2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 129.

THE TEMPLE LIBRARY OF JERUSALEM AND THECOMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF KINGS

Nadav Na"aman

Introduction

The Bible narrates in a linear and continuous manner the history ofIsrael from its inception down to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.Some periods in this historical sequence are not illuminated at all byextra-biblical sources, and the Bible alone describes them systemati-cally. Extra-biblical sources concerning biblical figures and events areavailable only for the period of the divided monarchies of Israel andJudah, from the late tenth century (i.e., Shishak’s campaign) down tothe destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (587 BCE). However, thenumber and scope of these sources are limited and are insufficient evenfor a schematic description of the history of the two kingdoms. Forexample, only few Israelite and Judean rulers are mentioned in royalinscriptions and seal impressions, and the data extracted from thesesources is restricted in scope and meager in detail. When set againstthe biblical account they fill in some gaps in the history and help usto evaluate the authenticity of the biblical descriptions. But discussedin isolation, their contribution turns out to be minimal. If we omittedthe biblical history and used only the extra-biblical and archaeologi-cal data we would be unable to draw even a schematic history of thekingdoms of Israel and Judah. Moreover, the unique development ofIsraelite religion and culture would be a mystery, since nothing of thekind is alluded to in the epigraphic and archaeological sources.

Given the centrality of biblical history for the research of the landand its inhabitants, it is necessary to establish what might have beenthe sources available for its authors. It is commonly accepted today thatbiblical historiography was written no earlier than the eighth centuryBCE, and this explains the enormous gap between the biblical historyof the early history of Israel, including the United Monarchy, andrealities of the 13th–10th centuries as deduced from all the availablesources. The study of biblical history shifts to the description of the

130 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 130.

emergence and development of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah inthe late 10th-early 6th centuries. The reliability of the history of thetwo kingdoms as related in the Book of Kings is an issue of greatimportance and the problem of the sources available to its author (orauthors) is of utmost importance for this issue.

Like all other accounts of the history of Israel, the Book of Kingswas written first of all in order to convey religious, ideological andethical messages to the readers and hearers. However, the decision ofthe author to follow the sequence of events—king by king in the twoneighbouring kingdoms—indicates that he intended to write a history.He was aware of the importance of sources for writing a reliable history,and to corroborate the authenticity of his descriptions he sometimescited his sources. On other occasions he referred to the reality ofhis own time (using the words “until this day”), as evidence of theauthenticity of his stories. On many occasions he inserted data thatwas irrelevant to the messages he was trying to convey. Their inclusionindicates his efforts to integrate in his work all the details that hediscovered in his sources.

What kinds of sources were available to the author of the Book ofKings? Recovering the sources and the way the author worked themis essential for uncovering the fundaments on which the history wasbuilt. Only the final work has come down to us, and separating thesources from the later elements in which they were integrated is quiteuncertain. In seeking to identify the early sources we must first of allestablish where the documents were stored by ancient Near Easternkingdoms, and how long they were kept.

Archives that have so far been discovered in long-enduring NearEastern cities usually contain only tablets of the last few generations.1

This is the case in the archives discovered in Babylonia, Assyria, Arra-pha, Elam, Alalakh and Ugarit.2 Exceptional are the Hittites, who kept

1 Throughout the discussion I distinguished between archives and libraries, al-though the distinction is not always clear and there are instances of archive withlibrary, or a library with archive. For a discussion of the problem, see K.R. Veenhof,“Cuneiform Archives: An Introduction”, in: K.R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives andLibraries (Leiden, 1986), pp. 1–11; O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda, 1998), pp. 1–9. Veenhof (p. 7) defined archive as “the total ofrecords accumulated during the time a particular task was performed by an institutionor person …. and still present with those who made them out or used them”.

2 For a detailed survey of the archives discovered in Western Asia, see Pedersén,ibid., with earlier literature.

the temple library and the composition of the book 131

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 131.

old tablets for many generations.3 However, even in Hatti there is noindication that late scribes searched for old archival documents in orderto retrieve information. In the story of the journey of Wen-Amun, it isrelated that Zakar-Ba#al, king of Byblos, “had brought records of hisancestors and had them read before me”. However, the text is literaryand it remains unclear whether a search for old documents really tookplace.4 There is no indication that ancient Near Eastern scribes eversearched in archives in an effort to locate old documents and clarifyevents of great antiquity. Nor did pre-Hellenistic Greek historians con-sult archives to retrieve information from original documents.5 It is evi-dent that non-literary texts (such as legal, administrative and economicdocuments, or letters) were kept in ancient Near Eastern archives foronly a few generations and then thrown out or disposed of for sec-ondary use.

In light of this evidence, I very much doubt that Israel and Judah,unlike all other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, copied archival doc-uments for posterity. Indeed, there is no clear citation of archival doc-uments in the Pentateuch and Early Prophets.6 The commonly-heldassumption that biblical authors consulted archives and retrieved infor-

3 H. Otten, “Archive und Bibliotheken in ?attu?a”, in: Veenhof (n. 1), pp. 184–190;P. Neve, “Hattuscha, Haupt- und Kultstadt der Hethiter—Ergebnisse der Ausgrabun-gen in der Oberstadt”, Hethitica 8 (1987), pp. 297–318; idem, “Bo?azköy-Hattusha—New Results of the Excavations in the Upper City”, Anatolica 16 (1990), pp. 7–19; Peder-sén (n. 1), pp. 44–56.

4 For the text, see J.A. Wilson, in ANET, p. 27a; H. Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun(Baltimore and London, 1975), p. 153. For discussion, see J. Van Seters, In Search ofHistory. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven andLondon, 1983), p. 198; M. Liverani, Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the NearEast ca. 1600–100 B.C. (Padova, 1990), p. 248. In letter EA 74:10–12 Rib-Adda wrote tothe Pharaoh as follows: “May the king inspect the tablets of his father’s house, whetherthe ruler in Byblos has not been a loyal servant”. But the statement is rhetorical anddoes not reflect reality. The two sources indicate that it was possible to find out inarchives records of the past, but it remains unclear whether it was customary to searchin archives for documentary evidence.

5 A. Momigliano, “Historiography on Western Tradition and Historiography onOral Tradition,” Studies in Historiography (London, 1966), pp. 211–217; Van Seters (n. 4),pp. 4, 40–51, 195–199; R. Thomas, “Literacy and the City-State in Archaic and Classi-cal Greece,” in: A.K. Bowman and G. Woolf (ed.), Literacy and Power in the ancient World(Cambridge, 1994), pp. 35–37.

6 Documents are quoted in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah for determining rights,and some scholars suggested that their authors used archival sources. See E.J. Bicker-man, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1,” JBL 65 (1946), pp. 249–275; A.Momigliano,“Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish, and Greek, Historiography,” Essays in Ancientand Modern Historiography (Oxford, 1977), pp. 31–33.

