Hezekiah: The Ideal Monarch?

The Biblical text characterizes Hezekiah as a righteous king who trusted the God of Israel. The author of 2 Kings 18:5 goes so far as to say Hezekiah was a cut above all the kings of Judah-both before and after. All the kings paled in comparison to him. Despite the perceived good things Hezekiah did, context and historical records paint him in a different light.

One issue consistently at odds in the scholarly realm is the authenticity of Biblical history and archaeology. While we could touch on a litany of Biblical stories that have problems associated with them, Hezekiah's actions serve our purposes for this issue.

First, let's establish a brief background for the rise of Hezekiah.

To begin, he inherited the throne from his father Ahaz who was stricken with a tumultuous reign. Rezin of the Arameans and Pekah of Israel attacked Jerusalem and took captives to Damascus. Edom also invaded Judah with the help of Rezin and together they stripped Eilat from Ahaz's hands. This was a massive economic blow. Eilat was a prime port for Judah that facilitated their trade. The Philistines also attempted to wield their power on the western and southern front by swarming the Shephelah and Negev regions.

Needless to say, Ahaz was hemed in on all sides, slowly asphyxiated by other regional powers.

As a result, Ahaz made a savvy political move (the opposite of what his son ends up doing). He bribed Tiglat-Pileser III (TP3) of Assyria for military assistance, gutting the silver and gold in the Temple and the palace treasury (by the way, Isaiah had some choice words for Ahaz because of this treaty). Now TP3 had Ahaz in his pocket. Judah was now officially submissive to Assyria. With Assyria now acting as the big brother in Judah, law and order was restored under Ahaz and political stability now took shape.

Enter Hezekiah.

He likely witnessed all the turmoil, bloodshed, and political intrigue surrounding his father's career. The treaty Ahaz made with Assyria now transferred to Hezekiah upon his father's death. By default, Hezekiah was a politically indebted subject of Assyrian control. And he played nice for about 14 years acting as a loyal vassal until he decided, per Anson Rainey, to make a "stupid maneuver." Before we tackle that escapade, let's highlight some beneficial moves Hezekiah made during the course of his reign. It's only fair to make positive remarks along with the negatives.

1. Conducted a national Passover celebration. He sent messengers to all of Israel and Judah, inviting them to participate. Some obliged and others declined. (2 Chronicles 30:1)

2. Restored temple worship. He cleansed the Temple of foreign idols. (2 Chronicles 29:15)

3. He obeyed Sargon II and reaped tremendous profits from the trade routes he governed. (2 Kings 20:13)

4. Shut down local cultic centers, tore down pillars, cut down Asherah poles, and removed the high places. Although this may be construed as an act worthy of replication and fidelity to God, its ensuing implications underscore the true motivation for why he did this.

Now for the bad news.

Hezekiah attempted to invoke a spiritual renaissance in Judah by centralizing worship. He mandated all worship of YHWH was to be performed in Jerusalem alone. Let's think about that for a moment. Imagine the Pope, out of the blue, says, "All Christians must now worship at the Vatican. All other religious centers are banned from worshiping God."

This is what Hezekiah did. He outlawed all other shrines outside of Jerusalem. If we read in between the lines, money was the motivating factor. Centralizing worship means more money for the priesthood and the administration.

Let's shift back to the "stupid maneuver" we alluded to earlier.

In 705 BC, Sargon II was killed in battle in Turkey. This initiated a changing of the guard and political unrest in the Assyrian kingdom (not unlike what has transpired in the US as of late). Hezekiah viewed this as a prime opportunity to break free from the Assyrian yoke. He spearheaded an anti-Assyrian coalition, aided by the political backing of Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, Edom, Moab, and Ammon.

Those who didn't comply, he had imprisoned. Hezekiah conspired with the local folk of Ekron to illegally imprison their ruler, Padi, because he didn't support the rebellion. Hezekiah also bullied the king of Gaza, Silli-Ba'al, by occupying Philistine strongholds in he Western Negev.

