Studia Antiqua Studia Antiqua
Volume 10 Number 1 Article 7
December 2011
History, Historiography, Historicity, and the Hebrew Bible History, Historiography, Historicity, and the Hebrew Bible
Joshua J. Bodine
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, History Commons, and the Near Eastern Languages and
Societies Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Bodine, Joshua J. "History, Historiography, Historicity, and the Hebrew Bible."
Studia Antiqua
10, no. 1
(2011). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol10/iss1/7
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Studia Antiqua by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information,
please contact [email protected], [email protected].
JOSHUA J. BODINE
HISTORY, HISTORIOGRAPHY, HISTORICITY,
AND THE HEBREW BIBLE
M
ost historians today are acutely aware that premodern history writing
eorts—including those of the biblical text—were far from objective
undertakings to record history “as it really happened.” is comment alone
. e phrase “as it actually happened” or “how it really was” (“wie es eigentlich gewe-
sen”) comes from the inuential nineteenth-century German historian, Leopold von Ranke,
who believed that the historian’s role was not to judge the past to instruct the future but
to aim for an accurate reconstruction of how it really occurred. See Leopold von Ranke,
Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514 (Leipzig: Duncker
und Humblot, ), vii. Yet, for ancient historians this was “neither an important con-
sideration nor a claim one could substantiate.” Rather, “the study and writing of history”
for ancient historians was “a form of ideology.” On this see, respectively, MosesI. Finley,
Ancient History: Evidence and Models (New York: Viking, ), , and Moses I. Finley, e
Use and Abuse of History (New York: Viking, ), . Even most modern historians do
not espouse the approach of von Ranke and recognize that such objectivity simply cannot
be achieved. Today, for example, more than simply cataloguing and presenting objective
knowledge about events as they occurred in the past, historians connect with and “gen-
erate a discourse about the past” that is as much a cultural and literary construction as
anything else. See Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth about
History (New York: Norton, ), . See also Edward Hallett Carr, What is History? (New
York: Vintage, ); Peter Novick, at Noble Dream: e “Objectivity Question” and the
American Historical Profession (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, ); and oth-
ers. As it relates to reconstructing history in the Hebrew Bible, see, for example, the vari-
ous articles in Lester L. Grabbe, ed., Can a “History of Israel” Be Written? (JSOTSup ;
Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, ). For other relevant discussions that touch upon
these issues in relation to biblical scholarship, see, for example, Jens Bruun Kofoed, Text and
History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
), especially –, and John J. Collins, e Bible aer Babel: Historical Criticism in a
Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, ), –. (For further references, see
note below.) While complete objectivity is impossible, there is no need to go the way of
postmodernism and dismiss the eorts of the modern historical-critical enterprise entirely.
Postmodernism has provided many useful course corrections, but that doesn’t necessitate
that any interpretation is as valid as another. Despite the aws of the genre of modern his-
tory, this study maintains the belief that when sucient data is available, it is still possible to
interact with and interpret all of the available data to determine what essentially may have
:
is, of course, somewhat pedestrian and nowadays met with a yawn by most
scholars. However, the details and implications behind such an assertion are
more nuanced and complex than simple acknowledgement and, when discuss-
ing the Hebrew Bible or the history of Israel, are also dicult to appreciate
and be embraced by traditional/lay readers. Indeed, history writing, historicity,
and historical reliability are perennial topics when discussing the texts of the
Bible. For even among some of its most “history-like” sections, there are nu-
merous diculties and details that raise questions about the Bible as history.
us, with an introductory (and pedagogical) perspective in mind, the follow-
ing threefold approach will be pursued with respect to the values and limita-
tions of reading and using the biblical text as history: () as models of Israelite
historiography, briey comment on the production of Kings and Chronicles
as they factor into a discussion of historical reliability; () provide a concise
evaluation of a few passages in Kings with comparative data in Chronicles; and
() oer some general observations about history, history writing, and histo-
ricity in the Hebrew Bible and in general.
A PORTRAIT OF KINGS AND CHRONICLES
Kings and Chronicles arguably represent the most characteristically “his-
torical-looking” sections of the Hebrew Bible, texts that portray the Bible in its
best historical light as it were. Yet, they are nonetheless similar to any other
piece of ancient literature (and even some modern histories for that matter) in
their ideological motivations and content—political, social, theological, and
otherwise. In this, although Kings and Chronicles might contain what can be
considered authentic historical content, and while the author(s) may have de-
happened, and be able to create a reasonable interpretation that is useful for understanding
and explaining the past for the present. is, however, should not be confused with the his-
torical idealism of the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries akin to von Ranke.
. Depending on the scholar, the term “historiography” can mean dierent things. In
this paper it is used to convey both the act of history writing itself along with the method
and shape the writing of history took—specically, the writing of history within the Bible
and among its neighbors.
. e term “historical looking” is meant to convey the idea that it conforms to the
expectations, traits, and characteristics of modern popular understandings of history as
a record of events, and history writing as the apparent gathering and presentation of au-
thentic and unworked historical sources to recount the events of the past in a relatively
chronological order. In other words, it looks and smells like “history writing,” in contrast
to the other more mythic, folkloric, legendary, or story-like biblical texts; or the prophetic
books which are more a collection of oracles given in specic historical situations rather
than attempts at history writing. While the present study is limited to passages in Kings and
Chronicles, various biblical texts fall under the term “historical books” and usually include
Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, and Kings, and Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah.
For a useful survey of this and other elements see Richard D. Nelson, e Historical Books
(Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon Press, ).
-
picted situations and elements of the past somewhat accurately in their general
contours, determining their historical value and whether they can be used to
reconstruct the histories of Israel and Judah is a complex matter that is not
comforting for those seeking certainty.
Comments on the Production of Kings and Chronicles
With respect to the content, social setting, dates, themes, and so on be-
hind the books of Kings and Chronicles, some careful selectivity is in order.