132 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 132.

mation of great antiquity from original documents kept for centuries iserroneous. Similarly, the notion that the author of the Book of Kingshad searched in the archives of the palace and temple for source-material must be abandoned.

What kinds of sources were available to ancient historians whenthey composed their works? To investigate the problem of the source-material that might have been available to Manetho, Redford exam-ined the contents of temple libraries in Egypt in the second half ofthe first millennium BCE. These libraries encompassed a wide rangeof materials with which the fully-trained scribe was supposed to befamiliar (e.g., king lists, ‘annals’, inventories, letters, stories, ritual lit-erature, reference compendia, etc.). He concluded that the rich source-material of a temple library (or libraries) allowed Manetho to writethe ancient history of Egypt in his Aegyptiaca.7 A Babylonian templelibrary (or libraries), which had a rich variety of texts (e.g., Sumerianand Akkadian myths and epics, king-lists, chronicles, ritual literature,etc.), likewise allowed Berossus to write the history of the country in hisBabyloniaca.8

Josephus mentioned the Hellenistic writers Menander of Ephesosand Dius and asserts that they derived their material from the nativesources of the Tyrians (Antiquities of the Jews ix 283, 287; Contra Apionem

I 112, 116). He states that the Tyrians kept for many years old booksin which were recorded memorable events (Contra Apionem I 107). Thefew passages that Josephus cites indicate that detailed king lists, somechronicles and historical narratives were available to the historians whowrote the history of Tyre in the Hellenistic period.

As for the seventh century BCE, about one-fifth of the 30,000 tabletsand fragments in the library of Ashurbanipal from Nineveh are non-literary (e.g., legal and administrative texts, letters, reports, etc.). Thelibrary contained mainly the so-called “canonical” literature of Meso-potamia, including omen texts, epic literature, wisdom literature,myths, incantations, conjurations, prayers, sign lists, etc. This variety

7 D.B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Studyof the Egyptian Sense of History (Mississauga, 1986), pp. 206–228; G.P. Verbrugghe andJ.M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in AncientMesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor, 1996), pp. 95–212.

8 S.M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (SANE 1/5; Malibu, 1978); A. Kuhrt,“Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia,” in: A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), pp. 32–56; Verbrugghe and Wicker-sham, ibid., pp. 13–91.

the temple library and the composition of the book 133

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 133.

indicates the wide range of texts that might have been found in a NearEastern royal library in the late Iron Age.9

It is clear that libraries developed gradually in certain importanturban centres, where urban life continued uninterruptedly for cen-turies, (the library of Ashurbanipal is an exception). These librariesretained many compositions of various kinds, and the scribes andpriests used them for study and teaching and in their professionalduties. The ability of the late authors (Manetho, Berossos, Dius andMenander) to write the history of their countries depended on thescope and quality of the sources available to them, and—no less impor-tant—on their understanding of ancient realities. Analyzing their worksmakes it clear that where sources are lacking there remains a wide gapin the sequence of their historical description. The uninterrupted con-tinuity and stability of the political structure, of the social and religiousinstitutions, and of the spiritual and material culture might have helpedlate authors to reconstruct the past in a relatively faithful manner. Totaldestruction and profound changes in the political, social, economic,religious and cultural constitutions of the state and society could leadto a complete misunderstanding of the ancient reality even when someold sources were available to the late author.

The city of Jerusalem was the capital of Judah for long time andmany kinds of works must have accumulated in its library. The range ofcollected texts was certainly narrower than the rich palace and tem-ple libraries of Mesopotamia and Egypt, but included all that wasnecessary for the education and function of the professional elite ofJerusalem, and the other urban centres in Judah. The library, whichwas probably located in the temple, was the source of practical andtheoretical knowledge for the high officials, priests and scribes, the edu-cated elite of the kingdom of Judah, and for instructing young appren-tices.10 Old texts were apparently used for educational purpose andcopied several times, and so survived until the destruction in 587 BCE.

9 A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1964),pp. 15–24; S. Parpola, “The Royal Archives of Nineveh,” in: Veenhof (n. 1), pp. 223–236; T. Kwasman, “Neo-Assyrian Legal Archives in the Kouyunjik Collection,” in:Veenhof (n. 1), pp. 237–240.

10 I.M. Young (“Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence,” VT 48 [1998], pp.239–253, 408–422) emphasized that in ancient Israelite society only scribes, priests andthe upper class had the skills of writing and reading, while the rest of the populationhad no such skills.

134 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 134.

I suggest that the temple library of Jerusalem was available to theauthor of the Book of Kings.11 The rich corpus accumulated there formany generations was his main (or even exclusive) source when writingthe history of Israel, just as the above-mentioned Hellenistic authorswere able to use temple libraries when writing their histories. He wasprobably a priest of high degree, hence his intimate knowledge of theinner temple, the cult and the ‘sacred literature’ of the priests andscribes. If this assumption is correct, the material used by the authorin his work reflects the source material available to him in the templelibrary.

Let me discuss four examples of the kind of sources available for theauthor of the Book of Kings.

The Sources of the Introductory Verses of the Kings of Israel and Judah

The author of Kings described the histories of the kingdoms of Israeland Judah in parallel, linking them with synchronisms. Israelite syn-chronisms note the accession of a Judahite king in relation to the reign-ing year of the contemporary king of Israel, and Judahite synchronismsnote the accession of an Israelite king in relation to the reigning year ofthe contemporary king of Judah. In addition, the introductory versesinclude the length of each king’s reign, the name of his father, hiskingdom (Israel/Judah) and capital. The introductory verses about thekings of Judah mention also the king’s age upon accession (missing forAbijam and Asa) and the name of his mother, but there is no suchinformation about the kings of Israel (missing for Jehoram and Ahaz).

Lists of kings with the years of their reign were kept throughout theancient Near East. As we have seen, such lists served all the historianswho composed their histories during the Hellenistic period, and werethe main, sometimes the only, sources they had for reconstructing thesequence of the reigning kings. It is evident that the author had seenthe lists of the kings of Israel and Judah with the years of their reign,and integrated them in his work. Bin-Nun noted that the author useddifferent types of introductory formulae for the kings of Israel andJudah. Hence, two different king-lists were available for him: one for

11 N. Na"aman, “Sources and Composition in the History of David,” in: V. Fritz andP.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield, 1996),pp. 180–183.

the temple library and the composition of the book 135

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 135.

Israel and the other for Judah.12 The list of the kings of Judah, andpossibly also that of the kings of Israel, might have been used for theancestor cult in the two kingdoms.

The period of the United Monarchy was not included in the list ofkings available to the author. The length of the reigns of David andSolomon is schematic and the length of Saul’s reign is missing. Thechronological data of the United Monarchy are not derived from anancient source and, unlike the years of kings of the divided monarchiesof Israel and Judah, are of no value for the historical discussion.