Sennacherib, the son of Sargon II, took note and was none too pleased with Hezekiah's political maneuvering and made preparations to invade Judah. Hezekiah caught wind of Sennacherib's intentions and he countered by making preparations of his own. He began to fortify towns on the western front (Gezer, Azekah, Lachish, Gath, and Libnah).

In Jerusalem, Hezekiah managed to reroute the Gihon spring by channeling the water inside the city in order to protect the vital source from the pending invasion.

See 2 Chronicles 32:30, 2 Kings 20:20

He built the "Broad Wall" (later discovered by Nachman Avigad) that was 8 meters thick-a piecemeal fortification that utilized stones from houses.

See Isaiah 22:8-11

In 701 BCE, Sennacherib came gallivanting through the land, leaving nothing in his wake. He destroyed 46 cities, completely decimating the kingdom of Judah. Lachish, the second most important city behind Jerusalem and Judah's breadbasket, was reduced to rubble.

A drawing of the relief of the Siege of Lachish found in Sennacherib's palace in Nineveh.

With the majority of the country in flames, Sennacherib set his sights on Judah's capital. While he barricaded Lachish, Sennacherib sent one of his officials to Jerusalem in order to implore Hezekiah to surrender. According to the Biblical text, an angel smote the Assyrian army causing them to retreat. Herodotus, a 5th BCE Greek historian, claims the army was attacked by mice and ate all their leather equipment.

Sennacherib did end up taking Jerusalem, just not by force. Hezekiah emptied out the Temple treasury to pay Sennacherib to go away. Sennacherib documented all his exploits on the prism pictured below. Despite his shortcoming in securing Jerusalem, he boasted how he "...made a prisoner (Hezekiah) in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage."

Sennacherib's Prism speaks of the 46 cities of Judah he destroyed and boasts of his Jerusalem siege. 

From this point, Judah once again is the puppet of a larger imperial outfit and Hezekiah spends the rest of his days bearing the fiscal weight of his colossal indiscretion.

Thus is the story of the illustrious career of Hezekiah and his revolt. Yes, Jerusalem was spared, but the rest of the county laid bare in ruins and he ostensibly had no country left to govern. Heavy taxes were levied against the kingdom for Hezekiah's disobedience. And guess who inherited the chaos and disarray of  Hezekiah's decision?

Manasseh.

Given all this, can we really blame Manasseh, Hezekiah's son, for the things he did? The Bible portrays him as the worst king who ever lived-the complete antithesis of his father. However, he inherited a political and economic maelstrom Hezekiah left behind.

The irony in all of this hinges on Hezekiah's faithfulness to God, yet his kingdom was destroyed. Perhaps we can understand Manasseh's reluctance to follow in his father steps and serve YHWH. Look at what YHWH allowed to happen to Judah despite his father's faithfulness to Him! After all the religious reforms and adherence to YHWH, Judah still suffered immensely. The psychosocial dimension of Manasseh was to revert back to other gods who would protect and bless the country once gain because YHWH had not.

We do discover later Manasseh repented and led the people back to God.

The question concerning all of this, especially Hezekiah, is how we balance the authenticity of the Biblical text, the veracity of extra-Biblical sources, and the integration of context to help expound what has truly transpired behind the scenes. Only so much can be gleaned reading the Bible superficially. Peripheral factors must also be taken into account, giving us a more panoramic view of the story behind the story.

Why Jerusalem?

In an earlier post, we touched on the Bible being a "Jerusalem-centric" book. In other words, the capital of the Southern Kingdom played a key role in the history of ancient Israel functioning as the religious and political center from the time of David until its destruction at the hands of the Romans in 70 CE. Its mentioned approximately 750 times by name in the Bible and over 2000 times by other designations. More impressive is its claim to being the most excavated city in the world.

But why is it special?

It has minimal resources to offer other than stones for building. It does contain an attractive water source (Gihon Spring) suitable to sustain life. One would conjecture with all the spiritual significance surrounding it Torah would make use of it-not one mention. Its name appears for the first time in Joshua. Neither Joshua nor Judges elevates the status of Jerusalem. In fact, the city existed in obscurity for over 6,000 years until David claimed it.

