0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 359

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83/4 (2007) 359-366. doi: 10.2143/ETL.83.4.2025342 © 2007 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved.

Josiah’s Death in the Book of Kings A New Solution to an Old Theological Conundrum*

Michael AVIOZ Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Josiah King of is undoubtedly one of the most important kings in the Book of Kings. The author of Kings does his utmost to praise him, as demon- strated in ,25 “there was none like him”1. Josiah’s achievements were manifested in religious reforms that included the destruction of the pagan altars and the institution of magnificent celebrations which led to a strength- ening of ’s religious status. It is therefore clear why Josiah’s tragic death in 609 BCE, during the battle against at Megiddo, gives rise to such aston- ishment. The story of Josiah’s death appears in Kings as well as in Chronicles (2 Kings 23,29 and 2 Chron 35,19-24) and these two versions have been compared extensively2. However, only a few scholars have focused solely on the descrip- tion in the Book of Kings. The Hebrew , in contradistinction to modern literature, does not regard the death of a king in battle as heroic, but rather as divine punishment3. Josiah’s death

* I would like to thank the Beit Shalom Fund of Japan for its generous support which enabled me to carry out this study. 1. See G.N. KNOPPERS, There was None Like Him: Incomparability in the , in CBQ 54 (1992) 411-431; P.J. BOTHA, No King Like Him…: Royal Etiquette according to the Deuteronomistic Historian, in J.C. DE MOOR – H.F. VAN ROOY (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 44), Leiden, 2000, 36-49. 2. On the historical background of this story see A. MALAMAT, Josiah’s Bid for Armaged- don: The Background of the Judaean-Egyptian Encounter in 609 B.C., in Journal of the Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973) 267-279 (reprinted in History of Bib- lical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues, Leiden – Boston – Köln, 2001, 282-297); N. NA’AMAN, The under Josiah, in Tel Aviv 18 (1991) 3-71, esp. pp. 51- 55; A. LAATO, Josiah and Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expec- tations of Exilic Postexilic Times (ConBibOT, 33), Stockholm, 1992, pp. 69-80. For a discussion on the relation between the text in Kings and in Chronicles see H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deutero- nomic History, in VT 32 (1982) 242-248; C.T. BEGG, The Death of Josiah: Another View, in VT 37 (1987) 1-8; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C.T. Begg, in VT 37 (1987) 9-15; Z. TALSHIR, The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography (2 Kings XXIII 29-30; 2 Chronicles XXXV 20-5; 1 Esdras I 23-31), in VT 46 (1996) 213-236. 3. Some assert that ’s death is tragic and heroic. See T.R. PRESTON, The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship, in JSOT 24 (1982) 27- 46 and also the literature mentioned in L.D. HAWK, Violent Grace: Tragedy and Transfor- mation in the Oresteia and the Deuteronomistic History, in JSOT 28 (2003) 73-78, esp. p. 78, n. 13. In contradistinction, see W. BOYD BARRICK, Saul’s Demise, David’s Lament, and Custer’s Last Stand, in JSOT 73 (1997) 25-41, esp. p. 29. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 360

360 M. AVIOZ

is therefore justifiably regarded as a theological conundrum by both ancient and modern readers4. In this study I would like to propose a new interpretation that will explain Josiah’s death in the Book of Kings. However, I will first present a brief review of the solutions offered by other studies and commentaries5.

1. Frost and the Conspiracy of Silence

Frost6 summarized his views on the riddle of Josiah’s death in his famous JBL paper from 1968: “We are left then with a general conspiracy of silence on the subject of the death of Josiah because … no one could satisfactorily account for it theologically”, i.e. the hides the historical reason for Josiah’s death on purpose. Nelson7 presents a similar view and writes that: “Kings provides no theoretical answer to the theological paradox it creates”. However, this hypothesis is hard to accept, since sins are not concealed in the Hebrew Bible, and especially not sins committed by righteous people8. In any case, the fact that Josiah’s sin is not specif- ically mentioned does not necessarily mean that it is deliberately concealed. Begg’s evaluation is also hard to accept. According to Begg, Josiah’s death is presented in Kings as “bad luck” or as the result of making the wrong decision9. However, in my opinion Kings presents a reasonable theological explanation for Josiah’s death.

