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 187
scribes, it would be nothing but easy. If so, in strictly technical terms
it would not take a “school†to launch and complete the Deutero-
nomistic project in Evil-Merodach’s twenty-two-month reign: even a
single individual, and certainly two or three, could do the job without
overexerting themselves.
Of course, the sheer length is by no means the only concern that
could make it difficult to date this project in its entirety to 562-560
BCE. Much more problematic for this dating is the fact that the Former
Prophets appears to display multiple conceptual tensions, factual
discrepancies, as well as compositional, stylistic, and lexical
variations. Would it be plausible to ascribe a corpus that seems to be
highly heterogeneous (or even its pre-canonical substrate) to a single
individual or a very small group working over a period of less than two
years?
Three considerations make it possible to answer this question in
the affirmative. First, variations and even tensions do not necessarily
presuppose multiple authorship. Even a modern text, doubtlessly
produced by a single author, can be inconsistent and even self-
contradictory in both factual and conceptual terms (37). Furthermore,
allegedly discrepant pieces may in fact be mutually complementary,
with their juxtaposition adding nuance rather than creating tension.
Thus, it has been frequently argued that 1 Kgs 2,4; 6,12; 8,25 cannot
come from the same hand as 2 Samuel 7 because they allegedly qualify
the Davidic promise by making it contingent on the behavior of
individual monarchs (38). However, the proposition that wayward kings
(37) In J.R.R. TOLKIEN’s The Lord of the Rings, Lotho Pimple, briefly
appearing in the opening chapters only as a “sandy-haired†(not “pimpledâ€) son
of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins and entirely eclipsed there by his domineering
mother, inexplicably emerges towards the end as an arch-villain in his own right.
Mikhail BULGAKOV’s Heart of a Dog cites the age of a character at death first as
28 and just a few pages later as 25. On numerous glaring contradictions in Edgar
POE’s Arthur Gordon Pym, see E.A. POE, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of
Nantucket and Related Tales (ed. J.G. KENNEDY) (Oxford World’s Classics;
Oxford 1998) 286-288. Chronological discrepancies are especially common: they
occur not only in fiction (for several egregious examples in Jules Verne’s novels,
see FROLOV, Turn, 199), but also in para-scholarly publications. For instance,
according to ASIMOV’S Guide to the Bible. The Old and New Testaments (New
York 1981) 122, the reign of Amenhotep IV ended in 1353 BCE, after which
Ikhnaton (sic) reigned for seventeen years and was succeeded by Tutankhamon
in… 1352 BCE.
(38) CROSS, Myth, 287, ascribed 1 Kgs 2,4; 6,11-13; 8,25b to the second, exilic
Dtr.