Judean Kings Research Articles

Melvin Sensenig. Jehoiachin and His Oracle: A Jeremianic Scribal Framework for the End of the Deuteronomistic History

Melvin Sensenig. <i>Jehoiachin and His Oracle: A Jeremianic Scribal Framework for the End of the Deuteronomistic History</i>

The Meaning and Function of Jeremiah 22:20–23

Jeremiah 22:20–23 forms part of a cycle of oracles regarding the Judean kings in the period before and during the Babylonian exile. This poetic section addresses a second person female subject without identifying who it may be. The general view is that it is addressed to Jerusalem personified. This article explores the possibility that the female subject is the queen mother, acting in a time between the reigns of King Jehoiakim and King Jehoiachin. On the basis of the available data, whether or not the section refers to the queen mother remains inconclusive. In addition to this question, the meaning and the placement of this poem in the cycle of oracles is discussed in terms of Jeremiah’s ideological views. The poem is both a lament and a judgement announcement due to failed leadership.

A Blameworthy Burial: A Methodology for Inner-Biblical Allusion with a Case Study from Chronicles

King Asa’s funeral description is the longest in the book of Chronicles and unique in the number of specific details it includes. Scholars generally see Asa’s funeral in 2 Chron. 16.14 in a positive light despite the negative tone of the preceding verses. Certainly, Chronicles is not afraid to portray a Judean king in both positive and negative terms (e.g., Manasseh). However, using an adapted synchronic and diachronic methodology for assessing inner-biblical connections, this study identifies and evaluates the shared language found in Exod. 30.25, 1 Chron. 9.30, and 2 Chron. 16.14. The study reveals a recurrent allusion that is both 1) an indication that post-exilic temple workers followed the Torah and 2) an indictment against using a special anointing oil for honoring the dead instead of honoring God.

How Is It Written? Mark 9:12, Heavenly Writ, and the King of the Jews Inscription

Abstract Scholars offer various scriptural precedents for how the Son of Man’s suffering is “written” according to Mark 9:12. This article proposes that Jesus’ suffering is written in heaven, and that it appears, ultimately, as the “King of the Jews” inscription (15:26). The use of γέγραπται in 9:12 does not preclude future application, so that Mark’s grammar allows for past writing to remerge during the Passion. The language that appears alongside the “King of the Jews” inscription in Mk 15:26–29 recalls earlier Markan references to Scripture, which imbues the title with authority on par with, but independent from, Israel’s Scriptures. Mark’s use of “King of the Jews” evokes Jesus’ prediction of maltreatment insofar as the phrase’s contexts either echo Mk 9:11–13 or draw on the Septuagint’s descriptions of suffering Judean kings. Thus, Mark’s inscription witnesses to the suffering written in heaven, and also explains why the Son of Man must suffer as King of the Jews.

A Collective Anointed? David and the People in Psalm 89

It has been suggested by Timo Veijola and several other exegetes that the anointed one dealt with in Ps 89 does not mean an individual Judean king or the Davidic dynasty but the whole people of Israel. Psalm 89 thus witnesses to a collectivization of the divine promises given to David. In the present article, I critique this thesis of collectivization. To be sure, David and the people are closely related to each other in the psalm but at the same time clearly distinguished from each other. In the whole Hebrew Bible, there is no unequivocal evidence for a collective meaning of the title משיח (“anointed”). The textual and reception history of Ps 89 suggests that the collectivization of the Davidic figure is a phenomenon of reception rather than conforming to the original meaning of the psalm.

