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 336
336 PETER DUBOVSKÝ
the proper names, is the verb hf'[' in 15,34. Moreover, both kings
were touched by God’s hand. The Lord struck Azariah with a skin
disease and Jotham with the invasions led by Resin and Pekah. Fi-
nally, both of them were just kings, but both of them were unable
to remove the high places. In sum, the similarities between parts A
and A’ are important enough to enable us to connect the description
of Azariah’s reign with that of Jotham.
Parts B and B’ also display several similarities. Both describe
two Israelite kings. In part B Zechariah was a legitimate successor
of Jeroboam and Shallum was a usurper; in B’ Pekahiah was a le-
gitimate successor of Menahem and Pekah was a usurper. So the
first king in each part is a legitimate successor of his father while
the second is a usurper. Moreover, each part contains two formulas
denoting a coup d’état (see above).
The skillfully built parallelism between parts A–A’ and B–B’
leads the reader to the narrative center describing Menahem’s reign
(part C). In order to determine the central part of chapter 15, it is
necessary to focus on the addendum 31 preceding Menahem’s reign
that lists the brutalities he committed (2 Kgs 15,16). Several schol-
ars have connected this verse with Shallum’s reign 32. This verse
starts with the particle za'. A similar case starting with an za'–clause
in 1 Kgs 16,21 clearly connects the za'–clause with what follows
and not with what precedes. Moreover, thematically the description
regards what follows and not what precedes. Therefore it seems
logical that in verse 16 the za'–clause should be connected with the
literary unit describing Menahem’s reign, i.e. what follows 33. This
clause prefaces the introductory regnal résumé (2 Kgs 15,17) with
31
The literary introductory or conclusive regnal résumés could be pre-
fixed, infixed or suffixed with addenda. These addenda in 1 and 2 Kings are
of two types: the first type adds further information about the king whose
death has already been announced (1 Kgs 16,7; 2 Kgs 15,12). The second
type serves as a preface to the reign of the king whose reign is going to be
described (1 Kgs 16,21).
32
See for example the division in the Catholic Edition of the Revised Stan-
dard Version of the Bible or M.A. SWEENEY, I & II Kings. A Commentary
(OTL; London 2007) 372-373.
33
This verse also functions as a narrative transition between the descrip-
tion of Shallum’s (2 Kgs 15,13-15) and Menahem’s reign (2 Kgs 15,17-22),
in particular by means of repetition of the verb hkn in verses 15 and 16. We