“Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers…” (II
Kings 24:6) – Did He?
The Department of Jewish History,
Tel-Aviv University
1.1.
The variety of reports about the circumstances of the death and burial
of Jehoiakim, along with the striking contradictions that exist among them, has
no parallel in the history of Judah. According to 2 Kgs 24:5-6, the king died
peacefully and “slept with his fathers.” A similar description appears in the
LXX version of the parallel account in 2 Chr 36:8. There a comment is added,
“he was buried in the garden of ‘Uzza”.[1] The Luc. version of 2 Chr
36:8 seems to carry the same meaning but expands yet further, adding that
Jehoiakim was buried “with his fathers.” The MT 2 Chr 36:8 does not contain any
of these comments about Jehoiakim’s death and burial place. Moreover, the
impression from MT 2 Chr 36:6 is that the king met an entirely different fate.
He did not die in Jerusalem at all, but was exiled from it (“…and he [Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in
fetters to carry him to Babylon”).[2]
1.2.
In contrast to all these traditions, Jeremiah prophesies (22:18-19)
that no one will lament for the king, and that
“with the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped beyond
the gates of Jerusalem” (cf. 36:30). Josephus in Ant. X, 97 advances an
echo of Jeremiah’s prophecy, along with an attempt to reconcile it with a
description of the Babylonian siege in 2 Kings. According to this text, the
Babylonians put Jehoiakim to death, and his body was cast in front of the walls
of Jerusalem, with no burial.
1.3.
The existence of multiple and contradictory reports about Jehoiakim’s
death and burial place has led to a considerable scholarly controversy on the
matter of how to reconstruct the historical circumstances surrounding his death
and burial. This situation is actually exacerbated by the description of the
Babylonian campaign and the precise chronological data about this period in the
Babylonian chronicles, despite the fact that they allow us to reconstruct the
chronology of the campaign to suppress Jehoiakim’s revolt, define quite
precisely the time of his death, and raise various hypotheses regarding the
circumstances that led up to it.
1.4.
The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the historical
circumstances pertinent to the end of Jehoiakim’s rule. To that goal, I will
analyze the various descriptions of the king’s death. This analysis leads to
the conclusion that he died a natural death even before the Babylonian army
reached Jerusalem and that he was buried in his forefathers’ burial tomb.
Moreover, I will contend that the omission of any reference to his place of
burial in the book of Kings was deliberate and stemmed from the author’s
historiographic distress that resulted from the curses against the king that
Jeremiah uttered prior to Jehoiakim’s death. Later writers were forced to cope
with the absence of a description of the king’s burial and tried to explain it
in various ways, according to their own conceptual attitudes and historical
worldviews.
2.1.
Jehoiakim was appointed king by Necho II, King of Egypt, upon the
latter’s return from the battle in Haran, three months after he had killed
Josiah at Megiddo (August/September 609 BCE).[3] Necho’s action rendered
null and void the rule of the younger brother Shalum/Jehoahaz,[4] who was anointed king after
the death of their father Josiah (2 Kgs 23:30).[5] Nothing is known of events
in Judah during the first four years of Jehoiakim’s rule. During these years
the Egyptians firmly established their rule over Syria and Palestine, in
preparation for the decisive struggle with the Babylonians over control of the
Euphrates region. The proximity of the Kingdom of Judah to Egypt and the
latter’s control of the entire region did not allow the tiny kingdom any leeway
for either political or military maneuvering. One may assume that Jehoiakim had
no choice, but to remain loyal to Egypt.[6]
2.2.
The great upheaval of 605 BCE had an impact on Judah.[7] The armies of
Nebuchadrezzar defeated the Egyptian legions at Carchemish and broke through
into Syria. Egypt’s rule over other territories in Syria and Palestine was
challenged. One must assume, however, that the actual subjugation of Judah to
Babylon took place during the Babylonian campaign into Syria and Palestine (the
‘ïattu-Land’ in the Babylonian
chronicles) in the second half of 604 BCE, after five years of Jehoiakim’s
reign as an Egyptian vassal.[8]
2.3.
Nebuchadrezzar’s policy was to maintain the geopolitical arrangements
that he found before him when he conquered the area.[9] He allowed Jehoiakim to
remain as king of Judah, even though King Necho II of Egypt had appointed him.
This measure reflected the premise that a king who had accepted the Egyptian
yoke was probably clever enough to accept the Babylonian yoke too. It is
conceivable that the Babylonians hoped that these actions would preserve the
stability of the region. Moreover, they could have anticipated that the kings
whose rule they confirmed would feel gratitude towards the Babylonian king, and
that such gratitude would lead to loyalty towards the new sovereign.
2.4.
The rapid takeover of ïattu-Land by the
Babylonians, and the Egyptian retreat from the region, left the small kingdoms
along the coast and the interior regions with no room for maneuvering. One may
assume that the first three years of Babylonian rule were quiet. Although there
is no information about events in Judah during that time, it seems that
Jehoiakim remained loyal to Nebuchadrezzar (“and Jehoiakim became his vassal
for three years…;” see 2 Kgs 24:1).[10] Only the failure of the
Babylonian invasion into Egypt in the month of Kislev (November/ December 601
BCE), [11] undermined the Babylonian
control of the area. At that time, Necho II had an opportunity to renew his
influence on the region. Against this background, one may understand the brief
report about Jehoiakim’s rebellion against Nebuchadrezzar in 2 Kgs 24:1 (“Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he
turned and rebelled against him”). It is hard to imagine that Jehoikaim’s revolt
have taken place without the support of Egypt. Moreover, although we have no
information about the historical circumstances of the period, it is clear that
if Egypt did return to a position of influence in the region, then Jehoiakim,
most likely, had no choice, but to offer his loyalty to his former master.[12]
2.5.
Only after three more years, in the month of Kislev (between
mid-December 598 and mid-January 597 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar set out to
re-establish his rule in the ïattu-Land.[13] The conquest of ‘the city
of Judah’ (i.e., Jerusalem) stood at the center of this Babylonian campaign.
According to the Babylonian chronicle, Jerusalem surrendered to the Babylonians
on the 2nd of Adar (March 16th/17th, 597 BCE).[14] At that time, the
three-month reign by Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim came to an end.[15] The young king went into
exile, and Nebuchadrezzar appointed in Jerusalem a new king “of his own choice
(lit. – heart),” namely, Zedekiah.[16] Nebuchadrezzar also levied
a heavy tax on the city and returned to Babylon.[17]
2.6.