Historical Books: Joshua–2 Kings

Historical BooksJoshua–2 Kings Christopher T. Begg, Thomas Hieke, Benedict Schöning, and Joseph E. Jensen 2077. [Dtr; Jeremiah] Hermann-Josef Stipp, "Die Deuteronomisten und das Exil. Historische Erfahrungen und theologische Lernprozesse," MTZ 70 (2019) 2-23. Among the most influential theological "schools" in ancient Israel were the Deuteronomists whose heyday were the decades before and after the Babylonian exile, 587–539 b.c.e. In the writings produced by them, the Deuteronomists devoted particular attention to the phenomenon of exile. Attention to their treatments of this theme shows how the Deuteronomists' perception of exile changed substantially over time, in function of the prevailing concerns of the particular group of Deuteronomists involved and especially of the lived experience of exile. After an introductory segment, S.'s study unfolds under six headings as follows: (1) the original Deuteronomistic Historical Work (Dtr); (2) the exilicera expansions of Dtr; (3) the Judean Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1–25*); (4) the Babylonian supplementation (Fortschreibung) of the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 26–44*); (5) a post-Deuteronomistic postlude (Nachspiel): Jeremiah 24; and (6) conclusion. [Adapted and expanded from published abstract—C.T.B.] [End Page 686] 2078. [Joshua] Zev I. Farber and Jacob L. Wright, "The Savior of Gibeon: Reconstructing the Prehistory of the Joshua Account," Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I, 295-310 [see #2401]. From the above discussion, we can see the trajectory the figure of Joshua took in Israelite mnemohistory. He began as a local Ephraimite warrior, primarily remembered for his victory in the battle of Gibeon and Beth-horon. At this stage, his story resembled those of such other biblical warriors as Ehud, Gideon, or Jephthah. The tradition concerning him began to expand as storytellers and scribes identified various heaps of stones in the region with his victories. The growth of this tradition turned Joshua's feats into a counterpart to those of Moses in the exodus-conquest account, with Moses being the one who brings Israel out from Egypt, Joshua the one who brings them into the Promised Land. As the Hexateuch grew into the Enneateuch, Joshua became a transitional figure between the great Moses and the leaders who served the nation before the emergence of the monarchy. All these non-monarchic figures shift the focus on the narrative from kings to the non-royal personages who provided leadership for the nation in its most formative years. Just as Caleb is a non-monarchic counterpoise to the Judean King David in Judah, Joshua is a non-monarchic counterpoise to the Benjaminite-Ephraimite Saul. [Adapted from authors' conclusion, p. 310—C.T.B.] 2079. [Joshua 6–7; P] E. E. Meyer, "The in Joshua 6 and 7, Influenced by P?" AcTSup 26 (2018) 71-87 [see #2377]. M.'s article engages with the old question of P influence in the Book of Joshua, and is, to a large extent, a response to T. B. Dozeman's 2015 commentary on Joshua 1–12. More specifically, M. focuses on the term ḥērem and argues that there are more intertextual links between the understanding of the term in Joshua 6 and 7 and texts from Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets than with P texts. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] 2080. [Josh 8:30-35; Deut 27:2-8; 11:29-30] I. Himbaza, "Accomplissement en Josué de Deutéronome 27,2-8 et 11,29-30 dans la perspective de l'Hexateuque et du Pentateuque," Trans 50 (2018) 105-23. The prescriptions of Deut 27:2-8 reflect a compromise between different groups among the worshipers of Yhwh. According to the Book of Joshua (Josh 8:30-35), the fulfillment of those prescriptions took place in the vicinity of Shechem, this happening against the background of the whole controverted question of where Yhwh is to be worshiped, a question that eventually gave rise to irreconcilable differences among various groups of Yahwists. Divergences on this question may have contributed to the rejection of the Hexateuch at an earlier time and later as well to be main differences between Jews and Samaritans regarding the text of the Pentateuch as these are known today. According...

Sennacherib’s third campaign and Hezekiah: A discourse analysis

This paper examines the Assyrian records of Sennacherib’s third campaign from a literary perspective by investigating the structure of the text, the means of participant reference, and terms and expressions with ideological connotations. It focuses especially on the representation of the Assyrian king and other participants for or against his rule, elucidating how the author portrays the participants through the use of literary structure as well as particular forms, terms or expressions. It also shows how the author makes use of these devices to paint the Judean king Hezekiah as an archenemy and the target of the third campaign.

