Peter Dubovský, «Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall According to 2 Kings 15?», Vol. 95 (2014) 321-346
By applying various exegetical methodologies to 2 Kings 15, I have tried to identify the dynamics responsible for the fall of the Northern Kingdom, such as its instability, financial problems, tribal tensions, wrong international policy, etc. By analyzing some Assyrian documents it was shown that these dynamics were often in play during Assyrian invasions.
01_Dubovský_321_346 28/10/14 10:32 Pagina 321
Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall
According to 2 Kings 15?
The fall of Samaria and consequently the end of the Northern
Kingdom has become the object of several scholarly investigations.
Most scholars have focused on the reconstruction of the events, i.e.
on political and social history 1. The biblical books describe the fall
of the Northern Kingdom from different angles presenting it in ac-
cordance with the cultural views and theological beliefs of biblical
authors and redactors. In particular, prophets such as Amos, Hosea,
and Isaiah offer various sociological and theological reasons why
the Northern Kingdom collapsed. 1–2 Kings play a special role
among the biblical books dealing with the fall of the Northern
Kingdom. 2 Kings 17 and 18,9-12 not only describe basic events
in their characteristic annalistic style (17,3-6.23-24; 18,9-11) but
also offer a theological reflection that by means of the Deuterono-
mistic theologies explains the reasons for the fall of the Northern
Kingdom (17,7-22; 18,12). There are, however, few scholarly writ-
ings dedicated to 2 Kings 15 that would aim at understanding the
dynamics latent in the society of the Northern Kingdom, which, I
believe, ultimately led to its fall 2.
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria. An Historical and Archaeological
Summary (Leiden 1992) 21-104; G. GALIL, “The Last Years of the Kingdom
of Israel and the Fall of Samaria”, CBQ 57 (1995) 52-64; J.L. HAYES – J.K.
KUAN, “The Final Years of Samaria (730-720 BC)”, Bib 72 (1991) 153-181;
B.E. KELLE, “Hoshea, Sargon, and the Final Destruction of Samaria: A Re-
sponse to M. Christine Tetley with a View toward Method”, JSOT 17 (2003)
226-244; N. NA’AMAN, “The Historical Background to the Conquest of
Samaria (720 BC)”, Bib 71 (1990) 206-225; M.C. TETLEY, “The Date of
Samaria’s Fall as a Reason for Rejecting the Hypothesis of Two Conquests”,
CBQ 64 (2002) 59-77; K.L. YOUNGER, “The Fall of Samaria in Light of Re-
cent Research”, CBQ 61 (1999) 461-482.
Besides the major commentaries the following studies treat this chapter
from different angles: F. CLANCY, “Jotham and Shallum: a Redactor’s
Choice”, SJOT 26 (2012) 289-302; M. COGAN – H. TADMOR, “Ahaz and
Tiglath-pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations”, Bib
60 (1979) 491-508; A. FAUST, “The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A New Look
on the Settlement of Judah”, PEQ 145 (2013) 203-219; M. HARAN, “The Rise
BIBLICA 95.3 (2014) 321-346