The Babylonian chronicle shows that from the beginning of the
Babylonian campaign, at some stage in the month of Kislev, until the city
surrendered on the 2nd of Adar, three months at most had passed. In
light of this information, one may assume that the Babylonian campaign was
initially intended to suppress the revolt by Jehoiakim. If we accept the
chronological delineation of the three months of Jehoiachin’s rule,[18] then Jehoiakim was still
alive when the Babylonians planned their campaign and he died close to its
beginning, or immediately after the Babylonian force set out.[19]
2.7.
The Hebrew Bible does not offer any clear-cut information about the
circumstances leading to the death of Jehoiakim. It is hard to ignore, however,
the chronological juxtaposition of events. One must remember that since the
king of Judah violated his vassal’s oath to Nebuchadrezzar, his death was one
of the only resolutions that could have brought about the salvation of
Jerusalem.[20] Against this background,
one may wonder whether Jehoiakim’s death was due to natural causes, and its
timing—just as the Babylonian army set out on its Jerusalem campaign—was a mere
coincidence, a testimony to historical fate. Or did those who understood that
his death was the only way that would allow Jerusalem to be spared destruction
murder the king? Or, alternatively, did Jehoiakim take his own life? There is
no unequivocal answer to these questions but an analysis of the Biblical
descriptions shows that there is no evidence supporting the latter alternatives.
Jehoiakim’s death may have, and most likely, died of natural causes, as it will
be shown below.
3. Biblical Descriptions of the Death of Jehoiakim
3.1 Do the curses
of Jeremiah (22:18-19; 36:30) reflect historical reality?
3.1.1.
Jer. 22:13-17 contains a report of the prophet’s sermon of exhortation
for the injustices practiced by Jehoiakim. Following this admonition, Jeremiah
prophesizes about the retribution that is to befall the king. Verses 18-19,
with supplementary text based on the LXX version,[21] read: “Therefore thus
Yahweh has said of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah: [Woe to this man!]
They shall not lament for him, “Alas, my brother, and alas, my sister!” They
shall not [burn spices] for him, “Alas, lord, and alas [lady!] With the burial
of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped beyond the gates of
Jerusalem”. Similar words were said of the king also in 36:30, namely,
“therefore thus Yahweh has said concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall
not have anyone sitting on the throne of David and his corpse shall be thrown
out to the heat by day and to the frost by night”. At least the first part of
the curse did not materialize, for Jehoiachin ascended the throne upon the death of his father.[22] The lack of fulfillment of
these words proves that they were uttered before the king’s death, and perhaps
during the first five years of Jehoiakim’s rule, even before the subjugation to
Babylon.[23] They certainly do not
reflect the events as they actually occurred.[24] The prophet was not
describing an actual reality that he personally witnessed, but was cursing the
king and prophesying the punishment that is destined to befall him.
3.1.2.
Jeremiah’s words and the language of his curses correspond to those in
the dtr. law, namely those who do not heed the word of God “to obey to all of
his commandments and statutes“ (Deut. 28:15) are cursed with “your dead body
shall be food for all of the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and
there shall be no one to frighten them away” (verse 26). Threats of this kind are
quite common in dtr. historiography,[25] in the prophetic
literature,[26] and in Psalms.[27] There is, however, a close
connection between the words of Jeremiah and the punishment as defined by the
Deuteronomistic law.[28] The curse against Jehoiakim
also corresponds to well-known images in neo-Assyrian literature of the
ultimate fate of rebels and treaty violators.[29]
3.2 What were the circumstances of Jehoiakim’s death
according to 2 Kgs 24:6? Does the absence of a description of his burial
reflect the historical reality?
3.2.1.
The description of the last years of the kingdom of Judah in 2 Kgs
23:26- 25:21 expresses the idea that the process of deterioration that led to
the destruction of the kingdom accelerated since the death of Josiah. Because
the composition of this work was written ex post facto, and with knowledge of
the outcome of events, a worldview was shaped in which the die had already been
cast in the time of Manasseh and even the righteous king Josiah was unable to
change the fate of the kingdom.[30]
3.2.2.
According to the viewpoint of the author of the book of Kings, the last
four kings of Judah were wrongdoers. All of them are given negative evaluation
in the introductory formulas of their respective reigns (see 2 Kgs 23:32, 37;
24:9, 19). Nonetheless, there is no doubt that to the author, Jehoiakim was the
worst offender of all these kings. He was the link that connected the sins of
Manasseh—i.e, the reason for God’s decision to put an end to the kingdom of
Judah—and the destruction that took place at the end of the days of Zedekiah.
The author created the textual link by adding theological explanatory notes
that connected the sins of Manasseh (21:1-9) with the decision of God to
destroy Judah (verses 10-16), and with the sins of Jehoiakim (24:2-4).[31] In addition, a second
theological explanatory comment that associated the sins of Jehoiakim with the
revolt of Zedekiah, which was the last step on the path to the destruction,[32] was added in 24:20.
3.2.3.
The guilt of Manasseh and Jehoiakim and the desire to absolve Josiah of
all blame is also reflected in the introductory formulas of the last four kings
of Judah.[33] In the introductory formula
of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, collective blame is directed at the kings of Judah
who preceded them, rather than at their father Josiah (“and he did evil in the
sight of Yahweh according to all that his fathers had done,” see 2 Kgs
23:32,37). In contrast, the blame in the introductory formula of Jehoiachin is
directed at Jehoiakim, his father (“and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh
according to all that his father had done,” see 2 Kgs 24:9).[34] This is even more striking
in the introductory formula of Zedekiah. Here Jehoiakim, his brother, is
accused directly (“and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh according to all that
Jehoiakim had done,” see 2 Kgs 24:19).[35]
3.2.4.
Jeremiah also came out against the sins of Jehoiakim (22:13-17). He
blamed the king and stated: “But you eyes and a mind for nothing but gain, for
shedding innocent blood, for oppression and the cruel misuse of power”(v. 17).
Nevertheless, it seems that the major problem confronting the author of the
Book of Kings was that Jehoiakim was the only king of all the last four kings
of Judah who did not meet his punishment at the hands of a foreign king through
exile and death on foreign soil.[36]
3.2.5.
In historiographic terms, the author solved this problem through his
report of the attack of the ‘bands’ against Jehoiakim. This attack was an
attempt to suppress the rebellion, before the arrival of the main Babylonian
forces headed by Nebuchadrezzar. One may then assume that even before the
arrival of the main Babylonian forces, auxiliary forces were sent against
Judah. According to 2 Kgs 24:2 these forces included bands of Chaldeans,[37] Aramaeans,[38] Moabites and Ammonites.[39] These auxiliary forces
compelled some of the residents of Judah to flee from the border areas to
Jerusalem.[40] Only at a later stage did
the main Babylonian army arrive, as stated “and Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon
came against the city when his officers were besieging it” (2 Kgs 24:11).
