THE DEATH OF JOSIAH AND THE MEANING OF DEUTERONOMY. L. J. Hoppe

Transcription

1 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH AND THE MEANING OF DEUTERONOMY L. J. Hoppe The Issues Two issues have dominated the study of 2 Kings The first is the historical value of the story that describes the finding of the book of the law (22:3-10) including the identity of that book. The second issue centers on the redactional history of these two chapters. 1 While these concerns are important, this study focuses on a feature of this passage that has been ignored for the most part: the discrepancy between Huldah s oracle (22:18-20) and the report of Josiah s death (23:29-30). 2 2 Kgs is full of admiration for Josiah whom the Deuteronomist presents as an energetic and pious king who attempts a religious reform in Judah and beyond on the basis of ancient Israel s covenantal relationship with its God. N. Lohfink has suggested that the Deuteronomistic story of Josiah is shaped by the four acts that make up a covenant renewal ceremony: repentance (22:3), prophetic inquiry (22:12), covenant renewal (23:1), and the festival celebrating the covenant (23:21). 3 But the conclusion of Josiah s story is unexpected. The king died a violent and premature death and the Kingdom of Judah itself did not survive him by many years. 1. Cf. N. Lohfink, Recent Discussion on 2 Kings 22 23: The State of the Question, in D.L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study), Winona Lake, IN 1993, S.B. Frost does discuss what he regards as the Deuteronomist s only half- hearted attempt to deal with the death of Josiah. See his The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy of Silence, JBL 87 (1968) , in which he asserts that the Deuteronomist was not able to explain Josiah s death theologically. Commentators usually just note the brevity of the account of Josiah s death without much elaboration. See, e.g., J. Gray, I and II Kings (OTL), Philadelphia , 746, and M. Cogan - H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11), Garden City, NY 1988, An exception is R. Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation), Louisville 1987, Nelson sees an ideological paradox in the text between grace and punishment. 3. The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings as a Source for the History of Israelite Religion, in P.D. Miller et al. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 464. LA 48 (1998) 31-47

2 32 L. J. HOPPE If the Deuteronomist wished to commend obedience to a written, authoritative law, the story of Josiah, whose every action was guided by that law, leaves the reader wondering. What is the value of obedience if someone like Josiah, who enthusiastically began and maintained a program of reform, comes to such an end? This article will begin by considering the questions about 2 Kgs that have occupied interpreters. This examination will underscore the significance that the discrepancy between Huldah s oracle and the circumstances of Josiah s death had for the Deuteronomist. This discrepancy illustrates the underappreciated sophistication of Deuteronomistic theology. While it is true that the only way that Judah will be able to have any future is through obedience to the law, still the Deuteronomist can offer no guarantees. Judah must follow the way of obedience even if it is not absolutely clear where that way leads. Recent years have seen the demise or at least the modification of scholarly hypotheses that had enjoyed broad consensus at one time. For example, it was not long after the centenary of Wellhausen s Prolegomenon to the History of Israel that the documentary hypothesis it popularized came under critical scrutiny. One hypothesis that has managed to survive from almost two hundred years is that of W.M.L. de Wette regarding the origins of Deuteronomy. 4 De Wette was the first to analyze Deuteronomy s vocabulary, literary style, and theological content in order to determine its origins. He concluded that the theology of Deuteronomy was unknown in Israel before Josiah s time, though it was known to Jeremiah and others from that period, so de Wette dated Deuteronomy to the seventh century and identified it with the law book found in the temple during its restoration as described in 2 Kgs W.M.L. de Wette, Dissertatio critica, qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris opus esse monstratur, Jena 1805; reprinted in Opuscula Theologica, Berlin Still, de Wette was not the first to identify the law book of 2 Kgs 22 with Deuteronomy. Jerome, Chrysostom, and Athanasius made the same indentification. See E. Nestle, Das Deuteronomium und II Könige xxii, ZAW 22 (1902) ; De Wette s identification of Josiah s law book with Deuteronomy remains the generally accepted view, though most who hold this view maintain that the law book was an early edition of Deuteronomy. Still, there have always been those who found difficulty with de Wette s hypothesis. See O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, New York 1965, , and E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Philadelphia 1967,

