The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Theology of Divine Punishment in the Life and Death of Josiah

Justin Boothby

The Kingdom of Manasseh Until The Fall of Jerusalem

Dr. Mordechai Cogan

September 1, 2016

INTRODUCTION 1

DEFINING DIVINE PUNISHMENT 1

Divine Punishment and Theological Matters in Kings and Chronicles 2

Morality, Justice, and Their Effect on Divine Punishment 3

Theological Developments of Divine Punishment 5

First Temple Period 5

Exilic/Post-Exilic 5

Second Temple Period 6

A BRIEF HISTORY OF JOSIAH_________________________________________________ 7

His Reign 7

His Reforms 8

His Purpose for Meeting Pharaoh Necho 9

THE DEATH OF JOSIAH IN KINGS & CHRONICLES______________________________10

Josiah’s Image in Kings & Chronicles 11

Dissecting The Concluding Formula in 2 Kings 23:21-30 12

2 Kings 23:21-23___________________________________________________12

2 Kings 23:24-25a 13

2 Kings 23:25b-28 14

2 Kings 23:29-30 15

Huldah’s Prophecy and its Implications on Josiah’s Death 16

Was Judah Destined To Fall After Manasseh? 18

Josiah’s Fate 20

The Chroniclers Commentary on Josiah’s Interaction with Neco 20

Theological Problems in 2 Chronicles 35:21-22 22

Where did Josiah Die? 23

CAN DIVINE PUNISHMENT BE ATTRIBUTED TO JOSIAH’S DEATH? 24

CONCLUSION 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY 27

Boothby 1

Introduction

Throughout the history of religions, how a person obeys or acts towards their deities

often bears witness to the degree in which that individual and/or nation are punished and

rewarded. When the humans became too loud and overbearing, Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and

Ea devised a plan to flood the earth to make it stop.1 The “Sin of Sargon” led to his untimely and

unprecedented death because of his mistreatment towards some gods over the others.2 Solomon

would only see a glimpse of divine wrath in his time and it would come to fruition when the

Kingdom was split into two because he allowed his wives to distract him with other gods. Josiah,

unlike the kings before him, was an exception to the rule. Instead of incurring divine wrath,

Josiah was such an obedient ruler that he had the punishment “postponed.” However, despite the

accolades and prophecies given to him, it appears to have failed in saving him from a violent

death.

This paper will analyze the theology of divine punishment according to the life and death

of Josiah. First it will construct a workable definition and development for divine punishment.3

Then it will examine the stories surrounding Josiah’s death found in Kings and Chronicles,

including Huldah’s prophecy and the life of Manasseh. Finally it will conclude how or if Josiah’s

death is attributed to divine punishment.

Defining Divine Punishment

Bad things happen to all sorts of people. Whether one is righteous or wicked, the world

often deals out its fair share of unpleasant events to everyone. Nevertheless, when evil things

happen to good and righteous people, humans try to answer for why these events happen. It

makes sense if a depraved person receives punishment, but what about the good people of the

1 Assyrian International News Agency, The Epic of Gilgamesh, www.aina.org/books.html.

2 Ann M. Weavers, "The "Sin of Sargon" and Esarhaddon's Reconception of Sennacherib: A Study in Divine Will, Human Politics and Royal Ideology," in Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part One (British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2004), 61-66. Simo Parpola, Hayim Tadmor and Benno Landsberger, "The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib's Last Will." Haim Tadmor, "The Sin of Sargon," Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (Israel Exploration Society), 1958: 150-163.

3 The words “punishment”, “wrath”, and “retribution” will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.

Boothby 2

earth? This is particularly prevalent within religious systems that view God(s) as having the

omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient capabilities. In essence, the gods become the scapegoat

because of their divine powers. Furthermore, since the king of a land is usually the representative

for the people to the deities, how the king behaves usually reflects how the deities will treat their

people as a whole. For example, when a king acted against the will of the deities and his actions

reaped the consequences, it was easy to ascribe the result to the deity punishing him. Therefore,

divine punishment is an action taken by a deity against a king, individual, or nation of people

who have failed to obey the will or commandments of the deity. This can result in death (Ahab –

1 Kings 22:37), siege (Jerusalem - 2 Kings 25), exile (Israel - Kings 17: 3-6), rebellion (Split of

Northern and Southern Kingdoms), and negative prophecies (Ahab and Jezebel – 2 Kings 21: 20-

24).

Divine Punishment and Theological Matters in Kings & Chronicles.

While Kings and Chronicles offer unique perspectives into a tumultuous political climate,

they both paint relatively bleak pictures of the kings in both kingdoms. Often times these kings

were spoken of by the writer as people who did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord. In

other words, these kings were viewed as immoral and unjust. This frequently resulted in a short

reign or a disastrous future. However, whether a king was good or bad was dependent upon how

they followed the Lord and not whether they were effective leaders of their respective lands.

Cogan notes that the Deuteronomist based each king “on a simplistic, pragmatic scale: he did

what was pleasing or displeasing to the Lord by observing the law of Moses.”4 If the king unified

the cult, tore down the high places, followed the Sabbath, and celebrated the Passover and feasts,

such as Hezekiah and Josiah, the king pleased the Lord. What’s interesting to note is that the

office of a King during this time period is inherently both secular and religious. Even with priests

and prophets, the king must act theologically acceptable while maintaining day-to-day activities

that allow him to make decisions on how his kingdom will be governed and function. Since these

religious foundations are interwoven into the kingship, so are the blessings and punishments of

YHWH.

An issue that must be addressed at this stage is the issue of timing. Ehud Ben Zvi rightly

assesses that most of those who faced punishment from YHWH, in particular those who went

4 Mordechai Cogan, Into Exile in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 261.

Boothby 3

into exile, weren’t even born “when the divine word came to Jeremiah.”5 While the life of many

nefarious kings conclude with divine justice and punishment overtaking them, one must inquire

about those who didn’t deserve the punishment. Even though Kings is able to throw all of the

guilt onto Manasseh, Chronicles attributes the fall of Judah to a steady course of apostasy. Again,

Ben Zvi remarks that there is no correlation between exile and sin in Chronicles, but rather a an

overall theme that “prophecy is fulfilled.”6 R.B. Dillard suggests that Chronicles, unlike Kings,

offers an immediate “retribution theology” in which judgment isn’t postponed, but rather

“follow(s) immediately on the heels of precipitating events.”7 Therefore, for the Chronicler, the

sin to punishment time ratio is expedited and more important than it is in Kings.

Morality, Justice, and Their Effect on Divine Punishment

Divine Punishment and the wrath of God go hand-in-hand with morality and justice.8 It

was because of an immoral society that the writer of Genesis claims YHWH exercised his

judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was because of an unjust culture that Amos spoke harshly

against the impoverished kingdom of Israel. In order to fully grasp the issue of divine

punishment, one must also have an understanding about morality and justice. The extent to

which a wicked king, individual, or society are judged is found on these two principles.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates asked, “Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is

pious, or is it pious because it is loved?”9 Emil Brunner would answer: “Good (piety) is what

God commands.”10 For the Deuteronomist and the ancient Jews living in Israel and Judah, the

5 Ehud Ben Zvi, History, Literature, and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (London: Equinox, 2006), 164.

6 Ibid.

7 R.B. Dillard, "Reward and Punishment in Chronicles," Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 1 (1984): 164-172.

8 While the issue of morality and justice go far beyond the scope of this paper, a brief overview and explanation will be given to assist in the understanding of Josiah as a “moral” and “just” king.

9 Plato, Euthyphro, 9A-10B

10 Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2003). For an article the critiques and debates this view see T. A. Roberts, "Morality and Divine Commands," in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series (Wiley on behalf of The Aristotelian Society, 1967-1968), 49-62.