2. Josiah’s Death and Manasseh’s Sins

According to a different suggestion, the Book of Kings attributes Josiah’s death to Manasseh’s sins. The element common to this and the previous approach is that in both cases Josiah is not associated with sin. Laato10, Halpern and

4. See S. DELAMARTER, The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?, in VT 54 (2004) 29-60. 5. It should be noted that some of the scholars and commentators did not propose any theological explanation for Josiah’s death. See J. GRAY, I and II Kings (OTL), Philadel- phia, PA, 31979, 746; M. COGAN – H. TADMOR, II Kings (AB, 11), Garden City, NY, 1988, pp. 301-302. 6. S.B. FROST, The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy of Silence, in JBL 87 (1968) 369-382, esp. p. 381. 7. R.D. NELSON, First and Second Kings (Interpretation), Louisville, KY, 1987, p. 260. Compare also W. BRUEGGEMANN, 1 & 2 Kings (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), Macon, GA, 2002, p. 561; M. LEUCHTER, Josiah’s Reform and ’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response, Sheffield, 2006, ch. 5. I would like to thank Prof. Leuch- ter for providing me with the final draft of his book. 8. Interestingly, some commentators expressed a similar view of ’ sin in Num 20, according to which the Hebrew Bible conceals the real reason why Moses was not allowed to enter the Land of Israel. See the references in M. MARGALIOT, The Transgression of Moses and Aaron – Num. 20:1-13, in JQR 74 (1983) 196-228. 9. BEGG, The Death (n. 2), p. 2. 10. LAATO, Josiah and David Redivivus (n. 2), pp. 40.60. Laato’s opinion is that Ps 89 and Zech 12,9–13,1 also relate to Josiah’s death (ibid., pp. 288-293). However, the assump- tion that Ps 89 refers to Josiah has not gained support among commentators. For a review of the different suggestions for the date of Ps 89 see M.E. TATE, Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20), Waco, TX, 1990, pp. 413-416. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 361

JOSIAH’S DEATH IN THE BOOK OF KINGS 361

Delamarter11 support this approach, which claims that the wants to show that Manasseh’s grave sins were not forgiven in spite of Josiah’s exalted righteousness12. This explanation is based on a juxtaposition of the Manasseh and Josiah narratives: Manasseh is Josiah’s foil13. The Book of Kings is well-known for pre- senting pairs of kings and contrasting them: and are presented as diametrically opposed14. The same line is taken when comparing Manasseh and Josiah. In 2 Kings 23,26 it is written that God was still angry because of Manasseh’s provocations.

(26) Still the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. (27) The Lord said, ‘I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there’ (NRSV).

However, this hypothesis raises several problems. The author of Kings actu- ally presents the opposite hypothesis regarding the behaviour of fathers and sons: is punished not only for ’s sins, but also for his own sin; Hezekiah15 is not punished for his father Ahaz’s sin, quite the contrary. It is