3.2.6.
The story, however, portrays the actions if the ‘bands’ not as the
prelude to the conquest of Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachin, but as
Jehoiakim's punishment and as that which led him to his death.[41] For that reason the report
in Kings claims that Yahweh is the one who sent the bands against Jehoiakim
(“And Yahweh sent against him…”).[42] Moreover, these bands were
sent to Judah with the aim of “destroy them” (24:2). Verses of theological
explanation (vv 2-4) were added to the basic account of this punishment. They
connected the punishment, linguistically and conceptually, to the divine
judgement against Judah that is presented as a consequence of the sins of
Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:11-16), and the continued wrath of the LORD (23:26-27).
These verses lead directly to the description of Jehoiakim’s death.[43] Thus, the death of
Jehoiakim is presented as a result of divine retribution.
3.2.7.
This characterization of his death reinforces the assumption that
Jehoiakim did indeed die in Jerusalem, and from the author’s viewpoint, a ‘natural’
death. For one may assume that if he had information on other, special
historical circumstances that attended the king’s death, it would have been
described here as conclusive evidence of his sins and the
punishment that befell him.
3.2.8.
Moreover, the author’s awareness of the place and circumstances of
Jehoiakim’s death explains why the description of the years of his reign ends
with the same standard closing formula, like most of the Judean kings, and
unlike the other three among the four last kings of Judah. Nonetheless, despite
the uniform nature of most parts of the formula in Jehoiakim’s case,[44] there is a conspicuous
change in the fourth part of it, i.e., at the point in which the king’s death
is reported[45] along with his burial in a
definite site, usually with his fathers.[46] The usual formula is only
partially cited. His death is reported (“and Jehoiakim slept with his fathers”,
2 Kgs 24:6a), but any reference to the burial or the site of his grave is
omitted. There are also no additional comments about any events that may have
been associated with his death.[47] These facts reinforces the
position that, from the author’s point of view and insofar as he knew the
circumstances of Jehoiakim’s death, the king died a natural death, which was
not associated with any unusual circumstances.[48] One may assume that if his
death had not been of natural causes—that is, if he had met a fate similar to
those of his father Josiah and his grandfather Amon—then a report about the
circumstances of his death would have been included in the closing formula of
the account of his reign in Kings.[49]
3.2.9.
There is no explanation, however, for the lack of reference to his
burial and his gravesite in the closing formula. The omission may be a
reflection of the historical reality and relate it to the events that were
taking place in the Jerusalem area at that time, when various bands of
mercenaries were preparing the way for the onslaught of the Babylonian army.[50] However, even if we accept
this explanation, it is still unclear why the reference to the burial is
missing from the account, and particularly so since such a reference could have
served the theological inclinations of the author towards Jehoiakim, by
demonstrating the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy and highlighting the
punishment that the king incurred because of his sins.
3.2.10.
Some scholars have explained the omission of the reference to the
king’s burial by maintaining that the details were unknown to the author when
he wrote of these events in Babylon, after being sent into exile with the exile
of Jehoiachin.[51] This explanation seems
forced and somewhat problematic. It is doubtful whether methodologically it
would be correct to explain gaps in information and missing details in this
case to the lack of sources available to the author and his lack of knowledge.
Even if we accept the premise that the book was written by one of the exiles
sent to Babylon with the exile of Jehoiachin, it is still hard to accept his
lack of knowledge of the matter. For these events occurred only a few months
before the city surrendered to the Babylonians and the people went into exile.
The author should have had knowledge of, even from what he had personally
witnessed or heard.[52]
3.2.11.
If the lack of reference is not the result of a copyist’s error or an
omission, it is preferable to explain it in terms of the historiographer’s aim.
It is hard not to draw a parallel between the omission of a description of
Jehoiakim’s burial and the author’s inclination to depict him as a sinner who
is justly punished by God, and to further connect these themes with Jeremiah’s
grim prophecy, according to which “with the burial of an ass he shall be
buried, dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (22:19, also cf.
36:30). This is the place where the author could emphasize the punishment of
the sinful king. He could not describe it in his closing formula because
insofar as he knew the details of the burial, it simply was not so. However, omitting a description of the
burial from the formulaic ending leaves a gaping vacuum in the description,
which the readers could not ignore or avoid connecting with the words of
Jeremiah. Furthermore, it would seem that from the author’s viewpoint he could
not have acted differently, for if he had described Jehoiakim’s burial and thus
contradicted Jeremiah’s curse, he would also have had to explain why the
prophecy was not fulfilled.
4. The Sources for the Reference to Jehoiakim’s Exile (2 Chr 36:6) and
to his Burial in the garden of ‘Uzza (LXX version of 2 Chr 36:8).
4.1.
According to the description in 2 Chr 36:6-7, Nebuchadrezzar exiled
Jehoiakim. The text states: “[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him
to Babylon. And Nebuchadrezzar carried some of the vessels of the house of the
LORD to Babylon…”.[53] Various scholars have
claimed that this account provides reliable historical information that
supplements the information in 2 Kings 24.[54] They found such
corroboration for their position in Dan. 1:1-2. The text there states: “In the
third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadrezzar came to
Jerusalem and besieged it. And Yahweh gave Jehoiakim the king of Judah into his
hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God…”
4.2.
It seems, however, that the description in the book of Daniel relies on
that in 2 Chronicles. Moreover, the date reported in Daniel does not correspond
to the well-grounded historical reconstruction of the days of Jehoiakim. One
may assume it was taken from 2 Kgs 24:1, and certainly it cannot be used as the
basis for any historical reconstruction.[55]
4.3.
The description in Chronicles is brief, slightly contradicting the
information available from the other biblical sources. It should be treated as
a secondary description that it’s only source is the account in Kings, and
which designed to express historiographic and ideological aims that belong to a
time much later than that of the events themselves.[56] Many scholars have noted
that the Chronicler made extensive use of descriptions of the death and burial
of kings and fashioned them to comply with his own worldview, and to serve as a
testimony to direct divine retribution for the deeds of the kings.[57] Not only he wished to shape
the description of the last kings of Judah to fit the basic principles of his
doctrine of reward and punishment, but also wished to draw a parallel between
the fate of Jehoiakim and that of Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah.[58] According to the picture he
presented, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin were exiled from their land (2
Chr 36: 4; 6; 10). One should assume that in spite of the general description
of the punishment of Zedekiah in collective terms (verses 17-20), his fate was
well known to the Chronicler and to his readers.[59] Because of this, there is
also no description of the death and burial of the last four kings of Judah. It
seems that the Chronicler wished to leave the fate of the House of David as an
open question.[60] According to his doctrine,
as soon as these kings were exiled from their land, there is no longer any
reason to be preoccupied with their fate.[61]
4.4.
