Diana Edelman

Hezekiah's Alleged Cultic Centralization

The recent article in this journal by I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman ( JSOT 30 [2006]: 259-85), in which the authors attempted to establish the historicity of Hezekiahs religious centralization by linking it with archaeological evidence for the closing of shrines at Arad, Beersheba, and Lachish, highlights the need for historians to reconsider this issue. Finkelstein and Silbermans article lacks the mandatory critical evaluation of the biblical text and inappropriately dates selected archaeological evidence to the reign of a specific king. A re-examination of the highly charged issue of cult centralization in the late eighth century BCE is overdue, and this study offers some needed corrections to the analysis of Finkelstein and Silberman and proposes what is considered to be a more cogent understanding of the reality underlying the biblical claim of a cultic centralization undertaken by Hezekiah. This study does not deal with the separate issue of Hezekiahs alleged cultic reform.

Proving Yahweh Killed His Wife (Zechariah 5:5-11)

Using an alternative form of scholarship, issues concerning how meaning is determined when reading an ancient text, the development of monotheism with the resulting need to reinterpret older Yahwistic texts, and how to understand divine motivations are explored. The piece is cast as a class action suit brought by modern humans against Yahweh in the heavenly court for murdering his wife, Asherah, citing Zech. 5:5-11 as evidence to support the accusation. Yahweh is defendant, self-appointed counsel and judge, whose cross-examination highlights all three issues. The case remains unresolved, as do answers to the issues.

The History of Ancient Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed

ence in Copenhagen (which the reviewer attended), and celebrates a varied catalogue. Part 1, Changing Perspectives, features articles by Douglas Knight on Scandinavian Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, Reinhard Kratz on biblical history vs history of Israel, Thomas Bolin on the future direction of Pentateuchal research, and Martin Ehrensvård on linguistic dating of biblical Hebrew. Part II, Archeology, Cult and History, is equally varied and contains Margreet Steiner on Jerusalem, Brian Schmidt on Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Ingrid Hjelm on “non-Jewish Israel’ (Samari[t]ans), and Lukasz Niesolowski-Spanò on Antiochus IV and the Jews. Part III deals with Ideology and History, with contributions from Emanuel Pfoh on a shift from ‘ancient Israel’ to ‘ancient Palestine’; Thomas Thompson on ethnicity and regional history; Raz Kletter and Gideon Sulemani on Israeli archaeology and destroyed Palestinian villages; Ilan Pappé on the Bible and Zionism (“We do not believe in God, but he nonetheless promised us Palestine”); and Ziad Muna on Arab scholars’ contribution to biblical studies. Inevitably, quite a few papers parade well-known interests and opinions of the authors. But an important shift is reflected in this collection as a whole, however. This is from a traditionally biblical and Jewish (especially Zionist, both Jewish and Christian) perspective on the history of the land of Palestine to one that challenges both of these. The Bible, and its ‘Israels’ come under scrutiny, as well as (explicitly in Part III) the relationship between modern Israel, Jews and the land, for which there are indeed implications in modern historical research. This volume might be criticized for advertising a ‘Copenhagen’ outlook on the issues, which is no doubt true to a certain extent. But for anyone interested in where ancient ‘Israelite’/biblical history is heading, this is an instructive (but rather expensive) read. If any single paper is worth singling out for recommendation, it is the account in Kletter and Sulemani (which also contains the majority of plates) of organized, official obliteration of a recent history of the land of Palestine (razed villages) in favour of a more ancient ‘Israelite’ one. Indeed, the struggle for possession of Palestine’s history is now spreading into biblical scholarship—ironically, it must be said, with the quite deliberate aid of certain Israeli archaeologists whose role in the ‘new historical perspectives’, though crucial, might have figured more largely in this collection.

WHAT IF WE HAD NO ACCOUNTS OF SENNACHERIB'S THIRD CAMPAIGN OR THE PALACE RELIEFS DEPICTING HIS CAPTURE OF LACHISH?

In spite of the important information contained in the various accounts of Sennacheribs third campaign and the reliefs of his conquest of Lachish, their absence would have little effect upon the recreation of the events of the reign of Hezekiah by historians of Judah. The results of excavations at Tell ed-Duweir/ Lachish and Tel Miqne/Ekron suggest that sometime in the last decades of the eighth century or in the opening decades of the seventh century bce, there was an Assyrian military presence in the Judean shephelah and a ceding of control over the olive yield in the shephelah and highlands of Judah to the Philistines to fuel a newly established regional olive oil industry. When information about the kings who ruled Judah in the period in question is considered, Hezekiah remains the most logical candidate under whom the ceding of territorial control, which would have required Assyrian consent and agency, can be plausibly posited. The main outlines of the history of the period can nevertheless be posited; only the specific nature of the interregional conflict between Judah and Philistia and the specific Assyrian resolution of the conflict cannot be established.