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.