel Source and Amos; the best
examples of this textual relationship can be found in the mention of ivory fur-
nishings and the borders of Israel. While the wealthy of Israel in Jeroboam’s
time may be criticized for their luxurious ivory furnishings, the Israel Source
may seek to make them look less decadent by comparison with Ahab, who sup-
posedly had an entire ivory house. While Jeroboam II may have taken great
pride in extending the borders of Israel from Lebo-Hamath to the sea of the
Arabah, it is exactly this region that will be taken from Israel according to
Amos. Therefore, the book of Amos represents another critical voice against
the eighth century monarchy in Israel, making our posited time for the compo-
sition of the Israel Source more plausible.
Chronicles
Chronicles presents the reader with only limited information relevant for a
study of Israelite history in the ninth through eighth centuries BCE. This claim
stems both from the late date of Chronicles 65 and from the Chronicler’s herme-
———————————
63 “Er [Amos] predigt ‘das Gericht Gottes’ über die, die ruhigen Gewissens die zunehmende
Verelendung der Kleinbauern und die strukturelle Verhinderung der Menschlichkeit
hinnehmen, ja betreiben.” (Erich Zenger, “Die eigentliche Botschaft des Amos: Von der
Relevanz der Politischen Theologie in einer exegetischen Kontroverse,” in Mystik und
Politik: Theologie im Ringen um Geschichte und Gesellschaft; Johann Baptist Metz zu
Ehren [ed. Edward Schillebeeckx; Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1988], 405).
64 Cf. Koenen, Bethel, 181–84.
65 The Hellenistic period seems likely (cf. Edward Lewis Curtis, The Books of Chronicles
[ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1952], 5–6), although a date within the Persian period
remains possible (cf. Jacob M. Myers, I Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes
[AB; Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965], lxxxvi–lxxxix). 2 Chr
36:22–23 precludes Chronicles coming from a period before the Persian period, however a
later date seems probable and it could be as young as from the 2nd century BCE; cf. Erich
Zenger, Einleitung AT, 258–60; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch AT, 272; Gertz,
Grundinformation, 532; and the literature cited there.
Chronicles 189
neutical approach to history as identified by Louis Jonker as “reforming his-

tory:”66
It [‘reforming history’] indicates that the Books of Chronicles are simultaneously
an attempt to reformulate and sanitize the older traditions about the past, as well as
an attempt to reformulate the identity of God’s people in the changed socio-
historical circumstances of the late Persian era… The description of the Chronicles
[sic!] as ‘reforming history’ indicates that it was intended to form a unique bridge
between past and present.67
Based even on this most cursory representation of Chronicles, one must
immediately appreciate how difficult, if not impossible, using Chronicles as a
historical source for the Northern Kingdom in the ninth and eighth centuries
BCE becomes. One aspect of Chronicles aids in our reconstruction of the liter-
ary history of the biblical texts however, namely the literary role of the Jehu-
ides at later stages in Levantine historography.
First let us consider a brief overview of the material about the kings of
Israel in Chronicles. The following table offers all of the relevant information
about the kings of Israel gleaned from Chronicles:
Jeroboam I 2 Chr 9–11; 13 1) Narrative about Ahijah

absent; however cf. 2 Chr
10:15
2) War with Abijah (!) of
Judah; 2 Chr 13
3) Service to Solomon only
in 2 Chr 13:6–7
4) Cult: 2 Chr 11:15; 13:8
5) No refrain as in Kings
(i.e., “sin of Jeroboam”)
Nadab — —
68
Baasha 2 Chr 16:1–6 1) Cancelled rebuilding of
Ramah
2) Serves theologically to
condemn Asa
Elah — —
———————————
66 Cf. Louis Jonker, “Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Significance of the Books of
Chronicles,” VT 57, no. 1 (2007): 21–44.
67 Jonker, “Reforming History,” 24–25.
68 Also exactly parallels 1 Kings 15:17–22.
Zimri — —
69
Omri 2 Chr 22:2 Father of Athaliah
Ahab 2 Chr 18; 21; 22:3–8 1) Dies in battle with
Jehoshaphat against Aram
2) Father of Athaliah (21:6)
3) Misled Israel (21:13)
4) House of Ahab evil
(22:3–4)
5) Father of Joram (22:5–6)
6) House of Ahab anointed
for destruction (22:7–8)
Ahaziah 2 Chr 20:35–37 Failed shipping venture with
Jehoshaphat
Joram 2 Chr 22:5–7 1) Made war against Hazael
with Ahaziahu of Judah
2) Wounded in battle
3) Led Ahaziahu to his
demise
Jehu 2 Chr 22:7–9 1) Anointed to destroy house
of Ahab
2) Killed Ahaziahu’s neph-
ews
3) Killed Ahaziahu in
Samaria
4) Not identified as king of
Israel
Jehoahaz 2 Chr 25:17, 70 25 1) Son of Jehu
2) Father of Joash
Joash 2 Chr 25:17–25 1) Defeats Amaziah in battle
2) Pillages Jerusalem
3) Theologically justified;
cf. 2 Chr 25:14–16
4) Grandson of Jehu, king of
Israel
Jeroboam II 1 Chr 5:17 Undertook census
———————————
69 Possibly, though doubtfully, in 1 Chr 27:18: Son of Michael, leader of the tribe of
Issachar.
70 The text in 2 Chr 25:23 is corrupt and it is unclear to whom MT is referring.
Chronicles 191
Zechariah — —
Shallum — —
Menachem — —
Pekahiah — —
Pekah 2 Chr 28:6 1) Killed 120,000 Judeans in
one day
2) Theologically justified;
cf. 2 Chr 28:1–4
Hoshea — —
From the table, the following becomes clear: 1) Israel and its kings only con-
cern the Chronicler insofar as they have interaction with Judah: a) Jeroboam I
only plays a role in Shechem and in his war with Abijah (Abijam); b) Baasha
engages in conflict with Asa; c) Omri is only known as the father of Athaliah;
d) Ahab led Israel (and some Judean kings) astray; e) Jehu’s revolution inter-
ests the Chronicler only in that it kills Ahaziahu; f) Jehoahaz is only known
from Joash’s genealogical information g) Joash battles Amaziah; h) Pekah
fought against Ahaz. 2) The kings of Israel often have a new theological pur-
pose: a) Abijah defeats Jeroboam because Jeroboam broke away from Judean
leadership under Rehoboam and consecrated non-Levite priests; b)
Jehoshaphat’s shipping venture fails because of his association with Ahaziah;
c) Joram’s injury in the battle against Hazael provides ‫’יהוה‬s opportunity to
destroy Ahaziahu; d) Jehu was anointed by ‫ יהוה‬to destroy the house of Ahab
and kill Ahaziahu; e) ‫’יהוה‬s special relationship to the Jehuide kings is absent;
f) Amaziah’s defeat at the hands of Joash is theologically grounded in his
improper behavior following his defeat of Edom; g) Ahaz’ defeat at the hands
of the Arameans and Israelites is theologically based on his improper behavior.
3) Otherwise, the kings of Israel remain conspicuously absent. 4) Only Jehuide
kings have anything remotely positively recounted about them when compared
to the other kings of Israel, but they are rarely identified as the kings of Israel
and as Jehuides. 71
———————————
71 As far as the Chronicler is concerned, there was no “house of Jehu.” Chronicles never
identifies Jehu as the king of Israel in 2 Chr 22:7–9 (while he is anointed [ ‫]משח‬, it is not as
king, but rather as destroyer). Jehoahaz and Joash are identified as Jehuides, but they are
connected to a Jehu potentially—though not explicitly—a different person than the Jehu of
The following points should be clear: 1) many of the problems with relying
on the book of Kings as a historical source have been exacerbated in Chroni-
cles; 2) the theological tendencies of Chronicles preclude it being used as an
accurate source for the history of Israel in the ninth–eighth centuries BCE; 3) in
terms of literary history, Chronicles suggests the following: a) the kings of
Israel play only a minor role in later Judean historiography; b) the limited
material about Israel used in Chronicles only reflects interaction with Judah; c)
otherwise Israelite history is ignored; d) Jeroboam I and Ahab play the most
important roles theologically; e) the absence of dynastic promises to Israelite
kings further demonstrates the later deconstruction of Israelite history in order
to concentrate on Judean history; f) this implies that the Jehuide (and other
Israelite) kings only played a role early in the literary history of Israel, confirm-
ing the old age of the Israel Source. 72
Based on these considerations, it is clear that Chronicles cannot play a sig-
nificant role in the reconstruction of Israel’s history in the ninth and eighth cen-
turies BCE. The only piece of information that one could consider beyond the
material copied from Kings is the census of Jeroboam II, which would support
———————————
2 Chr 22 (the Chronicler is familiar with up to five people named Jehu: cf. 1 Chr 2:38;
4:35; 12:3; 2 Chr 19:2 [+ 20:34]; 22:7–9; and 25:17). In the context of 2 Chr 25:17–25, it
is unclear to whom the phrase “king of Israel” should refer. If the referent is always the
name immediately before the title, we have one instance that mentions Jehu (2 Chr 25:17),
three instances that refer to Joash (2 Chr 25:18, 21, and 23), and one reference to Jehoahaz
(2 Chr 25:25). One could consider the phrase “king of Israel” being in apposition to the
name Joash in every instance, however, thus precluding the necessity of understanding
Jehoahaz and Jehu as kings of Israel. Ultimately there can be no resolution to the problem,
but the most favorable position suggests that in these cases “king of Israel” should be
understood in apposition to Joash. Jeroboam II is never mentioned in any context that
might associate him with this family. Thus the Chronicler has effectively deconstructed the
dynasty of Jehu as known from Kings. Without Kings, one would never arrive at the con-
clusion based on biblical materials that one family ruled Israel for about a century.
72 During the later phases of the development of the Jewish religion (looking at works like
Daniel and Sirach) and the early development of the New Testament, Israelite kings were
for all intents and purposes ignored. There are two exceptions: Jeroboam I [Sir 47:23 and
Tob 1:5] and Hoshea [4 Esdras 13:40]. Compare this with the Judean kings (excluding of
course David and Solomon): Rehoboam [Sir 47:23–25], Hezekiah [Sir 48:17–22; 49:4;
2 Maccabees 15:22; 4 Esdras 7:110], Josiah [Sir 49:1–4; Bar 1:8; 1 Esdras 1:1–33],
Jeconiah (= Jehoahaz) [Greek Esther 11:4; Bar 1:3, 9; 1 Esdras 1:34–38], Jehoiakim [Dan
1:1–2; Bar 1:3; 1 Esdras 1:37–42], Jehoiachin [1 Esdras 1:43–45], and Zedekiah [Bar 1:1,
8; 1 Esdras 1:46–48]. The following Judean kings can be found in Jesus’ genealogy
according to Matthew 1:7b–11: Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaziahu, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and Jechoniah.
Josephus 193
the idea of Jeroboam having a significant bureaucratic apparatus in Israel dur-

ing his reign. Otherwise, Chronicles presents little information useful to the
reconstruction of Israel’s history in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE and will
therefore not be considered as relevant for the subsequent historical reconstruc-
tion.73
Josephus
One final potential source of information for Israelite history in the ninth and
eighth centuries should be evaluated, namely the extrabiblical material in the
Judean Antiquities (= Ant.) of Josephus. 74 Because most of the information that
can be gleaned from Josephus can be found in the biblical materials, there is
really very little beyond this that he can offer. In several cases, he can however,
once again illuminate the textual history behind the book of Kings. While Jose-
phus often recounts the material from Chronicles not found in Kings, such
material generally seems to regard only the Judean kings (cf., e.g., Ant. IX.1–
17 and 2 Chr 19–20). This matter demonstrates that Josephus knows and incor-
porates both the Kings and Chronicles traditions into his narrative. Further, he
includes (an abbreviated narrative of) the book of Jonah in the midst of Jero-
boam II’s reign. In terms of the form of Kings known to Josephus, there are a
few interesting matters:
1) The LXX traditions regarding Jeroboam I in 3 Reigns 12:24 a–z remain
absent in Josephus’ recounting; either he did not know them or—
possibly—did not accept them as legitimate.
2) Tibni’s death is ascribed to murder in Ant. VIII.311; this suggests an
attempt to clarify the other traditions, which remain unclear on this
point.
———————————
73 This should not preclude the possibility that some historiographically relevant information
about Judah for this period may be found in Chronicles. However, such a task is beyond
the parameters of this study.
74 The editions consulted here are Ralph Marcus, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books VII–
VIII with an English Translation (Loeb Classical Library; Cambrigde, MA; London: Har-
vard University Press, 1998) and Ralph Marcus, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books IX–
XI with an English Translation (Loeb Classical Library; Cambrigde, MA; London: Har-
vard University Press, 1998).
3) In Ant. VIII.314–315, Josephus introduces Jehoshaphat between Omri

and Ahab, matching the Greek tradition; further, he adds more material
about him in VIII.393–397 and IX.1–17, even including him in Joram’s
campaign against Judah. These factors suggest that Josephus was most
familiar with the Jehoshaphat material as recounted in Vaticanus, with
the Chronicles material added at the appropriate point.
4) This position can be further affirmed in that Josephus recounts the nar-
rative about Naboth’s vineyard ( Ant. VIII.355–362) before the
Aramean wars (Ant. VIII.363–420); i.e., Josephus follows 3 Reigns
20–22 rather than 1 Kings 20–22 in terms of structure.
5) Joram is introduced before the narrative concerning Elijah’s ascension,
again matching the Greek tradition.
6) The material about the Jehu revolution contains several explanatory
matters:75
a) Jehu’s prophetic word from 2 Kings 9:26 has been explicitly
attributed to Elijah in Ant. IX.119–120
b) Ahaziahu of Judah is said to have been buried in Jerusalem as in
Kings and not in the north as in Chronicles (cf. Ant. IX.121).
c) Based on material cited from Menander, recounted in Ant.
VIII.317–324, Josephus identifies Baal as the god of Tyre and
Sidon in Ant. IX.138.
d) Josephus creates a prophet as an intermediary between God and
Jehu in Ant. IX.139
e) The Antiochene plus at the conclusion of Jehu’s reign has not
been recounted by Josephus. 76
7) The material concerning Elisha’s death matches the position known
from MT, Vaticanus, and the Antiochene textual tradition contrary to
———————————
75 For an extensive list, cf. Martin Mulzer and Klaus Stefan Krieger, “Die Jehuerzählung bei
Josephus (Ant.Jud.IX.105–139.159f.),” BN 83 (1996): 54–82. Only a few matters will be
considered here. While I agree to an extent that the image of Jehu is positive in Josephus
(cf. Mulzer and Krieger, “Jehuerzählung bei Josephus,” 78–79), the extensive negative
material accepted by Josephus, in addition to the reduction of the relationship between ‫יהוה‬
and Jehu precludes it being even as positive as that presented in Kings. Josephus reduced
some of the positive aspects of Jehu without removing entirely any of the negative aspects
known from Kings.
76 Cf. Begg and Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus, 164 n. 595.
Concluding Remarks and Evaluations 195
the location known from the Palimpsestus Vindobonensis; 77 i.e., it is

found in Joash’ reign (Ant. IX.178–183) and not in Jehu’s.
8) The location of Joash of Israel’s concluding notice matches that of
“Lucian” (cf. Ant. IX.185).
9) The conclusion of the Jeroboam II’s reign matches the “Lucianic” mate-
rial, including both his burial and the accession of his son to the throne
of Israel (cf. Ant. IX.215).
Due to the late date of Josephus’ works 78 and his general consistency of
recounting in line with the biblical materials, there is little than be fruitfully
used from Josephus that is not otherwise known. Therefore, Josephus will be
disregarded as useful source for historical information pertinent to the ninth
and eighth centuries BCE. Like Chronicles, however, some matters can be said
about the literary history of the Kings tradition based on Josephus. It is inter-
esting to note that he sometimes strikingly resembles the tradition known from
Vaticanus (especially regarding the life of Jehoshaphat) and the organization of
the Greek tradition (the narrative precedence of Naboth’s vineyard over the
Aramean conflicts; the introduction of Joram of Israel immediately after the
death of Ahaziah of Israel) in general. Some Antiochene affinity is attested (the
conclusion of Joash’ reign), while at other times it is ignored (the conclusion of
Jehu’s reign). Based on these observations, one gains the impression that the
various traditions of Kings were known and differently appreciated even into
the first century of the Common Era.
Concluding Remarks and Evaluations
The Israel Source and the Judean materials in Kings provide some material that
exegetes can readily regard as historically relevant and trustworthy. While this
is not true in every case, there is much to be gleaned from the available materi-
als. It remains especially relevant that the Israel Source was generally accepted
by the Judean redactors some 60 years after its composition. This general
acceptance with limited editorial activity suggests an early affirmation of the
material that the Israel Source contains. Some of the information in both the
———————————
77 Cf. Fischer, “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis”.
78 They come from the first century CE, a solid 800–900 years later than the relevant inci-
dences they describe; cf. Begg and Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus, IX.
Israelite and Judean materials of Kings finds affirmation in other literary mate-
rials, whether from the prophetic books of the Bible or from texts from other
cultures.
There is limited information from the prophetic materials in the books
Hosea and Amos that reflects on concrete singular events in Israelite history,
something that we do find in Kings in the Israelite and Judean materials. Most
importantly, the prophetic materials from the books of Amos and Hosea illumi-
nate some disaffection with the ruling parties in Israel in the eighth century
and, therefore, increase the likelihood of the necessity of the composition of
the Israel Source—from the perspective of the monarch—in the time of Jero-
boam II. The conspicuous interaction of the texts and their systematic contra-
diction of one another permits the postulation of a significant intertextual rela-
tionship, with one text critiquing the situation in Israel and the other defending
the position of the monarchs.
Finally, the narrative materials in Chronicles and the extrabiblical material
of Josephus, while providing some background for the development of the text
of Kings do not advance the current study of the history of Israel in the ninth
and eighth centuries BCE in any viable manner. The next step will be to con-
sider the other written sources that could be relevant for the history of Israel in
this period, beginning with the Akkadian sources and continuing with Syrian
and Palestinian texts.
CHAPTER 6
Akkadian Sources
Shalmaneser III
The inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (r. 858–824 BCE) present the modern his-
torian with superior literary sources that at times illuminate the history of
Syria-Palestine.1 This Assyrian king ventured further west than his father had
and thus had the first military and political contact with the kingdom of Israel.
Shalmaneser’s records distinguish themselves in some ways from those of his
father, specifically,
[t]he historical records of Shalmaneser III refrain from describing atrocities. His
annals, composed no doubt by a new royal scribe, are mainly concerned with eco-
nomic and material gains: numbers of cities conquered, quantities of metals and
other commodities received as booty and tribute. One wonders whether the
absence of atrocities reflects an actual change of Assyrian policy toward the west,
or whether it is a refinement in the character of historical writing. 2
His descriptions of a series of his campaigns provide the modern historian with
important information about the history of Israel, most especially the references
to his sixth (853), tenth (849), eleventh (848), fourteenth (845), eighteenth
(841), and twenty-first (838) regnal years. During these years he undertook
military campaigns to Syria-Palestine and recounted his victories and collec-
tions of tribute in various inscriptions.
As must be expected, not everything recounted in the inscriptions of this
king should be regarded as trustworthy. The first evidence of this comes from
the fact that the inscriptions are hardly consistent in the manner in which they
describe the military conquests. The condition of some of the inscriptions is
sometimes superior, sometimes horrible. The implied audiences of the texts
(elites, subject populations, enemies, future Assyrian monarchs, and gods) sug-
———————————
1 Cf. Alfred Jepsen, “Salmanassar III. und die Eponymlisten,” AfO 14 (1942): 64–70 for the
reconstruction of these regnal dates.
2 Tadmor, “Assyria and the West,” 36.
198 Chapter 6: Akkadian Sources
gest that the material cannot be taken at face value. 3 Regardless of these fac-
tors, there is quite a bit that the historian can learn from these epigraphic texts.
The relevant texts can be found in the following inscriptions: 4
1) Kurkh Monolith Inscription (853–852) [A.0.102.2 = BM ANE 118884]
= MI
2) Throne Base Inscription (846) [A.0.102.28 = IM 65574] 5
3) Dais Inscription (ca. 844?) [A.0.102.29]
4) Door Sill Inscription (ca. 844?) [A.0.102.30]
5) Tigris River Inscriptions (844) [A.0.102.23–24]
6) Clay Annals (842) [A.0.102.6 = IM 54669]
7) Calah Bulls (ca. 841?) [A.0.102.8]
˘
8) Wall Tablet (839) [A.0.102.10 = IM 55644]
9) Statue from Fort Shalmaneser (839–838) [A.0.102.12 = IM 60497]
10) Stone Slab (838?) [A.0.102.13]
11) Booty Inscription from Malah a (838?) [A.0.102.92]
˘
12) Statue from Aššur (833?) [A.0.102.40 = ESx 4650]
13) Black Obelisk (828–827) [A.0.102.14 + 87–91 = BM ANE 118885] =
BO
14) Statue from Calah (828–827) [A.0.102.16 = IM 60496]
˘
The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (= MI) represents the oldest known inscrip-
tion of Shalmaneser III relevant to the history of Israel; it is also the oldest text
mentioning an Israelite king by name. “The stone of Shalmaneser, which is
rather worn, has a depiction of the king and divine symbols carved in relief and
the cuneiform inscription is engraved in two columns, one each on the obverse
and the reverse.” 6 It describes events up to and including his sixth regnal year
and should therefore be dated as coming from 853 or 852. The condition of the
———————————
3 Cf. the brief discussion about the various audiences in Assyrian inscriptions in Peter
Machinist, “Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C,” in Anfänge Politischen
Denkens in der Antike (ed. Kurt Raaflaub; Munich: R. Oldenburg, 1993), 98–102.
4 The bracketed numbers refer to the editions presented in A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers
of the Early First Millennium BC, Volume II (858–745 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of
Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 3; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996).
5 For a detailed description, edition, translation, cf. P. Hulin, “The Inscriptions on the
Carved Throne-Base of Shalmaneser III,” Iraq 25 (1963): 48–69.
6 Grayson, RIMA III, 11. One should note that the reference to two “columns” maintains an
inaccurate nomenclature, as Grayson mentions. More accurately one should reference
“obverse” and “reverse,” each of which also continues onto the respective right edges.
Shalmaneser III 199
text makes some passages poorly legible, and there are multiple scribal errors
in the text that make some portions impossible to decipher without reconstruct-
ing some text. The errors have generally been accepted as evidence that the
inscription was made in some haste or by a provincial scribe. 7
The Throne Base Inscription, discovered in Fort Shalmaneser, comes from
around 846. 8 It contains text and images and a relevant passage about the cam-
paign in 853 inscribed on a raised stone platform presumably used to support a
throne and a footstool. A functionally similar artifact from the courtyard of
Fort Shalmaneser can be found in the Dais Inscription, from around 844. 9 The
relevant text of this artifact, which references Shalmaneser’s campaign in 848,
can be found in a related text inscribed in a door sill, also found at Fort
Shalmaneser.10
While visiting the mouth of the Tigris River, Shalmaneser had four inscrip-
tions carved into the face of the rock there. Two of these contain information
about his campaign to Syria-Palestine in 845. 11
A longer annalistic text, composed in 842 and found on clay tablets in
Aššur, references Shalmaneser’s campaigns to Syro-Palestine in the years 853,
849, 848, and 845. 12 A very similar text inscribed on two bulls in Calah con-
˘
tains descriptions of the campaigns to Syria-Palestine in 853, 849, 848, 845,
and 841. 13 The assignment of the campaign of 841 to this inscription was not
initially claimed, but has since found acceptance in the secondary literature,
though it must remain somewhat insecure. This insecurity arises from the fact
that the editions known in the academic world were based on squeezes found in
the British Museum, which have since been destroyed. 14 Assuming that the
campaign of the eighteenth year (= 841) belongs to this inscription, it is unclear
if this represents the original ending of the inscription; this has some implica-
tions for the dating of the text, but does not otherwise necessarily impact our
understanding of the recounted events.
———————————
7 For further literature, cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 12.
8 For literature, cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 102.
9 Secondary literature can be found in Grayson, RIMA III, 105.
10 Cf. literature in Grayson, RIMA III, 107.
11 A bibliography is available in Grayson, RIMA III, 94.
12 Bibliography provided by Grayson, RIMA III, 33.
13 Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 43 for an extensive bibliography.
14 Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 42–43.
A stone tablet from the year 839, found in the city wall of Aššur, contains
descriptions of Shalmaneser’s campaigns in 853, 849, 848, 845, and 841. 15
Composed almost concurrently with this tablet, a statue found in Fort
Shalmaneser—though dedicated to Adad of Kurbail—references the king’s
campaign to Syria-Palestine in 841. Also from about this time is a stone slab
from Aššur, which contains references to Shalmaneser’s campaigns against
Syria-Palestine in 841 and 838. The poor condition of this inscription essen-
tially precludes gleaning information from this text not contained in other lapi-
dary texts.
Unique among the texts listed here is the lapidary inscription from about
838, engraved on a black cylinder found in Aššur. 16 It claims to be a booty
inscription taken from the city of Malah a, which had been under the control of
˘
Hazael. It contains no date itself, but other texts grant at least the possibility of
a satisfactory dating. Also from Aššur is a statue, presumably from around the
year 833, describing Shalmaneser’s campaigns in 853, 841, and some
undatable related information.
One of the most expansive inscriptions of Shalmaneser III—and one of the
most marvelous archaeological finds ever—is recorded in the Black Obelisk (=
BO) of Calah from 828–827. 17 This text describes Shalmaneser’s relevant cam-
˘
paigns in 853, 849, 848, 845, 841, and 838. Beyond this, it offers a series of
displays demonstrating “Jehu’s” obeisance and delivery of tribute to
Shalmaneser III. 18 In order to read the text of the inscription as a whole and
read all of the captions above the images, one must undertake a seven-fold
circumambulation of the obelisk: one trip around to read the top, one trip
———————————
15 Bibliography available in Grayson, RIMA III, 50.
16 Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 151.
17 An abbreviated bibliography can be found in Grayson, RIMA III, 63.
18 It must necessarily remain impossible to decide if the figure kneeling before Shalmaneser
should be regarded as Jehu or his emissary; there can be no resolution to this argument.
“Nur dann [wenn die Bilder ohne Bezug zu Texten interpretiert werden] fällt z.B. auf, dass
die Gabenbringer in den zwei oberen Registern (und in A-5) in identischer Tracht
dargestellt werden, und dass auch die beiden Niedergefallenen in Bezug auf ihre Tracht
und Physiognomie nicht unterschieden werden können. Der Wunsch nach einem Quasi-
Porträt Jehus entpuppt sich als Chimäre.” (Christoph Uehlinger, “Bildquellen und
‘Geschichte Israels’: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen und Fallbeispiele,” in Steine — Bilder
— Texte: Historische Evidenz außerbiblischer und biblischer Quellen [ed. Christoph
Hardmeier; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001], 53). Contra Alberto R. Green,
“Sua and Jehu: The Boundaries of Shalmaneser’s Conquest,” PEQ 111 (1979): 39, who
regards the imagery of Jehu on the BO as depicting an actual event on Carmel in 841.
Shalmaneser III 201
around to read the bottom, and one trip for each of the five image series with
captions.19 The obelisk is the most impressive artifact bearing an inscription of
Shalmaneser III that has been preserved. From about the same time and also
originally from Calah —possibly from within a temple—there is a statue of
˘
Shalmaneser presenting a text strongly related to that of the BO. 20 It also con-
tains descriptions of Shalmaneser’s campaigns in 853, 849, 848, 845, 841, and
838, though some of this material must be reconstructed based on the BO.
With the exception of the Booty Inscription from Malah a, all of these texts
˘
have one thing in common: their genre. These texts exist for the single purpose
of purporting the greatness of their benefactor. They come from conquered
regions, palaces, and temples and seek only to expound upon Shalmaneser’s
greatness. For this reason, one must necessarily question the factual reliability
of these narratives as sources for historical reconstructions. In some cases, as
will be seen below, it seems more likely that the reader can glean more infor-
mation from the inscriptions than Shalmaneser may have intended. His four-
year cycle of attacking Syria-Palestine, for example, could lead the reader to
doubt his claims of overwhelming victory. Beyond this, doubt must remain
about some of the texts, as they are badly damaged. Due to multiple copies and
traditions, however, many of these damaged texts can readily be reconstructed
with a high level of probability. In cases where such is not the case, the dam-
aged texts have not been used as a source for the historical reconstruction.
The Campaign of 853
“This event was evidently of such significance that Slm III [Shalmaneser III]
included it in every summarizing inscription, including especially the impres-
sive monuments and statuary of his reign, even when the latter bore no dating
notations.”21 The oldest source relevant for our study of the campaign of 853 is
———————————
19 Cf. Brad E. Kelle, “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern King-
dom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation,” JBL 121,
no. 4 (Winter 2002): 646: “Below the reliefs are 190 lines of annalistic text that recount
campaigns from his accession year through his thirty-first regnal year.” This statement is
inaccurate; the narrative text is both above and below the reliefs.
20 Cf. the discussion and literature in Grayson, RIMA III, 72–73.
21 Clyde C. Smith, “Jehu and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III,” in Scripture in History
and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas
W. Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977), 92.
the so-called Kurkh Monolith Inscription (BM ANE 118884 = A.0.102.2). It

recounts the first six years of Shalmaneser’s reign. The conclusion in lines 78–
101 of the reverse (= Rawlinson’s col. 2 22) describes the now famous battle of
Qarqar between Shalmaneser and a coalition of Syrian and Palestinian kings. 23
“It [MI] was engraved in haste, as some other Assyrian steles…, with the result
that there are numerous scribal errors… No doubt the hurry was caused by the
king being anxious to move on.” 24 The circumstances as to why the king may
have been anxious to move on may play just as much of a role as the descrip-
tion of the events in the text. 25
78)…In the eponym year of Daiiān-aššur, in the month Iyyar, on the fourteenth
day, I departed from Nineveh, I crossed the Tigris. The cities
79) of Giammu on the river Balih I approached. He feared my lordliness; the shine
of my raging weapons they ˘ feared. With their own weapons, their lord
Giammu
80) they killed. The city Sah lala (and) the city Tīl-ša-turahi I entered. I brought my
gods into his palaces. I ˘held a festival in his palaces. ˘
81) His storages I opened. His treasures I saw. His possessions, his properties, I
took. To my city Aššur I brought (them). From the city Sah lala I departed. The
city Kār-Šalmaneser ˘
———————————
22 Cf. H.C. Rawlinson and G. Smith, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vol. 3: A
Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria (London: R.E. Bowler, 1870), pl.
8.
23 “No single kingdom was able to stand alone against Assyria. Consequently, a coalition of
states was formed in the hope that their common power would equal that of Assyria”
(Na’aman, “Forced Participation,” 80–81)
24 Grayson, RIMA III, 11. This position contradicts the suggestion offered in Hayim Tadmor,
“Que and Mus. ri,” IEJ 11, no. 3 (1961): 144 and Nadav Na’aman, “Ahab’s Chariot Force
at the Battle of Qarqar,” in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counterac-
tion. Collected Essays Volume 1 (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 1–4 (origi-
nally published in 1976) that MI was erected in 852 and the errors come from a provincial
scribe who was insufficient to the task of copying. While this is a plausible reconstructed
historical circumstance for the composition of MI, Na’man’s postulation “...as he [the
scribe] did not space his work properly, he had to break off in the middle, thus, omitting
both the narrative of the campaign of 852 BCE and the building inscription that should
have concluded the text” fails to recognize that there was still some room on the reverse of
the inscription to have continued it. Beyond this, the evidence to support the postulation
that the MI was a “standardized text” is nonexistent, as we have no other accounts that
match it identically; rather there are several other traditions that do not match it.
25 The translation presented here is my own, based on the Monolith Inscription itself, with
only some reference to the editions. I wish to express my gratitude to the British Museum
for allowing me unfettered access to the artifact. For the entire edition of the text, in addi-
tion to a translation, cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 11–24. The battle of Qarqar is recounted in
lines ii 89b–102. Editions of the text, based on the initial publication in Rawlinson and
Smith, 3 R have divided the text into two columns. For the purposes of this discussion, this
convention has been maintained.
Shalmaneser III 203
82) I approached. In rafts of goatskin I crossed the Euphrates at its height for the
second time. The tribute of the kings of the opposite bank of the Euphrates (of
Sangar,
83) of the city Carchemesh, of Kundašpi, of the city Kumuh a, of Arame son of
˘
Gusi, of Lalli of the city of Melida, of H aiani son of Gabari,
˘
84) of Qalparuda of the land of Patina, of Qalparuda of the land of Gurguma)—
silver, gold, tin, bronze—
85) [in] the city of Ana-aššur-utter-as. bat, which is on the opposite bank of the
Euphrates, which is on the river Sagura, which the people of H atti-Land (86)
call (85) the city of Pitru, ˘
86) I received in my midst. From upon the Euphrates I departed. The city H alman26
I approached. They feared a battle. They grabbed both my feet. ˘
87) Silver (and) gold, their tribute, I received. I made offerings before Adad of
Halman. From Halman, I departed. The cities
88) of˘ Irh uleni of the˘ land of Amata I approached. The city Adenu, the city Parga,
(and)˘ the city Argana, his royal cities, these places I plundered. His property,
89) possessions of his palaces, I brought forth. I set fire to his palaces. From the
city of Argana I departed. I approached the city of Qarqara.
90) The city Qarqara, his royal city, I razed, I destroyed. With fire I burned (it).
1200 chariots, 1200 cavalry, 20,000 troops of Adadidri
91) of donkey land (= Aram); 27 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, 10,000 troops of
Irhuleni of Amata; 2000 chariots, 10,000 troops of Ah abu
92) of ˘Sirala (= Ahab of Israel); 28 500 troops of Byblos; 29˘ 1000 troops of Egypt; 30
10 chariots, 10,000 troops of the land of Irqanata;
93) 200 troops of Matinubaal of the city of Armada; 200 troops of the land of
Usanata; 30 chariots, […]000 troops
94) of Adunubaal of the land of Šiana; 1000 camels of Gindibu of the land of Ara-
bia; […]00 troops
95) of Baasa son of Ruh ubi of the land of Amana: These 12 kings as his allies he
had taken. ˘
96) They attacked (in) war and battle against me. With the massive powers that
Aššur, my lord, had given me, with weapons of his standard, which goes
before me,
———————————
26 I.e., Aleppo.
27 For this translation and understanding of ´ÂY¬ ša imērišu [ŠA-KUR-ANŠE-ŠU], cf.
the discussion and literature in Wayne T. Pitard, 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, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 14–17.
28 “To date, the name ‘Israel’ occurs only once, in the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser
III from Kurkh, which refers to the participation of king Ahab ‘the Israelite’ in the battle of
Qarqar, 853 B.C.E.” (Israel Eph‘al, “‘The Samarian[s]’ in the Assyrian Sources,” in Ah,
Assyria…Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented
to Hayim Tadmor [ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al; Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1991], 36).
29 Due to a scribal error, the name Byblos has incorrectly been recorded as gu-a-a Ðûû. Cf.
Tadmor, “Que and Mus. ri,” 144–45.
30 Cf. Tadmor, “Que and Mus. ri,” 145–47 for the identification of Mus. ri as Egypt.
97) I fought with them. I struck them from the city of Qarqara to the city of Gilzau.
Their defeat I caused. 14,000 of their troops,
98) I killed them with weapons. I cast them down. Like Adad I let destruction rain
down upon them. I spread out their corpses.
99) The face of the pasture I filled. Their wide troops <I felled> 31 with weapons. I
let flow their blood into the wadis[?].
100) Too small was the plain for the[ir] felled bodies. The wide area ended
(before) they could all be buried. With their men
101) I blocked the River Orontes as with a bridge. In the midst of this battle, their
chariots, their cavalry (and) their horses bound in a yoke, I took (from) them.
This inscription presumably represents the oldest narrative version of the
encounter between Shalmaneser and the kings of Syria-Palestine in 853. It is
also the only known Assyrian text to refer to the land of Israel as opposed to
either Samaria or Omri. 32 Several matters stand out in this text that merit addi-
tional consideration. First of all is the curious reference to the twelve kings
allied to Irh uleni of Hamath. In the current context, Shalmaneser speaks of
˘
Irh uleni, but then includes him in the list of the twelve kings allied with
˘
Irhuleni.33 Beyond that, the inscription lists only eleven political entities, not
˘
twelve. This means that one or two kings are presumably missing from the list;
any attempt to reconstruct who they might have been would fail due to the lack
of evidence and remain fanciful speculation. Alternatively, one could presume
that Shalmaneser’s scribe just chose the round number 12 without meaning a
literal group of 12 kings. 34 This issue remains impossible to clarify barring the
discovery of any other evidence, especially as this is the only text that lists any
kings or kingdoms beyond Irh uleni and Hadadezer. One notices the large num-
˘
ber of chariots assigned to Israel. Na’aman has successfully argued that “it is
inconceivable that Israel would have had the power to maintain a chariot force
———————————
31 Due to a scribal error, the verb is missing here.
32 Cf. Kelle, “Neo-Assyrian Designations,” 644.
33 Regarding the number 12 in the enumeration of the kings of this coalition, cf. Marco de
Odorico, The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
(State Archives of Assyria Studies, 3; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project,
1995), 134–36.
34 E.g., “Or is it the ‘amphictyonic formula of twelve’ that imposed itself here, as in the case
of the tribes of Israel, where the actual number always oscillated between eleven and thir-
teen?” (Tadmor, “Assyria and the West,” 46 n. 29)
Shalmaneser III 205
of 2,000 or even a major portion thereof.” 35 The numbers of his challengers

should be regarded as exaggerated. 36
Shalmaneser’s scribes presented this encounter in several other texts as
well, sometimes changing the information. These later editions represent sev-
eral, sometimes closely related traditions of the narrative. The next oldest text
comes from 846 (A.0.102.28:29–34a), followed by two identical texts from
842–841 (A.0.102.6:ii 19–33 and A.0.102.8:12’b–19’), one from 839
(A.0.102.10:ii 13–25), one from 833 (A.0.102.40:i 14–24), and two from 828–
827 (A.0.102.14:54b–66 and A.0.102.16:28–38a). These later texts, while
abbreviated from this oldest account, contain much of the same information,
but they do sometimes differ.
We continue, considering the second-oldest account in the Throne Base
inscription (A.0.102.28:29–34a):
29) In those days, Adadidri of donkey land, 37 Irhuleni of the land of <A>mata 38
30) and 12 kings together of the coast of the sea,˘ trusting their might reciprocally,
31) to make battle and war, they rose up against me. With the command of Aššur, 39
my lord,
32) with them I fought. From the city of Qarqar to the city of Dilziau
33) their defeat I caused. (With) the corpses of their soldiers I filled the wide plain.
34) The rest of their warriors I washed away with a flood.
In this later, abbreviated account of the battle of Qarqar in 853, he recounts no
numbers of dead, and claims to have battled the coalition from Qarqar to
Dilziau C`Qêûê [ URU-DI-IL-ZI-A-U] (32), as opposed to Gilzau
———————————
35 Cf. Na’aman, “Ahab’s Chariot Force,” 8.
36 This is also the conclusion of de Odorico, Numbers, 103–7, who believes that the numbers
in this inscription distinguish themselves as deliberate exaggerations of the actual num-
bers. Contra Kelle, “Neo-Assyrian Designations,” 642–43, who regards the significant size
of this chariot force as reflecting Israelite relations to or domination of “Moab, Edom, and
Judah, and perhaps contingents from Phoenicia.” However, since he can only base this on
biblical texts which may not offer historically reliable information, this reconstruction
should be rejected pending further evidence.
37 N.b., the unusual consonantal method of writing Aram here: šá i-ma-ri-šú.
38 “The spelling mātma-ta-a-a is used in the other Fort Shalmaneser texts where the name
occurs, and above Band XIII of the Balawat Gates, but not elsewhere in Shalmaneser’s
annals-texts.” (Hulin, “Throne-Base,” 61)
39 To the phrase “ina qibīt DN” and its usage and interpretations, cf. Bustanay Oded, “‘The
Command of the God’ as a Reason for Going to War in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,”
in Ah, Assyria…Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al; Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1991), 223–30.
Câμê [URU-LAGAB-ZA-U] (MI A.0.102.6:ii 97). 40 He no longer enumer-

ates the members of the coalition as he did in the Monolith Inscription. Other-
wise this second tradition contains no obvious contradictions to the tradition
recounted in the MI.
The third tradition, found in the clay annals and the Bull inscriptions,
recounts some of the same material, but changes some data; A.0.102.6:ii 19–33
= A.0.102.8:12’b–19’: 41
19) In my sixth regnal year, from the city of Nineveh I went out. The cities
20) on the bank of the River Palih I approached. In the face of my mighty weapons
21) they were frightened. Giammu, ˘ lord of their city, they killed.
22) The city Tīl-turahi I entered. The city I took for myself.
23) From the banks of ˘ the River Palih I went out. The Euphrates in its flood
24) I crossed. The tribute of the kings˘ of the land of H atti I received. From the land
of Hatti ˘
˘
25) I went out. The city H alman I approached. Sacrifices before the god Adad
26) of the city H alman ˘I offered. From the city of H alman I went out. The city
Qarqar ˘ ˘
27) I approached. Adadidri of donkey land, Irh uleni
˘
28) of the land of Amata plus 12 kings of the coast of the sea,
29) trusting in their might reciprocally. To make battle and war against me
30) they rose up. With them I fought. 25,000 of their warriors,
31) with the sword I destroyed. Their chariots, their cavalry,
32) and their war machines I took (from) them. To save their lives they fled.
33) On boats I rode, going on the sea.
Shalmaneser recounts that he killed 25,000 at this battle (he does not use the
phrase “their defeat” CCøä [IGI-IGI-ŠÚ-NU] as in MI ii 97), while the rest
apparently retreated. At this point, Shalmaneser claims to have boarded boats
and sailed upon the sea (ii 30–33). He also skips over his encounters with
Irhulēni outside of the coalition (ii 87b–89 of MI) and does not specifically
˘
enumerate the individual tributes of the land of H atti (ii 81b–86a of MI).
˘
———————————
40 Dated about 846. Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 102. Cf. also RIMA 3, 30:27, composed ca. 844.
Unfortunately, this text provides the historian with no information about the date of the
event described. Due to its strong parallel with RIMA III, 28:29–34a, it will be regarded as
referring to the year 853. Interestingly, only the oldest accounts of the battle even make a
reference of his battling from Qarqar to another city. As mentioned above, the city is
recounted with two different names. Is it possible that scribes recognized this tension and
therefore quit recording the name of the city in the official account?
41 Dated ca. 843. For the edition used, cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 32–41. This account is identi-
cal (and was used for the reconstructions where necessary) to an account of Shalmaneser
dated to at least 841; for the edition cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 42–45.
Shalmaneser III 207
The fourth tradition is on the Wall Tablet (A.0.102.10:ii 13–25): 42

13) In my sixth regnal year the cities of the bank
14) of the River Palih I approached. Giammu,
15) lord of their city,˘they killed. Into the city of T īl-turahi I entered.
16) The Euphrates in its flood I crossed. The tribute ˘
17) of the kings of the land of H atti I received. Adadidri
18) of donkey land, Irh uleni of ˘the land of Amata
19) plus 12 kings of the ˘ of the coast of the sea,
20) trusting in their might reciprocally,
21) to make battle and war against me
22) they rose up. With them I fought. Their defeat
23) I caused. Their chariots, their horses,
24) their war machines I took (from) them. 25,000
25) of their warriors, with the sword I destroyed.
He again recounts that he caused “their defeat.” The number of troops killed
stayed at 25,000.
From around the year 833, we encounter another brief text on a statue from
Aššur describing the battle of Qarqar in 853 (A.0.102.40:i 14–24). This text is
some twenty years removed from the events it describes in this passage:
14) Adadidri of donkey land
15) plus 12 princes, his allies,
16) their defeat I caused and 29,000
17) of his brave soldiers
18) I laid down like sheep.
19) The rest of their warriors into
20) the river Orontes
21) I cast (them).
22) To
23) save
24) their lives, they fled.
This text abbreviates even further and once again exaggerates the number of
soldiers killed, this time jumping all the way up to 29,000, i.e., an increase of
more than 200% from the oldest account.
In the latest tradition, which can be found in the BO (BM ANE 118885)
and a roughly parallel text on a statue from Calah from about the same time, we
˘
encounter the following: 43
54) In my sixth regnal year, cities along the river Balih
55) I approached. Giammu, the lord of their cities, they˘ killed.
———————————
42 Dated ca. 839. Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 50.
43 Dated ca. 828–827. Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 63 and 72. The differences between these two
texts will be addressed in the footnotes.
56) I entered into the city Tīl-tur-ahi.44