11. See B. HALPERN, Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition, in VT 48 (1998) 473-514; DELAMARTER, The Death of Josiah (n. 4), p. 31. 12. On Manasseh see recent studies: P.S. VAN KEULEN, Manasseh Through the Eyes of the : The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21,1-18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 38), Leiden, 1996; E. EYNIKEL, The Por- trait of Manasseh and the Deuteronomistic History, in M. VERVENNE – J. LUST (eds.), Deuteron- omy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven, 1997, 233-261; F. STAVRAKOPOULOU, The Blackballing of Manasseh, in L.L. GRABBE (ed.), Good Kings and Bad Kings (European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 5; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 393), London, 2005, 248-263; M.A. SWEENEY, King and the Problem of Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History, in GRABBE (ed.), Good Kings and Bad Kings, 264-278. 13. On the analogies between them see H.-D. HOFFMANN, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT, 66), Zurich, 1980, pp. 164-165; LAATO, Josiah and David Redivivus (n. 2), p. 41; M.A. SWEENEY, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel, New York – Oxford, 2001, pp. 62.175; R.H. LOWERY, The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOT SS, 120), Sheffield, 1991, p. 185; COGAN – TADMOR, II Kings (n. 5), p. 271. 14. C.R. SEITZ, 1–39 (Interpretation), Louisville, KY, 1993, p. 256; R.P. ACKROYD, Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function, in W.C. DELSMAN (ed.), Von Kanaan bis Kerala. FS J.P.M. van der Ploeg (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 211), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982, 3-21, esp. p. 18; IDEM, The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, in W. BOYD BARRICK – J.R. SPENCER (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrom (JSOT SS, 31), Sheffield, 1984, 247-259. 15. See S.J. DE VRIES, 1 Kings (WBC), Waco, TX, 1985, p. 159; Z. WEISMAN, Political Satire in the Bible, Atlanta, GA, 1998, p. 109. Conversely, Sara JAPHET argues that there is no consideration of Rehoboam’s behaviour. See The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums, 9), Frankfurt am M., 1989, p. 157. Other kings are also blamed for their own conduct. Similarly, Zevit writes that “most northern kings were condemned by having their 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 362

362 M. AVIOZ

therefore difficult to assume that the righteous King Josiah would be punished for his father Manasseh’s sins. The manner in which the author contrasts between them in the Book of Kings demonstrates his intention of presenting the days of Josiah’s reign as a spiritual correction for Manasseh’s. Describing Josiah’s death may therefore cause the author’s message to appear ridiculous, i.e. one of the author’s “favourite” kings died because of his father’s sin! The Book of Kings’ doctrine of retribution specifically indicates a cumulative retribution. Thus the King- dom of Judah was not destroyed because of a particular king’s sin, but because of the sins of many generations (see ,17; 24,20). Why then should Josiah have to bear the burden of all past generations’ sins alone16? Halpern’s method regarding Josiah’s death is related to his comprehensive approach to the doctrine of retribution. In a study published in 1991, Halpern claims that a change from the collective view of retribution to an individualistic view took place between the 8th century and the 7th century BCE. He argues that this change had not yet taken place during the period under discussion, i.e. the 7th century BCE. This approach is difficult to accept, since in the Hebrew Bible the individualistic and the collective concepts of retribution appear side-by-side in the same periods17.

3. Josiah’s Death and Consulting the Prophets

It seems to me that the theological problem concerning Josiah’s death must be explained differently. In my opinion, the Book of Kings tries to claim that Josiah’s death was caused by his sin, i.e. he did not consult with the prophets before going to war18.

policies equated with those of their founding king of Israel”. See Z. ZEVIT, Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1 Kings 12– and the Reinvestiture of the Israelite Cult, in JSOT 32 (1985) 62. 16. M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, Oxford, 1972, p. 319 argues that “We do not, indeed, hear of any king ‘who did that which is just in the sight of the Lord’ but was nevertheless destroyed in requital for the sins of his fathers”. In con- tradistinction to this view, see J.S. KAMINSKY, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOT SS, 196), Sheffield, 1995, pp. 42-47. 17. Scholars usually refer to the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, , Jere- miah and . See M. WEISS, Some Problems in the Biblical Doctrine of Retribution, in Tarbiz 31 (1961-62) 236-263; 32 (1962-63) 1-18 (Hebrew). See also J.R. PORTER, The Legal Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in the Old Testament, in VT 15 (1965) 365, who writes that: “The idea of individual responsibility, as far as the law is con- cerned, is seen to be at least as primary and as early as group responsibility, and this, not only in Israel, but throughout the entire Semitic world”. Cf. KAMINSKY, Corporate Respon- sibility (n. 16), pp. 116-138; J. KRASOVEC, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (SupplVT, 78), Leiden, 1999, pp. 110-159. 18. This solution was already raised in b. Taanith 22.2; Targum Ketuvim on 2 Chron 35,23. In my opinion, the following words by FROST should be rejected (The Death of Josiah [n. 6], p. 372): “we may be quite sure that Josiah would not have dared to do battle with the over- whelming forces of Egypt, unless he had received specific assurance from the prophets”. This evaluation is puzzling, since one of the principles in narratives dealing with con- frontations between king and prophet emphasizes their different interests. It is unlikely that the Book of Kings would not have mentioned the fact that Josiah had indeed consulted with a prophet or prophetess, since this principle comprises a theme throughout the entire book. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 363