To survey such elements in their entirety would be well beyond the scope of
this paper and would demand the interrogation of all the pertinent textual,
archaeological, and historical remains, not to mention the important second-
ary literature on the subject. Here, it will be enough to cover a few broad and
commonly-accepted generalities.
At its most basic level, the book of Kings is a narrative account structured
around the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah (including the united Israel
under Solomon). It contains a variety of material, such as annalistic data for
monarchical reigns, speeches, prayers, legendary stories, and miracles, reec-
tions on personalities and characters, descriptions of building activities, long
narratives of important events, and more. It also appears to have been made
up of a variety of sources, the nature and extent of which is debatable. Its
. Kings itself refers explicitly to several “sources” for its information, among those
the “Book of the Acts of Solomon” ( Kgs :), the “Book of the Annals of the Kings of
Judah” (e.g. Kgs :; :, ; :; Kgs :; :; :; :, ; :; :;
:, ; :; :), and the “Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel” (e.g. Kgs :;
:; :, , , ; :; Kgs :; :; :, ; :, ; :, , , , ).
Other unmentioned sources could also be postulated for material such as the popular sto-
ries of Elijah and Elisha, or for long narrative sections such as the story of Hezekiah and
Sennacherib. However, assessing any one of these “sources” is problematic as they have to
be reconstructed and cannot be assured (e.g. the continued debate as to the directional
inuence between parallel passages in Isa – and Kgs –). Even those sources that
are explicitly mentioned are not available for consultation; there is no compositional data,
their nature and extent is unknown, and even surety as to their existence is unavailable.
Even then, how would it be known which material in Kings is quoted from those sources?
Or, how does it explain signicant passages that are much more than one would nd in
annals? Moreover, parallel passages in Chronicles seem to conate what Kings mentions as
the separate annals of Israel and Judah and calls them the “Book of the Kings of Judah and
Israel” (e.g. Chr :; :; :; :; :; :–; :). Are these references
to the current book of Kings or something else? Another passage has a reference to simply
a “Book of the Kings” ( Chr :). Is Chronicles freely altering or creatively recording
sources, and if so, what are the implications for the book of Kings? Even more problematic
is the passage mentioning the “Book of the Acts of Solomon” that implies some sort of
royal biography when such writings were unlikely to have been produced so early. However,
using these sources to assume or buttress the claim to the historical reliability of Kings is
suspect in its methodology. Sources or not, each historical claim made by Kings needs to
be examined individually and carefully. For a recent volume discussing the sources and
composition of Kings among other elements, see the various articles in Baruch Halpern and
:
composite nature is rightly ascribed to various sources of some kind, but not
much should be made of this as the text is so much more than a compilation
of potential sources. It is a remarkable achievement in its nal compilation
that betrays itself as a work of sustained editing by Israelite scribes. For this
reason, seeking a date of composition is dicult. Its terminus a quo is obvi-
ously sometime aer the “thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin
of Judah” in the sixth century ... ( Kgs :), but this may only represent
a later stage of its development. However, a rst edition of Kings should likely
not be sought before the latter eighth century ... Its terminus ad quem is
even more dicult.
Andre Lemaire, eds., e Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception
(Leiden: Brill, ).
. e largest factor in this determination is the evidence for the rise and spread of
writing and literacy in ancient Israel and Judah and the origin of its literature. See, for exam-
ple, Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic
Evidence from the Iron Age (Archaeology and Biblical Studies ; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of
Biblical Literature, ), – who sees justiable context for allowing the possibility
of the creation of Israelite literature to reach back to the ninth century ..., or David W.
Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach
(JSOTSup ; Sheeld: Almond Press, ) who maintains a date in the late eighth cen-
tury ... Other considerations should include the combination of Israelite material of
a northern provenance with Judahite material which would make sense aer the fall of
Samaria in / ... Kgs : could be a possible demarcation of a rst “edition/
version” of Kings commissioned in Hezekiah’s time in a nationalistic eort to resurrect the
glory days of David and Solomon as it were, now that the northern kingdom was gone.
For this line of reasoning and the view that much of the literature in the Bible originated
in Hezekiah’s time, see, for example, William Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book
(New York: Cambridge University Press, ), –; for an overview of the dating of
Kings specically see –. Hezekiah is certainly portrayed as a model Davidic king and
said to be like none other before or aer; a perfect leader that all Israel could unite together
under. e mention of Hezekiah in Kgs : seems to be at odds with the note about
Josiah in Kgs :, lending itself as potential evidence of an early edition of Kings be-
gun in the days of Hezekiah. In the context of the larger so-called Deuteronomistic History
Kings is a part of, the date of the beginning of a book of Kings is likely somewhat later
during Josiah’s time. For a useful discussion of multiple views from various scholars on the
Deuteronomistic History that has bearing on the book of Kings, see Raymond F. Person,
Jr., ed., “In Conversation with omas Römer, e So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A
Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T. & T. Clark, ),” Journal of
Hebrew Scriptures . (): –. is is not a denial that Kings is based on sources of
an earlier date, but that even if a limited, core book of Kings was created and then edited/
updated over the centuries, its creation should not be sought before the latter eighth century
...
. Unfortunately, the earliest extant manuscript fragments are from the Hellenistic-
period province of Yehud. To postulate its creation at this time is, of course, drastic and
unnecessary. Yet, this is a signicant obstacle for determining the editorial history of Kings
with absoluteness. On the issue of the extant manuscripts, the lateness of the text, and an
informed response as to why this should not a priori remove Kings from the “pool of reli-
able evidence” about the period it describes, see Kofoed, Text and History, –.
-
As for Chronicles, though a large portion is dedicated to the monarchical
reigns of the kings of Judah akin to the book of Kings, it is more of a con-
densed history that begins with an extensive genealogy starting with Adam
and traced down to David, at which point signicant attention is devoted to
the Judean kings up through the exile into Babylon, with brief mention of the
royal Persian decree for the Jews to return and rebuild the temple. Not only
does the last verse indicate that its current form did not occur before Cyrus
the Great’s decree in ..., based on other clues it is likely that its com-
pilation occurred even later. Once again, a terminus ad quem is dicult for
much the same reasons as for Kings. With respect to Chronicles, it is generally
agreed that the Chronicler relied on earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible—
particularly the book of Kings—and was probably a scribe associated with the
Jerusalem temple.