˘
57) The Euphrates I crossed at its height.
58) The tribute of the kings of the land of H atti
˘ Adadidri
59) in their totality, I collected. In those days,
60) of donkey land, Irh uleni of the land of Amata plus the kings
61) of Hatti-Land and ˘the sea-coast (62) trusting (61) in their might reciprocally.
62) To ˘make battle and war
63) against me they rose up. With the command of Aššur, my great lord, 45
64) with them I fought. Their defeat I caused.
65) Their chariots, their cavalry, their war-machines I took from them.
66) 25,000 46 of their warriors I destroyed with weapons. 47
Referring to the kings of H atti, Shalmaneser now boasts that he collected trib-
˘
ute from “all of them” (kalîšunu J¬ä [GAG-ŠU-NU]). Aššur is now regarded
as having commanded Shalmaneser to go out to battle. Shalmaneser again
refers to the defeat of the kings. These factors make the text suspicious. In the
Calah Statue, a text dated roughly contemporary with the Black Obelisk
˘
(A.0.102.16), Shalmaneser further recounts his confiscation of the goods and
women of Giammu (lines 29b–30a), Ninurta has been added as a deity respon-
sible for his victory at Qarqar (together with Aššur, “who love my priesthood;”
34b–35), Shalmaneser killed 29,000 troops (36), and threw the survivors into
the river Orontes (37b–38). 48
The picture that develops from the battle at Qarqar in 853 remains some-
what unclear based on the records of Shalmaneser III, which unfortunately are
the only records we have, as the authors of the Israel Source either had no
material addressing this period or—more likely—chose not to use it. We also
———————————
44 16:29–30 adds: “His many possessions plus his palace women and the city for myself I
took.”
45 16:34–35 adds: “(and) the god Ninurta, who love my priesthood.”
46 Literally “20,500.” I have emended the text, which presumably was corrupted by a scribal
error, confusing /CŽC with /CŽí, an understandable error; cf. Alan R. Millard,
“Large Numbers in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Ah, Assyria.. Studies in Assyrian
History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed.
Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 219. The usage
/CŽC is known from every text with this number, contra de Odorico, Numbers, 49 n.
20, who reads the other texts as /ŽC, which is not the case. He still regards the changed
number on the BO as a scribal “oversight;” cf. de Odorico, Numbers, 70.
47 16:37–38 adds: “The rest of their troops, who, in the face of my mighty weapons, had fled
(?), I threw into the Orontes.”
48 Grayson, RIMA III, 72. The first time that Shalmaneser claims to have killed 29,000 troops
at the battle of Qarqar seems to be around 833 in RIMA 3, 40:i 16. It is curious that this
number was reduced in the Black Obelisk, but does appear in the Calah Statue. This may
˘
imply that there were in fact two official editions of the text, one containing 25,000 used
as the Vorlage for BO et al., and one containing 29,000.
Shalmaneser III 209
have no Syrian sources that could illuminate the story from their perspective.
Shalmaneser claims to have killed between 14,000 and 29,000 enemy soldiers.
These numbers are totally out of the question and represent exaggerations. 49 He
also only sometimes explicitly identifies the resolution of the battle as his vic-
tory. While it seems probable based on these sources that there was a battle at
Qarqar in 853, it does not seem likely that Shalmaneser III won this battle.
“The battle can be characterized as a victory for the coalition, or at least a
draw, because Shalmaneser did not continue his campaign after the battle. He
returned home and did not campaign again in Syria for four years.” 50 It remains
conspicuous how often he refers to this battle as well. Of the encounters he had
with the coalition of Syro-Palestinian kings, this one is the one he refers to
most: nine times in the extant texts! Was this an attempt to “correct” a histori-
cal fact that he did not wish to accept? Also, if he were so successful against
this coalition, why did he have to fight them three more times? The hasty com-
position of the text of the MI could also be supporting evidence that
Shalmaneser had turned his tail, moving back to his territory as quickly as he
could after the battle at Qarqar. All of these factors combined suggest that
while Shalmaneser did fight a coalition at Qarqar—in the best case scenario
from his perspective—it must have ended in a draw. It is possible, however,
that the coalition was able to defeat him. 51
———————————
49 “It is hard to interpret these figures as anything but exaggeration, for the counting cannot
have been done over a long period!” (Millard, “Large Numbers,” 219) and “the case for
artificial expansion seems very strong where the slain of Qarqar and the 841 B.C.E. cam-
paign are concerned.” (Millard, “Large Numbers,” 220)
50 Gösta W. Ahlström, “The Battle at Ramoth-Gilead in 841 BC,” in “Wünschet Jerusalem
Frieden” (ed. Matthias Augustin; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1988), 157. Cf. Jepsen,
“Israel und Damaskus,” 155: “Bei Qarqar 853 muss er nach der ersten Schlacht gegen die
Koalition umkehren.” Jepsen, whom I follow in this tradition, also suggests that this was
the case for the other battles against the coalition “solange Hadadezer am Leben [war].”
Further: “Yet it is clear from accounts of the Qarqar campaign and its results that
Shalmaneser nevertheless failed to extend his rule south of the Antioch valley since unlike
the usual descriptions of such victories, the description of the battle of Qarqar does not
mention that Shalmaneser invaded the territories of his enemies, pursued their armies, or
exacted booty or tribute from them.” (Moshe Elat, “The Campaigns of Shalmaneser III
Against Aram and Israel,” IEJ 25, no. 1 [1975]: 25)
51 Elat, “Campaigns,” 26–29 applies the numbers of chariots provided in the inscriptions
mathematically in an attempt to prove that the chariots represented the primary reason for
Shalmaneser’s failure. In light of the fact that the numbers of chariotry (definitely the ene-
mies’ chariotry) are exaggerated, this theory becomes at least unverifiable.
The gory descriptions of blood running like water, corpses piled up like a
bridge, often cover up the inability to admit that Ashur’s foe could in fact pre-
vail over his armies.52
The Campaign of 849
Shalmaneser III’s annals record this campaign fewer times than the campaign
of 853: only five times total. These texts can be found in the Clay Annals, the
Calah Bulls, the Wall Tablet, the BO, and the Calah Statue (A.0.102.6, 8, 10,
˘ ˘
14, and 16). There are two traditions of this text, the longer of which contains
information pertinent to the reconstruction of the history of Israel. This longer
tradition is recounted in the two identical texts in the Clay Annals and the
Calah Bulls (A.0.102.6 and 8), 53 whereas the Wall Tablet, BO, and the Calah
˘ ˘
Statue (A.0.102.10, 14 and 16) only recount Shalmaneser’s encounters with
Sangara of Charchemish and Aramu of Arnê in identical texts. Further, the
information recounted about the campaign against the coalition of kings in
Syria-Palestine is virtually identical to the account of 853. There are three dif-
ferences worth mentioning here, though they change the meaning little: 1) the
campaign in 849 is introduced by the phrase “in those days” ina umešuma
~˜íø¦ [AŠ.ÚM-ME-ŠÚ-MA]; 2) in the campaign of 849, Shalmaneser claims
victory, “I caused their defeat” dabdâšunu aškûn CCøä.¢ñ¸ [IGI-IGI-ŠÚ-
NU.ÁŠ-KU-UN]; and 3) Shalmaneser does not offer a list of any casualties.
The relevant passage in the Clay Annals and Calah Bulls (A.0.102.6:ii
˘
60b–67 = 8:32’b–34’): 54
60) In those days,
61) Adadidri of donkey land, Irh uleni of the land of Amata
˘
62) plus the 12 kings of the sea-coast (63) trusting (62) their might reciprocally,
63) to make battle and war against me,
64) they rose up. With them I fought.
65) Their defeat I caused. Their chariots, their cavalry,
66) their war-machines I took from them.
67) To save their lives they fled.
The lack of detail (no battle site is listed, no casualties are counted), the style
copied from 853, the paucity of accounts of the battle against the coalition in
———————————
53 These texts were both composed ca. 842–840.
54 Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 37–38 and 46–47.
Shalmaneser III 211
849 versus the number of accounts that refer to his other campaigns in that
year, lead one to be suspicious of Shalmaneser’s account of these events. While
it once again seems probable that there was a battle between Assyria and some
kind of coalition in 849, there is little reason to regard it as a success for
Shalmaneser. Rather, he most likely fought to a draw, or, more probable in this
case than in 853, was defeated by the coalition united against him.
The Campaign of 848
This campaign is beset by the same problems as the campaign of 849 from the
perspective of the sources. There are four traditions, the oldest tradition (the
Dais Inscription: A.0.102.29:12b–20 [ca. 844]), one which is recorded vir-
tually identically twice in the Clay Annals and the Calah Bulls (A.0.102.6:iii
˘
3b–10a [ca. 842] = 8:37’b–39’a [ca. 841]), a more succinct recounting that
does not enumerate the capture of enemies in either recension and the number
of casualties in only one (Wall Tablet [A.0.102.10:ii 57b–iii 5 {ca. 839}] ≈
Calah Statue [16:77’b–81’ {ca. 828–827}]), and the text of the BO, which
˘
records the same events with mostly the same information, in somewhat differ-
ent phraseology. The events are recounted in the same formulaic language we
have come to know. Few differences between the battle narratives in 849 and
848 exist. Let’s consider briefly the four traditions:
The Dais Inscription (A.0.102.29:12b–20):
12) …In those days, Irh uleni
˘ Adadidri
13) of the land of Amata,
14) of the donkey land, plus the twelve kings
15) of the sea-coast and the coast of the Euphrates,
16) trusting their might reciprocally,
17) to make battle and war against
18) me, they rose up. With the command of
19) [Aššur] my [lord], for a third time
20) with them I fought. Their defeat I caused.
Distinct from the majority of the accounts of the previous contacts with the
coalition, but returning slightly to the style of MI, this account lists Irh uleni of
˘
Hamath first. It also mentions the coast of the Euphrates in addition to the sea
coast. This recension features one very important aspect of the campaigns for
historical reconstruction, namely the recognition that Shalmaneser III fought
against this coalition for the third time (line 19). This implies two facts: 1)
Shalmaneser’s scribes recognized this coalition as a consistent group; 55 and 2)
we have accounts of both of the previous encounters between Shalmaneser III
and this coalition. These facts have important ramifications for reconstructing
the history of Israel, as Israel had up to this point only once been explicitly
named as a member of this coalition. The usage of “a third time” considerably
increases the probability that Israel remained a member of this coalition after
the battle of Qarqar in 853. 56 While Shalmaneser again claims a victory, he
fails to offer an account of either the number of troops that he killed or the
booty he captured.
The Clay Annals (A.0.102.6:iii 3b–10a) = Calah Statue (8:37’b–39’a): 57
˘
3) …In those days Adadidri of donkey land,
4) Irhuleni of the land of Amata, plus the twelve kings
5) of˘the sea-coast, trusting their might reciprocally,
6) to make battle and war against me, they rose up. 58
7) With them I fought. Their defeat I caused.
8) 10,000 59 of their warriors, with weapons I destroyed them.
9) Their chariots, their cavalry, their war-machines
10) I took from them… 60
The primary difference that one finds in this account about 848 to the previous
one is the mention of casualties and booty. This is fitting with the other inscrip-
tions we have from Shalmaneser and does not even vary in form, vocabulary,
or syntax from the majority of his other explications of his campaigns. In these
two later inscriptions, Shalmaneser has not recounted that he fought the coali-
tion for a third time.
The most succinct account of Shalmaneser’s battle against the Syro-
Palestinian alliance in 848 is found in the BO (A.0.102.14), lines 88b–89a:
88)…Adadidri of donkey land, 12 kings of the land of H atti
˘
89) for might, they stood together. Their defeat I caused…
———————————
55 While it is possible that there was some flexibility in the members of this coalition, the fact
that Shalmaneser’s scribes mention “a third time” at least increases the probability that the
members were largely consistent. Unfortunately there is no other evidence available to the
historian to further illuminate this matter.
56 Cf. Jepsen, “Israel und Damaskus,” 154.
57 Cf. 10:ii 57b–iii 5 and 16:77’b–81’. For the sake of brevity, the differences between these
two texts and the other tradition containing the longer text will be handled in the footnotes.
58 Line 6 par. is missing in A.0.102.10 and 16.
59 The numeral 10 has been reconstructed in A.0.102.10; the number is missing entirely in
A.0.102.16.
60 Lines 9–10a par. are missing in A.0.102.10 and 16.
Shalmaneser III 213
No information can be gleaned from this text that we did not already possess.
Based on the texts regarding the campaign of the year 848, we can arrive at
similar conclusions about the confrontation between Shalmaneser III and the
coalition of Syro-Palestinian kings. For the same reasons listed above, we
should be cautious about taking the claims of Shalmaneser at face value. It is
improbable that he killed 10,000 soldiers at the battle in 848. Further, this
number makes his exaggerated claim of killing 29,000 in 853 seem even more
implausible. The one new datum from these texts is that the Assyrian scribes
understood the coalition of 848 as a continuation of the coalition in 853 and
849. This reflects the most obvious understanding of the phrase “a third time”
as recounted in the oldest version of the text.
The Campaign of 845
There are no fewer than five traditions regarding this campaign: two recorded
in the year 844 (Tigris River Inscriptions [A.0.102.23:21–27 and 24:14b–17
{badly damaged}]); one which is recorded virtually identically three times
(Clay Annals [6:iii 24–33 {ca. 842}] = Calah Bulls [8:44’b–47’a {ca. 841}] =
˘
Wall Tablet [10:iii 14–25 {ca. 839}]); a similar, yet extended, version of this
triplicate tradition (Calah Statue [16:87’b–95’ {badly damaged—no recon-
˘
struction will be offered here, as the only places where the text is significantly
different from the second tradition are so badly damaged as to not warrant
reconstruction}]), and again the abbreviated version in BO (14:91b–92a). The
most logical place to begin is with the oldest versions, the Tigris River Inscrip-
tions, both coming from the year 844:
A.0.102.23:
21) Adadidri of donkey land, Irh uleni of the land of Amata, with 15 cities of the
shore… ˘
22) my life. A fourth time I fought with them. [Their] defeat I caused…
23)…des]troy[ed] (and) their war machines...
24) they [ran away]
A.0.102.24:
14) …
15) king of donkey land plus 12 kings of [the land of] H at[ti]…
˘
16) A fourth time I fought with them. Their defeat I caused…
17) their war machines I took away. To [save themselves…]
Similar to the campaign in 848, the reader is informed that this is the fourth
time that Shalmaneser fought against this coalition; i.e., the coalition still main-
tained cohesion until at least the year 845 from the Assyrian perspective. What
doesn’t make any sense is the mention of 15 cities in A.0.102.23. This presum-
ably is either an exaggeration or an error. This text represents the only occur-
rence of the fifteen cities in any of the annals of Shalmaneser’s expeditions. It
seems to be erroneous and will be rejected as an accurate counting. The correc-
tive to this may have been the text offered in text number 24, which stands
proximate to the text in number 23.
The longer text can be found in the Clay Annals (A.0.102.8:44’b–47’a), et
61
al.:
44’)…In my fourteenth regnal year, I mustered (my) extensive land in countless
numbers, crossed the Euphrates in flood with
45’) 120,000 of my 62 troops. In those days Adadidri of donkey land, Irh uleni of the
land of Amata, plus ˘
63
46’) 12 kings of the shore of the sea, above and below, their troops, troops with-
out number, they mustered. Against me they rose. With them, I fought.
47’) Their defeat I caused. Their chariotry, their cavalry I destroyed. 64 Their war
machines I took away from them. To save their lives they ran away…
For the first time the reader is told how many troops Shalmaneser supposedly
brought with him on his campaign. While his 120,000 sounds like a huge num-
ber,65 the troops of the enemy were apparently infinite, should one interpret the
text literally. These numbers (or lack thereof) naturally raise suspicion and
must be understood metaphorically. Again Shalmaneser claims victory and that
he took booty. He does not comment on how many casualties he supposedly
caused. Based solely on this text, one wonders if, and if yes, how successfully,
Shalmaneser defeated the coalition. Relying on the unique introduction, one
———————————
61 The text of 16:87’b–95’ seems to have been closely related to this tradition. However, it
has some material in lines 90’–92’ which have no parallel in the other annals of
Shalmaneser III. Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 72–73. Unfortunately, this extra material is so
badly damaged that it is not really sensible to offer a reconstruction of the text. Therefore,
it will be handled with these other texts.
62 “My” is missing in the Clay Annals.
63 The Clay Annals are erroneously missing a ï [MEŠ] here.
64 The Wall Tablet reads “Their chariotry, their cavalry, their war machines, I took away
from them.”
65 de Odorico, Numbers, 111: “…it is clear enough, I think, that an ancient army credited
with 120,000 men should be viewed with a little doubt. The number may have represented
the theoretical or conventional size of the Assyrian army, but was by no means the size of
the army on the battlefield...”
Shalmaneser III 215
might suspect that he was more successful in this campaign than in previous
forays into the Levant.
Finally, we have the recounting offered in the BO:
91)…In my fourteenth regnal year, the land I raised, the Euphrates I crossed.
Twelve kings rose up against me.
92) I battled (them). I caused their defeat…
Little can be reconstructed based on this text.
The Campaign of 841
Like the other campaigns, the campaign of 841 appears in several narrative
annalistic texts of Shalmaneser III. As above, a chronological organization of
the texts is more or less possible: Calah Bulls (A.0.102.8:1”–27” [unclear, no
˘
earlier than 841]); 9:1’–15’ [unclear; too fragmentary to merit reconstruction
here]; Wall Tablet (10:iii 45b–iv 15a [ca. 839]); Statue from Fort Shalmaneser
(12:21–30a [ca. 838]); Stone Slab (13:9’b–10’ [838 or later; only a small por-
tion of the introduction to the 18th year remains]); BO (14:97b–99a +
A.0.102.88 [= superscription] {ca. 827}); and Calah Statue (16:122’b–137’a).
˘
Calah Bulls, et al. [A.0.102.8:1”–27” = 12:21–30a ≈ 10:iii 45b–iv 15a =
˘
16:122’b–137’a]: 66
1) In my eighteenth regnal year, for the sixteenth time, the Euphrates
2) I crossed. Hazailu of donkey land,
3) trusting the˘ might of his soldiers,
4) an extensive mustering of his soldiers
5) he carried out. Mount Saniru, the peak of the mountain,
6) which is before Mount Lebanon, to his fortress
7) he made it. With him I fought. His defeat
8) I caused.67
9) 16,000 68 of his warriors,
10) with the sword I destroyed [them].
11) 1,121 of his chariots
12) 470 of his cavalry with
13) his military camp I took them away.
———————————
66 While A.0.102.16 is heavily damaged at the point in question, the material we have sug-
gests that it was a parallel composition to 10, as opposed to 8 and 12. While 8 and 12 read
virtually identically, 10 and 16 also appear to read identically, but somewhat differently
from 8 and 12. This is particularly true of the conclusion.
67 The phrases “With him I fought. His defeat I caused” are missing in 10.
68 The number in 10 (and presumably 16) is 16,020 which de Odorico, Numbers, 71 as a
case of “specification.”
14) To save
15) his life he ran. After him I followed.
16) In Damascus, his royal city, I trapped him.
17) His gardens I cut down. 69 To Mount
18) Haurānu I went. Cities
˘
19) without number I razed, I destroyed;
20) with fire I burned [them]. Booty
21) without number 70 I plundered. 71
22) To Mount Baalirasi,
23) which is in front of the sea 72 I went. My royal image
24) I set in its midst. In those days 73
25) the tribute of 74 the land of Tyre,
26) of the land of Sidon, 75 (and) of Jehu
27) son of Omri I received. 76
Shalmaneser makes different claims than those the reader has encountered up
to this point. Of primary importance, one notes the absence of a unified coali-
tion of Syro-Palestinian kings, and especially of Hamath, which had been listed
in all of the other inscriptions. 77 Rather, we have the account of Shalmaneser
fighting Hazael of Damascus alone. He claims to have defeated Hazael at an
undisclosed location and then pursued him back to Damascus. Shalmaneser
never claims to have conquered Damascus, however, suggesting that either he
broke off the siege or was bribed to leave. After recounting this narrative,
Shalmaneser mentions his erection of a statue of himself before collecting trib-
ute on Mount Carmel from some Syro-Palestinian states: 78 Tyre (always pres-
ent, named with the ruler in one tradition), Sidon (only present in one tradition,
———————————
69 10:iv 4 adds “His piles of grain I burned.”
70 In 10:iv 7 there is no equivalent of the phrase “without number.”
71 Grayson, RIMA III, 60 translates this passage in 12 to read with 10, even though it reads
identically to 8.
72 10:iv 9 adds “which is before Tyre.”
73 “In those days” is missing in 10:iv 10.
74 10:iv 10 and 16:134’ add “Ba ali-manzēri.”
75 “Of the land of Sidon” is missing in 10:iv 11.
76 10 (and presumably 16) add “Upon my return onto Mount Lebanon I ascended. My royal
image next to the image of Tiglath-pileser, a great king who went before me, I set up.”
77 Cf. Green, “Sua and Jehu,” 36.
78 For the identification of Ba alirasi with Mount Carmel, cf. Yohanan Aharoni, “Mount Car-
mel as Border,” in Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling (ed.
Arnulf Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970), 1–7 and
Green, “Sua and Jehu,” 36.
Shalmaneser III 217
never with a named leader), and Israel 79 (always present, always with a named
leader: Jehu).
The discussion surrounding the identification of Jehu as a son of Omri has
plagued some historians and led to reconstructions of Jehu’s genealogy from a
secondary branch of the Omride family, i.e., not coming from Ahab’s line, but
still belonging to Omri’s family, 80 or to the identification of the person men-
tioned in these Assyrian texts as Joram and not Jehu. 81 The suggestion that
these texts mention Joram, and not Jehu, based on the ancestry known from the
Bible, has failed to find followers. 82 For all intents and purposes, the problem
of Jehu’s ancestry was solved quite some time ago, as Ungnad argued cogently
for understanding “son of Omri” as a designation for the kingdom of Israel. 83
Beyond Na’aman’s comment that “the Assyrians were certainly aware that Jehu
seized the throne by force and that he was an illegitimate ruler,” 84 I would fur-
ther add that I find it highly improbable that Shalmaneser’s scribes spent their
afternoons researching genealogical graphics in an attempt to understand
whether the filial relations of various Syro-Palestinian kings justified their
accessions. Rather, it seems more likely that they used the descriptions of these
kingdoms that suited their fancy. 85 Beyond this, the most conspicuous factor is
———————————
79 “Our earliest reference to Bīt Humri occurs in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III regarding
˘
his campaign against Syria-Palestine in 841... It was, then, sometime between 871/70 (the
year of Ahab’s succession to the throne) and 842 that the term ‘B īt Humri’ was formed.”
˘
(Eph‘al, “Samarian[s],” 37).
80 Cf. e.g., Tammi Schneider, “Rethinking Jehu,” Biblica 77, no. 1 (1996): 100–107. For a
contrary opinion to that offered by e.g., Schneider, cf. Nadav Na’aman, “Jehu Son of
Omri: Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by His Overlord,” IEJ 48, no. 3–4 (1998): 236–38.
81 Cf. P Kyle McCarter Jr, “Yaw, Son of ‘Omri’: A Philological Note on Israelite
Chronology,” BASOR 216 (1974): 5–7.
82 Cf. Manfred Weippert, “Jau(a) M ār Humrî: Joram oder Jehu von Israel?” VT 28, no. 1
˘
(January 1978): 113–18; Green, “Sua and Jehu,” 37; and Baruch Halpern, “Yaua, Son of
Omri, Yet Again,” BASOR 265 (1987): 81–85.
83 Cf. Arthur Ungnad, “Jaua, Mâr H umrî,” OLZ 9, no. 4 (April 1906): 225: “… mâr Humri
˘
heisst also nichts weiter als „der (Mann etc.) aus Bît-H umri“. So erklärt es sich˘ auch,
warum an der angegebenen Stelle scheinbar die Nationalität˘ Jehu’s [sic!] verschwiegen
wird; in Wirklichkeit wird sie durch das so sonderbar erscheinende mâr H umrî
˘
bezeichnet.” Cf. Further Kelle, “Neo-Assyrian Designations,” 648 n. 29 and the literature
cited there.
84 Na’aman, “Son of Omri,” 236.
85 Na’aman’s suggestion “his [Shalmaneser’s] description of the king [Jehu] was motivated
by the desire to portray him positively and to legitimize his reign” (Na’aman, “Son of
Omri,” 238) adds another justification for the Assyrian use of “son of Omri;” it is not only
a dynastic/geographical reference, but also indirectly supports Shalmaneser’s propagandis-
tic tendencies.
that “son of Omri” is found behind two other geographical regions, which have
both been marked with KUR Â. They cannot be identified as any other kind of
unit. It seems improbable that the scribe would then switch to a genealogical
identification. In this case, it should also be noted that there is no Ü in front of
the name Omri in A.0.102.29, although it is present in the other texts. 86 Omri
here is not so much being identified as a person, as a geographical locale. 87
Shalmaneser’s dating of these events has provided cause for discussion.
While the Bible recounts the time between the death of Ahab in 1 Kings 22 and
the ascension of Jehu in 2 Kings 9 as 14 years, the annals of Shalmaneser only
allow for twelve. This occurs obviously because Ahab is once named in a text
reporting about the sixth year of Shalmaneser’s reign and Jehu has been men-
tioned in the text above regarding the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser’s reign.
This apparent contradiction can also be quickly resolved in a satisfactory man-
ner. The easiest resolution to this problem can be found by positing some
regnal years being counted twice; i.e., we presume that Israel used a system of
antedating.88 If Ahab died shortly after his encounter with Shalmaneser III, his
last year would be identical to the first year of his son Ahaziah, whose second
year in turn would be identical to the first year of his brother Joram. That
means that the reign of the reign of Ahaziah would be reduced from two full
years to some period more than one year, but still less than two years. This
reconstruction provides the best answer to the apparent contradiction. 89
BO (A.0.102.88 + 14:97b–99a):
A) Tribute of Jehu son of Omri: silver,
B) gold, a golden bowl, a golden vessel, cha-
C) lices of gold, golden buckets, tin, a wooden
D) staff for the hand of the king, (and) javelins, I received
———————————
86 The recognition of the Akkadian determinative Ü would have strengthened the position of
Grabbe (Grabbe, “The Kingdom of Israel,” 83–84), that Omri was in fact a person.
87 Cf. Eph‘al, “Samarian(s),” 38: “…the term ‘B īt Humri’ was used exclusively for denoting
˘
the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel while the term ‘the Samarian(s)’ was used
for designating its people.”
88 This must be done generally with the dates in the book of Kings. A literal understanding of
the dates in the frames of Kings would mean that up to the time of Zimri, every king died
on the same day of the year as his predecessor. After Zimri’s reign, all of the subsequent
kings died on the exact same day as Zimri, seven days later than had previously been the
day of the death of the kings of Israel. Such an understanding is not only problematic, but
also highly improbable.
89 Such a suggestion goes back quite a long way; cf. already Steuernagel, Einleitung, 349.
Shalmaneser III 219
97) …In my eighteenth regnal year, I crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time.
Hazailu
˘ donkey land came to battle (me). 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his cavalry
98) of
with
99) his camp, I took from him…
This text presents, on the one hand, the most abbreviated account of Shalman-
eser’s battle against Hazael in 841, while on the other hand providing the most
detailed account of Jehu’s tribute. This tribute does “not refer to the collection
(and the amount) of the ‘regular’ tribute ( biltu, madattu), which was an admin-
istrative matter, and not a military one, but rather to some ‘extraordinary’ con-
tribution which is paid upon the arrival of the Assyrian army, as a form of sub-
mission;”90 “…madattu is the ‘gift’ of those who chose not to fight…” 91 and
“Madattu always referred to a legal obligation of a vassal and was an express-
ion of his submission and loyalty to the king to whom this tribute was des-
tined.”92 Not only does the inscription list particular items that Jehu brought to
Shalmaneser, it even has images showing precisely what the tribute entailed. 93
One of these items has been regarded as especially important, namely the “staff
for the hand of the king.” Elat has argued that “the hut.ārtu was rather a symbol
˘
of protection or ownership of property” 94 and that “in handing over the hut.ārtu
˘
to Shalmaneser III, Jehu and Sūa, king of Gilzānu, both wished to symbolize
that their kingdoms had been handed over to the protection of the king of
Assyria.”95 This transfer of an item would therefore be evidence that Jehu sub-
mitted peacefully, rather than fighting and then surrendering. 96 Beyond this,
Green has suggested that the image of “Jehu” prostrate before Shalmaneser III
and Aššur should represent all of the West submitting to Shalmaneser, rather
than just Israel submitting to him. 97 In this way, the BO distinguishes itself as a
graphical form—and not just a textual form—of propaganda: what Shalman-
———————————
90 de Odorico, Numbers, 11.
91 Smith, “Jehu and the Black Obelisk,” 90.
92 Moshe Elat, “The Impact of Tribute and Booty on Countries and People Within the Assyr-
ian Empire,” AfOB 19 (1982): 245.
93 “The contents and quantities of the tribute imposed on a vassal in the framework of his
permanent relationship with the Assyrian overlord were small and limited mainly to luxury
commodities…” observes Elat, “Tribute and Booty,” 245. Such an understanding of the
items offered by Israel seems appropriate.
94 Elat, “Campaigns,” 33–34.
95 Elat, “Campaigns,” 34.
96 Cf. Tadmor, “Assyria and the West,” 40: “It is quite possible that Jehu accepted willingly
the Assyrian suzerainty, which afforded protection for his new regime.”
97 Cf. Green, “Sua and Jehu,” 38.
eser was not able to conquer in its entirety is represented via the kneeling
synecdoche Jehu.
These annalistic texts suggest that the Syro-Palestinian coalition that faced
Shalmaneser (presumably more or less successfully) in 853, 849, 848, and 845
must have disbanded sometime between 845 and 841. Because Shalmaneser
mentions a new king of Damascus in the inscription, this might well play a role
in determining why exactly it is that the coalition fell apart. 98 A further consid-
eration is the role Israel played in all of this. While Ahab apparently aligned
himself with Hadadezer of Damascus during at least one previous campaign of
Shalmaneser III, and Ahab’s progeny (based on the recurrence of the coalition
and its identification as a relatively uniform entity in some of Shalmaneser’s
inscriptions) presumably maintained amicable relations with Hadadezer, Jehu
apparently paid tribute, surrendering peacefully, rather than fighting. 99 This
awakens the suspicion that Jehu and/or Hazael reneged on the extant alliance of
their predecessors. Another text from the reign of Shalmaneser may help to
illuminate the situation further.
Statue from Aššur (A.0.102.40:i 25–ii 1):
25) Adadidri disappeared forever.
26) Hazailu, son of nobody,
˘ the throne. His many troops
27) took
28) he mustered. To make
29) battle and war against me he rose up.
30) With him I fought. His defeat
31) I caused. The wall [sic!] 100 of his camp I took from him.
32) To save his life
33) he fled. To
34) the city Dasmascus,
35) his royal city, I followed (him).
1) [his] Gard[ens] I cut down…
———————————
98 Cf. Jepsen, “Israel und Damaskus,” 159: “Die früheren Bundesgenossen scheinen den
Usurpator nicht recht anerkannt zu haben.”
99 Even the imagery of the BO may suggest this: “Ein Vergleich dieses Szenentyps mit
Parallelen aus der sonstigen assyrischen Palastkunst zeigt aber erstens, dass solche Szenen
relativ selten sind, und zweitens, dass damit gerade nicht brutale Unterwerfung durch
Übermacht, sondern großmütig gewährte, besondere Nähe zum Großkönig und d.h.
Begünstigung durch diesen signalisiert wird, frei nach dem Motto ‘Wer sich erniedrigt,
wird erhöht werden!’” (Uehlinger, “Bildquellen,” 52).
100 Ernst Michel, “Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824). (Fortsetzung),” WO 1, no. 2
(1947): 61 n. 16 interprets Š [BÀD] as a errant writing of Î± [GIŠ-GIGIR] “chariot.”
This makes more sense in the context of the other inscriptions. However, the lectio
difficilior favors the reading above.
Shalmaneser III 221
While the composition of this text occurred sometime around 833, the
recounted death of Hadadezer remains chronologically insecure. The preceding
narrative context gives a brief summary of Shalmaneser’s battle against the
coalition in 853. Based on the campaigns described in other texts, we know
that Hadadezer lived until at least 845, when he fought against Shalmaneser for
the fourth (and final?) time. If the narrative of the conflict with Hazael
describes the battle of 841, 101 which seems plausible as it closely parallels the
other texts describing this event, then we have a time frame for the death of
Hadadezer: 845–841. What remains speculative is how Hadadezer died.
This text allows for three possibilities: he died naturally, Shalmaneser
killed him, or Hazael killed him. The insecurity here revolves around how to
translate the phrase šadâšu ēmid. CAD offers the translation “he disappeared
forever.” 102 Michel reads the phrase: “wurde ermordet.” 103 Such a violent inter-
pretation then begs the question who killed Hadadezer. Based on the other
texts of Shalmaneser III, it seems unlikely to conclude that Shalmaneser here
claims responsibility for killing Hadadezer; in no other text does he even sug-
gest that he knew of Hadadezer’s death. This really only leaves the possibilities
that Hadadezer died naturally (with CAD) or that Hazael killed him (with
Michel). The only ancient witness outside of this text that suggests that Hazael
was the one responsible for killing Hadadezer is the saga in 2 Kings 8:7–15;
however, this text does not explicitly state that Hazael killed Hadadezer 104 and
seems to be a late text, 105 dealing with a prophetic narrative that acknowledges
‫’יהוה‬s mastery of the universe: ‫ יהוה‬has power determining who reigns in Aram,
just as in Israel. For these reasons, the quality of the biblical witness in this
———————————
102 Chicago Oriental Institute Illinois, E (vol. 4 of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago ; Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the Uni-
versity of Chicago, 1958, sixth printing 2004), 140.
103 Michel, “Assur-Texte Fortsetzung,” 60 n. 14; Elat, “Campaigns,” 31 follows this opinion.
104 The problem with assuming that this text explicitly recounts Hazael’s execution of Ben-
Hadad (!) is two-fold: 1) such an interpretation requires a hard unmarked change of sub-
ject in 15a, which in its current form reads: “The next day he took the cloth, dipped it in
water, spread it upon his face, and died.” 2) one would expect a Hiphil form of √‫ מות‬rather
than the Qal recorded. While the text at least leaves open the implicit interpretation that
Hazael killed his predecessor, it is by no means obvious from 2 Kings 8:7–15 that such
was the case.
105 Contra Schmitt, who dates the text to the middle of the eighth century; cf. Hans-Christoph
Schmitt, Elisa, 177–79.
matter must be questioned. 106 Since it is nowhere made explicit that Hazael
killed Hadadezer, I will regard any reconstruction that verifies him as such as
implausible; Hadadezer seems to have died a natural death. 107
That does not imply that Hazael was not a usurper. The phrase “son of
nobody” suggests that Hazael was not of royal stock, or at least was not the
expected successor of Hadadezer. The only ancient witness that might identify
Hazael as the son of Hadadezer (should its reconstruction be accurate) is the
fragmentary Tel Dan Inscription. The frequent usage of the term “my father” in
the Tel Dan Inscription suggests that Hazael may have been trying to cover up
his questionable accession to the throne of Damascus by implying that Hada-
dezer was his father. 108 However, since the name Hadadezer does not appear in
the Tel Dan Inscription (as far as we can at this point reconstruct) there is still
not even certainty about this. Because of the circumstances surrounding the Tel
Dan Inscription, it seems better to trust the Akkadian inscription of
Shalmaneser III on the point of Hazael’s heritage. Otherwise the statement that
Hazael was a son of a nobody would take on the character of a mere insult.
Such a sour-grapes attitude would represent a unique narrative feature in the
annalistic texts of Shalmaneser III handled here and will therefore be regarded
as implausible. Shalmaneser’s inscription should be regarded as more trustwor-
thy regarding Hazael’s heritage, i.e., Hazael was presumably a usurper, an
unanticipated claimant to Aram’s throne, but not necessarily the assassin
responsible for Hadadezer’s death.
So, the opening of this text helps to enlighten the historian about the spe-
cific events leading up to Shalmaneser’s campaign into Syria-Palestine in 841.
Sometime between 845 and 841 Hadadezer of Damascus died; 109 Hazael used
this opportunity to seize the throne of Damascus, a task at which he apparently
succeeded. Probably because of this new opportunist on the throne of Damas-
———————————
106 Contra Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 132–38, who at least would like to consider that possi-
bility that Hazael murdered Ben-Hadad son of Hadadezer. I find the evidence for this posi-
tion far too limited to consider it probable.
107 This interpretation was also already proffered in Bruno Meissner, “Woher haben die
Assyrer Silber bezogen,” OLZ 15, no. 4 (April 1912): 1 n. 1: “Adad-idri starb, und Hazaël,
der Sohn eines Niemands, ergriff den Thron...”
108 Cf. the discussion to the Tel Dan Inscription in Chapter 7.
109 Cf. J. Maxwell Miller, “Another Look at the Chronology of the Early Divided Monarchy,”
JBL 86, no. 3 (September 1967): 276–88, for a similar reconstruction of the historical
events of this period, most especially considering Hazael and Jehu’s accessions to their
respective thrones between 845 and 842.
Shalmaneser III 223
cus after 845, the old alliance fell apart. When Shalmaneser returned to the
region in 841 after a four-year hiatus, he was met by Hazael alone militarily,
and by Jehu (and others) bringing tribute. 110 The image of the events surround-
ing Jehu’s accession to the throne of Israel are coming more into focus. The
only question that remains is to what extent Shalmaneser was able to exert his
authority over Hazael. As with the coalition, Shalmaneser claims a crushing
defeat against Hazael. This defeat must not have been so crushing, since as the
Israel Source attests, Hazael was able to wage war against Jehu’s dynasty dur-
ing a later period. 111 Also, he stood up against Shalmaneser a second time in
838, something that seems improbable, had Shalmaneser utterly destroyed the
country around Damascus. Based on this evidence, it seems unlikely that
Shalmaneser seriously defeated Hazael. While he may have pursued him to
Damascus, he was not able to conquer him there. His sweeping generalizations
and copied style make this victory sound just like the others: hollow and based
on limited facts.
The Campaign of 838
Shalmaneser made one last foray into Syria-Palestine in 838. 112 Fewer texts
recount this event than any other campaign of Shalmaneser into Syria-
Palestine. Only three surviving texts mention this campaign, one of them being
badly damaged and being mostly completed from the other texts: Stone Slab
(A.0.102.13:rev 4’b–11’ [badly damaged; not reconstructed here]); BO
(14:102b–104a); and Calah Statue (16:152’–162’a). This campaign may also
˘
be indirectly attested in a booty inscription from Malah a (A.0.102.92).
˘
The longest relevant passage, and the one that most aids a historical recon-
struction, can be found in the Calah Statue (A.0.102.16:154b’–162’a):
˘
———————————
110 Regarding the images on the BO, Elat plausibly suggests, “[t]his [BO] shows the bearing
of tribute only from those kings or countries which submitted without resistance, and per-
haps even at their own initiative.” (Elat, “Campaigns,” 32)
111 The later redactional note about Hazael’s domination of Israel in the time of Jehu may be
accurate, even though it is not original to the Israel Source. It seems improbable that
Hazael only dominated Israel after Jehu’s death, during the reign of Jehoahaz, as the Israel
Source claims.
112 Cf. Tadmor, “Assyria and the West,” 40.
154) …[T]o the cit[ies]

155) [of] H azailu of donkey land I went out. The cities [?]
˘
156) they were afraid. [The mountain] they fortified. I took
157) the city Ia[…], the city Danabu, the city Malah a, fortified cities
158) with […] battering rams, siege towers. I killed˘them. Their booty
159) [I plundered. Citi]es I razed, I destroyed, with fire I burned. Ba al
160) of [Tyr]e took my feet. His tribute I received. My royal image
161) in the city of Laruba, his fortified [cit]y, in his temple I erected. The tribute of
the land of Tyre, of the land of Sidon,
162) of the land Byblos I received. As far as the land of Mus. runa I went…
In this text, Shalmaneser recounts his encounters with a few kings of Syria-
Palestine. He never explicitly claims to have defeated Hazael. Once again, one
doubts that he entirely succeeded in this campaign, but further evidence sug-
gests that Shalmaneser must at least have been able to take some booty from
Hazael: A.0.102.92 is an inscribed cylinder claiming provenance from the tem-
ple of Šeru in the city of Malah a, one of Hazael’s royal cities. This strengthens
˘
the plausibility that either in 841 or more likely 838, Shalmaneser had some
success against Hazael, taking some booty from the city-state kingdom of
Aram-Damascus. 113 He once again claims tribute from the Phoenician king-
doms of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. Absent this time around is Israel.
The other, more succinct account of the relevant events of 838 can be
found on the BO, lines 102b–104:
102)…In my twenty-first regnal year, I crossed the Euphrates for the twenty-first
time. To the cities
103) of H azailu of donkey land I went. Four of his cultic centers I conquered. The
˘ of the land of Tyros,
tribute
104) of the land of Sidon, (and) of Byblos I collected…
This text affirms the claims of the previous text without the expanded narrative
or list of the cities he captured. He once again claims no crushing victory over
Hazael. Rather, he mentions the capture of four cities, none of which is named.
He affirms the tribute of the Phoenician kingdoms, but missing again this time
is the kingdom of Israel. Jehu has not found his way into the Assyrian records
outside reflecting upon the year 841.
———————————
113 Cf. Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 150.
Adad-nārārī III and Shalmaneser IV 225
Summary of Shalmaneser III
An adequate summary of Shalmaneser’s interactions with Syria-Palestine could

be identified thus: Shalmaneser III began engaging united kings in Syria-
Palestine in 853. There is limited evidence to suggest his victory over this
coalition of some 12 kings of the region at this stage. Periodically he returned
to the region, namely in 849, 848, and 845, each time being repelled or held to
a stalemate by this coalition. The most probable failure of Shalmaneser against
this coalition in this time frame was in 849, which would explain both why he
almost never refers to the campaign and why he returned again in the sub-
sequent year. 114 It is conspicuous that other than in 848 and 838, the campaigns
fall every four years: 853, 849, 845, 841. Some time between 845 and 841
there were transitions on the thrones of Israel and Aram-Damascus, bringing
Hazael onto the throne of Damascus and Jehu to power in Israel. When
Shalmaneser returned in 841, Hazael stood alone in combat against him. There
is no evidence of a coalition. Rather, it seems that Jehu submitted without
resorting first to combat. The final campaign of Shalmaneser III into the region
occurred in 838, where again, Hazael reportedly stood alone; in contrast to the
campaign of 841, there is no explicit record of Jehu submitting in 838. This
attack in 838 represented the last campaign of an Assyrian king into Syria-
Palestine for some 30 years, more than one generation. “Hazael, now relieved
of the Assyrian pressure, gradually reduced Israel, defeated Jehu, and became
the sole hegemon of southern Syria and Palestine.” 115
Adad-nārārī III and Shalmaneser IV
Four more texts help to illuminate the Jehuide period in Israel from an Assyr-
ian perspective. Three of them (A.0.104.6–8) come from the time of Adad-
nārārī III (810–783), while one (A.0.105.1) comes from the reign of
Shalmaneser IV (782–773). These texts represent the last verifiable contacts
———————————
114 This isn’t to suggest that Shalmaneser’s losses in these campaigns utterly destroyed the
king’s military. At any rate, it would seem that Shalmaneser decided that the risk of
advancing the campaigns into the west outweighed any potential benefits.
between Israel and Assyria until the time of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727). The
documents from Adad-nārārī III concern a campaign (or some campaigns?)
between 805 and 796. 116 The text of Shalmaneser IV comes from 773, which is
also the date of the described campaign against Damascus. 117 Two important
claims crystalize from the texts of Adad-nārārī III, namely that Damascus sub-
mitted to him and that Israel submitted (again? still?) during the reign of Joash.
The claim of Damascus’ submission is repeated by Shalmaneser IV.
A summary from the time of Adad-nārārī should suffice, as it is actually
outside of the main focus of this reconstruction. The name of the ruler of
Damascus remains unfamiliar in the three texts from Adad-n ārārī’s reign; Mari
(A.0.104.6:19; 7:7; 8:15) has not been identified as a royal name for any
known king of Aram. It could be an otherwise unknown Aramean monarch or
simply represent an Assyrian misunderstanding of the Aramaic term “my lord,”
implying that a messenger, and not the ruler himself would have delivered the
tribute.118 Based on a dating of the texts, the king of Damascus known at this
time (from the Bible and the Zakkur inscription [KAI 202:4]) was none other
than Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael. This seems to be the most probable reconstruc-
tion of the situation in Damascus. 119
Contrary to the inscriptions from the era of Shalmaneser III, one notes that
a tribute was taken from Damascus. Three different texts from the period attest
a payment of tribute from Damascus, though they list three different tributes:
2,000 talents of silver, 1,000 talents of copper, 2,000 talents of iron, 3,000
———————————
116 Cf. Grayson, RIMA III, 207; Kelle, “Neo-Assyrian Designations,” 653; and the literature
cited there. Donner (Herbert Donner, “Adadnirari III. und die Vasallen des Westens,” in
Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling [ed. Arnulf Kuschke and
Ernst Kutsch; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1970], 57) accurately portrays the
situation caused by the texts of Adad-n ārārī III regarding the impossibility of determining
how many military actions against Damascus were undertaken during this period: “Man
sieht: Die Sache ist nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Kenntnisse nicht befriedigend
aufzuklären.” Cf. Alan R. Millard, “Adad-Nirari III, Aram, and Arpad,” PEQ 105
(1973): 161–64 and Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 164–65, who date the campaign against
Damascus to 796.
118 Cf. KAI 216:5–6; 217:3–4; 218; and 233:7–8, 17, as well as Gotthard G.G. Reinhold, Die
Beziehungen Altisraels zu den aramäischen Staaten in der israelitisch-judäischen
Königszeit (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII, Theologie; Frankfurt am Main;
New York: P. Lang, 1989), 194–95 and the literature cited there.
119 Cf. Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 166 and the literature cited there.
Adad-nārārī III and Shalmaneser IV 227
linen garments (Tell al-Rimah Inscription [A.0.104.7:6b–7]); 120 2,300 talents

of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3,000 talents of bronze, 5,000 talents of iron, linen
garments, an ivory bed, and an ivory couch (Calah Slab [A.0.104.8:18b–21]);
˘
and 100 talents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver (T he Saba’a Stele
[A.0.104.6:20]). These may represent three separate tributes or mere exaggera-
tions of the same account. It would presumably have been regarded as quite an
accomplishment for an Assyrian king to have received tribute from the king of
Damascus: not even the mighty Shalmaneser III had accomplished such a feat.
Israel only plays a role in two of the texts of this period. One text identifies
the king of Israel as Joash, but he is described as coming from the land of
Samaria: “The tribute of Joash of the land of Samaria, of the land Tyre, [and]
of the land Sidon I received” (Tell al-Rimah Stele [A.0.104.7:8–9a]). 121 This
may be evidence that Israel had been reduced largely to a city-state by the time
the Assyrians arrived during the reign of Joash. 122 Nothing to this effect can be
said for certain though, as another text from the time of Adad-n ārārī identifies
the territory as “the land of H umri” (Calah Slab [A.0.104.8:12]). These identi-
˘ ˘
fications at least allow for the more or less parallel identification of Samaria
and Humri.123 Further, one should note that, as was the case with Jehu’s tribute,
˘
this event is not recorded either in the Israel Source or in the Bible. Either the
authors of the Israel Source were unfamiliar with it or chose not to mention it.
As it presumably would not have been viewed favorably in Israel during the
reign of the Jehuide kings, we will presume that its absence there is intentional.
Further evidence for this can be found from the fact that every non-Jehuide
king of Israel known from the Assyrian records to have paid a tribute to
———————————
120 First published in Stephanie Page, “A Stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from Tell al
Rimah,” Iraq 30, no. 2 (Autumn 1968): 139–53 and publicized in the world of biblical
studies in Stephanie Page, “Joash and Samaria in a New Stela Excavated at Tell al Rimah,
Iraq,” VT 19 (1969): 483–84.
121 For the various attested methods of writing Samaria in Akkadian inscriptions, cf. Simo
Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukichener Verlag,
1970), 302–3 and the literature cited there.
122 Cf. Kelle, “Neo-Assyrian Designations,” 652.
123 Contra Kelle, “Neo-Assyrian Designations,” 654 who argues that “[t]hese terms are not
synonymous but reflect the changing political situation in Syria-Palestine in the late ninth
century.” He offers this conclusion without stating an explicit date for the Calah Slab, thus
˘
basing his expansion of Israel from Samaria only on the biblical texts. While it is possible
that the geographical development of Israel is reflected in these Assyrian texts, there is
nothing that demands that such was the case.
Assyria can be found in the Bible. 124 Only the Jehuide kings are missing from
this list.
One inscription from the time of Shalmaneser IV Boundary Stone
[A.0.105:1] ca. 773) mentions the continued domination of Damascus. It men-
tions a tribute received from H adiiāni of donkey land: silver, gold, copper, his
˘
royal bed, his royal couch, his daughter with her extensive dowry, the property
of his palace (lines 4–10). This suggests that during the reign of Shalmaneser
IV, Damascus still continued to live under Assyria’s shadow. What we do not
have from this time is a similar statement about the kingdom of Israel during
the reign of Jeroboam II.
The situation after Shalmaneser III could be described as such: since
Assyria was not present in Syro-Palestine between roughly 838 and 805,
Damascus would have had plenty of opportunity to dominate Israel militarily.
Joash apparently made the same political decision as his grandfather, paying
tribute to Assyria rather than confronting them militarily. 125 After 805, Damas-
cus seems to have suffered somewhat at the hands of the Assyrians. It remains
unknown if Shalmaneser IV had a political relationship with Israel or not.
There is no textual evidence to suggest that such was the case. However, with
continued Assyrian pressure on Damascus in the period after 805 it is entirely
possible that Israel was able to emerge from under Damascene domination. 126
———————————
124 For Menachem cf. 2 Kings 15:19 and e.g., Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-
Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
1994), 68–69; for Hoshea cf. 2 Kings 17:3–4 and Rykle Borger and Hayim Tadmor, “Zwei
Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglatpilesers III,”
ZAW 94 (1982): 245–46. According to Kings, Hoshea paid tribute to Shalmaneser (V),
whereas we have an Akkadian record that he paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III. This may
be an error from one of the redactors of Kings. Alternatively, it is possible that Hoshea
refused to pay tribute to Shalmaneser V after having previously paid tribute to Tiglath-
Pileser III; cf. 2 Kings 17:4, which implies an annual tribute, as does the inscription of
Tiglath-Pileser III. What these inscriptions from Tiglath-Pileser confirm is the tributary
relationship of Israel to Assyria during the reigns of both Menachem and Hoshea.
125 “Der Nimside Joas hat, vermutlich kurz nach seinem Regierungsantritt, dasselbe getan wie
der Gründer seiner Dynastie Jehu…” (Donner, “Adadnirari III,” 58)
126 “In allen drei Fällen [d.h. die Textzeugen der Adadnirari-Zeit] ist Damaskus ganz offenbar
der eigentliche Kontrahent [der Feldzüge].” (Donner, “Adadnirari III,” 58)
The Assyrian Texts 229
The Assyrian Texts
The claims of the Assyrian kings can be divided into three categories, namely
matters which are consistent with other sources, matters that are inconsistent
with other sources, and matters unknown from other sources. Let’s consider
each of these in turn.
Claims Consistent with Other Sources: Two kings of Israel known from
the Bible are named in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III: Ahab and Jehu.
Shalmaneser’s annals list them in the same relative order as in the Israel
Source, with Ahab preceding Jehu by a period of some years, though the length
of this interregnum is different from the Bible. The personal name Omri,
marked with Ü, can be found in the context of the toponyms bīt humri and mār
˘
humri. One text of Adad-nārārī III identifies the king of the land of Samaria as
˘
Joash, which also remains consistent with the biblical order of the kings of
Israel. While Jehu is on the throne of Israel, a man known as Hazael was on the
throne of Damascus, which is also verified in the Bible. This same Hazael
apparently came to the throne under unusual circumstances, which may be veri-
fied in the biblical tradition of 2 Kings 8*.
Claims Inconsistent with Other Sources: While the current biblical
image of Ahab recounts his various campaigns against the Arameans under the
command of Ben-Hadad in 1 Kings 20 and 22, Shalmaneser III records Ahab
as an ally of Hadadezer of Damascus. The Bible is unfamiliar with any interac-
tion between either the Omride or the Jehuide kings and the kingdom of
Assyria. The period of time between Jehu and Ahab reconstructed from the
annals of Shalmaneser III is 12 years (853–841), whereas the bible reconstructs
it as fourteen years. While the Israel Source identifies Jehu as the son of Jeho-
shaphat son of Nimshi, Shalmaneser III regards him as the “son of Omri”. Jehu
and his grandson are both tributaries to the Assyrian monarchy, something
absent in the biblical image.
Claims Unknown in Other Sources: The coalition of the 12 kings that
fought against Shalmaneser III is unknown from any other source. Without the
Akkadian records there would be no basis for suggesting such a military alli-
ance. The same can be said of the payments of tribute offered by Jehu and
Joash. Finally, the name of H adiiāni of Damascus has not been found in any
˘
other records to date.
The image one receives from the Assyrian sources is largely inconsistent
with the image found in the Israel Source. Other than the relative chronology of
the kings of Israel and the contemporaneous reigns of Jehu and Hazael, only
the questionable circumstances of Hazael’s ascension to the throne may be con-
sistent in both the Bible and the Assyrian sources. The Assyrian materials that
contradict the Bible are probably more believable as a source than the biblical
materials in general, though some data in the Akkadian sources must be ques-
tioned in terms of their reliability.
The questionable material largely regards the success of Shalmaneser III
against the coalition of Syro-Palestinian states. While the Akkadian annals
always lead the reader to suppose a great Assyrian victory, it seems unlikely
that Shalmaneser would have been able to defeat this coalition before the
encounter in 845. Two hermeneutical factors led two authors from different
times and different cultures to deny the success of Ahab and the coalition
against Shalmaneser for political reasons: the author of the Israel Source chose
not to mention the success of his benefactor’s predecessors and thus indirectly
tarnished their image, while Shalmaneser’s scribes claimed his victory where
there had only been defeat, or at best a draw, in order to promulgate a better
image of Shalmaneser III.
Other than this, the Akkadian materials should largely be trusted for a his-
torical reconstruction. Shalmaneser III presumably met a coalition, otherwise
unknown from the available sources, and fought against them in 853, 849, 848,
and 845. 127 “…[I]t would stand to reason that the league was formed a short
time after Shalmaneser’s accession to the throne and as a result of his raids
against Cilicia.”128 By 841 this coalition had collapsed and there were new
kings on the thrones of Samaria and Damascus. Whereas Israel had previously
fought against Assyria, by 841 it apparently submitted peacefully under the
auspices of Jehu and again under his grandson Joash. The obvious reason that
the Israel Source does not mention these tributary payments was to protect the
image of the Jehuide kings who had willingly granted Assyria hegemony rather
than challenge their authority as their predecessors had done. No evidence
exists to suggest that the Assyrians were the party responsible for putting Jehu
———————————
127 Cf. Tadmor, “Assyria and the West,” 39.
The Assyrian Texts 231
on the throne or maintaining his dynasty’s control over Israel. 129 During the
period between 838 and about 805 the absence of Assyria in Syria-Palestine
would have provided the kings of Aram with a free hand to fight against the
kings of Israel until the reign of Joash. This is consistent with the image of the
history of this period as found in the Israel Source, though in the oldest identi-
fiable narrative level the Aramean domination of its southern neighbor has
largely been relegated to the reign of Jehoahaz, who is coincidentally not men-
tioned in the Assyrian records of this period.
———————————
129 Contra Smith, “Jehu and the Black Obelisk,” 98: “It was madattu to Slm III [Shalmaneser
III] that bought for Jehu the throne, and meant the survival of his dynasty over the next
century by continuous gifts to the successors of Slm III.” Such statements suggest that the
direct support of the Assyrians was the only reason that Jehu’s dynasty was able to main-
tain control over Israel. It seems more likely that the Assyrians played a more important
indirect role in maintaining Jehu’s dynasty in that at various times they put direct pressure
on the Arameans, who would have otherwise had more opportunity to engage Israel milita-
rily.
CHAPTER 7
Levantine Epigraphy:
Tel Dan, Mesha, Zakkur, Samarian Materials
Textual Sources in Syria and Palestine
The majority of sources covered in this chapter are lapidary inscriptions from
various kings in Syria and the Transjordan. In chronological order of composi-
tion the lapidary sources considered here are the Mesha Inscription, the Tel
Dan Inscription, and the Zakkur Inscription. Beyond these royal narratives, we
will also consider the Samaria ostraca and the remnants of some Samarian lapi-
dary inscriptions. The heated debate surrounding the Tel Dan Inscription has
led me to undertake a more extensive consideration of this text. For this reason,
I have offered a transcription for this text based on my observations of the arti-
fact, whereas I have not offered transcriptions for the other artifacts. Let us
open our discussion with a consideration of the Mesha Inscription.
The Mesha Inscription
General Matters and Dating
This large basalt inscription was discovered near Diban 1868. Though it was
later destroyed, much of the text (especially the upper portions) can be recon-
structed based on a squeeze and the remaining pieces. The remnants of the
stone are in the Louvre, where the remaining pieces have been set in a copy
made of the rest of the stone based on the squeeze. 1 This dedicatory inscription
———————————
1 Cf. M. Patrick Graham, “The Discovery and Reconstruction of the Mesha Inscription,” in
Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ed. Andrew Dearman; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989), 41–92; John C.L. Gibson, Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions (Textbook of
Syrian Semitic Inscriptions; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 71 and Bruce Routledge,
Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Archaeology, Culture, and Soci-
ety; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 133 about its discovery.
The Mesha Inscription 233
recounts a royal narrative, 2 largely from the first-person perspective of Mesha

king of Moab, who apparently dedicated the inscription with a temple for
Kemosh, the state god of Moab familiar from the biblical text. Paleography
places this text in a chronological framework of roughly the mid to late ninth
century BCE. An analysis of the contents confirms this paleographic date. The
language of the inscription is Moabite, being similar to Hebrew, but still having
some factors in common with the Aramaic of the period. This inscription, as it
again mentions people known from the biblical narrative, plays an important
role in the reconstruction of Israelite history in the ninth century BCE.3
Translation
1) I am Mesha ben Kemosh[yat], 4 king of Moab, the Di-

2) banite. My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reign-
3) ed after my father. And I made this Bamah for Kemosh in Qerih. o5 with a liba-
tion
———————————
2 For a discussion of the genre of the Mesha inscription, cf. Erasmus Gaß, Die Moabiter –
Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr.
(Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,
2009), 52–53 and the literature cited there. Based on virtually every descriptor I have
offered here, Thomas L. Thompson, “Problems of Genre and Historicity with Palestine’s
Inscription,” in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (ed. A. Lemaire; Sæbø; Leiden: Brill,
2000), 321–26 (cf. again Thomas L. Thompson, “Mesha and Questions of Historicity,”
SJOT 21, no. 2 [2007]: 241–60) rejects any possibility of gleaning historical information
from this inscription. Cf. however, the rejection of Thompson’s arguments in John A.
Emerton, “The Value of the Moabite Stone as an Historical Source,” VT 52, no. 4
(2000): 483–92.
3 The translation offered here is based on the transcription in KAI 181 and a cursory exam-
ination of the artifact in the Louvre. All references to KAI in this chapter refer to Herbert
Donner and Wolfgang Röllig, eds., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inscriften 5.,
erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage , vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002). For the
most recent edition and translation of the text with extensive commentary, cf. Gaß, Die
Moabiter, 5–65.
4 The lacuna after ‫ כמש‬should be filled with ‫ ית‬based on the discovery of a fragmentary
inscription that is clearly related to the Mesha inscription; cf. William L. Reed and Fred V.
Winnett, “A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription from Kerak,” BASOR 172 (Decem-
ber 1963): 1–9; David Noel Freedman, “A Second Mesha Inscription,” BASOR 175 (Octo-
ber 1964): 50–51; Gibson, Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions , 83–84; and most recently
Gaß, Die Moabiter, 66–69.
5 Qerih.o could also be understood as a simple noun, most likely an acropolis or similar; cf.
Gösta W. Ahlström, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine
(Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), 16 and the liter-
ature cited there.
234 Chapter 7: Levantine Epigraphy
4) for salvation (?), for he saved me from all the kings 6 and because he caused me
to triumph against all of my enemies. Omr-
5) i ruled Israel and oppressed Moab many days, for Kemosh angered against his
6) land. And his son followed him and said, also he: I will oppress Moab. In my
days he said…
7) And I triumphed against him and against his house. And Israel was totally
destroyed forever. And Omri possessed the whole [lan]
8) d of Madeba and he dwelt in it his days and half of the days of his son: forty
years. Then Kemosh dw-
9) elt there in my days. And I built Baal-Meon and made the reservoir 7 in it and I
buil[t]
10) Qiryaton. The man Gad dwelt in the land Atarot from eternity and for
him/them [i.e., Gad] 8
11) the king of Israel (10) built (11) Atarot. But I attacked the city and conquered
it. Then I killed the whole people.
12) The city became Kemosh’s and Moab’s. I returned 9 the altar hearth (?)10 of its
cult object (?)11 and I drag-
13) ged (it) before Kemosh in Qiryot. And I caused to live in it the man of Sharon
and the man of
14) Mah.rot. Then Kemosh said to me: Go! Take Nebo against Israel! Then I
15) went in the night and attacked it from day-break until the afternoon and con-
quered
16) it and killed [them] all: 7000 men, boys, women, gi-
17) rls and female slaves, for I had committed them to destruction for Ashteroth-
Kemosh. And I took from there…
———————————
6 Misreading of ‫ ש‬for ‫ מ‬in the earlier literature? Cf. Routledge, Moab, 135 and 237 n. 3.
Gaß, Die Moabiter, 17–78 reads a ‫ ש‬here, but in his figure on page 11, one notes that the ‫מ‬
is legible.
7 Cf. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Volume
1 (Handbook of Oriental Studies; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 122–23 and the literature cited
there.
8 Cf. Anson F. Rainey, “Syntax, Hermeneutics and History,” IEJ 48 (1998): 244–46 and
Routledge, Moab, 135 and 237 n. 6.
9 Cf. Nadav Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 47
(1997): 88: “...‫ אראל דודה‬is a Moabite object, and, contrary to the commonly held interpre-
tation, has nothing to do with YHWH.” This assertion is based on the causative usage of
√‫ שוב‬and remains more plausible than the alternatives offered to date; cf. Na’aman, “King
Mesha,” 83–84.
10 For the noteworthy variety of interpretations of this root, which must unfortunately remain
unclear, cf. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, DNWSI Vol. 1, 100–101.
11 Again, the term ‫ דודה‬in this context cannot be ascertained with any certainty; cf. Kenneth
A. Kitchen, “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity
*Dod as Dead as the Dodo,” JSOT 76 (1997): 36 and George Athas, The Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (London; New York: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2005), 242–43. The interpretation of Rainey, “Syntax, Hermeneutics and His-
tory,” 246–49 (“And I brought back from there its [Ataroth’s] Davidic altar hearth”) seems
plausible, although Rainey also admits that the use of the suffix on a proper noun in the
bound form is exceptionally rare.
18) [the vessels of] 12 ‫ יהוה‬and dragged them before Kemosh. And the king of Israel
built
19) Yah.as.13 and dwelt in it in his battling with me. But Kemosh drove him away
before me [and]
20) I took from Moab two hundred men and all its chiefs (?). Then I assaulted it—
Yah.as.—and conquered it
21) in order to add it to Diban. I built 14 Qerih.o, the wall of the park lands, and the
wall of
22) the acropolis. And I built its gates and I built its towers and
23) I built the house of the king and I made the retaining walls of the w[ater
reser]voir in the middle of
24) the city. But there was no well in the middle of the city in Qerih. o and I said to
all of the people: make for
25) yourselves each a well in his house. And I cut the descending shaft 15 for
Qerih.o with the prisoners
26) of Israel. I built Aroer and made the highway in the Arnon.
27) I built the house of the Bamah, for it had been destroyed. I built Bes. er—for
ruins
28) it was—with fifty men of Diban, for all of Diban was subjected [to me]. And
[I] reign-
29) ed […] 100 cities 16 that I added onto the land and I built
30) [the temple of Mahde]ba 17 and the temple of Diblaton and the temple of Baal-
Meon and brought there from among the…
31) flock of the land. And H. WRNN,18 in it dwelt Bethdwd… 19
32) …And Kemosh said to me: go down to battle in H. WRNN! So I went down…
———————————
12 This could either be “vessels of” ‫ כלי‬in the construct state with the first letter missing, or
alternatively it could be read as “for myself”.
13 For the identification of this site, cf. J. Andrew Dearman, “The Location of Jahaz,”
ZDPV 100 (1984): 122–26.
14 KAI 181 erroneously reads ‫ בגתי‬instead of ‫בנתי‬.
15 For the understanding ‫ מכרת‬as “reservoir,” cf. John A. Emerton, “Lines 25–26 of the Moa-
bite Stone and a Recently-Discovered Inscription,” VT 55, no. 3 (2005): 293–303 and the
literature cited there. Kallai (Zecharia Kallai, “Note on J. A. Emerton: Lines 25–6 of the
Moabite Stone and a Recently Discovered Inscription,” VT 56, no. 4 [2006]: 552–53)
revised Emerton’s suggestion based on evidence internal to the Mesha Inscription, sug-
gesting that ‫ מכרת‬refers not to the reservoir itself, but the shaft leading down to it.
16 Here, for syntactical reasons, I read the ‫ ב‬in ‫ בקרן‬for all intents and purposes as the marker
of the direct object of the verb “to rule.”
17 Reconstruction insecure.
18 For the difficulty in identifying this location, cf. J. Andrew Dearman, “The Moabite Sites
of Horonaim and Luhith,” PEQ 122 (1990): 41–46.
19 One could consider the reconstruction of lines 31–33 offered in Anson F. Rainey, “Follow-
ing up on the Ekron and Mesha Inscriptions,” IEJ 50 (2000): 116–17. His reconstruction
seems quite plausible, but only limited information for a historical reconstruction can be
gleaned from it. For the identification of Bethdwd as a toponym, cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 217–
26 and the literature cited there. A topographical understanding remains syntactically diffi-
cult in the Mesha Inscription in my opinion, as such would imply one geographical area
residing in another.
33) …[And] Kemosh [dwelt] in it in my days and I went [up] from there…
34) …year (?)20 ŠDQ21 and I…
Historical Considerations and Reconstruction
The inscription of Mesha of Moab aids the historian in the reconstruction of