It is not clear what is the source of the tradition in the Luc. version
on 2 Chronicles regarding the burial of the king in the garden of ‘Uzza and of
its reliability. Some scholars assigned great reliability to the tradition,
particularly in view of the fact that it contradicts Jeremiah’s prophecy.[62] However, it seems that it
should be seen instead as the later addition by someone who was trying to
create a correspondence between the description of Jehoiakim’s burial and
Jeremiah’s prophecy, according to which the king was given an ass’ burial
outside of the walls of Jerusalem.[63] The additional comment in
the Luc. version according to which Jehoiakim was buried “with his fathers” was
written by someone who was trying to integrate the secondary tradition with the
information stating that Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:18) and Amon (21:26) were buried in
the garden of ‘Uzza.
5. Summary
5.1.
An attempt to synthesize all of the accounts of the death and burial of
King Jehoiakim, together with the chronological manipulations regarding the
date of his death, can serve as a basis for fascinating historical
reconstruction. However, an independent investigation of every source, together
with an evaluation of its time, the purpose for which it was written, and the
level of historical reliability, are a precondition for any reconstruction, and
at times can take the sting out of such reconstruction.
5.2.
In the case of the death of Jehoiakim, it seems that the simplest and
least speculative reconstruction of all that is the most likely and most
appropriate for the complex of historical data that have been preserved.
Insofar as the author of the description in the Book of Kings knew about events
in Judah in the last years of the kingdom, the king’s death was not attended by
any unusual circumstances. He died after an eleven-year reign and was buried in
Jerusalem, exactly on the eve of Nebuchadrezzar’s campaign, which was aimed at
suppressing the revolt and destroying the city. His death saved the city from
destruction and enabled the small kingdom an additional eleven years of rule.
5.3. Did secret events take place in the royal palace that were unknown to the residents of the city? Was Jehoiakim’s death the result of a sophisticated conspiracy whose perpetrators or circumstances were not revealed and not known to his contemporaries? This may be the case, but it is better to remember that there is no contemporary information of that kind, and later accounts of it are filling in the gaps and try to create harmony between the lacunae in the Book of Kings and the curses of the prophet Jeremiah as to the fate of the sinner king.
|
Concordia Theological Monthly 38: 510-515. Ahlström, G.W. 1993. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander`s Conquest. Sheffield. Albright, W.F. 1932. ‘The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah’. JBL 51: 77-106. Albright, W.F. 1942. ‘King Joiachin in Exile’. BA 5 (no. 4): 49-55. Alfrink, B. 1943. ‘L’Expression šākab 'im ’ābŏtāyw’. Oudtestamentische Studiën 2: 106-118. Barkay, G. 1977. On the Problem of the Burial Place of the Last Davidic Kings. apud: Broshi, M. (ed.). Between Hermon and Sinai – Yad Le Amnon. Jerusalem: 75-92 (Hebrew). Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. I: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO/1). Fribourg. Baumgartner, W. 1926. ‘Neues keilschriftliches Material zum Buche Daniel’. ZAW 44: 51-55. Begg, C. 1987. ‘The Fate of Judah’s Four Last Kings in the Book of Chronicles’. OLP 18: 79-85. Ben Zvi, E. 1991. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. Berlin and New York. Bright, J. 1959. A History of Israel. Philadelphia. (2nd ed. 1972). Bright, J. 1965. Jeremiah. New York Burney, C.F. 1903. The Book of Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. New-York. Carroll, R.P. 1986. Jeremiah. London. Clines, D.J.A. 1972. ‘Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah’. AJBA 5: 29-32. Cogan, M. 1971. ‘A Note on Disinternment in Jeremiah’. Gratz College Anniversary Volume. Philadelphia: 29-34. Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings. Doubleday. Cortese, E. 1990. ‘Theories concerning Dtr: A Possible Rapprochement’. apud: Brekelmans, C. and Lust, J. (eds.). Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989. Leuven: 179-190. Cross, F. M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge. Curtis, E.L. and Madsen, A.L. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. Edinburgh. Dahhod, M. 1961. ‘Two Textual Notes on Jeremiah’. CBQ 23: 462-464. Delcor, M. 1971. Le livre de Daniel. Paris. Dietrich, W. 1972. Prophetie und Geschichte Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Göttingen. Gray, J. 1964. I and II Kings. London. Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley. Green, A.R. 1982. ‘The Fate of Jehoiakim’. AUSS 20, no.2: 103-109. Halpern, B. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 1991. ‘The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries .B.C.E’. HUCA 62: 179-244. Hillers, D.R. 1964. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome. Holladay, W. L. 1989. Jeremiah II. Minneapolis. Horn, S.H. 1967. ‘The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah’. AUSS 3: 12-27. Hyatt, J.P. 1956. ‘New Light on Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History’. JBL 75: 277-284. Japhet, S. 1977. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought. Jerusalem. Japhet, S. 1993. I & II Chronicles, A Commentary. London. Joüon, P. 1937. ‘Un Parallèle à la ‘Sépulture d’un Âne’ de Jérémie (XXII, 19) en arabe moderne de Palmyre’. Recherches de science religieuse 27: 335-336. Lipschits, O. 1997. The 'Yehud' Province under Babylonian Rule (586-539 B.C.E.): Historic Reality and Historiographic Conceptions. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation), Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. 1999a. ‘Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Hattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah’. Ugarit-Forschungen 30: 467-487. Lipschits, O. 1999b.’The Formation of the Babylonian Yehud Province’. Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A, The Bible and Its World. Jerusalem: 115-123 (Hebrew). Lipschits, O. 1999c.‘The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule’. Tel-Aviv 26 (2): 155-190. Liver, Y. 1959. The History of the House of David. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Lowery, R.H. 1991. The Reforming Kings. Cult and Society in First Temple Judah. Sheffield. Malamat, A. 1950. ‘The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah’. JNES 9: 218-227. Malamat, A. 1968. ‘The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical-Chronological Study’. IEJ 18: 137-156. Malamat, A. 1990. ‘The Kingdom of Judah Between Egypt and Babylon’. Studia Theologica 44: 65-77. McKane, W. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Edinburgh. McKenzie, S. L. 1984. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta. McKenzie, S. L. 1991. The Trouble With Kings The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden. Mercer, M.K. 1989. ‘Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim’s Three Years of Servitude’. AUSS 27: 179-192. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Kings. Edinburgh. Mosis, R. 1973. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. Freiburg. Na'aman, N. 1992. Nebuchadrezzar's Campaign in Year 603 B.C.E. BN 62: 41-44. Nelson, R. D. 1981. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield. Noth, M. 1954. Geschichte Israels. Göttingen. (ET, New-York 1958). Noth, M. 1958. ‘Die Einnahme von Jerusalem im Jahre 597 v. Chr.’. ZDPV 74: 133-157. O'Brien, M.A. 1989. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. Göttingen. Oded, B. 1966. ‘When did the Kingdom of Judah Become Subjected to Babylonian Rule?’ Tarbiz 35: 103-107 (Hebrew). Oded, B. 1992. War, Peace and Empire – Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Wiesbaden. Pavlovsky, V. and Vogt, E. 1964.’Die Jahre der Könige von Juda und Israel’. Biblica 45: 321-347. Porteous, N. 1979. Daniel (OTL). Philadelphia. Provan, I. W. Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Berlin and New York. Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbucher. Tübingen. Rudolph, W. 1968. Jeremia (3rd ed.). Tübingen. Seitz, C.R. 1989. Theology in conflict, Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah .Berlin and New York. Smelik, K.A.D. 1992. Converting the Past - Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography. Leiden. Thiele, E.R. 1956. ‘New Evidence on the Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah’. BASOR 143: 22-27. Thompson, J.A. 1980. The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids. Tromp, N.J. 1969. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. Rome. Van Keulen, P.S.F. 1996. Manasseh Through the Eyes of the Deuteronomistis, The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1-18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden, New York and Köln. Vlaardingerbroek, J. 1999. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament – Zephaniah. Leuven. Weiser, A. 1969. Das Buch Jeremia (ATD 20/21). Göttingen. Wessels, W.J. 1989. ‘Jeremiah 22, 24-30: A Proposed Ideological Reading’. ZAW 101: 232-249. Willi, T. 1972. Die
Chronik als Auslegung; Untersuchungen zur literarischen Williamson, H.G.M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB). Grand Rapids. Wiseman, D.J. 1956. Chronicles of Chaldeans Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London. Wiseman, D.J. 1985. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Oxford. Wiseman, D.J. 1991. ‘Babylonia 605-539 B.C.’. The Cambridge Ancient History (Second Edition), Vol. III, Part 2. Cambridge: 229-251. Würthwein, E. 1977. Die Bücher der Konige. 1 .Kon. 17-2 kon 25. (2nd ed. 1985). Göttingen. Young, E.J. 1949. Daniel. London. Yeivin, S. 1948. ‘The Sepulchers of the Kings of the House of David’. JNES 7: 30-48. |
7. Endnotes
[1] The place is mentioned as
the burial place of kings Manasseh and Amon in 2 Kgs 21:18, 26, respectively).
On the identification of this place, see the comprehensive discussion in Barkay
1977: 75-92.
[2] The absence of any comment
about Jehoiakim’s death and burial in
the MT version makes the impression that the king died in exile, while
according to the LXX version one can understand that he was held in Babylon awhile and then released
and permitted to reign again in Jerusalem. See: Curtis and Madsen 1910:
520-521.
[3] The short Biblical description
of the three months of Jehoahaz’ rule and the
appointment of Jehoiakim by the Egyptians corresponds with the information in
the Babylonian Chronicle from the year 17 of Nabopolassar (B.M. 21901, Rev. l.
66-75). According to this source, the Egyptian army fought alongside the
Assyrians over the city of Haran in Tammuz 609 BCE. The war ended after three
months (Elul 609 BCE) without results, and when the Babylonians arrived to
assist the city, the Assyrians and Egyptians retreated. See: Wiseman 1956:
19-20, 62-63; Grayson 1975: 19, 96, 140-141.
[4]
Cf.
2 Kgs 23:31 to verse 36 and to 1 Chr 3:15, and see the suggestions made by
Albright 1932: 92; Malamat 1950: 220; 1968: 140-41; Rudolph 1955: 28;
Miller & Hayes 1986: 402; Cogan & Tadmor 1986: 305; Seitz 1989: 72-73,
87, n. 95; Ahlström
1993: 767.
[5] See on this subject: Liver 1959: 51-53; Cogan
& Tadmor 1988: 291, and compare: 2 Sam. 5:3, 17; 12:7; 19:11; 1 Kgs. 1:4,
39, 45; 5:15; 19:15,16; 2 Kgs 9:3, 6,
12.
[6] For a reconstruction of the historical proceedings of
this period, see Lipschits 1999a: 467-87, with further literature.
[7] Jeremiah’s prophecy
(46:1-12) dated to that year expresses the strong impression made by the
Egyptian defeat of Babylon. For a general discussion and different opinions as
to the sources of the prophecy and its time, see Holladay 1989: 312-313. For a
discussion on the time of the prophecy and its historical background, see ibid:
316-318, with further literature.
[8] Wiseman 1956:28;
1985:23; Miller & Hayes 1986:406; Cogan & Tadmor 1988:308; Ahlström
1993: 781; Lipschits 1999: 467-469. Worschech’s attempt (1987: 57-63, and see
also Hyatt’s opinion 1956:280) to pre-date the subjugation of Judah to 605 BCE
should not be accepted. This opinion is based on a inconclusive agreement between later
accounts, whose reliability is doubtful and does not comply with the historical
reconstruction of events that took place in this period of time. The scholars’
attempt to date the subjugation later to 603 BCE is not sufficiently
substantiated. This suggestion was supported by Pavlovsky & Vogt (1964:
345-346); Oded (1966:103-104); and Malamat (1968: 141-142). For a critique of
this , see Na’aman (1992: 41-43).
[9] On Nebuchadrezzar’s policy
in the ‘Hattu-Land’, see Lipschits 1999a: 468-473; 1999b: 115-123.
[10] Lipschits 1999a:
469-470; 1999b: 115-116.
[11] One can suppose that
Nebuchadrezzar’s army suffered a sharp defeat in a face-to-face battle
conducted against the army of Necho II army, and retreated to Babylon. A brief
description of this battle is given in Chronicle B.M. 21946 Rev. l. 7, and see:
Wiseman 1956: 28, 70-71; Grayson 1975: 20, 101.
[12] This historical
situation was understood well by Josephus (Antiq. X, 88).
[13] See the description in
Chronicle B.M 21946, Rev. l. 11 (Wiseman 1956: 32-33, 72-73; Grayson 1975: 20,
102).