Other capitals predated Jerusalem's prestige. Shiloh was the first Israelite capital under Joshua until Saul shifted the power base to Gibeah. After finally wresting royal control from Saul, David initially set up shop at Hebron in the south. It wasn't until he conquered Jebus from the Jebusites that he renamed it the City of David AKA Jerusalem and permanently entrenched it as the capital of Judah.

Which leads us to a series of questions.

Why did David move his capital north to Jerusalem from Hebron? Why not remain there?

What did Jerusalem have to offer that other traditional capitals (Shiloh or Gibeah) didn't? Shiloh was the original resting place for the Tabernacle when the Israelites rooted themselves in the land. Why not return to the glory days and reestablish Shiloh as the capital?

Jerusalem is kind of off the beaten path and tucked away in the rugged Judean hills, unaccessible to high volumes of traffic. Capitals are places of commerce, exchange of ideas, political power bases, and typically situated in urban settings. You need people to participate in these activities. Jerusalem doesn't fit the bill.

Again, with all these factors working against Jerusalem to be a prime capital city, why did David choose it?

Here are a number of reasons why David chose Jerusalem, for personal and political interests, to be a permanent fixture for the Judean monarchy.

1. Proximity to Home

David grew up in Bethlehem, a meager 7 miles south of Jerusalem. He likely lead his flocks around the area and perhaps to the Gihon Spring itself. This was familiar territory for him. His clashes with the Jebusites as a shepherd for water and grazing rights may have embittered his attitude towards them. This would motivate him later to conquer their city.

2. National Unity

If David's goal was to create a unified nation instead of a tribal society, he needed to move north. Remaining in Hebron, he would only be recognized as king of Judah. If he moved to a more centralized location, chances increased for a cohesive nation comprised of all the tribes.

The Jebusite enclave also drove a geographical wedge between the north and the south, depreciating the probability for a unified nation. This necessitated a takeover of the city to eliminate any internal threats from foreigners. David did not raze the city to the ground, but magnanimously spared the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This shrewd move allowed him to neutralize any menacing actions from foreigners yet allowed him the latitude to incorporate them into his administration. For example, he bought the threshing floor from Aravnah the Jebusite where he later established the Tabernacle and Uriah the Hittite became one of his warlords.

3. Tribal Appeasement

Saul descended from the line of Benjamin, David from Judah. David was not considered a legal heir to throne in the eyes of the Benjaminites. Johnathan and Ish-Boshet, Saul's sons, claimed blood rights to the throne but they died. David may have been too afraid to continue capitalistic functions at Gibeah because it was associated with Saul and he was not of royal lineage. So David did what any good politician would do: he compromised. Jerusalem is technically situated in Benjaminite territory with the Valley of Hinnom acting as the north-south border between Judah and Benjamin. This brilliant, tactical move gave the Benjaminites "bragging rights" and allowed David to keep a crooked eye out for them in closer proximity to squash any revolts. David kept his friends close and his enemies closer.

4. Tradition of Kingship

This concept of kingship associated with Jerusalem stretches back to Melchi-Tzedek, who was both king and high priest of God Most High. Abraham had a delectable communion meal with Melchi-Tzedek and payed a tithe to him from his plunder to honor the king. If Abraham payed taxes, so goes the logic, then every Israelite who is a son of Abraham should pay taxes to the king of Jerusalem.

There is also a semantic feel of "righteousness" associated with Jerusalem. In Hebrew, Melchi-Tzedek means "my righteous king" or "king with righteousness." Kings who were not righteous nor legal heirs to the throne tended to self-indict themselves are righteous. Sargon of Assyria selected his name intentionally, which means "king with truth," although he was not a legal heir to the throne-just like David. Perhaps these thoughts ruminated in David's mind, propelling him to set up shop in Jerusalem.

Here is an even more fascinating insight that could be related to David's outlook on Jerusalem being associated with righteousness. Melchi-Tzedek's name occurs only two instances in the Bible. Once in Genesis 14 when Abraham visits him. Guess where the other mention occurs? Psalm 110-a Psalm David devised.