Israel’s history in the first half of the ninth century BCE, and it offers some
information relevant for the discussion about the reconstructed Israel Source.
Based only on the Mesha inscription, one could reconstruct the history of Israel
in the following way: Mesha and his father had been subjected to Israelite
dominion (lines 4–5), but Mesha was able to triumph against Omri’s son and
his house so that Israel was totally destroyed forever (lines 6–7). Omri and his
son had possessed the land of Madeba for forty years (line 8). The people (lit-
erally: man) Gad had been in Atarot since the beginning of time (line 10), but
Mesha conquered Atarot (line 11) and returned some cult object to Moab (line
12). Kemosh then sent Mesha to conquer Nebo from Israel (line 14). During
his campaign against Moab, the king of Israel built Yah. as. (lines 18–19), but
Mesha conquered it (line 20). Mesha exploited Israelite prisoners to build the
canal system of Qerih. o. The text may mention Judah (Bethdwd) being the
occupying force in H. WRNN in line 31, but Kemosh removed them from this
land (lines 32–33).
Some of the material in the inscription verifies a brief notice in the Israel
Source: it appears that Mesha cast off Israel’s yoke sometime after Omri’s
death.22 The inscription claims that Omri and his son dominated Moab for a
period of forty years, which may be symbolic, before Mesha was able to free
Moab from the kings of Israel with the help of Kemosh. 23 Further, the text
———————————
20 The broken context of this word makes its reconstruction mere guesswork.
21 No meaning known.
22 The consideration that Mesha gained independence from Israel after Ahab’s death depends
on how literally one understands his comment that he gained his independence after the
days of Omri and “half of the days of his son”. For Mesha to know that Moab was literally
under Israelite control half of the days of Ahab, he must have known when Ahab died.
However, if one accepts the “half” more loosely as meaning “a fraction” or “a portion” of
Ahab’s reign, no conspicuous need to date this inscription after Ahab’s death, about 853
BCE, can be identified. Since the “forty year” Israelite domination looks like a figurative
number, the odds seem higher that one should regard Mesha’s success against Israel dur-
ing the time of Ahab’s reign in Israel.
23 Cf. Gaß, Die Moabiter, 22–23.
expounds more on the relationship between Israel and Moab at the conclusion
of the dynasty of Omri. In the Israel Source, one finds only the comment that
Moab liberated itself from Israelite control after Ahab’s death. The Mesha
inscription goes much further, implying conflicts in Madeba, Atarot, Nebo, and
Yah.as.. The inscription mentions Israelite prisoner labor being used in the con-
struction projects of Qerih. o. Finally, lines 31–33 may indicate a conflict
between Moab and Betdwd (presumably the polity of Jerusalem and the sur-
rounding area under its hegemony) in which Mesha led Moab to victory against
Betdwd, though the damaged context of these verses makes such a reconstruc-
tion little more than speculation. With this information we can compare and
contrast the material presented in the Mesha Inscription with the other relevant
sources.
Information Consistent with Other Sources: Mesha’s indication that
Israel had dominated Moab in the days of Omri remains implicitly consistent
with the note in 2 Kings 1:1 (i.e., the Israel Source) that Moab rebelled from
Israelite domination sometime after Ahab’s, and therefore after Omri’s, death.
Israelites of the Omride period may have been known for their reservoir and
moat building skills, as the impressive waterworks in Megiddo and Hazor
could evince. 24
Information Inconsistent with Other Sources:25 Contrary to the Israel
Source, a literal understanding of the Mesha Inscription implies that Moab
———————————
24 For information and graphics dealing with these water-works, cf. Yigael Yadin, Hazor:
With a Chapter on Israelite Megiddo (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy;
London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1972), 161–64 and 172–78 and
fig. 6 in Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo,” 303. For images, cf. Robert S.
Lamon, The Megiddo Water System (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publica-
tions; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935).
25 In this category, one would also have to include the material recounted in 2 Kings 3. As I
disregard this text as a useful historical source, I have not included it here, cf. Nadav
Na’aman, “Royal Inscription Verses Prophetic Story: Mesha’s Rebellion According to
Biblical and Moabite Historiography,” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri
Dynasty (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 157–66. Contra André
Lemaire, “The Mesha Stele and the Omri Dynasty,” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall
of the Omri Dynasty (ed. Lester L. Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 135–44, who
focuses on the possible historical veracity of 2 Kings 3 when compared to the Mesha
Inscription.
broke away from Israelite control during Ahab’s reign and not subsequent to
his death.26
Information Neither Confirmed nor Denied in Other Sources: One
must place most of the information from the Mesha Inscription in this category.
The locations of the various battles are not confirmed in any other sources. The
expansion of Moabite dominion, while plausible, cannot be confirmed or
denied by other sources. Nor could one identify Israelite workers on Moabite
construction projects. Finally, it is impossible to verify or deny Kemosh’s
activities supporting Moab and Mesha. 27
Like the Akkadian inscriptions addressed in the previous chapter and the other
lapidary inscriptions still to be examined in this chapter, the Mesha Inscription
must be taken with a grain of salt due to its genre and inherent hyperbolic tone.
This inscription seeks to describe Mesha in the most positive terms possible
and its Sitz im Leben as some kind of temple inscription, emphasizing the rela-
tionship between the king and his god, must lead modern historians to question
the presentation of facts in the narrative. His claims that “Israel was totally
destroyed forever” and that he killed all of the inhabitants of Atarot are hyper-
bole, as is his claim that Kemosh dwelt in the land in the days of Mesha. How-
ever, one should not disregard all of his claims as ahistorical propaganda.
Regarding the inconsistent notice about the time of Mesha’s battling Israel,
the older age of the Mesha Inscription favors the Mesha Inscription vis-à-vis
the Israel Source. It seems more likely that the older source would maintain the
more accurate description of events, while the Israel Source just placed the
information in the correct dynasty without considering under exactly which
Omride king the revolt took place. On the other hand, such an interpretation
presumes that Mesha kept accurate tabulation of who was ruling Israel. One
———————————
26 This literal understanding contradicts the position of Long, “How Reliable Are Biblical
Reports?” 372–74. This agreement occurs due to methodological differences. I disregard
the first objective of the historian being the harmonization of various historical witnesses,
as Long seems to undertake in his study. Only when we first listen to all of the witnesses
separately can we eventually consider the possibility of amalgamating our sources into one
cogent reconstruction.
27 In this vein, one should mention the work of Thompson, “Mesha”, who notes that the
“mythic and plot orientation of Mesha’s campaign of re-conquest and ethnic cleansing
undermine the historicity of the details of this campaign in general, though military con-
flict between Israel and Moab is not to be excluded” (Thompson, “Mesha,” 241)
notes the general kind of dates he uses (thirty-year reign of his father, Israel in
Medeba forty years) and the fact that the text only names Omri as the king of
Israel; the other references are to “his son” and “his house.” These observa-
tions at least permit the possibility that the Israel Source offers the more accu-
rate information.
Alternatively, one could offer a mixture of the two sources: 28 perhaps
Mesha began to revolt during Ahab’s reign, especially towards the end, when
Ahab was apparently occupied with the Assyrian threat in the north. After
Ahab’s death and the instability that may have developed surrounding the
untimely death of Ahaziah of Israel, Mesha’s revolt would have had time to
gain strength. Based on the number of military encounters listed in the Mesha
Inscription, it seems more probable that such a revolt took place over a longer
period. This would in turn imply that, while the political revolt under Mesha
started as Ahab sat on Israel’s throne, it may not have ended until Joram had
acceded after the accidental death of his brother. Such an interpretation length-
ens the amount of time between the opening of the revolt and its success,
accommodating both sources: during the time of Omri’s son and his house,
Mesha rebelled (according to the Mesha Inscription) and after Ahab’s death
Moab broke off from Israel (according to the Israel Source). Both sources par-
tially illuminate the situation, with neither providing absolute clarity about the
events surrounding Moab’s self-liberation from Israel.
In truth, the insolubility and uncertain importance of the issues involved give these
debates [about the precise periods of Israelite domination of Moab] a rather
scholastic air. For our purposes it is enough to recognize that by most reasonable
scenarios… the king of Israel dominated the Mishor from some point around 880
B.C.E. until anywhere between the last years of Ahab (ca. 855–853 B.C.E.) and the
earliest years of Jehu’s dynasty (ca. 841–830 B.C.E.).29
Considering Moab’s breaking away from Israel in the time of the later Omride
kings suggests one plausible reason for the development of Jehu’s political
———————————
28 As does J. Andrew Dearman, “Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha‘ Inscription,” in
Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ed. Andrew Dearman; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989), 155–210.
29 Routledge, Moab, 137. Contra J. Liver, “The Wars of Mesha, King of Moab,” PEQ 99
(1967): 14–31, who offers a very detailed historical reconstruction of the order of the vari-
ous phases of military activity between Moab and Israel/Judah. As a large portion of his
discussion presumes the historical reliability of 2 Kings 3, a text which I do not consider
as reliable, his position can be rejected. It must remain necessarily unclear exactly when
these events took place and who initiated them.
revolt in Israel: military conflicts. According to my reconstruction of the Moa-

bite revolt, Moab liberated itself probably sometime during the reign of Joram,
after the rapid succession of kings in Israel (three kings in about four years).
There apparently was a series of conflicts against Moab, which Israel presum-
ably lost. Add to this Joram’s presumed membership in conflicts of the anti-
Assyrian coalition battling Shalmaneser III in 849, 848, and 845 (most of
which were apparently to some degree successful) 30 and Joram’s (ultimately
unsuccessful) battle against Aram at Ramoth-Gilead, and we arrive at a powder
keg of military conflicts just waiting for Jehu’s spark. It would be somewhat
naïve to assume that Joram’s conflicts (about five in eight years) had no larger
impact on Israelite society, leading to some disenfranchisement with his rule.
Add to this a “prophetically inspired” (in the narrative of the Israel Source)
military leader and you have a situation ripe for a military putsch, exactly the
situation we encounter in the Israel Source’s presentation of Jehu’s revolt.
The Tel Dan Inscription
General Matters and Dating
In 1993–1994 three pieces of inscribed local basalt from Dan were found in
Tel Dan, with the publication of the first piece occurring in 1993 and that of
the second and third pieces occurring in 1995. 31 These discoveries have led to
some reconsideration of the history of Israel. 32 The first piece has since been
known in the literature as Fragment A, while the other two pieces, fitting
together with a surface join, have become known together as Fragment B. The
response to the publication of these materials was both prompt and overwhelm-
———————————
30 “Sicher scheint lediglich, dass die Loslösung der Moabiter aus dem Vasallitätsverhältnis
zu Israel erst im Zusammenhang mit der neuassyrischen Westexpansion unter Salmanassar
III. geschehen konnte.” Gaß, Die Moabiter, 23.
31 Cf. Biran, Biblical Dan, 277; Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Frag-
ment from Tel Dan,” IEJ 43, no. 2–3 (1993): 81–98; and Avraham Biran and Joseph
Naveh, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” IEJ 45, no. 1 (1995): 1–18.
32 The best example of this I can offer is the distinct positions offers in J. Maxwell Miller and
John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1986), 284–87 and Miller and Hayes, History, 323–25.
The Tel Dan Inscription 241
ing,33 with much of the discussion surrounding the identification and transla-
tion of the phrase ‫ ביתדוד‬in line 9 of Fragment A. Considerations concerning
this identification can be handled below without dealing with the polemic and
ad hominem present in some of the discussion. 34 While some doubted the loca-
tion of the initial find 35 or whether the basalt stone had been inscribed before it
was broken, 36 these debates seems largely to have been settled. 37 After the dis-
covery and publication of Fragment B, a new topic was introduced into the dis-
cussion, namely the relationship of the two fragments to each other. Biran and
Naveh, based on a join below the surface at line 5, argued that Fragment B
belonged immediately to the left of Fragment A. 38 While this opinion has been
accepted by many, not all follow this reconstruction. For example, while Galil
has argued that Fragment B precedes Fragment A at some point, 39 Athas has
argued that Fragment B follows Fragment A. 40 Becking posited two distinct
———————————
33 Cf. Lemaire’s “Further Reading” (André Lemaire, “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal
Historiography,” JSOT 81, no. D [1998]: 11–14) with “more than 60 articles” already in
1998; Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 3.
34 For the purposes of this study, I will also disregard items published in the popular media,
e.g., Biblical Archaeology Review .
35 Cf. e.g., Frederick H. Cryer, “On the Recently-Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription,”
SJOT 8, no. 1 (1994): 5: “There is even reason to question the original siting [sic!] of the
fragment” and Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, “Did Biran Kill David? The
Bible in the Light of Archaeology,” JSOT 64 (1994): 8: “One must ask whether the
inscription was found in situ at all.”
36 Cf. Russell Gmirkin, “Tools Slippage and the Tel Dan Inscription,” SJOT 16, no. 2
(2002): 293–302. Though Gmirkin himself does not ultimately decide that the stone was
destroyed before it was inscribed, his observations suggest that further study would be
required to disprove such a claim.
37 For a good examination and dismissal of claims seeking to level criticisms of fraudulence
at Biran and Naveh, cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 5–17.
38 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 11.
39 Cf. Gershon Galil, “A Re-Arrangement of the Fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription and the
Relations Between Israel and Aram,” PEQ 133 (April-June 2001): 18.
40 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 175–91. Martin Staszak, “Zu einer Lesart und dem historischen
Hintergrund des Fragments B der Stele von Tel Dan,” BN 142 (2009): 68 follows Athas’
organization of the fragments. As will be seen below, this position remains untenable and
therefore the textual and historical considerations of Staszak falter. This becomes espe-
cially true of his reconstruction with reference to the historical narrative of the text. In his
opinion, while the earlier portion of the text describes the deeds of Bar-Hadad II, the later
portion describes the deeds of Bar-Hadad’s deceased father. Staszak, “Fragment B,” 74–
75. He cites no other instances where kings recount the deeds of their father subsequent to
their own deeds.
inscriptions, 41 a position which has generally been refuted. 42 Without going

into every single argument presented by these scholars, as some of them are
based on textual reconstructions that do not necessarily only consider the let-
ters actually present on the surface of the inscription, the matter of the organi-
zation of the fragments warrants brief consideration.
Before beginning the examination of the orientation and relation of the
three pieces to each other, a few comments about the physical condition of the
inscription are warranted. 43 In the published photographs, the inscription
always looks easily legible. This illusion has been maintained by the lighting of
the inscription in the published photographs. While some of the lines 7–13 of
Fragment A and most of Fragment B are readily legible, even from a distance,
the first six lines of Fragment A really require closer examination in order to
read the text. At any rate, after having only seen the photos for so long I was
surprised by the poor state of the surface of the upper portion of Fragment A
when I viewed the inscription at the Israel Museum. That being said, upon
closer examination, it is possible to glean much of the text from the first six
lines in addition to the lines 7–13.
After examining the actual artifact and based on the current evidence, 44 it
seems that Fragment B’s most probable location is the one suggested by Biran
and Naveh in the initial publication of the Fragment B. 45 Upon inspection, the
sub-surface join at line 5 is as tight as the join between B 1+2, although admit-
tedly less attractive as there is no surface join between the two fragments. Such
a surface join would naturally affirm the join in an aesthetic manner that we
just don’t have here. Galil’s position that “There is no physical join between
———————————
41 Bob Becking, “The Second Danite Inscription: Some Remarks,” BN 81 (1996): 21–30.
42 Athas, Tel Dan, 92–93. In fact, Becking found the arguments of Athas so convincing that
he later revised his position to match that of Athas. Cf. Bob Becking, “Does the Stele from
Tel Dan Refer to a Deity Bethel?” BN 118 (2003): 19.
43 I would like to especially thank Eran Arie (Associate Curator of Israelite and Persian
Periods) and his assistant Liat Naeh of the Israel Museum for granting me unrestricted
access to the inscription.
44 It seems entirely possible to me that other finds may some day make this join impossible to
maintain. This being said, I find the evidence at this time supports the join presented by
Biran and Naveh more than the others presented to date.
45 For related comments and observations, cf. Ingo Kottsieper, “The Tel Dan Inscription ( KAI
310) and the Political Relations Between Aram-Damascus and Israel in the First Half of
the First Millennium BCE,” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty
(ed. Lester L. Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 106–7.
the fragments. The join of the backside of the fragments is indeed possible,
though almost any two fragments may be joined in this way” 46 remains inaccu-
rate. Athas’ (and Galil’s) argument about the slopes of the lines of the letters
does not hold water. 47 In the graphic that Athas offers on page 179, it is con-
spicuous that in the lines with more text, the slope becomes more level. One
should consider the possibility that the slopes of the lines are affected by the
sample-size of the material. Athas’ argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. 48
The other evidence that he brings to support this claim is the theory of “the out-
stretched arm,” that the scribe kneeled at the base of the stone and had to
stretch his arm out in order to write the material in Fragment A, implying that it
was near the top, but didn’t have to do this for Fragment B, as it was located at
the bottom. 49 Considering this argument, one must presuppose a pretty silly
scribe. Why wouldn’t he just sit on the stone or straddle it? There are poten-
tially much taller inscriptions from antiquity that obviously presented no such
problem to scribes writing on them. 50 Further, the graphic on page 179 stands
in tension to his postulation of the theory of the “outstretched arm” as enumer-
ated on page 29: “With this posture [kneeling at the base of the inscription,
which was laying on its back, and writing with an outstretched arm] and the
———————————
46 Galil, “Re-Arrangement,” 17.
47 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 179.
48 Cf. the similar arguments of Becking, “Second Danite Inscription,” 23: “In line 2 there is
space between the fragments for 5.2 characters. The proposal for reconstruction requires
space for 6.9 signs: six letters and two word-dividers.” “On the picture in Fig. 9 [Biran and
Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 10] the average interval in fragment A is 0.82 cm. In B1+2
the average is 0.77 cm. This implies that the average in A is 6.7% wider than in B1+2.”
(Becking, “Second Danite Inscription,” 24) These two quotes demonstrate an important
aspect of Biran and Naveh’s detractors (cf. further Frederick H. Cryer, “King Hadad,”
SJOT 9, no. 2 [1995]: 223–35 and Thomas L. Thompson, “Dissonance and Disconnec-
tions: Notes on the Bytdwd and Hmlk.Hdd Fragments from Tel Dan,” SJOT 9, no. 2
[1995]: 236–40): they seem to think that the Aramean scribe who wrote this lived in a time
after Gutenberg. The precision that they expect this person to have is pretty amazing.
“Room for 5.2 characters” doesn’t even bother to consider the fact that not every letter is
the same size. A difference in line averages of 0.15 cm is pretty good. I would challenge
the parties with these arguments to do a better job with an unlined piece of paper, keeping
their letter sizes and line orientation better than those reconstructed on the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion.
49 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 29 and 32 Figure 3.5.
50 This claim can unfortunately not be verified or denied at the moment as it is impossible to
determine the original height of the Tel Dan Inscription based on the available evidence.
To cite one example: The Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III stands at some
220 cm.
lack of marked lines to keep the text level, the text [of Fragment A] naturally
sloped downwards to the left.” 51 While at first glance this might sound plausi-
ble, Athas’ graphic precludes this interpretation, as the slopes of the lines he
offers begin to slope upwards by line 6 or line 7. 52 He offers no comment on
this apparent contradiction. The theory of the “outstretched arm” doesn’t make
any sense.53 For these reasons, I will regard the join between Fragments A and
B as proposed by Biran and Naveh as the accurate one until we have further
evidence to suggest otherwise. 54
According to the initial publication of Fragment A, Biran and Naveh sug-
gested that the terminus ad quem for the secondary use of the stone as paving
material in the construction at Dan was “the time of Tiglat-Pileser III’s con-
quest of northern Israel in 733/2 B.C.E.”55 They based this on a level of destruc-
tion covering the surface in which it had been used as an element of construc-
tion. Archaeological finds beneath the fragment “contained nothing later than
from the middle of the ninth century B.C.E.”56 Therefore, they came to the con-
clusion that “the stele would have been erected during the first half of the
ninth-century B.C.E.”57 Similarly, in their analysis of Fragment B, they noted
that “it [Fragment B2] could not have been set in place later than the conquest
of northern Israel by Tiglath-Pileser III.” 58 Based on this and historical consid-
erations, Biran and Naveh revised their position in their second publication and
recommended Hazael as the author of the stele, i.e., it comes from the second
half of the ninth century BCE.59
The paleographic evidence must be considered to help define the time-
frame in which the inscription could have been composed. Already in the pub-
lication of Fragment A, Biran and Naveh said, “its [fragment A’s] script may
———————————
51 Athas, Tel Dan, 29.
53 Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 107 n. 12 arrives at a similar conclusion regarding
Athas’ outstretched arm hypothesis and offers the more plausible suggestion that the scribe
repeatedly changed position, checking his work and making himself more comfortable,
which caused some words to be sloped differently than others.
54 For a similar position, cf. Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 3.
55 Biran and Naveh, “Aramaic Stele Fragment,” 85.
58 Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 8.
be dated to the ninth century B.C.E.”60 and “Palaeographically, the Dan frag-
ment can be dated to the middle of the ninth century B.C.E.”61 Tropper sought
to make any such a paleographic date more specific (even after only the publi-
cation of Fragment A!) and commented that “eine Datierung der Steleninschrift
von Dan in die erste Hälfte des 9. Jh. aus paläographischer Sicht sehr
unwahrscheinlich [ist].” 62 After considering the relationship of the style of the
alphabet to other inscriptions (namely the Mesha Inscription [KAI 181] and the
Kilamuwa Inscriptions [KAI 24–25]), he arrived at a dating based on a
paleographic analysis: “Somit läßt sich die Steleninschrift von Dan aus
paläographischer Sicht am besten in die Zeit zwischen 840 und 825 datieren.” 63
He later offered further support for this dating based on the forms of the letters
‫ ג‬and ‫ז‬.64 This represents a very specific dating and should be regarded as
somewhat flexible, but at least this provides us with a general time-frame for
the composition of the text. 65 Athas offers a somewhat later dating for the
inscription on paleographic grounds: “we may legitimately claim that the Tel
Dan Inscription was written at some time close to 800 BCE.”66 While consider-
ing the same inscriptions as Tropper, Athas adds others and settles at a later
date for the inscription. However, it should be noted that no single letter in
Athas’ analysis has a date that precludes the inscription’s composition from a
ninth-century context. 67 Based therefore on the observations of both Athas and
Tropper, we may consider a date in the last third of the ninth century as the
probable date for the Tel Dan Inscription. 68 This would put the time of compo-
———————————
62 Josef Tropper, “Eine altaramäische Steleninschrift aus Dan,” UF 25 (1993): 401.
63 Tropper, “Altaramäische Steleninschrift,” 401. Cf. also his further argumentation in Josef
Tropper, “Paläographische und linguistische Anmerkungen zur Steleninschrift aus Dan,”
UF 26 (1994): 488 and Kitchen’s dating to ca. 830 based on the Kilamuwa Inscription in
Kitchen, “Possible Mention of David,” 35.
64 Cf. Tropper, “Zur Steleninschrift aus Dan,” 489.
65 Cf. Baruch Halpern, “The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations,”
BASOR 296 (N 1994): 68: “…this inscription is part neither of the tenth to ninth century
nor the eighth to seventh century Aramaic epigraphic tradition, but is on the cusp of each.”
67 Cf. his diagrams in Athas, Tel Dan, 165–74. This finding is contra Frederick H. Cryer, “Of
Epistemology, Northwest-Semitic Epigraphy and Irony: The ‘BYTDWD/House of David’
Inscription Revisited,” JSOT 69 (Mr 1996): 6 and 13–16.
68 This dating precludes the position of Dijkstra (Meindert Dijkstra, “An Epigraphic and His-
torical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan,” BN 74 [1994]: 10–14) that the Tel Dan Inscription
references the violent death of Ahab presented in 1 Kings 22.
sition potentially toward the end of the reign of Hazael, though it is unclear
exactly when Hazael died. The paleographic dating, while confirming the his-
torical dating offered by Tropper and Biran and Naveh, was derived without
explicit reference to the reconstructed historical circumstances behind the
text. 69 Therefore, this dating should be understood as a strong absolute
dating.70
In terms of the style of the document, it is a narrative told from the third-
person perspective initially and transitioning into the first-person (see transla-
tion below). It apparently purports to be a historical narrative describing the
achievements of its benefactor and his father. However, upon closer examina-
tion the propagandistic tendency of the inscription cannot be denied. It was
most likely an inscription at Dan demonstrating the power of the king of Aram
over Israel. This would explain both its purpose at Dan and its destruction: a
later king of Israel presumably destroyed it after (re)conquering Dan.
Reconstruction and Translation
After offering a reconstruction of the text, I will discuss some elements of other
reconstructions. “[I]t is often best to exercise caution in matters of textual res-
toration.”71 Let us begin with (for lack of a better word, and not implying any
kind of value judgment) a minimalistic reconstruction of the text of the Tel Dan
———————————
69 Cf. Tropper, “Altaramäische Steleninschrift,” 396–98 and Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan
Inscription,” 17.
70 Na’aman (Nadav Na’aman, “Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,”
IEJ 50, no. 1–2 [2000]: 93) generally supports this dating as well, although he sets the date
a little earlier: “The Aramaic inscription of Tel Dan was written approximately in the third
quarter of the ninth century B.C.E…” The most recent attempt to date the inscription based
on paleography can be found in Hallvard Hagelia, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Critical
Investigation of Recent Research on Its Paleography and Philology (Studia Semitica
Upsaliensia; Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2006), 103–23. “…[W]e have found that
almost all the letters... are identifiable as from the ninth century, with the sole exception of
taw (‫)ת‬. Most of the letters are also to some degree identifiable to the 10 th, 8th or even the
7th century… But there is an overweight [sic!] for the 9 th century.” (Hagelia, Tel Dan
Inscription, 101)
71 Cryer, “On the Recently-Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription,” 16. Although in much
of his analysis, Cryer takes on a tone that makes me uncomfortable [“It is, of course, easy
to interpret an inscription if you can add or subtract items at will” (Cryer, “On the
Recently-Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription,” 6 n. 7)], his statement advising cau-
tion represents a good mantra for the process of analyzing this inscriptional text.
Inscription. This transcription offers only on letters still present or readily able
to be reconstructed based on the markings on the surface. Largely speculative
letters will not be reconstructed at this point, but may be added later, should the
context and the translation mandate such reconstructions. The extant text of the
Tel Dan Inscription in transcription:
[…]‫ר‬r ‫ע]…[וגז‬r •‫מר‬r […] 1
[…]‫לחמה•בא‬r ‫ת‬r […]‫]…[•אבי•יס‬ 2
[…]‫י‬r‫ה•ויעל•מלכ‬r […]‫וישכב•אבי•יהך•אל‬ 3
[…]‫א‬r […]‫י]…[המלך•הדד‬r‫ב‬r ‫א‬r •‫ראל•קדם•בארק‬ 4
[…]‫ע‬r ‫ן•שב‬r‫אנה•ויהך•הדד•קדמי]…[אפק•מ‬ 5
[…]‫א‬r •‫ן•אסרי‬r‫פ‬r […]‫ל‬r ‫מ‬r •‫ל‬r ‫י•מלכי•ואקת‬ 6
[…]•‫כב•ואלפי•פרש]…[רם•בר‬ 7
[…]‫ר‬r ‫ו•ב‬r‫ה‬r r‫ל]…[י‬r ‫ת‬r ‫ק‬r ‫מלך•ישראל•ו‬ 8
[…]•‫שם‬r ‫ך•ביתדוד•וא‬ 9
[…]‫ית•ארק•הם•ל‬ 10
[…]‫ה‬r ‫אחרן•ול‬ 11
[…]‫ש‬r ‫לך•על•י‬ 12
[…]‫ל‬r ‫צר•ע‬r ‫מ‬r 13
Line 1: […]‫]…[ מר• ע]…[וגז ר‬

Due to the extremely fragmentary nature of line 1, caution remains advis-
able in any reconstruction. While Athas (borrowing from Tropper 72) recon-
structs the first damaged letter(s) of the text in line 1 as ‫תש‬,73 the style of the
writing looks more like a ‫מ‬74—most especially the ‫ מ‬near the end of Fragment
A, line 5—based on my first-hand observation of the inscription. While this
might suggest the reconstruction of an ‫ א‬before the first reconstructed ‫מ‬, as has
been done in KAI 310, this interpretation is not necessary. The same can be
said for the ‫ ע‬at the conclusion of Fragment A, line 1; this could be any word
beginning with ‫ע‬, and must not be the name Omri, as Ah. ituv suggested. 75
Therefore, I will leave the opening at least initially incomplete, as I regard this
the more cautious method of proceeding, and disregard the reconstructions of
Athas and KAI here.
———————————
72 Cf. Tropper, “Altaramäische Steleninschrift,” 401–2.
73 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 36–37.
74 Cf. William M. Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt,”
BASOR 302 (May 1996): 79 for a similar position and arguments against Tropper’s trans-
lation (“...the verb √‫ קשר‬is known from Hebrew, not Aramaic”) and the reconstruction of a
‫ ת‬in general (“the taw would then seem to be too close to the šin”).
75 Cf. Shmuel Ah. ituv, “Suzerain or Vassal? Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,”
IEJ 43 (1993): 246.
As for Fragment B, line 1, the reader is only left with the phrase “and he
cut,” where the subject, object, and context remain unclear. 76 If one were to
reconstruct a ‫ ת‬at the conclusion of the line, the reading could also be recon-
structed as “and I cut.” Since this would be the only first-person in the early
context of the remnants of the inscription (n.b., the three third-person verbs in
line 3), more caution is recommended, and therefore the reconstruction of a ‫ת‬
at this point will be rejected. The other alternative would be to consider a third
person plural form ‫וגזרו‬, which both presumes that the ‫ ו‬would have left no
traces on the damaged surface (quite possible) and that this would be the only
plural verb reconstructed in the inscription. While I feel that this possibility is
quite plausible, at this point such a conclusion seems premature, so the transla-
tion will remain as “and he cut.” This cutting may reference the conclusion of a
treaty between two parties. 77 This would require the reconstruction of ‫ עידא‬or
(‫ עד)י‬after the phrase “and he cut.” 78 While this is a good possibility, it must
remain tenuously theoretical. As for the rest of the line: “Since the distance
between ‫ וגזר‬and the letters [ ]‫] [מר ע‬, surviving in the first half of the line,
[sic!] is quite large, any reconstruction would be a mere guess.” 79
Line 2: […] ‫]…[•אבי•יס]…[ ת לחמה•בא‬

In line 2, one can reconstruct a bit more. First, ‫ ק‬can be reconstructed fol-
lowing ‫ יס‬80 thus, reconstructing and translating “my father went up
[repeatedly?].” While this could be understood as an imperfect with the sense
———————————
76 Context does seem to preclude translating this verb in the future tense.
77 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 13 and similarly, although used in slightly
different context, Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 109.
78 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 13; Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 77; and
Na’aman, “Three Notes,” 97, who regards it not as a treaty between the father of the author
and someone else, but between the enemies of the father of the author: “…the author of the
text may have been referring to a treaty among the kings of Israel and Beth David, the two
kingdoms whose rulers are later ‘punished’ by Hazael, the author of the inscription.”
79 Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 13. Contra Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion,” 109.
80 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Aramaic Stele Fragment,” 91.
of the past-tense, 81 it could just as easily represent an iterative usage of the

imperfect; i.e., “the father” of the person who commissioned this text went up
repeatedly.82 This possibility becomes obvious when one considers the obser-
vations of Stanislav Segert: “Das Imperfekt bezeichnet oft Handlungen, die
tatsächlich und formal von einer anderen Handlung abhängig sind, während die
Haupthandlung meist durch ein Perfekt bezeichnet wird…” 83 and:
[d]as Imperfekt diente zum Ausdruck der dauernden oder wiederholten Handlung
einerseits und der nebensächlichen Umstände andererseits… Da das so aufgefaßte
Imperfekt an sich als zeitlos angesehen werden darf, ist seine Einreihung in die
Zeitsphäre der Vergangenheit immer durch den Kontext gegeben, meist durch
vorhergehende Perfektformen, die eindeutig die Vergangenheit bezeichnen. 84
While Segert admits that all of his examples of this come from the book of
Daniel, the observation has conspicuous relevance for the text of the Tel Dan
Inscription. 85 The implication is that the going up of the “father” of the inscrip-
tion’s benefactor is grammatically and syntactically related to the cutting men-
———————————
81 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Aramaic Stele Fragment,” 91: “The use of the imperfect in a narra-
tive text describing events of the past is well known in biblical prose, in the Mesha inscrip-
tion, in Zakkur [sic!] inscription I, lines 11 and 15 ( KAI, 202) and in the Deir ‘Alla plaster
inscription.” Also Halpern, “Stela from Dan,” 64: “This stela presents the first Old
Aramaic instance in which the yaqtul or short prefix verb serves as a past narrative tense
(preterite) without a prefixed waw…” For an overview of the usage of the waw imperfect
as a past tense, as is also found in the Tel Dan Inscription, cf. Victor Sasson, “Some
Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic
and Biblical Hebrew,” VT 47, no. 1 (1997): 111–27. While I don’t think that it is possible
to verify or demonstrate that the waw consecutive was originally “used in Old Aramaic
and Biblical Hebrew in war, war-related, epic and mythic texts” (as this usage may only be
reflected by the sources we have available and may have nothing to do with actual linguis-
tic conventions), I do find it probable that it was used for its “high style, grandiose qual-
ity.” (Sasson, “The Waw Consecutive,” 126) Unfortunately, Emerton is correct when dis-
cussing this verbal form: “…it is impossible to be sure whether or not ysq is a preterite
because of the damage to the text…” (John A. Emerton, “Further Comments on the Use of
Tenses in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” VT 47, no. 4 [1997]: 435)
82 Contra Takamitsu Muraoka, “Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,”
IEJ 45, no. 1 (1995): 19 (“In the context of the inscription there is nothing to compel us to
think that these apparently preterital prefix conjugations indicate a durative, habitual, or
iterative aspect.”); Takamitsu Muraoka, “The Prefix Conjugation in Circumstantial
Clauses in the Tel Dan Inscription?” VT 51, no. 3 (2001): 389–92; and Josef Tropper,
“Aramäisches wyqtl und hebräisches wayyiqtol,” UF 28 (1996): 640.
83 Stanislav Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik (Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie,
1975), 377.
84 Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik, 379.
85 Hans-Peter Müller, “Die Aramäische Inschrift von Tel Dan,” ZAH 8 (1995): 127 identifies
these usages in Daniel as “ein altsemitisches Fossil.”
tioned in the previous line, although some material between the two clauses
would remain a mystery.
With the addition of ‫ בה‬before the opening of line 2 in Fragment B, one
arrives at the reconstruction of “in his battling” or “in his fighting.” 86 The refer-
ence to fighting is to be preferred to Kottsieper’s suggestion of being bound by
a treaty. 87 The evidence from the Mesha Inscription (KAI 181:11, 15, 19,
32)—although Moabite and not Aramaic—is chronologically more compelling
than the “Christian Palestinian Aramaic” cited by Kottsieper. 88 This is espe-
cially true if one considers line 1 as referencing the establishment of a cove-
nant. Why would the author need to describe this event twice using two differ-
ent roots? The form of √‫ לחם‬recorded in the Tel Dan Inscription represents the
Aramaic pendent to the Moabite form in the Mesha inscription.
Following the verb ‫יסק‬, but preceding the enumeration of battle, one could
consider the reconstruction of ‫עמה‬, “with him.” This would both fill the gap in
the material and make sense of the treaty that the two parties concluded before
the “father” of the benefactor went up “with him in his fighting.” The ‫ בא‬before
the break could be 1) the verb “he went” (once again with the subject unnamed;
context would commend the father of the text’s commissioner); 2) the preposi-
tion ‫ ב‬in the sense of “against” followed by the name of a geographical, per-
sonal, or national referent; 89 3) or the marker of the direct object of the verb
‫התלחם‬.90 The reading of the direct object seems preferable, as the beginning of
———————————
86 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 13; Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 77;
Becking, “Second Danite Inscription,” 25; and KAI. Cf. however, Kottsieper, “Tel Dan
Inscription,” 110–11 (= Ingo Kottsieper, “Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen
Beziehungen zwischen Aram-Damaskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor
Christus,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum
Alten Orient; Festschrift für Oswald Loretz [ed. Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998], 480), who agrees with the form (although introduced by a
‫ ל‬instead of ‫)ב‬, but disagrees with the translation. Na’aman, “Three Notes,” 97 suggests
“for war” ‫למלחמה‬, without citing positive evidence of this usage elsewhere. His reconstruc-
tion of a ‫ מ‬seems implausible.
87 Cf. Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 480 and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 110–
11.
88 Cf. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, DNWSI Vol. 1, 571–72 and Athas, Tel Dan, 231–32. N.b.,
also the eighth century Israelite usage in 2 Kings 9:15: ‫!בהתלחמו‬
90 Cf. Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik, 349: “So wird bei den Verben des Ergreifens und
des Vernehmens das Objekt mit ‫ ב‬eingeführt...” Cf. also the Mesha Inscription (KAI
181:19) ‫“ בהלתחמה בי‬while he was fighting me” and Hoftijzer and Jongeling, DNWSI Vol.
1, 572.
line 2 in Fragment A already established the movement of the father of the

commissioner. The last letter preceding the break at the end of line 2 remains
particularly difficult to reconstruct. While Biran and Naveh suggest only either
a ‫ ב‬or a ‫פ‬,91 Athas notes that there are other possibilities, including ‫ש‬.92 While
he leaves this letter unreconstructed, 93 I will, based on historical considera-
tions,94 reconstruct a ‫ש‬, bearing in mind that such a reconstruction must be con-
sidered theoretical. 95 With the reconstruction of ‫ בה‬before the opening of Frag-
ment B and ‫ ש‬at the end, however, one could offer the possibility of ‫ אשר‬as the
name of an antagonist, against whom the “father” of the author went up
(repeatedly?) in battle. 96
The name Aššur is known from Syro-Palestinian inscriptions, allowing for
the possibility that this word was also present on the surface of the Tel Dan
Inscription. A Phoenician inscription from about 825 BCE records the geog-
raphical name ‫( אשר‬KAI 24:8), as do two Aramaic inscriptions (KAI 215:18
and 222A:25) from the second half of the eighth century. The defective form of
the name may have been less regular, and the evidence may suggest that it was
older as well. The oldest attestation is the defective form. The usage in 215:18
demonstrates that scribes may have changed the form between the long and
short forms based on limitations of space; the typical usage in KAI 215A is the
long form (cf. lines 7, 11–13, and 15–17). These usages all demonstrate the
———————————
91 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 13–14. Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 79
and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 111 (= Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 481)
follow this suggestion and both reconstruct ‫ב‬.
94 Cf. Stuart A. Irvine, “The Last Battle of Hadadezer,” JBL 124, no. 2 (Summer 2005): 345:
“If the inscription here reports a battle between Shalmaneser III and Hadadezer in 845
B.C.E., one might suspect a location farther north, either in the Beqa Valley or in the Anti-
Lebanon mountain range.” While this makes perfect sense in Irvine’s historical analysis of
the Tel Dan Inscription, one wonders why he does not consider the possibility of ‫ אשר‬as
the name of the enemy, as opposed to the geographical location of the battle; cf. Irvine,
“Hadadezer,” 342 n. 8.
95 Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 111 n. 23 remarks that “the right stem of a shin is usu-
ally written more vertically and the shin would be written too much below the line.” How-
ever, based on the irregular lines in the Tel Dan Inscription, I find this argument to be
lacking merit. His reconstructed ‫ ב‬here has just the opposite problem (which he freely
admits) in that it sits lower than would be anticipated.
96 For reasons of space on the surface of the inscription, as well as the attested forms of this
geographical name, one should expect to read the defective form instead of the plene. This
syntactical reconstruction finds some support in the observations of Tropper, “Zur
Steleninschrift aus Dan,” 490 and Tropper, “ Wyqtl,” 640–43.
plausibility of the geographical region Aššur appearing in the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion in the form ‫אשר‬.
Athas’ reconstruction of ‫ ובחסדי‬before ‫ אבי‬in Fragment A, line 2 seems
unwarranted for several reasons. 97 Upon closer inspection, one notes that pre-
ceding the opening word-divider, there is a downward stroke or scratch. This is
the element before ‫ אבי‬that most resembles an intentional stroke, but there is no
way that it is part of a letter, as it is sitting too close to the word-divider and
there is no letter that would take a form consistent with this marking. This
marking too is presumably a secondary scratch caused by the destruction or re-
usage of the stone. Where Athas reconstructs a ‫ י‬it appears probable that such
was not the case; he even suggests this in his description of the ‫י‬, in that “[s]uch
a yodh would display slightly more curvature than most other yodhs in Frag-
ment A.”98 Athas’ usage of “slightly” here poorly represents the situation, in
that such a ‫ י‬would be a significantly different form from the others in the text.
It is unclear what letter was here; a ‫ ל‬seems just as unlikely. 99 Further, there
would be too little room for Athas’ reconstructed ‫ ד‬between his reconstructed ‫ס‬
and ‫י‬. The reconstruction of a ‫ ח‬in the inscription also requires an exceptional
form: the tail here would be shorter than any of the others found in the text. 100
His “engraved point” 101 is not as clear or deep as he suggests. There is no evi-
dence in the opening of the line that either a ‫ ח‬or a ‫ ו‬should be reconstructed.
The late dating of the attestations of √‫ חסד‬he cites (Jewish Aramaic and Punic)
suggest the implausibility of his reconstruction. Therefore, his reconstruction
will be rejected. Schniedewind and Zuckerman reconstruct the name ‫ברקאל‬, but
the evidence for this is also shaky. 102 The reconstruction offered by Kottsieper
‫ ברהדד‬should also be rejected due to limited evidence. 103 He bases this recon-
struction on an unseen ‫ ד‬as the last letter before the word-divider and a down-
ward stroke, which may or may not be part of a letter, but which definitely
———————————
99 Contra Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 77.
100 Cf. Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 112 n. 27.
102 Cf. William M. Schniedewind and Bruce Zuckerman, “A Possible Reconstruction of the
Name of Haza’el’s Father in the Tel Dan Inscription,” IEJ 51, no. 1 (2001): 90.
103 Cf. Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 479–80 and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion,” 111–13.
stands too straight to be considered as part of a ‫;ה‬104 cf. the unusually upright ‫ה‬
at this point in his facsimile reconstruction. 105 As there is no real evidence sug-
gesting the reconstruction of ‫ ברהדד‬as in KAI 310 and Kottsieper, this transla-
tion will also be rejected. Rather, nothing preceding the word divider before
‫ אבי‬will be reconstructed, which seems to be the safer method.
Lines 3–4: ‫& וישכב•אבי•יהך•אל]…[ ה•ויעל•מלכי‬

[…]‫ראל•קדם•בארק• א בי]…[המלך•הדד]…[ א‬
Generally, Biran and Naveh’s reconstruction of lines 3–4 can be followed
with little problem. 106 The only consideration that raises suspicion is the
absence of a word-divider in the phrase “king of Israel.” 107 Alternatively, it
could be read “kings [of],” “my king,” or “my kingdom” at the end of the line,
as there is no conspicuous word-divider between ‫ כ‬and ‫י‬. However, since the
case of ‫ ביתדוד‬in line 9 may demonstrate that the scribe or mason was inconsis-
tent in his or her application and usage of word dividers, any of these transla-
tions remain possible. 108 KAI 310 adds a space here without putting a divider
in it, and this may well be the case. For the moment, we will regard KAI’s
———————————
104 Contra Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 112. Cf. Schniedewind and Zuckerman,
“Haza’el’s Father,” 89 n. 5. Previously Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 479 identif-
ied this downward stroke as part of a ‫ר‬, i.e., the sign before ‫ה‬. This various identification
(from the same author in this instance) demonstrates the need for exceptional caution
when reconstructing long series of letters that have (almost) no remnants on the face of
inscriptions.
105 Cf. Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 108.
106 Cf. the relatively exhaustive examination of the verbs of this line in John A. Emerton,
“Two Issues in the Interpretation of the Tel Dan Inscription,” VT 50, no. 1 (2000): 27–37
and the literature cited there. Regarding the use of the waw imperfect here, cf. also Vincent
DeCaen, “The Morphosyntactic Argument for the Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic,”
VT 51, no. 3 (2001): 381–85.
107 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 14; Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 79; and
KAI.
108 Cf. already in the context of the discussion of ‫ ביתדוד‬Lemche and Thompson, “Did Biran
Kill David?” 9: “He [the writer of the inscription] may have been mistaken and a poor and
inconsistent writer.” Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 79: “It brings us to the natural con-
clusion that the word divider was sometimes omitted in construct expressions.”
Schniedewind’s reference to Rendsburg (Gary A. Rendsburg, “On the Writing ‫ ביתדוד‬in the
Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” IEJ 45, no. 1 [1995]: 22–25) in Schniedewind, “Tel
Dan Stela,” 87 n. 12, is unwarranted since Rendsburg is only considering construct
phrases in Aramaic involving the element ‫ ;בית‬cf. Rendsburg, “‫ביתדוד‬,” 22 n. 3. Cf. Further
Ehud Ben Zvi, “On the Reading ‘ Bytdwd’ in the Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan,” JSOT 64
(1994): 28 n. 8.
reconstruction as accurate. Line 3 translates as “and my father slept; he went to

his… Then the king of Y… came up.” 109
The reconstruction of a ‫ ל‬in line 4 between ‫ א‬and ‫ ב‬in the lacuna there, as
suggested by Athas in his reconstruction ‫לביתל‬r ‫ראל•קדם•בארק•א‬, 110 remains
highly problematic. 111 Of the two scratches above the lacuna in Fragment A,
line 4, the one on the left appears deeper and more intentional than the one on
the right. This means that Athas would have first of all chosen the wrong
scratch as the intentional one. The angle of the deeper scratch is inconsistent
with the angle of a ‫ל‬. However, both of them still have the appearance of being
superficial and unintentional (i.e., secondary). Further, the addition of another
letter here leads to a truncated ‫א‬, as it would barely have space to be as long as
the other ‫א‬s of the text. He also would definitely not have room for a word-
divider between the lexemes ‫ אל‬and ‫ ביתאל‬in his reconstruction. Finally, the
deity Bethel remains unattested until the second half of the seventh century,
i.e., about 150 years after the composition of the Tel Dan Inscription even if
one accepts Athas’ later dating of the inscription. 112 For these reasons, it seems
highly unlikely that one should restore a ‫ ל‬in this line.
Biran and Naveh’s understanding of a Haf el usage of the verb √‫מלך‬
appears more compelling than Cryer’s suggestion of “...the ‘Canaanite’ definite
article ‘h’ (He).” 113 Athas reads a word-divider immediately preceding ‫ה‬,114 but
this possibility had already been precluded by Schniedewind. 115 While the
reconstruction of a ‫ ו‬before the verb ‫ המלך‬is a plausible reconstruction, there is
no evidence to mandate it. The same could be said of a ‫ י‬or the combination of
‫וי‬. Nor is there a word-divider preceding the ‫ה‬. While there would be room for
———————————
109 Regarding ‫יהך‬, cf. Muraoka, “Prefix Conjugation,” 390: “Its aspect is not durative, cursive,
but perfective and punctiliar.”
111 The same could be said of his interpretation and translation (“ancient [h]earth on ground
of El-Bay[tel…]”); cf. Becking (Becking, “Does the Stele from Tel Dan Refer to a Deity
Bethel?” 21–23), who agrees with Athas’ reconstruction of the text, but not his interpreta-
tion and translation, dismantling the various arguments that Athas had offered for this
translation. I disagree with the reconstruction and therefore necessarily with the translation
and interpretation.
112 Cf. Wolfgang Röllig, “Bethel ‫ב)י(תאל‬,” in DDD (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking,
and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston: Brill; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1999), 173–79 and the literature cited there.
113 Cryer, “King Hadad,” 232. Cf. Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 79.
115 Cf. Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 79.
a ‫ ו‬or ‫ וי‬or even ‫•וי‬, it is possible that the text contained only a Hafel perfect.
Based on considerations of space, it seems most likely that the text contained a
Hafel imperfect preceded by the copula. 116 Following this one could anticipate
the direct object marker plus the personal pronoun suffix: ‫איתי‬. While the sug-
gestion of Kottsieper for a geographic understanding of QDM remains plausi-
ble, I find his evidence ultimately uncompelling. 117 Lemaire’s suggestion of
reading ‫ ויעל…קדם‬as an adverbial idiom meaning “advanced” seems more com-
pelling: “…QDM is rather here a local adverb specifying the verb WY‘L…” 118
For this understanding one must combine ‫ קדם‬with the verb ‫עלל‬, which then
ultimately combines with the preposition ‫ ב‬marking the noun into which the
king of Israel advanced. The translation suggested by the reconstruction above
is “[Is]rael advanced into the land of my father… And Hadad made [me?]
king.”119 Here the copula may have an adversative sense: Israel entered into the
land of my father, but Hadad made me king. Preferable is also the understand-
ing of a causative: Israel entered into the land, so Hadad made me king.
Lines 5: […]‫אנה•ויהך•הדד•קדמי]…[אפק•מן•שב ע‬

Lines 5–6 cause some problems in reconstruction. First of all, any conclu-
sion suggested for the end of line 5 remains mere speculation. Therefore, the
opening context of line 6 remains a mystery. There is no evidence demanding
the reconstruction of a word-divider at the end of Fragment A, line 5 (cf. KAI),
as Athas does.120 While it is probable that a word-divider did follow ‫קדמי‬, no
evidence of it has been left on the surface on the inscription. The end of Frag-
ment B at line 5 ends mysteriously as well. “ŠB could be part of a toponym as
well as the number ‘seven’...” 121 Thus, the translation of the text at line 5 reads:
“I [or me]! And Hadad went before me… I went out from šb …” Margalit
———————————
116 Cf. e.g., Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 478 (= Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion,” 108–9).
117 Cf. Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 481 (= Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 113–
14).
118 Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 5. Cf. Nadav Na’aman, “Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hada-
dezer of Beth-Rehob,” UF 27 (1995): 389.
119 Amazingly, Halpern, “Stela from Dan,” 66 anticipated the notice of succession in the
inscription even before the publication of Fragment B: “It is likely that there was a notice
of succession. This may well have taken the form of a narrative to the effect that Hadad
installed ‘me’ on the father’s throne.”
121 Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 7.
offered the reconstruction “[Consequently] did I free-myself [sic!] (lit. ‘exit’)

from the ( contractual) [sic!] oat[h (of fealty)] to (lit. ‘of’) my overlord (lit.
‘king’),” continuing, “[t]he ‘king’ in question is of course Shalmaneser III, the
Assyrian šarru rabû (Aramaic mlk rb.). [sic!]” 122 This reconstruction first
seems plausible, but it presumes historical circumstances that are denied by
outside sources, precluding its reconstruction here. 123 While the conclusion of
Kottsieper, that Hazael set out seven days after the beginning of his reign in
order to fight the king of Israel, who had invaded Aram upon hearing news of
the preceding king’s death, remains possible, it suggests a speed of information
inconceivable in the ancient world. 124 The reconstructed text would then imply
that the king of Aram died, compelling the king of Israel to attack, and this
attack resulted in a counter-attack from Aram under its new king, all of this
occurring within seven days. While such a suggestion may be plausible in the
present, it seems highly unlikely in antiquity, even if one does not historicize it,
understanding it literally; it seems unlikely that people would have believed
such an exaggerated tempo of the developing international situation, making it
even ineffective as propaganda. Therefore, this construction will be rejected
and the end of line 5 will remain unreconstructed due to the difficulty in offer-
ing any adequate reconstruction beyond mere conjecture.
Line 6: […]‫י•מלכי•ואקת ל• מ ל]…[ פן•אסרי• א‬

