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.
180 Serge Frolov
about his internal or foreign policies because almost all references to
him in extant contemporary documents are in dates using his regnal
years (16). In fact, the change of Jehoiachin’s status is the only act of
Evil-Merodach reported by a source that may be chronologically
proximate to his reign. The history of Babylon prepared by Berossus in
the third century BCE only says that Evil-Merodach “governed public
affairs in an illegal and improper manner†(17); sometimes extensive
and colorful comments on Evil-Merodach found in much later Jewish
and Christian writings are midrashic amplifications of 2 Kgs 25,27-30
meant to fill (perceived) gaps in it (18). What is more, it is quite possible
that even the most well-informed and pedantic historian would have
found it impossible to compose a substantial account of Evil-
Merodach’s reign, for the simple reason that it lasted less than two
years. Between May and August 560 BCE, he was replaced (according
to Berossus – overthrown and killed) by Neriglissar, a veteran military
commander and, according to Berossus, his brother-in-law (19).
In sum, Evil-Merodach was one of the most obscure, insignificant,
and ephemeral rulers Babylon and the ancient Near East in general
have ever known. With no military campaigns or important building
projects to his credit and, apart from Jehoiachin’s release and
exaltation, no substantial policy shifts associated with his name, he left
no legacy to speak of. The transitional, and transient, character of Evil-
Merodach’s reign was further augmented by the fact that his removal
ushered in an era of exponentially increasing political discontinuity in
Babylon. While his reign was most likely a direct extension of that of
his father, Nebuchadnezzar (especially if it was preceded by a period
of co-regency), Evil-Merodach’s successor, Neriglissar, was not his
son, but somebody who was married into the royal family and may
have assumed power through a coup d’état. Four years later, in 556
BCE, another coup d’état led by Nabonidus, “a usurper with no
hereditary claim to the throneâ€, put a violent end to the dynasty
founded by Evil-Merodach’s grandfather Nabopolassar (20). Moreover,
(16) Sack conveniently includes plates, transliterations, and translations of all
known texts mentioning Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk, 43-119, plates).
(17) Ibid., 6.
(18) Ibid., 12-23.
(19) Ibid., 31-32; R.H. SACK, Neriglissar — King of Babylon (AOAT 236;
Kevelaer – Neukirchen-Vluyn 1994) 25-27.
(20) B.T. ARNOLD, Who Were the Babylonians? (SBL Archaeology and
Biblical Studies 10; Atlanta 2004) 100.