Jeremiah's Polemic Against Emigration to Egypt

Home , Cappadocia (satrapy), Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Necho I

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

FIGHT OR FLIGHT:

JEREMIAH'S POLEMIC AGAINST EMIGRATION TO EGYPT

IN LITERARY AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

A Dissertation In

History and Classics & Ancient Mediterranean Studies

Sara L. Hoffman

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2015 The dissertation of Sara Hoffman was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Baruch Halpern Professor Emeritus of Ancient History and Jewish Studies Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee

Gary Knoppers Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee

Janina Safran Associate Professor of History

Donald Redford Professor of Classics & Ancient Mediterranean Studies and History

Ken Hirth Professor of Anthropology

Michael Kulikowski Head, Department of History Professor of History and Classics & Ancient Mediterranean Studies

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

ii ABSTRACT

This study evaluates Jeremiah’s polemic against emigration to Egypt from both literary and historical perspectives. Previous interpretations have emphasized the Deuteronomistic character of this polemic. In contrast, this study moves beyond noting superficial similarities with Deut 17, Deut 28, and 2 Kgs 25. It analyzes how themes and language shared with Deuteronomistic literature actually function in the Jeremianic context and in what ways their Jeremianic usage diverges from Deut and DtrH and attests to the diversity of the Deuteronomistic schools. It then evaluates what practical role the theological rhetoric of Jeremiah played in the political, social, and economic landscape of the 6th century BCE.

Situating Jer 42's prohibition within the literary context of Jer 37–44, this study identifies two distinctive stages of development for this narrative block: an early 6th century BCE pro- remnant core and a later 6th century BCE adaptation and expansion by members of the Babylonian golah. Despite shared material, there are important differences between Jer 37– 44's representation of the period from the siege of Jerusalem through Gedaliah's tenure at Mizpah and DtrH's narration of these events in 2 Kgs 25, particularly regarding flight to Egypt and the viability of Judean communities in Egypt. Further, while the editors of both stages of Jer 37–44 appeal to Dtr rhetoric to support their views, they do so in different ways. In contrast to the pro-golah editors whose use of Dtr diction is very similar to DtrH, the pro- remnant core reshapes the language of Deuteronomy as a means of promoting submission to Babylon. In doing so, it presents views of conquest, exile, and Judah’s relationship to foreign powers that do not easily align with Deuteronomy itself. Finally, this study argues that the pro-remnant core’s appeal to the authority of Deuteronomy was necessary precisely because the opportunities available to foreigners in Egypt during this period made it such an attractive destination for refugees. Collaborators had a vested interest in maintaining stability under Babylonian rule because their status and property rights were tied to it. In its earliest stages, the prohibition against flight to Egypt represents an ongoing attempt by Babylonian collaborators to persuade Judeans to remain in the land.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations viii List of Tables x Text Critical Sigla xi Acknowledgements xii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 1 I. Previous Approaches to Jeremiah's Prohibition against Flight to Egypt 4 A. Pro-Babylonian Politics 4 B. Reversal of the Exodus Event 8 C. Competing Claims of Status among Judean/Jewish Communities 12 D. Role of Deuteronomism 13 II. Contributions of This Study 14 A. Literary Approaches: Nature of Dtr Influence on the Jeremiah Tradition 14 B. Historical Approaches: Significance of Egypt as a Destination for Refugees 15 III. Outline of This Study 16 A. Chapter Two: Overview of Key Redaction Models 16 B. Chapter Three: Redaction History of Jer 37-44 17 C. Chapter Four: Linguistic Analysis of Jer 37-44 18 D. Chapter Five: Jeremiah's Prohibition in Historical Context 18 E. Chapter Six: Conclusions and Further Implications 20

Chapter 2: Models for the Redaction History of Jeremiah 22 I. Deuteronomism in the Jeremiah Tradition 22 A. Early Models 22 B. The Expansion of the Role of Dtr 24 C. Recent Perspectives on Dtr and Jeremiah 29 II. Competing Groups in the Redaction History of Jeremiah 37 A. Early Models 37 B. Intersection with Dtr Models 40

Chapter 3: The Redaction History of Jer 37-44 49 I. Characteristics of the Pro-Remnant Core 50 A. The Necessity of Submission to Babylon 50 1. During the Babylonian Siege 50 2. During Gedaliah's Tenure at Mizpah 54 3. During the Aftermath of Gedaliah's Assassination 55 B. Positive Representations of Babylonians and Life under Babylonian Rule 56 1. Fall of Jerusalem 56 2. Benefits for Collaborators 57

iv C. Stress on Ongoing Life in the Land of Judah 66 D. Key Themes, Date, and Authorship 67 II. Characteristics of Pro-Golah Adaptation and Expansion 69 A. The Desolation of Judah and the Empty Land Motif 69 B. Linking the Judean Community in Egypt with the Condemnation of Judah 72 C. Denying the Viability of the Judean Community in Egypt 74 D. Key Themes, Date, and Authorship 75 III. Jer 37-44 vs. 2 Kgs 25 76 A. Shared Source Material 77 B. Representations of the Remnant's Relationship with Babylon and Life 78 in the Land C. Representations of Flight to Egypt 81 D. Representations of Exilic Judean Communities 83 IV. Conclusions 86 A. Primary Characteristics of the Redaction Stages of Jer 37-44 86 B. Analysis of 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 37-44 88 C. Implications 89

Chapter 4: Linguistic Analysis of Jer 37-44 90 I. Dtr Diction and Allusions to Deuteronomy 92 A. Jer 38:1-6 92 1. Literary Context and Relationship between Jer 38:2 and Jer 21:9 92 2. Allusion to Deuteronomic Choice between Life and Death 95 B. Jer 38:14-28 96 1. Literary Context and Relationship with Jer 37:17-21 96 2. Allusion to the Deuteronomic Choice between Life and Death 99 100 למען ייטב לך .3 C. Jer 40:1-6 101 1. Literary Context and Relationship with Jer 39:11-14 101 105 ראה כל־הארץ לפניך .2 D. Jer 40:7-12 107 1. Literary Context and Relationship to 2 Kgs 25:23-24 107 2. Historical Context and Chronology of Events 111 112 למען ייטב לכם .3 115 אספו יין וקיץ ושׁמן...ושׁבו בעריכם אשׁר־תפשׂתם .4 123 אשׁר נדחו־שׁם .5 E. Jer 42:1-6 131 1. Literary Context 131 131 למען ייטב לכם .2 F. Jer 42:7-22 132

v 1. Literary Context 132 132 גור .2 138 הרעה אשׁר אני מביא עליהם .3 G. Jer 43:1-7 140 1. Literary Context 140 141 מכל־המקמות אשׁר נדחו שׁם .2 H. Jer 44 143 1. Literary Context and Coherence 143 144 הרעה אשׁר הבאתי על ירשׁלים ועל־ערי יהודה .2 146 אשׁלח אלכם את־כל־עבדי הנביאים .3 II. Conclusions 146 Α. Dtr Diction and the Pro-Remnant Core 146 1. Obedience to Yahweh Framed in Terms of Political Allegiance 146 2. Gedaliah Community Identified with Conquerors rather than the Cursed 148 3. Gedaliah Community Framed as Those Restored to the Land 149 4. Flight To Egypt Framed as a Sojourn for Relief from Conditions in the Land 149 5. Flight to Egypt Framed in Terms of National Judgment of Judah 150 B. Dtr Diction and the Pro-Golah Expansion 150 1. Judgment of Egyptian Judean Community Framed Exclusively in Cultic 150 Terms

Chapter 5: Historical Context of Jeremiah's Prohibition against Flight to Egypt 152 I. Context between Egypt and the Levant in the Late Iron Age 153 A. 8th Century Interventions 153 1. Historical Background 153 2. 701 BCE 155 B. 7th Century Reemergence and Expansion 160 1. Historical Background 160 2. Textual Evidence for 26th Dynasty Imperialism 164 3. Archaeological Evidence for Egyptian Presence in the Levant 171 C. The 605/604 BCE Neo-Babylonian Campaign to the Levant 179 1. Textual Evidence 179 2. Archaeological Evidence 180 D. Post-604 BCE Egyptian Involvement in the Levant 182 E. Post-586 BCE Imperial Policies of the Babylonian Empire 187 1. Historical Background: 6th Century BCE Settlement in Judah 187 2. Ongoing Attempts to Expand the Babylonian Empire 195 3. Babylonian Imperial Administration and Goals 197 II. Development of the Judean Community in Egypt 200 A. Difficulty of Biblical Texts as Evidence 200

vi B. The Iron Age II 203 1. Lachish Letter III 203 2. Archaeological Evidence? 206 C. Persian and Ptolemaic Periods 207 1. Evidence from Elephantine 207 2. Letter of Aristeas 210 D. Conclusions 212 III. Context of Judean Community's Development 212 A. Levantine Groups in Egypt 212 1. Refugees from the Northern Kingdom? 212 2. Mercenaries 218 IV. Conclusions and Further Implications 218

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Further Implications 220 I. Pro-Remnant Core: Intersection of Literary and Historical Analysis 220 II. Pro-Golah Adaptation: Intersection of Literary and Historical Analysis 222 III. Implications for the Nature of Deuteronomistic Scribal Schools 224

Bibliography 226

vii ABBREVIATIONS

4QJera First series of Jeremiah scrolls found in Qumran Cave 4

4QJerb Second series of Jeremiah scrolls found in Qumran Cave 4

4QJerc Third series of Jeremiah scrolls found in Qumran Cave 4

Ant. Josephus, Antiquities

ABC Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles

ABL Assyrian and Babylonian Letters

ARE Ancient Records of Egypt

CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum

COS Context of Scripture, Volume 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

DtrH Deuteronomistic History

Dtr1 Josianic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

Dtr2 Exilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

EA El-Amarna Letters

G Old Greek

GKC Kautzch, E., ed. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A.E. Cowley. Oxford, Clarendon, 1910.

Hist. Herodotus, Histories

KAI Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften

ML Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis, eds. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

MT Masoretic Text

viii ND Nimrud Tablets

NEAHL New Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Holy Land

RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Series

RINAP Royal Inscriptions of Neo-Assyria Project

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

Syr Syriac Text

TAD Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt

Tg Targum

ix LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Material Shared by 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 40-41 78 Table 2 Negative Formulations of Futility Curses 121 Table 3 Positive Formulations of Futility Curses 121 Table 4 Return to Egypt in Deut 28:68 vs. Deut 17:16 135

x TEXT CRITICAL SIGLA

[...] Quantitative Differences between MT and G

... Qualitative Differences between MT and G

xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It would not have been possible to complete this project without my advisors and committee members. Gary Knoppers encouraged me to develop these ideas in their early stages and instilled in me the value of careful textual criticism. B. Halpern pushed me to articulate my ideas more carefully by always bringing unique perspectives to our discussions. Donald Redford's enthusiasm for all things Egyptian sparked my own interest in Egyptian history and culture, and he generously made time to read many Egyptian texts with me over the years. Finally, I thank Ken Hirth and Nina Safran for their willingness to join the committee and offer an outside perspective.

Schreyer Honors College supported the final stages of this project, and Christian Brady also gave me to the opportunity to translate some of this research into the classroom. The curiosity and engagement of Schreyer Scholars greatly enriched my teaching experience at Penn State. Daniel Master and the Leon Levy Expedition made it possible for me to excavate at Ashkelon throughout graduate school. This fieldwork played a valuable role in shaping my perspective on material culture.

Many friends and colleagues from Penn State and the Leon Levy Expedition offered feedback, encouragement, and useful advice along the way, including Laura Wright, Jonathan Greer, Andrea Gatzke, Michael Press, Deirdre Fulton, Jonathon Wylie, and Ryan Boehm. I would especially like to thank Eric Welch for his willingness discuss my ideas and offer feedback at so many stages of this project. Although their own work is far from the ancient world, Sonia Gelsinger and David Doughty helped tremendously with the writing process.

My parents and my siblings have been unwavering in their support of me and my goals. For all that and much more, I'm grateful to them.

xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

By the Persian Period, the Jewish community in Egypt was well established and thriving.

Most significantly, the colony of mercenaries from the island fortress of Elephantine in southern Egypt had constructed a Yahwistic temple where Jewish priests offered incense, grain offerings, and even burnt offerings far from Jerusalem. When the priests of the

Egyptian cult of Khnum destroyed this structure, Jewish leaders from Elephantine sought out a wide range of allies to facilitate the rebuilding process. Although only their correspondence with officials from Yehud and Samaria is preserved,1 their letters indicate that they also appealed to the priests of Jerusalem.2 Papyrus Amherst, a 4th century BCE

Aramaic text written in Demotic, also refers casually to travel from Judah to Egypt, implying fluid boundaries between the two regions.3

However, the founding and, ultimately, the flourishing of this Jewish community in Egypt stands in stark contrast to much of the biblical tradition regarding Egypt and

Judah. In Jeremiah, anti-Egyptian rhetoric is pervasive. Both MT and G share this

1. TAD 4.7-9.

2. TAD A4.8:17-18.

3. See COS I.99: 321. Steiner translates the relevant portion of Col. XVI, Lines 1-6: ...Who/From where are you, lad? I come from Judah, my brother has been brought from Samaria, and now a man is bringing up my sister from Jerusalem. Enter, lad; we will give you lodging. A kab of wheat pick up on your shoulder, boy... animus,4 and it crosses the boundaries of the distinctive genres and redactional stages within the book as well. Egypt appears as the nation that enslaved Israel's ancestors in the past (Jer 2:6; 7:21–26; 11:1-8; 16:14; 23:7; 31:31–32; 32:20–23; 34:13-16), and it is repeatedly characterized as an unreliable political ally in the present whose military action is never acknowledged by the prophet as a meaningful ally against the Babylonian threat (Jer 2:16-18, 36-37; 37:1-10). Even after the flight of Judeans to Egypt, the prophet accuses these emigrants of heterodoxy (Jer 44:1-23). The Jeremiah tradition offers no hope for this community's future (Jer 24:8-10; Jer 42:18-22; 44:24-30; 46:13), and multiple oracles proclaim Yahweh's judgment against Egypt itself (Jer 9:25-26; 25:15-26;

43:8-13; 46).5

This study focuses on one particular expression of this anti-Egyptian perspective:

4. The issue of divergent MT and G traditions in the book of Jeremiah is well-known. G is approximately one-seventh shorter and ordered differently, with the Oracles against the Nations appear in as Jer 46-51 in MT but after Jer 25 in G). Evidence from Qumran suggests that both versions may have circulated in antiquity. Alongside MT Jeremiah, 2QJer, 4QJera and 4QJerc all attest to the longer version of the book. However, in addition to G, 4QJerb and 4QJerd attest to the shorter version of the book. An additional Qumran manuscript, 4QJere, cannot be assigned to either form of the text. On this evidence, see the discussion in Richard D. Weis, "The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah," in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker (ed. Y. Goldman, A. Schenker, A. van der Kooij, and R.D. Weis; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 269-275. Tov's analysis ("The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History, in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism [ed. J.H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985]: 211-236) of MT and G has convincincly demonstrated expansionist tendencies within the longer MT text, including, most notably, the repetition of names as well as additions that build on the surrounding context to provide clarification. However, subsequent studies have noted that this model does not account for all variants in the tradition, preferring a more mediating approach that treats each variant individually without assuming the priority of G as a default position. See Sharp, "'Take Another Scroll and Write': A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah's Oracles against Egypt and Babylon," VT 47/4 (1997), 5: "There is ample evidence for MT expansionism, but that is certainly not the only salient feature of this textual relationship, and the preponderance of the expansion evidence should not be allowed to obscure other textual phenomena. By no means can it be shown that there is in fact a genetic relationship between the LXX and the MT in every particular."

5. Only Jer 46:25-26, typically understood as a late addition to the OAN, sounds a note of hope for Egypt, promising that, although Egypt would be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, it would be reinhabited. Jer 26:20-23's account of the flight of the prophet Uriah alludes to Egypt's role as a place of refuge, but the prophet himself is ultimately extradited and executed in Judah.

2 the rejection of Egypt as a legitimate destination for members of the Judean remnant.

Jeremiah 42 describes a pivotal moment after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and the subsequent assassination of the Babylonian-appointed leader Gedaliah ben Ahikam.

When Judean military leaders ask Jeremiah to pray to Yahweh to determine his will for the remnant's future, Yahweh's response is emphatic: flight to Egypt is forbidden. Those who disobey will face certain death; those who remain in the land are promised stability and prosperity.

The Jeremiah tradition offers two concrete historical circumstances of the 6th century BCE as critical factors in the decision to flee to Egypt: (1) fear of the

Babylonians and (2) deteriorating conditions in the land of Judah after the fall of

Jerusalem.6 In Jer 41:17-18, the narrator specifies that Judean military commanders feared Babylonian retribution for the assassination of Gedaliah by Ishmael ben

Nethaniah, a surviving member of Judah's royal house. Likewise, in Jer 42:13-16,

Jeremiah's oracle acknowledges fear of future Babylonian campaigns as a strong

6. On the potential for a third Babylonian campaign, see John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21: Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday), 256-257; Robert P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (London: SCM, 1981), 240; Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict: Reactions to Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 275-276 (in the Scribal Chronicle core stage); Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 125-126. On declining conditions in Judah post-586, see Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (trans. David Green; SBL 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003); Hermann-Josef Stipp, "The Concept of the Empty Land Motif in Jeremiah 37-43," in The Concept of the Empty Land in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 103-154. Cf. Avraham Faust ("Deportation and Demography in Sixth- Century B.C.E. Judah," in Interpreting Exile (ed. Brad Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, 2011), 91-103.

3 motivator to disobey Yahweh's command to remain in Judah.7 Alongside the possibility of a further campaign, however, the prophet also implicitly acknowledges declining standards of living in post-586 BCE Judah when he warns the people that famine and disease will follow them to the land of Egypt should they flee (Jer 42:13-16; Jer 42:22).

Jeremiah's oracle identifies and argues against motivations to flee to Egypt, and it offers the remnant concrete incentives to stay. However, it does not explain why Yahweh so fiercely opposes the flight of Judean refugees to Egypt. That question is the central question of this study.

I. PREVIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF JEREMIAH 42'S PROHIBITION

In addressing this question, Jeremiah scholars have primarily focused on the abstract ideological goals of the polemic. Such interpretations typically fall into three categories: pro-Babylonian politics and/or theology, the symbolic reversal of the Exodus event, and competition for status between Judean groups. One common feature of these diverse approaches is an appeal to Deuteronomistic influences as an explanation of anti-Egyptian rhetoric.

A. Pro-Babylonian Politics

The Jeremiah narrative tradition (as well as many poetic oracles) represents the

Babylonian campaigns as punishment from Yahweh and argues that Judah can only escape total destruction by accepting this fate and submitting to Babylon. Many scholars stress the pro-Babylonian perspective that dominates Jer 37-44, attributing it either to the

7. Jer 52:30 contains the sole account of a third Babylonian campaign to Judah in 582 BCE, accompanied by additional deportations. Because Jer 40 gives no firm indication of the length of Gedaliah's tenure at Mizpah prior to his assassination, commentators are divided on whether or not the Babylonian campaign in 582 B.C.E. should be interpreted as a direct response to Gedaliah's assassination or as a result of other unknown factors.

4 historical prophet or to later editors/redactors. In either case, the rejection of Egypt as a place of refuge is often interpreted as the logical counterpart to advocating acceptance of

Babylonian authority.

Among those who maintain that the historical Jeremiah is still identifiable within the text and that he held pro-Babylonian political views, Jeremiah's pro-Babylonian message is frequently approached as a problem to be solved.8 Thus, commentators such as Ackroyd and Bright go to great lengths to avoid characterizing the prophet as a traitor, preferring to speak of Jeremiah as "pro-Yahweh" rather than "pro-Babylonian.9 In their views, Jeremiah supported Babylon not because of his personal political ties and interests but solely because of his theological conviction that Yahweh himself had appointed

8. On the role of the historical Jeremiah in Jeremiah studies, see the recent overview in Steed Vernyl Davidson, Empire and Exile: Postcolonial Readings of the Book of Jeremiah (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 18-25.

9. In addition to Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 56-57 and Bright, Jeremiah, 28-29, see, more recently, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conﬂict between the Exiles and the People who Remained (6th-5th Centuries BCE) (LHBOTS 543; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: New York, 2013), 202-203. Although Rom-Shiloni envisions a long trajectory of development for the text, she considers the earliest layer to be a mixture of "authentic" Jeremianic material and pro-Judahite editorial work. She argues strongly against characterizations of Jeremiah as a collaborator or even "pro-Babylonian" In her view, Jeremiah's prophecy is rooted in three key related theological concepts: (1) Yahweh as lord of history, (2) primacy of the land, and (3) exile as death. She explicitly rejects attempts to interpret the prophet's position in light of practical political and economic concerns faced by its Judean editors during the 6th century BCE.

5 Nebuchadnezzar as an instrument of judgment.10 Thus, to reject Babylonian rule was to reject Yahweh's determination that Judah must be punished, and to turn to Egypt for refuge was to rebel against Yahweh's specific choice of Babylon.11

Others have preferred to see the issue even less abstractly. McKane contends that the ideological explanation is not adequate. Rather, he proposes that the historical

Jeremiah's position is better explained not by his fierce grip on theological principles but rather as a pragmatic assessment that the remnant's best chance of achieving stability after the fall of Jerusalem was under Babylonian auspices.12

In contrast to these attempts to identify and explain the views of the historical prophet, however, most recent scholarship has considered the perspective of the historical

10. Bright, Jeremiah, 28-29: "It is scarcely surprising that the sentiments expressed in these passages caused many to regard Jeremiah as an enemy of his country. Nevertheless..., it would be most unfair to suppose that he spoke out of cowardice or defeatism or as one whose sympathies were pro- Babylonian. Nor, on the other hand, were his words proposed as directives to guide the policy of every nation at all times. Rather, they were specific words, for a specific nation, at a specific time. They grew from Jeremiah's conviction, a conviction that had come to him as the word of his God, that Nebuchadnezzar's yoke has been imposed upon the nation as the divine judgment for its sins; the nation therefore had no course but to submit to it, for to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar was to rebel against Yahweh (cf. ch. xxvii) and to court certain disaster. Whatever one may think of Jeremiah's attitude, it was motivated by the desire to save his country from destruction by bringing it into conformity with the sovereign will of its God" (Emphasis Mine).

11. Cf. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 118, 121; 125-126, n. 65.

12. See William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II (ICC; Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1996): "The question why Jeremiah was persuaded that a settlement in Judah was better than an emigration to Egypt is an interesting one and should be discussed. An explanation may be attempted in terms of his general favourable attitude to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar and his confidence that a community in Judah settled under that jurisdiction had an assured future. Yet this can hardly be regarded as an ideological demand, as if it were an insistence that only a community rooted in Judah could be the advance-party of a grander restoration in the future. Hence if we suppose that we are here in contact with the historical Jeremiah, the decision must be grounded in an assessment of particular circumstances rather than in a theological principle. At chapter 29 Jeremiah had given advice of a different kind to the Golah in Babylon: not to be feverish or boil over in rebellion and to have no thoughts except those of a speedy return to Judah, but to settle down for a long residence among Babylonian communities and to respond constructively to the opportunities offered by a new environment" (Emphasis Mine).

6 Jeremiah impossible to distinguish from later editorial work and has preferred to consider the text's political message primarily in terms of the redactors' interest in persuading their readers to adopt their perspective on the importance of submission to Nebuchadnezzar, either in the land of Judah or in exile in Babylon.13 The recent work of Albertz and Stipp, respectively, represents these two major positions, and the location of their redactors is a critical aspect of understanding their reconstructions.

Albertz locates both the composition of Jeremiah and all subsequent

Deuteronomistic redactions of the book in the land of Judah.14 He hints that the narrative of Jeremiah's prohibition furthers a broader agenda of encouraging collaboration with the

Babylonians by those left in Judah during the 6th century BCE.15 However, though he argues that the text was composed in Judah and alludes to a broader problem of migration as its backdrop, he never develops this idea, focusing instead on the assassination of

Gedaliah as the tragic end to a brief period of prosperity and a missed opportunity for restoration under Gedaliah's leadership.16

In contrast to Albertz, Stipp locates the entire redaction process among the

13. See also Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 314: "The author [of the biography material] portrays Jeremiah's behavior and cites his words as a model of behavior toward the Babylonian occupiers; he expresses the view that resistance should be eschewed and that people should choose the path of submission to Babylonian authority."

14. Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E (trans. David Green; SBL Studies in Biblical Literature 3; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 302-345. See the discussion in Chapter 2.

15. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 7.

16. Likewise, while Lipschits argues that Jer 42:11 shows that the rebuilding process was not yet over, he follows Albertz, interpreting the biography of Jeremiah primarily as a demonstration of this lost opportunity as well as an explanation of the circumstances under which the prophet arrived in Egypt.

7 Babylonian exiles.17 Although the concept of an empty land is most often interpreted as a means of allowing Persian Period returnees to dismiss the claims of those who already populated Yehud, Stipp distinguishes between several different versions of the motif. He prefers to see the Jeremianic empty land motif as early version of this concept that attempts to convince the Babylonian exiles to adopt a “more conciliatory stance” toward the conquerors, in hopes of prosperity in exile and an eventual return under Babylonian authority. An empty land would have placed a heavy responsibility on the golah, essentially identifying it as the only community left to receive Yahweh’s salvation through the Babylonians. Further, by blaming Johanan and his fellow emigrants, the

Jeremianic version of the motif implicates Egypt rather than Babylon for the emptiness of the land. In essence, for Stipp, the empty land motif in Jer 37-44 is a literary device used to persuade members of the golah to collaborate for their own benefit,18 while the actual emptying of the land was the result of long-term effects of Babylonian campaigns.

B. Reversal of the Exodus

Alongside these political perspectives on the prohibition of flight to Egypt, commentators have also stressed its symbolic theological significance: the potential flight of Judeans to

Egypt is unthinkable because it represents the reversal of the foundational event in

17. Hermann-Josef Stipp, "The Concept of the Empty Land Motif in Jeremiah 37-43," in The Concept of the Empty Land in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 132-135. Note, however, that Stipp characterizes only Jer 44, which he considers a late supplement, as Dtr.

18. Using data from the 30 Years’ War as an analogy, Stipp points to the breakdown of central institutions, disease, and food shortage as key factors in post-war societal breakdowns, and he notes that these factors are all mentioned (if only in passing) in the biblical account.

8 Judah's national mythology.19 These approaches stress anti-Egyptian rhetoric as a marker of Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic influence, linking Jer 42 with several key passages in

Deuteronomy.20 The Law of the King (Deut 17:14-20) explicitly prohibits the Judean

the people to Egypt to acquire horses (Deut (שׁוב) "monarchy from voluntarily "returning

17:16):

Only [the king] shall not multiply horses for himself MyIs…ws wø;l_hR;b√rÅy_aøl qår and shall not return the people to Egypt to multiply horses, s…ws twø;b√rAh NAoAmVl hDm◊yårVxIm MDoDh_tRa byIvÎy_aøl◊w because Yahweh said to you: MRkDl rAmDa hÎwhyAw "You shall not return this way again." :dwøo hRΩzAh JK®r®;dA;b b…wvDl N…wpIsOt aøl

to Egypt at the (שׁוב) In contrast, the Deuteronomic curses threaten an involuntary return hands of Yahweh himself as punishment for violating the covenant (Deut 28:68):

And Yahweh will return you to Egypt in boats twø¥yˆnFaD;b MˆyårVxIm hDwh◊y ÔKVbyIvThRw by the way (about) which I said to you: ÔKVl yI;t√rAmDa rRvSa JK®r®;dA;b "You shall not see it again." ;hDtOa√rIl dwøo PyIsOt_aøl And you will sell yourselves there to your enemies KyRb◊yOaVl MDv MR;t√rA;kAmVtIh◊w as male slaves and female slaves, twøjDpVvIl◊w MyîdDbSoAl but there will be no buyer. :hRnOq NyEa◊w

19. Note also Galvin Garrett (Egypt as a Place of Refuge [FAT 2/51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 135), who stresses the figure of Jeremiah as an anti-Moses. See also Michael P. Maier (Israels Herkunft und Geschick: Studie über einen theo-politischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch [Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002], 201-202), who stresses a related connection between the Jeremiah narrative and the romanticization of Egypt in the Pentateuchal narrative of the wilderness wanderings. According to Maier: "There [in the Pentateuch] the troubles in the wilderness entice the Israelites to transform/romanticize the image of Egypt looking back and, in doing so, to place the meaning of their departure in question (Ex 14, 12; 16,3; Num 11,5.). Here [in Jeremiah] the military commanders idealize the land of the Exodus, to justify their controversial step to turn [their] back on home."

20. For close analysis of Deut 17:16 and Deut 28:68 and their relationship to Jer 42, see the discussion of these texts in Chapter four.

9 This view of anti-Egyptian rhetoric as a key component of Deuteronomistic theology is clearly illustrated by the analysis of Richard Friedman who argues that disdain for Egypt is one of the defining themes of both stages of the double-redaction of DtrH:21

In any case, the concern with Egypt which becomes critical in the second edition of the Deuteronomistic history is another example of the way in which the concerns of the Josianic edition served the latter version. Egypt is a regular and fundamental interest of Dtr1. Besides the fact that Egypt is regularly a political and military issue through the course of history, the experience of Egyptian bondage and Exodus are ever a temporal and thematic focus of the historian and his sources...Egypt is plainly fundamental to the perspective of Dtr1; and so, in the full Dtr2 edition, Egypt becomes a constant and ominous presence, the setting of the last and worst of the Deuteronomic curses. When that curse realizes in the final verses of the Deuteronomistic history–and suddenly, and without referring back to Deuteronomy 28 blatantly–it is as powerful and ironic an ending as in any book of the Bible.22

Alongside addressing regular political and military interactions, Dtr1 stressed bondage in

Egypt and the Exodus as the foundation for the entire Deuteronomic program.23 Thus, for example, the Exodus serves as the premise of the Decalogue in Deut 5:6 and its Sabbath commandment relates back, not to P's seven day creation, but rather to the experience of slavery in Egypt. Throughout the Deuteronomic code, the Exodus is used as a formulaic motivation to obey Deuteronomic commandments. In the culmination of Dtr1, the

Passover, rooted in the memory of the Exodus, plays a critical role in the enactment of

Josiah's reforms. Ultimately, for Friedman, this anti-Egyptian perspective serves the larger interests of Dtr2, which creates an inclusio for the entire DtrH by framing the

21. On the double-redaction model of the DtrH more generally, see Frank M. Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274-289.

22. Richard Eliott Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2, in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 190-191.

23. To illustrate this point, Friedman highlights the number of times in which DtrH refers to Egypt and Exodus even when those references are "gratuitious to their immediate contexts." E.g. Deut 4:45f.; 6:12; 8:14; 9:12; 13:6, 11; 23:5; 24:9; 25:17; Judg 2:12; 19:30; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kgs 8:51; 2 Kgs 17:7.

10 national history of Israel in light of its relationship to Egypt:

Whatever the situation with regard to authorship, the Deuteronomistic History, in its final form, tells the story of Israel from Egypt to Egypt. It is the story of the failure of the covenant relations of Yhwh and his people.

For Friedman, migration to Egypt in 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 43, in effect, represents the realization of the Deuteronomic curse in Deut 28:68 and the reversal of the Exodus.24

The link between Deuteronomism and anti-Egyptian rhetoric has been developed most forcefully in the recent work by Mark Leuchter. Leuchter characterizes the oracle of

Jer 42 as "based on the prophet's actual sentiment"25 but argues that this text is also patterned on Deuteronomy.26 From his perspective, the narrative framework of Jer 42:1-6 in which members of the Judean remnant petition Jeremiah to intercede on their behalf and pledge to be obedient to his instructions draws on the Deuteronomic model of Mosaic prophecy and its representation of Moses as Israel's intercessor, particularly in the case of the Sinai theophany (Deut 5:20-23; Deut 18:15-18). Although he freely acknowledges that the oracle itself is steeped in Jeremianic clichés, Leuchter stresses its underlying connection with Deuteronomy's vehement language about Egypt, including the threat of a return to Egypt in the covenant curses (Deut 28:68). Further, Leuchter suggests that the oracle alludes to the Deuteronomic choice between life and death (Deut 30:15-20) in that it articulates only one acceptable response to Jeremiah's message. Rejection of the oracle

24. Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt," 191. See also Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (Biblical Seminar Series 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 131; Carroll, From Covenant to Chaos, 235-241; and Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 720.

25. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 126.

26. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 126-131.

11 in effect represents a rejection of Israelite identity:

The Exodus from Egypt here transforms the individual from a generic Aramean to an Israelite, a member of a collective culture and history. This is expressed by the contrast between the singular, isolating terminology of conditions before Exodus (e.g., "my father," "a wandering Aramean," "he went down") and those following the Exodus reflecting common and public experience ("YHWH brought us out of Egypt"), persisting into the day of audience/speaker of the text. The message of Deuteronomy is absolute: regardless of clan or individual ethnic origins, Israel as a nation was born in the Exodus from Egypt. It is this profound belief that underlies the oracle in Jeremiah 42, resulting in a simple but severe message: returning to Egypt would constitute an annulment of Israelite status.27

C. Competing Claims of Status among Judean/Jewish Communities

Given the fragmentation of Judah's population after 586 BCE and the harsh condemnation of Judeans in Egypt, the prohibition has also been interpreted as part of a broader conflict between Judean/Jewish groups claiming more privileged or exclusive status with Yahweh.28 Some scholars have viewed Jeremiah's oracle, at least in its earliest stages, as an exclusive claim of status by the Judean remnant. These scholars stress the text's emphasis on remaining in the land of Judah as a means of excluding both those who were forcibly exiled to Babylon as well as those who voluntarily fled to Egypt. Others scholars have assessed the prohibition's force in terms of its narrative outcome: disobedience by the Judean remnant, the emptying of the land of Judah because of the

27. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 130. Emphasis mine. Cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, 720: "The horror expressed about going to Egypt reflects the anti-Egyptian outlook behind Deut. 28 and the antipathy towards all things Egyptian held by certain circles in Judah. In going to Egypt the people would appear to be reversing the original divine act of redemption which brought the people out of Egypt. In Deuteronomistic circles, such an apostate act was unthinkable, and contrary to divine command (cf. Deut 17.16b; 28.68a). Hence to go to Egypt was to enter into the realm of the curse and to become an execration oneself (vv. 18b; 44.12). Merely by fleeing to Egypt the people would bring down upon their own heads the wrath of Yahweh; that very wrath which had destroyed Jerusalem so recently."

28. Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuches (FRLANT 118; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); Christopher R. Seitz, "The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi-xliii" VT 35/1 (1985): 78-97; Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict, 1989; Carroll, From Chaos, 226-247; Carroll, Jeremiah, 35-36, 70-71, 715; and Rom-Shiloni, Exlusive Inclusivity.

12 remnant's rejection of Jeremiah's prophetic word, and Jeremiah's proclamation of judgment on the Judean community in Egypt. From this perspective, the polemic is viewed as a means of claiming Yahweh's favor for the Babylonian golah, in effect the only Judean community left standing after the destruction of Jerusalem and rejection of the remnant for its decision to flee to Egypt.29

D. Role of Deuteronomism

One of the common threads running through these diverse interpretations is the question of the nature and extent of Deuteronomistic influences. Although early investigation of

Deuteronomistic work in Jeremiah focused on the prose sermons (traditionally source C), more recent work has called into question the strict division between the prose sermons and the third-person narrative (traditionally source B),30 highlighting not only Dtr motifs but also the use of clichéd Dtr phraseology throughout Jeremianic narrative.31 In the case of Jeremiah's prohibition of flight to Egypt, interpreters have particularly stressed the inclusion of material shared with DtrH (2 Kgs 25) as well as the development of common themes, including the empty land motif in 2 Kgs and strong rhetoric against return to

Egypt in Deut 17 and Deut 28. However, such links to Deuteronomistic school(s) are often based on superficial connections with Deuteronomy and DtrH, and appeals to

Deuteronomistic theology have not necessarily addressed the practical implications of the

29. Unlike the two-stage framework of Seitz and Rom-Shiloni, Carolyn J. Sharp, "The Call of Jeremiah and Diaspora Politics," JBL 119/3 (2000): 421-438; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 2008: 116, 121, 135, 248, n. 81; Stipp, "Concept of the Empty Land," 121, 126 focus exclusively on the Jer 42 narrative's claims of status for the Babylonian golah.

30. See the discussion of models for Deuteronomistic redactions of Jeremiah in Chapter 4.

31. Michael J. Williams ("An Investigation of the Legitimacy of Source Distinctions for the Prose Material in Jeremiah," JBL 112/2 (1993): 193-210) attempts to catalogue this language.

13 attribution of the polemic against flight to Egypt to the Deuteronomists. Even if one or more stages of the prohibition's development are classified as Deuteronomistic, to what end was Deuteronomistic rhetoric employed?

II. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS STUDY

A. Literary Approaches: Nature of Dtr Influence on the Jeremiah Tradition

The Jeremiah tradition has undeniable thematic and linguistic affinities with

Deuteronomistic literature. Nevertheless, studies of Jeremianic poetry and prose sermons have argued that these similarities are sometimes superficial and that the relationship is far more complex than simple borrowing. In the case of Jeremianic poetry, Holladay argues that Jeremianic oracles play on the language of Deuteronomy using it in new or ironic ways.32 Likewise, in the case of the prose sermons, Weippert33 suggests that, when the language of Jeremiah's prose sermons is examined in context, Deuteronomic/

Deuteronomistic clichés serve as weak links to Deut/DtrH because they are frequently used in extended or distinctive way and sometimes in passages that actually contradict

32. William J. Holladay, "Protoype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry and Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah," JBL 79 (1960): 351-67; Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 (ed. by P.D. Hanson; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-52 (ed. by P.D. Hanson; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989); "Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto- Deuteronomy," CBQ 66 (2004): 55-77. See also, "A Fresh Look at 'Source B' and 'Source C' in Jeremiah," VT 25/2 (1975): 394-412, which reviews studies by Wanke and Weippert but also contributes some of Holladay's own observations related to appearance of "Deuteronomistic" clichés in Jeremiah.

33. Die Prosarden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW 132; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973). Note, however, that Weippert is particularly concerned with distinguishing between Jeremianic and Deuteronomistic usage because of her interest in demonstrating the "authenticity" of the prose sermons. In the analysis of Jeremianic narrative in this dissertation, the question of identifying "authentic" Jeremiah material is irrelevant. Chapters 3-4 are concerned only with the work of the editorial groups responsible for shaping narrative material in the Jeremiah tradition and not with identifying points of contact with the historical Jeremiah.

14 Deuteronomic theology.34

Previous studies have frequently appealed to Deuteronomism in their interpretations of Jeremiah's polemic against flight to Egypt. This study reevaluates this characterization. It considers the nature and role of Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic influences on Jeremiah's prohibition within the context of its narrative unit (Jer 37-44), and it moves beyond noting superficial similarities to ask how language and themes shared with Deuteronomistic literature actually function in the Jeremianic context and in what ways their usage may actually diverge from Deut and DtrH. In this way, the case study, though limited in its scope, has broader implications for our understanding of both the nature of Deuteronomistic influence on Jeremianic narrative in particular and the nature of the Dtr school(s) as a whole.

B. Historical Approaches: Significance of Egypt as a Destination for Judean Refugees

Under the 25th and 26th dynasties, Egypt consistently intervened in late Iron Age

Levantine affairs. Even after Nebuchadnezzar's devastating campaign through the region in 604 BCE, which the Deuteronomist credited with pushing Egypt back into its own borders, Egypt continued to interfere with Babylonian control of the Levant. Although the 26th Dynasty's troops ultimately failed to protect Jerusalem from the Babylonian invasion, this study argues that the historical trajectory of reliance on Egypt is a critical element of the historical interpretation advanced by Jer 37-44. In light of the role of

Egypt in Judean/Jewish history during the late Iron Age and early Persian Period, this

34. Most significantly, Jer 7:1-15's view of adherence to the temple as a obstacle separating the people and Yahweh is inconsistent with Deuteronomy itself. See Weippert, Die Prosarden, 46-48.

15 study questions both the assumption that anti-Egyptian rhetoric is a definitive marker of

Dtr editing as well as the tendency to treat Dtr polemics against Egypt monolithically.

Further, in evaluating the initial impulse to take refuge in Egypt, commentators have stressed the deteriorating conditions in the land and fear of Babylonian reprisal as the driving factors pushing members of the Judean remnant out of the land. Although the precise extent of destruction and depopulation in Judah is debated, nearly all Near

Eastern scholars accept that the archaeological evidence points to at least some decline following the fall of Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE. Even the text of Jer 37-44, which depicts an unexpected degree of prosperity in the land during this period, concedes some decline in Judah when it suggests that war and famine will, in fact, follow refugees to Egypt itself.

Within Jeremiah studies, Egypt is frequently treated almost as a default destination for refugees, though even the Jeremiah tradition itself refers, if only in passing, to the viability of other options, including neighboring regions such as Ammon and Edom (Jer 40:11-12). This study attempts to view the question from the opposite perspective. Rather then focusing on factors that motivated Judean refugees to leave the land, it considers the specific choice of Egypt as vitally important in understanding the polemic of Jer 42 and the function that it served in 6th century Judah.

III. OUTLINE OF THIS STUDY

A. Chapter Two: Overview of Key Redaction Models

Ch. 2 builds the foundation for the literary analysis in subsequent chapters. This chapter reviews the history of two major redaction models for the Jeremiah tradition: redactions

16 by Deuteronomistic editors and redactions by editors from competing Judean/Jewish groups. It highlights the intersection of these approaches in recent Jeremiah scholarship.

This broader discussion provides critical context for understanding the redaction history of Jer 37-44 in particular.

B. Chapter Three: Redaction History of Jer 37-44

Chapter 3 establishes the literary context of the prohibition against flight to Egypt, arguing that the polemic of Jer 42 must be considered as part of a larger narrative block:

Jer 37-44. It outlines two primary stages of development within this unit. The early 6th century core stresses continuity in the land in submission to Babylonian authorities, who are portrayed in an extremely positive light, despite their role in the destruction of

Jerusalem and its temple. This stage is characterized by the conviction that the

Babylonian conquest was inevitable, that prosperity and restoration under Babylonian rule is not only possible but essential for Yahweh's favor, and that flight to Egypt represents defiance of Yahweh's explicit command. A late exilic adaptation and expansion of the text dramatically shifts this perspective, reshaping this material to represent the Babylonian golah as the sole survivors of Yahweh's judgment. It depicts the land of Judah as empty during the exilic period and dismisses the members of the

Egyptian community as recipients of the same judgment as Jerusalem.

Chapter 3's analysis concludes that, in both stages, the Jeremianic text has some similarities with DtrH's narrative but also substantial differences. 2 Kgs 25 does include hints of a positive representation of the Babylonians (though this theme is not extensively developed as it is in Jer 37-44), and it also employs the motif of the empty land.

17 However, if 2 Kgs intends to critique flight to Egypt and to indicate a more favorable view of the Babylonian golah, it does so in an extremely subtle way, in contrast to Jer

37-44's vehement rejection of flight to Egypt as a viable alternative to life in the land and its explicit judgment of those who fled to Egypt. The representation of Egypt, then, represents one of the primary differences between DtrH and Jer 37-44.

C. Chapter Four: Linguistic Analysis of Jer 37-44

Alongside Chapter 3's comparison of the narratives of 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 37-44, Chapter 4 focuses on the language of Jer 37-44, evaluating its use of both stereotypical Dtr expressions as well as allusions to Deuteronomy. It argues that both stages of the text's development appeal to the authority of Deuteronomy to support their views but do so in different ways. The pro-remnant core reshapes the language of Deuteronomy and applies it to new contexts that sometimes counter Deuteronomy itself. Through both allusions to

Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic clichés, the pro-remnant core represents obedience to

Yahweh exclusively in terms of political allegiance rather than cultic practice and identifies members of the remnant not with those subject to the Deuteronomic curses but rather as those who enjoy the benefits of conquerors and those already restored to the land by Yahweh.

D. Chapter Five: Jeremiah's Prohibition in Historical Context

Chapter 5 places the development of the polemic against flight to Egypt in its historical context. Part one integrates the small corpus of contemporary Egyptian texts related to the 26th Dynasty's foreign policy with contemporary Akkadian, Aramaic, and Hebrew textual sources as well as limited archaeological evidence from the Levant. The goal of

18 this reconstruction is to evaluate Jer 37-44's animosity toward Egypt not by focusing on failed Egyptian military interventions but rather by stressing the broader trajectory of a close cultural, economic, and political relationship between Egypt and the southern

Levant during this period. Part two outlines the evidence for the development of the

Judean/Jewish community in Egypt, considering both contemporary textual and material evidence for Judean presence in Egypt during the late Iron Age as well as later Jewish perspectives on this community's origins. Finally, part three considers the question of what made Egypt an attractive destination for these refugees. It evaluates the development of the Judean community in Egypt in light of comparative evidence for the role of foreign groups in Egypt under the 26th Dynasty, particularly mercenaries.

Although the evidence for Greeks is perhaps best known, this chapter focuses on the evidence for the role of Levantine groups.

This historical analysis reaches three primary conclusions. First, focusing on the

Babylonian defeat of Egyptian forces at critical historical junctures belies the significance of Egypt's ongoing interventions in the Levant in the late Iron Age: pro-Babylonian redactors of the Jeremiah tradition worked in a context in which siding with Egypt was a viable option and had strong proponents. In light of failed Jeremianic prophecies about

Babylonian invasions of Egypt, flight to Egypt represents a bet on Egypt's ability to resist

Babylonian expansion. Second, stressing the Babylonian threat and declining conditions in the land post-586 BCE obscures the appeal of Egypt. Comparative evidence suggests an influx of foreign groups, including Asiatics, under the 26th Dynasty, with mercenary service as the best-attested example of lucrative opportunities for foreigners in Egypt

19 during this period. Third, in later stages of the polemic's development, the fierce rivalries between Jewish groups taken for granted by Jeremiah scholars may not be representative.

Correspondence between Elephantine and Yehud suggests, at the very least, easing of tensions and acceptance of the Egyptian Judean community's existence over time.

E. Chapter Six: Conclusions and Further Implications

Finally, Chapter 6 addresses the broader implications of this study, which stand at the intersection of historical and literary issues, particularly in the case of the pro-remnant core. From a literary perspective, the case study of Jer 37-44 supports Albertz's view of

Deuteronomism as a diverse movement spread across space and time with disparate goals and interests. DtrH's narrative of flight to Egypt in 2 Kgs 25 represents not a normative expression of Deuteronomism but rather one of several manifestations of it, with more explicitly negative views of Egypt represented by Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Further, even as the early exilic core of Jer 37-44 appeals to the authority of Deuteronomy to support its political agenda, it adapts Deuteronomic rhetoric and motifs to fit new contexts that do not easily align with the Deuteronomic program.

From a historical perspective, in the case of the core stage, the practical implications of Deuteronomic rhetoric in Jer 37-44 have been overlooked. Egypt should be treated not as a default destination for Judean refugees but rather as an appealing alternative to post-586 BCE Judah. An Egyptological perspective on the context of flight to Egypt helps clarify the need for such an argument against emigration. Those who collaborated with the Babylonians had a clear political and economic interest in

20 maintaining stable conditions in the land of Judah under Babylonian rule and adapted

Deuteronomic rhetoric in attempt to counter a broader trend of migration to Egypt during this period.

21 CHAPTER 2: MODELS FOR THE REDACTION HISTORY OF JEREMIAH

The Jeremiah tradition is a diverse corpus whose poetic oracles are complemented by a substantial collection of prose texts, including both second person "sermons" attributed to the prophet himself and third person historical narratives of events set in the time of

Jeremiah's prophetic career. Two major redaction models provide important context for understanding the coalescence of this material and for discussing the development of Jer

37-44 in particular: Deuteronomism and competing Judean/Jewish groups.

I. DEUTERONOMISM IN THE JEREMIAH TRADITION

A. Early Models

Two foundational studies from the early 20th century charted the course for much of subsequent Jeremiah scholarship. Duhm distinguished between three distinct categories of material in the Jeremiah tradition: 280 verses of poetic sayings assigned to the historical prophet, 220 verses of narrative assigned to Baruch/the biography of Jeremiah, and 850 verses assigned to later authors whose work spanned the 6th-1st centuries BCE.35

According to Duhm, the narrative material that served as the basis of Jer 26-45 originally circulated independently and was only joined to the poetic sayings several hundred years later. Within the latter category of additions, Duhm identifies some similarities to the

Former Prophets. He characterizes these Jeremianic passages as sermonic expositions placed in the mouth of the prophet/Yahweh, and he notes their clichéd language.

However, Duhm argues that the editors were focused on explaining the catastrophe of the

35. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901).

22 exile and helping post-exilic Jews guard against similar sins in their own time.36 Further, despite his observations regarding similarities between Jeremianic supplements and the

Former Prophets, he advocates an accretion model of the book's development, explicitly denying its classification as a systematic composition.37

Building on Duhm's observations, Mowinckel developed the classic four-source theory of Jeremiah's development, which distinguishes between poetic oracles and autobiography from the prophet himself (Source A), biographical and historical accounts of events from the lifetime of the prophet that were edited by one of his followers (Source

B), Deuteronomistic material composed primarily of the prose sermons (Source C), and a

Book of Consolation, consisting primarily of material from Jer 30-31 (Source D).38

Mowinckel's work represents the first identification of the prose sermonic material in

Jeremiah as a distinctive stratum with its own formulae, style, diction, and structure. He characterizes Source C as Deuteronomistic not only because of its language and style but also because of its motifs and its conception of religion and prophecy. Like Duhm,

Mowinckel regarded the sin and punishment of Judah as the major theme of the stratum along with its perspective on the role of the prophet. In his view, in Source A, Jeremiah is a non-professional compelled to bring a primarily ethical prophetic message on Yahweh's

36. See McKane, Volume II, 1040: "In view of the arguments for a Deuteronomic/ Deuteronomistic redaction, resting on the identification of prose stereotypes, it should be said that Duhm does not dispute that the very late supplements which he identifies have linguistic affinities with Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic prose. He does, however, make the point that Deuteronomic/ Deuteronomistic word-strings are not necessarily a demonstration of a redaction located around the middle of the sixth century BC or earlier. The activity to which they point may rather be the creation of Deuteronomistic pastiche in a much later age than that of the Deuteronomists."

37. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, x-xx.

38. Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914).

23 behalf. However, in Source C, Jeremiah is a member of a long-standing institution of divine revelation, beginning in the time of Moses and focusing on admonition of the people for violations of Yahweh's law throughout the history of Israel and Judah.

B. The Expansion of the Role of Dtr

Mowinckel himself does not conceive of the sources in isolation. In his view, the themes of Source C derive primarily from Source B (but also occasionally from Source A).

However, he suggests that Source C was added to the existing Jeremiah tradition

(Sources A and B) sometime around or after 400 BCE because he considers its legalistic piety characteristic of late Judaism.39 By the mid-twentieth century, however, proponents of a Deuteronomistic influence on the book moved beyond Mowinckel's argument for a late Dtr stratum within the tradition, giving the Dtr editor(s) a much more substantial role in its development and transforming the classic source theories into redaction-historical models.

Rudolph follows Mowinckel in identifying three major sources (A, B, and C), though he denies the existence of Mowinckel's Source D as an independent source.40

However, his characterization of these sources differs from Mowinckel's in several key ways. Rudolph's A source is broader than Mowinckel's, including prophetic sayings in the broadest sense. Rudolph's B source also includes more material, and he characterizes it not as a general biography of the prophet but rather as a "passion narrative." Though he shares Mowinckel's view that the prose sermons are characterized by stereotypical Dtr

39. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition.

40. Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 1/12; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968).

24 language and style and share the basic theme of punishment for Judah's disobedience, his designation of passages is much narrower.41

Most significantly, Rudolph recharacterizes his C source in several key ways.

Unlike Mowinckel, Rudolph assumes that genuine Jeremianic themes and sayings stand behind its, though he agrees with Mowinckel that Dtr influence has shifted Jeremiah's original meaning and intention at various points. Further, following Noth's identification of an exilic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, Rudolph argues that C's form, ideas, and concerns all represent an exilic rather than a post-exilic compositional setting, and he dates the redaction of Jeremiah accordingly.

Rudolph assigns C the role of the primary redactor of the Jeremiah tradition in its present form. Although he identifies later interpolations and glosses, he does not posit a systematic redaction of the tradition as a whole after the exilic C redaction. He argues for this decisive role for C based on two observations: (1) the appearance of C's style, character, and introductory formulae in some A and B passages and (2) the presence of some secondary material (Jer 19, 32, 44) with C's characteristics.

Like Rudolph, Hyatt envisions Dtr's work as more than a collection of passages within Jeremiah. Rather, he argues that the Deuteronomistic editor(s) (now identified as

D) were responsible for the creation of an edition of Jeremiah during the exilic period (ca.

41. Jer 7:1-8:3; 11:1-14; 16:1-13; 17:19-27; 21:1-10; 22:1-5; 25:1-14; 34:8-22; 35:ff.

25 550 BCE).42 Like the editor of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets, D employs a range of methods, including excerpting older material verbatim, rewriting/revising older sources, creating a framework for older source material, and free composition (especially in speeches and prayers). D's work in Jeremiah is identifiable based on both its language and themes. According to Hyatt, D's language is characterized by monotonous use of a limited number of repeated words/phrases with a parenetic tone.43 Key themes of D's work include documenting Yahweh's warning of his people for the uninterrupted sins and the necessity of their subsequent punishment by Yahweh through Nebuchadnezzar.

For Hyatt, the B source is probably based on the memoires of Baruch. In his view, it did not constitute a true biography but rather a type of passion narrative

(Leidengeschichte). He regards Baruch himself as a disciple and close companion of the prophet but not the Deuteronomist. According to Hyatt, however, D not only used

42. The clearest and most fully developed presentation of Hyatt's understanding of the relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomism appears in "The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah," Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1 (1951): 71-95. In his earlier study "Jeremiah and Deuteronomy," JNES 1/2 (1942): 156-173 , Hyatt argues that, particularly in light of Jeremiah's critiques and condemnation of the Jerusalem temple, the historical prophet could not have approved of the principles and methods of the Deuteronomic reform. Rather, he allows for a more complex relationship between the two. Hyatt stresses that Deuteronomistic redactors supplemented the Jeremiah tradition to date the work of the prophet back to the time of the Deuteronomic reform and to give his stamp of approval to the Deuteronomistic work. However, he also suggests that Jeremiah influenced the early exilic expansion of Deuteronomy 28. Note that, in this early iteration of the relationship, Hyatt suggests that common phraseology reflects terminology common to the late Iron Age, rather then literary influence.

43. Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edtion," 78: "In identifying the D elements of Jeremiah, we must not employ the criterion of diction in a mechanical way, and we must use other criteria along with those of diction. Some of the phrases listed above may occur sporadically in genuine passages, but when several of them occur in a given passage, it is doubtless the work of D. Some of the phrases may in fact have been borrowed in the first place from genuine portions of Jeremiah. In addition to diction, we must use the criteria of style and of ideas, and we must give consideration to the motive of D in adding, or editing, a given passage." Note, however, that Hyatt primarily identifies similarities between the language of D and Jeremiah and never systematically reflects on Jeremiah's adaptations of Deuteronomic language.

26 Baruch's work but also sometimes revised it at length.44

In contrast to Hyatt's focus on D's revisions of earlier memoir material from the biography of Jeremiah, Nicholson considers the division of the prose sermons (Jer C) and

"biographical" narrative (Jer B) into separate entities an artificial distinction that cannot be sustained.45 Instead, he argues that the primary difference between the two is subject matter. In his view, both are thoroughly Deuteronomistic and have been shaped by

Jeremianic "traditionists" who regarded both the sermons and the narrative as didactic and argues that the work was their attempt to "actualize" Jeremianic traditions to meet the needs of their community.46 According to Nicholson, those traditionists were members of the Babylonian golah, and, apart from minor later addition, the book of Jeremiah reached its present form by the end of the exilic period.

Nicholson does not consider the prose accounts in Jeremiah a true biography because, ultimately, he regards its purpose not as biographical and historical but rather didactic. That is, the Jeremiah traditionists used the narrative as a means of drawing out implications from the period of Jeremiah's life, including key issues such as the authority

44. See Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edition," 88-89 on D in Jer 37-44: 37:1-2 (perhaps a historical note by D); 38:2 (D diction); 38:23 (prosaic explanation of preceding verse); 39:1-2, 4-13, 15-18 (D's use of same sources as 2 Kgs 25:1-12; D diction in v. 15-18); 40:1-6 (D doctrine of retribution); Jer 42:7-22 (original prophetic oracle thoroughly revised by D and expanded to include many conventional D phrases); Jer 44 (based on Baruch's memory of Jeremiah's words but thoroughly rewritten by D).

45. Ernest W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Schocken, 1970).

46. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 20: "[T]he book [of Jeremiah] is best understood as the final expression of a tradition which grew and developed around the ministry and teaching of Jeremiah and in response to the needs of the community in which those responsible for this tradition lived and worked." On the ongoing development and reapplication of prophetic oracles, see also Ackroyd, "Vitality of the Prophetic Word."

27 of the prophetic word, false prophecy, and disobedience to the law. He considers stylistic features such as the dating formulae and the introductions of officials comparable to the methods of Dtr in Kings. In particular, he stresses the importance of Dtr themes in both, apart from the stereotypical D language most prevalent in the prose sermons. Nicholson sees the practical function of the polemics against the Egyptian Judean/Jewish community in Jer 24 and Jer 40-44 as a means of establishing the supremacy of the

Babylon exiles over other Jewish communities (see below).47

Like Hyatt and Rudolph, Thiel envisions a major Dtr redaction (Jer 1-45*). He locates this work in Judah, dating it ca. 550 BCE.48 However, his extensive analysis of diction, style, form, and theology in the tradition considerably expanded the number of posited Dtr parallels for texts in Jeremiah.49 He argues for close linguistic and thematic connections between Jeremiah and DtrH, but he also allows for a distinctive Jeremianic

Dtr profile growing out of the D redactor's conflict with the actual prophecy of

Jeremiah.50 However, Thiel focuses primarily on prose sermonic passages, and he acknowledges but does not pursue the possibility of a series of Deuteronomistic

47. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 110-111.

48. Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia, 1–25 (WMANT 41; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973) and Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia, 26-45 (WMANT 52; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981).

49. Note, however, Sharp's critique of his methodology (Prophecy and Ideology, 5): "He rejects arguements citing differences in language between the Dtr corpus and the prose in Jeremiah, arguing that since the Dtr editors worked over originally Jeremianic material, any peculiarities of style or language may readily be acknowledged as Jeremianic without threatening the thesis of far-reaching Dtr reworking. When Thiel cannot find linguistic evidence in Deuteronomy or the DtrH for a key Jeremianic word or phrase, he turns to other prose material in Jeremiah for support, or simply decides the coinages are Deuteronomistic anyway, two moves that leave him vulnerable to the charges of tautological reasons and caprice, respectively."

50. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion, 93-99.

28 redactions rather than one overarching Dtr redaction.

C. Recent Perspectives on Dtr and Jeremiah

Although early 20th century Jeremiah scholarship stressed the isolation of the prose sermons (Source C) as the Deuteronomistic source in the Jeremiah tradition, the past half century of Jeremiah scholarship has emphasized much more extensive Dtr editorial and compositional work across the distinctive genres in Jeremiah.51 More recent iterations of this approach have attempted to deal with the complexity of the tradition by positing a series of Dtr redactions.52

Rainer Albertz argues for at least three systematic Dtr redactions of the entire tradition: JerD1 (ca. 550 BCE), JerD2 (ca. 545-540 BCE), and JerD3 (ca. 520 BCE), followed by later additions to the text (ca. 5th-3rd centuries BCE). He proposes that the

Josianic reform of 622 BCE was supported by a broad coalition, including (at the very least) members of the royal family, influential members of the priesthood including

Hilkiah, officials associated with the scribe Shaphan, and prophets like Huldah. These common roots in the royal court help explain some of the theological and rhetorical

51. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles.

52. Note that more monolithic approaches to Dtr redaction in Jeremiah remain in use. In his study of the exilic period, Oded Lipschits (Fall and Rise of Jerusalem) analyzes the evidence from Jeremiah by building on Mowinckel's four-source model with very little modification. Leuchter (Polemics of Exile) regards Jer 26-45 as be the historical background to the oracles in Jer 1-25. He argues against positing different editorial circles within the Jeremiah narrative by stressing linguistic/thematic links between Jer 26-36 and Jer 37-45, contending, in particular, that both sections represent the Shaphanides by using Deuteronomic allusions in similar ways.

29 commonalities passed down through later branches of Deuteronomism.53

However, after the death of Josiah at Megiddo in 609 BCE, this coalition split into distinctive competing parties.54 On the one hand, a "nationalistic" party, possibly led by the Hilkiah family, was satisfied with the Jerusalem cult reform and promoted an anti-

Babylonian platform. This group believed in the inviolability of the Jerusalem temple and expected miraculous deliverance from the Babylonian threat and the immediate reversal of the 597 BCE exile. On the other hand, a "reform party," likely affiliated with the

Shaphan family, expanded the Deuteronomic reform program and promoted an anti-

Davidide, pro-Babylonian agenda.

According to Albertz, these respective scribal groups remained alive after the fall of Judah and the royal court because their scribal traditions were passed down through families, and each group regarded Deuteronomic theology as their foundation. In his view, the existence of such separate parties explains many differences between the

53. Rainer Albertz, "In Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to the Historical Riddle (ed. Thomas Römer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 10-17; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 325-327; Albertz, "The Deuteronomistic History and the Heritage of the Prophets, in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (ed. Marti Nissinen; Leiden:Brill, 2012) 362-365.