“…MLKY could mean ‘my (vassal) kings’ as well as ‘my kingdom’ or ‘my
kingship’.” 125 Also to be considered possible is “my reign.” 126 Cryer’s sugges-
tion, “that the ‘king’ in question is the previously-mentioned god, that is,
Hadad”127 should also be regarded as plausible, but improbable due to the cur-
rent context, which contains Fragment B, a fact unknown at the time Cryer
———————————
122 Baruch Margalit, “The Old-Aramaic Inscription of Hazael from Dan,” UF 26 (1994): 318.
123 This reconstruction presumes two kings from Damascus paying tribute to Assyria: Hada-
dezer (who fought against Shalmaneser III on a number of occasions) and Hazael (who fol-
lowed in this tradition). Assyrian documents preclude this possibility, as rather than pay
tribute, these kings fought against Assyria. Therefore, there would be no proverbial yoke
for the author of the Tel Dan Inscription to cast off.
124 Cf. Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 481 (= Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 114–
15).
125 Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 7.
126 Cf. Ah. ituv, “Suzerain,” 246.
127 Cryer, “On the Recently-Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription,” 19.
published.128 Since the context remains unclear, some uncertainty surrounding

this phrase remains. Some letters must also be reconstructed in the middle of
line 6 between Fragments A and B. Biran and Naveh reconstruct ‫מלכן•שבען‬,129
which is also followed by Schniedewind, 130 KAI 310, and more or less by
Athas.131 Athas does acknowledge that a ‫ פ‬is just as likely as an ‫ע‬.132 The con-
text of the line in question suggests just this; rather than describe his killing of
seventy kings, the author references his killing of “powerful” ‫ תקפן‬kings. 133
Lemaire goes even further, finding the dual form here, as the text then contin-
ues to name the two kings killed in lines 7–9. This seems to be a plausible
explanation and reconstruction of the text, but there is little to warrant it; cf.
discussion of the 2000 chariots below on page 258
At the end of Fragment A, line 6, Athas reconstructs a ‫ כ‬and finds minute
remnants of a ‫ ו‬and translates “and I would slay a king and…” 134 While the ‫ כ‬is
probable, most of the elements of a ‫ ו‬are missing, and even the highlighting in
the facsimile that Athas offers suggests an unusual curvature of the ‫ו‬.135 His
translation of the line remains totally out of the question. 136 Unverifiable is also
the suggestion that a ‫ נ‬should be reconstructed here, as the right most scratch
does not angle as significantly as one would expect from the top of a ‫נ‬. It most
resembles scratches on the surface of the inscription that are incidental and
———————————
128 Cf. further Halpern, “Stela from Dan,” 67: “…as a divine epithet, ‘kings’ (over humans),
though common in the Bible, is absent from West Semitic royal inscriptions.”
131 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 88. Athas reconstructs an ‫ ע‬as the first still partially reconstructable
letter, saying “Biran and Naveh took this for the edge of an ayin and no one has since sug-
gested anything different.” Athas, Tel Dan, 87. He apparently overlooked Lemaire
(Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 4), who reconstructed ‫מלכן•תקפן‬, which is followed
here.
133 Cf. Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 8. N.b., also Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 115
n. 41, who suggests that the √‫ תקף‬should be read as √‫ שקף‬at this stage in Aramaic. Both of
these reconstructions remain possible, and neither changes the meaning. The evidence for
both of these suggestions is unfortunately somewhat limited, as √‫ תקף‬is only known from
biblical Aramaic (cf. Ezra 4:20) and √‫ שקף‬is only known from Imperial Aramaic with the
meaning “to strike” (cf. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, DNWSI Vol. 2, 1189). Still, in spite of the
lack of other satisfactory possibilities, the meaning “strong” as found in biblical Aramaic
remains the most convincing to date.
134 Athas, Tel Dan, 62–63 and 193.
136 Cf. Victor Sasson, “The Tell Dan Aramaic Inscription: The Problems of a New Minimized
Reading,” JSS 50, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 28–29.
potentially secondary. It still seems probable that a plural should be recon-

structed here, but again there is no sure evidence of a ‫ נ‬on the surface of the
inscription. The last word of the line provides some difficulty as well. The
participial form suggested by Biran and Naveh has been regarded as suspi-
cious. Kottsieper offered the most probable translation, based on the root ‫סור‬:
“to take or lead away.” 137 The conclusion of line 6 can be reconstructed consis-
tently with line 7, as has been done in the editio princeps.138 The dual recon-
structed by Lemaire is unnecessary, though possible; such a suggestion is based
on historicizing the occurrence of 2000 chariots in the Monolith Inscription
and reading this evidence into the Tel Dan Inscription. 139 Safer: “In the context
of the two fragments, however, ‫ אלפי‬should be interpreted as an undefined
number ‘thousands of’.” 140 And “[t]he dual is not typically employed in posi-
tions where its use created ambiguity, but with natural pairs of things.” 141 Fol-
lowing this and based on the text of line 7, one can reconstruct ‫ אלפי•ר‬at the end
of line 6. Translation: “y(?) my king(ship?). And I killed [(two?) strong]
kin[gs]. I took [thousands of cha…]”.
Lines 7–8: […]•‫מלך•ישראל•ו ק ת ל]…[י הו•ב ר]…[ & כב•ואלפי•פרש]…[רם•בר‬

Lines 7–8 have been reconstructed roughly as parallels in terms of syntax.
This is in keeping with the original publication of Fragment B 142 and others
who have followed it. 143 It is unclear which form of √‫ קתל‬should be recon-
structed in the gap. Most favor the perfect, 144 but Kottsieper’s argument based
on the logical progression makes the imperfect more plausible. 145
Schniedewind added a ‫ ו‬preceding the reconstructed verb in 7; this is not nec-
———————————
139 Cf. Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 9–10. Cf. further Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell
Dan,” 487 and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 116 for a similar opinion.
140 With Victor Sasson, “The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary,
and Historical Aspects,” JSS 40, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 21. Contra Biran and Naveh, “Tel
Dan Inscription,” 16; cf. Muraoka, “Linguistic Notes,” 20–21.
141 Halpern, “Stela from Dan,” 65.
142 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 16–17.
143 Cf. Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 4.
144 E.g., Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 12; KAI; Lemaire, “Royal Histori-
ography,” 4; and Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 77.
145 Cf. Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 482 and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 116.
essary, but probable. 146 KAI 310 followed Schniedewind. Line 7 can be trans-
lated: [cha]riots and thousands of horses 147 [and I killed Jo]ram son of…” The
identification of “ram son of” may be the most important in the inscription,
especially as it occurs in the context of the title “king of Israel.” Biran and
Naveh already knew this, when they commented “The only king, either of
Israel or of Judah, whose name ends with resh and mem is Jehoram.”148 This
again seems to be the most plausible reconstruction. 149 Athas’ alternative that
‫ רם‬refers to Makbirram, the client of a baker in Hazor, has little evidence to
support it.150 While Makbirram may have been a person of some importance,
there is little reason to anticipate a baker’s customer from Hazor, even an
important customer, in the Tel Dan Inscription. This suggestion seems largely
necessary due to Athas’ improper separation of Fragments A and B, removing
‫ רם‬from its larger context with the king of Israel. Athas also fails to explain
why the friend of the baker would be mentioned in the inscription in the line
before Amaziah [sic!] the king of Judah. This seems an unreasonable sugges-
tion. “Den sonst unbekannten Lokalfürsten Makbirram einzuführen, dessen
Name auf Keramik von Hazor auftaucht, gleicht eher einer Verlegenheits-
lösung.” 151 “That the king of Israel was Joram, the son of Ahab, cannot be
doubted.” 152 Therefore, I will regard Joram of Israel as the probable recon-
struction; cf. KAI 310. At the end of the line, one can reconstruct ‫אחאב•הא‬, as
was done by Kottsieper. 153
Line 8 of Fragment A can be readily reconstructed. The last three letters
are damaged, but legible. Even the crossbar on the ‫ ת‬seems to be preserved in
the inscription. What is unclear is the form of the verb ‫קתל‬. In its current form,
it could be either a participle (maintaining the tense of the preceding ‫ )ואקתל‬or
a 3ms. The latter seems less probable due to the preceding first-person verb.
Alternatively, one should consider reconstructing another ‫ ת‬following the ‫ל‬,
———————————
147 For the identification of ‫ פרש‬as “horses” instead of cavalry, cf. Müller, “Aramäische
Inschrift,” 122.
148 Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 9.
149 Contra K L. Noll, “The God Who is Among the Danites,” JSOT 80 (1998): 9–10, who
argues on the basis of Josephus’ citation of Menander that the Tel Dan Inscription refers to
Hiram of Tyre.
151 Staszak, “Fragment B,” 74.
152 Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 116.
which would give us the 1cs perfect. 154 Based on the identification of Joram of
Israel in the previous line, this “yahu” must be Ahaziahu of Judah. The differ-
ent reconstructions of the theophoric elements in the names required by such a
reconstruction present only superficial problems. It remains within the realm of
plausibility that different theophoric elements were used in Judah and in Israel.
This would also help explain the inconsistent usage present in the Bible; cf. 2
Kings 9:23. Epigraphic findings may support this theory, though it remains out-
side the scope of this work to demonstrate that the different usages were always
representatives of either Judah or Israel; cf. e.g., Arad(8):69; Nim(8):4, 5;
Sam(8):1.1 et al. 155 This at least allows for the possibility that the southern king
would have been written ‫יהו‬, while the northern king would have been written
‫יו‬. One wonders how the scribe would have written the name Jehoram from
Judah; since nothing remains of the name, all alternatives remain pure specula-
tion. It is possible that if the name were written ‫ יורם‬in line 7 that the scribe re-
used this spelling in line 8; cf. KAI. The obvious translation is “king of Israel.
And I killed Ahaziahu son of…”; however, based on the reconstruction of ‫ הא‬at
the end of line 7, one should also consider the translation: “who had reigned
over Israel and I killed Ahaziahu son of…” This would establish a contradis-
tinction to the reconstructed claim of the benefactor made in lines 11–12 (see
discussion beginning on page 262).
Line 9: […]•‫ך•ביתדוד•וא שם‬

Athas’ reconstruction of line 9 seems satisfactory. The translation is
another issue. It seems unlikely that the noun ‫ שם‬would be preceded by the
———————————
154 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 12; KAI; Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 4;
Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 77; Galil, “Re-Arrangement,” 19; Kottsieper, “Inschrift
vom Tell Dan,” 483; and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 117.
155 Cf. also Schniedewind, “Tel Dan Stela,” 80: “Onomastic evidence suggests that northern
Hebrew names reduced the theophoric component to the prefix - ‫ יו‬and the suffix ‫יו‬-...” This
also largely matches the conclusions of Stig I.L. Norin, Christiane Boehncke Sjöberg,
trans., Sein Name allein ist hoch: Das Jhw-haltige Suffix althebräischer Personennamen
untersucht mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der alttestamentlichen Redaktionsgeschichte
(Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1986), who however
notes in his conclusions that the ‫יה‬- names also occur frequently in post-exilic texts.
Contra Stig I.L. Norin, “Jô-Namen und J ehô-Namen,” VT 29, no. 1 (1979): 87–97, I would
consider the possibility of geographically distinct spellings more likely than only chrono-
logically distinct spellings.
Aramaic article ‫א‬. 156 He rejects the usage as a verb here based on the
attestations in the Ja’udi dialect and the Zakkur Inscription. 157 What he fails to
do is demonstrate positive evidence for the Aramaic definite article preceding
the noun. Therefore, this suggestion will be rejected. Line 9 reads: “[kin]g of
Bethdwd. And I set[…]”
The identification of ‫ ביתדוד‬has remained the most contentious issue in the
inscription.158 Biran and Naveh initially commented that this was “the dynastic
name of the kingdom of Judah” 159 without further elucidation. Is this the
dynasty or a place? This seems to be the reason that the literature so rapidly
exploded following the publication of the first fragment. Kallai immediately
supported the interpretation that it was Judah, which was identified as such
because “the Davidic dynasty was recognized as well established, whereas in
Israel there was no stability until the Omrides, as known from the biblical
sources.”160 This position should be rejected, as it conspicuously dates the Tel
Dan Inscription before the Omride dynasty, which seems most unlikely, and it
reads the biblical image of the Davidic dynasty directly into a historical recon-
struction, which also seems methodologically unsound. The idea that ‫ דוד‬should
be read dōd, being a reference to a local deity, 161 should also be rejected out of
hand.162 Cryer had already suggested that ‫ ביתדוד‬is a place: “Hence it may be
———————————
158 Cf. the literature cited in Athas, Tel Dan, 217–26.
160 Zecharia Kallai, “The King of Israel and the House of David,” IEJ 43 (1993): 248.
161 Cf. Ernst Axel Knauf, Albert de Pury, and Thomas Römer, “ *BaytDawīd ou *BaytDōd?”
BN 72 (1994): 66; Lemche and Thompson, “Did Biran Kill David?”; and subsequently
Philip R. Davies, “Bytdwd and Swkt Dwyd: A Comparison,” JSOT 64 (1994): 23–24.
162 The strongest evidence to support this is based on the LXX’s reading ο θεο' ς σου in Amos
8:14 and trying to reconcile it with MT’s ‫דרך‬. The reconstruction ‫ דדך‬based on the Greek
“your god” as has been done in the appartus of the BHS leaves one somewhat perplexed.
For this particular problem in Amos 8:14 and its irrelevance for the Tel Dan inscription,
cf. Martin Mulzer, “Amos 8,14 in der LXX: Ein Einwurf in die Tel Dan-Text Debatte,”
BN 84 (1996): 54–58. No explicit evidence to support the reverence of a god ‫ דוד‬exists! Cf.
Hans M. Barstad, “DOD ‫דוד‬,” in DDD (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter
W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999); Hans M. Barstad and Bob Becking, “Does
the Stele from Tel-Dan Refer to a Deity Dôd?” BN 77 (1995): 5–12; and Nadav Na’aman,
“Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan,” BN 79 (1995): 17–19. Thankfully, this
problem has been emended in the new edition of BHQ. Reinhard G. Lehmann and Marcus
Reichel, “DOD und ASIMA in Tell Dan,” BN 77 (1995): 29–31 take the pantheon of the
Tel Dan Inscription one step further in that they find the god Asima following Dod in the
inscription. This is based on the (faulty) evidence presented in Knauf, de Pury, and Römer,
that ‫ ביתדוד‬was the author’s designation for a geographical unit which may have
been equivalent to all or some part of the region we regard as Judah.” 163
Thompson identified Bytdwd as “a place name comparable to Bit Humri of
Assyrian inscriptions,” 164 which is supported by Rendsburg’s notice that such
constructions are typical of Aramean designations, and that the Arameans may
have provided the conduit for such names as Bit H umri to Assyria. 165 Cryer
˘
noted that “...it seems that the reference simply names Judah with the designa-
tion of the lineage that governed it,” 166 qualifying this with the statement that
“…it [Betdawd] need be no larger than Beth Shemesh, Bethel, or (Abel) Beth
Ma‘acah, sites with a similar type of name.” 167 Athas, after an extensive exam-
ination of the secondary literature and following Cryer, arrives at the conclu-
sion that ‫ ביתדוד‬likely represents a Levantine toponym, most likely Jeru-
salem.168 One could presumably expand this to include also the immediate ter-
ritory surrounding Jerusalem as well. This suggestion seems to be the most
plausible in the context of the inscription and seems in keeping with the narra-
tive recounted in it. It will be adopted here for the historical reconstruction.
Lines 10–13
Following the break in line 9, there is little reason to reconstruct further
letters as has been done in most reconstructions. 169 The only possible excep-
tions to this are those offered in the initial publication of Fragment A, namely a
———————————
“*BaytDōd” and the Aramaic texts from Elephantine, in addition to the Deuteronomistic
or post-Deuteronomistic 2 Kings 17:30. This evidence remains geographically and chrono-
logically unconvincing.
164 Thomas L. Thompson, “‘House of David’: An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh As Godfa-
ther,” SJOT 9, no. 1 (1995): 72. Cf. also Cryer, “On the Recently-Discovered ‘House of
David’ Inscription,” 17. For the extensive use of bīt toponyms in Akkadian sources, cf.
Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, 75–92.
165 Cf. Rendsburg, “‫ ”ביתדוד‬One should also consider the brief survey of such geographical
names in Kitchen, “Possible Mention of David,” 38–39.
167 Cryer, “On the Recently-Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription,” 18. Cf. also Noll, “The
God Who is Among the Danites,” 8, who comments about ‫ביתדוד‬: “that entity is presum-
ably the chiefdom centered in the Jerusalem of the mid-ninth century BCE.”
168 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 225 and George Athas, “Setting the Record Straight: What Are We to
Make of the Tel Dan Inscription?” JSS 51, no. 2 (Autumn 2006): 247–49.
Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 4; Athas, Tel Dan, 193; and KAI.
‫ מ‬at the end of line 11 and ‫ ראל‬at the end of line 12. 170 Biran and Naveh,
Schniedewind, Lemaire, Kottsieper, and KAI 310 all reconstruct the name ‫יהוא‬
in line 11. 171 Athas reconstructs the name ‫ יהואש‬based on his later dating of the
text.172 Both of these suggestions are possible, though they cannot be legiti-
mately reconstructed here without mere speculation. What should be noted
contra Kottsieper is that in all probability one should anticipate a verb-form as
opposed to a noun. 173 The preposition ‫ על‬makes this probable, as it is never
used with the noun “king,” but sometimes used with the verb “to reign” in
inscriptions.174 This also matches the usage found in the Tel Dan Inscription;
no other usage of √‫ מלך‬as a noun in the Tel Dan Inscription uses the preposi-
tion ‫על‬.
Just as likely as reading a name into the inscription, one could anticipate
the reconstruction ‫ ואמ‬at the end of line 11: “And I ruled over Israel.” This
continues the first-person perspective found in 6 and 9 (and reconstructed in 7–
8) rather than make a hard transition into a third-person perspective. A narra-
tive with such a propagandistic character makes such a claim plausible. This
would also make sense in the context of the author’s having killed the king of
Israel. I find this preferable to reading the name of a biblical character into the
text, but admit that it must necessarily remain pure speculation. Should one
prefer, however, one can just leave any reconstruction incomplete at this point.
Thus, line 10 reads: “their land (marked as the definite object) to…”; line 11:
“others and to him(?)…”; line 12: “…[I?] ruled over Is[rael?…]”; line 13:
“siege against…” Athas’ intention not to offer imaginative reconstructions (“I
have avoided reconstructions founded solely on speculation or creativity” 175)
does not really come through in his reconstruction of line 13, which could have
been any ancient city. Therefore, there is no need to mandate it as Samaria, as
———————————
170 Cf. Biran and Naveh, “Aramaic Stele Fragment,” 87.
Lemaire, “Royal Historiography,” 4; Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 483; and
Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 117.
174 For Aramaic inscriptional usages of √‫ מלך‬+ ‫על‬, cf. KAI 214:20 and 215:7; for Phoenician,
cf. 24:2 and 38:2; for Moabite, cf. 181:2.
he does.176 Even based on “historical considerations,” 177 reading the city into
the text seems unwarranted.
Bearing these considerations in mind, we can reconstruct a sensible text, at
least for several lines:
[…‫ר]ו•עד‬r ‫ע]…[וגז‬r •‫מר‬r [ ] 1

[•‫לחמה•בא]שר‬r ‫ת‬r [‫ ] [•אבי•יס]ק•עמה•בה‬2
[‫י]ש‬r‫ה•ויעל•מלכ‬r [‫ וישכב•אבי•יהך•אל]•אבהו‬3
[•‫א]יתי‬r [•]‫י]•וי[המלך•הדד‬r‫ב‬r ‫א‬r •‫ ראל•קדם•בארק‬4
[…]‫ע‬r ‫ן]•[שב‬r‫ אנה•ויהך•הדד•קדמי]•ו[אפק•מ‬5
[‫א]לפי•ר‬r •‫אסרי‬r •‫ן‬r‫פ‬r [‫ל]כן•תק‬r ‫מ‬r •‫ל‬r ‫ י•מלכי•ואקת‬6
[‫ כב•ואלפי•פרש]•ואקתל•יו[רם•בר•]אחאב•הא‬7
[‫ר]•יורם•מל‬r ‫ו•ב‬r‫ה‬r r‫ל]ת•אחז[י‬r ‫ת‬r ‫ק‬r ‫ מלך•ישראל•ו‬8
[‫שם•]…א‬r ‫ ך•ביתדוד•וא‬9
[…]‫ ית•ארק•הם•ל‬10
[‫ה]…•ואמ‬r ‫ אחרן•ול‬11
[…•‫ש]ראל‬r ‫ לך•על•י‬12
[…•]‫ל‬r ‫צר•ע‬r ‫מ‬r 13
Therefore, one can translate the text thus:

1) …and they cut [a covenant?]…
2) …my father went u[p with him] in his [bat]tle against A[ššur?…]
3) And my father laid down. 178 He went to [his fathers]. The king of I[s]
4) rael penetrated into my father’s land. [And] Hadad made [me] king
5) Me! Hadad went before me. [And] I went forth from šb[…]
6) i(?) my kingdom. And I killed [power]ful ki[ngs], taking thou[sands of cha-]
7) riots and thousands of horses. [And I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab, who had]
8) ruled Israel and [Ahaz]yahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9) g of Bethdwd and I set…
10) their land to…
11) others and to him (?) [And X reign-]
12) ed over Is[rael?]…
13) siege against…
———————————
176 Cf. Athas, Tel Dan, 193. Cf. also Sasson, “Old Aramaic,” 23.
177 Athas, Tel Dan, 230 n. 158.
178 For the obvious translation of the waw-imperfect as a past tense, cf. John A. Emerton,
“New Evidence for the Use of the Waw Consecutive in Aramaic,” VT 44 (1994): 257:
“…despite the damage to the inscription, it is difficult to see how the verbs in the imper-
fect after waw could be understood other than as narrative verbs in past time.”
Based on the recognition of two characters known from the biblical narrative,
namely Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu of Judah, within the text of the Tel Dan
inscription, one arrives at a terminus a quo, namely the time of their deaths, ca.
842 BCE. Since the text describes their deaths at the hands of a third party, it
can hardly be assumed to come from within their lifetimes. The person respon-
sible for the inscription must have been their contemporary, however, if the
text should have any historical value at all. This puts a date of composition
within the first few decades following 842 BCE; cf. the epigraphic analysis in
the opening discussion of the Tel Dan Inscription. “The text is certainly in
Aramaic.”179 This linguistic fact suggests a provenance from an Aramaic, and
not from an Israelite, cultural context. The narrator references his kingdom
(line 6) and the fact that Hadad made him king (line 4). This suggests an
Aramean king, possibly one who has ascended the throne due to questionable
circumstances. Based on sources outside of the Tel Dan Inscription (especially
Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions), there is a king who fits these circumstances:
Hazael of Damascus. 180 All of the current evidence suggests his authorship of
the Tel Dan Inscription.
With this in mind, we have what some consider an important datum within
historical reconstructions; historians often favor sources recorded close to the
events at hand. In this case we are dealing with a time-frame of at most a few
decades. This factor would favor the priority of relying on the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion for a more reliable reconstruction of Israelite history in the ninth century
BCE. While this may be the case at first glance, one wonders just how reliable
all of the information in the text may be.
Suspicion arises first due to the inscription’s genre. The text has one main
function: describing the greatness of the king whose life is reflected in the text.
He claims to have killed “mighty kings” and that a deity proclaimed his king-
———————————
179 Halpern, “Stela from Dan,” 64.
180 For this opinion, cf. already Tropper, “Altaramäische Steleninschrift”, who arrived at this
position even before the discovery of Fragment B. This opinion contradicts Jan-Wim
Wesselius, “The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan Inscription
Reconsidered,” SJOT 13, no. 2 (1999): 163–86; cf. the arguments against Wesselius
already in Bob Becking, “Did Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription,” SJOT 13, no. 2
(1999): 187–201.
ship. If one were to find such texts in the Bible, they would immediately be
regarded as disingenuously historical (at least in many academic settings).
Measuring with the same ruler, therefore, we should be suspicious about that
which the king of Aram wishes to convince us. While the greatness of his deeds
in his own eyes cannot be underestimated, a historical analysis of the text may
reveal that such was not the case. Sasson finds another implicit usage of the
inscription, based on the biblical traditions noting the importance of the ‫יהוה‬
cult at Dan: “Thus for the Aramaean conqueror to place an Aramaean war
inscription at Dan amounted to desecrating or negating the site, humiliating
both the local deity and the king of Israel, by proclaiming that Hadad had
crushed his enemies.” 181 Is the testimony of such a witness to be regarded as
infallible or trustworthy?
Secondly, the poor quality in which the text can currently be found should
also not be under-evaluated. While the available evidence suggests that this
reconstruction of the text is accurate, future finds may indeed reverse this opin-
ion. As we cannot even securely identify with absolute certainty the order of
the fragments in question, caution should be advised in placing total faith in
any historical reconstruction based on the inscription from Tel Dan. Beyond
the ordering of the fragments, one must consider that many of the letters of the
text are damaged and represent a diverse spectrum of reliability in terms of
their reconstruction. 182 In reality, there are only 137 letters on the surface of the
Tel Dan inscription that are legible and require no reconstruction. Beyond that,
there are 32 letters that require reconstruction. Some of these reconstructions
are more probable than others, but none of them should be regarded as certain.
That means of all the letters and remnants of letters in the Tel Dan Inscription
(169), almost 20% are reconstructed. When one considers the reconstructed
text of the inscription as the basis for any historical reconstruction, one arrives
at an even worse number: 61 letters have been reconstructed based entirely on
———————————
181 Sasson, “Old Aramaic,” 27. While such an interpretation is not mandatory (there need be
no real theologically based reason for the erection of the stela at Dan), the existence of the
stela at Dan suggests at least an attempt for Hazael to demonstrate his own power—both
over the city and over the enemies he destroyed.
182 For an excellent reconstruction of the history of the reconstruction of the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion, cf. Hagelia, Tel Dan Inscription, 13–50.
historical or literary context. 183 That means of the total used for translation and
interpretation (230), only about 60% are completely legible on the current arti-
fact. This demonstrates just how insecure any historical reconstruction based
on this text must be.
So, while the age of the text bespeaks its high value as a historical source,
the genre of the inscription and its poor condition shed a more dubious light on
its historical reliability. Bearing these caveats in mind, however, one can offer
a historical reconstruction based only on the Tel Dan Inscription. Therefore,
using caution, we can analyze what the text can tell the modern reader. The
information gleaned from this analysis will then be compared to the other avail-
able sources to arrive at the most plausible historical reconstruction of the
events surrounding the revolution of Jehu.
In the fragmentary opening lines of the remnants of the Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion, the reader gains the impression of some kind of alliance between the pred-
ecessor of the benefactor and some unnamed party, who committed themselves
to fight a common enemy, namely Assyria. 184 While neither of these parties can
be named with any certainty, based on the identification of Hazael as the prob-
able author of the Tel Dan Inscription, Hadadezer of Damascus (Adadidri of
the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III) presents the best candidate for the king of
Aram, the “father” of the benefactor of the inscription. 185 The other party
remains unnamed in the current reconstruction. Context suggests that it might
be a king of Israel, as this would explain why it is that Hazael set out to battle
against this king described later in the inscription: namely as revenge for the
———————————
183 This is even a pretty conservative estimate. Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 109 recon-
structs about 80 letters according to my cursory count, which would make the text even
more insecure as the basis of a historical reconstruction.
184 For a similar opinion regarding the opening lines of the Tel Dan Inscription, cf. Irvine,
“Hadadezer”. Irvine seeks a geographical location at the end of line 2, but one could just
as easily anticipate the name of Assyria.
185 Based on this historical reconstruction, one might be tempted to reconstruct the name
‫ הדדעזר‬in the opening of line 2 of the inscription. However, the downward stroke identified
as the tail of a letter in some of the reconstructions ( ‫ ר‬in Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell
Dan,” 479; ‫ ה‬in Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscription,” 112; and ‫ ח‬in Athas, Tel Dan, 49) pre-
sumably precludes such a possibility. Unfortunately, it must remain a mystery for the
reader what was present in this gap.
attack of the king of Israel, which would then be a clear breach of contract. 186
Bearing this in mind, it seems that Ahab would most likely be the king of Israel
allied to Hadadezer, with his son Joram being the king of Israel who invaded
Aramean territory, provoking Hazael to war. 187 This tentative reconstruction
suggests that the Tel Dan Inscription implies an alliance between Damascus
and Israel in the time before Hazael’s ascension of the Damascene throne. This
alliance resulted in battle against Assyria, maybe on more than one occasion, as
could be suggested by the imperfect of √‫ סלק‬in line 3.
Line 4 opens with a suggestion that the “father” of the author went to his
fathers, i.e., he died. The Hebrew pendant to the phrase here generally implies
peaceful death. However, the context of the inscription could suggest a death in
a battle against Assyria. Since this narrative by no means makes the Aramean
king’s demise at the hands of the Assyrians explicit, we should probably reject
such an interpretation. Subsequent to the death of the “father,” the king of
Israel invades the land of the “father.” At this point, the god Hadad apparently
intervenes on behalf of the author and makes him king. This phrase suggests
unusual circumstances behind his accession, but it must not necessarily imply
usurpation. At any rate Hadad then goes out, preceding the author on his way
to battle.
Beginning in line 6, the author describes his various conquests. This con-
sists of the killing of kings (presumably the two named in lines 7–9) and the
capture of thousands of chariots and horses. Two of the author’s victims are
specifically named: Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu of Bethdwd. After killing
these two antagonists, the author did something to their land (ravaging?) and
may even make a claim to have reigned over Israel, extending his power over
his former enemy. 188 At the current ending, he recounts his opening of a siege,
———————————
186 Contra Kottsieper, “Inschrift vom Tell Dan,” 492 and Kottsieper, “Tel Dan Inscrip-
tion,” 129. Since 1 Kings 20, as discussed above, does not describe conditions between
Ahab and Hadadezer, Kottsieper’s reconstruction falls apart. It is also based on the late
usage of √‫ לחם‬meaning “bind.” The two treaties that he anticipates are not necessary in the
historical reconstruction. One can assume one treaty, based on the verb √‫ גזר‬in line 1.
187 This is based on a pluperfect understanding of the reconstructed phrase ‫ הא מלך ישראל‬in
lines 7–8: Ahab, who had ruled over Israel (previously).
188 As further evidence of this possibility, one should consider the fact that nowhere else in
this inscription does one find the preposition ‫ על‬in the phrase ‫מלך ישראל‬. For a similar posi-
tion regarding Hazael’s political domination of Israel (and Judah), cf. Kelle, “Neo-
Assyrian Designations,” 650 and the literature cited there.
but it is unclear against whom this siege was undertaken. Any attempt to recon-
struct the name of the city besieged must necessarily end in disappointment, as
the text breaks off entirely at this point. 189
The general course of events as reported by the Tel Dan Inscription
becomes clear to the reader: after a time of alliance between Israel and Aram
against Assyria, Hadadezer died. Once the news reached Israel, the king of
Israel (presumably Joram by then) invaded Aram, upon which Hazael ascended
to the throne. Hazael then went out in battle, killing Joram and Ahaziahu and
conquering land and exacting booty. Hazael may even claimed to have con-
quered Israel, which one might expect to find in territory that had previously
belonged to Israel, should one seek to maintain his dominance over the region
through propaganda. If one only had the Tel Dan Inscription, the first portion
of the text would remain impossible to reconstruct, but relying on the other wit-
nesses enables the historian to plausibly fill some of the gaps.
In terms of the historical reliability of the claims, in the absence of the
other ancient sources, most of them can be accepted at first glance without any
clear problems. The one exception to this would be the claim of Hazael’s
ascension to the throne of Damascus after an invasion of the king of Israel.
This claim has the sound of an ex post facto justification of regnal succession;
it seems most unlikely that the ascension of Hazael to the throne of Damascus
could be regarded as a response to an Israelite invasion of Aramean territory.
More likely would be the assumption that Hazael’s accession to the throne (by
whatever means it occurred) enticed Joram to invade Damascene territory; 190
now that Joram’s alliance partner Hadadezer was dead, he could use the oppor-
tunity to undertake an ambitious offensive against Aram at Ramoth-Gilead.
With the change of the political situation that resulted from Hadadezer’s death,
Joram was no longer politically bound to Damascus, as had been the case for at
———————————
189 Contra Athas, Tel Dan, 193 (who reconstructs Samaria as the city in question) and Galil,
“Re-Arrangement,” 19 (who reconstructs Dan as the city in question). More cautious, but
probably accurate, is the position of Shigeo Yamada, “Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected
in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” UF 27 (1995): 612: “Hazael besieged a city,
probably in the territory of Israel (ll. 12’b-13’).”
190 Contra Na’aman, “Forced Participation,” 82–83. The biblical image of Joram’s defence of
Ramoth-Gilead from an Aramean invasion as presented in the Israel Source at 2 Kings
9:14 is most likely ahistorical anti-Omride propaganda: the Israel source portrays him as a
cowardly king who must go to battle to defend his borders. Cf. 2 Kings 9:14 and 1 Kings
22:29–32*.
least the ten years preceding Hazael’s accession. As a response to this invasion,
Hazael set out and encountered Joram at Ramoth-Gilead. In the course of the
subsequent battle over Ramoth-Gilead, Hazael at the very least injured Joram.
Based on the reconstructed text of the Tel Dan Inscription, the claims of
the text can be readily divided into three logical categories:
Claims Consistent with Other Sources: 191 The Monolith Inscription of
Shalmaneser III explicitly names an alliance between Ahab and Hadadezer,
i.e., between Israel and Damascus, in 853 BCE at the Battle of Qarqar. Later
alliances between Damascus and Israel remain implicit for the years 849, 848,
and 845. 192 By 841, as presented in e.g., the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III,
the alliance between Israel and Damascus had collapsed. While Jehu paid trib-
ute to the Assyrians at that time, Hazael stood alone in battle.
According to the redacted text of 2 Kings 9–10, Hazael was victorious
over Israel on a number of occasions. This matches the image present in the
inscription from Tel Dan. Archaeological evidence also supports this conclu-
sion.193
Claims Inconsistent with Other Sources: According to the story of
Jehu’s ascension in 2 Kings 9–10*, Jehu killed the kings Joram of Israel and
Ahaziahu of Judah (Cf. 9:24 and 27). Also in this story, it is Hazael who is the
aggressor at Ramoth-Gilead, where the Tel Dan Inscription suggests that Joram
may have been the aggressor. The biblical narrative (in its current form) pres-
ents Hazael’s accession preceding the forthcoming conflict between Israel and
Damascus, whereas the Tel Dan Inscription seems to suggest that Hazael
reigned only after the advance of the king of Israel against Damascus.
Genealogically, the Tel Dan Inscription suggests that Hazael was the son
of his predecessor, who seems to be Hadadezer. 194 An inscription of
Shalmaneser III denies this in that it identifies Hazael as the “son of a nobody.”
This nomenclature suggests usurpation, which may also be the sense of the bib-
———————————
191 In this reconstruction I do not regard 2 Sam 8 and 10 as sources about Hazael of Damascus
as Na’aman, “Hazael and Hadadezer” does. While this theory is very interesting, I find it a
bit too risky to be considered part of a historical reconstruction.
192 See the discussion above in Chapter 6.
193 Cf. Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky, “Radiocarbon, Iron IIa Destructions and the
Israel – Aram Damascus Conflicts in the 9 th Century BCE,” UF 39 (2007): 261–76.
194 This assumes a literal understanding of the term “father.” Of course this could just as eas-
ily be identified as an honorific, meaning “superior” or “predecessor.” For the moment,
let’s remain literal.
lical story recounted in 2 Kings 8:7–15, though it is by no means explicit

there.195 The biblical texts offers no comment on Hadadezer’s family.
According to the biblical text, Elisha tells Hazael that ‫ יהוה‬has shown Eli-
sha that Hazael will be king over Aram. The Tel Dan Inscription explicitly
comments that Hadad made Hazael king over Aram upon the death of his pred-
ecessor.
Information Unknown from Other Sources: The claims of Hazael’s
material conquests (horses and chariots) can neither be confirmed nor denied.
While it seems probable that he did benefit materially from his conquests, there
is no way of verifying that he captured thousands of chariots and horses. Two
other claims that can neither be confirmed nor denied are that the god Hadad
made Hazael king and then led him into battle. These claims would have to be
investigated as part of a theological reflection on the Tel Dan Inscription and
do not belong in a historical analysis of the text. 196
In terms of the historical reliability of the claims of Hazael in the Tel Dan
Inscription, some of them can be understood as historical, while others remain
suspicious. Still others escape the methodology of the historian. In terms of the
historical claims, it seems best to regard the material supported by other wit-
nesses as demonstrating historical reliability; the reconstruction of an alliance
between Israel (and others) and Damascus seems most likely based on both the
———————————
195 The historicity of the account in 2 Kings 8 should be questioned anyway, but the story
does not (in its current form) make it explicit that Hazael killed his predecessor; cf. Victor
Sasson, “Murderers, Usurpers, or What? Hazael, Jehu, and the Tell Dan Old Aramaic
Inscription,” UF 28 (1996): 547–49. It also seems implausible that a later redactor would
emend the story to make Hazael come off looking better. Therefore, there is no compelling
evidence (whether Assyrian or biblical) to maintain that Hazael committed regicide. This
does not change the fact that his accession may have been an act of usurpation.
196 In terms of theology and the history of religion, it is interesting to note that Hazael (whose
name obviously contains the theophoric element El) claims the patronage of the deity
Hadad (who was a theophoric element in the name of Hazael’s predecessor Hadadezer).
Could this be evidence of multiple religious traditions existing parallel to one another in
Damascus of the ninth century? It seems likely that a religiously plural culture may have
existed there, as also seems to have been the case in ninth-century Israel. Cf. Schniedewind
and Zuckerman, “Haza’el’s Father,” 91: “We would like to suggest that this political
rivalry within Aramean circles may also reflect a religious rivalry between groups owing
allegiance to one major god against another.” While this theory of a political rivalry based
on theology groups (Hadadezer vs. Hazael) is plausible at first glance, it fails to accom-
modate Hazael’s son Bar-Hadad in the equation.
reconstruction here and in Akkadian sources. The fact that the original tale of
Jehu’s rise to power fails to mention the difficulties that Jehu had with Hazael
after his accession suggest that Hazael’s domination of Israel during this period
is also most likely historical. This fact is further supported by the mere exis-
tence of the Tel Dan Inscription, which without a doubt demonstrates Aramean
hegemony over the city of Dan in the second half or last third of the ninth-
century BCE.197 One element that fits into both categories (i.e., it is a partial
truth) is the invasion of Israel into Damascene territory. While it would seem to
be true that Israel was the aggressor after the death of Hadadezer, this aggres-
sion presumably did not occasion Hazael’s ascension. 198 This looks like apolo-
getic to whitewash an unclear succession. 199
Hadadezer’s paternity of Hazael as claimed in the Tel Dan Inscription has the
appearance of serving Hazael’s needs. The claims of Shalmaneser III that
Hazael usurped the throne of Damascus in spite of not being a son of Hada-
dezer should be given priority here. 200 “A usurper and ‘son of a nobody’ would
certainly be the first to exploit such a custom or convention [of mentioning
one’s father in lapidary inscriptions]. Lip-service, after all, is cheap — and the
———————————
197 This fact, in combination with the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, which identify his last
campaigns in the region as having occurred in 841 and 838, allows another supporting
aspect of the date of composition suggested above: “I would therefore date the inscription
to the late 830s B.C.E., not long after Shalmaneser abandoned the south Syro-Palestinian
arena (his final campaign in the region took place in 838 B.C.E.)…” (Na’aman, “Three
Notes,” 100)
198 The story of Jeroboam’s claim that Joram sought to defend Ramoth-Gilead from an
Aramean advance reeks of an attempt to identify Joram as a weak king in the face of the
Aramean threat. This biblical claim should be rejected. Two reasons could be named for
potential Israelite aggression against Aram: 1) Hazael killed the ally of Israel (i.e., Hada-
dezer) and usurped the throne of Damascus inspiring some kind of revenge from the per-
spective of the king of Israel; or 2) the transition of the reign from the ally Hadadezer to
another family (i.e., that of Hazael, who does not appear to have been related to his prede-
cessor) allowed Joram to justify a land-grab at the expense of his neighbor who was no
longer explicitly his ally. Cf. Yamada, “Aram-Israel,” 618.
199 Cf. Na’aman, “Three Notes,” 97: “He [Hazael] rather emphasises that the hostile acts were
resumed between the death of his father and his own coronation.” And: “It may be no acci-
dent that the triple reference to ‘my father’ in the opening of the inscription was inserted
by a king who had in fact seized the throne of Damascus in contravention of the proper
order of succession” (Na’aman, “Three Notes,” 99)
200 While I don’t believe that Shalmaneser III (or even his scribes) spent their time collecting
and reconstructing genealogical tables of the rulers and dynasties of their neighboring
kingdoms, Shalmaneser III would have less to gain by disclaiming Hazael’s noble descent
that Hazael would gain by claiming it.
net gain is obvious.” 201Hazael’s claim to have killed Joram of Israel and
Ahaziahu of Judah remains suspicious. 202 While it seems necessary to regard
him as having at least implicitly supported Jehu in his rise to power (how else
could Jehu have left the battle at Ramoth-Gilead, if no cease-fire had been
called?), it seems improbable that Hazael killed these two kings. 203 For one
thing, the Tel Dan Inscription makes no mention of the king of “the house of
David” other than in the comment that Hazael killed him. Was he also present
at the invasion of Damascene territory referenced in the Tel Dan Inscription?
The reader is left with no reason to think so. Hazael seems to have chosen to
understand Jehu as his agent 204 (whether he really was or not) and took credit
for the death of these two kings. 205 Additionally, one would have to wonder
———————————
201 Sasson, “Old Aramaic,” 28.
202 In order to resolve this conflict between the biblical material and the Tel Dan Inscription,
Yamada (Yamada, “Aram-Israel,” 619–20) suggests reinterpreting the verb ‫ קתל‬in the Tel
Dan Inscription as “defeat” instead of kill. His supporting evidence for this is surprisingly
weak, most notably the Akk. verb dâku and the Aramaic of Targum Jonathan. This sug-
gested change in meaning should be rejected.
203 Contra Na’aman, “Three Notes,” 102–4, who argues: “Is it likely that Hazael selected to
place at the centre of his inscription an episode in which he had not played a major part?”
Two considerations: 1) There is no evidence to suggest that this claim was the “centre of
his inscription.” This is an argument based on the current state of the inscription, in which
this claim is roughly the central claim. What came before and after? We unfortunately
have no idea. 2) “Playing a major part in the episode” [to paraphrase] begs the question,
from whose perspective? Doubtlessly Hazael viewed his role in this process as being
important, regardless of what role he really played. Hazael’s claim here remains at least as
suspicious as the claims of the biblical narrative. Further, “…the story in 2 Kings 9–10 has
a definite propagandistic quality in the sense that it was related in an effort to legitimise
the newly-established dynasty and justify the atrocities committed in the course of the
rebellion.” (Nadav Na’aman, “The Story of Jehu’s Rebellion: Hazael’s Inscription and the
Biblical Narrative,” IEJ 56, no. 2 [2006]: 164) Is the Tel Dan Inscription really any differ-
ent on this account? Cf. below and Sasson, “Old Aramaic,” 13: “The text [of the Tell Dan
Inscription] served both the victor’s followers and the vanquished enemy.” [Italics in
original]
204 Although mentioned in another context, one should consider the observation of Mordechai
Cogan, “A Plaidoyer on Behalf of the Royal Scribes,” in Ah, Assyria.. Studies in Assyrian
History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed.
Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 123: “even though
the King [sic!] himself may have been far from the battlefield, a victory by one of his ser-
vants was his victory.”
205 Contra Irvine (Stuart A. Irvine, “The Rise of the House of Jehu,” in The Land That I Will
Show You [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 116), who argues: “One might rea-
sonably guess that, in the 830s and even 820s BCE, people in Dan and in Palestine genera-
lly, knew how Jehoram and Ahaziah had died. If Jehu in fact had executed the two kings,
Hazael (or his scribes) could hardly have hoped to persuade many that he had killed them.
how it came into the biblical tradition that Jehu killed the kings. Wiping out the
families is one thing, but the fact that the text boldly presumes that Jehu has a
personal confrontation with Joram suggests that Jehu was the agent responsible
for the killing. Personally, I feel that something like a regicide remains longer
in the memory of the people than Na’aman seems to suggest. 206 If Hazael acted
alone and killed the kings outside of Israelite territory, who would promote the
story in Israel that Jehu had killed them in Israel? Couldn’t any supporter of
Jehu simply (as Hazael has done) merely comment: ‫ יהוה‬made Jehu king after
Joram died (or was killed by the godless Hazael)? “Bevor man … Um-
deutungen des biblischen Textes vornimmt, scheint es mir einfacher, dass der
König von Damaskus Anlass sah, sich die Tötung der beiden Herrscher
zuzuschreiben, ob Jehu nun sein Vassal war oder nicht; die Tötung durch den
König persönlich ist ohnehin eher eine Floskel.” 207
While it is not possible to affirm everything recorded in the Tel Dan
Inscription, there are a few kernels of material from the Tel Dan Inscription
that can be used for the reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding Jehu’s
rise to kingship over Israel. These mostly come from materials affirmed by the
Tel Dan Inscription, however, some of the events denied in the Tel Dan
Inscription also aid in the reconstruction of the history of Israel at this time.
———————————
Thus, if the Tel Dan stela makes precisely this claim, it is probably true.” This theory fails
to note the presumably limited availability of information in antiquity. We have no idea
how many witnesses were present at the deaths of Joram and Ahaziahu. The only location
we can plausibly reconstruct for their deaths is Jezreel, which although proximal to Dan (at
least by today’s standards) is not Dan. It would not be possible to reconstruct whether
information about their deaths in Jezreel reached Dan. Hazael may have had a monopoly
on this kind of political information flowing into Dan shortly after the incident in question.
If he were able to tell the story first and more permanently (it was engraved in stone, after
all), who would really be able to question him? Irvine’s theory also seems to suggest that
just because Hazael wrote it, everyone would necessarily believe it. There may have been
consequences for those who didn’t, but we have no way of verifying that. More likely, it
seems that Hazael wrote about his victory in order to make the city-dwellers give up any
connection to or hope of return to Israel.
206 Cf. Na’aman, “Three Notes,” 104.
207 Manfred Clauss, Geschichte des Alten Israels (Oldenbourg Grundriss der Geschichte;
München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2009), 157.
The Zakkur Inscription 275
The Zakkur Inscription
General Matters and Dating 208
The inscription of ZKR (usually transliterated as Zakkur or Zakir) 209 recounts

this king’s victory against a coalition of Aramean kings under the leadership of
Bar-Hadad bar Hazael (i.e., Ben-Hadad of 1 Kings 20 and 2 Kings 13). It can-
not be dated with any certainty other than to the end of the ninth century or the
beginning of the eighth century BCE, a dating which relies entirely on the iden-
tification of Bar-Hadad bar Hazael. The inscription was discovered in Afiz (cf.
line 11), southwest of Aleppo. 210 Extensive portions are badly damaged, and
the relief decorating the upper portion of the stele has been destroyed with the
exception of some feet and the seam of a garment. Currently, the inscription is
housed and displayed in the Louvre (not far from the Mesha Inscription). The
Zakkur inscription presumably represents the youngest lapidary inscription
from Syria-Palestine considered in this historical reconstruction, coming from
some time during the reign of Bar-Hadad bar Hazael, most likely towards the
end of the ninth century BCE. It offers the historian only tangent information
regarding the history of Israel, but does help to illuminate the background for
the conflicts between Israel and Aram during the reign of Joash of Israel.
Translation
A 1) The stele that ZKR king of [H. a]mat and L‘Š erected for ’LWR [his lord?]
2) [I] am ZKR king of H. amat and L‘Š; an oppressed 211 man was I, but [he res-
cued] me:
3) The lord of the heavens! And the lord of the heav[ens] arose with me and made
me king [over]
4) [H.a]zrak. Then Bar-Hadad bar Hazael king of Aram brought down against me
se-
5) [ven]teen kings: Bar-Hadad and his army, Bar-Gusi and his army, and [the king
of]
———————————
208 For an introductory discussion of this inscription, cf. Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 170–71.
209 Cf. Alan R. Millard, “Epigraphic Notes, Aramaic and Hebrew,” PEQ 110 (1978): 23 and
the literature cited there. For this study, I will use Zakkur.
210 Cf. Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 156.
211 Cf. the translation in Edward Lipi ński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta; Leuven: Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental
Studies, 1975), 22.
6) Que and his army, and the king of Ameq and his army, and the king of Gur-
gu[m]
7) and his [ar]my, and the king of Sam’al and his a[rm]y, and the king of Miliz
[and his a]rm[y]...
8) …seve[nteen kings]
9) [th]ey and their armies. And all of the kings set up a siege-work against
H.azra[k]
10) And they erected a wall larger than the wall of H. azrak and they dug a moat
deeper than the moat.
11) So I raised my hand to the lord of the hea[ven]s and the lord of the heaven[s]
answered me [and]
12) the lord of the heavens [spoke] to me [by] the hand of seers and by the hand of
diviners.
13) [And] the lord of the heavens [said to me:] be not afraid for I made [you] ki[ng
and I]
14) will arise with you and I will save you from all of [these kings who]
15) forced a siege against you and he said to [me…]
16) all these kings who forced… 212
17) …this wall wh[ich…]
B 1) …H.azrak…
2) …for chariotry [and] for cavalry
3) …its king and in its middle I
4) …[re-buil]t(?) H.azrak and [I] expanded [it]
5) …the whole district (?) of…
6) …and I erected it…
7) …
8) …these fortifications in all [my] bounda[ries]
9) …[And] I [bu]ilt 213 houses of the gods in all my
10) [land]…and I built…
11) …APŠ…
12) …the…house…
14) …and I erected before [’LWR my lord]
15) …this stele and in[scribed on] it that of my hands
16) …[Who]ever should remove tha[t of the]
17) [hands of] ZKR king of H. ama[t and L]
18) ‘Š from this stele and who[ever]
19) [should] remove this stele from [be-]
20) [fo]re ’LWR and should have removed it fro[m]
21) its place or whoever should send…
22) …
23) …[the lor]d of the heavens and ’L
24) [WR]…and Šamaš and ŠHR…
25) …and the gods of the heaven[s]
26) …[and the god]s of the earth and the lord...
———————————
212 For the problems understanding the verb, cf. Lipi ński, Aramaic Inscriptions, 19–21.
213 KAI 202 falsely reconstructs and transcribes this as ‫]ב[גית‬, when they meant ‫]ב[נית‬.
The Zakkur Inscription 277
27) …the man214 and…

28) …
C 1) …
2) the name of ZKR and the name of…
This theologically loaded royal inscription describes one successful battle of

