DOCSLIB.ORG

Josiah's Death in the Book of Kings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Josiah's Death in the Book of Kings 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 Judah 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 2 Kings 23,25 “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 Passover celebrations which led to a strength- ening of Jerusalem’s religious status. It is therefore clear why Josiah’s tragic death in 609 BCE, during the battle against Egypt 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 Bible, 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 Books of Kings, 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 Kingdom of Judah under Josiah, in Tel Aviv 18 (1991) 3-71, esp. pp. 51- 55; A. LAATO, Josiah and David 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 Saul’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 Hebrew Bible 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 Jeremiah’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 Moses’ 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 Deuteronomist 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: Ahaz and Hezekiah 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: Rehoboam is punished not only for Solomon’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 Deuteronomists: 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • God Disciplines a Rebellious People
    Unit .15 Session .05 God Disciplines a Rebellious People Scripture 2 Chronicles 36:11-21 11 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began until there was no remedy. 17 Therefore he brought to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed 12 He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord his their young men with the sword in the house of their God. He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the sanctuary and had no compassion on young man or prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord. 13 virgin, old man or aged. He gave them all into his hand. He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who 18 And all the vessels of the house of God, great and had made him swear by God. He stiffened his neck small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord, the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he the God of Israel. 14 All the officers of the priests brought to Babylon. 19 And they burned the house of and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem and burned following all the abominations of the nations. And they all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious polluted the house of the Lord that he had made holy vessels. 20 He took into exile in Babylon those who in Jerusalem. 15 TheLord , the God of their fathers, had escaped from the sword, and they became servants sent persistently to them by his messengers, because to him and to his sons until the establishment of the he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord place.
    [Show full text]
  • Josiah's Reform in Judah (2 Kgs 22-23//2 Chr 34- 35: Implications For
    770 Olanisebe, “Josiah’s Reform in Judah,” OTE 30/3 (2017): 770-784 Josiah’s Reform in Judah (2 Kgs 22-23//2 Chr 34- 35: Implications for Nigeria in Pursuit of a Sus- tained Democracy SAMSON OLUSINA OLANISEBE (DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES, OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, NIGERIA) ABSTRACT Josiah was a young boy of eight years when he assumed the position of leadership over the Southern kingdom of Israel. Before his ascen- sion to the throne, there were many structural defects in the kingdom. The immediate task before him was how to restructure and re-engi- neer the socio-religious decay he met on the ground, to which he responded promptly and with a record of success. This paper, there- fore, through narrative analysis, identifies the leadership and follow- ership qualities that assisted Josiah in his reform policy in Southern Israel and recommends, through content analysis, the imbibing of those qualities by the Nigerian leaders and citizenry in their quest for a sustained democracy. KEYWORDS: Democracy; followers; Josiah’s reform; leadership role; Nigeria. A INTRODUCTION The concept of democracy is traceable to the ancient Greeks, specifically the city-state of Athens in the fifth century BCE. The word democracy is derived from two Greek words “demos” meaning the people and “kratos,” meaning “power” or “rule.”1 Defining democracy is a herculean task because there is no universally acceptable definition. However, it has been defined by various schol- ars based on the features that a true democracy must have. Those features include a system where people rule themselves, a society based on equal opportunities and individual merit rather than hierarchy or privilege, a system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities, decision making based on majority rule, to mention just a few.2 In the words of Badru, democracy is a sys- tem of government that enables both the leaders and the citizens to be conscious * Article submitted: 26/01/2017; peer-reviewed: 20/03/2017; accepted: 11/07/2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Zedekiah: Last King of Judah