54. See Albertz, "Deuteronomistic History," 362-365. Note that alongside the editors of DtrH (Deut - 2 Kgs) and Jer (JerD1-3), Albertz also includes editors of the Book of the Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah) and the Book of the Two (Haggai and Zechariah). He suggests that after the destruction of Jerusalem the ties between scribes and specific institutions weakened, leaving some unattached scribal intellectuals. Thus, he would characterize the editors of the Book of the Four as elites who broke away and identified themselves with the interests of rural farmers and preserved the heritage of radical prophets. He suggests that the later Book of the Two represents the re-integration of Deuteronomistic scribes with post-exilic institutions in Yehud, which helps explain the mixture of Deuteronomistic traits with new elements.

30 redaction of DtrH55 (edited by descendants of the Hilkiah party in Babylon) and Jeremiah

(edited by descendants of the Shaphanite reform party in Judah).56 Despite the ultimate failure of Gedaliah's reform, later proponents of Shaphan party's agenda introduced the prophecy of seventy years of Babylonian domination, which eventually allowed its members to incorporate the fall of Babylon into their theology and to collaborate with the

Persians under the auspices of Jeremianic prophecy.

JerD1, which he dates ca. 550 BCE, includes Jer 1-25*.57 In his view, the JerD1 editors did not compose all of this material independently but rather constructed prose discourses by Yahweh, which they used to frame and comment on pre-existing

55. Note that Albertz ("DtrH and the Heritage of the Prophets," 349-352, esp. 350) explicitly rejects the double redaction of DtrH. He acknowledges that DtrH bears evidence of a process of growth, some internal disagreement, and post-Dtr additions. However, he suggests that Noth's view of DtrH as a more or less unified compositional unit is still valid and that the tensions in DtrH's theology represent deliberate ambiguity. These assumptions are a critical factor in his assessment of DtrH's view of Israelite history (characterized by better and worse eras in contrast to JerD's picture of unmitigated disobedience from the Exodus) and the Judean monarchy (adherence to the unconditional promise to the Davidic dynasty and the inclusion of Jehoiachin's release reflects a concrete political claim for the future). The primary theological problem for the editors of DtrH is the destruction of Judah despite Josiah's reform, which leads them to cast blame on Manasseh.

56. Albertz (Israel in Exile, 322-325) locates all three JerD redactions in the land of Judah, in contrast to the redaction of DtrH in Babylon. In his view, the deictic structure of Jer includes repeated references to "the land before you" and "this place" (i.e. Palestine) in all three stages of development (JerD1 - 7:7; JerD2 - 29:10; JerD3 - 32:37). Further, the text includes conditional promises of permission to remain in the land (JerD1 - 7:5-7, 25:5) and strict warnings not to emigrate (JerD2 - Jer 42). Finally, all three strata explicitly reject Canaanite religious practice (JerD1 - 7:17-19; JerD2 - 44:15-28; JerD3 - 7:31-32, 19:6, 32:35). He assumes that affinities between DtrH and JerD reflect contacts between the two regions rather than the presence of both groups of editors in the same location. Note that, in his view, even Jer 24, which appears to privilege the 597 golah is presented from the perpsective of editors in Palestine, since 24:5 refers to exiles sent away from "this place." He suggests that it reflects the groundwork for the claim that the entire post-exilic Judean community descended from the golah and that it should be interpreted as a 5th century BCE composition from after the time of the return.

57. On JerD1, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, 312 and 327-332 and Albertz, "DtrH and the Heritiage of the Prophets," 356. Albertz (Israel in Exile, 313-314) provides a list of later additions within the literary unit framed by Jer 1* and Jer 25:1-13abα*, including the late addition of Jer 24. He bases his date for this redaction on his assumption that JerD1 editors know of the release of Jehoiachin and attempt to counter hopes for his restoration through the prophecies of Jer 22. He understands 2 Kgs 25:27-30 as an explicitly political claim for the Davidic dynasty's future.

31 collections of oracles, narratives, and laments.58 The primary concern of this redaction stage is to explain who should bear the primary blame for the fall of Judah: the monarchy and false prophets. It views judgment not as inevitable but rather as the consequence of ignoring repeated prophetic warnings and real opportunities for repentance. JerD1 editors agree with the editors of DtrH on the primary cause of judgment: apostasy from Yahweh and worship of foreign gods. However, in contrast to DtrH's distinction between better and worse periods in the national history, JerD1 portrays Israel's history as continuous disobedience from the Exodus until the fall of Judah. JerD1 editors also differ from the editors of DtrH in that they give weight to social transgressions, have no hope in the

Jerusalem temple, and reject any possibility of Jehoiachin's return/the restoration of the

Davidic dynasty.59

Alongside explaining the judgment of Judah, they took the opportunity to draw lessons for the future, holding out hope for life in the land if those left behind amended their ways:

58. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 314-315, 327-328. See also Albertz, "DtrH and the Heritage of the Prophets," 355-356. Albertz does not attempt to isolate "authentic" passages in Jeremiah that can be traced back the historical prophet. However, he does assume that the distinctive theological profile of the JerD editors is due in part to the political, theological, and social perspectives of Jeremiah's prophecies.

59. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 329-331.

32 If rejection of the word of God, as presented in the Torah and most recently in the prophecy of Jeremiah, had brought disaster (Jer 25:8-9), then the survivors of the catastrophe had a chance for the future only if they would finally hearken to this word. Therefore, the Deuteronomistic redactors, probably echoing their own preaching, urged those who had been left behind to turn from their evil ways (25:5) and totally amend their religious and social conduct (7:3, 5-7). Then, as Yahweh had promised in the time of Jeremiah, they would be allowed to dwell in the land that God had given their ancestors "forever and ever" (7:7; 25:5), as the redactors solemnly declared. These last words were probably spoken to counter the fear of further deportations and incursions by neighboring peoples, as well as the temptation to emigrate to places that offered a better chance for survival.60

JerD2, which Albertz dates ca. 545-540,61 includes Jer 26-45* as well as several key additions to Jer 1-25* (notably Jer 1:4-10 and Jer 18). He argues that this material never existed independently, but rather was intentionally designed as narrative supplement to

Jer 1-25* by the same group of editors as JerD1.62 It further develops the theme of disobedience to the prophetic word as a primary cause of the exile and also develops a more nuanced perspective on guilt by specific parties. It asserts that Judah's kings

(Jehoiakim and Zedekiah), its officials, its military officers, and its high-ranking priests bore the greatest blame, and only those whose ancestors had sided with Jeremiah (such as the Shaphanides) could legitimately play a role in a new beginning. JerD2 also develops the theology of missed opportunity and adapts it for the exilic present (Jer 26:3; 35:14-16;

60. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 330. Emphasis Mine.

61. On JerD2, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, 315-318; 324-325; 332-339 and Albertz, "Deuteronomistic History," 357. He notes that JerD2 attributes seventy years of domination to Babylon. Because the editors do not correct this number to be more historically accurate, he argues that the prediction must have preceded the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Further, he notes that this stage includes some vague hope of restoration but that these hopes are not developed in concrete terms.

62. See also his discussion of links to JerD1 in Jer 35 and through the additions of Jer 1:4-10 and Jer 18 in Albertz, Israel in Exile, 315-316.

33 Jer 36:3, 7; Jer 42, Jer 44).63 Because of the failure of the Judean remnant to take advantage of Yahweh's offer of restoration in the land, the editors of JerD2 do not set their hope exclusively on the restoration of the Judean remnant but rather extend it to include the return of Babylonian exiles, while completely excluding the Egyptian Judean community. They expand Jer 29's letter to the Babylonian exiles to include a conditional promise that golah community can also participate in restoration (Jer 29:10-14aα).

The primary contributions of JerD3 include the addition of oracles of salvation (Jer

30-31*), narrative transitions to accommodate them (Jer 32 and 34), and the oracles against the foreign nations (Jer 43:8-13; Jer 46-51).64 Albertz dates this redaction to ca.

520 BCE, after the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and after Darius' defeat of Babylonian

63. Albertz , Israel in Exile, 336-337: "The JerD2 redactors also adopted the theology of missed opportunities for salvation (Jer 26:3; 35:14-16; 36:3, 7) but extended it explicitly into the exilic present: in 35:15, they took up the conditional promise of JerD1 that the people might continue to dwell in the land (7:3, 7; 25:5) and in 42:10-12 expanded it into a solemn assurnace of Yahweh's favor to those left behind. Once Yahweh had imposed judgment on Judah and Jerusalem–they had Jeremiah declare–he stood ready to turn completely around and bring salvation (42:10). He would see that they received mercy from the Babylonian king and live in their native land (42:11-12). This promise depended upon a single condition: they must continue to dwell in the land and not let some kind of fear persuade them to emigrate to Egypt. The specific situation to which the Deuteronomistic redactors addressed this promise was, as the narrative context indicates, fear of Babylonian vengeance for the murder of Gedaliah. However, there were other aspects to the problem, as we see from the mention of war and starvation as motives for emigration (42:14). For the redactors, the promise went beyond the immediate situation and was intended to counter an ongoing depopulation of the land. However, even this great opportunity that Yahweh had offered those who remained behind largely went begging, since a substantial group, even if not all, of those who had been relatively close to Jeremiah and Baruch and had supported the reforms of Gedaliah nevertheless decided to emigrate. This group not only disregarded God's offer of salvation but believed that in Egypt they could simply continue the old preexilic syncretism (44:15-18). Therefore, as the JerD2 redactors emphatically declared, they fell victim once and for all to God's judgment. The Egypt golah could have nothing to do with a new beginning in Judah; it served as a horrible example of obduracy, from which the Deuteronomistic reformers sought to distance themselves as much as possible."

64. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 318-321, 339-345; Albertz, "Deuteronomistic History," 358.

34 rebels in 522/521 BCE.65 In his view, the oracles of salvation represent the existence of a collection of oracles attributed to Jeremiah alongside the Deuteronomistic edition of Jer

(JerD1 + JerD2). By incorporating it into JerD3, the editors gave this material the stamp of divine legitimacy as part of the "recognized message of the prophet." In their incorporation of these oracles of salvation, the JerD3 editors also played a critical role in shaping the final organization of the prose material in Jer 26-45. Finally, following

Huwlyer's conclusion that the OAN do include traces of Dtr editing, Albertz includes them in this final stage of Dtr redaction, suggesting that the MT location of the OAN is primary and that the editors intend to show that even after so many previous missed opportunities, Yahweh again offered hope for the future to his people. In contrast, he suggests that the location of the OAN in the middle the book in LXX represents a secondary, post-exilic development from the 5th-4th centuries BCE.

In their final organization of the book, stretching from the decline of Assyria to the rise of the Persian Empire (ca. 640-520 BCE), the JerD3 editors outline a long history of missed chances for salvation. However, they move away from the position of the previous editors by representing the new beginning as dependent solely on Yahweh's mercy without reference to the Jerusalem temple or the Davidic dynasty (e.g. Jer

32:17-19, 27, 36-41). Rather, in their radical vision of covenant renewal, Yahweh will put the Torah itself within the people, and their own role as theological instructors will

65. Albertz, Israel in Exlie, 342: "Down to this still unrealized proclamation of salvation, JerD2 is primarily an ambitious theological interpretation of history. It is a lesson concerning Yahweh's faithful righteousness and Israel's notorious perfidy, demonstrating how Israel repeatedly squandered the opportunities for salvation given by God. Its object is to instruct Israel not to squander once more the great new opportunity announced by the victories of Darius over the Babylonian rebels (522/521 BCE)."

35 eventually be unnecessary. Further, because of their view of Yahweh as the universal creator, even foreign nations can learn from Yahweh by observing the unfolding of history.

Ultimately, Albertz argues against characterizing Deuteronomistic circles as a monolithic scribal guild. In his view, no one work represents "pure" or "normative"

Deuteronomistic literature or a benchmark against which the "Deuteronomism" of other works can be measured. DtrH has precedence only in the sense that is the oldest of the

Deuteronomistic collections.66

However, he characterizes Deuteronomism itself as a "theological" currency expressed by diverse groups of scribes. All of these groups have been influenced by

Deuteronomy and draw on it in some way, but their theology is also strongly shaped by the specific collections they edited. In this way, although they share some rhetorical strategies because of their common influences, Deuteronomists cannot be conceived as a uniform group in any way. Rather, they constitute a dynamic movement of diverse theological, political, and social agendas that developed over a long period of time.67

66. Albertz, "In Search of Deuteronomists," 10-11; Albertz, "Israel in Exile," 322-323; Albertz, "Deuteronomistic History," 348-349; 361-363. See Albertz, "Deuteronomistic History," 362: "[We] are forced to admit that there is no 'pure' Dueteronomistic literary work establishing the norm from which others would deviate. We have 'Deuteronomism' only in a plurality of partly different shape because all the Deuteronomists were editors. Furthermore, the Deuteronomistic History does not represent the 'normal' form of Deuteronomistic thought; it can only claim some precedence because it basically seems to be the oldest of the four works."

67. Albertz, "In Search of Deuteronomists," 7-17. Concrete examples include differences in the presentation of Jehoiachin and future of the Davidic dynasty (2 Kngs 25:27-30; Jer 22:24-30), the role of the temple cult in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 22-23; Jer 7, 26), and the relative significance of social legislation vs. cultic prescriptions (Jer 7:1-15, Jer 22:1-6, Jer 34:14). On the disagreement between DtrH and JerC regarding the status of the temple, see also Weippert, Die Prosarden.

36 II. COMPETING GROUPS IN THE REDACTION HISTORY OF JEREMIAH

A. Early Models

A second key paradigm for the redaction history of Jeremiah also attempts to address the complexity of Jeremiah's development, focusing specifically on the question of conflicting ideological perspectives in Jeremiah's prose tradition. This approach grew out of several studies of the exilic period by Peter Ackroyd, in which he observes tension between hints that post-586 BCE hope for the future was tied to the Judean remnant (e.g.

Jeremiah's decision to remain at Mizpah with Gedaliah in Jer 40:1-6) and Jer 42-43's stress on the rejection of the Judean remnant because of their disobedience and disregard for the prophet word.68 Ackroyd understands this tension as a reflection of the disconnect between the views of the historical Jeremiah and the work of later editors of the Jeremiah tradition. He suggests that "original" material represents the prophet as an advocate for continued life the land of Judah in submission to the Babylonians, but that later redactors obscure this early view because of their belief that the future lay exclusively among the

Babylonian exiles:69

[A]s so often in Old Testament structures, the original material has been allowed to stand, and that original material shows a Jeremiah for whom hope lay in Gedaliah, in continued submission to Babylon, in Palestine. That view has largely been obscured by the restructuring of the narrative.70

[U]nderlying the narratives as they are now presented, there is a clear tradition that Jeremiah, at the point at which Judah collapsed, saw the real hope for the future not particularly with the exiles in Babylon, but with the community gathered around Gedaliah.71

68. Ackroyd, "Historians and Prophets," 37-40, 51-54; Acroyd, Exile and Restoration, 50-61.

69. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 55-57.

70. Ackroyd,"Historians and Prophets," 52, n. 44.

71. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 57.

37 However, Ackroyd makes these claims almost in passing and never develops his impressions in a systematic way.72

Building on these observations, a subsequent study by Pohlmann develops a more comprehensive model for such a secondary redaction of Jeremianic prose, outlining a systematic reshaping of the prophecy of Jeremiah to promote the exclusive status of the

Babylonian golah community as the future of Israel against those who remained in Judah and those who emigrated to Egypt.73 According to Pohlmann, this redaction consists of

Jer 21:1-10, Jer 24, a secondary stratum of Jer 37-44, and possibly also Jer 32:16-44.

Pohlmann avoids specifically characterizing this redaction as a Deuteronomistic development.

He dates this process to the Persian Period. For Pohlmann, the rationale for this setting is closely related to the golah redactors' use of the empty land motif in Jer

42-43:7. He notes that this literary representation not only contradicts the reality of diminished but ongoing settlement in the Judean homeland during the 6th century BCE but that it also conflicts with Neh 1:2's view of the inhabitants of the land as those who

72. Ackroyd (Exile and Restoration, 61 n. 48) allows for complexity in Jeremiah's views, suggesting that both the positive representations of the exiles in Jer 24 and Jer 29 and the stress on the remnant in Jer 40-43 can be closely associated with the historical prophet. According to Ackroyd, the historial Jeremiah rejected the assumption that exiles were universally condemned and members of the remnant were universally vindcated. However, later editors extended his ad hoc cautions and generalized them to claim exclusive status for the Babylonian golah (e.g. Jer 24).

73. Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuches (FRLANT 118; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978).

38 escaped judgment.74 He concludes that the golah redactors' vision of an empty land must post-date both. Arguing that such a view is only tenable at a time far removed from the actual events, he dates it to the 4th century BCE at the earliest.

Yet this reading poses major problems on ideological and historical levels.

Pohlmann outlines a straightforward trajectory of interpretative development. In doing so, he ignores the reality of ideological conflict over the interpretation of the collapse of

Judah and multiple stages of deportation that ensued from the early 6th century BCE on.

Further, he fails to address how the polemic against flight to Egypt resonates in this late

Persian Period context.75

Subsequent versions of the model moved the discussion forward by locating the origins for conflicting pro-land and pro-golah strands in the Jeremiah tradition in the conflicts of the 6th century BCE itself. In contrast to Pohlmann, Christopher Seitz stresses the historical reality of partial exile in 597 BCE as the root of this debate because this phenomenon is never anticipated by Jeremianic prophecies of complete destruction by an enemy from the North or by the Deuteronomic curses.76

74. Pohlmann, Studien, 190. See also Albertz, Israel in Exile, 308, who disagrees with Pohlmann's overall redaction history but agrees that Jer 24, which he characterizes as "an isolated Deuteronomistic supplement" must have arisen as late as the mid-5th century. In his view, as time passed, it eventually became normative for all Judeans to trace their ancestry back the Babylonian golah.

75. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremiah: 26-45, 121-122: "With whom does the polemic against the flight to Egypt resonate in this Persian Period conflict? Was there even a confrontation with the descendants of Egyptian refugees by the time period Pohlmann is discussing?"

76. Christopher Seitz, "The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi-xliii," VT 35/1 (1985): 78-97; Christopher Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict: Reactions to Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 236-292. Key Pro-Land Texts: Jer 27; 37:11-16; 37:17-20/21; 38:1-4; 38:6; 38:7-13; 38:14-20 (22b); 38:24-28, core of Jer 40-43. Key Pro-Golah Texts: Jer 21:1-10; Jer 24:1-10, Jer 37:1-10, 38:5; 38:21-23, and the overlay of Jer 40-43.

39 Seitz argues that the degree of specificity in the narrative of the period surrounding Jerusalem's fall indicates that the core of Jer 37-43* (which he designates the

Scribal Chronicle) originated with eyewitnesses.77 The original Scribal Chronicle maintains the conviction that the remnant can live and thrive in Judah under new leadership post-597 and post-586 BCE in submission to Babylon. However, later redactors adapt and reshape this narrative, using Jer 37-44 to present a much more generic depiction of the remnant as idolatrous and disobedient to the prophetic word and using the empty land motif to destroy the remnant's legitimacy.78 Seitz suggests that this golah redaction developed under the influence of the Ezekiel tradition.79 While not denying the possibility of Deuteronomistic influence in this process, he explicitly brackets this question out of his analysis.80

B. Intersection with Dtr Models

However, in contrast to Pohlmann and Seitz's attempts to avoid the question of

Deuteronomistic connections, other recent proponents have considered group conflict models an important step forward in understanding the nature of Deuteronomistic influence on Jeremiah. Robert Carroll does not necessarily commit to systematic stages of development throughout the tradition. Rather, he tends to represent the formation of

77. Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict, 284.

78. Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict, 289.

79. Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict, 285-289 and 295. He hypothesizes that the author of the Scribal Chronicle was originally a member of the Gedaliah community (and perhaps a Shaphanide himself) but that his work made its way to the Babylonian golah when this individual was deported in 582 BCE.

80. Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict, 2.

40 Jeremiah as the result of the juxtaposition of independent traditions with conflicting claims of status. Further, he wavers on whether or not to commit to an identifiable Dtr strand in the book. At times, he seems to assume the existence of such a strand and to date it to the late 6th or early 5th century BCE,81 while in other cases he expresses extreme caution regarding any firm conclusions about the Dtr editors or the nature of their work.82 In contrast to others who discuss a systematic Dtr reshaping of the Jeremiah tradition at one or more points in its development, Carroll writes: "No consistent, coherent pattern can be established which would unite all these diverse elements into one large body work reflecting a unity of editing and background. They must be seen as the product of different groups within the Judean territory struggling for power and position over a long period after the fall of Jerusalem."83

Jer 37-44 represents one example of this struggle. Carroll views Jer 42's prohibition of flight to Egypt as a pro-land polemic that was later integrated into Jer

37-44 but reframed to support the interests of the Babylonian golah and their claim of exclusive status as the people of Yahweh. In his view, both pro-land and pro-golah authors/editors can be characterized as Deuteronomistic because both groups appropriate similar language to make conflicting claims of status, and he considers negative rhetoric toward Egypt to be one of the hallmarks of Deuteronomistic influence. Thus, he assumes the connection between Jer 42 and Deuteronomy's rhetoric regarding return to Egypt

81. Carroll, Jeremiah, 89.

82. Carroll, Jeremiah, 66 and 70.

83. Carroll, Jeremiah, 70.

41 (Deut 28:68 and Deut 17:16) simply because both regard Egypt negatively, and, in light of this presumed connection, he interprets Jer 42's prohibition primarily in symbolic terms. However, while Carroll accommodates the complexity of the Jeremiah tradition by allowing for diversity among Deuteronomists, he notes the use of Dtr phraseology without offering a systematic analysis of the use of this rhetoric in Jeremiah.

Carolyn Sharp identifies two distinctive communities at work in the editing of the book Jeremiah.84 A group of traditionists based in Judah proclaim the inescapable doom of Judah (and eventually Babylon and Egypt as well) as a result of the people's disobedience to the prophetic word from the time of Exodus. In light of this expectation, they reject calls for political alliances, calls for submission to Babylon in Judah, and calls for assimilation in exile. In contrast, a group of pro-gôlâ traditionists offer hope for restoration but only to members of the Babylonian diaspora. Their interest in social justice reflects their wider view that repentance and change are in fact possible, but they fiercely condemn the Judean remnant and the Egyptian Judean community for their moral and cultic failings. From Sharp's perspective, their insistence on submission to Babylon both in Judah and in the Babylonian exile marks their accommodationist perspective.85

Thus, although she addresses Jer 42 only in passing, she considers even the call to remain

84. Carolyn J. Sharp. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authenticity in Deutero- Jeremianic Prose (T&T Clark International, 2003), 157-158, 163; "The Call of Jeremiah and Diaspora Politics." JBL 119/3 (2000): 435.

85. "Call of Jeremiah," 428, 430, 433, and 435-436, n. 30. E.g. Sharp, "Call of Jeremiah," 436, n. 30: "Jeremiah's purchase of land (ch. 32) and choice to remain under Gedaliah (40:1-6), clearly pragmatic extensions of the 'serve the king of Babylon and live' policy, are easy enough to attribute to the pro-gôlâ group. The 597 deportees had never wanted the destruction of their homeland; naturally they would wish to preserve it and return to it eventually (after seventy years, and no sooner). The dispute over authority had to do with the locus of cultic and political power beginning in 597."

42 in the land of Judah at the heart of the oracle (vv. 10-12) to be the work of the pro-golah redactors.

Sharp maintains that tension between these two groups is fundamental to the development of the book of Jeremiah and expresses clear hesitation to identify primary and secondary strata or a precise sequence of redactions. However, she does concede that the Babylonian gôlâ traditionists had the last word in shaping the tradition. She roots the conflict between these two editorial groups in the context of the early sixth century (ca.

597-586 BCE), though she does not impose a rigid system of dating. Rather, she allows for the possibility of later additions that follow the trajectories established by these groups, particularly the pro-gôlâ traditionists.

She does not attempt a comprehensive analysis of these strands.86 Rather, she focuses on particular sets of motifs related to the prophetic word: the historical succession of prophets, the calling of Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations, and the motif of false prophets. Ultimately, she argues that Jer, 2 Kgs 17, and Deut 18 have "substantial and fundamental discontinuities" in their views of the prophetic word and that later editorial work in 2 Kgs and Deut may actually show influence from the Jeremiah tradition.

Her study's fundamental contribution to Jeremiah scholarship is the way in which

86. Note, in fact, that Sharp expresses caution regarding comprehensive redaction models even for the individual texts she analyzes in this study. See Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, xv: "Where material reveals multiple compositional strata as signaled by abrupt or unexpected changes in subject matter, tone, language, or perspective, redaction criticism will be brought to bear. Here I will try to avoid the pitfall of assigned every new idea or theme to a new redactor, instead focusing on demonstrable tensions that indicate conflicting viewpoints or viewpoints that nuance or correct other perspectives."

43 it highlights the complexity of Dtr's influence on the Jeremiah.87 Sharp maintains that some coherent voices can be discerned within the Jeremiah tradition, but she refutes

"monolithic" views of Deuteronomism and the assumption that the influence of

Deuteronomistic texts on Jeremiah is uni-directional. Rather, she points to the possibility of diverse Deuteronomistic voices in Deut, DtrH, and Jer and the possibility of mutual influence.88

However, Sharp's approach has significant limitations.89 In addition to the narrow scope of her study, at times, she attempts an extremely precise sub-division of individual verses of the text. Further, she largely brackets out historical questions surrounding the composition of the text and the redaction process. It is difficult to ground her representation of the Judahite traditionists in any historical context. What, if any, political interests of Judahite editors would have been served by the conviction that true prophets proclaim only doom and that Jerusalem, Judah, and its neighbors are all doomed to inescapable destruction?

The full trajectory of conflicts between exilic groups in Jeremiah has been most fully explored in recent work by Dalit Rom-Shiloni. She distinguishes between three major strata within the Jeremiah tradition's development: an early pro-remnant core (ca.

597 - 587 and shortly after), a Babylonian exilic adaptation (ca. 570 - 538 BCE), and

87. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, xi-xvi, 163-164.

88. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 164: "The literary connections that exist between key texts in Kings and Deuteronomy 18 on the one hand and Jeremiah on the other have pointed to the probability of isolated points of intersection rather than wholesale identification of the redactors of the two corpora."

89. See especially the incisive review in Dennis Pardee, review of Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology: Struggles for Authenticity in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose, JNES 66/3 (2007): 226-227.

44 further rereadings and additions from the perspective of repatriates during the Persian

Period (538 - 430 BCE).90

The Judahite core reflects both the perspectives of the historical prophet (though not his ipsissima verba) and, especially, compilation and adaptation by his Judahite tradents in the early exilic period. This stratum exhibits several key themes: (1) prophecies against the kings of the House of Judah that represent exile as a fate worse than death (Jer 22:1-23:6), (2) calls for Judah's kings and people to submit to Babylon

(Jer 27:10-15; 37-38; 21:8-10; 38:2) as well as representations of Jeremiah as a loyal subject to Babylon (Jer 37:12-16; 38:1-6; 26:7-11; 37:11-16),91 and (3) Jeremiah's command to the remnant to remain in the land (Jer 42).

The pro-golah exilic redaction includes several different strands, including (1) claims of exclusive status for the 597 BCE exiles (e.g. Jer 24 and final form of Jer 40-44) that focus on delegitimizing the Judean remnant and (2) promises of the gathering of the exiles and return to the "empty" land that ignore all groups beside the Babylonian golah.

Rom-Shiloni identifies four distinctive Deuteronomic concepts of exile: a) total calamity in the land, b) deportation and dispersion, c) existence in exile, and d) restoration, and she argues that both the Judahite core and Golah adaptation of the tradition allude to these concepts to advance their ideological positions. However, she

90. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity 199-252; "Group Identities in Jeremiah: Is It the Persian Period Conflict?," in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Stylistics, and Language in Biblical Texts from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods (ed. E.Ben Zvi, D. Edelman, and F. Polak; PHSC 5; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2009): 13-17.

91. See also Jeremiah's representation of the permanence of Babylon in his debates with the prophet Hananiah (ch. 28).

45 suggests that the direction of influence (that is, that Jeremiah borrows from

Deuteronomy) is made clear by Jeremiah's extension and expansion of Deuteronomic concepts. One particularly clear example of this difference is the scope of the exile: while

Deuteronomy envisions a total exile, Jeremiah adapts the Deuteronomic view in light of the historical reality of partial exiles.

In her view, the Judahite core makes use of the first three Deuteronomic perspectives on exile: total calamity in the land, deportation and dispersion ending in death outside the land, and existence in exile that equates living in a foreign land with worshiping foreign gods. Using these Deuteronomic concepts, the Judahite core establishes the status of the Judahite remnant: "Judgment prophecies in Jeremiah put forth the notion that exile means calamity; thus, Those who Remained are the sole survivors of the people of God, by the virtue of their continuous residence in His land."92

In the pro-golah, Rom-Shiloni sees a series of hands at work, including not only

Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic voices that include Deut 30's vision of restoration (Jer

29:10-14; Jer 32:36-4) but also voices similar to Ezekiel and 2 Isa (Jer 16:14-15;

30:12-17; 32:36-41).

Thus, for Rom-Shiloni, the Jer 40-44 material represents both stages:93 original pro-

Judahite texts are still detectable (Jer 40:1-6; 40:7-41:18; 42:1-22), but the overall narrative has been reframed to present the Mizpah community as a lost opportunity,

92. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 219.

93. See also Jer 32, where prophecies for the Judean remnant have been updated and stand side- by-side with pro-golah material. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, "The Prophecy for 'Everlasting' Covenant' (Jeremiah XXXII 36-41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction," VT 53/2 (2003): 201-223.

46 delegitimizing the Judahite remnant and condemning them to total destruction.94 Building on the concept of the empty land (shared with 2 Kgs) and fusing the Deuteronomic concepts of exile as total destruction and inevitable worship of foreign gods in foreign lands, the pro-golah stage rejects the Egyptian and Mizpah communities and presents the

Jehoiachin Exiles in Babylon as the sole remaining people of Yahweh.95

However, while Rom-Shiloni notes the shift from Deuteronomy's focus on cultic practice to Jeremiah's stress on political allegiance, she discusses its significance only in theological terms. First, because Yahweh is the "Lord of History," to resist the

Babylonians is to resist Yahweh's control over Judah's fate. Second, remaining in the land is critical because of Deuteronomy's conception of the land as a direct gift from Yahweh.

It advises against resistance because rebellion leads to exile and the reversal of this gift.

Rom-Shiloni's framework represents an important contribution to the study of the

Jeremiah tradition's development. However, it is incomplete in several significant ways.

One the one hand, her evaluation of Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic influences is uneven, and she does not fully explore the use of Dtr rhetoric and concepts in Jer 37-44. On the other, her attempt to focus on theology and to bracket out the practical implications of the text's view of Babylon, ongoing life in the land, and flight to Egypt is problematic. By explicitly rejecting underlying political and economic motivations of the pro-remnant editors, she overlooks clear examples in the text of political, social, and economic benefits for those who supported Babylonian rule.

94. Exclusive Inclusivity, 239.

95. Exclusive Inclusivity, 240.

47 Further, more work is needed on the intersection of the Deuteronomistic and group-conflict models. Both Rom-Shiloni and Carroll note the presence of Dtr diction in each proposed stage of the Jer 37-44's development. However, neither Rom-Shiloni nor

Carroll offers a systematic analysis of way this rhetoric functions in their proposed redaction stages, and Rom-Shiloni's discussion of Dtr connections deals primarily with

Deuteronomic concepts of exile.

48 CHAPTER 3: THE REDACTION HISTORY OF JER 37-44

In contrast to the other prose material in Jeremiah, Jer 37-44 provides a sustained narrative of Judah's final days.96 By juxtaposing this series of discrete episodes, the editors of the tradition have created a coherent, largely chronological representation of the period from the final Babylonian siege of Jerusalem through the assassination of

Gedaliah and the flight of Johanan and his followers to Egypt. In light of this degree of literary coherence, the oracle of Jer 42 should not be treated in isolation but rather is best analyzed as part of the larger narrative unit of Jer 37-44.

Building on the discussion of redaction models in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 focuses on the redaction history of Jer 37-44 in particular. Part one outlines evidence for two major stages of the text's development and the defining characteristics of those two stages. An early exilic core stresses ongoing life in the land of Judah under Babylonian auspices.

However, a later expansion and adaptation of the narrative claims exclusive status for the

Babylonian golah by linking the Judean remnant and the Egyptian Judean community and dismissing both as objects of Yahweh's judgment. Part two then compares Jer 37-44 with

Dtr2's narration of the same period in 2 Kgs 25. Although both traditions include many of the same events and may even share common source material, there are significant differences between the perspectives of Dtr2 in 2 Kgs 25 and both stages of Jer 37-44, particularly with regard to their characterization of migration to Egypt and the Egyptian

Judean community.

96. This incoherence is most apparent in the abrupt shifts back and forth between the events set during the reign of Jehoakim (Jer 26, 36) and the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 27-28, 37-39), leaving out the brief reign of Jehoiachin entirely.

49 I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRO-REMNANT CORE

A. The Necessity of Submission to Babylon

Jer 37-44 includes implied or explicit calls for submission to the Babylonians throughout the narrative: during the Babylonian siege, during Gedaliah's tenure at Mizpah, and in the aftermath of Gedaliah's assassination by Ishmael ben Nethaniah.97

1. During the Babylonian Siege

Three episodes set during the siege of Jerusalem depict royal inquiries of the prophet:

In Jer 37:3-10, prior to Jeremiah's imprisonment, Zedekiah sends messengers to the prophet to request his intercession. Although Babylonian forces have recently withdrawn from Jerusalem because of reports that Egyptian troops are en route, the prophet dismisses any hope that Egyptian forces can provide lasting protection from Babylonian campaigns. From Jeremiah's perspective, the conquest of the city is assured (Jer 37:8-10):

And the Chaldeans will return and fight against this city, taøΩzAh ryIoDh_lAo …wmSjVlˆn◊w Myî;dVcA;kAh …wbDv◊w and they will capture it and burn it with fire. :vEaDb DhUp∂rVc…w DhüdDkVl…w Thus says Yahweh: hÎwh◊y rAmDa hO;k "Do not deceive yourselves saying, rOmaEl MRkyEtOvVpÅn …waIÚvA;t_lAa 'The Chaldeans will surely go from us' Myî;dVcA;kAh …wnyElDoEm …wkVl´y JKølDh for they will not go. :…wkEl´y aøl_yI;k Even if you struck down the entire army of Chaldeans Myî;dVcA;k lyEj_lD;k MRtyI;kIh_MIa yI;k who are fighting against you MRkV;tIa MyImDjVlˆ…nAh and there remained of them (only) wounded men, Myîr∂;qüdVm MyIvÎnSa MDb …wrSaVvˆn◊w each in his tent, wølFhDaV;b vyIa they would rise up and burn this city with fire. :vEaD;b taøΩzAh ryIoDh_tRa …wp√rDc◊w …wm…wqÎy

Jer 37:16-21 contains a relatively brief report of a secret meeting set at the royal

97. Outside Jer 37-44, note also Jer 21:1-10 and Jer 27-28. See Rom-Shiloni, Exlusive Inclusivity, 202-204. However, Rom-Shiloni's analysis is weakened by her insistence that this pro- Babylonian position is purely theological and is divorced from the practical implications of choices in political allegiance.

50 palace.98 When Zedekiah asks whether or not Jeremiah has received an oracle from

Yahweh, the prophet succinctly replies (Jer 37:17):

Into the hand of the king of Babylon you will be given. :NEtÎ…nI;t lRbD;b_JKRlRm dAyV;b

The rest of the account deals only with Jeremiah's persecution at the hands of Judean officials.99 The prophet chastises Zedekiah for his imprisonment, contrasting the accuracy of his message with that of the prophets who had proclaimed that the Babylonians would not campaign against Judah. At the conclusion of the meeting, Jeremiah asks not to be returned to imprisonment in the house of Jonathan the scribe, and Zedekiah orders that

Jeremiah be returned to the court of the guard instead.

Jer 38:14-28 provides a more extended conversation between Jeremiah and

Zedekiah, which is also held in secret but set at one of the temple gates. Jeremiah's advice still clearly assumes that Yahweh has already sided with the Babylonians and that subjugation by the Babylonians is inevitable. However, the conversation provides a slightly more hopeful message for Zedekiah by addressing a range of possible responses to the Babylonian invasion as well as an opportunity to mitigate the consequences of rebellion by surrendering (Jer 38:17-18):

Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, …whÎ¥yIq√dIx_lRa …whDyVm√rˆy rRmaø¥yÅw "Thus says Yahweh, hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k [God of hosts, God of Israel], [lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa twøaDbVx yEhølTa]

98. Both MT and G specify that the meeting was held in secret. However, only MT idenitifies the palace (wøtyEbV;b) as the location.

99. On the intensification of blame on Zedekiah in the MT text of Jer 37-38, see Herman-Joseph Stipp, "Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character," CBQ 58 (1996): 627-648.

51 'If you surely go out to the commanders of the king of Babylon lRbD;b_JKRlRm yérDc_lRa aExEt 100aøxÎy_MIa then you will you live, ÔKRvVpÅn hDt◊yDj◊w and this city will not be burned with fire, vEaD;b PérDÚcIt aøl taøΩzAh ryIoDh◊w and you and your house will live. :ÔKRtyEb…w hD;tAa hDtIyDj◊w But if you will not go out aExEt_aøl MIa◊w [to the commanders of the king of Babylon], [lRbD;b JKRlRm yérDc_lRa] then this city will be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, Myî;dVcA;kAh dAyV;b taøΩzAh ryIoDh hÎnV;tˆn◊w and they will burn it with fire. vEaD;b Dh…wp∂rVc…w And you will not escape [from their hand]. :[M∂dÎ¥yIm] fElD;mIt_aøl hD;tAa◊w

This assessment of the situation perhaps reflects events of the Babylonian campaign to the city a decade earlier: Jehoiachin had preserved Jerusalem and his own life by surrender.101 Zedekiah questions Jeremiah's message not because he rejects the overall premise that Judah's rebellion will fail. Rather, he fears that, even if he surrenders to

Nebuchadnezzar, he is in danger of retribution from Judean collaborators who have already defected. The meeting concludes with Zedekiah's strict instructions to Jeremiah to keep the contents of the conversation confidential, and Jeremiah returns to imprisonment in the court of the guard.

The editors of Jer 37-44 represent Jeremiah's secret meetings with Zedekiah as a chronological sequence of independent events.102 However, there are several signals of a more complex literary relationship. First, both episodes depict the same basic time frame:

connoting surrender, see also Jer 21:9; Jer 38:2; 1 Sam 11:3, 10; 2 Kgs 24:12; Isa יצא For .100 37:16/2 Kgs 18:31.

101. Contra Carroll (Jeremiah, 686) who maintains that Jeremiah's position is completely unrealistic. See also the case of Hezekiah who paid the tribute demanded by Sennacherib and remained on the Judean throne despite his role in the 701 BCE rebellion of Assyria's vassals in both Judah and Philistia. This outcome is stressed by 2 Kgs 18:13-16 (Account A). For the source division in 2 Kgs 18-19, see the discussion of the events of 701 BCE in Ch. 5.

102. For interpretations that accept the text's representation of a series of distinct meetings, see Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 282-284 and Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52 (AB 21C; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 75.

52 Jeremiah is initially free and preaching among the people (Jer 37:4, 11-14; Jer 38:1-5) but ends up imprisoned in the court of the guard because of opposition from his enemies in the royal court (Jer 37:21; Jer 38:28). Second, the accounts overlap considerably in their basic substance: Zedekiah requests an oracle, Jeremiah advocates surrender, and Jeremiah asks for and obtains some degree of protection from Zedekiah's officials.

This latter aspect of the encounters is particularly significant. In the first meeting, the prophet asks Zedekiah not to send him back to Jonathan's house (Jer 37:20). At the conclusion of the second meeting, Zedekiah instructs him to use this very request to explain to royal officials why their meeting took place, and Jeremiah does so (Jer

38:25-26). However, as the tradition stands in its final form, this explanation is incoherent: according to the preceding episodes (Jer 37:21; Jer 38:13) Jeremiah was imprisoned in the court of the guard prior to meeting with Zedekiah at the temple, not in the house of Jonathan.103 The excuse for their second meeting provided in Jer 38:25-26, therefore, reflects the contents of the first meeting reported in Jer 37:15, 20.

Although some scholars have argued that Jer 38:24-28 is displaced and originally appeared after Jer 37:21,104 this explanation is unlikely, given that Jer 37:21 provides a clear resolution to the meeting described in Jer 37:17-20. Instead, the two episodes

103. The two meetings with Zedekiah are separated by a third account of Jeremiah's persecution in which Judean officials respond to his calls for the people of Jersualem to surrender by imprisoning Jeremiah in Malcaiah's cistern. However, Jeremiah is later rescued when Ebed-Melech intervenes on his behalf. McKane (Volume II, 970) regards the Ebed-Melech episode as secondary. However, in any case, like Jer 37:21, the Ebed-Melech episode ends in Jer 38:13 with Jeremiah imprisoned in the court of the guard rather than in the house of Jonathan.

104. E.g. Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edition"; Rudolph, Jeremiah.

53 appear to be variant traditions relaying the same basic incident,105 with the second account (Jer 38:14-28) providing a more developed version of the conversation and the themes of secrecy and Zedekiah's weakness.106 However, in all cases, Jeremiah gives an unequivocal response to inquiries about the outcome of the Babylonian sieges: Yahweh has already given Jerusalem to the Babylonians. In light of this message, the tradition regards submission to Babylonian rule as the only viable response.

2. During Gedaliah's Tenure at Mizpah

Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, the Babylonians restructured

Judah's government, appointing Gedaliah ben Ahikam over the land and moving the administrative center from Jerusalem to Mizpah. Jer 40:7-12 provides a brief account of life under Gedaliah's leadership. Gedaliah's instructions to the people stand at the center of this narrative: the way forward is to put aside their fear of Nebuchadnezzar and fulfill their obligations as a Babylonian vassal (Jer 40:9):107

105. John Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 256-260; Bright, Jeremiah; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles; Carroll, From Chaos; McKane, Volume II, 968-970; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 321-322.

106. See McKane, Volume II, 968-970; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 321-322; and Stipp, "Zedekiah."

with the connotation of vassalship, see 2 Kgs 18:7: "[Hezekiah] rebelled against the עבד For.107 .him. Cf. Deut 28:48, Jer 27 (עבד) king of Assyria, and he did not serve

54 And Gedaliah [son of Ahikam son of Shaphan] swore to them [NDpDv_NR;b M∂qyIjSa_NRb] …whÎyVlåd◊…g MRhDl oAbDÚvˆ¥yÅw and to their men saying, rOmaEl MRhyEv◊nAaVl…w "Do not fear serving the Chaldeans.108 Myî;dVcA;kAh dwøbSoEm …wa√ryI;t_lAa Remain in the land, X®rDaDb …wbVv and serve the king of Babylon. lRbD;b JKRlRm_tRa …wdVbIo◊w And it will be well with you. :MRkDl bAfyˆy◊w

3. During the Aftermath of Gedaliah's Assassination

Even after the assassination of Gedaliah and the murder of Babylonians stationed with him at Mizpah, the heart of the oracle in Jer 42 presents consistent advice. There is no need to fear the king of Babylon because the remnant will experience Yahweh's compassion on them through Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 42:11-12):

"Do not fear the king of Babylon lRbD;b JKRlRm y´nVÚpIm …wa√ryI;t_lAa whom you fear." wyDnDÚpIm MyIaér◊y MR;tAa_rRvSa "Do not fear [him]," declares Yahweh, hÎwh◊y_MUa◊n […w…n]R;mIm …wa√ryI;t_lAa "because I am with you to save you MRkVtRa AoyIvwøhVl yˆnDa MRkV;tIa_yI;k and to rescue you from his hand." :wødÎ¥yIm MRkVtRa lyI…xAhVl…w

I109 will give you mercy MyImSjår MRkDl NE;tRa◊w (so that) he will have mercy on you MRkVtRa MAjîr◊w

108. In MT 2 Kgs 25:24 (Myî;dVcA;kAh yédVbAoEm) and G Jer 40:9 (aÓpo\ prosw¿pou tw◊n pai÷dwn tw◊n Caldai÷wn), Gedaliah urges members of the community not to fear the servants of the Babylonians (presumably, Babylonian officials/soldiers present at Mizpah). However, in MT Jer (Myî;dVcA;kAh dwøbSoEm), Gedaliah urges them not to fear "serving" the king of Babylon. Both MT and G reflect the broader theme of submission to Babylon. However, MT Jer 40:9 (dwøbSoEm) is perhaps the more difficult reading. It is redundant, since it is immediately followed by direct instructions to "serve the king of Babylon." G Jer 40[47]:9 (aÓpo\ prosw¿pou tw◊n pai÷dwn tw◊n Caldai÷wn) fits the larger narrative context of dispelling fears of violence and retaliation from Babylonian representatives. See Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 105, n. 242. Although Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings [AB 11; New Haven: Yale University Press], 326) argue that G's reference to "servants of the Chaldeans" is "meaningless," Jer 41:3 refers to Babylonians at Mizpah killed in Ishmael's coup. In that case, an MT gloss clarifies and identifies them as soldiers (hDmDjVlI;mAh yEv◊nAa), though G does not specify their role.

109.G uses 1cs verbs throughout: dw¿sw ("I will give"), e˙leh/sw ("I will have mercy"), and e˙pistre÷yw ("I will return"). In this regard, MT should be preferred as the more difficult reading, which is later corrected by G for grammatical consistency. However, MT's reading is still appropriate to the context. The members of the remnant will experience Yahweh's compassion on them through the benevolence of Nebuchadnezzar.

55 and he will return you to your land.110 :MRkVtAm√dAa_lRa MRkVtRa byIvEh◊w

B. Positive Representations of Babylonians and Life under Babylonian Rule

1. Fall of Jerusalem

The Jeremianic textual traditions diverge in their presentation of the conquest of

Jerusalem. G (like MT) succinctly notes the date on which Babylonian forces breached the city and prominent Babylonian military commanders sat in the city gates. However, G contains no description whatsoever of the plundering and destruction of Jerusalem, nor does it include any description of the punishment of the royal house of Zedekiah. Rather, the next event in G's narrative sequence is the release of the prophet in Jer 39[46]:14.

In contrast, the longer MT account provides more detail on the circumstances surrounding Jerusalem's conquest. It outlines the pursuit of Zedekiah, his capture, and his severe punishment for rebellion, which includes watching his sons and nobles slaughtered at Riblah before being blinded and deported to Babylon (MT 39:4-7). It also notes the destruction of prominent areas of Jerusalem, including the palace complex, residential areas, and fortifications (MT Jer 39:8).111 Finally, it describes the deportation of the city's elite, with only the poor left to farm the land (MT Jer 39:9-10).

to be a subtle reference to exiles שׁוב Stipp ("Concept," 126-127) considers the Hiphil of .110 returning from Babylon. See also, Bright (Jeremiah, 256) and Carroll (Jeremiah, 716), though they do not necessarily commit to this intepretation. However, Stipp's reading should be rejected because the golah but ישׁב is the Hiph of השׁיב connection does not fit the narrative context in Jeremiah at all. It is possible that (See McKane, Volume II, 1035. However, if G (˙e˙pistre÷yw .(הֹשִׁיב instead הֵשִׁיב) has been mispointed here as the root, the "return" should be understood as restoration to Mizpah for those שׁוב correctly understands gathered near Bethlehem and poised to leave for Egypt (Jer 41:17). For this view, see Rudolph, Jeremiah, 254; Bright, Jeremiah; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia: 26–45, 65 n. 8.

111. 2 Kgs 25:9 and Jer 52:13 add the temple of Yahweh to the list of buildings burned by the .has been omitted here by haplography בית יהוה Babylonians. Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 269) proposes that However, the fact that Jer 39:8 parallels these passages only in basic content and not in syntax or wording .argues against this suggestion (בית־ירשׁלים .vs בית־העם)

56 Although Janzen proposes that the omission of this section of text in G is based

in MT 39:13),112 the length of רבי מלך בבל in MT 39:3 and שׂרי מלך בבל) on haplography the passage argues against this suggestion.113 Rather, G most likely represents an earlier stage of the tradition's development that effectively glosses over the destruction of

Jerusalem, and MT 39:3-13 is a secondary addition built from the account of Jerusalem's fall in 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52.114 However, even if the MT reading is preferred, it too avoids dwelling on the details of the conquest, concisely limiting its account of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem itself to a single verse (MT Jer 39:8) and lacking any reference to the desecration of the temple at the hands of the Babylonians, in contrast to both 2 Kgs

25: 9, 13-17 and Jer 52:13, 17-23.

2. Beneﬁts for Collaborators

Alongside this representation of the Babylonians, the narrative also outlines benefits for collaborators, including both elevated status within the new administrative system and economic benefits for those who support it.115 Even before the fall of

Jerusalem, Zedekiah's primary objection to Jeremiah's advice to surrender is that he

112. J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 118. See McKane, Volume II, 976-977 for the case for a shorter Hebrew Vorlage, which was later supplemented by parallel material in Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25.

113. The account of Saul and the Ammonites in 1 Sam 10-11 provides an example involving a longer block of text. The complete text of 1 Sam 10:27b is attested only by 4QSama and Josephus, Ant., 6.68-71. However, such cases are rare in comparison to cases involving individual words and short phrases. On 1 Sam 11, see Frank Moore Cross, "The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela," in The Hebrew and Greek texts of Samuel: 1980 Proceedings IOSCS-Vienna (ed. E. Tov; Jerusalem: Acadeomon, 1980), 105-20 and P. Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel (AB 8; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 198-199. According to McCarter, this example represents a scribal error in skipping over a paragraph, with no clear trigger for haplography.

114. McKane, Volume II, 976-977.

115. Rom-Shiloni (Exclusive Inclusivity, 202-203) explicitly rejects this aspect of the text.

57 expects members of the pro-Babylonian party who have already defected to be in a position to turn against him should he do so (Jer 38:19):

And the king, [Zedekiah], said to Jeremiah, …whDyVm√rˆy_lRa […whD¥yIq√dIx] JKRlR;mAh rRmaø¥yÅw "I am worried about the Judeans Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_tRa gEaød yInSa who have deserted to the Chaldeans, Myî;dVcA;kAh_lRa …wlVpDn rRvSa lest they give me into their hand M∂dÎyV;b yItOa …wnV;tˆy_NRÚp and they treat me harshly. 116:yIb_…wlV;lAoVtIh◊w

The early defectors very likely included his political opponents, since oracles from

Ezekiel suggest that Zedekiah had aligned himself with pro-Egyptian parties in Jerusalem and initially sought an alliance with the 26th Dynasty (Ezek 17:12-15). Given his role as the leader of the rebellion, Zedekiah expresses pragmatic concerns that the Babylonians will allow his former political enemies to retaliate against him.

Later, after the fall of Jerusalem and the assassination of Gedaliah by Ishmael,

Johanan and his fellow military commanders similarly suspect Jeremiah of counseling them to remain in the land not because of an actual oracle from Yahweh himself but rather because Baruch and Jeremiah have conspired against them and plan to betray them to the Babylonians (Jer 43:3):

"[You are speaking] a lie. [rE;bådVm hD;tAa] r®qRv Yahweh [our God] did not you send, […wnyEhølTa] hDwh◊y ÔKSjDlVv aøl

see Num 22:29 (Balaam accuses his donkey: yI;b V;tVlA;lAoVtIh); Judg 19:25 , בְּ + (Hithp) עלל For .116 (rape); Exod 10:2 and 1 Sam 6:6 (Yahweh's hardens of Pharaoh's heart and brings plagues on Egypt); 1 Sam 31:4 and 1 Chron 10:4 (after being badly wounded in battle, Saul considers it better to commit suicide .him with their weapons and yIb_…wlV;lAoVtIh◊w (דקר) than to be caught by his enemies, who might pierce G translates as "mock" (καταµωκαόµαι). That rendering fits the usage in Num 22:29. The best and has דקר Hithp) parallels) עלל parallel for Jer 38:19 may be 1 Sam 31:4/1 Chron 10:4, but it is unclear if the connotation of further physical assault or if Saul is concerned his enemies will dishonor him by .(Hitph) as "mock" (ἐμπαίςω) עלל mocking his mutilated corpse. In 1 Sam 31:4, G also translates s use in the context of rape in Judg 19:25 suggests that the range of meanings is broader than'עלל ,However mere mocking.

58 saying, 'You shall not go to Egypt to sojourn there.' :MDv r…wgDl MˆyårVxIm …waøbDt_aøl rOmaEl Rather, Baruch ben Neriah is inciting you against us …wnD;b ÔKVtOa tyI;sAm hÎ¥yîrEn_NR;b JK…wrD;b yI;k in order to give us into the hand of the Chaldeans Myî;dVcA;kAh_dAyVb …wnDtOa tE;t NAoAmVl to kill us and to deport us to Babylon." :lRbD;b …wnDtOa twøl◊gAhVl…w …wnDtOa tyImDhVl

While these texts remain ambiguous regarding the precise benefits that Zedekiah and Baruch's accusers anticipated the collaborators would derive from turning against fellow members of the Judean remnant, elsewhere the narrative documents more concrete benefits for those who supported Babylonian rule, including both leadership roles within the reorganized Judean government and the opportunity to acquire property and agricultural goods. a. The Prophet Jeremiah

Jeremiah 37-44 contains two distinctive accounts of Jeremiah's release following the fall of Jerusalem.117 In the first account (Jer 39:11-14), each textual tradition preserves a slightly different version of the narrative. The longer MT text (MT 39:11-13) specifies that Nebuchadnezzar himself118 instructed Nebuzaradan to treat Jeremiah well and to allow him to determine his own fate (wø;mIo hEcSo NE;k ÔKyRlEa rE;båd◊y rRvSaA;k). The shorter G text (Jer

39[46]:14) specifies only that, after the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonians took Jeremiah from the court of the guard where he had been imprisoned during the siege of the city and entrusted him to the newly appointed official Gedaliah ben Ahikam.

117. On the relationship between these accounts, see Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 325-326; Seitz, Theology of Conﬂict, 279-281; Carroll, From Chaos, 230; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia: 26–45; Wanke Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift, 108-110; Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edition," 89; Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 272-274.

118. Cf. the "my servant" designation for Nebuchadnezzar in MT expansions of the Jeremiah tradition.

59 In the second account (Jer 40:1-6), both MT and G describe Jeremiah's release from a group of Judean prisoners at Ramah awaiting deportation. In this latter case,

Jeremiah receives individual attention from Nebuzaradan, one of Nebuchadnezzar's chief military officers. In contrast to the other captives, according to Jer 40:1-6, Jeremiah is given the choice of whether to remain in Judah or travel to Babylon.119 Further,

Nebuzaradan offers the prophet preferential treatment in either case. If the prophet goes with him to Babylon, Nebuzaradan promises to look out for him.120 When Jeremiah decides to remain in Judah, Nebuzaradan nevertheless provides him a "gift" (tEaVcAm /

121 122 dw◊ra) prior to his release (Jer 40:4-5):

[But now] behold, I have released you [today] [Mwø¥yAh] ÔKyI;tVjA;tIp hE…nIh [hD;tAo◊w] from the chains which are on your hand. ÔK®dÎy_lAo rRvSa MyI;qˆzaDh_NIm If (it is) good in your eyes to come with me to Babylon, lRbDb yI;tIa awøbDl ÔKy‰nyEoV;b bwøf_MIa come, and I will set my eyes on you. ÔKyRlDo yˆnyEo_tRa MyIcDa◊w aø;b [But if (it is) evil in your eyes to come with me to Babylon, lRbDb yI;tIa_awøbDl ÔKyRnyEoV;b oår_MIa◊w] refrain. l∂dSj See, the entire land is before. ÔKy‰nDpVl X®rDaDh_lD;k hEa√r To wherever is good and right in your eyes ÔKyRnyEoV;b rDvÎ¥yAh_lRa◊w bwøf_lRa

119. The third choice ("wherever you choose") is an MT expansion. McKane (Volume II, 999), Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 270-271, 294), and Lipschits (Fall and Rise, 325-326) assume the expansion is derived from the immediate context in Jeremiah. However, on the possibility that MT makes an independent allusion to Deut 1:8, see the discussion in ch. 4.

120. For ÔKyRlDo yˆnyEo_tRa MyIcDa◊w, see Jer 24:6 (Yahweh sets his eyes on the exiles in Babylon "for good") and Amos 9:4 (Yahweh sets on his on the people in captivity "for evil" and not "for good.")

:from Joseph's table (G: hJ meri«ß), 2 Sam 11:8 (לחם) tEaVcAm - Gen 43:34: portions of food .121 unspecified gift from David to Uriah (G: a‡rsiß); Ezek 20:40: offerings to Yahweh, parallel to MRkVtAm…wr;Vt and MRkyEv√d∂q (G: tw◊n aÓforismw◊n uJmw◊n); Amos 5:11: portions of grain (rA;b) (G: dw◊ra e˙klekta); Est 2:18: royal gifts alongside remission of taxes (hDjÎnSh) (G: a‡fesin); 2 Chr 24:6, 9 (offering/tax established by Moses and restablished and dropped into a chest (NwørSa) at the temple during the reign of Joash (G: to\ kekrime÷non).

122. An MT+ clarifies the ambiguity in the text by adding that Nebuzaradan also gave Jeremiah "hDjürSa". On hDjürSa, see 2 Kgs 25:30 and Jer 52:34, which use the term with reference to a daily allowance or daily rations allotted to Jehoiachin in exile after his release from prison. Prov 15:17 also uses hDjürSa with reference to the contents of a meal.

60 to go there, go.] [:JKEl hD;mDv tRkRlDl ... 123b…wvÎy_aøl …w…n®dwøo◊w And return to Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan NDpDv_NR;b M∂qyIjSa_NRb hDyVlåd◊…g_lRa hDbUv◊w whom the king of Babylon appointed in the [cities]of Judah, h∂d…wh◊y [yérDo]V;b lRbD;b_JKRlRm dyIqVpIh rRvSa and remain with him in the midst of the people. MDoDh JKwøtV;b wø;tIa bEv◊w Or [to wherever is right] in your eyes to go, go. JKEl tRkRlDl ÔKyRnyEoV;b rDvÎ¥yAh_lD;k_lRa wøa And he gave MyIjD;bAf_bår him [provisions] and a gift, tEaVcAm…w [hDjürSa] MyIjD;bAf_bår wøl_NR;tˆ¥yÅw and he released him. :…whEjV;lAv◊yAw

Both accounts contain similar essential elements: the prophet's release from imprisonment, preferential treatment from Babylonian authorities, his ongoing presence

in Jer 39:14 and 40:6), and his association with Gedaliah. For בתך העם) among the people this reason, they are probably best interpreted as variant traditions about Jeremiah's arrival at Mizpah.124 Regardless, by incorporating both traditions side by side, the editors have stressed that the Babylonians treated Jeremiah with deference. b. Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan

Alongside preferential treatment for the prophet himself, the appointment of

123. McKane (Volume II, 1000-1001) translates b…wvÎy_aøl …w…n®dwøo◊w as "before he had given an answer..." and offers the following explanation: "In general the versions were defeated by b…wvÎy_aøl …w…n®dwøo◊w and the main factors which produced a misunderstanding were (a) the assumption that Nebuzaradan's speech is continued with b…wvÎy_aøl …w…n®dwøo◊w and (b) the conviction that b…wvÎy must have the sense 'return.' Thus they do not seem to have entertained the thought that b…wvÎy might mean 'answer' or the like. As a consequence, they have to torture the text in order to achieve the translations which they offer, all of which assume that Nebuzaradan is saying to Jeremiah something like: 'If you are minded to decline my offer to come to Babylon with me, then go to Gedaliah.'"

124. Duhm, Jeremiah, 314; Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 272-274; Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah," 88-89; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 107, n. 2; Carroll, From Chaos, 230; Carroll, Jeremiah, 699-700; Seitz, Theology of Conﬂict, 279-281; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 325-327. Lipschits regards the first version (38:28b; 39:3, 39:14) as closer to the historical events because of its brevity, tight connection with the narrative about Jeremiah's imprisonment prior to the fall of the city, and the specific identification of Babylonian officers in Jer 39[46]:3. He considers the second version to be a popular legend about the prophet. However, he acknowledges that linguistic connections between the two accounts reflect the fact that they have been essentially fused by the editors of Jeremiah. However, for the view that the stories represent a sequence of distinctive historical events in which Jeremiah was initially released from imprisonment in Jerusalem but eventually rounded up with other Judeans and taken to Ramah, see Bright, Jeremiah, 245-246; Thiel, Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion von Jeremia: 26-45; Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knoz, 2008), 430.

61 Gedaliah at Mizpah also serves as a key example of the possibility of elevated status for local elites who supported and promoted Babylonian rule. Throughout the Jeremiah narrative, members of the Shaphan family play a prominent role in helping Jeremiah spread his message and protecting him at several points when his pro-Babylonian prophecies attracts the wrath of the king and his officials:125

• According to Jer 26[33]:24, although Jeremiah and Uriah preach the same

message, only Jeremiah survives because he is under the protection of Ahikam

ben Shaphan.

• According to Jer 29[36]:3, Elasah ben Shaphan and Gemaraiah ben Hilkiah carry

Jeremiah's letter to Babylon, counseling exiles to submit to Babylonian authority

and settle into their new lives in captivity without expecting an immediate return.