King Zakkur of Hamat against a coalition of kings. It concludes with some kind
of curses for anyone who might desecrate this monument. The text, which is
badly damaged, containing a number of lacunae, implies Zakkur’s victory over
Bar-Hadad and his allies. Little information offers only limited aid in providing
a historical reconstruction for Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries.
Information Consistent with Other Sources: The Zakkur inscription ver-
ifies the existence of a king known as Bar-Hadad bar Hazael in the ninth cen-
tury; this king is also known from the Israel Source and may be identical with
Marī of the inscriptions of Adad-nārārī III of Assyria.
Information Inconsistent with Other Sources: No sources provide infor-
mation directly contradicting anything in the Zakkur Inscription.
Information Neither Confirmed Nor Denied in Other Sources: This
event is not known from any other sources.
The most important datum this inscription offers for a reconstruction of
Israelite history can be found in the additional background information about
Bar-Hadad of Damascus. The reason for Bar-Hadad’s aggression remains unre-
ported, but it is potentially related to Hamat’s pro-Assyrian stance and/or
expansionistic policies. 215 According to this text, Bar-Hadad was apparently
unsuccessful in his aggression against Hamat. Add to this his losing conflicts
with the Assyrians recounted in the inscriptions of Adad-n ārārī III and the
Israel Source’s description of his losses at the hands of Joash of Israel and the
image of Bar-Hadad bar Hazael comes into focus: he consistently lost to his
enemies. The question then becomes in what order Bar-Hadad suffered these
defeats. Assuming that one can more or less rely on the lengths of the reigns of
the Jehuide kings as found in the Israel Source, Jehu must have reigned ca.
———————————
214 Unclear. Also possible: “and I will raise”.
215 Cf. Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 158 and 172.
842–818, Jehoahaz ca. 818–802, and Joash ca. 802–785. Since the Assyrian
campaigns against Bar-Hadad occurred sometime between 805–796, these may
have been the first major losses for Bar-Hadad, though nothing precludes the
Zakkur inscription from describing his first major loss. After these two failures,
he presumably tried his luck against Israel again, losing at Samaria and Apheq.
Bar-Hadad’s failures against Assyria and Hamat presumably paved the way for
Joash’s victories against him.
Samarian Stele Fragments
While one could hope for an Israelite lapidary inscription from this period, the
archaeological evidence remains limited. Only one word of a Hebrew inscrip-
tion has been found to date: •‫אשר‬. The upper edge of this limestone fragment
has remained in tact, suggesting that this word comes from the first line of the
inscription. 216 Based on paleographic considerations, the likely date of this
inscription is the eighth century, most likely between 770 and 745. 217 While the
generally accepted meaning is the particle ‫“ אשר‬who or which,” one could also
potentially read it as the proper name Aššur. As this seems unlikely in the first
line of an Israelite inscription (especially as it appears that the Jehuide dynasty
of the eighth century tried to cover their relationship with the Assyrians, as
seen in the Israel Source), the older interpretation should be regarded as more
probable. 218 Unfortunately, little information beyond the existence of an Israel-
ite lapidary inscription sometime in the second quarter of the eighth century in
Samaria can be gleaned from this object.
The remains of an Akkadian stele have also been found at Samaria, though
even less is known about it than the Hebrew stele. 219 It most likely comes from
the time following the Assyrian conquest of the city, i.e., from the period of
Sargon II or Sennacherib of Assyria, although this cannot be stated with any
certainty. Though no line of this text has survived completely, no known
———————————
216 For a photograph of the inscription, cf. J.W. Crowfoot, Grace M. Crowfoot, and Kathleen
Kenyon M., The Objects from Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste; London: Chiswick Press,
1957), Plate IV n. 1.
217 Cf. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, 33–34.
218 Cf. Renz and Röllig, HAE I, 135.
219 For an image, cf. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, Plate IV n. 2. For information
about this stele fragment, cf. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, 35.
The Samaria Ostraca 279
inscriptions of these monarchs match this text. Based on paleographic grounds,

one could anticipate a date between the ninth and seventh centuries BCE, a date
that does not help in any reconstruction of Israel’s history, since we know from
other sources that the Israelites had contacts with the Assyrians over the whole
course of these periods. Until more information can be brought to bear on this
artifact, it is best to offer no reconstruction based on it, other than acknowledg-
ing its existence and mentioning that it supports other sources claiming contact
between the Israelites and the Mesopotamians between the ninth and seventh
centuries BCE.
The Samaria Ostraca
General Information and Dating
These ostraca are the most reliable source referencing the history of Israel con-
sidered in this chapter. 220 The genre provides the simplest explanation for this
suggestion; whereas all of the other texts considered here represent lapidary
inscriptions proclaiming the greatness of their various benefactors, the Samaria
ostraca represent some kind of receipts for goods delivered, though it remains
unclear exactly what their Sitz im Leben was.221 They inform the modern his-
torian about Israelite history in a way that lapidary inscriptions cannot; they
provide the only real textual glimpse into daily life that we have. If one would
wish to argue that they don’t provide information about normal life, in that they
probably still represent data from the upper eschelons of society, they are still
at least the closest textual source to real life that we have, even if only for the
upper class. These texts offer numbers and names rather than recount the
incredible military successes of their benefactor. In this way, they provide the
———————————
220 Cf. André Lemaire, Inscriptions Hébraïques Tome I: Les Ostraca (Littératures anciennes
du Proche-Orient; Paris: Cerf, 1977), 23–81, 245–50 and Renz and Röllig, HAE I, 79–110
for literature, general descriptions, transcription, translation, and a general discussion of
the Samaria Ostraca.
221 The identification provided in HAE seems likely: “Eingangslisten von Naturallieferungen
für die Palastregistratur.” (Renz and Röllig, HAE I, 80) For a summary of the discussion
surrounding the date and function of the ostraca, cf. Anson F. Rainey, “The Samaria
Ostraca in the Light of Fresh Evidence,” PEQ 99 (1967): 32–41; William H. Shea, “The
Date and Significance of the Samaria Ostraca,” IEJ 27 (1977): 16–17; and the literature
cited there.
most reliable information about Israelite history considered in this chapter, as

they offer facts with no claims of truth. Paleography suggests a date in the first
half of the eighth century BCE.222 The texts that can be more specifically dated
(they claim to come from the ninth, tenth, and fifteenth years—presumably of a
king, most likely Jeroboam II) come from roughly the years 779/8 and 773. 223
Contents
It would make little sense to offer translations of the 102 ostraca from Samaria,
as there is already an easily accessible edition of these texts; cf. HAE
Sam(8):1.1–102. 224 The more important information they contain touches on a
number of matters important for reconstructing Israelite history: dates, personal
names, locations, and products. Let us begin with the last item: The products
listed in these texts include old wine [‫ ]ין ישן‬and fine oil [‫]שמן רחץ‬. As far as the
locations are concerned, the Samaria ostraca have a direct parallel in the list of
the clans of the tribe of Manasseh found in Numbers 26:29–34 and Joshua
17:1–3; cf. the lists provided in HAE for the exact locations. 225 In terms of the
dates, the most likely period in which these texts were written appears to be
during the reign of Jeroboam II. 226 This datum may help us to understand some
of the other sources regarding his reign. Finally, one must consider the more
difficult issue of the names in the Samaria ostraca.
———————————
222 Contra Benjamin Mazar, “The Historical Background of the Samaria Ostraca,” in The
Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (ed. Shmuel Ah. ituv and Baruch A. Levine; Jeru-
salem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 173–88, who, based on archaeological data,
paleographic analysis, and internal dating criteria dates the ostraca to the reign of Jehoahaz
ben Jehu in the ninth century. The most questionable aspect here regards his internal dat-
ing criteria, in that he presumes that had the ostraca come from the reign of Jeroboam II,
we surely would have some examples that date from later in his reign (Benjamin Mazar,
“Samaria Ostraca,” 179). Add to this his imprecise paleographical analysis—he concen-
trates almost exclusively on their potential paleographic relationship to the Mesha inscrip-
tion (cf. Benjamin Mazar, “Samaria Ostraca,” 176–78)—and his position can be rejected.
223 Contra Lemaire, Inscriptions, 77–81, who divides this into two groups, one under Joash
and one under Jeroboam II, dated 795–794 and 776 respectively.
224 Renz and Röllig, HAE I, 79–109.
226 Contra Shea, “Samaria Ostraca,” 20–22, whose thesis that the ostraca come from the time
of Menachem and Pekah requires re-dating material from the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser
III, which seems most improbable. The theory is also largely based on Menachem’s tribute
to Tiglath-Pileser III as recounted in 2 Kings 15:19–20, which supposedly necessitated an
increased taxation of the populace.
Names in the Samaria Ostraca:227

1) ‫ יהוה‬Names [≈12–15]: ‫( שמריו‬1.1; 1.13–14; 1.21); ‫( ידעיו‬1.1; 1.42; 1.48);
‫( גדיו‬1.2; 1.4–7; 1.16–18; 1.33–35; 1.42); ‫( יוישע‬1.36; 4); ‫( עגליו‬1.41); ‫עדניו‬
(1.42); ‫( יונתן‬1.45); ‫( עבדיו‬1.50); ‫( אריו‬1.50; 6); ‫( אביו‬1.52); ‫( בדיו‬1.58); ‫( קליו‬6);
unclear: ...‫( יו‬1.57); ‫( מחסיו‬6) and ‫( סמכיו‬6).
2) ‫ בעל‬Names [6]: ‫( בעלא‬1.1; 1.3; 1.27–1.28; 1.31a–b); ‫( אבבעל‬1.2); ‫מרבעל‬
(1.2); ‫( בעל‬1.12); ‫( בעלמעני‬1.27); ‫( בעלזכר‬1.37).
3) ‫ אל‬Names [4–5]: ‫( אלישע‬1.1 [2x]); ‫( אלבא‬1.1); ‫( אלא‬1.38); ‫( אשראל‬1.42;
1.48); ...‫( אל‬1.43; 1.46).
As demonstrated in this list, of the 22–26 names that clearly contain
theophoric elements, at most 15 contain ‫ יהוה‬as the theophoric element,
whereas names including ‫ בעל‬228 and ‫אל‬229 each have between four and six
attestations. This is only a tabulation of the names, meaning that it is possible
in some instances that one name has more than one referent; nothing precludes
more than one person having the same name. Having taken a brief glance at the
contents of the Samaria ostraca, we can consider their import for a reconstruc-
tion of Israel’s history in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE.
In terms of the dating of these ostraca, one should note that none of the
names in the later ostraca (i.e., those from the third quarter of the eighth cen-
tury according to the dating in HAE 230) contain theophoric elements for deities
other than ‫יהוה‬.
According to HAE there is one dedicational inscription: ‫[ ליה‬Sam(8):2] 231
among the Samaria ostraca, demonstrating that there was reverence for ‫ יהוה‬in
Samaria during the eighth century BCE.232 Unfortunately, this dating seems to
———————————
227 Cf. the discussion of the personal names in Lemaire, Inscriptions, 47–55 and 249. The
numbers of the ostraca follow those in Renz and Röllig, HAE I.
228 “Das Problem, das die ‫בעל‬-Namen stellen, ist dies: Ist unter dem Appellativum ‫ בעל‬einfach
Jahwe zu verstehen… oder handelt es sich um von Jahwe unterschiedene Gottheiten?”
(Martin Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung [BWANT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928], 102–21) Noth’s ultimate accept-
ance of the distinction between ‫ בעל‬and ‫ יהוה‬seems to be accurate.
229 Since ‫ אל‬could function as both a common and a proper noun in Hebrew, the evidence
here is more insecure. “Da ‫ אל‬abgesehen von einigen sekundären Erscheinungen nur als
Appellativum mit ganz allgemeiner Bedeutung auftritt, so läßt sich unmittelbar gar nichts
über die damit in den Personennamen bezeichnete Gottheit ausmachen.” (Noth,
Israelitische Personennamen, 92)
230 Cf. further Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, 11–25.
231 Cf. the photograph in Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, Plate III n. 14.
be inaccurate. This position had been rejected already in 1936, but the relevant
literature was not cited in HAE. 233 This position was affirmed in 1957 by
Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon; the divine name, read as ‫ יה‬here, would
more likely have been written as ‫ יו‬in this period based on onomastic
evidence. 234 Rather than consider this inscription from the eighth century, a
fourth century context seems more probable. The dating of HAE should be
emended; this dedicational inscription has no relevance for the eighth century.
Historical Considerations
The Samaria ostraca only imply their most important information relevant for a
historical reconstruction. First and foremost, one must recognize the implica-
tion of a royal state apparatus: the dates in the ostraca must refer to regnal
years of a king, as no other system of dating could be implied from this limited
evidence; a bureaucratic state is implied in the kind of receipt registry these
texts represent (someone was trying to keep track of the materials that came in
and where they came from and were going). These two factors suggest that a
state was behind the Samaria ostraca and existed in Israel during the first half
of the eighth century BCE. The various names of geographical locations aid in
understanding some of the extent of the region controlled by this state. The fact
that these kind of shipments were being made to and from Samaria implies that
there were some people with enough wealth and importance to be making and
receiving these shipments in Samaria. Further, the names imply that Baal wor-
ship may have still been going on in the first half of the eighth century BCE.235
The existence of these texts implies literacy near the court of the king in the
eighth century at Samaria.
Information Consistent with Other Sources: The Israel Source also
assumes that a state existed in Israel in the first half of the eighth century BCE,
as do the inscriptions of Adad-nārārī III. The presumption of a wealthy class
behind the Samaria ostraca matches the critical claims of prophets like Amos
and Hosea, who suggest that such a wealthy class must have existed in Israel in
———————————
233 Cf. E. L. Sukenik, “Potsherds from Samaria, Inscribed with the Divine Name,” PEQ 68
(1936): 34–37.
234 Cf. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, 28–29.
235 Cf. Beck, Elia, 214–15.
this period. The city known as Shechem is known in the Samaria ostraca and
the Israel Source.
Information Inconsistent with Other Sources: It seems that the narrative
of the Israel Source regarding Jehu’s extirpation of the Baal cult as found in the
redacted text of 2 Kings 9–10* may in the least be exaggerated. Though it is
possible that people with names containing Baal as the theophoric element do
not imply Baal religion in Israel during the first half of the eighth century BCE,
it seems more likely that this religion continued in Israel during this period.
One should note, however, that names incorporating Baal in them represent
only a minority of the theophoric names in the Samaria ostraca. This being
said, it is still probable that there was some form of Baal worship in Israel in
the eighth century BCE, though it is unclear to what extent or how exactly it was
practices.
Information Neither Verified nor Denied by Other Sources: There is
no relevant information beyond the names of a variety of individuals and loca-
tions.
Based on the evidence of the Samaria ostraca, one could reconstruct a lim-
ited state with some bureaucratic organs operating to maintain order. The par-
allel existence adherents to the Baal and ‫ יהוה‬religions (and potentially some
adherents to some form of the El cult) could be implied in the names of some
individuals, though the Baal cult represents a minority. The archaeologically
identified texts are the least biased texts referenced for a reconstruction of
Israel’s history, and should be given priority over other texts, when there is ten-
sion between the texts.
Conclusions
The textual sources from Syria-Palestine, covering some 150 years, provide the
historian with a great service in terms of reconstructing Israel’s history. The
oldest source, the Mesha Inscription, aids in understanding the downturn of the
large kingdom of Israel maintained during the hegemony of the Omride
dynasty. The Tel Dan Inscription illuminates the quick end of the Omrides and
rapidly disintegrating relationship between Aram and Israel after the middle of
the ninth century. The Zakkur Inscription provides more background informa-
tion about the decline of Damascene influence over Syria-Palestine during the
reign of Bar-Hadad bar Hazael. Finally, the Samaria ostraca, in that they offer
factual data from the first half of the eighth century rather than haughty royal
narrative, can aid in the reconstruction of Israelite history in this period. Now,
we can turn our attention to a reconstruction of the history of Israel from the
beginning of the Omrides to the pinnacle of Jehuide power, taking all of the
relevant sources of information into account.
CHAPTER 8
Conclusions
Based on the information gleaned from our various literary sources—the bibli-
cal materials in their oldest recoverable form, epigraphic materials from Syria
and Palestine, and Akkadian inscriptional evidence—I can now offer a recon-
struction of Israel’s history from the time of Jeroboam I through the time of
Jeroboam II. While the period preceding Ahab remains somewhat in the shad-
ows, from Ahab through the rise of Jeroboam II many sources inform the mod-
ern historian with the exception of some gaps, most especially during the reign
of Jehoahaz of Israel. After offering a reconstruction of the history of Israel
and a glimpse at the development of the book of Kings, I will offer the matters
identified and addressed in this monograph that must be expanded upon and
where further research remains necessary.
The sources taken under consideration are the following:
1) Biblical material
A) The Israel Source
B) The Judean redactional materials
C) Hosea
D) Amos
2) Assyrian lapidary inscriptions
3) Syrian and Palestinian epigraphical materials
Historical Reconstruction
Based on the preceding evaluations in chapters 5–7, one can begin to construct
a history of Israel from the ninth to the eighth centuries BCE. For the period
before Omri, one is left with essentially the biblical image alone. Any recon-
struction of singular historical events (Jeroboam I’s building of the altars and
cult images in Dan and Bethel) remains a matter of the interpreter’s hermeneut-
286 Chapter 8: Conclusions
ics: either one can believe the biblical image (or some portions of it) or one can
reject it. Archaeology only aids in the reconstructions of long tendencies for
this period: what kind of settlements existed, how many people lived in the
Levant, etc. For the individual rulers and the narratives about them, one must
either accept the biblical image or reject it. It is entirely possible that Jeroboam
I made religious centers in Bethel and Dan, as it is possible that he engaged in
building activities at Penuel and Shechem. Archaeological remains at Dan sug-
gest that someone did build a cultic site there during roughly the period attrib-
uted to his reign. 1 However, without the biblical materials, it would be impossi-
ble to assign this construction to a man named Jeroboam from the kingdom of
Israel.
As the biblical image seems trustworthy on some other matters of this
nature—especially by the Omride period—we can consider it plausible that it
more or less accurately ascribes some undertakings to Jeroboam I. The biblical
image of Jeroboam’s (re)building of a cultic center at Dan seems to match the
archaeological record of that city, though of course no golden calves have been
found there. The Israel Source’s attestation of Jeroboam’s twenty-two year
reign, as well as the prophetic injunction of Ahijah of Shiloh, can neither be
affirmed nor denied.
The various political revolts in the early days of Israel are also possible,
i.e., at least no evidence can be found to contradict them. Again, whether one
believes the narrative is singularly a hermeneutical evaluation of the biblical
materials lacking other pertinent evidence. While these matters are possible,
the self-serving interest of the text (i.e., the early dynasties of Israel could not
maintain their dominance of Israel as the Jehuide kings could) could be indica-
tive of intentionally disingenuous representations of historical events. These
matters can ultimately neither be confirmed nor denied. Since other relevant
matters in the ninth century have the appearance of some reliability (i.e., they
are attested or confirmed to a greater or lesser degree in extrabiblical materi-
als), there is no reason that one must deny their reliability a priori. After a
———————————
1 “The earliest evidence of a cultic character found in the course of the excavation goes back
only to the 10th century B.C.E., to the time of King Jeroboam I, the son of Nebat.” (Biran,
Biblical Dan, 165) Biran believes that there may be an older sanctuary at Dan, based on
the biblical narratives without being able to verify this matter with independent
archaeological finds.
Historical Reconstruction 287
series of kings over a period of instability between the accession of Jeroboam I

and the death of Zimri—a period of approximately 50 years, if the biblical
numbers can be trusted—Omri established himself as king of Israel around the
year 887 BCE. However, no other matters from the pre-Omride period will be
considered in this reconstruction.
After a few years, Omri presumably undertook the extensive expansion of
a new capital city for his realm: the city Samaria. Archeological digs at
Samaria suggest that the city could have largely been constructed in his time
and in the time of Ahab. 2 This would be consistent with the image known from
the Israel source. It was from this newly established capital city that Israelite
kings would rule through Israel’s successful and unsuccessful periods for the
next 150 years. Other than the beginning of building projects, presumably com-
pleted or expanded under Ahab, we have limited information about Omri’s
reign and what kind of foreign contacts he may have had.
Due to the apparent Phoenician influence on the architecture and pottery of
the period, one could suggest that he had some kind of contact with
Phoenicians.3 The biblical presentation would support this image in that Ahab
supposedly married a Phoenician princess according to the Israel Source. The
usage of Omri’s name in later Assyrian inscriptions as a referent to the king-
dom of Israel (i.e., Bīt Humrī), permits the postulation of some cultural or
˘
political contact with Assyria, although this cannot be affirmed with certainty
until the reign Ahab. According to the Mesha Inscription, Omri ruled over
Moab and oppressed it. The Israel Source at most implies this, as no conquest
of Moab is attributed to Omri, but Moab’s self-liberation some time after his
———————————
2 The building periods at Samaria have been somewhat reorganized in recent literature.
According to Norma Franklin, “Samaria: From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace,”
Levant 36 (2004): 189–202 the earliest phase (= building period 0) began under Omri and
included the inner wall; the second phase (= building period 1) included the casemate wall
and was undertaken during Ahab’s reign. Both of these periods defined the shape of
Samaria for some time, i.e. Omri’s construction projects remained standing well into the
Jehuide period, being expanded by Ahab’s contribution. Building period 2 then
represented something new, coming from a later time, i.e., during the Jehuide reign of
either Joash or Jeroboam II.
3 For the period of the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, Israelite pottery has some affinities
with that of their neighboring cultures, most especially Phoenicia. For a brief introduction
of the various types of pottery found in Israel during this period, as well as their
development, cf. Gabriel Barkay, “The Iron Age II–III,” in The Archaeology of Ancient
Israel (ed. Amnon Ben-Tor; trans. R. Greenberg; New Haven; London: Yale University
Press, 1992), 353–54.
death is known to the Israel Source. Combining these factors, Israel under
Omri’s auspices presumably developed international contacts with Phoenicia
(and possibly Assyria) and apparently ruled over Moab.
Further, the Mesha Inscription confirms the Israel Source’s implied politi-
cal domination of Moab during Omri’s reign time (or, more precisely, during
the time of Ahab). The Israel Source remains reticent about when Moab came
under Israel’s control. Either this fact was unknown, intentionally left out, or
later removed. Either of the last two possibilities seems likely, as the Israel
Source only records conquests for Joash of Israel and Jeroboam II, ignoring
any possible successful military campaigns of their predecessors (e.g., Ahab at
Qarqar against Shalmaneser III in 853 and—probably—Joram against
Shalmaneser III in 849, 848, and 845) or, alternatively, it could have been
removed by a later redactor in order to make the history of Israel more consis-
tent with the image of David in 2 Samuel 8:2. I find it more likely that the
Israel Source did not incorporate this information in order to preclude a more
positive image of the predecessor of the Jehuide dynasty than that someone
later redacted this material out, especially as the Mesha Inscription suggests
that Israelite domination over Moab was limited to a few generations (i.e., forty
years) as opposed to the 150 or so years that would be required if Moab should
have been under Israelite domination from the time of David as described in
the Bible.
The Israel Source’s claim that Moab fell away from Israel (immediately—
based on context) after Ahab’s death does not precisely match the Mesha
Inscription, which literally places its political independence during the time of
Omri’s son, i.e., Ahab. As this person remains anonymous in the Mesha
Inscription, it is just as likely that this event could refer to some later successor
of Omri. It seems safer to suggest that Moab liberated itself from Israel’s politi-
cal dominance sometime after Ahab’s death; this reconstruction better matches
the evidence presented in the Israel Source and the Mesha Inscription.
Sometime around 875 BCE Ahab acceded to the throne of Israel. This had
important consequences for the development of Israel as a party to interna-
tional politics. It seems that Ahab was able to put Israel on the map in a manner
that was previously unknown: he concluded a political marriage to the daughter
of a Phoenician king; he arranged a marriage between his daughter (or sister)
and the king of Judah; he joined an anti-Assyrian coalition of Syro-Palestinian

states under the leadership of Damascus that was able to repel the incursions of
Shalmaneser III on four occasions, though he presumably only personally took
part in the first one. In 853 Ahab took part in standing up to Shalmaneser III
and appears to have been successful in repelling this Assyrian invasion. Shortly
thereafter he must have died.
The Israel Source’s presentation of Ahab’s building activities may be
somewhat accurate. Two factors suggest this accuracy: 1) the claim that Ahab
built cities places him in a positive light, something that is generally inconsis-
tent with the Tendenz of the Israel Source, and thus increases its plausibility;
and 2) archaeological studies have demonstrated the high probability of large
building efforts during Ahab’s reign. 4 For these reasons, one should anticipate
building activity during Ahab’s reign. What one cannot legitimately anticipate
is the Israel Source’s claim that he built a “house of Ivory.” This appears more
likely to be a deliberate contradiction of prophetic injunctions against the
wealthy of Samaria who “lie on beds of ivory” of Amos: Ahab didn’t merely
lounge on ivory furniture, but lounged in an ivory house. The hyperbole of the
Israel Source in this matter cannot be overlooked. Rather, one could also antic-
———————————
4 This refers especially to the cities of Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo, which, according to the
Low Chronology underwent extensive building during the Omride period, cf. the
methodological precursor to the Low Chronology in Israel Finkelstein, “On Archaeological
Methods and Historical Considerations: Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria,” BASOR 277/278
(February/May 1990): 109–19. For an introduction to the Low Chronology, cf. Israel
Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View,” Levant 28
(1996): 177–87; Israel Finkelstein, “Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the
Iron Age? A Rejoinder,” Levant 30 (1998): 167–74; Israel Finkelstein, “State Formation in
Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory,” Near Eastern 62, no. 1
(March 1999): 35–52; and Israel Finkelstein, “The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The
Missing Link,” Levant 33 (2001): 105–15. However, some criticisms can be brought to
bear upon it; for such a critical consideration of the low chronology, cf. the response by
Amihai Mazar, “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein,” Levant 29
(1997): 157–67. Further criticisms can be found in Amnon Ben-Tor and Doron Ben-Ami,
“Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E,” IEJ 48 (1998): 29–34 and
Rüdiger Schmitt, “Die frühe Königszeit in Israel,” UF 36 (2004): 411–30. In spite of these
criticisms, I find the position of Finkelstein to be more probable. One must consider the
manner of the biblical references to the cities offered in the criticisms against the Low
Chronology. The biblical ascription of these cities to Solomon occurs in the context of
describing his greatness, whereas the material relating Jezreel to the Omrides occurs only
as a matter of establishing setting. This qualitative difference suggests that the references
to Jezreel are more reliable, in that they escape the ascription of an ulterior motive. It
seems that Ahab undertook some extensive building projects during his reign.
ipate wealth in the time of Jeroboam II being demonstrated through ivory fur-
nishings. The Samaria ivories attest to this possibility, as do some pieces found
in Nimrud marked with Hebrew letters [Nim(8):1–3]. 5 The eighth-century date
of these pieces, based on a paleographic analysis, seems more probable than a
ninth-century date, i.e., these pieces fit better in the time of Jeroboam II than in
the time of Ahab. 6 Ahab’s peaceful death as presented in the Israel Source
seems more likely than the violent death that the current text of the Bible
implies for him.
Some insecurity in the regnal succession of Israel followed Ahab’s suc-
cessful military campaign. This was due in large part to the injury and sub-
sequent death of Ahaziah ben Ahab after a reign of less than two years.
Ahaziah’s quick demise may be historical as well, but it can be neither vali-
dated nor invalidated. The reign of his brother Joram followed. It is just as
probable that he acceded to the throne after the death of his brother than that he
did not. As the Tel Dan Inscription seems to suggest that the author of the text
was familiar with a Joram of Israel at about the right time, it seems probable
that Joram was at least a real king of Israel during this period. The precise rela-
tionship between Israel and Moab remains unclear during his reign. While the
Israel Source suggests that Moab gained its independence from Israel after the
death of Ahab, the Mesha Inscription implies (in a literal reading) that this
occurred during Ahab’s reign. One should consider the plausibility of the Israel
Source in this reconstruction: Ahab was apparently a powerful ruler; it seems
more likely that his death could have occasioned Moabite insurrection than that
Moab gained independence during his reign. One should not take the usage of
“son” in the Mesha Inscription too literally.
Akkadian sources suggest that Israel under Joram’s auspices continued
successfully aiding in the repulsion of Shalmaneser III in 849, 848, and 845.
These sources imply the continuing existence of the coalition against
Shalmaneser III and amicable relations between Damascus and Israel until at
least 845. The Tel Dan Inscription implies animosity between Joram and the
———————————
6 For general considerations of the Samaria ivories, their dating, and their Sitz im Leben, cf.
Uehlinger, “Elfenbeinschnitzereien von Samaria”. With Uehlinger, one should note that,
while many of the Samaria ivories depict religious motifs, none have been identified as
serving a cultic function to date.
king of Aram later in Joram’s reign, an event which seems to be reflected in

1 Kings 22*.
From one Assyrian source, the historian receives the impression that Hada-
dezer was succeeded illegitimately by the usurper Hazael after 845. As other
Akkadian sources indicate that Hazael was on the Damascene throne by 841,
this transition must have occurred sometime between 844–842. There is no real
indication in these sources that Hazael personally killed Hadadezer; unfortu-
nately, the only Aramean source that could illuminate this matter, the Tel Dan
Inscription, cannot be trusted on matters regarding Hazael’s genealogy. It
seems that Hazael most likely should not have followed Hadadezer on the
throne of Damascus, but the precise reasons behind this must remain unspeci-
fied pending the discovery of further evidence. We have no references any-
where to Hadadezer having a son who should have succeeded him. The silence
on this matter is frustrating for the historian, but it still seems that Hazael at
least had no anticipated claim to the Damascene throne.
Presumably the accession of this unexpected king onto the throne of
Damascus led Joram of Israel to invade Aramean territory in around 842. This
was nothing more than a opportunistic land-grab. Apparently, the battle
between the two powers took place at Ramoth-Gilead, a location that cannot be
identified with certainty, but which seems to have been somewhere in the
northern Transjordan. Hazael came out to counter the aggression of this for-
merly allied kingdom and seems to have dealt the king a non-fatal blow: Joram
retreated back into Israelite territory, to the city of Jezreel, which archaeology
suggests was a fortress for the Omrides at this time. 7 1 Kings 22* in its oldest
———————————
7 The site at Jezreel can be dated with high probability to the reign of either Omri or Ahab,
putting its major construction within the first half of the ninth century BCE. This dating of
the building period (of which there seems to only have been one in the Iron Age) relies on
the dating of stratification based on ceramic remains; cf. Cf. Orna Zimhoni, “The Iron Age
Pottery from Tel Jezreel — an Interim Report,” TA 19 (1992): 57–70 and Orna Zimhoni,
“Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel,” TA 24 (1997): 83–
109. Towards the end of the eighth century, the fortification was destroyed or abandoned.
Na’aman has suggested that the destruction of Jezreel be considered part of Hazael’s
conquests of Israel (cf. Nadav Na’aman, “Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation
of Tel Jezreel,” TA 24 [1997]: 126) rather than as a result of Jehu’s coup, as the excavators
had originally suggested (cf. David Ussishkin and John Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel
Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report,” TA 19 [1992]: 53). Ussishkin has since adopted
this position (cf. Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo,” 301).
narrative stage recounts these events in an artistic fashion with a colorful narra-
tive about the king of Israel’s cowardice in disguising himself.
In came the opportunistic Jehu. Whether explicitly supported by Hazael or
merely implicitly having leave to abandon the battle—presuming that Hazael
would not advance further into Israelite territory—Jehu set out from Ramoth-
Gilead to assassinate Joram of Israel. It seems likely that Jehu had the support
of Hazael in this matter, as he had the freedom to abandon his military post.
This suggests the resurrection of the alliance between the two powers that
Joram had destroyed through his invasion of Damascene territory. This time
there would be two new dynasties allied to one another: Damascus under
Hazael and Samaria under Jehu. This would represent a return to the Israelite
international policy briefly interrupted by the Joram’s aggression following
Hazael’s unexpected ascension on to the throne. By Shalmaneser III’s invasion
in 841, the situation had changed again, such that Damascus and Samaria
would no longer be allies as long as the Jehuides ruled in Samaria.
Joram’s death at the hands of the Arameans has to be doubted at least as
much as the Bible’s claim that Jehu killed Joram. The older source—the Tel
Dan Inscription—opines that an Aramean killed Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu
of Judah, whereas the younger Israel Source claims this deed for one of its pro-
tagonists. An Aramean king would gain more from such a claim—especially in
a region that may have previously been under Israelite hegemony—than an
Israelite king could gain from making such claims about his ancestor to an Isra-
elite audience. It seems more to Hazael’s advantage to claim this victory than
Jehu’s or Jeroboam II’s. The court audience implied by the Israel Source also
seems a more likely candidate than the citizens of Dan to know that the
recounting of Jehu’s slaughter of Joram would have been a hoax. Later Judean
redactors apparently accepted this claim as accurate, which would seem
implausible if they had records suggesting that Ahaziahu was not killed at
Jehu’s hands. One would also have to wonder what other event could have
inspired Hosea 1:4, as no other known occurrence would satisfactorily serve as
the background of this condemnation. 8 For these reasons, I find the Israel
Source’s identification of Jehu as the murderer of Joram more plausible than
Hazael’s claim to have killed Joram.
———————————
8 Cf. Irvine, “Jezreel”.
Elisha’s instigation of Jehu’s political massacre can be doubted, as this

cannot be confirmed and it definitely has the ring of a propagandistic claim to
support a usurper. 9 This claim could not even have been checked against facts
at the time of the composition of the Israel Source, in that anything that the
reader could test as a historical fact is missing; there is no time, date, place, or
any other identifying aspect to anchor Elisha’s alleged support of Jehu into the
real world. The fact that the Israel Source removes Elisha from direct interac-
tion with Jehu seems to limit the plausibility of his instigation of usurpation.
One wonders if Jehu had been anointed by some anonymous prophet (as in the
narrative) and then just traced this back to a more popular and important pro-
phetic character—Elisha. This would mean that the Israel Source usurped Eli-
sha’s image to it own ends. This seems more plausible than the historicity of
Elisha’s involvement in Jehu’s revolt. 10
The specifics of the political actions of Jehu—his discussion with Bidkar;
his commanding the defenestration of Jezebel; his exchange of letters with the
leaders in Samaria; the extermination of the Judean ruling family; his union
with Jehonadab ben Rechab—can neither be confirmed nor denied. Again, one
must look to the redactional history, if one were to focus on their plausibility.
Would the audience in Samaria believe (and pass on) a text that it knew to be
an out and out lie, even if it were 100 years removed from the events it
describes? Would the Judeans not change the text in their redaction, if they
knew that the events described were inaccurate (especially since they might
have had access to Judean records that would demonstrate the opposite)? It
seems therefore, that while some of the claims have the tone of fear-mongering
(“toss the body into field”; “push her out of the window”; “send me their
heads”; “take them alive and slaughter them elsewhere”; “see my zeal for
‫)”יהוה‬, there may be some truth in them. This will remain unable to be corrobo-
———————————
9 Contra Gösta W. Ahlström, “King Jehu: A Prophet’s Mistake,” in Scripture in History and
Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W.
Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977), 47–69.
10 Although one should also consider the tradition of Elisha’s death, which does explicitly
connect him with Joash, the grandson of Jehu. This story, which of course was not part of
the Israel Source, could imply a close connection between Elisha and the Jehuide kings.
However, as this later legendary story comes from another source—and the fact of the
matter tarnishes some of the blindingly positive victories of Joash over Aram—presumably
from a later time and from circles that may have actually been critical of the Jehuide king,
it seems more likely that Elisha was not really a part of Jehu’s political uprising.
rated, but one wonders why later redactors wouldn’t have changed the text, if
they knew that it weren’t—in substance at least, if not in tone—factual.
Jehu made it to Jezreel to assassinate Joram sometime around 842, assum-
ing that he set out to this task shortly after Joram had left the field of battle to
recover. Jehu seems to have successfully eliminated the family of Joram and
acceded to the throne of Israel. Ahaziahu of Judah fell victim to Jehu’s revolt
as well, becoming a statistic in the collateral damage; Ahaziahu’s presence sug-
gests that the alliance with Judah established between the Omrides and the rul-
ing Judean dynasty continued up to this date.
By 841 Jehu seems to have successfully established himself on the throne
of Samaria. In this year, Shalmaneser III set himself against the Levant again,
seeking the expansion of Assyria’s sphere of influence. On this occasion, he
was no longer met by the coalition that sent him back to Assyria without a sub-
stantial victory. Rather, he ravaged the land of Hazael (although he does not
seem to have been able to utterly defeat him, withdrawing in the end from
Damascus without collecting a tribute) and moved on to the Mediterranean
coast. Jehu and the Phoenician kings apparently gave up without a fight, sub-
mitting to Assyrian hegemony and bringing Shalmaneser III a tribute. “This
pro-Assyrian alignment would be Israel’s dominant posture for nearly a cen-
tury.” 11 Jehu’s submission had important implications for the Samarian-
Damascene relationship.
Since Jehu apparently did not supply military aid to his new ally Hazael,
the alliance evaporated before it could really gel. Within a period of just a cou-
ple of years, the alliance between Aram and Israel had fallen (between Joram
and Hazael), been resurrected (between Jehu and Hazael), and fallen again
(again between Jehu and Hazael). The historical circumstances suggest that
Israel was the partner responsible for the lapsing relationships: Joram attacked
Hadadezer’s successor; Jehu failed to support Hazael. There may not have
been too much time for Hazael to react aggressively in the period immediately
following Shalmaneser’s campaign 841; if there is any fact behind the claims
of Shalmaneser III that he ravaged the countryside of Damascus in 841, it
seems improbable that Hazael could have immediately invaded Israelite terri-
———————————
11 Brad E. Kelle, Ancient Israel at War: 853–586 BC (Essential Histories; Oxford: Osprey
Publishing, 2007), 39.
tory, as might be implied by the secondary Judean additions to the Jehu narra-
tive in 2 Kings 10:32b–33. More likely, it seems that Jehu may have had a few
years respite before his abandoned ally’s vindication came back to destroy
much of his kingdom.
As Shalmaneser III came back just three years after his campaign in 841,
fighting against Hazael again in 838, Israel had a few years of peace before
Hazael set out against them. It must have been after the Assyrian campaign of
838 that Hazael first had any real opportunity to set out against Israel. As 838
represented the last Assyrian campaign in the region for over a generation,
Hazael was granted a free hand to invade and conquer much of Israel after that
time. Geography suggests that he would have started in the north, and at some
time potentially within a few years of the struggles against Assyria in 838 he
must have conquered the city of Dan. Using this victory, he recounted the
opening of his reign in the partially surviving and reconstructed Tel Dan
Inscription. From Dan he could move into other regions that were under Israel-
ite domination in the period of the Omrides, as demonstrated by the destruction
of these sites during his reign: Jezreel, Hazor, and Megiddo. 12 He even made it
as far south as Gath, as suggested by the archaeological identification of
destruction layers dated to this period at this site. 13
The Tel Dan Inscription can therefore be understood as Hazael’s claiming
credit for Jehu’s activity: without his support there would have been no way
that the upstart commander Jehu could have initially come to control the throne
of Samaria. Beyond that, he washes his own past by claiming to have been
genetically entitled to the throne of Damascus against potential rumors that he
had taken this position illegitimately. His presumable monopoly on the chan-
nels of information flowing into the city of Dan makes this suggestion more
plausible. Hazael’s inscription can be read with two pairs of glasses: on the one
hand he defends his own responsibility for the dynastic transition in Israel in
about 842, while on the other hand he casts doubt on the ability of his former
ally, who had abandoned him as the Assyrians approached. The motives behind
the text can be read as sour-grapes and self-aggrandizing. We should therefore
not overestimate his role in the transition of power in Israel.
———————————
12 Cf. Na’aman, “Tel Jezreel,” 126–27 and Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo,” 304.
13 Cf. Maeir, “Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2”.
The religious revolution of Jehu as described in 2 Kings 10 seems to be

ahistorical. Archaeological finds at Samaria have identified a number of figures
that have been assigned cultic functions, although it is unclear exactly how or
to what extent. 14 One should note that into the eighth century there is still
onomastic evidence of names containing the theophoric element Baal. This
suggests that even if there were some kind of conflict between Jehu and the
worshipers of Baal, it was not as dramatically decided in favor of the Jehu
dynasty as the Bible would have us believe. Possibly, the elements of the Isra-
elite upper class belonging to the cult of Baal fell out of favor during the time
of Jeroboam II, potentially due to the cultic criticisms of people like Hosea.
Perhaps for this reason the text suggests that Jehu “removed the Baal from
Israel,” basing this statement on the claim that Jehu destroyed the temple of
Baal in Samaria.
It is quite possible that Jehu destroyed a temple of Baal in Samaria. Such a
destruction would not necessarily mandate the kind of religious holocaust
described in 2 Kings 10; this portrayal of the total destruction of the worshipers
of Baal cannot be reconciled with the archaeological record. Such a destruction
would presumably have more to do with disturbing the previous influence of
the Omride dynasty than it would with any particular religious convictions.
Interestingly, the Israel Source even suggests that this datum could not be veri-
fied at the time of its composition, as “he destroyed the temple of Baal and
made it a latrine to this day;” the Israel Source admits that no one would be
able to verify this claim, even had they wanted to, as the structure was con-
verted into a latrine, and presumably therefore could not be identified as having
previously been a temple. Again, the only argument against writing this mate-
rial off as creative fiction remains the fact of its transmission as history. The
audience must have had some latrine in Samaria in mind when they heard this
story. Was there an old, legitimate tradition of Jehu having made this from a
temple of Baal? Unfortunately, we, like the audience of the Israel Source, can-
not verify it.
At a later date, as criticism of the cultic practices of the Jehu dynasty and
powerful Israelites arose under the prophets Amos and Hosea (and presumably
———————————
14 For a discussion of these figurines, cf. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, 76–82;
for images of them, cf. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon, Objects, Plates XI-XII.
other elements of the population, whose existence can only be postulated based
on their recording, passing on, and expounding of the statements of these
prophets), Jeroboam II cast his ancestor Jehu in the mold of a religious ‫יהוה‬-
zealot in order to contradict such arising criticisms. The plausibility of a reli-
gious Jehu revolution crumbles in the face of the probability of a political Jehu
revolt. While it is possible that such a political event could have had a religious
dimension, no evidence confirming such a suggestion has been found to date.
The Aramean dominance of Israel apparently continued through the reign
of Jehoahaz in Israel—Jehu having died about 814 BCE—and into the reign of
Bar-Hadad of Aram—Hazael presumably having died sometime in the last dec-
ades of the ninth century BCE. The narrative of the Israel Source suggests that
the conflicts between Aram and Israel did not start until the reign of Jehoahaz,
but this image can be rejected as improbable, since it merely seeks to preclude
a negative evaluation of the dynastic founder Jehu. It seems more likely that the
power-sphere of Aram reached its zenith during the time when Israel was under
the auspices of Jehoahaz, the initial expansion having begun already under
Jehu. Jehoahaz’ inefficiency is demonstrated by the Israel Source’s generic
notice that Jehoahaz defeated the Arameans with prayer. It seems improbable
that he would have had much success against them, but it also does not seem
that the entirety of the kingdom of Israel collapsed during his reign. Supporting
evidence for this claim can be found in the fact that his son was able to succeed
him; the Israel Source, the Judean materials of Kings, and Assyrian records all
place Joash on the Israelite throne and associate him with the dynasty of his
predecessors.
Events took a dramatic turn during the reign of Joash of Israel, the later
contemporary of Bar-Hadad of Aram. Joash came to the throne of Israel
around 800 BCE and reigned until about 784 BCE. During this period Israel was
largely able to cast off the Aramean yoke. This was not only of Joash’ own
accord, however, as Assyrian records demonstrate two important facts, namely
that campaigns against Aram were renewed in this period and that Joash per-
suaded the Assyrians—by paying a tribute—not to ravage Israel. Because this
event is not recounted in the Bible, one should grant the Assyrian records pri-
ority; the Bible did not describe the advance of the Assyrians for two important
reasons: 1) it provides more credit to Joash alone for his victories over Aram;
and 2) it sought to avoid tarnishing his reign and thus disregarded his submis-
sion to Adad-Nārārī III. These factors fit exactly with the tendency that we
have seen regarding Jehu, as this information was also missing in the Israel
Source’s recollection of his reign. This suggests that the Jehu dynasty allied
itself to the Assyrian kings without conflict. While it cannot be reconstructed
for the time of Jehoahaz or Jeroboam II due to the absence of sources claiming
such, it is clear that in the reigns of Jehu and Joash Assyrian hegemony was
accepted in Israel.
Beyond the Assyrian campaign against Aram, one notes that Zakkur of
Hamath engaged Bar-Hadad in combat during this period and apparently was
able to defeat him. This increases the plausibility of Joash’s military successes
against Aram-Damascus as presented in the Israel Source. As Damascus’
power waned, Israel’s power waxed anew. According to the Israel Source,
Joash also successfully defeated Judah, which cannot be affirmed by outside
sources, but was at least not denied by the Judean redaction of the Israel
Source some 50 years after its composition.
Joash’s variant interests from those of the king of Aram can be identified
from the Tel al-Rimah stele: while the king of Aram fights (and is defeated by)
Adad-nārārī III, Joash offers tribute. This Assyrian pressure on Aram could
indirectly suggest that Joash would have had the opportunity to claim land that
had previously fallen under Aramean hegemony. The Zakkur inscription would
affirm this as well, as Zakkur of Hamath is able to defeat Bar-Hadad bar
Hazael and his coalition partners. These accounts at least provide indirect evi-
dence for the plausibility of Israel being able to reconquest territories it had
lost. The Assyrian policy of pressuring Damascus continued into the reign of
Shalmaneser IV, i.e., during the reign of Jeroboam II it was possible for Israel
to continue its policy against Aram with some success. 15 The destruction of the
Tel Dan Stele must have occurred during either the reign of Joash or Jeroboam
———————————
15 Contrary to Menachem Haran, “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam Ben
Joash,” VT 17 (1967): 278–84, who believes that the Assyrian absence in the region would
be more conducive to the expansion of Israelite dominion under Jeroboam II and that
Jeroboam II was literally able to subdue Damascus and Hamath, both of which I regard as
unlikely (also contra Pitard, Ancient Damascus, 176–77). Assyrian dominion of Syria
would enable Jeroboam to expand at the expense of the Arameans, and the verses in 2
Kings 14 are, in my opinion, unable to be verified in any way and should therefore be
regarded as ahistorical in their presentation of material. They should be regarded as
exaggerations of Israelite expansion under Jeroboam II.
II, which would also verify claims that Joash (or Jeroboam) was able to take
Dan (back) from under Aramean control. Thus, it is possible with a relatively
strong degree of certainty to suggest that the Israel Source, while clothing the
description of Joash’s victories over Aram in colorful narrative language, pres-
ents at least accurate facts that Joash was able to succeed against Aram and
return some territorial possessions back to Israel.
Assyria’s campaigning against Damascus apparently continued into the
reign of Shalmaneser IV, who reported that he collected the tribute of an other-
wise unknown Hadiiāni of Damascus in about 773. This put a renewed Assyr-
ian presence against Damascus within the first several years of the reign of Jer-
oboam II of Israel (r. 784–40?). This would further have allowed the expansion
of Jeroboam’s domain, as implied in the Israel Source and in Amos, as well as
the archaeological finds in Dan and Megiddo, both of which were rebuilt dur-
ing period attributed to Jeroboam II’s reign. 16 If the criticisms of the prophet
Hosea should be regarded as originally coming from this time, one could also
suggest that Jeroboam threw himself under the Assyrian yoke (cf., e.g., Hos
12:1b). Alternatively, these comments from the book of Hosea could be gen-
eral criticisms of the previous policy of Jehuide kings offering tribute to the
Assyrian kings. At any rate, Aram’s progressive downfall at the hands of
Assyria enabled the Israelites to come out from under Damascene control for a
few decades. After a period of prosperity in the opening years of the reign of
Jeroboam—at least for the monarch (as the Samaria ostraca, Amos, and Hosea
may imply)—things must have gone rapidly downhill. This led to the arising of
socially critical prophets in the later years of Jeroboam II. In response to this
developing criticism, the Israel Source was composed in order to cast the
dynasty of Jehu in a more favorable light and block some of the detraction lev-
ied against the monarch. The concrete reason for its composition should be
sought in an attempt to guarantee Zechariah’s accession to Israel’s throne. In
spite of this, the dynasty quickly collapsed after the death of Jeroboam II, and
Israel began its rapid and chaotic downfall.
———————————
16 One should also note the dual-gate system of Megiddo IVA as presented in Fig. 6 in
Ussishkin, “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo,” 303 and its similarity to the dual-gate system
of Dan during the time of Jeroboam II; cf. Biran, Biblical Dan, 248. This suggests that
Jeroboam II may have been responsible for both building sites, with the dual-gate system
as a possible indication of his desiring more security for the sites.
During Jeroboam II’s reign, we find the beginning of Israelite “histori-

ography.” This should not imply that history was recorded during the period
for the sake of an accurate portrayal of the events of the time. Rather, the text
served a definite purpose, supporting the dynasty of the king responsible for
the text and whitewashing the history of his ancestors in order to deflect critical
voices. What this implies is that the political machinations of Jehu ultimately
inspired the beginnings of Israelite history writing during the reign of his great-
grandson. Jehu’s usurpation led to later political turmoil, which in turn became
the impetus for the composition of the Israel Source. Once Israel collapsed and
the Israel Source made its way to Judah, it provided the Judean political orga-
nization with both an example and material for the composition of their own
history, which then usurped and contextualized the Israelite historical narrative
in their own political narrative. Thus, Jehu’s political revolution inspired the
origins of what would eventually become the book of Kings.
In the roughly 150 years after its composition, however, the text of the
Israel Source took on new forms and gained new purpose for the relevant
period. During Hezekiah’s reign, the text contrasted Judean stability with Isra-
elite chaos, culminating in narratives of Israel’s destruction by the Assyrians in
contradistinction to Judah’s miraculous success against them under Hezekiah’s
auspices. During Josiah’s reign the text may have been expanded and culmi-
nated in his cultic reform. The exilic Deuteronomistic composition evaluated
the various kings and explained the exile. By the transition into the Common
Era, we find three different textual traditions of Kings, in that which would
eventually become MT, B, and Ant. The identification of the Israel Source
therefore lengthens the period of textual production in Israel by about fifty
years, and demonstrates that in the Northern Kingdom, not in Judah, one must
seek the origin of some of the oldest biblical traditions.
Most of the information one can glean from the relevant sources about
Israelite history in the ninth–eighth centuries BCE reflects upon the interna-
tional relationships of the period. While essentially only the Samaria ostraca,
Hosea, and Amos provide any evidence about the internal policies of the king-
dom of Israel, all of the other sources illuminate the international situation. The
Omrides apparently were internationally renowned kings with successful mili-
tary policies: Omri may have been known to the Assyrians; Ahab and Joram
Impulses for Further Study 301
both successfully fought against Shalmaneser III; Omri presumably annexed

