The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts (31 page)

For the Omrides, the task of political integration was especially pressing since competing states were emerging at the same time in neighboring Damascus, Phoenicia, and Moab—each with powerful cultural claims on population groups on the borders with Israel. The early ninth century was therefore the time when national and even some sort of territorial boundaries had to be defined. Thus the Omrides’ construction of impressive fortified compounds, some of them with palatial quarters, in the Israelite heartland, in the Jezreel valley, on the border with Aram-Damascus, and even further afield should be seen as serving both administrative necessities and royal propaganda. The British biblical scholar Hugh Williamson characterized them as visual displays of the power and prestige of the Omride
state, aimed to impress, awe, and even intimidate the population both at home and along new frontiers.

Of all the resources that the Omrides had at their disposal, heterogeneous population was perhaps the most important of all—for agriculture, building activities, and war. Although it is difficult to estimate the ninth century population of the kingdom of Israel with great precision, large-scale surveys in the region indicate that by the eighth century
BCE—
a century after the Omrides—the population of the northern kingdom may have reached about
350
,
000
. At that time, Israel was surely the most densely populated state in the Levant, with far more inhabitants than Judah, Moab, or Ammon. Its only possible rival was the kingdom of Aram-Damascus in southern Syria, which—as we will see in greater detail in the next chapter—bitterly competed with Israel for regional hegemony.

Other positive developments from outside the region greatly benefited the fortunes of the Omride kingdom. Its rise to power coincided with the revival of the eastern Mediterranean trade, and the harbor cities of Greece, Cyprus, and the Phoenician coast were once again strongly involved in maritime commerce. The strong Phoenician artistic influence on Israelite culture, the sudden appearance of large quantities of Cypro-Phoenician-style vessels in the cities of the kingdom of Israel, and—not coincidentally—the biblical testimony that Ahab married a Phoenician princess all seem to indicate that Israel was an active participant in this economic revival as a supplier of valuable agricultural products and a master over some of the most important overland trade routes of the Levant.

Thus the Omride idea of a state covering large territories of both highlands and lowlands in certain ways revived ideas, practices, and material culture of Bronze Age Canaan, in the centuries before the rise of Israel. In fact, from the conceptual and functional points of view, the great Omride citadels resembled the capitals of the great Canaanite city-states of the Late Bronze Age, which ruled over a patchwork of peoples and lands. Thus from the point of view of both form and function, the layout of Megiddo in the ninth century
BCE
was not very different from its layout in the Late Bronze Age. Large parts of the mound were devoted to public buildings and open areas, while only limited areas were occupied by domestic quarters. As was the case in Canaanite Megiddo, the urban population constituted mainly
the ruling elite, which controlled the rural hinterland. And a similar cultural continuity is exquisitely manifested in the nearby city of Taanach, where a magnificent decorated cult stand from the ninth century
BCE
bears elaborate motifs drawn from the Canaanite traditions of the Late Bronze Age.

That is why it is difficult to insist, from a strictly archaeological perspective, that the kingdom of Israel as a whole was ever particularly Israelite in either the ethnic, cultural, or religious connotations of that name as we understand it from the perspective of the later biblical writers. The Israeliteness of the northern kingdom was in many ways a late monarchic Judahite idea.

The writer of the books of Kings was concerned to show only that the Omrides were evil and that they received the divine punishment that their sinful arrogant behavior had so richly earned. Of course, he had to recount details and events about the Omrides that were well known through folktales and earlier traditions, but in all of them he wanted to highlight the Omrides’ dark side. Thus he diminished their military might with the story of the Aramean siege of Samaria, which was taken from events of later days, and with the accusation that in a moment of victory Ahab disobeyed a divine command to utterly annihilate his enemy. The biblical author closely linked the grandeur of the palace at Samaria and the majestic royal compound in Jezreel with idolatry and social injustice. He linked the images of the awesome might of Israelite chariots in full battle order with the Omride family’s horrible end. He wanted to delegitimize the Omrides and to show that the entire history of the northern kingdom had been one of sin that led to misery and inevitable destruction. The more Israel had prospered in the past, the more scornful and negative he became about its kings.

The true character of Israel under the Omrides involves an extraordinary story of military might, architectural achievement, and (as far as can be determined) administrative sophistication. Omri and his successors earned the hatred of the Bible precisely
because
they were so strong, precisely because they succeeded in transforming the northern kingdom into
an important regional power that completely overshadowed the poor, marginal, rural-pastoral kingdom of Judah to the south. The possibility that the Israelite kings who consorted with the nations, married foreign women, and built Canaanite-type shrines and palaces would prosper was both unbearable and unthinkable.

Moreover, from the perspective of late monarchic Judah, the internationalism and openness of the Omrides was sinful. To become entangled with the ways of the neighboring peoples was, according to the seventh century Deuteronomistic ideology, a direct violation of divine command. But a lesson could still be learned from that experience. By the time of the compilation of the books of Kings, history’s verdict had already been returned. The Omrides had been overthrown and the kingdom of Israel was no more. Yet with the help of archaeological evidence and the testimony of outside sources, we can now see how the vivid scriptural portraits that doomed Omri, Ahab, and Jezebel to ridicule and scorn over the centuries skillfully concealed the real character of the first true kingdom of Israel.

A dark sense of foreboding hovers over the kingdom of Israel as the biblical narrative of its history moves toward its tragic climax. Suffering, dispossession, and exile seem to be the inescapable destiny of the people of the breakaway kingdom in punishment for their impious acts. Instead of remaining faithful to the Temple in Jerusalem and to the worship of YHWH to the exclusion of all other gods, the people of northern Israel—and particularly its sinful monarchs—provoked a series of catastrophes that would end in their destruction. Faithful prophets of YHWH arose to call Israel to account and demand a return to righteousness and justice, but their calls went unheeded. The invasions of foreign armies and the devastation of the kingdom of Israel were an essential part of a divine plan.

The Bible’s interpretation of the fate of the northern kingdom is purely theological. By contrast, archaeology offers a different perspective on the events in the century that followed the fall of the Omrides. While Judah continued to be poor and isolated, the natural richness and relatively dense population of the kingdom of Israel made it a tempting target for the increasingly complex regional politics of the Assyrian period. The Omrides’ prosperity and power brought jealousies and military rivalries with neighbors—and the covetous ambition of the great Assyrian empire. The wealth
of the kingdom of Israel also brought growing social tensions and prophetic condemnations from within. We can now see that Israel’s greatest misfortune—and the cause of its destruction and the exile of many of its people—was that as an independent kingdom living in the shadow of a great empire, it succeeded too well.

The books of Kings show how all of Elijah’s grim prophecies of doom on the house of Omri were fulfilled to the letter. Yet the biblical narrative goes on to show that the extermination of the old royal family did not end Israel’s pursuit of idolatry. After the fall of the Omrides, the newly anointed king, Jehu, son of Nimshi (who reigned from
842
to
814
BCE
), followed in the footsteps of Jeroboam, Omri, and Ahab in his lack of regard for Jerusalem. For even though he massacred all the prophets, priests, and worshipers of Baal in Samaria and made the house of Baal itself a public latrine (
2
Kings
10
:
18
–
28
), the Bible informs us that Jehu “did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin, the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan” (
2
Kings
10
:
29
). In other words, though he eliminated the Baal cult, Jehu failed to abolish the rival northern cult centers that challenged the religious supremacy of Jerusalem. Nor did any of the kings of Israel who came after him abolish them.

Punishment was not long in coming, as the prophet Elijah had decreed. This time, God’s agent of destruction was Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, who defeated Israel both in Transjordan and in a campaign of destruction down the Mediterranean coastal plain (
2
Kings
10
:
32
–
33
;
12
:
17
–
18
;
13
:
3
,
7
,
22
). This is a period of decline for the northern kingdom, for throughout the days of both Jehu and his son Jehoahaz, Israel was pressed by Aram-Damascus. Israel’s army was defeated and its territories reduced. But the time of chastisement for the common people of the Kingdom of Israel soon ended, since “the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them and he turned toward them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them; nor has he cast them from his presence until now” (
2
Kings
13
:
23
).

Thus the next Israelite king, Joash,
1
was blessed with at least temporary divine favor and took back the cities that Israel lost to Aram (
2
Kings
13
:
25
). And the fortunes of Israel seemed to take a decided turn for the better—even after a punitive raid by Joash on Judah—with the accession of his son to the throne of Israel. This, too, was a matter of divine compassion, for Joash’s son, named Jeroboam—after the greatest of all the royal northern sinners—reigned peacefully in Samaria for the next forty-one years (
788
–
747
BCE
). Even though this king did not depart from any of the sins of the original Jeroboam in maintaining the idolatrous northern sanctuaries, and though voices of prophetic protests by Amos and Hosea echoed throughout the land, Jeroboam

restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the L
ORD
, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gathhepher. For the L
ORD
saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter, for there was none left, bond or free, and there was none to help Israel. But the L
ORD
had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. (
2
K
INGS
14
:
25
–
27
)

Yet this period of divine blessing did not last long, for as
2
Kings
10
:
30
explains, God had promised to Jehu that only four generations of his family would reign. Thus Jeroboam II’s son Zechariah was assassinated after only six months of his reign, and Israel entered another period of civil strife and external pressures. The murderer, Shallum, was soon killed by another, even more brutal pretender, Menahem, son of Gadi, who ruled in Samaria for ten years (
747
–
737
BCE
). At this point God prepared a new agent of chastisement for the northern kingdom and a chain of events that would lead to its final destruction. It was the mighty Assyrian empire, whose armies came and demanded a massive tribute, for which Menahem was forced to levy a tax of fifty silver shekels of every wealthy man in Israel (
2
Kings:
15
:
19
–
20
).

The outside and internal pressures were building. Menahem’s son and
successor, Pekahiah, was murdered by a military officer, Pekah, son of Remaliah. But by that time the Assyrians were no longer content with tribute. They sought to take the rich land of Israel for themselves: “In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captives to Assyria” (
2
Kings
15
:
29
). The northern valleys and Galilee were thus conquered (
732
BCE
) and its inhabitants were deported, reversing the divine promises of the secure inheritance given at the time of the original conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. The kingdom of Israel lost some of its richest lands and was reduced to the highlands around the capital of Samaria. With this disastrous turn of events, the usurper Pekah was assassinated—the fourth Israelite king to be murdered in just fifteen years. Pekah’s assassin and successor, Hoshea, would be the last king of the kingdom of Israel.