• According to Jer 36[43], Baruch reads Jeremiah's first scroll of prophecies against

Judah and Jerusalem in the chamber of the scribe Gemariah ben Shaphan

(36[43]:10-12). When Michaiah ben Gemaraiah ben Shaphan discusses Jeremiah's

prophecies with other Judean officials, the group questions Baruch privately and

instructs him to take Jeremiah into hiding before they report the oracles to the

king. Even after Jehoiakim elects to disregard the record of Jeremiah's oracles, Jer

36[43]:25 includes Gemariah in the list of officials (along with Elnathan ben

Achbor and Delaiah ben Shemaiah) who urge the king not to burn the scroll.

When the Babylonians appoint a new leader from the local population to replace

125. On the Shaphanides, see also Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (2nd ed; Lectures on the History of Religion 9; New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).

62 Zedekiah, they select a member of this very family. Gedaliah ben Ahikam is identified as descendant of Shaphan in MT 39[46]:14 and MT 40[47]:5.126 c. Members of the Mizpah Community

Most importantly, after the 586 B.C.E. deportation,127 the Babylonians and their agents also redistribute property and agricultural products to those who remain in the land and gather around Gedaliah at Mizpah (Jer 40:10-12):128

And, as for me, behold I am dwelling at Mizpah hDÚpVxI;mA;b bEvOy yIn◊nIh yˆnSaÅw to stand before the Chaldeans who will come to us. …wnyElEa …waøbÎy rRvSa Myî;dVcA;kAh yEnVpIl dOmSoAl And as for you, gather wine and summer fruit and oil, NRmRv◊w Xˆyåq◊w NˆyÅy …wpVsIa MR;tAa◊w and put (them) in your vessels MRkyElVkI;b …wmIc◊w And dwell in the [your] cities that you have seized. :MR;tVcApV;t_rRvSa [MRk]yérDoV;b …wbVv…w

And [also] all the Judeans Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lD;k [MAg]◊w who were in Moab and in Ammon and in Edom MwødTaRb…w Nwø;mAo_yEnVbIb…w bDawømV;b_rRvSa

,appear in MT Jer 40:9 (בּן־אהיקם בּן־שׁפן) Additional MT expansions with his full patronymic .126 ΜΤ Jer 40:11, MT Jer 41:2, and MT Jer 43:6. On the MT's tendency to repeat full personal names and titles, see Tov, Literary History of Jeremiah, 227-228 and Janzen, Studies in Jeremiah, 69-86. These expansions may be regarded as expansions of specification.

127. The chronology of Jer 40 is ambiguous: the length of Gedaliah's tenure and the date of his assassination are not identified. By juxtaposing the individual episodes of Jerusalem's fall, Jeremiah's release, and the assembling of the remnant to Gedaliah, the editors of the tradition have implied a close chronological connection between these events. Jer 41:1 reports that Ishmael and his band of conspirators arrived at Mizpah "in the seventh month" without specifying the year, which further implies that the events should be dated to the same year as the fall of Jerusalem, dated to the eleventh year of Zedekiah in Jer 39:2. However, other commentators have rejected the plausibility of confining the return of refugees, redistributing property, and gathering the harvest to such a short window of time. Despite Jer 37:1-43:7* attempts to quell the people's fear of Babylonian reprisal, Ishmael's coup provides a logical explanation for the Babylonian return in 582 BCE, documented only in Jer 52:28-30. Both the 597 and 586 BCE campaigns were punitive measures in response to specific acts of rebellion.

128. See also MT 39:10 and Jeremiah's redemption of his cousin's field in Benjamin in Jer 32:1-14.

63 and who were in all the lands129 twøx∂rSaDh_lDkV;b rRvSaÅw heard that the king of Babylon had given Judah a remnant h∂d…whyIl tyîrEaVv lRbD;b_JKRlRm NAtÎn_yI;k …woVmDv and that he had appointed over them MRhyElSo dyîqVpIh yIk◊w Gedaliah son of Ahikam [son of Shaphan]. :[NDpDv_NR;b] M∂qyIjSa_NR;b …whDyVlåd◊…g_tRa

[And all the Judeans returned …wbUvÎ¥yÅw Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lDk] from all the places where they were driven.]130 [MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm And they came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah at Mizpah, hDtDÚpVxI;mAh …whDyVlåd◊…g_lRa h∂d…wh◊y_X®rRa …waøbÎ¥yÅw and gathered wine and summer fruit in abundance.131 :dOaVm hE;b√rAh XˆyåqÎw NˆyAy …wpVsAaÅ¥yÅw

The nature of the exilic period in Judah has been widely discussed in recent archaeological scholarship. The fierce debate over this period has focused on the extent of decline in the region. Scholars emphasizing decline draw not only the Hebrew Bible's representation a gap in the occupation of the region during the 6th century BCE but also stress the large number of destruction layers in the material record.132 Meanwhile, scholars emphasizing signs of continuity highlight both evidence for ongoing life at key sites in Benjamin as well as the methodological difficulties presented by transition between the Iron Age II and the early Persian Period–namely, the difficulty in detecting rural vs. urban settlements and the imprecision of the ceramic chronology for this

129. G reads oi˚ e˙n pa¿shØ thvØ gh. Janzen (Studies, 208, n.3) assumes that the variant reading is text reflects secondary הארצות while MT's ,הארץ critically significant: G reflects a Hebrew Vorlage with However, McKane (Volume II, 1003) argues that G represents .המקומות development under the influence of the same meaning as MT: "and those (dispersed) through all the surrounding area." Stulman (The Other Text of Jeremiah [Lanham: University Press of America, 1986], 89) also sees G as a rendering of the same essential meaning as MT, translating both as "all the countries." In favor of Stulman's interpretation, note Jer 23:3 and Jer 32:37 / 39:37, which appear to reflect a similar strategy by the Greek translators: twøx∂rSaDh_lD;kIm MDxV;båqVm yIn◊nIh / i˙dou\ e˙gw» suna¿gw aujtou\ß e˙k pa¿shß thvß ghvß. Elsewhere in Jer, twøx∂rSaDh_lDkV;b is rendered as aÓpo\ pasw◊n tw◊n cwrw◊n (Jer 16:15; 23:8).

130. On MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm, see the discussion in ch. 4.

131. G+ "and olive oil" (kai« e¶laion).

132. Ephraim Stern, "The Babylonian Gap," BAR 26/6 (2000): 45-51; Avraham Faust, "Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective," PEQ 135/1 (2003): 37-53.

64 period.133 Yet, in some respects, this polarized debate obscures the fact that both sides do agree that Judah suffered significant decline in the wake of the Babylonian conquest.

Further, although much of the past scholarship on population decline in Judah focused on Babylonian policies (i.e. the number of sites destroyed during their campaigns in Judah and the number of Judeans deported to Mesopotamia), recent studies have stressed a complex web of factors contributing to population decline in warzones, including insecurity, epidemics, refugeeism, and famine.134 In fact, though deportation looms large in biblical tradition, ancient writers also address this broader range of factors

(Ezek 5:12):

One third of you will die of disease, …wt…wmÎy rRb®;dA;b JKyEtIvIlVv or famine will consume (them) in your midst. JKEkwøtVb …wlVkˆy bDo∂rDb…w And one third will fall by the sword around you. JKˆyDtwøbyIbVs …wlVÚpˆy b®rRjA;b tyIvIlVÚvAh◊w And one third I will scatter to every wind, h®rÎzTa Aj…wr_lDkVl tyIvyIlVÚvAh◊w and I will unsheathe the sword after them. :MRhyérSjAa qyîrDa b®rRj◊w

The Jeremiah tradition itself implicitly concedes a similar coalescence of factors when the prophet warns the people that they may attempt to escape warfare, famine, and disease but will ultimately fail when such conditions follow them to Egypt (Jer

42:13-14):

If you are saying, MR;tAa MyîrVmOa_MIa◊w "We will not remain in this land," taøΩzAh X®rDaD;b bEv´n aøl disobeying the voice of Yahweh [your God] :[MRkyEhølTa] hDwh◊y lwøqV;b AoOmVv yI;tVlIbVl

133. Oded Lipschits, "Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the 'Exilic Period': New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an 'Empty Land'," in Interpreting Exile (ed. Brad Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright; SBL: Atlanta, 2011), 57-90.

134. Faust, "Deportation and Demography." See also Stipp, "Concept of the Empty Land," 143-149. As a parallel, Stipp discusses population decline during the Thirty Years' War (for which better statistics are available), contributing factors, and the timeframe for recovery.

65 [saying, "No.] Indeed to the land of Egypt, we will go awøbÎn MˆyårVxIm X®rRa yI;k [aøl rOmaEl] where we will not see battle hDmDjVlIm hRa√rˆn_aøl rRvSa and we will not hear the sound of the horn oDmVvˆn aøl rDpwøv lwøq◊w and we will not be hungry for bread. bDo√rˆn_aøl MRjR;lAl◊w And there we will live." :bEv´n MDv◊w

Jeremiah 40:10-12's depicts this period as one of revived economic prosperity in

Judah, featuring redistribution of property (40:10), flourishing agriculture (40:12), and the gathering of former refugees under Gedaliah's leadership (40:11-12).135 However, this literary representation is somewhat surprising in light of both the material record as well as ANE literary traditions on siege warfare.136

C. Stress on Ongoing Life in the Land of Judah

Finally, the core of Jeremiah's oracle offers a theological justification for remaining in the

regarding the 137(נחם) land. Yahweh himself declares that he has changed his mind judgment that he brought on Judah:

If you will surely dwell in this land, taøΩzAh X®rDaD;b 138…wbVvE;t bwøv_MIa

135. Carroll, From Chaos, 230-232; Carroll, Jeremiah, 703-705; McKane, Volume II, 1002-1003; Lipschits, Fall and Rise. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity.

136. Aren M. Maeir, Oren Ackermann, and Hendrik J. Bruins, "The Ecological Consequences of a Siege: A Marginal Note on Deuteronomy 20:19-20," in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (ed. Seymour Gitin; J. Edward Wright; and J.P. Dessel; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 239-243; Jeremy D. Smoak, "Building Houses and Planting Vineyards: The Early Inner-Biblical Discours on an Ancient Israelite Wartime Curse," JBL 127/1 (2008): 19-35; Jacob L. Wright, "Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 20: 19-20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft," JBL 127/3 (2008): 423-458.

137.For an overview of the examples of Yahweh's "repentance" and further discussion of this in Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New נחם concept, see the excurses on Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 638-679.

should be treated as a by-form of שׁוב .MT reads …wbVvE;t bwøv, and G reads kaqi÷santeß kaqi÷shte .138 ,See Ps 23:6, where yI;tVbAv◊w can only have the meaning "I will dwell." On bwv, bvy, and hbv as by-forms .ישׁב see David Noel Freedman, "The Twenty-Third Psalm," in Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George C. Cameron (ed. C.I. Orlin; Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1976: 162-163. For this reading of Jer 42:10, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 37-52, 132 and McKane, Volume II, 1032.

66 then I will build you up and not tear you down, sOrThRa aøl◊w MRkVtRa yItyInDb…w and I will plant you and not uproot you. vwø;tRa aøl◊w MRkVtRa yI;tVoAfÎn◊w For I have repented of the evil that I did to you. :MRkDl yItyIcDo rRvSa hDo∂rDh_lRa yI;tVmAjˆn yI;k

as a statement that נחם Jeremiah commentators are divided on whether to interpret

Yahweh actually regrets the punishment of Judah139 or only as a statement that Yahweh has relented from punishing Judah because his judgment has been sufficiently carried out.140 G's rendering (aÓnape÷paumai) indicates the latter sense but may reflect an aversion to the concept of divine regret by the LXX translators. However, in either case, the oracle represents the judgment of Judah as a past event that has already ended.

D. Key Themes, Date, and Authorship

The pro-remnant core not only stresses the necessity of submission to Babylon but also provides both practical and theological support for doing so. In light of the destruction and deportations that characterized the 586 BCE campaign, it represents the Babylonians in an unexpectedly positive light, downplaying the conquest of Jerusalem and portraying

Babylonian officials as benevolent. Further, it offers concrete motivation for supporting the Babylonian-appointed administration. Using Jeremiah and Gedaliah as examples, it demonstrates the opportunity for collaborators to enhance their standing within the new

Judean administrative system, and its description of the redistribution of property and agricultural commodities to Gedaliah's supporters highlights the economic benefits for collaborators as well. Finally, it offers theological support for remaining in the land,

139. R.J.R Plant, Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah (LHBOTS 483; New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 155-156.

140. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 230, n. 92; McKane, Volume II, 1033; Bright, Jeremiah, 255; Duhm, Das Buch, 321.

67 explicitly stating that Yahweh has repented of the devastation he brought to Judah.

The pro-remnant core was composed early in Babylonian period (586 BCE-539

BCE), probably soon after 586 BCE. The conviction that acceptance of Babylonian authority is critical for the remnant's restoration crosses the boundaries of the individual episodes. This painstaking effort to portray Judah's conquerors in such a positive manner would have been unnecessary after the empire's fall.141

Two features point to a Judean setting for the composition the pro-remnant core.

First, as already noted, the text repeatedly emphasizes the opportunity for post-586 BCE life in the land. In Jer 42, living in Judah is the sole condition of Yahweh's offer "to build and to plant" the remnant. In light of its insistence that obedience to Yahweh means remaining in Judah, it is difficult to view this text as a product of the Babylonian exile. At the same time, it is even more difficult to view this material as the product of the Judean community in Egypt, since the author's certainty that fleeing to Egypt is a death sentence

(42:15-22) would amount to calling down judgment on his own head. In this context, it offers a justification of land seizures by those who remained in Judah during this period.

141. The specificity of the account of the Gedaliah community stands in contrast to the Jeremiah's later confrontation with anonymous Judeans in Jer 44. The narrator identifies minor characters by name (e.g. the military commanders who accompanied Johanan in Jer 40:8 and 42:2), the precise locations of the events (e.g the arrival of pilgrims from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria at Mizpah in Jer 41:4; the confrontation between Johanan and Ishmael at Gibeon in Jer 40:12; and the assembling of Johanan and his followers at Geruth Chimham to request an oracle in Jer 41:17), and miscellaneous details that have no clear significance for the overall narrative (e.g. the ten day gap between the request for an oracle and Jeremiah's response in Jer 42:7). Commentators have sometimes argued that this level of detail marks the author of the pro- Babylonian core as an eyewitness and participant in these events and that, given his convictions regarding remaining in the land, he must have been among Gedaliah's supporters. See Albertz, Israel in Exile, 7; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 344, n. 269; Stipp, "Concept of the Empty Land," 116-118; Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict.

68 II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRO-GOLAH ADAPTATION AND EXPANSION

A. The Desolation of Judah and the Empty Land Motif

One of the primary characteristics of the pro-golah adaptation of the text is the representation of the land of Judah as desolate. The editors develop the empty land motif in two ways.142 First, in the account of Gedaliah's assassination and the subsequent flight of Johanan and his followers, the identity of the emigrants shifts from a small group based at Mizpah to the mass departure of the entire remnant. In addition to this narrative's implication about the depopulation of the land, in the dialogue between Jeremiah and members of the Egyptian community, the prophet explicitly characterizes the land as uninhabited, referring to it as a "tell" and a "place where no one dwells."

Initially, the group associated with Johanan is quite small. In Jer 41's account of

Ishmael's assassination of Gedaliah, several key details emerge. Ishmael arrives at

Mizpah accompanied by just ten men (Jer 41:1). With their help, he murders not only

Gedaliah but also Babylonian representatives and fellow Judeans present with Gedaliah at the new capital (Jer 41:3). In the wake of these events, Ishmael and his men then kidnap the remaining population of Mizpah with the intention of taking them to Ammon

(Jer 41:10). Thus, in Jer 41, the group assembled near Bethlehem and poised to flee consists solely of those who escaped from Ishmael to join Johanan and his forces (Jer

41:13-14, 16-18). The Ishmael episode, therefore, implies that the group of emigrants is quite small, given that they were overpowered at Mizpah by just eleven men.

However, in the subsequent episode, in which Johanan approaches Jeremiah to

142. On the empty land motif, see e.g. Rom-Shiloni, Exlusive Inclusivity, 239; Stipp, "Concept"; Carroll, From Chaos, 240; Seitz, "Crisis of Interpretation," 94; Pohlmann, Studien.

69 ask for his intercession (Jer 42:1-6), several key phrases represent the group requesting the oracle as much more comprehensive. First, Johanan's request (Jer 42:1) and

Jeremiah's response (Jer 42:8) are for "all the people from least to greatest"

(lwødÎ…g_dAo◊w NOf∂;qIm MDoDh_lDk◊w / kai« pa◊ß oJ lao\ß aÓpo\ mikrouv eºwß mega¿lou). Second, according to Jer

42:2, Johanan petitions Jeremiah on behalf of "the [entire] remnant" (taøΩzAh tyîrEaVÚvAh_[lD;k] / tw◊n kataloi÷pwn tou/twn),143 and Jer 43:5 specifies that "the entire remnant of Judah"

(h∂d…wh◊y tyîrEaVv_lD;k / pa¿ntaß tou\ß kataloi÷pouß Iouda) disobeyed Yahweh and departed for

Egypt. Third, an MT+ picks up on this implication and expands it even further in Jer

43:5. The expression MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa Mˆywø…gAh_lD;kIm ("from all the nations where they were driven") refers back to the Jer 40:11-12 and specifies that the emigrants even contained former expatriates who had previously returned to Judah from neighboring lands to join the

Gedaliah community.144

Further, the final episodes set in Egypt portray the scope of the migrations even more expansively. According to Jer 43:8, the emigrants initially went to Tahpanhes

(Daphnae). However, the superscription preceding Jeremiah's confrontation with Judeans in Jer 44:2 expands his condemnation to a community spread across Egypt –from the eastern Delta (Migdol and Tahpanhes) to the far south (Pathros, i.e. p3-rsy, "The

143. Cf. Jer 40:11 in which tyîrEaVv refers comprehensively to the Judean community left in the land by Nebuzaradan.

144. On the expression MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa Mˆywø…gAh_lD;k, see the discussion and further bibliography in chapter 4.

70 Southland").145 An MT+ also adds a reference to Memphis in Middle Egypt (POnVb).

Alongside this representation of the remnant as an all-encompassing migration, in the dialogue between Jeremiah and the members of the Judean community in Egypt, the oracles explicitly reference the depopulation of the land, repeatedly referring to it as a

"tell" (hD;b√rDj / ἐρῆμος) and a place where "no one dwells" (bEvwøy MRhD;b NyEa◊w / aÓpo\ e˙noi÷kwn):

Jer 44:2 Thus says Yahweh [of Hosts], God of Israel: lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa [twøaDbVx] hDwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k "You yourselves have seen MRtyIa√r MR;tAa all the evil that I brought upon Jerusalem MÊAlDv…wr◊y_lAo yItaEbEh rRvSa hDo∂rDh_lD;k tEa and upon [all] the cities of Judah h∂d…wh◊y yérDo_146[lD;k] lAo◊w Now, behold they are a tell [to this day], [h‰ΩzAh Mwø¥yAh] 147hD;b√rDj MD…nIh◊w and there is no one who lives in them. 148:bEvwøy MRhD;b NyEa◊w

Jer 44:6 MT "And my wrath and my anger poured out yIÚpAa◊w yItDmSj JKA;tI;tÅw and burned against the cities of Judah h∂d…wh◊y yérDoV;b rAoVbI;tÅw and against the streets of Jerusalem. MÊDlDv…wr◊y twøxUjVb…w And they became a tell and a desolation, hDmDmVvIl hD;b√rDjVl hÎnyRyVhI;tÅw as (they are) today." :hRΩzAh Mwø¥yA;k

Jer 44:22b MT "And your land became MRkVx√rAa yIhV;tÅw a tell and a desolation and a curse hDlDlVqIl◊w hD;mAvVl…w hD;b√rDjVl [without inhabitant] [bEvwøy NyEaEm] as (they are) today." :hRΩzAh Mwø¥yAhV;k

145. Note that in both MT and G, Jer 44:15 restricts the dialogue between Jeremiah and Judeans in Egypt to a slightly smaller group: Judeans living in southern Egypt (swørVtApV;b MˆyårVxIm_X®rRaV;b MyIbVvO¥yAh MDoDh_lDk / pa◊ß oJ lao\ß oi˚ kaqh/menoi e˙n ghvØ Ai˙gu/ptwˆ e˙n Paqourh).

146. The addition of lD;k represents the expansionist tendency of MT. It makes the desolation of the land, already included in the Vorlage of G, even more pronounced by clarifying that Yahweh judged all of Judah's cities. On this feature of MT, see Tov, "Literary History."

147. G reads e¶rhmoi, but this rendering is a translation decision without text-critical significance. G translates hD;b√rDj as plural (e¶rhmoi) throughout Jeremiah. See Jer 7:34, 22:5, 32:18, 44:2, 44:6, 44:22, 49:13.

148. G reads aÓpo\ e˙noi÷kwn. See McKane, Volume II, 1070.

71 B. Linking the Judean Community in Egypt with the Condemnation of Judah

In addition to representing Judah as, in effect, uninhabited during the 6th century BCE,

Jer 44 also implicitly promotes the status of the Babylonian golah by linking the judgment of the Egyptian community with the judgment of Judah and Jerusalem.149 In Jer

44's dialogue between the prophet and Judeans in southern Egypt,150 neither party disputes the basic accusation of offerings made to gods other than Yahweh151 or the long history of these practices in Judah.152 Rather, they disagree on their significance. For the

Judean community in Egypt, the neglect of traditional cultic practices gave rise to their current situation (Jer 44:17-19):

Rather, we will surely do hRcSoÅn hOcDo yI;k everything which has gone out of our mouth, …wnyIÚpIm aDxÎy_rRvSa rDb∂;dAh_lD;k_tRa

149. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 237-241.

150. Although the theme of heteropraxis carries through all of Jer 44, the structure of the text is, at points, disjointed. The clearest break is the shift from Jeremiah's speech in Jer 44:1-14, which the superscription addresses to Judeans across Egypt, to the generic the response from "the great assembly" in Jer 44:15-19, in which Judean women reject Jeremiah's theological interpretation with regard to specific cultic practices. McKane (Volume II, 1083-1095) reviews a wide range of theories on the composition and degree of coherence in Jer 44. However, insofar as these theories attempt to distinguish between "authentic" material attributable to Jeremiah/Baruch and later developments, they are not particularly relevant to the discussion above. Rather, it is argued here that although not necessarily a unified composition, Jer 44 as a compilation thoroughly reflects the perspective of the pro-golah editors and advances their agenda. The clearest signs of secondary additions are Jer 44:14 and Jer 44:28, which temper the strong statements about the complete annihilation of the Judean community with the concession that a small number of survivors might return to the land. These statements should probably be interpreted as later glosses that accomodate the historical reality of the persistence of the Jewish community in Egypt.

151. The oracles attributed to Jeremiah are not specific in identifying debated practices. Jer 44:1-14 refers only to burning incense to other gods (rEÚfåq), alongside more general accusations of disregard for Yahweh's prophets and Yahweh's law and statutes. The response of the Judean women in Jer 44:15-19 offers a more nuanced list of specific practices: burning incense (rEÚfåq), pouring out libations (MyIkDs◊n KyE;sAh), and baking cakes (MyˆnÎ…wA;k) for the Queen of Heaven.

152. In Jer 44:9, Jeremiah refers to "the evils of your fathers" (MRkyEtwøbSa twøo∂r_tRa) as a parallel to contemporary cult practice. Jer 44:17 stresses the historical roots of these practices: "just as we did and (just as) our fathers, our kings, and our officials did" (…wnyérDc◊w …wnyEkDlVm …wnyEtObSaÅw …wnVjAnSa …wnyIcDo rRvSaA;k)

72 burning incense to the Queen of Heaven 153MˆyAmDÚvAh tRkRlVmIl rEÚfåqVl and pouring out drink offerings to her, MyIkDs◊n ;hDl_JKyE;sAh◊w just we ourselves did, …wnVjAnSa …wnyIcDo rRvSaA;k and our fathers and our kings and our officials …wnyérDc◊w …wnyEkDlVm …wnyEtObSaÅw in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem. MÊDlDv…wr◊y twøxUjVb…w h∂d…wh◊y yérDoV;b Then we were satisfied with bread MRjRl_oA;bVcI…nÅw and were prosperous MyIbwøf hRyVhI…nÅw and did not see evil.154 :…wnyIa∂r aøl hDo∂r◊w

But, since we refrained …wnVlådDj zDa_NIm…w from burning incense to the Queen of Heaven MˆyAmDÚvAh tRkRlVmIl rEÚfåqVl [and pouring out libations to her,] [MyIkDs◊n ;hDl_JKE;sAh◊w] we have lacked everything, lOk …wn√rAsDj

And indeed we are burning incense to the Queen of Heaven. MˆyAmDÚvAh tRkRlVmIl MyîrVÚfåqVm …wnVjAnSa_yIk◊w

153. On the identification of the Queen of Heaven, see Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992); H. Cohn, "Is the “Queen of Heaven” in Jeremiah the Goddess Anat?" Jewish Bible Quarterly 32.1 (2004): 55-57; Saul Olyan, "Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven." UF 19 (1987): 161-174; W. Rast, "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven," in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. by A.L. Merill and T.W. Overholt; Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1977), 167-180; Lawrence Stager, "In the Queen’s Image," Revista Di Stui Fenici XXVIII (2000): 1, 6-11; Moshe Weinfeld, "The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and its Background," UF 4 (1972): 133-154. The most commonly proposed candidates are Astarte and Ishtar. Many scholars prefer to understand the Queen of Heaven as a syncretistic deity who incorporates aspects of both West Semitic Astarte and East Semitic Ishtar. Ishtar is commonly linked with the heavens. Her Akkadian epithets include "Queen of Heaven and Stars," "Queen of Heaven and Earth," "Lady of Heaven and Earth," and "Ruler of Heaven and Earth." Assyrian texts indicate that burning incense on rooftop altars was a common practice in her cult. Hebrew MyˆnÎ…wA;k is an Akkadian loanword, and offerings to Ishtar commonly include kamanu cakes in Mesopotamian literature. The strongest argument for identification with Astarte is a sixth-century Phoenician inscription (ca 550 BCE), identified as a receipt for payment for various services provided for a festival of Astarte at Kition, Cyprus. On this inscription, see Brian Peckham, "Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence," in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. by P. Miller, P. Hanson, and S. Mcbride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 79-99; J. Healey, "The Kition Tariffs and the Phoenician Cursive Series," BASOR 216 (1974): 53-60; J. Karageorghis, Kypris: The Aphrodite of Cyprus (Nicosia: A.G. Leventis, 2005), 152-153. The celebration required a large staff, including carpenters, masons, singers, priests, bakers, barbers, and scribes along with numerous assistants. Peckham translates Line 10: "for the two bakers who baked the basket of cakes for the Queen." Alongside this inscription, proponents of this argument point to Astarte's association with the Heavens, noting the role of the star in her iconography, the reference to Astarte as "Astarte of the Highest Heavens" in the Eshmunazor inscription (KAI 14), and Sakkunyaton's report (preserved in much later sources) of Astarte finding a falling star while traveling around the world (PE 1.10.31).

throughout Jeremiah. In the רעה and טוב This response plays on the contrast between .154 immediate context, it stands in contrast to Yahweh's declaration in Jer 44:23: AhDbwøfVl aøl◊w hDo∂rVl MRhyElSo déqOv yˆn◊nIh ("I am watching over them for evil and not for good.")

73 Was it without our husbands …wnyEvÎnSa yédSoVlA;bImSh we made cakes for her [in her image]? [hDbIxSoAhVl] 155MyˆnÎ…wA;k ;hDl …wnyIcDo and poured out libations to her? MyIkDs◊n ;hDl JKE;sAhVl…w

However, for Jeremiah, the continuity in these practices is a demonstration that the

Egyptian community will be decimated just as Jerusalem was destroyed (Jer 44:13):

And I will punish those who live in the land of Egypt MˆyårVxIm X®rRaV;b MyIbVvwø¥yAh lAo yI;t√dåqDp…w just as I punished Jerusalem MÊDlDv…wr◊y_lAo yI;t√dåqDÚp rRvSaA;k by the sword and by famine and by disease. :rRb∂;dAb…w bDo∂rD;b b®rRjA;b

By expanding Yahweh's domain beyond the borders of Israel/Judah, the golah editors refute the possibility of refugees finding safe haven even if they enter a new geo-political domain.

C. Denying the Viability of the Judean Community in Egypt

In addition to linking the cultic practices of both communities, Jer 44 predicts comprehensive judgment of the Judean community in Egypt as a parallel to the judgment of Judah:

Jer 44:7 And now, thus says Yahweh, hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k hD;tAo◊w God of Hosts, God of Israel, lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa twøaDbVx yEhølTa Why are you doing great evil to yourselves, MRkEtOvVpÅn_lRa hDlwød◊g hDo∂r MyIcOo MR;tAa hDmDl by cutting yourselves off MRkDl tyîrVkAhVl man and woman, child and infant qEnwøy◊w lElwøo hDÚvIa◊w_vyIa from the midst of Judah h∂d…wh◊y JKwø;tIm

155. MyˆnÎ…wA;k is an Akkadian loanwoard (kamānu) used only here and in a parallel text in Jer 7. Stager ( "In the Queen’s Image," Revista Di Stui Fenici XXVIII [2000]: 1, 6-11) and V. Karageorghis ("Another Mould for Cakes from Cyprus: The Mould and Its Interpretation," Revista Di Stui Fenici XXVIII [2000]: 1, 3-5) highlight several hints of caking baking in the material record, including four terracotta moulds of female figures found on Cyprus, votive statuettes from the Cypro-Archaic period at Kition that depict women offering cakes to a deity, and votive bowls from 5th century BCE Ashkelon inscribed with the word 'gm ("cakes") in Phoenician script. However, none of these examples are linked to a specific deity, and their archaeological contexts are problematic. The Ashkelonian bowls come from the Persian Period dog cemetery, and the Cypriot moulds were not found in normal excavations or in datable contexts.

74 so that no remnant will be left for you? 156:tyîrEaVv MRkDl ryItwøh yI;tVlIbVl

Jer 44:14 And there will be no [fugitive] or survivor dyîrDc◊w [fyIlDÚp] h‰yVhˆy aøl◊w for the remnant of Judah h∂d…wh◊y tyîrEaVvIl who came to sojourn there in the land of Egypt Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRaV;b MDv_r…wgDl MyIaD;bAh to return to the land of Judah h∂d…wh◊y X®rRa b…wvDl157[◊w] where they desire to return [to live]. MDv [tRbRvDl] b…wvDl MDvVpÅn_tRa MyIaVÚcÅnVm hD;mEh_rRvSa Rather they will not return except as fugitives. :MyIfElVÚp_MIa yI;k …wb…wvÎy_aøl yI;k

Jer 44:26-27 Therefore, hear the word of Yahweh, hÎwh◊y_rAb√d …woVmIv NEkDl all Judah who lives in the land of Egypt: Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRaV;b MyIbVvO¥yAh h∂d…wh◊y_lD;k "Behold, I swear by my great name," lwødÎ…gAh yImVvI;b yI;tVoA;bVvˆn yˆn◊nIh says Yahweh, hÎwh◊y rAmDa "my name will no longer be invoked a∂rVqˆn yImVv dwøo h‰yVhˆy_MIa by the mouth of any [man] of Judah h∂d…wh◊y [vyIa]_lD;k yIpV;b saying, 'As Yahweh lives,' hIwh◊y yDnOdSa_yAj rEmOa in all the land of Egypt. :Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRa_lDkV;b

Behold, I am watching over them for evil and for not good, hDbwøfVl aøl◊w hDo∂rVl MRhyElSo déqOv yˆn◊nIh and every man of Judah in the land of Egypt will perish MˆyårVxIm_X®rRaV;b rRvSa h∂d…wh◊y vyIa_lDk …w;mAt◊w by sword and by famine bDo∂rDb…w b®rRjA;b until they are completely destroyed." :MDtwølV;k_dAo

D. Key Themes, Date, and Authorship

Several critical details point to an exilic date for the pro-golah expansion and adaptation of Jer 37-44. First, the land is characterized as still desolate to the present day (hRΩzAh Mwø¥yA;k),158 and there is no indication that a return from Babylon has already taken place. Second, the sole historical referent (aside from the fall of Judah) is an allusion to the downfall of

Apries (ca. 570 BCE) in Jer 44:30, and there is no indication that the Persians are in view

156.G reads pro\ß to\ mh\ kataleifqhvnai uJmw◊n mhde÷na.

157. G does not include reads touv e˙pistre÷yai ei˙ß ghvn Iouda but does not include kai.

158. Jer 44:2 MT+; Jer 44:6 MT and G; Jer 44:22 MT and G.

75 yet. However, even in the case of a exilic redaction, both the stress on the desolation of

Judah and the condemnation of Egyptian community may well have resonated with returnees in the Persian Period seeking to denigrate those already occupying the land and to dismiss their claims of ownership of the land.159 In light of their depiction of the land of Judah as uninhabited and the land of Egypt as awaiting Yahweh's judgment, these editors should be located not among the Judean remnant but rather among the members of the Babylonian golah.

III. JER 37-44 VS 2 KGS 25

In addition to Jer 37-44, Dtr2 provides an account of the same period in 2 Kgs 25.160

These narratives outline the same basic sequence of events: the final siege of Jerusalem

(Jer 37-38, 39:1; 2 Kgs 25:1-3), the conquest of the city (Jer 39:2-8; 2 Kgs 25:4-10,

13-17, 18-21), the exile of many of its inhabitants (Jer 39:11-12 MT; 2 Kgs 25:11-12), the shift to a new center at Mizpah under the leadership of Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:22-24; Jer

40:1-6, 7-12), the assassination of Gedaliah by a member of the royal family (2 Kgs

25:25; Jer 41:1-15), and flight to Egypt by members of the remnant (2 Kgs 25:26; Jer

41:16-18; Jer 42; Jer 43:1-7; Jer 44). Further, at several points, the two narratives include common text as well, indicating not only a thematic relationship but also a literary one.

159. Although she does not specifically deal with Jer 37-44, see Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 244-252 on the re-reading of pre-exilic and exilic Jeremianic texts in the Persian Period.

160. On the double redaction of DtrH, see Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (ed. by Frank M. Cross; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274-290. Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt," 167-192; Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronimistic History (JSOTSupp 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982); idem, "The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case Is Still Compelling," JSOT 29/3 (2005): 319-337; Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (HSM 52-53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

76 However, despite these similarities, there are also substantial differences between the representations of this period in Dtr2 and the pro-remnant and pro-golah redactions of Jer

37-44, particularly with regard to flight to Egypt and the Egyptian Judean community.

The analysis that follows begins by assessing the literary relationship between the two texts, arguing that the evidence points to common source material. It then argues that the editors of DtrH and the editors of the Jeremiah tradition developed this source material in distinctive ways and that even themes common to both accounts appear in muted form at best in 2 Kgs 25. Thus, 2 Kgs 25 and Jeremiah represent distinctive

Deuteronomistic perspectives on these events.

A. Shared Source Material

The shared text of 2 Kgs and Jer relates to two separate events in the sequence: the fall of

Jerusalem and the governorship of Gedaliah. In the first case, 2 Kgs and Jer (MT and G) share a brief notice of the date of Jerusalem's fall and the names of the Babylonian officials present in the city.161 In the second, 2 Kgs and Jer (MT and G) also include information regarding Judean military leaders assembled to Gedaliah at Mizpah, his appeal to these parties to submit to Babylon, and his subsequent assassination. However,

161. See the discussion above regarding MT Jer 39:4-13.

77 the two traditions incorporate this shared text (probably drawn from a common source)162 into distinctive representations of both sets of events, with 2 Kgs 25 providing a fuller account of the conquest of Jerusalem and Jer 37-44 offering a more developed picture of the Gedaliah community.

Table 1: Material Shared by 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 40-41 2 Kgs 25:1,2,3a Jer 39:1-2 (MT and G) 2 Kgs 25:4-7 Jer 39:4-7 (MT+) 2 Kgs 25:9b-12 Jer 39:8-10 (MT+) 2 Kgs 25:23-24 Jer 40:7-9 2 Kgs 25:25 Jer 41:1a,2b,3

B. Representations of the Remnant's Relationship with Babylon and Life in the Land

As outlined above, in the core stage of its development, the Jeremiah narrative extensively develops an unexpectedly positive representation of the Babylonians and the opportunity to thrive in the land as their vassal even after the fall of Jerusalem and the

162. On the common source, see Wanke, Untersuchungen, 114-116; Carroll, From Chaos, 230; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 326; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 339-344. Both Wanke and Lipschits (Fall and Rise, 340-341, n. 259) argue that 2 Kgs best preserves the text of the original source based on linguistic analysis of Gedaliah's oath. For the view that Jer borrows from 2 Kgs, see Pohlmann, Studien, 110-111; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia: 26–45, 54-55, n. 12 and 61. Note also McKane, Volume II, 995-996, though McKane discusses only text critical evidence for the transmission of the shared text rather than the priority of the original sources. Although the view that 2 Kgs abridges text original to Jeremiah is no longer common, see Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 74; Rudolph, Jeremiah, 213; and Seitz, Theology of Conﬂict, 198-200; 274, n. 190. For further references to scholars who held this position, see Christopher Begg, "The Interpretation of the Gedaliah Episode (2 Kgs 25, 22-26) in Context," Antonianum 62 (1987) 4 n. 4 and Seitz, Theology of Conﬂict, 199, n. 205.

78 assassination of Gedaliah.163 In comparison, 2 Kgs 25 more heavily stresses the severity of the Babylonian conquest and offers a much less optimistic view of the Gedaliah community.

It was argued above that G preserves the earliest version of Jer 39, which notes the conquest of Jerusalem but contains no substantive description of the destruction of the city. However, even if MT Jer 39:4-13 is regarded as original to this context (and lost in

G due to haplography), there are significant differences between the accounts of MT Jer

39:4-13 and 2 Kgs 25, despite that fact that both share the same basic components (the conquest of Jerusalem, the punishment of Zedekiah and his officials, and deportation).

2 Kgs 25 includes greater emphasis on Babylonian brutality in several key ways.

First, 2 Kgs 25:8-17 provides more specific detail regarding the destruction of

Jerusalem. MT Jer 39:8 limits these events to a single verse, noting only that the

Babylonians burned the palace and residential areas (MDoDh tyE;b_tRa◊w) and pulled down the city's fortification walls. However, 2 Kgs 25:9-10 not only notes the destruction of the palace, the residential areas, and the city walls but also explicitly states that the

Babylonians burned Yahweh's temple. A MT+ also specifically highlights the destruction of the homes of elites:

Jer 39:8 2 Kgs 25:9 Jer 52:13 --- hDwh◊y_tyE;b_tRa hDwh◊y_tyE;b_tRa --- to\n oi•kon kuri÷ou to\n oi•kon kuri÷ou JKRlR;mAh tyE;b_tRa◊w JKRlR;mAh tyE;b_tRa◊w JKRlR;mAh tyE;b_tRa◊w --- kai« to\n oi•kon touv basile÷wß kai« to\n oi•kon touv basile÷wß

163. The representation of the Babylonians as instruments of Yahweh's judgment has precedents in biblical prophecy: Iron Age prophetic texts from First Isaiah also depict Assyria as an instrument of Yahweh's divine wrath (e.g. espeically Isa 10). However, even First Isaiah never portrays the Assyrians as instruments of divine benevolence.

79 MDoDh tyE;b_tRa◊w MÊAlDv…wr◊y yE;tD;b_lD;k tEa◊w MÊAlDv…wr◊y yE;tD;b_lD;k tEa◊w --- kai« pa¿ntaß tou\ß oi¶kouß Ierousalhm kai« pa¿saß ta»ß oi˙ki÷aß thvß po/lewß --- [lwødÎ…g] tyE;b_lD;k_tRa◊w lwødÎ…gAh tyE;b_lD;k_tRa◊w --- kai« pa◊n oi•kon kai« pa◊san oi˙ki÷an mega¿lhn MÊAlDv…wr◊y twømOj_tRa◊w byIbDs MÊAlDv…wr◊y tOmwøj_tRa◊w byIbDs MÊAlDv…wr◊y twømOj_lD;k_tRa◊w ------pa◊n tei√coß Ierousalhm ku/klwˆ

Second, while MT Jer 39 lacks any reference to the Babylonian destruction of the

Jerusalem temple, 2 Kgs notes the burning of the temple and describes its desecration in detail. According 2 Kgs 25:13-17, the Babylonians broke sacred objects (including implements used in temple services and ornamentation), and they carried off the raw gold, silver, and bronze as plunder.

Third, 2 Kgs 25 includes a more extended account of the execution of Judean officials at Riblah. MT Jer 39:6 notes that Zedekiah witnessed the execution of both his sons and Judean officials (h∂d…wh◊y yérOj_lD;k). 2 Kgs 25:18-21a provides a much more detailed accounting of those executed. These individuals include not only military officials

(hDmDjVlI;mAh yEv◊nAa_lAo dyîqDp a…wh_rRv≈a dDjRa syîrDs; aI;bVxA;mAh aDbD…xAh rAc rEpO;sAh) and members of the royal council (JKRlR;mAh_yEnVp yEaørEm MyIvÎnSa hDÚvImSjÅw), but also the sixty of the "people of the land" (X®rDaDh MAo), the most prominent members of the priesthood (hRnVvIm NEhO;k …whDy◊nApVx_tRa◊w vaørDh NEhO;k hÎy∂rVc_tRa), and temple guards (PA;sAh yérVmOv tRvølVv_tRa◊w).

Further, though 2 Kgs 25:24 and Jer 40:9 share Gedaliah's call for Judean military commanders to submit to Babylonian rule over the land, the context of Gedaliah's words in 2 Kgs 25 significantly alters their meaning. In Jer 40:7-12, Gedaliah's assurances to the people are accompanied by concrete evidence of the prosperity possible under the

Babylonians. He sanctions the redistribution of both property and agricultural products to those who assemble at Mizpah to support his new administration. In 2 Kgs 25, there is no

80 mention of such measures. Rather, in the abbreviated narrative of DtrH, Gedaliah's words are immediately followed by his assassination at the hands of Ishmael (2 Kgs 25:23-26):

And Gedaliah swore to them and to their men, MRhyEv◊nAaVl…w …whÎyVlåd◊…g MRhDl oAbDÚvˆ¥yÅw and he said to them: MRhDl rRmaø¥yÅw "Don't be afraid of serving the Chaldeans. Myî;dVcA;kAh yédVbAoEm …wa√ryI;t_lAa Dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon lRbD;b JKRlRm_tRa …wdVbIo◊w X®rDaDb …wbVv so that it might be well with you. :MRkDl bAfˆy◊w

And in the seventh month yIoyIbVÚvAh v®dOjA;b yIh◊yÅw Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elisama oDmDvyIlTa_NR;b hÎy◊nAt◊n_NR;b laEoDmVvˆy aD;b of the seed of kingship came, hDk…wlV;mAh oårRΩzIm and ten men with him. wø;tIa MyIvÎnSa h∂rDcSoÅw And they struck Gedaliah, and he died. tOmÎ¥yÅw …whDyVlåd◊…g_tRa …w;kÅ¥yÅw And (they struck) the Judeans and Chaldeans Myî;dVcA;kAh_tRa◊w Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_tRa◊w who were with him at Mizpah. :hDÚpVxI;mA;b wø;tIa …wyDh_rRvSa

And all the people from least to greatest arose lwødÎ…g_dAo◊w NOf∂;qIm MDoDh_lDk …wmüqÎ¥yÅw and the commanders of the forces, MyIlÎySjAh yérDc◊w and they went to Egypt Mˆy∂rVxIm …waøbÎ¥yÅw because they feared the Chaldeans :Myî;dVcAk yEnVÚpIm …wa√rÎy yI;k

C. Representations of Flight to Egypt

Thus, 2 Kgs 25 offers no further assurance from Jeremiah that submission to Babylon is still the best course of action and no clarification regarding Yahweh's position on ongoing settlement in the land. Rather, flight to Egypt in anticipation of Babylonian reprisal appears as a natural next step in this sequence of events. Further, while the Jeremiah tradition represents Egypt as a place of war, famine, and disease (Jer 42:17), 2 Kgs 25 contains no negative characterizations of Egypt and no explicit statement that the remnant disobeyed Yahweh by fleeing.

Friedman argues that Dtr2's critique of this course of events is accomplished through the structure of the exilic DtrH. He characterizes disdain for Egypt as one of the

81 defining views of both stages of the double-redaction of the Deuteronomistic History.164

Alongside addressing regular political and military interactions with Egypt, Dtr1 stresses bondage in Egypt and the Exodus as the foundation for the entire Deuteronomic program.165 Thus, for example, the Exodus serves as the premise of the Decalogue in

Deut 5:6, and its Sabbath commandment relates back, not to P's seven day creation, but rather to the experience of slavery in Egypt. Throughout the Deuteronomic code, the

Exodus is used as a formulaic motivation to obey Deuteronomic commandments. In the culmination of Dtr1, the Passover, which is rooted in the memory of the Exodus, plays a critical role in the enactment of Josiah's reforms. Ultimately, for Friedman, this perspective serves the larger interests of Dtr2, who frames the national history of Israel in light of its relationship to Egypt, using it as an inclusio for the entire work:

However, in this regard, if 2 Kgs 25 critiques migration to Egypt at all, it does so in much more subtle and much less concrete terms than Jer 42.

164. Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt," 190-191: "In any case, the concern with Egypt which becomes critical in the second edition of the Deuteronomistic history is another example of the way in which the concerns of the Josianic edition served the latter version. Egypt is a regular and fundamental interest of Dtr1. Beside the fact that Egypt is regularly a political and military issue through the course of history, the experience of Egyptian bondage and Exodus are ever a temporal and thematic focus of the historian and his sources...Egypt is plainly fundamental to the perspective of Dtr1; and so, in the full Dtr2 edition, Egypt because a constant and ominous presence, the setting of the last and worst of the Deuteronomic curses. When that curse is realized in the final verses of the Deuteronomistic history - and suddenly, and without referring back to Deuteronomy 28 blatantly - it is as powerful and ironic an ending as in any book of the Bible." For this view, see also Begg, "Interpretation of the Gedaliah," 7.

165. See Deut 4:45ff.; 6:12; 8:14; 9:12; 13:6, 11; 23:5; 24:9; 25:17; Judg 2:12; 19:30; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kgs 8:51; 2 Kgs 17:7). Friedman stresses that many of these references to Egypt and the Exodus are "gratuitous" to their immediate contexts in DtrH.

166. Friedman, "From Egypt," 191.

82 D. Representations of Exilic Judean Communities

In the core stage of its development, Jer 37-44 stresses the possibility and, indeed, the necessity of ongoing life in the land of Judah. However, this perspective is absent from 2

Kgs. Like the golah redaction of Jer 37-44, 2 Kgs 25 does imply a mass migration to

Egypt. According to vs. 26, the refugees included not only Judah's military commanders but also "all the people, from least to greatest" (lwødÎ…g_dAo◊w NOf∂;qIm MDoDh_lDk). Further, after this migration, both narratives shift their focus away from the land: Jeremiah moves on to the condemnation of the Egyptian Judean community; 2 Kgs ends with a more positive note of hope to the exilic community in Babylon. In both cases, the narratives give the impression that migration to Egypt marked the end of the history of the Judahite remnant in the land itself.

However, the representation of the life of the nascent Jewish community in Egypt provides the strongest contrast between the narratives of Jeremiah and DtrH. In the secondary stage of its development, Jer 37-44 follows the account of flight to Egypt with an extended polemic against this community and predictions of its doom (Jer 44). This perspective is entirely absent from DtrH. Maintaining DtrH's focus on life in the land, 2

Kgs 25 offers not only no commentary on the decision to flee to Egypt but also no evaluation of the prospects of refugees after they arrived.167

Finally, in contrast to Jer 37-44, the final episode in DtrH (2 Kgs 25:27-30) offers a brief notice related to the Babylonian golah, recording the release of Jehoiachin from imprisonment during the reign of Amel-Marduk and the provision of daily rations for him

167. See discussion of the language of this polemic in Ch. 4

83 in exile.168 The significance of this event for the theology of DtrH has been fiercely debated, with opposing ends of the spectrum represented by Noth and von Rad respectively. On the one hand, Noth, who views DtrH as a unified work designed to explain and justify the exile, assigns it no larger theological significance in the narrative arc of the historian. Rather, he interprets it merely as a factual report presenting the last information available to Dtr.169 In contrast, von Rad considers it an attempt to open the door to the possibility of restoration, indicating that the dynastic promise of 2 Sam 7 for the house of David was still in force and renewal could be anticipated.170

In addition to his release from prison, the text outlines several further positive developments for Jehoiachin. According to 2 Kgs 25:28-29, Amel-Marduk elevated his status above that of the other vassal kings at the court. In addition, Jehoiachin also dined at the royal table and received an allowance for his daily needs. The significance of the expression twøbOf wø;tIa rE;båd◊yÅw is debated. Parallels from Sefire, Amarna, and Mari suggest it is a technical term in the context of ancient Near Eastern treaties with the connotation of

168. For the Akkadian tablets documenting the rations Jehoiachin received in exile, see E. Weidner, "Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten," in Mélanges Syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30; Paris: Geuthner, 1939), 923-935.

169. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 98. Cf. Cross (Canaanite Myth, 277) whose double-redaction model allows for exilic hope of restoration but nevertheless downplays the significance of Jehoiachin's release for such hopes: "We must confess that Noth has the better of the argument when it comes to the interpretation of 2 Kings 25:27-30. That Jehoiachin was released from prison and lived off the bounty of the Babylonian crown–still in exile for the remainder of his days–is a thin thread upon which to hang the expectation of the fulfillment of the promises to David."

170. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomium Studien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947), 63-64; Old Testament Theology (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1962), 334-347.

84 good relations/friendship.171 Possible examples of this technical usage in biblical texts include Deut 23:7, 1 Kgs 12:7; 1 Sam 25:30; 2 Sam 2:6; 2 Sam 7:28; Hos 3:5; Hos 8:3;

Jer 33:9,14; and 1 Chron 24:16.172

However, if as Levenson argues, the release of Jehoiachin represents "dramatic reversal" of Babylon's treatment of the Davidic monarchy,173 the text itself limits its impact. As many more pessimistic commentators have noted, its focus is exclusively on personal benefits to Jehoiachin himself with no reference to the extension of such benefits to members of the Babylonian golah. Most significantly, if the final words of

DtrH (wD¥yAj yEm◊y lO;k, "all the days of his life") indicate that Jehoiachin was already dead at the time of writing, they imply that the events described had little if any lasting impact on the fate of the exilic community or the Davidic dynasty. It is unclear, therefore, whether this addition to DtrH can be considered any kind of statement regarding the prospects of the

171. For the use of ṭbt' as "friendship, good relationship" in the Sefire treaty as well as discussion of similar language in the Amarna letters (ṭābūta dabābu), see W.L. Moran, "A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas," JNES 22/3 (1963), 173-176; Jon D. Levenson, "The Last Four Verses in Kings," JBL 103/3 (1984): 353-361; and J.A. Knudtzon, Die el-Amarna Tafeln (Vol. 2; Leipzig: J.C Hinrichs), 84-85, 88-89.

172. On the use of this expression in the context of covenant terminology in the Hebrew Bible, see Delbert Hillers, "A Note on Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament," BASOR 176 (1964): 46-47; A. Malamat, "Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy," BA 28 (1965): 64; Michael Fox, "Ṭôbas Covenant Terminology," BASOR 209 (1973): 41-42. For counterarguments, see Christopher Begg, "The Significance of Jehoiachin's Release," JSOT 36 (1986): 49-56. Begg maintains that the expression is not exclusive to covenant language, citing Jer 12:6 as a case in which it could mean merely "kind words."

173. Levenson, "Last Four Verses," 357-358: "Evil-Merodach's exaltation of Jehoachin was a dramatic reversal of Nebuchadnezzar's replacement of the latter by his uncle Mattaniah (Zedekiah) thirty- seven years earlier (2 Kgs 24:17), and, more important, it signified a new openness to the Davidic claim upon the Land from which Babylonia would seem to have withdrawn recognition with the appointment of Gedaliah after Zedekiah's fatal rebellion (2 Kgs 25:22). Whether Evil-Merodach intended ultimately to send Jehoiachin or one of his offspring back to Judah, as Cyrus was to send Shesh-bazzar, probably his son (Ezra 1:7-11; 1 Chr 3:18), is impossible to say on the basis of available data. It is likely, however, that Jehoiachin's exaltation awakened hopes of restoration among his people, both in exile and in Judah."

85 Babylonian golah community. Even if it offers a positive assessment about the community's status, it is muted at best.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

A. Primary Characteristics of the Redaction Stages of Jer 37-44

This chapter locates Jeremiah's polemic against flight to Egypt in its literary context, Jer

37-44, a narrative block that offers a sustained, coherent representation of the period from the siege of Jerusalem through the aftermath of Gedaliah's assassination. Part one outlines the redaction history of Jer 37-44, identifying two distinctive redaction stages within the exilic period: an early exilic pro-land core and a late exilic pro-golah adaptation and expansion. Part two compares these redaction stages with Dtr2 's account in 2 Kgs 25.

Despite considerable overlap in narrative context and content, all three accounts offer distinctive perspectives on these events and on the issue of flight to Egypt in particular.

The pro-remnant core stresses the necessity of submission to Babylon in the land of Judah because its military success has been decreed by Yahweh himself (Jer 37:9-10;

37:17; 38:3; 38:17-18), and it offers concrete motivations for such political allegiance. It deliberately downplays the severity of conquest itself, and both MT and G avoid any discussion of the desecration of the temple. It outlines practical benefits for those who supported Babylon, including elevated status for collaborators such as Jeremiah (Jer

39:12; 40:1-6) and Gedaliah (Jer 40:5; 40:9-10), as well as economic benefits including property and agricultural commodities for those who supported Gedaliah's new administration at Mizpah (Jer 40:7-12). Significantly, it also offers a theological basis for of the (נחם) immediate restoration in the land, explicitly stating that Yahweh has repented

86 calamity he brought in Judah (Jer 42:10). In light of its stress on the remaining in the land as one of the primary measures of obedience to Yahweh, it is argued that the editors of this stage must have been located on Judah. In this context, flight to Egypt undermines the stability of the new administrative system, and the pro-remnant core focuses on countering positive perceptions of Egypt (Jer 42:16-17).

However, a later adaptation and expansion of this core stage shifts its meaning, representing the Gedaliah community as a lost opportunity for restoration, implicitly claiming exclusive status for the Babylonian golah as the only remaining people of

Yahweh. The pro-golah editors accomplish this transformation by the addition of several key elements. By representing the migration to Egypt as comprehensive and by depicting the land of Judah as desolate, they dismiss those who remained in the land of Judah throughout the sixth century BCE. Further, they also shift the focus of the explanation for

Jerusalem's fall from political allegiance to cult practices (Jer 44). By linking the cultic practice of the Egyptian Judean community with the practices that led to Jerusalem's judgment and destruction, they anticipate the disintegration and decimation of the Judean

Egyptian community on the same scale as the conquest of Jerusalem as well as the total rejection of this community by Yahweh (Jer 44:26). In this way, the pro-golah editors imply exclusive status for the Babylonian exiles as the only remaining people of Yahweh.

Because of their thoroughly negative evaluation of fellow Judeans in both the land itself as well as in Egypt, it is argued that the editors of this stage must have been located among the members of the Babylonian golah. Given the disconnect between the anticipation of the annihilation of the Judean community in Egypt and the historical

87 evidence from the Persian Period for a thriving community at Elephantine in contact with not only Persian officials in Yehud but also the Jerusalem priests, it is further argued that the pro-golah expansion originated in the relatively early stages of the Egyptian Judean community's growth during the mid-to-late 6th century BCE. However, its depiction of the land as desolate during the 6th century BCE likely also resonated with Persian Period returnees, allowing them to dismiss the land claims of those who remained in the land of

Judah throughout the Babylonian Period.

B. Analysis of 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 37-44

Part 2 analyzes 2 Kgs 25 as part of the exilic redaction of DtrH (Dtr2), comparing it to both the pro-remnant core and the pro-golah expansion of Jer 37-44. In the case of the pro-land core, it argues that, like Jer 37-44, 2 Kgs does include some positive representations of the Babylonians. However, it does not develop this theme to same degree as Jer 37-44 does. The conviction that life in the land is still possible is not directly attributed to Yahweh. It appears only in the words of Gedaliah, and it may be partially attributed to shared source material. Further, the impact of this quote is muted in

DtrH by the inclusion of an account of the Babylonian desecration of the Jerusalem temple. In addition to these differences in the portrayal of the Babylonian conquerors, the analysis above further notes that DtrH offers no open hostility toward to flight to Egypt.

If 2 Kgs advances a negative view of the decision to emigrate, it does so in extremely subtle terms, framing Israel's national history as beginning with the Exodus and ending not with the destruction of Jerusalem but rather with the descent of Judeans to Egypt. In this way, it is conceivable that Dtr2 intended to use the events of 2 Kgs 25:26 an inclusio

88 for the entire DtrH narrative, effectively negating the foundational event in Israel's national history. If Friedman is correct, this editorial decision by Dtr2 was subverted by the later addition of Jehoiachin's release.

In the case of the pro-golah redaction, this analysis argues that both Dtr2 and Jer

37-44 may share the empty land motif. Although this motif is more pronounced in Jer

37-44, it is also implied by Dtr2. It is possible that the addition of a notice of Jehoiachin's release indicates hopes of restoration for the Babylonian exiles and a persisting positive perception of the Davidic dynasty. However, Dtr2 completely lacks the Jeremiah tradition's open hostility toward the Judean community in Egypt.

C. Implications

This analysis has two important implications for the interpretation of the Jeremianic prohibition against flight to Egypt. First, from a literary perspective, it demonstrates that there are marked differences between these two narratives of the same sequence of events and that the representation of flight to Egypt and the Egyptian Judean community is one of the primary differences. If Jeremiah's prohibition is to be characterized as

Deuteronomistic, it attests to the diversity of the Deuteronomistic school(s). Second, from a historical perspective, the sequence of development in Jer 37-44 necessitates considering the practical implications of Jeremiah's prohibition in both stages of the text's growth. In this regard, it is best evaluated in light of the broader trajectory of the relationship between Judah and Egypt from the late Iron Age II through the exilic period and into the Persian Period.

89 CHAPTER 4: LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF JER 37-44

In re-evaluating the correlation between the anti-Egyptian perspective of Jer 37-44 and

Deuteronomistic influences on the Jeremiah tradition, this study has distinguished between two separate components of this issue: (1) the relationship between Jer 37-44 and DtrH's narrative of this period in 2 Kgs 25 and (2) the use of Dtr diction in Jer 37-44.

Chapter 3 dealt with the first of those issues, establishing a two-stage redaction framework: an early exilic pro-land core and a later pro-golah adaptation and expansion of this material. It argued that, in both cases, there are marked differences between Jer

37-44's representation of the period from the siege of Jerusalem through Gedaliah's tenure at Mizpah and DtrH's narration of these events in 2 Kgs 25, particularly regarding flight to Egypt and the viability of Judean communities in Egypt.

However, alongside thematic comparisons with DtrH, the presence or absence of

Dtr diction remains an important aspect of any discussion of Deuteronomistic roles in the development of Jeremiah. Three important studies have attempted to identify and characterize the vocabulary of the Deuteronomists.174 Weinfeld's foundational catalogue of Dtr phraseology primarily offers examples from the prose sermons but also includes some examples from the historical narrative (traditionally attributed to Source B).175

Stulman's research on the language of the Jeremianic prose sermons provides a more

174. In addition, note that Hyatt ("Deuteronomic Edition") also offers a list of Dtr terminology but includes little discussion of the criteria used to develop it. For the alternative view, note Holladay and Bright, who maintain that Dtr diction is not unique to the Deuteronomistic scribal school but rather reflects the vocabulary and idioms of the late Iron Age in general.

175. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1972).

90 comprehensive and systematic catalogue of Dtr phrases in the prose sermons in light of text critical work on Jeremiah.176 In his reassessment of the distinction between the prose sermons and the prose narrative in Jeremiah, Williams draws on Stulman's catalogue to evaluate the relative quantity of traditional Dtr language in Jeremianic narrative (i.e. the material traditionally attributed to Source B).177

It is clear that, although analysis of Jeremiah's use of this clichéd language has focused on the prose sermons (traditional Source C), the third person prose narrative material also draws on this rhetoric. This chapter is concerned not with quantity of Dtr diction in Jer 37-44 but rather how this language functions in the Jeremianic context. For this reason, the analysis draws not only on the terminology from the catalogues of

Weinfeld and Stulman but also considers the role of allusions to Deuteronomy in advancing the ideological perspectives of the editors. It argues that both stages of the text draw on the language of Deuteronomy and DtrH but do so in different ways. The pro- remnant core reshapes the language of Deuteronomy and applies it in new contexts that do not align well with Deuteronomy itself. Through its allusions to Deuteronomy and its use of Deuteronomic clichés, the pro-remnant core represents obedience to Yahweh exclusively in terms of political allegiance. It identifies the deportees as those subject to the Deuteronomic curses. However, it identifies the members of the 586 BCE remnant not with those subject to Deuteronomic curses but rather as those who enjoy the benefits

176. Louis Stulman, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research (SBLDS 83; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982).

177. Williams, "An Investigation," 193-210.

91 of conquerors and those restored to the land by Yahweh. In contrast, the pro-golah expansion uses Dtr rhetoric as a means of claiming special status for the Babylonian exiles by representing the land of Judah as empty during the 6th century BCE and linking the past judgment of Judah and the predicted future judgment of the Egyptian Judean community. Through its use of Dtr diction, the pro-golah expansion shifts the rhetoric away from the political focus of the pro-remnant core to condemn Judah and those who fled solely on cultic grounds, aligning in many respects with the use of this language in

DtrH.