Since both Kings and Chronicles are extended narrative texts, brief men-
tion of their general themes, interests, and ideologies is important for eluci-
dating their own internal purposes, as well as the purpose to which readers
might use each text as reliable history. Both emphasize acceptable and un-
acceptable forms of worship, the cult and the Jerusalem temple, theological
elements more than political, which center on the Judean monarchy and its
covenantal promise with Yahweh established with the model ruler David, as
well as an evaluation of each king based on theological considerations. More
themes and characteristics could be mentioned, and in many instances Kings
and Chronicles come across as quite dierent, but the similarities above bring
attention to a distinction that should be made. What is important here is
that, rst and foremost, both Kings and Chronicles are religious/ideological
histories.
In sum, Kings and Chronicles are late, ideologically-biased, and heavily
edited texts. is alone should be enough to give a reader pause about their
. e northern kings are omitted entirely.
. For details see Ralph W. Klein, “Chronicles, Book of –,” ABD :.
. Internally, Chronicles references sources much like Kings does and comes with
similar criticisms (see note above). Aside from this, there have been noticeable attempts
to argue for the idea that Kings and Chronicles were parallel histories that had common
sources at their disposal, and not that Chronicles is reliant on Kings. For example A.
Graeme Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ). Notwithstanding, there is still good reason to believe that
Chronicles was reliant on a Samuel–Kings text as well as other biblical material. See, for
example, Marc Zvi Brettler, e Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London; Routledge,
), – or Steven L. McKenzie, e Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History
(HSM; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ). See also the varied opinions expressed in Patrick M.
Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie, eds., e Chronicler as Historian
(Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, ).
:
historical value. However, before exploring this and similar questions, a look at
a few particular parallel passages in Kings and Chronicles is in order, so as to
oer a context for illuminating the general discussion of biblical history writ-
ing and historicity reserved for the end. e passages that will be given atten-
tion are from the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, found in Kgs :–:
and Chr :–:.
Hezekiah in Second Kings: A Brief Analysis
For purposes here, the portion of Second Kings devoted to Hezekiah can
be divided into the following large units: an introduction, summary, and re-
ection upon Hezekiah (vv. :–); a recapitulation of the fall of Samaria
(vv. :–); recounting of the Assyrian invasion of Judah and Jerusalem’s
miraculous deliverance (vv. :–:); mention of Hezekiah’s illness and
recovery (vv. :–); reference to Hezekiah’s visit by Babylon (vv. :–);
and a concluding summary (vv. :–). Each one of these units (excepting
the concluding summary for obvious reasons) begins with some sort of refer-
ence to a period of time; the summary in Kgs :– then concludes the
reign of Hezekiah with a formulaic reference to the “Book of the Annals of the
Kings of Judah” and how the rest of his deeds are recorded there. ese blocks
of individual episodes, coupled with the summary reference, give the story its
history like character and the appearance that the author of these passages
was using an annalistic source for material. Yet, a close reading of the text
along with other biblical passages and extra-biblical evidence indicates that
the author was doing much more than simply presenting the deeds and details
of Hezekiah’s reign from available sources. In fact, each one of these units con-
tain details that play a part in presenting several interpretational problems—
chronological, literary, historical, and archaeological—for anyone trying to
reconstruct a “history” of Hezekiah’s reign.
Problems of Chronology
To begin with, one is immediately confronted with inconsistencies in the
chronological details presented as well as the chronological arrangement of the
. Rather than focus on the accounts of kings from a much earlier period, those deal-
ing with the reign of Hezekiah will be considered as potentially close in time to the actual
events described (see note above), thus serving as an illustration that even close proximity
(let alone the distant past) is not necessarily an indicator of historical accuracy.
. For example: “In the third year . . .” ( Kgs :); “In the fourth year . . .” ( Kgs
:); “In the fourteenth year . . .” ( Kgs :); “In those days . . .” ( Kgs :); and “At
that time . . .” ( Kgs :).
. e term “author” is used here in the singular for sake of convenience, with recog-
nition that multiple authors likely had a hand in the text as it stands.
-
individual units. Regarding the chronological details, it is known from fairly
accurate external dating that Samaria fell in / ... and Sennacherib
invaded Judah in ... However, as the former is said to have occurred
in Hezekiah’s sixth year ( Kgs :–) and the latter in his fourteenth year
( Kgs :), we are confronted with problematic time spans for various pe-
riods of Hezekiah’s life, leading scholars to gure his reign dierently. is
is, of course, compounded by the presentation of the units in the order they
appear.
Problems of a Literary Nature
e chronological problems mentioned above do pose problems of a lit-
erary nature in the sense of how they t and ow together; yet, there are
additional issues that arise when reading in a literary-critical manner. For
example, there are theological concerns that seem to override attention to
exactness in historical reporting. ere are signs of literary shaping that
. While the external dates for Samaria’s destruction and Sennacherib’s invasion of
Judah are generally accepted, depending on which date is used as the reference point, schol-
ars come up with dierent years of Hezekiah’s reign. ere are, of course, other details that
gure into each dating scheme, but the basics come down to () if Samaria’s destruction
and Hezekiah’s sixth year are synchronized, then Hezekiah’s reign is gured as /–
/ ... (e.g., Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AB ; Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, ], ); or
() if Sennacherib’s invasion is correlated with Hezekiah’s fourteenth year, then Hezekiah’s
reign is gured as /–/ ... (e.g., Nadav Na’aman, “Hezekiah and the Kings
of Assyria,” TA []: –). In either case, at least one external synchronism has to
be ignored and many other problems are caused with the internal chronology in Kings. It
must be admitted, then, that either literary concerns superseded accurate chronological
ordering, or the author was separated from the events enough in time that mistakes were
made in creating the various units that make up Hezekiah’s reign. For a summary, as well as
details on the possible chronological ordering of certain events see, for example, J. Maxwell
Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (d ed.; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox Press, ), –.