3 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 33 G. Ahlström points out that historians have appropriated the theological model of a supposed Josianic reform that is the heart of the Deuteronomistic portrait of Josiah and the foundation of de Wette s hypothesis regarding Deuteronomy s origins. 6 Ahlström rejects this appropriation since he characterizes the Deuteronomistic narratives about Josiah as devotional and insists that using these narratives to reconstruct history is futile. Comparing 2 Kgs with their parallels in 2 Chr makes this clear. For example, the Deuteronomist makes Josiah s reform a consequence of finding the law book, while the Chronicler asserts that the reform was already going on before the book s discovery (2 Chr 34:3-7). Ahlström concludes that the Deuteronomist had an ideological purpose in composing 2 Kgs 22 23: to advance the claim the Deuteronomic religious ideals were known already in Josiah s time. 7 Ahlström holds that this is ideology and not history. Of course, de Wette is correct when he maintains that the story in 2 Kgs does imply that the law book found in the temple was the Book of Deuteronomy. The narrative asserts that the contents of the law book provided both the stimulus and the direction of Josiah s actions. These can all be explained by Deuteronomy, e.g., the prohibition of astral worship (2 Kgs 23:4-5, 11-12//Deut 4:19; 17:3), the destruction of the asherah (2 Kgs 23:6/ /Deut 16:21), the demolition of houses for the qedeshim (2 Kgs 23:7//Deut 23:18), the centralization of worship (2 Kgs 23:7//Deut 12:2-7), the celebration of the Passover (2 Kgs 23:21-23//Deut 16:1-8). Despite the Deuteronomist s clear intention to identify the law book of 2 Kgs 22 with Deuteronomy, this identification is not without problems from within the Deuteronomic tradition itself. Deuteronomy, of course, presents itself as written by Moses and apparently known to Israel from his time onward (Deut 31:9). David cites Deuteronomy in his testament to Solomon (1 Kgs 2:3//Deut 17:18-20; 29:8). Solomon alludes to Deuteronomy several times in his prayer at the dedication of the temple (e.g., 2 Kgs 8:3//Deut 4:39; 7:9; 2 Kgs 8:27//Deut 4:7-8; 2 Kgs 8:29// Deut 12:5; 2 Kgs 8:35//Deut 11:17; 28:23-24). The prophets criticize Israel for disobeying Deuteronomic statutes (e.g., Hos 4:13//Deut 12:2; Hos 5:10//Deut 19:14; 27:17; Amos 2:7//Deut 23:18-19; Amos 8:5//Deut 25:13-16; Mic 6:10//Deut 25:13-16). The Deuteronomist evaluates the kings of Israel and Judah based on their adherence to Deuteronomy s 6. The History of Ancient Palestine, Minneapolis 1993, Ibid., 777.

4 34 L. J. HOPPE stipulation about the centralization of worship (Deut 12). Without exception, the kings of Israel are condemned for maintaining the shrines at Dan and Bethel (e.g., 1 Kgs 16:26). Most kings of Judah are censured for allowing the high places to function alongside the temple (e.g., 2 Kgs 15:34-35). The Deuteronomist praises Hezekiah for abolishing them (2 Kgs 18:4). The Deuteronomistic approval of Hezekiah s conduct and the condemnation of most of the others kings of Judah and Israel makes sense only if the Deuteronomic limitation of sacrificial worship to the one sanctuary that God chose was known. Despite this supposed familiarity with the provisions of Deuteronomy, 2 Kgs 22 notes that it was necessary to consult the prophetess Huldah to seek divine guidance regarding the contents of the law book found in the temple (vv ). The need for such a consultation apparently contradicts the Deuteronomic notion that Israel received Deuteronomy from Moses and that its provisions were in force from his time onward. One way to solve this apparent contradiction is to hold that the narrative about the finding of the law book is historical: some form of the Book of Deuteronomy was, in fact, found in the temple during the eighteenth year of Josiah. According to this solution, the discovery of the book was such a well-known fact that the Deuteronomist could not ignore it, even though this could not be reconciled with the supposed familiarity with Deuteronomic legislation before the time of Josiah. The Deuteronomist was faced with telling the story about the find of a book whose provisions were unknown in Josiah s time, though the very tradition he was transmitting maintained that they were known from the time of Moses. Despite this difficulty, the Deuteronomists could not suppress the story. Another approach in resolving the contradiction involving the identity of the law book involves an analysis of the supposed redactional layers in 2 Kings. B.O. Long summarized the reasons that some interpreters have for considering 2 Kgs as a composite. 8 Among these are 1. the strong narrative features of 22:3 23:3 contrast with the brief and undramatic reports of 23:4-23; 2. waw plus the perfect mingles with the more common waw plus the imperfect to express consecutive action in 23:4-20, though this does not happen in ch. 22; 8. 2 Kings (FOTL 10), Grand Rapids 1991,