I. DTR DICTION AND ALLUSIONS TO DEUTERONOMY

A. Jer 38:1-6

1. Literary Context and Relationship between Jer 38:2 and Jer 21:9

Jer 38:1-6 describes events surrounding Jeremiah's imprisonment by Judean officials. Jer

38:2 purportedly quotes the prophet's public message during the final siege of Jerusalem, in which he urges inhabitants of the city to surrender. In response, Judean officials express concern that Jeremiah's message is undermining Judah's national interests by weakening the will of Jerusalemites to withstand the siege.

Jeremiah's oracle presents possible responses to the siege in the starkest possible terms: a choice between life and death. The editors have incorporated the same oracle

92 into the tradition in two different places: Jer 21:9 and 38:2:178

Jer 21:9 Jer 38:2 t…wmÎy taøΩzAh ryIoD;b bEvO¥yAh t…wmÎy taøΩzAh ryIoD;b bEvO¥yAh oJ kaqh/menoß e˙n thvØ po/lei tau/thØ aÓpoqanei√tai oJ katoikw◊n e˙n thvØ po/lei tau/thØ aÓpoqanei√tai He who remains in this city will be killed He who remains in this city will be killed

179[rRb∂;dAb…w] bDo∂rDb…w b®rRjA;b [rRb∂;dAb…w] bDo∂rD;b b®rRjA;b e˙n macai÷raˆ kai« e˙n limw◊ˆ e˙n rJomfai÷aˆ kai« e˙n limw◊ˆ by sword, by famine, [and by disease], by sword, by famine, [and by disease],

180lApÎn◊w 181aExwø¥yAh◊w aExO¥yAh◊w kai« oJ e˙kporeuo/menoß proscwrhvsai kai« oJ e˙kporeuo/menoß but he who goes out and deserts but he who goes out

178. Thiel (Die deuteronomistiche Redaktion von Jeremiah 26-45, 54) and Lundbom (Jeremiah 37-52, 66) argues that the same oracle has been used by the editors of the tradition in two contexts, without identifying one as primary and the other as secondary. Duhm's argument that Jer 21:8-10 is primary because the oracle fits the context of Jer 21:8-10 but not the context of Jer 38:2 is not compelling. From a text-critical standpoint, the two versions have clearly influenced one another during the transmission process: (1) a MT+ in Jer 38:1 adds hD¥yI;kVlAm_NR;b r…wjVvAp to the list of officials who overheard Jeremiah's public message. Although this figure is absent from G in Jer 38[45]:1, he is known from both MT and G in Jer 21:1. (2) The addition of lApÎn◊w /proscwrhvsai (and deserts) in Jer 21:9 is slightly redundant in combination with aExwø¥yAh◊w ("he who goes out," i.e. surrenders) and can be regarded as a secondary in Jer 38. (On this, see Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36 [AB נפל expansion drawing on the references to 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004], 105-106; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, _; Carroll, Jeremiah, 679). (3) The final use of yDjÎw/kai« zh/setai in MT Jer 38:2 is represented by G in Jer 21:9 and a few Hebrew MSS in Jer 21:9.

is frequently absent from בדבר .See Janzen, Studies, 205, n.19 and McKane, Volume II, 948 .179 G, and Jeremianic triad common in MT should be attributed to "editorial processes of expansion and systematization" that took place after G was translated. In addition to Jer 21:9 and 38(45):2, note also Jer 27[34]:8, 32[39]:24, 42[49]:17, 42[49]:22, and 44[51]:13. Pace Lundbom (Jeremiah 37-52, 66), who rejects the systematic MT expansion of the triad, arguing that there is no clear text critical pattern and that .(ו...ו) here may be attributed to haplography בדבר absence of

connoting desertion, see Jer 37:13-14 and Jer 38:17. In the former, when Jeremiah נפל For .180 attempts to leave Jerusalem, a Judean sentry accuses him of planning to join the Babylonians: lEpOn hD;tAa Myî;dVcA;kAh_lRa ("You are deserting to the Chaldeans"), and Jeremiah fiercely refutes this characterization of his motivation to leave the city: Myî;dVcA;kAh_lAo lEpOn yˆ…nRnyEa r®qRv ("It is a lie. I am not deserting to the Chaldeans.") Even more pointedly, in the latter text, Zedekiah expresses fear that, if he surrenders, the Babylonians will hand him over to Judeans who have already deserted: Myî;dVcA;kAh_lRa …wlVpDn rRvSa Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_tRa gEaød yInSa ("I am worried about the Judeans who deserted to the Chaldeans"). connoting surrender, see Jer 38:17-18; 1 Sam 11:3, 10; 2 Kgs 24:12; Isa 37:16=2 Kgs יצא For .181 18:31.

93 MRkyElSo MyîrD…xAh Myî;dVcA;kAh_lAo Myî;dVcA;kAh_lRa pro\ß tou\ß Caldai÷ouß tou\ß sugkekleiko/taß uJma◊ß pro\ß tou\ß Caldai÷ouß to the Chaldeans who are besieging you. to the Chaldeans

h‰yVjˆy --- zh/setai [zh/setai] will live. [will live].

:lDlDvVl wøvVpÅn wø;l_182hDt◊yDh◊w lDlDvVl wøvVpÅn h‰yVjˆy wø;l_hDt◊yDh◊w kai« e¶stai hJ yuch\ aujtouv ei˙ß skuvla kai« e¶stai hJ yuch\ aujtouv ei˙ß eu¢rema And his life will be his plunder. And his life will be his plunder.

---183 :yDjÎw kai« zh/setai kai« zh/setai And he will live. And he will live.

According to the oracle, the fate of the Jerusalem itself has been sealed: Yahweh will give the city over to the Babylonians. For the occupants who remain inside under siege,

Jeremiah proposes only two possible options. Those who surrender will survive; those who resist will fall with the city.

This characterization of the options available to the residents of Jerusalem in the face of the Babylonian siege alludes to the "two ways" of Deuteronomy 30. In Jer 21, vs.

8's introduction of the oracle signals this allusion even more explicitly than Jer 38:1-6:184

182. In both Jer 21:9 and 38:2, the Qere reading of this expression is hÎyDjw.

183. However, note that a few Hebrew MSS do represent yDjÎw.

184. On the connection between Jer 21:8-9 and Deut 30:15-20, see John M. Berridge, Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah (Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1970), 204-205; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26– 45, 235; Carroll, Jeremiah, 410-411; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 573-574.

94 Deut 30:15a Deut 30:19 Jer 21:8 Mwø¥yAh ÔKy‰nDpVl yI;tAtÎn hEa√r t‰wD;mAh◊w MyI¥yAjAh 185MRky´nVpIl NEtOn yIn◊nIh o∂rDh_tRa◊w t‰wD;mAh_tRa◊w bwøÚfAh_tRa◊w MyI¥yAjAh_tRa ÔKy‰nDpVl yI;tAtÎn :t‰wD;mAh JK®r®;d_tRa◊w MyI¥yAjAh JK®r®;d_tRa

See, I have put before you today Life and death See, I am putting before you life and good and death and evil I have put before you the way of life and the way of death

2. Allusion to the Deuteronomic Choice between Life and Death

In the context of Deut 30:15-20, the "two ways" represent Israel's response to the

Deuteronomic covenant. There, the choice between life and death is presented in cultic terms. To choose life is "to love Yahweh" (ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y_tRa hDbShAaVl),186 explicitly defined as

"walking in (Yahweh's) ways and keeping his commandments, his statutes, and his judgments" (wyDfDÚpVvIm…w wyDtO;qUj◊w wyDtOwVxIm rOmVvIl◊w wyDk∂r√dI;b tRkRlDl). To choose death is "to be seduced and bow down to other gods and serve them" (MD;t√dAbSoÅw MyîrEjSa MyIhølaEl DtyIwSjA;tVvIh◊w D;tVjå;dˆn◊w).

However, the Jeremiah tradition adapts the two ways motif, applying it in a very different sphere. Here, choosing life is solely a question of political allegiance. There is no indication that Yahweh's judgment can be mitigated through cultic or social reforms.

Rather, choosing life is accomplished only by accepting Jerusalem's defeat and submitting to the Babylonians.

In Jer 38:2, the only explication of the nature of life after surrender is the phrase

.conjugated verb + הנה 4QJerC reads .185

in Hebrew Bible, see Susan Ackerman, "The Personal is Political: Covenantal and אהב On .186 Affectionate Love in the Hebrew Bible," VT 52/4 (2002): 437-458.

95 lDlDvVl wøvVpÅn wø;l_hDt◊yDh◊w ("he shall have his life as plunder").187 However, Jer 38:3 proclaims only the capture of Jerusalem, not its destruction.188 In Deut 30, choosing life has clear association with life in the land:

I have called against you today Mwø¥yAh MRkDb yItOdyIoAh the heavens and the earth as witnesses. X®rDaDh_tRa◊w MˆyAmDÚvAh_tRa Life and death I have put before you, ÔKy‰nDpVl yI;tAtÎn t‰wD;mAh◊w MyI¥yAjAh the blessing and the curse, hDlDlV;qAh◊w hDk∂rV;bAh and you should choose life Myˆ¥yAjA;b D;t√rAjDb…w so that you and your seed may live ÔKRo√rÅz◊w hD;tAa hRyVjI;t NAoAmVl by loving the Yahweh your god, ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y_tRa hDbShAaVl by obeying his voice and clinging to him, wøb_h∂qVb∂dVl…w wølOqV;b AoOmVvIl because he is your life and the length of your days ÔKyRmÎy JK®rOa◊w ÔKy‰¥yAj a…wh yI;k (so that you may) live on the ground hDm∂dSaDh_lAo tRbRvDl that Yahweh swore to your fathers– ÔKyRtObSaAl hDwh◊y oA;bVvˆn rRvSa to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob – bOqSoÅyVl…w qDjVxˆyVl MDh∂rVbAaVl to give (it) to them. MRhDl tEtDl

B. Jer 38:14-28

1. Literary Context and Relationship with Jer 37:17-21

Jer 37-44 provides two accounts of secret encounters between Jeremiah and Zedekiah during the siege of Jerusalem. The first episode (Jer 37:16-21) contains a relatively brief

187. This expression occurs three other times in the Hebrew Bible, all in Jeremiah: Jer 21:9, 39:18, and 45:5. In Jer 39:18 and Jer 45:5, it contrasts the fate of those of who aided Jeremiah (the eunuch Ebed-Melech and the scribe Baruch) with the fates of Jerusalem and Judah. G translates wøvVpÅn as εὕρεμα ("a windfall"), suggesting that survival itself is an extremely fortunate outcome. On the versions, see McKane (Volume I, 502) who points out a similar understanding of this expression in the translations of S and Tg.

188. Note this point of contrast between Jer 21:10 and Jer 38:3. The former anticipates the destruction of Jerusalem by fire, but the latter only proclaims its capture: Jer 21:10 Jer 38:3 NEtÎ…nI;t lRbD;b JKRlRm_dÅyV;b lRbD;b_JKRlRm lyEj dAyV;b taøΩzAh ryIoDh NEtÎ…nI;t NOtÎ…nIh :vEaD;b ;hDp∂rVc…w :;h∂dDkVl…w

It will be given This city will surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire. and he will capture it.

96 report of a secret meeting set at the royal palace. In response to Zedekiah's request to know if Jeremiah has received a word from Yahweh, Jeremiah succinctly replies: "You will be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon." The rest of the account deals only with the personal fallout for Jeremiah for delivering this message. The prophet chastises

Zedekiah for his imprisonment, contrasting the accuracy of his message with the false predictions of prophets who had proclaimed that the Babylonians would not campaign against Judah again. The meeting concludes with Jeremiah's request not to return to imprisonment in the house of Jonathan the scribe, and Zedekiah orders that Jeremiah be returned to the court of the guard instead.

The second episode (Jer 38:14-28) provides a more extended conversation between Jeremiah and Zedekiah, also held in secret but this time set at one of the temple gates. Jeremiah's perspective still clearly assumes that Yahweh has already sided with the

Babylonians. However, the conversation nevertheless provides a slightly more hopeful message for Zedekiah by addressing a range of possible responses to the Babylonian invasion. Zedekiah questions Jeremiah's message not because he rejects the overall premise that subjugation by the Babylonians is inevitable. Rather, he expresses fear that, even if he surrenders to Nebuchadnezzar, he is in danger of retribution from Judean collaborators who have already defected. The meeting concludes with Zedekiah's strict instructions to Jeremiah to keep the contents of their conversation confidential, and

Jeremiah is returned to the court of the guard.

The relationship between Jer 37:16-21 and Jer 38:14-28 is complex. The editors of Jer 37-44 represent his persecution at the hands of Judean officials as a chronological

97 sequence of independent events. Although some scholars have accepted the text's presentation of a series of separate meetings,189 several aspects of these episodes signal a more complex literary relationship. First, both episodes depict the same basic time frame:

Jeremiah is initially free and preaching among the people (Jer 37:4, 11-14; Jer 38:1-5) but ends up imprisoned in the court of the guard because of opposition from his enemies in the royal court (Jer 37:21; Jer 38:28). Second, the accounts overlap considerably in their basic substance: Zedekiah requests an oracle, Jeremiah advocates surrender, and Jeremiah asks for and obtains some degree of protection from Zedekiah's officials.

This latter aspect of the encounters is particularly significant. In the first episode, the prophet asks Zedekiah not to send him back to Jonathan's house (Jer 37:20). In the second episode, Zedekiah instructs him to use this very request to explain to his officials why their meeting took place, and Jeremiah does so (Jer 38:25-26). However, as the tradition stands, this explanation for their meeting is incoherent. Earlier in Jer 38,

Jeremiah had been imprisoned in the cistern of Malchiah, another member of the royal family.190 The excuse for their second meeting provided in Jer 38:25-26, therefore, reflects the context of the first episode in Jer 37:15; 20.

Although some scholars argue that Jer 38:24-28 is displaced and originally

189. E.g. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 282-284; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37-52, 75.

190. Although the reference to Malcaiah's cistern appears in both MT and G, McKane (Volume II, 970) considers it to be secondary on the grounds that is grammatically difficult. In his view, the editors of Jeremiah used it to create the illusion of a second interview, imlying that Jeremiah was rescued from Jonathan's house, imprisoned again by the same officials, and then rescued a second time by Ebed-Melech, this time from the cistern of Malcaiah.

98 appeared after Jer 37:21,191 this explanation is unlikely, given that Jer 37:21 provides a clear resolution to the meeting described in Jer 37:17-20. Instead, the two episodes appear to be variant traditions relaying the same basic incident.192 The second account

(Jer 38:14-28) provides a more developed version of the conversation and the themes of secrecy and Zedekiah's weakness.193

2. Allusion to the Deuteronomic Choice between Life and Death

In Jer 38:17-23, the prophet again alludes to the Deuteronomic choice between life and death, reshaping it to apply specifically to royal foreign policy. Jeremiah offers Zedekiah two possible choices in the face of the Babylonian siege. If he surrenders, he, his house, and Jerusalem will all survive. If he resists, the Babylonians will conquer Jerusalem, burn the city, and capture him:

And Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, …whÎ¥yIq√dIx_lRa …whDyVm√rˆy rRmaø¥yÅw "Thus says Yahweh [God of Hosts, God of Israel]: [lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa twøaDbVx yEhølTa] hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k 'If you will go out to the commanders of the king of Babylon lRbD;b_JKRlRm yérDc_lRa aExEt aøxÎy_MIa then you will live, ÔKRvVpÅn hDt◊yDj◊w and this city will not be burned with fire. vEaD;b PérDÚcIt aøl taøΩzAh ryIoDh◊w And you and your house will live. :ÔKRtyEb…w hD;tAa hDtIyDj◊w

But if you will not go out [to the commanders of the king of Babylon], [lRbD;b JKRlRm yérDc_lRa] aExEt_aøl MIa◊w this city will be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, Myî;dVcA;kAh dAyV;b taøΩzAh ryIoDh hÎnV;tˆn◊w and they will burn it with fire. vEaD;b Dh…wp∂rVc…w And you will not escape [from their hand]. :[M∂dÎ¥yIm] fElD;mIt_aøl hD;tAa◊w

Although seemingly counterintuitive in its anticipation of benevolence from foreign

191. E.g. Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edition,"; Rudolph, Jeremiah.

192. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 256-260; Bright, Jeremiah, 233; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles; McKane, Volume II, 968-970; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 321-322.

193. See McKane, Volume II, 968-970; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 321-322; Stipp, "The Concept of the Empty Land."

99 invaders, this assessment of the situation perhaps reflects events of the Babylonian campaign to the city a decade earlier: Jehoiachin had preserved Jerusalem and his own life by surrender. However, in the poetic tradition of Jeremiah, Jehoiachin's fate is not necessarily perceived as a victory but rather as defeat. Jer 22:24-30 regards the crux of

Jehoiachin's punishment as separation from the land,194 and Rom-Shiloni argues that this representation of exile as a fate worse than death is part of the broader pro-land position.195 למען ייטב לך .3

Zedekiah does not dispute Jeremiah's assurance that the city will fall but rather fears that, even if he surrenders, those who have already defected will deal harshly with him.

Jeremiah's reassurance in Jer 38:20 invokes the Deuteronomic cliché ÔKVl bAfyIy◊w strictly in terms of political allegiance: submission to Babylon is the only means of survival.

And Jeremiah said: …whDyVm√rˆy rRmaø¥yÅw "They will not give (you over). …wnE;tˆy aøl Obey the voice of Yahweh é hÎwh◊y lwøqV;b aDn_oAmVv [about] which I am speaking to you. ÔKyRlEa rEbO;d yˆnSa 196rRvSa[Al] And it will be well for you. ÔKVl bAfyIy◊w

194. E.g. Jer 22:26-27:

And I will hurl you and your mother who bore you ÔKVtådDl◊y rRvSa ÔKV;mIa_tRa◊w ÔKVtOa yI;tVlAfEh◊w to another land where you were not born, MDv MR;t√dA;l¨y_aøl rRvSa t®rRjAa X®rDaDh lAo and you will die there. :…wt…wmD;t MDv◊w And to the land where they long to return, MDv b…wvDl MDvVpÅn_tRa MyIaVÚcÅnVm MEh_rRvSa X®rDaDh_lAo◊w they will not return there. :…wb…wvÎy aøl hD;mDv

195. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 199-200.

196.rRvSaAl - G simplifies by leaving out the unexpected preposition (o§n). Cf. McKane, Volume II, 958.

100 And you will live.197 :ÔKRvVpÅn yIjVt…w

The expression "so that it might be well for you" (JKDl bAfyIy NAoAmVl) appears throughout

Deuteronomy in two types of contexts: either as a formulaic motivation to obey specific

Deuteronomic laws (e.g. Deut 5:16, 12:25; 22:7)198 or in more generic calls to obey the commands, statutes, and prescriptions of Yahweh (e.g. Deut 4:40, 5:29; 6:3; 6:18; 12:28).

C. Jer 40:1-6

1. Literary Context and Relationship with Jer 39:11-14

Jer 37-44 contains two distinctive accounts of Jeremiah's release following the fall of

Jerusalem. In the first case (Jer 39:11-14), variant textual traditions preserve slightly different versions of the narrative. The longer MT text (MT 39:11-13) specifies that

Nebuchadnezzar himself instructed Nebuzaradan to treat Jeremiah well and to allow him to determine his own fate (wø;mIo hEcSo NE;k ÔKyRlEa rE;båd◊y rRvSaA;k). The shorter G text (39[46]:14) specifies only that, after the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonians took Jeremiah from the court of the guard where he had been imprisoned during the siege and entrusted him to the newly-appointed leader of Judah, Gedaliah ben Ahikam.

In the second case (Jer 40:1-6), both MT and G narrate Jeremiah's release from a group of Judeans at Ramah awaiting deportation to Babylon. Here the text does not

197. No completely coherent picture emerges from the different accounts of interviews of Jeremiah by Zedekiah. In Jer 21, vs. 7 decrees that there will be no compassion from Nebuchadnezzar and that Zedekiah along with his officals and the survivors from Jerusalem will be struck down with the sword. However, vs. 8-10 soften this picture by contrasting options: those who surrender will live; those who continue to resist will die. In Jer 34:1-5, the oracle to Zedekiah proclaims that he will be captured by the Babylonians but will die in peace and not by the sword. See McKane, Volume I, 491-495.

198. E.g. Deut 5:16 ("Honor your father and mother"); Deut 12:25 ("You shall not eat blood"); Deut 22:7 ("You shall not take the mother with the young from a bird's nest.")

101 specifically credit Nebuchadnezzar. Instead, it attributes Jeremiah's release solely to the benevolence of Nebuzaradan and includes a brief speech in which Nebuzaradan explains the Babylonian campaign in terms of judgment pronounced by Yahweh and offers

Jeremiah a choice in his destination.

The editors of the tradition frame the accounts as sequential events, implying that

Jeremiah was initially released from imprisonment in Jerusalem but eventually rounded up with other Judeans and taken to Ramah. However, both accounts contain similar core elements: the prophet's release from imprisonment, preferential treatment for him from

in Jer 39:14 and בתך העם) Babylonian authorities, his ongoing presence among the people

40:6), and his association with Gedaliah. For this reason, they are probably best interpreted as variant traditions about Jeremiah's arrival at Mizpah.199 By incorporating both traditions side by side, the editors stress that the Babylonians treated Jeremiah with deference.

Alongside this benevolence to Yahweh's prophet, the editors have also characterized the Babylonian commander Nebuzaradan as Yahweh's spokesman.

Although the episode is built around Nebuzaradan's speech, it is introduced by the following superscription characterizing the message as the words which came to

199. Duhm, Das Buch, 314; Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 272-274; Hyatt, "Deuteronomic Edition," 88-89; Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 107, n.2; Carroll, From Chaos, 230; Carroll, Jeremiah, 699-700; Seitz, Theology in Conﬂict, 279-281; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 325-327. Lipschits regards the first version (38:28b; 39:3, 39:14) as closer to the historical events because its brevity, tight connection with the narrative about Jeremiah's imprisonment prior to the fall of the city, and the specific identification of Babylonian officers in 39:3 (MT and LXX). He considers the second version to be a popular legend about the prophet. However, he acknowledges that linguistic connections between the two accounts reflect the fact that they have been essentially fused by the editors of Jeremiah. For the view that the stories represent a sequence of distinctive events, see Bright, Jeremiah, 245-246; Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremiah 26-45; and Allen, Jeremiah, 430.

102 Jeremiah from Yahweh (Jer 40:1):200

The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh hÎwh◊y tEaEm …whÎyVm√rˆy_lRa hDyDh_rRvSa rDb∂;dAh after Nebuzaradan the MyIjD;bAf_bår released him from Ramah hDm∂rDh_NIm MyIjD;bAf_bår N∂dSa√rÅz…wb◊n wøtOa jA;lAv rAjAa

As many commentators note, Nebuzaradan's message echoes Jeremiah's own preaching.

The speech itself is grammatically disjointed, shifting from a second person singular address specifically to Jeremiah in vs. 2 and vv. 4-5 to a broader audience through the use of the second person plural in v. 3. In Jer 40:3, Nebuzaradan accuses

Judeans of sinning against Yahweh (MRtaDfSj) and not obeying his voice (MR;tVoAmVv_aøl):◊

Jer 40:2 MT Jer 47:2 G wyDlEa rRmaø¥yÅw …whDyVm√rˆy[Vl] MyIjD;bAf_bår jå;qˆ¥yÅw kai« e¶laben aujto\n oJ aÓrcima¿geiroß kai« ei•pen aujtw◊ˆ And the MyIjD;bAf_bår took Jeremiah and said to him: And oJ aÓrcima¿geiroß took him and said to him

taøΩzAh hDo∂rDh_tRa rR;bî;d ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y ku/rioß oJ qeo/ß sou e˙la¿lhsen ta» kaka» tauvta :hRΩzAh MwøqD;mAh_lRa e˙pi« to\n to/pon touvton "Yahweh your God has spoken this evil "Yahweh your God has spoken these evils against this place. against this place.

Jer 40:3 MT Jer 47:3 G 201[rE;bî;d rRvSaA;k] hDwh◊y cAoA¥yÅw [aEbÎ¥yÅw] kai« e˙poi÷hsen ku/rioß And Yahweh [brought (it) about] and did (it) And Yahweh did (it) [just as he said]. ---

hÎwhyAl MRtaDfSj_yI;k o¢ti hJma¿rtete aujtw◊ˆ Because you sinned against Yahweh because you sinned against him

wølwøqV;b MR;tVoAmVv_aøl◊w kai« oujk hjkou/sate aujtouv thvß fwnhvß and did not obey his voice, and did not obey his voice.

200. Nebuzaradan's speech has an obvious parallel in the speech of the Rabshakeh. However, in 2 Kgs, Isaiah counsels Hezekiah not to surrender to the Assyrians. In contrast, surrender is central to all of Jeremiah's advice to Zedekiah.

201. The shorter G reading is preferred. See McKane, Volume II, 998-999. Janzen (Studies, 22) ויעשׂ יהוה (b) + ויבא יהוה לכם הדבר הזה (proposes that the longer MT reading is the result of conflation of (a Note, however, that the exact .(כי to כאשׁר) he suggests haplography ,כאשׂר דבר In the case of .כאשׁר דבר .do not appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible ויעשׂ יהוה כאשׁר דבר and ויבא יהוה לכם הדבר הזה expressions

103 202[:hRΩzAh rDb∂;d MRkDl hDyDh◊w] --- [this thing has come to you]. ---

In DtrH, national sin against Yahweh is overwhelmingly defined in relationship to cultic practices.203 In Jer 44:23, part of the pro-golah redaction, there is an explicit link between

Judah's judgment and the judgment of the Egyptian Judean community along exactly these lines:

Jer 40:3 MT Jer 44:23 MT --- MR;t√rAÚfIq rRvSa y´nVÚpIm --- because you burned incense

hÎwhyAl MRtaDfSj_yI;k hÎwhyAl MRtaDfSj rRvSaÅw because you sinned against Yahweh and because you sinned against Yahweh

wølwøqV;b MR;tVoAmVv_aøl◊w hÎwh◊y lwøqV;b MR;tVoAmVv aøl◊w and did not obey his voice and did not obey the voice of Yahweh

--- MR;tVkAlSh aøl wyDtOw√dEoVb…w wyDtO;qUjVb…w wøt∂rOtVb…w --- and did not walk --- in his instruction and in his statutes and in his testimonies

202. Qere: rDb∂;dAh. I.e. "this judgment." However, this phrase has no exact parallels in the Hebrew Bible.

203. Examples of national sins include the worship of the golden calf (Deut 9:16, 18), learning "abominable practices" for foreign gods (Deut 20:18), worship of foreign gods/Asherah/Baal/idols (Judg 10:10-15, 1 Sam 7:6, 1 Kgs 22:53, and 2 Kgs 21:1), and the "sins of Jeroboam trope" (1 Kgs 14:16, 15:30, 1 15:34, 16:2, and 16:26; 2 Kgs 3:3, 10:29-31, 13:2, 14:24, 15:9, 15:18, 15:24, 15:28, 17:21, and 23:15 ("sins of Jeroboam" trope). For other generic references to national sin, see: 1 Kgs 8:33, 35, 46, 50; 1 Kgs 14:22; 1 Kgs 15:26; 1 Kgs 21:22; and 2 Kgs 17:7. See also Deut 1:14 (defiance of Yahweh's command to conquer the land.) against Yahweh include not keeping vows to Yahweh (Deut (חטא) Examples of individualized sins 23:22-23), theft of items subject to the ban (Josh 7:11, 20), disrepect for Yahweh's offerings (1 Sam 2:25; 1 Sam 15:24, 30), eating blood (1 Sam 14:33), shedding innocent blood (2 Sam 12:13, 2 Kgs 21:16-17), and David's census (2 Sam 24:10, 17). ,can also refer to interpersonal wrongs. These include neglecting/cheating the poor (Deut 15:9 חטא 24:15), crime legislation (Deut 19:5, 21:22, 22:26), divorce and remarriage (Deut 24:4), interactions between rulers (Judg 11:27, 2 Kgs 18:4), and other miscellaneous offenses (1 Sam 19:4, 12:23; 24:12, 26:21; 2 Sam 19:21; 1 Kgs 8:31; 1 Kgs 18:9).

104 However, here in the immediate literary context of Jer 40:2-3,204 while the speech itself leaves the specific cause of the disaster ambiguous, it follows the episodes in which

Jeremiah calls for submission to Babylon and defines obedience to Yahweh's voice only in terms of political allegiance.

ראה כל־הארץ לפניך .2 Jer 40:4 [And now] behold, I have loosed you [today] [Mwø¥yAh] ÔKyI;tVjA;tIp hE…nIh [hD;tAo◊w] from the chains which were on your hand. ÔK®dÎy_lAo rRvSa MyI;qˆzaDh_NIm If it is good in your eyes to come with me (to) Babylon, come, aø;b lRbDb yI;tIa awøbDl ÔKy‰nyEoV;b bwøf_MIa and I will set my eyes on you. ÔKyRlDo yˆnyEo_tRa MyIcDa◊w [And if it is evil in your eyes to come with me (to) Babylon,] [lRbDb yI;tIa_awøbDl ÔKyRnyEoV;b oår_MIa◊w] [refrain]. [l∂dSj] [See, all the land is before you]. [ÔKy‰nDpVl X®rDaDh_lD;k hEa√r] [To (wherever) is good and to (wherever) is right in your eyes] [ÔKyRnyEoV;b rDvÎ¥yAh_lRa◊w bwøf_lRa] [to go there, go]. [:JKEl hD;mDv tRkRlDl] a. Text Critical Issues

Following his explication of Yahweh's judgment, Nebuzaradan offers Jeremiah a choice in his destination. MT and G share the two primary options: going to Babylon with

Nebuzaradan (vs. 4a) or returning to join Gedaliah (vs. 5b). MT offers an even more expansive variation by inviting Jeremiah to settle anywhere he chooses.

Tov has demonstrated that much of the additional material in MT Jeremiah can be characterized as explanatory in nature.205 While one of the clearest examples of this tendency in the MT is representation of full titles and patronymics, Tov also identifies a number of cases in which MT uses longer additions to clarify or amplify the context.

However, MT Jer 40:4-5 is liberal and uncharacteristically free in its expansion.

204. Outside of Jer 37-44, references to sin against Yahweh in the Jeremiah are generic and vague. See Jer 2:35, 3:25, 8:14, 14:7, an 14:20.

205. Tov, "Literary History."

105 One of the defining characteristics of the episode in Jer 40:1-6 is the preferential treatment offered to the prophet. In contrast to the other Judeans at Ramah, he receives a choice in his fate. Further, in his offer for Jeremiah to accompany him to Babylon,

Nebuzaradan promises to "set his eyes" on the prophet,206 and when he settles Jeremiah with Gedaliah, he leaves provisions as well. The MT+ in vs. 4 expands Nebuzaradan's deference. Much of the language also builds on the shared text of MT and G. l∂dSj lRbDb yI;tIa_awøbDl ÔKyRnyEoV;b oår_MIa◊w and tRkRlDl ÔKyRnyEoV;b rDvÎ¥yAh_lRa◊w bwøf_lRa parallel the preceding statement aø;b lRbDb yI;tIa awøbDl ÔKy‰nyEoV;b bwøf_MIa. However, while the expression ÔKy‰nDpVl X®rDaDh_lD;k hEa√r

("see, all the land is before you") also fits this theme of Babylonian benevolence, the specific language is not drawn from the surrounding Jeremianic context. Rather, it may reflect an independent usage of Deuteronomy. b. Allusion to Deuteronomy

Although it is not a direct quote from Deuteronomy,207 the phrase ÔKy‰nDpVl X®rDaDh_lD;k hEa√r alludes to the beginning of Moses' speech to the Israelites in book's prologue, recalling

Yahweh's command to possess the land:

Deut 1:8 Deut 1:21 Jer 40:5 X®rDaDh_tRa MRky´nVpIl yI;tAtÎn hEa√r X®rDaDh_tRa ÔKyRnDpVl ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y NAtÎn hEa√r ÔKy‰nDpVl X®rDaDh_lD;k hEa√r

See, I have put the land See, Yahweh your God has put the land See, all the land is before you. before you before you

206. Jer 39:12, Jer 24:6, and Amos 9:4.

see Deut. 1:8 and 1:20-21 (land), Deut. 4:8 and 11:32 ,נתן לפניך/לפניכם For the expression .207 (law/statutes), Deut. 11:26-29 (blessing and curse), and Deut 30:15 (life and death).

106 This allusion reflects the text's broader representation of the land under Babylonian authority. Now, instead of Moses, Babylonian officials, speaking on Yahweh's behalf, authorize settlement in the land. From a historical perspective, Judah has suffered the destruction of a substantial number of its urban centers and military fortresses, and it population has continued to be depleted by the Babylonian deportation policy. However, the allusion to Deuteronomy in the MT edition of Nebuzaradan's speech does not reinforce these historical realities. Rather, it helps portray Jeremiah's release as part of a new beginning in the land:

Deut 1:8 See, I have put the land before you. X®rDaDh_tRa MRky´nVpIl yI;tAtÎn hEa√r Go and possess the land. X®rDaDh_tRa …wv√r…w …waø;b that YHWH swore to your fathers MRkyEtObSaAl hÎwh◊y oA;bVvˆn rRvSa – to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob – qDjVxˆyVl bOqSoÅyVl…w MDh∂rVbAaVl to give them and their seed after them. :MRhyérSjAa MDo√rÅzVl…w MRhDl tEtDl

Deut 1:21 See, Yahweh your God has put the land before you. X®rDaDh_tRa ÔKyRnDpVl ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y NAtÎn hEa√r Go up. Possess (the land) vér hElSo just as YHWH God of your fathers has spoken to you. JKDl ÔKyRtObSa yEhølTa hÎwh◊y rR;bî;d rRvSaA;k Do not be afraid; do not be dismayed. :tDjE;t_lAa◊w a∂ryI;t_lAa

D. Jer 40:7-12

1. Literary Context and Relationship to 2 Kgs 25:23-24

Jer 40:7-12 depicts the life of the Judean remnant at Mizpah under Gedaliah's leadership after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Although it overlaps with material from 2 Kgs 25, the two traditions incorporate this shared text (probably drawn from a common source) into distinctive representations of these events,208 with Jer 40:7-12 offering a more developed picture of the Gedaliah community. Vv. 7-9 describe the gathering of those

208. On the nature of this relationship and for further bibliography, see the discussion in ch. 3

107 left in the land to Gedaliah and his appeal to them to remain there as loyal subjects of

Babylon. Vs. 10 further describes the possibilities for prosperity under Babylonian auspices in terms of the concrete realities of property and agricultural products. Vv.

11-12 specify that those gathered to the new Judean center of Mizpah included not only those left in the land by the Babylonians but also an additional group: Judeans who had fled during the siege of Jerusalem to neighboring regions, including Moab, Ammon, and

Edom. According to the Jeremiah tradition, these former refugees took advantage of the opportunity to return home and share in the economic prosperity that the tradition presents as characteristic of the Gedaliah community.

Jer 40:7 (MT) Jer 47:7 (G) 2 Kgs 25:23a (MT) 2 Kgs 25:23a (G) …woVmVvˆ¥yÅw kai« h¡kousan …woVmVvˆ¥yÅw kai« h¡kousan yérDc_lDk pa¿nteß oi˚ hJgemo/neß yérDc_lDk pa¿nteß oi˚ a‡rconteß MyIlÎySjAh thvß duna¿mewß MyIlÎySjAh thvß duna¿mewß [h®dDÚcA;b rRvSa] [thvß e˙n aÓgrw◊ˆ] ------

all the commanders all the commanders all the commanders all the commanders of the forces of the forces of the forces of the forces [in the countryside] [in the countryside] ------heard, heard, heard, heard,

hD;mEh aujtoi« hD;mEh aujtoi« [MRh]yEv◊nAa◊w kai« oi˚ a‡ndreß [aujtw◊n] MyIvÎnSaDh◊w kai« oi˚ a‡ndreß [aujtw◊n]

they and [their] men, they and [their] men, they and the men, they and [their] men,

dyîqVpIh_yI;k o¢ti kate÷sthsen dyîqVpIh_yI;k o¢ti kate÷sthsen lRbD;b_JKRlRm basileu\ß Babulw◊noß lRbD;b_JKRlRm basileu\ß Babulw◊noß

that that that that the king of Babylon the king of Babylon the king of Babylon the king of Babylon had appointed had appointed had appointed had appointed

[M∂qyIjSa_NRb] …whDyVlåd◊…g_tRa to\n Godolian …whÎyVlåd◊…g_tRa to\n Godolian [X®rDaD;b] [e˙n thvØ ghvØ] ------

108 Gedaliah [son of Ahikam] Gedaliah Gedaliah Gedaliah [in the land] [in the land] ------

wø;tIa dyîqVpIh yIk◊w kai« parekate÷qeto aujtw◊ˆ ------and had entrusted to him and had entrusted to him ------

MyIvÎnSa a‡ndraß ------MyIvÎn◊w kai« gunai√kaß [aujtw◊n] ------[PDfÎw] ------

men men ------and women and [their] wives ------[and children] ------

[tA;lå;dIm…w] ------[X®rDaDh] ------rRvSa[Em] ou§ß ------…wl◊gDh_aøl oujk aÓpw¿ˆkisen ei˙ß ------:hDlRbD;b Babulw◊na ------

[and some from the poor] ------[of the land] ------[from] those who whom ------were not deported he did not deport ------to Babylon to Babylon ------

Jer 40:8 Jer 47:8 2 Kgs 25:23b (MT) 2 Kgs 25:23b (G) …waøbÎ¥yÅw kai« h™lqen …waøbÎ¥yÅw kai« h™lqon hDyVlåd◊…g_lRa pro\ß Godolian …whDyVlåd◊…g_lRa pro\ß Godolian

And they came And they came And they came And they came to Gedaliah to Gedaliah to Gedaliah to Gedaliah

hDtDÚpVxI;mAh ei˙ß Masshfa hDÚpVxI;mAh ei˙ß Masshfaq to Mizpah to Mizpah to Mizpah to Mizpah

laEoDmVvˆy[◊w] Ismahl laEoDmVvˆy[◊w] [kai«] Ismahl …whÎy◊nAt◊n_NR;b ui˚o\ß Naqaniou hÎy◊nAt◊n_NR;b ui˚o\ß Naqaniou

[along with] Ishmael Ishmael [along with] Ishmael [along with] Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Nethaniah son of Nethaniah son of Nethaniah

Ajér∂q_yEnV;b [NDtÎnwøy◊w] NDnDjwøy◊w kai« Iwanan ui˚o\ß Karhe Ajér∂q_NR;b NDnDjwøy◊w kai« Iwanan ui˚o\ß Karhe

109 and Johanan and Johanan and Johanan and Johanan [and Jonathan] ------sons of Koreah son of Koreah son of Koreah son of Koreah

hÎy∂rVc…w kai« Saraiaß hÎy∂rVc…w kai« Saraiaß tRmUj◊nA;t_NRb ui˚o\ß Qanaemeq tRmUj◊nA;t_NRb ui˚o\ß Qanemaq

and Seraiah and Seraiah and Seraiah and Seraiah son of Tanhumeth son of Tanhumeth son of Tanhumeth son of Tanhumeth

209yApwøo yEnVb…w kai« ui˚oi« Wfe ------yItDpOf◊…nAh touv Netwfati yItDpOf◊…nAh oJ Netwfaqi÷thß

and sons of Ophai and sons of Ophai ------the Netophathite the Netophathite the Netophathite the Netophathite

…whÎy◊nÅzyIw kai« Iezoniaß …whÎy◊nÅzSaAy◊w kai« Iezoniaß yItDkSoA;mAh_NR;b ui˚o\ß touv Mocati yItDkSoA;mAh_NR;b ui˚o\ß touv Macaqi

and Jezaniah and Jezaniah and Jezaniah and Jezaniah son of the Maacathite son of the Maacathite son of the Maacathite son of the Maacathite

hD;mEh aujtoi« hD;mEh aujtoi« :MRhyEv◊nAa◊w kai« oi˚ a‡ndreß aujtw◊n :MRhyEv◊nAa◊w kai« oi˚ a‡ndreß aujtw◊n

they and their men they and their men they and their men they and their men

Jer 40:9 MT Jer 47:9 G 2 Kgs 25:24 MT 2 Kgs 25:24 G MRhDl oAbDÚvˆ¥yÅw kai« w‡mosen aujtoi√ß MRhDl oAbDÚvˆ¥yÅw kai« w‡mosen aujtoi√ß …whÎyVlåd◊…g Godoliaß …whÎyVlåd◊…g Godoliaß [NDpDv_NR;b M∂qyIjSa_NRb] ------

And Gedaliah And Gedaliah And Gedaliah And Gedaliah [son of Ahikam] ------[son of Shaphan] ------swore to them swore to them swore to them swore to them

MRhyEv◊nAaVl…w kai« toi√ß aÓndra¿sin aujtw◊n MRhyEv◊nAaVl…w kai« toi√ß aÓndra¿sin aujtw◊n and to their men and to their men and to their men and to their men

rOmaEl le÷gwn [MRhDl] rRmaø¥yÅw kai« ei•pen [aujtoi√ß]

209. Qere: yApyEo

110 saying, saying, and he said [to them], and he said [to them],

…wa√ryI;t_lAa mh fobhqhvte …wa√ryI;t_lAa mh\ fobei√sqe "Do not fear "Do not fear "Do not fear "Do not fear

dwøbSoEm aÓpo\ prosw¿pou tw◊n yédVbAoEm pa¿rodon Myî;dVcA;kAh pai÷dwn tw◊n Caldai÷wn Myî;dVcA;kAh tw◊n Caldai÷wn

serving the servants of the servants of the Chaldeans the Chaldeans the Chaldeans the Chaldeans

X®rDaDb …wbVv katoikh/sate e˙n thvØ ghvØ X®rDaDb …wbVv kaqi÷sate e˙n thvØ ghvØ Dwell in the land, Dwell in the land, Dwell in the land, Dwell in the land,

…wdVbIo◊w kai« e˙rga¿sasqe …wdVbIo◊w kai« douleu/sate and serve and serve and serve and serve

lRbD;b JKRlRm_tRa tw◊ˆ basilei√ Babulw◊noß lRbD;b JKRlRm_tRa tw◊ˆ basilei√ Babulw◊noß the king of Babylon the king of Babylon the king of Babylon the king of Babylon

:MRkDl bAfyˆy◊w kai« be÷ltion e¶stai uJmi√n :MRkDl bAfˆy◊w kai« kalw◊ß e¶stai uJmi√n (so that) (so that) (so that) (so that) it might be well for you. it might be well for you. it might be well for you. it might be well for you.

2. Historical Context and Chronology of Events

The date of the events set at Mizpah in Jer 40:7-12 is ambiguous: neither 2 Kgs 25 nor Jer

40-41 identifies the length of Gedaliah's tenure or the date of his assassination. Both Jer

41:1 (MT and G) and 2 Kgs 25:25 report that Ishmael and his ten fellow conspirators arrived at Mizpah "in the seventh month" without specifying the year, which implies that these events took place the same year as the fall of Jerusalem. By juxtaposing the individual episodes related to Jerusalem's fall, Jeremiah's release, and the gathering of the remnant to Gedaliah, the editors of the Jeremiah tradition have further suggested a close chronological connection between these events.210

210. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 296; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 101; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 327.

111 However, both the 597 and 586 BCE Babylonian campaigns against Judah were punitive measures in response to rebellion. Despite Jer 37:1-43:7* attempts to quell the people's fear of Babylonian reprisal, Ishmael's coup provides a logical explanation for the

Babylonian return to the region in 582 BCE, documented only in Jer 52:28-30.211 This later date also allows more time for the assembling of Mizpah community and, especially, for return of refugees from neighboring regions as described in Jer

40:11-12.212 למען ייטב לכם .3 a. Textual Issues

Aside from the larger question of the relationship between the source material for 2 Kgs and Jer, the primary text critical issue lies in the words attributed to Gedaliah. In 2 Kgs

MT and Jer G, Gedaliah urges members of the community not to fear the "servants of the

Babylonians" (presumably Babylonian officials/soldiers present at Mizpah).213 However, in MT Jer 40:9, Gedaliah urges them not to fear "serving" the king of Babylon.

Both readings pose difficulties. The reading of MT Jer is awkwardly redundant:

"Do not be afraid of serving the Chaldeans; dwell in the land and serve the king of

Babylon." However, this language is the terminology of vassalship, the issue at the heart

211. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 94-96; Carroll, From Chaos, 232; Bright, Jeremiah, 253-254.

212. Some commentators attempt to combine these views by proposing that the narrator has telescoped events and that the harvest described in Jer 40:10 may be dated to the early days of Gedaliah's leadership, while his assassination probably took place several years later. For this position, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 37-52, 112-113 and 123.

213. Jer 41:3 refers to Babylonians at Mizpah killed in Ishmael's coup. Although an MT gloss identifies them as soldiers (hDmDjVlI;mAh yEv◊nAa), the LXX does not specify their role. Commentators have struggled with this expression. Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 326) argue that the reading "servants of the Chaldeans" is meaningless. However, Lundbom (Jeremiah 37-52, 112) reads the construct as an adjective (Chaldean servants) that creates a theologically charged expression that "reduces the Chaldean officials, like King Nebuchadnezzar, to instruments in the hands of Yahweh."

112 of the success or failure of the Mizpah community. Meanwhile, in the case of 2 Kgs and

Jer G, commentators struggle with the expression "servants of the Chaldeans," though this formulation of Gedaliah's words fits the logic of the narrative by addressing the larger concern of overcoming fear of violence at the hands of the Babylonians.214

Ultimately, either reading is compatible with the arguments advanced below. in Deuteronomy למען ייטב לכם .b

The expression "so that it might be well for you" appears throughout Deuteronomy as a formulaic motivation in two types of contexts: in calls to obey in specific Deuteronomic laws (e.g. Deut 5:16; 12:25; 22:7) or in more general calls to obey the commands, statutes, and prescriptions of Yahweh (e.g. Deut 4:40; 5:29; 6:3; 6:18; 12:28). In both cases, the expression has a strong association with possession of the land in two forms. In is linked with long life for individual observers:215 יטב ,some cases

Deut 5:16 Honor your father and your mother, ÔKR;mIa_tRa◊w ÔKyIbDa_tRa dE;bA;k just as Yahweh your God commanded you, ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y ÔK◊…wIx rRvSaA;k so that you may lengthen your days ÔKyRmÎy NUkyîrSaÅy NAoAmVl and so that it may go well for you JKDl bAfyIy NAoAmVl…w on the ground which Yahweh your God is giving to you. :JKDl NEtOn ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y_rRvSa hDm∂dSaDh lAo

Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in Yahweh's eyes hDwh◊y yEnyEoV;b bwøÚfAh◊w rDvÎ¥yAh DtyIcDo◊w so that it may be well with you JKDl bAfyIy NAoAmVl and you may go and possess D;tVvårDy◊w DtaDb…w

214. Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 105, n. 242. Contra Cogan and Tadmor (II Kings, 326) who consider the expression "servants of the Chaldeans" to be "meaningless." Pohlmann (Studien, 113) questions would be the more עבד מלך בבל can have the sense "officials" in this context and suggests עבדי whether expected reading in that case. However, Lundbom (Jeremiah 37-52, 112) proposes a more theological interpretation of the 2 Kgs and G Jer, proposing that the expression "Chaldean servants" essentially "reduces the Chaldean officials, like King Nebuchadnezzar, to instruments in the hand of Yahweh."

215. See also Deut 22:6-7.

113 the good land which Yahweh swore to your fathers. ÔKyRtObSaAl hDwh◊y oA;bVvˆn_rRvSa hDbOÚfAh X®rDaDh_tRa

In other cases, the link is implicit in the association between obedience and the prosperity of one's descendants:216

Deut 5:28-29 And Yahweh heard the sound of your words MRkyérVbî;d lwøq_tRa hÎwh◊y oAmVvˆ¥yÅw when you spoke to me. yDlEa MRk√rR;bådV;b And Yahweh said to me: yAlEa hÎwh◊y rRmaø¥yÅw "I have heard the sound of the words of this people h‰ΩzAh MDoDh yérVbî;d lwøq_tRa yI;tVoAmDv that they spoke to you. ÔKyRlEa …wrV;bî;d rRvSa They have done well (in) all that they have spoken. :…wrE;bî;d rRvSa_lD;k …wbyIfyEh Would that this was their mind MRhDl h‰z MDbDbVl hÎyDh◊w NE;tˆy_yIm to fear me and to keep my commandments for all days MyImÎ¥yAh_lD;k yAtOwVxIm_lD;k_tRa rOmVvIl◊w yItOa hDa√rˆyVl so that it might be well for them and their sons forever :MDlOoVl MRhy´nVbIl◊w MRhDl bAfyˆy NAoAmVl

Deut 6:1-3 (These are) the commandment, the statutes, and judgments MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh◊w MyI;qUjAh hÎwVxI;mAh taøz◊w that Yahweh your God commanded (me) to teach you MRkVtRa dE;mAlVl MRkyEhølTa hDwh◊y hD…wIx rRvSa to do in land which you are crossing over to possess :;hD;tVvîrVl hD;mDv MyîrVbOo MR;tAa rRvSa X®rDaD;b twøcSoAl so that you may fear Yahweh your God ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y_tRa a∂ryI;t NAoAmVl all the days of your life ÔKyR¥yAj yEm◊y lO;k and so that you may lengthen your days :ÔKyRmÎy NUkîrSaÅy NAoAmVl…w by keeping all his statutes and his commandments wyDtOwVxIm…w wyDtO;qUj_lD;k_tRa rOmVvIl that I am commanding you– ÔK‰…wAxVm yIkOnDa rRvSa you and your son and your grandsons. ÔK◊nI;b_NRb…w ÔK◊nIb…w hD;tAa And hear, Israel, and be careful to do (them) twøcSoAl D;t√rAmDv◊w lEa∂rVcˆy D;tVoAmDv◊w so that it might go well for you ÔKVl bAfyˆy rRvSa and so that you may multiply exceedingly dOaVm N…w;b√rI;t rRvSaÅw just as Yahweh God of your fathers said to you, JKDl ÔKyRtObSa yEhølTa hÎwh◊y rR;bî;d rRvSaA;k a land flowing with milk and honey. :vDb√d…w bDlDj tAbÎz X®rRa

Deut 12:28 Be careful and obey all these words hR;lEaDh MyîrDb√;dAh_lD;k tEa D;tVoAmDv◊w rOmVv that I am commanding you D;KR…wAxVm yIkOnDa rRvSa so it may be well for you and your sons after you forever MDlwøo_dAo ÔKy®rSjAa ÔKyRnDbVl…w ÔKVl bAfyˆy NAoAmVl because you do what is good and right rDvÎ¥yAh◊w bwøÚfAh hRcSoAt yI;k in the eyes of Yahweh your God. :ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y yEnyEoV;b

216. Deut 5:28-29; Deut 6:3; Deut 12:28.

114 c. Use in Jer 40:7-12

In Gedaliah's oath, he assures the Mizpah community that by serving the king of

Babylon, they can ensure their safety and prosperity. Whereas Deuteronomy uses the expression as a motivation for obeying the social and cultic prescriptions of

Deuteronomic law, Jer 40 applies it exclusively in terms of political allegiance. Though both 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 40 share part of this quotation, in Jeremiah it fits into a much larger trend of pro-Babylonian perspectives in the narrative, and its meaning is shaped by

Gedaliah's additional instructions regarding personal property in Jer 40:10, which are not present in 2 Kgs. Jeremiah's allusion to this Deuteronomic cliché builds on the strong

and a long, prosperous life–and, especially, life in the למען ייטב לכם association between land–in Deuteronomy.

אספו יין וקיץ ושׁמן...ושׁבו בעריכם אשׁר־תפשׂתם .4 a. Context

Vs. 10 moves beyond the shared material in Jer 40:7-9 and 2 Kgs 25:23-25 to depict post-586 life in the land as a period of tremendous economic prosperity:

…wpVsIa MR;tAa◊w kai« uJmei√ß sunaga¿gete But, as for you, gather But, as for you, gather Xˆyåq◊w NˆyÅy oi•non kai« ojpw¿ran wine and summer fruit wine and summer fruit NRmRv◊w kai« [sunaga¿gete] e¶laion and olive oil and [gather] olive oil MRkyElVkI;b …wmIc◊w kai« ba¿lete ei˙ß ta» aÓggei√a uJmw◊n and put (them) in your vessels and put (them) in your vessels [MRk]yérDoV;b …wbVv…w kai« oi˙kh/sate e˙n tai√ß po/lesin and dwell in [your] cities and dwell in the cities :MR;tVcApV;t_rRvSa ai–ß katekrath/sate that you have seized. that you have seized.

Although commentators note that this picture is idyllic and not entirely consonant with

115 the preceding destruction of Jerusalem,217 past interpretation has focused on two practical, historical issues: (1) the terminology chosen for the redistribution of agricultural products and property and (2) the chronology of the Gedaliah's tenure at Mizpah.

אספו יין וקיץ ושׁמן .b

Discussions of Gedaliah's command to gather NˆyÅy ("wine"), Xˆyåq ("summer fruit"), and NRmRv

("olive oil") have focused on the plausibility of harvesting in the months following

Jerusalem's fall. Some argue that Gedaliah's command may be a sign that significant time has passed (at least a year), allowing Judah's agricultural production to recover following the Babylonian siege.218 Others argue that the destruction by Babylonian forces, though substantial, was selective and need not have caused agricultural production to halt in the year of the conquest. Lipschits, in particular, regards the timing as the key to the narrative. Working from the date of Jerusalem's fall in the fourth month, he assumes that grain is not mentioned because it has already been harvested by this time and that olives are omitted from the MT text of Jer 40:12 because at the time of Gedaliah's murder in the seventh month, the remnant would have had time to gather grapes and figs but would not

217. E.g. Carroll, From Chaos, 230-232; Carroll, Jeremiah, 703-705.

218. Carroll, From Chaos, 231: "If [the 582 BCE] campaign is related to Ishmael ben Nathaniah's revolt against Gedaliah's governorship, and therefore against Babylonian dominance (an early Judean liberation front?), it suggests that Gedaliah was governor for about five years before his assassination. Over such a period the harvests referred to in 40.10, 12 would have had time to develop after the invasive forces of Babylon had devastated the land. But the well-being of the community in 40.7-12 should be allowed to balance the pictures drawn elsewhere in the biblical traditions of a terribly devastating invasion of the land by the Babylonian army. The siege and its aftermath were indeed terrible, but the whole land may not have suffered so extreme a fate."

116 have reached the olive harvest.219

While the narrative gives the impression that members of the remnant harvested

-summer") (קיץ) – the products themselves, only one of the three commodities listed

In the other two cases, the 220.(אסף) fruit")– initially seems appropriate to gathering

olive oil") – seem awkward. In") שׁמן wine") and") יין – references to finished products

"as "fig-cake קיץ fact, Tg notes and attempts to smooth out this difficulty by translating

.to create a better parallel for wine and oil (דבל)

Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the harvest of fresh grapes and olives is, in fact,

/but rather more specialized terms. The harvesting of grapes אסף not described using

and prohibitions against going over the vineyard a second time refer 221,בצר vineyards is

gleaning").222 The harvest of") עלל and לקט to gathering left-over grapes with the terms

,beating" or "shaking" the trees).223 Like the harvest of grapes") נקף or חבט olives is

219. Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 99-100. Borowski (Agriculture in Ancient Israel [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002]: 115, 119) locates the second fig harvest in August/September and the olive harvest in September/October. See also the progression through the harvest cycles of these different crops attested in the Gezer calendar. Albright translates:

His two months are planting (grain). His two months are late planting. His month is howing up of flax. His month is harvest of barley. His month is harvest and feasting. His two months are vine-tending. His month is summer fruit.

.as figs, see Borowski, Agriculture, 115 קיץ Sam 16:1; Isa 16:9. On the identification of 2 .220

as בֹּצֵר/בֹּצרִים as harvesting grapes, see Lev 25:5-11, Deut 24:21, and Judg 9:27. For בצר For .221 ,as the grape harvest itself, see Lev 26:5, Judg 8:2 בָּצִיר grape-pickers, see Jer 6:9, Jer 49:9, and Obad 5. For Isa 24:13, Isa 32:10, Jer 48:32, and Mic 8:1.

222. Lev 19:10, Deut 24:21, Judg 8:2, Isa 24:13, Jer 6:9, and Jer 49:9.

. see Isa 17:6 and Isa 24:13 ,נקף see Deut 24:20. For ,חבט For .223

117 biblical law codes required olive growers to leave olives for gleaning, and Deut 24:20

.to refer to this secondary process of gathering פאר uses

is used with reference to harvesting crops, it is also regularly אסף Instead, though

and תירשׁ used to describe the gathering of finished agricultural products, including both

may be a reference to figs dried on a string (in קיץ Further, Borowski argues that 224.יצהר contrast to hDlEb√;d ("fig cakes"), given its usage in a list of supplies in 2 Sam 16:1.225 For this reason, the timing of the harvest itself does not seem to be critical, since the text describes the gathering of already processed products from the stores of those who had been exiled.226

ושׁבו בעריכם אשׁר־תפשׂתם .c

Alongside his instructions regarding these commodities, Gedaliah also instructs the remnant to dwell in the cities of Judah. Discussions of this command has focused primarily on the timing of the taking of these cities.227 Since the text refers to the

Duhm, Rudolph, and ,(שׂדה) commanders as those who came from the countryside

,as a future perfect, i.e. "the cities you will have taken."228 However תפשׂתם McKane read

rather than fresh grape שׁמן and יין as finished products synonmous with יצהר and תירשׁ On .224 juice and olive juice, see Borowski, Agriculture, 113.

225. Borowski, Agriculture, 115. The list in 2 Sam 16:1-2 includes "two hundred bread loaves ".(and a skin of wine (NˆyDy lRbEn קיץ MRjRl) and a hundred raisin cakes (Myîq…w;mIx) and a hundred)

226. McKane (Volume II, 1002-1003) suggests that, based on its usage in Josh 7:11, the specific has connotations of theft. Cf. Lundbom (Jeremiah 37-52, 112-114) who agrees with ושׂמו בלכילכם idiom McKane that the text may not be describing the harvesting but disagrees that the text represents it as theft.

227. From a text-critical perspective, the MT reading "your cities" rather than G's reading of "the cities" reinforces the perpsective that the cities are already under the control of these military leaders.

228. Duhm, Das Buch; Rudolph, Jeremiah; McKane, Volume II, 1002-1003. See also Lundbom, Jeremiah 37-52; 113. On the future perfect usage, see GKC 106o.

118 many commentators have preferred to view the occupation of these cities as a past event

has the connotation of a תפשׂ sanctioned by Gedaliah after the fact,229 particularly since military takeover.230According to Lipschits, this sanctioning served Babylonian interests by establishing Gedaliah's authority over guerilla groups left in Judah without requiring the resources of additional campaigning:

With the announcement of Gedaliah's appointment, some of the refugees began to gather at the new center in Mizpah; however, it is doubtful that they came all at once, and it is not likely that they had a 'spokesman' or a single 'leader' (this was the theory, e.g., of Holladay...). Their assembly near Mizpah served the Babylonians' interest because, to take control of these groups and to overcome them, large forces would have been required for a serious effort over a prolonged period of time. This context provides a basis for understanding Gedaliah's instructions to the army officers to 'dwell in your towns that you have taken over' (Jer 40:10bβ). His primary intention was to establish his authority over the entire populace by installing the refugees and the remnants of the army in these settlements, under his rule.231

229. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion, 276; Bright, Jeremiah, 253; Carroll, Jeremiah, 704; Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 106.

see Deut 20:19 (rules of siege warfare); Josh 8:8 (conquest of Ai); 2 Kgs 16:9 ,תפשׂ עיר For .230 (conquest of Damascus by Assyria); 2 Kgs 18:13/Isa 36:1 (conquest of Judah's fortified cities by Sennacherib). Cf. 2 Kgs 14:7 on the conquest of Sela (hDmDjVlI;mA;b oAlR;sAh_tRa cApDt◊w).

231. Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 106.

119 d. Allusion to Futility Curses

Discussion among commentators, then, has focused on the timing and terminology of Jer

40:7-12 in terms of a literal harvest. However, while the abandonment of property and goods was no doubt a practical issue that arose in the wake of deportations, the literary motif of futility curses may provide a better explanation for both the terminology of

Gedaliah's instructions as well as the ideological agenda advanced by his speech.

According to Hillers, futility curses take the basic the form: "You (or your....) will do X, but Y shall happen."232 One well-known formulation focuses specifically on houses and agriculture. In an analysis of this motif, Smoak argues that this motif first appeared in biblical literature in the 8th century BCE and that its specific imagery originated in the siege tactics of the Assyrians.233 Later authors continued to employ this motif, repeatedly reshaping its elements to fit new contexts. Smoak identifies twelve examples: Amos 5:11,

Amos 9:14, Zeph 1:13, Deut 20:5-6, Deut 28:30, Jer 6:9-15, Jer 29:5, Jer 29:28, Jer 31:4,

Isa 62:6-9, Ezek 28:26, and Ezek 36:36. Notably, these parallels show adaptation of the motif in contexts of both judgment and restoration:

232. Delbert Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 29.

233. Smoak ("Building Houses and Planting Vineyards: The Early Inner-Biblical Discourse on an Ancient Israelite Wartime Curse," JBL 127/1 (2008): 24): [T]he Assyrian iconographic and textual sources point to a specific moment during an Assyrian siege as the background of the curse. The pairing of the destruction of vineyards, or other vegetation, with the destruction of houses in the curse reflects the pairing of these activities during the final stages of a successful Assyrian siege. The curse threatened the successful capture and destruction of a city, which culminated in the removal of people from their homes and the destruction of their life-support systems. As a result, the curse came to symbolize the threats that a successful Assyrian siege posed, namely, the deportation of the population and the destruction of its agriculture." However, even if 8th century BCE marks the introduction of this formula in biblical literature specifically, the roots of futility curses in ANE literature pre-date the Neo-Assyrians.