    ZEDEKIAH: LAST KING OF JUDAH SHIMON BAKON Zedekiah was the last King of Jud ah, in whose reign it collapsed under the onslaught of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, on the Ninth Day of Ab in the year 586 BCE. We may gain some better understanding of this disaster if we summarize the cataclysmic events that preceded it. A little less than 30 years earlier there had been two regional powers, Assy- ria to the north of Judah and Egypt to the south. The balance of power be- came disturbed when a new colossus began to stride across the entire Near East – Babylon. In 712, it destroyed Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. This was the beginning of the upheavals that led to the destruction of Judah. Egypt, deeply concerned about this new threat, moved northward to bolster the wan- ing power of Assyria. It set on the march in 608, moving via Judah. Josiah, a truly righteous king, attempted to stop the Egyptian forces, and was mortally wounded in battle at Megiddo. KING JOSIAH AND HIS SONS (Josiah killed in battle with Egypt in 608 BCE) JEHOAHAZ (608 BCE) JEHOIAKIM (608-597) (crowned by the (crowned by Neco of Egypt am-ha’aretz in 608 but became vassal and deposed by Egypt the of Babylonia) same year) JEHOIACHIN (597) ZEDEKIAH (597-586) Being a sympathizer (crowned by Babylon) of Egypt, he was deposed by Babylon) 1 The Judean am-haaretz – the landed gentry – put Josiah's son Jehoahaz on the throne, but Necho, the Egyptian pharaoh, hurried to depose him and carry him off into captivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Chart of the Kings of Israel and Judah
    The Kings of Israel & Judah Why Study the Kings? Chart of the Kings Questions for Discussion The Heritage of Jesus Host: Alan's Gleanings Alphabetical List of the Kings A Comment about Names God's Message of Salvation Kings of the United Kingdom (c 1025-925 BC) Relationship to God's King Previous King Judgment Saul none did evil Ishbosheth* son (unknown) David none did right Solomon did right in youth, son (AKA Jedidiah) evil in old age * The kingdom was divided during Ishbosheth's reign; David was king over the tribe of Judah. Kings of Judah (c 925-586 BC) Kings of Israel (c 925-721 BC) Relationship to God's Relationship to God's King King Previous King Judgment Previous King Judgment Rehoboam son did evil Abijam Jeroboam servant did evil son did evil (AKA Abijah) Nadab son did evil Baasha none did evil Asa son did right Elah son did evil Zimri captain did evil Omri captain did evil Ahab son did evil Jehoshaphat son did right Ahaziah son did evil Jehoram son did evil (AKA Joram) Jehoram son of Ahab did evil Ahaziah (AKA Joram) (AKA Azariah son did evil or Jehoahaz) Athaliah mother did evil Jehu captain mixed Joash did right in youth, son of Ahaziah Jehoahaz son did evil (AKA Jehoash) evil in old age Joash did right in youth, son did evil Amaziah son (AKA Jehoash) evil in old age Jeroboam II son did evil Zachariah son did evil did evil Uzziah Shallum none son did right (surmised) (AKA Azariah) Menahem none did evil Pekahiah son did evil Jotham son did right Pekah captain did evil Ahaz son did evil Hoshea none did evil Hezekiah son did right Manasseh son did evil Amon son did evil Josiah son did right Jehoahaz son did evil (AKA Shallum) Jehoiakim Assyrian captivity son of Josiah did evil (AKA Eliakim) Jehoiachin (AKA Coniah son did evil or Jeconiah) Zedekiah son of Josiah did evil (AKA Mattaniah) Babylonian captivity Color Code Legend: King did right King did evil Other.
    [Show full text]
  • What Did King Josiah Reform?
    Chapter 17 What Did King Josiah Reform? Margaret Barker King Josiah changed the religion of Israel in 623 BC. According to the Old Testament account in 2 Kings 23, he removed all manner of idolatrous items from the temple and purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices. Temple vessels made for Baal, Asherah, and the host of heaven were removed, idolatrous priests were deposed, the Asherah itself was taken from the temple and burned, and much more besides. An old law book had been discovered in the temple, and this had prompted the king to bring the religion of his kingdom into line with the requirements of that book (2 Kings 22:8–13; 2 Chronicles 34:14–20).1 There could be only one temple, it stated, and so all other places of sacrificial worship had to be destroyed (Deuteronomy 12:1–5). The law book is easily recognizable as Deuteronomy, and so King Josiah’s purge is usually known as the Deuteronomic reform of the temple. In 598 BC, twenty-five years after the work of Josiah, Jerusalem was attacked by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:10– 16; 25:1–9); eleven years after the first attack, they returned to destroy the city and the temple (586 BC). Refugees fled south to Egypt, and we read in the book of Jeremiah how they would not accept the prophet’s interpretation of the disaster (Jeremiah 44:16–19). Jeremiah insisted that Jerusalem had fallen because of the sins of her people, but the refugees said it had fallen because of Josiah.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 15 • Session 2 the Southern Kingdom of Judah
    Unit 15 • Session 2 The Southern Kingdom of Judah Use Week of: Unit 15 • Session 2 Hezekiah and Josiah BIBLE PASSAGE: 2 Chronicles 29; 34–35 STORY POINT: God planned to send Jesus. KEY PASSAGE: 2 Chronicles 7:14b CHRIST CONNECTION: Jesus always obeyed God perfectly. Bible Story for Toddlers King Hezekiah of Judah loved God, just like his grandfather King David. Hezekiah said to the priests, “Our fathers turned away from God, and He punished them. Get rid of every evil thing in the temple. We will obey God.” The priests did what Hezekiah said, and the people loved God again. After Hezekiah died, though, the people forgot God. Many years later, Josiah became king when he was a boy. Josiah loved God too. Josiah repaired the temple and found God’s law. The priest read the words of God’s law to Josiah. Then Josiah invited all the people to the temple and read the law to them. While Josiah was king, the people loved God and obeyed Him. Babies Gospel Gems * Hezekiah and Josiah loved God. * Judah obeyed God when the king obeyed Him. * Jesus helps His people obey God. Additional resources are available at gospelproject.com. For free training and session-by-session help, visit MinistryGrid.com/gospelproject. Babies & Toddlers Leader Guide 38 Unit 15 • Session 2 BABIES Activities Look in the Bible Provide hand-size Bibles for babies to handle. Open your Bible to 2 Chronicles 29. Show the Bible story picture as you say the gospel gems in a soothing voice. Read the key passage card.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles
    3mitchell.qxd 5/1/2006 9:29 AM Page 421 The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles CHRISTINE MITCHELL St. Andrew’s College Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W3, Canada MOST RECENT STUDIES OF 2 Chronicles 34–35 have attempted to deal with various historical issues of the text.1 Although many of the insights from these studies are valuable, very little attention has been paid to reading Josiah’s rule and death in 2 Chronicles from a literary perspective.2 In this contribution, there- fore, I propose a literary reading of 2 Chronicles 34–35 on the terms of the Chron- I would like to thank Gary Knoppers and Ehud Ben Zvi for their comments on this article as it evolved. Any errors that remain are, of course, my own. 1 The discussion began with H. G. M. Williamson, “The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History,” VT 32 (1982) 242-48, and continued with C. T. Begg, “The Death of Josiah: Another View,” VT 37 (1987) 1-8; H. G. M. Williamson, “Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C. T. Begg,” VT 37 (1987) 9-15; Zipora 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),” VT 46 (1996) 213-36; Baruch Halpern, “Why Manasseh Is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” VT 48 (1998) 473-514. The work in these articles is often in conversation with that of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties
    Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Volume 13, Article 6 DOI:10.5508/jhs.2013.v13.a6 Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties JAMES W. WATTS Articles in JHS are being indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, RAMBI, and BiBIL. Their abstracts appear in Religious and Theological Abstracts. The journal is archived by Library and Archives Canada and is accessible for consultation and research at the Electronic Collection site maintained by Library and Archives Canada. ISSN 1203–1542 http://www.jhsonline.org and http://purl.org/jhs SCRIPTURALIZATION AND THE AARONIDE DYNASTIES JAMES W. WATTS SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Evidence for the history of the Second Temple priesthood is very fragmentary and incomplete. To the best of our knowledge, how- ever, worship at the temple site in Jerusalem was controlled from ca. 535 to 172 B.C.E. by a single family, the descendants of Jeshua ben Jehozadak, the first post-exilic high priest (the family is often called the Oniads). After disruptions caused by civil wars and the Maccabean Revolt, they were replaced by another family, the Hasmoneans, who controlled the high priesthood from at least 152 until 37 B.C.E. Sources from the Second Temple period indicate that both families claimed descent from Israel’s first high priest, Aaron.1 1 For the Oniads’ genealogical claims, see 1 Chr 6:3–15; Ezra 2:36; 3:2. For the Hasmoneans’ claims, see 1 Macc 2:1; cf. 1 Chr 24:7. No ancient source challenges these claims, but many modern historians have been skeptical of them (e.g., J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel [trans.
    [Show full text]
  • Week Twenty-Two Byblos CAMPAIGNS AGAINST JUDAH Reading Plan 2 Kings 23-25 2 Chronicles 36 Jeremiah 39; 52 Habakkuk 3:1-19  City Habakkuk’S  Mountain Peak Abana R
    THE END OF JUDAH Week 22: The Single Kingdom, Judah, Falls (2 Chronicles 36; Jeremiah; Habakkuk; Daniel; Ezekiel) The last four kings of Judah were vassals of either of Egypt or of Babylon. Three were Josiah’s sons, and one was his grandson. None followed the way of the Lord. This last period, lasting less than twenty-five years, is told in 2 Kings 23-25 and 2 Chronicles 36. Supplementary details are included in the book of Jeremiah. Jehoahaz (609BC) Josiah’s son Jehoahaz (also called Shallum) was not the oldest, but the people of Judah chose him to become king after Josiah was killed in battle. Three months later he was taken as Pharaoh Neco’s prisoner. Neco levied a huge tribute from Judah and installed Jehoahaz’s older brother Jehoiakim as his vassal in Jerusalem. Jehoiakim (609-598BC) This son of Josiah was two years older than Jehoahaz. He ruled for eleven years and was known for his vicious persecution of Jeremiah. After the Babylonian army defeated the Egyptians in 605, it attacked Jerusalem (Dan. 1:1-2). Jehoiakim shifted his loyalty to Babylon, and a number of the upper-class members of Jerusalem were taken to Babylon. It was at this time that Daniel was deported as an exile, and his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream took place the following year (Dan. 2:1). In the meantime, however, Jehoiakim, was allowed to continue reigning as Nebuchadnezzar’s vassal. After three years, Jehoiakim foolishly tried to shake off the Babylonian yoke (2 Kings 24:1), believing that re-alliance with Egypt would provide a better opportunity for Judah.