[14] See the description in
Chronicle B.M 21946, Rev. l. 12 (Wiseman 1956: 33-35, 72-73; Grayson 1975: 20,
102). The mention of the date when Jerusalem was conquered attests to the importance the event had for
the writers of the Babylonian Chronicle
(Wiseman 1991:232).
[15] The name of the Judean
king who surrendered to Nebuchadrezzar is not mentioned in the Babylonian
Chronicle (B.M.21946, Rev. l. 13, and see Wiseman 1956: 33-35, 72-73; Grayson
1975: 20, 102) however, according to 2 Kgs 24:12, it was Jehoiachin, and he is
also the one who was taken into exile.
[16] Cf. the Babylon Chronicle, B.M. 21946, Rev. l. 13, and see
Wiseman 1956: 33-35; 72-73; Grayson 1975: 20, 102. The description in the
Babylonian Chronicle corresponds to the description in 2 Kgs 24:17, according
to which “And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his uncle king in his place,
and he changed his name to Zedekiah”. This comment is parallel in language and content to 23:34, where the coronation
of Eliakim by the Egyptians is described
and the changing of his name to Jehoiakim. This parallel is not
coincidental, as will be discussed in following. The author of the Book of
Kings wishes to use it to connect the two events, just as he linked the exile
of Jehoahaz to Egypt with the exile of
Jehoiachin to Babylon. In this way he also creates a cross reference where both
kings who were crowned in Judah without the approval of the foreign rulers
(Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin) were taken into exile after a three-month reign, and
the two kings who were appointed in their place by the foreign rulers (Jehoiakim
and Zedekiah) ruled for eleven years, rebelled against the sovereign ruler, and
brought about the greatest catastrophes in the history of Judah: Jehoiakim
brought about the exile of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah brought about the
destruction of the Temple.
[17] Compare the Babylonian
Chronicles, B.M. 21946, Rev. l. 13, and see Wiseman 1956: 33-35, 72-73; Grayson
1975: 20, 102.
[18] The description in 2 Chr
36:9 should not be accepted whereby Jehoiachin ruled for three months and ten
days, as this is apparently a textual error
(Green 1982: 105; Redford 1992: 459; and literature in n. 140.) In light
of this, the attempt by Thiele (1956: 22, 168, and see also Horn 1967: 15;
Green 1982: 103) to set the date of Jehoiachin’s ascent to the throne on the 22nd
of Marheshvan (December 8th, 598 BCE) should not be accepted. It is
also hard to accept the opinion of Green (ibid: 106) whereby the first two days
of the month of Adar, prior to the surrender of Jerusalem, were considered the
third month of Jehoiachin’s reign, which means that Jehoiakim died during the
month of Tevet. We do not have enough information to determine that the
beginning of the month was counted like the whole month in the kingdom of
Judah. If Jehoiachin did indeed ascend the throne immediately after the death
of his father and reigned for three months, it is preferable to assume that the
meaning of this information is that Jehoiakim died in the beginning of Kislev,
and it is doubtful if one can date it
more precisely.
[19] On this subject, see:
Wiseman 1956: 33. One should not accept the hypothesis whereby Nebuchadrezzar
set out on his campaign after the death of Jehoiakim, with the aim of crowning
a king in Judah accountable to him (Noth 1958: 138: and see in contrast Wiseman
1985: 32). The Babylonians would not have
been able to deploy themselves for such an extended and complex campaign
within such a short period of several days, and it is doubtful whether the
death of the rebellious king would have provided an excuse for the foray by
Nebuchadrezzar and his army from
Babylon. The chronological and historical reconstruction made by Seitz (1989:
118-119) are also problematic, since they have no support in the text.
[20] The conjecture by Albright (1932: 90-91) and Bright (1959: 327;
1965: xlix) whereby Jehoiakim was murdered in order to save the city from
destruction is based on this reasoning, although it is speculative and has no
basis in the historical facts, nor does this hypothesis contain any explanation
of why the author did not mention the matter of murder nor why he chose, of all
things, to omit the description of the burial. On this subject see also the
discussion in following. Green (1982: 107-108) went one step further and raised
the possibility that the murder had been committed when the Babylonians
besieged the city, and that the king’s body had been thrown over the city
walls. The difficulty with this theory is similar, and in addition – it offers
no explanation for the three months that Jehoiachin ruled before he surrendered
and was sent into exile.
[21] Following the LXX
version, many scholars add at the beginning of the prophecy: “Woe to this man!”
and correct the repetition of the ‘lament’ to ‘burn’ (compare to MT version and
the LXX version in 34:5). See: Dahood 1961: 462-464; Bright 1965: 137-138;
Rudolph 1968: 86; Thompson 1980: 477, 480; McKane 1986: 532-533; Holladay 1986:
592, 597-598, and ibid. additional suggestions for emendation and a
bibliography. Cf. also to the abridged version of the eulogy on the man of God
in 1 Kgs 13:30.
[22] Perhaps that is the
reason that a parallel prophecy was pronounced also about Jehoiachin (Jer.
22:30).
[23] This point was
summarized well by Holladay (1986: 594; 1989: 254), but in
contrast to this opinion there are scholars that dates these curses much later,
and see, e.g., Carroll 1986: 265-266. On this subject see also Wessels 1989:
232-249. The
prophecy cannot be connected to the revolt by Jehoiakim, which took place after
the failure of the Babylonian invasion of Egypt (countering Seitz 1989: 117;
Ahlström 1993: 790-791).
[24] It is hard to accept a historical reconstruction that
was made only on the basis of this prophecy by Jeremiah (Albright 1942: 50;
Weiser 1969: 191; Green 1982: 108). It is no less difficult to accept the
attempt by Malamat (1950: 221; 1968: 141) to combine the prophecy by Jeremiah
and the LXX vers. and the Luc. vers. with 2 Chr 36:8, and to reconstruct a
burial that took place under harsh siege conditions in the garden of ‘Uzza
outside the walls of Jerusalem. On this subject, see the critique by Seitz
1989: 114.
[25] 1 Sam 17:44, 46; 1 Kgs.
14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 2 Kgs. 9:10, 36. Cf. also to 2 Sam 21:10.
[26] This appears mainly in
the words of Jeremiah (7:33; 8:2; 9:21; 14:16; 16:4, 6; 19:7; 22:19; 25:33;
34:20; 36:30, and cf. also to 15:3) with a faint allusion in Is. 5:25 and with
a detailed image in Ezek 39:17-20.
[27] Ps. 79:2-3; 83:13.
[28] On this, see Hillers
1964: 69.