Boothby 4

scales of morality were balanced on the commands of YHWH. As mentioned above, a king was

viewed as good or moral depending upon his faithfulness and obedience to God and his

instructions. If a king failed to operate under these conditions, the Deuteronomist in Kings and

the author of Chronicles would seal their corruption forever in their writings.

While morality is the balance on which one is judged as righteous or wicked in the

Hebrew Bible, “Justice is the standard by which the benefits and penalties of living in a society

are distributed. It provides vindication, deliverance, and creation of community in addition to

retribution.”11 The justice of God occurs when injustice exists in societies. In other words, when

humans fail to bring and execute justice, YHWH, in usually dramatic fashion, steps in and brings

judgment on either an individual or nation depending upon the depraved status of that

civilization.

Since divine punishment was designed to be an act of God against an individual, family,

or Kingdom for their wrong deeds, one must ask about the fate of a righteous King? This is one

of the main theological issues concerning divine punishment in the story of Josiah. Practically

considered a second David or even Moses,12 and even a savior-like figure,13 Josiah’s death

closely resembles the death of a wicked king, rather than one who lived righteously.

Furthermore, one must account for Huldah’s prophecy that Josiah would be gathered to his

fathers in peace. How does one understand this theologically? Was God wrong? Was Huldah

wrong? Or is there some other piece missing from the puzzle?

In moving forward, one must keep in mind the structure and purpose of writing for both

Kings and Chronicles. Although Kings is a theological-historical work, Chronicles focuses more

on creating a theological work that attempts to answer difficult questions by injecting the writer’s

own theology into the history. This will be important during the discussion of Josiah’s death at

Megiddo.

11 Paul J. Achtemieier, Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (New York: HaprerCollins, 1985), 557-558.

12 Iain Provan, 1 & 2 Kings (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), Location 5425 on Kindle.

13 Marvin Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: Lost Messiah of Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Boothby 5

Theological Developments of Divine Punishment.

First Temple Period.

During the First Temple Period (1TP), it is evident that divine punishment was more

precarious than the divine wrath against an individual. In the famous Exodus 34 passage, the

writer says “the LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in hesed

and truth…he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the father to

the third and fourth generations.” The idea of the 1TP is a strict warning that your sins endanger

the lives of your children’s children’s children. In essence, behave, if not for yourself, at least for

your children who will bear the weight of your guilt. As Montifore said, “The earlier ideas

regarded God as watching over the tribe or nation as a whole and punishing crimes against social

morality upon the wrong doer or his family.”14 The ancient writers expected divine punishment

to fall on the wicked and guilty. These ideas were a way to communicate to their local tribes and

communities that their iniquities would be punished as far as their great-grandchildren.

Exilic/Post-Exilic.

The Exilic period didn’t boast much in the way of extra documents concerning life in

Babylon. With the exception of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, parts of dutero-Isaiah, and the Al-Yahudu

tablets, not much is known about the spiritual and theological climate of those living in exile. It’s

safe to say, however, that their view of divine punishment was what they were living out. The

kingdom of Judah was destroyed, their temple destroyed, they themselves deported, and living in

a foreign country. While one can only glean so much from this time period, it’s assumed that

their theology of divine punishment was nation-based – that is, the death of kings and individuals

who committed the sinful acts were not the only ones judged. For the Exile living in Babylon,

the only way to satisfy God’s wrath was for Judah to be wiped clean with a fresh start.

The Post-Exilic period relies on mostly on the works of Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, as

well as the prophetic works of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. This period could be described

as cautiously hopeful. Lasor et al elaborate that while joy and hope was fully tangible by the

Israelites in their renewed land, it’s logical that they speculated whether, “God [had] really

forgiven them or would continue their punishment?”15 Much like the Exilic Period, the Post-14 C.G. Montifore, "Doctrine of Divine Retribution in the Old Testament," The Old and New

Testament Student (The University of Chicago Press) 11, no. 6 (1890): 386.

15 William LaSor, David Hubbard and Frederic Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 400.

Boothby 6

Exilic period exemplifies the same theological mindset on divine punishment. Whether it was the

act of a King or the nation as a whole, Ezra and Nehemiah were hard-pressed to ensure the

Israelites wouldn’t go back into exile for not obeying the commands of the Lord.16 Nevertheless,

a small change begins to occur within the writings of Chronicles where the sins of individuals are

punished more quickly. Whereas Kings allows a gap in time between sin and punishment,

Chronicles shifts to a quicker timetable. Furthermore, Kings allocates the sin of one man to the

downfall of the nation, unlike Chronicles, which views the nation as a whole falling into sinful

ways that brings on judgment. This will be examined more thoroughly below.

Second Temple Period.

The Second Temple Period (2TP) sees the rise of 1 Esdras and Josephus, which provide

their own account for the story of Josiah and the purpose for his divine punishment. 1 Esdras

makes a small change from the Chronicler’s story during Josiah and Necho’s meeting. Where the

Chronicler says that Necho is acting on a word from God, 1 Esdras says that this word of God is

from Jeremiah. As Delamarter puts it, “The idea in 2Chr that God was supposed to have spoken

through a foreign king introduces a degree of theological difficulty…how could Josiah have

known that Necho’s warning did, in fact, come from God?”17 Thus the writer of 1 Esdras implies

that Chronicles failed to offer a clear explanation for Josiah’s death and took matters into his

own hands.

In Josephus’ account of Josiah’s death, destiny or fate is blamed for the king’s death.

This crucial statement reveals a major change in understanding both divine punishment and

Josiah’s death because the thought of destiny had not been fully realized up until that point in

Jewish writings. Delamarter concludes that whether one chooses God or Destiny, “they both can

be loosely designated as a "theological" explanation, that is, an assertion about certain actions

and motives of Destiny or the Fates.”18 Begg deduces that Josephus’ language here is

16 More developments found in the book of Chronicles on divine punishment will be examined below in the section on Josiah’s fate pp. 19-23.

17 Steve Delamarter, “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?,” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 54, no. 1 (2004): 29-60, 41.

18 Ibid, 47.

Boothby 7

intentionally designed for his Roman Gentile readers while also offering hope to his fellow

Jews.19 For the Roman Gentile, Josephus inserts “destiny” for God allowing the readers to

connect better. For the Jew, Josephus’ idea of divine punishment is that God will redeem his

people if they will be patient and wait for it, rather than taking “matters into their own hands as

they – like Josiah before them – had done recently with such disastrous results.”20

In conclusion to these developments and moving forward into the deeper story of Josiah

and his fate, it’s clear that divine punishment was the result of sin and shifted throughout time

towards an individual-based punishment that wasn’t postponed, but carried out rather quickly.

A Brief History of Josiah

The reign of Josiah comes on the heels of Manasseh and Amon. Though Amon is

Josiah’s predecessor, his short reign of two years is overshadowed by Manasseh’s long and

wicked reign. For the Deuteronomist, Manasseh is the reason for Judah’s coming devastation at

the end of Kings. On the other hand, the Chronicler fails to blame Manasseh for Judah’s

destruction and even goes as far as giving Manasseh a redemption story. Nevertheless, Manasseh

is still viewed as a king who did not do what was right or pleasing in the sight of the Lord for

most of his life. Then came Josiah, who Chronicles says, “He did right in the sight of the Lord,

and walked in the ways of his father David and did not turn aside to the right or to the left.”21

His Reign

Josiah reigned roughly thirty years from ca. 639-609 and is seen in some ways as

“Judah’s final hero.”22 Though he was a boy of only eight when he began, Cogan-Tadmor

suggest that Judah had “regents, who reared the king during his minority.”23 Cross-Freedman

speculate that if the Chronicler is correct in 34:3, Josiah in his eighth year, “as early as 632 B.C.