As for the source of the synchronisms, this is a subject of controversy,because the ancient Near Eastern king lists had no such feature. Corre-lating passages from the history of two adjoining kingdoms appears inthe Assyrian synchronistic history, a work dating from the 9th century,which describes, from the Assyrian viewpoint, the struggles, agreementsand border arrangements that took place between Assyria and Babylo-nia in the course of centuries.13 But this source does not include precisechronological data about the reigns of the listed kings. The Book ofKings has often been compared to the Babylonian Chronicle, whichrecorded the main events in the history of Babylonia between 747 and669 BCE, with special interest in its relations with Assyria and Elam.The events described are dated by the year of the current king’s reign,and the chronicle sometimes notes the years of the Assyrian kings’reign.14 But it is very doubtful if a work of such a pattern, correlat-ing events that took place in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, was infact composed in one of these kingdoms. On the contrary—the Book ofKings refers to the Chronicles of the kings of Israel/Kings of Judah astwo separate works. Likewise, Jepsen’s suggestion—that a detailed syn-chronistic chronicle, beginning in the time of David and ending afterthe fall of Samaria, is embedded in the Book of Kings—lacks all foun-dation.15 It seems to me that almost all the synchronisms were calcu-lated by the author on the basis of the years of the kings’ reigns, andthat he possessed only a few synchronisms, such as the assumed simul-taneous accession of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, the demise of Joramof Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at the same time, and the date of the

12 S.R. Bin-Nun, “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and Judah,” VT 18 (1968),pp. 414–418; see Van Seters (n. 4), pp. 297–298.

13 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, 1975), pp. 50–56,157–170.

14 Grayson, ibid., pp. 14–17, 69–87.15 A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des K?nigsbuches (2nd rev. ed.; Halle, 1956), pp. 30–40.

136 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 136.

capture of Amaziah of Judah by Joash of Israel. Hence most of the syn-chronisms are of limited value in determining the chronology of thekingdoms of Israel and Judah during the First Temple period, and sucha chronology should rest primarily on the years of the kings’ reigns.

The king’s age upon accession and the names of the queen-mothers,usually mentioned for the kings of Judah, are not found in king listsfrom the ancient Near East. But Hittite sacrificial lists record sacrificesoffered to the deceased kings and queens who reigned in Hatti from theearly kingdom until the last days of the empire.16 The kings and queenswere allotted offerings as part of the official royal ancestor cult of theHittite court. The author of the Book of Kings must have extractedthe names of the mothers of the kings of Judah from a king list thatserved—like the sacrificial lists of the kings of Hatti—in the officialancestor cult of the Judahite royal dynasty.17

The history of Menander of Ephesus records the age of the king andthe years of his reign, as well as details about the changing dynastiesin the kingdom of Tyre. This is demonstrated by the following passage(Josephus, Contra Apionem, 121–123):18

On the death of Hirom the throne passed to his son Balbazer, who livedforty-three years and reigned seventeen. His successor Abdastratus livedthirty-nine years and reigned nine. The four sons of his nurse conspiredagainst him and slew him. The eldest of these, Methusastartus, son of

16 For the lists, see H. Otten, “Die hethitischen ‘Königslisten’ und die altorientalis-che Chronologie,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 58 (1951), pp. 47–71; idem,Die hethitischen historischen Quellen und die altorientalische Chronologie, Akademie der Wis-senschaften und der Literatur (Mainz and Wiesbaden, 1968), particularly pp. 25–29;T.P.J. van der Hout, “Death as Privilege: The Hittite Royal Funerary Ritual,” in:J.M. Bremer, T.P.J. van der Hout and H.R. Peters (eds), Hidden Futures. Death and Immor-tality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World (Amsterdam,1994), pp. 37–44.

17 For the part played by king lists in the cult of ancestors ceremonies, see J.J. Finkel-stein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty,” JCS 20 (1966), pp. 95–118; M.Birot, “Fragment de Rituel de Mari relative au kispum,” in: B. Alster (ed.), Death InMesopotamia, 26e Rencontre Assyriologiqie Internationale (Copenhagen, 1980), pp. 139–150; W.T. Pitard, “The Ugaritic Funerary Text RS 34.126,” BASOR 232 (1978), pp.65–75; B.A. Levine and J.M. Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim—The Patrons ofthe Ugaritic Dynasty,” JAOS 104 (1984), pp. 649–659; B.B. Schmidt, “A Re-Evaluationof the Ugaritic King List (KTU I.113),” in: N. Wyatt, W.G.E. Watson and J.B. Lloyd(eds), Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religionand Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994 (Münster, 1996), pp. 289–304; J. Vidal, “King Lists andOral Tradition: From History to Memory,” UF 32 (2000), pp. 555–566.

18 H.S.J. Thackeray, Josephus: Against Apion (Loeb Classical Library), vol. 1 (Cam-bridge Mass and London, 1926), pp. 210–213.

the temple library and the composition of the book 137

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 137.

Deleastartus, mounted the throne and lived fifty-four years and reignedtwelve. He was followed by his brother, Astharymus, who lived fifty-eightyears and reigned nine. He was slain by his brother Phelles, who seizedthe throne and reigned eight months, having reached the age of fifty,when he was slain by Ithobal, priest of Astarte, who lived forty-eightyears and reigned thirty-two.

There is no exact equivalent in ancient Near Eastern documents of aking list that compiles the years of the reign, the age of the king uponaccession and information about the change of rule following an upris-ing. But such a list may be compared to the Assyrian chronicles fromMari, a city that was located on the middle Euphrates, which are datedto the latter half of the 18th century BCE.19 These chronicles includea list of l̄ımu (officials after whom the year was named), beside refer-ences to major events that took place during that time, and commentsabout the changes of rule in the kingdoms that were involved in thestruggles then raging in northern Mesopotamia. The Assyrian KingList also includes, here and there, comments of a chronicle-like nature,mostly referring to the circumstances of the changing rule in Assyria.20

It seems, therefore, that the lists of kings and their reigns that werewritten in a number of kingdoms sometimes included additional detailsabout the rulers and changes of dynasties.

The list of the kings of Israel probably included their names andreigns, perhaps with comments about rebellions and the changing rulein the kingdom, and it is not impossible that this was the source fromwhich the author of the Book of Kings derived all or part of his infor-mation about the different ruling dynasties in the kingdom. The list ofthe kings of Judah included the names of the kings, their age at thetime of accession, the years of their reign and possibly their mothers’names. These data enabled the author to write the introductory versesfor every king in both kingdoms, while the synchronisms between themwere generally calculated by him.