JOSIAH’S DEATH IN THE BOOK OF KINGS 363

In 2 Kings 22 Josiah consulted the prophetess Huldah19. It is possible that by the year 609 BCE he also knew the prophet Jeremiah20. In any case, the need to con- sult a prophet before going to war is an important motif in the and Kings as well as in the prophetic literature21. David consults with God before every battle. Saul is David’s antithesis: he does not consult with God before any battle. When he finally does, God does not answer him (1 Sam 28)22. However, the most significant parallel is between Josiah and , King of Israel23. In 1 Kings 22 he does not heed the words of Micaiah ben Imlah, who is regarded as a true prophet. Ahab goes to war at Ramoth Gilead in spite of the prophet’s warning and meets his death24.

19. It is not necessary for us to discuss the contradiction between ’s oracle that Josiah will die in peace and his violent death in battle. For various solutions see HOFFMANN, Reform (n. 13), p. 185; I. PROVAN, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings (BZAW, 172), Berlin, 1988, p. 149; LAATO, Josiah and David Redivivus (n. 2), pp. 40-41.50-51; D.A. GLATT-GILAD, The Role of Huldah’s Prophecy in ’s Portrayal of Josiah’s Reform, in Biblica 77 (1996) 16-31; HALPERN, Manasseh (n. 11), pp. 493-505; L.J. HOPPE, The Death of Josiah and the Meaning of Deuteronomy, in Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 48 (1998) 31-47. 20. LAATO, Josiah and David Redivivus (n. 2), pp. 42.75. SWEENEY claims that some of the prophecies written in the days of Josiah (for example Jer 3,12; 4,2) are a call for unity among the tribes of Israel under the rule of the House of David. Other oracles (for exam- ple Jer 2,12.36) are uttered in the days of , within the framework of Jeremiah’s oracles against making covenants with foreign nations. See M.A. SWEENEY, Structure and Redaction in –6, in A.R.P. DIAMOND, et al. (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah (JSOT SS, 260), Sheffield, 1999, 200-218; W.L. HOLLADAY, (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, PA, 1986, p. 2. For other opinions on why Jeremiah is not mentioned in the Book of Kings see the literature in J.A. DEARMAN, My Servants the Scribes: Composition and Context in , in JBL 109 (1990) 403-421. 21. MALAMAT also mentioned a parallel from the letter written by Nur-Sin, Mari’s ambassador to Aleppo, to his lord -Lim: “When you participate in a campaign, by no means set out without consulting an oracle”. See A. MALAMAT, A New Prophetic Message from Aleppo and Its Biblical Counterparts, in A.G. AULD (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield, 1993, 236-241, esp. p. 238. See also D. LAUNDERVILLE, Piety and Politics: The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel, and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK, 2003, pp. 194-202; J.J.M. ROBERTS, Prophets and Kings: A New Look at the Royal Persecution of Prophets against Its Near Eastern Background, in B.A. STRAWN – N.R. BOWEN (eds.), A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, Winona Lake, IN, 2003, 341-354; R.I. THELLE, Ask God: Divine Consultation in the Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 30), Frankfurt am M., 2002. 22. See M.K. GEORGE, Yhwh’s Own Heart, in CBQ 64 (2002) 442-459. On 1 Sam 28, see B.T. ARNOLD, Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel, in CBQ 66 (2004) 199-213. 23. On the parallels between Josiah and Ahab see WILLIAMSON, The Death of Josiah (n. 2), p. 246; NELSON, First and Second Kings (n. 7), pp. 259-261. However, Nelson did not identify the parallels between them in order to compare their sins. On the parallel between Ahab and Josiah’s sins see S. JAPHET, I & II Chronicles (OTL), Louisville, KY, 1993, p. 1043. However, in her opinion this parallel exists only in Chronicles. See also TAL- SHIR, The Three Deaths of Josiah (n. 2), p. 219; C. MITCHELL, The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles, in CBQ 68 (2006) 428-435. I would like to thank Professor Mitchell for kindly sending me a copy of her study prior to its publication. 24. For an analysis of the theological problems that arise from this narrative see J.M. HAMILTON, Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of Ahab and the Character of 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 364