5 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH :4-25 lacks smooth transitions (e.g., at vv. 15, 21 and 24); also 23:16-18 abruptly departs from the style of its context and alludes to 1 Kgs 13; 4. 23:26-27 seems at odds with the extravagant praise of Josiah in 22:2, 19 and 23:5; 5. 23:29-30 seems intrusive in the moral concluding formula and contradicts the impression left by 22:20; 6. Parts of 22:3-7 recall 2 Kgs 12:10-15; 7. 22:9 continues vv. 3-7 while interrupting the flow from vv. 8 to 10; 8. 23:13 reproduces 1 Kgs 11:5; and 9. 23:24 seems an afterthought with 2 Kgs 21:6 in mind. Though M. Noth held that the Deuteronomistic History was essentially the work of one person, 9 observations such as those enumerated by Long have led to suggestions that the Deuteronomistic History underwent two or more redactions. A view that enjoyed wide acceptance is one that holds that there were two redactions: the first was pre-exilic and the other exilic. 10 There also have been several studies positing three stages in the development of the Deuteronomistic History. 11 The final edition, which is a product of the exilic period, has been described as the nomistic redaction. 12 Its principal emphasis is obedience to the written, authoritative law. A fundamental presupposition of this third redaction is that the Book of Deuteronomy is the revelation of the divine will for Israel. The theological concerns that emerge most consistently in the nomistic redaction, then, reflect those of Deuteronomy: the unity of God, the one place for sacrificial worship, and the exclusive service of Yahweh. Thus, the third redaction of the Deuteronomistic History makes many references to Jerusalem and its 9. The Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS 15), Sheffield 1981, Despite differences on certain points, the following represent the view that the Deuteronomistic History was compiled in the pre-exilic period and edited in the exilic period: R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, rev. ed., New York 1948, ; Gray, I and II Kings, 7-9; F.M. Cross, The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History, in Id., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge 1973, See R. Smend, Das Gesetz und die Völker, in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie, München 1971, ; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte, Göttingen 1972; and T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, Helsinki Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte,

6 36 L. J. HOPPE temple and considers the requirement that Israel avoid the worship of foreign deities to be absolute. Finally, the nomistic redaction assumes that Israel has decided its fate by its failure to obey the divine will as expressed in the law. Evidence of the nomistic redactor in 2 Kgs is the frequency of Deuteronomic phraseology in these two chapters: hr:wtøh' rp,se (2 Kgs 22:8//Deut 17:18 et passim); µh,ydey hce[}m' lkob] ynisey[ik]h' ˆ['m'l] (2 Kgs 22:17/ /Deut 4:28; 27:15); hm;v'l] twyoh]li (2 Kgs 22:19//Deut 28:37). 2 Kgs 23:3 is an amalgam of Deuteronomic phrases: tyrib]h'ata, trok]yiw" dwm['h;al[' Ël,M,h' dmo[}y"w" wyt;wod [eata,w wyt;wox]mi rmov]liw (Deut 3:5) hw:hy rj'a' tk,l,l; hw:hy ynep]l (Deut 6:17 et passim) wyt;qojuata,w yreb]diata, µyqih;l] (Deut 6:5) vp,n<alk;b]w blealk;b.tyrib]b' µ[;h;alk; dmo[}y"w" hz<h' rp,seh'al[' µybituk]h' tazoh' tyrib]h' The nomistic redactor also couches both his final evaluation of Josiah and his final verdict on Judah in Deuteronomic phraseology (2 Kgs 23:25//Deut 6:5; 30:10; 34:10; 2 Kgs 23:37//Deut 15:5). While one may discount the hypothesis of a nomistic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, it remains clear that 2 Kgs was the product of someone who was familiar not only with Deuteronomy s theology but also with its unique phraseology. The account of the law book s discovery, then, was a significant element for the final form of the Deuteronomistic History, which wished to show that the fate of the two Israelite kingdoms was the result of divine judgment on their failure to abide by the covenant. 2 Kgs helps make this point in an explicit and dramatic way. The finding of the law book gave Judah an unprecedented opportunity to avoid the fate of the Northern Kingdom whose people were taken to exile by the Assyrians. Unfortunately, the reign of Josiah was just a hiatus in Judah s self-destructive journey. Its fate was already sealed during the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:10-15). 13 Judah s journey to exile resumed with Josiah s son and successor Jehoahaz, who did evil in the sight of the Lord, just as his forebears had done (2 Kgs 22:32). 13. The judgment against Judah is given by the prophets. It is likely that this text comes from an earlier redaction of the Deuteronomistic History one that underscored the role of the prophets and the need for Judah to listen to the prophets sent to it.