The Chronicler's Code: The Rise and Fall of Judah's Army in the Book of Chronicles

This article focuses on the numbers given in the book of Chronicles for the armies of the Judean kings, with an emphasis on the sequence of the first four kings of Judah. It argues that these numbers were inserted by the Chronicler according to a clear and systematic pattern. Specifically, they are used as a literary device to express a pattern of changes in royal power, in which power increased from the time of Rehoboam's reign until Jehoshaphat, before gradually decreasing until the reign of Ahaz.

REMEMBERING MOSES AS A MODEL OF ISRAELITE AND EARLY JEWISH IDENTITY

There are numerous depictions of Moses in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible: Leader and lawgiver, miracle worker, prophet and priest, etc. This contribution argues that one should refrain from reconstructing a linear, almost evolutionary, development of Moses as a model of Israelite and early Jewish identity. Instead, it will be suggested that deuteronomistic traditions evolved during the latter part of the monarchy and the exile (7th and 6th century BCE). On the one hand, some deuteronomistic traditions remembered Moses as a leader exhibiting qualities in stark contrast to Assyrian and Judean kings; while other deuteronomistic traditions propose Moses to be the ideal prophet that is called to be the spokesperson for God amongst his people. Concurrently, priestly traditions flourished in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (6th to 4th century BCE), that remembered Moses as a lawgiver and an intermediary. On a methodological level, it will be proposed that collective memory studies allow research to move beyond the futile attempts to establish the historicity of Moses and the exodus. Appreciating the evolving of theological traditions as the result of the collective memories negotiated amongst believing communities, the role Moses played as a paradigmatic model for the maintenance of Israelite and Jewish identity amidst Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic onslaughts is presented in a new light.

JUSTICE RETOLD: THE SEMINAL NARRATIONS OF THE TRIAL OF THE JUDEAN KING

AbstractMany legal systems have foundational stories about their provenance, serving to heighten the stature and authority of the normative order. Yet, these primary myths are often complicated by secondary ones that describe later climactic moments. A prevalent plot of this latter kind involves a defiant political actor who contests the jurisdiction of the courts and relates the legal order's response to this daunting challenge. The crucible of struggle forges a formidable legal institution that can withstand assault or a weaker one that limply survives.Such stories captivate the collective legal imagination of a paideic community, a process first analyzed by the late Robert Cover. Hence they are preserved, told, and retold. However, the morals of secondary stories are more variable. Precisely because they examine moments of disturbance and conflict their implications are frequently in dispute. Thus, the very act of narration aims to amplify core truths implicit in these tales and announce their essential lessons.The narrative history of the epic “trial of the Judean king” among Jews in antiquity and late antiquity affords a striking instance of this phenomenon. Making a lasting impression on the Jewish legal imagination of this period, the trial's impact and perpetual legacy are nevertheless highly contested. While the enduring lesson of the trial revolves around the relationship between law and power, what that legacy is depends entirely on the way the tale of the trial is told and, perhaps more importantly, retold.

Tiglath-pileser III's Aid to Ahaz

This study examines the discrepancy in the biblical text's account of Tiglath-pileser III's aid to Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis in light of the Assyrian sources, II Kings I6:5―9 (and Isaiah 7) states that Tiglath-pileser helped Ahaz by repelling the attacks of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, while II Chronicles 28:5― 2I proclaims that Tiglath-pileser failed to help the Judean king. Previous studies have attempted to resolve the textual conflict by way of literary analysis or textual emendation. By undertaking an historical methodology of the biblical text and an examination of the Assyrian sources, the case is made that while the biblical accounts contradict each other in specific areas, there are key elements that are historically accurate in both accounts which are in complete accord with the Assyrian sources, and in turn clarify the biblical accounts. * .

Jeremiah 44: What if `the Queen of Heaven' is YHWH?

Jeremiah 44 provides an image unusual within prophetic literature—the prophet's female adversaries are not portrayed in terms of sexuality. Jeremiah denounces a group of Judean women and men who revere `the Queen of Heaven'. His central accusation is that they have caused YHWH's anger, and thus the fall of the kingdom of Judah. Yet, this article maintains, there is sufficient textual evidence for readers to construct an alternate scenario that vindicates the Queen of Heaven's supporters in their counter-accusation that it was not their actions that angered YHWH but the actions of the Judean kings who opposed making offerings to the Queen of Heaven. In this case, what relations between the Queen of Heaven and YHWH might be portrayed?