19 Christopher Begg, Josephus' Story of the Later Monarchy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 496-97. On the issue of Josephus accomodating his Greek speaking audience, see Cogan-Tadmor, 302, note 39.

20 Ibid.

21 2 Chronicles 34:2

22 Lasor et al, 217.

23 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (New Haven: Anchor Bible, 1988), 281.

Boothby 8

had repudiated the gods of his Assyrian overlords – immediately following the death of Assur-

ban-apal in 633 B.C.”24 Josiah’s piety and obedience prompted an extended period of

postponement to the aforementioned “calamity” for the Kingdom of Judah in the Kings account.

Like Hezekiah, Josiah did his best to force Judah back onto a proper Yahwistic theological

foundation. Upon hearing the words of the Law, Josiah immediately set plans in motion to right

the wrongs of his forefathers. Brueggemann suggests that this pivotal event in Jewish history

marks the shift from temple-based Judaism to Torah-based Judaism.25 For Josiah, hearing the

words of the Book of the Law prompted him to obey the Torah at a level not quite known to

Judah before. His submission bears an element of Torah obedience that exceeds Temple-based

Judaism that existed in the 1TP.

His Reforms

The Book of the Law (התורה ספר) prompted the dramatic sequence of Josiah tearing his

clothes in sorrow and repentance (2 Kings 22:11), centralizing the cult (2 Kings 23:4-20),

renewing Israel’s covenant to YHWH (2 Kings 23:1-2), the removal of the mediums and

spiritists (2 Kings 23:24), and a Passover ceremony for the first time since before the Judges (2

Kings 23:21-23). Josiah’s reforms outdid Hezekiah’s and even seemed to undo all of Manasseh

wickedness. Furthermore, Josiah ventured North into Bethel and Samaria and attempted to once

again bring Israel and Judah under one united Kingdom that hadn’t been realized since the

Solomonic era. Frost proposes that the idea of a Davidic ruler who would reign over one

Kingdom, expressed in Ezekiel 37, wasn’t a post-exilic idea, but rather it existed during the time

of Josiah, which fueled his campaigns north.26

Despite the incredible effort by Josiah, the historian on the other side of the exile spares

no space in reminding the reader that exile and destruction await Judah and Jerusalem.27 One

might even ask why the final editor even bothered writing about Josiah’s perfect reign in the first 24 F. M. Cross and David Noel Freedman, "Josiah's Revolt Against Assyria," Journal of Near

Eastern Studies (University of Chicago Press) 12, no. 1 (1953): 56-58, 57.

25 Walter Brueggeman, 1 & 2 Kings (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 548.

26 Stanley Brice Frost, “The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy,” Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 87, no. 4 (1968): 369-382, 370-371.

27 This paper will examine Kings as having at least two main authors. One during the time of Josiah as well as a later editor who is likely writing during the exile.

Boothby 9

place, knowing the futile end. The answer to this question has two layers. First, the author of

kings could not deny the history of his people. Even though this work is not a strict historical

work like modern history, or even as accurate as the Assyrian documents, its theological history

still gives us beneficial glimpses into the activities that occurred in Israel and Judah. Secondly,

Josiah and his reforms provide an archetype king for future generations of Israel. If Israel ever

fell into the cesspool ways that resemble Manasseh’s sins, readers would always be reminded of

Josiah’s reforms.

His purpose for meeting Pharaoh Necho.

As the seventh century was winding down, so was the Assyrian Empire’s hold and grasp

on much of their claimed territory. During this season of decline, two world superpowers

attempted to rise up and seize the moment: Babylon and Egypt. Whereas Egypt tried to utilize

this event to form an alliance with Assyria28, Babylon used it to rebel and escape Assyrian’s tight

hold. On his way to Nineveh’s help in light of the Assyrian collapse,29 Pharaoh Necho was

evidently met by Josiah at Megiddo. Unfortunately, no extra-biblical source can confirm this

account. Nevertheless, with such a rich historical account of Josiah, it seems odd that the story of

Necho killing Josiah would be completely false. Since we do have evidence of the Egyptian

Pharaoh marching east during 609, it’s likely this event, in one way or another, is true. Still, there

are some serious questions that need to be answered. Was it because Josiah wanted to control the

northern area that was supposed to belong to the united Kingdom of Israel? Was he there to

oppose Necho because he knew Egypt was attempting to help Assyria?

28 For more on this alliance, see Abraham Malamat, "Josiah's Bid for Armageddon: The Background of the Judean-Egyptian Encounter in 609 B.C.," The Gaster festschrift (ANE Society), 1974: 267-279, 273. C.J. Gadd, "The Fall of Nineveh," British Museum 21 (1923).

29 Zipora Talshir, “The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Histiography (2 Kings XXIII 29-30; 2 Chronicles XXXV 20-5; 1 Esdras I 23-31),” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 46, no. 2 (1996): 213-236, 213. “The Babylonian Chronicle of 609…tells of a large Egyptian army crossing the Euphrates and besieging Haran, probably in an attempt to assist the Assyrians against the Babylonians who had taken over the city.”

Boothby 10

Welch suggests that during Assyria’s weakening, Josiah “ventured to appeal to his people

in the name of their independence and their distinctive religion.”30 Similarly, Anderson notes that

from a political standpoint, it “was an attempt to consolidate and revitalize his expanded

Kingdom” and Josiah “grew bolder and bolder as Assyria’s star sank into political darkness.”31 If

this is the case, it’s likely that Josiah was attempting to gain control of the North in order to

solidify a united kingdom under his reign. As Malamat concludes, “The Battle of Megiddo is no

longer a reckless adventurous step taken by Josiah…but rather a bold decision based on far-

reaching political and military considerations.”32 While these conclusions embrace Josiah’s

boldness, they still don’t take into account that Josiah’s army was likely no match for the

Egyptians.

Amid an Assyro-Egyptian alliance created around 622 B.C.33, it’s likely that Egypt would

want to maintain control of Megiddo and the Via Maris as a significant military advantage. Thus,

when Josiah heard of the Pharaoh’s march, he likely wanted to assess the situation and secure

Megiddo for his own purposes. Since Josiah believed the favor of the Lord was upon him, he

assumed the Lord would grant him victory. Nevertheless, history would write a different story.

The Death of Josiah in Kings & Chronicles

At the peak of Judah’s religious revival and at, one might argue, the height of Josiah’s

kingship, the model king falls to his fate. Michael Avioz observes, “The Hebrew Bible, in

contradistinction to modern literature, does not regard the death of a king in battle as heroic, but

30 Adam Welch, “The Death of Josiah,” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 43, no. 1 (1925): 255-260, 259.

31 Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 362. Provan et al surmise, “we are left to wonder whether Josiah was attempting early in the reign of the new pharaoh (who had succeeded his father in 610 B.C.) to establish his independencve from an increasingly powerful Egypt, perhaps hoping to benefit from being perceived to take the Babylonians’ side”, p. 276.

32 Abraham Malamat, "The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah," Journal for Near Eastern Studies (University of Chicago Press) 9, no. 4 (1950): 218-227, 219.

33 Abraham Malamat, "Josiah's Bid for Armageddon: The Background of the Judean-Egyptian Encounter in 609 B.C.," The Gaster festschrift (ANE Society), 1974: 267-279, 273. C.J. Gadd, "The Fall of Nineveh," British Museum 21 (1923).

Boothby 11

rather as divine punishment.”34 David had his peak but eventually died slowly and over time. Of

course, his death was nothing short of anti-climactic for such a renowned king, but there was a

smooth literary history that led to his death. Hezekiah’s death in Kings and Chronicles shows a

man who seemed to rest in peace. However, unlike those accounts, the story of Josiah ends

abruptly and unexpectedly after his meeting with Pharaoh Necho who executes him at Megiddo.