7 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 37 The story of the law book s discovery, then, is a fiction created by the nomistic redactor of the Deuteronomistic History. 14 This narrative is another example of Judah s past being transformed into a homiletic-type reflection based on the assumptions about Judah s relationship with God as envisioned by the Book of Deuteronomy. The whole of 2 Kgs is a literary product designed to persuade people to Deuteronomy s point of view and the demonstrate that Deuteronomy s teachings were known in Josiah s time and were, in fact, Mosaic in origin. But the Book of Deuteronomy, in its present form, was a creation of Judahites who believed in their people s future a future that could be assured only through moral choices based on traditional Israelite ethics. 15 Because it was an innovation, Deuteronomy required some form of legitimation. This new religious institution a written authoritative law found its legitimation through an old one: the temple. This is apparent, in part, from the chiastic structure of 2 Kgs that N. Lohfink has described. 16 He locates Josiah s cultic reforms at the center of this narrative: A. Finding and dealing with the Book of the Law (22:3-20) B. Covenant by the Book of the Covenant (23:1-3) C. Cultic Reforms (23:4-20) B'. The Passover by the Book of the Covenant (23:21-23) A'. Final Reforms by the Book of the Law (23:24). Lohfink identifies a simple narrative plot in these two chapters. The finding of the law book leads to repentance and reform, which the Deutero- 14. A.D.H. Mays has suggested that the implied connection between Deuteronomy and the book of the law is a late Deuteronomistic fiction. See his King and Covenant: A Study of 2 Kings chs , Hermathena 125 (1978) 34-47, and his Deuteronomy (NCB), Grand Rapids 1981, The identity of the circles that produced Deuteronomy is its final form is still a matter of some debate. At one time there was near consensus on prophetic circles, because it was the fashion to ascribe almost everything of theological or moral value in the Old Testament ascribed to the prophets. G. von Rad considered Deuteronomy to be a product of Levitical preaching: The Provenance of Deuteronomy, in Id., Studies in Deuteronomy (STB 9), London 1953, M. Weinfeld sees scribal circles as responsible for Deuteronomy. See his Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Tradition, New York 1972, while L.J. Hoppe suggested the elders; see his Elders and Deuteronomy: A Proposal, Église et Théologie 14 (1983) Das Bundesurkunde des Königs Josias, Bib 44 (1963) ;

8 38 L. J. HOPPE nomist presents as the great achievement of Josiah s reign. Lohfink also notes that the problem of Judah s fate provides another element of coherence to the unit. The reader asks, Will Judah survive the curse that follows from its disobedience? The answer is, of course, no. Lohfink, however, ignores what falls outside the chiasm that he discovers though 23:25-30 is an essential component of the narrative in its present form. One cannot ignore the contradiction that vv offers to Huldah s prophecy that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kgs 22:20). The conclusion of Josiah s story implies that the king died a violent death at Megiddo while leading Judah in battle against Egypt (2 Kgs 23:30). The Deuteronomist uses this unfortunate event to offer his readers to more refined statement of Deuteronomy s theology. Obedience to the law is what God expects of Judah. Still, obedience will not guarantee its future. Though Josiah did exactly what the law book required, he did not enjoy the blessing promised to an obedient monarch: he and descendants will enjoy a long reign in Israel (Deut 17:20). While the Deuteronomist s evaluation of Josiah is unequaled in its praise of the king, he comes to an inglorious end nonetheless (2 Kgs 23:25, 30). From the Deuteronomist s vantage point, obedience to the law is Judah s only option if it wishes to survive the exile. Unfortunately, obedience will not guarantee Judah s future any more than Josiah s obedience guaranteed his well-being. The Deuteronomist, while commending obedience, makes it clear that God s freedom and not Judah s choices actually guides the course of events. There was a national revival under Josiah. The precise contours of the king s program are not clear since the Deuteronomist focuses on the religious sphere alone. There have been several suggestions for what prompted this revival. Lohfink maintains that behind the religious language of 2 Kgs was Josiah s attempt to free Judah and Jerusalem from Assyrian political and cultural domination. 17 The Deuteronomistic History transforms the story of a national revival occasioned by political events into a religious reform animated by finding the Book of Deuteronomy during repairs to the temple. Still, the Deuteronomist uses Josiah s death as an opportunity to suggest that accepting the law book in itself will not solve Judah s problems. The caricature of Deuteronomic theology as based on nothing more than simple retribution is just that a caricature. 17. Culture Shock and Theology, BTB 7 (1977)

