For much of history, Israel and Judah have been thought of as a single cultural entity with occasional political differences. That is, they both stemmed from one kingdom, called Israel, and remained culturally connected after the united Kingdom divided into the northern and southern kingdoms. However, historians are now beginning to study Israel and Judah as both separate kingdoms and separate cultures. Although they do share many traditions, it has become clear that studying these two kingdoms separately provides a clearer picture of the individualizing features of their cultures and histories. To understand why historians have moved to a separate historical approach, it is important to understand why Judah and Israel were initially studied
…show more content…
Both kingdoms spoke an early form of Hebrew, unlike the surrounding kingdoms. They also shared a religious tradition. Both kingdoms were more or less exclusively devoted to the God, Yhwh, though this devotion apparently wavered depending on the king. This overlap in culture further suggests a shared history between Judah and Israel.
It may be advantageous to study these kingdoms as a single entity, depending on one’s goals. This perspective strengthens the idea of the united monarchy under David and Solomon by attempting to confirm the two kingdoms’ shared history. Moreover, it provides historians with an opportunity to study the Israelite culture more in depth. In this sense, the nuances and variances between the two kingdoms show different aspects of a single culture. These subtleties and similarities may be missed when the cultures are studied as separate cultures
Nevertheless, historians are beginning to move away from this method and treat Judah and Israel as two entirely different groups. This has begun to highlight the individual features of each kingdom. Furthermore, it has allowed historians to investigate the history of the often ignored northern kingdom. As a result of this investigation, some historians have suggested that there is even less evidence for the united monarchy than previously …show more content…
When his son, Rehoboam, goes to the northern tribes in order to be anointed as king, the leaders say they will only serve him as king if he lessens “the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke on us” (Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings 12:4). Not only does this verse demonstrate Solomon’s treatment of Israel, it indicates that the northern tribes did not have to automatically accept Rehoboam as their king. When Rehoboam threatens to be even harsher than Solomon, the tribes do not anoint him as king, and instead say, “What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse” (Hebrew Bible 1 Kings 12:16). According to Batten, “The words portion and particularly inheritance are clearly indicative that the Israelites recognize no absolute rights of the descendants of David. Inheritance here may easily mean hereditary rights” (Batten,
Both kingdoms spoke an early form of Hebrew, unlike the surrounding kingdoms. They also shared a religious tradition. Both kingdoms were more or less exclusively devoted to the God, Yhwh, though this devotion apparently wavered depending on the king. This overlap in culture further suggests a shared history between Judah and Israel.
It may be advantageous to study these kingdoms as a single entity, depending on one’s goals. This perspective strengthens the idea of the united monarchy under David and Solomon by attempting to confirm the two kingdoms’ shared history. Moreover, it provides historians with an opportunity to study the Israelite culture more in depth. In this sense, the nuances and variances between the two kingdoms show different aspects of a single culture. These subtleties and similarities may be missed when the cultures are studied as separate cultures
Nevertheless, historians are beginning to move away from this method and treat Judah and Israel as two entirely different groups. This has begun to highlight the individual features of each kingdom. Furthermore, it has allowed historians to investigate the history of the often ignored northern kingdom. As a result of this investigation, some historians have suggested that there is even less evidence for the united monarchy than previously …show more content…
When his son, Rehoboam, goes to the northern tribes in order to be anointed as king, the leaders say they will only serve him as king if he lessens “the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke on us” (Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings 12:4). Not only does this verse demonstrate Solomon’s treatment of Israel, it indicates that the northern tribes did not have to automatically accept Rehoboam as their king. When Rehoboam threatens to be even harsher than Solomon, the tribes do not anoint him as king, and instead say, “What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse” (Hebrew Bible 1 Kings 12:16). According to Batten, “The words portion and particularly inheritance are clearly indicative that the Israelites recognize no absolute rights of the descendants of David. Inheritance here may easily mean hereditary rights” (Batten,