Moab and allied himself with Phoenicia, Damascus, and Judah. This situation
changed under Joram’s auspices, as he battled against Hazael late in his reign
and must have lost dominion of Moab at some point. Jehu and his successors
followed a different policy: Jehu and Joash became Assyrian vassals; Jehu and
Jehoahaz apparently lost extensive territory to the Arameans after Jehu alien-
ated Hazael; only during the period of Joash’ and Jeroboam’s reigns was Israel
able to reconquer territories it had lost. Still, this may have represented the last
apogee of Israelite power before their eventual destruction in 722.
Impulses for Further Study
Based on the conclusions of this research, a number of factors still remain to be

explored, and a number of objectives must be considered. This remains espe-
cially true when one considers the redaction history of the book of Kings. First
and foremost, one must consider whether a Judean Source existed parallel to
the Israel Source identified in the book of Kings, or whether we are dealing
only with a Judean redaction of Israelite material. The evidence for this
research may be limited, and at this juncture, it appears that both may be possi-
ble; a thorough examination of the Judean material in Kings must be under-
taken to develop plausible conclusions in this matter. One should also consider
the relationship of the Israel Source and the Judean Source or redaction to
other narrative materials in Kings or Reigns such as the Succession Narrative.
Once this has been resolved, one should reconsider the redaction history of
Kings based on these reconstructed literary sources or redactions. Can Jepsen’s
suggestion of two literary sources behind the book of Kings be affirmed, albeit
in a different fashion? Or must one remain with only one source followed by
several Judean redactions, one of which was the Deuteronomist? The potential
here suggests that we are either dealing with two sources (Israel and Judah) and
at least three redactions (Josianic, Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomistic
[Enneateuch?]) or the Israel Source and at least four redactions (Hezekian,
Josianic, Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomistic [Enneateuch?]). Ultimately,
we must entirely reconsider the redaction history of Kings. In this light, much
more weight should be given to the Greek tradition of Reigns than has been
done in the past. If the Greek tradition permits a different redaction history
than the Hebrew text, this matter must be explored and clarified.
Having answered the literary-critical questions concerning the Judean
material, it would remain to reconsider its appropriateness in historical recon-
structions. That is, how reliable is the Judean Source or Judean redaction in its
entirety regarding the history of the Levant? Must we revisit our previous
reconstructions of Israelite and Judean history in light of the possible identifi-
cation of the Judean Source or the Judean redaction under Hezekiah? Or would
this dating play no significant role in rewriting Levantine and ancient Near
Eastern history? Would this general reconstruction suffice in light of more evi-
dence from the Judean materials, particularly in the early ninth century?
Beyond these matters, one must consider the relationship of the Israel
Source and its Judean redactions to the materials and textual history of Samuel,
especially taking the Greek versions of Samuel into consideration. One must
examine Samuel to find out if any older Israelite materials exist within it that
can be identified within the book, or whether they have become irretrievably
suppressed—should they have ever existed—due to the incorporation and
expansion of the David materials. The identification of the Israel Source may
have implications for the redaction and compositional history of Samuel as
well as for the book of Kings.
Finally, one should consider the conclusions offered here and any potential
impact they may have on our understanding of the development of the
Deuteronomistic History and its individual components. Are there other exam-
ples of Israelite narratives, whether isolated or extensive, that have been incor-
porated into Judean texts? Might there have been other Israelite texts that
found their way into the Deuteronomistic library, as was apparently the case
with the Israel Source? Such a search must be undertaken for each of the com-
positions in the so-called Deuteronomistic History and maybe even in the
Torah. If such texts are identified, one should then also undertake a historical
evaluation of the material they present and the manner in which the text came
to take on its Endgestalt. The research above has demonstrated that such schol-
arly approaches can offer a great yield reflecting on the history of the text of
Kings and considerations about the history of Israel and Judah. Further
research could ultimately culminate in a reconsideration of the redaction-
history of the so-called Deuteronomistic History and a re-evaluation of its
import as a historical source.
‫‪Appendix:‬‬
‫‪The Israel Source‬‬
‫מה ְוֶזה ַהָדּ ָבר‬ ‫שה ַא ְלָמ ָנה ֶ עֶבד ִל ְש לֹֹ‬ ‫שם ִאּמוֹ ְצר וּיָה ִא ָּ‬ ‫צֵרָדה ְו ֵ‬ ‫ְוָיָר ְב ָעם ֶּבן נְ ָבט ֶא ְפָר ִתי ִמן ַהְּ‬
‫ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ִ‬
‫נה ֶאת הּמ לֹוא ָס גר ֶאת ֶּפֶרץ עיר ָדּ וד ָאביו ְוָה איש יָרְב ָ עם גּ ּבֹור ָחיל‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשר ֵהִרים ָ יד ַּב ֶּמֶלְך ְשלֹמֹה ָּבָ‬
‫עת ַה ִהיא ְוָיָרְב ָ עם‬ ‫את וֹ ְלָכל ֵ סֶבל ֵּבית יוֵֹסף ַויְִהי ָּב ֵ‬ ‫מה ֶאת ַה נַַּער ִּכי ִאיש עֹשֹות הּוא ַויְַּפֵקד ֹ‬ ‫ַו ַּיְרא ְשלֹֹ‬
‫מה‬ ‫את וֹ ֲאִחיָּה ַה ִּשילִֹני ַהנָּ ִביא ַּבֶּדֶרְך ַויְִסיֵרהוּ ִמן ַהֶּדֶרך ְו הּוא ִמְתּכַ ֶּסה ְּב ַשְל ָ‬ ‫צא ֹ‬ ‫צא ִמירוּ ָשָלִם ַויְִּמ ָ‬ ‫יָָ‬
‫שר ְקָרִעים ַו ֹּיאֶמ ר‬ ‫ליו ַו יְִּקָר ֶעָה ְשֵנים ָע ָ ‬
‫שר ָע ָ‬ ‫שה ֲא ֶ‬ ‫מה ַהֲחָד ָ ‬ ‫תֹש ֲאִח ָּיה ַּב ַּשְל ָ‬ ‫הם ַּב ָּשֶדה ַויִּ ְ ּפ‬ ‫ֲחָד ָשה וּ ְשֵני ֶ‬
‫תי ְל ךָ ֵ את‬ ‫מה ְונַָת ִּ‬‫כי כֹה ָא ַמר ְיה ָוה ִהנְ ִני קֵֹרַע ֶאת ַה ַּמְמָלָכה ִמַּיד ְשלֹֹ‬ ‫עים ִּ‬ ‫ְלָיָרְב ָעם ַקח ְלךָ ֲע ָשָרה ְקָר ִ‬
‫מה‬‫כל ֲא ֶשר ְּתַאֶ ּוה נְַפ ֶשךָ ְוָהִייָת ֶּ מֶלְך ַעל יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויְַבֵּקש ְשלֹ ֹ‬ ‫ֲע ָשָרה ַה ְּשָבִטים ְואְֹתךָ ֶא ַּקח וָּמַלְכ ָּת ְּב ֹ‬
‫מה ַויְ ִהי‬ ‫שק ֶמֶלְך ִמְצַרִים ַויְִהי ְבִמְצַ רִים ַעד מֹות ְשלֹ ֹ‬ ‫עם ַוָּיָקם ַויְִּבַרח ִמְצַריִם ֶאל שוּ ַ‬ ‫מית ֶאת ָיָרְב ָ‬ ‫ְלָה ִ‬
‫את וֹ‬‫שב ָיָרְב ָעם ַויְַּמ ִליכוּ ֹ‬ ‫עם ֶּבן נְ ָבט ַויֵֶּשב ָיָרְב ָ עם מִמְצָרִים ַויְ ִהי ִּכ ְשמַֹע ָּכל יִ ְשָרֵאל ִּכי ָ‬ ‫ִּכ ְשמַֹע ָיָרְב ָ‬
‫צא ִמ ָּשם ַוי ִֶּבן ֶאת ְּפנוֵּאל ַויֵֶּלְך‬ ‫הר ֶאְפַ רִים ַויֵֶּשב ָּבּה ַויֵֵּ‬ ‫כם ְּב ַ‬ ‫עם ֶאת ְש ֶ ‬ ‫אל ַו יִֶּבן ָיָרְב ָ‬ ‫ַעל ָּכל יִ ְשָר ֵ‬
‫אֶרץ ִמְצָרִים ַויֶָּשם‬ ‫שר ֶהֱע לוּךָ ֵמ ֶ‬
‫נה ֱאלֶֹהיךָ יִ ְשָר ֵאל ֲא ֶ‬ ‫הב ַוֹּיאֶמר ֶאל ָהָעם ִהֵּ‬ ‫ַה ֶּמֶלְך ַויַַּעש ְשֵ ני ֶעְג ֵ‬
‫לי זָ ָ‬
‫חֶדש‬ ‫חֶדש ַה ְּשִמיִני ַּבֲחִמ ָּשה ָע ָש ר יֹום ַל ֹ‬ ‫עם ָחג ַּב ֹ‬ ‫תן ְּבָדן ַויַַּעש ָיָרְב ָ‬ ‫אל ְוֶאת ָהֶא ָ חד נָ ַ‬ ‫ֶאת ָהֶא ָ חד ְּבֵבית ֵ‬
‫שר נְִל ַ חם‬ ‫שה ְו יֶֶת ר ִדְּבֵרי ָיָרְב ָעם ֲא ֶ‬ ‫לים ֲא ֶשר ָע ָ‬ ‫ַו יַַּעל ַעל ַה ִּמזְ ֵּבַח ֲא ֶשר ָע ָשה ְּבֵבית ֵאל ְלזַ ֵ ּבַח ָלֲעגָ ִ‬
‫שר ָמַלְך ָיָרְב ָעם ֶע ְשִרים‬ ‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל ְוַהיִָּמים ֲא ֶ‬ ‫נם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬ ‫שר ָמָלְך ִהָּ‬ ‫ַוֲא ֶ‬
‫נה ַויִּ ְשּכַב ִעם ֲאבֹ ָתיו ַויְִּמל ְֹך נָָדב ְּבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו‬ ‫וּ ְש ַּ תִים ָשָ‬
‫כהוּ ַבְע ָשא‬ ‫בית יִָּשש ָכר ַויֵַּּ‬‫שא ֶבן ֲאִחיָּה ְל ֵ‬ ‫שר ָע ָליו ַּבְע ָ‬‫ְונָָדב ֶּבן ָיָרְב ָעם ָמַלְך ַעל יִ ְשָר ֵאל ְשנָָתִים ַויְִּק ֹ‬
‫ֵ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫תהוּ בְע ָשא ויְמל ְֹך ְויֶ ֶתר דְּב רי נָָ דב‬ ‫תים ְוָנָדב ְוָכל יִ ְשָר ֵאל ָצ ִרים על גְּּבתֹון ויְמ ‬
‫ֵ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫שר ַלְּפִל ְש ִּ‬‫ְּבגְִּב תֹון ֲא ֶ‬
‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל‬ ‫לא ֵ‬ ‫שה ֲה ֹ‬ ‫שר ָע ָ‬‫ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬
‫שה‬ ‫שר ָע ָ ‬ ‫שא ַוֲא ֶ‬ ‫ָמַלְך ַּבְע ָשא ֶבן ֲאִחָּיה ַעל ָּכל יִ ְשָרֵאל ְּבִתְר ָצה ֶע ְשִרים ְוַאְר ַּ בע ָשָנה ְו יֶֶתר ִדְּבֵרי ַבְע ָ ‬
‫כב ַּבְע ָשא ִעם ֲאבֹ ָתיו ַויִָּּק ֵ בר‬ ‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויִּ ְש ַּ‬ ‫לא ֵ‬ ‫וְּגבּוָרתוֹ ֲה ֹ‬
‫צה ַויְִּמל ְֹך ֵא ָ‬
‫לה ְבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו‬ ‫ְּבִתְר ָ‬
‫צית ָהָרֶכב ְו הּוא ְבִתְרָצה‬ ‫שר ַמֲח ִ‬ ‫שר ָעָליו זְִמִרי ַ ‬ ‫אל ְּבִתְר ָ צה ְשנָָתִים ַויְִּק ֹ‬‫שא ַעל יִ ְשָר ֵ ‬ ‫ָמַלְך ֵא ָלה ֶבן ַּבְע ָ‬
‫כהוּ ַויְִמי ֵתהוּ ַויְִּמל ְֹך ַּתְח ָּתיו ְויֶ ֶתר ִדְּבֵרי‬
‫בא זְִמִרי ַויֵַּּ‬‫שר ַעל ַה ַּ בִית ְּבִתְרָצה ַוָּיֹ‬ ‫בית ַאְר ָצא ֲא ֶ‬ ‫תה ִש ּכֹור ֵּ‬
‫שֶֹ‬
‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל‬ ‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬ ‫שה ֲהלֹוא ֵ‬ ‫שר ָע ָ‬ ‫ֵא ָ לה ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬
‫מע ָהָעם ַהחִֹנים ֵלא ֹ‬

‫מר‬ ‫שר ַלְּפִל ְש ִּתים ַויִּ ְש ַ‬ ‫עם חִֹנים ַעל גְִּּב תֹון ֲא ֶ‬ ‫צה ְוָה ָ‬ ‫עת יָ ִמים ְּבִתְר ָ‬ ‫ָמַלְך זְִמִ רי ִשְב ַ‬
‫אל ַּב יֹּום ַה הּוא‬‫בא ַעל יִ ְשָר ֵ ‬ ‫לכוּ ָכל יִ ְשָרֵאל ֶאת ָעְמִרי ַשר ָצ ָ‬ ‫כה ֶאת ַה ֶּמֶלְך ַויְַּמ ִ‬ ‫שר זְִמִרי ְוַ גם ִה ָּ‬ ‫ָק ַ‬
‫אל ִעּמ וֹ ִמגְִּּב תֹון ַויָֻּ צרוּ ַעל ִּתְרָצה ַויְ ִהי ִּכְר אֹות זְִמִרי ִּכי נְִל ְּכָדה ָה ִעיר‬ ‫לה ָעְמִ רי ְוָכל יִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫ַּב ַּמֲחֶנה ַויֲַּע ֶ‬
‫מת ְו יֶֶת ר ִדְּבֵרי זְִמִרי ְוִק ְשרוֹ ֲא ֶ‬
‫שר‬ ‫ליו ֶאת ֵּבית ֶמ ֶלְך ָּב ֵ אש ַויָּ ֹ‬ ‫רף ָע ָ‬ ‫בא ֶאל ַאְר מֹון ֵּבית ַה ֶּמֶלְך ַויִּ ְש ֹ‬ ‫ַויָּ ֹ‬
‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל‬ ‫ּ‬
‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬ ‫לא ֵ‬ ‫שר ֲה ֹ‬‫ָק ָ‬
‫עם יִ ְשָר ֵ אל ֲח ִצי ָה ָעם ָהָיה ַאֲחֵרי ִתְבִני ֶבן ִּגינַת ְלַהְמִליכוֹ ְוַהֲח ִצי ַאֲחֵרי ָעְמִרי ַויֱֶּחַזק ָהָעם‬ ‫לק ָה ָ‬‫אז יֵָח ֵ ‬
‫ָ‬
‫נת ַויָָּמת ִּתְב ִני ַויְִּמל ְֹך ָעְמִרי ַתַחת ִּתְבִני ָמַלְך ָעְמִרי‬
‫שר ַאֲחֵ רי ִּתְבִני ֶבן ִּגיַ‬
‫שר ַאֲחֵרי ָעְמִרי ֶאת ָה ָעם ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ֲא ֶ‬
‫‪304‬‬ ‫‪Appendix: The Israel Source‬‬
‫הר שְֹמ רֹון ֵמֶאת ֶ ‬

‫שֶמר ְּבִכ ְּכַרִים ּכֶָסף‬ ‫נה ְּבִתְר ָ צה ָמַלְך ֵשש ָשִנים ַו יִֶּקן ֶאת ָה ָ‬ ‫תים ֶע ְשֵ רה ָשָ‬ ‫ַעל יִ ְשָר ֵאל ְש ֵּ‬
‫הר שְֹמרֹון ְו יֶֶתר ִדְּבֵרי ָעְמִרי‬ ‫על ֶשם ֶשֶמר ֲאדֵֹ ני ָה ָ‬ ‫שר ָּב ָנה ַ‬
‫שם ָהִעי ר ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ַו יִֶּבן ֶאת ָה ָהר ַויְִּקָרא ֶאת ֵ‬
‫כב ָעְמִרי ִעם ֲאבֹ ָתיו‬ ‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויִּ ְש ַּ‬ ‫לא ֵ‬ ‫שר ָע ָשה וְּגבּוָרת וֹ ֲה ֹ‬ ‫ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬
‫אב ְּבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו‬ ‫ַויִָּּק ֵ בר ְּבשְֹמרֹון ַויְִּמל ְֹך ַאְח ָ‬
‫אב ֶּבן ָעְמִרי ָמַלְך ַעל יִ ְשָר ֵאל ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ֶע ְשִרים וּ ְש ַּ תִים ָשָנה ַויִּ ַּקח ִא ָּשה ֶאת ִאי זֶֶבל ַּבת ֶאְת ַּבַעל ֶמֶלְך‬ ‫ְוַאְח ָ‬
‫שר ָּבָ נה ְּבשְֹמרֹון ְויֶֶת ר ִדְּבֵרי‬‫בית ַה ַּבַעל ֲא ֶ‬ ‫בד ֶאת ַה ַּבַעל ַויִּ ְש ַּ תחוּ לוֹ ַויֶָּקם ִמזְ ֵ ּבַח ַלָּבַעל ֵּ‬ ‫ִצידִֹנים ַו יֵֶּלְך ַויֲַּעֹ‬
‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי‬ ‫נה ֲהלֹוא ֵ‬ ‫שר ָּבָ‬ ‫שר ָּב ָנה ְוָכל ֶהָע ִרים ֲא ֶ‬ ‫בית ַה ֵּשן ֲא ֶ‬ ‫שר ָע ָשה וֵּ‬ ‫ַאְח ָאב ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬
‫תיו ַויְִּמל ְֹך ֲאַחזְָיהוּ ְבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו‬
‫כב ַאְח ָ אב ִעם ֲאבָֹ‬ ‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויִּ ְש ַּ‬‫ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫שע מוָֹאב ְּביִ ְשָר ֵאל ַאֲחֵ רי מֹות ַאְחָאב ַויִֹּּ‬

‫פל ֲאַחזְָיה‬ ‫ֲאַחזְָיהוּ ֶבן ַאְח ָאב ָמַלְך ַעל יִ ְשָרֵאל ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ְשנָָתִים ַויְִּפ ַ‬
‫שה ֲהלֹוא ֵהָּמה ְכתוּ ִבים‬ ‫שר ָע ָ‬ ‫שר ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ַויַָּחל ַו יָָּמת ְויֶ ֶתר ִדְּבֵרי ֲאַחזְָ יהוּ ֲא ֶ‬ ‫עד ַה ְּשָב ָכה ַּבֲעִלָּית וֹ ֲא ֶ‬‫ְּב ַ‬
‫ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל‬
‫מת‬‫אל ְוֶמֶלְך ְיהוָּ דה ָר ֹ‬ ‫ִויוָֹרם ֶּבן ַאְח ָאב ָמַלְך ַעל יִ ְשָרֵאל ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ְש ֵּתים ֶע ְשֵרה ָשָנה ַויַַּעל ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ ‬
‫בא ַב ִּמְלָח ָמה ְוַא ָּ תה ְלַבש ְּבגֶָדי ַויְִּתַחֵּפש ֶמֶלְך‬ ‫גְִּלָעד ַוֹּיאֶמ ר ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵאל ֶאל ֶמֶלְך ְיהּוָדה ֶאְתַחֵּפש ָוָא ֹ‬
‫טן ְוֶאת ַהָּגדֹול‬ ‫לא ִּת ָּלֲח מוּ ֶאת ַהָּק ֹ‬ ‫יִ ְשָר ֵאל ַויָּ בֹוא ַּב ִּמְלָחָמה וֶּמֶלְך ֲאָרם ִצָּוה ֶאת ָשֵרי ָהֶרֶכב ֲא ֶשר ל וֹ ֵלא ֹ‬
‫מר ֹ‬
‫אל הּוא‬ ‫כי ִאם ֶאת ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ אל ְלַבדּוֹ ַויְ ִהי ִּכְראוֹת ָשֵרי ָהֶרֶכב ֶאת ֶמֶלְך ְיהּוָדה ְוֵהָּמה ָאְמרוּ ַאְך ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫ִּ ‬
‫לא ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ אל הּוא ַויָּ שּובוּ ֵמַאֲחָריו ְו ִאיש ָמ ַשְך‬ ‫חם ַויִּזְ ַ עק ַויְ ִהי ִּכְראוֹת ָשֵרי ָהֶרֶכב ִּכי ֹ‬ ‫ַויָֻּ‬
‫סרוּ ָע ָ ליו ְלִה ָּל ֵ‬
‫בין ַה ִּשְרָין ַו ֹּיא ֶמר ְלַר ָּכבוֹ ֲהפְֹך ָיְד ךָ ְוהוִֹצי ֵאִני‬ ‫ַּב ֶּק ֶש ת ְל ֻת ּמוֹ ַו יַּּכֶ ה ֶאת ֶמֶל ְך יִ ְשָר ֵאל ֵּ‬
‫בין ַהְדָּב ִ קים וּ ֵ‬
‫ִמן ַה ַּמלֲחמה ִּכי ָהֳחֵליִתי ַו ַּתַעל ַה ִּמ ְלָחָמה ַּביֹּום ַה הּוא ְו ֶּמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ָהָיה ָמֳעִמד ַּב ֶּמְרּכָָבה נַֹכח ֲאַרם‬
‫ַעד ָהָעֶרב‬
‫מת‬ ‫הֶּה ְּביָ ֶדךָ ְוֵל ְך ָר ֹ‬ ‫אים ַו ֹּיאֶמר ל וֹ ֲחֹגר ָמְת ֶניךָ ְוַקח ַּפְך ַה ֶּשֶמן ַ ז‬ ‫ני ַהנְִּבי ִ‬ ‫ֶוֱאִלי ָשע ַהנָּ ִביא ָקָרא ְלַא ַ חד ִמְּבֵ‬
‫חֶדר‬ ‫את וֹ ֶ‬ ‫מתוֹ ִמ ּתוְֹך ֶא ָחיו ְוֵהֵביאָת ֹ‬ ‫גְִּלָעד וָּ באָת ָשָּמה ּוְרֵאה ָשם יֵ הּוא ֶבן ְיהוֹ ָש ָפט ֶּבן נְִמ ִשי וּ ָבאָת ַוֲהֵק ֹ‬
‫אל וָּפַתְח ָּת‬ ‫תיךָ ְל ֶ מֶלְך ֶאל יִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫מר ְיה ָוה ְמ ַשְח ִּ‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫ראשוֹ ְוָאַמְר ָּת ֹּ‬ ‫ְּבָחֶדר ְוָלַקְח ָּת ַפְך ַה ֶּשֶמן ְויַָצְק ָּת ַעל ֹ‬
‫לי ֵא ֶ ליךָ‬ ‫בר ִ‬ ‫בא ְוִה ֵּנה ָשֵרי ַה ַחיִל יֹ ְש ִבים ַוֹּיאֶמר ָדּ ָ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ָ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫מת גְּלעד וי ֹ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫לא ְתַח ֶּכה ַויֵֶּלְך ַהנָּ ִביא ָר ֹ‬ ‫ַהֶדּ ֶלת ְונַ ְס ָּתה ְו ֹ‬
‫ראשוֹ ַוֹּיאֶמר ל וֹ‬ ‫שֶמן ֶאל ֹ‬ ‫בא ַה ַּביְָתה ַויִּ ֹ‬
‫צק ַה ֶּ ‬ ‫ליךָ ַה ָּשר ַו ָּיָקם ַוָּיֹ‬ ‫מי ִמּכֻ ָּלנוּ ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֵא ֶ‬ ‫שר ַוֹּיאֶמר ֵיהוּא ֶאל ִ‬ ‫ַה ָּ‬
‫תח ַהֶ דֶּלת ַויָֹּנס ְויֵ הּוא יָָצא ֶאל ַעְבֵדי ֲאדָֹניו ַוֹּיאֶמר לוֹ‬ ‫תיךָ ְלֶמ ֶלְך ֶאל יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויְִּפ ַּ‬ ‫מר ְיהָוה ְמ ַשְח ִּ‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫ֹּ‬
‫תם ֶאת ָה ִאיש ְוֶאת ִשיחוֹ ַוֹּיאְמרוּ ֶשֶקר‬ ‫תם ְיַדְע ֶּ‬ ‫ליךָ ַוֹּיאֶמר ֲאֵלי ֶהם ַא ֶּ ‬ ‫ֲה ָש לֹום ַמ דּוַּע ָּבא ַהְמ ֻשָּגע ַהֶ ּזה ֵא ֶ‬
‫תיךָ ְל ֶ מֶלְך ֶאל יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויְַמֲה רוּ‬ ‫מר ְיה ָוה ְמ ַשְח ִּ‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫מר ֹּ‬ ‫מר ֵאַלי ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫לנוּ ַו ֹּיאֶמר ָּכֹזאת ְוָכֹזאת ָא ַ‬ ‫ַהֶּגד ָ נא ָ‬
‫שימוּ ַתְח ָּ תיו ֶאל ]…[ ַה ַּמֲע לֹות ַויְִּתְקעוּ ַּבּשוֹ ָפר ַוֹּיאְמ רוּ ָמַלְך ֵיהּוא ַויְִּתַק ֵּשר יֵ הּוא‬ ‫איש ִּבְגדוֹ ַויָּ ִ‬ ‫ַויְִּקחוּ ִ‬
‫צא ָפִליט ִמן ָה ִעיר ָלֶל ֶכת ְלנִַּגיד‬ ‫פט ֶּבן נְִמ ִשי ֶאל יוָֹרם ַוֹּיאֶמר ֵיהוּא ִאם יֵש נְַפ ְש ֶכם ִא ִּתי ַאל יֵֵ‬ ‫ֶּבן ְיהוֹ ָש ָ‬
‫כב ֵיהוּא ַויֵֶּלְך יְִזְר ֶעאָלה ִּכי יוָֹ רם ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשַרֵאל ִהְתַרֵּפא ְביְִזְרֶעאל ִמן ַהּמ ִּכים ֲא ֶשר יַ ֻּכהוּ‬ ‫ְּביְִזְרֶעאל ַוִּיְר ַּ‬
‫ֲאַר ִּמים ְּבִח ָּלֲחמוֹ ֶאת ֲחזֵָאל ֶמֶלְך ֲאַרם ִּכי ָחָזק וְּּגבּור ַחִיל הּוא ַוֲאַחזְיָה ֶמֶלְך ְיהוּ ָדה יַָ רד ִלְר אֹות ֶאת יֹוָרם‬
‫אה ַוֹּיאֶמר ְיהוָֹרם ַקח‬ ‫באוֹ ַוֹּיאֶמר ִשְפ ַ עה ֲאִני רֶֹ‬ ‫עת ֵיהוּא ְּב ֹ‬ ‫ְוַהצֶֹּפה עֹ ֵמד ַעל ַה ִּמְג ָּדל ְּביְִזְר ֶעאל ַוַּיְרא ֶאת ִשְפ ַ‬
‫מר ַה ֶּמֶלְך ֲה ָש לֹום ַו ֹּיאֶמר יֵ הּוא‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫מר ֲה ָשלֹום ַויֵֶּלְך רֵֹכב ַה ּסּוס ִלְקָראת וֹ ַו ֹּיאֶמ ר ֹּ‬ ‫לח ִלְקָרא ָ תם ְוֹיא ַ‬ ‫כב וּ ְש ַ‬
‫ַר ָּ ‬
‫בא‬ ‫כב סוּס ֵשנִי ַוָּיֹ‬ ‫לא ָשב ַויִּ ְש ַלח רֵֹ‬ ‫מר ָּבא ַה ַּמְלָאְך ַעֵדי ֵ הם ְו ֹ‬ ‫גד ַהצֶֹּפה ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫סב ֶאל ַאֲחָרי ַויֵַּּ‬ ‫ַמה ְּלךָ וְּל ָש לֹום ֹ‬
‫בא‬ ‫מר ָּ‬ ‫גד ַהצֶֹּפה ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫סב ֶאל ַאֲחָרי ַויֵַּ‬ ‫מר ַה ֶּ מֶלְך ֲה ָש לֹום ַו ֹּיאֶמר יֵ הּוא ַמה ְּלךָ וְּל ָש לֹום ֹ‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫ֲאֵל ֶהם ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֹּ‬
‫צא‬ ‫סר ֶרֶכב ַויֵֵּ‬ ‫סר ַויְֶּא ֹ‬ ‫שב ְוַה ִּמנְ ָהג ְּכִמנְַהג יֵ הּוא ֶבן נְִמ ִשי ִּכי ְב ִשגָּ עֹון יִנְָהג ַוֹּיאֶמר ְיהֹוָרם ֱא ֹ‬ ‫לא ָ‬ ‫ַעֶדי ֶ הם ְו ֹ‬
‫איש ְּבִר ְכּבוֹ ַויְֵּצאוּ ִלְקַראת יֵ הּוא ַויְִּמָצ ֻאהוּ ְּבֶחְל ַ קת נָ בֹות‬ ‫ְיהוָֹרם ֶמֶל ְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ַוֲאַחזְ ָיהוּ ֶמֶל ְך ְיהוּ ָדה ִ‬
‫מה ָּש לֹום ַעד ְזנוֵּני ִאיזֶֶבל ִא ְּמךָ ‬ ‫ַהיְִּזְרֵעאִלי ַויְ ִהי ִּכְר אֹות ְיהֹוָרם ֶאת יֵ הּוא ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֲה ָש לֹום יֵ הּוא ַו ֹּיאֶמ ר ָ‬
‫ּ‬
‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫לא ָידוֹ ב ֶק ֶשת ויְך‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ֵ‬
‫מה ֲאַחזְָיה ְוי הּוא מ ּ‬
‫ֵ‬ ‫וְּכ ָש ֶ פיָה ָהַרִּבים ַויֲַּהפְֹך ְיהוָֹ רם יָָ דיו ַוָּיֹנס ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֶאל ֲאַחזְָ יהוּ ִמְר ָ‬
‫‪Appendix: The Israel Source‬‬ ‫‪305‬‬
‫צא ַה ֵ חִצי ִמִּלּבוֹ ַויְִּכַ רע ְּבִרְכּבוֹ ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֶאל ִּבְדַק ר ְשלֹשוֹ ָשא ַה ְשִל ֵכהוּ ְּבֶחְל ַקת ְשֵ דה‬ ‫בין זְרָֹעיו ַויֵֵּ‬ ‫ֶאת ְיהֹוָרם ֵּ‬
‫שא ַהֶּזה‬ ‫שא ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ַּמ ָּ ‬ ‫אב ָא ִביו ַויהָוה נָ ָ‬ ‫בים ְצָמִדים ַאֲחֵרי ַאְח ָ‬ ‫כר ֲאִני ָו ַא ָּתה רְֹכ ִ‬ ‫לי ִּכי ְזֹ‬ ‫ָנבֹות ַהיְִּזְרֵעא ִ‬
‫תי ְלךָ ַּבֶחְלָקה ַה ֹּזאת נְֻאם ְיהָוה ְוַע ָּתה‬ ‫איִתי ֶאֶמש נְֻאם ְיה ָוה ְו ִש ַּלְמ ִּ‬ ‫מי ָנבוֹת ְוֶאת ְדּ ֵמי ָב ָניו ָר ִ‬ ‫לא ֶאת ְדּ ֵ‬ ‫ִאם ֹ‬
‫דף ַאֲחָריו יֵ הּוא ַוֹּיאֶמר‬ ‫גן ַוִּיְר ֹּ‬‫בית ַהָּ‬ ‫בר ְיהָוה ַוֲאַחזְָיה ֶמֶלְך ְיהּוָדה ָר ָאה ַויָָּנס ֶ ּדֶרְך ֵּ‬ ‫כהוּ ַּבֶחְלָ קה ִּכְד ַ‬ ‫שא ַה ְשִל ֵ ‬ ‫ָ‬
‫עאָלה‬ ‫שר ֶאת יְִבְל ָעם ַויָָּנס ְמִג דּוֹ ַויָָּמת ָשם ַויָּ בֹוא יֵ הּוא יְִזְר ֶ‬ ‫כהוּ ַויְַּך ֶאל ַה ֶּמְרּכָ ָבה ְּבַמֲעֵלה גוּ ר ֲא ֶ‬ ‫אתוֹ ַה ֻּ‬ ‫ַּגם ֹ‬
‫תאֶמר ֲה ָש לֹום‬ ‫בא ַב ָּשַער ַו ֹּ‬ ‫עד ַהַחּלֹון ְויֵ הּוא ָּ‬ ‫רא ָשּה ַו ַּת ְש ֵ קף ְּב ַ‬ ‫תיֶטב ֶאת ֹ‬ ‫ְוִאיזֶֶבל ָשְמ ָעה ַו ָּת ֶשם ַּבּפוְּך ֵעי ֶניָה ַו ֵּ‬
‫מי ַויַּ ְשִקיפוּ ֵא ָליו ְשנִַים ָסִריִסים ַו ֹּיאֶמר ִשְמֻטהוּ‬ ‫שא ָפָניו ֶאל ַהַח ּלֹון ַוֹּיאֶמר ִמי ִא ּ ִתי ִ‬ ‫זְִמ ִרי הֵֹרג ֲאדָֹניו ַויִָּּ‬
‫בא ַוֹיאַכל ַויְֵש ְּת ַו ֹיאֶמר ִּפְקדוּ ָנא ֶאת ָהֲארוָּרה‬‫ּ‬ ‫ּ‬ ‫ּ‬ ‫ַויִּ ְשְמ טוָּה ַו ִּיז ִמָדָּמּה ֶאל ַהִ ּקיר ְוֶאל ַהּסוּ ִסים ַוִיְרְמֶסָּנה ַויָ ֹ‬
‫ּ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ּ‬
‫ל ֶֹלת ְוָהַרְגַל ִים ְוַכ ּפֹות ַהָיָדִים‬ ‫כי ִאם ַהגְֻּ גּ‬ ‫לא ָמְצאוּ ָבּה ִּ‬ ‫ַהֹּזאת ְוִקְב רוָּה ִּכי ַבת ֶ מֶלְך ִהיא ַויְֵּל כוּ ְלָקְבָרּה ְו ֹ‬
‫ִ‬
‫אב שְב עים ָּב נים ְּבשְֹמרֹון‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ִ‬
‫לא ֹיאְמ רוּ ֹזאת איזֶֶבל וְּלאְח ָ ‬ ‫שר ֹ‬ ‫כ ֶֹמן ַעל ְּפֵני ַה ָּשֶ דה ֲא ֶ‬ ‫לת ִאי זֶֶבל ְּד‬ ‫ְוָהָית נְִב ַ‬
‫הֶּה ֲאֵלי ֶכם ְוִא ְּת ֶ כם ְּבֵ‬
‫ני‬ ‫בא ַה ֵּסֶפר ַ ז‬ ‫מר ְוַע ָּתה ְּב ֹ‬ ‫לח שְֹמ רֹון ֶאל ָשֵרי יִ ְשָרֵאל ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫ַויְִּכּתֹב יֵ הּוא ְסָפִרים ַויִּ ְש ַ‬
‫סא‬ ‫ני ֲאדֵֹני ֶכם ְו ַשְמ ֶּ תם ַעל ִּכ ֵּ‬ ‫כם ְוִא ְּתֶכם ָהֶרֶכב ְוַהּסוּ ִסים ְו ִעיר ִמְב ָ צר ְוַהנָּ ֶשק ּוְרִאי ֶתם ַה ּטֹוב ְוַהיָּ ָש ר ִמְּבֵ‬ ‫ֲאדֵֹני ֶ‬
‫מד ֲאנְָחנוּ‬ ‫ניו ְו ֵ איְך נֲַע ֹ‬ ‫לא ָעְמ דוּ ְלָפָ‬ ‫ני ַה ְּמָל ִכים ֹ‬ ‫אד ַוֹּיאְמ רוּ ִהנֵּה ְשֵ‬ ‫ביו ְוִה ָּלֲח מוּ ַעל ֵּבית ֲאדֵֹניֶכם ַוִּיְראוּ ְמ ֹ‬ ‫ָא ִ‬
‫שה‬ ‫מר ֵא ֵ לינוּ נֲַע ֶ‬ ‫תא ַ‬‫כל ֲא ֶשר ֹּ‬ ‫שר ַעל ָה ִעיר ֶאל יֵ הּוא ֵלאמֹ ר ֲעָבֶדיךָ ֲא נְַחנוּ ְו ֹ‬ ‫לח ֲא ֶשר ַעל ַהַּבִית ַוֲא ֶ‬ ‫ַויִּ ְש ַ‬
‫תם שְֹמ ִעים‬ ‫לי ַא ֶּ‬ ‫מר ִאם ִלי ַא ֶּתם וְּלקִֹ‬ ‫תב ֲאֵליֶהם ֵסֶפר ֵש ִנית ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫ליְך ִאיש ַה ּטֹוב ְּבֵעיֶ ניךָ ֲע ֵשה ַויְִּכ ֹּ‬ ‫לא נְַמ ִ‬ ‫ֹ‬
‫ני ַה ֶּמֶלְך‬ ‫בא ַה ֵּסֶפ ר ֲאֵלי ֶהם ַויְִּקחוּ ֶאת ְּבֵ‬ ‫עאָלה ַויְ ִהי ְּכֹ‬ ‫לי ּכָ ֵעת ָמ ָ חר יְִזְר ֶ‬ ‫באוּ ֵא ַ ‬ ‫ְקחוּ ֶאת ָרא ֵשי ְבֵני ֲאדֵֹני ֶכם וּ ֹ‬
‫מר‬ ‫בא ַה ַּמְלָאְך ַויֶַּּגד לוֹ ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫שימוּ ֶאת ָרא ֵשיֶהם ַּבדּוִּדים ַויִּ ְשְל חוּ ֵא ָ ליו יְִזְרֶעאָלה ַוָּיֹ‬ ‫איש ַויָּ ִ‬ ‫עים ִ‬ ‫ַויִּ ְשֲח טוּ ִשְב ִ‬
‫מד‬ ‫צא ַויֲַּע ֹ‬ ‫הי ַבּבֶֹק ר ַויֵֵּ‬ ‫שַער ַעד ַהּבֶֹקר ַויְִ‬ ‫שימוּ אָֹתם ְשֵני ִצֻּבִ רים ֶּפַתח ַה ַּ ‬ ‫שי ְבֵני ַה ֶּמֶלְך ַו ֹּיאֶמר ִ‬ ‫ֵה ִביאוּ ָרא ֵ‬
‫בא‬ ‫שְר ִּתי ַעל ֲאדֹנִי ָוֶאְהְר ֵגהוּ וִּמי ִה ָּ כה ֶאת ָּכל ֵא ֶּלה ַו ָּיָקם ַויָּ ֹ‬ ‫תם ִה ֵּנה ֲא ִני ָק ַ‬ ‫ַו ֹּיאֶמ ר ֶאל ָּכל ָה ָעם ַצִדּ ִ קים ַא ֶּ‬
‫חי‬‫תם ַוֹּיאְמ רוּ ֲא ֵ‬ ‫מי ַא ֶּ‬ ‫שְֹמרֹון הּוא ֵּבית ֵעֶקד ָהרֹ ִעים ַּבָּדֶרְך ְויֵ הּוא ָמָצא ֶאת ֲאֵחי ֲאַחזְָיהוּ ֶמֶלְך ְיהוּ ָדה ַו ֹּיאֶמר ִ‬
‫נֶרד ִל ְש לֹום ְּבֵני ַה ֶּ מֶלְך וְּבֵני ַהגְִּביָרה ַו ֹּיאֶמ ר ִּתְפ שּום ַח ִּיים ַויְִּתְּפ שּום ַחִּיים ַויִּ ְשָח טּום‬ ‫ֲאַחזְ ָיהוּ ֲא נְַחנוּ ַוֵּ ‬
‫צא ֶאת ְיהוָֹנָדב ֶּבן ֵר ָכב ִלְקָראת וֹ‬ ‫לא ִה ְש ִאיר ִאיש ֵמֶהם ַויֵֶּלְך ִמ ָּשם ַויְִּמ ָ‬ ‫עים וּ ְש נַיִם ִאיש ְו ֹ‬ ‫ְבֵּבית ֵעֶקד ַאְרָּב ִ‬
‫שר ְלָבִבי ִעם ְלָב ֶבךָ ַו ֹּיאֶמר ְיהוֹנָָדב יֵ ש ַוֹּיאֶמר ֵיהּוא‬ ‫ַויְָבְר ֵכהוּ ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֵא ָליו ֲהיֵש ְלָבֶבךָ ֶאת ְלָבִבי יָ ָשר ּכֲַא ֶ‬
‫את וֹ‬ ‫תי ַליהָוה ַוַּיְר ִּכב ֹ‬ ‫כה ִא ִּתי ּוְר ֵ אה ְּבִקנְָא ִ‬ ‫להוּ ֵא ָ ליו ֶאל ַה ֶּמְרּכָָבה ַו ֹּיאֶמ ר ְל ָ‬ ‫תן ָידוֹ ַויֲַּע ֵ‬ ‫נה ֶאת יֶָדךָ ַויִֵּּ‬ ‫ֲהיֵ ש ְּתָ‬
‫עט יֵ הּוא יַַעְבֶדנּוּ‬ ‫בד ֶאת ַה ַּ בַעל ְמ ָ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫בץ ֵיהוּא ֶאת ָּכל ָה ָעם ַוֹיאֶמר ֲאֵל ֶהם ַאְח ָאב ָע ַ‬ ‫ְּבִרְכּבוֹ ַויָּבֹא שְֹמ רֹון ַויִ ְ ּ‬
‫קֹ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫כל‬ ‫איש ַאל יִָּפ ֵקד ִּכי זֶַבח ָּגדֹול ִלי ַל ַּבַעל ֹּ‬ ‫אי ַה ַּבַעל ְוָכל ּכֲֹהָניו ָּכל עְֹבָדיו ִקְר אוּ ֵא ַלי ִ‬ ‫תה ָכל נְִבי ֵ‬ ‫ַהְרֵּבה ְוַע ָּ‬
‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ּ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫שה ְבָעְק ּבה ְלמען הֲא ביד ֶאת עְֹב די הּבעל וֹיאֶמר י הּוא קְדּ שוּ ֲעצָ רה ל ּ בעל‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ֵ‬
‫לא יְחֶיה ְויהוּא ָע ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשר יִָּפ ֵ קד ֹ‬
‫בית ַה ַּבַעל‬ ‫באוּ ֵּ‬ ‫בא ַויָּ ֹ‬ ‫לא ָ‬ ‫שר ֹ‬ ‫אר ִאיש ֲא ֶ‬ ‫לא נִ ְש ַ‬ ‫באוּ ָּכל עְֹבֵדי ַה ַּבַעל ֹ‬ ‫לח ֵיהוּא ְּבָכל יִ ְשָר ֵאל ַויָּ ֹ‬ ‫ַויְִּקָראוּ ַויִּ ְש ַ‬
‫צא ָל ֶ הם‬ ‫כל עְֹבֵדי ַה ָּבַעל ַויֹּ ֵ‬ ‫צא ְל בוּש ְל ֹ‬ ‫פה ָלֶפה ַו ֹּיאֶמר ַלֲא ֶש ר ַעל ַה ֶּמ ְל ָּת ָחה הוֹ ֵ‬ ‫לא ֵבית ַה ַּ בַעל ֶּ‬ ‫ַו יִָּּמ ֵ‬
‫פה ִע ָּמֶכם‬ ‫בית ַהָּבַעל ַו ֹּיאֶמר ְלעְֹבֵדי ַה ַּבַעל ַחְּפ שוּ ּוְראוּ ֶּפן יֶש ֹּ‬ ‫בא יֵ הּוא ִויהוֹנָָדב ֶּבן ֵר ָ כב ֵּ‬ ‫ַה ַּמְלּבוּש ַויָּ ֹ‬
‫חים ְועֹ לֹות ְויֵ הּוא ָשם לוֹ ַבחוּץ ְשמִֹנים ִאיש‬ ‫באוּ ַלֲע שֹות זְָב ִ‬ ‫כי ִאם עְֹבֵדי ַה ַּ בַעל ְלַבָּדם ַוָּיֹ‬ ‫ֵמַעְבֵדי ְיה ָוה ִּ ‬
‫לתוֹ ַלֲע שֹות‬ ‫ביא ַעל ְיֵדי ֶכם נְַפשוֹ ַּתַחת נְַפשוֹ ַויְ ִהי ְּכַכ ֹּ‬ ‫שר ֲאנִי ֵמ ִ‬ ‫איש ֲא ֶשר יִָּמֵלט ִמן ָהֲאנָ ִשים ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ַו ֹּיאֶמר ָה ִ‬
‫חֶרב ַויַּ ְש ִלכוּ ]…[ ְוַה ָּשִל ִשים‬ ‫איש ַאל יֵ ֵצא ַויַּ ּכּום ְלִפי ָ‬ ‫באוּ ַהּכוּם ִ‬ ‫ָהעָֹלה ַוֹּיאֶמר ֵיהּוא ]…[ ַל ָּשִל ִשים ֹּ‬
‫צאוּ ֶאת ַמְצּ בת ַה ַּ בַעל ַויִּ ְשְרפוָּה ַויְִּּתצוּ ֵביתוֹ ַויִַּּקח ֵיהּוא ֶאת ַמְצַבת ַהַּבַעל‬ ‫ַויְֵּל כוּ ַעד ִעיר ֵּבית ַהָּבַעל ַויִֹּ ‬
‫מד יֵ הּוא ֶאת ַה ַּ בַעל‬ ‫מאל ַהַּבַעַלִים ַויְ ִשֵמהוּ ְלַמֲחָראֹות ַעד ַהיֹּום ַויַּ ְש ֵ‬ ‫ַויִּ ְשַּבר אָֹתּה ַויִּ ְש ַּלְך אָֹתּה ַעל ְש ֹ‬
‫סא‬ ‫ני ְרִב ִעים יֵ ְש בוּ ְלךָ ַעל ִּכ ֵּ‬ ‫ִמיִּ ְשָרֵאל ַו ֹּיאֶמר ְיה ָוה ֶאל יֵ הּוא יַַען ֲא ֶשר ֱהִטיבָֹת ַלֲעשֹות ַהיָּ ָשר ְּבֵעיִני ְּבֵ‬
‫כי‬‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬ ‫שה ְוָכל ְּגבּוָרתוֹ ֲהלֹוא ֵ‬ ‫שר ָע ָ ‬ ‫יִ ְשָרֵאל ְו יֶֶתר ִדְּבֵרי יֵ הּוא ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬
‫חז ְּבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו ְוַהיָּ ִמים ֲא ֶשר ָמַלְך ֵיהוּא‬ ‫את וֹ ְּבשְֹמרֹון ַויְִּמל ְֹך ְיהוָֹא ָ‬ ‫כב ֵיהוּא ִעם ֲאבֹ ָתיו ַויְִּקְּברוּ ֹ‬ ‫יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויִּ ְש ַּ‬
‫ַעל יִ ְשָר ֵאל ֶע ְשִרים וּ ְשמֶֹנה ָשָ נה ְּבשְֹמרֹון ַויְַּמ ֵּלְך יהוה ֶאת ֵיהּוא‬
‫אל ֶמֶלְך ֲאָרם‬ ‫אל ַויְִּּתֵנם ְּבַיד ֲחזָ ֵ‬