The names of the mothers of the kings up to Amon, the son of Man-asseh, appear unsystematically—sometimes with the mother’s father’sname (in the cases of Abijam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Ahaziah, Jotham

19 M. Birot, “Les chroniques ‘assyriennes’ de Mari,” MARI, Annales de RecherchesInterdisciplinaires 4 (Paris, 1985), pp. 219–242.

20 I.J. Gelb, “Two Assyrian King-Lists,” JNES 13 (1954), pp. 209–230; A.L. Oppen-heim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in ANET, pp. 564–566; S. Yamada,“The Editorial History of the Assyrian King List,” ZA 84 (1994), pp. 11–37, with earlierliterature.

138 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 138.

and Hezekiah), sometimes the mother’s name and origin without thefather’s name (Rehoboam, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah). In Manasseh’scase only the mother’s name is given, while the mothers of Jehoramand Ahaz are not named at all. It seems that these data reflect thesource that was available to the author.

As for the kings from Amon through Zedekiah, there are full detailsabout their mothers, with their fathers’ names and origin. It seems tome that the data concerning the mothers of the last kings of Judah didnot derive from any source but were personally known to the authors(Dtr1, Dtr2), who lived not long after those rulers. There is, therefore,no need to assume that the change in the form of the listing meansthat there was a change of writers after Hezekiah, nor is it necessary todraw far-reaching conclusions about the identity of the author on thebasis of the change of formula in reference to rulers who reigned notlong before the history was composed.21

The Death Formulae about the Kings of Israel and Judah

The concluding verses about a king’s decease describe his death andhis burial place, followed by the name of his successor—but only whenthe king died peacefully in his bed. They are missing for Joram, son ofAhab, and Ahazyahu, son of Jehoram, whose death is integrated in thestory of Jehu’s rebellion, and the three kings of Judah who have beendeported and died in exile (Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah).

(A) When the king died peacefully in his bed, the formula in thesecases is: “and so-and-so slept with his ancestors and was buried withhis ancestors in …”. The phrase “with his ancestors” appears only inreference to the kings of Judah, combining the burial with the continu-ity of the dynasty. This formula is not used when the king in questionwas murdered, or otherwise died a violent death. In two cases—thoseof Ahab of Israel and Amaziah of Judah—the death formulae merit aspecial examination.

Amaziah, king of Judah, died in the revolt in Lachish and wasburied in Jerusalem. Concerning his son, Uzziah, it is said that “He

21 Stated in opposition to the conclusions of B. Halpern and D.S. Vanderhooft,“The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.,” HUCA 62 (1991), pp. 179–244(particularly pp. 197–199).

the temple library and the composition of the book 139

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 139.

built Elath and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept withhis ancestors” (2Kgs 14:22). Here the reference to “the king” is takento mean Amaziah, but it is more likely that the author was refer-ring to Joash, the king of Israel, who had captured Amaziah, con-quered Jerusalem and subjugated the kingdom of Judah. The authorsuggests that following the death of Joash, Judah was freed from theyoke of Israel, and Uzziah was free to build Elath. Thus the for-mula, “slept with his ancestors” refers not to the king who was killedin the revolt, but to the one who died peacefully in bed (Joash ofIsrael).22

The narrative states that Ahab was killed in the battle with the Ara-maeans in Ramoth-gilead (1Kgs 21:1–37). Yet the final formula abouthim (v. 40) says, “So Ahab slept with his ancestors; and Ahaziah hisson reigned in his stead”. Scholars who noticed this irregularity sup-posed that Ahab actually died peacefully in bed, and that the storyabout his death on the battlefield was not historical and was insertedat a later stage.23 It seems to me, however, that the story about Ahab’sdeath in battle was known to the author of Kings when he composedhis work. This is supported by the introductory and final verses aboutJehoshaphat. The description of Jehoshaphat as a king who did “whatwas right in the sight of the Lord” (1Kgs 22:43–44), rests on his fidelityto YHWH in the battle with the Aramaeans (1Kings 22), and in thecampaign of the three kings against Moab (2Kings 3). His final for-mula: “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that heshowed, and how he warred …” (1Kgs 22: 45), rests on the wars whichhe fought alongside the king of Israel (1Kgs 22; 2Kgs 3). Thus, the twoprophetic stories were at the author’s disposal when he wrote the intro-ductory and final verses about Jehoshaphat.24

Why then was the formula indicating a peaceful death (“slept withhis ancestors”) applied to Ahab? It must be remembered that Ahab wasthe only king of Israel who died on the battlefield, and since, as thenarrative shows, he was buried in Samaria (1Kgs 22:37)—unlike all the

22 Halpern and Vanderhooft, ibid., pp. 186–188; N. Na"aman, “Azariah of Judah andJeroboam II of Israel,” VT 43 (1993), pp. 227–229. Halpern and Vanderhooft supposedthat in verse 22 (“He built Elath and restored it to Judah after that the king slept withhis fathers”) “he” refers to Amaziah, but I think it refers to Uzziah, who was regentwith his father after Amaziah’s defeat in his war with Joash of Israel.

23 Halpern and Vanderhooft (n. 19), pp. 230–235, with earlier literature.24 N. Na"aman, “Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and

the Omrides,” Biblica 78 (1997), pp. 153–173.

140 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 140.

Israelite kings who were killed by rebels and were given no burial—theauthor applied the usual death formula.

In conclusion, it may be said that the author made consistent useof the formula “slept with his ancestors”, the only possible exceptionbeing the case of Ahab—due, perhaps, to the distinction between Ahab,who was buried in Samaria, and the kings of Israel who perished atthe hands of rebels and who, in the author’s view, were not buried.It also clear that the author used the formula of a peaceful death inall cases where he had no indication of the ruler’s unnatural death.This was a negative inference and the author needed no source forit.

(B) The last part of the formula mentions the place of burial of therulers who were fortunate enough to be properly buried. The authorshowed obvious bias with regard to the burial of the kings of Israel andJudah. Where the latter are concerned, he emphasizes that even thosekings who were killed by rebels (Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah) weregiven proper burial, because they belonged to a dynasty which reignedcontinuously and their descendants took pains to ensure their burial inthe tombs of the Davidic dynasty. In Israel, however, dynasties cameand went, and there was no-one to see to the proper burial of kingswho were killed in the course of rebellions. The description is clearlyone-sided, emphasizing the contrast between the dynasties that ruled inIsrael and Judah.

This kind of datum is exceptional in the historiography of the an-cient Near East, and to the best of my knowledge occurs only in aBabylonian work known as the “Dynastic Chronicle”, whose literarygenre is closer to that of a king list than to a chronicle.25 Only threeseparate fragments of the chronicle are preserved, and a passage in oneof them refers to seven kings who ruled in succession in Babylonia inthe late 11th and early 10th centuries BCE. After recording the years oftheir respective reigns, it notes where they were buried—six of them inthe palaces in various cities of the kingdom of Babylonia, and one in amarshy region. Does this suggest that a similar source, one that notedthe burial place of the kings of Israel and Judah, was available to theauthor of the Book of Kings? It seems to me than an analysis of thebook leads to a quite different conclusion.