[29] On this subject see:
Hillers 1964: 68-69; Cogan 1971: 29-34; Oded 1992: 93. For the modern-day
parallel see Joüon 1937: 335-336. Cf. to the prophecy of Ezekiel
(17: 16-18, 19-20) on the fate of Zedekiah after he violated his treaty with
Nebuchadrezzar.
[30] Blaming Manasseh for the
destruction is one of the central salient characteristics of the Dtr2, and may
also be compared with the explicit blame directed at Manasseh in Jer. 15:4
(Smelik 1992: 166-168). For a summary discussion on the connection between the
Dtr2 and 2 Kgs 17, see Lowery 1991: 172, and n. 1. On the connection to
21:8-16, see McKenzie 1984: 126-144. Van Keulen’s book (1996) focuses on this
idea.
[31] This is not the place
for a linguistic and conceptual discussion of the theological explanatory
comments on the sins of Jehoiakim, but except for an explicit mention of the
sins of Manasseh (24:3), the principal connection to the sins of Manasseh is
the sending of the ‘bands’ (raiding parties) against Jehoiakim, with the
objective of “destroy them according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke
through his servants the prophets” (24:2, and cf. to the title of the destruction
prophecy in 21:10) and in the reference to the sin “for the innocent blood
which he shed and filled Jerusalem with innocent blood” (24:4 and cf. to
21:16). On the connection between 24: 2-4 and 21:10-16, see Cross 1973: 286;
Nelson 1981: 88; O’Brien 1989: 270; Van Keulen 1996: 183-189.
[32] For an explanation of
Zedekiah’s rebellion and God’s decision
to destroy Judah, the author inserted a short comment “for this came
about because of the anger of Yahweh upon Jerusalem and Judah, until he rid
himself of them…” (24:20).
[33] See Nelson (1981:
36-41); Halpern & Vanderhooft (1991: 209-210), and contrast with Provan
(1988:48-49).
[34] This is the only
standard formula in the description of the reign of the last four kings of
Judah. See: Nelson 1981: 39; Halpern & Vanderhooft 1991: 209.
[35] This is the only time
that the king’s brother is mentioned in the introductory formula of one of the
kings of Judah.
[36] Jehoahaz was exiled to
Egypt and apparently died there (2 Kgs 23:33-34; Jer. 22: 10-12); Jehoiachin
was exiled to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:11-12, 15-16), and lived there many years (2
Kgs 25:27), but never returned to Judah ; Zedekiah was punished by the
Babylonians in the harshest way of all of then; after his sons were murdered
before his eyes, his eyes were plucked out and he was exiled to Babylon (2 Kgs
25: 6-7).
[37] On the appearance of the
name in the Bible and Mesopotamian sources, see Cogan & Tadmor 1988: 306,
with further bibliography.
[38] In some versions, the
names appear as ‘Edom’ rather than ‘Aram’. This would seemingly complete the
mention of all the Trans-Jordan kingdoms. Although some of the scholars prefer
to accept the correction (Stade, Closterman, Benziger, etc. and see also:
Burney 1903: 365; Montgomery 1951: 554), the parallel combination of the army of
the Chaldeans and the army of Aram in Jer. 35:11, in the prophecy that is
connected with the days of the suppression of Jehoiakim’s rebellion, reinforces
specifically the Massoretic Text. Aramaic tribes dwelled close to Babylon and
therefore it is no wonder that the armies of Aram fought together with the
Babylonian army. A similar reference to
the forces of Chaldeans and Arameans is found in Assyrian texts. On this
subject see: Montgomery 1951: 552 (although in my opinion his historical
reconstruction should not be accepted); Cogan & Tadmor 1988: 306.
[39] Cf. to Jer. 35:1, 11.
One should be very doubtful about the premise that the words of Zefaniah (2:
8-11) were spoken during this period. On the complex composition of this
section and alternative dates for the time of its parts, see Vlaardingerbroek
1999: 142-145, and for a detailed analysis of these verses, see Ben Zvi 1991:
164-176.
[40] This is the background of the prophecy of Jeremiah 35,
according to whose title was said in the days of Jehoiakim. The prophecy and
the story (esp. v. 11) corresponds well, both linguistically and in terms of
the historical background to the description in 2 Kgs 24:2.
[41] The invasion of the
‘bands’ is described again together with the ascent of Nebuchadrezzar
(24:10-11) after the closing formulaic of Jehoiakim (verses 5-6), a comment on
the changed geopolitical situation in the region (verse 7), and the
introductory formula of Jehoiachin (8-9). In light of this, it seems that one
must draw a parallel between the invasion of the bands according to the
description in 24:2 and the invasion of the servants of Nebuchadrezzar and the
beginning of the siege of Jerusalem according to the description in verse 10,
before the arrival of Nebuchadrezzar in the city, when ‘his officers were
besieging it’ (verse 11). On this subject see also Van Keulen (1996:186).
[42] Based on the LXX vers.
Gray (1964: 757) and Würthwein (1977: 468, n. 2) contended that the
word ‘God’ was added in verse 2 and that the subject of the verse is
Nebuchadrezzar, continuing verse 1. Beyond the linguistic problematics with
this assertion (Cogan & Tadmor 1988: 306), it ignores the conceptual message of the text that connects it to
21: 10-16; see the discussion in Barthélemy (1982:421-422) and
also: Dietrich 1972: 60; O’Brien 1989:270, n. 144; Van Keulen 1996: 186-188.
[43] See: Dietrich 1972:
22-26; Cross 1973: 286; Nelson 1981: 88; O’Brien 1989: 270; Seitz 1989: 176;
Cortese 1990: 189; McKenzie 1991: 125-126; Van Keulen 1996: 148-149, 183-191. I
am not relating here to the disputes over the uniformity of the text. In my
opinion verses 2-4 all belong to Dtr2, however, this is not the place to argue against the opinion summarized in
Van Keulen’s essay (ibid.) whereby verse 4 is a later addition.
[44] The first part in the closing
formula “And as for the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim and all that he did”
(24:5a) is standard, and is similarly to most of the closing formulas in the
book of Kings (cf. e.g. to the formula of Amon in 21:25-26 and that of Josiah
in 23:28-30). There is no such additions as in the closing formulas of Hezekiah
(20:20-21) and Manasseh (21:17-18). The second part of the formula – “are they
not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah” (24:5b) is
also standard, and this book is mentioned for the last time in the Book of
Kings (Nelson 1981: 85-86, and further literature in n. 151; Cogan & Tadmor
1988: 307, with further literature). The third part of the formula is missing,
and it is not unusual, for similar to a large part of the closing formulas, the
author chose not to add details here
about the last fate of the king (cf. e.g. to the extensive description
of the circumstances of Joaiah’s death (23: 29-30a) at this part specifically).