A tale of two cities: Nineveh and Babylon

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Dickens' famous opening line of his A Tale of Two Cities is just one of many examples of the author's use of doubles in the book. Throughout the work the author pairs people, cities, and events. A characteristic of doubles is that they can replace one another even if they are opposites: At the end of the Tale, the idle drunk Carton dies in the place of the virtuous Darnay. Similarly Dickens ties the fates of the cities Paris and London essentially together, and one can easily think of other doubles in that respect: New York and Baghdad today or Nineveh and Babylon in the first millennium BC. In all three cases the connection is more imaginary or literary than real. It is important, however, for historians to ask why these connections were made, and how they influenced the record with which they work.This paper will deal with Nineveh and Babylon, and how the fates of these two cities were fundamentally connected — not in reality, but in the ancient discourse regarding them. In her article “Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens”, Stephanie Dalley pointed out in detail how classical and Biblical authors were confused with respect to these two cities and had difficulties keeping them apart (Dalley 1994). For example, Ktesias locates Nineveh on the Euphrates instead of the Tigris, and the Biblical Book of Chronicles states that Esarhaddon deported the Judean king Manasseh to Babylon, while he must have meant Nineveh. Other examples abound. We can look at these mistakes one by one and try to explain them. We can find an explanation in the fact that Nineveh at times was called “Old Babylon” in Assyrian sources, or excuse the Biblical authors for being obsessed with the great deportations to Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar. Those are valid remarks, but do not explain why the confusion was so widespread. I will argue here that the misunderstanding was due to an actual objective in the late cuneiform tradition to tie the fates of Nineveh and Babylon together. At least with respect to their destructions, these cities were each other's mirror images, each other's doubles.

HOW RELIABLE ARE BIBLICAL REPORTS? REPEATING LESTER GRABBE'S COMPARATIVE EXPERIMENT

AbstractA scientific experiment of any significance, and particularly one that gives rise to broad generalisations, must be repeated by other scientists before its results can be considered confirmed. Lester Grabbe's "rough-and-ready" exercise comparing historical assertions in the Old Testament with parallel assertions from ancient Near Eastern sources is just such an experiment. The generalisations to which Grabbe is led are 1) that the biblical framework for Israelite and Judean kings from the mid-ninth century onwards is reasonably accurate, and 2) that the details of the biblical accounts are at times misleading, inaccurate, or even invented. The aim of the present essay is to test the second, more controversial of Grabbe's generalisations by repeating the comparative experiment. The result of closely scrutinising the pertinent biblical and aNE texts is to reverse Grabbe's second generalisation. This in turn raises the larger question of why interpreters working with the same evidence sometimes arrive at quite different conclusions.

Die retoriek van godsdienstige pllitiek in Psalm 2

The rhetorical argumentation strategies of Psalm 2 as a political-cultic poem are explored in order to highlight the function of these strategies, the exigency and the audience of the initial rhetorical situation. During the creation process of the psalm, the rhetor must have been influenced by the royal court or the king himself, reflecting aspects of the evolutionary process which the Zion theology went through. The rhetor's creation was to be implemented lively during the inauguration ceremony of the Judean king as rhetorical action during which the king (as new rhetor), the world rulers and nations (as universal audience), the Judean audience present at the political-cultic ceremony, as well as Yahweh were engaged in collaborative rhetorical action.

The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period

Until recently the site of Tulul Abu el-Alayiq, 2 km. southwest of near the mouth of the Wadi Qelt, was known as Herodian Jericho (Pritchard: 1958) or New Testament Jericho (Kelso and Baramki: 1955). A series of rescue excavations conducted every winter since January 1973 has shed new light on the site and enables us to call it the Winter Palace Center of the Judean Kings (from the last Hasmoneans to Herod and his descendants). The Hasmoneans were the first to rediscover the