This section will deal more in depth with Josiah’s life and death as well as the implications on

the divine punishment of YHWH against Josiah.

Josiah’s Image in Kings & Chronicles

It’s safe to say that Josiah was well revered by both Kings and Chronicles. Whereas

Kings is focused on writing a Deuteronomistic construction of Josiah’s events in order for Torah

obedience to come to the forefront of Jewish worship, Chronicles is more focused on the

theological explanation for the “why” of the events in Israel’s history.

Kings deals, to a large extent, with obedience or non-obedience of the kings to YHWH.

The theme, as Cogan-Tadmor put it, is that “the loyalty of the monarch to the God of Israel as

worshipped in Jerusalem determines the course of history.”35 For the historian who wrote these

accounts closer to the time of the events, likely living in exile, this initiative is imperative.

Throughout the course of Judean history, king after king disobeyed the commandments of

YHWH, which ultimately led to kings like Manasseh who would bear the blame for Judah’s fall.

Josiah’s image in Kings is viewed with perfection. There is no King greater than Josiah and even

hints that he is greater than David. Josiah is the epitome of what kings are to look like.

Chronicles, as Sara Japhet notes, almost never portrays a perfect king, despite judging

them on the same scale as Kings.36 The Chronicler doesn’t believe any one man is sinless or

blameless and focuses more on creating a theological understanding for why events took place in

Israel’s history.37 Johnstone notices the main difference between Kings’ view of Josiah and

34 Michael Avioz, “Josiah's Death in the Book of Kings: A New Solution to an Old Theological Conundrum,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83, no. 4 (2007): 359-366, 359.

35 Cogan-Tadmor, 3.

36 Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its place in Biblical Thought (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 382.

37 Lasor et al, 543.

Boothby 12

Chronicles’ view can be summed up in comparing 2 Kings 22:2 and 2 Chron. 34:2.38 Kings

believes that Josiah walked “in all the ways (אביו דוד דרך-בכל וילך)” while the Chronicler

blatantly omits the word “all (כל)״ from his account. Thus, Josiah’s image in Chronicles is more

of a “good” or even “great” king, but perfect king would never be found in the Chronicler’s

vocabulary. In addition, Delamarter suggests that the Chronicler has copied Josiah’s description

in Kings and attributed some of his works to Hezekiah.39 It’s evident all the way through that

Chronicles could not portray Josiah as a perfect king, likely on account of his death. To him, no

king could suffer such a tragedy and be pure.

Dissecting the concluding formula in 2 Kings 23:21-30

2 Kings 23: 21-23

“The king gave this order to all the people: “Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.” Neither in the days of the judges who led Israel nor in the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah had any such Passover been observed. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem.”

This opening order is a continued effort by Josiah in order to right the wrongs, not only of

Manasseh, but his entire ancestral history until the time of the judges. Alter notes, “Passover was

the great rite that affirmed national purpose and belonging to the nation (compare Joshua 1).”40

Josiah was unifying the land of Judah and doing so with great veracity. The Book of the Law

found in v. 22:8 revealed to Josiah the importance of observing Passover, which sparked one of

the greatest revivals of the monarchy. If Kings is correct, not even David observed the Passover,

which would build even more evidence on the idea of Josiah as the prototype king.

Since the Deuteronomist tries to interweave regulations and laws from the time of Moses

and Joshua into the story of Josiah, it’s fitting that the Passover story receives a fair amount of

attention. As Brueggemann observes, “The action of Josiah, however, does not look back to a

Joshua celebration but alludes in v. 21 to the Deuteronomic regulation of Deuteronomy 16:1.”41

38 William Johnstone, 1 & 2 Chronicles: 2 Chronciles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement, Vol. 2, 2 vols. (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 233.

39 Steve Delamarter, “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?,” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 54, no. 1 (2004): 29-60, 33.

40 Robert Alter, Ancient Israel (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2014). location 1,352 in iBooks.

41 Brueggemann, 558.

Boothby 13

Collins-Harlow see a development from a “localized family ritual” in Exodus 12-13 to a

“national pilgrimage holiday centralized at Jerusalem (Deut. 16:1-18; 2 Kings 23:21-23; 2

Chron. 30:1-27; Ezra 6:19-22).”42 In the best way to unify and centralize the both the cult and his

royal lands as a whole, Josiah used one of the most important historical stories of his people’s

past to unite them. With Josiah’s regulation of the Passover celebration, a question of his

motivations must be examined. Was he doing this to get right with YHWH, or did he do this for

other incentives? Claburn suggests that his motives were based in financial reforms:

“How does an ambitious king most efficiently get his hands on the largest possible proportion of the peasantry’s agricultural surplus? If he is smart, he does it not by raising the assessed level of taxes, but by reforming his fiscal system so that he brings into the capital a larger proportion of the taxes already being assessed.”43

While it’s a nice gesture to assume that Josiah’s motives were strictly pure and moral, it’s

also pragmatic to assume that receiving monetary and material gain was part of the overall scope

of his reforms. While some may suggest that Josiah was either one way or another, it is of the

opinion of this author that Josiah was more balanced. Yes, the reforms granted a more stable

condition for Judah from a religious standpoint. Yes, the reforms also re-aligned their financial

situation and likely brought in a surplus. However, if Josiah were only greedy, there would be no

reason for the Deuteronomist to consider him one of the greatest kings in monarchic history.

Therefore, it’s likely to assume that Josiah was a practical and religious king who sought the best

for his kingdom and for YHWH.

2 Kings 23: 24-25a

“Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses.”

Hammond clarifies that these household gods were the terapim that came with a

Babylonian superstition that existed from the time of the judges (18:14), through Saul (1 Sam

42 John J. Collins and Daniel Harlow, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel Harlow (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), 636.

43 W. E. Claburn, "The Fiscal Basis of Josiah's Reform," JBL 92 (1973): 11-22, 15.

Boothby 14

19:13), into the later Kings, and even after the return from captivity (Zech. 10:2).44 Cogan-

Tadmor also suggest that these stem from a Hittite spirit that is “both protective and malevolent”

and can have Akkadian lexical similarities to the word sedu “a daemon.”45 For Josiah and the

author of Kings, eradicating these false images and false prophets were crucial for total

reformation of Israel’s religious system. Since the Deuteronomist actively takes steps in

connecting Josiah to Deuteronomy, which prohibits the use of spiritists, witchcraft, foreign gods,

etc., Josiah is recorded as eliminating these things.

F.M. Cross as well as Cogan-Tadmor argue that the pre-exilic account of Dtr1, which was

likely written during the time of Josiah, ends in v. 25a and the exilic writer or later editor, Dtr2,

begins in 25b with “and after him no one arose like him.”46 For Dtr1, Josiah is left as a reflection

of Moses, who, as Cogan-Tadmor rightly assert, “was the unsurpassed prophet” and “Josiah, the

unsurpassed king.”47 Josiah was the perfect king according to Dtr1 and with the King on the

proverbial pedestal Dtr1 left little room for error. This Josianic perfection found in Dtr1 leads not

only to the untimely death, but the fatal theological riddle of divine punishment that’s carried out

in Josiah’s death.

2 Kings 23:25b-28

“And there has never been a king like him since. Nevertheless, the LORD did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to arouse his anger. So the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also from my presence as I removed Israel, and I will reject Jerusalem, the city I chose, and this temple, about which I said, ‘My Name shall be there.’28 As for the other events of Josiah’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?

Despite Josiah’s best attempts to right all of the wrongs done by Manasseh and his

ancestors, the exilic writer of Kings knew better. Judgment was coming no matter how well

44 J. Hammond, The Pulpit Commentary: I & II Kings, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 457.

45 Cogan-Tadmor, 291. See also H. Hoffner, JNES 27 (1968): 61-68. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1998), S Part II, 256-259.