. Tensions in chronology, history, and other details have led some to suggest that
the position of some passages is out of order chronologically. For example, the mention of
the fourteenth year in Kgs : may have originally been associated with the episode of
Hezekiah’s sickness beginning in Kgs :– and in a roundabout way associated with
Sennacherib’s invasion. Or, that the following verses ( Kgs :–) may have been origi-
nally associated with the payment of tribute, not to Sennacherib in ..., but to Sargon
II as part of an earlier campaign in Hezekiah’s reign. For an example of the former see Cogan
and Tadmor, II Kings, ; for the latter see Jeremy Goldberg, “Two Assyrian Campaigns
Against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology,” Bib (): –.
. An example of this can be seen in the mention of Sennacherib’s death in Kgs
:, wherein the impression is given that Sennacherib died soon aer his “defeat” at
Jerusalem in ... Sennacherib, however, died roughly two decades later. But the re-
porting of his death in such a way serves the function of fullling the comment in Kgs
:–—literarily telescoping the intervening time dramatizes the reasons for Sennacherib’s
death in a much more meaningful way than simply reporting that he died two decades
later, but also draws tenuous connections between his death as a result of a run in with
:
aect the presentation of Hezekiah with the Judean kings who come before
and aer. Even in the case of the story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib in
Kgs :–:, one of the most lengthy narrative passages and one that
can be compared to external sources, we can see that we are dealing with a
literary creation. e attention this narrative receives in the text is evidence
of the importance of this episode and its impact on Judean ideology. It is not
a simple reporting of the events of ... when the Assyrian king ravaged
the Judean countryside and threatened Jerusalem, but a powerfully craed
narrative overlaying a historical core. Unpacking the historical tidbits, the
the God of Israel decades before. For an interpretation that the murder of Sennacherib,
coupled with other elements of the story, is literarily fashioned in such a way as to highlight
that Sennacherib’s death is due to his blaspheming of Yahweh, “in line with the ‘logic’ of
the time” where murder or some other terrible fate was a “sign of divine wrath” (–),
see Arie van der Kooij, “e Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib ( Kgs –): A Sample
of Ancient Historiography,” in Past, Present, Future: e Deuteronomistic History and the
Prophets (ed. Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. Van Rooy; OtSt ; Leiden: Brill, ),
–.
. It is simply a fact of life that all people have both virtues and vices, and if the bibli-
cal evidence is examined critically, such a reality didn’t preclude the kings of Judah. Even
so, the biblical portrayal of the Judean kings are not necessarily realistic reconstructions of
such persons, more than they are oversimplied portraits that hint to the underlying mo-
tivations of the author to create a pattern of “good” or “bad,” when the underlying details
in reality demonstrate a mixture of both. On this see, for example, Peter R. Ackroyd, “e
Biblical Interpretations of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah,” in In e Shelter of Elyon:
Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life an Literature in Honour of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. Boyd
Barrick and John R. Spencer; JSOTSup ; Sheeld: JSOT Press, ), –.
An example of this is how Hezekiah is portrayed as an ideal king, despite the existence
of some historical and textual considerations that this may be a glorication. e mention
of Hezekiah’s revolt in Kgs : seems to be a righteous action in that Hezekiah would
not serve Assyria and had Yahweh’s approval of rebellion. Yet it was this that precipitated
Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, and even though Jerusalem was eventually spared, the rest
of Judah was utterly devastated. And this is not to even mention the fact that although
Hezekiah retained the throne, Judah remained a vassal of Assyria for many years to come.
Hezekiah’s revolt could, then, be characterized as a disaster economically and politically.
is is just one example among others that the events and details of Hezekiah’s reign were
idealized depictions. In fact, if one were to remove Kgs :– in which Hezekiah ca-
pitulates to Sennacherib and pays him a hey tribute for his rebellious pretensions, as well
as Kgs :– where Hezekiah opens the treasure-house to Babylonian envoys and
is chastised by Isaiah—both arguably later insertions to tone down Hezekiah’s image in
order to glorify Josiah’s—the remaining verses dedicated to Hezekiah are entirely laudatory
of him (and even those that are—such as the one-verse mention of his cultic reform—
are questionable data). On the possibility that Kgs :– is a later insertion and only
makes sense in relation to the larger work of Kings (hence, why it does not exist in the paral-
lel account in Isaiah) see Christopher R. Seitz, “Account A and the Annals of Sennacherib:
A Reassessment,” JSOT (): – and his fuller treatment in Christopher R. Seitz,
Zion’s Final Destiny: e Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39
(Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, ). Regarding Kgs :–, with its clear over-
tones and foreshadowing of the Babylonian exile, it is a passage inserted much later and not
a prophetic utterance of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah. For problems with Hezekiah’s
cultic reform, see note below.
-
obvious narrative seams and sources, the parallel accounts, the language and
literary style, the linguistic elements, textual variations, the context and con-
tent of various speeches and prayers, and a host of other details, has given rise
to a vast amount of secondary literature by scholars trying to understand the
story both literarily and historically.
