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.
186 Serge Frolov
around willing to bring the Former Prophets up to date, at least not
along Deuteronomistic lines: the individuals to whom 2 Kgs 25,27-30
owes its existence either died or chose forever to keep their peace.
This, in turn, places a question mark over the now-conventional
definition of Dtr as a “school†or a “movement†that lasted for
decades, if not for centuries, and enjoyed considerable following in the
Israelite/Jewish society, especially among its educated elite.
Phenomena of this kind do not vanish overnight. Of course, if Evil-
Merodach’s overthrow had something to do with his favorable
treatment of Jehoiachin, the coup could expose the Deuteronomists,
whose fervent belief in imminent Davidic restoration was easily
interpretable as disloyalty to Babylon and even high treason, to
persecution and even extermination. However, insofar as no sources so
much as hint at major purges under Neriglissar the rule of parsimony
disallows this explanation. A much more economical way to proceed is
to surmise that, important as it is from the literary standpoint, socially
and historically Deuteronomism was limited to a small group of
associates or even a single individual working within a short period –
namely, in Evil-Merodach’s reign.
Technically, this would be entirely possible. The Scripture looms
so large in the Western culture that it is usually thought of as a text of
monumental proportions. In fact, the entire Hebrew Bible contains
slightly less than 305,000 words, with the New Testament being much
shorter (34). The length of the Former Prophets is 69,359 words, but
Dtr ’s composition may have been longer or shorter than that: on the
one hand, it could include Deuteronomy (14,294 words), on the other
hand, substantial segments of the Former Prophets may be later
additions (35). I will assume therefore that this composition was
between 60,000 and 84,000 words long. Taking a break for Shabbat
and major festivals, i.e. working on the average about 300 days a year,
a single scribe could complete it in its entirety in twenty-two months
by writing down on the average between 109 and slightly less than 152
words a day (36). Even with the writing utensils and media of the sixth
century BCE, the task would hardly be daunting; for two or three
(34) Here and below I quote the traditional Jewish word count as tabulated in
A. EVEN-SHOSHAN, A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem 1993) xxxviii
(Hebrew).
(35) For a tentative list of these additions, see n. 13 above.
(36) To put these numbers in a perspective: the present paragraph, excluding
footnotes, contains 218 words.