33

2 KINGS 22:3-23:24

AND

JEREMIAH 36:

A STYLISTIC COMPARISON

CHARLES D,

ISBELL

Nazarene Theological Seminary 1700 East Meyer Boulevard Kansas City, Missouri 64131 USA

There is one very obvious factor which links 2 Kgs 22:3-23:24 and Jer 36: both describe the finding or first publication of written material which was previously unknown to the nation and to the king, and the reading of which elicits visible and immediate results. Certainly no one denies the importance of either passage, and the fact that they portray events so close together in Judaean history (one in 621, the other some 16 years later) would appear to indicate that an investigation of their literary relationship to each other is in order. However, despite the attention which has been devoted to each passage individually, to my knowledge, no one has attempted a thorough analysis of them together with a view towards ascertaining their literary, stylistic relationship./l/ The purpose of The methodthis paper will be to attempt this task. ology to be followed in the study is one of simple comparison, by which is meant a search for literary or stylistic similarities and differences which may be designed to produce a specific impact upon the A final word will hearers/readers in both cases. address the question of borrowing and dependence.

together

I.

The Similarities

A. A previously unknown scroll. Both passages make it clear that the message contained on the scrolls involved had been unknown previously to the current rulers and people. According to 2 Kgs 22 :813, neither Hilkiah (who found it), Shaphan (who read it), nor Josiah (to whom it was read by Shaphan) had prior knowledge of the contents of the scroll which had been located by chance in the Temple. Similarly, in Jer 36:2, the divine commandment is that the prophet should set down in writing those messages which he had delivered orally, &dquo;from the days of Josiah One is left with the impression that until today.&dquo; these messages of Jeremiah had had little or no effect (a fact confirmed throughout the book) in their first form (oral), thus making a second form (written) necessary./2/ At least, this is as good a reason as any to explain the commandment to set them into writing and have them read in a more formal
II

setting./3/
Claim to authority. Here there are three which link the two passages. First, both were tied to the prophetic ninh 1Ds n1 (2 Kgs This is particularly 22:15, 16, 18; Jer 36:29, 30). interesting in the case of Josiah. Because of the formal inquiry made of the prophetess Huldah, it is evident that a prophetic interpretation of affairs The &dquo;evil&dquo; (nvl) which Huldah mentions was desired. the words of the book&dquo; (2 Kgs 22: is s defined as, &dquo;all 16). Thus the real reason for concern was that the official prophetic word corroborated the written That is, prophetic confirmation message in the book. was officially given that the message of the newly discovered book was to be believed, and that its negative message was really going to take place; it appears that prophetic confirmation of this nature was required for the authentication of the written message. Once this was given, the importance of the scroll increased.
B.

specific points

II

35

from Jeremiah is much less inthe prophet, his messages had prophetic authority by virtue of this fact. What he had to say (write) was not merely corroboration of an ancient scroll./4/ Rather, his scroll was to be as been received directly from mum having perceived in the accredited, prophetic fashion. So it is that the prophetic &dquo;messenger formula&dquo; is the literary device employed to indicate that both scrolls were both authentic and authoritative.

The

example

volved.

Jeremiah

was

Second, both written records are specifically designated as t~~~~,/5/ i.e., both were again linked to the prophetic sphere by this use of a technical The following chart indicates the use of the term. word 11I in describing both scrolls.

are presented as messages is spelled out in 2 Kgs 22:19, when Yahweh, speaking to Josiah through Huldah, employs No the phrase, &dquo;you have heard what 1 have said.&dquo; less impressive a claim is made for the Jeremiah scroll by the fourfold repetition of the expression Kessler is certainly ninh h11I, as noted above. II correct in saying that a &dquo;holy book&dquo; claim is being His statement applies equally to made in Jer 36./6/ the Kings narrative.

Third, both scrolls

This

from God.

II

In sum, these two previously unknown scrolls share three factors which lie at the heart of the In undisputable and furor which each one creates. scrolls both lay claim to prospecific language, to divine and authority by the ultimately phetic, which could not and of words means phrases literary be misunderstood. Only when this is correctly apprised can the power of each book be appreciated.