Problems of History (and Archaeology)
Unfortunately, the problems do not end with chronological and literary
diculties, as these merely feed into issues of a historical nature (with archae-
ology playing an important part in places). A few historical problems aris-
ing from chronological inconsistencies and literary shaping could include the
. In addition to the literature referenced in other notes herein, and excluding the
relevant biblical commentaries, treatments of this particular passage include the follow-
ing (this list is by no means exhaustive): Bernhard Stade, “Miscellen. Anmerkungen zu
Kö.–,” ZAW (), –; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT
Second Series ; London: SCM Press, ); John B. Geyer, “ Kings XVIII – and the
Annals of Sennacherib,” VT , no. (): –; Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah and the
Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament
(JSOTSup ; Sheeld: JSOT Press, ); Alan R. Millard, “Sennacherib’s Attack on
Hezekiah,” TynBul (): –; William H. Shea, “Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian
Campaign,” JBL . (): –; Hayim Tadmor, “e War of Sennacherib Against
Judah: Historiographical and Historical Aspects,” Zion (): –; Danna Nolan
Fewell, “Sennacherib’s Defeat: Words at War in Kings .–.,” JSOT ():
–; Francolino J. Gonçlaves, L’Expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la litté-
rature hebraïque ancienne (EBib NS ; Paris: Gabalda, ); Arie van der Kooij, “Das
assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr v. Chr.,” ZDPV ():
–; Christopher Begg, “‘Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign’: An Additional
Indication,” JBL . (): –; Iain W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings:
A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History
(BZAW ; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ); Paul E. Dion, “Sennacherib’s Expedition
to Palestine,” EgT (): –; Klaas A. D. Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament
Prophecy: e Purpose of Isaiah xxvi and xxvii,” OTS (): –; Christof
Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzählkommuntikative Studien
zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremia-erzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–
40 (BZAW ; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ); August H. Konkel, “e Sources of the
Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah,” VT . (): – ; Raymond F. Person Jr.,
e Kings—Isaiah and Kings—Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW ; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
); William R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHANE ;
Leiden: E. J. Brill, ); Richard S. Hess, “Hezekiah and Sennacherib in Kings –,”
in Zion, City of Our God (ed. Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, ), –; the various articles in Lester L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird
in a Cage’: e Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (JSOTSup ; Sheeld: Sheeld
Academic Press, ); Yoo-Ki Kim, “In Search of the Narrator’s Voice: A Discourse
Analysis of Kings :– ,” JBL . (): –; Paul S. Evans, “e Hezekiah—
Sennacherib Narrative as Polyphonic Text,” JSOT . (): –.
:
depiction of cult reformation, possible anachronistic references, diering
accounts of the same event, issues in determining cause and eect, reliabil-
ity of the recreation of various speeches, and questions of contemporary wit-
nesses and material. In brief, if Kings is a creative working of sources and past
. Regarding cult reformation, whether Hezekiah actually instituted a religious re-
form is debated both on archaeological and historical grounds. For arguments from various
standpoints, see, for example, Lowell K. Handy, “Hezekiah’s Unlikely Reform,” ZAW .
(): –; Oded Borowski, “Hezekiah’s Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria,” BA
. ():–; Nadav Na’aman, “e Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the
Light of Historical and Archaeological Research,” ZAW . (): –; Lisbeth S.
Fried, “e High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah,” JAOS .
(): –; Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, “Temple and Dynasty:
Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology,” JSOT .
(): –; and Diana Edelman, “Hezekiah’s Alleged Cult Centralization,” JSOT .
(): –.
. Many have dealt with the anachronistic reference to the Egyptian King Tiharqa in
Kgs : and have tried to explain it in various ways. As an example, a recent proposal can
be found in Il-Sung Andrew Yun, “Dierent Readings of the Taharqa Passage in Kings
and the Chronology of the th Egyptian Dynasty,” in From Babel to Babylon: Essays on
Biblical History and Literature in Honour of Brian Peckham (ed. Joyce Rilett Wood, John E.
Harvey and Mark Leuchter; New York: T & T Clark, ), –.
. For example, there are clear tensions between the portrayals of Sennacherib’s inva-
sion of Judah in the biblical account when compared to the Assyrian record. It is a given that
the biblical text is being written with a clear ideology that is not above sacricing historical
accuracy for its story. Assyrian annals are somewhat dierent. Yes, they are prone to exag-
geration and propaganda to serve their own ideology (on this see Antti Laato, “Assyrian
Propaganda and the Falsication of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib,” VT
. []: –), yet one cannot assert that they are both of equal historical value, rst
and foremost for reasons of genre.
. What is meant by this is that the author of Kings interprets various episodes as
having specic causes that are either historically unveriable, or explainable by other his-
torical means. For example, was Yahweh the ultimate cause of Sennacherib’s death (indi-
cated by Kgs :–, ) or was it due to internal political happenings in the Assyrian
homeland? Was it the rumor of Tiharqa’s approach that caused Sennacherib to withdraw
from Palestine (if one accepts the source-critical reading that isolates Kgs :–:b,
–, this is indicated by the ow from verses – to ) or the angel of Yahweh striking
the Assyrian army down ( Kgs :–)? Or, did the payment of tribute in Kgs:–
have anything to do with it as its current placement might suggest? is list could be mul-
tiplied to the same eect.
. How historically reliable are the various speeches in these verses? Did Isaiah and
Hezekiah really say the words that are placed on their lips, or are they simply dramatic
recreations for the sake of the story (akin to what many ancient authors did in order to
demonstrate what the character would have said in a given situation)? It might also be
asked, as has been done, whether the speeches of the Rabshekah are historically reliable
words from an Assyrian ocial (that an Assyrian ocial did come to Jerusalem with a
message is not in question), or creations of a Judean author, whether partly or in whole? On
this, see Ehud Ben-Zvi, “Who Wrote the Speech of the Rabshakeh and When?” JBL .
(): –. See also Chaim Cohen, “Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the
Biblical Rab-Šāqê,” IOS (): –; Dominic Rudman, “Is the Rabshakeh Also among
the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of Kings XVIII –,” VT . (): –; and
Peter Machinist, “e Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of
the Assyrian ‘Other,’” Hebrew Studies (): –.
-
events both chronologically and literarily, then what really happened in exact
detail and time? Further, can such historical ambiguities and inconsistencies
be completely resolved?