5. Geopolitical Advantage

Every nation needs revenue to subsist. Fiscal gains are generated by taxing commerce that runs through road systems. Jerusalem sits at a centralized crossroads that runs in all cardinal directions. It's perched along the main artery (Patriarchal Highway or Watershed Ridge Route) that runs north and south from Dan to Beersheva and the road that runs east and west from Jordan to Jaffa. If David controls Jerusalem, he controls trade and stands to make a pretty penny. In other words, he becomes a baller shot caller.

Jerusalem wasn't chosen by David because God said so. The realities behind the decisions of the Biblical characters provide a window into their cognitive dispositions as the divine-human drama unfolds. Learning to read in between the lines and with careful attention to events that predate or postdate the present events recorded in the text helps us get a firmer grasp of why people did what they did.

Israelite Literacy

One hot topic of debate in Biblical academia is the literacy rate in ancient Israel. Scholars land all over the map in their conclusions-some claim Israel was highly literate among the masses and others say only the elite were educated enough to read and write.

The following is a paper I wrote at JUC summarizing the arguments for and against a fully literate Israelite society. Please feel free to disagree and add your own perspectives. Enjoy!

Introduction

The degree of literacy among the ancient Israelite populace remains a subject of debate among scholars. Within the Biblical narrative, people of diverse cultural and occupational backgrounds are noted to have read or wrote documents. A band of experts on paleographic studies suggest literacy was, at the very least, prevalent among the masses during the late Judean monarchy.  Based on economic factors, societal conditions, and technology, other scholars adopt a minimalist approach for rampant literacy during the Biblical era. Many scholars today position their theories of Israelite literacy on the distribution Hebrew epigraphic finds. This paper will discuss the varying perspectives of scholars concerning the literacy competency of the wider population during the Biblical period. Theoretical considerations influencing the spread, or lack thereof, of literacy, epigraphic analysis, standards of literacy, and Biblical mention of reading and writing will be weighed in the course of this essay.

Definition of Literacy

How do we define literacy in antiquity? What we perceive in the 21st century as “functional literacy” may acquiesce to a different barometer than literacy standards in ancient Israel. Literacy in oral cultures may be predicated on the ability to use language in a sophisticated manner.  Still others presuppose literacy necessitates a high linguistic aptitude in reading and writing.  Rollston proposed a three tiered classification system for literacy levels among ancient Israelites. First he interpreted the term “literacy” as: “a substantial facility in a writing system, that is, the ability to write and read, using and understanding a standard script, a standard orthography, a standard numeric system, conventional formatting and terminology, and with minimal errors (of composition or comprehension).”  People in ancient Israelite society who possessed these capabilities were considered “literate.” Excluded from this camp are those who can write their name on a contract, yet possess no capacity to read or write at a reasonably functional level. Semiliterate people were those who could read with moderate competence and read and write simple words. Third, Rollston admits there are variations in the aforementioned categories, but the data does not exist for us to make accurate assumptions about the gradients in these aberrations.

Societal Factors Contributing to Literacy

William Harris attempted to evaluate the prevalence of lexical education in the Greco-Roman world,  leading him to question the assumed favorable literacy estimates.  He argued certain societal preconditions must be met before for the diffusion of literacy among a mass population occurs. For instance, technology must be available to produce a vast number of inexpensive texts. Without the printing press, no incentive to read among the general population remains.  Secondly, a network of extant schools funded by the state or a religious institution is essential to high literacy rates. Harris claims no society can achieve a majority percentage of literacy among its constituents without a structured school system. Economic complexity also encourages a large segment of the population to acquire a level of literacy.  In order to exchange goods or sign and read contracts and/or receipts, participating parties must have a functioning level of literacy. Finally, a ubiquitous ideology for economic, religious, or philanthropic purposes must view literacy as a worthwhile endeavor. Based on his criteria, Harris concluded the majority of people in the ancient societies were illiterate.

How did Israelite society measure up to Harris’ standards? It goes without saying Israel did not have a printing press, making it virtually impossible to mass produce texts. Additionally, Warner conjectured that “the availability and type of writing materials in Israel had an adverse effect upon its literacy rate.”  The lack of machinery to produce texts on a wide scale and sub-par writing implements and materials may explain the dearth of texts discovered at archeological excavations in the land of Israel.