46 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973), 274-289. Cogan-Tadmor, 300. See also Thomas W. Mann, "Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses," JBL (The Society of Biblical Literature) 98, no. 4 (1979): 481-494.

47 Cogan-Tadmor, 291.

Boothby 15

Josiah did because the following kings wouldn’t be able to keep it together. For the

Deuteronomist, this was God’s divine judgment and punishment on the kingdom of Judah for the

wicked acts they committed. While there are several theological factors at play here, the overall

question still remains as to why Josiah’s reform wasn’t enough. If the writings are true about

Josiah and he truly led a great reformation across, not only Judah, but even into the North, why

didn’t YHWH relent? If Josiah reversed all the sins of Manasseh, why didn’t YHWH show his

Exodus-like characteristics of compassion, kindness, and mercy? These questions will be

examined below.

V. 28 provides the transitional phrase for the beginning of the end of Josiah. The annals

unknown to the modern reader suggest there is more known about the king, but the highlights of

his life are given here.48 While the Deuteronomist worked diligently to show Josiah with washed

hands of Judah’s ultimate fate, the final account of Josiah’s life would not spare Josiah the

puncturing end of his life and reign.

2 Kings 29-30In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced him and killed him at Megiddo.  Josiah’s servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father.

One must notice the obvious awkwardness of these last few verses. The opening

statement, “In his days (בימיו)” establishes that this is a later edition following the life of Josiah.

Alter suggests that, “Perhaps it was tacked on at the end here because it was a historical fact that

had to be reported but with which the historian was uncomfortable…”49 This uncomfortable

event, likely added by a later editor,50 suggests that this was not a fake event, but a real account

that the editor simply couldn’t avoid.

This episode reveals the tenacity of Josiah. According to the writer, he was Judah and

YHWH’s most valuable king. As mentioned above, there are two options for Josiah being in the

48 For more on this topic see Menachem Haran, "The Books of the Chronicles 'Of the Kings of Judah' and 'Of the Kings of Israel': What Sort of Books Were They?," Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 49, no. 2 (1999): 156-164.

49 Alter, p. 1354 on iBooks.

50 Cogan-Tadmor, 300.

Boothby 16

North to meet Necho: 1) It could be that he sided with the Babylonians and was attempting to

hold back the Egyptians from helping Assyria or 2) it could be that he was there in an effort to

take control of the crucial military areas surrounding Megiddo and prohibit Egypt from acquiring

it. With the Assyrian empire on the brink of collapse, Josiah’s push to Megiddo wasn’t a

religious or spiritual act, but a strategic military one. Having control of Megiddo meant that

Josiah could continue expanding his dominion and escape from the hand of Assyrian vassalship

or even future Babylonian vassalship. Alternatively, Hammond proposes, “He may simply have

resented the violation of his territory, without his permission…if he allowed the free passage of

the Egyptian troops…he would in a short time have lost even the shadow of independence.”51

While this suggestion may seem a bit precarious, the reality is that without external documents,

the modern reader has no clear answer for why Josiah thought it was a good idea to meet with

Necho. What one can infer is that some sort of battle or hostile incident occurred between Necho

and Josiah, however small it might have been, which led to Josiah’s death.

Huldah’s Prophecy and its Implications on Josiah’s Death

One of the main theologically controversial issues in this story rides on the words of

Huldah the prophetess. While her words were bitterly comforting to the ears of those who heard

them, the future readers acquire a bad aftertaste when learning that Josiah failed to be gathered in

peace as she prophesied.

Following the discovery of the book of the law, Josiah seeks out prophetic guidance and

interpretation in order to move forward appropriately. 2 Kings 22:15-20 describes a capricious

sequence where Judah is reminded of her fate while Josiah is given a “peaceful” prophecy.

Brueggemann advocates that, “Huldah’s function is to reinforce the Torah scroll.”52 This is

particularly important for the Deuteronomist who shifts worship from Temple-based to Torah-

based in the Josianic story.53 This oracle provided Josiah with a unique opportunity to press

forward with his plans for reformation because of his repentance and righteousness. Hammond

observes the design of Huldah’s responsibility: 51 Hammond, 459. Lasor et al also comment, “Josiah probably saw the invasion as a threat to his

hopes of ruling the territory of the old northern kingdom (vv. 19f)” 217.

52 Brueggemann, 549-550.

53 This is noted above on p. 8 and stems from Brueggemann’s suggestion in his commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, p. 548.

Boothby 17

“Huldah was commissioned to assure Josiah that, though the destruction of his kingdom and the desolation of Judaea and Jerusalem, threatened in the Law, were at hand, yet they would not come in his day. He would not see the evil time. Before it came he would be “gathered to his fathers” buried, i.e., in Jerusalem, as his predecessors had been, and not hurried off into captivity, to die in a foreign land...”54

With Huldah’s words secured and Josiah believing he will die peacefully, the King marches

north to meet Pharaoh Necho, and is killed by the Pharaoh at Megiddo. How does one reconcile

this violent death with the peaceful one prophesied by Huldah?

Cogan-Tadmor argue that Von Rad’s “pattern of prophecy and fulfillment…as a

structural element in Dtr.’s work is here broken” and that Huldah’s prophecy is contradicting.55

The author of Kings has allowed a prophetic word to fail and Josiah’s violent death null and

voids any peaceful death that could have come upon him. The problem with this view lies in

understanding the correct interpretation of Huldah’s prophecy. If Huldah simply said, “You will

die in peace,” then the aforementioned arguments would be without contention. However, that’s

not what took place. Those few words are sandwiched in-between 2 Kings 22:19 & 20b. V. 19

notes that even though Israel will be laid waste, because of Josiah’s repentance, he will be

spared. One the other side, in v. 20b, Huldah says, “Your eyes will not see the disaster I will

bring on this place.” Therefore, v. 20 in the context of vv. 19-20 allows Josiah to die in a time

when Judah as a whole was living in peace. As Provan suggests “It is not the manner of Josiah’s

death that is in view here…but its timing. He will die before the terrible events prophesied in

21:12-14 and 22:15-17 come to pass – while Judah and Jerusalem still know peace, rather than

the sword.56 Furthermore, Huldah’s words that he will be “gathered to his grave in peace,” while

it’s certainly a euphemism for death, never specifically addresses the way in which he will die.

At the end of the day, despite his death to Necho, Josiah dies and is buried before the destruction

and cataclysmic events of Judah’s fall, which is the overarching theme of Huldah’s prophecy.

Marvin Sweeny provides a distinctive perspective on the issue of this conundrum. He

suggests that two separate oracles by Huldah originally existed in vv. 17-18b and the second is

54 Hammond, 439.

55 Cogan-Tadmor, 295. Gerhard Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM Press, 1953), 78-82.

56 Provan, 541. Also see Provan, Hezekiah, 149.

Boothby 18

19-20a, and over the course of time, they were reworked and “combined into their present form

to explain the punishment of Judah following the death of Josiah in the DtrH.”57 He furthers his

argument by suggesting, “vv. 16 and 20 appear then to be a later redactional envelope around

two earlier oracle forms.”58 Walter Dietrich also suggests similarly that the original oracles by

Huldah were later re-written in order to show “the continued inevitability of the end of the

kingdom of Judah.”59 These options provide a feasible way of understanding the variation from

affirmation to judgment found in Huldah’s prophecy.

Was Judah destined to fall after Manasseh?