Hezekiah in Second Chronicles: A Comparison
For purposes of comparison with Second Kings, the relevant passages in
Second Chronicles dealing with Hezekiah’s reign can be broken out as fol-
lows: an introduction ( Chr :–); a recounting of Hezekiah’s religious re-
form and celebrations with summary praise for Hezekiah ( Chr :–); a
narration of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and the deliverance of Jerusalem
(Chr :–); mention of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery ( Chr :–);
a recounting of Hezekiah’s riches and deeds ( Chr :–); and a conclu-
sion ( Chr :–). It is clear from the above breakdown that there is a
similar framework in comparison with Second Kings but also some radical
dierences.
One need only follow the organizational units to briey unpack the com-
parative details and explore their commonalities and divergences. In both Kings
and Chronicles there are similar introductions to Hezekiah and his reign, but
where in Kings there is only a passing reference to Hezekiah’s religious reforms
as part of the introduction, in Chronicles those religious reforms and the ac-
tivities associated with them receive extended attention. In this case, there is
a clear focus on Hezekiah and his religious achievements in favor of political
and military details, among which is the absence from Chronicles of the entire
next unit in Kings referring to the fall of Samaria. Following this there is
the narration of the story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib with Chronicles being
a noticeably more condensed version that highlights Hezekiah’s exceptional-
ity and omits potentially negative material. en, there is Hezekiah’s illness
and recovery receiving attention in both texts, but with marked dierences
in the material included. Lastly, mention of the visit from the envoys of the
. is unit was simply a synchronism with the fall of the northern kingdom and the
material in Kings directly preceding the account of Hezekiah. Nevertheless it is entirely
missing in Chronicles. Other examples of missing political and military details include the
lack of mention of Hezekiah’s revolt against Sennacherib ( Kgs :) and the absence of
reference to Hezekiah’s tribute to Sennacherib ( Kgs :–).
. For example, it was all Hezekiah’s “faithful deeds” ( Chr :) and his leader-
ship that prepared him for his victory over Assyria, not potentially his capitulation hinted
at in Kgs :– (if this is to be associated with tribute to Sennacherib; see note
above). Even Isaiah has no signicant role here as the person and leadership of Hezekiah
is highlighted.
. Even in the episode of Hezekiah’s illness, Isaiah is absent in Chronicles since
Hezekiah’s recovery is a result of his humbling of himself and not because of Isaiah’s help.
Associated with Hezekiah’s sickness is the visit of the envoys from Babylon and even here
:
Babylonian King and Hezekiah’s opening and tour of the treasury as seen in
Kings, is contrasted with Chronicle’s recounting of Hezekiah’s riches and deeds
and a later reference to ocials of Babylon with the two not clearly connected.
To be sure, then, there are noticeable and important dierences between the
two. Still, there is an overarching similarity in the pattern of the chronological
ordering of events that carries with it certain implications.
On Comparing Kings and Chronicles
Admittedly, a comparative approach to the specic passages in Kings and
Chronicles relating to Hezekiah could be reected on much more. As well,
akin to the brief analysis of Hezekiah in Kings, Chronicles could have been
given its own treatment. In this regard, it is important to note the following.
First, an analysis of the Hezekiah material in Chronicles leads to chronological,
literary, historical, and archaeological issues of the same magnitude as those
adumbrated for Kings. Hence, for purposes here, the brief analysis of Second
Kings should be enough to provide a general framework with which to an-
swer questions of historical reliability. Second, the similarities and dierences
between the Hezekiah passages in Kings and Chronicles are important only
as they factor into a discussion of the cumulative value and limitations of the
Bible’s witness of the reign of Hezekiah. In this regard, the comparison above
is benecial insofar as it oers an example of history writing in ancient Israel.
In reality, each must stand on its own when addressing the larger question of
historical reliability. It will not do to simply combine the two accounts together
as many traditional readers do and imply a fuller historical account.
A PICTURE OF HISTORY, HISTORIOGRAPHY, AND HISTORICITY
Although only a cursory glance, the discussion above should provide
enough reasons for a reader to proceed carefully when using Kings and
potentially negative material is missing when, for example, Chronicles does not mention
Hezekiah showing the treasure-house to the Babylonian envoys or of Isaiah’s scathing re-
sponse, even though Chronicles does retain a memory of the envoys visiting Hezekiah in
the context of a mention of his “riches.”
. Is Chronicles simply taking the basic Kings text and its structure and expand-
ing and omitting material to suit the Chronicler’s own purposes? If this is evidence of
Chronicles reliance on Kings, and if Kings has problems with historical reliability, then how
much more so is Chronicles unreliable?
. Not to mention Isa – (= Kgs –) if talking about the biblical witness of
Hezekiah as a whole.
. In some senses, such comparanda leads to more questions of potential literary re-
liance on Kings by Chronicles, or the value of the scholar being able to witness the methods
of the Chronicler as a historian at work on sources available to the scholar (i.e., Kings), than
it does to the historical value of taking material from both in toto.
-
Chronicles (together or separate) in an eort to explain things “as they really
happened” or to reconstruct an historically accurate picture of the Israelite
past. Equally important, such details do not portend well for biblical texts be-
yond the so-called historical books. Leaving the issue here, however, high-
lights only the limitations of reading and using the Bible as history, without
much discussion of its value or the nuances involved in considering these
issues in context.
History and History Writing in Ancient Israel
Inquiring as to the values and limitations of historical accounts in the
Hebrew Bible such as Kings and Chronicles raises questions not only of their
historical reliability but also of their nature as history writing. In other words,
were the biblical authors in fact doing “history” and did they think they were
(if can such even be determined), or were they doing something else and what
might that something else be if not history in the modern sense? With respect
to the history writing of ancient Israel, these questions and many more exist in
abundance by numerous scholars who have taken up the task of analyzing the
biblical text and other comparative data to get at questions of historiography
and historicity. e theoretical elements involved in such a discussion (e.g.,
the nature, status and classication of certain biblical texts as history writing)
are well beyond the focus here; what is more important is how such denitions
oen inuence opinions of historical reliability.
e brief review of Kings and Chronicles above demonstrates that even
these two books—examples of probably the closest thing to history writing
that the Hebrew Bible oers—are rooted in and shaped by theological and
other concerns that oen sacrice historical details and accuracy. Still, is this
reason to deny what was being done in Kings and Chronicles the title of his-
tory writing? At least in the case of Kings, while it is arguably not antiquarian
. For the historical books, see note above.