364 M. AVIOZ

The Book of Kings wishes to express the idea that it is inadvisable to make a covenant with foreign nations because it contradicts faith in God25. From a his- torical point of view Solomon’s marriages to gentile women were political acts, since they helped establish the status of his kingdom in the region26. The biblical author does not share this opinion and regards Solomon’s marriages as disastrous and as posing a real threat to the existence of the . According to the account in ,21 and 19,19, Hezekiah relies on Egyptian help during Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah. However, the help he finally receives is very limited27. 2 Kings 20,12-19 tells of Hezekiah’s alliance with the Babylonians before Sennacherib’s campaign28. Isaiah criticizes Hezekiah for making this alliance, since in his opinion it was only good for the short-term, but was likely to be a mistake in the long-term29. In the end it was indeed the Babylonians who destroyed Judah in the year 586 BCE. Isaiah takes a similar view of Ahaz’s policy when Ahaz turns to for help during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis (Isa 7)30. In Isa 30,1-2 and 31,1, Isaiah rebukes the people for asking for Egypt’s help. Like Hezekiah, Josiah was right in the long-term. The Babylonians did indeed take control of the area. However, this took place some years after his death. Nonetheless, in the end it was the Babylonians who conquered Jerusalem. Jere- miah criticizes the for not inquiring of the Lord (Jer 10,21), whereas consults the prophet several times during the period of the Babylonian siege on Jerusalem (Jer 21,1-10.37-38)31.

God, in CBQ 56 (1994) 649-663; R.W.L. MOBERLY, Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah as a Test Case, in HTR 96 (2003) 1-23. 25. On the false reliance on Egypt see E. BEN-ZVI, Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?, in JBL 109 (1990) 79-92, esp. p. 84: “Reliance on Egypt is diametrically opposed to reliance on YHWH”. See also J.K. HOFFMEIER, Egypt as an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response, in A. GILEADI (ed.), Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, Grand Rapids, MI, 1988, 79- 85. Reimer summarized the main approaches to the question of whether the prophets’ oppo- sition to the kings’ policy stemmed from political or religious considerations. See D.J. REIMER, Political Prophets? Political Exegesis and Prophetic Theology, in J.C. DE MOOR (ed.), Inter- textuality in Ugarit and Israel (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 40), Leiden, 1998, 126-142. 26. See for example A. MALAMAT, Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22 (1963) 1-17 (reprinted in History of Bibli- cal Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues, Leiden, 2001, 208-233). 27. See most recently: W.R. GALLAGHER, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, 18), Leiden, 1999 and the literature cited there; J.K. HOFFMEIER, Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 B.C. in Jerusalem, in A.G. VAUGHN – Ann E. KILLEBREW (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBL Symposium Series, 18), Atlanta, GA, 2003, 219-234. 28. On the historical background to 2 Kings 20 see COGAN – TADMOR, II Kings (n. 5), pp. 258-263. 29. S. VARGON, An Admonition Prophecy to the Leaders of Judah (Is. 10:28-32), in Shnaton: Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9 (1985) 95-113 (Heb.). 30. On the prophetic opposition to making foreign alliances see: R. ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Louisville, KY, 1994, pp. 167-170. How- ever, R.E. CLEMENTS notes that: “The criticism [of the prophets] belongs to a specific his- torical situation” and that they did not always object to such alliances. See his Isaiah 1–39 (NCB), Grand Rapids, MI – London, 1980, p. 255. 31. H.-J. STIPP, Zedekiah in the : On the Formation of a Biblical Char- acter, in CBQ 58 (1996) 627-648. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 365

