“To be or not to be . . .” An Historical Interpretation of 2 Kings 17 in Josephus’ Antiquities (2011) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2019
The relationship of Judah and Samaria in the period from the 6th to the 2nd century B.C.E is currently still being described as an uninterrupted period of ongoing conflicts between the Samarian and Judean YHWH-worshippers. This article examines evidence which offers an entirely different picture of Samarian-Judean relations in the post-exilic period: In the Levant in post-exilic times, there were two homologous Yahwisms in Judah and Samaria which existed side by side. It is for this reason that, when studying this formative period, scholars should give due consideration not only to Judah, but also to the North as well.
Judah and its Neighbors in the Fourth Century BCE: A Time of Major Transformations
The current article deals with Achaemenid imperial policy in fourth century BCE southern Levant, as is evident by the historical sources and the archaeological data. It is suggested that following the Egyptian rebellion of 404–400 BCE, southern Palestine underwent major transformation as a result of becoming the southwestern frontier of the Persian Empire. An attempt to reconstruct the political history and its social and economical manifestation is been offered, while focusing on the inland regions of Judah and Edom. One of the major consequences of this new geo-political reality has resulted in the canonization of the Torah. Thus, its inception should no longer be viewed as an outcome of inner-societal compromises between different Judahite groups, but rather as a conscious response of Jerusalem’s priestly circles to early fourth century BCE Zeitgeist of the southern Levant, when Egypt was no longer a part of the Persian Empire.
A Historical Geography of the Administrative Division of Judah, Bar Ilan University (Dissertation)
2017
In this study, I have endeavored to provide a date for the town lists of Judah and Benjamin, which are recorded in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28. In connection with this, I have examined and offered a possible candidate for each of the sites mentioned in the town lists. I have attempted to include all of the available, relevant archaeological data for each of the toponyms and regions under discussion with the purpose of determining the overall date of the presumed town register list/administrative division that lies behind the town lists. From a historical perspective and following Alt’s original suggestion (1925), it would seem logical to conclude that these town lists are reflective of an administrative division of the kingdom of Judah dating to a period later than the Solomonic administrative division in the 10th century BCE/early Iron IIA (1 Kgs 4:8-19). Likewise, the available archaeological material of Judah would seem to make it very clear that the extant town lists for Judah and Benjamin should be dated to the Iron II, as less than half of the sites mentioned in the detailed town lists possess remains from the Late Bronze and/or Iron I. Since Alt, the dating of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin has been heavily debated with opinions ranging throughout the Iron II and Persian periods, including the 9th century BCE/Jehoshaphat (e.g., Cross and Wright), 8th century BCE/Uzziah (Aharoni), early 7th century BCE/Manasseh (Barkay), late 7th century BCE/Josiah (Alt and Na’aman), and late 6th-5th century/Persian period (de Vos). The question of the overall date of the list is also related to the current form of the division as reflected in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 and the presumed underlying administrative source from which this text seems to have been derived. This form or system clearly included a separation of distinct regions (i.e., Negeb, Shephelah, hill country, Wilderness, and Benjamin) and districts or sub-districts within these regions. The purpose of the administrative division seems to have been related to both taxation, as reflected especially in the Arad Ostraca, and perhaps military organization, as has been suggested in the presumed four- fold division of the LMLK seal impressions. Barkay has suggested that there is a connection the administrative division and a series of early 7th century BCE fiscal bulla that include a number of towns appearing in the town lists (2011). This evidence would seem to establish the terminus post quem of the administrative division. In light of this and the numerous compelling arguments of Na’aman (e.g., 1991, 2005), I acknowledge the possibility that the town lists of Judah and Benjamin may be reflective of the 7th century BCE. Despite this, in incorporating archaeological studies that were unavailable to past researchers, I conclude that the settlement pattern of 9th century BCE Judah largely matches the settlement pattern in the town lists, as noted especially in the regions of the Negeb (including the Negeb Highlands), Shephelah and southern hill country. Subsequently, and while it cannot be stated with certainty, the 9th century BCE may also be the period of the original compilation of the administrative town register list behind the Judah and Benjamin town lists of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28.
