Contents H G M Williamson Preface; List of Abbreviations xiii-xx J W Rogerson Setting the Scene: A Brief Outline of Histories of Israel 3-14 Keith W Whitelam Setting the Scene: A Response to John Rogerson 15-23 Hans M Barstad The History of Ancient Israel: What Directions Should We Take? 25-48 Philip R Davies Biblical Israel in the Ninth Century? 49-56 Lester L Grabbe Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel 57-67 T P Wiseman Classical History: A Sketch, with Three Artefacts 71-89 Chase F Robinson Early Islamic History: Parallels and Problems 91-106 Amélie Kuhrt Ancient Near Eastern History: The Case of Cyrus the Great of Persia 107-127 David Ussishkin Archaeology of the Biblical Period: On Some Questions of Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age 131-141 Amihai Mazar The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE 143-171 Christoph Uehlinger Neither Eyewitnesses, Nor Windows to the Past, but Valuable Testimony in its own Right: Remarks on Iconography, Source Criticism and Ancient Data-processing 173-228 M J Geller Akkadian Sources of the Ninth Century 229-241 K Lawson Younger Jr Neo-Assyrian and Israelite History in the Ninth Century: The Role of Shalmaneser III 243-277 André Lemaire West Semitic Inscriptions and Ninth-Century BCE Ancient Israel 279-303 Marc Zvi Brettler Method in the Application of Biblical Source Material to Historical Writing (with Particular Reference to the Ninth Century BCE) 305-336 Graeme Auld Reading Kings on the Divided Monarchy: What Sort of Narrative? 337-343 Rainer Albertz Social History of Ancient Israel 347-367 Bernard S Jackson Law in the Ninth Century: Jehoshaphat's 'Judicial Reform' 369-397 Nadav Na'aman The Northern Kingdom in the Late Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE 399-418 00 Prelims 1548 15/8/07 10:44 Page xiii Preface No one familiar with the literature can doubt that there is currently a prob- lem of method in the academic study of the history of ancient Israel. The depth of this problem,which some would even label a crisis,may be gauged by the fact that in some circles the level of debate has descended to that of name calling rather than to a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence and rational debate about its implications. Among many possible causes for this situation,three may perhaps be sin- gled out above all others.In the first place,the nature of the evidence at our disposal is varied, fragmentary and partial—textual, epigraphic, icono- graphic, archaeological and so on. This is generally the case, of course, for ancient history of whatever region,and it raises the question about how such varied types of evidence may legitimately be combined in order to produce a responsible narrative history.There are so many gaps in our knowledge that for many periods it is virtually impossible to establish a ‘master narrative’ which may then serve as the basis for the interpretation and integration of the remainder. Disagreements therefore inevitably arise as to which source of evidence should initially be privileged in historical research. Secondly,and partly as a consequence of this first area of difficulty,schol- ars disagree—sometimes quite sharply—over just what sort of history we ought in any case be attempting to reconstruct.The influence of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament has been so powerful in our approach to the past of which it speaks that we often forget that it was not primarily written to be an historical source at all, but for other (in themselves wholly legitimate) pur- poses which have inevitably shaped and determined what it will include and exclude,emphasize and play down.These purposes are easily categorized as theological or religious,but we forget too readily that they have a significant impact on the understanding of history and that many scholars today do not share them or,even if they do,think that they ought not to influence research. So what do we mean by the history of ancient Israel in the first place? There are many approaches to history beside the narrative of what used to be called ‘men and movements’,and the competing claims of methods which are them- selves devised to elicit different appreciations of the past (social, economic, historico-geographical,cultural or whatever) add to the confusion in current understanding. Thirdly, I do not think there is any escape from the fact that one of the major sources at our disposal is the Bible itself.This already complicates the Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved 00 Prelims 1548 15/8/07 10:44 Page xiv xiv Preface situation with regard to the first two points just described,but it adds the fur- ther problem that this particular text is regarded by many who study it (indeed,this is precisely whythey study it) as authoritative or privileged in a way that is not true of any of the other sources. For some, indeed, this extends to the level of the detail of the history which it tells,with the conse- quence that all other evidence must be harmonized with it.Others would hes- itate to be so extreme and yet still retain a strong sense—be that religious or more generally cultural—that somehow this text is different in kind from the others and,because of its role in the history of western civilization,deserves a more respectful hearing than it is sometimes thought to have been accorded by critical scholarship. The present volume attempts to confront these problems (especially the first two, though the third lies close beneath the surface) in a way which it is hoped will