To Harris’ second point, debate among scholars continues concerning the prominence of schools among Israelite society in antiquity. If these schools did exist, no evidence remains to indicate they ventured to educate the masses.  Lemaire  thought otherwise. He claimed during the monarchy of Judah, considerable school systems were in place that developed from the earlier monarchy. These schools originally were delegated for professional scribes but eventually the curriculum was expanded to include the general public. Lemaire based his theory upon Deut. 6:6-9, and inscriptions he presumed to be random sketches from school children.  Golka’s hypothesis ran counter to Lemaire based on sociological objections.  Golka stressed the stages of political and cultural development in Egyptian and Israelite society in the 10th BCE and called for a comparison between Israel’s early monarchy to that of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, where all education occurred in the home. Thus, Golka was convinced that schools did not exist during monarchic Israel. Jamieson-Drake rationalized the Old Hebrew alphabet was easy enough that one person could pass alphabetic knowledge on to another, making schools unnecessary.

There are implications schools existed during the early Biblical era at three different sites. A 13th BCE bilingual dictionary found at Ashkelon displays a word for word translation from Sumerian to Canaanite.  Someone with a working knowledge of Cuneiform and Canaanite must have been present to teach the author or the writer inscribed it alone. Aphek yielded a Late Bronze Age fragment of a trilingual dictionary in Akkadian, Sumerian, and Canaanite that described the names of liquids.  A Judges Era  abecedary from ‘Izbet Sartah appears to display a rudimentary written alphabet probably scribed by a child learning his/her Alef-Bet-Dalet’s.  Despite these significant finds, we have no unequivocal evidence of an established school at these sites. Furthermore, all the sites are located outside Israelite territory during the Late Bronze Age. We can surmise the potential of small scale academic institutions related to the Canaanite language based on the aforementioned finds. Perhaps this idea of small scale academic institutions was adopted in later periods of Israelite history, as Lemaire suggests.

The extent of economic activity in ancient Israel remains questionable. According to the Biblical account, Israel’s economy, at least during the Conquest and Judges periods, was not conducted on a large scale and likely remained localized. The largely agrarian society ascribed minimal importance to literacy skills.  Only during the establishment of David’s kingdom and Solomon’s expansion do we see economic affluence infiltrate the land of Israel with references to the great wealth of Solomon.  Perhaps literacy rates may have increased during the reigns of David and Solomon, opening the door for literacy to proliferate and trickle down to the later Iron Age II period.
Importance of the Alphabet

By the 10th BCE, the alphabet was invented opening the doorway for the common person to gain the ability to read and write.  The invention of the alphabet by the Canaanites may have had a transformative effect on literacy rates among the early Israelites. During the 9th BCE, the Canaanite alphabet became the official script of the ancient Near East. Goldwasser  claims the Canaanite alphabet was a monumental revolution in the world of literacy. This style of communication simplified older versions of writings integrating less than 30 signs and only a handful of grammatical rules associating signs with sounds. Literacy was no longer relegated to elite scribes. Now, the average member of society could access knowledge in order to read and write.  Albright also supports this notion when he stated “since the forms of the letters are very simple, the 22- letter alphabet could be learned in a day or two by a bright student and in a week or two by the dullest.”  His strong position is accentuated by his theory that many were literate as early as the period of the Judges.

More recent scholars take a conservative approach. Rollston insists we exercise pause when making assumptions about the simplicity of the Canaanite alphabet system and the expedited pace at which one could acquire a fluid knowledge.  His case is supported by studies in modern language acquisition. Essentially, language proficiency transpires in a series of stages over the course of years, not days or weeks. Thus, Rollston considers any argument for pervasive literacy based on the simplicity of learning an alphabet problematic.
Official vs. Popular Literacy

Wright dissected Biblical literacy into two categories: official and popular.  Demsky elaborated on this idea, also citing two categories of literacy during the Biblical era. A scribal class that comprised no more than 5% of the population wrote for their own professional needs or enjoyment.  They belonged to a closed society while learning in a structured environment. Royal scribes were responsible for record keeping, managing international and local affairs, communicated political truth (i.e. propaganda), read documents to the king, and wrote letters on his behalf.

