Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah (review)

THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW,XCII, Nos. 1-2 (July-October, 2001) 202-204 ANDREW G. VAUGHN. Theology,History,andArchaeologyin theChronicler's Accountof Hezekiah.Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1999. Pp. xviii + 240. The burdenof this monograph,a revised version of the author'sPh.D. dissertation,is to demonstratethat the Chronicler'sportrayalof extensive economic and administrativedevelopment under Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29-32) is at least plausible in the light of recentarchaeologicalresearch.A dominant accompanying argument throughoutthe book is that, from an archaeological point of view, the prosperityof Hezekiah'sreign (late 8th century BCE) far surpassedthe materialsituationunderJosiah (mid to late 7th centuryBCE), by whose time a markeddecline had set in. Vaughnfurther marshals the archaeological data to draw historiographicconclusions concerning the differences between the portrayalsof Hezekiah and Josiah in the Books of Kings andChronicles,respectively.Specifically,Vaughnrecruits the archaeologicalevidence in supportof J. Rosenbaum'sclaim that the relatively sparsecoverage of Hezekiah'saccomplishmentsin Kings (as opposed to Chronicles) derives from the Tendenzof Kings' Josianic editor to highlight the importanceof Josiah. Vaughn'spoint of anchoris Lachish Levels III and II, correspondingto the late 8th centuryandlate 7th to early 6th centuriesBCE, respectively.By plotting out potteryfinds and other signs of populationpatternscontemporary to each of these two strata at other sites, Vaughn methodically advances his thesis thattheperiodof Hezekiahwitnessed a peakof settlement andeconomic expansion,particularlyin the Shephelahregion. Vaughnis to be commended for proceeding with his archaeological analyses in a cautious and nuanced manner.Thus, he is far less decisive in applying his theory to settlements in the JudeanHills, particularlythose in the vicinity of Jerusalem,where the evidence occasionally points to 7th centuryresettlement and even growth. Likewise, Vaughngrantsthe possibility that the appearanceor revival of certainNegev areasites in the 7th centurymay be explained, at least in part,as a resultof Josiah'sredirectingeconomic activity therefollowing the waning of Judeaninfluence in the Shephelah. Approximatelyhalf of Vaughn'smonographis devoted to a study of the Imlkjars, which serves to buttresshis historical reconstructioneven more than the archaeological analyses per se. Vaughnadopts the emerging consensus thatthe Imlkcorpus(andaccompanyingseal impressions)date overwhelmingly to the 8th century.This conclusion rests on both paleographic and stratigraphicconsiderations. Vaughn'snew slant on the issue is his insistence that the Imlkjars did not function solely or even primarilyas partof Hezekiah'sfinal siege preparationsin advanceof Sennacherib's701 VAUGHN,THEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND ARCHAEOLOGY-GLATT-GILAD 203 invasion. Rather, they were used in the context of an ongoing economic and administrativeorganizationthroughoutHezekiah'sreign. Vaughn'sconclusion derives from his observationsthatthe storagejar type on which the Imlk stampsarefound is not uniqueto the late 8th centuryandthatthe distributionof the Imlk stampsis not limited to fortified sites (p. 138). Again, an importantelement of Vaughn'spresentationis his contrastingof Hezekiah 'swell developed administrativeinfrastructurewith the weaker conditions thatpertainedin Josiah'skingdom. Vaughn'sattemptto bring archaeologicaldatato bear on historiographic questions is admirable,though not without its limitations. Although at the outset, Vaughn speaks in terms of testing the relationshipof extrabiblical historical datato 2 Chronicles29-32 as a whole, the readerquickly discovers thatVaughn'sinvestigation is in fact limited to examining the historical verisimilitude of 2 Chr 32:27-30 alone. Vaughn'sconcentrationon 2 Chr 32:27-30 is understandable,since these verses deal specifically with Hezekiah 's amassing of great wealth and property.Yet the main focus of the Chronicler'sportrayal of Hezekiah, namely the cultic reforms and reorganization of the Jerusalemtemple and its personnel, remains outside the purview of what Vaughn'sarchaeological data can illuminate. Even with regard to 2 Chr 32:27-30, Vaughn wisely does not assert unequivocally that the Chronicler was drawing from a particularhistorical source, but rather from "historically reliable traditions or remembrances"(p. 3) or "oral tradition"(p. 173). However judicious, this conclusion leaves much unansweredandindeed unanswerable.Above all, was the Chronicleraware that such "reliable traditions"concerning Hezekiah'sprosperitycould not have had their original locus in the period of Hezekiah'sreign following the Assyrian invasion (which is precisely where the Chronicler incorporates these putative traditions)?What are the implications of such an awareness, if it existed, for understandingthe Chronicler'shistoriographic method? The historiographicramifications which Vaughn seeks to extract from his majorsub-theme, namely the historical superiorityof Hezekiah'skingdom over Josiah's,are also problematic.It is hardto accept the notion of a deliberate downsizing of Hezekiah at Josiah's expense on the part of the Deuteronomist...