Serge Frolov, «Evil-Merodach and the Deuteronomist: The Sociohistorical
Setting of Dtr in the Light of 2 Kgs 25,27-30», Vol. 88 (2007) 174-190
The article demonstrates that four concluding verses of the Former Prophets (2 Kgs 25,27-30) militate against the recent tendency to view Deuteronomism as a lasting phenomenon, especially against its extension into the late exilic and postexilic periods. Because Evil-Merodach proved an ephemeral and insignificant ruler, the account of Jehoiachin’s release and exaltation under his auspices could be reasonably expected to shore up the notion of an eternal Davidic dynasty only
as long as the Babylonian king remained on the throne (562-560 BCE). Since the dynastic promise to David and associated concepts rank high on Dtr’s agenda, it means that the Former Prophets was not updated along Deuteronomistic lines to
reflect the shift in the audience’s perspective on Evil-Merodach caused by his downfall. If so, there was no Deuteronomistic literary activity in the corpus after
560 BCE.
Evil-Merodach and the Deuteronomist 179
another interprets the same text as optimistically announcing, “that a
scion of David, king of Israel is yet alive and well†(14). Although it
may seem that the arguments presented pro and contra the rival
approaches have left no stone unturned, a significant aspect of the
account of Jehoiachin’s release and exaltation, one that may be of
crucial importance as far as the text’s thrust and sociohistorical
background are concerned, has largely eluded the exegetes’ attention.
This aspect is the identity of the captive king’s benefactor.
As universally recognized by scholars, Evil-Merodach is a
(distorted) Hebrew version of the Babylonian name Amel-Marduk
(‘Marduk’s Man’). A ruler by that name assumed Babylonian throne in
early October 562 BCE, upon the death of his father Nebuchadnezzar
(it is possible that by that time Evil-Merodach had been a co-regent for
at least two months) (15). There is no information whatsoever about
Evil-Merodach’s activities prior to his enthronement. Even more
strikingly, nothing is known for certain about the events of his reign or
(14) The first group includes NOTH, Studien, 12, 87, 108; H.W. WOLFF, “Das
Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerksâ€, ZAW 73 (1961) 174;
CROSS, Myth, 277; C.T. BEGG, “The Significance of Jehoiachin’s Release. A New
Proposalâ€, JSOT 36 (1986) 49-56; B. BECKING, “Jehojachin’s Amnesty, Salvation
for Israel? Notes on 2 Kings 25,27-30â€, Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic
Studies. Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress (eds. C. BREKELMANS – J.
LUST) (BETL 94; Leuven 1990) 283-293; and, most recently, D.F. MURRAY, “Of
All the Years the Hopes — or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27-30)â€,
JBL 120 (2001) 245-265. The second view has been defended by VON RAD,
Studien, 63-64; E. ZENGER, “Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der
Rehabilitierung Jojachinsâ€, BZ 12 (1968) 16-30; J.D. LEVENSON, “The Last Four
Verses in Kingsâ€, JBL 103 (1984) 353-361; A. LAATO, A Star Is Rising. The
Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the
Jewish Messianic Expectations (International Studies in Formative Christianity
and Judaism 5; Atlanta 1997) 36; I.W. PROVAN, 1 and 2 Kings (New International
Biblical Commentary. Old Testament Series; Peabody 1995) 279-281; I.W.
PROVAN, 1 & 2 Kings (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield 1997) 88-93. Several
scholars, especially recently, have tried to tread a middle ground by stressing
indeterminacy of 2 Kgs 25,27-30: thus, e.g., R.D. NELSON, First and Second
Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta
1987) 265-269 (in an earlier publication, Nelson sided with Noth: The Double
Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSS 18; Sheffield 1981] 120);
M.A. SWEENEY, King Josiah of Judah. The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford 2001)
319. The two quotations are from NELSON, Redaction, 120 and LEVENSON,
“Versesâ€, 361 respectively.
(15) See the discussion in R.H. SACK, Amel-Marduk, 562-560 B.C. A Study
Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources, with
Plates (AOAT 4; Kevelaer – Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972) 2-3.
FOLLOW US