Ahab's House of Horrors (eBook)

Chapter 1

A PROLOGUE

First Kings 12 recounts a strategic moment in the history of ancient Israel. As the chapter begins, Rehoboam meets the delegates of his nation at Shechem for his coronation as the new king of unified Israel. This is a time of transition that also happens to bring a palpable level of vulnerability for the king. Why is he to be coronated at Shechem and not Jerusalem? Shechem was a northern stronghold with deep ties to the politics of the northern region. Thus, the implication is that at the time of his coronation, Rehoboam does not enjoy solid political footing. Of course, these suspicions are quickly verified by the opening verses. The emissaries of the northern tribes approach Rehoboam with a proposal, whereby they ask that their economic burdens be lightened. If their request is granted, then they will fall in line with his reign (1 Kgs 12:4). Thus, it is clear that the policies of his father Solomon had exacerbated rifts between the tribes of Israel.

As the chapter unfolds, the situation takes a turn for the worst. Rehoboam displays not only a lack of wisdom, but he also resigns himself to his insecurities when he accepts the advice of his unproven and privileged counselors. The result? The northern tribes break away, declaring that they no longer will have anything to do with David’s line and the capital in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:16). What was once a unified nation became two separate nations until 722 BC when the northern kingdom was overrun by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. But more to the point, the era of the divided monarchy was characterized by inconsistent relationships between the two kingdoms. Sometimes Judah and Israel worked together for common goals and the betterment of their societies and cultures. Other times, they were at each other’s throats. In fact, hostility defined the early years of the divided monarchy. First Kings 14 through 16 documents continual skirmishes and conflicts between Judah and Israel, even stating that war defined their relationship from the reigns of Rehoboam through Asa in the south, and Jeroboam through Elah in the north (1 Kgs 15:6, 32). Thus, a picture is painted of a geopolitical mess where alliances were broken, betrayals incited, and self-preservation was the norm.

Eventually, the Israelite general Omri asserted himself on the scene. According to 1 Kings 16:15–16, a large group of influential people within Israelite society facilitated the crowning of Omri in rejection of the coup d’état by Zimri, one of Elah’s two chariotry commanders (1 Kgs 16:8–10). In turn, Omri marshalled his troops and quickly dispatched the usurper. However, this course of action produced another obstacle for Omri. Tibni, another claimant to the throne, was recognized by some within Israel in the wake of Zimri’s assassination (1 Kgs 16:21). In other words, Omri’s dispatching of Zimri produced more problems, forcing him to deal with a rival claim to the throne. Nevertheless, Tibni’s claim did not last long as the supporters of Omri overwhelmed the supporters of Tibni (1 Kgs 16:22), and Omri quickly solidified his claim to the Israelite throne. Omri then purchased the region around Samaria from a man named Shemer in order to build a new capital, symbolizing a new era of Israelite history. But to take it a step further, this new capital also provided a newfound stability in the region, for such infrastructure investments were impossible in the years leading up to Omri’s inauguration. Similar to Solomon’s heavy-handed policies, Omri’s violence provided a new phase of cultural development for Israel (see 1 Kgs 3–10).

Omri initiated a relatively short-lived dynasty that functioned effectively during the middle portion of the ninth century BC. Although—as we will discuss throughout this study—there are some very sticky chronological difficulties with demarcating the length of their reigns precisely.

TABLE 1: The Omride dynasty

In spite of this apparent success, the book of Kings quickly notes that Omri “did evil in the eyes of Yahweh” by persisting in the sins of Jeroboam I. In fact, Omri did more evil “than all who were before him” (1 Kgs 16:25–26). Moreover, the reader does not have to progress much further to realize that Omri’s family, particularly his son Ahab, appeared at the center of much national controversy. Immediately after Ahab’s succession to the throne, the reader is informed of Ahab’s syncretism, diplomatic marriage to the Sidonian princess Jezebel, and his collusion in the formal establishment of Baalism (1 Kgs 16:29–32). And if that was not enough, Ahab surpassed his father’s apostasy with flying colors. According to 1 Kings 16:33, “Ahab continued to do things to incite Yahweh, God of Israel, to anger, more than all the kings of Israel who were before him.” The Omride dynasty is probably most famous for their public hostility toward Yahweh’s prophets (see 1 Kgs 18).

Consequently, the Old Testament quickly vilifies the Omride dynasty. Yet this focused presentation creates a significant difficulty vis-à-vis the extrabiblical testimony of the dynasty. Several inscriptions and archaeological evidence suggest that the Omrides’ effect on the region was positive.2 For example, the Kurkh Monolith illustrates Ahab’s resourcefulness and capabilities with the sizable military force marshalled for the Syro-Palestinian coalition against the Assyrians at Qarqar (see chapter 2). The Moabite Stone testifies to Omride imperialism and geopolitical influence in the region (see chapter 6), and the Tel Dan Stele celebrates the defeat of the dynasty in a way that testifies to its regional dominance (see chapter 2). Archaeologically speaking, the architecture of Samaria displays undeniable marks of cultural sophistication. Whether in monumental architecture or small finds, both the quality of the material finds and the construction itself suggests a society that had resources, ambition, and a will to develop a cultural brand. In addition, locations through the region (e.g., Jezreel) display evidence of development and cultural continuity with Samaria.

For some, the net result of these divergent sources produces a manageable tension. For others, it produces a historical barrier that potentially destabilizes the veracity of the Old Testament. In many cases, allegiance must be declared. Either one must exclusively accept the biblical representation of the dynasty as the testimony that matters, effectively questioning any positive influence the dynasty had on the region, or one must exclusively accept the extrabiblical testimony, thereby calling into question the viability and usefulness of the Old Testament. Admittedly, the stakes are high, for the latter scenario has proven to have lasting implications within certain Christian academic traditions. If the biblical presentation of the Omride dynasty is so slanted—beyond the point that it can be trusted to contain any historical value—then what does it have to say about other historical claims in the Old Testament? Are all the claims in the Old Testament so ideologically slanted that they are beyond historical usefulness?

We believe that such an “either/or” scenario is problematic. For starters, such a black-and-white position harkens back to the debates between the so-called “minimalists” and “maximalists.” These debates were widespread toward the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century dividing scholars who believe there is historical value in the Old Testament against those who do not. And as you might expect, caricaturization soon defined the interaction. Such caricaturization produces strawmen in order to expose perceived fallacies. This, in turn, produced a centrist position that was so diffuse that essentially anyone could lay claim to that point on the academic spectrum. So, as everyone claimed a centrist position, it quickly became meaningless.

The unintended consequence of the minimalist-maximalist debate—namely, the over-saturation of the centrist position—nevertheless sheds light on the philosophical problems of the “either/or” scenario. To put it bluntly, such a scenario is just not viable. The historical difficulties associated with the Omride dynasty, which are mirrored throughout the Old Testament, cannot be navigated with a simplistic declaration of allegiance to a particular pool of data, like a fan that myopically roots for their favorite team. Determining whether one is partial to “Team Bible” against all other contenders will neither solve nor alleviate the difficulties. And the same can be said about allegiance to “Team Archaeology” or “Team Assyrian Inscriptions.” As will become clear in this study, the dynamics of historical reconstruction and ancient history writing are too nuanced. One must move beyond the black and white and embrace the gray.

Consequently, this study seeks to embrace the gray by engaging the complex dynamics of ancient history writing and the historical difficulties of the Omride dynasty. Yet the historical difficulties of the...