36

C. The Content of the Message. Three points of similarity may also be noted with respect to the content of the two scrolls. First, both deal with This is explicitly stated in the subject of MYi. 2 Kgs 22:16 when Huldah quotes Yahweh as saying, &dquo;I am bringing evil (ny1) upon this place and its inIt is no less explicit in Jer 36, where habitants.&dquo; Further, vs. ~y1 is mentioned in vss. 3, 7, 30-31. 31 furnishes a general parallel to 2 Kgs 22:16: &dquo;I will bring upon them and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil (nvl) that I have pronounced against them.&dquo;
relates to the exIn each case, a similar pression, &dquo;great 2 Kgs 22:13 attests the construction is employed. sentence, &dquo;great is the wrath of Yahweh&dquo; (non 711) ); the same idea in Jer 36:7 is expressed as, &dquo;great are the anger and the wrath (~~n7~ ~H 711) which Yahweh has pronounced.&dquo;
A second
content

similarity
II

wrath.&dquo;

Third, both scrolls include the idea of hope for reform and avoidance of disaster. This is the plain intention of the entire narrative in 2 Kgs, for the finding of the scroll and the reception of a prophetic interpretation of its contents (22:3-20) lead to reform which is described in some detail imBut the ray of hope mediately thereafter (23:1-24). is also apparent in Jer 36./7/ Both vss. 3 (in particular)/3/ and 7 state the hope that the reading of the scroll will produce supplication for deliverance, repentance, and above all reformation of such a nature as to allow Yahweh to turn from the evil currently designed for his people. Thus although both scrolls speak bluntly of divine anger and wrath and both define Gods intentions as niJ1, both also view the function of a &dquo;holy book&dquo; as effecting the kinds of substantive change that would avert such a future.

37

II.

Similar Words, The

Different Results
tear.

A.

kingly

urge to

The root y1~ pro-

vides a key to the differences between the two kings who heard scrolls read. There is here both a similarity and a disimilarity, for though both Josiah and Jehoiakim responded to the message by &dquo;tearing&dquo; (y1P), each man tore something different./9/ Josiah tore his garments (2 Kgs 22:11, 19) in a classic sign of humiliation and remorse./10/ This public display was also ample evidence that the function of the scroll had been properly served. The king did In a repent, and this was signaled by his actions. similar fashion, Jehoiakim also responded to the message contained on his scroll by tearing. However, it was not his garments which he tore, as Jer 36:24 states explicitly (tnhIJ1 nX ivlp Ki, the plural including &dquo;his servants&dquo;). Rather, it was the pages of the scroll (n~n5~) which Jehoiakim regarded as expendable. As with Josiah, so with Jehoiakim did tearing (vlp is consistently in both accounts) have great symbolic significance, for there was no better way for a monarch to show his contempt for a man of God and the divine message contained on the scroll which he had dictated than to attempt to destroy the Jehoiakims act of very existence of those words. destroying the scroll may be interpreted in different

ways./11/

But the important stylistic feature is that the narrator surely intended by the use of YiP to contrast &dquo;Jehoiakims impious reaction with the favorable response of Josiah.&dquo;/12/

A second key B. The kingly urge to burn. linking 2 Kgs 22:3-23:24 and Jer 36 is ~1~tv . According to the Kings account, the reform activities of Josiah had included the burning of numerous items:

word

(1) some cult objects of Asherah (23:4); (2) the &dquo;chariot of the sun&dquo; (23:11); (3) the &dquo;sacred pole&dquo; and the nD1 (23:15); (4) the old bones of (nic>x) idolaters (23:16); (5) the fresh bones of bmt It is not exactly five different priests (23:20).
objects which are listed as having been burned, but the specific word nno is used exactly five times. Further, it is of at least passing interest that no