9 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 39 The Text: 2 Kgs :1: Josiah s reign Josiah s accession to the throne took place in 639 B.C. when he was eight years old. His father Amon was assassinated probably for his policy of submission to Assyria. Twelve years later, Ashurbanipal died. 18 The political dislocations that often characterized transitions of power in the Assyrian empire have led to suggestions that Josiah s reform began as an attempt to assert Judah s independence from Assyrian hegemony during the disorder of the interregnum. 19 Ahlström, however, dissents. He maintains that the young king would not have dared to attempt revolution since the Assyrian empire was not yet dead. Ahlström suggests that all the interregnum allowed Josiah to do was to make some administrative changes in Judah. 20 While these were primarily economic, they did affect the national cult. The Deuteronomist emphasizes the latter and ignores the former. Miller and Hayes, on the other hand, assert that a transition in Judah s international relations took place during Josiah s reign. Judah passed from the Assyrian to the Egyptian sphere of influence. 21 Egypt was principally concerned with the commercial exploitation of Judah and was not interested in the type of political domination that led Assyria to annex Aram, Israel and other territories in the region. This meant that Judah was relatively free in terms of internal political and religious affairs. If this scenario is correct, Josiah still could have made the type of administrative changes that Ahlström envisions. 22:2: The Deuteronomistic Appraisal of Josiah This verse forms an inclusio with 23:25. These texts provide one interpretive key to 2 Kgs This key is Josiah s commitment to the law. 18. J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes give the date of Ashurbanipal s death as 627 B.C. See their A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia 1986, 381. Others date Ashurbanipal s death to 633 B.C. 19. A typical example of this approach to Josiah s reform is F.M. Cross and D.N. Freedman, Josiah s Revolt against Assyria, JNES 12 (1953) The History of Ancient Palestine, Miller - Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 391.

10 40 L. J. HOPPE While 22:2 does not specifically mention the law, the phrase he did not turn aside to the right or to the left is a Deuteronomic formula related to obedience to the law (see Deut 5:32; 17:11, 20; 28:14; Josh 1:7; 23:6). Especially significant is the allusion to Deuteronomy s law of the king (Deut 17:20). Josiah is an ideal king precisely because of his unswerving obedience to the law. The clear implication is that Josiah will be blessed because of his obedience as Huldah s prophecy suggests (22:20). This, of course, was not to be since Josiah died a violent and premature death (23:29). This is not how the life of such a person should have ended. 2 Kgs 22:2 lavishes unqualified praise on Josiah, but the description of the king s reforms in 2 Kgs 23:4-7, implies that he did acquiesce to the presence of foreign cults in Jerusalem for the first ten years of his reign. The Chronicler makes this explicit when he says that it was not until the eighth year of Josiah s reign that the king began to seek after the God of his forefather David and that it was not until four years later that he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chr 34:3). The less explicit account of the pre-reform period of Josiah s reign in 2 Kings probably reflects the Deuteronomist s concern to portray Josiah as someone who observed the law without any deviation. 22:3-7: Repairs to the Temple For the Deuteronomists, the most important of Josiah s activities began with the repairs to the temple. This was not a reform of Judah s cult as such. That did not begin until later as inspired by the law book. For the Deuteronomist, it was essential that the reform be seen as inspired by the law book. Verses 5-7 are based on 2 Kgs 11-12, 15 that tell of repairs done to the temple during the reign of Jehoash. In 2 Kgs 22, the restoration work serves to provide a setting for finding the law book the central moment in the story of Josiah. 22:4-13: The Discovery of the Law Book The high priest Hilkiah informs Shaphan, the king s secretary, that he found the book of the law in the house of the Lord (v. 8) while the restoration work was in progress. The finding of a text containing divine revelation during repairs made to a temple is a common ancient Near Eastern literary

