Chapter 10 of Provan, Long, and Longman’s book, A Biblical History of Israel, focuses on the kingdoms of Israel and Judah as recorded in I-II Kings, from the time of the death of Solomon (circa 930 BC) to the time of the exile (circa 587 BC). Now, it should be said up front, since the purpose of Provan’s book is to serve as a challenge to the current minimalist scholarship, it should be said that when it comes to this era of the kingdoms of ancient Israel and Judah (930-587 BC), that only the most extreme, fringe minimalist denies that they didn’t exist and that I-II Kings isn’t historical. There is simply too much overlap and verification from non-biblical sources to come to that conclusion.
Keeping track of all the kings over the span of 350 years can be quite confusing. After all, some kings who reigned for a relatively short time (10-15 years) are given quite a lot of ink in I/II Kings, whereas others who reigned for 40 years get very little press. For whatever reasons, the writer of I/II Kings, writing during the Exile (587-539 BC), as he combed through the royal annals of both kingdoms, chose to highlight certain kings and events over others. We just have to live with that. Incidentally, the testimony of I/II Kings points to the existence of these royal annals because at the end of the record of virtually every king mentioned, the writer tells us that “as for the rest of the deeds” of that king, they are recorded in either the annals of the kings of Judah or the kings of Israel. Those annals are lost to history, with I/II Kings as the resulting testimony to those annals.
In any case, all the kings in the kingdom of Judah came from David’s line: The House of David. By contrast, the kings from the kingdom of Israel came from a variety of royal houses who were continually overthrowing one another. The first was the House of Jeroboam (930-909 BC); the second was the House of Baasha (909-885 BC); then Zimri overthrew Baasha’s House, only to be killed himself within a week; the third House was that of Omri (885-841 BC); the fourth House was that of Jehu (841-752 BC); then came the one month rule of Shallum, only to be replaced with the fifth House of Gadi (752-740 BC); after which came the final two rulers of Israel, Pekah and Hoshea. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel came about in 721 BC. The kingdom of Judah lasted for another 150 years, until 587 BC. With that brief overview, we will now get to the particulars of what Provan says regarding these two kingdoms.
From the Division of Israel to the Rise of Omri (930-885 BC)
The first thing Provan addresses is the split of the kingdom during the reign of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam. The ten northern tribes made Jeroboam their king and became the Kingdom of Israel, while Rehoboam remained the King of Judah. Now, even though the northern tribes may have officially recognized Jeroboam as the new king, the reality, no doubt, was that many in the northern kingdom probably still either saw Rehoboam as the rightful king, or at least as an authoritative figure in whose kingdom was the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant.
Given that reality, in strange way, the decision by Jeroboam to erect golden calf shrines in Dan in the north and Bethel in the south makes perfect political and religious sense. It was Jeroboam’s attempt to solidify his political kingship by providing religious worship centers to the people of the northern kingdom. Now, if you are thinking, “Golden calves? Like the golden calf at Sinai?” you’d be on to something. But the situation is even messier than you may think. As Provan says, “The new worship centers certainly had deep roots in Israel’s cultic past” (345). Bethel was the place where Jacob made an altar to YHWH when he was fleeing Esau (Gen. 28:18-22), and the Danites had set up an idol to worship in Dan during the time of the Judges (Jdgs. 18:30). What this amounts to is that Jeroboam set up shrines to YHWH, chose two sites (one where Jacob made an altar to YHWH, the other where the Danites erected an idol), and used the figure of a golden calf to represent YHWH. This should dispel the notion that Israel had ever been exclusively faithful to YHWH. To the contrary, it was syncretistic to its core.
The second thing Provan mentions is a historical note about Rehoboam. I Kings 14:25-28 tells us that Shishak of Egypt attacked Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam. There are two candidates for who this Shishak was: (1) Pharaoh Shoshenq I (945-924 BC), who was the founder of the 22nd dynasty in Egypt, or (2) Pharaoh Osorkon I, Shoshenq’s successor.
The Period of the Omrides (885-841 BC)
When it comes to the House of Omri, Provan points out three historical points we know from extrabiblical sources. First, there is the Stela of King Mesha of Moab, which tells of Moab’s rebellion against King Jehoram of Israel after King Ahab died. This corresponds to the same event mentioned in II Kings 3:4-5, and thus the date of this rebellion would have happened sometime between 852-841 BC. Secondly, we know from Assyrian Annals that King Ahab was part a coalition of Syrian and Palestinian kings who fought against Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC. This corresponds to what we find in I Kings 22, that tells of Ahab’s death in battle. Thirdly, there is the matter of Hazael of Aram. He became the king of Aram after the death of Ben-hadad. Apparently, he didn’t come from any prestigious family or was considered noble by anyone. We know this from both II Kings 8:13, where he refers to himself as a “mere dog,” and a fragmentary Assyrian text, which refers to him as the “son of a nobody.”