Popular literacy included a literate society with the potential for more widespread literacy.  Demsky claims Iron Age Israel “was a literate society characterized by a national literature and a growing number of nonprofessional literate people, particularly from the eighth century onward.”  He bases his conclusion on epigraphic evidence. (1) In the 8th BCE to 6th BCE, Judahite seals were generally designed without iconographic motifs and were replaced with writing. Assuming the seal served an administrative function and aesthetics were a non-issue, supplanting a symbols with words hints at a flourishing literate society. (2) Some inscriptions from the Iron Age era contain a vulgar script, likely not used by well-educated people (Gibeon jar handles and graffiti from Kh. Beit Lei and Kh. El-Qom).  (3) Discovered inscriptions display material purposefully written by and for farmers and craftsmen (Samaria ivories). Potters, ivory joiners, and craftsman began to implement writing into their fields. Also, epigraphic evidence suggests vine dressers were becoming increasingly literate.  (4) The Prophets wrote down their prophecies in hopes of promoting their message. Their writings sought to close the gap between a literate group and a lay audience. (5) The critique of writing is also an indicator of a literate society (Is. 10:1; Jer. 8:8).  All these point to popular literacy being mainstream or at least beginning to take root in Iron Age I.

Biblical examples also highlight a moderate to high level of popular literacy during the Iron Age II period. (1) Prophets wrote to popularize their message among the masses, assuming others possessed a basic level of literacy (Jer. 25:26; 51:1). (2) Sharp criticism of the royal scribe’s misappropriation of writing and their misuse of power is emphasized (Is. 10:1-2; Jer. 8:8). (3) Changes in transactions begins to occur, such as written contracts instead of binding oral agreements (Jer. 32:10-14 stands in contradistinction to Gen. 23 and Ruth 4:1-11). In addition, personal signatures are recorded by scribes instead of lists of names (Jer. 32:12; Neh. 10:1-28).


Significant Epigraphic Evidence

Another method of ascertaining literacy levels is through Hebrew epigraphic material. A wide distribution of inscriptions have led scholars to formulate liberal estimates of widespread literacy. Moreover, the large number of seal impressions testify to a wider group of merchants, landowners, or religious personnel outside of governmental officials who could read these letters to identify the seals.  The most plentiful examples of Hebrew writings stem from the 7th BCE and early 6th BCE and are largely comprised of short messages written in ink on potsherds, better known as ostraca. These inscriptions have been discovered in a variety of contexts. Major towns like Jerusalem and Lachish and military settlements such as Arad and Aroer contain ostraca.

Stone seals are the most common objects found incised with the owner’s name and usually accompanied with the father’s name. They are typically found in burials and settlements, along with one discovered at a farm in the Buqei’ah valley. Stone weights are another class of seals created during this during Iron Age II with shekel values were incised into the stone using words. Random graffiti in tombs (Khirbet el-Qom, Khirbet Beit Lei) also attest to common people possessing the ability to write. All these date to the last 150 years of Judah’s history.  The Samaria Ostraca, dated to 775 to 750 BCE, displays the work of record keepers but outside of this find, few Hebrew texts exist that can be dated before 700 BCE. One exception is the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa. Ganor and Garfinkel unearthed an ostraca with Hebrew script dated to the 10th BCE.  The Tel Zayit abecedary appears to stem from the late 10th BCE to early 9th BCE.  The Gezer Calendar, also from the 10th BCE, signifies a knowledge of writing in ancient Israel but is not written in a Hebrew script.
Biblical Evidence

Throughout the Bible, reading, writing, and books are frequently mentioned. Moses writes God’s covenant with Israel (Ex.24:4), Israel’s wanderings from Egypt to Canaan (Num. 33:2), his song (Dt. 31:25), and Torah (Dt. 31:9). Other laws were written by God (Ex. 32:16; 34:1 4).  Important religious leaders and prominent Biblical characters also read and wrote: Joshua (Josh. 1:8; 24:26), Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25), David (2 Sam. 11:14), Jezebel (1 Kings 21:8), the king of Damascus (2 Kings 5), and Jehu (2 Kings 10).