120 Table 2: Examples of Negative Formulations of Futility Curses Amos Therefore, because you tax the needy l∂;d_lAo MRkVsAvwø;b NAoAy NEkDl 5:11 and take a tax of grain from him, …w…nR;mIm …wjVqI;t rA;b_tAaVcAm…w houses of hewn stone you have built, MRtyˆnV;b tyIzÎg yE;tD;b but you will not live in them. MDb …wbVvEt_aøl◊w Pleasant vineyards you have planted, MR;tVoAf◊n dRmRj_yEm√rA;k aøl◊w but you will not drink their wine. :MDny´y_tRa …w;tVvIt

Zeph And their wealth will be plunder. hD;sIvVmIl MDlyEj hDyDh◊w 1:13 And their houses will become desolate. hDmDmVvIl MRhyE;tDb…w And they will build houses MyI;tDb …wnDb…w but will not live in them. …wbEv´y aøl◊w And they will plant vineyards MyIm∂rVk …woVfÎn◊w

Deut You will betroth a woman, but another man will violate her.234 235hÎ…nRlÎ…gVvˆy rEjAa vyIa◊w cérDaVt hDÚvIa 28:30 You will build a house, but you will not dwell in it. wø;b bEvEt_aøl◊w hRnVbI;t tˆyA;b You will plant a vineyard, but you will not use (its fruit). :…w…nR;lV;lAjVt aøl◊w oAÚfI;t M®rR;k

Table 3: Examples of Positive Formulations of Futility Curses Amos And I will restore the fortune of my people Israel. lEa∂rVcˆy yI;mAo t…wbVv_tRa yI;tVbAv◊w 9:14 And they will rebuild desolate cities and live (in them) …wbDvÎy◊w twø;mAv◊n MyîrDo …wnDb…w And they will plant vineyards and drink their wine. MDny´y_tRa …wtDv◊w MyIm∂rVk …woVfÎn◊w And they will make orchards and eat their fruit. :MRhyîrVÚp_tRa …wlVkDa◊w twø…nÅg …wcDo◊w

Jer Build houses, and live (in them). …wbEv◊w MyI;tDb …wnV;b 29:5 And plant orchards, and eat their fruit. :NDy√rIÚp_tRa …wlVkIa◊w twø…nÅg …woVfˆn◊w

Ezek Thus says Yahweh: hˆwh◊y yDnOdSa rAmDa_hO;k 28:25-26 "When I gather the house of Israel lEa∂rVcˆy tyE;b_tRa yIxV;båqV;b

234. Both examples in Deuteronomy include the fate of wives alongside houses and vineyards (Deut 28:30a; cf. Deut 20:5-7). A similar formulation appears in the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School):

VTE 428-429: May Venus, the brightest of stars, make your wives lie in your enemy's lap while your eyes look (at them) VTE 429-39a: May your sons not be masters of your house. VTE 430b: May a foreign enemy divide all your goods.

Note that Jer 41:10 includes the royal princesses as those entrusted to Gedaliah at Mizpah by the royal court.

235. Qere: hÎ…nRbD;kVvˆy

121 from the peoples among whom I scattered them, MDb …wxOpÎn rRvSa MyI;mAoDh_NIm then I will show my holiness among them MDb yI;tVvå;dVqˆn◊w for the eyes of the nations. MIywø…gAh yEnyEoVl And they will live on the their land MDtDm√dAa_lAo …wbVvDy◊w that I gave to my servant Jacob. :bOqSoÅyVl yî;dVbAoVl yI;tAtÎn rRvSa And they will live on it securely. DhyRlDo …wbVvÎy◊w jAfRbDl And they will build houses and plant vineyards. MyIm∂rVk …woVfÎn◊w MyI;tDb …wnDb…w And they will live securely when I make judgments MyIfDpVv yItwøcSoA;b jAfRbDl …wbVvÎy◊w against all who despise them from all around them. MDtwøbyIbV;sIm MDtOa MyIfaDÚvAh lOkV;b And they will know that I am Yahweh their God. :MRhyEhølTa hDwh◊y yInSa yI;k …wo√dDy◊w e. Use in Jer 40:7-12

Commentators have noted the "idyllic" depiction of the Mizpah community Jer

40:7-12.236 It stands in stark contrast to the archaeological evidence for destruction of

Judah's fortification network and the steep decline in the total number of sites in every region of Judah during the 6th century BCE. Although devastating, the destruction wrought by Babylonian forces was, of course, not a total destruction, and commentators have frequently suggested that this historical reality underlies the depiction of a harvest immediately following a major military operation against Jerusalem in 586 BCE.

However, from a literary perspective, viewing Jer 40:7-12 in light of the futility curse motif may provide important insight into the representation of the Gedaliah community in the Jeremiah tradition. Deut 28 conceives of exile as a realization of the futility curses. It never addresses the historical reality of a partial exile, in which certain segments of the Judean population remained in the land while others proceeded to

236. E.g. Carroll, Jeremiah, 705.

122 Babylon in several stages.237 However, in its application of the futility curse motif, Jer

40:7-12 counters Deuteronomy's perspective. Deut 28:30 is predicated on the conviction that the pragmatic consequences of military defeat–i.e., the loss of property to their conquerors–will mark Judeans as cursed. However, Jer 40:10 depicts a specific sub-set of

Judeans quite differently. It identifies the members of the remnant not with those who have been defeated but rather with their foreign overlords. Gedaliah explicitly sanctions taking over the cities of those who left and using their wine, fruit, and oil. The houses and harvests of those defeated are enjoyed not by foreigners themselves but rather by fellow

Judeans who remained in the land enjoying land grants as a reward for their loyalty. In this way, Jer 40:7-12 effectively distinguishes between the Judean remnant and the

Babylonian golah. It represents those who sided with the Babylonians as fellow victors and those who were deported in 586 BCE as the recipients of the curse. In doing so, it advances the broader agenda of pro-land redactors of Jer 37-44. אשׁר נדחו־שׁם .5

Jer 40:11-12 also specify that those gathered to Mizpah include not only Judeans left in the land but also an additional group: Judeans who fled during the siege of Jerusalem to the small neighboring polities to the east. These former refugees are able to return home under Gedaliah's leadership and to participate in the economic prosperity attributed to post-586 BCE settlement in the land. Jer 40:12 characterizes members of this group as

237. Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible (VTSupp 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 25-31; Dalit Rom-Shiloni, "Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile Interpreted in Jeremiah and Ezekiel,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. by C. Cohen, V. A. Hurowitz, B. J. Schwartz, J. H. Tigay, and Y. Muffs; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 101–23.

123 those who returned "from all the places where they were driven" (MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm):

Jer 40:11 MT Jer 47:11 G Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lD;k [MAg]◊w kai« pa¿nteß oi˚ Ioudai√oi And [also] all the Judeans And all the Judeans bDawømV;b_rRvSa oi˚ e˙n [ghvØ] Mwab who were in Moab who were in [the land] of Moab Nwø;mAo_yEnVbIb…w kai« e˙n ui˚oi√ß Ammwn and among the sons of Ammon and among the sons of Ammon MwødTaRb…w kai« oi˚ e˙n thvØ Idoumai÷aˆ and in Edom and in Edom twøx∂rSaDh_lDkV;b rRvSaÅw kai« oi˚ e˙n pa¿shØ thvØ ghvØ and who were in all the lands in every land / in all the land lRbD;b_JKRlRm NAtÎn_yI;k …woVmDv h¡kousan o¢ti e¶dwken basileu\ß Babulw◊noß heard that the king of Babylon had given heard that the king of Babylon had given h∂d…whyIl tyîrEaVv kata¿leimma tw◊ˆ Iouda a remnant to Judah a remnant to Judah MRhyElSo dyîqVpIh yIk◊w kai« o¢ti kate÷sthsen e˙pΔ aujtou\ß and that he had appointed over them and that he had appointed over them :[NDpDv_NR;b] M∂qyIjSa_NR;b …whDyVlåd◊…g_tRa to\n Godolian ui˚o\n Acikam Gedaliah son of Ahikam [son of Shaphan]. Gedaliah son of Ahikam

Jer 40:12 MT Jer 47:12 G 238[Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lDk wbUvÎ¥yÅw] --- [And all the Judeans returned] --- [MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm] --- [from all the places where they were driven] --- h∂d…wh◊y_X®rRa …waøbÎ¥yÅw kai« h™lqon ei˙ß ghvn Iouda and they came to the land of Judah and they came to the land of Judah hDtDÚpVxI;mAh …whDyVlåd◊…g_lRa pro\ß Godolian ei˙ß Masshfa to Gedaliah to Mizpah to Gedaliah to Mizpah XˆyåqÎw NˆyAy …wpVsAaÅ¥yÅw kai« sunh/gagon oi•non kai« ojpw¿ran and gathered wine and summer fruit and gathered wine and summer fruit :dOaVm hE;b√rAh pollh\n sfo/dra in abundance. in abundance --- [kai« e¶laion] --- [and olive oil].

238. Myîd…wh◊¥yAh: 2 Kgs 16:6, 2 Kgs 25:25, Jer 32:12, Jer 38:19, Jer 41:3, Jer 43:9, Jer 44:1, Jer 52:28, Jer 52:30, and many references in Est and Neh.

124 בכל־הארצות :a. Text Criticism

Both MT and G agree that Judeans fled to Moab, Ammon, and Edom. However, in addition to identifying these specific locations, MT Jer 40:11 also refers to Judeans who were twøx∂rSaDh_lDkV;b ("in all the lands"). G reads e˙n pa¿shØ thvØ ghvØ ("in every land" or "in all the land"). Janzen argues that this variant is meaningful. In his view, G represents an original

and MT represents a secondary development in the ,ואשׁר בכל־הארץ Hebrew reading of

in vs. 12.239 However, McKane interprets twøx∂rSaDh as a reference המקומות text influenced by to the three neighboring lands specified in the preceding phrase and suggests that, in the

G text, the translators renders Hebrew "twøx∂rSaDh_lDkV;b rRvSaÅw" as "and those (dispersed) through all the surrounding area."240

The expression twøx∂rSaDh_lDk appears in five other cases: Jer 16:15, 23:3, 23:8, 27:6, and 32:37. In two cases, the translator renders twøx∂rSaDh_lDk as aÓpo\ pasw◊n tw◊n cwrw◊n (Jer 16:15 and 23:8). However, in the remaining cases, G employs the singular where MT is plural:

Jer yˆnaøx tyîrEaVv_tRa XE;båqSa yˆnSaÅw kai« e˙gw» ei˙sde÷xomai tou\ß kataloi÷pouß touv laouv mou 23:3 MDv MDtOa yI;tVjå;dIh_rRvSa twøx∂rSaDh lO;kIm aÓpo\ pa¿shß thvß ghvß ou∞ e˙xw◊sa aujtou\ß e˙kei√

Jer hR;lEaDh twøx∂rSaDh_lD;k_tRa yI;tAtÎn yIkOnDa hD;tAo◊w e¶dwka th\n ghvn 27:6 yî;dVbAo lRbD;b_JKRlRm rA…xa‰n√dAk…wb◊n dAyV;b tw◊ˆ Naboucodonosor basilei√ Babulw◊noß douleu/ein aujtw◊ˆ

Jer MDxV;båqVm yIn◊nIh i˙dou\ e˙gw» suna¿gw aujtou\ß 32:37 MDv MyI;tVjå;dIh rRvSa twøx∂rSaDh_lD;kIm e˙k pa¿shß thvß ghvß ou∞ die÷speira aujtou\ß e˙kei√

239. Janzen, Studies, 17, 208, n. 3. See also Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 271; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 113, 123; and Ehud Ben Zvi, "The Voice and Role of a Counterfactual Memory in the Construction of Exile and Return: Considering Jer 40:7-12," in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 76. In Lundbom's view, G has the sense "in all the land" and refers to greater Judah, while MT has connotation of a return on a broad geographic scale.

240. McKane, Volume II, 1003. Cf. Stulman, Other Text of Jeremiah, 140,143. Stulman views G as a rendering of the same Hebrew text as MT without commenting on the extent of the geographic area in view. He translates both "and the other lands."

125 Of these, Jer 27:6 may represent a secondary development in the MT enhancing the claims of Nebuchadnezzar's power and role as Yahweh's servant. However, Jer 23:3 and

32:37 support the view that the singular noun reflects a translation choice in rendering a plural Hebrew Vorlage shared by MT and G rather than a meaningful secondary development in MT in the rendering of the plural Hebrew text.241

וישׁבו כל־היהודים מכל־המקמות אשׁר נדחו שׁם :b. Text Criticism

In Jer 40:12, an MT+ identifies the refugees who came home to join the community at

Mizpah as "all the Judeans who returned from all the places where they had been driven"

(MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lDk …wbUvÎ¥yÅw), while G lacks this expression entirely. Many scholars argue for the priority of G on two grounds: (1) it fits MT's tendency toward expansion and (2) the usage in Jer 40:11-12 differs from parallels elsewhere in the refers either to the infliction of punishment or mass return נדח Jeremiah tradition in which from the Babylonian exile.242 However, from a text critical perspective, the shorter G text can be explained on the grounds of haplography (…waøbÎ¥yÅw...…wbUvÎ¥yÅw).243 Further, when examined more carefully, the use of the expression "MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lDk …wbUvÎ¥yÅw" can be regarded not as a clumsy secondary addition but rather as an integral part of the editors' characterization of the Mizpah community.

241. Note a similar translation technique in several similar examples: Jer 8:3 (twømOqV;mAh_lDk / e˙n panti« to/pwˆ), Jer 24:9 (twømOqV;mAh_lDk / e˙n panti« to/pwˆ), and Jer 46:28 (MIywø…gAh_lDk / e˙n panti« e¶qnei).

242. Janzen, Studies, 53. See also Duhm, Das Buch; Pohlmann, Studien, 114; Lust, "Gathering and Return,"130-131; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 271, 295; McKane, Volume II, 1003; and Allen, Jeremiah, 432-433.

243. Lundbom, Jer 37-52, 113. Note that Lundbom also critiques Janzen for not adequately .in the Jeremiah tradition נדח addressing the variation in phraseology surrounding

126 in Jeremiah נדח c. Use of

refers exclusively to the horrors of punishment by exile, with no נדח ,In three cases discussion of the possibility of return:

• Jer 8:1-3 (MT and G) envisions complete desolation inside and outside the land: the

bones of Jerusalem's kings, officials, priests, prophets, and ordinary inhabitants will be

desecrated and scattered on the ground. Meanwhile, those from the "evil clan" of Judah

who remain alive in exile are condemned to an existence that makes them wish they

were dead.

• Jer 24:9-10 (MT and G) interprets the rotten, inedible figs in Jeremiah's vision as

Zedekiah and his officials, the Jerusalem remnant left in the land post-597 BCE, and

those who dwell in Egypt. According to Jer 24:10, these groups will be completely

destroyed (MD;mU;t) in exile at Yahweh's hands.

• Jer 27:10-15 (MT and G) purportedly extends the threat of exile to Judah's neighbors

because they have been invited by Zedekiah to participate in an anti-Babylonian

conference in Jerusalem. Jeremiah issues the same warning to envoys from Moab,

Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon as he does to Zedekiah. Prophets urging rebellion are false

prophets. If they do not submit to Babylon, Yahweh will drive them out of their lands,

.(אבד) and they will perish

.refers to a past event whose impact is ultimately reversible נדח ,In others cases

The primary focus is not necessarily on the exile itself but on the opportunity for return that it creates, represented in some cases as an event on the scale of the Exodus.

• Jer 16:14-15 and Jer 23:8 (MT and G) clearly envision a physical reversal of the exile,

127 promising that Yahweh will bring Israel back to the land given to the fathers, and it

represents this event as one that overshadows the foundational moment in Israel's

national mythology, the Exodus. The location of exile is identified as "the land of the

north" (i.e. Babylon) and "all the lands where [Yahweh] has driven them."

• Jer 23:3 (MT and G) promises that Yahweh will gather the remnant from "all the

countries where he has driven them" and bring them back to "their fold" where they

will prosper.

• Jer 29:14 (MT+) belongs to a longer MT addition that contrasts the disastrous fate of

those who remained in Judah post-597 BCE and the prosperity of those who went into

exile with Jehoiachin. It clearly promises physical restoration to the land for those taken

into exile. The language of the expansion draws on stereotypical language from

Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, including the vision of the figs in Jer 24. In contrast, G

implies restoration on much more limited terms. It promises only that, in response to

being sought by the people with their whole heart, Yahweh will appear to them

(e˙pifanouvmai).

• Jer 32:37 (MT and G) contrasts the present punishment and predetermined destruction

of Jerusalem with a specific vision of restoration in the land: return to the land, a new

heart for the people from Yahweh himself, the reinstitution of the covenant, and the

restoration of commerce in Judah.

128 in Deut נדח d. Use of

Deut 30:1-10 is one of just two texts in Deuteronomy that address the possibility for restoration, and these texts portray restoration differently.244 Deut 4:29-31 presents only a restoration of the people's relationship with Yahweh. After being scattered among the nations, the people will seek Yahweh in exile, and in response the text promises that

Yahweh will not leave them, destroy them, or forget the covenant. However, Deut 4 depicts spiritual return to Yahweh (wølOqV;b D;tVoAmDv◊w ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y_dAo D;tVbAv◊w) with addressing physical restoration to the land of Judah. In contrast, Deut 30:1-10 presents a much more specific vision of restoration: after the people return to Yahweh and obey his voice, Deut 30 anticipates spiritual reform, characterized as a circumcision of the heart carried out by

Yahweh himself. However, this spiritual restoration is accompanied by (and facilitates) concrete benefits for those who repent: the ingathering of the remnant from the farthest parts of the earth, prosperity in the land, and the application of the covenant curses to their enemies (Deut 30:5-9):

Yahweh your God will bring you to the land X®rDaDh_lRa ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y ÔKSayIbTh‰w that your fathers possessed, ÔKyRtObSa …wv√rÎy_rRvSa and you will possess it. ;hD;tVvîryIw And he will prosper multiply you more than your fathers. :ÔKyRtObSaEm ÔKV;b√rIh◊w ÔKVbIfyEh◊w

And Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart ÔKVbDbVl_tRa ÔKyRhølTa ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y lDm…w and the heart of your seed ÔKRo√rÅz bAbVl_tRa◊w to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and your soul ÔKVvVpÅn_lDkVb…w ÔKVbDbVl_lDkV;b hDwh◊y_tRa hDbShAaVl so that you may live. :ÔKyR¥yAj NAoAmVl

And Yahweh your God will put all these curses hR;lEaDh twølDaDh_lD;k tEa ÔKyRhølTa hDwh◊y NAtÎn◊w on your enemies ÔKyRb◊yOa_lAo and on those who hate you who pursue you :ÔK…wp∂d√r rRvSa ÔKyRa◊nOc_lAo◊w

244. On Deut 30:1-10 as an exilic edition (Dtr2), see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 287.

129 And now you will turn and obey the voice of Yahweh hDwh◊y lwøqV;b D;tVoAmDv◊w b…wvDt hD;tAa◊w and do all his commandments wyDtOwVxIm_lD;k_tRa DtyIcDo◊w that I am commanding you today. :Mwø¥yAh ÔK◊…wAxVm yIkOnDa rRvSa

And Yahweh your God will give you prosperity ÔK√ryItwøh◊w ÔKyRhølTa hÎwh◊y in all the work your hand, ÔK®dÎy hEcSoAm lOkV;b in the fruit of your womb ÔK◊nVfIb yîrVpI;b and in the fruit of your animals ÔKV;tVmRhVb yîrVpIb…w and in the fruit of your land hDbwøfVl ÔKVtDm√dAa yîrVpIb…w Because Yahweh will turn to rejoice over you for good bwøfVl ÔKyRlDo c…wcDl hÎwh◊y b…wvÎy yI;k just as he rejoiced over your fathers. :ÔKyRtObSa_lAo cDc_rRvSaA;k in Jer 40:7-12 אשׁר נדחו־שׁם e. Use of

The expression MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lD;kIm Myîd…wh◊¥yAh_lDk reflects the primary concern of its immediate context: Judeans outside the land. Although its use in Jer 40:11-12 diverges from parallels that present exile as an unending punishment or as a preface to restoration from exile on a grand scale, this difference should not be regarded as evidence of clumsy textual expansion. Rather, its use in Jer 40:-12 offers an adaptation of the vision of restoration presented in Deuteronomy, which is the only parallel that explicitly deals with restoration in terms of agricultural prosperity.

Although determining the direction of literary borrowing is often problematic, it is unlikely that the parallel texts have picked up on this small scale return in Jer 40:11-12 and expanded the concept into a mass return elsewhere in the Jeremiah tradition. Rather,

Jer 40:12 draws on Deut 30 to advance the view that Yahweh's punishment has ended and restoration has already taken place through the remnant's presence in the land under

Babylonian auspices. In this way, the MT+ should be regarded as a further example of the reshaping of Deuteronomic concepts to advance the pro-land editors' view of ongoing life in the land in the core stage of Jer 37-44.

130 E. Jer 42:1-6

1. Literary Context

Following the assassination of Gedaliah and the collapse of the post-586 administration at

Mizpah, Jer 41 reports that Ishmael took the city's inhabitants prisoner and planned to take them to Ammon. Though Johanan and his fellow military commanders successfully rescued these captives from Ishmael, they nevertheless contemplate flight to Egypt, feared another Babylonian campaign in response to the assassination of Gedaliah and the

Babylonian troops who stationed with him at Mizpah.

למען ייטב לכם .2

When the Judean military leaders seek out a prophetic inquiry from Jeremiah, they pledge to obey whatever word Yahweh sends, linking obedience to the prophetic word and their well-being (Jer 42:5-6):

"May Yahweh be a true and faithful witness against us NDmTa‰n◊w tRmTa dEoVl …wnD;b hÎwh◊y yIh◊y if according to every word rDb∂;dAh_lDkV;k aøl_MIa which Yahweh [your God] sends you (to tell) to us, …wnyElEa [ÔKyRhølTa] hDwh◊y ÔKSjDlVvIy rRvSa so we do not do. :hRcSoÅn NE;k

Whether good or whether evil, o∂r_MIa◊w bwøf_MIa the voice of Yahweh our God, …wnyEhølTa hDwh◊y lwøqV;b 245 to whom we are sending you, wyDlEa ÔKVtOa MyIjVlOv …wnSa rRvSa we will obey so that it might be well for us. …wnDl_bAfyIy rRvSa NAoAmVl oDmVvˆn

This final appearance of the expression is an ironic usage, anticipating the decision in Jer

43:1-7 to disregard Jeremiah's oracle and flee. Although the words of the people allude to promises of long-life in the land, in the episodes that follow, the editors make clear that,

245. Qere: …wnVjÅnSa

131 though Johanan and his followers knew this prosperity was dependent on obedience to

Yahweh, they forfeited it by choosing to disregard the oracle and flee to Egypt. This lost opportunity stands in contrast to the text's vision of their downfall after arriving in Egypt.

F. Jer 42:10-22

1. Literary Context

Jeremiah 42:10-22 provides Jeremiah's response to the request for an oracle from Judean military leaders seeking approval to flee to Egypt. Yahweh's response is unambiguous: flight to Egypt is prohibited. The core of the oracle (vv. 10-12) promises that Yahweh himself will establish the remnant in the land because he has repented of the judgment he brought on Judah. Vv. 13-18 attempt to acknowledge and refute counterarguments, promising that Egypt will not be a place of refuge from war and famine. Rather, it proclaims judgment for those who flee in the same terms and on the same scale as the judgment of Jerusalem. Vv. 19-22 similarly promise certain death for those who flee, though they are sometimes regarded as a secondary addition to the oracle because they assume the response of remnant in Jer 43:1-7.

גור .2

Jeremiah's opposition to flight to Egypt is frequently characterized as symbolic in two related ways: emigration represents a realization of the Deuteronomic curse in Deut 28:68 and a symbolic reversal of the Exodus, the foundational event in Israel's national mythology.246

246. E.g. Friedman, "From Egypt to Egypt," 191; Carroll, From Chaos, 235-241; Carroll, Jeremiah, 720; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 126-131; and Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 131.

132 a. Return to Egypt in Deut 28:68

Deut 28:68 threatens a return to Egypt as a punishment from Yahweh himself:

And Yahweh will return you to Egypt in boats twø¥yˆnFaD;b MˆyårVxIm hDwh◊y ÔKVbyIvThRw by the way (about) which I said [to you], [ÔKVl] yI;t√rAmDa rRvSa JK®r®;dA;b "You will not see it again." ;hDtOa√rIl dwøo PyIsOt_aøl And you will sell yourselves there to your enemies ÔKyRb◊yOaVl MDv MR;t√rA;kAmVtIh◊w to be male slaves and female slaves, twøjDpVvIl◊w MyîdDbSoAl but there will not be a buyer. :hRnOq NyEa◊w

represents this descent to Egypt as a clear counterpart to the Exodus.247 שׁוב The use of

This connection is made explicit by the quote, "You will not see it [i.e. Egypt] again," which is attributed to Moses. This quote links the curse of Deut 28 to the narrative of the

Reed Sea crossing in Exodus 14:13-14:248

And Moses said to the people, MDoDh_lRa hRvOm rRmaø¥yÅw "Do not fear. …wa∂ryI;t_lAa Stand ﬁrm, and see the salvation of Yahweh hÎwh◊y tAo…wv◊y_tRa …wa√r…w …wbVxÅyVtIh that he will perform for you today. Mwø¥yAh MRkDl hRcSoÅy_rRvSa For the Egyptians whom you see today Mwø¥yAh MˆyårVxIm_tRa MRtyIa√r rRvSa yI;k you will not see them again forever. :MDlwøo_dAo dwøo MDtOa√rIl …wpyIsOt aøl Yahweh will ﬁght for you, MRkDl MEjD;lˆy hDwh◊y and you yourselves will keep silent. :N…wvyîrSjA;t MR;tAa◊w

In both cases, Yahweh himself is the agent. In Exod 14, Yahweh delivers the children of

Israel through the pillar of cloud that stands between them and Egyptian army and

247.The Exodus is one of the key themes in Hosea (2:15 [MT 17]; 12:9 [MT 10]; 12:13; 13:4). .(function as a counter part to this theme (e.g. Hosea 8:13, 9:13, 11:5 (שׁוב) References to a return to Egypt According to Yair Hoffman ("A North Israelite Typological Myth and a Judaean Historical Tradition: The Exodus in Hosea and Amos," VT 39/2 [1989]: 169-182), these oracles built on the importance of the Exodus tradition in the Northern Kingdom. He characterizes “the return to Egypt” primarily as theologically-based speculation. Because the Exodus was associated with the establishment of the covenant, it became a key typological event, and the return to Egypt as a national punishment was necessary for a new Exodus to bring about the renewal of that covenant.

248. D.E. Sweres, Die Rückerweise im Buch Deuteronomium (Rome, 1979), 193; David J. Reimer, "Concerning Return to Egypt: Deuteronomy XVII 16 and XXVIII 68," in Studies in the Pentateuch (VT Supp 41; ed. J.A Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990.

133 However, in Deut 28:68, Yahweh himself reverses this .ים סוף through the parting of the intervention and returns the people to Egypt.

The specification that Yahweh will return the people "in boats" is enigmatic.

There are no true grounds for textual emendation since the witnesses are unanimous on this reading."249 Among those who try to make sense of twø¥yˆnFaD;b in context, there are two proposed historical backdrops: (1) One option is the context of vassalship to Assyria.

Schley argues that the text refers to Assyria's demand for troops during Assurbanipal's campaign to Egypt. According to the Rassam Cylinder, "In the course of my campaign,

22 kings from the seacoast, the midst of the sea, and the mainland, servants, obedient to me, brought to me heavy tribute during my campaign and kissed my feet. Those kings, together with their strength, their ships, by sea and land, with their armies, I made to take the road to Egypt."250 (2) A second option is the context of economic connections between Egypt and the Levant. Reimer suggests the curse reflects an ironic reversal of

Judean hopes for commerial gain from ties with Egypt: "instead of prosperity there will be misery, and the boats that symbolized their trade will deal in slavery."251 Driver argues more specifically that twø¥yˆnFaD;b is a reference to slave trade, a punishment worse than mere exile: "The idea is not that the surviving Israelites will be brought to Egypt merely as exiles, but that they will be brought there to be sold as slaves, the 'ships' being those of

249. E.g. Peter D. Craigie (Deuteronomy [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976]: 350-353), who attempts to resolve the difficulty by emending the text on the basis of the Arabic root 'āna "to be at ease."

250. Prism A, Lines 68-74. Donald G. Schley, Jr., "Yahweh Will Cause You to Return to Egypt in Ships (Deuteronomy XXVIII 68)," VT 35 (1985): 371-372.

251. Reimer, "Concerning Return," 229.

134 the Phoenicians, who carried on a trade in slaves (Amos 1:9, Ezek 26:13, Joel 4:6)."252 b. Return to Egypt in Deut 17:16 as a Secondary Development based on Deut 28:68

The Law of the King (Deut 17:14-20), which prohibits the Judean monarchy from returning the people to Egypt voluntarily, has strong resemblance to Deut 28:68:

Only he (i.e., the king) shall not multiply horses for himself MyIs…ws wø;l_hR;b√rÅy_aøl qår and shall not return the people to Egypt hDm◊yårVxIm MDoDh_tRa byIvÎy_aøl◊w to multiply horses, s…ws twø;b√rAh NAoAmVl (because) Yahweh said [to you]: [MRkDl] rAmDa hÎwhyAw "You shall not return this way again." :dwøo hRΩzAh JK®r®;dA;b b…wvDl N…wpIsOt aøl

However, several subtle differences mark its reference to a return to Egypt as a secondary development based on Deut 28:68.253

Table 4: Formulation of Return to Egypt in Deut 28:68 vs Deut 17:16 Deut 28:68 Deut 17:16 - Formulated as a threat - Formulated as a prohibition - Quote attributed to Moses - Quote attributed to Yahweh to Egypt again (שׁוב) "Egypt again - People are not "to return (לראתה) "People are not "to see - - Yahweh returns the people - King returns the people is part of the quotation בדרך - is outside the quotation בדרך - - 2nd person singular - 2nd person plural

Deut 17:16 thus strengthens the force of the quote by shifting its attribution from Moses to Yahweh himself. It also adapts the statement, shifting from the promise that the people to (שׁוב) Egypt against to the promise that the people would not return (ראה) would not see

Egypt again.

Further, as Albertz points out, Deut 17:16 also appears to be secondary to its context in the Law of the King on grammatical grounds. Within Deut 17:16-17, the

252. Samuel R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (New York: Charles Scribner, 1895), 319.

253. Reimer, "Concerning Return."

135 repetition of the phrase "wø;l_hR;b√rÅy_aøl" links the three primary stipulations for the monarchy:

He shall not multiply horses for himself. MyIs…ws wø;l_hR;b√rÅy_aøl He shall not multiply wives for himself. MyIvÎn wø;l_hR;b√rÅy aøl He shall not multiply much silver and gold for himself. dOaVm wø;l_hR;b√rÅy aøl bDhÎz◊w PRsRk◊w

These requirements provide general limitations on the king's authority in the spheres of military power, international diplomacy, and the domestic economy respectively.254

However, Deut 17:16b's prohibition breaks this parallelism and also makes much more specific demands on the monarchy.255 Further, the abrupt shift to a second personal plural address is grammatically awkward.

(גור) "c. Jer 42's Characterization of Descent to Egypt as a "Sojourn

While Jer 42 and Deut 28 both view descent to Egypt negatively, they nevertheless offer very different perspectives. In Deut 28:68, the threat is that Yahweh himself will send the people back to Egypt. In Jer 42, the refugees choose this fate for themselves despite

that he brought on (רעה) of the disaster (נחם) Yahweh's declaration that he has repented

Judah. They also use distinctive terminology: Jer 42 characterizes descent to Egypt not as

.(גור) but as a sojourn (שׁוב) a return

254. Albertz, "Possible Terminus Ad Quem," 280: "[T]he content of the stipulations is clear: The first tries to limit the 'horses', that is, the king's chariot army (cf. Isa 30:16; 31:3), the second seeks to limit the king's harem, hence his international diplomacy and his national social power, and the third 'attempts to limit the royal family's income from royal estates, taxes and trade. All these restrictions aim at a general limitation of the king's political and economic power."

255. Interpretations of the "return" prohibited in Deut 17:16 include the exchange of slaves for horses, Egyptian-Judean political and economic alliances Mayes 1981: 282; Driver, Deuteronomy, 211-212; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [JPS; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society)] 167; Patricia Dutcher-Walls, "The Circumscriptions of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in Its Ancient Social Context," JBL 121/4 [2002], 615) and the exchange of Judean mercenaries for Egyptian horses and chariots (Albertz, "Posssible Terminus ad Quem," 282; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 185). Craigie (Deuteronomy, 255) and Nelson (Deuteronomy, 224) discuss this range of options without preferring one over the others. For bibliography on the connection between Egypt and horses and especially Nubian horses in Assyrian lists of plunder from their military campaigns, see Albertz, "Possible Terminus Ad Quem," 281, n. 46.

136 is sometimes connected with the Exodus (Deut 26:5-9), it does not גור Although always have negative connotations. Thus, Deut 26:5-8 refers to the sojourn in Egypt with no reference to oppression:

You shall not abhor an Edomite yImOdSa bEoAtVt_aøl because he is your brother. a…wh ÔKyIjDa yI;k You shall not abhor an Egyptian yîrVxIm bEoAtVt_aøl because you were a sojourner in his land. :wøx√rAaVb DtyIyDh rEg_yI;k

Similarly, in Pentateuchal traditions, the "sojourn" to Egypt represents a temporary descent to Egypt because of poor conditions in the land of Canaan. In Gen 12:10, Abram explicitly sojourns in Egypt because of severe famine in the land.

Elsewhere in the Jeremiah tradition, there are both explicit and more subtle references to the Exodus. For example, Jer 21 represents the fall of Jerusalem as a divine reversal of the Exodus.256 In Jer 21, the hope of Judean officials that Yahweh will

alludes back to this phrase as a characterization of the (עשׂה נפלאות) "perform wonders"

Exodus, the wilderness journey, and settlement in Canaan (Exod 3:19-20; Exod 34:10;

Josh 3:5; Mic 7:15; Ps 78:4,11,32; Ps 98:1; Ps 105:5; Ps 106:22; Ps 107:24; and Neh

9:17).257 Jeremiah's prediction of unmitigated defeat for Judah also alludes to the Exodus tradition: whereas in the Exodus, Yahweh himself delivered the people "with a strong

now Yahweh will turn that strong hand ,(ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה) "hand and outstretched arm and outstretched arm against Jerusalem.

Jer 42, however, is not concerned with the symbolism of the Exodus but rather

256. Dalit Rom-Shiloni, "Facing Destruction and Exile: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel," ZAW 117 (2005): 189-205.

.also refers to the Exodus נפלאות See also Judg 6:13 and Ps 107:8,15,21, and 31 in which .257

137 with countering positive views of sojourning in Egypt. It acknowledges refugees' expectations that Egypt offers relief from famine and instability and attempts to refute them (Jer 42:14, 16):

Jer 42:14 Jer 42:16 hDmDjVlIm hRa√rˆn_aøl rRvSa hÎ…nR;mIm MyIaér◊y MR;tAa rRvSa b®rRjAh hDt◊yDh◊w oDmVvˆn aøl rDpwøv lwøq◊w Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRaV;b MRkVtRa gyIÚcA;t [MDv] where we will not see battle and the sword which you are afraid of and will not hear the sound of the horn, [there] it will overtake you in the land of Egypt

bDo√rˆn_aøl MRjR;lAl◊w …w…nR;mIm MyIgSaø;d MR;tAa_rRvSa bDo∂rDh◊w MˆyårVxIm MRkyérSjAa qA;b√dˆy [MDv] and not be hungry for bread. and the hunger which you dread [there] it will cling to you (in) Egypt.

:bEv´n MDv◊w :…wtUmD;t MDv◊w And there we will live. And there you will die.

הרעה אשׁר אני מביא עליהם .3

Jeremiah's oracle offers no hope for the future of those who flee to Egypt. Rather, it repeatedly promises certain death for all members of the remnant who emigrate (Jer

42:16, 17, 18, 19). However, the terminology with which vs. 17 represents this judgment is significant:

Jer 42:17-18 And all the men who set their faces MRhy´nVÚp_tRa …wmDc_rRvSa 258MyIvÎnSaDh_lDk …wyVhIy◊w [to go] (to) Egypt to sojourn there MDv r…wgDl MˆyårVxIm [awøbDl] will die by sword and by famine [and by disease] [rRb∂;dAb…w] bDo∂rD;b b®rRjA;b …wt…wmÎy

258. G+ reads kai« pa¿nteß oi˚ aÓllogenei√ß ("and all the foreigners"). Janzen (Studies, 65) concludes that G reflects a marginal gloss related to Myîd´ΩzAh MyIvÎnSaDh_lDk◊w ("all the arrogant men") in MT Jer 43:2. Janzen suggests that Jer 42:17 and 43:2 appeared in adjacent manuscript columns and that the gloss was incorporated in MT at 43:2 but that a corrupt version was incorporated in G at 42:17. However, McKane (Volume II, 1036-1037) critiques Janzen's elaborate proposal as speculative and points out that, alongside the question of corruption, the usage is different in both passages: an attributive adjective in MT Jer 43:2 but a parallel to MyIvÎnSaDh_lDk in G at Jer 42:17. Lundbom (Jeremiah 37-52, 134) suggests that G's reading is plausible because of previous references to foreigners (e.g. Jezaniah son of the (הזרים Hebrew) Maacathite in Jer 40:8) and that the phrase may have been dropped from the MT (homoeoteleuton).

138 And there will not be a survivor or fugitive for them fyIlDp…w dyîrDc MRhDl hRyVhˆy_aøl◊w from the evil that I am bringing upon them. :MRhyElSo ayIbEm yInSa rRvSa hDo∂rDh y´nVÚpIm

For thus says Yahweh [of Hosts, God of Israel], [lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa twøaDbVx] hDwh◊y rAmDa hOk yI;k just as [my anger] and my wrath were poured out yItDmSjÅw [yIÚpAa] JKA;tˆn rRvSaA;k upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem MÊAlDv…wr◊y yEbVvOy_lAo so my wrath will be poured out on you when you go (to) Egypt. Mˆy∂rVxIm MRkSaøbV;b MRkyElSo yItDmSj JKA;tI;t NE;k And you will be an oath, a desolation, a curse, and a reproach. hDÚp√rRjVl…w hDlDlVqIl◊w hD;mAvVl…w hDlDaVl MRtyˆyVhˆw And you will not see this place again. :hRΩzAh MwøqD;mAh_tRa dwøo …wa√rIt_aøl◊w

2 Kgs 22:16-17 Thus says Yahweh: hÎwh◊y rAmDa hO;k "Behold I am bringing disaster hDo∂r ayIbEm yˆn◊nIh to this place and against its inhabitants, wyDbVvOy_lAo◊w hRΩzAh MwøqD;mAh_lRa all the words of this book which the king of Judah read :h∂d…wh◊y JKRlRm a∂r∂q rRvSa rRpE;sAh yérVbî;d_lD;k tEa because they forsook me yˆn…wbÎzSo rRvSa tAjA;t and burned incense to other gods MyîrEjSa MyIhølaEl …wrVÚfåq◊yAw to provoke me with all the work of their hands, MRhyéd◊y hEcSoAm lOkV;b yˆnEsyIoVkAh NAoAmVl and my wrath will be poured out on this place, hRΩzAh MwøqD;mA;b yItDmSj hDtV…xˆn◊w and it will not be quenched. :hR;bVkIt aøl◊w

2 Kgs 21:11-14 Because Manasseh king of Judah did these abominations hR;lEaDh twøbEoO;tAh h∂d…wh◊y_JKRlRm hRÚvÅnVm hDcDo rRvSa NAo [and] did evil more than all the Amorites before him wyDnDpVl rRvSa yîrOmTaDh …wcDo_rRvSa lO;kIm oårEh and also made Judah sin with his images. :wyDl…w;lˆgV;b h∂d…wh◊y_tRa_MAg aIfSjÅ¥yÅw Therefore, thus says Yahweh God of Israel lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k NEkDl Behold, I am bringing evil upon Jerusalem and Judah h∂d…whyIw MÊAlDv…wr◊y_lAo hDo∂r ayIbEm yˆn◊nIh (such) that both ears of all those who hear of it will tingle :wyDn◊zDa yE;tVv hÎnVlA…xI;t 259wyDoVmOv_lD;k rRvSa And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria NwørVmOv w∂q tEa MÊAlDv…wr◊y_lAo yItyIfÎn◊w and the plumb line of the house of Ahab bDaVjAa tyE;b tRlOqVvIm_tRa◊w And I will wipe Jerusalem just as (one) wipes a dish, tAjA;lA…xAh_tRa hRjVmˆy_rRvSaA;k MÊAlDv…wr◊y_tRa yItyIjDm…w wiping (it) and turning it upside down. :DhyRnDÚp_lAo JKApDh◊w hDjDm And I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance yItDlSjÅn tyîrEaVv tEa yI;tVvAfÎn◊w and give them into the hand of their enemies, MRhyEb◊yOa dAyV;b MyI;tAt◊n…w and they will be plunder and spoil for all their enemies. :MRhyEb◊yOa_lDkVl hD;sIvVmIl◊w zAbVl …wyDh◊w

The expression MRhyElSo ayIbEm yInSa rRvSa hDo∂rDh ("the evil I am bringing upon them") represents the judgment of those who flee to Egypt as a judgment on the same scale as the national

259. Qere: ;hDoVmOv.

139 judgment of Jerusalem and Judah. However, the causes of these judgments are distinct.

DtrH represents the cause of this judgment in cultic terms. In Dtr1, Huldah's oracle to

Josiah (2 Kgs 22:16-17) anticipates Yahweh's judgment because of popular worship of other gods, leading to the culmination of Dtr1 in Josiah's reform. Meanwhile, in light of such reform, Dtr2 casts the blame for the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile specifically to Manasseh's cultic practice (2 Kgs 21:11-14), crediting him with creating a trajectory in Judah's religious life that even the reforms of Josiah could not overcome.260

In contrast, Jer 42 predicts that the mere act of "sojourning" in Egypt is sufficient to provoke a comparable outpouring of judgment.

G. Jer 43:1-7

1. Literary Context

Jeremiah 43:1-7 outlines the resolution to the conflict between the remnant's desire to flee to Egypt and Jeremiah's oracular prohibition. Ultimately, the people accuse Baruch of conspiring to turn Jeremiah against them and decide that Jeremiah has not brought an

Despite Jeremiah's .(שׁקר) authentic oracle from Yahweh, declaring his prophecy false prohibition, the entire Judean remnant departs for Egypt.

In Jer 43:1-7, the narrator measures "obedience to Yahweh's voice" against a single criterion: the remnant's presence in the land of Judah. Jer 43:4 defines obedience to

260. For preexilic dating of Huldah's Oracle in 2 Kgs 22:15-20, see Baruch Halpern, "Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition," VT 48/4 (1998): 497-498. Halpern argues that Huldah's oracle is a unified, pre-exilic composition, noting that oracle itself predicts only "all the words of this book" (i.e. the Book of the Law found in the temple by Josiah's officials) as the judgment Judah will face and that it also inaccurately predicts a peaceful death for Josiah On Manasseh's role in the Babylonian exile, see also Cross, Canaanite Myth, 285 and .(בשׁלום) himself Richard Nelson, "The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling," JSOT 29/3 (2005): 327-329.

140 Yahweh's voice as living/remaining in the land of Judah (h∂d…wh◊y X®rRaV;b tRbRvDl), and Jer 43:7 contrasts obedience to Yahweh's voice with going to the land of Egypt (MˆyårVxIm [X®rRa] …waøbÎ¥yÅw).

מכל־המקמות אשׁר נדחו שׁם .2

Jer 43:5 [Ajér∂q_NR;b] NDnDjwøy jå;qˆ¥yÅw kai« e¶laben Iwanan And Johanan [son of Koreah] took And Johanan took MyIlÎySjAh yérDc_lDk◊w kai« pa¿nteß oi˚ hJgemo/neß thvß duna¿mewß and all the commanders of the forces and all the commanders of the forces h∂d…wh◊y tyîrEaVv_lD;k tEa pa¿ntaß tou\ß kataloi÷pouß Iouda and all the remnant of Judah and all the remnant of Judah …wbDv_rRvSa tou\ß aÓpostre÷yantaß who had returned who had returned [MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa Mˆywø…gAh_lD;kIm] --- [from all the nations where they had been driven] --- :[h∂d…wh◊y] X®rRaV;b r…wgDl katoikei√n e˙n thvØ ghvØ to sojourn in the land [of Judah] to sojourn in the land a. Text Criticism: MT+

The identification of the members of the group departing in Jer 43:7 is problematic. Based on previous episodes, the group contemplating flight to Egypt includes Johanan and his fellow military commanders as well as the people they rescued from Ishmael at Gibeon (Jer 41:11-18). Jer 41:10 specifies that the group kidnapped by

Ishmael was taken from Mizpah, and Jer 41:17 identifies its members as soldiers, women, children, and eunuchs. Even in this case, the narrative still implies a rather small group, since these people were overpowered by Ishmael and just ten of his followers (Jer 41:1).

However, subsequent references envision a much larger group. Jer 42:1 and Jer

42:8 designate the group that approached Jeremiah seeking oracular advice regarding the decision to flee as "all the people from least to greatest" (lwødÎ…g_dAo◊w NOf∂;qIm MDoDh_lDk◊w) alongside

Johanan and his commanders. Likewise, Jer 43:5 specifies when Johanan and his forces

141 fled to Egypt, they took the "entire remnant of Judah" (h∂d…wh◊y tyîrEaVv_lD;k) with them.

As part of the editors' attempt to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of the emigration to Egypt, both MT and G also highlight the presence of former expatriates who had returned home and joined Gedaliah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:11-12),261 designating them as those who had returned (…wbDv_rRvSa / tou\ß aÓpostre÷yantaß). An MT+ in Jer

43:5 further draws on the terminology of Jer 40:12 and specifies that these individuals had returned "from all the places where they were driven" (MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa Mˆywø…gAh_lD;kIm). In this case, there are no grounds for explaining the MT+ on the basis of haplography. Rather, it appears to be a secondary addition drawn from Jer 40:12.262

261. Duhm, Das Buch, 325-326; Rudolph, Jeremiah, 256-257; Holladay, Jeremiah 2; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37-52; 142-143; and Allen, Jeremiah, 439.

262. This passage also appears in line 4 of 4QJerb[d], but the reading is obscured by damage to the line:

MT [h∂d…wh◊y] X®rRaV;b r…wgDl [MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa Mˆywø…gAh_lD;kIm] …wbDv_rRvSa G tou\ß aÓpostre÷yantaß katoikei√n e˙n thvØ ghvØ [אשׁר שׁבו לגור באר]ץ [מצר]ים (4QJerb[d] Line 4 (Janzen [אשׁר שׁבו מכל הגוים אשׁר נדחו] שׁם (4QJerb[d] Line 4 (Tov

There are two major reconstructions for restoring the gap in the 4QJerb[d] text. Janzen (Studies, ם argues that there is sufficient space to fill the line only with the text of LXX and proposes that (182-183 He, therefore, reconstructs the line as "those who had .מצרים should be reconstructed as the final letter of returned to sojourn in the land of Egypt." However, Tov (1997:203) points out that the content of Janzen's reconstruction is awkward and implausible and proposes a restoration partially based on the content of the One of the principle difficulties .לגור בארץ יהודה MT, accounting for space considerations by omitting is more appropriate to the ישׁב ,As Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 276) points out .גור hinges on the usage of the root is much more גור land of Judah (cf. Jer 42:15, Jer 42:17, Jer 42:22, Jer 43:2, Jer 44:8, and Jer 44:12), while common with reference to Egypt. "Sojourning" in Judah is not unknown. For example, the Rechabites are characterized as sojourning in Judah in Jer 35:7. However, even in this case, the Rechabites are distinct from native Judeans. Plant (Good Figs, Bad Figs, 158) proposes resolving some of the awkwardness of the .ויקח יוחנן as a complement to לגור parenthetically and reading אשׁר שׁבו MT by reading

142 c. Use in Jer 43:5

Even without the MT gloss MDv_…wj√;dˆn rRvSa Mˆywø…gAh_lD;kIm, Jer 43:5's reference to "those who returned" appears to be an attempt to highlight the comprehensiveness of the migration by suggesting that the group even included former expatriates who had returned home to join Gedaliah at Mizpah in Jer 40:11-12. This identification is somewhat incongruous with the more detailed listing of group members that follows, since Jer 43:6 specifies that the members of this remnant are the men, women, children, and royal women whom

Nebuzaradan himself had previously entrusted to Gedaliah. The MT+, therefore, amplifies one of the major themes of the pro-golah editors' adaptation of Jer 37-44: the empty land motif.

H. Jer 44

1. Literary Context and Coherence

Jer 44 represents a significant shift from the pro-remnant core in both style and perspective. In this episode, the particularity of previous encounters between Jeremiah,

Gedaliah, and specific members of the Judean remnant recedes.263 The superscription in

Jer 44:1 addresses Jeremiah's oracles to the Judean community in Egypt at large, and those arguing with Jeremiah regarding cultic practices in the latter half of the chapter remain anonymous. The structure of the text is, at points, disjointed. The clearest break in units appears in Jer 44:15, which narrows the focus from oracles addressed to Judeans

263. The geographic references are also less specific. The superscription in Jer 44:1 includes "the land of Pathros" (Egyptian p3-rsy, "the southland," i.e., Upper Egypt) as a parallel to references to specific cities in the Delta region (Migdol and Tahpanhes). Further, Jer 44:15 refers to an assembly of those living in Pathros but offers no more specific information on precisely where in southern Egypt Judeans were settled or where the "great assembly" gathered.

143 across Egypt to a dialogue between Jeremiah and Judeans living in southern Egypt.

However, the theme of heteropraxis carries throughout Jer 44.

הרעה אשׁר הבאתי על ירשׁלים ועל־ערי יהודה .2

Jer 44:2-3 sets up the prediction of the judgment of the Judean community in Egypt (vv.

7-10) by establishing the Babylonian conquest of Judah as a parallel. It characterizes the judgment of Judah in the same terms as DtrH: yItaEbEh rRvSa hDo∂rDh.264

Jer 44:2-3 Thus says Yahweh [of Hosts], God of Israel: lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa [twøaDbVx] hDwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k "You yourselves have seen all the evil that I brought yItaEbEh rRvSa hDo∂rDh_lD;k tEa MRtyIa√r MR;tAa upon Jerusalem and upon [all] the cities of Judah h∂d…wh◊y yérDo[_lD;k] lAo◊w MÊAlDv…wr◊y_lAo Now, behold they are a tell [to this day], [h‰ΩzAh Mwø¥yAh] hD;b√rDj MD…nIh◊w and there is no one who lives in them :bEvwøy MRhD;b NyEa◊w because of their evil which they did …wcDo rRvSa MDtDo∂r yEnVÚpIm provoking me yˆnEsIoVkAhVl (by) going to burn incense to [serve] other gods MyîrEjSa MyIhølaEl [dObSoAl] rEÚfåqVl tRkRlDl whom they did not know, [they, you, and your fathers] :[MRkyEtObSaÅw MR;tAa hD;mEh] 265M…wo∂d◊y aøl rRvSa

Jer 44:2-3 represents this event as a complete destruction. The possibility of ongoing life in the land for even a small remnant is not considered. In conjunction with Jer 43:1-7, it implies a comprehensive migration of the remnant. Further, whereas previous episodes depicting Jerusalem's final days and the life of the Mizpah community linked ongoing life in the land exclusively with the choice of political allegiance, this oracle shifts the measurement of Judah's standing with Yahweh to its religious life.

In Dtr1, Huldah's oracle (2 Kgs 22:15-20), anticipates Yahweh's judgment because of popular worship of other gods, leading to the culmination of Dtr1 in Josiah's

264. Note also the use of the expression in prophetic judgments of the dynastic houses of Jeroboam and Ahab in DtrH. See 1 Kgs 14:10 and 1 Kgs 21:21.

265. G: "you did not know." Cf. Deut 11:28; 13:3, 7, 14; Deut 28:64.

144 reform:

2 Kgs 22:16-17 Thus says Yahweh: hÎwh◊y rAmDa hO;k "Behold I am bringing disaster hDo∂r ayIbEm yˆn◊nIh to this place and against its inhabitants, wyDbVvOy_lAo◊w hRΩzAh MwøqD;mAh_lRa all the words of this book which the king of Judah read, :h∂d…wh◊y JKRlRm a∂r∂q rRvSa rRpE;sAh yérVbî;d_lD;k tEa because they forsook me yˆn…wbÎzSo rRvSa tAjA;t and burned incense to other gods MyîrEjSa MyIhølaEl …wrVÚfåq◊yAw to provoke me with all the work of their hands, MRhyéd◊y hEcSoAm lOkV;b yˆnEsyIoVkAh NAoAmVl and my wrath will be poured out on this place, hRΩzAh MwøqD;mA;b yItDmSj hDtV…xˆn◊w and it will not be quenched. :hR;bVkIt aøl◊w

In contrast Dtr2 accommodates the significance of Josiah's reform by blaming Manasseh.

Although other parts of the Jeremiah tradition do blame Manasseh,266 this retrospective look back to Judah's fall in Jer 44 instead sets up a critical parallel for the predicted future judgment of the Judean community in Egypt. Jer 44:2-3 effectively shifts the evaluation of the Egyptian community's standing with Yahweh away from the decision to emigrate itself, which was so heavily emphasized in the oracle of Jer 42. Rather, it evaluates of this community solely in terms of popular religious practice. In this regard, it is better served by the conditions of Huldah's oracle than by Dtr2's shift of blame to Manasseh.267

266. Note Jer 15:4: "I will make (this people) a horror to all the kindgoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem."

267. On the preexilic dating of Huldah's oracle in 2 Kgs 22:15-20, see Baruch Halpern, "Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition," VT 48/4 (1998): 497-498. Halpern argues that Huldah's oracle is a unified, pre-exilic composition, noting that oracle itself predicts only "all the words of this book" (i.e. the Book of the Law found in the temple by Josiah's officials) as the judgment Judah will face and that it also inaccurately predicts a peaceful death for Josiah .(בשׁלום) himself

145 אשׁלח אלכם את־כל־עבדי הנביאים .3

Jer 44:4 And I sent to you [all] my servants the prophets MyIayIb◊…nAh yådDbSo_[lD;k]_tRa MRkyElSa jAlVvRaÎw persistently saying, rOmaEl AjølDv◊w MyE;kVvAh "Do not do this abominable thing that I hate." :yItaEnDc rRvSa taøΩzAh 268hDbEoO;tAh_rAb√;d tEa …wcSoAt aDn_lAa

In DtrH, the characterization of prophets as Yahweh's servants relates to two specific functions: arbiters of appropriate cult practice and those who pronounce judgment when their calls for cult reform go unheeded (2 Kgs 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2-3). In Jer 44,

Jeremiah appears a member of a long line of prophets, stretching back through Israel's history (cf. Jer 7:25 and 25:4), and the speech attributed to the Judean women in Egypt serves not as a meaningful reflection on appropriate practices but rather an illustration of the prophetic role assigned to Jeremiah. Despite the fact that Yahweh repeatedly sent him to call for reforms, the determination of the Egyptian community to resist his message vindicates Jer 44's insistence that their fate is sealed and destruction is inevitable. The assuredness of their judgment only enhances the position of the Babylonian golah

II. CONCLUSIONS

A. Dtr Diction and the Pro-Remnant Core

1. Obedience to Yahweh Framed in Terms of Political Allegiance

The episodes depicting both the Babylonian siege and Gedaliah's tenure at Mizpah frame obedience to Yahweh exclusively in terms of political allegiance. This perspective is advanced by two separate appeals to Deuteronomy: an adaptation of the Deuteronomic

268. hDbEoO;tAh_rAb√;d appears only in Jer 44:4. DtrH uses hDbEoO;tAh to characterize three aspects of Judah's cultic life considered illicit by Deuteronomists: "Canaanite" religious practices/deities (including the use of high places and worship of Baal, Asherah, and the host of heaven), child sacrifice, and the use of cult images. See 1 Kgs 14:23-24, 2 Kgs 16:3, 2 Kgs 21:2-3, and 2 Kgs 21:11. Cf. Jer 44:22.

146 choice between life and death and the formulaic Deuteronomic motivation to obedience

Both Deuteronomic references have a strong association with prosperous life .למען ייטב לך in the land, but their use in Jeremiah represents a significant shift in the application of this rhetoric.

Deut 30:15-20 explicitly casts the choice between life and death in cultic terms.

Yahweh, which is defined as observance of Deuteronomic (אהב) To choose life is to love commandments (wyDtOwVxIm), statutes (wyDtO;qUj), and judgments (wyDfDÚpVvIm). To choose death is to serve other gods. However, the Jeremiah tradition reapplies the motif to a very different context in which choosing life is solely a question of political allegiance. There is no suggestion in Jer 37-38 or Jer 40:7-12 that Yahweh's judgment can be mitigated through cultic or social reforms. Rather, choosing life is accomplished only by submitting to

Babylon and abandoning Jerusalem, an ironic twist given the fundamental place of centralization in the Iron Age Deuteronomic program.

is a formulaic motivation for obedience to both למען ייטב לך ,In Deuteronomy specific Deuteronomic prescriptions (e.g. Deut 5:16, 12:25, and 22:7) and as well as more general calls to follow Deuteronomic law (e.g. Deut 4:40, 5:29, 6:3, 6:18, and 12:28). In

Jer 37-44, however, like the choice between life and death, its application is shifted exclusively to political allegiance. Its association with long life and prosperity enhances

Jer 40:7-12's perspective on the opportunity available to the Gedaliah community.

However, the Jeremianic formulation does not easily align with Deuteronomy. Its insistence on acceptance of foreign overlords is an unprecedented move away from the commitment to a native monarchy in the Law of the King (Deut 17:14-20) and is at odds

147 with later stages of Deuteronomy's development, represented by Deut 7's prohibition of

"covenants" with foreigners in the land on the grounds that such collaboration will result in cultic corruption.

2. Gedaliah Community Identiﬁed with Conquerors rather than the Cursed

Despite Judah's defeat in 586 BCE, the episodes depicting the life of the remnant that gathered to Gedaliah at Mizpah also draw on Deuteronomy to represent the members of this community as conquerors rather than the conquered. Jer 40:1-6 provides an account of how the prophet Jeremiah joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. However, through vs. 4's allusion back to Deut 1, Nebuzaradan's speech effectively casts a Babylonian official in the place of Moses, authorizing settlement on Yahweh's behalf and inaugurating a new beginning for those who remained.

In Jer 40:7-12's account of the Mizpah community, the editors represent members of the remnant not as those subject to the Deuteronomic curses but rather as those who enjoyed the benefits of conquerors. Deuteronomy envisions exiles as a comprehensive event, and its futility curses represent the loss of property and agricultural products as a sign of Judah's defeat. However, in their appeal to this tradition, the editors of Jeremiah adapt it to address the historical reality of a split Judean community–not only a partial exile in 597 BCE but also a partial exile in 586 BCE as well.

Jer 40:7-12 makes a clear distinction between those who were forcibly deported to

Babylon and those who remained in the land with Gedaliah. It represents those who were deported and lost their property as the cursed. However, as those who received the property (both land and agricultural commodities) of those sent to Babylon, the members

148 of Judean remnant appear in the Jeremiah tradition not as the recipients of the

Deuteronomic curses but rather as those who enjoyed the benefits Deuteronomy anticipates will be given to the Babylonian conquerors.

3. Gedaliah Community Framed as Those Restored to the Land

In Jer 40:7-12, Jeremiah's editors also represent the Mizpah community as those restored to the land. Vv. 11-12 describe the return of refugees from neighboring polities and characterizes these groups as those who returned "from all the places where they driven."

Deut 30:15-20 is the only Deuteronomic text to envision a physical restoration to the land and to stress agricultural prosperity as a defining characteristic of this new era. Jer

40:11-12 reshapes this vision of restoration to present it not as an event of the distant future but rather as an event that has already taken place. It draws on Deut 30:15-20's vision of agricultural prosperity, but it limits the scope of this restoration, identifying those who have been restored as those who have gathered at Mizpah in the wake of

Jerusalem's fall.

4. Flight to Egypt Framed as a Sojourn for Relief from Conditions in the Land

Jer 42's characterization of flight to Egypt fits into this larger perspective on the political and economic circumstances in Judah during the exilic period. Although commentators frequently suggest the prophet opposes flight to Egypt because it represents a reversal of the Exodus event, such a symbolic context is never in view here.

Although both Jer 42 and Deuteronomy regard descent to Egypt negatively, Deut 28:68 and Deut 17:16 are not precise parallels for Jer 42. The Jeremianic oracle characterizes

to Egypt (i.e., a counterpart to the Exodus) but rather (שׁוב) going to Egypt not as a return

149 The oracle itself attempts to counter positive perceptions of Egypt as a .(גור) as a sojourn place of refuge in terms of concrete and pressing issues (military campaigns, famine, and disease). Further, in rejecting the possibility of returning to Judah after emigrating (vs.

18), it assumes that some emigrants would desire to do so after seeking temporary relief.

Its characterization and rejection of flight to Egypt fits into a larger argument promoting collaboration with the Babylonians and submission to their rule in the land of Judah.