From Jehu to the Fall of Samaria (841-721 BC)
When it comes to the history of both Judah and Israel up to the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, Provan covers quite a few events and figures. I will limit my overview to just a few. First, there is the conflict between what we find in II Kings 9-10, where we are told that Jehu killed both King Ahaziah of Judah and King Jehoram of Israel (not to mention Jezebel as well!), and the Tel Dan Inscription, where King Hazael of Aram claimed to have killed both Ahaziah and Jehoram. So, who actually killed these two kings? What we have are these two claims, but Provan notes that it is not uncommon to find that foreign kings take credit for the deaths of their rivals. And so, given the fact that Jehu actually took Jehoram’s throne, that would lead us to believe that it was Jehu who staged the coup against Jehoram and killed him, along with Ahaziah who had come to visit Jehoram, just like II Kings 9-10 relates.
The second thing to note is the historical connection we find in the Assyrian annals regarding Shalmaneser III and both Jehu and Hazael. According to Shalmaneser’s records, he staged a western campaign in his 18th year (841 BC) and besieged Damascus, after which he received tribute from Jehu the Israelite. And then, in another campaign that took place during his 21st year (838 BC), his Black Obelisk says he captured four of Hazael’s cities and accepted tribute from the peoples of the Phoenician coast.
Thirdly, there is the matter of King Amaziah of Judah, as related in II Kings 14. King Amaziah doesn’t get a lot of attention from, well, anyone. But the account in II Kings 14 is fascinating. In short, he tried to confront King Jehoash of Israel and 14:13 relates that Jehoash defeated and captured Amaziah, and then went on to Jerusalem to plunder the city. We are then told in 14:17 that Amaziah “lived” (as opposed to “reigned”) for 15 years after the death of Jehoash. Furthermore, 14:19-20 tells us that Amaziah eventually was killed in Lachish, after he had to flee Jerusalem when a conspiracy rose up against him. Put all that together, that suggests that Amaziah had, for an undisclosed amount of time, been held captive in Israel. For how long, we don’t know. We do know that eventually he returned to the throne in Jerusalem, only to be assassinated in the conspiracy. It is just an interesting historical mystery that the text hints at but doesn’t elaborate upon.
A fourth historical note involves II Kings 17:4’s mention of the Egyptian ruler “So,” who lived and reigned around the time of King Ahaz of Judah (circa mid 700s BC). There are two possibilities regarding who this “So” was: (1) Osorkon IV of the 22nd Dynasty (730-715 BC), who ruled the Eastern Nile Delta or (2) Tefnakht, the founder of the 24th Dynasty (727-720 BC), who was based in Sais.
The Dates of Hezekiah’s Reign…and Sennacherib’s Invasion (727-698 BC)
The biggest historical question during this time period is in regard to the reign of Hezekiah. The problem (and it is an irreconcilable problem, given what II Kings tells us) is this:
- II Kings 18:1 says that Hezekiah became king of Judah in the third year of Hoshea of Israel
- II Kings 18:2 says that Hezekiah reigned for 29 years
- II Kings 18:9 says in Hezekiah’s 4th year (which was Hoshea’s 7th year), Shalmaneser came and besieged Israel’s capital of Samaria
- II Kings 18:10 says that three years later (Hezekiah’s 7th year/Hoshea’s 10th year), Samaria fell
Given the fact that we know that Samaria fell in 722 or 721 BC, we could deduce that Hezekiah became king in 728 or 727 BC, right? But then II Kings 18:13 throws a monkey wrench into all that by telling us that Sennacherib invaded Judah in Hezekiah’s 14th year. We know that Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah that culminated in his siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC. That would thus mean Hezekiah became king in 715 BC and wouldn’t even have been king when Samaria fell in 721 BC. No matter how you slice it, the numbers don’t add up.