The fifth part (“And Jehoiachin his son became king in his place” verse 24:6b),
is also standard, except for the comments in 2 Kgs 1:18, 10:36, which were
brought together at this point for editing reasons, and except for the comment
added in the closing formula on Josiah (23: 30b), which is testimony to the
great importance that the author assigned to the circumstances of Jehoahaz’
ascent to the throne.
[45] On the expression “And
he slept with his fathers” see the comprehensive discussion of Alfrink 1943:
106-118. On the significance of this expression, see also Tromp 1969: 168-171.
[46] The burial of the kings
is almost always mentioned in the closing formula. In the case of kings who
were murdered and not brought to burial, the fourth part of the formula is
totally missing, and in the case of the murder of sons of the king and the end
of the dynasty, the fifth section is also missing. Almost in every case of the
murder of a king of Israel, there is some treatment of the circumstance of
their death. Cf. e.g. the fate of the following kings and the closing formula
on them: Nadab (1 Kgs 15: 31-32;) Elah (16:14), Zimri (16:20), Zechariah (2 Kgs
15: 11-12); Shallum (15:15); Pekahiah (15: 26); Pekah (15: 31). Exceptional in
this context is the closing formula on Ahaziah, and apparently the omission of
a description of the death and burial
in the closing formula (2 Kgs 1:18) is connected to Elijah’s prophecy “From the
bed upon which you have gone up you shall not come down, but you shall
certainly die” (verses 4, 16). Because of the exiling of Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin,
and Zedekiah it is clear why the description was omitted regarding their death
and burial; however, one must note that the closest parallel to the closing
formula of Jehoiakim is that of Hezekiah, of whom no description of burial is
given either.
[47] As mentioned previously and
to be discussed in following, a partial description appears in the LXX vers. to
2 Chr 36:8, and the complete formula appears in the Luc. vers. on this verse.
In this light one can understand why scholars raised the possibility that the description
of the burial in 2 Kgs was omitted as a result of homoioteleuton or even
purposely deleted under the influence of Jeremiah’s words (22: 19) (Stade,
Wolhausen, Benziger, and see in Burney 1903: 365; Nelson 1981: 86; and
literature in n. 152, p. 144). However, it seems that the LXX vers. here is
secondary, and certainly one may not rely on the Luc. vers. (Montgomery 1951:
553; Cogan & Tadmor 1988: 307). On this subject, see also the suggestion by
Seitz (1989: 116-120) and also see the discussion below.
[48] O’Brien 1989: 201-202,
and n. 95, as against the opinion of Seitz 1989: 109-110. The circumstantial
arguments raised by Seitz in supporting the theory of an unnatural death (the
fact that Jehoiakim was only 36 years old and the timing of his death three
months before the city fell to the Babylonians) could serve the author as
cogent evidence of the punishment of Jehoiakim for his sins. The fact that
there is no treatment of any kind attests to the exact opposite, and to the
problem that the author had because Jehoiakim died peacefully in his own bed.
[49] Cf. e.g. the closing
formula on Amon (21:25-26) and on Josiah (23:28-30).
[50] Montgomery (1951: 553)
accepted the version of the description on 2 Kgs and conjecture that because of
the siege laid by Babylon, Jehoiakim could not have been given a proper burial
outside of the city walls. However, if this was indeed the case, then according
to this theory it is not clear why the author ignored the subject, especially
considering the fact that it corresponded to his theological evaluation of
Jehoiakim and to Jeremiah’s curse.
[51] This is claimed by Gray
(1964: 753-754), after other scholars (see literature there). Seitz (1989:
117-118) also supported this solution and even expanded upon it and used it to
explain additional lacunae in the description of Jehoiakim’s revolt and the
Babylonian siege that preceded the exile of Jehoiachin.
[52] I find unacceptable the
attempt by Seitz (1989: 117-118) to solve the problem by historical
speculations about the various reasons why the author did not have knowledge of
what fate the king met. The burial of a king is an event of great importance,
especially if it carried out at the height of a siege, and when the death of
the king brought about the surrender of his heir and the rescue of the city
from destruction.
[53] See the comparison made
by Willi (1972: 106. n. 118; 212, n. 29) between this description and that in 2
Chr 33:11, and his contention that the source of both descriptions is in 2 Kgs
25:7. On this see also Green 1987: 82-83.
[54] See: Baumgartner 1926:
51-55; Yeivin 1948: 30-48; Green 1982: 108; Mercer 1989: 179-192; For
additional literature, see Japhet 1977: 311, n. 355; and see also the various
reconstructions presented by Seitz (1989: 106). In contrast, see Begg (1987:
82-83) and the arguments made by Japhet (1993: 1065-1066), which deny the
historical reliability and emphasize the ideological background and its
historiographic tendentiousness.
[55] In the third year of
Jehoiakim (606 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar was still heir apparent and his father
Nabopolassar was king of Babylon. This was one year before the decisive battle
between Babylon and Egypt, only after which Babylon began to firmly establish
its rule in Syria (605 BCE), so that it is not logical that already at this
stage, Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Moreover, in Jer. 36 the
presence of Jehoiakim in Jerusalem is reported in the fourth and fifth years of
his reign, so that it is not possible that he had been exiled earlier. On the
difficulties in dating ‘the third year’ see Efron 1974: 311. On suggestions for
emendation and explanation on the source of this number, see Young 1949: 268;
Noth 1954: 282, n. 2; Delcor 1971: 59-60; Clines 1972: 20-21; Porteous 1979:
32.
[56] Curtis and Madsen 1910:
521; Japhet 1977: 311-315; 1993: 1060-1077 (and esp. pp. 1062; 1064-1066);
Williamson 1982: 412.
[57] Rudolph 1955: xx; Japhet
1977: 314-315. On this subject, see Ackroyd 1967: 510-515. This point was
summarized well in Begg 1987: 81-82; and Seitz 1989: 112-113.
[58] Mosis 1973: 205-208,
213; Williamson 1982; 412-418, and see the critique in Begg 1987: 80-81.
[59] I agree to the assumption
that the punishment of the last Davidic king described by the Chronicler in
collective terms because of the importance of the expectation of the renewal of
the Davidic monarchy in his ideology (Japhet 1993: 1071-1072).
[60] Begg 1987: 79, 81;
Japhet 1993: 1072.
[61] See: Japhet 1977:
314-315; 1993: 1066.
[62] For a summing up of this
position see Nelson 1981: 86, and ibid. previous literature.
[63] See, for instance, Gray
1964: 753.