JOSIAH’S DEATH IN THE BOOK OF KINGS 365

The speech in 2 Kings 17 should also be mentioned, since it emphasizes dis- obedience to the prophets as one of the main causes of the destruction32. Begg’s view is compatible in this context. However, in the final chapters of Kings there is a complete absence of kings’ consultations with God33. Most scholars claim that only the Book of Chronicles searches for a sin com- mitted by Josiah in order to explain his death as a punishment34. However, in light of the analysis presented in this study, this is also the approach of the Book of Kings. Josiah’s death is not arbitrary, but is caused by his sin. The Chronicler’s explanation is therefore not very different from that of Kings. It is true that the design of this message in Chronicles is expressed by bringing Pharaoh Necho into the narrative. However, the Book of Chronicles and also 1 Esdras35 and the Tal- mudic sages did not invent the subject of consulting prophets. Their premise was based on a central subject in the Book of Kings.

Conclusion

In this study I attempted to answer the question of how the author of the Book of Kings explains the death of the righteous king Josiah. My assertion was that the Deuteronomist finds a flaw in Josiah’s behavior before setting out on a war against the King of Egypt. Josiah should have consulted a prophet. He did not and thus became vulnerable to the enemy. Josiah is therefore included in the list of kings who are criticized for acting independently, without consulting a prophet. These kings’ decisions would have been justified from their point of view, whereas in the opinion of the prophets living at that time they led to disaster. In my opinion the difference between Kings and Chronicles on this subject is not as great as has been the accepted view to date. Admittedly, the Book of Kings does not clearly present the facts, but this is not the only case of ambivalence concerning the “bottom line” of the narratives in the Hebrew Bible36.

Bar-Ilan University Michael AVIOZ 52900 Ramat-Gan Israel

32. See most recently: G. FISCHER, The Relationship between 2 Kings 17 and the Book of Jeremiah, in M. AUGUSTIN – H.M. NIEMANN (eds.), “Basel und Bibel”: Collected Com- munications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001 (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums, 51), Frankfurt am M., 2004, 313-321. 33. C.T. BEGG, 2 Kings 20:12-19 as an Element of the Deuteronomistic History, in CBQ 48 (1986) 27-38, esp. p. 37. 34. FROST, The Death of Josiah (n. 6), p. 381; MITCHELL, The Ironic Death of Josiah (n. 23). 35. The scholars are divided on the question of the originality of 1 Esdras 1, 23-31, which mentions Jeremiah as the one who tried to stop Josiah, and not Necho King of Egypt. See WILLIAMSON, The Death of Josiah (n. 2), pp. 243-245; TALSHIR, The Three Deaths of Josiah (n. 2), pp. 232-234; A. VAN DER KOOIJ, The Death of Josiah according to 1 Esdras, in Textus 19 (1998) 97-109; DELAMARTER, The Death of Josiah (n. 4), pp. 39-42. 36. See for example A.J. HAUSER, Should Ahab Go to Battle or Not? Ambiguity as a Rhetorical Device in 1 Kings 22, in A. ERIKSSON, et al. (eds.), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, Harrisburg, PA, 2002, 141-154. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_04_Avioz 20-02-2008 09:56 Pagina 366

366 M. AVIOZ

ABSTRACT. — Most recent studies dealing in Josiah’s death have focused on a comparison between the books of Kings and Chronicles. In this study I attempted to answer the theological question of how the author of the Book of Kings explains the death of the righteous king Josiah. My claim is that the Deuteronomist finds fault with Josiah’s behaviour before setting out on a war against the King of Egypt. Josiah should have consulted a prophet. When he did not he became vulnerable to the enemy. Josiah is thus included in the list of kings who are criticized for acting independently, without consulting a prophet. These kings’ decisions would have been justified from their point of view, but according to the prophets living at that time they led to disaster.