11 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 41 motif. 22 In fact, clay tablets with instructions for the rebuilding of a temple were part of the initial structure s foundation deposit. Thus, the monarchs who initiated temple restorations could appeal to the divine will as the basis for their actions. The principal problem here is determining what Josiah wanted to learn from the consultation he ordered Hilkiah to make regarding the law book (v. 13). Did Josiah have suspicions about the book s authenticity? Did he want to find out if there was any way to avoid the anger of the Lord that was kindled against Judah because of its neglect of the law? Josiah s instructions to Hilkiah are not specific. 22:15-20: Huldah s Oracle The Deuteronomist creates the impression of historical credibility by naming four individuals as members of a delegation that went to consult with Huldah (v. 15), though nothing specific is said about what these four do when they meet Huldah. Also, Huldah s oracle offers no help in determining the identity of the book of the law. In fact, Ahlström concludes that the contents of the oracle militate against identifying it with the Book of Deuteronomy. 23 From a literary point of view, Huldah s oracle is intrusive. It offers no connection between the finding of the law book and the reforms that follow in ch. 23. It presence reflects the ideology of the Deuteronomistic tradition that presents the prophets as intermediaries between God and the king. The oracle, however, provides no explicit information about the contents of the book discovered in the temple. Huldah s words, however, suggest that the book contained words of judgment against Judah. 24 A highly significant element in the oracle is the promise that Josiah will die in peace (v. 20). It is significant because it is the one instance when the words of an authentic prophet were not fulfilled in the Deuteronomistic History. 25 The effect of this text is to undercut the role of 22. See Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine, 773 for parallels. 23. Ibid., Here Ahlström lists eights points supporting his conclusion. 24. If the law book was, in fact, some form of Deuteronomy, one wonders where these words of judgment were to be found. 25. There have been at several attempts to salvage this part of Huldah s oracle by maintaining that it referred only to Josiah s burial and not his violent death. See H.-D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen, Zürich 1980, 185, and I. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings (BZAW 172), Berlin 1988, 149. Both avoid facing the implications of Huldah s errant

12 42 L. J. HOPPE the prophet as a reliable interpreter of the divine will. It also leads to the conclusion that a life of piety and obedience does not necessarily bring tangible blessings. Scholars who have commented on the discrepancy between Huldah s oracle and circumstances of Josiah s death often ignore the theological issue and instead use it as a opportunity to discuss the compositional history of the text. 26 Hoffmann, however, attended to the rhetorical effect of Huldah s oracle. 27 He maintains that the oracle was composed carefully to underscore the connection of Huldah s words with the book of the law. The oracle contains two prophecies: vv. 15b-17 and vv Each is introduced with its own messenger formula: v. 15b and v. 18b. Verse 20, which concludes the oracle, reprises both prophecies. Verse 16 speaks explicitly of the judgment that will come on Judah and implies that the contents of the law book serve as the measure of Judah s offenses. The phrase, the words which you have heard in the second oracle (v. 18b) alludes to both the first prophecy and the law book that has been read to Josiah (2 Kgs 22:13). Thus, the law book binds the two parts of Huldah s prophecy together. Huldah s oracle, of course, is not the only time the Books of Kings speak about Judah s tragic end. The first time is in Solomon s prayer at the dedication of the temple. Here the king holds out exile as a possibility for Israel (1 Kgs 8:46-53). The editorial comment made following the story of the Northern Kingdom s fall is the second instance (2 Kgs 17:19-20). Finally, unnamed prophets speak an oracle against Jerusalem during the reign prophecy. S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings (VTSupp 142), Leiden 1991, 111, and M. Rose, Bermerkungen zum historischen Fundament des Josia-Bildes in 2 Reg. 22f, ZAW 89 (1977) 59, object to the tack taken by Hoffmann and Provan. See Long, 2 Kings, , 283, for a summary of other views that hold that the oracle was fulfilled because Josiah was buried in peace. G.H. Jones notes that the addition of your eyes shall not see all the evil I will bring upon this place (22:19) implies that in peace simply means that Josiah s death will take place before the fall of Jerusalem; see his 1 and 2 Kings (NCB), II, Grand Rapids 1984, Mays observes that the discrepancy suggests that the oracle is older than its Deuteronomistic context; see his Deuteronomy, 93. J. Priest notes that the discrepancy indicates that Huldah s oracle originated during Josiah s lifetime; see his Huldah s Oracle, VT 30 (1980) Gray suggests that the original oracle underwent such a thorough Deuteronomistic redaction that is it impossible to reconstruct the original; see his I and II Kings, See his Reform und Reformen,