5. Flight to Egypt Framed in Terms of the National Judgment of Judah

Jeremiah's oracle offers no hope for the Egyptian community's existence. Rather, through

it presents the decision to flee to Egypt ,הרעה אשׁר אני מביא עליהם its use of the Dtr cliché as an event that will trigger a response on the same scale as Yahweh's devastation of

Jerusalem (Jer 42:17-18; 2 Kgs 22:16-17; cf 2 Kgs 21:11-13), eliminating any chance that those who seek asylum in Egypt may return to Judah. However, while DtrH (and the pro- golah editors) represent the cause of Judah's judgment in cultic terms, in Jer 42 the sole reason for the outpouring of Yahweh's wrath is the choice to emigrate to Egypt.

B. Dtr Diction and the Pro-Golah Expansion

1. Judgment of the Judean Egyptian Community Framed Exclusively in Cultic Terms

The pro-golah editors establish the exiles' status as the exclusive people of Yahweh not only by dismissing those who inhabited Judah during the exilic period but also by predicting the complete destruction of the Egyptian community. They also employ the

.to characterize the Babylonian conquest of Judah הרעה אשׁר אני מביא עליהם Dtr cliché

However, their evaluation of both the past judgment of Judah and the future judgment of the Egyptian Judean community identifies cultic practice as the sole cause of Yahweh's

150 wrath, without reference to the question of political allegiance. Dtr2 shifts the blame for the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile to Manasseh, whose cultic practices were purportedly so offensive to Yahweh that even Josiah's reform could not overcome them.

In contrasts, the pro-golah editors of Jer 37-44 focus not on blaming Manasseh (or the monarchy more generally) but rather draw on DtrH's condemnation of heteropraxis in the

,("provoking Yahweh") להכעס :popular cult, appealing to relevant Dtr clichés

abomination"). Jer 44") תועבה burning incense to other gods"), and") קטר לאלהים אחרים

as those who ,(עבדי הנביאים) also draws on the motif of Yahweh's servants, the prophets call Yahweh's people to cult reform and predict the judgment of those who fail to turn from practices prohibited by Yahweh's prophets. The defiant response of the assembly of

Judeans represents not a true dialogue but rather a demonstration that the Egyptian emigrants will disregard Jeremiah just as the people of Judah disregarded the long line of prophets who preceded him.

151 CHAPTER 5: HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH'S PROHIBITION OF FLIGHT TO EGYPT

The preceding chapters focused on literary analysis of the polemic against flight to Egypt within its narrative context, Jer 37-44. Chapter three argued for at least two stages in Jer

37-44's development: an early exilic pro-land core and later pro-golah expansion and adaptation of this narrative. Chapter four further argued that, alongside the thematic differences between these two stages, both appeal to Dtr rhetoric in distinctive ways to advance their ideological agendas.

Chapter five turns from this literary analysis to the historical context. It attempts to understand these literary developments not by focusing on failed Egyptian military interventions but rather by analyzing the broader trajectory of the relationship between

Egypt and Judah from the late Iron Age into the Persian Period. Part one surveys the political and economic relationship between Judah and Egypt during this period.269 Part two evaluates the evidence for the development of the Judean/Jewish community in

Egypt. Part three considers why Egypt was a particularly appealing destination for exilic

Judean emigrants in light of comparative evidence.

269. Although this chapter focuses on the political and economic ties between Egypt and Judah, note also several recent articles by Christopher Hays that argue for close cultural ties between these regions in the late Iron Age as well. See especially "Re-Excavating Shebna's Tomb: A New Reading of Isa 22, 15-19 in its Ancient Near Eastern Context," ZAW 122 (2010): 558-575; "The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1-22," VT 60 (2010): 212-240; and "The Egyptian Goddess Mut in Iron Age Palestine: Further Data from Amulets and Onomastics," JNES 71/2 (2012): 299-314.

152 I. CONTACT BETWEEN EGYPT AND THE LEVANT IN THE LATE IRON AGE

A. 8th Century Interventions

1. Historical Background: Assyrian Expansion in the Southern Levant

Although his predecessors had campaigned in the northern Levant and collected tribute from the Northern Kingdom as early as the 9th century BCE,270 Tiglath-Pileser III

(745-727 BCE) aggressively expanded Assyria's presence in the Levant, counting both

Israel and Judah as vassals and pushing the empire's boundaries as far southwest as the

Egyptian border.271 By conquering both Gaza and Ashkelon, Tiglath-Pileser III took control of major access points to Egypt by land and by sea, and his royal inscriptions may refer to a bīt kāru that he established in the region.272 However, the inscriptions of Sargon

270. Band two of the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE) depicts a vassal bowing before the Assyrian king, with a caption identifying the kneeling figure as Jehu son of Omri and listing items he brought as tribute. See RIMA 3/2: 62-71, 149. Line eight of the Tell Al-Rimaḥ stela reports that Adad-Neri III (811-753 BCE) received tribute from Joash of Samaria. See RIMA 3/2: 209-212. Cogan (The Raging Torrent, 41) suggests these events underlie the statement in 2 Kgs 13:5 that Yahweh had given Israel a "deliverer" (AoyIvwøm) from Aram.

271. The location of the "Brook of Egypt" is debated. Na'aman identifies it as Naḥal Besor/Wadi 'Azza (just south of Gaza). See Nadav Na'aman, "The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt," TA 6 (1979): 68-90 and "The Shiḥor of Egypt and the Shur that is before Egypt," TA 7 (1980): 68-90. However, on the identification of the Brook of Egypt as Wadi el'Arish (further southwest, beyond Rafah and Abu Salima), see Ronny Reich, "The Identification of the 'Sealed 'kāru' of Egypt," IEJ 34/1 (1984): 32, n. 2 and Moshe Elat, "The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt," JAOS 98/1 (1978): 20.

272. For the fragmentary reference from Tiglath-Pileser to the bīt kāru in the southern Levant, see ND 4301 + 4305 (rev. 13-16). For additional references to the bīt kāru in Assyrian sources and the nature of this institution, see Elat, "The Economic Relations," 26-27. According to Elat, "As far as we know, the kāru of the Neo-Assyrian Empire was unlike that of the Old Babylonian Period then set up by city-states on terms of mutual agreement. Nor was it similar to the kāru of the Old Assyrian Period when it was established by Assyrians in Cappadocia, under long-term agreements with the local rulers. It would seem that during Neo-Assyrian times this particular institution was established in places whose economies could not be exploited through regular administrative means. Assyrian kings maintained a kāru in the port of Arvad, a coastal island which became an Assyrian vassal kingdom at the beginning of Tiglath-Pileser's conquest along the Phoenician coast. There was a quay in the harbor where the king of Assyria and his merchants were accorded special trading privileges."

153 II (722-705 BCE) include an explicit statement about trade with Egypt:

I opened the sealed kāru of Egypt. I mingled the people of Assyria and Egypt and made them trade with each other.273

Administrative documents from Nimrud and Nineveh dating to the late 8th century BCE provide the clearest insight into the commodities at stake.274 The Nimrud documents include horses,275 silver, dozens of linen fabrics, fine garments (saddinu), and containers of two types of dried fish. The Nineveh documents include several types of linen and garments, dried fish, gold implements, silver, papyrus rolls, and possibly an elephant hide. Although these records reflect goods received from Ashkelon, Ashdod, and other

Philistine cities, several of the products (the linen fabrics, papyrus rolls, and elephant hide) are exports not of Philistia but of Egypt, and it is also possible that the containers of dried fish were from Egypt as well.276

However, even as Assyria desired access to Egyptian commerce, Egypt actively undermined the stability of Assyrian rule in the region, supporting rebellions in the

273. Nimrud Prism, Fragment D, Col. IV, 11:46-48. For the Akkadian text, see Hayim Tadmor, "The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study," JCS 12/1 (1958): 34. On the proposed locations for this sealed kāru, see Tadmor, "Philistia under Assyrian Rule," BA 29 (1966): 62; Elat, "Economic Relations"; Reich, "Identification,"; and Oren, "Ruqeish," NEAEHL IV (1993): 1293-1294. Proposed sites include Pelusium or Sile (Tadmor), Rafiah (Elat), Abu Salima (Reich), and Ruqeish (Oren). Sargon II's inscriptions do not make it clear whether the kāru was harbor for maritime trade or a station along overland trade routes. 274. See references and discussion in Elat, "Economic Relations," 30-32 and Tadmor, "Philistia," 92-94. The Assyrian documents characterize these goods as mandattu (fixed annual tribute) and nāmartu ("gifts" required of vassal kings in honor of special occasions). On the distinction, see Tadmor, "Philistia," 93.

275. For references to horses as tribute, see Elat, "Economic Relations," 23-24.

276. Note that Wenamun also lists types of linen, papyrus, and baskets of fish as goods sent by the ruler of Tanis to the king of Gebal. Despite the availability of fish in Mesopotamia, Assyrian kings received fish from other parts of their empire. During the reign of Ashurbanipal, for example, Arvad sent fish with its annual tribute.

154 southern Levant on multiple occasions. During the reign of Sargon II, Egyptian forces joined Hanunu of Gaza in battle against the Assyrians at Raphia (720 BCE).277 The annals also accuse Yamani of Ashdod of appealing to Egypt to aid his rebellion (712-711 BCE), though Yamani's attempt to flee to Egypt following his defeat ultimately failed when the

Kushites returned him to Assyria in chains.278 Moreover, the 25th Dynasty did not limit its involvement to Philistia. Egyptian forces returned to the Levant during the reign of the

Sennacherib to support Judah as well

2. 701 BCE

The 701 BCE rebellion of Hezekiah and his Philistine co-conspirators provoked a major

Neo-Assyrian campaign through the southern Levant, and textual and material evidence converge regarding its devastating impact on Judah. Sennacherib's annals boast that he besieged 46 fortified cities along with many other smaller towns,279 and DtrH also concedes that Sennacherib attacked and captured Judah's fortified towns (2 Kgs 18:13).

However, the archaeological evidence for the impact of this campaign requires careful distinction among the sub-regions of Judah.

277. Great Summary Inscription, Lines 23-27. For the Akkadian text, see Andreas Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994), 82-188.

278. Great Summary Inscription, Lines 90-112. See also the Nineveh Annal Prism Col. viia,13-16 and viib 1-48 in Andreas Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. (SAAS 8; Helsinki: SAA, 1998), 44-46, 73-74. According to the Nineveh Annal Prism, the kings of Judah, Edom, Moab, Philistia, and other coastal cities "sent bribes to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, a king who cannot save them."

279. RINAP 3: No. 4, Lines 39-58.

155 Evidence for destruction is most pronounced in the Shephelah.280 In the case of excavated sites, excavators uncovered 8th century destructions at Beit Mirsim A, Ḥalif

VIB, Beth Shemesh IIc, Safi, 'Eton A4/B3, Goded, Batash-Timnah III, and Lachish III.281

Survey data also shows a dramatic drop in the number of all types of settlement between the late 8th century BCE and the late 7th century BCE.282 Dagan identified 276 sites in

280. The predominant interpretation of the Shephelah's decline is that Assyrian policies and/or the conditions they created left this region devastated after 701 BCE. See, for example, Baruch Halpern, "Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability," in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D.W. Hobson; JSOTSupp 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 11, 107 and Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman, "The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyrica in the Judean Shephelah," TA 30 (2003): 3-26. Halpern proposes that Hezekiah's centralization program deliberately brought large segments of the population to fortified cities (the "hedgehog defense"), in effect abandoning the countryside to the Assyrians. Meanwhile, the Assyrians deported many who survived their campaign. These conditions effectively allowed Ekron to flourish without competition. Bunimovitz and Lederman argue that the deportations and reassignment of Judean territory to Philistia reported in Sennacherib's annals reflect a deliberate decision by the Assyrians to maintain a depopulated buffer zone in the Shephelah between Judah and Philistia.

281. On Beit Mirsim, see W.F. Albright, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim III: The Iron Age (AASOR 21-22; New Haven, CT: ASOR, 1943) and Israel Finkelstein and Nadava Na'aman, "The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE," Tel Aviv 31 (2004): 60-79. On Halif, see {Seger 1983:10-15}. On 'Eton, see Avraham Faust, " The Excavations at Tel 'Eton (2006-2009): A Preliminary Report," PEQ 143/3 (2011): 204, 221. On Batash, see {Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 1997}. On Beth Shemesh, see Bunimovitz and Lederman, "Final Destruction." On Lachish, see David Ussishkin, ed., The Renewed Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), Vol. II: The Iron Age Stratigraph and Architecture (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22; Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology), __. In addition, Mareshah is not discussed here because the report from Bliss and Macalister's excavations is so problematic. Note, however, that more recent work at the site has produced a 7th century ostracon and possibly some 7th century ceramics and walls (A. Kloner and E. Eshel, "A Seventh-Century B.C.E. List of Names from Maresha," EI 26 [1999]: 147-150) but a site report on the Iron Age material has not been published. Tel Goded was also excavated by Bliss and poses similar problems. Although Lipschits (Fall and Rise, 220) argues that it was not abandoned until the 6th century, Gibson's ("The Tell-ej-Judeideh (Tel Goded) Excavations: A Re-Appraisel Based on the Archival Records of the Palestine Exploration Fund," TA 21 [1994]: 231) detailed re-evaluation of the stratigraphy suggests that it was not occupied after 701 BCE.

282. Y. Dagan, The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys (M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1992). The results of Dagan's research are outlined in English in Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah (SBLABS 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 24-25. More recent results of more focused surveys conducted as part of renewed excavations at eṣ-Ṣafi and Burna complement Dagan's survey data. On eṣ-Ṣafi, see Joe Uziel and Aren M. Maier, "Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Surface Survey," TA 32 (2005): 62-65. On Burna, see Joe Uziel and Itzhaq Shai, "The Settlement History of Tel Burna: Results of the Surface Survey," TA 37 (2010): 227-245.

156 the region from the Lachish III horizon (late 8th century BCE) but just 38 from the

Lachish II horizon (late 7th century BCE).283 Alongside the Shephelah, many excavated sites in the Beersheba-Arad Valley also show signs of destruction, including Beersheba

II, Arad VIII, Malhata IV, 'Aroer III, and possibly 'Ira VII.284

However, in contrast to the Shephelah and the Negev, the material record from the Judean Highlands shows no signs of the Assyrian campaign,285 and none of the sources depict the conquest of Jerusalem. DtrH include reports that Assyrian representatives reached the city (2 Kgs 18:17-18; 2 Kgs 19:9b), but the oracle of 2 Kgs

19:32-34 explicitly claims divine protection for Jerusalem against Sennacherib's army:

Therefore, thus says Yahweh concerning the king of Assyria: r…wÚvAa JKRlRm_lRa hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k NEkDl "He will not come against this city taøΩzAh ryIoDh_lRa aøbÎy aøl nor shoot an arrow there XEj MDv h®rwøy_aøl◊w nor raise a shield N´gDm hÎ…nRm√;dåq◊y_aøl◊w nor put up a siege mound against it. :hDlVlOs DhyRlDo JKOÚpVvˆy_aøl◊w He will return by the way that he came, b…wvÎy ;hD;b aøbÎy_rRvSa JK®r®;dA;b and he will not come against this city," declares Yahweh, :hDwh◊y_MUa◊n aøbÎy aøl taøΩzAh ryIoDh_lRa◊w "And I will defend this city to rescue it ;hDoyIvwøhVl taøΩzAh ryIoDh_lRa yItwø…nÅg◊w for my sake and for the sake of my servant David." :yî;dVbAo dIw∂;d NAoAmVl…w yˆnSoAmVl

283. For the distinctions between Lachish III and Lachish II ceramic horizons, see Orna Zimhoni, "Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish: Levels III and II," TA 17 (1990): 3-52.

284. On Beersheba II, see Aharoni, Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology, 1973). On Arad VIII, see Zev Herzog, "The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report," TA 29 (2002). On Malhata IV, see Biran 1993. On 'Aroer III, see Yifat Thareani-Sussely, Tel ‘Aroer: The Iron II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic-Early Roman Settlement (Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology VIII; Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 2011). On the possible destruction of 'Ira VII, see the cautions noted by Beit-Arieh (Tel 'Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev [Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 15. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1999], 176-177.

285. Avraham Faust, "Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib's Campaign," PEQ 140/3 (2008): 183-186.

157 Sennacherib's annals describe Hezekiah's confinement in the besieged with the expression "like a bird in a cage"286 and stress the tribute the Assyrians received from

Hezekiah. Elsewhere, his annals employ phrase in cases in which Assyrian forces besieged a city but did not destroy it, obscuring the result.

Assyrian and Hebrew sources, then, diverge in their claims regarding the outcome of this campaign. The Assyrian annals present the campaign as an unqualified success, highlighting the increased tribute paid by Hezekiah as well as the reduction of his territory due to the reassignment of some land to Assyrian vassals in Philistia. DtrH includes the concession that Hezekiah renewed payments of tribute to Assyria alongside claims of a miraculous defeat of Assyrian forces.287

Both the annals and 2 Kgs also acknowledge the arrival of Egyptian forces, and the nature of the 25th Dynasty intervention is an important issue within this complex picture.288 The Assyrian annals explicitly reject the efficacy of the Egyptian intervention:

(As for) the governors, the nobles, and the people of the city Ekron who had thrown Padî, their king who was bound by treaty and oaths to Assyria, into iron fetters and who had handed him over to Hezekiah of the land Judah in a hostile manner, they became frightened on account of the

286. RINAP 3: No. 4, Line 52: GIM MUŠEN qu-up-pi.

287. Cf. Hist. II.141. On the traditional division of sources in 2 Kgs 18-19, see the discussion below.

288. On Egyptian motives for intervention in the Levant, see the thorough overview of 25th dynasty sources and careful analysis of Egyptian involvement in 701 BCE in Jeremy Pope, "Beyond the Broken Reed: Kushite Intervention and the Limits of L'Histoire Événementielle," in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem (ed. Isaac Kalimi and Seth Richardson; Brill: Leiden, 2014), 105-160. Pope argues that historians can only understand the motives for Egyptian intervention in the late 8th century Levant by looking beyond Egypt's 8th-7th century BCE conflict with Assyria and considering the broader political strategies and objectives of the Kushites. Pope suggests that Kushite foreign policy in the Levant was motivated by interest in obtaining prestige goods as tribute, specifically ḥm.t St.t ("Asiatic copper") and ‛š ("cedar"). Importing these goods helped strengthen the Kushite's position in Egypt's fragmented political landscape. Kushite forces entered the Sinai and Levant to defend Egypt's borders and raid the periphery, a policy which evolved in response to the Assyrian threat. However, it did not reflect an attempt to acquire territory or set up Egyptian administration in the region.

158 villainous acts they had committed. They formed a confederation with the kings of Egypt (and) the archers, chariots, (and) horses of the king of the land Meluḫḫa, forces without number, and they came to their aid. In the plain of the city Eltekeh, they sharpened their weapons while drawing up in battleline before me. With the support of (the god) Aššur, my lord, I fought with them and defeated them. In the thick of battle, I captured alive the Egyptian charioteers (and) princes (lit. “the sons of the kings”), together with the charioteers of the king of the land Meluḫḫa. I surrounded, conquered, (and) plundered the cities Eltekeh (and) Tamnâ. I approached the city Ekron and I killed the governors (and) nobles who had committed crime(s) and hung their corpses on towers around the city; I counted the citizens who had committed the criminal acts as booty...289

However, 2 Kgs may include hints of a more decisive role for the arrival of the

Egyptians. The traditional source division of 2 Kgs 18-19 distinguishes between three strands within the final Dtr account.290 Account A (2 Kgs 18:13-16) stresses Hezekiah's capitulation. It includes his explicit acceptance of tribute: "I have sinned. Turn from me.

Whatever (tribute) you impose, I will bear" (aDÚcRa yAlDo NE;tI;t_rRvSa tEa yAlDoEm b…wv yItaDfDj). It also documents his payment of silver and gold from temple and palace treasuries. Account B is distinguished from Account A by the fact that it reports the arrival of Assyrian emissaries demanding surrender after the payment of tribute in 2 Kgs 18:13-16. Stade and Childs divided Account B into two discrete units based on the disconnect between the sequence of oracles. In the final form of the narrative, the oracle of 2 Kgs 19:7, which predicts that the Assyrian king will return home after hearing a report, remains unfilled.

They also noted the parallel structure within the narrative: emissaries sent twice ( 2 Kgs

18:17ff., 2 Kgs 19:9) and parallel speeches (2 Kgs 18:29-35; 2 Kgs 19:10-13). On these grounds, they distinguished between B1 (2 Kgs 18:17-19:9a, 19:36-37) and B2 (2 Kgs

19:9b-35). Within this division, B1's oracle that Sennacherib would return to Egypt after

289. RINAP 3: No. 4, Lines 42-46.

290. This division originated with Bernhard Stade, "Miscellene: Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15-21," ZAW 6 (1886): 156-189. This theory was updated and further nuanced in Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 3; London: SCM, 1967), 70-103. For futher bibliography on the many permutations of this theory, see Paul S. Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kgs 18-19 (VTSupp 125; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 13, n. 62.

159 hearing a report is fulfilled by the news of the arrival of the Egyptian army in 2 Kgs 19:9a and the departure of the Assyrians in 2 Kgs 19:36-37. Thus, B2 presents Jerusalem's deliverance as the result of the intervention of Yahweh himself, ending with the claim that the hÎwh◊y JKAaVlAm struck down Assyrian soldiers within their own camp (2 Kgs 19:35).

However, B1 may reflect a more pragmatic accounting of events, linking the deliverance of Jerusalem itself with the arrival of Egyptian forces:

2 Kgs 19:6-7 And Isaiah said them, "Thus you will say to your lord MRky´nOdSa_lRa N…wrVmaøt hO;k …whÎyVoAv◊y MRhDl rRmaø¥yÅw 'Thus says Yahweh: hÎwh◊y rAmDa hO;k "Do be afraid because of these words which you have heard, D;tVoAmDv rRvSa MyîrDb√;dAh yEnVÚpIm a∂ryI;t_lAa (in) which the servants of the king of Assyria blasphemed me :yItOa r…wÚvAa_JKRlRm yérSoÅn …wp√;dˆ…g rRvSa Behold, I will put a spirit in him, Aj…wr wø;b NEtOn yˆn◊nIh and he will hear a report and return to his land. wøx√rAaVl bDv◊w hDo…wmVv oAmDv◊w And I will cause him to fall by the sword in his land." :wøx√rAaV;b b®rRjA;b wyI;tVlAÚpIh◊w

2 Kgs 19:9a And he heard (a report) about Taharqa king of Kush v…w;k_KRlRm h∂qDh√rI;t_lRa oAmVvˆ¥yÅw saying, "Behold, he has come out to fight you." JKD;tIa MEjD;lIhVl aDxÎy hE…nIh rOmaEl

2 Kgs 19:36-37 And Sennacherib king of Assyria king set out and went (home) r…wÚvAa_JKRlRm byîrEj◊nAs bDvD¥yÅw JKRl´¥yÅw oA;sˆ¥yÅw and lived in Nineveh. :hEw◊nyInV;b bRvE¥yÅw And he was bowing down in the house of Nisroch his god JwyDhølTa JKOrVsˆn tyE;b h‰wSjA;tVvIm a…wh yIh◊yÅw And Adramelech and Sharezer struck him with the sword, b®rRjAb …whU;kIh rRxRa√rAc◊w JKRlR;mår√dAaVw and they escaped to the land of Ararat. f∂r∂rSa X®rRa …wfVlVmˆn hD;mEh◊w And his son Esarhaddon reign in his place. wyD;tVjA;t wønV;b NO;dAj_rAsEa JKølVmˆ¥yÅw

B. 7th Century Reemergence and Expansion

1. Historical Background

Whatever measure of success Egyptian forces achieved in 701 BCE, however, did not last. Under Sennacherib's successor Esarhaddon, Assyrian forces campaigned in Egypt itself in 671 BCE. Royal inscriptions describe a devastating campaign against Memphis,

160 subsequent installation of Egyptian royal officials in Egypt, and imposition of annual tribute.291 Esarhaddon's successor Ashurbanipal returned to Egypt first in 667 BCE and again for a second campaign just a few years later, suppressing Kushite rebellions and eventually pushing as far south as Thebes.

At that time, Ashurbanipal installed Psammetichus I (664-610 BCE) as a vassal, and the Assyrian annals attribute his rise to power to the special status granted to his father, Necho I. In contrast to other local rulers whom the Assyrians brutally executed because of their role in the conspiracy to restore Kushite rule, Ashurbanipal renewed his vassal treaty with Necho and reinstalled him at Sais, with Assyrian officials alongside him. At that time, Psammetichus (Nabu-shezibani) was installed at Athribis to replace

Bukunani'pi, one of the participants in the anti-Assyrian rebellion.292

However, as the rapid sequence of campaigns to suppress rebellions already implies, it proved difficult for Ashurbanipal to maintain this vassal relationship so far from the Assyrian heartland. Shortly after his rise to power, Psammetichus appears to have freed himself from his Assyrian overlords, though the precise timing and circumstances of the expulsion of the Assyrians from Egypt remain murky.293

291. On the Egyptian campaign of Esarhaddon, see RINAP 4: No. 98, Rev. Lines 37b-50a (Zinjirli Stela/Esarhaddon Monument A), RINAP 4: No. 103, Lines 7b-15 (Narh el-Kelb Stela/Esarhaddon Monument 3), RINAP 4: No. 34, Obv. Lines 12-18, Rev. Lines 1-19. See also Davide Nadali, "Esarhaddon's Glazed Bricks from Nimrud: The Egyptian Campaign Depicted," Iraq 68 (2006): 109-120.

292.Ashurbanipal Annals Edition A, Col. ii, Lines 5-19. See Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals (Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996), 17-26.

293. The Nitocris Adoption Stela indicates a diplomatic reunion of Upper and Lower Egypt in his 9th year and the Dahshur stela refers to campaign against Libya in his 11th year. For the Nitocris Adoption Stela, see R.A. Caminos, "The Nitocris Adoption Stela," JEA 50 (1964): 71-102. For the Dahshur stela, see Olivier Perdu, Recueil des inscriptions royales saïtes. Cybèle: Collège de France, 2002.

161 Ashurbanipal's annals describe Egypt's successful rebellion succinctly, partially attributing its success to the aid of troops sent by Gyges of Lydia:294

He [Gyges of Lydia] sent his troops to the aid of Pishamilki, the King of Egypt, who threw off the yoke of my rule.295

Since Gyges died in 644 BCE, there is a window of approximately two decades (664-644

BCE) in which the Lydians could have formed an alliance with Psammetichus and sent troops to support his rise to power.296

During the latter half of the 7th century BCE, Assyria's hold on the Levant also began to crumble. However, the precise timing and cause of these events remains elusive.

The last dated Assyrian military action in the region is Ashurbanipal's campaign in

294. Note that Hist. II.152 also preserves the tradition that mercenaries were instrumental in the reign of Psammetichus I from its inception, albeit in a different form than the Assyrian annals. In Herodotus' version, Psammetichus deposed eleven other Egyptian kings with aid from Ionians and Carians. However, the Greek tradition does not deal explicitly with the Assyrian empire and does not attribute the Ionian and Carian troops to a formal alliance. Rather, it represent the arrival of Mediterranean raiders blown off their intended course as a fortuitous event that unexpectedly fulfills an oracle previously given to Psammetichus. Kaplan ("Cross-Cultural Contacts among Mercenary Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt, "Mediterranean Historical Review 18/1 [2010]: 12) comments: "The Herodotean account of Psamtek's rise to power, stripped of its folkloric elements, suggests a situation in which loyalties were divided among rival power centres in the Delta (not to mention clients of the Nubians in Thebes and Upper Egypt). It is a situation in which the use of an outside force whose loyalties were secured by pay made the difference."

295. Rassam Cylinder (Ashurbanipal Prism A).

296. On the date of the death of Gyges, see Bernd U. Schipper, "Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah and Jehoiakim," TA 37 (2010): 202 and Anthony J. Spalinger, "The Date of the Death of Gyges and Its Historical Implications," JAOS 98/4 (1978): 400-409. Schipper prefers an early date within that window for the alliance between Gyges and Psammetichus I because the earliest Carian inscriptions in Egypt date to the mid-7th century BCE and he interprets the reference to foreign troops in the Dahshur Stele from the 11th year of Psammetichus as a reference to Ionians and Carians.

162 Phoenicia against Akko and Usu (mainland Tyre) in 645-644 BCE.297 Although the annals indicate that Ashurbanipal brutally suppressed this revolt, it was not an isolated event. Assyria faced unrest around the empire in the mid-7th century. In addition to the two campaigns against Phoenicia, Assyria witnessed the reunification of Egypt in the 9th year of Psammetichus I (656 BCE), and it also faced an uprising by Cimmerians and

Lydians in Asia Minor, a rebellion in Babylon (652-649 BCE), and a campaign against its

Elamite allies (647-646 BCE).

Assyria's administrative practices also shifted around this time. There are no further reports of Levantine campaigns following Assyria's defeat of Usu and Acco, and the canonical eponym lists break off after 649 BCE. Between 648-612 B.C.E. the number of post-canonical eponyms known from individual tablets exceeds the number of years.298

From this perspective, Assyria's grip on the periphery may already have begun to weaken during the lifetime of Ashurbanipal. Vanderhooft interprets this string of rebellions as a sign of Assyria's decline, and he argues that competing administrative centers could

297. Ashurbanipal Annals Edition A, Col. IX Lines 115-128. For the Akkadian text, see Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk, 69. The annals describe the deportation of local gods, the slaughter of some residents, and the conscription of the cities' remaining inhabitants. Cogan (Raging Torrent, 160) translates: "On my return, I captured Ushu that is situated on the seacoast. I slew the people of Ushu who were disobedient to their governors (and) did not deliver their tribute, their yearly due. I executed judgment against the people who had not been submissive. I carried off their gods (and) their people to Assyria as spoil. I slaughtered the unsubmissive people of Acco; I hung their corpses on stakes around the city. Their remainder I took to Assyria. I organized (them) into a contingent and added (them) to the large forces that the god Ashur granted me." Note also that several documents from the Levant from this period also relate to the presence of Assyrian officials. These include deeds of sale from Gezer dated to 651 and 649 BCE and a reference to an Assyrian governor at Samaria in 646 BCE. For the Gezer tablets, see further references in Bob Becking,"The Two Neo-Assyrian Documents from Gezer in Their Historical Context," Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Leiden 27 (1981): 76-89. For the Samaria tablet, see R.A. Henshaw, "The Office of Saknu in Neo-Assyrian Times, II," JAOS 88 (1968): 478.

298. David S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 64-68.

163 account for the number of eponyms and that the compilation of royal annals ceased because regular campaigns to the Levant no longer took place.299 However, economic documents from Babylon suggest that, at the very least, the Mesopotamian heartland remained stable through the lifetime of Ashurbanipal. From this perspective, the

Babylonian rebellion from 626-623 BCE may mark the true crisis point of the Assyrian empire.300

2. Textual Evidence for 26th Dynasty Imperialism a. Late 7th Century BCE Egyptian Campaigns in Syria

By the final decades of the 7th century BCE, Assyria's relationship with Egypt had also shifted, and Egypt repeatedly offered Assyria military aid in its ongoing struggle with

Babylonia.301 The Babylonian Chronicle describes a series of Egyptian campaigns in

Syria against Babylonians forces. In the 10th year of Nabopolassar (616 B.C.E.), Egyptian and Assyrian forces moved up the Tigris River as far as Babylonian-held Gablini before retreating.302 In the 17th year of Nabopolassar (610-609 B.C.E.), Egyptian forces also accompanied Ashur-uballit II on his campaign against Harran, though the outcome of this

299. Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 64-68. Cf. Abraham Malamat, "Josiah's Bid for Armageddon," JANESCU 5 (1973): 271.

300. Nadav Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah," TA 18 (1991): 35-38; cf. Bernd Schipper, "Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah."

301. It is unclear whether this reflects ongoing ties between Assyria and Egypt throughout the reign of Psammetichus or a renewal of ties late in the 7th century BCE. For discussion and further references, see Na'aman, "Kingdom of Judah," 39-41.

302. ABC III.1-6, 10-11.

164 siege is unclear because the Chronicle breaks off.303 During the 20th year of Nabopolassar

(606 B.C.E.), the Chronicle records a major military success, with Egyptian forces defeating the Babylonian garrison and taking Kimuhu after a four-month siege. In the wake of their victory, the Egyptians captured a string of Syrian cities before crossing the

Euphrates and advancing against the Babylonian army at Quramatu. According to the

Chronicle, the Egyptians successfully pushed Babylonian troops out of the region at that time.304 b. 26th Dynasty Expansion and Imperialism in the Levant

However, while Egypt may initially have campaigned in Syria as an Assyrian ally, several texts also suggest that by the late 7th century the Egyptians had reasserted their own interests along the Levantine coast and had begun to look further inland as well:305

(1) Serapeum Stele from the 52nd Year of Psammetichus I (612 BCE)

The Serapeum Stele from the 52nd year of Psammetichus I (612 B.C.E.), which

303. ABC III.66-710. Cf. also the references to this campaign in 2 Kgs 23:29 and 2 Chron 35:20. 2 Kgs 23:9’s description of Necho's campaign (r…wÚvAa JKRlRm_lAo MˆyårVxIm_JKRlRm hOk◊n hOo√rAp hDlDo) is sometimes understood as a contradiction to Chronicles' report characterization of this event (t∂rVÚp_lAo vyImV;k√rAkV;b MEjD;lIhVl MˆyårVxIm_JKRlRm wøk◊n hDlDo) can also be used על and אל ,can have an adversarial connotation. However על because the preposition interchangeably. See Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 291.

304. ABC IV.16-26

305.The texts discussed below provide the most explicit information about the historical events of the late 7th century. However, note also the fragmentary basalt stele with Necho’s cartouche found near Sidon (F.L.I. Griffith, "A Relic of Pharaoh Necho from Phoenicia," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 [1894]: 90-91) and three other undated sources also sometimes tentatively associated with 26th Dynasty. The statue inscription of Hor refers to cedar of the royal domain used in the restoration of the temple at Herakleopolis (Paul Pierret, Recueil D'Inscriptions Inédites du Musée Égyptien du Louvre [Vol. 1; Paris, 1874], 14-21). The Pediese inscription commemorates an offering on behalf of Pediese son of 'Apy, the wpwty n p3 Kn''n n Rmt ("messenger to/from Canaan and Asia") (G. Steindorff, "The Statuette of an Egyptian Commissioner in Syria," JEA 25 [1939]: 30-33). The Tyre Vase Fragment mentions an official named Pasheri whose titles include ḥm-ntr 'Imn-R' nsw ntrw ("prophet of Amun-Re, king of the gods") and ỉmy-r ḫtmt nb t3.wy ("treasurer of the lord of the two lands") (William Ward, "Appendix B: The Egyptian Objects," in The Pottery of Tyre [ed. Patricia M. Bikai; Warminster: Aris and Philips, 1978], 83-87). For further discussion of these sources, see references in Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 70-71.

165 commemorates the burial of an Apis bull, refers to the presence of Egyptian officials supervising vassal rulers along the northern Levantine coast as well as the collection of taxes (b3kw) in this region:

His coffin (?) consisting of qd-wood, mr-wood, and 'š-wood, consisting of the choicest of every terrace306 [because] their rulers are the tenant-farmers of the palace [with] a royal official (smr-nsw) standing over them, taxing (ḥtr) their labor (b3kw) for the royal residence just like the land of Egypt.307

B3kw is a vague word sometimes used synonymously with other, more precise terms for taxation. In New Kingdom economic texts, it refers to both work and specific products, and b3kw is collected from Egyptian officials and craftsmen as well as foreign peoples.308

(2) Histories II.157

According to Herodotus, Psammetichus also attempted to reassert Egyptian authority along the southern coast with campaigns in Philistia:

Psammetichus ruled Egypt for 54 years, of which he spent 29 years besieging Azotus, the great Syrian city, until he took it. This Azotus [which] stood longer while it was besieged than any city that we know.

Several scholars have proposed that, although a 29-year siege is impossible, Herodotus might have garbled a historical tradition in which Ashdod fell to Egyptian forces in 635

306. On the reading ḫtyw ("terraces") rather than ḫt ("wood"), see K.S. Freedy and D.B. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources," JAOS 90/3 (1970): 477, n.71.

307. My translation is based on the most recent edition of the hieroglyphic text (Perdu, Recueil, 40-41). Previous editions (M.E. Chassinat, "Textes provenant du Sérapéum de Memphis," RT 22 [1900]: 163–18 and A. Mariette, Oeuvres diverses I [Bibliothèque Égyptologique 18; Paris, 1904]) disagreed on whether to read the title of the official as sḥd nsw or smr nsw.

308. For further examples and discussion, see David A. Warburton, The State and Economy in Ancient Egypt: Fiscal Vocabulary of the New Kingdom (OBO 151; Fribourg: University Press, 1997), 237-257 and J.J. Janssen, "B3kw: From Work to Product," SAK 20 (1993): 81-94.

166 B.C.E., the 29th year of Psammetichus I.309 However, this reconstruction does not take into account Herodotus’ broader chronological framework for the sequence of imperial powers in the Near East. Herodotus locates the siege between the time Psammetichus set out to meet the Scythians (I.105)310 and the defeat of the Scythians by the Cyaxares and the Medes 28 years later, ending Herodotus’ period of Scythian domination of the region.

From this perspective, Herodotus’ is only stating that Ashdod at some point in the late 7th century BCE rather than making a precise reference to the year in which the event took place.311

(3) 2 Kgs 23

2 Kings 23 addresses the spread of Egyptian control inland as well as an established

Egyptian presence in Syria by at least 609 B.C.E.:

29 In his days, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates, and the king, Josiah, went to meet him. And he killed him at Megiddo as soon as he saw him. 30 And his servants put his dead [body] on a chariot from Megiddo and took him to Jerusalem and buried him in his grave. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah and anointed him and made him reign in the place of his father. 31 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Mutal daughter of Jeremiah from Libnah. 32 And he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh according to all that his fathers did. 33 And Pharaoh Necho bound him at Riblah in the land of Hamath, while he reigned in Jerusalem. And he imposed a fine of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold on the land. 34 And Pharaoh Necho caused Eliakim son of Josiah to reign in the place of Josiah his father. And he changed his name to Jehoiakim, and he took Jehoahaz. And he went to Egypt, and he died there. 35 And as for the silver and the gold Jehoiakim gave to Pharaoh, surely he assessed the land in order to give the silver on account of the command of Pharaoh – each man according to his assessment. He collected the silver and the gold from the people of the land to give [the tribute] to Pharaoh Necho.

309. J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia, Westminster John Knox Press, 1986), 383-384; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 300; Tadmor, "Philistia"; and Malamat, "Josiah's Bid," 272, n. 18.

310. Note that Hist. I.105 also suggests that Psammetichus I came out into the Sinai or the southern Levant to head off Scythians planning to invade Egypt. However, the historical value of this reference is even more suspect than Herodotus’ reports of the siege of Ashdod given the dubious role that Scythians play in Herodotus’ broader reconstruction of Iron Age history.

311. Na'aman, "Kingdom of Judah," 40.

167 The status of Judah itself prior to Josiah’s death at Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. is questionable. Although 2 Kings 23:29 does not elaborate on the reason Josiah went to meet Necho, the Chronicler’s parallel account (2 Chron. 35:20-24) explicitly claims that

Necho had no interest in engaging with Judah but that Josiah disobeyed Yahweh by making a military stand at Megiddo. However, this fuller account should probably be understood in literary and theological terms rather than historical terms. Several points of the narrative suggest that the Chronicler not only used source material from DtrH but also that he attempted to create a more coherent narrative by resolving some of the tension between Josiah’s role as a celebrated reformer and his sudden, untimely death at the hands of a foreign king. 2 Chron 35:22’s pronouncement that Josiah did not listen to

Necho’s divinely-inspired message stands in contrast with Huldah’s oracle (2 Kgs

22:18-19), which emphasizes the importance of hearing the word of Yahweh. In order to explain how Josiah could die at Megiddo despite Huldah’s prophecy of a peaceful death, the Chronicler makes his death the direct result of disobedience. This reshaping of events is an application of the Chronicler’s principle of immediate individual retribution,312 and this theological framework is further reinforced by the fact that the Chronicler’s expansion draws on language from 1 Kgs 22:30ff, which describes the death of Ahab after he too disregarded prophetic instructions.

312. Both Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles [NCB Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 32) and Japhet (The Ideology of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought [2nd ed; Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 9. Frankfurt: Peter Lange, 1989], 154-166) stress the importance of a nuanced view of this principle in Chronicles, arguing that it is balanced by the possibility of averting judgment through repentance and generally includes a prophetic warning prior to actual judgment. However, the death of Josiah in 2 Chron is still compatible with this more qualified view of the Chronicler’s doctrine of retribution since Josiah dies in battle after explicitly rejecting Yahweh’s prophetic warning as relayed by Necho.

168 In contrast to the Chronicler's view that Judah was independent at the time of

Josiah’s death, Na’aman proposes that Judah was already an Egyptian vassal when he went to meet Necho at Megiddo and that the Deuteronomist deliberately masked Judah’s client status because it did not fit his theological evaluation of Josiah’s reign. He considers it unlikely that Necho’s troops marched directly up the Levantine coast given that, in New Kingdom times, Egyptian rulers had typically sailed to Lebanon and the

Apis Stele claims that Egypt had, in fact, re-established its presence along the northern coast by at least 612 B.C.E. In his view, these facts require an explanation for Necho’s stop at Megiddo, and he argues that Necho traveled through the Levant for the express purpose of re-administering vassal oaths313 and possibly also to raise auxiliary troops for his campaigning in Syria (1991: 51-54).

The fact that the Judean elite initially chose a successor without Necho's approval argues against Egyptian control in Jerusalem prior to the installation of Jehoiakim.

However, it is perhaps conceivable that, if Egyptian administration primarily took the form of traveling officials, as it had during parts of the New Kingdom, a short period of time could have passed before these Egyptian agents had sorted out the situation.

However, regardless of Judah’s political status during the reign of Josiah, following his death, Egyptian influence clearly expanded inland. When Necho did not consider Josiah’s successor amenable to Egyptian interests, his administration was able to intervene by not only deposing and deporting Jehoahaz but also by putting Jehoiakim on the throne in his

313. On the practice of the renewal of vassal oaths during the first year of a new pharaoh, Na’aman follows W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptiens zu Vorderasien im 3 und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1971), 247ff.

169 place and imposing tribute.

(4) The Saqqarah Papyrus

The Saqqara Papyrus, which most likely dates to immediately before Nebuchadnezzar’s

604 BCE campaign, also implies a well-established vassal relationship between Egypt and at least one city in Philistia:314

3. That [I have written to the Lord of the Kings is to inform him that the forces] 4. Of the King of Babylon have come (and) reach[ed] Aphek… 5. […. they have seized… 6. For the Lord of Kings Pharaoh knows that [your] servant [… 7. To send a force to rescue [me]. Do not abandon [me, for your servant did not violate the treaty of the Lord of Kings] 8. And your servant preserved his good relations.315

Adon's pleas for Pharaoh to send troops to protect his city from Babylonian aggression

your has servant") וטבתה עבדך נצר imply established treaty obligations, and the expression preserved good relations") in line eight, in particular, parallels the Akkadian technical treaty term ṭābta naṣar.316 In light of this characterization, the letter should be regarded as a request for Egypt to fulfill its treaty obligations to its Levantine vassals.317

The text of the letter itself does not identify the writer. However, Porten argues its author should be identified as the king of Ekron based on a demotic line on the verso of the papyrus. Although the reading of this line is not entirely clear, he offers the

314. Alongside Ekron, note also Jer 47:1's reference to an Egypt campaign against Gaza: "The word of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the Philistines, before Pharaoh struck down ".Gaza (נכה)

315. Translation from B. Porten, "The Identity of King Adon," BA 44 (1981): 36-52.

316. Joseph Fitzmyer, "The Aramaic Letter of King Adon to the Egyptian Pharaoh," in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (ed. by J. Fitzmyer; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 239-240; and Porten, "Identity," 39.

317. Freedy and Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 477-478.

170 restoration "rdi [p3 wr] (n) 'qrn" (what the prince (?) of Ekron gave...), suggesting that this notation was added to facilitate the letter's filing.318

(5) Autobiographical Inscription from the Reign of Necho II

A fragmentary autobiographical inscription from the Egyptian general Potasimto found at

Mendes also refers to a military campaign in the Levant during the reign of Necho II:319

Now [His Majesty] sent me [to] smite Asia, being commanding officer of his army. When he saw how able I was, then he […] it on account of my speech [… 10 groups …]…”320

3. Archaeological Evidence for Egyptian Presence in the Levant a. Egyptian Material Culture

In the 7th century southern Levant, concentrations of Egyptian material culture appear at just two sites, both in Philistia: Ekron and Ashkelon.321 Apart from these larger

318. Porten, "Identity," 43-45.

319. Note also Freedy and Redford ("Dates in Ezekiel," 477) who suggest that the common Saite title "fighting on behalf of his lord in every foreign land," though stylized, may also relate to this Egyptian military expansion.

320. Translation from Donald Redford, "New Light on Egypt's Stance towards Asia, 610-586 BCE," in Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. S.L. McKenzie and T. Römer in collaboration with H.H. Schmid; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 188.

321. Schipper ("Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah") has argued that Egypt used Greek mercenaries to control Judah, characterizing Mezad Hashavyahu as an Egyptian-sponsored Greek garrison and the "Kittim" mentioned in the Arad ostraca as more mobile Greek mercenaries in the Beersheba-Arad Valley. For similar views, see also Miller and Hayes, History, 389; Na'aman, "Kingdom of Judah"; Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire; and Alexander Fantalkin, "Meṣad Ḥashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Background," TA 28 (2001): 3-165. However, although the large quantity of Greek domestic wares at the Mezad Hashavyahu makes it reasonable to conclude that Greeks were stationed at the fortress, Greek mercenary service was by no means limited to the Egyptian military. A fragmentary poem from the Greek author Alcaeus, for example, celebrates his brother who fought with the Babylonians at Ashkelon in 604 BCE. (On the nature of Greek mercenary service in the ANE, see Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, "Greek Mercenaries at Tel Kabri and Other Sites in the Levant," TA 29 [2002]: 328-331.) In the specific case of Mezad Hashavyahu, it is unclear who controlled the fortress. In light of the connection with Judean legal principles in the "Reaper's Letter," earlier reconstructions posited that Josiah controlled the site directly. For this view, see Joseph Naveh, "A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C.," IEJ 10 (1960): 129-139 and Frank Moore Cross, "Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries: B.C. II: The Murabba'ât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-Yam," BASOR 165 (1962): 42.

171 assemblages, isolated Egyptian objects are scattered across just a few sites in the southern

Levant,322 including fragmentary New Year's Vessels from Ashdod VII323 and several fragments of Egyptian pottery from Mezad Hashavyahu.324

At Ashkelon, excavators found Egyptian material culture in both the late 7th century marketplace (Grid 50 Phase 7) and a monumental building in the center of the city, which was designated a winery because it contained four winepresses and a large collection of storage jars, stoppers, and dipper juglets (Grid 38 Phase 14).325 Though its assemblage of Egyptian ceramics is extremely small, it includes not only storage jars but

322. For older excavations, see Gregory D. Mumford, International Relations between Egypt, Sinai, and Syria-Palestine during the Late Bronze Age to Early Persian Period (Dynasties 18-26: c. 1550-525 B.C.): A Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Distribution and Proportions of Egyptian(izing) Artefacts and Pottery in the Sinai and Selected Sites in Syria-Palestine (Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto, 1998). For more recent additions to the corpus, see Schipper, "Kingdom of Judah." However, note that Schipper's overall conclusions are problematic given the relatively small sample size and his inattention to potentially problematic stratigraphic contexts of the objects he discusses. Isolated scarabs and amulets were also found in late 7th/early 6th century strata at a number of sites.

323. Moshe Dothan, Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967 ('Atiqot IX-X; Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities, 1971), 21, Table 3:13.14.15. Note, however, that the stratigraphy at Ashdod is problematic. Although Ben Shlomo ("The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod: A Rejoinder to 'Ashdod Revisited'," TA 30 [2003]: 83-107) has defended Dothan’s distinction between 8th and 7th century strata at Ashdod and maintained that 7th century textual references to Ashdod cannot be dismissed, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz ("Ashdod Revisited," TA 28 [2001]: 231-259) argue that the pottery of Strata VIII-VI contain identical ceramic assemblages and date to the 8th century, that the number of finds that could be dated solely to the 7 th century is negligible, and that Ashdod lacks the typical 7 th century coastal assemblage exemplified by sites such as Batash II, Miqne IB, Ashkelon, and Mesad Hashavyahu. Because Ashdod is so prominent in texts of the 7th century, they propose associating these references with Ashdod-Yam.

324. Fantalkin, "Mezad Hashavyahu," 97-98, Figs. 34:10-12.

325. Woolley, Carchemish, 126-129. The closest parallels for Ashkelon’s assemblage appear at “House D” at Carchemish, a single-period building dated by scarabs of Necho II found in its destruction debris. Egyptian objects were found throughout the structure, including a fragmentary seal impression, a bronze statuette of Osiris, a bronze ring with a bezel in the shape of the cartouche of Psammetichus I, inscribed New Year’s vessel fragments, bronze situlae paralleling those at Ashkelon, and four scarabs of Necho II. Bell ("A Collection of Egyptian Bronzes," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century [ed. Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011], 406) also identified a parallel for Ashkelon’s situlae in Carchemish "House B," but this structure was poorly preserved and its multiple phases cannot be dated based on Woolley’s report.

172 also domestic wares.326 Alongside the Egyptian ceramics, the 604 BCE destruction layers also contained a small collection of alabaster vessels327 and a substantial number of scarabs and amulets.328

Egyptian objects were concentrated in two locations. In Rooms 312 and 413 in the winery, excavators found seven bronze situlae with reliefs of Egyptian deities, a bronze

329 model offering tray, a bronze Osiris statuette, scarabs, and a shell jewelry box with amulets. On the corner of South Street in the Grid 50 marketplace, excavators uncovered a group of artifacts that included cuboid weights and a bronze balance scale as well as a cache of Egyptian amulets.330

At Ekron, Egyptian material culture was concentrated primarily in Gitin’s “elite zone.” The great hall near the entrance to the sanctuary of Temple Complex 650 contained a carved ivory tusk with the relief of a princess/goddess and the cartouche of

326. Joshua T. Walton, "Egyptian Pottery," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 123-125.

327. Michael D. Press, "Faience and Alabster Vessels," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 421-429.

328. Othmar Keel, "Seals and Seal Impressions," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 341-357; Christian Hermann, "Egyptian Amulets," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 359-395.

329. Cf. also the hoard of twenty-six statues of Egyptian deities and the bronze cuboid weights from Iliffe's salvage excavation. Although Illife ("A Hoard of Bronzes from Askalon, c. Fourth Century B.C.," Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5 [1936]: 61–68, pl. 29–34) originally assigned these objects to the 4th century BCE, Stager has redated them to the late seventh century based on the similarities between the Osiris statues in winery and in Iliffe's hoard. For further discussion, see also Bell, "A Collection of Egyptian Bronzes."

330. Daniel M. Master, "Quantitative and Spatial Analysis of Pottery and Other Artifacts," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 707-708; Fig. 27.3.

173 Merneptah, and other ivory objects found in the temple included a cylinder seal with a

Horus motif (Room v); a female figurine and a knob with the cartouche of Ramses VII

(Room w); and a carved statuette head and tusk (Room p). Excavators also uncovered an

Egyptian-style wig made of chalk plaster in Room k, a 23 cm golden uraeus in Room q, and a Ptah-patecus amulet in Room y.331

Beneath the IB floors in a building complex adjacent to Temple Complex 650, excavators found two silver hoards, which contained hacksilber and broken jewelry, primarily in Phoenician style. Egyptianizing elements in these hoards included two silver rings with cartouche-shaped bezels and hieroglyphic characters as well as two silver

Udjat eyes.332 A third hoard, found hidden in an oil press sealed by the IB destruction in the northeastern acropolis (Field I), contained more complete jewelry than the other two hoards, and its contents included a silver ring with a cartouche-shaped bezel and hieroglyphic characters, and a faience scaraboid bead.333

Gitin's Industrial Buildings 1 and 2 contained almost exclusively Philistine and Judean pottery, with no Egyptian or Assyrian forms in the assemblage. Although the small finds have not been catalogued, his preliminary report mentions a 26th Dynasty scarab from one of the anterooms of the industrial buildings and a horned ivory pendant, for which he

331. S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh. "A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron." IEJ 47 (1997): 7-8. See photos in Gitin, "Neo-Assyrian Empire."

332. Amir Golani and Benjamin Sass, "Three Seventh-Century B.C.E. Hoards of Silver Jewelry from Tel Miqne-Ekron," BASOR 311 (1998): 68-70, 73; Fig. 13:5; Fig. 14.8.

333. Golani and Sass, "Three Seventh-Century," 67-70; Table 8; Fig. 11.4 and 13.4.

174 offers no further description.334 Gitin also refers to a Hathor sistrum from the 7th century strata but does not identify its context.335 b. Significance of the Distribution of Egyptian Material Culture

No single theory accounts for this distribution of Egyptian material culture. Even if the objects from Ekron’s Temple Complex 650 came to the city in the late 7th century, they do not necessarily reflect Egyptian presence at the site. According to Herodotus, Saite kings sent dedications to foreign temples.336 Gitin himself suggests that most of these artifacts arrived at the site as plunder from the Assyrian campaigns to Egypt.337 However, he also notes that similar groups of archaic Egyptian objects appear in 8th-7th century

Phoenician contexts in the western Mediterranean,338 and Golani and Sass attribute the

Egyptianizing elements in the jewelry from the silver hoards to Phoenician influence, also citing 7th/6th century parallels from around the Mediterranean.339 This Phoenician mediation of Egyptian motifs may also account for some of the Egyptian-style amulets that appear at other late Iron Age sites in the Levant.

334. Seymour Gitin, "Tel Miqne–Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period." in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (ed. by S. Gitin and W. G. Dever; AASOR 49; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 39.

335. Seymour Gitin, "Tel Miqne–Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State," in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West (ed. by S. Gitin; Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and Conference Papers 1. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1995), 72.

336. Philip Kaplan, "Dedications to Greek Sanctuaries by Foreign Kings in the Eighth through Sixth Centuries BCE," Historia 55/2 (2006): 134.

337. Seymour Gitin, "Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Hegemony over Ekron in the Seventh Century BCE: A Response to Lawrence E. Stager," EI 27 (2003): 59*, n. 6.

338. Gitin, "Neo-Assyrian Empire," 8.

339. Golani and Sass, "Three Seventh-Century," 73-75.

175 In the case of Ashkelon, given the site’s role as a cosmopolitan commercial center during the 7th century,340 it is possible that the assemblage of Egyptian objects reflects the presence of ordinary merchants. However, Ashkelon’s excavators have maintained that the concentration of Egyptian objects on the corner of South Street in the marketplace in

Grid 50 and, especially, in the rooms of the winery in Grid 38 help point to the presence of Egyptian agents overseeing the city’s commercial transactions or the presence of an

Egyptian garrison.341

There are two reasons that it is at least plausible to associate the material from

Ashkelon with Egyptian presence in the Levant. First, the destructions at Ashkelon and

Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar in the late 7th century suggest that these sites played an important in the Babylonians' struggle with the Egyptians for hegemony in the Syria and the southern Levant. Second, this material culture complements textual evidence that provides a clear basis for proposing a period of Egyptian control of the Levant during the late 7th century.

However, in contrast to the Assyrians who left a somewhat more visible influence on the material culture of the region,342 the expansion of Egyptian territory and the spread of Egyptian material culture are not necessarily parallel phenomena. One obvious reason

340. Daniel M. Master, "Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E.," BASOR 330 (2003): 47-64.

341. Daniel M. Master and Lawrence E. Stager. "Conclusions," in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master and J. David Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 706-708, 740; Press, "Faience and Alabster," 424.

342. E.g. G. W. Van Beek, "Vaulted Assyrian buildings at Tell Jemmeh," Qadmoniot 6 (1973): 23-37.

176 is the brevity of Saite control over the Levant under the 26th Dynasty. However, it is also probable that the minimal imprint of the 26th Dynasty on the material record also reflects

Egypt's administrative system in Egypt. Several characteristics of Egyptian imperialism in the Levant during the Amarna Age lend the New Kingdom administrative system as a model for the early 26th Dynasty:343 use of local military forces,344 small Egyptian garrisons,345 and a "circuit system" in which Egyptian officials ultimately based in Egypt visited an assigned group of cities to provide oversight before returning home to report back to the royal court.346

However, although the Amarna Letters are particularly valuable in building a model for the 26th Dynasty because they provide a glimpse into the mechanisms of

Egyptian imperialism from a relatively short period of time, the administrative system to

343. See this proposal in Na'aman, "Kindgom of Judah."

344. By the Amarna Period, Egypt no longer conducted regular, full-scale campaigns in Asia, and even in the case of the troublesome Abdi-Aširta, in which Egypt eventually sent its own troops to intervene, it did so only after its attempt to solve the problem with local forces had failed: although Rib- Hadda complains that the king's instructions had not been obeyed, EA 92: 29-40 indicates that Egypt had ordered the mayors of Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon to provide Rib-Hadda with military assistance. Likewise, in the case of Lab'ayu, the report from the mayor of Megiddo regarding his role in the battle and his emphasis on his intention to send Lab'ayu to Egypt implies that Egypt had sanctioned this Megiddo-led coalition. In some cases, local mayors were also required to provide their own troops for garrison duty in other cities. E.g. the garrison of men from Ginti-Kirmil at Beth Shean (EA 289:18-24) and the garrison from Gezer guarding the Egyptian granary at Jaffa (EA 294:14-24). Cf. also EA 85 which assumes that a mayor had taken responsibility for the granary at Yarimuta in the absence of its Egyptian overseer.

345. Although requests for garrisons pepper the mayors' letters, the actual number of troops they seek is also relatively small. The largest requests come from Rib-Hadda, who, on two occasions, asks for 400 men to guard Gubla (EA 76 and 85), in the latter case citing as a precedent a garrison of the same size that the king had given to Surata for Akko. Cf. also his request for 300 men for the purpose of regaining Baṭruna (EA) and for 200 infantrymen (ṣâbē šêpē) to withstand 'Abdi-Aširta at Šigata (EA 71).

However, on other occasions, the garrisons could be considerably smaller. In EA 189, 'Abdi-Heba̮ seeks only 50 men to guard Jerusalem's territory. In EA 151, Abi-Milku considers just 20 men sufficient to guard Tyre so that he can make a trip to Egypt. Cf. EA 244, in which Biridiya asks for a garrison of only 100 to withstand Lab'ayu at Megiddo, and EA 238, in which the mayor Bayadi asks for a 50 man garrison.

346. See Redford, Egypt and Canaan, 34-36.

177 which they attest also grew out of developments in Egyptian foreign policy under the predecessors of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, particularly Thutmose III. Thus, for example, while regular campaigns were apparently not a feature of the Amarna period, this style of imperialism was possible in large part because Thutmose had previously conducted a number of destructive campaigns, carried out deportations, and installed

347 Egyptian garrisons at several locations during his reign.348 In addition to the institution of vassal-oaths for defeated city-states that were absorbed into the empire, Thutmose's practice of bringing the children of Canaanite rulers to Egypt helped ensure the loyalty of these individual polities in the future. He also subjected his Levantine vassals to regular b3kw obligations (Urk. IV, 694: 3-8), and, as part of their b3kw, required rulers in

Lebanon to store provisions like bread, oil, wine, and honey at their harbors (Urk. IV,

692:15, 693:14) so that Egyptian forces could count on supplies whenever they arrived in the region.349

At the time of Psammetichus I's revival of expansionist foreign policy in the

347. Although early 18th Dynasty involvement in Asia is poorly understood, texts from reign of Thutmose III do refer to a garrison in Retenu established under earlier rulers and to a contemporary official whose father had been an imy-r st m w3tt-Hṛ ("overseer of the storage facility on the Ways of Horus") (Urk. IV, 547:3-4), suggesting that Tell Heboua could have functioned as an important staging point even before Thutmose's reign (Morris, Architecture of Imperialism, 48-52). However, references to Egyptian installations in Asia begin to appear frequently in the texts of Thutmose III, including a mnnw-fortress in Retenu (Urk. IV, 739: 15 - 740: 1), a storehouse of offerings (šn' n wdnw) at which the army sacrificed to Amun and Re-Horakhty after success in battle (Urk. IV, 685: 13-16), and a garrison at Ullaza involved in obtaining timber (Urk. IV, 237: 15-17). Cf. also the reference to an Egyptian garrison in "i-k3-ty" in the Karnak Stele of Amenhotep II (Urk. IV, 1312: 7-16). Several of the Amarna letters also assume the presence of garrisons and storehouses established in earlier periods. For further discussion, see Morris, Architecture of Imperialism, 153-155

348. Donald B. Redford, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III (CHANE 16. Leiden: Brill, 2003), 255-257.

349. Morris, Architecture of Imperialism, 124-125.

178 Levant, Assyrian imperialism had played the greatest role in shaping the region's political landscape. It is possible that Assyria's use of bi-directional deportations in the north as well as the depopulation of the Shephelah as a result of Sennacherib's 701 campaign had helped created conditions under which Amarna-style administration that relied on a circuit system of traveling officials and local forces from Egyptian vassals could be implemented.

C. The 605/604 BCE Neo-Babylonian Campaign

By the late 7th century BCE, the 26th Dynasty controlled the Mediterranean coast and had established centers in Syria, and it had also pushed inland into the highlands, counting Judah among its vassals. In this respect, Babylon's 605/604 BCE campaign marks a watershed moment in the region's history. Nebuchadnezzar crushed Egyptian forces at Carchemish and later moved down the coast through Philistia to the border of

Egypt itself.