. For the seminal work on this, see John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography
in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press,
; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ); see also Baruch J. Halpern, e First
Historians: e Hebrew Bible and History (University Park, Pa.: e Pennsylvania State
University Press, ); Brettler, Creation of History in Ancient Israel; Grabbe, Can a “History
of Israel” Be Written?; Kofoed, Text and History; and, for a more recent survey of the study
of Israel’s past and the relationship of the Bible and history, see Megan Bishop Moore and
Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel’s Past: e Changing Study of the Bible and History
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, ). For a valuable comparison and example of history
writing from the perspective of Mesopotamia, see Marc vande Meiroop, Cuneiform Texts
and the Writing of History (Approaching the Ancient World; New York: Routledge, ).
. History and history writing means many things to many people: how does one
dene the terms; does history or history writing necessarily equate with historical reality
:
in its interests, it is typical of the literature of its time and should be credited as
being an example of ancient historiography.
It must be made clear, however, that historical accuracy and reliability do
not necessarily follow from the claim that Kings and other parts of the Hebrew
Bible are history writing. All sorts of ideology and literary creativity played
a part in Israelite historiography. As has been demonstrated, in the case of
Kings and Chronicles, theological/religious concerns played an important part
in the recording, interpretation, and even the structure and content of the act
of history writing. Not surprisingly, ideological elements were oen at work in
the writing of Israel’s neighbors as well. What is seen by modern readers as
clear theologizing and literary creativity that was free with its use of facts, the
Israelites and other ancient peoples likely saw as historical reality. In contrast
to the denition of history writing as objective reporting and reconstruction
of the past, Israel and her neighbors appear to not have even conceptualized
history this way nor was there even a precedent for them doing so. History was
not archival reporting (although they were not incapable of this when they
wanted to be); rather, it was a complex cultural construction and interplay
or is that reality in a sense created by it; are there dierent qualities to these terms in dier-
ent cultures and dierent times; what issues should be considered and how do those issues
aect historians? All of these (and more) are important questions that call attention to the
diculties in delineating how one should approach history, history writing, and questions
of historical reliability, both in the Hebrew Bible and in general. Incidentally, even bibli-
cal scholars can’t agree on what constitutes history/history writing (see note above for
examples).
. While it is by no means “history writing” in the modern sense of the term, and
it is ideologically and literarily shaped, there are compelling reasons why it should be
considered one example of ancient history writing, albeit of a dierent kind than that of
Mesopotamia, Greece, or wherever. I agree with Kofoed’s assessment that “there is nothing
on the explanatory and representational levels that prevents us from regarding [Kings] as
history writing.” See Kofoed, Text and History, , as well as additional details in his fuller
discussion, synthesis, and approach to Kings in –.
. Perhaps a prime example of this is the so-called Weidner Chronicle whose structure
and content are preserved within a theological framework (see “e Weidner Chronicle,”
translated by Alan R. Millard [COS .:–]). While it is exponentially longer than
the Weidner Chronicle, the Deuteronomistic History that the book of Kings is a part of
shares the same basic feature. Taking the book of Deuteronomy as its rule of judgment, the
“history” of the nation of Israel (later Israel and Judah) is evaluated based on a particular
religious ideal. Each king is either “bad” or “good” based on how well they matched up to,
and followed the decrees of, Yahweh according to Deuteronomic values and ideals. Similar
to the Weidner Chronicle, then, based on its overall form and contents the Deuteronomistic
History is by and large a religious interpretation of the past. As “religion” was something
simply part of the fabric of culture and not conceived of as an individual actuality, it was an
important component in many texts that sought to preserve and interpret the past through
the genre of history.
-
among tradition, societal reality, historical memory, ideology, collective un-
derstanding, and historical detail (real or imagined), oen to create and shape
an identity and reconnect the past with the present in a meaningful way. In
this way, historical details important to the author were included while those
that did not t with what the author wanted to say were not; moreover, the
details that did nd their way in were oen modied, embellished, or even
reworked as a new literary creation.
For many legitimate reasons, then, a good
dose of historical skepticism is necessary when reading and using Kings and
Chronicles—and even more so other texts of the Hebrew Bible—as history
. e notion of collective memory, cultural memory, and similar ideas, and the role
they play in history (both ancient and modern) has had an enormous impact on sociologi-
cal and historical research in general and in the Bible. For a useful overview of memory
and its role in historical discourse, see Kerwin Lee Klein, “On the Emergence of Memory in
Historical Discourse,” Representations (): –. For a sampling of notable general
works, see Maurice Halbwachs, e Collective Memory (trans. Francis J. Ditter and Vida
Yazdi Ditter; New York: Harper & Row, ); Jacques Le Go, History and Memory (trans.
S. Rendell and E. Claman; New York: Columbia University Press, ); Patrick H. Hutton,
History as an Art of Memory (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, );
Georey Cubitt, History and Memory (Historical Approaches; Manchester: Manchester
University Press, ); Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (Cultural
Memory in the Present; trans. Rodney Livingstone; Verlag C. H. Beck oHG: München,
; repr., Stanford: Stanford University Press, ); see also Steven Kapp, “Collective
Memory and the Actual Past,” Representations (): –. For several recent
works on memory and the biblical recollection of the past, see, for example, Jan Assmann,
Moses the Egyptian: e Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, ); Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Memory, Tradition, and the Construction of
the Past in Ancient Israel,” BTB (): –; repr., in Treasures Old and New: Essays
in the eology of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, ), –; Marc Zvi
Brettler, “Memory in Ancient Israel,” in Memory and History in Christianity and Judaism
(ed. Michael A. Signer; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, ), –; Mark S.