Journal of Theological Studies , 2013
In this essay I argue that Josephus performs a dual dynamic discourse made up of the discourses of inclusion and exclusion in various dimensions—ethnic, geographical, political, religious, and cultural—so as eventually to construct Judaean/Jewish identity in both an inclusive and exclusive relationship with the Samarians/Samaritans in the context of the destruction of the Second Temple. What is interesting is that Josephus does not deploy the rhetoric of inclusion and the rhetoric of exclusion in a dichotomous manner (sameness vs. difference), but along a continuum with varying degrees of both sameness and difference. It is assumed that the boundary per se between Judaeans/Jews and Samarians/Samaritans is fictive and fluid rather than real and fixed. Therefore, Josephus’ attitudes towards the Samarians/Samaritans can be inclusive at times and exclusive at other times, depending on a specific context. The point is that for Josephus, Judaean/Jewish identity-making consists of the twofold process of both assimilation with and distinction from the Samarians/Samaritans. In this regard, Josephus makes the most of the Samarians/Samaritans as a foil against which the Judaean/Jewish people may establish a strategic construction of their identity.
“Josephus’s Use of Scripture to Describe Hasmonean Territorial Expansion.”
Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 19 , 2020
Paper available at: https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/files/jewish-faculty/shared/JSIF19/atkinson.pdf Journal Website: https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/en/JSIJ Abstract: Although Josephus primarily employs Jewish traditions to shape his narratives of the Hasmoneans, his writings are complex because of his connections to multiple traditions. He sought to write apologetic historiography that accurately described the Jewish people based on their accomplishments as a means to correct Hellenistic misconceptions of the Jews. Yet, he also intended his works to be understandable to the wider Greco-Roman world. In the process, Josephus created a truly unique version of Israel’s past. His concept of Hellenized-Judaism was largely connected with the unique circumstances of his life as a leader in the First Jewish Revolt. He selectively drew upon Jewish Scripture in light of this experience and his life in Rome. As a Roman citizen, Josephus was exposed to Greco-Roman conceptions of historiography, which greatly contributed to his imaginative account of Hasmonean land conquests.
The Aramean Oppression of Israel in the Reign of Jehu
2013
The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a historical reconstruction of the years of Aram’s oppression of Israel with particular attention to epigraphic discoveries and recent archaeological excavations. While many studies have analyzed the biblical narrative of Jehu’s coup or the archaeological record of Jehu’s dynasty, no comprehensive studies have focused on the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of Jehu. Though the biblical text provides the most direct and extensive source for this period, no single passage provides a detailed account of the Aramean oppression. The purpose of chapter 2 is to analyze all relevant passages, beginning with the Lord’s commission of Elijah to anoint Hazael and Elisha’s prophetic visit to the future king. A brief description of the territorial reduction in Jehu’s reign will be studied along with the results of the oppression evident in the years of Jehu’s son. Relevant reflections by Hosea and Amos are also considered. Chapter 3 focuses on all extrabiblical texts that bear on the Aramean oppression, including West Semitic inscriptions and Assyrian annals. The Mesha Stele provides the clearest inscriptional evidence of the Aramean oppression and the fragmentary Tel Dan Inscription attests to Hazael’s defeat of Israel. Assyrian inscriptions, including the depiction of Jehu on the Black Obelisk, provide a historical frame around the years of the Aram-Israel conflict. Chapter 4 reviews issues of archaeological methodology that affect the interpretation of data from excavations including an evaluation of the recent Low Chronology proposal and its effects on the second half of the ninth century. This chapter will also address the value and limitations of radiocarbon dating, ceramics, destruction layers, and the determination of ethnicity of a site’s population. Chapter 5 analyzes at length the results from three dozen archaeological excavations in Israel and Jordan, including sites in the northern Jordan valley, hill country of Galilee, Jezreel Valley, southern Jordan Valley, Gilead, and hill country of Samaria. Recent excavations of the Philistine city of Gath also have significant implications for the northern kingdom. The final chapter utilizes all data from textual and archaeological sources to reconstruct the years of the Aramean oppression. The assessment provides additional details about the Hazael’s successful advance into Israelite territory and Israel’s political decline. "