1. Textual Evidence

The Babylonian Chronicle describes a decisive defeat of Egyptian forces and a subsequent campaign through the Levant that ended with the destruction and plundering of Ashkelon (ABC V.1-20). Alongside this account, several other texts may reference the events of 605-604 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar’s Wadi Brisa inscription describes a successful military campaign in which Babylonian forces defeated their enemy and brought peace to the region.350 The extant text of the stela does not explicitly identify this enemy.

350. Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (VAB 4; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), 174-175 (Col. IX: 13-56). See Vanderhooft (Neo-Babylonian Empire) on the language/imagery of Neo- Babylonian royal self-representation.

179 However, as noted above, the Serapeum Stela clearly refers to the 26th Dynasty's efforts to tax the northern Levantine coast by procuring its natural resources, and the Babylonian

Chronicle clearly documents established Egyptian centers at Syrian sites such as

Carchemish and Riblah, implying that Egypt controlled the Via Maris and/or access to the northern Levantine coast in order to ensure that its supply routes remained intact. In light of this evidence, the foreign enemy from whom Nebuchadnezzar purportedly rescued Lebanon may be interpreted as a veiled reference to the Egyptians.351

In addition to these Babylonian sources, Jeremiah’s oracles against Egypt (Jer

46:2-12) also include a poetic depiction of a major defeat of the Egyptian military in

Syria. The poem itself situates this battle in the North, referring to it as a sacrifice to

Yahweh at the Euphrates (Jer 46:6, 9), and the prose introduction in Jer 46:2 explicitly connects the oracle with a battle between Necho and Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish during the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 BCE).

2. Archaeological Evidence

This evidence is complemented by the material record. Both Ashkelon and

Carchemish have destruction layers securely dated to the late 7th century BCE on

351. Na'aman, "Kingdom of Judah," 51-52.

180 archaeological grounds.352 At Ashkelon, Greek ceramics allowed excavators to date the last phase of the winery and both the construction and use of the marketplace to the final decades of the 7th century B.C.E. At least 30% of the excavated floors in the marketplace and the winery were sealed by thick, ashy debris, effectively creating a snapshot of the city's final days.353 The absence of evidence for reoccupation of the city prior to the

Persian Period reinforces the Babylonian Chronicle’s claim that Nebuchadnezzar turned the city into a tell. At Carchemish, in contrast to the other buildings excavated by

Woolley, the dating of House D is relatively secure because it was a single-period structure and the destruction debris on its floors contained scarabs from Necho II.

Woolley also found several human skeletons in the rubble and thick ash covering these floors, and the hundreds of metal arrowheads found inside the house serve as further evidence of a violent destruction.354

352. Although there is no textual evidence that clearly links the destruction of Ekron and Ashdod with the destruction of Ashkelon, both Dothan (Dothan and Porath, Ashdod IV, Area M (The Fortiﬁcations) ['Atiqot 15; Jerusalem: Israel, 1982), 57) and Gitin ("Tel Miqne-Ekron") have dated the destructions of Ashdod VII and Ekron IB, respectively, to Nebuchadnezzar’s 604 BCE campaign. On the stratigraphic issues at stake at Ashdod, see the discussion in n. 328 above. James ("Dating Late Iron Age Ekron (Tel Miqne)," PEQ 138/2 [2006]: 85-97) argues against the assumption that all of Philistia was destroyed in 604 B.C.E., proposing that a lower date for the destruction of the city would resolve significant issues in the chronological debate about Ekron IC and IB. On this debate, see Lawrence Stager, "Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE," EI 25 (1996), 61*-74* and Seymour Gitin, "Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Hegemony over Ekron in the Seventh Century BCE: A Response to Lawrence E. Stager," EI 27 (2003): 55*-61*.

353. Master and Stager, "Conclusions," 737-740. In some cases, Iron IIC floors were disturbed by Persian Period construction, creating raked fill and making it difficult to determine the full extent of the late Iron Age destruction. In the marketplace destruction debris, excavators also discovered an in situ skeleton of a female, and analysis of skull suggested that she died of blunt force trauma. See Stager, "Ashkelon and the Archaeology," 72*.

354. Woolley, Carchemish, 126-129.

181 D. Post-604 BCE Egyptian Involvement in the Levant

Perhaps most tellingly, a summary statement in 2 Kgs 24:7 characterizes the Babylonian advance into the Levant during the reign of Jehoiakim as a major transfer of power:

The king of Egypt did not come out from his land again wøx√rAaEm taExDl MˆyårVxIm JKRlRm dwøo PyIsOh_aøl because the king of Babylon had taken, lRbD;b JKRlRm jåqDl_yI;k from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates River, t∂rVÚp_rAh◊n_dAo MˆyårVxIm lAjA…nIm all that had belonged to the king of Egypt. :Mˆy∂rVxIm JKRlRmVl hDt◊yDh rRvSa lO;k

In effect, the Deuteronomist claims that Nebuchadnezzar had pushed Egypt out of the

Levant entirely, taking its territory from Philistia to Syria.

Following their conquest of the southern Levant, like the Assyrians before them, the Babylonians attempted to push the boundaries of their empire even further, sending troops to Egypt itself in the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar (601/600 BCE). No extant

Egyptian sources document this campaign. However, though the Babylonian Chronicle frames the battle in terms of the heavy casualties for both sides, it nevertheless admits that Nebuchadnezzar's troops failed to conquer Egypt and were ultimately forced to

182 return home to Babylon:355

(5) The fourth year: The King of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. [He marched about victoriously] in Hattu.

(6) In the month Kislev he took his army's lead and marched to Egypt. (When) the king of Egypt heard (the news) he m[ustered] his army.

(7) They fought one another in the battle-field and both sides suffered severe losses (lit. they inflicted a major defeat upon one another). The king of Akkad and his army turned and [went back] to Babylon.

A close reading of Chronicle entries for subsequent years also suggests that this defeat had a lasting impact on Babylonian forces,356 since Nebuchadnezzar and his troops remained home in Babylon the follow year (year 5).357 In his 6th year, the Chronicle

355.ABC V.5-7. There may also be a report of this battle preserved in Hist. II.159: And the Syrians Necho met and defeated on foot at καὶ Σύροισι πεζῇ ὁ Νεκῶς συμβαλὼν ἐν Μαγδώλῳ Magdolus. After the battle, he took the Syrian city ἐνίκησε, μετὰ δὲ τὴν μάχην Κάδυτιν πόλιν τῆς Συρίης Kadytis, which was large. ἐοῦσαν μεγάλην εἷλε.

Although this battle is often linked with the death of Josiah at Megiddo, Lipinksi ("The Egypto-Babylonian War of the Winter 601-600 B.C.," Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 22 [1972]: 235-241) argues for identifying Magdolos as Migdol in Egypt's eastern Delta and Kadytis as Gaza. The OAN also include a superscription (Jer 47:1) specifying that Jeremiah received the oracles against the Philistines "before Pharaoh conquered Gaza" (hDΩzAo_tRa hOo√rAp hR;kÅy M®rRfV;b). In Lipinski's view, Herodotus' statement in Hist. III.5 that "the Syrians of Palestine controlled the territory from Phoenicia to Kadytis strongly implies that Kadytis is located at the southern edge of the Levant, and he suggests that Καδύτις reflects the Egyptian name for Gaza, Q-d-t. Note that Lipinski associates Migdol with Tell el-Ḥer and not Tell Qedwa, the identification prefered by both Oren and Redford. The identification of Migdol is problematic not only because of the number of Saite border fortresses in the eastern Delta but also because multiple Migdols were known in antiquity. References to Migdol go back to at least the inscriptions and reliefs of the 18th Dynasty, and Cairo Demotic Papyrus 33169 (3rd century BCE) refers to four different "Migdols" in the eastern Delta region, three of which were qualified by distinctive epithets. On the Saite border fortress network, see Kveta Smolarikova, Saite Forts in Egypt: Political-Military History of the Saite Dynasty (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2008). On "Migdol" in Egyptian texts, see Alan H. Gardiner, "The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine," JEA 6/2 (1920): 99-116.

356. Israel Eph'al, "Nebuchadnezzar the Warrior: Remarks on His Military Achievements," IEJ 53 (2003): 180-181; Dan'el Kahn, "The Foreign Policy of Psammetichus II in the Levant," Journal of Egyptian History 1 (2008): 141-142.

357. ABC V:8.

183 reports no military activity aside from raids against Arabs.358

However, despite being pushed out of the Levant in 604 BCE, Egypt resisted

Babylonian attempts to move in Lower Egypt and continued to persistently intervene in

Levantine affairs and to interfere with Babylonian control over the region. In 592 BCE,

Psammetichus II led an Egyptian expedition up the Mediterranean coast.359 Kahn characterizes this expedition as a full military campaign. Although Padiese does not explicitly refer to it in these terms, the nature of the expedition is secondary to the goals of Rylands IX. Given that the polities of the region were vassal states controlled by and paying tribute to the Babylonians, Kahn argues that it is difficult to envision

Psammetichus II traveling deep into enemy territory without military reinforcements.360

Further, Kahn notes that priests are known to have accompanied Egyptian military forces on campaigns,361 and he points out that Piankhy gave flower bouquets to the Heliopolis temple during his campaign in Egypt and that Osorkon the high priest of Thebes received

358. ABC V:9-10. Kahn argues that even the Babylonian campaign against Jerusalem in 597 BCE does not reflect significant Babylonian military action because Jehoiachin surrendered without the prolonged resistance that characterized the 586 BCE campaign, and the Chronicle entry for year 8, though fragmentary, does not suggest any significant military operations for that year.

359. Rylands IX, 14: 16-19. Günter Vittmann, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9: Teil I, Text und Übersetzung [ÄAT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994]). Rylands IX is a petition from an Egyptian priest at El-Hibeh to Persian authorities under Darius I. Although it was written in the Persian Period (513 BCE), it contains an account of the petitioner's family history and refers to the fact that his grandfather Padiese joined a group of Egyptian priests who accompanie Psammetichus II to Kharu, bearing ‘nḫ.w ﬂower bouquets. This journey factors into Padiese's account in that, while his grandfather was abroad, he lost his position and income due to a conspiracy among his fellow priests. The basic historicity of this sequence of events is not contested in the scholarship–only the precise character of the expedition.

360. Kahn, "Some Remarks," 148-153.

361.The priest Ḥrw accompaied Shoshenq I in his campaign against Israel, and P3-di-'Imn-- nsw-t3wy accompanied Piankhy on his campaign against Tefnakht. See references in Kahn, "Some Remarks," n. 39-40.

184 flower bouquets as a sign of his victory over his enemies.362 Other commentators maintain that that the expedition is better characterized as a "victory tour" celebrating

Psammetichus II's defeat of Kush and including pilgrimages to traditional Egyptian sanctuaries in the Levant, such as Byblos.363 However, all agree that this expedition served Egypt's geo-political interests by raising anti-Babylonian sentiments and cementing potential alliances in the region.

Following Zedekiah's rebellion, Apries also sent Egyptian forces to Jerusalem's aid. Jeremiah's oracles sternly condemn any hope for reliable support from the Egyptians against the Babylonians (Jer 37:9-10):

Thus says Yahweh [God of Israel]: [lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa] hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k Thus you shall say to the king of Judah, h∂d…wh◊y JKRlRm_lRa …wrVmaøt hO;k who is sending you to me to inquire of me, yˆnEv√r∂dVl yAlEa MRkVtRa AjElOÚvAh "Behold, the army of Pharaoh that has come out to you for aid h∂r◊zRoVl MRkDl aExO¥yAh hOo√rAÚp lyEj hE…nIh will return to its land, (to) Egypt. :Mˆy∂rVxIm wøx√rAaVl bDv And the Chaldeans will return and fight against this city, taøΩzAh ryIoDh_lAo …wmSjVlˆn◊w Myî;dVcA;kAh …wbDv◊w and they will capture it and burn it with fire." :vEaDb DhUp∂rVc…w DhüdDkVl…w

Thus says Yahweh: "Do not deceive yourselves saying, rOmaEl MRkyEtOvVpÅn …waIÚvA;t_lAa hÎwh◊y rAmDa hO;k 'The Chaldeans will surely depart from us,' Myî;dVcA;kAh …wnyElDoEm …wkVl´y JKølDh for they will not go. :…wkEl´y aøl_yI;k

However, despite its efforts to downplay the Egyptian alliance, the text itself does concede that news of the arrival of Egyptian forces did temporarily break the Babylonian

362. J. Yoyotte, "Sur le voyage asiatique de Psammetique II," VT 1 (1951): 140-144. For references to floral bouquets and garlands in Egyptian cult settings, see Donald Redford, "Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition," Orientalia 39 (1970): 36, n.1.

363. Freedy and Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel,"; Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah," 141-142; Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, §369; Redford, Egypt, 464; Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit, 243-244.

185 siege, even allowing Jeremiah the leave Jerusalem to travel through the Benjamin region

(Jer 37:4-5; Jer 37:11-12):

And Jeremiah was coming and going in the midst of the 364MDoDh JKwøtV;b aExOy◊w aD;b …whÎyVm√rˆy◊w people, and they had not (yet) put him in prison. 365ayIlV;kAh tyE;b wøtOa …wnVtÎn_aøl◊w Now the army of Pharaoh came out from Egypt, Mˆy∂rVxI;mIm aDxÎy hOo√rAÚp lyEj◊w and the Chaldeans [besieging] Jerusalem heard MÊAlDv…wr◊y_lAo [MyîrD…xAh] Myî;dVcA;kAh …woVmVvˆ¥yÅw the report about them. MDoVmIv_tRa And they went up from Jerusalem. :MÊDlDv…wr◊y lAoEm …wlDoE¥yÅw Now the army of the Chaldeans went up from Jerusalem, MÊDlDv…wr◊y lAoEm Myî;dVcA;kAh lyEj and they went up because of the army of Pharaoh :hOo√rAÚp lyEj yEnVÚpIm twølDoEhV;b hÎyDh◊w And Jeremiah went out from Jerusalem MÊAlDv…wryIm …whÎyVm√rˆy aEx´¥yÅw to go to the land of Benjamin NImÎy◊nI;b X®rRa tRkRlDl to flee from there in the midst of the people 366:MDoDh JKwøtV;b MDÚvIm qIlSjAl

However, though Egyptian aid ultimately failed to turn the tide against Babylon in 586

BCE, the decision of whether or not to flee to Egypt fits into this longer trajectory of shifting alliances. Even after Nebuchadnezzar's 604 BCE campaign, Egypt was still considered a viable ally by pro-Egyptian parties. For Judean military commanders and members of the elite, seeking asylum in Egypt also represents their confidence in Egypt's ability to resist further Babylonian expansion, which is clearly anticipated by unfulfilled

Jeremianic oracles predicting Nebuchadnezzar's defeat of Egypt (Jer 43:8-13; cf Jer

46:25-26).

364. G: "of the city."

365. Qere: a…wlV;kAh

relates to the transaction related to family property in Jer 32. G translates חלק Bright assumes .366 touv aÓgora¿sai e˙kei√qen ("to buy there"), which may represent a similar exegetical guess by the translators. However, see I. Eph'al ("You Are Defecting to the Chaldeans,” EI 24 [1994]: 18–22) for the argument that ".is an Akkadian loanword (halaqu) with the sense "to flee, to escape חלק

186 E. Post-586 BCE Imperial Policies of the Babylonian Empire

1. Historical Background: 6th Century BCE Settlement in Judah a. Destructions, Decline, and Abandonment

At the end of the Iron Age, destruction layers appear at major sites across Judah and

Philistia,367 while others may simply have been abandoned.368 Throughout the southern

Levant, the number of settlements drops significantly between the Iron IIC and the early

Persian Period.369 The extent of this urban decline argues strongly against the contention that life in Judah went on without interruption after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586

BCE.370

However, the nature of this decline is a complex question. It is not necessarily clear that all late Iron IIc destruction layers should be dated to one devastating

Babylonian campaign in 586 BCE, and it is impossible to determine at precisely what

367. For late Iron II destruction layers, note the following sites by region: Jerusalem: City of David X, Jewish Quarter, and the Ophel. Southern Highlands: Khirbet Rabud/Debir. Judean Desert: Ein Gedi V. Beer-Sheba Valley: 'Ira VI, Malhata, Masos Area G, and Arad VI. Western Negev: Haror G3 and Tel Sera'. Shephelah: Lachish II, Gezer V, and Mezad Hashavyahu. Coastal Plain: Miqne-Ekron IB, Ashkelon, Batash-Timnah II, and possibly Ashdod VI. For bibliography, see Faust, Judah in the Neo- Babylonian Period, 21-32.

368. For bibiliography, see Faust, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period, 21-32. However, note that Faust's discussion assumes early 6th century abandonment even in cases where there is not clear evidence of a violent destruction.

369. For survey data, see Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 210-271 and Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSupp 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 172-213. Note that Carter distinguishes between two phases of Persian settlement: Persian I (538-450 BCE) and Persian II (450-332 BCE). Lipschits (Fall and Rise, 359-360) strongly critiques Carter's analysis as methodologically flawed because his division between these two phases is artificial.

370. For this view, see Hans M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the "Exilic" Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996), 64-67. However, most scholars who stress continuity in the land still acknowledge significant decline. See Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 355: "The main conclusion that emerges from the data is that between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period there was a decline of approximately 70% in the size of settled area."

187 point in the 6th century abandonment took place.371 Lachish II pottery anchors these strata to the Iron IIc horizon, but the mid-sixth century remains largely indistinct from a ceramic perspective and interpretations of previously excavated sites have not incorporated more recent information on characteristics of a transitional 6th century assemblage from recent work at Ramat Rahel.372 The evidence for Babylonian campaigns is uneven but points to a ongoing military operations in the Levant, even after 586

BCE.373 Further, an ostraca from the Beersheba-Arad Valley indicates concern regarding the military threat of the Edomites late in the monarchic period,374 and it remains plausible that Edomites took advantage of instability in Judah following the fall of

Jerusalem and gradually encroached on its territory, destroying some of its southern fortresses.375 Though Faust rejects arguments for substantive continuity in Judah during the 6th century BCE, he also notes that deportations and wartime casualties are only two

371. See this critique in Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or The Empty Land Revisited," JSOT 27/2 (2002):178-187 and Oded Lipschits, "The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule," TA 26 (1999): 157-158. Similarly, Peter James ("Dating Late Iron Age Ekron [Tel Miqne]," PEQ 138/2 [2006]: 85-97) has argued against the assumption that the Babylonians destroyed all of Philistia in 604 BCE, suggesting that a later campaign against Ekron could solve some of the stratigraphic challenges at the site.

372. For similar issues with Lachish III pottery from the late 8th and the early 7th century, see Finkelstein, "Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh."

373. Though the events of 586 BCE are a watershed moment in ANE scholarship, the Babylonian Chronicle is silent on Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns to the Levant after Jehoiachin's surrender in 597 BCE, while the Jeremiah tradition attests not only to the events of 597 BCE and 586 BCE but also a third Babylonian expedition to deport Judeans in 582 BCE.

374. Arad O.24: "From Arad 50 and from Kin[ah]....and you shall send them to Ramat-Negeb by the hand of Malkiyau the son of Qerab'ur and he shall hand them over to Elisha' the son of Yirmiyahu in Ramat-Negeb, lest anything should happen to that city. And the word of the king is incumbent upon you for your very life! Behold, I have sent to warn you today: [Get] the men to Elisha' lest Edom should come there."

375. Lipschits, "Shedding Light," 67; Blenkinsopp, "Bible, Archaeology, and Politics."

188 of a broad range of long-term factors that contribute to demographic decline in war zones including epidemics, disruption of agricultural cycles, famine, and refugeeism–all of which could have contributed to more gradual depopulation.376 b. Continuity in Excavated Sites

Further, focusing on destruction layers as the clearest markers of Neo-Babylonian presence may also overstate the case for the "Babylonian Gap" by downplaying evidence for continuity in the land during this period.377 There are three key sites for discussions of

6th century BCE settlement in Judah: Ramat Raḥel, Tel en-Naṣbeh, and Tell el- Fûl.378

The most important of these sites is Ramat Raḥel, which lies between Jerusalem and Bethlehem just east of the Rephaim Valley. Recent renewed excavations at the site have provided important new data, which is particularly significant given the

376. Faust, "Deportation and Demography."

377. On the "Babylonian Gap," see Stern, Archaeology, 321-323 and "Babylonian Gap," 273-277.

378. In addition to these three sites, note also el-Jîb (Gibeon) and Beitin (Bethel). At el-Jîb, Pritchard's four seasons of excavation unconvered a large-scale water system, a "winery," whose 63 rock- cut cellars Pritchard estimated to have a capacity of 95,000 liters, and a residential area. Pritchard himself (Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology, 1964], 19-21) was imprecise in describiing el-Jîb's chronology, maintaining that pre-Persion period occupation ended in the late 7th century but also claiming that some pottery dated to the end of the 6th century. However, Paul Lapp's reevaluation of the site's pottery concluded that there was evidence for sixth century occupation. Specifically, Lapp argued that the pottery from the residential area (Area 17) pointed to continuous occupation from the late Iron II to the early Persian Period and that the silos (Area 8) contained mid-sixth century forms. At Beitin (Bethel), Kelso (The Excavation of Bethel 1934-1960 [AASOR 39; New Haven: ASOR, 1968]), assigned the construction of the walls of at least one room to the 6th century and assumes reuse of the other Iron II architecture in his reconstruction. However, in their reevaluation of the stratigraphy at Bethel, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz ("Reevaluating Bethel," ZDPV 125 [2009]: 33-48) offer compelling critiques of this stratification of the site.

189 stratigraphic challenges at other 6th century sites.379 Ramat Raḥel was first settled in the late 8th or early 7th century (Lipschits Building Phase 1 / Aharoni Stratum Vb). Since

Stratum VB and construction fills that covered over it to prepare for the second building phase contained approximately 225 stamped lmlk handles, it is probable that, even in this earliest stage, the site functioned as an administrative center. However, little is known about this period at the site since its poorly preserved architecture was either dismantled down to the foundations or incorporated into later buildings.380 In its second building phase (Aharoni Stratum Va), the inhabitants of the site constructed a monumental building with proto-Aeolic capitals and other forms of elaborate stone ornamentation. A large garden constructed on artificially flattened bedrock surrounded this building on three sides, and the garden area also included large pools built of high quality ashlar masonry. Approximately 235 rosette stamped handles found above the floors point the ongoing administrative significance of the site. This complex was further expanded in the

Persian Period. However, contrary to Aharoni's belief that it was abandoned during the

6th century, the renewed excavations point to continuity at Ramat Raḥel throughout from the late Iron Age into the Persian Period: Building Phase 2 represents occupation of the site from the late 7th century BCE until a late 4th century BCE. Thus Ramat Raḥel serves

379. Note that the discussion below is based on prelimary reports from Ramat Raḥel because no final reports from the renewed excavations have been published to date. See Oded Lipschits, "Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the 'Exilic Period': New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an 'Empty Land'," in Interpreting Exile (ed. Brad Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, 2011), 57-90; Oded Lipschits et al., "Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel," NEA 74/1 (2011): 2-49.

380. Jeffrey R. Zorn, "Tell en-Nasbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Later Periods (Ph.D. Diss; Berkeley, 1993); "Tell en-Nasbeh and the Problem of Material Culture of the Sixth Century," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 413-447.

190 as critical evidence for the persistence of some Judean administrative centers in the

Babylonian period.

Alongside Ramat Raḥel, Tell en-Nasbeḥ Stratum 2 (Mizpah) is also significant for understanding the nature of 6th century BCE settlement in Benjamin. According to Zorn, the complete absence of in situ finds on the floors of the last Iron Age II stratum (Stratum

3) suggest a deliberate abandonment of the settlement, but there were no indications of a violent destruction. Although Stratum 2 (Babylonian-Early Persian) reused the Iron Age fortification wall, its buildings were no longer oriented according to the Stratum 3 ring- road, and the Iron Age double-gate complex was partially dismantled during the leveling process that prepared the area for Stratum 2, with new construction putting the inner gate out of use.

Even prior to Zorn's reevaluation, these structures had been dated to a later phase than the rest of the Iron II construction, but Zorn was able to associate them with architecture across the site. Several key features distinguish this architecture from

Stratum 3. First, Stratum 2's buildings tended to be better constructed. Stone-paved floors were much more common, and it also featured double-stone walls with large ashlar blocks incorporated in those areas that required extra reinforcement. Second, even the smallest buildings of Stratum 2 (the four-room houses) were larger than typical Stratum 3 buildings. Zorn was unable to define specific sub-phases of the Neo-Babylonian Period at

Nasbeh,̣ and he dated Stratum II as a whole to a 150-year period based on in situ pottery from two of its four-room houses. However, even without a more precise division of its occupation, Nasbeḥ Stratum 2 is significant because, like Ramat Raḥel, it was

191 continuously occupied from the Iron IIC into the Persian Period.

In addition, at Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah), which was excavated in 1922/1923 and 1933 by Albright and again in 1964 by Paul Lapp, evidence of destruction late Iron II destruction was limited to select areas. In the late Iron Age, the site was fortified by a casemate wall with a large tower, and thick destruction debris covered both this tower and northern corner of the settlement (Stratum IIIa). However, though the fortification tower was never built, the rest of the site remained in use, and its inhabitants also constructed new buildings in destroyed areas (Stratum IIIb).381

Because of the brevity of the Neo-Babylonian period in the Levant and the lack of secure mid-sixth century BCE archaeological contexts,382 it is difficult to isolate a transitional 6th century BCE ceramic assemblage. However, even Stern has noted that the ceramic tradition of the Persian Period is not divorced from earlier potting traditions but rather shows signs of continuity and development out of late Iron II forms.383 The evidence from Tell el-Fûl IIIB and especially Building Phase 2 at Ramat Raḥel is particularly important for identifying subtle developments in shape and technique that characterize 6th century Judean ceramics and link the forms of the late Iron II and the

381. Nancy Lapp, ed., The Third Campaign at Tell el-Fûl: The Excavations of 1964 (AASOR 45; Cambridge: Massachusetts, 1981), 204-206.

382. At Tell en-Naṣbeh, for example, Zorn ("Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Material Culture of the Sixth Century," 416) considers only two contexts to contain unequivocally 6th century pottery (B110.01 and B.125.01).

383. Ephraim Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. (Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1982). While Lipschits (Fall and Rise, 192-203) identifies key developments in ceramics as evidence of this continuity, note also the more cautious view of Daniel M. Master ("Comments on Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem," JHS 7/2 [2005]: 29-30), who limits significant continuity to storage jars, cooking pots, and several types of jugs/juglets.

192 early Persian Period.384 c. Continuity in Administration

In addition to ceramic continuity, Lipschits has recently drawn attention to stamped handles as a key sign of administrative continuity in the region from the late Iron Age into the Persian Period. There are two major categories of such handles: m(w)ṣh impressions and lion stamp impressions. Approximately 44 m(w)ṣh seal impressions have been found at Judean sites, and they are concentrated in the Benjamin region: 30 of these impressions were found at Tell en-Nasbeh,̣ and the rest come from a relatively small area whose boundaries are marked by Sobaḥ on the west, Jericho on the east,

Ramat Raḥel on the south, and Tell en-Nasbeḥ on the north.385 Alongside the m(w)ṣh impressions from the Nasbeḥ area, lion stamp impressions are concentrated at Ramat

Raḥel. To date, the Ramat Raḥel corpus contains 77 of the 110 known stamped handles of this type, and two of the ten types of lion stamped handles appear only at Ramat

384. Lipschits, "Shedding New Light," 65: "The characteristics common to almost all of the Persian-period vessels are the thickened, everted rim, trumpet base, or raised disc base, globular sack- shaped body, and raised or 'suspended' handles. These 'classic' characteristics appear only in the fifth century B.C.E., and it seems that the sixth century B.C.E. serves, to some extent, as a transition period between the cylindrical-elliptical shape characteristic of the Iron Age and the shape characteristic of the Persian period. One main feature of the changes in the technique of pottery production is the disappearance of the polishing, especially of the bowls." In addition, transitional pottery may be represented at Ḥorvat Zimri (fill of Persian casemate wall), El-Eizrya (Bethany), tombs at Mamilla and Ketef Hinnom (no. 24), tombs from Lachish (no. 109 and no. 114), and a tomb from Beth Shemesh (no. 14). For references, see Kirsi Valkama, "What Do Archaeological Remains Reveal of the Settlements in Judah during the Mid-Sixth Century BCE?" in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts (ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin; BZAW 404; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 50-56.

385. Jeffrey Zorn, Joseph Yellin, and John Hayes, "The M(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the Neo- Babylonian Period," IEJ 44 (1994): 161-183. The seals are distributed as follows: Tell en-Nasbeh (30), Jericho (2), Ramat Rahel (1), Beth Hanina (1), Jerusalem (4), el-Jib (1), Belmont Castle (1), unprovenanced (1). M(w)ṣh is interpreted as the city Mozah, located approximately 7 km west of Jerusalem. Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes date them to the 6th century BCE, though their use probably continued into the early Persian Period since a few contexts at Tel en-Nasbeh and Jerusalem include both m(w)ṣh and yhwd impressions.

193 Raḥel.386 Previously, Stern attributed these stamped handles to the very beginning of the

Persian Period because they did not appear in classic Persian Period strata from Yehud and he assumed that there was no administrative system in place in Judah during the

Babylonian Period. In a more recent iconographic analysis, Sass argues that the motifs connect the stamped handles with Assyrian-Babylonian and not Achaemenid traditions.387

Based on preliminary analysis of the material from Ramat Rahel, Lipschits suggests that the lion stamp impressions represent the missing link in Judean administration of the local economy, marked by the lmlk impressions of the late 8th/early 7th century BCE, the rosette impressions of the late 7th/early 6th century BCE, the lion and m(w)ṣh impressions of the mid-6th century BCE, and the yhwd impressions of the 5th century

BCE. d. Continuity in the Rural Sector in Benjamin

Finally, the decline in urban sites may obscure the significance of rural sites, particularly in the Benjamin Region and the area between Bethlehem and Beth-Zur where survey data points to continuity in rural settlement patterns between the Iron II and the early Persian

386. Lipschits, "Shedding New Light"; Oded Lipschits and Ido Koch, New Studes on the Lion Stamped Jar Handles from Judah (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2010).

387. Benjamin Sass, “The Lion Stamp Impressions from Sixth Century B.C.E. Babylon and Their Connection to the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah” [Hebrew], in New Studies on the Lion Stamped Jar Handles from Judah (ed. O. Lipschits and I. Koch; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2010), 13–14. Pace Stern, Material Culture, 209-210.

194 Period.388 Both 2 Kgs and Jeremiah refer to Babylonian interest in the staple agricultural products of the region, explicitly stating that Babylonian officials left vinedressers and farmers (2 Kgs 25:12; cf. Jer 52:16 and Jer 39:10 MT). Lipschits has argued that settlement patterns from Ammon provide an important parallel: while many sites along its western border were destroyed in the late Iron Age, many farms and small villages characterized by wine presses and agricultural installations remained untouched by

Babylonian campaigns.389

2. Ongoing Attempts to Expand the Babylonian Empire

Though limited, the evidence indicates that Nebuchadnezzar continued to push the boundaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in the latter years of his reign. Despite the setback of Babylon's defeat by Necho II in 601/600 BCE,390 both Babylonian and

Egyptian sources indicate that these efforts included further attacks on Egypt. A fragmentary cuneiform tablet (BM 33041) dated to 568-567 BCE provides additional

388. For futher references to survey data, see Lipschits, "Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rejoinder," PEQ 136/2 (2004): 105, n. 2. Although Faust ("Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective," PEQ 135/1 [2003]: 37-53) has strongly critiqued this reconstruction, his own assertion that 6th century rural settlement paralleled urban decline in Judah is based on salvage excavations whose distribution is driven by modern settlement patterns. His claim that this "random" selection of sites is in some way objective is unconvincing.

389. Oded Lipschits, "Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province," BASOR 335 (2004): 37-52 and "The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rejoinder," PEQ 132/2 (2004): 99-107.

390. Josephus (Antiquities X.182) describes a campaign by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt in 582 BCE, which ultimately led to the death of the reigning Pharaoh. However, see Craig Tyson, "Josephus, Antiquities 10.180-182, Jeremiah, and Nebuchadnezzar," JHS 13/7 (2013): 1-16." Tyson demonstrates that Josephus' account is not based on the Greek sources but rather is probably based entirely on the Jeremiah tradition.

195 evidence of a conflict between the Babylonians and the Egyptians at this time.391

Although some scholars have interpreted it as merely a reference to troop requisitions or rations, the phrases employed by the scribe are the language of a campaign.392 The tablet itself explicitly identifies neither the object of the attack393 nor the location. The text does include a reference to a place or places. Edel preferred to read URU pu-ṭu-ia-a-man as the name of a single city, identified with the Greek colony Cyrene.394 However, others have considered it unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar penetrated so far into Egyptian territory, preferring to understand this section as a list of three toponyms, probably in the context of Amasis' allies:395 Kūšu (Cush), Pūṭu (Put/Libya), and Yāman (Ionia).

Further, an Egyptian stele from Elephantine describes events in the 4th year in the reign of Amasis.396 The first section of the text recounts Amasis' struggle with Apries,

391. For cuneiform text, see D.J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (London: British Museum, 1956) 94-95, Pl. XX-XXI. For Oppenheim's translation, see ANET II.308. On the collation of the text, see also the discussion of Leahy, "Earliest Dated Monument," 191, n.30.

392. Anthony J. Spalinger, "Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 BCE - 550 BC)," SAK 5 (1977): 236-237. E.g. ana epiš taḫazi il[likima] - "[he went] in order to do battle" (Line 14); šar Miṣir NIGIN.MA[DA.MEŠ-šu] - "the Egyptian king and the totality of his troops" (Rev. Line 1); [ana r]ēṣūtišu idkamma - "[to his help] he called" (Rev. Line 5).

393. However, based on the date of the text, the Pharaoh in question is Amasis, who came to the throne in 570 BCE. Vanderhooft (Neo-Babylonian Empire, 88) argues that Rev. Line 1 should probably be restored [a-ma]-[a]-su LUGAL mi-ṣir "[Ama]sis, king of Egypt."

394. Elmar Edel, "Amasis und Nebukadrazar II," GM 29 (1978): 13-20 and Spalinger, "Egypt and Babylonia."

395. Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 88. Berger argues that scribe omitted KUR or URU before ia-a-man just as he omitted KUR before the toponym in king of Eygpt (LUGAL mi-ṣir)

396.The only published copy of the entire inscription appears in G. Daressy,"Stele de 1'An III d'Amasis," RT 22 (1900): 1-9. However, see the discussion in Edel and summaries of each section based on a re-collation of the text in Leahy, "Earliest Dated Monument," 190. The content of the text is known only from the exemplar found at Elephantine. However, Leahy argues that its provenance reflects the standard practice of commemorative monuments at frontiers. The form of the text reflects the conventions of the Egyptian genre Königsnovelle.

196 who reportedly attacked Amasis at Sais accompanied by boats full of Greeks at the beginning of his reign.397 The second section of the text, however, describes a dual land and sea attack by Asiatics (Sttyw) during the fourth year of Amasis' reign:

Then they came to tell His Majesty: 'the Asiatics in their arrogance have broken in [reading znb], and are proceeding along the Way-of-Horus; there are thousands there, trampling on the land and clogging every road! And those in ships are sailing with the wind, (for) they intend to destroy the land...398

According to this account, Apries (referred to as mḥ ib, "the arrogant one") accompanied these Asiatic invaders and died in the battle.

3. Babylonian Imperial Administration and Goals

Recently, David Vanderhooft has argued that both textual and archaeological evidence point not to a standing Babylonian presence in the Levant but rather an ad hoc imperial system that focused on collecting tribute and suppressing Egypt.399 He notes that the lack of detail in the Babylonian Chronicle's accounts of Nebuchadnezzar II's early campaigns does not suggest highly organized administration, and he highlights the contrast between the material record of the Levant under the Assyrians and the

397. In his discussion of the late 26th Dynasty, Leahy ("Earliest Dated Monument") argues that the transition between Apries and Amasis was complex and that Apries was still recognized in Upper Egypt for some time after Amasis was recognized in the Delta.

398.Translation from Donald Redford, "New Light on Egypt's Stance towards Asia, 610-586 BCE," in Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. S.L. McKenzie and T. Römer; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 186-187, n.16.

399. David Vanderhooft, "Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 229: "The Babylonian destructions disrupted patterns of trade and economic prosperity throughout the Levant; Nebuchadnezzar's scorched earth policy could hardly have served as the basis for colonization or economic exploitation of conquered kingdoms. Scholars such as O. Lipschits have rightly emphasized that the land was not completely depopulated during the Babylonian era, but that is not the same thing as arguing that the Babylonians installed a provincial government or had a coherent bureaucratic policy."

197 Babylonians, emphasizing, with Stern, the widespread late Iron Age destructions, the scarcity of Neo-Babylonian material culture, and the absence of East Greek imports as markers of international trade.400

However, while Vanderhooft rightly emphasizes the contrast between Assyrian and Babylonian imperial administration, it is important not to equate these difference with a complete lack of imperial vision for the Levant on the part of the Babylonians.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, further campaigns through the region are documented for 582 BCE as well as 568-567 BCE, when the Babylonians tried for the second time to conquer Egypt. These campaigns are important because they demonstrate that, although extensive accounts of military activity during the latter decades of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are lacking, the Babylonians did not simply abandon their western periphery after

586 BC. At the same time, if the Babylonians were as systematic and thorough in causing destruction as Stern and Vanderhooft suggest, their decision to allow life to go on in some regions is all the more significant. The absence of material evidence for substantial

Babylonian presence in Judah marks a different imperial model than that employed by the Neo-Assyrians but not necessarily a lack of Babylonian control over the region.401 As the discussion above noted, the brief period of Egyptian hegemony in the Levant that preceded Neo-Babylonian rule also left almost no noticeable imprint on the region's material record.

Further, the absence of 6th century BCE East Greek ceramics in the Levant needs to be understood within the broader context of Levantine trade networks. The cessation of

400. Stern, "The Babylonian Gap: Archaeological Reality."

401. On the Babylonian material culture from Nasbeh, see Zorn, "Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Material Culture of the Sixth Century."

198 such imports may be most closely tied not to economic conditions in Judah but rather to the complete disruption of the trade network for these wares at the end of the 7th century

BCE.402 The late 7th century collection of East Greek pottery from Grid 38 and Grid 50 at

Ashkelon dwarfs the evidence from any other site in the southern Levant and probably indicates that Ashkelon served as a trade hub for East Greek wares.403 Thus, the absence of such imports from 6th century Judean sites may reflect the destruction of the primary center for distribution to inland sites and may not be as direct a comment on economic conditions in Judah as has sometimes been maintained.

It is unlikely that Babylonian interest in Judah died with Gedaliah. Although limited, the evidence points to further Babylonian campaigns through the Levant, including an attempt to push southwest into Egypt itself. Further, alongside Tell en-

Nasbeh, the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel demonstrate administrative continuity at a major Judean center through the 6th century BCE. 2 Kgs 25 hints at Babylonian agricultural interests in the region when it states that Nebuchadnezzar left some occupants in the land as vinedressers and plowmen. The shift away from urban settlement may coincide with the text's focus on agricultural production and Babylonian interest in access to the region's agricultural commodities.

402.For the argument that the absence of Greek imports serves as a sign of economic decline, see Stern, "Babylonian Gap"; Vanderfhooft, "Babylonian Strategies"; Faust, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period, 73-92.

403. For an updated discussion of the distribution of Greek pottery at Ashkelon and throughout the Levant in the late Iron Age, see Jane Waldbaum, "Greek Pottery,” in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century (ed. L.E. Stager, D.M. Master and J.D. Schloen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 701-736.

199 II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUDEAN COMMUNITY IN EGYPT

A. The Difficulty of Biblical Texts as Evidence

The Jeremiah tradition itself refers to the presence of a Judean community in Egypt even prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. In Jeremiah's vision of the figs (Jer 24:1-3), the prophet sees two baskets: one containing very good figs and one holding rotten, inedible figs. The oracle interpreting this vision (Jer 24:4-10) identifies the good figs as the 597

BCE Babylonian golah and the bad figs as those who remained in the land of Judah after

Jehoiachin's exile and the Judean community in Egypt:

Thus says Yahweh, God of Israel, lEa∂rVcˆy yEhølTa hÎwh◊y rAmDa_hO;k Like these good figs, hR;lEaDh twøbOÚfAh MyInEaV;tA;k so I will acknowledge as good the exiles of Judah h∂d…wh◊y t…wlÎ…g_tRa ryI;kAa_NE;k whom I sent from this place (to) the land of the Chaldeans 404:hDbwøfVl Myî;dVcA;k X®rRa hRΩzAh MwøqD;mAh_NIm yI;tVjA;lIv rRvSa And I will set my eyes on them for good, hDbwøfVl MRhyElSo yInyEo yI;tVmAc◊w and I will return them to this land. taøΩzAh X®rDaDh_lAo MyItObIvShÅw And I will build (them) and not tear (them) down. sOrThRa aøl◊w MyItyˆnVb…w And I will plant (them) and not uproot (them). :vwø;tRa aøl◊w MyI;tVoAf◊n…w And I will give them a heart to know me, yItOa tAoådDl bEl MRhDl yI;tAtÎn◊w For I am Yahweh, hÎwh◊y yInSa yI;k and they will be my people, and I myself will be their god. MyIhølaEl MRhDl hRyVhRa yIkOnDa◊w MDoVl yIl_…wyDh◊w when they return to me with all their heart. MD;bIl_lDkV;b yAlEa …wbUvÎy_yI;k "But like bad figs twøo∂rDh MyˆnEaV;tAk◊w that cannot be eaten because (they are so) bad," AoOrEm hÎnVlAkDaEt_aøl rRvSa indeed thus says Yahweh: hÎwh◊y rAmDa hOk_yI;k "So I will give Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials wy∂rDc_tRa◊w h∂d…wh◊y_JKRlRm …whÎ¥yIq√dIx_tRa NE;tRa NE;k and the remnant of Jerusalem left in this land taøΩzAh X®rDaD;b MyîrDaVvˆ…nAh MÊAlDv…wr◊y tyîrEaVv tEa◊w and those who dwell in Egypt. :Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRaV;b MyIbVvO¥yAh◊w And I will make them a horror [for evil] [hDo∂rVl] 405hDoÎw◊zIl MyI;tAt◊n…w for all the kingdoms of the earth, X®rDaDh twøkVlVmAm lOkVl a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse hDlDlVqIl◊w hDnyˆnVvIl lDvDmVl…w hDÚp√rRjVl in all the places where I drive them. :MDv MEjyî;dAa_rRvSa twømOqV;mAh_lDkV;b And I will send against them MDb yI;tVjA;lIv◊w the sword, famine, and disease rRb∂;dAh_tRa◊w bDo∂rDh_tRa b®rRjAh_tRa

.Hiph) as "acknowledge," see Gen 31:32 and Deut 21:17) נכר + ל On .404

405. Qere: hDwSoÅzVl. Janzen (Studies, 611) regards the MT+ hDo∂rVl as a doublet and a secondary development.

200 until (they) are destroyed from upon the ground hDm∂dSaDh lAoEm MD;mU;t_dAo that I gave to them [and to their fathers] :[MRhyEtwøbSaAl◊w] MRhDl yI;tAtÎn_rRvSa

The superscription sets this vision and its interpretation in the period between the 597

BCE deportations and the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. However, despite the setting claimed by the Jer 24:1, the date of Jer 24 is widely debated, with some commentators accepting pre-586 BCE composition,406 others dating its authorship to the exilic period,407 and still others locating its origins to Persian Period conflicts between Jewish communities.408

The primary issue at stake is the contrast between the status of the 597 BCE exiles

(identified in Jer 24:1 as Jehoiachin and his officials as well as Judean craftsmen) and the

Judean remnant (identified in Jer 24:9 as Zedekiah and his officials and those who still inhabited Jerusalem). Ezek 11:15 demonstrates that the meaning of the 597 BCE exile and the question of which group held divine favor was already current in the early 6th century BCE:

406. Bright, Jeremiah; Rudolph, Jeremiah; and Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 657.

407. Nicholson (Preaching to the Exiles, 110) understands the text as an earlier historical kernel from the period between 597-586 BCE expanded by exilic editors. Thiel (Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, 257-261) and Hyatt ("Deuteronomic Edition," 84-85) consider the text to be a composition created entirely by the exilic editors.

408. Duhm, Jeremia; Herbert May, "Towards an Object Approach to the Book of Jeremiah: The Biographer," JBL 61/3 (1942): 139-155; Carroll, Jeremiah, 486-487; Albertz, Israel in Exile, 321. Carroll argues that the setting must be the land of Judah given the reference to "this land" and that the Persian Period is the only context in which a pro-Golah perspective makes sense in a Judean setting. Note, however, McKane (Volume II, 614), who leaves the date of compsition open, but questions the relevance of such fine distinctions between the 597 BCE golah and the 586 BCE golah in the Persian Period: "What interest could [the author] possible have had in the middle of the fifth century or later in asserting that the only bearers of Judaism were those who had been deported with Jehoiachin in 597? Hence the particular nature of the antithesis between Jehoiachin and Zedekiah does not appear to fit the post-exilic hypothesis particularly well, although it is less vulnerable than other accounts of the chapter."

201 Son of man, M∂dDa_NR;b your brothers, (even) your brothers, your kinsmen ÔKRtD;lUa◊g yEv◊nAa ÔKyRjAa ÔKyRjAa and the entire house of Israel, all of them, hø;lU;k lEa∂rVcˆy tyE;b_lDk◊w (are) those concerning whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said: MÊAlDv…wr◊y yEbVvOy MRhDl …wrVmDa rRvSa "Be far from Yahweh. hÎwh◊y lAoEm …wqSjår To us this land is given as a possession." 409:hDv∂rwømVl X®rDaDh hDnV;tˆn ayIh …wnDl

Thus, though the vision of the figs clearly had resonance in later periods, an early 6th century BCE context is plausible given the strong contrast drawn between Zedekiah and his officials and the Jehoiachin and his officials.410

However, even if an early dating is preferred for the composition of the vision and its interpretation, there are several signs that Jeremiah 24:8-9's reference to the Judean

Egyptian community may be a secondary gloss.411 On the one hand, Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRaV;b MyIbVvO¥yAh◊w does not precisely parallel the preceding items in the list because it lacks the οbject

whÎ¥yIq√dIx_tRa, wy∂rDc_tRa◊w). On the other, it does not fit the broader context of the…) את particle subsequent declaration of divine judgment, which assumes an audience in the land of

Judah. This setting is already implied by the threat that Yahweh will drive them away

representing this punishment as a future event. Moreover, the force of Yahweh's ,(נדח) declaration that he will send sword, famine, and disease to destroy the people from the

409. Cf. Ex. 6:8.

410. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 656: "The issue of the present passage, to repeat, is that those in Jerusalem, including Zedekiah, are not to feel superior to the exiles. The basic question for authenticity is not whether the present passage could become propaganda for the exiled segment of the community (it most assuredly did) but whether the original form of the passage could have offered to the community at a given time an unconventional prophetic view that cut across popular notions; it is clear that it could."

411. Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia: 1–25, 256, n. 86; McKane, Volume II, 610-611; Holladay, Jeremiah 2. Pace Carroll, Jeremiah, 486 and Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity, 236, n. 108. Carroll considers the reference to Egypt in keeping with the polemic against it elsewhwere in the tradition, and Rom-Shiloni considers the Jeremiah tradition's view of exile to be broad enough to include both those forcibly deported to Babylon and those who voluntarily migrated to Egypt.

202 land he gave them (MRhDl yI;tAtÎn_rRvSa hDm∂dSaDh lAoEm) is explicitly predicated on an audience located in the land of Judah.

From this perspective, Jer 24's reference to the Judean community in Egypt may be a secondary gloss added at a later stage of development to update the oracle's division of Judean groups. Thus, although biblical texts outside of Jer 42-43 attest to the broader phenomenon of a Judean community in Egypt, such texts remain highly problematic as sources for the early history of this community given the nature of the editorial process.412

In light of these difficulties, the discussion that follows focuses on extra-biblical evidence for the growth of the Judean community in Egypt. Contemporary 6th century BCE evidence offers only hints of this community's existence. However, later Jewish sources from Egypt explicitly reflect on the Iron Age origins of their community.

B. Iron Age II

1. Lachish Letter III

Lachish Letter III contains a report from the Judean soldier Hoshaiah, to Ya'osh, a Judean

412. Alongside Jer 24, see also Isa 19:18-25, which refers to five cities in Egypt that speak Canaanite (NAoÅnV;k tApVc) and worship Yahweh, an altar to Yahweh in the midst of Egypt (X®rRa JKwøtV;b hÎwhyAl AjE;b◊zIm), and a standing stone at the border (hDwhyAl ;hDl…wb◊…g_lRxEa hDbE…xAm…w). A few scholars have argued for Iron Age composition and tried to link some of these statements to the historical context of late 8th century BCE, including Alviero Niccacci, "Isaiah XVIII-XX from an Egyptological Perspective," VT 48/2 (1998): 220-222; Benjamin D. Sommer, "Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah's Use of Prophet Tradition," in New Visions of Isaiah (ed. R.F. Melugin and M.A. Sweeney; JSOTSupp 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 163-164; Csaba Balogh, The Stele of YHWH: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18-20 concerning Egypt and Kush (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 302. However, most Isaiah scholars have a preferred Persian Period context or later. On the vocabulary, redaction history and historical setting, see Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13-27 (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 269-282.

203 military commander.413 Although this ostracon is perhaps most famous for the author's vehement defense of his ability to read without hiring scribes (Line 9-12), it also includes a terse report of a Judean military commander and his troops crossing over the Egyptian border. Lines 13-18 read:414

wl‘bdk. hgd. ...Now it has been reported to your servant, l’mr. yrd415 śr. hṣb’416 saying: "The commander of the army has gone down– knyhw bn ’lntn417 lb’ Coniah son of Elnathan–to go into mṣrymh. w’t Egypt and hwdwyhw bn ’ḥyhw w Hodaviah son of Ahiah and

413. On the Lachish Letters, see Dennis J. Pardee, Handbook of Hebrew Letters (Sources of Biblical Study 15; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). All 16 ostraca were found in a room in the gate of Lachish II. Only Letter 3 explicitly identifies the sender, and Ya'osh is traditionally identified as the commander at the Lachish fortress. Yigael Yadin ("The Lachish Letters – Originals or Copies and Drafts?" in Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel [ed. Hershel Shanks and Benjamin Mazar; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984], 179-186) proposes that the ostraca were actually drafts of letters that were later sent on papyrus from Lachish to Jerusalem. However, see the critiques of Yadin's arguments in J.A. Emerton, "Were the Lachish Letters Sent to or From Lachish? PEQ 133/1 [2001]: 2-15. For further discussion of the broader function of the Lachish Letters and the nature of the communication network of the late Iron Age in Judah, see also Nadav Na'aman, "The Distribution of Messages in the Kingdom of Judah in Light of the Lachish Ostraca," VT 53/2 (2003): 169-180.

414. The transcription and translation are taken from Frank Moore Cross, "A Literate Soldier: Lachish Letter III," in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (ed. Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 41-47.

415. Pardee, Handbook, 88: "We have interpreted the passage as a report on past activity. It is not impossible, though, that yrd (line 14) is to be vocalized yērēd ("will be going down") and that Hoshayahu is asking permission of Yaush to release the men. Given the rank of Konyahu, however, it is unlikely that his orders would be deferred by a lowly fortress commander."

416. Yadin ("Lachish Letters") translates śr. hṣb as "commander-in-chief," since aDbD…xAh rAc is used of Abner in 1 Sam 17:55 (MT) and of Joab in 1 Kgs 1:19 (MT and G). However, Emerton ("Were the Lachish Letters," 3) argues that he is a high-ranking official but not necessarily the highest-ranking military official, since the plural (aDbD…xAh yérDc) appears in 1 Kgs 1:25 (MT and G) and 1 Chron 25:1 (MT and G).

appears four times in 2 Kgs and Jer's narration of this period: (1) 2 אלנתן The personal name .417 Kgs 24:8, identifies MÊDlDv…wryIm NDtÎnVlRa_tAb aD;tVvUj◊n as the mother of Jehoiachin. (2) Jer 26:22's MT+ identifies rwø;bVkAo_NR;b NDtÎnVlRa as the Judean official sent by Jehoiakim to retrieve Uriah the prophet after he fled to Egypt because of his prophecies agianst Jerusalem. (3, 4) Jer 36:12 and 25 (MT and G) also identify rwø;bVkAo_NR;b NDtÎnVlRa as one of the royal officials from the palace who met to determine what to do after Baruch read the scroll of prophecies from Jeremiah in the Jerusalem temple.

204 ’nšw šlḥ. lqḥt.mzh.418 his men he has sent for, taking (them) away from here."

The letter offers no explicit evaluation of these events. In the section immediately following the report of Coniah's descent to Egypt, the letter mentions that a prophet sent a warning ("Beware") to a man named Shallum son of Yada. Pardee suggests that this anonymous prophet shared Jeremiah's opposition to reliance on Egypt and that the warning is related to the events reported in Lines 13-18.419 However, it is not at all clear that the distinctive sections of the letter are to be linked rather than treated as separate matters altogether.

Some scholars have treated this text as evidence of a diplomatic mission from

Zedekiah's court.420 If Coniah's descent to Egypt is to be interpreted as such a mission, it provides a further confirmation of the presence of pro-Egyptian factions in early 6th century Jerusalem. Ezekiel 17 also mentions (and condemns) this type of diplomatic maneuvering under Zedekiah:

But he rebelled against him wø;b_d∂rVmˆ¥yÅw by sending his messengers to Egypt MˆyårVxIm wyDkDaVlAm AjølVvIl that [they] might give him horses and many people. b∂r_MAo◊w MyIs…ws wøl_tRtDl

functions לקח and שׁלח Torcyzner (Lachish Letters, 58) points out that the combination of .418 essentially as a compound verb in biblical Hebrew. See Gen 20:2 (h∂rDc_tRa jå;qˆ¥yÅw r∂r◊…g JKRlRm JKRlRmyIbSa jAlVvˆ¥yÅw "Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took (=took) Sarah") and 1 Sam 19:14 (dIw∂;d_tRa tAjåqDl MyIkDaVlAm l…waDv jAlVvˆ¥yÅw "Saul sent messengers to take David").

419. For this view, see Pardee, Handbook, 88-89.

420. See Pardee, Handbook, 88; Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem," IEJ 18 (1968): 151; Freedy and Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 462-485; Yadin, "Lachish Letters," ; Emerton, "Were the Lachish Letters," 2. The timing of these events is debated. Pardee suggests that the freedom of movement in Letters 3-6 indicates that the letters date to some point in 589 BCE, i.e. the period preceding the arrival of Babylonian forces, Ezekiel's prophecies regarding Egyptian aid, and Jeremiah's prophecies regarding the ultimate failure of the Egyptian military intervention. However, Freedy and Redford and Malamat date Letter 3 to the period of the Babylonian siege.

205 Will one who does this succeed and escape? hR;lEa hEcOoDh fElD;mˆySh jDlVxˆySh Or (will one) break the covenant and escape? :fDlVmˆn◊w tyîrV;b rEpEh◊w

However, given the notation that, after departing for Egypt, the military leader

Coniah also sent for his men, "lqḥt.mzh" ("taking them away from here"),421 another viable reading is that Lachish Letter III is reporting a defection to Egypt even before the fall of Jerusalem.422 There are several late Iron Age references to individuals from Judah and Philistia seeking asylum in Egypt.423 More broadly, Jer 40:11-12 also mentions the flight of some individuals to neighboring regions (including Ammon, Moab, and Edom) while Jerusalem was under siege.

2. Archaeological Evidence?

Two recent studies have attempted to further consider this question from an archaeological perspective.424 However, the assemblage of Judean material culture from

421. Torcyzner, Lachish, 51; Pardee, Handbook, 84; Cross, "Literate Soldier," 42-43. Pace Albright ("A Supplement to Jeremiah: The Lachish Ostraca," BASOR 61 [1936]: 13 and "A Reeamination of the Lachish Letters," BASOR 73 [1939]: 19) who argues that "from here" does not fit the context and proposes the conjectural reading "provisions" or "rations" instead.

422. Schipper (Israel und Ägypten, 245-246) presents both options as equally viable.

423.From Philistia, there are two known examples from the Assyrian annals: Hanunu of Gaza who fled to Egypt during Tiglath-Pileser III's campaign against Gaza (Tadmor, Inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser, 186-189) and Yamani of Ashdod who fled to Egypt after Ashdod's failed rebellion against Sargon II (Khorsabad Summary Inscription, Lines 90-122; Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad [Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994] 196-198, 219-222. From Judah, note the case of the prophet Uriah (Jer 26:20-23), who incurred the wrath of Jehoiakim with prophecies against Judah and Jerusalem. Fearing death, Uriah atttempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to escape to Egypt.

424. Aren M. Maier ("The Relations between Egypt and the Southern Levant during the Late Iron Age: The Material Evidence from Egypt," Ägypten und Levante 12 [2002]: 235-246) provides a preliminary overview of all categories of Judean material culture. John S. Holladay, "Judaeans (and Phoenicians) in Egypt in the Late Seventh to Sixth Centuries B.C.," in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honour of Donald B. Redford [ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 405-434) focuses on the distribution of one particular type: late 7th century BCE Judean-style wine decanters (Lachish II horizon).

206 Egyptian sites is extremely small and points primarily to Egypt's commercial relationship with the Levant. Storage jars are the most common type.425 Only a few examples of domestic wares were identified, including Judean cooking pots and locally-made Judean style wine decanters (Lachish II horizon).426 The size of this corpus is ultimately to small to draw any conclusions on the nature of Judean settlement based on material evidence from the 26th Dynasty.

C. The Persian and Ptolemaic Periods

1. Evidence from Elephantine

However, the rich Persian Period archive from the Jewish military garrison stationed at

Elephantine directly addresses the origins of this community. In 410 BCE, the priests of

Khnum, who also maintained a sanctuary on the island, conspired with Persian officials to destroy the temple of Yahweh. The most frequently proposed explanation for the conflict between the priests of Yahweh and the priests of Khnum is that the Egyptian priests objected to Yahwistic animal sacrifice because rams held special status in the cult of Khnum. German excavations uncovered a Ptolemaic ram cemetery on the island and

425. Maier, "The Relations between Egypt," 239ff.

426.These vessels appear at Defenneh, Lahun, Kafr Ammar, Tebilla, Qedwa, el-Maskhuta, and Saqqarah. Because they are made out of local clay, they are sometimes treated as Egyptian forms in Egyptological publications, despite the fact that they are a well-established form at Levantine sites. See the discussion of both Egyptian and Levantine examples in Holladay, "Judaeans (and Phoenicians)," 405-434 and Maier, "Relations," 238.

207 assumed that it covered over ram burials from earlier periods.427 However, this explanation is somewhat simplistic since, if the temple dates back to the 26th Dynasty as

Jedaniah claims, the priests of Khnum would have tolerated animal sacrifice for well over a century before acting.428 In any case, archaeological evidence also points to tensions between the two complexes during the Persian Period, since the Khnum complex expanded at this time, pushing its northern outer wall into the street that ran between the two sanctuaries and leaving very little space between them.429

Receiving no local support for rebuilding Yahweh's sanctuary, priests of

Elephantine sought a wide range of allies elsewhere in the Persian administrative bureaucracy, corresponding with Bagavahya, the governor of Judah and the sons of

Sanballat, the governor of Samaria.430 Jedaniah and his fellow priests include two arguments in favor of the rebuilding of this temple. On the one hand, they appeal to the benefits of the temple's existence in the future: should Bagavahya and the sons of

Sanballat assist them by writing to administrators in Egypt, the Elephantine priests will

427. On the ram cemetery, see Kaiser (Elephantine, the Ancient Town; Cairo: German Institute of Archaeology, 1998). Note that the memorandum offering Bagovhaya's support for rebuilding explicitly mentions restoring offerings of grain and incense but omits animal sacrifices. However, Porten ("Did the Ark Stop at Elephantine?" BAR 21/3 [1995]: 66-67) offers an alternative explanation for the omission of burnt offerings in the memo from Yehud: that the elites of Jerusalem may have attempted to promote special status for Jerusalem by allowing other types of offerings in other locations but maintaining burnt offerings as the sole purview of the Jerusalem temple.

428. Stephen G. Rosenberg, "The Jewish Temple at Elephantine," NEA 67/1 (2004): 8.

429. Cornelius von Pilgrim, "Tempel des Jahu and 'Strasses des Königs–ein Konflikt in der späten Perserzeit auf Elephantine," in Egypt: The Temple of the Whole World. Studies in Honour of Jan Assman (ed. Sibylle Meyer; SHR 97; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 303-317.

430. Jedaniah's letter also indicates that the priests of Elephantine attempted to appeal to the priests of Jerusalem, including Jehohanan, the High Priests, and others members of the Jewish elite. However, his letter notes that neither the Jewish nobles nor the Jerusalem priests responded to their requests.