13 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 43 of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:13). Huldah s words, however, transform Judah s exile from a possibility to a prediction. While vv. 15b-17 offer a general condemnation of Judah, vv are concrete and specific. There is no formulaic language in the second prophecy. Huldah s oracle, like the other words of judgment on Jerusalem in the Books of Kings, is a composition of the Deuteronomist. It was inserted between the story of the finding of the law book and the account of Josiah s religious reform. The purpose of the oracle was less to legitimate the law book than it was to offer a more nuanced view of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic tradition. One goal of the Deuteronomistic History on was to offer an explanation for the collapse of Judah s political and religious institutions. That is the content of the first of Huldah s two prophecies (vv. 15b-17). At the same time, the Deuteronomist wishes to advocate commitment to God and obedience to the law as the way Judah can secure its future. Still, the Deuteronomist has to admit, these do not offer any guarantees. That is the implication of the second prophecy (vv ), which promises that Josiah will die in peace a prophecy that the reader knows went unfulfilled. 23:1-3: The Making of the Covenant The first time the Deuteronomist calls the law book the book of the covenant in Josiah s story occurs in 2 Kgs 23:2. Doing so effectively associates the book of the law with the Mosaic tradition 28 and thereby serves to legitimate the innovation which is the Book of Deuteronomy. This passage is similar to the one describing the covenant that the priest Jehoiada made between the Lord, the king and the people (2 Kgs 11:17). There too the making of the covenant was a prelude to the purification of Judah s national cult (2 Kgs 11:18). Actually, 2 Kgs 11:17 speaks of two covenants. The first is between God and the people, and the second between the king and the people. The concern of the story in 2 Kgs 11 is to cement the political loyalty of Judah to Joash, the monarch installed following the assassination of Athaliah on the orders of Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11:15). The concern of 2 Kgs 23, however, centers on the people s loyalty to God as manifested in their obedience to the book of the law. 28. See Lohfink, Das Bundesurkunde des Königs Josias,

14 44 L. J. HOPPE 23:4-20: Josiah and the Cult The passage has its own introduction (v. 4) and conclusion (v. 20). Also, the preceding narrative continues in 23:21. This has led interpreters from the time of T. Oestreicher to suggest that there was an independent source behind the account of Josiah s cultic reform. 29 G.H. Jones finds evidence of four stages in the development of the text, while Spieckermann and Hoffmann see it as a unified composition. 30 Whatever the nature of this passage s composition, the sweeping reforms it describes command attention. Josiah ends the cultic irregularities permitted by unspecified kings of Judah (v. 5), Manasseh (v. 12), Solomon (vv.13-14) and Jeroboam I (vv ). Josiah s did not confine his activity to Jerusalem but extended it to the territory of the former Northern Kingdom (vv. 4, 8, 19). It is significant that the account of Josiah s cultic reforms contains no reference to the law book, though the context suggests that Josiah s actions were inspired by its discovery. This helps support the notion that the Deuteronomist reworked an account of Josiah s administrative reforms to make them appear as if they were inspired by the discovery of the law book, when actually they may have been occasioned by the political circumstances occasioned by a disintegrating Assyrian empire. 23:21-23: Josiah s Passover Unlike the previous section, the passage about the Passover celebration refers to the law book as the inspiration for the observance of this feast (v. 21). S. Nakanose regards this aspect of Josiah s reform as nothing else but an administrative action to tighten state control over agriculture, industry and trade. 31 Josiah, representing the concerns of the wealth-seeking ruling class, appropriated this traditional religious celebration. By having it sponsored by the royal court, Josiah counteracted antimonarchic tendencies. Of course, the Deuteronomist submerges all these concerns for the sake of portraying Josiah as celebrating the Passover as soon as he discovered the stipulations regarding this festival in the law book. 29. Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz, Gütersloh 1923, Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, II, 616; H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129), Göttingen 1982, ; Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen, Josiah s Passover, Maryknoll, NY 1993,