It’s already been discussed that Manasseh was the iniquitous king that led Judah to its

destruction almost 60 years after his death. The problem with this statement is that only Kings

truly blames Manasseh for the fall. Chronicles offers a completely separate analysis for Judah’s

fall and blames it on the steady decline and turn from YHWH.60 Many modern scholars have

attempted to show that Manasseh’s vassalship to the Assyrian Empire forced him to worship

their gods and follow their practices, however, this has been disproven.61 Furthermore, Kings

ends Manasseh’s life with no redemption making him the ultimate villain in Judah’s theatrical

plot to devastation. Conversely, 2 Chronicles 33:12-13 paints a reconciled Manasseh who turns

to the Lord before his death and receives almost a sense of pardon for his sins. How, then, does

one accurately evaluate the reign of Manasseh?

The idea that Manasseh caused the end for Judah is likely a later edition by an exilic

writer. McKenzie draws attention to the positive tone that envelops Manasseh with Hezekiah and

Josiah and how they contrast too sharply with the cynical view of Manasseh bringing on the

destruction.62 With Josiah righting, what seems to be verbatim, all of the wrongs committed by 57 Sweeney, 50. 58 Ibid.

59 John Barton and John Muddiman, , The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 263.

60 Baruch Halpern, “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 48, no. 4 (1998): 473-514.

61 Cogan-Tadmor, 272. See also Cogan, Imperialism, 42-61.

62 Steven L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Compostion of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 126.

Boothby 19

Manasseh, it’s quite difficult to assume that one single author covered all of these stories without

any future editions. Therefore, the inevitable problem arises, “why Manasseh?” Why wouldn’t

the authors and redactors of Kings write a history that gradually culminated with poor kings and

ultimately Zedekiah’s covenant and reneging (Jeremiah 34:18-21; 2 Kings 24:19-20), which led

to Judah’s final demise?

Much like the all-powerful deity, Manasseh became the retroactive scapegoat for the

exilic writer. The answer to the question “why” lies with Josiah. Josiah’s untimely and violent

death left the writer with no logical explanation. As Frost observes, “The fact is that the death of

Josiah proved to be the relatively small but sharp-edged rock on which the OT concept of

divinely motivated history foundered.”63 With most of Josiah’s history likely already composed,

the exilic writer had little options for theologically understanding Josiah’s death. Consequently,

instead of tarnishing Josiah’s perfect slate, the historian opted to point the finger at Manasseh.64

Delamarter proposes that, “Because of Manasseh’s sins, Josiah’s death falls under the wrath of

God.”65 This finger pointing not only endeavored to rationalize Josiah’s death, but went so far as

to blame the entire Judean collapse on his transgressions. However, Avioz disagrees. He believes

that Kings actively took steps to show that because Josiah didn’t consult with a prophet before

going to war, he was punished.66 Since this is the Deuteronomist’s approach with the life of Saul

and David, this seems like a more liable solution. The problem, however, is that this connection

is a loose one. The evidence is lacking and there are no strategic words used by the authors to

convey that Josiah was going to war or that he sinned because he didn’t consult a prophet. The

evidence is circumstantial at best and certainly fails to be apparent.

63 Frost, 381.

64 For supporters of this view see Antii Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic times (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1992); Halpern, Manasseh, 473-571.

65 Steve Delamarter, “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?,” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 54, no. 1 (2004): 29-60, 31.

66 Michael Avioz, “Josiah's Death in the Book of Kings: A New Solution to an Old Theological Conundrum,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83, no. 4 (2007): 359-366, 364-365.

Boothby 20

Therefore in answering the title question about Manasseh, the answer is yes and no. For

the historian of Kings, Judah was destined to fall after Manasseh’s reign. His idolatry and

bloodshed far exceeded the limitations of God’s forbearance, which made the pill easier to

swallow when reading about Josiah’s death. Knowing that Manasseh’s transgressions left Judah

under God’s wrath was easier to understand than a perfect King abruptly dying. However, for the

Chronicler, the thought of a postponed judgment is foreign to him and would not be accepted.

Josiah’s fate in Chronicles rests on his own poor choices and even suggests that Josiah failed to

heed the words of God.

Josiah’s Fate

One of the most troubling theological paradoxes is the issue of YHWH’s forgiveness and

punishment in the Kings story of Josiah. As Nelson puts it, “Everything we readers have come to

learn about God from the book so far leads us to expect God to forgive Judah on the basis of

Josiah’s repentance.”67 However, one finds the exact opposite. Despite the unparalleled attempt

to “save Judah,” as it were, YHWH still refuses to relent from his future day of retribution thanks

to the sinful reign of Manasseh. Here, one comes back to the disconcerting theological question

of why Josiah’s reform, reign, and even his life weren’t enough to warrant a reprieve from

YHWH? This section will deal with Chronicle’s commentary on Josiah’s final moments, the

theological problems of 2 Chron. 35:20-21, and finally, where Josiah died.

The Chronicler’s Commentary on Josiah’s Interaction with Necho in 2 Chron. 35:20-24

“But King Necho sent messengers to Josiah with this message: “What do you want with me, king of Judah? I have no quarrel with you today! I am on my way to fight another nation, and God has told me to hurry! Do not interfere with God, who is with me, or he will destroy you.” 22 But Josiah refused to listen to Necho, to whom God had indeed spoken, and he would not turn back. Instead, he disguised himself and led his army into battle on the plain of Megiddo. 23 But the enemy archers hit King Josiah with their arrows and wounded him. He cried out to his men, “Take me from the battle, for I am badly wounded!” 24 So they lifted Josiah out of his chariot and placed him in another chariot. Then they brought him back to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried there in the royal cemetery. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him.”

The starkest contrast from Kings in Chronicles is the conversation between Josiah and

Necho. Kings keeps the story short with no detail at all. Chronicles, on the other hand, offers an

entire addition of sorts with a conversation and commentary on Josiah’s actions with Necho that

culminate in a battle.

67 Richard Nelson, 1 & 2 Kings: A Bible Commentary For Teaching and Preaching, Vol. Louisville (John Knox Press, 1987), 252.

Boothby 21

The first addition comes in v. 35:21 when Necho sends messengers to Josiah to let him

know that Necho does not want to make war with him. The Chronicler furthers this claim by

Necho invoking God for his purpose in being there. Vv. 21-22 infer that Josiah was the one to

blame and suggests that “to resist Necho, is to resist God.”68 Talshir notes the abrasive manner in

which the writer describes Josiah marching toward Necho to fight him, unlike the Kings source,

which suggests he simply went to meet him.69 After spending an entire two chapters worth of

material highlighting the accomplishments of King Josiah, the Chronicler puts his own spin on

Josiah’s death in order to offer a suitable explanation by using divine punishment. Because

Josiah failed to head the words of God via Necho, God’s punishment was executed through

Necho, and Josiah fell.70

The Chronicler did not stop there, however. He continues in v. 22 that Josiah “disguised

himself in order to make war with Necho.” This entire phrase suggests that Josiah was actively

committing a sin that he knew was wrong, but out of pride would not back down. Again, the

Chronicler makes known that Josiah would not listen to the words of God via Necho. This

pericope suggests that Josiah, despite his achievements and reforms, failed in his final days,

sinned against God, and immediately received his punishment for doing so.

The reader gets a sense that this conversation and Josiah’s disguise leads to some sort of

war at Megiddo. With no outside source and not even Kings corroborating this implication, one

must take this account by the Chronicler with a grain of salt. Talshir, Torrey, and Na’aman

strongly suggest this entire story is a fictitious fable that “misunderstood the political situation”

and built up “an edifying tale of his own on the basis of few words in the older history.”71

Although these statements may be true, it is hard to speculate that nothing took place at Megiddo

68 Johnstone, 257.

69 Talshir, 217.

70 Williamson suggests that, “it is thus of interest to note that 1 Esdras i 28 actually substitutes "and did not heed the words of Jeremiah the prophet from the mouth of the Lord" for 2 Chr. xxxv 22, "and hearkened not unto the words of Necho, from the mouth of God" H. G. M. Williamson, “The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History,” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 32, no. 2 (1982): 242-248.

