The prevailing thoughts on the historicity of Hezekiah’s reforms (bringing Judah back to the worship of Yahweh and destroying high places, groves, and images of false gods) is in one of three camps:
*The events are just as described in Scripture.
*The events were the consequences of the Assyrian invasion (not reforms by Hezekiah).
*Hezekiah started these reforms, but the average Judahite only carried out Hezekiah’s orders grudgingly and many religious shrines were merely buried and not destroyed (desecrated).
Unsurprisingly, many Biblical archaeologists refuse to believe option one. Some claim that because of the lack of field evidence, they cannot fully accept that hypothesis even though Scripture repeatedly states it.
Q: Has anything else come to light to corroborate Hezekiah’s reforms?
A: Yes, and ironically, many of the naysayers of there being evidence of Hezekiah’s reforms have now switched sides, claiming that there is sufficient archaeological evidence. In regard to Tel ‘Eton, there seems to have been a cancellation and burial of a domestic cultic standing stone or massebah, measuring approximately 4.6 feet in height and weighing about 1,650 pounds.
Indeed, we have seen that despite the doubts, most scholars insist that the archaeological evidence supports the historicity of the reform. As Herzog (2010: 196) noted, “The detailed discussion about the abolishment of cult at Arad and Tel Beer-sheba shows that one cannot doubt the fact that these cult centers were intentionally abolished,” concluding that the evidence “justifies the conclusion that the acts of abolishment of cult . . . are a result of Hezekiah’s cultic reform.” . . .
. . . Still, it is likely that the desecration in Lachish, like the dismantling operations at Arad, Beersheba, and Tel ‘Eton, was intentional and, therefore, hints at a coordinating hand. Thus, insofar as the cancellations were intentional and implemented some time before the Assyrian campaign, it seems that Hezekiah’s reform provides a plausible and suitable historical context.
Besides Tel ‘Eton, there is a more directly associated cultic desecration, now acknowledged to be part of Hezekiah’s reforms in Lachish.
Most surprising of all was that in one corner of the room, the archaeologists discovered a seat carved of stone with a hole in the center—what Ganor and Kreimerman believe to be a toilet. This latrine, Ganor and Kreimerman say, was unquestionably a form of desecration of this shrine room—a practice described in the Hebrew Bible [ironically by King Jehu of Israel, who is not described as a good king, since none of the kings of Israel were]: “Then they demolished the pillar of Baal, and destroyed the temple of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day” (2 Kings 10:27)
Additionally, there is also a site in Arad that is considered to be part of Hezekiah’s reforms.
Arad is another case in point. Its large sacrificial altar and the small incense altars were cancelled by careful construction (e.g., Aharoni 1968) that was cautious not to harm the objects themselves (this is so regardless of the hot debate concerning the date of these events).
Faust in his Tel ‘Eton article explains the difference between desecration, destruction, and cancellation.
. . . Still, it is likely that the desecration in Lachish, like the dismantling operations at Arad, Beersheba, and Tel ‘Eton, was intentional and, therefore, hints at a coordinating hand. Thus, insofar as the cancellations were intentional and implemented some time before the Assyrian campaign, it seems that Hezekiah’s reform provides a plausible and suitable historical context.
Besides Tel ‘Eton, there is a more directly associated cultic desecration, now acknowledged to be part of Hezekiah’s reforms in Lachish.
Most surprising of all was that in one corner of the room, the archaeologists discovered a seat carved of stone with a hole in the center—what Ganor and Kreimerman believe to be a toilet. This latrine, Ganor and Kreimerman say, was unquestionably a form of desecration of this shrine room—a practice described in the Hebrew Bible [ironically by King Jehu of Israel, who is not described as a good king, since none of the kings of Israel were]: “Then they demolished the pillar of Baal, and destroyed the temple of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day” (2 Kings 10:27)
Additionally, there is also a site in Arad that is considered to be part of Hezekiah’s reforms.
Arad is another case in point. Its large sacrificial altar and the small incense altars were cancelled by careful construction (e.g., Aharoni 1968) that was cautious not to harm the objects themselves (this is so regardless of the hot debate concerning the date of these events).
Faust in his Tel ‘Eton article explains the difference between desecration, destruction, and cancellation.
"While the distinction between destruction and burial of religious (and, in some contexts, also non-religious, symbolic) objects is important, in the following, I would like to elaborate on a third, intermediate option. Such third-option events occur when there are religious changes, and the intent of the reformers is indeed to desecrate preexisting symbols and practices, but the people who carry out these operations still respect and even revere the old objects. They thus follow the orders of the new regime and cancel these objects (or buildings), but they do so with care and (if possible) avoid defiling them. Thus, there is a distinction between the reformers’ intents and those of their agents."
"It should be stated that the cult places in Arad and Beer-Sheba had been destroyed before the Assyrian invasion of 701 by their inhabitants themselves. This indicated changes in religion as well. Since in the case of Arad we have to do with a frontier royal fortress, it is hard to suppose that desecration of the temple in such a place could have taken place without the king’s consent. In the period that is of interest to us, that is in the second half of the 8th c., the Bible mentions only one religious reform accomplished by the king; therefore, it seems logical to associate the findings from Arad and Beer-Sheba with Hezekiah’s activity."
ConclusionEven many skeptical Biblical archaeologists have conceded that