Provan’s suggestion (as is the suggestion of some other scholars) is that Hezekiah became co-regent with his father Ahaz in 727 BC and became the sole ruler in 715 BC. There are a host of reasons why I don’t agree with this proposal, but it is a long and complex argument that involves comparing II Kings 18-20 with its parallel text in Isaiah 36-39. The long and short of it is that I think the Isaiah 36-39 account is the original account and that in that account there is a scribal error. Instead of reading “In Hezekiah’s 14th year” it should read “In Hezekiah’s 24th year.” It is hard to show in English, but in Hebrew, the difference between “14th” and “24th” is the matter of a single pen stroke at the end. The writer of II Kings then took Isaiah 36-39 and simply inserted it into his own section on Hezekiah without fixing the scribal error. If that is the case, then that would put Hezekiah on the throne as the sole ruler in 727 BC, have the Fall of Samaria happen in his 6th year (721 BC), and have his rebellion against Sennacherib happen in his 24th year (703 BC), to which Sennacherib responded by invading Judah in 701 BC. Simply put, fixing that scribal error causes everything to fall into line quite easily.
Speaking of Sennacherib’s invasion, we have an unusual number of texts testifying to it. In addition to Sennacherib’s account, we also have II Kings 18:13-19:37; II Chronicles 31:1-22; Isaiah 36:1-37:38. All of them agree on the following historical points: (1) Jerusalem was visited by an Assyrian delegation because Hezekiah seemed to be not submitting to Assyrian overlordship, (2) At some point, the Egyptian army appeared under Tirhakah for battle; defeated by Sennacherib, (3) Hezekiah was besieged and released Padi of Ekron, and (4) Sennacherib never took Jerusalem, but Hezekiah sent him tribute after he returned to Nineveh.
The biblical account says that reason why Sennacherib withdrew was because an “angel of YHWH” killed 185,000 of his soldiers. Sennacherib’s account doesn’t mention that. Instead, after making a big deal about how Hezekiah was trapped “like a bird in a cage” in Jerusalem, he then goes on to brag about how he took Lachish, the second largest city in Judah! What does he do that? Because he obviously isn’t going to record in his annals that praise his greatness that he couldn’t take Jerusalem.
So, what caused him to leave? There are sources that indicate that some sort of plague swept through the camp and decimated Sennacherib’s army. I think, therefore, that is certainly possible that the biblical writers interpreted the plague as ultimately an act of God to spare Jerusalem, and therefore, in the telling of the account, said it was an angel of YHWH to stress that this was an act of God. We don’t have to interpret it as a claim that a literal “Rambo-Angel” came bursting through the gate to slaughter the Assyrian army.
A Few Quick Words About Manasseh, Josiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem
Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is considered to be one of the worst kings in Judah’s history. His name appears in the Assyrian records of Esarhaddon (681-669 BC) and Ashurbanipal (669-631 BC). He appears to have been a loyal vassal of Assyria, but apparently fell under suspicion for a time by King Ashurbanipal and was a prisoner in Babylon for a time, although we don’t know for how long. II Chronicles 33:11-13 tells us that it was during this time that Manasseh turned back to YHWH.
Josiah is described as one of Israel’s most important kings who pursued a pure form of Yahwism. It was during his reign that the Book of the Torah was found in the Temple (circa 627 BC). Josiah, though, died in battle against Neco II of Egypt (II Kings 23:29-30/II Chron. 35:20-24) at Megiddo in 609 BC. After he was killed, it was a mere 20 years until Judah was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.
Josiah’s son Jehoahaz (i.e. Shallum) was removed from power by Neco, who then placed Jehoahaz’s brother Eliakim on the throne as his vassal, and thus changed his name to Jehoiakim. After Nebuchadnezzar crushed Assyria at the Battle of Carchemish (605 BC) and became the new dominant world leader, Jehoiakim switched his allegiance to Babylon, but within three years he decided to rebel against him. This brought Nebuchadnezzar to siege Jerusalem in 597 BC. Jehoiakim died during the siege, after which his son Jeconiah agreed to surrender. Nebuchadnezzar spared Jerusalem but took Jeconiah and much of the Jerusalem elite to Babylon. He then made Jehoiakim’s brother Mattaniah the new king of Judah and renamed him Zedekiah. Zedekiah proved to be just as stupid as Jehoiakim, and when he rebelled against Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar came back in 587 BC, destroyed the city, and took a good portion of the population into exile.
Conclusion
As I stated before, no serious scholar doubts the historicity the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The biblical books of I-II Kings (as well as I-II Chronicles) obviously weave their distinct narratives of that history in creative ways to speak to their audience, but what is related is undoubtedly real history.