38

once in the passage for This would other reason./13/ for the narrator have to great significance appear Two of the foci of the entire chapter of Jer 36. are the fact that the reaction of the king was negative, and that this negative reaction was indicated by the contemptuous act of burning the scroll even I as it was in the process of being read to him. do not believe that it is sheer accident that the verb n1W also occurs exactly five times in Jer 36 (vss. 25, 27, 28, 29, 32), spanning all the major sections of the chapter./14/ Rather, I am convinced that this five-fold employment of nlv points to a conscious effort on the part of the Jer 36 narrator That to pattern his story upon the earlier event. is, the five-fold burning (n1N) of Josiah was matched But by the five-fold burning (n1L) of Jehoiakim. again, as was the case with v~7, the same vocabulary word in both stories underscores an essential difThe burning done by Josiah was positive, ference. reforming, change-effecting, and was further indicative of the fact that he had really heard what the scroll was saying (see below). By contrast, the burning done by Jehoiakim was negative, indicative of a refusal to reform, and indicative of the fact that he would not submit to the prophetic word.

synonym of n10 is

used

even

stylistic variation

or

III.

The Differences

I have already given The kingly response. A. hint at what no doubt constitutes the major difference between the two accounts, the reaction of This difference may be the two kings respectively. illustrated once again by reference to the exact language of both passages. First of all, Josiah This is explicitly stated in 2 Kgs &dquo;heard&dquo; (yn~.I). 22:11, 18, 19, and is also indicated by his response. Not only did he tear his garments, as noted above, IT but he also is characterized as one whose &dquo;hearing&dquo; was equated with &dquo;obeying.&dquo; This is commonly recognized as the force of the verb VDW in the Old Testament ; essentially there is no word for &dquo;obey&dquo; in s apThe point is biblical Hebrew other than VOW. parently that one who had regally heard would surely
a

39

obey the voice of God, of

The

prophet

or

an

angel,

etc.

opposite

was

also true.

Because of this dual function of )nu, it may be observed that the actual activities of Josiah, no less than the explicit statements that he &dquo;heard&dquo; the message, reveal that his hearing eventuated in obedience and in compliance with the demands contained in the book of the law. So Josiah can also be depicted in 2 Kgs 22:19 in four statements which move well beyond mere hearing. &dquo;You were tender hearted (11 1:J::11 ), you humbled yourself (V.1:Jn) in the presence of Yahweh, you tore (vlpn) your garments, you wept ( n11n ) before me.&dquo;
&dquo;

By sharpest contrast once again, none of these five qualities could be attributed to Jehoiakim. In the first place, he did not hear the message of the scroll. Apart from the phrase in Jer 36:24, 1/Dil DhyDon &dquo;1:J.V 7~Di , which of course includes Jehoi akim, there is no explicit reference or statement that he It was read in himself &dquo;heard&dquo; what was being read. his presence (vss. 21, 23, with which cf. 2 Kgs 22: 10), but he did not &dquo;hear&dquo; it. Nor did he hear those who advised him not to burn the scroll. /15/ Most importantly, neither he nor his advisers and subjects heard the word of catastrophe (Tv1) which God had in store for them all, /16/ and which no doubt comprised It goes the bulk of the entire Jeremianic scroll. without saying that, in biblical parlance, because the king did not &dquo;hear&dquo; the scroll, he did not &dquo;obey&dquo; Hence there is no statement in Jer 36 its message. comparable to the description of Josiah given in 2 Kgs 22:19, and this silence is deafening. Jehoiakim had not &dquo;heard&dquo; and his failure to reform showed it. Again, with VDW, as also with vlp and nlv, only the words were the same.
Not only do the two B. The divine response. narratives sharply contrast the reaction of Josiah with that of Jehoiakim, there is also a pointed contrast between the ways in which God responded to the

40

kings. In the case of Josiah, because he had &dquo;heard&dquo; God and his words from the scroll and from the official prophetic community, God in turn was This is very plainly said to have &dquo;heard&dquo; him. spelled out by the structure of 2 Kgs 22:19 (see above). Because (ivh) your reaction was the proper one, Josiah was told, &dquo;I too have heard fyoul&dquo; (ba The result of this divine response to hnyDv h13s). kingly repentance and the ensueing reformation is that the nvl of God is transformed into Dikv (2 Kgs 22:20). /17/ The entire emphasis of this verse just cited is that to a king who can and will &dquo;hear&dquo; when For the narrator God speaks, good things will come. chooses at this point to have God say to the king that he will be gathered to his ancestors, using a standard form of great significance throughout the
two
II

II

period

of the

monarchy.