25 Grayson (n. 13), pp. 40–42, 139–144; for a discussion on the text, see I. Finkel,“Bilingual Chronicle Fragments,” JCS 32 (1980), pp. 65–80.

the temple library and the composition of the book 141

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 141.

No burial place is mentioned for the Israelite kings who were killedby rebels (Nadab, Elah, Zimri, Joram, Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiahand Pekah). There is no mention of the burial place of Jeroboam Iand Menahem; of Baasha it is said that he was buried in Tirzah, whileall the kings of the dynasties of Omri and Jehu are said to have beenburied in Samaria. These data show that when it came to the burialplaces of the kings of Israel the author needed no source, but stated thatthe kings were buried in the capital, their seat of power, first in Tirzahand then in Samaria. Jeroboam I had several capitals (Shechem, Tirzahand possibly Penuel), and perhaps this uncertainty caused the author torefrain from stating where he was buried.

All the kings of Judah, from David to Ahaz, including kings whowere killed in uprisings (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah), are said to havebeen buried in the City of David. There is a marked difference inthe final formulae about the burial place from Hezekiah onward. Theplace of Hezekiah’s burial is omitted,26 and Manasseh and Amon wereburied “in the garden of Uzza”. The exact burial place of Josiah andJehoiakim is not mentioned, while Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah,who were deported, died and were buried in exile. The “slept withhis ancestors” formula disappears after Hezekiah, so there is a clearconnection between the burial in a new place (the garden of Uzza) andits omission for the kings buried there.

On the basis of the changes in the introductory and final formulae,including the burial formula of Hezekiah, Halpern and Vanderhooftargued that the oldest composition of the Book of Kings ended inthe reign of Hezekiah and that a second edition was written in thereign of Josiah.27 However, the shift of the burial place obliges a changeof formula since the kings buried in the new place were not buriedwith their ancestors. Moreover, the authors (Dtr1, Dtr2) worked not longafter the reign of Manasseh and Amon, and could state, from personalknowledge, exactly where they were buried. In this case, written source

26 For the omission of the burial place of Hezekiah, see N. Na"aman, “Death For-mulae and the Burial Places of the Kings of the House of David,” Biblica 85 (2004),pp. 245–254.

27 Halpern and Vanderhooft (n. 19), pp. 179–244. A similar view had already beenproposed by H. Weippert, “Die “deuteronomistischen” Beurteilungen der Könige vonIsrael und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher,” Biblica 53 (1972),pp. 301–339; A Lemaire, “Vers l’histoire de la rédaction des Livres des Rois,” ZAW 98(1986), pp. 221–236.

142 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 142.

was redundant. Regarding earlier kings of Judah, however, the authorhad only general knowledge about their place of burial, and thereforeaccounted for it with the generalized formula, “with his ancestors inthe city of David”.

We may, therefore, conclude that the author of the Book of Kingshad no written source about the kings of Judah and Israel who dieda natural death, nor about their place of burial. The formula “sleptwith his ancestors” was applied to every ruler about whom the author’ssources did not state that he had been murdered, and the place ofburial was assumed to be the capital of the respective rulers. But whenit came to the kings of Judah in the 7th century, the authors hadfirst-hand knowledge about their mothers and burial place, and coulddescribe these data accurately without recourse to sources.

The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel/Judah

In the concluding verses about every king of Israel or Judah the authornames the source upon which he had drawn: “And the rest of the actsof so-and-so … are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles ofthe kings of Israel/Judah”. The term “Book of the Chronicles” refers toa written scroll which contained a dry record of events that took placein the course of so-and-so’s reign. Thus the phrase “the Book of theChronicles of the kings of Israel/Judah” suggests a source in the formof a scroll-book that recorded the events in the reigns of the kings ofIsrael/Judah, from which the author purportedly drew his information.Similarly, the phrase “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1Kgs 11: 41)indicates the source from which the author had drawn the informationabout the reign of Solomon.

The first part of this formula (“And the rest of the acts of so-and-so …”) is always followed by some reference to the contents of thesaid source. In some cases it is, “and all his might” (Baasha, Omri,Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam II of Israel; Jehoshaphat and Hezekiahof Judah), or “how he warred” (Jeroboam I, Joash and Jeroboam ofIsrael; Jehoshaphat of Judah), and sometimes with the name of theopponent with whom the king had warred. In the case of Zimri andShallum, the text adds, “and his conspiracy which he made”. Also inthe case of some of the kings (Asa, Ahab and Hezekiah), there arereferences to their building projects. Singular formulae appear in thecase of Solomon (“and his wisdom”), and Manasseh (“and his sin that

the temple library and the composition of the book 143

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 143.

he sinned”). These extensions of the formula are the chief indicationsfrom which to try and deduce what kind of source is being quoted.

Strangely, almost all the events mentioned in the final verses areknown from the history of the said kings. Thus, for example, there isa detailed description of the war waged by Asa against Baasha, then itis said that he had built the cities of Mizpah and Geba. Thus the text,“The rest of the acts of Asa, all his might, and all that he did, and thecities which he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chroniclesof the kings of Judah” (1Kgs 15:23), only summarizes the precedingdetailed description. The history of Joash, king of Israel, narrates howhe defeated the Aramaeans in three battles, and how he also fought anddefeated Amaziah of Judah. His final verses (2Kgs 13:12; 14:15) merelyrepeat in brief what had been amplified before. A comparison betweenall the final formulae in the Book of Kings and the histories of thekings in question, reveals that only the building projects of Ahab andHezekiah are absent in the preceding text (the final formula concerningJeroboam II, in 2Kgs 14:28, is so corrupt that scholars cannot agreeabout its original form). The author needed no written source aboutHezekiah’s quarrying project (2Kgs 20:20: “how he made the pool anda conduit and brought water into the city”), since as an inhabitantof Jerusalem he knew perfectly well who had made the pool and thetunnel that were in use in his time. Ahab’s building projects, referred toin his final formula (1Kgs 22:39: “the ivory house which he built andall the cities that he built”), are not mentioned earlier in his history, butit is possible that the author deduced this much both from the wordsof Amos about the houses of ivory (Amos 3:15) and from the propheticstories about Ahab and his successors that referred to the palaces hehad built in Samaria and Jezreel (1Kgs 21:1; 2Kgs 9:15.30–33).28

On the whole, an analysis of the final formulae reveals that theauthor made the utmost use of the sources at his disposal. The formula,“and the rest of the acts of so-and-so and all that he did …” was putin to emphasize that the work was based on sources, and thereforetrustworthy. In this sense it resembles the phrase “unto this day”, bywhich the author indicates that the state of affairs described in his storypersists in his time, reinforcing his trustworthiness.