‫אף ְיהָ וה ְּביִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫בע ֶע ְשֵ רה ָשָנה ַויִַּחר ַ‬ ‫ָמַלְך ְיהוָֹא ָחז ֶּבן יֵ הּוא ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ְש ַ‬
‫כי ָרָאה ֶאת ַלַחץ יִ ְשָר ֵאל‬ ‫מע ֵאָליו ְיה ָוה ִּ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ני ְיהָוה ַויִ ְש ַ‬
‫חל ְיהוָֹא ָ חז ֶאת ְּפֵ‬ ‫וְּבַ יד ֶּבן ֲהַדד ֶּבן ֲחזָ ֵ אל ָּכל ַהיִָּמים ַויְ ַ‬
‫אל ְּבָאֳהֵלי ֶ הם‬ ‫חץ אָֹ תם ֶמֶלְך ֲאָרם ַויִּ ֵּתן ְיהָוה ְליִ ְשָרֵאל מוֹ ִשיַע ַויְֵּצ אוּ ִמ ַּ תַחת ַיד ֲאָרם ַויֵּ ְש בוּ ְבֵני יִ ְשָר ֵ ‬ ‫ִּכי ָל ַ‬
‫‪306‬‬ ‫‪Appendix: The Israel Source‬‬
‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיִָּ מים‬ ‫שה וְּגבּוָרתוֹ ֲהלֹוא ֵ‬ ‫שר ָע ָ ‬ ‫חז ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ִּכְת מֹול ִשְלשֹום ְו יֶֶתר ִדְּבֵרי ְיהוָֹא ָ ‬
‫כב ְיהוָֹאָחז ִעם ֲאבֹ ָתיו ַויְִּקְּבֻ רהוּ ְּבשְֹמרֹון ַויְִּמל ְֹך יוָֹאש ְּבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו‬ ‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויִּ ְש ַּ‬
‫ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫מי ְיהוָֹאָחז‬ ‫כל יְ ֵ‬ ‫אל ּ ֹ‬ ‫שש ֶע ְשֵ רה ָשָנה ַוֲחזֵָאל ָל ַ חץ ֶאת יִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫חז ַעל יִ ְשָרֵאל ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ֵ‬ ‫ָמַלְך ְיהוֹ ָאש ֶּבן ְיהוָֹא ָ‬
‫אל‬ ‫כם ֵמַעל ָּפָ ניו ַעד ָע ָּתה ַויָּ ָמת ֲחזָ ֵ‬ ‫לא ִה ְשִלי ָ‬ ‫לא ָאָבה ַה ְשִחי ָתם ְו ֹ‬ ‫תם ַוְיַרֲחֵמם ַויִֶּפן ֲאֵלי ֶהם ְו ֹ‬ ‫ַויָָּחן ְיה ָוה אָֹ‬
‫ֶמֶלְך ֲאָרם ַויְִּמל ְֹך ֶּבן ֲהַדד ְּבנוֹ ַּתְח ָּתיו וֶּבן ֲהַדד ֶמֶלְך ֲאָרם ָקַבץ ֶאת ָּכל ֵחילוֹ וּ ְשלִֹשים וּ ְשנִַים ֶמ ֶלְך ִאּת וֹ‬
‫מר ֶּבן ֲה ַדד ּכְַסְּפךָ‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫לח ֶאל ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ אל ַוֹּיאֶמר ל וֹ ֹּ‬ ‫ְו סּוס ָוָרֶכב ַו יַַּעל ַו יַָּצ ר ַעל שְֹמ רֹון ַויִָּּל ֶחם ָּבּה ַויִּ ְש ַ‬
‫ּ‬
‫ניךָ ִלי ֵהם ַויַַּען ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ַו ֹיאֶמר ִּכְדָבְרךָ ֲאדִֹני ַה ֶּמֶלְך ְלךָ ֲא ִני ְוָכל ֲא ֶשר ִלי‬ ‫שיךָ וָּבֶ ‬ ‫וּזְָהְבךָ ִלי הּוא ְונָ ֶ‬
‫שיךָ וָּבֶ ניךָ ִלי‬ ‫מר ּכְַסְּפךָ וּזְָהְבךָ ְונָ ֶ‬ ‫מר אנִֹּכי ָשַלְח ִּתי ֵא ֶליךָ ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫מר ֶּבן ֲהַ דד ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫כה ָא ַ‬ ‫ַויָּ ֻשבוּ ַה ַּמְלָא ִכים ַוֹּיאְמ רוּ ֹּ‬
‫מד ֵעי ֶניךָ‬ ‫תי ֲעָבֶדיךָ ְוָהיָה ָּכל ַמְח ַ‬ ‫ביְת ךָ ְו ֵ את ָּב ֵּ‬ ‫לח ֶאת ֲעָבַדי ֵא ֶליךָ ְוִחְּפשוּ ֶאת ֵּ‬ ‫עת ָמ ָחר ֶא ְש ַ‬ ‫כי ִאם ּכָ ֵ‬ ‫ִת ֵּתן ִּ‬
‫‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ָ‬
‫נ‬‫ֹ‬‫ש‬ ‫רא‬ ‫בִ‬‫ָ‬ ‫‬ ‫ָ‬
‫ך‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ד‬ ‫ַ‬
‫ע‬
‫ ְ ֶ ְבְ‬ ‫אל‬ ‫ת‬
‫ָ‬
‫ּ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ל‬‫ַ‬ ‫ש‬‫ָ‬ ‫שר‬ ‫א‬ ‫ל‬‫ֹ‬‫כ‬
‫ּ‬
‫ֶ ֶ ְ ֲ ֶ‬ ‫ך‬ ‫ל‬ ‫מ‬
‫ּ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫ה‬ ‫ִ‬
‫ני‬
‫‬ ‫ֹ‬‫ד‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ו‬ ‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ִ‬
‫א‬ ‫דד‬ ‫ַ‬
‫ ֶ ְ ְֲ ֶ ֲ ְ ‬‫ה‬ ‫בן‬ ‫כי‬
‫‬‫ֵ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ַ‬
‫מ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫מר‬ ‫יא‬‫ּ‬‫ֹ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫ו‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ו‬ ‫קח‬ ‫לָ‬‫ָ‬ ‫ו‬
‫ְ‬ ‫דם‬ ‫ ‬
‫ָ‬ ‫ָ‬
‫י‬‫ב‬‫שימוּ ְ‬ ‫יָ ִ‬
‫כה יֲַע שּון‬ ‫לח ֵאָליו ֶּבן ֲה ַדד ַוֹּיאֶמר ֹּ‬ ‫לא אוּ ַ כל ַלֲע שֹות ַויְֵּלכוּ ַה ַּמְלָא ִכים ַויְ ִש ֻ בהוּ ָדָּבר ַויִּ ְש ַ‬ ‫בר ַה ֶּזה ֹ‬ ‫ֶאֱע ֶשה ְוַהָדּ ָ‬
‫שר ְּבַרְגָלי ַויַַּען ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ַוֹּיאֶמר‬ ‫פר שְֹמ רֹון ִל ְשָע ִלים ְלָכל ָה ָ עם ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ספוּ ִאם יִ ְשּפֹ ק ֲע ַ‬ ‫כה יוֹ ִ‬ ‫לי ֱאלֹ ִהים ְו ֹ‬ ‫ִ ‬
‫בר ַה ֶּזה ַוֹּיאֶמר ֶאל ֲעָבָדיו ִשימוּ ֶאת ָמצֹור ַויָּ ִשימוּ‬ ‫לל חֵֹ גר ִּכְמַפ ֵּתַח ַויְ ִהי ִּכ ְשמַֹע ֶאת ַהָדּ ָ‬ ‫ַדְּּב רוּ ַאל יְִתַה ֵּ‬
‫כים ְשלִֹשים וּ ְשנִַים ֶ מֶלְך עֵֹזר‬ ‫ֶאת ָמצֹור ַעל ָהִעיר ַויְֵּצ א ַּבָצֳּהָרִים וֶּבן ֲהַדד שֹ ֶתה ִש ּכֹור ַּב ֻּס ּכֹות הּוא ְוַה ְּמָל ִ ‬
‫מר ֲאנָ ִשים יְָצ אוּ ִמ ּשְֹמרֹון ַו ֹּיאֶמר‬ ‫לחוּ ַויִַּּגידוּ ְלֶמֶלְך ֲאָרם ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫נה ַויִּ ְש ַ‬ ‫אתוֹ ַויְֵּצ אוּ נֲַעֵ רי ָשֵרי ַה ְּמִדי נֹות ָּבִראשָֹ‬ ‫ֹ‬
‫מה יָ ָ צאוּ ַחִּיים ִּתְפשּום ְו ֵא ֶּלה יְָצ אוּ ִמן ָה ִעיר נֲַעֵ רי ָשֵרי‬ ‫אם ְלִמְלָח ָ ‬ ‫ִאם ְל ָש לֹום יָָ צאוּ ִּתְפ שּום ַחִּיים ְו ִ‬
‫אל ַויִָּּמ ֵלט ֶּבן ֲהַדד ֶמֶלְך ֲאָרם‬ ‫נסוּ ֲאָרם ַוִּיְרְדּ ֵ פם יִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫איש ִאישוֹ ַויָֻּ‬ ‫שר ַאֲחֵריֶהם ַויַּּכוּ ִ‬ ‫ַה ְּמִדי נֹות ְוַה ַ חִיל ֲא ֶ‬
‫בת‬ ‫כה ְגדוָֹלה ַויְִהי ִלְתשוַּ‬ ‫כה ַבֲאָ רם ַמ ָּ‬ ‫ַעל סּוס וָּפָר ִשים ַויֵֵּצא ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵאל ַויִַּּקח ֶאת ַה ּסּוס ְוֶאת ָהָרֶכב ְוִה ָּ‬
‫תם ַויֲַּח נוּ‬ ‫קד ֶּבן ֲהַ דד ֶאת ֲאָרם ַויַַּעל ֲא ֵפָקה ַל ִּמְלָח ָ מה ִעל יִ ְשָרֵאל ִוי ְשָר ֵאל ָהְתָּפְקדוּ ַויְֵּל כוּ ִלְקָרא ָ‬ ‫ַה ָּש ָנה ַויְִּפ ֹ‬
‫הי ַּביֹּום‬ ‫מים ַויְ ִ‬ ‫עת יָ ִ‬ ‫פי ִע ִּזים ַוֲאָ רם ִמְל אוּ ֶאת ָהָאֶרץ ַויֲַּח נוּ ֵאֶּלה נַֹכח ֵ א ֶּלה ִשְב ַ‬ ‫יִ ְשָר ֵאל נְֶגָּדם ִּכ ְשנֵי ֲח ִש ֵ‬
‫אל ֶאת ֲאָ רם ֵמָאה ֶאֶלף ַרְג ִלי ְּב יֹום ֶאָחד ַויָּ ֻנסוּ ַהנּוָֹתִרים ֲאֵפָקה‬ ‫ַה ְּשִבי ִעי ַו ִּתְקַרב ַה ִּמ ְלָח ָמה ַויַּ ּכוּ יִ ְשָר ֵ‬
‫חֶדר ְּבָחֶדר‬ ‫בא ֶאל ָה ִעיר ֶ‬ ‫עה ֶא ֶלף ִאיש ַהנּוָֹתִרים וֶּבן ֲהַדד ָנס ַויָּ ֹ‬ ‫ֶאל ָהִעיר ַו ִּתּפֹל ַהחוֹ ָמה ַעל ֶע ְשִרים ְו ִשְב ָ‬
‫רא ֵשנוּ ְונֵֵצא‬ ‫לים ְּב ֹ‬ ‫שיָמה נָּא ַש ִּקים ְּבָמְת ֵנינוּ ַוֲחָב ִ‬ ‫הם נָ ִ‬ ‫כי ֶ חֶסד ֵ‬ ‫ַוֹּיאֶמר ֵאָל ֲעָבָדיו ָיַדְע ִּתי ִכי ַמְלֵכי יִ ְשָר ֵאל ַמְל ֵ‬
‫ּ‬
‫לים ְּבָרא ֵשי ֶהם ַוָיאמרוּ ֶאל ֶמֶלְך‬ ‫ֶאל ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵאל אוַּ לי יְַחֶּיה ֶאת נְַפ ֶשינוּ ַויְַּחְּגרוּ ַש ִּקים ְּבָמְתֵני ֶהם ַוֲחָב ִ‬
‫שי ַו ֹּיאֶמר ַהעוֶֹדנּוּ ַ חי ָא ִחי הּוא ְוָהֲאנָשים יְנֲח שוּ ַויְמֲה רוּ‬
‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫נא נְַפ ִ‬ ‫יִ ְשָר ֵאל ַוֹּיאְמ רוּ ַעְבְדּךָ ֶבן ֲהַ דד ָא ַ מר ְּתִחי ָ‬
‫ּ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ֵ‬
‫צא אָליו ֶּבן ֲה דד ויֲע להוּ על ה ֶּמְרּכבה וֹיאֶמר‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ּ‬
‫ֵ‬ ‫ַ‬
‫חהוּ וי ‬ ‫ָ‬
‫באוּ ק ֻ‬ ‫חיךָ ֶבן ֲה ַדד ַו ֹּיאֶמר ֹּ‬ ‫ַויְַּחְל טוּ ִמ ֶּמנּוּ ַוֹּיאְמרוּ ָא ִ‬
‫שם ָאִבי ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ַוֹּיאֶמר‬ ‫ֵא ָליו ֶהָעִרים ֲא ֶשר ָלַקח ָאִבי ֵמ ֵאת ָא ִביךָ ָא ִשיב ְוחּוצֹות ָּת ִשים ְלךָ ְבַד ֶּמ ֶש ק ּכֲַא ֶשר ָ‬
‫ֲא ִני ַּבְּבִרית ֲא ַשְּלֶחּךָ ַויְִּכָרת לוֹ ְב ִרית ַויְ ַשְּלֵחהוּ ַו יָּ ָשב ְיהוָֹאש ֶּבן ְיהוָֹא ָחז ַוִּיַּקח ֶאת ֶהָעִרים ִמיַּד ֶּבן ֲהַדד‬
‫לח‬ ‫אז ָש ַ‬ ‫כהוּ יוֹ ָאש ַויָּ ֶשב ֶאת ָעֵרי יִ ְשָרֵאל ָ‬ ‫מה ָשלֹש ְּפָעִמים ִה ָּ‬ ‫חז ָא ִביו ַּב ִּמְלָח ָ‬ ‫שר ָל ַקח ִמַּ יד ְיהוָֹא ָ‬ ‫ֶּבן ֲחזָ ֵאל ֲא ֶ‬
‫אה ָפִנים‬ ‫מר ְל ָ כה נְִתָר ֶ‬ ‫חז ֶּבן יֵ הּוא ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ אל ֵלא ֹ‬ ‫ֲאַמְציָה ֶמֶלְך ְיהּוָדה ַמְלָא ִכים ֶאל ְיהוֹ ָאש ֶּבן ְיהוָֹא ָ‬
‫שר‬ ‫שר ַּבְּלָב נֹון ָשַלח ֶאל ָה ֶאֶרז ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ַויִּ ְש ַלח ְיהוָֹאש ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵאל ֶאל ֲאַמְצָיהוּ ֶמֶלְך ְיהּוָדה ֵלאמֹר ַה חוַֹח ֲא ֶ‬
‫כה ִה ִּכיָת‬ ‫מס ֶאת ַהחוַֹח ַה ֵּ‬ ‫שר ַּבְּלָב נֹון ַו ִּתְר ֹ‬ ‫בר ַחַּית ַה ָּשֶדה ֲא ֶ‬ ‫שה ַו ַּתֲעֹ‬ ‫מר ְּתָנה ֶאת ִּב ְּתךָ ִלְב ִני ְלִא ָּ‬ ‫ַּבְּלָבנוֹן ֵלא ֹ‬
‫מע‬ ‫לא ָש ַ‬ ‫שב ְּבֵבי ֶתךָ ָלָּמה ִתְתָּגֶרה ְּבָר ָעה ְונַָפְל ָּתה ַא ָּ תה ִויהוָּדה ִע ָּמְך ְו ֹ‬ ‫ֶאת ֱא דֹום וּנְ ָשֲאךָ ִלֶּבךָ ִהּכֵָבד ְו ֵ‬
‫שר ִליהּוָדה ַויִּנֶָּגף‬ ‫שֶמש ֲא ֶ‬ ‫ֲאַמְצ ָיהוּ ַו יַַּעל ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויְִּתָר אוּ ָפ ִנים הּוא ַוֲאַמְצָיהוּ ֶמֶלְך ְיהוָּדה ְּב ֵבית ֶ ‬
‫אל ַויָֻּ נסוּ ִאיש ְלָאֳהלוֹ ְוֵאת ֲאַמְצ ָיהוּ ֶּבן ְיהוָֹאש ֶּבן ֲאַחזְָיהוּ ָּתַפ ש ְיהוָֹאש ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָר ֵ אל‬ ‫ני יִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫ְיהוָּ דה ִלְפֵ‬
‫בע ֵמ אֹות ַא ָּמה ְוָלַקח‬ ‫בא ְירוּ ָשַלִם ַויְִּפרֹץ ְּבחוֹ ַמת ְירוּ ָשַלִם ְּב ַשַער ֶאְפַריִם ַעד ַשַער ַהִּפ ָּנה ַאְר ַּ‬ ‫בית ָשֶמש ַויָּ ֹ‬ ‫ְּב ֵ‬
‫ני ַה ַּתֲעֻר בֹות ַויָּ ָשב‬ ‫בית ַה ֶּמֶלְך ְו ֵ את ְּבֵ‬ ‫אים ְב ֵּבית ְיהָוה וְּבאְֹצרוֹת ֵּ‬ ‫ֶאת ָּכל ַהּכֶֶסף ְו ֵאת ָּכל ַהּכֵ ִלים ַהנְִּמְצ ִ‬
‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים‬ ‫לא ֵ‬ ‫שר נְִל ַחם ִעם ֲאַמְצָיהוּ ֶמֶלְך ְיהוָּדה ֲה ֹ‬ ‫שר ָע ָשה וְּגבּוָרת וֹ ַוֲא ֶ‬ ‫שְֹמרוָֹנה ְויֶֶת ר ִדְּבֵרי ְיהוֹ ָאש ֲא ֶ‬
‫בר יוָֹאש‬ ‫שב ַעל ִּכְס אוֹ ַויִָּּק ֵ‬ ‫כב יוָֹאש ִעם ֲאבֹ ָתיו ְוָיָרְב ָעם יָ ַ‬ ‫כי יִ ְשָרֵאל ַויִּ ְש ַּ‬ ‫ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫‬
‫כי יִ ְשָר ֵ
אל‪:‬‬ ‫ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ִעם ַמְל ֵ‬
‫‪Appendix: The Israel Source‬‬ ‫‪307‬‬
‫ָמַלְך ָיָרְב ָעם ֶּבן יוָֹאש ֶמֶלְך יִ ְשָרֵאל ְּבשְֹמ רֹון ַאְרָּב ִעים ְוַא ַ חת ָשָנה הּוא ֵה ִשיב ֶאת ְּגבּול יִ ְשָר ֵאל ִמְּל בֹוא‬
‫אה ְיהָ וה‬ ‫שר ִמַּגת ַהֵחֶפר ִּכי ָר ָ‬ ‫נה ֶבן ֲאִמ ַּתי ַהנָּ ִביא ֲא ֶ ‬ ‫שר ִדּ ֶּבר ְּבַיד יוָֹ‬‫בר ְיהָוה ֲא ֶ‬ ‫בה ִּכְד ַ‬‫ֲח ָ מת ַעד ָים ָהֲעָר ָ‬
‫שם‬ ‫בר ְיה ָוה ִלְמחוֹת ֶאת ֵ‬ ‫אין עֵֹ זר ְליִ ְשָרֵאל ְו ֹ‬
‫לא ִד ֶּ‬ ‫אד ְוֶאֶפס ָעצוּ ר ְוֶאֶפס ָע זּוב ְו ֵ‬ ‫ֶאת ֳעִני יִ ְשָר ֵ אל ַה ַּמר ְמ ֹ‬
‫שר ָע ָשה וְּגבּוָרתוֹ‬ ‫עם ֶּבן יוָֹאש ְויֶֶת ר ִדְּבֵרי ָיָרְב ָעם ְוָכל ֲא ֶ‬ ‫יִ ְשָר ֵאל ִמ ַּ תַחת ַה ָּשָמִים ַו יּוֹ ִשי ֵעם ְּבַ יד ָיָרְב ָ‬
‫הם ְּכתוּ ִבים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהיָּ ִמים ְלַמְל ֵ‬
‫כי‬ ‫לא ֵ‬ ‫אל ֲה ֹ‬‫מת ִליִ ְשָר ֵ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשר נְִל ָחם ַוֲא ֶשר ֵה ִשיב ֶאת ַדּ ֶּמ ֶשק ְוֶאת ֲח ָ ‬
‫יִ ְשָרֵאל‬
308 Appendix: The Israel Source
And Jeroboam ben Nebat, an Ephraimite from Zaredah—the name of his mother
was Zeruiah, a widow—served Solomon. And this is the account of how he raised
his hand against the king: Solomon built the Millo; he shut the breach in the city of
David, his father. And the man Jeroboam was a mighty warrior. When Solomon
saw that the young man was a man of works, he set him over the forced labor of the
house of Joseph. At about this time Jeroboam went out from Jerusalem, and the
prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the path and he brought him aside from
the path (he had clothed himself in a new garment) and these two were in the field.
Then Ahijah seized the new garment that was upon him and tore it [into] twelve
rags and said to Jeroboam: Take for yourself ten rags, for thus says ‫יהוה‬: Behold! I
am tearing the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and I am giving you ten of the
tribes. You I will take and you will reign all that your soul desires and you will be
king over Israel. So Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam, so he arose and fled to
Egypt, to King Shoshenq of Egypt and he was in Egypt until Solomon died. When
Jeroboam ben Nebat heard, he returned from Egypt. When all Israel heard that
Jeroboam had returned, they made him king over all Israel. Then Jeroboam built
Shechem in the mountains of Ephraim and dwelt there. Then he went out from
there and built Penuel. Then the king went and made two calves of gold and said to
the people: Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of
Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel and the other he set in Dan. Then Jeroboam
made a holiday in the eighth month on the fifteenth day of the month and he went
up to the altar that he had made in Bethel to sacrifice to the calves that he had
made. And the rest of the deeds of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he ruled,
Behold! They are written on the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of
Israel. And the days that Jeroboam reigned were twenty-two years. Then he slept
with his fathers and his son Nadab reigned in his stead.
And Nadab ben Jeroboam reigned over Israel two years. Then Baasha ben
Ahijah of the house of Issachar conspired against him. Then Baasha struck him in
Gibbethon, which belongs to the Philistines. And Nadab and all Israel were
besieging Gibbethon. So Baasha killed him and reigned. And the rest of the deeds
of Nadab and all that he did, are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of the
days of the kings of Israel?
Baasha ben Ahijah reigned over all Israel in Tirzah twenty-four years. And the
rest of the deeds of Baasha and what he did and his might, are they not written
upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? And Baasha slept
with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah and his son Elah reigned in his stead.
Elah ben Baasha reigned over Israel in Tirzah two years. And Zimri general of
half of the chariotry rebelled against him. He was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk
in the house of Arzah, who was over the palace in Tirzah. Then Zimri came and
struck him and killed him and reigned in his stead. And the rest of the deeds of
Elah and all that he did, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds of the days of
the kings of Israel?
Appendix: The Israel Source 309
Zimri reigned seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped against
Gibbethon, which belongs to the Philistines. When the encamped people heard that
Zimri had rebelled and had also struck the king, they made Omri, the general of the
army, king in Israel on that day in the camp. Then Omri went up (and all Israel was
with him) from Gibbethon and besieged Tirzah. When Zimri saw that the city had
been captured, he went to the citadel of the house of the king and burned over
himself the house of the king with fire and died. And the rest of the deeds of Zimri
and his revolt that he revolted, are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of
the days of the kings of Israel?
Then the people of Israel divided; half of the people followed Tibni ben Ginath
to make him king, while the other half followed Omri. And the people who
followed Omri overpowered the people who followed Tibni ben Ginath and Tibni
died; then Omri reigned after Tibni. Omri reigned over Israel twelve years; in
Tirzah he reigned six years. He bought the mountain of Samaria from Shemer for
two talents of silver and built up the mountain and named the city that he built after
Shemer, the owner of the mountain of Samaria. And the rest of the deeds of Omri
and all that he did and his might, are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of
the days of the kings of Israel? And Omri slept with his fathers and was buried in
Samaria. And his son Ahab reigned in his stead.
And Ahab ben Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years. He took
Jezebel bat Ethbaal, king of Sidonians as a wife and he went and served the Baal
and bowed to him. Then he made an offering place to Baal, the house of the Baal
he built in Samaria. And the rest of the deeds of Ahab and all that he did and the
house of ivory that he built and all the cities that he built, are they not written on
the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? And Ahab slept with his
fathers. And his son Ahaziah reigned in his stead.
Ahaziah ben Ahab reigned over Israel in Samaria two years. And Moab
rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And Ahaziah fell through the roof of
his upper chamber in Samaria and was injured. And he died. And the rest of the
deeds of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds of the
days of the kings of Israel?
And Joram ben Ahab reigned over Israel in Samaria twelve years. Then the
king of Israel (and the king of Judah with him) went up to Ramoth-Gilead. The
king of Israel said to the king of Judah: I will disguise myself and go into battle and
you put on my outfit. So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle.
Then the king of Aram commanded the generals of his chariotry who were his,
saying: fight neither small nor great, but only the king of Israel. When the generals
of the chariotry saw the king of Judah, they said: surely he is the king of Israel! So
they surrounded him to fight. And he cried out. When the generals of the chariotry
saw that he was not the king of Israel, they returned from pursuing him. But
someone drew his bow to its full extent and struck the king of Israel between the
appendage armor and the breastplate. Then he said to his driver: turn your hands
and bring me from the battle, for I am wounded. And the battle increased that day
and the king was propped up in his chariot facing Aram until evening.
And Elisha the prophet called to one of the sons of the prophets and said to
him: Gird your loins and take this jug of oil in your hand and go to Ramoth-Gilead.
When you arrive there and see Jehu ben Jehoshaphat ben Nimshi there, you will go
and take him from the midst of his brothers and bring him into the inner most
chamber. Then you will take this jug of oil and pour it upon his head and say: Thus
says ‫יהוה‬: I am anointing you king over Israel. Then you will open the door and flee
and not tarry. So the prophet went to Ramoth-Gilead. He arrived, and behold! The
commanders of the army were sitting and he said: there is something for me [to
give] to you, commander! Then Jehu said: To whom from among all of us? And he
said: To you, commander. Then he arose and entered the house and poured the oil
on his head and said to him: Thus says ‫יהוה‬: I am anointing you king over Israel.
Then he opened the door and fled. And Jehu went out to the servants of his master
and [someone] said to him: Peace? Why did this madman come to you? And he
said to them: You know the man and his complaint. And they said: A lie! Please tell
us. And he said: this and that he said to me, saying ‘thus says ‫יהוה‬: I am anointing
you king over Israel. So they hurried and each took his garment and set it under
him on […] the stairs and they blew the horn and said: Jehu rules! So Jehu ben
Jehoshaphat ben Nimshi conspired against Joram. And Jehu said: If your life is
with me, let no refugee go out from the city to go report [this] in Jezreel. And Jehu
rode and came to Jezreel, for Joram the king of Israel was recovering in Jezreel
from the arrow wounds that the Arameans had shot him in battle with Hazael king
of Aram, for he was a mighty man and a military man. And Ahaziahu King of
Judah came down to see Joram. And the sentinel was standing on the tower in
Jezreel and saw the abundance of Jehu in his approach. And he said: I see an
abundance! And Joram said: Take a chariot and send [it] to meet them and he
should say, ‘peace?’ And the charioteer went to meet him and said: Thus says the
king, ‘peace?’ And Jehu said: What [is this] to you about peace? Wheel around to
follow me! So the sentinel reported [this], saying: the messenger went up to them,
but did not return. Then he sent a second charioteer and he came up to them and
said: Thus says the king: ‘peace?’ And Jehu said: What [is this] to you about
peace? Wheel around to follow me! And the sentinel reported [this], saying: He
went up to them, but didn’t return. And the steering is like the steering of Jehu ben
Nimshi, because he is steering like a madman. So Joram said: Mount up! And he
mounted a chariot. And Joram King of Israel and Ahaziahu King of Judah went
out, each in his own chariot and they came out to meet Jehu and found him at the
lot of Naboth the Jezreelite. And when Joram saw Jehu, he said: Peace, Jehu? And
he said: What peace as long as the whoredoms of Jezebel your mother and her
sorceries persist? Then Joram turned his hands and fled and said to Ahaziahu:
Treason, Ahaziahu! And Jehu filled his hand with the bow and struck Joram
between his shoulders so that the arrow came out from his heart and he collapsed in
his chariot. Then he said to his adjutant Bidkar: Lift [and] throw him into the lot of
the field of Naboth the Jezreelite, for remember when you and I were riding side by
side behind his father Ahab and ‫ יהוה‬raised up against him this oracle: For the blood
of Naboth and the blood of his sons I saw yesterday, oracle of ‫יהוה‬, I will repay to
you in this lot, oracle of ‫ !יהוה‬Now lift [and] throw him into the lot, as per the word
of ‫יהוה‬. And Ahaziahu King of Judah saw [this] and fled on the path of Beth-
Haggan, but Jehu pursued him and said: Him too! And he struck him upon his
chariot in the ascent to Gur, that is Ibleam, but he fled to Megiddo and died
there.Then Jehu entered Jezreel. When Jezebel heard, she put antimony on her eyes
and made her head good and looked down from the window. And Jehu entered into
the gate and she said: Peace, Zimri, murderer of his lord? He raised his face to the
window and said: Who is with me? Who? Then two eunuchs looked down to him.
And he said: cast her down. And they cast her down such that some of her blood
splattered onto the wall and onto the horses and they trampled her. Then he went in
and ate and drank and said: please attend to that cursed woman and bury her, for
she is the daughter of a king. And they went out to bury her, but did not find her,
except for her skull and [her] feet and the palms of [her] hands. So the corpse of
Jezebel was like dung on the surface of the earth such that no one could say: this
was Jezebel. And Ahab had 70 sons in Samaria. Then Jehu wrote letters and sent
[them] to Samaria to the princes of Israel, saying: And now, when this letter comes
to you, you have the sons of your lord and you have chariotry and horses and a
fortified city and weaponry. Then seek the best and most upright of the sons of your
lord and set [him] upon the throne of his father and fight on behalf of the house of
your lord. Then they were very afraid and they said: Behold! Two kings couldn’t
stand before him, how then should we remain standing? The one over the house
and over the city sent to Jehu, saying: we are your servants and all that you say to
us, we shall do. We will make no one king. Do what is good in your eyes. So he
wrote a second letter to them, saying: If you are on my side and heed my voice,
take the heads of the sons of your lord and come to me in Jezreel by this time
tomorrow. When the letter came to them, they took the sons of the king and
slaughtered seventy men and set their heads in baskets and sent [them] to him in
Jezreel. Then the messenger came and told him, saying: They sent the heads of the
sons of the king. And he said: Set them in two piles [by] the door of the gate until
morning. Then in the morning, he came out and stood and spoke to the whole
people: You are righteous. Behold! I conspired against my lord and killed him. But
who struck all of these? Then he arose and came to Samaria. He was in Beth-Eked
of the shepherds on the way. And Jehu found the brothers of Ahaziahu King of
Judah and said: Who are you? And they said: We are the brothers of Ahaziahu. We
are going down to greet the sons of the king and the sons of the queen-mother.
Then he said: Take them alive! So they took them alive and slaughtered them in
Beth-Eked, 42 men. And not one survivor remained of them. He went from there
and found Jehonadab ben Rechab approaching him. And he blessed him and said to
him: Is your heart upright with my heart as my heart is with your heart? And
Jehonadab said: It is and Jehu said: if it is, give me your hand. And he gave him his
hand and he brought him to him onto his chariot. And he said: Come with me and
see my zeal for ‫יהוה‬. And each rode in his own chariot. Then he arrived at Samaria.
Then Jehu assembled the whole people and said to them: Ahab served the Baal a
little; Jehu will serve him much! So call now all the prophets of the Baal and all of
his priests and all of his servants to me. Let no one be absent, for there will be a
great sacrifice for the Baal. Everyone who is missing will not live. But Jehu was
acting with deceit in order to destroy the servants of the Baal. And Jehu said:
Consecrate an assembly for the Baal. And they called [it to order]. And Jehu sent to
all Israel and all of the servants of the Baal came. There was no one left who did
not come. And they entered into the house of the Baal and filled the house of the
Baal from mouth to mouth. And he said to the one over the wardrobe: Bring out
clothes for all of the servants of the Baal. And he brought out attire for them. Then
Jehu and Jehonadab ben Rechab entered the house of the Baal. And he said to the
servants of the Baal: Search and see that there is not amongst you from the servants
of ‫יהוה‬, but rather only servants of the Baal. And they came to make sacrifices and
the burnt offerings and Jehu had set 80 men outside and had said: the man who
allows someone to escape from the men I am bringing against you, his life instead
of his life. When he finished offering the burnt offering, Jehu said […] and to the
adjutants: Come in! Strike them! No man shall exit! And they struck them with the
mouth of the sword and […] and the adjutants cast out and went until the house of
the Baal. And they brought out the pillar of the Baal and burned it and tore down
his house. And Jehu took the pillar of the Baal and smashed it and cast it to the left
of the Baaleim and made it into a latrine until today. Thus Jehu destroyed the Baal
from Israel. And ‫ יהוה‬spoke to Jehu: Because you did well, doing what is upright in
my eyes, sons of the fourth [generation] will sit for you upon the throne of Israel.
And the rest of the deeds of Jehu and all that he did and all his might, are they not
written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? And Jehu
slept with his fathers and they buried him in Samaria. Then his son Jehoahaz
reigned in his stead. And the days that Jehu reigned over Israel were 28 years in
Samaria. ‫ יהוה‬made Jehu ben Nimshi king.
Jehoahaz ben Jehu reigned in Samaria 17 years. And the anger of ‫ יהוה‬burned
against Israel and he gave them into the hand of Hazael King of Aram and into the
hand of Ben-Hadad ben Hazael all the days. Then Jehoahaz prayed before ‫ יהוה‬and
‫ יהוה‬listened to him, for he saw the oppression of Israel, for the king of Aram
oppressed them. And ‫ יהוה‬gave Israel a savior and they came out from under the
hand of Aram; and the sons of Israel dwelt in their tents as in previous times. And
the rest of the deeds of Jehoahaz and all that he did and his might, are they not
written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel? And
Jehoahaz slept with his fathers and they buried him in Samaria. And his son Joash
reigned in his stead.
Joash ben Jehoahaz reigned over Israel in Samaria 16 years. And Hazael
oppressed Israel all of the days of Jehoahaz. But ‫ יהוה‬was gracious to them and had
compassion on them and turned to them. And he did not want to banish them and
did not cast them from his presence until now. Then Hazael King of Aram died and
his son Ben-Hadad reigned in his stead. And Ben-Hadad King of Aram gathered
his entire army—and thirty-two kings were with him—and cavalry and chariotry.
And he went up and besieged Samaria and waged war against it. Then he sent to
the king of Israel and said to him: Thus speaks Ben-Hadad: Your silver and your
gold, it is mine! And your wives and your sons, they are mine! And the king of
Israel answered and said: As per your word, my lord, O king! I and all that is mine
are yours! Then the messengers returned and said: Thus speaks Ben-Hadad, saying:
I sent to you saying your silver and your gold and your wives and your sons, to me
you will give [them]. Therefore, at this time tomorrow I will send my servants to
you and they will search your house and the houses of your servants and all that is
pleasant in your eyes they will place in their hands and take [it]. And he said to the
messengers of Ben-Hadad: Tell my lord the king: all that you sent to your servant
the first time I will do, but this thing I am not able to do. And the messengers went
and brought the word. And Ben-Hadad sent to him and said: May the gods do thus
and thus more to me if the dust of Samaria suffices for handfuls for the whole of
my infantry. Then the king of Israel answered and said: Say: One girding up should
not boast like one who loosens! And when he heard this word he said to his
servants: Set up siege works! And they set up siege works against the city. So he
went out at noon, and Ben-Hadad was drinking himself drunk in the booths—he
and the kings (the 32 kings) helping him. And the youths of the princes of the
provinces came out first. And they sent and told the king of Aram, saying: Men are
coming out of Samaria. And he said: If they are coming out for peace, take them
alive! But if they are coming out to battle, take them alive! And these came out
from the city: the youths of the princes of the provinces and the army that followed
them. And each struck his man so that Aram fled, but Israel pursued them. And
Ben-Hadad King of Aram escaped upon a horse and cavalry. And the king of Israel
came out and took the cavalry and the chariotry and he struck Aram a mighty blow.
So at the return of the year, Ben-Hadad assembled Aram and went up to Apheq to
fight against Israel. And Israel were mustered and went to face them. Then Israel
camped across from them like two little flocks of female goats, while Aram filled
the land. So these encamped opposite these [for] seven days, but on the seventh day
the battle drew near and Israel struck Aram: 100,000 infantry in one day! Then the
remnant fled to the city of Apheq and the wall fell upon 27,000 men of those
remaining. And Ben-Hadad fled and went into the house of the bed chamber, into
the innermost room. Then he spoke to his servants: I know that the kings of the
house of Israel, they are kings of grace. Let us put sacks around our hips and cords
around our heads and go out to the king of Israel. Maybe he will spare our lives. So
they put sacks around their hips and cords around their heads and spoke to the king
of Israel: Your servant Ben-Hadad said: Please spare my life! And he said: Is he
still alive? He is my brother! And the men were auguring and hurriedly snatched
[it] from him and said: Ben-Hadad is your brother! And he said: Come! Bring him
to me! So Ben-Hadad came out to him and he brought him up onto the chariot. And
he said to him: the cities that my father took from your father, I will return [to you]
and you will set street-markets in Damascus like the ones that my father set in
Samaria. And he said: I will send you away with a covenant. And he cut for him a
covenant and sent him away. So Joash ben Jehoahaz reconquered the cities from
the hand of Ben-Hadad ben Hazael that he had taken in battle from the hand of
Jehoahaz his father. Three times Joash struck him and returned the cities of Israel.
Then Amaziah King of Judah sent messengers to Joash ben Jehoahaz ben Jehu
King of Israel, saying: Come! Let us meet face to face! And Joash King of Israel
sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying: A briar in Lebanon sent to a cedar in
Lebanon, saying: give your daughter to my son as a wife. Then a wild animal of
Lebanon went out and trampled the briar. Truly you struck Edom and your heart
raised you up. Be honored and remain in your house. Why should you venture into
evil and fall, you and Judah with you? But Amaziah didn’t listen and the king of
Israel went up and they met face to face, he and Amaziah King of Judah, in Beth-
Shemesh, which belongs to Judah. And Judah was defeated before Israel and they
fled, each to his tent. And Joash King of Israel captured Amaziah ben Jehoash ben
Ahaziahu in Beth-Shemesh. Then he entered Jerusalem and broke through the wall
of Jerusalem at the gate of Ephraim up to the corner gate: 400 cubits. And he took
all of the silver and all of the vessels found in the house of ‫ יהוה‬and the treasures of
the house of the king and the sons of the king as hostages. Then he returned to
Samaria. And the rest of the deeds of Joash that he did and his might and that he
fought with Amaziah King of Judah, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds
of the days of the kings of Israel? And Joash slept with his fathers and Jeroboam sat
upon his throne. And Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel.
Jeroboam ben Joash reigned over Israel in Samaria 41 years. He restored the
border of Israel from Lebo-Hamath until the Sea of the Arabah as per the word of
‫ יהוה‬that he spoke by the hand of Jonah ben Amittai the prophet, who was from
Gath-Hepher, for ‫ יהוה‬saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter. Whether
bound or free, there was no helper for Israel. And ‫ יהוה‬did not say [that ‫ יהוה‬would]
blot out the name of Israel from under the heavens. And he saved them by the hand
of Jeroboam ben Joash. And the rest of the deeds of Jeroboam and all that he did
and his might that he battled and that he returned Damascus and Hamath to Israel,
are they not written upon the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Israel?
Bibliography
Aberbach, Moses, and Leivy Smolar. “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power.” JBL 88 (1969): 69–72.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “What Can We Know About the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?”
Pages 71–106 in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators . By Anneli Aejmelaeus.
Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Aharoni, Yohanan. “Mount Carmel as Border.” Pages 1–7 in Archäologie und Altes
Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling. Edited by Arnulf Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970.
Ah.ituv, Shmuel. “Suzerain or Vassal? Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan.”
IEJ 43 (1993): 246–47.
Ahlström, Gösta W. “The Battle at Ramoth-Gilead in 841 BC.” Pages 157–66 in “Wünschet
Jerusalem Frieden”. Edited by Matthias Augustin. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1988.
———. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s
Conquest. JSOTSup 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
———. “King Jehu: A Prophet’s Mistake.” Pages 47–69 in Scripture in History and
Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam . Edited by Arthur L. Merrill and
Thomas W. Overholt. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977.
———. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine . Studies in the
History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982.
Amram, David Werner. “The Zekenim, or Council of Elders.” JBL 19, no. 1 (1900): 34–52.
Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York; London; Toronto;
Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday, 1989.
———. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980.
Athas, George. “Setting the Record Straight: What Are We to Make of the Tel Dan
Inscription?” JSS 51, no. 2 (Autumn 2006): 241–55.
———. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation . London; New
York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005.
Aurelius, Erik. Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts. BZAW 319. Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2003.
Baillet, M., J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Textes. DJD 3.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Barkay, Gabriel. “The Iron Age II–III.” Pages 302–73 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel.
Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor. Translated by R. Greenberg. New Haven; London: Yale
University Press, 1992.
Barré, Lloyd Milton. “The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion: An Examination of the Literary
Features and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9–11.” Ph.D. diss. Nashville: Vanderbilt
University, 1986.
Barstad, Hans M. “Can Prophetic Texts Be Dated? Amos 1–2 as an Example.” Pages 21–40
in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty . Edited by Lester L. Grabbe.
London: T&T Clark, 2007.
316 Bibliography
———. “DOD ‫דוד‬.”. In DDD. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W.
van der Horst. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999.
Barstad, Hans M., and Bob Becking. “Does the Stele from Tel-Dan Refer to a Deity Dôd?”
BN 77 (1995): 5–12.
Barthélemy, Dominique. Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963.
Bartlett, John R. Edom and the Edomites. JSOTSup 77. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.
Bartusch, Mark W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and
Ancestor. JSOTSup. London; New York, NY: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Beck, Martin. Elia und die Monolatrie. BZAW 281. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1999.
Becking, Bob. “Did Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription.” SJOT 13, no. 2 (1999): 187–201.
———. “Does the Stele from Tel Dan Refer to a Deity Bethel?” BN 118 (2003): 19–23.
———. “The Second Danite Inscription: Some Remarks.” BN 81 (1996): 21–30.
Begg, Christopher T., and Paul Spilsbury. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 8–10 .
Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 5. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005.
Begrich, Lic. Joachim. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen
des Rahmens der Königsbücher. Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie. Tübingen:
Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1929.
Ben Zvi, Ehud. “On the Reading ‘Bytdwd’ in the Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan.” JSOT 64
(1994): 25–32.
Ben-Tor, Amnon, and Doron Ben-Ami. “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century
B.C.E.” IEJ 48 (1998): 1–37.
Benzinger, Immanuel. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten
Testament. Freiburg, Leipzig und Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1899.
———. Jahvist und Elohist in den Königsbüchern . BWANT. Berlin; Stuttgart; Leipzig:
Kohlhammer, 1921.
Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem. The Aleppo Codex (http://www.aleppocodex.org).
Berlyn, Patricia. “The Rebellion of Jehu.” JBQ 35, no. 4 (2007): 211–21.
Bibliorum SS. Graecorum Codex Vaticanus 1209 (Cod. B) Pars Primae Testamentum Vetus
Tomus II (Pagg. 395–944) . Codices e Vaticanis Selecti: Phototypice Expressi.
Mediolani: Hoepli, 1906.
Bin-Nun, Shoshana R. “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah.” VT 18
(1968): 414–32.
Biran, Avraham. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew Union
College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994.
Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.” IEJ 43,
no. 2–3 (1993): 81–98.
———. “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.” IEJ 45, no. 1 (1995): 1–18.
Borger, Rykle. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. AOAT 305. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2004.
Borger, Rykle, and Hayim Tadmor. “Zwei Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft
aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglatpilesers III.” ZAW 94 (1982): 244–51.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1960.
Budde, Karl. “Zu Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos.” JBL 44 (1925): 63–122.
Campbell, Anthony F. S.J. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1
Samuel 1–2 Kings 10). CBQMS 17. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association
of America, 1986.
Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature .
Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Bibliography 317
Clauss, Manfred. Geschichte des Alten Israels. Oldenbourg Grundriss der Geschichte.
München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2009.
Clines, D.J.A. “X, X Ben Y, Ben Y: Personal Names in Hebrew Narrative Style.” VT 22
(1972): 266–87.
The Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsimile: Old Testament Part II —
1 Samuel–2 Chronicles. London: British Museum, 1930.
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The
Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
———. “Chronology.” Pages 1002–11 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday,
1992.
———. “A Plaidoyer on Behalf of the Royal Scribes.” Pages 121–28 in Ah, Assyria..
Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to
Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1991.
Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988.
Conrad, J. “‫זקן‬.” Pages 639–50 in Theologisches Wörterbuch Zum Alten Testament Band II:
‫ גלולים‬- ‫חמץ‬. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Stuttgart, Berlin,
Köln, Mainz: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1977.
Cornelius, Sakkie. “‘Eunuchs’? The Ancient Background of Eunouchos in the Septuagint.”
Pages 321–33 in Septuagint and Reception. Edited by Johann Cook. Leiden, Boston:
Brill, 2009.
Couey, J. Blake. “Amos vii 10–17 and Royal Attitudes Toward Prophecy in the Ancient
Near East.” VT 58, no. 3 (2008): 300–314.
Cross, Frank M. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the
Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 274–89 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays
in the History of the Religion of Israel. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973.
Crowfoot, J.W., Grace M. Crowfoot, and Kathleen Kenyon M. The Objects from Samaria.
Samaria-Sebaste. London: Chiswick Press, 1957.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Kritik an Amos im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Erwägungen
zu 2. Könige 14 27.” Pages 57–63 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad
zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag,
1971.
Cryer, Frederick H. “King Hadad.” SJOT 9, no. 2 (1995): 223–35.
— — — . “ O f E p i s t e m o l o g y, N o r t h w e s t - S e m i t i c E p i g r a p h y a n d I r o n y: T h e
‘BYTDWD/House of David’ Inscription Revisited.” JSOT 69 (Mr 1996): 3–17.
———. “On the Recently-Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription.” SJOT 8, no. 1
(1994): 3–19.
Curtis, Edward Lewis. The Books of Chronicles. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1952.
———. “The Old Testament Reckoning of Regnal Years.” JBL 14, no. 1/2 (1895): 125–30.
Dahmen, Ulrich, and Gunther Fleischer. Das Buch Joel / Das Buch Amos. Neuer Stuttgarter
Kommentar Altes Testament. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2001.
Davies, Philip R. “Bytdwd and Swkt Dwyd: A Comparison.” JSOT 64 (1994): 23–24.
———. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures . Library of
Ancient Israel. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1998.
318 Bibliography
de Odorico, Marco. The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions. State Archives of Assyria Studies, 3. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, 1995.
de Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo. Vol. I: Prolegomena et Clavis Codicum Seu Descriptio
Manuscriptorum Editorumque Codicum Sacri Textus Libri Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus.
Vol. II: Libri Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josue, Judices, Samuel, Reges . Reprinted from
the Parma 1784–1785 ed. Amsterdam: Philo Pr., 1969.
De Troyer, Kristin. “Der lukianische Text.” Pages 229–46 in Im Brennpunkt: Die
Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel Band 2 .
Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer and Jürgen Peter Lesch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.
De Vries, Simon J. “The Three Comparisons in 1 Kings XXII 4B and Its Parallel in 2 Kings
III 7B.” VT 39 (1989): 283–306.
Dearman, J. Andrew. “Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha‘ Inscription.” Pages 155–
210 in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab . Edited by Andrew Dearman.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
———. “The Location of Jahaz.” ZDPV 100 (1984): 122–26.
———. “The Moabite Sites of Horonaim and Luhith.” PEQ 122 (1990): 41–46.
DeCaen, Vincent. “The Morphosyntactic Argument for the Waw Consecutive in Old
Aramaic.” VT 51, no. 3 (2001): 381–85.
Dijkstra, Meindert. “An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan.” BN 74
(1994): 10–14.
Donner, Herbert. “Adadnirari III. und die Vasallen des Westens.” Pages 49–59 in
Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling . Edited by Arnulf
Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970.
———. Israel unter den Völkern: die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8.
Jahrhunderts v.Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda . VTSup 11.
Leiden: Brill, 1964.
———. Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen mit einem Ausblick auf die
Geschichte des Judentums bis Bar Kochba. Vol. 2 of Geschichte des Volkes Israel und
seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig, eds. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inscriften 5.,
erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.
Eissfeldt, Otto. “Amos und Jona in volkstümlicher Überlieferung.” Pages 137–42 in Kleine
Schriften vierter Band. Edited by Otto Eissfeldt. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1968.
Elat, Moshe. “The Campaigns of Shalmaneser III Against Aram and Israel.” IEJ 25, no. 1
(1975): 25–35.
———. “The Impact of Tribute and Booty on Countries and People Within the Assyrian
Empire.” AfOB 19 (1982): 244–51.
Emerton, John A. “Further Comments on the Use of Tenses in the Aramaic Inscription from
Tel Dan.” VT 47, no. 4 (1997): 429–40.
———. “The House of Baal in 1 Kings xvi 32.” VT 47, no. 3 (1997): 293–300.
———. “Lines 25–26 of the Moabite Stone and a Recently-Discovered Inscription.” VT 55,
no. 3 (2005): 293–303.
———. “New Evidence for the Use of the Waw Consecutive in Aramaic.” VT 44
(1994): 255–58.
———. “Two Issues in the Interpretation of the Tel Dan Inscription.” VT 50, no. 1
(2000): 27–37.
Bibliography 319
———. “The Value of the Moabite Stone as an Historical Source.” VT 52, no. 4
(2000): 483–92.
Eph‘al, Israel. “‘The Samarian(s)’ in the Assyrian Sources.” Pages 36–45 in Ah,
Assyria…Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1991.
Eskhult, Mats. Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose .
Studia Semitica Upsalensis. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “Der antiochenische Text der griechischen Bibel in den
Samuel- und Königsbüchern (1–4 Kön LXX).” Pages 177–213 in Im Brennpunkt: Die
Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel Band 2 .
Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer and Jürgen Peter Lesch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.
———. Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings . VTSup
54. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
———. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible .
Translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio, and Josë Ramón Busto Saiz. El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia
Griega II 1–2 Reyes. Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC: Departamento de
Filología Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo, 1992.
Finkelstein, Israel. “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.”
Levant 28 (1996): 177–87.
———. “Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder.”
Levant 30 (1998): 167–74.
———. “On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations: Iron Age II Gezer and
Samaria.” BASOR 277/278 (February/May 1990): 109–19.
———. “The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link.” Levant 33 (2001): 105–15.
———. “State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in
Trajectory.” Near Eastern 62, no. 1 (March 1999): 35–52.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Eliazer Piasetzky. “Radiocarbon, Iron IIa Destructions and the Israel
– Aram Damascus Conflicts in the 9 th Century BCE.” UF 39 (2007): 261–76.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New
Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts . New York: Touchstone,
2001.
Fischer, Bonifatius. “Palimpsestus Vindobonensis.” Pages 308–438 in Beiträge zur
Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte. By Bonifatius Fischer. Freiburg: Verlag Herder,
1986.
Franklin, Norma. “Samaria: From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace.” Levant 36
(2004): 189–202.
Freedman, David Noel. The Leningrad Codex. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
———. “A Second Mesha Inscription.” BASOR 175 (October 1964): 50–51.
Fritz, Volkmar. “Die Fremdvölkersprüche des Amos.” VT 37 (1987): 26–38.
Galil, Gershon. “A Re-Arrangement of the Fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription and the
Relations Between Israel and Aram.” PEQ 133 (April-June 2001): 16–21.
Gass, Erasmus. “Topical Considerations and Redaction Criticism in 2 Kings 3.” JBL 128,
no. 1 (Spring 2009): 65–84.
Gaß, Erasmus. Die Moabiter – Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1.
Jahrtausend v.Chr. Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009.
320 Bibliography
Gehman, Henry S. “The Old Ethiopic Version of 1. Kings and Its Affinities.” JBL 50
(1931): 81–114.
Gertz, Jan Christian, ed. Grundinformation Altes Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2009.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament, in Verbindung mit H. Zimmern, W. Max Müller und O. Weber, bearbeitet
von Frants Buhl. Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1962.
Gibson, John C.L. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Textbook of Syrian Semitic
Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Gmirkin, Russell. “Tools Slippage and the Tel Dan Inscription.” SJOT 16, no. 2
(2002): 293–302.
Gnuse, Robert. “Calf, Cult, and King: The Unity of Hosea 8:1–13.” BZ 26 (1982): 83–92.
Gooding, D.W. “The Septuagint’s Rival Version of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power.” VT 17
(1967): 173–89.
Grabbe, Lester L. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London: T
& T Clark, 2007.
———. “The Kingdom of Israel from Omri to the Fall of Samaria: If We Only Had the
Bible….” Pages 54–99 in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty .
Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Graham, M. Patrick. “The Discovery and Reconstruction of the Mesha Inscription.”
Pages 41–92 in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab . Edited by Andrew
Dearman. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press
ltd, 1970.
Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles . Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2000.
———. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, Volume II (858–745 BC) . The
Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 3. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1996.
Green, Alberto R. “Sua and Jehu: The Boundaries of Shalmaneser’s Conquest.” PEQ 111
(1979): 35–39.
Gugler, Werner. Jehu und seine Revolution: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen . Kampen:
Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996.
Hadjiev, Tchadvar S. The Composition and Redaction of the Book of Amos . BZAW 393.
Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2009.
Hagelia, Hallvard. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Critical Investigation of Recent Research on
Its Paleography and Philology . Studia Semitica Upsaliensia. Uppsala: Uppsala
Universitet, 2006.
Halpern, Baruch. “The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations.”
BASOR 296 (N 1994): 63–80.
———. “Yaua, Son of Omri, Yet Again.” BASOR 265 (1987): 81–85.
Halpern, Baruch, and David S. Vanderhooft. “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th
Centuries B.C.E.” HUCA 62 (1991): 179–244.
Haran, Menachem. “The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam Ben Joash.” VT 17
(1967): 266–97.
Haupt, Paul. “The Phrase ‫ רכבים צמדים‬in 2 Kings 9:25.” JBL 21, no. 1 (1902): 74–77.
Hess, Richard S. “Writing About Writing: Abecedaries and Evidence for Literacy in
Ancient Israel.” VT 56, no. 3 (2006): 342–46.
Bibliography 321
Hicks, R. Lansing. “Delet and Megillāh: a Fresh Approach to Jeremiah xxxvi.” VT 33

(1983): 46–66.
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Volume 1.
Handbook of Oriental Studies. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.
———. Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Volume 2. Handbook of Oriental
Studies. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.
Hölscher, Gustav. “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion.” Pages 158–
213 in Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments. Hans Schmidt and Emil Balla. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923.
———. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel: Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten und Elohisten .
Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1952.
Hulin, P. “The Inscriptions on the Carved Throne-Base of Shalmaneser III.” Iraq 25
(1963): 48–69.
Hutton, Jeremy M. The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal
Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History . BZAW 396. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 2009.
Irvine, Stuart A. “The Last Battle of Hadadezer.” JBL 124, no. 2 (Summer 2005): 341–47.
———. “The Rise of the House of Jehu.” Pages 104–18 in The Land That I Will Show You .
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
———. “The Threat of Jezreel (Hosea 1:4–5).” CBQ 57, no. 3 (Jl 1995): 494–503.
Ishida, Tomoo. “The House of Ahab.” IEJ 25 (1975): 135–37.
———. “The House of Ahab.” Pages 97–100 in History and Historical Writing in Ancient
Israel. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999.
Jepsen, Alfred. “Ahabs Busse: Ein kleiner Beitrag zur Methode literarhistorischer
Einordnung.” Pages 145–55 in Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt
Galling. Edited by Arnulf Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1970.
———. “Israel und Damaskus.” AfO 14 (1942): 153–72.
———. Die Quellen des Königsbuches. Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1953.
———. “Salmanassar III. und die Eponymlisten.” AfO 14 (1942): 64–70.
———. ‫ = ספר מלכים‬Liber Regum . Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart:
Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1974.
Jepsen, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart. Untersuchungen zur israelitsch-jüdischen Chronologie .
BZAW 88. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1964.
Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Amos. ATD 24/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.
———. Der Prophet Hosea. ATD 24/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
Jonker, Louis. “Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Significance of the Books of
Chronicles.” VT 57, no. 1 (2007): 21–44.
Kallai, Zecharia. “The King of Israel and the House of David.” IEJ 43 (1993): 248.
———. “Note on J. A. Emerton: Lines 25–6 of the Moabite Stone and a Recently
Discovered Inscription.” VT 56, no. 4 (2006): 552–53.
Keel, Othmar, Max Küchler, and Christoph Uehlinger. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel:
Ein Handbuch und Studien-Reiseführer zum Heiligen Land . Vol. 1: Geographisch-
geschichtliche Landeskunde. Zürich: Benzinger, 1984.
Kelle, Brad E. Ancient Israel at War: 853–586 BC. Essential Histories. Oxford: Osprey
Publishing, 2007.
———. “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and
Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation.” JBL 121, no. 4
(Winter 2002): 639–66.
322 Bibliography
Kellermann, Diether. “‘Aštārōt – ‘Ašt tōt Qarnayim – Qarnayim.” ZDPV 97 (1981): 45–61.
e
Kim, Jong-Hoon. Die hebräischen und griechischen Textformen der Samuel- und
Königebücher: Studien zur Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,1 – 19,9 . BZAW
394. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.
King, Philip J. “The Eighth, the Greatest of Centuries?” JBL 108, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 3–
15.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and
Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo.” JSOT 76 (1997): 29–44.
Kittel, Rudolf. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. Handkommentar zum Alten
Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900.
Klostermann, August. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige. Kurzgefaßter Kommentar zu
den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments sowie zu den Apokryphen.
Nördlingen: C.H. Beck, 1887.
Knauf, Ernst Axel, Albert de Pury, and Thomas Römer. “ *BaytDawīd ou *BaytDōd?”
BN 72 (1994): 60–69.
Knoppers, Gary N. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and
the Dual Monarchies, Volume 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam .
Harvard Semitic Monographs. 52. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993.
———. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual
Monarchies, Volume 2: The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of
Josiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs. 53. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1994.
Koenen, Klaus. Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie . OBO. Freiburg, Schweiz;
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.
Kottsieper, Ingo. “Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Beziehungen zwischen
Aram-Damaskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus.”
Pages 475–500 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”. Studien zum Alten Testament
und zum Alten Orient; Festschrift für Oswald Loretz. Edited by Manfried Dietrich and
Ingo Kottsieper. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998.
———. “The Tel Dan Inscription (KAI 310) and the Political Relations Between Aram-
Damascus and Israel in the First Half of the First Millennium BCE.” Pages 104–34 in
Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty . Edited by Lester L. Grabbe.
London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Kraus, Wolfgang, and Martin Karrer, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2009.
Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Towards the Old Greek: New Criteria for the Analysis of the
Recensions of the Septuagint (Especially the Antiochene/Lucianic Text and Kaige
Recension).” Pages 239–53 in XIII Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Ljubljana, 2007 . Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
———. “Translation and Recensions: Old Greek, Kaige, and Antiochene Text in Samuel
and Reigns.” Bulletin of the International Orgainization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies 42 (2009): 34–51.
Kutsch, Ernst. “Die Wurzel ‫ עצר‬im Hebräischen.” VT 2 (1952): 57–69.
Lamb, David T. Righteous Jehu and His Evil Heirs: The Deuteronomist’s Negative
Perspective on Dynastic Succession. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press,
2007.
Lamon, Robert S. The Megiddo Water System. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute
Publications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935.
Bibliography 323
Lehmann, Reinhard G., and Marcus Reichel. “DOD und ASIMA in Tell Dan.” BN 77
(1995): 29–31.
Lemaire, André. Inscriptions Hébraïques Tome I: Les Ostraca. Littératures anciennes du
Proche-Orient. Paris: Cerf, 1977.
———. “The Mesha Stele and the Omri Dynasty.” Pages 135–44 in Ahab Agonistes: The
Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark,
2007.
———. “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography.” JSOT 81, no. D (1998): 3–
14.
———. “Toward a Redaction History of the Book of Kings.” Pages 446–71 in
Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History .
Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Lemche, Niels Peter, and Thomas L. Thompson. “Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the
Light of Archaeology.” JSOT 64 (1994): 3–22.
Levin, Christoph. “Amos und Jerobeam I.” VT 45, no. 3 (July 1995): 307–17.
———. “Das Amosbuch der Anawim.” ZThK 94 (1997): 407–36.
———. Der Sturz der Königin Atalja: Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert
v.Chr. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1982.
Lipiński, Edward. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion . Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven: Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental Studies,
2000.
———. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I . Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta. Leuven: Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental Studies, 1975.
Liver, J. “The Wars of Mesha, King of Moab.” PEQ 99 (1967): 14–31.
Long, V. Philips. “How Reliable Are Biblical Reports? Repeating Lester Grabbe’s
Comparative Experiment.” VT 52, no. 3 (2002): 367–84.
Machinist, Peter. “Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C.” Pages 77–104 in
Anfänge Politischen Denkens in der Antike. Edited by Kurt Raaflaub. Munich: R.
Oldenburg, 1993.
Maeir, Aren M. “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological
Perspective from Tell Es.-S.âfī/Gath.” VT 54, no. 3 (2004): 319–34.
Marcus, Ralph. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books IX–XI with an English Translation .
Loeb Classical Library. Cambrigde, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1998.
———. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books VII–VIII with an English Translation . Loeb
Classical Library. Cambrigde, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Margalit, Baruch. “The Old-Aramaic Inscription of Hazael from Dan.” UF 26 (1994): 317–
20.
Mayes, A. D. H. The Story of Israel Between the Settlement and the Exile: A Redactional
Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1983.
Mazar, Amihai. “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein.” Levant 29
(1997): 157–67.
Mazar, Benjamin. “The Historical Background of the Samaria Ostraca.” Pages 173–88 in
The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Edited by Shmuel Ah. ituv and Baruch A.
Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986.
———. “Lebo-Hamath and the Nothern Border of Canaan.” Pages 189–202 in The Early
Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Edited by Shmuel Ah. ituv and Baruch A. Levine.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986.
324 Bibliography
McCarter, P Kyle Jr. “Yaw, Son of ‘Omri’: A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology.”
BASOR 216 (1974): 5–7.
McKenzie, Steven L. “Dog Food and Bird Food: The Oracles Against the Dynasties in the
Book of Kings.” Pages 397–420 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on
the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Meek, Theophile J. “1 Kings 20:1–10.” JBL 78, no. 1 (March 1959): 73–75.
Meissner, Bruno. “Woher haben die Assyrer Silber bezogen.” OLZ 15, no. 4 (April
1912): Col. 1.
Metzger, Martin. “Lodebar und der tell el-mghannije.” ZDPV 76 (1960): 97–102.
Michel, Ernst. “Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824). (Fortsetzung).” WO 1, no. 2
(1947): 57–71.
Millard, Alan R. “Adad-Nirari III, Aram, and Arpad.” PEQ 105 (1973): 161–64.
———. “Epigraphic Notes, Aramaic and Hebrew.” PEQ 110 (1978): 23–26.
———. “Large Numbers in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 213–22 in Ah, Assyria..
Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to
Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1991.
Miller, J. Maxwell. “Another Look at the Chronology of the Early Divided Monarchy.”
JBL 86, no. 3 (September 1967): 276–88.
———. “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars.” JBL 85 (1966): 441–54.
———. “The Fall of the House of Ahab.” VT 17 (1967): 307–24.
———. “The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz (1 Kings 20 22 1–38).” ZAW 80 (1968): 337–42.
———. “So Tibni Died (1 Kings xvi 22).” VT 18 (1968): 392–94.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah .
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.
———. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2006.
Min Chun, S. “Whose Cloak Did Ahijah Seize and Tear? A Note on 1 Kings Xi 29–30.”
VT 56, no. 2 (2006): 268–74.
Minokami, Yoshikazu. Die Revolution des Jehu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1989.
Möller, Karl. “‘Hear This Word Against You’: A Fresh Look at the Arrangement and the
Rhetorical Strategy of the Book of Amos.” VT 50, no. 4 (2000): 499–518.
Montgomery, James A. “Archival Data in the Book of Kings.” JBL 53 (1934): 46–52.
Montgomery, James A., Author, Henry Snyder Gehman, Editor. A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951.
Moore, Michael S. “Jehu’s Coronation and Purge of Israel.” VT 53, no. 1 (2003): 97–114.
Mullen, E. Theodore. “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of
Kings.” JBL 107, no. 2 (1988): 193–206.
Müller, Hans-Peter. “Die Aramäische Inschrift von Tel Dan.” ZAH 8 (1995): 121–36.
Mulzer, Martin. “Amos 8,14 in der LXX: Ein Einwurf in die Tel Dan-Text Debatte.” BN 84
(1996): 54–58.
Mulzer, Martin, and Klaus Stefan Krieger. “Die Jehuerzählung bei Josephus
(Ant.Jud.IX.105–139.159f.).” BN 83 (1996): 54–82.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan.” IEJ 45,
no. 1 (1995): 19–21.
———. “The Prefix Conjugation in Circumstantial Clauses in the Tel Dan Inscription?”
VT 51, no. 3 (2001): 389–92.
Bibliography 325
Myers, Jacob M. I Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes . AB. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965.
Na’aman, Nadav. “Royal Inscription Verses Prophetic Story: Mesha’s Rebellion According
to Biblical and Moabite Historiography.” Pages 145–83 in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise
and Fall of the Omri Dynasty. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
———. “Ahab’s Chariot Force at the Battle of Qarqar.” Pages 1–12 in Ancient Israel and
Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays Volume 1 . Winona
Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
———. “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel.” VT 43, no. 2 (April 1993): 227–34.
———. “Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan.” BN 79 (1995): 17–24.
———. “Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the
West.” Pages 80–98 in Ah, Assyria…Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near
Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and
Israel Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991.
———. “Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-Rehob.” UF 27 (1995): 381–94.
———. “Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel.” TA 24
(1997): 122–28.
———. “Jehu Son of Omri: Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by His Overlord.” IEJ 48, no. 3–4
(1998): 236–38.
———. “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy.” IEJ 47 (1997): 83–
92.
———. “Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides.”
Bib 78 (1997): 153–73.
———. “The Story of Jehu’s Rebellion: Hazael’s Inscription and the Biblical Narrative.”
IEJ 56, no. 2 (2006): 160–66.
———. “Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan.” IEJ 50, no. 1–2
(2000): 92–104.
———. “Was Ahab Killed by an Assyrian Arrow in the Battle of Qarqar?” UR 37
(2005): 461–74.
Napier, B. D. “The Omrides of Jezreel.” VT 9 (1959): 366–78.
Nestle, Eberard. Veteris Testamenti Graeci Codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum Textu
Recepto. Lipsiae: F.A. Brockhaus, 1887.
Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel .
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Nielsen, Eduard. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: GEC Gad,
1959.
Noll, K L. “The God Who is Among the Danites.” JSOT 80 (1998): 3–23.
Norin, Stig I.L. “Jô-Namen und J ehô-Namen.” VT 29, no. 1 (1979): 87–97.
Norin, Stig I.L., Christiane Boehncke Sjöberg, trans. Sein Name allein ist hoch: Das Jhw-
haltige Suffix althebräischer Personennamen untersucht mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der alttestamentlichen Redaktionsgeschichte . Coniectanea Biblica:
Old Testament Series. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1986.
Noth, Martin. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung. BWANT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.
———. “Jerusalem and the Northern Kingdom.” Pages 33–38 in Jerusalem Through the
Ages: The Twenty-Fifth Archaeological Convention October 1967 . Israel Exploration
Society. Jersusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1968.
———. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Dritte unveränderte Auflage. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.
326 Bibliography
Oded, Bustanay. “‘The Command of the God’ as a Reason for Going to War in the Assyrian
Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 223–30 in Ah, Assyria…Studies in Assyrian History and
Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor . Edited by
Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991.
Olyan, Saul M. “2 Kings 9:31—Jehu as Zimri.” HTR 78, no. 1–2 Ja-Ap (April 1985): 203–
7.
———. “Hasalôm: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9.” CBQ 46, no. 4 (October
1984): 652–68.
Oriental Institute, Chicago Illinois. E. Vol. 4 of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1958, sixth printing 2004.
Otto, Susanne. Jehu, Elia und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die
Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen . BWANT 152. Stuttgart: Verlag W.
Kohlhammer, 2001.
Page, Stephanie. “Joash and Samaria in a New Stela Excavated at Tell al Rimah, Iraq.”
VT 19 (1969): 483–84.
———. “A Stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from Tell al Rimah.” Iraq 30, no. 2
(Autumn 1968): 139–53.
Pakkala, Juha. “Jeroboam’s Sin and Bethel in 1Kgs 12:25–33.” BN 112 (2002): 86–94.
Parker, Simon B. “Ancient Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and the ‘Deuteronomistic’
Tradition in Kings.” Pages 213–27 in Die deuteronomistische Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-
Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten . Edited by Markus Witte, Konrad Schmid,
Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz. BZAW 365. Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2006.
———. “Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions?” VT 50,
no. 3 (2000): 357–78.
Parpola, Simo. Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. AOAT 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukichener Verlag,
1970.
Person, Raymond F. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature .
Society of Biblical Literature / Studies in Biblical Literature. Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2002.
Pfeiffer, Henrik. Das Heiligtum von Bethel im Spiegel des Hoseabuches . Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.
Pitard, Wayne T. 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, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1987.
Provan, Iain W. Hezekiah and the Book of Kings. BZAW 172. Berlin; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1988.
Radine, Jason. The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah. FAT II 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2010.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpres .
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.
———. Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher . Septuaginta-Studien III. Göttingen:
Rainey, Anson F. “Following up on the Ekron and Mesha Inscriptions.” IEJ 50
(2000): 116–17.
———. “The Samaria Ostraca in the Light of Fresh Evidence.” PEQ 99 (1967): 32–41.
Bibliography 327
———. “Syntax, Hermeneutics and History.” IEJ 48 (1998): 239–51.