208 offer meal-offerings, incense, and burnt offerings in their name on the altar of the rebuilt temple and will also pray on their behalf. On the other hand, they also appeal to the temple's past. They note that its origins date back to the Pharaonic period and that

Cambyses himself showed deference to the temple and allowed it to stand when he conquered Egypt:431

And from the days of the king(s) of Egypt our fathers had built that temple in Elephantine the fortress and when Cambyses entered Egypt -- that temple, built he found it. And the temples of the gods of Egypt, all (of them), they overthrew, but anything in that temple one did not damage.432

The Elephantine Archive includes a fragmentary memo containing the reply from

Bagavahya and the sons of Sanballat supporting the reconstruction and the restoration of grain and incense offerings, though burnt offerings, notably, are omitted.433 This reconstruction must have taken place within the last decade of the 5th century BCE, since it is referenced in documentation from a sale of a house located east of the sanctuary in

402 BCE.434

In his letter, Jedaniah describes the temple as a structure built of stone blocks,

431. Note, however, that the Udjahorresnet inscription, from an Egyptian collaborator, represents Cambyses as respectful of Egyptian sanctuaries and dedicated to their restoration. See Alan B. Lloyd, "The Inscription of Udjahorresnet: A Collaborator's Testament," JEA 68 (1982): 166-180 and Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah," JBL 106/3 (1987): 409-421.

432. Bezalel Porten, "The Settlement of Jews at Elephantine and Arameans at Syene," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 454.

433. TAD A.4.8.

434. Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine, the Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley: University of California, 1968), 292.

209 with five stone gateways and a cedar roof.435 German excavators uncovered a complex that they identified with this sanctuary on two grounds: (1) location and (2) quality of construction. The basic layout of Persian Period Elephantine has been inferred from references in the Elephantine archive documents.436 Situated between the 27th Dynasty residential area and the northern wall of the Khnum temple complex, the structure's location fits that of the Yahwistic temple in the textual record. Further, in contrast to the lower construction quality of nearby residential structures with beaten earth floors, the floor of the building identified as the sanctuary was tiled and surrounded by mudbrick walls a meter thick. A fragmentary temenos wall and plaster paving surrounded the building.437 This tile floor was constructed in two phases, which the excavators attributed to the original and rebuilt structure discussed in the textual record. 438

2. Letter of Aristeas

The Letter of Aristeas purportedly contains an account of the circumstances of the

Septuagint's translation. However, it also briefly alludes to the arrival of Judean troops

but the memo ,בית יהו In the correspondence from Jedaniah, the sanctuary is referred to as.435 containing the reply from Bagavahya and the sons of Sanballat characterizes it as an "altar-house."

436. See the suggested layout in Porten and von Pilgrim, "Temple des Jahu," 308.

437. Cornelius von Pilgrim, "Der Tempel des Jahwe," in Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine (ed. W. Kaiser et al.; MDAIK 55; Cairo: German Archaeological Insitute, 1999), 142-145.

438. Note that the preservation of this building is extremely poor, with a significant portion lost to erosion or subsidence. The tile floor is preserved in an area approximately 5x5 m .

210 Egypt under the 26th Dynasty:439

Further, previously many (Jews) ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν had come into (Egypt) with the Persian, εἰσεληλυθότων σὺν τῷ Πέρσῃ and before these things, καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἑτέρων others had been sent out as auxiliaries/allies συμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων to fight against the king of the Ethiopians, πρὸς τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι with Psammetichus, σὺν Ψαμμιτίχῴ but these were not so many in number ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοσοῦτοι τῷ πλήθει παραγενήθησαν, as Ptolemy son of Lagus brought.440 ὅσους Πτολεμαῖος ὁ τοῦ Λάγου μετήγαγε

439. See Dan'el Kahn, "Judean Auxiliaries in Egypt's War against Kush," JAOS 127/4 (2007): 507. Although its authorship, date, and function are debated, its assertion that Judean mercenaries fought under the 26th Dynasty has not been contested. Rather, discussion has focused on whether its reference to Psammetichus should be associated with Psammetichus I and or Psammetichus II. Those who argue in favor of Psammetichus II point to three major factors: (1) Greek and Phoenician grafitti from Abu Simbel clearly identifies the presence of foreign mercenaries on Psammetichus II's campaign against Kush. (2) Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon and allied himself with Egypt (Ezek 17:13). (3) Psammetichus II's campaign against Kush is well-documented. See S. Sauneron and J. Yoyotte, "Sur la politique palestinenne des rois saïtes," VT 2 (1952): 131-136; de Meulenaere, "La statue," 29; S. Burstein, "Psamtek I and the End of Nubian Dominion in Egypt," JSSEA 14 (1984): 31-34. However, those who argue in favor of Psammetichus I note the following: (1) There is no definitive link between the Abu Simbel grafitti and Judean mercenaries in particular. (2) The timing and logistics of Psammetichus II receiving troops from Judah are problematic. (3) Although the campaign of Psammetichus II is much better known, a fragmentary text from Edfu may refer to a campaign by Psammetichus I in Kush. See Alt, Psammetich II," 295-296; Moshe Greenberg, "Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II," JBL 76 (1957): 307; Freedy and Redford, "Dates in Ezekiel," 476-477, n. 69; and Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 242, n. 274.

440.Letter of Aristeas §13.

211 D. Conclusions

By the Persian Period, a thriving Judean/Jewish community had developed in Egypt and even established its own Yahwistic temple at Elephantine–a feat never accomplished even by the Babylonian exiles. Although Iron Age evidence for Judean presence in Egypt is tenuous, both the Jeremiah tradition (Jer 24) and the Elephantine documents trace the origins of this community back to the 26th Dynasty.

III. CONTEXT OF THE EGYPTIAN JUDEAN COMMUNITY'S DEVELOPMENT

During the Late Period, Egypt was home to a thriving foreign population. Mercenaries fought alongside native Egyptians in its campaigns and manned its military outposts, and this lucrative opportunity drew soldiers from across the Mediterranean world. At the same time, commercial ventures attracted foreign merchants. Although direct evidence for Judean presence in Egypt in the 7th/6th centuries BCE is limited, the appeal of flight to Egypt for members of the Judean remnant during the Neo-Babylonian period is best understood in terms of these long-term trends in cultural contacts.

A. Levantine Groups in Egypt

1. Refugees from the Northern Kingdom?

While reflections on the might of Assyria and its deportation policy dominate the prophetic discourse of the 8th century, several texts also allude to the reality of northerners taking refuge in Egypt by portraying Assyria and Egypt as parallel locations of exile:441

They shall not dwell in the land of Yahweh. Ephraim will return to Egypt, and in Assyria they will eat what is unclean...For behold they go away from destruction, but Egypt will gather them.

441. See also Mic 7:12.

212 Memphis will bury them... (Hos 9:3,6).

After Yahweh they will go. Like a lion, he will roar, when he roars. And [his] children will come trembling from the West. And they will come trembling like birds from Egypt and [they will come trembling] like doves from Assyria, and I will cause them to dwell in their homes, declares Yahweh (Hos 11:10-11).

2. Mercenaries

A wide range of 7th century BCE sources attests to the role of foreign mercenaries in the

Egyptian military. The evidence for Greeks in 26th Dynasty forces is perhaps best known and most extensive.442 Herodotus' account of Egyptian history preserves the memory of

Saite reliance on Greek mercenaries, attributing Psammetichus I's rise to power to his alliance with Ionian and Carian hoplites.443 Though Herodotus perhaps exaggerates the significance of these Greek troops, their role is also known from a range of contemporary inscriptions. Greek graffiti from Abu Simbel identify by name Greek soldiers who participated in Psammetichus II's successful campaign against Kush.444 A royal stela from the late 26th Dynasty also attests to the importance of Greek forces in the power struggle

442. On Greeks in 26th Dynasty Egypt, see also Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, "Greek Mercenaries at Tel Kabri and Other Sites in the Levant," TA 29 (2002): 328-331; John Boardman, The Greeks Overseeas: Their Early Colonies and Trade (New York: Thames and Hudson), 114-117; Philip Kaplan, "Cross- Cultural Contacts among Mercenary Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt," Mediterranean Historical Review 18/1 (2010): 4-6.

443. Hist. II.153-154. Note that Herodotus also refers to Greek garrisons at Memphis under Amasis.

444. ML 7. These Greeks include both Ionians (Elesibos of Teos and Pabis of Colophon) as well as Dorians (Telphos from Ialysos on Rhodes). See A. Bernand and O. Masson, "Les inscriptions grecques d'Abou-Simbel," REG 70 (1957): 3-20.

213 between Apries and Amasis. According to the Elephantine Stela of Amasis,445 Apries assaulted Sais accompanied by boats full of Greeks.446 Titles from private inscriptions also identify Egyptian officials responsible for supervising Greek soldiers.447

Archaeological finds from Egypt's border fortresses complement this picture. Tel

Qedwa is a 200x200 m enclosure between the Pelusiac branch of the Nile and the Eastern

Canal in the North Sinai, fortified by a massive 15-20m thick outer wall. The University of Toronto’s reexamination of the fortress and its environs identified five occupational

445. The Elephantine Stela of Amasis contains a Königsnovelle report of Apries' attack against Sais. For the heiroglyphic text, see Daressy, "Stela." For commentary, see Edel, "Amasis," and Leahy, "Last Dated." On the civil war, see also Anthony J. Spalinger, "The Civil War between Amasis and Apries and the Babylonian Attack against Egypt," in First International Congress of Egyptology (ed. W.F. Reineke; Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 13: Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979), 593-604.

446. The key passage (Col. 2-3) reads: "As for Apries, his island? (iw.f) provided ships for him, ﬁlled with Greeks, beyond reckoning." Edel ignores the suffix and reads "iw," identifying the island in question as Cyprus. Herodotus (Hist., II.182) reports that Amasis conquered Cyprus and imposed tribute on it, and Edel interprets this campaign as retribution for supporting Apries. Leahy ("Last Dated," 192-194) considers such a major campaign implausible immediately following a civil war. He argues that iw can have the broader sense of a high-lying area and could be a reference to an elevated base in Egypt itself. (Leahy proposes the elevated fortified palace at Memphis is one reasonable candidate.) If so, the vague use of iw in the Elephantine stela may reflect an attempt by Amasis to avoid broadcasting the fact that parts of Egypt did not support his rule. See also Hist. II.163, 169. Herodotus claims that Apries had a personal guard of 30,000 Ionian and Carian mercenaries and creates a dichotomy in which Apries and the Greeks battled against Amasis and native Egyptian forces.

447. E.g. Pierre-Marie Chevereau, Prosopographie des Cadres Militaires Égyptiens de la Basse Epoque (Paris, 1985), 88-89 (Doc. 114), 92-93 (Doc. 117), 129 (Doc. 186), and 129-130 (Doc 187). Potasimto's military titles include imy-r ḫ3styw, ("overseer of the foreigners"), ḫrp ḥ3styw ("commander of the foreigners"), and imy-r ḥ3w.nbwt ("general of the Greeks"). The naval commander Hor's military titles also include ḫrp ḥ3styw ḥ3w.nbwt ("commander of the Greek foreigners"). Bakenrenef's military title is ḥry mš‘ ḥ3w.nbwt ("head of the Greek infantry"). Ioufa's military title is imy-r ḫ3styw ḥ3w.nbwt ("overseer of the Greek foreigners"). On 26th Dynasty administration and titles, see Diane Pressl, Beamte und Soldaten. Die Verwaltung in der 26 Dynastie in Ägypten (664-525 v. Chr.) (Europäische Hochschulschriften 779; Frankfurt: Lang, 1998), 85-96. On the ḥ3w.nbw, see Jean Vercoutter, "Les Haou-Nebout," BIFAO 48 (1949): 174-176, 187, 195-196.

214 448 phases (including two destruction layers), and ceramic evidence places this flurry of activity squarely within a single period: the late 7th–6th centuries B.C.E. Its construction reflects design strategies common to Saite fortifications. The mud-bricks of the fortification wall from the final phase (Wall A) conformed to the standard size for Saite architecture (approx. 40/44 x 24 x 15 cm), and wall itself was constructed with unconnected, partially rubble-filled chambers. These compartments functioned not as casemates but rather as a means of counteracting the dampness caused by the high-water

449 table in the Delta, and Saite architects employed a similar technique in the chambered

450 foundation platforms at Tel el-Balamun, Naukratis, Tell Defenneh, and Memphis.

However, the fortress's ceramics included not only typical Saite forms and late Iron Age

Syro-Palestinian/Phoenician forms but also Greek wares.451 The Greek ceramics included a range of imported wine amphorae (including Chian, Samian, Lesbian, and Corinthian types) as well as Greek forms produced locally (including a cooking pot and an Ionian cup).

However, alongside Greek mercenaries, Levantine mercenaries also served in the

448. Donald B. Redford, "Reports on the 1993 and 1997 Seasons at Tell Qedwa," JARCE 35 (1998): 45-60.

449. Eliezer D. Oren, "Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta," BASOR 256 (1984): 13.

450. Kveta Smolarikova, Saite Forts in Egypt: Political-Military History of the Saite Dynasty (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2008), 45-99.

451. Oren ("Migdol," 35) does not provide any statistics on the relative quantity of these three categories. However, he implies that the collection of Greek wares is significant in size: "The proportion of Greek, Phoenician, and perhaps also Palestinian material from Site T. 21 suggests an important foreign element in the local population. These were presumably mercenary contingents stationed there to defend the eastern froniter...."

215 Egyptian military at this time. The Greek graffiti from Abu Simbel identifies a two-fold division of troops: a corps of native Egyptians and a corps of foreigners (ἀλλογλοσσοι, literally "the foreign speakers").452 Egyptian military titles make somewhat more precise distinctions among those supervising ḥ3w nbwt (Greeks), tmḥw and tḥnw (Libyans),453 and 'mw (Asiastics) alongside more vague references to foreigners (ḫ3styw). Although the somewhat generic designation of 'mw precludes a precise ethnic identification, it does attest to the role of Levantine groups in Egypt's military under the 26th Dynasty, and several inscriptions identify those who led them. The titles of the Egyptian general

Djedptahenfankh include r n ḥm.f m ḳbtt ‘mw ("mouth of his majesty to contingents of

Asiatics"), signaling that he served as a translator for Asiatic troops.454 The titles of the official Semtaoutiefnakht include imy-r ḫ3swt sttyw "overseer of the Asiatics" under

Apries and Amasis.455

Several contemporary inscriptions also address the role of Asiatic troops on

Egyptian campaigns and at Egyptian military outposts. Alongside the Greek graffiti at

Abu Simbel, Phoenician soldiers from the army of Psammethichus II left their own

452. ML 7. Note, however, that the command structure for Psammetichus II's Nubian campaign is problematic because, while the longer Greek inscription from Abu Simbel states that Amasis led the Egyptians and Potasimto led the foreign-speakers, Bernand restores the shorter Greek inscription from the soldier Anaxenor to refer to Amasis in the role of commander. The authors of the Phoenician grafitti (see CIS I.112a-d below) also refer to Amasis as their leader. For further discussion and bibliography, see Philip Schmitz, "The Phoenician Contingent in the Campaign of Psammetichus II against Kush," Journal of Egyptian History 3 (2010): 325-327.

453. See Chevereau, Prosopographie, 130-131 (Doc 188).

454. Chevereau, Prosopographie, 84-85 (Doc. 109); H. de Meulenaere, "La statue du general Djed-ptah-iouf-ankh, Caire JE 36949," BIFAO 63 (1965): 19-32.

455. Chevereau, Prosopographie, 98-99 (Doc. 98).

216 inscriptions, colorfully characterizing Egypt's military action in Kush as the crushing of dogs:456

'Abdsakon son of Pumiyahwi, who went up to the steppes of Kush with Amasis (CIS I.112a)

The forces that went up (to) the steppes of Kush with Amasis crushed dogs. (CIS I.112b)

Kushi, when the people that went up to the steppes of Kush with Amasis were in service here (CIS I.112c)

A statue inscription from Elephantine dated to the reign of Apries, also commemorates the role of Nesuhor, a customs officer in southern Egypt in convincing disaffected mercenaries not to flee south into Nubia and bringing them to Apries to be punished.

Nesuhor refers to "difficulty from soldiers–'3mw Asiatics, Greeks, Sttyw Asiatics, and others."457

Herodotus may provide some insight into forms of payment for mercenary service. Hist. II.168 refers to compensation for native Egyptian forces in the form of both land and regular rations (grain, meat, and wine). Several additional passages indicate that foreign mercenaries also received land as part of their compensation.458 Following his rise to power, Psammetichus awarded the Ionians and Carians who supported him property

456. CIS I.112a-c. Translation from Schmitz, "Phoenician Contingent." In total, approximately 20 Phoenician inscriptions were carved onto the statue of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel. On Phoenicians in 26th Dynasty Egypt, see Kaplan, "Cross-Cultural Contacts," 8-9; Jan Winnicki, Late Egypt and Her Neighbors: Foreign Population in Egypt in the First Millennium BC. (trans. Dorota Dzierzbicka; Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement XII. Warsaw, 2009), 275-294.

457. s.t qsn.t m‘pdtyw ‘3mw ḥ3w-nbw sttyw kyw. Chevereau, Prosopographie, 93-94 (Doc. 118); Eberhard Otto, Die biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung (Probleme der Ägyptologie 2. Leiden: Brill, 1954), 163, #25a; ARE IV §994.

458. Note also Hist. II.168, which describes compensation for Egyptian soldiers, including both land and daily rations of grain, meat, and wine.

217 along the Pelusiac branch of the Nile:459

[Psammetichus] got on friendly terms with the Ionians and Carians and, with promises of generous rewards, persuaded them to support him. Then, with the help of his Egyptian partisans and these allies of his, he deposed the kings. (Hist. II.152)

As a reward to the Ionians and Carians who had helped him win, Psammetichus gave them each their own land to settle; the Ionians were on one side of the Nile, the Carians on the other; these places were called the Encampments. As well as this land, he also gave them everything else he had promised them (Hist. II.154)

Hist. II.112 also refers to a district in Memphis inhabited by Tyrians:

To this day there is in Memphis, south of the temple of Hephaestus, a particularly fine and well- appointed precinct which was his. The houses around this precinct are inhabited by Phoenicians from Tyre, and the whole district is called the Tyrian Camp (στρατόπεδον).

Similarly, the Elephantine archive attests to the presence of Jewish military colony on the island rather than isolated Jewish mercenaries, and it outlines a system of monthly payments comprised of both silver and rations.460

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER IMPLICATIONS

Part one surveyed the political relationship between Egypt and Judah in the late Iron Age.

It argued that, though in hindsight Egyptian interventions ultimately failed to stem the tide of Babylonian expansion in the Levant, Egypt nevertheless held a central place in

Judean political debates of the late Iron Age and early exilic period. Pro-Egyptian voices represented an important counterpart to the pro-Babylonian perspective of much of the

Jeremiah tradition, and Egypt was still considered a viable ally post-604 BCE and a

459. See also the archaic Greek statue inscription (SEG 37.994, 39.1266) from Ionia that outlines rewards for Greek: "Pedon the son of Amphineos, bringing me from Egypt, dedicated me. To him the Egyptian king, Psammetichus, gave a golden collar and [command over] a city for his heroic deeds." Schipper ("Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah," 210) interprets the χρυσίον ("golden collar") as an element of a special honor for deserving officials (nbw n[y] ḥsw.t) and follows Haider in arguing that Pedon was given command over a Greek military colony.

460. On monthly rations, see TAD B46 and C24. On monthly payments of silver, see C2:11, 16; B48:16; B3: 5,8. The description of barley rations in C24 suggests a tiered system of payments probably for soldiers of different ranks, since it records the distribution of three different measures of barley.

218 viable place of asylum for those facing declining conditions in Judah post 586-BCE.

Part two surveyed the evidence for the development of the Judean Egyptian community. Contemporary evidence for a late Iron age Judean presence is extremely limited. However, the Elephantine archive represents a well-established community, and the Elephantine documents consider the origins of this community to date back to the

Pharaonic period.

Part three considered the appeal of such emigration in light of comparative evidence. Foreigners no doubt played many roles in Egyptian society, though those roles are not always easily identifiable in contemporary sources. It is clear that lucrative opportunities for military service attracted mercenaries from around the Mediterranean world. Although evidence for Greek mercenaries is best known, Levantine groups also participated in the Egyptian forces. Both Herodotus and the Elephantine Archive present mercenaries not as isolated individuals but rather members of larger foreign communities in Egypt, with payments in the form of both land and provisions.

In light of this historical context, the Deuteronomistic perspective on Egypt should not be treated monolithically. Given the close contact between Egypt and Judah and the long trajectory of this relationship, Deuteronomy, 2 Kgs, and Jeremiah represent a range of attempts to counter the pro-Egyptian Judean parties. Although each group of editors portrays Egypt negatively, they may do so in different ways and to advance distinctive agendas. Their perspectives offer not a unified Dtr view of Egypt but an evolving response to a much broader historical phenomenon.

219 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER IMPLICATIONS

This study evaluates Jeremiah's polemic against flight to Egypt in the narrative context of

Jer 37-44, and it argues that tensions in this narrative point to two distinctive stages in its redaction history: an early exilic core that originated among the Judahite remnant and a later exilic adaptation and expansion by members of the Babylonian golah.

I. PRO-REMNANT CORE: INTERSECTION OF THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL ANALYSES

The pro-remnant core emphasizes the necessity of submitting to Babylon in the land of Judah because Yahweh has already determined its military success, and it downplays the impact of the Babylonian conquest on the land, particularly with regard to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Although many previous studies have noted the presence of pro-Babylonian rhetoric in Jer 37-44, the significance of this rhetoric for polemic against flight to Egypt has not been fully addressed. The basis for opposition to flight to Egypt extends beyond the basic fact that Egypt was Babylon's enemy. Practical political and economic issues related to support of Babylon cannot be bracketed out of discussions of the theological basis for supporting Babylon. The explicit statement that

Yahweh repented of the judgment he brought against Judah provides a theological foundation for the call to remain in the land. However, the narrative also points to elevated status and economic benefits (including both property and commodities) for those who supported Babylon. Such collaborators had a vested interest in maintaining

Babylonian rule because their status and property rights were tied it. In this regard, the prohibition against flight to Egypt represents an attempt to combat ongoing depopulation and promote stability in the land of Judah early in the exilic period.

220 Past interpretations of Jer 42 have frequently suggested that Jeremiah's prohibition of flight to Egypt is a parallel to Deuteronomic polemics against "returning" to Egypt (Deut 28:68; Deut 17:16) and that all three texts oppose going to Egypt because it constitutes a reversal of the Exodus, the foundational event in Judah's national mythology. However, this study concludes that language of the oracle itself argues

return") in Deuteronomy represents flight") שׁוב against such superficial links. The use of to Egypt as the counterpart to the Exodus. However, this symbolic context is not in view

(גור) "in Jer 42. Rather, the oracle's characterization of flight to Egypt as a "sojourn argues against positive perceptions of Egypt as place of relief from declining conditions in the land of Judah.

Instead, the appeal to Deuteronomic rhetoric connects more directly to the practical political and economic issues at stake. Through its allusion to Deuteronomy and its use of Deuteronomic clichés, the pro-remnant core represents obedience to Yahweh exclusively in terms of political allegiance. In episodes depicting the life of the community gathered to Gedaliah at Mizpah, the editors portray members of the Judean remnant not as those subject to the Deuteronomic curses but rather as those who enjoyed the benefits anticipated for foreign conquerors (Deut 28) and as those already restored to the land by Yahweh (Deut 30). In this way, the pro-remnant core appeals to the authority of Deuteronomy, even as it present a fundamentally different view of the nature of exile and Judah's relationship with foreign powers.

This rhetoric is necessary precisely because of the appeal of Egypt, which appears repeatedly in Assyrian and biblical traditions as a place of political asylum. Economic

221 opportunities for mercenaries may be particularly important, since military leaders and their supporters play such a prominent role in the Jeremiah's representation of the sixth- century Judean political landscape. However, while mercenary service is the best-attested role for Levantine groups in Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, foreigners likely played many other roles in Egyptian society as well.

II. PRO-GOLAH ADAPTATION: INTERSECTION OF THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL ANALYSES

The pro-golah adaptation and expansion of Jer 37-44 reshapes the force of the narrative to present the chance for prosperity and ongoing life in the land as a missed opportunity for members of the Gedaliah community. Like Dtr2, the pro-golah editors present the migration to Egypt in Jer 42-43 as a comprehensive event.461 Though Dtr2 implies the depopulation of the land as a result of this event, the oracles of Jer 44 more explicitly develop the empty land motif, characterizing Jerusalem and the cities of Judah as a "tell"

(hD;b√rDj) and places "no one lives" (bEvwøy MRhD;b NyEa◊w). Further, while Jer 42's oracle plays on the

in Egypt, Jer (גור) "in the land of Judah and "sojourning (ישׁב) "contrast between "living

44:1 drops this distinction, presupposing an established Judean community settled in

Egypt, which is characterized as "the Judeans who were living in Egypt" (Mˆy∂rVxIm X®rRaV;b

MyIbVvO¥yAh Myîd…wh◊¥yAh). In its open hostility toward this community, Jer 44 also moves beyond

Dtr2's narration of 6th century BCE, predicting that the Judean community in Egypt will be cut off from worship of Yahweh and anticipating its destruction on the same scale as the Babylonian conquest of Judah.

461. Note references to "all the people from least to greatest" in 2 Kgs 25:26 and Jer 42:1. Cf. the reference to "the entire remnant of Judah" in Jer 43:5-7.

222 The golah editors establish the Babylonian exiles' exclusive status as the people of

Yahweh not only by refusing to acknowledge those Judeans who remained in the land throughout the 6th century BCE but also by predicting the decimation of those who had emigrated to Egypt. However, in contrast to the pro-remnant core's stress on political allegiance as a critical component of obedience to Yahweh, the pro-golah editors explain both past judgment of Judah itself and the future judgment of the Egyptian Judean community exclusively in cultic terms.

In doing so, they draw heavily on clichéd Dtr rhetoric, though not necessarily in the same way as Dtr2. In light of Josiah's celebrated reform of the Judean cult, Dtr2 shifts the blame for the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile specifically to Manasseh, whose egregious cult practices could not be fully overcome even by Josiah. In contrast,

Jer 44 locates the blame for Judah's fall specifically in the popular cult. The defiant response of the Judean assembly represents not a true dialogue regarding appropriate religious practice but rather an attempt to shore up the pro-golah editors' position by demonstrating that the Egyptian community will disregard Yahweh's prophets just as

Judah did. Thus, locating the cause of Judah's judgment specifically in popular cult practice (rather than focusing blame on the monarchy) allows the editors to more seamlessly link and summarily dismiss both the Judean remnant and the Egyptian golah.

During the late exilic period, it is unclear precisely what purpose such theological rhetoric served among members of the Babylonian golah, aside from promoting group cohesion among exiles. In the early Persian Period, this rhetoric very likely also resonated with some returnees seeking to dismiss the land claims of those who had

223 remained in the land. Jeremiah scholarship has frequently treated the dismissal of both the Judean remnant and the Egyptian Judean community as evidence for intense conflict between different Jewish communities in diaspora. However, the Elephantine Archive suggests such conflict is not necessarily a representative picture of the relationship between these groups. At the very least, the correspondence between Elephantine and

Yehud in the late 5th century BCE suggests an easing of tensions and a gradual acceptance of the Egyptian community's existence.

III. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS

As the corpus of texts associated with Deuteronomistic editors expands, the nature of the

Deuteronomistic movement remains an important issue in biblical studies. Although

Martin Noth conceived of the Deuteronomist as an isolated individual who was not active in political, prophetic, or priestly spheres,462 recent studies have developed wide-ranging reconstructions of the role of the Deuteronomists in the editing and transmission of the

Hebrew Bible. Albertz, for example, regards the Deuteronomists as a diverse movement, spread across a broad geographic area, spanning a period of several centuries, and ultimately advocating wide-ranging theological, political, and social goals. His work attempts a broad outline of the interests of these groups, not only in DtrH but also in several editions of Jeremiah, the Book of the Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah) and Book of the Two (Haggai and Zechariah). He characterizes Deuteronomism itself not as a rigid set of tenets but rather as a "theological currency" with many different expressions, though all branches regarded Deuteronomic theology as their foundation in

462. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 145.

224 some way.

Jer 37-44 serves as a more focused case study of the diversity of Deuteronomistic perspectives. While the pro-golah redaction has the most obvious affinities with DtrH, the pro-remnant core also draws heavily on Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic language and concepts, even as it reshapes them to advocate positions that do not easily align with

Deuteronomy. In their analysis of prophetic sayings, Ackroyd and Nicholson characterize this phenomenon as "the vitality of the word of God," an exegetical approach that preserves prophetic oracles but reapplies them to new contexts to meet the evolving needs of the community.463 That both groups of Jeremianic editors used Dtr rhetoric in such distinctive ways may reflect that important status of Deuteronomy itself alongside material attributed to the prophet Jeremiah.

463. See Ackroyd, "Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament" and Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 1-19.

225 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Susan. "The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love in the Hebrew Bible." Vetus Testamentum 52/4 (2002): 437-458.

–––. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 46. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.

Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

–––. "Historians and Prophets." Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 33 (1968): 18-54.

–––. "The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 1 (1962): 7-23.

Aharoni, Yohanan. Arad Inscriptions. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981.

–––. Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology, 1973.

Albertz, Rainer. "The Deuteronomistic History and the Heritage of the Prophets." Pages 343-368 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by Martti Nissinen. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

–––. "A Possible Terminus ad Quem for the Deuteronomistic Legislation: A Fresh Look at Deut 17:16." Pages 271-296 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by G. Galil, M. Geller, and A. Millard. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

–––. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Translated by David Green. Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

–––. "In Search of the Deuteronomists. A First Solution to a Historical Riddle." Pages 1-17 in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Thomas Römer. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.

Albright, W.F. "The Gezer Calendar." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92 (1943): 16-26.

–––. "A Reexamination of the Lachish Letters." Bulletin of the American Schools Oriental Research 73 (1939): 16-21.

226 –––. "A Supplement to Jeremiah: The Lachish Ostraca." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 61 (1936): 10-16.

Albright, W.F. and J.L. Kelso. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine: Joint Expedition of the Pittsburg-Xenia Theological Seminary and the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. Volume III: The Iron Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 21-22. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1943.

Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Alt, Albrecht. "Psammetich II. in Palästina und in Elephantine." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 30 (1910): 288-297.

Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Balogh, Csaba. The Stele of YHWH: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18-20 concerning Egypt and Kush. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Barstad, Hans M. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the "Exilic" Period. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996.

Becking, Bob. "The Two Neo-Assyrian Documents from Gezer in Their Historical Context." Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Leiden 27 (1981): 76-89.

Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Begg, Christopher. "The Interpretation of the Gedaliah Episode (2 Kgs 25, 22-26) in Context." Antonianum 62 (1987): 3-11.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq, ed. Tel 'Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 15. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1999.

Beit-Arieh, I., and Cresson, B. "Ḥorvat 'Uza: Stratigraphy and Architecture." Pages 15-75 in Ḥorvat 'Uza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Edited by I. Beit-Arieh. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 25. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 2007.

227 –––. "Ḥorvat Radum: Stratigraphy and Architecture." Pages 303-317 in Ḥorvat 'Uza and Ḥorvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. Edited by I. Beit-Arieh. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 25. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 2007.

Ben Shlomo, David. "The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod: A Rejoinder to 'Ashdod Revisited'." Tel Aviv 30 (2003): 83-107.

Ben Zvi, Ehud. "The Voice and Role of a Counterfactual Memory in the Construction of Exile and Return: Considering Jer 40:7-12." Pages 169-188 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.

Bell, Lanny. "A Collection of Egyptian Bronzes." Pages 397-420 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Bernand, A. and O. Masson. "Les inscriptions grecques d'Abou-Simbel." Revue des etudes grecques 70 (1957): 3-20.

Berridge, John M. Prophet. Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah. Zurich: EVZ- Verlag, 1970.

Biran, Avraham. "Aroer (in Judea)." NEAHL I (1993): 89-92.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or The Empty Land Revisited." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27/2 (2002): 169-187.

–––. "The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah." Journal of Biblical Literature 106/3 (1987): 409-421.

Boardman, John. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980.

Borger, Rykle. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996.

Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Breasted, James H. Ancient Records of Egypt, Volume IV: The Twentieth to the Twenty- Sixth Dynasties. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906.

Bright, John. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

228 Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Zvi Lederman. "The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyrica in the Judean Shephelah." Tel Aviv 30 (2003): 3-26.

Burstein, S. "Psamtek I and the End of Nubian Dominion in Egypt." Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14 (1984): 31-34.

Caminos, R.A. "The Nitocris Adoption Stela." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50 (1964): 71-102.

Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

–––. From Chaos to Covenant: Uses of Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. London: SCM, 1981.

Carter, Charles E. The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 294. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Chassinat, M.E. "Textes provenant du Sérapéum de Memphis." Recueil de Travaux 22 (1900): 163–180.

Chevereau, Pierre-Marie. Prosopographie des Cadres Militaires Égyptiens de la Basse Epoque. Paris, 1985.

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. Studies in Biblical Theology 3. London: SCM, 1967.

Cohn, H. "Is the 'Queen of Heaven' in Jeremiah the Goddess Anat?" Jewish Bible Quarterly 32.1 (2004): 55-57.

Cogan, Mordechai. The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel. A Carta Handbook. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008.

Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. Anchor Bible 11. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Cole, Steven W. "The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare." Pages 29-40 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo- Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki, September 7-11, 1995. Edited by Simo Parpola and R.M. Whiting. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997.

Craigie, Peter C. Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

229 Cross, Frank Moore. "Inscriptions in Phoenician and Other Scripts." Pages 333-372 in Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985-2006). Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Daniel M. Master. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

–––. "A Literate Soldier: Lachish Letter III." Pages 41-47 in Biblical and Related Studies Present to Samuel Iwry. Edited by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985.

–––. "The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela." Pages 105-120 in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel: 1980 Proceedings IOSCS-Vienna. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Acadeomon, 1980.

–––. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

–––. "Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries: B.C. II: The Murabba'ât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-Yam." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34-46.

Dagan, Y. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys. M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1992. (Hebrew).

Daressy, G. "Stele de 1'An III d'Amasis." Recueil de Travaux 22 (1900): 1-9.

–––. "Notes and Remarques." Recueil de Travaux 20 (1898): 72-86.

Davidson, Steed Vernyl Davidson. Empire and Exile: Postcolonial Readings of the Book of Jeremiah. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. de Meulenaere, H. "La statue du general Djed-ptah-iouf-ankh, Cairo JE 36949." Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 63 (1965): 19-32. der Manuelian, Peter. Living in the Past: Studies in the Archaism of the Egyptian Twenty- Sixth Dynasty. Edited by Alan B. Lloyd. Studies in Egyptology. London: Kegan Paul International, 1994.

Dothan, Moshe. Ashdod IV, Area M (The Fortiﬁcations). 'Atiqot 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1982.

–––. Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967. 'Atiqot IX-X. Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities, 1971.

230 Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. New York: Charles Scribner, 1895.

Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901.

Dutcher-Walls, Patricia. "The Circumscriptions of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in Its Ancient Social Context." Journal of Biblical Literature 121/4 (2002): 601-616.

Edel, Elmar. "Amasis und Nebukadrazar II." Göttinger Miszellen 29 (1978): 13-20.

Edelman, Diana. "The Function of the M(w)ṣh-Stamped Jars Revisited." Pages 659-672 in "I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times": Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Volume 2. Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Elat, Moshe. "The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt." Journal of the American Oriental Society 98/1 (1978): 20-34.

Emerton, J.A. "Were the Lachish Letters Sent To or From Lachish? Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133/1 (2001): 2-15.

Eph'al, I. "Nebuchadnezzar the Warrior: Remarks on His Military Achievements." Israel Exploration Journal 53 (2003): 178-191.

–––. “You Are Defecting to the Chaldeans.” Eretz Israel 24 (1994): 18–22 (Hebrew).

Evans, Paul S. The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kgs 18-19. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 125. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Fantalkin, Alexander. "Why Did Nebuchadnezzar II Destroy Ashkelon in 604 B.C.E.?" Pages 87-100 in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

–––. The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyrica in the Judahite Shephelah: An Alternative View. Tel Aviv 31 (2004): 245-61.

–––. "Meṣad Ḥashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Background." Tel Aviv 28 (2001): 3-165.

231 Faust, Avraham. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

–––. "Deportation and Demography in Sixth-Century B.C.E. Judah." Pages 91-103 in Interpreting Exile. Edited by Brad Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright. Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, 2011.

–––. "The Excavations at Tel 'Eton (2006-2009): A Preliminary Report." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143.3 (2011 ): 198-224.

–––. "Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib's Campaign." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140/3 (2008): 168-194.

Faust Avraham and Ehud Weiss. "Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World: Reconstructing the Economic System of the Seventh Century B.C.E." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 338 (2005): 71-92.

–––. "Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rural Perspective." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 135/1 (2003): 37-53.

Finkelstein, Israel. The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh. Pages 169-187 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum, and L.E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Na'aman. "The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries." Tel Aviv 31 (2004): 60-79.

Finkelstein, Israel and Lily Singer-Avitz. "Reevaluating Bethel." Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 125 (2009): 33-48.

–––. "Ashdod Revisited." Tel Aviv 28 (2001): 231-259.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. "The Aramaic Letter of King Adon to the Egyptian Pharaoh." Pages 231-242 in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Edited by J. Fitzmyer. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

Fox, Michael . "Ṭôbas Covenant Terminology." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 209 (1973): 41-42.

Frame, Grant. "The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var." Orientalia 68 (1999): 31-57.

232 Freedy, K.S. and D.B. Redford. "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources." Journal of the American Oriental Society 90/3 (1970): 462-485.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. "From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2." Pages 167-192 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

Fuchs, Andreas. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994.

–––. Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. State Archives of Assyria Series 8. Helsinki: State Archives of Assyria, 1998.

Kahn, Dan'el. "Some Remarks on the Foreign Policy of Psammetichus II in the Levant (595-589 BC)." Journal of Egyptian History 1 (2008): 139-157.

–––. "Judean Auxiliaries in Egypt's War against Kush." Journal of the American Oriental Society 127/4 (2007): 507-516.

–––. "The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25." Orientalia 70 (2001): 1-18.

Kaiser, W. Elephantine, the Ancient Town. Cairo: German Institute of Archaeology, 1998.

Gardiner, Alan H. "The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6/2 (1920): 99-116.

Garrett, Galvin. Egypt as a Place of Refuge. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Gibson, Shimon. "The Tell-ej-Judeideh (Tel Goded) Excavations: A Re-Appraisal Based on the Archival Records of the Palestine Exploration Fund." Tel Aviv 21 (1994): 194-234.

Gitin, Seymour. "Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Hegemony over Ekron in the Seventh Century BCE: A Response to Lawrence E. Stager." Eretz Israel 27 (2003): 55*-61*.

–––. "The Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Western Periphery: The Levant with a Focus on Philistine Ekron." Pages 77-103 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995. Edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 1997.

233 –––. "Tel Miqne–Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State." Pages 61-79 in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West. Edited by S. Gitin. Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and Conference Papers 1. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1995.

–––. "Tel Miqne–Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period." Pages 23-58 in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. Edited by S. Gitin and W. G. Dever. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

Gitin, S., T. Dothan and J. Naveh. "A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. Israel Exploration Journal 47 (1997): 1-16.

Golani, Amir and Benjamin Sass. "Three Seventh-Century B.C.E. Hoards of Silver Jewelry from Tel Miqne-Ekron." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311 (1998): 57-81.

Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Reprint. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Grayson, A. Kirk and Jamie Novotny, eds. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC). 2 Volumes. Royal Inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1-2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012-2014.

Greenberg, Moshe. "Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II." Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (1957): 304-309.

Griffith, F.L.I. "A Relic of Pharaoh Necho from Phoenicia." Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1894): 90-91.

Hallo, William L. and K. Lawson Younger. Context of Scripture, Volume 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Halpern, Baruch. "Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition." Vetus Testamentum 48/4 (1998): 473-514.

–––. "Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability." Pages 11-107 in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. Edited by B. Halpern and D.W. Hobson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Halpern, Baruch and David S. Vanderhooft. "The Editions of Kings in the 7th—6th Centuries BCE." Hebrew Union College Annual (1991): 179-244.

234 Halvorson-Taylor, Martien. Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Harper, R.F. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892-1914.

Hays, Christopher B. "The Egyptian Goddess Mut in Iron Age Palestine: Further Data from Amulets and Onomastics." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71/2 (2012): 299-314.

–––. "Re-Excavating Shebna's Tomb: A New Reading of Isa 22, 15-19 in its Ancient Near Eastern Context." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010): 558-575.

–––. "The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1-22." Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 212-240;

Healey, J. "The Kition Tariffs and the Phoenician Cursive Series." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 216 (1974): 53-60.

Helck, W. Die Beziehungen Ägyptiens zu Vorderasien im 3 und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1971.

Henshaw, R.A. "The Office of Saknu in Neo-Assyrian Times, II." Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968): 461-483.

Hermann, Christian. "Egyptian Amulets." Pages 359-395 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

–––. Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel mit einem Ausblick auf ihre Rezeption durch das Alte Testament. Bd. 1. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 138. Fribourg, Switzerland: Éditions Universitaires, 1991

Herzog, Zev. "The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report." Tel Aviv 29 (2002): 3-109.

Hillers, Delbert. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

–––. "A Note on Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 176 (1964): 46-47.

235 Hoffman, Yair. "A North Israelite Typological Myth and a Judaean Historical Tradition: The Exodus in Hosea and Amos." Vestus Testamentum 39/2 (1989): 169-182.

Holladay, John S. "Judaeans (and Phoenicians) in Egypt in the Late Seventh to Sixth Centuries B.C." Pages 405-434 in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honour of Donald B. Redford. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Holladay, William L. "Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 55-77.

–––. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-52. Edited by P.D. Hanson. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

–––.Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25. Edited by P.D. Hanson. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

–––."A Fresh Look at 'Source B' and 'Source C' in Jeremiah." Vetus Testamentum 25/2 (1975): 394-412.

–––."Prototype and Copies: A New Approach to the Poetry and Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah." Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 351-67.

Hyatt, J. Philip. "The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah." Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1 (1951): 71-95.

–––. "Jeremiah and Deuteronomy." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1/2 (1942): 156-173.

Iliffe, J. "A Hoard of Bronzes from Askalon, c. Fourth Century B.C." Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 5 (1936): 61–68, pl. 29–34.

James, Peter. "Dating Late Iron Age Ekron (Tel Miqne)." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 138/2 (2006): 85-97.

Janssen, J.J. "B3kw: From Work to Product." Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 20 (1993): 81-94.

Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. 2nd Edition. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 9. Frankfurt: Peter Lange, 1989.

Kahn, Dan'el. "Some Remarks on the Foreign Policy of Psammetichus II in the Levant (595-589 BC)." Journal of Egyptian History 1/1 (2008): 139-157.

236 –––. "Judean Auxiliaries in Egypt's Wars against Kush." Journal of the American Oriental Society 127/4 (2007): 507-516.

Karageorghis, J. Kypris: The Aphrodite of Cyprus. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis, 2005.

Karageorghis, V. "Another Mould for Cakes from Cyprus: The Mould and Its Interpretation." Revista Di Stui Fenici XXVIII (2000): 1, 3-5.

Keel, Othmar. "Seals and Seal Impressions." Pages 341-357 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Kelso, James. The Excavation of Bethel 1934-1960. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 39. New Haven: ASOR, 1968.

Kaplan, Philip. "Cross-Cultural Contacts among Mercenary Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt." Mediterranean Historical Review 18/1 (2010): 1-31.

–––. "Dedications to Greek Sanctuaries by Foreign Kings in the Eighth through Sixth Centuries BCE." Historia 55/2 (2006): 129-152.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.) Warminster: Aris and Philips, 1973.

Kloner, A. and E. Eshel. "A Seventh-Century B.C.E. List of Names from Maresha." Eretz-Israel 26 (1999): 147-150.

Knoppers, Gary N. Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. 2 Volumes. Harvard Semitic Monographs 52-53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

Knudtzon, J.A. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Volume 2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1915.

Langdon, Stephen. Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1912.

Lapp, Nancy, ed. The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 45. Cambridge: Massachusetts, 1981.

Leahy, Anthony. "The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of the Reign of Apries." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74 (1988): 183-199.

237 Lemaire, Andre. Inscriptions hébraïques I: Les Ostraca. Paris: Cerf, 1977.

Levenson, Jon D. "The Last Four Verses of Kings." Journal of Biblical Literature 103/3 (1984): 353-361.

Leuchter, Mark. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Lipínski, Edward. "The Egypto-Babylonian War of the Winter 601-600 B.C." Annali dell'Instituto Orientale di Napoli 22 (1972): 235-241.

Lipschits, Oded. "Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the 'Exilic Period': New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an 'Empty Land'." Pages 57-90 in Interpreting Exile. Edited by Brad Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright. Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, 2011.

–––. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

–––. "Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 335 (2004): 37-52.

–––. "The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rejoinder." Palestine Exploration Quarterly (2004) 136: 99-107.

–––. "The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule." Tel Aviv 26 (1999): 155-190.

Lipschits, Oded et al. "Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel." Near Eastern Archaeology 74/1 (2011): 2-49.

Lipschits, Oded and Ido Koch. New Studies on the Lion Stamped Jar Handles from Judah. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2010.

Lloyd, Alan B. "The Inscription of Udjahorresnet: A Collaborator's Testament." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68 (1982): 166-180.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52. Anchor Bible 21C. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

–––. Jeremiah 21–36. Anchor Bible 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

–––. Jeremiah 1–20. Anchor Bible 21A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

238 Lust, Johan. "'Gathering and Return' in Jeremiah and Ezekiel." Pages 119-142 in Le Livre de Jérémie: le prophéte et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 54. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 1981.

McCarter, P. Kyle. 1 Samuel. Anchor Bible 8. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Maier, Aren M. "The Relations between Egypt and the Southern Levant during the Late Iron Age: The Material Evidence from Egypt." Ägypten und Levante 12 (2002): 235-246.

Maeir, Aren M., Ackermann, Oren, and Hendrik J. Bruins. "The Ecological Consequences of a Siege: A Marginal Note on Deuteronomy 20:19-20." Pages 239-243 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright, and J.P. Dessel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Maeir, Michael P. Ägypten - Israels Herkunft und Geschick: Studie über einen theo- politischen Zentralbegriff im hebräischen Jeremiabuch. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002.

Malamat, Abraham. "The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom." SVT 28 (1975): 123-145.

–––. "Josiah's Bid for Armageddon." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973): 267-279.

–––. "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem." Israel Exploration Journal 18 (1968): 137-155.

–––. "Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy." Biblical Archaeologist 28/2 (1965): 33-65.

McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume II: Jeremiah 26-52. International Critical Commentary. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1996.

–––. Jeremiah 1–25. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986.

Mariette, A. Oeuvres diverses. Volume 1. Bibliothèque Égyptologique 18. Paris, 1904.

Master, Daniel M. "Quantitative and Spatial Analysis of Pottery and Other Artifacts." Pages 701-736 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

239 –––. "Comments on Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem." Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7/2 (2005): 28-33.

–––. "Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 330 (2003): 47-64.

Master, Daniel M. and Lawrence E. Stager. "Conclusions." Pages 737-740 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

May, Herbert. "Towards an Objective Approach to the Book of Jeremiah: The Biographer." Journal of Biblical Literature 61/3 (1942): 139-155.

Mazar, A. and N. Panitz-Cohen. Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Qedem 37. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997.

Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Miller, J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia, Westminster John Knox Press, 1986.

Moran, William, ed. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

–––. "A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22/3 (1963): 173-176.

Morris, Ellen Fowles. The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New Kingdom. Probleme der Ägyptologie 22. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914.

Mumford, Gregory D. International Relations between Egypt, Sinai, and Syria-Palestine during the Late Bronze Age to Early Persian Period (Dynasties 18-26: c. 1550-525 B.C.): A Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Distribution and Proportions of Egyptian(izing) Artefacts and Pottery in Sinai and Selected Sites in Syria-Palestine. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto, 1998.

Nadali, Davide. "Esarhaddon's Glazed Bricks from Nimrud: The Egyptian Campaign Depicted." Iraq 68 (2006): 109-120.

Na'aman, Nadav. "The Distribution of Messages in the Kingdom of Judah in Light of the Lachish Ostraca." Vetus Testamentum 53/2 (2003): 169-180.

240 –––. "The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah." Tel Aviv (2003) 18: 3-71.

–––."The Shiḥor of Egypt and the Shur that is before Egypt." Tel Aviv 7 (1980): 68-90.

–––."The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt." Tel Aviv 6 (1979): 68-90.

Naveh, Joseph. "A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C." Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960): 129-139.

Nelson, Richard D. "The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case Is Still Compelling." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29/3 (2005): 319-337.

–––. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 2002.

–––. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982.

Niccacci, Alviero. "Isaiah XVIII-XX from an Egyptological Perspective." Vetus Testamentum 48/2 (1998): 214-238.

Nicholson, Ernest W. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Schocken, 1970.

Nielsen, Eduard. Deuteronomium. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/6. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1995.

Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich. "Greek Mercenaries at Tel Kabri and Other Sites in the Levant." Tel Aviv 29 (2002): 328-331.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by J. Doull. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

Olyan, S. "Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven." Ugarit- Forschungen 19 (1987): 161-174.

Oren, Eliezer D. "Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984): 7-44.

–––. "Ruqeish." NEAHL IV (1993): 89-92.

241 Otto, Eberhard. Die biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung. Probleme der Ägyptologie 2. Leiden: Brill, 1954.

Pardee, Dennis. Review of Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology: Struggles for Authenticity in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66/3 (2007): 226-227.

–––. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A Study Edition. Sources for Biblical Study 15. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.

Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. SBL Monograph Series 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

Peckham, Brian." Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence." Pages 79-99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by P. Miller, P. Hanson, and S. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

Perdu, Olivier. Recueil des inscriptions royales saïtes. Cybèle: Collège de France, 2002.

Pierret, Paul. Recueil d'Inscriptions Inédites Du Musée Égyptien Du Louvre. Volume 1. Paris, 1874.

Plant, R.J.R. Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 483. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.

Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Studien zum Jeremiabuches. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

Pope, Jeremy. "Beyond the Broken Reed: Kushite Intervention and the Limits of L'Histoire Événementielle." Pages 105-160 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Edited by Isaac Kalimi and Seth Richardson. Brill: Leiden, 2014.

Porten, Bezalel. "The Settlement of Jews at Elephantine and Arameans at Syene. Pages 451-470 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

–––. "Did the Ark Stop at Elephantine?" Biblical Archaeology Review 21/3 (1995): 54-67.

–––. "The Identity of King Adon." Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981): 36-52.

242 –––. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California, 1968.

Porten, Bezalel and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English. Volumes 1-4. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986-1999.

Press, Michael D. "Faience and Alabaster Vessels." Pages 421-429 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Pressl, Diane. Beamte und Soldaten. Die Verwaltung in der 26 Dynastie in Ägypten (664-525 v. Chr.). Europäische Hochschulschriften 779. Frankfurt: Lang, 1998.

Pritchard, J. B. Winery, Defenses, and Soundings at Gibeon. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology, 1964.

Rast, W. "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven." Pages 167-180 in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Edited by A.L. Merill and T.W. Overholt. Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1977.

Redford, Donald B. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 16. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

–––. "New Light on Egypt's Stance towards Asia, 610-586 BCE." Pages 183-196 in Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters. Edited by S.L. McKenzie and T. Römer in collaboration with H.H. Schmid. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.

–––. "Reports on the 1993 and 1997 Seasons at Tell Qedwa." Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 35 (1998): 45-60.

–––. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

–––. "Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition." Orientalia 39 (1970): 1-51.

Reich, Ronny. "The Identification of the 'Sealed 'kāru' of Egypt." Israel Exploration Journal 34/1 (1984): 32-38.

Reimer, David J. "Concerning Return to Egypt: Deuteronomy XVII 16 and XXVIII 68." Pages 219-229 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J.A. Emerton. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990.

243 Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conﬂict between the Exiles and the People who Remained (6th-5th Centuries BCE). Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 543. Bloomsbury T&T Clark: New York, 2013.

–––. “Actualization of Pentateuchal Legal Traditions in Jeremiah: More on the Riddle of Authorship.” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 15 (2009): 254–81.

–––. "Group Identities in Jeremiah: Is It a Persian Period Conflict?" Pages 11-46 in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Diana Edelman, and Frank Polak. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009.

–––.“Deuteronomic Concepts of Exile Interpreted in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Pages 101–23 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by C. Cohen, V. A. Hurowitz, B. J. Schwartz, J. H. Tigay, and Y. Muffs. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

–––. “Facing Destruction and Exile: Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 117 (2005): 189–205.

–––. "The Prophecy for 'Everlasting' Covenant' (Jeremiah XXXII 36-41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction." Vetus Testamentum 53/2 (2003): 201-223.

Rosenberg, Stephen G. "The Jewish Temple at Elephantine." Near Eastern Archaeology 67/1 (2004): 4-13.

Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremiah. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/12. 3rd Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968.

Sauneron, S. and J. Yoyotte. "Sur la politique palestinenne des rois saïtes." Vetus Testamentum 2 (1952): 131-136.

–––. La campagne nubienne de Psammétique II et sa signification historique. Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 50: 157-207.

Schimtz, Philip C. "The Phoenician Contingent in the Campaign of Psammetichus II against Kush," Journal of Egyptian History 3 (2010): 321-337.

Schipper, Bernd U. "Egypt and the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah and Jehoiakim." Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 200-226.

244 –––. Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

Schley, Donald G., Jr. "Yahweh Will Cause You to Return to Egypt in Ships (Deuteronomy XXVIII 68)." Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 369-371.

Seger, Joe D. "Investigations at Tell Halif, Israel, 1976-1980." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 252 (1983): 1-23.

Seitz, Christopher R. Theology in Conﬂict: Reactions to Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989.

–––. "The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi-xliii." Vetus Testamentum 35/1 (1985): 78-97.

Sharp, Carolyn J. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authenticity in Deutero- Jeremianic Prose. T&T Clark International, 2003.

–––. "The Call of Jeremiah and Diaspora Politics." Journal of Biblical Literature 119/3 (2000): 421-438.

–––. "'Take Another Scroll and Write': A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah's Oracles against Egypt and Babylon." Vetus Testamentum 47/4 (1997): 487-516.

Skinner, John. Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922.

Smoak, Jeremy D. "Building Houses and Planting Vineyards: The Early Inner-Biblical Discourse on an Ancient Israelite Wartime Curse." Journal of Biblical Literature 127/1 (2008): 19-35.

Smolarikova, Kveta. Saite Forts in Egypt: Political-Military History of the Saite Dynasty. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2008.

Sommer, Benjamin. "Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah's Use of Prophet Tradition." Pages 156-187 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by R.F. Melugin and M.A. Sweeney. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Spalinger, Anthony J. "The Date of the Death of Gyges and Its Historical Implications." Journal of the American Oriental Society 98/4 (1978): 400-409.

–––. "The Civil War between Amasis and Apries and the Babylonian Attack against Egypt." Pages 593-604 in First International Congress of Egyptology. Edited by

245 W.F. Reineke. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 13. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979.

–––. "Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 BCE - 550 BC). Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 5 (1977): 221-244.

Stade, Bernhard. "Miscellene: Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15-21." Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886): 156-189.

Stager, Lawrence. "In the Queen’s Image." Revista Di Stui Fenici XXVIII (2000): 1, 6-11.

–––. "Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 B.C.E." Eretz Israel 25 (1996): 61*–74*.

Steindorff, G. "The Statuette of an Egyptian Commissioner in Syria." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25 (1939): 30-33.

Stern, Ephraim. "The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28/3 (2004): 273-277.

–––. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 BCE). New York: Doubleday, 2001.

–––. "The Babylonian Gap." Biblical Archaeology Review 26/6 (2000): 45-51.

–––. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1982.

Stipp, Hermann-Josef. "The Concept of the Empty Land Motif in Jeremiah 37-43." Pages 103-154 in The Concept of the Empty Land in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.

–––. "Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 627-648.

Stulman, Louis. Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry. Biblical Seminar Series 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

–––. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah. Lanham: University Press of America, 1986.

246 –––. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text- Critical Research. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 83. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982.

Sweres, D.E. Die Rückerweise im Buch Deuteronomium. Rome, 1979.

Tadmor, Hayim. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Magnes: Jerusalem.

–––. "Philistia under Assyrian Rule." Biblical Archaeologist 29 (1966): 86-102.

–––. "The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study." Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12/1 (1958): 22-40.

Tadmor, Hayim and Shigeo Yamada, eds. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia, 26–45. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 52. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.

–––. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia, 1–25. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

Torcyzner, Harry, et al. Lachish (Tell ed Duweir) I: The Lachish Letters. Wellcome Archaeological Research Expedition to Near East 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938.

Tov, Emanuel. "The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History." Pages 211-236 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by J.H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

Tyson, Craig. "Josephus, Antiquities 10.180-182, Jeremiah, and Nebuchadnezzar." Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13/7 (2013): 1-16.

Ussishkin, David ed. The Renewed Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), Volume II: The Iron Age Stratigraphy and Architecture. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, 2004.

247 Ussishkin, D. and G. Barkay. "Area S: The Iron Age Strata." Pages 411-503 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), Volume II. Edited by D. Ussishkin. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 2004.

Uziel, Joe and Aren M. Maier. "Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell Eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Surface Survey." Tel Aviv 32 (2005): 62-65.

Uziel, Joe and Itzhaq Shai. "The Settlement History of Tel Burna: Results of the Surface Survey." Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 227-245.

Valkama, Kirsi. "What Do Archaeological Remains Reveal of the Settlements in Judah during the Mid-Sixth Century BCE?" Pages 39-59 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.

Vanderhooft, David S. "Babylon Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric." Pages 235-262 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo- Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

–––. 1999. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Vaughn, Andrew G. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.

Vercoutter, Jean. "Les Haou-Nebout." Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 48 (1949): 107-209.

Vittmann, Günter. Aegypten und die Fremde im ersten vorchristlichen Jartausend. Mainz, 2003.

–––. Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9: Teil I, Text und Übersetzung. Ägypten und Altes Testaments 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994. von Pilgrim, Cornelius. "Tempel des Jahu and 'Strasses des Königs'–ein Konflikt in der späten Perserzeit auf Elephantine." Pages 303-317 in Egypt: The Temple of the Whole World. Studies in Honour of Jan Assman. Edited by Sibylle Meyer. Studies in the History of Religions 97. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

248 –––. "Das Arameische Quartier im Stadtgebiet der 27. Dynastie. Pages 192-197 in Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Edited by G. von Dreyer et al. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 58. Cairo: German Archaeological Institute, 2002.

–––. "Der Tempel des Jahwe." Pages 142-145 in Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Edited by W. Kaiser et al. Mitteilungen des Deuteschen Archaeologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 55. Cairo: German Archaeological Insitute, 1999. von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomium Studien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947.

–––. Old Testament Theology. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1962.

Walton, Joshua T. "Egyptian Pottery." Pages 123-125 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. Master, and J. David Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Waldbaum, Jane. "Greek Pottery.” Pages 701-736 in Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Edited by L.E. Stager, D.M. Master and J.D. Schloen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Wanke, Gunther. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971.

Warburton, David A. The State and Economy in Ancient Egypt: Fiscal Vocabulary of the New Kingdom. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 151. Fribourg: University Press, 1997.

Ward, William. "Appendix B: The Egyptian Objects." Pages 83-87 in The Pottery of Tyre. Edited by Patricia M. Bikai. Warminster: Aris and Philips, 1978.

Weidner, E. "Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten." Pages 923-935 in Mélanges Syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30; Paris: Geuthner, 1939.

Weippert, Helga. Die Prosarden des Jeremiabuches. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1972.

–––. "The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and its Background." Ugarit- Forschungen 4 (1972): 133-154.

249 Weis, Richard D. "The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah." Pages 269-293 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker. Edited by Y. Goldman, A. Schenker, A. van der Kooij and R.D. Weis. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13-27. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

Williams, Michael J. "An Investigation of the Legitimacy of Source Distinctions for the Prose Material in Jeremiah." Journal of Biblical Literature 112/2 (1993): 193-210.

Williamson, Hugh. 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Winnicki, Jan. Late Egypt and Her Neighbors: Foreign Population in Egypt in the First Millennium BC. Translated by Dorota Dzierzbicka. Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement XII. Warsaw, 2009.

Wiseman, Donald J. Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings. London: British Museum, 1956.

Woolley, C. Leonard. Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the British Museum. Part 2, The Town Defenses. London: British Museum, 1921.

Wright, Jacob L. "Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 20: 19-20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft." Journal of Biblical Literature 127/3 (2008): 423-458.

Yadin, Yigael. "The Lachish Letters – Originals or Copies and Drafts?" Pages 179-186 in Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Edited by Hershel Shanks and Benjamin Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984.

Yoyotte, J. "Sur le voyage asiatique de Psammetique II," Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 140-144.

Van Beek, G.W. "Vaulted Assyrian buildings at Tell Jemmeh." Qadmoniot 6 (1973): 23-37.

Zimhoni, Orna. "Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish: Levels III and II." Tel Aviv 17 (1990): 3-52.

Zorn, Jeffrey R. "Tell en-Nasbeḥ and the Problem of the Material Culture of the Sixth Century." Pages 413-450 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

250 –––. Tell en Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Later Periods. Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley, 1997.

Zorn, J.R., J. Yellin and J.L. Hayes, "The M(w)ṣh Stamp Impressions and the Neo- Babylonian Period." Israel Exploration Journal 44 (1994): 161-183.

251 Sara L. Hoffman

EDUCATION Ph.D. History and Classics & Ancient Mediterranean Studies. Penn State. 2015 M.A. History. Penn State. 2011 B.A. Ancient Languages and Archaeology. Wheaton (IL). 2008

PUBLICATIONS “Ground Stone.” In Ashkelon VII: The Iron I, ed. Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel M. 2016 Master, and Adam J. Aja. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

SELECT GRANTS Center for Global Studies Career Development Award 2013 Knight Pre-Dissertation Grant 2011 Penn State Graduate Scholar Summer Research Grant 2010

SELECT PRESENTATIONS “If You Dwell in This Land: Babylonian Collaborators and Anti-Egyptian 2013 Rhetoric in the Biography of Jeremiah.” Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature. Baltimore, MD.