71 Talshir, 219; C.C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago University Press, 1910), 220; Nadav Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah," Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 3-71.

Boothby 22

at all. With both Kings and Chronicles offering stories of a famed king with a perilous ending,

surely something abruptly devastating happened that the ancient writers and prophets could not

theologically make sense out of.

Theological problems in 2 Chronicles 35:21-22.

Chronicles provides a myriad of problems that provoke the modern reader to speculate

what really took place during Josiah’s final moments. However, theologians are invited to ask

questions that pertain to what the Chronicler was doing with YHWH in 2 Chron. 35:21-22. At

the onset, the message sent by Pharaoh Necho to Josiah accords well with ancient history and

could probably end with “I am on my way to fight another nation”; which was true. He wasn’t in

Megiddo to fight Judah, he was passing through to help Assyria. But the Chronicler claims that

Necho invoked God as his motive for being there and provides the theologian with a few

problems. First, why would Josiah, who spent the better part of his last thirty years as King

reforming and making Judah a YHWH-centered state, act maliciously against someone who

claims to have God’s authority? Secondly, why would the Chronicler assume that Necho knew

the God of Josiah, let alone “ordered him to hurry up.”

Necho’s invocation of God when addressing Josiah is a difficult theological and literary

challenge. As Williamson notes, “it’s highly unlikely that Necho would have explained his

movements theologically.”72 Japhet observes that in the first address to Josiah in v. 21, Necho

appeals to his own god in using “The god who is with me (עמי-אשר מאלהים)”, but in v. 22 he

appeals to Josiah’s God.73 The use of god by Pharaoh and the use of God by the Chronicler

appears in the Hebrew to be a convoluted statement on purpose. For example, if Japhet is correct,

then the Chronicler is suggesting that the word of the Lord is also the word of the Egyptian god,

which provides a cluster of theological issues. If the message from Pharaoh is the Egyptian god

and Josiah doesn’t heed that word, it makes sense that Josiah goes to Battle with Necho but fails

in accurately placing blame and sin on Josiah because he would be opposing the word of the

Egyptian God, and not YHWH. However, if Necho is claiming that Josiah’s God is with him and 72 Williamson, 245.

73 Sara Japhet, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1993), location on Kindle 26157. Japhet notes here that in 1 Esdras, “all reference to the divine are explicitly and repeatedly phrased as ‘the Lord God’ (1.27) or ‘the Lord’ 1.27, 28).” Furthermore, “the messenger who delivered the Lord’s word to Josiah is, according to 1 Esdras, the prophet Jeremiah, so that Josiah could not have mistaken the authentic divine message.”

Boothby 23

Josiah disobeys that word, then the Chronicler succeeds in showing Josiah’s sin but fails to make

sense of why Josiah would battle Pharaoh. Based on Josiah’s clean history, even for the

Chronicler, his decision to battle Necho makes no sense.

At this juncture, one has to assume that the Chronicler is confused or purposely trying to

confuse his readers by using the universal name for god without giving any specifics. Even

though Chronicles employs a swift action of divine punishment, he falls short in providing a

theologically acceptable rationalization for Josiah’s death. Despite his efforts to portray Josiah as

a sinful king, the Chronicler’s conclusion is sloppy and fails to make a direct connection

theologically between Josiah’s death and vague sin.74

Where did Josiah die?

There is a minor issue that must be dealt with in exhausting the final moments of Josiah’s

life, and it’s the issue of his place of death. Kings depicts Josiah being executed by Pharaoh at

Megiddo and was taken from there by his servants to Jerusalem to be buried in his own tomb.

The story of Chronicles insinuates that Josiah died at Jerusalem after being fatally wounded in

Megiddo and was buried with his fathers. As usual, the Chronicler has a flair for the dramatic,

but as Japhet notes, he fails to give a distinct motive for this change in his manner of death. One

must observe that Huldah’s prophecy claimed Josiah would be gathered to his fathers in peace.

It’s possible that the Chronicler was attempting to fix the Deuteronomist’s mistake in saying he

was buried in his own tomb. As far as Josiah’s death, Chronicles draws out Josiah’s death and

makes him suffer, while Kings gives him a quick and painless death. Once again, this language is

evidence of the bias of the two accounts. Kings wanted a perfect ruler and Chronicles wanted an

imperfect king. Whether Josiah died at Megiddo or died at Jerusalem, in the grand scheme, is of

74 Frost’s concluding statements are worth noting here: “Past history can be more or less successfully manipulated and presented as Heilsgeschichte, but to interpret recent and contemporary events as providential history is much more demanding. The silence which followed the death of Josiah was not merely the embarrassed silence of the prophets who had previously encouraged him to go to Megiddo; after all, Israel had coped with false prophets many times before, as, for example, Micaiah ben Imlah did with those who encouraged Ahab to go up to Ramoth-gilead, where he too died in battle; no, the silence following the death of Josiah which is so profound is the silence of the historiographers. Israel had invented history writing by accepting a premise: Yahweh is at work in the events of time achieving his will. Later, that premise was amplified by saying that he worked in history through the application of moral law as the expression of his own nature. Starting from that premise, Israel had told the story of her past in such a way as to disclose the purpose of God in history: the establishment of his kingdom. But now something had happened which had contraverted the premise, and that something was the tragedy of Megiddo”, p. 381.

Boothby 24

little consequence. The only important aspect here is the length of Josiah’s punishment following

his altercation with Necho.

Can Divine Punishment Be Attributed to Josiah’s Death?

In summing up Josiah’s death, Provan describes, “That the best king of Judah should end

his days in the same way as one of the worst indicated the way things are now going.”75 Kings is

unable to make an explicit connection between Josiah’s death and a sin. As Cogan-Tadmor

recognize, “The historian could not reconcile Josiah’s death with his world view of just

retribution…”76 Chronicles, inadequately provides a connection, but at least attempts to reconcile

a reason for his death. Therefore, is the divine punishment of YHWH to blame for Josiah’s

death? If so, for what sin?

First, from the Chronicler’s perspective, it seems that Josiah failed to heed God’s warning

and in his pursuit of Pharaoh, offended God in the process. Mitchell suggests that Josiah’s sin is

not failing to heed God’s word, if one sees Necho’s word as a prophetic warning from God, “it is

a warning against some other sin already committed, a call to repentance, and a comment on an

ordained outcome. It is not a warning against a contemplated action.”77 However, what was the

sin? Could it be that Josiah’s march to go to war and his rebellion was the sin that brought divine

punishment? Mitchell suggests that both Zedekiah and Jeroboam are reprimanded and punished

for their rebellion.78 Furthermore, Halpern proposes that since Necho was described as having a

mission from God, “Josiah was struck down because he failed to recognize Necho’s divine

commission.”79 This analysis seems to be the only viable option for connecting sin to Josiah’s

death – that is, Josiah’s death was the result of his rebellion. Moreover, since the Chronicler

75 Provan, 5524.

76 Cogan-Tadmor, 302.

77 Christine Mitchell, "The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 421-435, 425.

78 Mitchell, 426.

79 Halpern, 503-504.

Boothby 25

believes in an immediate divine retribution for sins committed, it makes sense that Josiah would

be punished during this campaign.

Second, the book of Kings remains silent on any sort of connection between his death and

sin. Anderson suggests that a possible answer could lie with a disillusioned Jeremiah in v. 8:8

due to the Torah being “twisted into a way to ‘get something out of religion’ and the reform

failing to ‘achieve a genuine spiritual renewal of the covenant.’”80 Another possibility has

already been listed above by Avioz, but failed to present an adequate link to sin and death.81The

only genuine correlation we have to a sin and Josiah’s death isn’t his own, but rather Manasseh’s

and the unwavering decree by YHWH that Judah was doomed.