15 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 45 23:24-30: Summary Statements Verse 24 lists actions against non-yahwisthic cult practices and objects. The first half of this verse reports that Josiah did away with the divinatory practices that Manasseh promoted (2 Kgs 21:6). Also eliminated were images and other unspecified abominations that had characterized worship carried in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judah. The second half of the verse asserts that Josiah did this because of the words of the law written in the book found by the priest Hilkiah Josiah s piety is the subject of v. 25. On the basis of this text, S. McKenzie concludes that the account as a whole looks to the future with optimistic expectancy. 32 McKenzie s comment makes sense if one assumes that the reader never goes beyond v. 25. The very opposite of optimistic expectancy emerges when one considers the effect of vv on the story of Josiah. If such a tragic end can come to someone as devoted to the law as Josiah, what awaits those whose obedience falls far short of the standard set by this king? If repentance, obedience, and piety do not save a person from a disastrous end, what can? The editorial comment in v. 26 echoes the judgment on Judah because of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:10-15), while the divine speech in v. 27 recalls Huldah s oracle in 2 Kgs 22: These verses note that the judgment against Judah and Jerusalem has not been diverted despite the renewal of the covenant, the cultic reforms, the celebration of the Passover, and Josiah s obedience and piety. The reforms have not deflected the anger of God. Given the goal of the Deuteronomistic work to motivate Judah to live according to the written authoritative law as found in Deuteronomy, this conclusion is shocking. What then is the value of obedience? Does Deuteronomy s promise of a blessing on the obedient and a curse on the disobedient have any force? Scholarly discussion of 2 Kgs has been dominated by question of the law book s identity, the historical value of these two chapters, and their compositional history. 2 Kgs 23:26-27 is not directly germane to these issues, so it is usually given little or no attention in the discussion of the larger unit. Still, there are few texts in the Deuteronomistic History that diverge from the Deuteronomist s supposed purpose than these. What message do these verses give to the exilic audience? In light of 23:26-27, it is not surprising that Noth asserted that the Deuteronomist had no positive 32. The Trouble with Kings, 115.

16 46 L. J. HOPPE view of Judah s future. 33 For Noth, the significance of Josiah s reign was that during it the law, which the Deuteronomist placed at the beginning of his history as the embodiment of the Sinai tradition, was found in the temple and executed by the king. 34 Still, if observance of this law does not prevent Judah s destruction, of what value is it? An expansion of the usual regnal summary is expected, given Huldah s prophecy about Josiah s death in 22:20. Though some scholars do not see the clear contradiction between 23:28-30 and Huldah s oracle, 35 the Chronicler noticed it. In his slightly expanded version of the Deuteronomistic account of Josiah s death, the Chronicler implies that Josiah fell in battle because he failed to heed a warning from God given through Pharaoh Neco, whom he faced at Megiddo. Huldah s prophecy about Josiah s death (2 Chr 34:28) was not fulfilled, but this was due to a failure of the king s part. The Deuteronomistic conclusion to Josiah s story makes it clear that Judah was not better off for having a pious monarch who observed the law carefully. Josiah himself came to a lamentable end. The Egyptians deposed his successor (2 Kgs 23:33). His kingdom was reduced to vassal status after a brief flirtation with independence. Its end was less than twenty-five years away. To say that Josiah went to his grave in peace as Huldah prophesied defies the obvious sense of 23: Conclusion Deuteronomistic theology has been dismissed as mechanistic and simplistic. Its correlation of obedience with blessing and disobedience with a curse is judged as out of touch with the way life works. The story of Josiah gave the Deuteronomist the opportunity to show that his theology was a bit more complex that it seems at first reading. Josiah did exactly what the Deuteronomists wanted Judah to do. He received the law book with an attitude of repentance and reordered national life in accord with its stipulations. To motivate Judah Deuteronomy does speak about the blessings that follow upon obedience and the judgment that comes with disobedience (see Deut 27:14 28:68). Still, the Deuteronomist knows that this system cannot 33. The Deuteronomistic History, Ibid., See above no. 25.

17 THE DEATH OF JOSIAH 47 be allowed to become absolute. If one can hope that God will disavow the judgment that should come upon a disobedient Judah, one must also be ready to recognize that blessing does not automatically follow repentance and obedience. The Deuteronomist is certain that there is only one way open for Judah to secure any future at all. That is the way of obedience. As certain as that belief is, the Deuteronomist is willing to live in the ambiguity that is reflected in Judah s own experience of God. The ending of the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kgs 25:27-30) is another text whose ambiguity perplexes readers. What is the significance of Jehoiachin s parole? Is it a harbinger of a better future for Judah? Is it the last gasp of a dying dynasty and nation? Does it signal the beginning of Judah s redemption or the beginning of its final judgment? The text is purposely equivocal because the Deuteronomist does not want to provide guarantees for Judah. Guarantees just do not work. The deuteronomic tradition encourages, cajoles, invites, admonishes, and motivates but it does not guarantee. That is the significance of 2 Kgs The admirable, commendable, and exemplary response of Josiah to the finding of the law book guaranteed him and his kingdom nothing. Still, the Deuteronomist does not become cynical or hopeless about Judah s future. The only way Judah can expect to have any future at all will be the result of God s response to its obedience, so the Deuteronomist commends the way of obedience to Judah but without offering any guarantees. Leslie J. Hoppe, ofm Catholic Theological Union, Chicago Visiting Professor at the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum

18