What was the nature of the works entitled “the Book of the Chron-icles of the kings of Israel/Judah”, and how extensive were the data

28 Na"aman (n. 22), pp. 155–162.

144 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 144.

that the author drew from them? According to the author of theBook of Kings, these were his only sources for the acts of the kingsof Israel and Judah, including descriptions of battles, uprisings, build-ing projects, even cultic arrangements. The question arises, could allthe material about the acts of the kings of Israel and Judah have beendrawn exclusively from those sources? The extensions in the formulaeconcerning Solomon (“and his wisdom”) and Manasseh (“and his sinthat he sinned”) show that the author was making broad use of theformula, since it is not likely that wisdom literature and a list of “sins”appeared in any bare chronicles. The stereotypical nature of the finalverses calls for caution in considering the nature and scope of the saidworks.29

Some scholars have proposed that the Book of the Chronicles wasa work composed during the First Temple period on the basis of theroyal annals, and a copy of it reached the author in the Babylonianexile. He used it in his work and named it “chronicles”, after the pri-mary sources used by the author of the presumed early composition.30

These scholars assumed that the author of the Book of Kings hadonly a single source that contained all the various sources embeddedin it. However, there is no ancient Near Eastern parallel for such acomprehensive chronicle-like work. Moreover, introducing an interimstage between the written sources and the history requires the exis-tence of another, anonymous, author and places a needless burden onour understanding of the process of composition. It is better to assumethat the author of the Book of Kings composed his work in Jerusalemtowards the end of the First Temple period, having at his disposal a col-lection of documents originating in the library of the Jerusalem temple,among which were the works he named “the chronicles of the kings ofIsrael/Judah”.

29 For recent discussions on this issue, see recently Van Seters (n. 4), pp. 292–321;G. Garbini, “Le fonti citate nel “Libro dei Re” (a proposito degli “Atti di Salomone”,degli “Annali dei re di Giuda”, e degli “Annali dei re d’Israele”),” Henoch 3 (1981), pp.26–44; D.L. Christensen, “Chronicles of the Kings (Israel/Judah), Book of the,” in ABD1 (New York, 1992), pp. 991–992, with earlier literature; M. Haran, “The Books of theChronicles “of the Kings of Judah” and “of the Kings of Israel”: What Sort of BooksWere They?,” VT 49 (1999), pp. 156–164; M. Cogan, “Towards a Definition of theBook of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel/Judah,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999), pp. 78–83,with earlier literature (Hebrew).

30 M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield, 1981), pp. 63–74(original publication in 1943); Haran, ibid., pp. 156–164.

the temple library and the composition of the book 145

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 145.

There is no doubt that considerable portions of the versatile materialin the Book of Kings, notably the stories about the kings of Israel, areinappropriate to a “book of chronicles” type of source. Most of thesestories belong to the genre of “prophetic stories”. The informationabout the relations between the kings of Israel and Judah was perhapsdrawn from “the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah”, buta series of chronicle-like comments worked into the history of thekings of Israel (1Kgs 16:24; 2Kgs 10:32; 13:3.22.24–25; 14:25; 15:19–20.29; 17:3–6) must have derived from a work written in Israel. We maytherefore suppose that the author had a source of northern origin, onethat contained data about events that had happened in the kingdomof Israel. I have earlier proposed that the source for all or some ofthe uprisings that took place in the kingdom of Israel was a king list,which included the years of reigns and comments about the changingdynasties. The scroll named “the Book of the Chronicles of the kingsof Israel” must have combined the material contained in the king-listwith data related to events of the 9th–8th centuries, such as the warsbetween Israel and Aram and the campaigns of the kings of Assyria toIsrael.

The titles “the Books of the Chronicles” were probably the names ofearly works that came into the author’s hands. But the author had othersources at his disposal for the description of the monarchical period,including a detailed list of the kings of Judah, prophetic stories, andperhaps a few royal inscriptions and books of the 8th century prophets.To stress the fact that his work rested on ancient sources, he chose tocall them all “the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel/Judah”,indicating the trustworthiness of his work as being based on ancientsources originating in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Prophetic Stories

Scholars have been aware from the early days of biblical research thatthe author had access to stories about the acts of a prophets and thefulfilment of their prophecies. In the context of the Book of Kings weare concerned with stories about known by name prophets, as well assome anonymous ones, who operated in the Northern Kingdom ofIsrael and took part in its history. Thus, for example, the story aboutAhijah the Shilonite and the wife of Jeroboam is fitted into the historyof that king’s reign, the stories of Elijah are worked into the history of

146 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 146.

Ahab, as is the story which focuses on Micaiah son of Imlah, while thecycle of Elisha stories is mainly woven into the history of Joram, the sonof Ahab, and partly into the history of Joash, the son of Jehoahaz.31

Before proceeding, we need to note the difference between the pro-phetic stories, which have a plot and an unmistakable literary style, andprophetic speeches composed by the author of the Book of Kings, inaccordance with his understanding of the course of history. In thesespeeches he presented his conception of the way the god of Israeldirected the history of his people, when in response to the sins of theirruler he sent a prophet who uttered a prophecy of disaster, whichsooner or later came true. Needless to say, these speeches deliver aclear didactic message to the readers regarding the link between sinand punishment, and the proper way to worship the god of Israel.32

Among these prophetic speeches is the prophecy delivered by Ahijah toJeroboam (1Kgs 11:29–39), his second prophecy to Jeroboam, whichwas inserted into the story about the prophet and Jeroboam’s wife(1Kgs 14:7–11.14–17), the prophecy of Jehu son of Hanani to Baasha(16:1–4), Elijah’s prophecy to Ahab, inserted into the story of Naboth’svineyard (21:21–24), and which recurs in the prophecy of the youngman prophet to Jehu (2Kgs 9:7–10), and Huldah’s prophecy in responseto Josiah’s inquiry (22:15–20a). The texts showing the fulfilment of thoseprophecies were, obviously, also written by the author, and sometimesinserted into early stories (1Kgs 12:15; 15:29–30; 16:11–13; 2Kgs 9:25b–26.36–37; 10:10.17b).

The insertion of prophetic speeches into the prophetic stories gavethem a theological content which they had not had before, alteredtheir messages and turned them into an important component of theauthor’s demonstration that YHWH’s will is manifested in history. Oneexample is the story of Jehu’s revolt (2Kgs 9–10), which describedthe killing of the two kings, their kinsfolk and supporters, and thepurification of the cult of Baal. The author’s additions (2Kgs 9:7–10.36–37; 10:10.17b) gave the story a new theological dimension, and linked it

31 For discussions on the prophetic stories, see recently S. Otto, Jehu, Elia und Elisa.Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa Erzählungen, BWANT152 (Stuttgart, 2001); idem, “The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and theDeuteronomistic History,” JSOT 27 (2003), pp. 487–508; with earlier literature.