bring fuller understanding to the nature of our present predicament and allow it to be debated in a more rational, considerate and informed manner than sadly has sometimes been the case. In planning it, the following considerations have all played a part. First, it was obviously imperative to bring together a group of scholars whowereknowntoholddifferentpositionsononeormoreof theissuesbut who at the same time were known to be capable of constructive debate and opentopointsofviewthatmightdifferfromtheirown.Readerswilltherefore findthatthejuxtaposedchaptersoftenpresentsignificantlycontrastingpoints of view,whetherexplicitlyasresponsesorsimplybecausetheauthorsadopt differentapproaches.Naturallynoattempthasbeenmadetohidethesediffer- encesortosuggestthatthereisarightanswertothevarioustopicstreated. Secondly, all have been invited to write with self-conscious reference to method relating to the issues just outlined. Some have addressed that head- on,while others have incorporated methodological considerations into their accounts.In either case,however,the aim has been to talk about what a his- tory of Israel should be about and how one should set about constructing it. Thirdly, however, in order to give the volume a sharper focus, it was decided to concentrate on the ninth century BCE as a test case. The reasons for this choice were both negative and positive.Negatively,the preceding cen- turies (not least the United Monarchy of the tenth century) have been well worked in recent writing and to have returned to that period would have run the risk of a needlessly repetitious rehearsing of old debates. Equally, as we come down into much later centuries, the problems of historical method, though great enough in all conscience, are perhaps not quite so acute as for the earlier period.Positively,however,it seemed that the ninth century was an ideal period because it is from then that we start to get written sources refer- ring to Israel from outside the Bible,the archaeology is reasonably full (and has given rise to intriguing questions of chronology) and while the biblical Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved 00 Prelims 1548 15/8/07 10:44 Page xv Preface xv narrative is quite extensive it is still incorporated in books which all agree cannot have reached their final form until several centuries later. Finally,the volume tries to cover several important issues that have been too seldom addressed.Under comparative perspectives,for instance,we learn that the problems of so-called biblical history are not as unusual as we might have thought.The problems of combining disparate sources of evidence are well illustrated from other fields by Wiseman and Kuhrt, for instance, and indeed in the case of the classical world Wiseman also draws attention to the problems for ancient historians of a scholarly master narrative (even if it can- not quite be called canonical).Even more,however,the study of early Islamic history, as discussed here by Robinson, is also largely dependent on a reli- giously authoritative text which in recent decades has also been subject to the attentions of ‘revisionists’.This is not the only point of contact between our fields,of course (Robinson also draws attention to the topic of the language and nature of conquest,for instance),and I believe that scholars in each field could learn much from each other if ever they were to start talking! Perhaps the present volume may serve as a modest beginning. If historians of Ancient Israel are not as sui generis as they sometimes fondly suppose, it is good also to be reminded that the same applies to the present generation. Approaches may differ in degree from those of earlier generations,but in their own ways Rogerson,Whitelam and Grabbe raise the question whether they differ in kind.The answer is,perhaps,not as much as might at first have been thought, though Grabbe’s contribution adds the important qualification that the manner in which the debate has been con- ducted has perhaps plumbed new depths. (He also raises the controversial question about whether some recent epigraphical ‘discoveries’ are, in fact, forgeries, an issue on which agreement has not yet been reached by the experts. Were the charge to be true, it would, of course, raise ethical issues that go beyond the present discussion,but at least all will be agreed that the consequences are deplorable.) Leading to a not dissimilar conclusion,the dis- cussions of historical method by Barstad and Davies also serve to underline that,however much their sources may differ,historians of ancient as well as more modern times face certain fundamental questions in common and that here again we would do well to learn from one another about the very nature of our discipline and what it is that we are attempting to achieve. The largest single group of chapters attends to the evidence itself.Perhaps not surprisingly the sharpest divergences of approach relate to archaeology (Ussishkin and Mazar) and the Bible itself (Brettler and Auld—and for a somewhat more conservative approach than either, one may see also Jackson’s chapter in the last section), though the other chapters in this sec- tion (Geller,Younger,Lemaire and Uehlinger) also highlight how differently the materials they treat may be evaluated for historical purposes. Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved 00 Prelims 1548 15/8/07 10:44 Page xvi xvi Preface The last small group are somewhat more synthetic in nature.Admittedly, Albertz starts with a masterful survey of approaches to social history (itself a highly relevant topic in the debate) but he moves on to make clear how such an approach might illuminate the history of the ninth century, and not sur- prisingly he above all (though not uniquely) needs to give attention to the pre- ceding century in order to set the longer-term trends to which he attends in their proper context.Jackson focuses on legal history,which is too often over- looked in discussions of the social and cultural history of Israel, while Na’aman seeks to make use of all available sources of evidence in piecing together the outline of a political history of the period. As already stressed, therefore, this book does not attempt to provide answers to the many controversial topics which it addresses,but rather to give readers a better understanding of the issues at stake when they turn them- selves to a consideration of the evidence. Whatever differences of opinion may remain among us as a group,we are at least all united in hoping that we may be able to move forward by learning from those with whom we disagree and by seeing our discipline within the wider academic as well as historical setting in which it belongs but from which it has too often isolated itself. The present volume had its origin in a symposium generously sponsored by the British Academy in April 2005. This provided an agreeable forum in which to debate some of the issues that have just been mentioned. Some of the chapters in this book are revised contributions to that symposium,while others have either been specially requested since or have been completely rewritten in the light of the debate and in order to take fuller account of the issues raised.It is matter of deep regret that one contributor,Professor E.A. Knauf of Bern,was unable to complete his contribution because of severe ill- ness.The volume is the poorer in consequence.We are all most grateful to the staff of the Academy for their work on our behalf both in relation to the original symposium and in connection with the publication process since. PersonallyIreceivedmuchhelpintheinitialplanningof thisprojectfrom ProfessorGrahamDaviesofCambridgeandProfessorLesterGrabbeofHull. Subsequently, the Revd Dr Helen-Ann Hartley has been of great help with variousaspectsof theeditorialtask.Tothemall,astoallthecontributorsto thisvolume,Iexpressmysinceregratitude. H.G.M.Williamson Oxford February 2006 Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved 01 Chapter 1548 15/8/07 10:45 Page 3 1 Setting the Scene: A Brief Outline of Histories of Israel J.W.ROGERSON WHERE SHOULD ONE BEGIN A SHORT HISTORY OF HISTORIES OF ANCIENT ISRAEL?One answer might be with Wellhausen’s Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels(1883),a work which has cast its shadow over all subsequent attempts to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel. However, and for reasons that I hope will become clear,I have decided to begin with what became a standard work in English, German, French and Italian in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,Humphrey Prideaux’s The Old and New Testament con- nected, in the History of the Jews, and neighbouring nations; from the declen- sions of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the time of Christ.Prideaux,who lived from 1648 to 1724,and who was variously Archdeacon of Suffolk and Canon,and later Dean,of Norwich,and who declined the chair of Hebrew at Oxford in 1691,began to write the Connection in around 1712,completing the first part in 1715 and the second part in 1718. Its purpose, as the word ‘Connection’ indicates, was to set Old Testament history in the context of ancient Near Eastern history, to the extent that the latter was known from classical and later Jewish sources in the eighteenth century.It began with the accession of Tiglath-pileser to the Assyrian throne in 747 BCE, because reli- able information about ancient Near Eastern history prior to that date was not available.It was indebted to Josephus and to the chronological researches of Scaliger (1583), Petavius (1627) and Ussher (1685) with whom Prideaux often took issue,and although it gave preference to the Bible where this was contradicted by other sources, it was a scholarly work which indicated that the study of Old Testament history was a demanding discipline requiring the close study of evidence whose interpretation was often controversial. The history of the Persian empire and its relationship to Nehemiah was a partic- ularly disputed area,and in a letter to the Bishop of Worcester dealing with these difficulties,Prideaux was prepared to maintain that the references to the priest Jaddua in Neh. 10.20 and 12.11, 22 ‘were all inserted after the book was written,by those who received it into the Jewish canon,most likely about the time of the high priest Simon the Just’ (Prideaux 1716–18, I, lxxi). An Proceedings ofthe British Academy143,3–14.© The British Academy 2007. Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved 01 Chapter 1548 15/8/07 10:45 Page 4 4 J.W.Rogerson interesting side-light on Prideaux’s Connection is that when Handel’s libret- tist prepared the text for Handel’s oratorio Belshazzar in 1744, he based his work entirely upon Prideaux’s account, itself derived from Herodotus and Xenophon,of how Babylon was taken when the dam that supplied water to itsprotectivecanalswasbreached,andagroupofsoldierswasguidedintothe city by Gobrias, a Babylonian, the murder of whose father had led him to desert to the Persians. If Prideaux’s Connection was designed to project the Old Testament’s story of God’s dealings with Israel and Judah on to the screen of the history of the surrounding nations,the purpose of Johann Gottfried Herder’s Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheitof 1784–91 was to demonstrate God’s overall design in the government of the world.In that demonstration, the history of Israel had a part to play, but only a small part as befitting a small people,and as I shall indicate shortly in a telling quotation,Herder was sharply critical of the mischievous influence that misinterpretations of the Old Testament had had upon much human thought and endeavour, for all that he pleaded for a fair hearing for the Old Testament story of the Hebrews. An interesting feature of Herder’s narrative was his ‘secular’account of the reason for the downfall of Judah in the sixth century.His argument was that the Davidic expansion of the state had created an inherently unstable entity; that a country that was capable of supporting only shepherds and husbandmen had sought to assume responsibility for great multitudes of people.Such a situation had never been envisaged by the Mosaic legislation, and the resultant clash between what Herder called the Mosaic ‘nomocracy’ and the ‘theocratic monarchy’led to the nation’s downfall (Herder 1968,139). Herder was not the first to seek ‘secular’reasons for the failures of Israelite statehood. Precedents can be found in Josephus and in the De republica Hebraeorum of Petrus Cunaeus (1617). But his placing of Israelite history within the context of a universal philosophy of history broke new ground. I mentioned earlier Herder’s withering attack on misunderstandings of the Old Testament.Here is a sample: How many absurd cosmogonies have been framed from the simple and sublime history of creation given by Moses .... How many great men, among whom even a Newton himself is to be reckoned, have the Jewish chronology and Apocalypse robbed of time, that might have been employed in more useful inquiries! Nay even with regard to morality and political institutions,the wri- tings of the Hebrews,by being misconceived and misapplied,have imposed fet- ters on the minds ofthose nations,by which they have been acknowledged.For want ofmaking a distinction between different periods,and different degrees of intellectual cultivation,the ...spirit of the Jewish religion has been deemed a pattern for Christians to follow:and passages of the Old Testament have been adduced to justify the inconsistent attempt of making Christianity ... a Judaical religion of the state (Herder 1968,141–42). Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved 01 Chapter 1548 15/8/07 10:45 Page 5 A BRIEF OUTLINE OF HISTORIES OF ISRAEL 5 It will come as no surprise to those familiar with my work that I move from Herder to the scholar who,as a schoolboy,sat at Herder’s feet,Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette. It was in de Wette’s doctoral dissertation, sub- mitted to the University of Jena in March 1805,that a note occurred which stated the view of the development of Israelite religion and sacrifice that would receive classic expression in the work of Wellhausen and others. The note is too long to be given here in translation, but its point is that the Pentateuch cannot have been written by one author at one time because of its varyingstatementsaboutplaceswheresacrificecanbeoffered.Exod.20.24–25 envisages a multiplicity of places of sacrifice,while Samuel,Saul,David and Solomon sacrifice wherever necessary without incurring divine disfavour. Indeed,God appears to Solomon in a dream after he has offered sacrifice at Gibeon! These practices must therefore be earlier than the command in Deuteronomy to sacrifice only at the central sanctuary,and the deuteronomic law is to be identified with that found in the temple by Hilkiah in 2 Kings 22 (de Wette 1830). De Wette followed up these observations with two volumes of Beiträge (Contributions) published in 1806–07. In them he argued that the books of Chronicles were dependent upon Samuel and Kings and that they could not, therefore,be used to reconstruct a history of Israel that indicated a developed priestly and sacrificial system centred upon Jerusalem from the time of David. In dealing with the patriarchal narratives, de Wette argued that they yielded little historical information. Their value was that they indicated the beliefs and piety of the Israelites at the time of their composition, although he was vague about when this time or times might have been. Moses had probably formulated a short version of the Ten Commandments and had caused a simple tent shrine to be constructed.He had not established a priest- hood,nor given the laws and ceremonies attributed to him.In his later work on Hebrew-Jewish archaeology,first published in 1814,de Wette wrote of the traditions about the Exodus: No part of Hebrew tradition is so ornamented with miracle,and so taken over by poetic saga, as this. The prudent historian will, therefore, prefer simply to retell these sagas than try arbitrarily to turn them into history (de Wette 1814, 27:my translation). Of the traditions about Samuel he wrote that their importance lay partly in the fact ‘that with them, we tread for the first time upon firm historical ground’ (de Wette 1814, 33). On the other hand, he regarded the books of Kings as a step backwards from the historical point of view,and made much of the enormous exaggerations of numbers of sheep and oxen and workers in 1 Kings 8,not to mention the prophetic sagas concerning Elijah and Elisha (de Wette 1833,232–33). Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved