The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts (45 page)

If there is among you a poor man, one of your brethren, in any of your towns within your land which the L
ORD
your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him, and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. (D
EUTERONOMY
15
: 7–8)

You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge; but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the L
ORD
your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. (D
EUTERONOMY
24
: 17–18)

This was not to be a matter of mere charity, but a consciousness that grew out of the shared perception of nationhood, now strongly reinforced by the historical saga of Israel, codified in text. The rights of family land were to be protected by prohibition against the moving of ancient boundary stones (19:14) and the inheritance rights of wives rejected by their husbands were secured (21:15–17). Farmers were instructed to give the tithe to the poor every third year (14:28–29); resident aliens were protected from discrimination (24:14–15). Slaves were to be freed after six years of servitude (15:12–15).
These are only a few examples of the wide range of personal legislation that was meant to override the traditional injustices and inequalities of everyday life.

The functioning of government was also addressed, with a clear intention to limit the power of the leaders of Judahite society to exploit their positions for their own interest or oppress the population at large:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the L
ORD
your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. (16:18–19)

Even the king was to be subject to the laws of the covenant and it is clear that the authors of Deuteronomy had both the sins of the kings of Israel and the righteousness of Josiah in mind:

One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the L
ORD
has said to you, “You shall never return that way again.” And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests; and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the L
ORD
his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (17:15–20)

Perhaps the single most evocative archaeological artifact seemingly exemplifying this new consciousness of individual rights was discovered in 1960 at a fortress of the late seventh century
BCE
known to archaeologists as Mesad Hashavyahu, located on the Mediterranean coast south of modern Tel Aviv (
Figure
27,
p.
258
). Inside the ruins of this fortress were fragments of imported Greek pottery that testify to the probable presence of Greek mercenary soldiers there. To judge from the Yahwistic names that
appear on ostraca found at the site, there were also Judahites at the fortress, some of them working in the surrounding fields and some serving as soldiers and officers. One of the workers composed an outraged appeal to the commander of the garrison, written in ink on a broken pottery sherd. This precious Hebrew inscription is perhaps the earliest archaeological evidence that we possess of the new attitude and the new rights offered by the Deuteronomic law:

May the official, my lord, hear the plea of his servant. Your servant is working at the harvest. Your servant was in Hasar-asam. Your servant did his reaping, finished and stored [the grain] a few days ago before stopping. When your servant had finished his reaping and had stored it a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shabay came and took your servant’s garment. When I had finished my reaping, at that time, a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment. All my companions will testify for me, all who were reaping with me in the heat of the sun—they will testify for me that this is true. I am guiltless of an infraction. (So) please return my garment. If the official does not consider it an obligation to return your servant’s garment, then have pity upon him and return your servant’s garment. You must not remain silent when your servant is without his garment.

Here was a personal demand that the law be observed, despite the difference in social rank between the addressee and the petitioner. A demand of rights by one individual against another is a revolutionary step away from the traditional Near Eastern reliance solely on the power of the clan to ensure its members’ communal rights.

This is a single example, preserved by chance, in the ruins of a site far from the center of Judah. Yet its significance is clear. The laws of Deuteronomy stand as a new code of individual rights and obligations for the people of Israel. They also served as the foundation for a universal social code and system of community values that endure—even today.

Although archaeology has proved invaluable in uncovering the long-term social developments that underlie the historical evolution of Judah and the birth of the Deuteronomistic movement, it has been far less successful in providing evidence for Josiah’s specific accomplishments. The temple of
Bethel—Josiah’s primary target in his campaign against idolatry—has not yet been located and only one contemporary Judahite temple outside Jerusalem has so far been discovered. Its fate during Josiah’s program of religious centralization is unclear.
1

Likewise, seals and seal impressions of late-monarchic Judahite officials and dignitaries provide only
possible
evidence for Josiah’s reforms. Though earlier Judahite seals had featured icons related to astral cult—images of stars and the moon that appear to be sacred symbols—in the late seventh century most of the seals include only names (and sometimes floral decoration), conspicuously lacking iconic decorations. Artistic styles in other regions such as Ammon and Moab evidence a similar shift, which may be related to the general spread of literacy throughout the region, but none is as pronounced as Judah’s, which may possibly reflect the influence of Josiah’s reform in insisting that the imageless YHWH was the only legitimate focus of veneration and in discouraging the worship of the heavenly powers in visible form.

Other evidence, however, seems to suggest that Josiah failed to stop the veneration of graven images, since figurines of a standing woman supporting her breast with her hands (generally identified with the goddess Asherah) have been found in abundance within private dwelling compounds at all major late-seventh century sites in Judah. Thus, at least on a household level, this popular cult seems to have continued despite the religious policy emanating from Jerusalem.

The extent of Josiah’s territorial conquests has so far been only roughly determined by archaeological and historical criteria (see
Appendix F
). Although the sanctuary at Bethel has not been discovered, typical seventh-century Judahite artifacts have been found in the surrounding region.
It is possible that Josiah expanded farther north in the direction of Samaria (as suggested in 2 Kings 23:19), but as yet no clear archaeological evidence has been found.

In the west, the fact that Lachish was re-fortified and that it again served as a major Judahite fort is probably the best evidence that Josiah continued to control the areas of the Shephelah revived by his grandfather Manasseh. But Josiah could hardly expand farther west, into areas that were important for Egyptian interests. In the south, continuous Judahite occupation suggests that Josiah controlled the Beersheba valley and possibly the forts farther south, which had been established a few decades earlier by Manasseh, under Assyrian domination.

Basically, the kingdom under Josiah was a direct continuation of Judah under Manasseh’s rule. Its population probably did not exceed seventy-five thousand, with relatively dense occupation of the rural areas in the Judean hill country, a network of settlements in the arid zones of the east and south, and a relatively sparse population in the Shephelah. It was in many ways a densely settled city-state, as the capital held about 20 percent of the population. Urban life in Jerusalem reached a peak that would be equaled only in Roman times. The state was well organized and highly centralized as in the time of Manasseh. But in terms of its religious development and literary expression of national identity, the era of Josiah marked a dramatic new stage in Judah’s history.

Josiah’s life was cut short unexpectedly. In 610
BCE
, Psammetichus I, the founder of the Egyptian Twenty-sixth Dynasty, died and was succeeded on the throne by his son Necho II. In the course of a military expedition northward, to help the crumbling Assyrian empire fight the Babylonians, a fateful confrontation occurred. The second book of Kings describes the event in laconic, almost telegraphic terms: “In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him; and Pharaoh Necho slew him at Megiddo, when he saw him” (2 Kings 23:29). The second book of Chronicles adds some detail, transforming the account of the death of Josiah into a battlefield tragedy:

Necho king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates and Josiah went out against him. But he [Necho] sent envoys to him, saying, ‘What have we to do with each other, king of Judah? I am not coming against you this day’ . . . Nevertheless Josiah would not turn away from him . . . but joined battle in the plain of Megiddo. And the archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, “Take me away, for I am badly wounded.” So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers.” (
2
C
HRONICLES
35
:20–24)

Which of these accounts is more accurate? What do they say about the success or failure of Josiah’s reforms? And what significance do the events at Megiddo have for the evolution of the biblical faith? The answer lies, once again, in the unfolding political situation in the region. Assyria’s power continued to dwindle, and the ongoing Babylonian pressure on the heartland of the dying empire threatened to unbalance the ancient world and to endanger Egyptian interests in Asia. Egypt decided to intervene on the side of the Assyrians, and in 616 its army marched to the north. But this move did not stop the Assyrian collapse. The great Assyrian capital of Nineveh fell in 612, and the Assyrian court escaped to Haran in the west, an event that was recorded by the prophet Zephaniah (2:13–15). Two years later, in 610, when Psammetichus died and his son Necho came to the throne, the Egyptian forces in the north were forced to withdraw, and the Babylonians took Haran. In the following year, Necho decided to move and set off for the north.

Many biblical historians have preferred the version of 2 Chronicles, which describe a real battle between Necho and Josiah at Megiddo in 609. According to their view, Josiah had expanded over the entire hill country territories of the ex-northern kingdom, that is, he annexed the former Assyrian province of Samaria. He then extended his rule farther north to Megiddo, where he built a great fort on the east of the mound. He made Megiddo a northern, strategic outpost of the growing Judahite state. Some scholars proposed that his goal was to side with the Babylonians against Assyria by blocking the advance of Necho in the narrow pass that leads to Megiddo. Some even argued that the passage in 2 Chronicles 34:6 was reliable,
and that Josiah managed to expand farther to the north, into the ex-Israelite territories in Galilee.

Yet the idea that Josiah arrived at Megiddo with an effective military force to try to stop Necho and prevent him from marching to the north is a bit far-fetched. It is highly unlikely that Josiah had a large enough army to risk a battle with the Egyptians. Until about 630
BCE
, his kingdom was still under Assyrian domination, and later, it is inconceivable that Psammetichus, who was strong enough to control the entire eastern Mediterranean coast up to Phoenicia, would have let Judah develop a strong military force. In any case, it would have been a great gamble for Josiah to risk his army against the Egyptians so far from the heartland of his realm. So the version of Kings is probably more reliable.

Nadav Naaman has offered a very different explanation. He has suggested that one of the reasons for Necho to march through Palestine in 609, a year after the death of Psammetichus and his accession to the throne of Egypt, was to obtain a renewed oath of loyalty from his vassals. According to custom, their previous oath to Psammetichus would have become invalid with his death. Josiah, accordingly, would have been summoned to the Egyptian stronghold at Megiddo to meet Necho and to swear a new oath of loyalty. Yet for some reason, Necho decided to execute him.

What did Josiah do that infuriated the Egyptian monarch? Josiah’s drive to the north, into the Samaria hill country, could have threatened the Egyptian interests in the Jezreel valley. Or perhaps an attempt by Josiah to expand in the west, beyond his territories in the Shephelah, could have endangered Egyptian interests in Philistia. No less plausible is Baruch Halpern’s suggestion that Necho could have been angered by independent policies of Josiah in the south, along the sensitive routes of the Arabian trade.