32 G. von Rad, “The Deuteronomic Theology of History in I and II Kings,” TheProblem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh, 1966), pp. 205–221; H.N. Wallace,“The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasty in 1 and 2Kings,” Biblica 67 (1986), pp.21–40.

the temple library and the composition of the book 147

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 147.

tightly to Elijah’s prophecy to Ahab and Jezebel, so that every stage ofthe revolt appeared as the fulfilment of a previous divine prophecy.

Some scholars formerly assumed that the prophetic stories werecomposed in the kingdom of Israel, that their language was northernand their worldview reflected that of the prophets who worked in theNorthern Kingdom. For example, Burney proposed that the languageof those stories had distinctive features which might have been associ-ated with a northern Israelite dialect, and this proposition was adoptedby other scholars.33 But the supposedly northern quality of many of theexpressions that Burney picked out is far from certain. Moreover, IanYoung pointed out that some of these distinctive expressions appear inthe direct speech of Israelites (notably Elisha) or Aramaeans, and hassuggested that the author of these stories deliberately put them in themouths of these people by way of characterization.34 It is also note-worthy that the stories about the reigns of Ahab and his son Joramin which both the kings of Israel and Judah appear (1Kgs 22; 2Kgs3), clearly favour the king of Judah, and were presumably written inJudah. It therefore seems likely that some of the prophetic stories werecomposed in Judah, while others were adapted to some extent to makethem accessible to the inhabitants of Judah too.

Another question is, when were the prophetic stories composed? Thefull complexity of this question lies beyond the present discussion, butwe may state that even the earliest stories were written many yearsafter the events they described. They must have been transmitted orallythrough the generations, in the course of which they underwent somany changes that they reflect the time of their composition ratherthan the period to which they are attributed. Add to this the problem ofthe literary genre, and the great limitations of these stories as historicalsources become obvious.

33 C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford, 1903), pp. 207–209;G.A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (Atlanta, 1990),pp. 8–9; idem, “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects of Ancient Hebrew,” in:W.R. Bodine (ed.), Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, 1992), pp. 65–88.

34 I. Young, “The “Northernisms” of the Israelite Narratives in Kings,” ZAH 8(1995), pp. 63–70; W. Schniedewind and Sivan (“The Elijah-Elisha Narratives: A TestCase for the Northern Dialect of Hebrew,” JQR 87 [1997], pp. 303–337) have suggestedthat there is a clear linguistic resemblance between the literatures written in Samariaand Jerusalem, therefore language analysis would be an uncertain basis for determin-ing the origin of the stories. However, they maintain that the spoken language wasmarkedly different in the two kingdoms, and therefore the northern dialect is recogniz-able, chiefly in passages containing direct speech.

148 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 148.

It must be emphasized that the author wrote his work towards theend of the monarchical period, many years after the events in hisnarrative. He was not an historian of the school that first developedin Greece in the classical period, and did not check his sources andtheir authenticity for the purpose of historical reconstruction. He hadno idea when the prophetic stories had been composed—as far ashe was concerned, they were legitimate sources, no different from allthe others which he used in his history of the people of Israel. Hetherefore integrated the available stories in his work, usually unchanged(except for some additions, the most important of which were theabove-mentioned prophetic speeches). From these stories he also de-duced the religious reality in the periods to which he attributed thestories, and judged the rulers of those times accordingly.

Scholars are divided on the question, which of the prophetic storieswere available to the author, and which were added to the work hecomposed at a later time. Of late the tendency has been to advancethe date of many of these stories and assume that they were addedto the history at a late stage.35 Proponents of this view rely chiefly onan analysis of the methods of redaction and the reconstruction of theliterary process which gave rise to the composition that we know. But itis obvious that in certain cases the author of the Book of Kings reliedon the prophetic stories in composing his work.36 Thus, for example,the author learned about the sins of Ahab and his son Ahaziah fromthe Elijah story cycle (1Kgs 17–19; 2Kgs 1), and so described them asthe worst sinners in the history of the kingdom of Israel. Jehoshaphat,king of Judah, was closely connected to the Omride dynasty, and evenmarried his son Jehoram to Athaliah, the daughter of Omri/Ahab(2Kgs 8:18.26), so ostensibly the author would have had good reason toconsider him a sinful king. Yet the prophetic stories about Jehoshaphat’sfidelity to YHWH in the two wars he took part in (1Kgs 22; 2Kgs 3),decided the case, and he described Jehoshaphat as a king who did that

35 J.M. Miller, “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars,” JBL 85(1966), pp. 441–454; H.-C. Schmitt, Elisa. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklas-sischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh, 1972); S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings.The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden, 1991), pp. 90–98; H.-J. Stipp, Elischa—Propheten -Gottesmänner: Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklusund verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und2 Kön 2–7, ATSAT 24 (St. Ottilien, 1987); idem, “Ahabs Busse und die Kompositiondes deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” Biblica 76 (1995), pp. 471–497; Otto (n. 29 –2001); idem (n. 29 – 2003).

36 Na"aman (n. 22), pp. 153–173.

the temple library and the composition of the book 149

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 149.

which was right in the eyes of YHWH (1Kgs 22:43). He also deducedfrom the description of those two wars of Jehoshaphat’s, “his might thathe showed, and how he warred” (1Kgs 22:45). Similarly, the authorlearned about the sins of Joram, son of Ahab, from the description ofthe reform of Jehu, who destroyed the house of Baal and annihilatedhis worship—signifying that the cult had persisted in Joram’s reign. So,too, were Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, and his son Ahaziah describedas sinful kings, not only because they were closely affiliated with Joram,Ahab’s son, but also because the story about the revolt of Jehoiada andthe crowning of Joash mentioned the house of Baal in Jerusalem thatwas demolished in the reform (2Kgs 11:18). From all the above, it isevident that at least part of the prophetic stories about the Omridedynasty was among the sources available to the author, who utilizedthem in composing his work.

Only one prophetic story from the kingdom of Judah has beenpreserved—that of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in the reign ofHezekiah, and the central role played by the prophet Isaiah in theevents (2Kgs 18:17–19:37). Enormous amount of scholarly literaturehave been written about this episode, and this is not the place to dis-cuss it in detail. Suffice it to say that the early story comprised thesection 18:17–19:9a.36–37, and that only this story was included in thehistory. This early story was expanded during the exile into an accountof the second Assyrian expedition to Jerusalem and the dramatic inter-vention by the God of Israel to turn the course of events (19:9b-36),which altered the scope of the story and its theological messages.37 Theearly story comprised the Rab-shakeh’s two speeches before the wallsof Jerusalem, Hezekiah’s response, the appeal to the prophet and theprophet’s message of hope, which came to be fulfilled—the Assyrianarmy heard a “rumour”, withdrew from Jerusalem and returned to itscountry, where Sennacherib was murdered by his sons. This story waswritten some decades before the author, and served him as an impor-tant source, both for the positive view of Hezekiah and for the descrip-tion of the consequences of the Assyrian campaign against Judah.