Rawlinson, H.C., and G. Smith. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vol. 3: A
Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria. London: R.E. Bowler, 1870.
Reed, William L., and Fred V. Winnett. “A Fragment of an Early Moabite Inscription from
Kerak.” BASOR 172 (December 1963): 1–9.
Reinhold, Gotthard G.G. Die Beziehungen Altisraels zu den aramäischen Staaten in der
israelitisch-judäischen Königszeit. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII,
Theologie. Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1989.
Rendsburg, Gary A. Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press,
2002.
———. “On the Writing ‫ ביתדוד‬in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan.” IEJ 45, no. 1
(1995): 22–25.
Renz, Johannes, and Wolfgang Röllig. Die Althebräischen Inschriften: Teil 1: Text und
Kommentar. Vol. I of Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik . Johannes Renz.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.
Robker, Jonathan Miles. “Satire and the King of Aram.” VT 61, no. 4 (2011): 646–56.
Röllig, Wolfgang. “Bethel ‫ב)י(תאל‬.” Pages 173–79 in DDD. Edited by Karel van der Toorn,
Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden; Boston: Brill; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1999.
Römer, Thomas C. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and
Literary Introduction. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007.
Rösel, Hartmut N. “Kleine Studien zur Entwicklung des Amosbuches.” VT 43, no. 1
(1993): 88–101.
Rottzoll, Dirk U. Studien zur Redaction und Komposition des Amosbuches . BZAW 243.
Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996.
Routledge, Bruce. Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology . Archaeology,
Culture, and Society. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Rudnig-Zelt, Susanne. Hoseastudien: Redaktionskritische Untersuchungen zur Genese des
Hoseabuches. FRLANT 213. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.
Šanda, Albert. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. Exegetisches Handbuch zum
Alten Testament. Münster i. Westf.: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1911.
———. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament. Münster i. Westf.: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912.
Sarna, Nahum M. “The Interchange of the Prepositions Beth and Min in Biblical Hebrew.”
JBL 78, no. 4 (December 1959): 310–16.
Sasson, Victor. “Murderers, Usurpers, or What? Hazael, Jehu, and the Tell Dan Old
Aramaic Inscription.” UF 28 (1996): 547–54.
———. “The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary, and Historical
Aspects.” JSS 40, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 11–30.
———. “Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Waw Consecutive in
Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew.” VT 47, no. 1 (1997): 111–27.
———. “The Tell Dan Aramaic Inscription: The Problems of a New Minimized Reading.”
JSS 50, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 23–34.
Saydon, P. P. “The Meaning of the Expression ‫ָעצּור ְוָעזּוב‬.” VT 2 (1952): 371–74.
Schenker, Adrian. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: die hebräische Vorlage der
ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher . OBO 199.
Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004.
328 Bibliography
———. “Jeroboam and the Division of the Kingdom in the Ancient Septuagint: LXX
3 Kingdoms 12.24 a–z, MT 1 Kings 11–12; 14 and the Deuteronomistic History.”
Pages 214–57 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic History in Recent
Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
———. “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans le texte massorétique et la Septante
ancienne.” Pages 171–76 in IX Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies; Cambridge, 1995 . Edited by Bernard A. Taylor.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament, 2. Auflage . Göttingen:
———. Elis a; tradit ionsgesc hichtlic he Unters uchungen zur vorkl assische n
nordisraelitischen Prophetie. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1972.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. “Die frühe Königszeit in Israel.” UF 36 (2004): 411–30.
Schneider, Tammi. “Rethinking Jehu.” Biblica 77, no. 1 (1996): 100–107.
Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient
Israel. Cambridge: University Press, 2004.
———. “Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt.” BASOR 302 (May
1996): 75–90.
Schniedewind, William M., and Bruce Zuckerman. “A Possible Reconstruction of the Name
of Haza’el’s Father in the Tel Dan Inscription.” IEJ 51, no. 1 (2001): 88–91.
Schreiner, Josef. “Hoseas Ehe, ein Zeichen des Gerichts.” BZ 21 (1977): 165–83.
Seebass, Horst. “Zur Königserhebung Jerobeams I.” VT 17 (1967): 325–33.
Segert, Stanislav. Altaramäische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1975.
Shea, William H. “The Date and Significance of the Samaria Ostraca.” IEJ 27 (1977): 16–
27.
Shenkel, James Donald. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of
Kings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.
Silberstein, Siegfried. “Ueber den Ursprung der im Codex Alexandrinus und Vaticanus des
dritten Königsbuches der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung überlieferten Textgestalt
(Schlus).” ZAW 14 (1894): 1–30.
———. “Ueber den Ursprung der im Codex Alexandrinus und Vaticanus des dritten
Königsbuches der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung überlieferten Textgestalt.” ZAW 13
(1893): 1–75.
Smith, Clyde C. “Jehu and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III.” Pages 71–105 in
Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam . Edited by
Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977.
Soggin, Jan Alberto. Einführung in die Geschichte Israels und Judas: von den Ursprüngen
bis zum Aufstand Bar Kochbas. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991.
Stade, Bernhard. “Miscellen.” ZAW 5 (1885): 275–300.
Staszak, Martin. “Zu einer Lesart und dem historischen Hintergrund des Fragments B der
Stele von Tel Dan.” BN 142 (2009): 67–77.
Steck, Odil Hannes. Überlieferung und Zeitgeschichte in den Elia-Erzählungen . WMANT
26. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968.
Steuernagel, D. Carl. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang
über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen . Sammlung theologischer Lehrbücher.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1912.
Sukenik, E. L. “Potsherds from Samaria, Inscribed with the Divine Name.” PEQ 68
(1936): 34–37.
Bibliography 329
Tadmor, Hayim. “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath.” Pages 36–
48 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the
Ancient Near East. Edited by Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts. Baltimore and
London: John Hopkins University Press, 1975.
———. “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature.” Pages 36–57 in
History, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform
Literatures. Edited by Hayim Tadmor and Moshe Weinfeld. Jerusalem: The Magnes
Press: The Hebrew University, 1983.
———. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria . Jerusalem: Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, 1994.
———. “Que and Mus.ri.” IEJ 11, no. 3 (1961): 143–50.
Talmon, Shemaryahu, and Weston W. Fields. “The Collocation ‫ משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב‬and Its
Meaning.” ZAW 101 (1989): 85–112.
Tappy, Ron E. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: Volume 1: Early Iron Age Through
the Ninth Century BCE. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Thackeray, H. St. J. “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings.” JTS 8
(1907): 262–78.
Thomas, Rosalind. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Key Themes in Ancient History.
Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
———. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens . Cambridge Studies in Oral
and Literate Culture. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Thompson, Thomas L. “Dissonance and Disconnections: Notes on the Bytdwd and
Hmlk.Hdd Fragments from Tel Dan.” SJOT 9, no. 2 (1995): 236–40.
———. “‘House of David’: An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh As Godfather.” SJOT 9,
no. 1 (1995): 59–74.
———. “Mesha and Questions of Historicity.” SJOT 21, no. 2 (2007): 241–60.
———. “Problems of Genre and Historicity with Palestine’s Inscription.” Pages 321–26 in
Congress Volume: Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire. Sæbø. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Timm, Stefan. Die Dynastie Omris: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im
9. Jahrhundert vor Christus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Toews, Wesley I. Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel Under Jeroboam I .
Monograph Series / The Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press,
1993.
Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible . Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Trebolle-Barrera, Julio C. Jehú y Joás: Texto y composición literaria de 2 Re 9–11 .
Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984.
———. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings.” Pages 475–92 in
Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History .
Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Tropper, Josef. “Eine altaramäische Steleninschrift aus Dan.” UF 25 (1993): 395–406.
———. “Aramäisches wyqtl und hebräisches wayyiqtol.” UF 28 (1996): 633–45.
———. “Paläographische und linguistische Anmerkungen zur Steleninschrift aus Dan.”
UF 26 (1994): 487–92.
Turkanik, Andrzej S. Of Kings and Reigns. FAT II 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
330 Bibliography
Uehlinger, Christoph. “Bildquellen und ‘Geschichte Israels’: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen

und Fallbeispiele.” Pages 25–77 in Steine — Bilder — Texte: Historische Evidenz
außerbiblischer und biblischer Quellen . Edited by Christoph Hardmeier. Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001.
———. “Die Elfenbeinschnitzereien von Samaria und die Religionsgeschichte Israels:
Vorüberlegungen zu einem Forschungsprojekt.” Pages 149–86 in Crafts and Images in
Contact, vol. 210. Edited by Claudia E. Suter and Christoph Uehlinger. OBO.
Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.
Ulrich, Eugene. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” Pages 77–93 in The
Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James Vanderkam. Notre Dame, Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
Ulrich, Eugene, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Ann Duncan, Patrick W.
Skehan, Emanuel Tov, and Julio Trebolle Barrera. Qumran Cave 4/IX: Deuteronomy,
Joshua, Judges, Kings. DJD. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Ungnad, Arthur. “Jaua, Mâr H umrî.” OLZ 9, no. 4 (April 1906): Col. 224–26.
Ussishkin, David. “Samaria,˘ Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab.”
Pages 293–309 in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty . Edited by
Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark, 2007.
Ussishkin, David, and John Woodhead. “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary
Report.” TA 19 (1992): 3–56.
Utzschneider, Helmut. “Die Amazjaerzählung (Am 7,10–17) zwischen Literatur und
Historie.” BN 41 (1988): 76–101.
———. Hosea: Prophet vor dem Ende. OBO 31. Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitätsverlag,
1980.
van Winkle, D.W. “1 Kings xii 25–xiii 34: Jeroboam’s Cultic Innovations and the Man of
God from Judah.” VT 46, no. 1 (1996): 101–14.
Vielhauer, Roman. Das Werden des Buches Hosea: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung. BZAW. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
Wallace, Howard N. “Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings.” Bib 67,
no. 1 (1986): 21–40.
Walsh, Jerome T. “Short Note: On ‫ היה‬in 2 Kings 9:37.” VT 60, no. 1 (2010): 152–53.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1972.
Weippert, Helga. “Ahab el campeador? Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu 1 Kön
22.” Bib 69 (1988): 457–79.
———. “Die Ätiologie des Nordreiches und seines Königshauses (I Reg 11 29–41).” ZAW 95
(1983): 344–75.
———. “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das
Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher.” Bib 53 (1972): 301–39.
Weippert, Manfred. “Jau(a) Mār Humrî: Joram oder Jehu von Israel?” VT 28, no. 1 (January
1978): 113–18. ˘
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments; vierte unveränderte Auflage. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1963.
Wesselius, Jan-Wim. “The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan
Inscription Reconsidered.” SJOT 13, no. 2 (1999): 163–86.
Bibliography 331
Wevers, John Wm. “Proto-Septuagint Studies.” Pages 58–77 in The Seed of Wisdom:
Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek. Edited by W.S. McCullough. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1964.
———. “A Study in the Hebrew Variants in the Books of Kings.” ZAW 61 (1948): 43–76.
———. “A Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus in the Books of Kings.”
ZAW 64 (1952): 178–89.
White, Marsha. “Naboth’s Vineyard and Jehu’s Coup: The Legitimation of a Dynastic
Extermination.” VT 44, no. 1 (January 1994): 66–76.
Whitley, C.F. “The Deuteronomistic Presentation of the House of Omri.” VT 2 (1952): 137–
52.
Wöhrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende
Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin; New York: Walter
de Gruyter, 2008.
———. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition .
BZAW 360. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.
———. “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets
(Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 58
(2008): 608–27.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea . BK 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1976.
———. Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos. BK 24/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1969.
Wray Beal, Lissa M. The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and
Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10) . Library of Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies. New York & London: T &T Clark International, 2007.
Würthwein, Ernst. “Amos-Studien.” ZAW 62 (1950): 10–52.
———. Die Bücher der Könige 1. Kön. 1–16 . ATD 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1985.
———. Die Bücher der Könige 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 . ATD 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1984.
———. “Erwägungen zum sog. deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Eine Skizze.”
Pages 1–11 in Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Edited by Ernst
Würthwein. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.
———. “Die Revolution Jehus: Die Jehu-Erzählung in Altisraelitischer und
Deuteronomistischer Sicht.” ZAW 120, no. 1 (2008): 28–48.
———. “Zur Komposition von I Reg 22 1–38.” Pages 245–54 in Das ferne und nahe Wort:
Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November
1966 gewidmet. Edited by Fritz Maass. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1967.
Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological
Discovery. Translated by M. Pearlman. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963.
———. Hazor: With a Chapter on Israelite Megiddo. The Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1972.
Yamada, Shigeo. “Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel
Dan.” UF 27 (1995): 611–25.
Zenger, Erich, ed. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 6. Auflage . Studienbücher Theologie.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006.
———. “Die eigentliche Botschaft des Amos: Von der Relevanz der Politischen Theologie
in einer exegetischen Kontroverse.” Pages 394–406 in Mystik und Politik: Theologie im
332 Bibliography
Ringen um Geschichte und Gesellschaft; Johann Baptist Metz zu Ehren . Edited by

Edward Schillebeeckx. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1988.
Zimhoni, Orna. “Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel.”
TA 24 (1997): 83–109.
———. “The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel — an Interim Report.” TA 19 (1992): 57–
70.
Index of Biblical Citations
Citations from the Septuagint have been included with the citations of the
Masoretic Text, e.g., verses in 3 Reigns 21 Can be found under the correspond-
ing verse number in 1 Kings 20.
1. Bible Judg 2:19 140

Judg 3:7 57n202, 140
Gen 7:11 73 Judg 3:8 85
Gen 28 129n81 Judg 3:9 85n73
Gen 35 129 Judg 3:15 85n73
Exod 15:26 51 Judg 6:6 85n73
Exod 20:5 51n180 Judg 7:5 23n28
Exod 34:7 51n180 Judg 7:6 23n28
Num 14:18 51n180 Judg 8 177n21
Num 22:35 112n227 Judg 8:14 161n223
Num 26:29–34 282 Judg 10:6 57n202, 140
Num 35:19 28n59 Judg 10:10 57n202, 58n202,
Deut 5:9 51n180 85n73, 140
Deut 7:5 49 1 Sam 12:10 57n202
Deut 8:19 140 1 Sam 12:10 58n202, 140
Deut 11:16 140 1 Sam 13:1 75n19, 77
Deut 12:3 49 1 Sam 15:11 54n194
Deut 28:48 30n73 1 Sam 15:28 126n62
Deut 29:25 140 1 Sam 28:17 126n62
Deut 32:36 112n227 2 Sam 1:1-11:1 8
Josh 10:8 57n202 2 Sam 2:10 75n19, 77
Josh 10:33 47 2 Sam 5:4–5 77
Josh 11:8 47 2 Sam 5:4 75n19
Josh 17:1–3 282 2 Sam 8 271n191
Josh 21:42 57n202 2 Sam 8:2 289
Josh 21:44 57n202 2 Sam 10 271n191
Josh 21:45 57 2 Sam 11–12 42n142
Josh 23:9 57n202 2 Sam 11 118
Josh 23:16 140 2 Sam 11:2–1 Kgs 2:11 8
Judg 2:11–19 85n72 1 Kgs 1–12 116
Judg 2:11 57n202, 140 1 Kgs 1–2 81n54, 118
Judg 2:13 57n202, 140 1 Kgs 1:1–11:25 118
Judg 2:14 57n202 1 Kgs 1:1–2:11 118n2
1 Kgs 1:1 37n113
1 Kgs 2:10–11 53n191
1 Kgs 2:11 114n232
334 Index of Biblical Citations
1 Kgs 2:12–21:43 8 1 Kgs 11:40 121, 126n61, 127

1 Kgs 2:12 95 1 Kgs 11:41 122
1 Kgs 3–11 119 1 Kgs 11:42 114n232, 122
1 Kgs 7:5 51n180 1 Kgs 11:43 122, 124n57, 125
1 Kgs 8:1 107n202 1 Kgs 12 118–19, 181
1 Kgs 8:18 50–51, 52n184 1 Kgs 12:1 127
1 Kgs 8:3 107n202 1 Kgs 12:2 122, 125, 127
1 Kgs 8:23 50 1 Kgs 12:3–19 127
1 Kgs 8:54 23n28 1 Kgs 12:6 123n42
1 Kgs 8:56 57 1 Kgs 12:12–13 123n43
1 Kgs 9:3 50 1 Kgs 12:19 127n68
1 Kgs 9:6 140 1 Kgs 12:20 122, 127
1 Kgs 11–16 167 1 Kgs 12:21–24 127, 130n82
1 Kgs 11–15 166 1 Kgs 12:24 74, 120n13, 124–
1 Kgs 11–12 9, 124nn53–54, 25, 195
128 1 Kgs 12:25–13:34 127n71
1 Kgs 11 77n23, 118–19, 158 1 Kgs 12:25 122, 127, 129
1 Kgs 11:2 119 1 Kgs 12:26–33 119, 125, 127
1 Kgs 11:9–13 119 1 Kgs 12:26–32 127n71
1 Kgs 11:11 50, 126n62 1 Kgs 12:26–27 128
1 Kgs 11:13 126n62 1 Kgs 12:26 122
1 Kgs 11:14–25 119 1 Kgs 12:27–28 128n73
1 Kgs 11:25 119 1 Kgs 12:27 122
1 Kgs 11:26 37n113, 120, 125 1 Kgs 12:28–29 128
1 Kgs 11:26–14:20 119 1 Kgs 12:28 123, 128–29
1 Kgs 11:26–43 124, 126 1 Kgs 12:29 123, 129
1 Kgs 11:26–40 119 1 Kgs 12:30 123
1 Kgs 11:26–31 127 1 Kgs 12:30–31 127–28
1 Kgs 11:26–28 126n61 1 Kgs 12:30 128
1 Kgs 11:27 120 1 Kgs 12:31 123, 128
1 Kgs 11:27 130n85 1 Kgs 12:32 123, 128–29
1 Kgs 11:28 120, 126n61 1 Kgs 12:33 123, 128–29
1 Kgs 11:29–39 60n214, 1 Kgs 13 119, 128n75,
126n63 139n172, 173, 183n38,
1 Kgs 11:29 120, 130n85 184n43
1 Kgs 11:30 98, 120 1 Kgs 13:1–15:24 117n239
1 Kgs 11:31–39 126 1 Kgs 13:1 128–29
1 Kgs 11:31 120, 126 1 Kgs 13:32 123n46
1 Kgs 11:32–36 126 1 Kgs 13:33–34 77n23
1 Kgs 11:32 121 1 Kgs 14:1–18 119, 125
1 Kgs 11:33 51nn181–82, 121 1 Kgs 14:7–11 119
1 Kgs 11:34 121 1 Kgs 14:8 51n182, 126n62
1 Kgs 11:35 121 1 Kgs 14:11 39n127
1 Kgs 11:36 121 1 Kgs 14:16 119
1 Kgs 11:37 121, 126–27n65 1 Kgs 14:19–20 116, 117n239,
1 Kgs 11:38–39 126 120, 129
1 Kgs 11:38 51n181, 121 1 Kgs 14:19 122n29, 124
1 Kgs 11:39 121 1 Kgs 14:20 124
Index of Biblical Citations 335
1 Kgs 14:21–31 120 1 Kgs 16:11–12 47n170, 140–

1 Kgs 14:21 74, 75n19, 83 41
1 Kgs 14:23 49 1 Kgs 16:11 133, 139n172
1 Kgs 14:25 122n28, 126 1 Kgs 16:12 133, 139n172
1 Kgs 14:29 122n29 1 Kgs 16:13 133
1 Kgs 14:30 130n82, 173 1 Kgs 16:14 134
1 Kgs 15:1 76n20 1 Kgs 16:15 72, 76, 134, 140–
1 Kgs 15:6–7 130n82 41
1 Kgs 15:6 173 1 Kgs 16:16 134
1 Kgs 15:7 173 1 Kgs 16:17 134
1 Kgs 15:9 76n20 1 Kgs 16:18 134
1 Kgs 15:16–22 173 1 Kgs 16:19 134, 139
1 Kgs 15:16 132n96, 140 1 Kgs 16:20 134
1 Kgs 15:17–22 191n68 1 Kgs 16:21 81, 134
1 Kgs 15:18 60, 67n233, 92 1 Kgs 16:22 134
1 Kgs 15:25–16:34 116, 131 1 Kgs 16:23 76n20, 135, 140
1 Kgs 15:25 37n113, 72, 1 Kgs 16:24 135
76n20, 131, 132n89, 140 1 Kgs 16:25–26 139
1 Kgs 15:26 131, 132n100, 1 Kgs 16:25 135
139 1 Kgs 16:26 135
1 Kgs 15:27–28 139n172 1 Kgs 16:27 135
1 Kgs 15:27 131 1 Kgs 16:28 56, 72, 96, 135,
1 Kgs 15:28 132, 140 151, 173
1 Kgs 15:29–30 139 1 Kgs 16:29 76n20, 135, 140,
1 Kgs 15:29 47n170, 57, 132 151
1 Kgs 15:30 132 1 Kgs 16:30–31 139
1 Kgs 15:31 132 1 Kgs 16:30 135
1 Kgs 15:32 132, 140 1 Kgs 16:31–32 151
1 Kgs 15:33 76n20, 132, 140 1 Kgs 16:31 57n202, 135,
1 Kgs 15:34 132, 139 139–40
1 Kgs 16 45, 166 1 Kgs 16:32 135, 136n139
1 Kgs 16:1–4 139–40 1 Kgs 16:33 32n87, 136, 139
1 Kgs 16:1 132, 139n172 1 Kgs 16:34 136
1 Kgs 16:2–4 139n172 1 Kgs 17–19 117n239, 155
1 Kgs 16:2 132 1 Kgs 18:4 39n128
1 Kgs 16:3 132 1 Kgs 18:46 101n136
1 Kgs 16:4 39n127, 133 1 Kgs 19 43n146, 117n239
1 Kgs 16:5 133 1 Kgs 19:10 39n128
1 Kgs 16:6 133 1 Kgs 19:14 39n128
1 Kgs 16:7 133, 140–41 1 Kgs 19:16 17n2, 38n121
1 Kgs 16:8–10 133n108 1 Kgs 20–22 8, 153, 155, 195
1 Kgs 16:8 72, 76n20, 133, 1 Kgs 20–21 109n209
140–41 1 Kgs 20 97, 100, 106, 109–
1 Kgs 16:9–10 45n158 10, 131, 141, 143,
1 Kgs 16:9 133 145n190, 148n195, 153–
1 Kgs 16:10 133, 140–41 55, 155n210, 158, 166–67,
1 Kgs 16:11–13 139 230, 269n186, 276
1 Kgs 20:1–34 100, 106, 108
1 Kgs 20:1–21 100n130, 106, 1 Kgs 20:29 104, 109

108 1 Kgs 20:30 104, 108
1 Kgs 20:1–6 110 1 Kgs 20:31 104
1 Kgs 20:1–4 107 1 Kgs 20:32 104
1 Kgs 20:1 37n113, 100, 109, 1 Kgs 20:33 104
138n160, 153 1 Kgs 20:34 104, 109
1 Kgs 20:2 101, 108 1 Kgs 20:35–43 154–55
1 Kgs 20:3 101 1 Kgs 20:35–42 108, 154
1 Kgs 20:4 101 1 Kgs 20:35 105
1 Kgs 20:5 101 1 Kgs 20:36 105
1 Kgs 20:6 101 1 Kgs 20:37 105
1 Kgs 20:7–8 107–8, 154 1 Kgs 20:38 105
1 Kgs 20:7 101 1 Kgs 20:39 105
1 Kgs 20:8 101 1 Kgs 20:40 105
1 Kgs 20:9–12 110 1 Kgs 20:41 105
1 Kgs 20:9 101, 107, 109 1 Kgs 20:42 105
1 Kgs 20:10 102 1 Kgs 20:43 106, 108,
1 Kgs 20:11 102 154n207
1 Kgs 20:12 102 1 Kgs 21 41–42n142, 43n146,
1 Kgs 20:13–22 60n214 45n158, 100n132,
1 Kgs 20:13–14 107 117n239, 151, 154–55
1 Kgs 20:13 102 1 Kgs 21:1 101n136, 108n205,
1 Kgs 20:14 102 150
1 Kgs 20:15 102 1 Kgs 21:4 106n194, 154n207
1 Kgs 20:16–21 110 1 Kgs 21:7 101n136
1 Kgs 20:16 102, 138n160 1 Kgs 21:8 107n202
1 Kgs 20:17 102 1 Kgs 21:11 107n202
1 Kgs 20:18 103 1 Kgs 21:17 150
1 Kgs 20:19 103 1 Kgs 21:19 66, 149–150,
1 Kgs 20:20 84n63, 103, 109 154–55
1 Kgs 20:21 103, 106, 108– 1 Kgs 21:21–24 39n128
9n208 1 Kgs 21:21 18n6
1 Kgs 20:22–25 107 1 Kgs 21:23 26n47, 42, 45,
1 Kgs 20:22 88n86, 103, 107 154
1 Kgs 20:23–25 104n178, 107 1 Kgs 21:24 26n46
1 Kgs 20:23 103, 134n128 1 Kgs 21:27–29 42, 155,
1 Kgs 20:24 103 156n212
1 Kgs 20:25 103 1 Kgs 21:29 141
1 Kgs 20:26–34 106 1 Kgs 22 100, 106nn196, 200,
1 Kgs 20:26–30 103n168 108, 116, 131, 141, 143,
1 Kgs 20:26–29 97 148, 152n204, 153,
1 Kgs 20:26–27 110 155n210, 166–67, 219,
1 Kgs 20:26 88n86, 103, 106– 230, 247n68, 292
8, 186 1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kgs 25 8
1 Kgs 20:27 41n139, 103 1 Kgs 22:1–38 109n210
1 Kgs 20:28 103n164, 104, 1 Kgs 22:1–37 141
107 1 Kgs 22:1–2 141, 143, 151–
1 Kgs 20:29–34 110 53, 155
1 Kgs 22:1 137 2 Kgs 1 116, 117n239, 131,

1 Kgs 22:2–4 141–45, 151 166–67
1 Kgs 22:2 137, 142–43 2 Kgs 1:1–2 117n239
1 Kgs 22:3 137, 143, 145 2 Kgs 1:1 137, 238
1 Kgs 22:4 137, 142–44, 2 Kgs 1:2 137
151n198 2 Kgs 1:13 23n28
1 Kgs 22:5–28 138n156, 141– 2 Kgs 1:17–18 117n239
42, 145–46, 151 2 Kgs 1:17 137, 139–40
1 Kgs 22:6 146 2 Kgs 1:18 72n8, 95, 137,
1 Kgs 22:8 142, 146, 151n198 139–40
1 Kgs 22:11 60n214 2 Kgs 2–8 97, 117n239
1 Kgs 22:15 146 2 Kgs 2 95, 97
1 Kgs 22:19–28 142n187 2 Kgs 2:12 87n82, 97
1 Kgs 22:20 145, 151n198 2 Kgs 2:24 25n39
1 Kgs 22:26 110, 141n182, 2 Kgs 3 95, 106n196, 117,
151n198 155n210, 239n25, 241n29
1 Kgs 22:29–38 145–46 2 Kgs 3:1–3 137n151
1 Kgs 22:29–37 141–43, 145 2 Kgs 3:1 43, 72, 140
1 Kgs 22:29–35 145n191, 150, 2 Kgs 3:2–3 139
152, 156 2 Kgs 3:11 38nn120–21
1 Kgs 22:29–32 270n190 2 Kgs 4–5 38n124
1 Kgs 22:29 138 2 Kgs 4:16 37n118
1 Kgs 22:30 138, 142 2 Kgs 4:21 37n118
1 Kgs 22:31 138 2 Kgs 4:22 37n118
1 Kgs 22:32 138, 142 2 Kgs 4:25 37n118
1 Kgs 22:33 138 2 Kgs 4:27 37n118
1 Kgs 22:34 138 2 Kgs 5:3 37n119, 38n121
1 Kgs 22:35 138, 146–53, 155 2 Kgs 5:7 37n118
1 Kgs 22:36–38 151–52n200, 2 Kgs 5:8 37nn118–19,
154–55 38n121
1 Kgs 22:36–37 150 2 Kgs 5:13 37n119, 38n121
1 Kgs 22:36 138, 147–50 2 Kgs 5:14 37n118
1 Kgs 22:37 138, 147, 150 2 Kgs 5:15 37n118
1 Kgs 22:38 139, 141, 147, 2 Kgs 5:20 37n118
149–50 2 Kgs 6–10 39
1 Kgs 22:39–40 141, 150–51 2 Kgs 6:6 37n118
1 Kgs 22:39 136, 188 2 Kgs 6:9 37n118
1 Kgs 22:40 136 2 Kgs 6:10 37n118
1 Kgs 22:41–51 96 2 Kgs 6:12 37n119, 38n121
1 Kgs 22:41 76n20 2 Kgs 6:15 37n118
1 Kgs 22:47–50 56 2 Kgs 6:24–7:20 100n130
1 Kgs 22:50 173 2 Kgs 6:32 107n202
1 Kgs 22:52 72, 76n20, 136, 2 Kgs 7:2 37n118
140 2 Kgs 7:17 37n118
1 Kgs 22:53–54 139 2 Kgs 7:18 37n118
1 Kgs 22:53 136 2 Kgs 7:19 37n118
1 Kgs 22:54 58n202, 136, 140 2 Kgs 8–14 174
2 Kgs 1–2 117n239 2 Kgs 8–9 55
2 Kgs 8 36, 38n124, 44, 230, 2 Kgs 9:8 18n6, 19

272n195 2 Kgs 9:9 19
2 Kgs 8:2 37n118 2 Kgs 9:10 19, 42, 57n202
2 Kgs 8:4 37n118 2 Kgs 9:11 19, 29n63, 39n129,
2 Kgs 8:7–15 222, 272 58, 67n232, 84n63,
2 Kgs 8:7 37n118 101n137
2 Kgs 8:8 37n118 2 Kgs 9:12 18n3, 19, 39
2 Kgs 8:11 37n118 2 Kgs 9:13 19, 63
2 Kgs 8:15 222n104 2 Kgs 9:14–16 37n115
2 Kgs 8:16 76n20 2 Kgs 9:14–15 21n16, 36,
2 Kgs 8:18 173 37n114, 39–40, 57
2 Kgs 8:25–29 54 2 Kgs 9:14 17n2, 18n3, 20,
2 Kgs 8:25 43–44, 74, 76n20 37n114, 54, 58, 62,
2 Kgs 8:26 173 67n233, 68, 92, 270n190
2 Kgs 8:28–29 36–37n114, 39, 2 Kgs 9:15 20, 21n15, 35–36,
61n215, 62, 115 153, 251n88
2 Kgs 8:28 35–36n112, 54 2 Kgs 9:16 20, 21n15, 24n36,
2 Kgs 8:29 20n12, 21n15, 35– 39–40, 58, 62, 145,
36 152n204, 173
2 Kgs 9–14 157 2 Kgs 9:17 21
2 Kgs 9–11 69n238 2 Kgs 9:18 21
2 Kgs 9–10 1–2, 4n6, 5, 16– 2 Kgs 9:19 21
17, 35n106, 50, 57–59, 62, 2 Kgs 9:20 17n2, 21, 22n22
64n225, 66, 69, 83, 86, 2 Kgs 9:21–26 41
92–93, 95n119, 96–97, 2 Kgs 9:21 22, 40
110, 116, 139n173, 151, 2 Kgs 9:22 21n21, 22
155, 167, 177, 271, 2 Kgs 9:23 23, 261
274n203, 284 2 Kgs 9:24 22n24, 23, 40, 63,
2 Kgs 9 40n131, 41–42, 44, 67n232, 271
45n158, 62n218, 64, 2 Kgs 9:25–26 40–43n152, 52,
67n234, 68n235, 92, 114, 59, 68n235
152, 97, 152n204, 219 2 Kgs 9:25 23, 26n46, 32n85,
2 Kgs 9:1–10:27 3n4 58
2 Kgs 9:1–29 54 2 Kgs 9:26–27 49
2 Kgs 9:1–6 64 2 Kgs 9:26 24, 40, 195
2 Kgs 9:1 17, 29n63, 35–37, 2 Kgs 9:27 24, 40, 50, 54, 58,
58, 97, 130n85, 153 63, 271
2 Kgs 9:2 17, 67n233, 92 2 Kgs 9:28–29 36, 44, 57–58,
2 Kgs 9:3 17, 18n3, 24n35, 37, 69
39 2 Kgs 9:28 24, 44
2 Kgs 9:4 18, 38, 58 2 Kgs 9:29 24, 43–44, 54,
2 Kgs 9:5 18, 39n129, 63 76n20
2 Kgs 9:6–10 39n129, 45, 58 2 Kgs 9:30 25
2 Kgs 9:6 18, 39, 62, 64, 98 2 Kgs 9:31 25, 44, 45n158, 52,
2 Kgs 9:7–10 39 58, 66, 67n232
2 Kgs 9:7–9 30n73, 52, 2 Kgs 9:32 25
139n173 2 Kgs 9:33 25, 63
2 Kgs 9:7 18, 30n75, 57n202 2 Kgs 9:34 25
2 Kgs 9:35 26 2 Kgs 10:29 33, 50, 52, 55,

2 Kgs 9:36 26, 42, 45–46, 57n202, 58, 60n211,
57n202, 58, 139n173, 154 77n23, 131n88
2 Kgs 9:37 26, 45–46, 48, 2 Kgs 10:29 33n96,
57n202, 154 2 Kgs 10:30–31 50n178
2 Kgs 10 49, 128, 140, 297 2 Kgs 10:30 30n73, 33,
2 Kgs 10:1 26, 46, 58, 107 48n172, 50–53, 55,
2 Kgs 10:2 27 57n202, 63–64n225, 99
2 Kgs 10:3 27 2 Kgs 10:31–33 55n198
2 Kgs 10:4 27, 57n202 2 Kgs 10:31–32 58
2 Kgs 10:5 27, 107 2 Kgs 10:31 33, 50, 52–53, 55,
2 Kgs 10:6 27, 46 57n202, 60n211, 77n23,
2 Kgs 10:7 28, 58 131n88
2 Kgs 10:8 28 2 Kgs 10:32–33 33n99, 53, 55,
2 Kgs 10:9 28 56n198, 57, 110n214, 174,
2 Kgs 10:10–11 57–58 296
2 Kgs 10:10 28, 30n73, 42, 46, 2 Kgs 10:32 34, 55n198,
52, 57, 139n173 56n198
2 Kgs 10:11 28, 46, 47n170, 2 Kgs 10:33 34
48 2 Kgs 10:34–36 53, 55, 62
2 Kgs 10:12 28 2 Kgs 10:34 34
2 Kgs 10:13 29, 58, 67n232 2 Kgs 10:35 34
2 Kgs 10:14 29, 47, 58 2 Kgs 10:36–43 57, 83
2 Kgs 10:15–16 63 2 Kgs 10:36 34, 53–54n192,
2 Kgs 10:15 18n3, 29 69, 115, 180n35
2 Kgs 10:16 29, 50 2 Kgs 10:37–43 35, 37, 54–56,
2 Kgs 10:17 30, 42, 47– 74, 145
48n172, 57–58 2 Kgs 10:37 34, 64
2 Kgs 10:18–28 64 2 Kgs 10:38 34, 173
2 Kgs 10:18–27 48 2 Kgs 10:39 34, 54
2 Kgs 10:18 30, 57n202, 58 2 Kgs 10:40 34
2 Kgs 10:19 30, 58, 65, 2 Kgs 10:41 34
67n232 2 Kgs 10:42 35
2 Kgs 10:20 30 2 Kgs 10:43 35, 44
2 Kgs 10:21–27 50 2 Kgs 11 69
2 Kgs 10:21 30, 48 2 Kgs 11:1 69n238
2 Kgs 10:22 31 2 Kgs 11:2 110n212, 151n198
2 Kgs 10:23 31, 48 2 Kgs 11:18 49
2 Kgs 10:24 31, 67n232, 2 Kgs 12:1–2 72
136n139 2 Kgs 12:2 76n20
2 Kgs 10:25 23n29, 31 2 Kgs 12:7 73
2 Kgs 10:26–27 48 2 Kgs 12:17–18 174
2 Kgs 10:26 32, 48–49, 58, 2 Kgs 12:18–19 55n198
135n139 2 Kgs 12:18 174
2 Kgs 10:27 32, 46, 48–50, 2 Kgs 12:21 80n50
135n139 2 Kgs 13–14 71, 98, 166–67
2 Kgs 10:28 33, 63–64, 99
2 Kgs 13 85, 100, 109, 2 Kgs 13:24 88, 97, 99–100,

117n239, 153–54, 158, 109–10, 153
276 2 Kgs 13:25 88, 95, 97, 99–
2 Kgs 13:1–9 84, 91 100, 108–10, 153
2 Kgs 13:1 53, 76n20, 84, 86 2 Kgs 14 44, 92, 109, 158,
2 Kgs 13:2 84–86 187, 299n15
2 Kgs 13:3–5 86 2 Kgs 14:1–22 91, 96, 115
2 Kgs 13:3 84, 98, 110 2 Kgs 14:1–7 96
2 Kgs 13:4 84 2 Kgs 14:1 76n20, 88, 91
2 Kgs 13:5 84, 85n70, 98–99, 2 Kgs 14:2 76n20, 88, 91
110, 113 2 Kgs 14:3–4 91
2 Kgs 13:6–7 86 2 Kgs 14:3 89
2 Kgs 13:6 50n179, 84n63, 2 Kgs 14:4 89
84–86 2 Kgs 14:5–6 93
2 Kgs 13:7 84, 85n70, 86, 2 Kgs 14:5 89
88n90, 98 2 Kgs 14:6 89, 93
2 Kgs 13:8–9 86 2 Kgs 14:7 89, 93
2 Kgs 13:8 85–86 2 Kgs 14:8–16 93, 95–96
2 Kgs 13:9 85 2 Kgs 14:8–14 91–92, 110,
2 Kgs 13:10–14:22 36, 87 173n7
2 Kgs 13:10 76n20, 87, 110 2 Kgs 14:8 67n233, 81, 89,
2 Kgs 13:11 87 91–93
2 Kgs 13:12–13 91, 93, 95, 2 Kgs 14:9 89, 92–93, 109
110 2 Kgs 14:10 89, 93
2 Kgs 13:12 87 2 Kgs 14:11 89, 92
2 Kgs 13:13 87, 95 2 Kgs 14:12 89, 92
2 Kgs 13:14–21 33n99, 91, 2 Kgs 14:13 67n233, 90, 92–
97–98, 109 93
2 Kgs 13:14–19 154 2 Kgs 14:14 26n45, 46, 90,
2 Kgs 13:14–17 95n119, 97 92–93, 108
2 Kgs 13:14 87, 97 2 Kgs 14:15–16 91, 93, 95
2 Kgs 13:15 87 2 Kgs 14:15 90, 94
2 Kgs 13:16 87 2 Kgs 14:16 90, 95
2 Kgs 13:17 87, 97, 103n168, 2 Kgs 14:17–22 91, 96
153 2 Kgs 14:17 90
2 Kgs 13:18–21 97 2 Kgs 14:18–22 83
2 Kgs 13:18–19 95n119, 97 2 Kgs 14:18 90
2 Kgs 13:18 87 2 Kgs 14:19 80n50, 90
2 Kgs 13:19 37n118, 87 2 Kgs 14:20 90
2 Kgs 13:20–21 97, 98n123 2 Kgs 14:21 90
2 Kgs 13:20 87 2 Kgs 14:22 91
2 Kgs 13:21 88 2 Kgs 14:23–29 78, 111
2 Kgs 13:22–25 98–99 2 Kgs 14:23 76n20, 111
2 Kgs 13:22–24 110 2 Kgs 14:24 111–12
2 Kgs 13:22 88, 99 2 Kgs 14:25–27 114
2 Kgs 13:23 84n68, 86n77, 88, 2 Kgs 14:25 60n214, 78, 81,
98–99 98, 111–12n222, 116, 187
2 Kgs 13:24–25 109 2 Kgs 14:26 111–12n227, 116
2 Kgs 14:27 111–12, 113n231, 2 Kgs 23:14–15 49

165 2 Kgs 23:17 184n43
2 Kgs 14:28–29 184 2 Kgs 23:31 75n19
2 Kgs 14:28 97, 111, 115 2 Kgs 23:36 75n19
2 Kgs 14:29 111, 112n221 2 Kgs 24:8 75n19
2 Kgs 15 176n13 2 Kgs 24:18 75n19
2 Kgs 15:1 76n20, 90n111 2 Kgs 24:20 98
2 Kgs 15:8–31 116 2 Kgs 25:22 67n233, 92n115
2 Kgs 15:8 43n149, 76n20 2 Kgs 25:25 67n233, 92n115
2 Kgs 15:12 51n180, 116n238 1 Chr 2:3 193n71
2 Kgs 15:13 72, 76n20 1 Chr 4:35 193n71
2 Kgs 15:17 76n20 1 Chr 5:17 176n13, 192
2 Kgs 15:19–20 282n226 1 Chr 12:3 193n71
2 Kgs 15:19 60, 229n124 1 Chr 27:18 191n69
2 Kgs 15:22 157n216 2 Chr 9–11 190
2 Kgs 15:23 76n20 2 Chr 10:15 190
2 Kgs 15:27 76n20 2 Chr 11:1–4 130n82
2 Kgs 15:30 80 2 Chr 11:15 190
2 Kgs 15:32 76n20 2 Chr 12:15 130n82
2 Kgs 16:1 74, 76n20 2 Chr 13 190
2 Kgs 16:8–9 179 2 Chr 13:2–20 130n82
2 Kgs 17 49, 75n17, 116 2 Chr 13:6–7 190
2 Kgs 17:1 76n20 2 Chr 13:8 190
2 Kgs 17:3–4 176n13, 179n26, 2 Chr 16:1–6 191
229n124 2 Chr 18 138n161, 143–44,
2 Kgs 17:3 60, 179 148, 191
2 Kgs 17:4 229n124 2 Chr 18:1–2 144
2 Kgs 17:10 48 2 Chr 18:1 143
2 Kgs 17:16 33n95, 58n202, 2 Chr 18:2 143
140 2 Chr 18:3 143–44
2 Kgs 17:20 98–99n128 2 Chr 18:7 146
2 Kgs 17:21 126n62 2 Chr 18:14 146
2 Kgs 17:23 184n43 2 Chr 18:30 138n160
2 Kgs 17:30 263n162 2 Chr 18:34 138n165, 146–50,
2 Kgs 18:1 76n20 155
2 Kgs 18:2 75n19, 76n20 2 Chr 19–20 194
2 Kgs 18:4 49 2 Chr 19:1 150
2 Kgs 18:15 60 2 Chr 19:2 193n71
2 Kgs 20:18–29 48n172 2 Chr 20:34 193n71
2 Kgs 21:1 75n19 2 Chr 20:35–37 191
2 Kgs 21:19 75n19 2 Chr 21 191
2 Kgs 22:1 75n19 2 Chr 21:6 191
2 Kgs 22:3 67n233, 92n115 2 Chr 21:12 152n201
2 Kgs 22:14 67n233, 92n115 2 Chr 21:13 191
2 Kgs 22:35 149 2 Chr 22 193n71
2 Kgs 23 49 2 Chr 22:2 191
2 Kgs 23:1 107n202 2 Chr 22:3–8 191
2 Kgs 23:6–7 49 2 Chr 22:3–4 191
2 Chr 22:5–7 191 Hos 5:1–7 180

2 Chr 22:5–6 191 Hos 5:1–2 69
2 Chr 22:6 20n12, 36 Hos 5:13 179
2 Chr 22:7–9 191, 193n71 Hos 7:3–7 178
2 Chr 22:7–8 191 Hos 8:4–6 131, 180
2 Chr 25:1 75n19, 76n20 Hos 8:4 64, 180n35
2 Chr 25:14–16 192 Hos 8:6 180n35
2 Chr 25:17–25 192, 193n71 Hos 8:8–9 179n28
2 Chr 25:17 191, 193n71 Hos 8:9 179
2 Chr 25:18 193n71 Hos 9:3 187n57
2 Chr 25:21 193n71 Hos 10:1–2 48
2 Chr 25:23 191n70, 193n71 Hos 10:13–15 177
2 Chr 25:25 191, 193n71 Hos 10:14 177n19
2 Chr 26:1 90n111 Hos 10:15 178
2 Chr 28:1–4 192 Hos 12:1 300
2 Chr 28:6 192 Hos 12:2 179, 180n29
2 Chr 29:1 75n19, 76n20 Hos 12:13 176n13
2 Chr 34:4–7 49 Amos 1–2 184n42, 186
2 Chr 36:22–23 190n65 Amos 1:1 65
Ezra 4:20 258n133 Amos 1:3–5 183n38, 185–86
Ps 51:13 99n129 Amos 2:1 187
Ps 83:11 45 Amos 3–6 184n42
Isa 46:9 112n227 Amos 3 188n58
Jer 7:15 98 Amos 3:9 187n57
Jer 9:21 45 Amos 3:15 188
Jer 13:10 140 Amos 4 69
Jer 16:11 140 Amos 4:1–5 188
Jer 25:6 140 Amos 4:4–5 64, 65n226
Jer 34:15 51n182 Amos 5:4–6 64, 65n226
Jer 44:3 140n177 Amos 5:21–24 65n226
Jer 49:27 186n49 Amos 5:27 187
Jer 52:3 98 Amos 6 69, 187
Dan 1:1–2 193n72 Amos 6:2–4 188
Hos 1:1 64 Amos 6:4 188n59
Hos 1:3–5 176 Amos 6:5 188n59
Hos 1:4–5 64n225, 176 Amos 6:11–14 187
Hos 1:4 64, 175n10, 178, 293 Amos 7–9 184n42
Hos 1:5 176n15 Amos 7–8 185n45
Hos 2 64 Amos 7 64, 181, 184n43
Hos 2:4–17 180 Amos 7:9 64, 177n18, 183n38,
Hos 2:7 180 185
Hos 2:10 180 Amos 7:10–17 131, 183n38,
Hos 2:11 180 185n46
Hos 2:13–15 181 Amos 7:11 64, 183n38, 184–
Hos 2:13 180 85
Hos 2:15 180 Amos 7:17 184n43
Hos 4–9 176n12 Amos 8:2 113n231
Hos 4:12 131 Amos 8:14 263n162
Matt 1:7–11 194n72 1 Esd 1:43–45 193n72

1 Esd 1:46–48 193n72
4 Esd 13:40 193n72
2. Apocrypha 4 Esd 7:110 193n72
Add Esth 11:4 193n72
2 Macc 15:22 193n72
Bar 1:1 193n72
Sir 47:23 193n72
Bar 1:3 193n72 Sir 47:23–25 193n72
Bar 1:8 193n72
Sir 48:17–22 193n72
Bar 1:9 193n72 Sir 49:1–4 193n72
1 Esd 1:1–33 193n72
Sir 49:4 193n72
1 Esd 1:34–38 193n72 Tob 1:5 193n72
1 Esd 1:37–42 193n72

The Jehu Revolution in the Northern Kingdom of Israel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Jehu Revolution in the Northern Kingdom of Israel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jonathan Miles Robker

The Jehu Revolution

The Jehu Revolution

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

” 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

manuscript for publication. My gratitude is also offered to the editors of the

Chapter 1: Introduction: Objectives and Methodology ......................................1

Chapter 2: The Literary Jehu: A Construct and its Ramifications ................... 17

Chapter 3: The Jehuide Dynasty ...................................................................... 70

Chapter 4: The Israel Source in the Book of Kings: From Jeroboam II

Narrative Considerations ....................................................................... 123

Chapter 6: Akkadian Sources ......................................................................... 197

Chapter 7: Levantine Epigraphy: Tel Dan, Mesha, Zakkur, Samarian

General Matters and Dating .................................................................. 275

Chapter 8: Conclusions .................................................................................. 285

Appendix: The Israel Source .......................................................................... 303

supposed revolution (i.e., 842–841 BCE) to see if there is evidence outside of

legitimate. While the idea of a pre-Deuteronomistic source is not an especially

whelming merit of a singular textual tradition, whether Greek 15 or Hebrew. 16

Excursus: The Greek Text of Kings

Stuttgartensia (BHS) edition of Kings. 33 At times, however, I have moved

what is substantiated in multiple witnesses? What is denied by other witnesses?

The Oldest Biblical Jehu Tradition: 2 Kings 9–10*1

relationship between 14b–15a and 16 .131 Trebolle-Barrera has successfully

as well. The use of the phrase ‫ עד בלתי ה שאיר לו שריד‬suggests a Deutero-

is missing in one manuscript and , and should therefore be regarded as a sec-

Deuteronomistic language is clear in 2 Kings 17 (cf. also 1 Kings 14:23),

There is no mention of such a conversation with either Hezekiah or Josiah,

tax of these usages is completely distinct, even though it is ‫ יהוה‬speaking in

In order to tarnish Jehu’s reputation, a redactor added vv. 32–33, claiming

Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, v. 36 offers the following additional information

(9:6*–10a, 36; 10:10–11, 17a βb, 26, 29, 31–32a)

sizing the characters (most importantly Jehu), and providing a transition

6);226 Amos’ critique of the cultic practices of Israel becomes unwarranted,

Form and Sitz im Leben

Subsequent to the establishment of a probable time of composition, we can turn

The circularity of the argumentation that the Deuteronomist’s style is repeti-

activity.9 The material that should be regarded as secondary in the instance of

This reconstruction of the redaction history of Kings demonstrates that the

sign of A.44 Previously it was also an indication of S. 45 To resolve this apparent

of Kings). 2) Relations to other nations: Almost all are found in an Israelite

Excursus: A Judean Redaction or a Judean Source?

Translation61 and Textual Considerations

distinction to the judges of Israel, remains unnamed in Kings. 74 It seems here

Translation78 and Textual Considerations

2 Kings 13:12–13 2 Kings 14:15–16

onstrates literary connections to the story of 2 Kings 9–10* and presumably

Translation and Textual Considerations

Narrative Considerations 195

In general, one can accept Würthwein’s literary critical analysis, though it

Translation and Textual Considerations

Würthwein considers essentially this entire pericope to be of Deuteronomistic

David and Solomon: 1 Kings 1:1–11:25*

Jeroboam I: 1 Kings 11:26–14:20*

1 Kings 11 portrays Solomon in a negative light, especially in the material

Translation and Textual Considerations

11 26) And Jeroboam ben Nebat, an Ephraimite from Zaredah—the name of

there acts with deception. No comment is made in either of those narratives

Nadab through Joram: 1 Kings 15:25–16:34* + 22*; 2 Kings 1*

Translation and Textual Considerations

of Issachar conspired against him. Then Baasha struck him in Gibbethon,

Nadab through Joram: 1 Kings 15:25–16:34* + 22; 2 Kings 1