Known literacy rates for kings in the Bible remains elusive. Kings may have had the ability to read and write for themselves but scribes may have acted on their behalf.  The Book of the Law that was found in the Temple was read by Shaphan to Josiah (2 Kings 22:10). Jehudi read Jeremiah’s prophecies to Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:20-26). Though Jeremiah was not a king, he summoned Baruch to write for him (Jer. 36:4). Esther 8:8-9 depicts the Persian king ordering royal scribes to write for Esther and Mordecai. Being read to and delegating a scribe to write for someone of royal ilk may have been a routine practice and says little about the literacy level of the recipient.  Ashurbanipal (7th BCE) boasted about his level of literacy and his proficiency in reading Akkadian, perhaps insinuating he was one of a select few rulers who could read and write. Thus, official scribes likely read to kings and wrote for them in the distant past.  On the other hand, Deut. 17:18-19 portrays future kings as being literate entities, charging them to copy and read Torah for themselves.

The Bible also assumed a basic familiarity with writing among the ordinary citizen. A certificate of divorce was expected to be written by a man divorcing his wife (Deut. 24:1-3; Is. 50:1; Jer. 3:8). The Sh’ma expresses that Torah was to be written on the doorposts of houses and on city gates (Deut. 6:9; 11:20). The nation of Israel at large was commanded to write Torah on stones after they crossed the Jordan River (Deut. 27:2-3, 8). Inscribed monuments were billboards for travelers passing by (Josh. 8:30-35), intimating a commoner could decipher what was written on the stone.
Conclusion

A segment of academics today and years past advocate for a high literacy rate among the common citizenry beginning in the 8th BCE and reaching its zenith in 6th BCE. Scholars such as Albright, Goldwasser, Cross, and Hess make over generalizations about literacy based on a facile alphabet and sporadic inscriptional treasures. Other scholars such as Rollston are more judicious in their approach to interpreting epigraphic relics, noting caution must be exercised when contending non-elites were literate based on the cumulative data of discovered abecedaries. Harris draws sweeping accusations about literacy within his framework of societal preconditions that leads him down a rigid road of illiterate universalism in the ancient world. The Bible provides minimal documentation of ordinary people reading and writing. At the very least, we can reasonably assume many of the aristocrats of Biblical antiquity achieved reading and writing skills-most notably the class of royal scribes and governmental officials.  What we are left wanting is the nature of literacy amongst the rank and file of the proletariat. Positions on both sides of the fence raise compelling arguments but, barring a colossal treasury of inscriptions detailing an appraisal of literacy, we are left to merely conjecture about the true nature of literacy in ancient Israel.