All in all, there is no doubt that the author of the Book of Kings usedthe prophetic stories to complete his work. He also deduced from them

37 B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (London, 1967), pp. 103–169; F.J. Gonçal-ves, L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne (Louvain-la-neuve, 1986), pp. 331–487, with earlier literature; N. Na"aman, “New Light onHezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story,” Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 393–402.

150 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 150.

how the personae behaved and what they did, which enabled him todescribe in detail the sins of the kings of the Omride dynasty. But hefound no such stories concerning the kings of the dynasties of Baashaand Jehu, and was obliged to describe their conduct in cultic mattersbriefly and schematically in the preambles to their histories.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the author was sometimes mistakenabout the dates that he ascribed to the prophetic stories, and integratedthem in the wrong places. This is especially the case with the cycleof Elisha stories, which is interpolated in the history of Joram, son ofAhab, though this prophet lived in the reigns of the dynasty of Jehu,and the cycle actually reflected the time when Israel was subjugated toAram. It is important to keep in mind that from the moment a storywas inset in the reign of a particular king, the author drew conclusionsfrom it regarding that king and his fidelity to YHWH.38

Concluding Remarks

Establishing the possible origin of the source material used by an authoris only the first step in the critical evaluation of his composition. Sometexts might have been composed shortly after the related events, whileothers were written long after the events they describe and were basedon old oral traditions. Some sources (such as king-lists and chronicles)are easily exploited for the historical reconstruction, while others arewritten in genres that are not easily applicable to the reconstruction.We may further note that the historical-critical approach of the kinddeveloped in Greece since the classical period was alien to biblicalauthors, as it was to all other scribes who worked in the ancient NearEast. Source criticism is unknown in the East before the Hellenisticperiod; the author must have given equal credibility to all his sources.For this reason we find concrete details and dry accounts side by side

38 The story of the war between the king of Israel and Ben-Hadad of Aram in1Kings 20 is attributed to the reign of Ahab, but reflects the situation of the reignof Joash, son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel. See A. Jepsen, “Israel und Damascus,” AfO14 (1942), pp. 154–158; Miller (n. 34), pp. 441–454; E. Lipi´/nski, “Le Ben-Hadad de laBible et l’histoire,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies I (Jerusalem, 1972),pp. 157–173. It seems, however, that the story in 1Kings 20 is post-Deuteronomistic, andwas interpolated in the Book of Kings at a late date. I have found a similar view in:A. Rofé, Introduction to the Historical Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem, 2001), pp.93–97.

the temple library and the composition of the book 151

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 151.

with legendary, novelistic and fabulous narratives. The Book of Kingsis founded—with no distinction—on the oral literature and writtensources available to its author.

Let me survey in brief the assumed sources used by the author inwriting the history of the two kingdoms.

Limited number of sources was available to him for writing thehistory of the Northern Kingdom. His most important sources wereprobably the work called ‘the book of the chronicles of the kings ofIsrael’ and prophetic stories. The former must have been a chroniclethat combined material extracted from early sources (such as a king-list with notes on the changes of dynasties). It must have includedthe names of kings, their years and dynasties, details of the rebellionsand the overthrow of dynasties, and sporadic events relating to someIsraelite kings (such as the wars with the Arameans and Assyrians). Theauthor might have derived some data from books of the 8th centuryprophets, in particular the Book of Amos, thereby supplementing hislimited sources of the Northern Kingdom.39

The source material available for the history of Judah in the late10th–8th centuries was richer than that of Israel. The king-list includedsuch exceptional details as the names of the queen-mothers and the ageof the kings when they ascended the throne. They might have served forthe reading the names of all the past Judahite kings and their principalwives, the mothers of their successors, from the founder of the dynasty(David) down to the parents of the reigning king. Details concerningthe relations of the kings of Judah and Israel were probably extractedfrom prophetic stories and the “the book of the chronicles of the kingsof Judah”. Some synchronisms between the kings of Israel and Judahwere extracted from sources, but most of them were computed by theauthor. Finally, the author might have derived some information froma few royal inscriptions erected in the temple of Jerusalem and workedit into his composition.40

The author of the first edition of Kings (Dtr1) lived not long afterthe seventh century kings of Judah, so that no written sources should

39 B. Gosse, “Le recueil d’oracles contre les nations du livre d’Amos et l’histoiredeuteronomique,” VT 38 (1988), pp. 22–40; N. Na"aman, The Past that Shapes the Present.The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late First Temple Period and After the Downfall,Yeriot 3 (Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 98–102 (Hebrew).

40 N. Na"aman, “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings ofJudah,” VT 48 (1998), pp. 333–349. For criticism, see S.B. Parker, “Did the Author ofthe Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions,” VT 50 (2000), pp. 357–378.

152 nadav na"aman

2005061. Lemaire. 08_Naaman. Proef 1. 13-10-2005:16.16, page 152.

be sought for the history of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah. The historyhe wrote closes with the restoration of the temple and Josiah’s religiousreform, culminating with the celebration of the Passover (2Kgs 23:21–23). The episode of Josiah’s death and the history of Judah until thedestruction and exile were written by a late author of the same ideolog-ical school (Dtr2).41 The late author lived in Babylonia, and completedthe early work up to his own time on the basis of the vivid memoryof the described events. This author also revised the work of his prede-cessor in an effort to adapt its messages to the circumstances that hasarisen after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, with the exileof the royal house and the elite to Babylonia.

It goes without saying that only part of the material immersed in theBook of Kings may be used for writing a history of Israel accordingto “western” standards. When discussing the history of the kingdomsof Israel and Judah in the late 10th–8th centuries BCE it is necessaryto separate the sources available to the author from the texts that hewrote and, as far as possible, to try to establish the reconstruction onthese sources. The history of the kingdom of Judah from the time ofManasseh to the destruction and exile is based on the vivid memoriesof the author (Dtr1) and his successor who wrote in Babylonia (Dtr2),and thus many details included in the last chapters of the Book of Kingsseem reliable.

Finally, modern historians should never forget that biblical histori-ography was written primarily in order to shape the present and todeliver religious and ideological messages to its readers and hearers.This ideological-theological objective requires a critical approach forall texts, whether they describe the early or the late history of Israel.

41 The episodes of Gedaliah in Mizpah and the release of Jehoiachin from his prison(2Kgs. 25:22–30) were probably added by a late redactor.