    [Show full text]
  • 52 Walter Brueggemann. Truth Speaks to Power
    Walter Brueggemann. Truth Speaks to Power: The Countercultural Nature of Scripture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2013. 176 pages. $17. Walter Brueggemann latest book, Truth Speaks to Power, emerges from his lecture at Kenyon College on biblical faith and public policy, posing the question, “How does truth speak to power?” While Brueggemann does not offer concrete suggestions for how the Bible informs public policy, he does offer a narrative context for how truth interacts with power in the Old Testament. Brueggemann defines power as “a network of influence and leverage” (2), seen in political regimes and monopolies of wealth, though these two are usually synonymous. Those in powerful positions often justify their roles with truth claims, but truth has a way of eluding and challenging power. Brueggemann writes: “truth, unlike establishment power that is visible, is characteristically elusive and contested because the claims made for truth are variously endorsements of or subversions of established power” (3-4). Brueggemann lifts up truth and power within the biblical narrative, focusing on Moses, Solomon, Elisha, and Josiah. Truth in these narratives represents the justice of God, sometimes working in spite of current power arrangements, though sometimes working with or over against current power regimes. Brueggemann makes clear he is not setting up a typology—truth against power vs. truth transforming power, etc., reminiscent of H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. Rather, he is attempting to listen to the subtleties of the truth narrative and how in different biblical stories it speaks to power. Opening the way for a critical reading of power in the Scriptures, Brueggemann makes references to the “masters of suspicion”—a phrase attributed to Paul Ricoeur and referring to Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1–6
    Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1–6 Stephen D. Ricks The rst six chapters of Mosiah also portray for us the succession of Mosiah2 to the Nephite throne. To a striking degree, many features of this coronation ceremony reect aspects of ancient Israelite culture. A close look at these correspondences shows how faithfully the Book of Mormon depicts Old World practices and beliefs. Kingship The Meaning of Kingship Although kingship is a political institution whose origins are lost to history, nearly every ancient and medieval civilization had a king who was believed to have been appointed by heaven. The Egyptians held that kingship had existed as long as the world itself; to the Sumerians, this form of rule was a gift from the gods. The Israelites also believed that the king was appointed and adopted by God and that “he mediated between God and the people and represented them before each other.”1 Although the Nephite king was never viewed as a divine being (which would be inconsistent with Deuteronomy 17:15), he was closely connected with God in the sense that, as an intermediate, he too modeled and represented God to his people (as in Mosiah 2:19). In the ancient view of God’s conferral of governmental power upon the king, the traditional code of royalty—which stipulates that the monarch receive sacred names and powers—allows him to stand in the place of God before his people. That ceremony “contained in particular the ancient titles and sovereign rights and duties conferred on Pharaoh by the god, in brief, the king’s authority to rule as the surrogate of the god.”2 In the case of Benjamin’s speech, a similar ideology is to an extent operational: Benjamin conferred upon Mosiah, and also upon the people, a new name (see Mosiah 5:8); he entrusted Mosiah with other insignia of his royal ofce (see Mosiah 1:15–16); and he mentioned Mosiah’s right and duty to deliver to his people the commandments of God and to lead them in the ways of peace and well-being (see Mosiah 2:31; see also 5:5).
    [Show full text]
  • And 'Of the Kings of Israel': What Sort of Books
    THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES ‘OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH’ AND ‘OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL’: WHAT SORT OF BOOKS WERE THEY? by MENAHEM HARAN Jerusalem For Frank Moore Cross in friendship and respect I The ‘Book ( sepher) of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah’ is referred to fteen times by our Books of Kings (the rst time in 1 Kgs. xiv 29) and the ‘Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel’ eigh- teen times (the rst reference being 1 Kgs. xiv 19). The ‘Book of the Acts (diºerê, but LXXL ²merÇn = hayyˆmîm l e, i.e. the Chronicles) of Solomon’ (1 Kgs. xi 41) seems to have been a book of the same kind as the rst two, but con ned to the reign of Solomon. The Books of Kings refer to these books in a standard and schematic formula: ‘And the other events of PN’s reign’— sometimes adding some deed of his (e.g. with respect to Jeroboam son of Nebat [1 Kgs. xiv 19], to Asa [1 Kgs. xv 23], to Baasha [1 Kgs. xvi 5], to Zimri [1 Kgs. xvi 20])— ‘are recorded in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel’ (or ‘of the Kings of Judah’). Just what were these ‘chronicles’ and what purpose did they serve? Some scholars say that they were annals, pure and simple, i.e. an oYcial record of the events of the king’s reign. 1 Yet it is evident that 1 Scholars had already reached this conclusion in the 19th century. For our time see, e.g.
    [Show full text]