Bibliography

Albright, William F., Discussion. Pp. 94–123 in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East, ed. C. H. Kraeling and Robert M. Adams. (1960) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beck, Pirhiya and Moshe Kochavi, “Aphek”, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Carta, 1993).
Cross, F. M., “The Origin and Evolution of the Alphabet”, EI 8 (1967) 12ff.
Demsky, A., “On the Extent of Literacy in Ancient Israel”, in Janet Amitai (ed.), Biblical Archaeology Today Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem, 1985) p. 349.
Demsky, A., “Reading Northwest Semitic Inscriptions”, Near Eastern Archaeology 70:2 (2007).
Demsky, A., “Dark Wine from Judah”, IEJ (1972) pp. 233-234.
Garfinkel, Yosef and Ganor, Saar, “Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1 Excavation Report 2007-2008”, IEJ and Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2009).
Goldwasser, O., “How the Alphabet Was Born from Hieroglyphics”, BAR 36:02 Mar/Apr 2010.
Golka, F. W., “Die Israelitische Weisheitsschule oder ‘des Kaisers neue Kleider’”, VT 33 (1983) pp. 257- 70.
Harris, W., Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1989).
Hess, R., “Writing about Writing: Abecedaries and Evidence for Literacy in Ancient Israel”, VT 56 (2006): 342–46.
Humphrey, J. H., Literacy in the Roman World (Ann Arbor, 1991).
Huehnergard, J. and Soldt, W., “A Cuneiform Lexical Text from Ashkelon with a Canaanite Column”, IEJ (1999) 49:184-192.
Jamieson-Drake, D. W., Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach. JSOTSup 109. 1991 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Kochavi, M., “An Ostracon of the Period of the Judges from ‘Izbet Sartah”, TA (1977) 4/1-2:1-13.
Lamaire, A., “Schools and Literacy in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism”, in L. Perdue (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible (trans. A. Niang; Oxford: Blackwell, 2001): 207-12.
Millard, A. R., “The Practice of Writing in Ancient Israel”, BA 35 (1972) pp. 98-111.
Millard, A. R., “An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel”, Biblical Archaeology Today (n. 6), pp. 303-306.
Millard, A. R., “Literacy (Israel)”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 4 (1992) pp. 337-340.
Naveh, J., “A Paleographic Note on the Distribution of the Hebrew Script”, HTR 61 (1968) pp. 68-74.
Rollston, Christopher A., “The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy”, Eisenbrauns.
Rollston, Christopher A., “Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence”, BASOR 344: 47–74.
te Velde, H., “Scribes and Literacy in Ancient Egypt”, H. L. J. Vanstiphout, K. Jongeling, F. Leemhuis, and G. J. Reinink (ed.) Scripta Signa Vocis Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes, and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers (Groningen, 1986).
Quick, L., “Recent Research on Ancient Israelite Education: A Bibliographic Essay”, Currents in Biblical Research 2014 13:9.
Warner, S., “The alphabet: an innovation and its diffusion”, VT 30 (1980) pp. 81-90.
Wright, Paul, Cultural Backgrounds Lecture (2014)
Young, Ian M., “Israelite Literacy,” VT XLVII (1998).

Biblical Propaganda

Is history defined by propaganda or is propaganda defined by history? Media wars have become a common occurrence today. The #FakeNews continues to slither its way through twitter and other social media outlets. InfoWars and other "alt-right" news outfits hurl damaging insults at CNN, NBC, CBS, and other mainstream media outlets exposing the corruption and lies propagated by these news agencies. CNN, NBC, and others counter with their version of truth to demonize the conservative news platforms.

We can all agree propaganda muddies the waters of truth. Its a constant battle being waged in the quest for transparency.

How is propaganda related to the Bible?

Are there hints or even blatant traces of religious propaganda embedded in the Bible stories?

Unequivocally, yes. Lets use Hezekiah as our case study. However, in order to navigate this sensitive topic, we need to establish a concept upon which to build. This will be the precursor to a forthcoming post on the the elements of leadership involving Hezekiah and Ahab.

To begin, lets set a foundation for who wrote the Bible. Granted, this is quite an expansive topic and not all points will be covered. What we can say with some degree of certainty is most of the Biblical books are written by a Judahite author(s) who had an agenda. Some scholars, including Israel Finkelstein and Richard Friedman have written books touching on this topic.

The Bible is a Jerusalem-centric book aimed at legitimizing the capital of Judah against the northern kingdom of Israel. Remember, these were Arabesque people with tribal loyalties who had trouble getting along. At no point in Israel's history was the country ever truly united. Sheba the Benjaminite rebelled against David and even his own son, Absalom, staged a coup d'etat. Solomon's "United Kingdom" was rife with revolts. His own brother revolted against him and Jeroboam, one of Solomon's right hand men, partnered with Egypt to rebel.

Moreover, not one Israelite king is painted in a positive light by the Biblical author(s). Conversely, a handful of Judahite kings are deemed worthy of praise.

It should come as no surprise that tribal patriotism spawned political agendas to delegitimize the kingdom of other tribes.

FYI...The core doctrinal principles of the Christian faith-forgiveness of sin, eternal life, the gospel, and kingdom of heaven are all religious propaganda jargon used by the Man himself, Jesus.

With these ideas, we can begin to dissect the exploits of Hezekiah and Ahab knowing a bias exists. Next up will be a post as a comparative analysis between those two kings. We will seek to define the attributes of good leadership.