Can divine punishment be attributed to Josiah’s death? Absolutely. For Kings, it was

likely on account of Manasseh or the Avioz suggestion that Josiah failed to consult with a

prophet. For Chronicles, it could be that Josiah failed to heed the words of the Lord or that his

rebellion led to his fatal downfall. The problem lies with the ancient writers. Both accounts

magnificently render Josiah as a righteous and good king who does wonders for reforming

Judah. Their theology of divine punishment, however, is deficient.

Conclusion

Josiah’s story in all accounts leaves the reader wanting. Josiah’s life was marked

with repentance, reform, and good deeds that provided Judah with a good name. His death,

on the other hand, is shrouded in mystery, ambiguity, and silence. In the end, without

having some sort of ancient document that provides the modern reader with a detailed

historical account of what happened to Josiah during his final days, there will never be a

solid foundation on which to provide a thorough consensus of the reason for his death, let

alone a solid theological foundation for YHWH’s divine punishment. Even after adding so

much of his own theology into Chronicles, the book still comes up short in identifying “the”

sin that exposed Josiah as an errant King.

In conclusion, Josiah’s life is one to be modeled after. Prospering during a time

when the geopolitical world was in continuous fluctuation, suggests that Josiah had a good

80 Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 360-361.

81 See p. 20 and Avioz, 364.

Boothby 26

upbringing and a solid team around him with which to develop his kingdom and reforms. If

any conclusion can be gleaned from divine punishment and his death, it’s that rebellion and

going to battle will not end well. The ancient Jews hearing this story from either Kings or

Chronicles would at least be warned that dealing with the greater world of Egypt, Assyria,

and Babylon is God’s matter, not their own. If one attempts to take matters into their own

hands then God will quickly remind them that he is in control, and if necessary use his

divine punishment to carry out that reality.

Bibliography

Achtemieier, Paul J. Harper Collins Bible Dictionary. New York: HaprerCollins, 1985.

Agency, Assyrian International News. The Epic of Gilgamesh. www.aina.org/books.html.

Alter, Robert. Ancient Israel. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2014.

Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Avioz, Michael. “Josiah's Death in the Book of Kings: A New Solution to an Old Theological Conundrum.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83, no. 4 (2007): 359-366.

Barton, John, and John Muddiman, . The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Begg, Christopher. Josephus' Story of the Later Monarchy. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.

Ben Zvi, Ehud. History, Literature, and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. London: Equinox, 2006.

Brown, Francis. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson

Publishers, 2008.

Bruggeman, Walter. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000.

Brunner, Emil. The Divine Imperative. Translated by Olive Wyon. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2003.

Boothby 27

Claburn, W. E. “The Fiscal Basis of Josiah's Reform.” JBL 92 (1973): 11-22.

Cogan, Mordechai. Bound for Exile. Jerusalem: Carta, 2013.—. The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel. Second Updates and Expanded Edition. Jerusalem: Carta, 2015.

Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. New Haven: Anchor Bible, 1988.

Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Collins, John J., and Daniel Harlow,. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010.

Coogan, Michael David. A Reader of Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Sources for the Study of the Old Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Coogan, Michael, ed. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973.

Cross, F. M., and David Noel Freedman. "Josiah's Revolt Against Assyria." Journal of Near Eastern Studies (University of Chicago Press) 12, no. 1 (1953): 56-58.

Delamarter, Steve. “The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil?” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 54, no. 1 (2004): 29-60.

Dillard, R.B. “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles.” Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 1 (1984): 164-172.

Frost, Stanley Brice. “The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy.” Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 87, no. 4 (1968): 369-382.

Gadd, C.J. "The Fall of Nineveh." British Museum 21 (1923).

Halpern, Baruch. “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition.” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 48, no. 4 (1998): 473-514.

Hamilton, Jeffries M. “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of Ahab and the Character of God.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56, no. 4 (1994): 649-663.

Hammond, J. The Pulpit Commentary: I & II Kings. Edited by H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell. Vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.

Haran, Menachem. “The Books of the Chronicles 'Of the Kings of Judah' and 'Of the Kings of Israel': What Sort of Books Were They?” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 49, no. 2 (1999):

Boothby 28

156-164.

Hoffner, H. JNES 27 (1968): 61-68.

Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Japhet, Sara. 1 & 2 Chronicles. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1993.—. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its place in Biblical Thought. Winona Lake:

Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Johnstone, William. 1 & 2 Chronicles: 2 Chronciles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement. Vol. 2. 2 vols. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Josephus. Antiquities.

Kaufman, S.A. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. Vol. 4. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Laato, Antii. Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic times. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1992.

LaSor, William, David Hubbard, and Frederic Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

Leuchter, Mark. Josiah's Reform and Jeremiah's Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response. Phoenix: Sheffield, 2006.

Malamat, Abraham. "Josiah's Bid for Armageddon: The Background of the Judean-Egyptian Encounter in 609 B.C." The Gaster festschrift (ANE Society), 1974: 267-279.

Malamat, Abraham. "The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah." Journal for Near Eastern Studies (University of Chicago Press) 9, no. 4 (1950): 218-227.

Mann, Thomas W. “Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses.” JBL (The Society of Biblical Literature) 98, no. 4 (1979): 481-494.

McAlpine, Thomas H. Sleep, Divine & Human, in the Old Testament. Sheffiled: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.

McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kings: The Compostion of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill, 1991.

Mitchell, Christine. “The Ironic Death of Josiah in 2 Chronicles.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 421-435.

Boothby 29

Montifore, C.G. “Doctrine of Divine Retribution in the Old Testament.” The Old and New Testament Student (The University of Chicago Press) 11, no. 6 (1890): 386.

Na'aman, Nadav. “The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah.” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 3-71.

Nakanose, Shigeyuki. Josiah's Passover: Sociology & the Liberating Bible. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993.

Nelson, Richard. 1 & 2 Kings: A Bible Commentary For Teaching and Preaching. Vol. Louisville. John Knox Press, 1987.

Parpola, Simo. “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies (The American Schools of Oriental Research) 39, no. 2 (1987): 161-189.

Parpola, Simo, Hayim Tadmor, and Benno Landsberger. “The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib's Last Will.”

Plato. Euthyphro.

Provan, Iain. 1 & 2 Kings. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.

Provan, Iain, Philips V. Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Roberts, T. A. “Morality and Divine Commands.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series. Wiley on behalf of The Aristotelian Society, 1967-1968. 49-62.

Sweeney, Marvin. King Josiah of Judah: Lost Messiah of Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Tadmor, Haim. “The Sin of Sargon.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (Israel Exploration Society), 1958: 150-163.

Talshir, Zipora. “The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Histiography (2 Kings XXIII 29-30; 2 Chronicles XXXV 20-5; 1 Esdras I 23-31).” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 46, no. 2 (1996): 213-236.

The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1998.

Torrey, C.C. Ezra Studies. Chicago University Press, 1910.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1973.—. Studies in Deuteronomy. London: SCM Press, 1953.

Boothby 30

—. The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Book of Kings. Translated by David Stalker. London: SCM Press, 1953.

Weavers, Ann M. “The "Sin of Sargon" and Esarhaddon's Reconception of Sennacherib: A Study in Divine Will, Human Politics and Royal Ideology.” Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part One. British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2004. 61-66.

Welch, Adam. “The Death of Josiah.” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 43, no. 1 (1925): 255-260.

Williamson, H. G. M. “The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History.” Vetus Testamentum (Brill) 32, no. 2 (1982): 242-248.