Smith, e Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient
Israel (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, ), especially –, –; Elizabeth
Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What Is Remembered
and What Is Forgotten in Israel’s History,” JBL . (): –; Ronald S. Hendel,
Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, ); and earlier literature.
. What we are dealing with in the biblical text is a narrative retelling of the past that,
while containing actual historical elements, is creatively shaped by its author(s) ideologies,
biases, and motivations; it is not the unimpeded and unltered past itself, if such can even
be obtained. e biblical text is something well beyond a compilation of unworked his-
torical sources—in many ways a presentation of the past that is literarily “innovative” and
“imaginative” as well (for an example from Kings see Burke O. Long, “Historical Narrative
and the Fictionalizing Imagination,” VT . []: –). When discussing historical
reliability this should not be taken lightly. History is always, in a sense, a creation and inter-
pretation in which “[e]vents transpire, [and] people record, select and reshape them [into]
historical texts,”
thus making it dicult to use the Bible simply as a source or repository of
historical details. See Brettler, e Creation of History in Ancient Israel, .
. It is not coincidence that, aside from conservative works, recent treatments of the
history of Israel do not even begin until aer the patriarchal history. For examples of con-
servative works, see, John Bright, A History of Israel (th ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
:
as it really happened. However, while each detail should be taken into account
and carefully weighed, it does not follow that Kings, Chronicles, or other texts
are historically worthless and devoid of any value.
History and History-writing in General
is leads to the fact that any written manifestation of the past—whether
ideologically motivated or an honest attempt at objectivity—is an interpreta-
tion in some form. Indeed, interpretation is the basic element involved in the
remembering and recording of history. Of course, other elements play their
part as well: things such as the nature and extent of historical sources, the
cultural dierences in how peoples reect critically on their past (if at all), hu-
man memory, epistemological issues, and others, are all factors involved one
way or another in the remembering or recording of history. Still, all of these
in their own way feed back into the issue of interpretation. Examples of this
could be multiplied many times over. In the end, whether in its remember-
John Knox Press, ); Iain Provan et al., A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox Press, ); and Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, ). From a moderate standpoint, see for
example Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, especially their discussion
from –. It should also be noted that genre is important to the discussion of historicity,
for those books that are outside of the so-called historical books are so for good reason
(see note above). For a good discussion of genre-recognition and its importance, see John
Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (rev. and enl. ed.; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox Press, ), –.
. ere are details in Kings that suggest a historical core and provide a generally
reliable picture. For example, the general correlation of Egyptian data with the invasion of
Shishak in Kgs :– (all the more remarkable when the composition date of Kings is
considered), the interactions of Israel with Syria, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylonia all through-
out their history, the parallels with the Moabite Stone, the mention of Israelite and Judean
kings in Assyrian and Babylonian records that t in the time period they are placed in the
book of Kings, the striking similarities with the Hezekiah and Sennacherib incident from
both sides, the general and for the most part correct ordering of the kings; the list could go
on. ese are all remarkable historical details that can be of value as long as it is recognized
that the presentation of these details in their larger context are carried out by ancient histo-
rians with more in mind than reporting the cold, hard facts. us, they should be evaluated
accordingly. It is up to each reader to determine what is of historical value—sometimes that
value will exist, oen it will not.
. Memory, for example, whether collective or individual, aects what is remem-
bered and what is forgotten about the past, but the memories themselves are always inter-
preted by those doing the remembering. is not only clearly aects the remembering of
the past, but also the recording of it, as even the person who has experienced and is remem-
bering a past, cannot write about that past without rst interpreting it. e problem is only
compounded when an individual (such as an historian, ancient or modern) is writing about
such memories from a secondary point of view. With respect to historical sources, in some
sense it doesn’t matter how much or how little one has to reconstruct the past, because any
source is already someone else’s interpretation of that past which is now being used as part
of a secondary interpretation. In this case, even rst-hand sources are still interpretations
at their root. To speak of cultural dierences and the intellectual recording of history only
-
ing or recording, all history is an interpretation to one degree or another—it
cannot be avoided.
CONCLUSION
e limitations of reading and using the Hebrew Bible as history are many.
rough some comments on the production of Kings and Chronicles as they
relate to historical reliability, as well as a review of the various chronological,
literary, and historical problems in the biblical presentation of Hezekiah, the
need for caution and careful scrutiny was demonstrated in some particulars.
In addition, the observations about history and the genre of history writing in
the Hebrew Bible and in general have provided a context that can be applied
beyond Kings and Chronicles to the Bible as a whole. However, the histori-
cal value of the Bible is not entirely absent either. In the end, what this paper
hopes to have emphasized is the complexities involved and the issues that need
to be considered in order to oer a real, informed evaluation as to the value
and limitations of reading the Bible as history. In sum, for questions related to
history, historiography, historicity and the Hebrew Bible, conclusions need to
be approached carefully and put in the appropriate context by each individual
reader, for the answers are varied, nuanced, and complex.
leads to more issues of interpretation: whether it is an ancient historian who felt free to
shape, embellish, and otherwise create their history for religious, political, or other pur-
poses, or a modern historian who strives to be free of bias, both still interpret history rather
than simply record things as they really happened. is leads to another important issue—
whether or not anyone even has the ability to get at the truth or reality behind what really
happened. For example, even something as simple as recording the day the second Iraq war
started is an interpretation based on what the recorder believes constitutes the beginning
of that war (e.g., is it the day America decided to invade Iraq, is it the actual day the inva-
sion took place, is it the time that the rst shot was red, or is it events that occurred even
before all these that set these events in motion and therefore is the “real” beginning of the
war?). Or, as an example from Kings, what did cause Sennacherib to leave Jerusalem intact?
Whatever reality was behind it (tribute, the rumor of Tiharqa’s approach, a “plague”), for the
author God was the ultimate reason Jerusalem was spared. e reality behind any historical
“event” evades complete objectivity and requires interpretation.