The contrast with respect to God and Jehoiakim could hardly be greater. The MY which is planned
be abated, but rather ininto a personal tragedy This is (Jer 36:30-31). explained to mean that no son of his would sit upon the throne of David in his stead, his carcass (nk13) would not be gathered to the fathers (~DK, which is also used in 2 Kgs 22:20), but rather would be flung out (n~~tL~)/18/ to the elements in total disgrace (Jer 36:30). This was of course the extreme opposite of ~~7U, or the peaceful thoughts with which every king would like to entertain himself about his future and which was precisely the prophetic word vouchsafed to Josiah by Huldah because of his proper reactions./19/ for Jehoiakim tensified and

is

not

to

even

forged

Another point of contrast in this vein now Josiah had avoided the effects of the appears. nationwide sin upon himself personally because of his responses, as seen above. Jehoiakim, on the other hand, would experience the tragedy of his IIIV being visited in punishment (&dquo;ip5) upon him

(Jer 36:31).
a final point is necessary to make the between Josiah and Jehoiakim complete. The actions of Jehoiakim in burning the scroll changed

Yet

contrast

41

The same old words were re-inscribed upon another scroll and other similar /20/ words were added to them. Conversely, as noted above, the actions of Josiah changed everything.

absolutely nothing.

IV.

The Question of

Borrowing

It has been clear throughout the preceding paragraphs that virtually all of what I have argued regarding 2 Kgs 22:3-23:24 and Jer 36 is based upon the assumption that the person who was responsible for the canonical form of Jer 36 had at his disposal the material now known in Kings. The date of the composition of Jer 36 is quite a complicated issue which is further clouded because of attempts to determine its relationship to the vrrolle. /21/

However, for the purposes of this paper, it is

not

necessary to be able to give a specific answer about the date of the composition of the chapter. Since Jer 36 cannot come before 605 B.C. (see 36:1), the question is whether 2 Kgs 22:3-23:24 could have been available by this time. At this point, I have followed Professor Frank Cross with respect to the

&dquo;first edition&dquo; of the Deuteronomic history. /22/ The material from Kings which has been examined accords well with the theology of the Deuteronomic historian only before he (and his school) were forced to come to grips with the fact of Josiahs untimely death and the implications such a demise had for the theology of hope. /23/ The words of Cross with respect to the &dquo;first edition&dquo; as a whole are quite appropriate to our particular pasOne must conclude that it was part sage as well. of the material which had been, &dquo;written in the era of Josiah as a programmatic document of his reform and of his revival of the Davidic state.&dquo; /24/
II

The only part of our passage which Cross has denied to the &dquo;first edition&dquo; is the prophecy of Even this passage, Cross Huldah in 2 Kgs 22:15-20. writes, must contain, &dquo;an old nucleus ... which predates Josiahs unpeaceful end.&dquo; /25/ So it is necessary to inquire about the contents of that &dquo;old nucleus,&dquo; in an attempt to decide exactly what
*

II

II

must deny to the Josianic, I believe that only one Vs. 15 is a simple inVs. 16 connects the protroduction to what follows. phetic opinion to the written record recently disVs. 17 is the prophetic confirmation of covered. the validity of the message contained on the written Vss. 18-19 (to &dquo;nVDtll h13x IJ) merely rerecord. state the description of Josiahs reaction at the reading of the scroll. Thus one comes to the positive elements of promise concerning Josiah for the first time in the last phrase of vs. 19 and the bulk These positive elements of divine proof vs. 20. God has heard, Josiah will mise include four things. be gathered to the fathers, Josiah would go to the grave in peace, and Josiah would not live to see the It appears to me that only ro1 which was to come. the last of these four elements could not have been conceived in the Josianic era, but that none of the first three would have carried much weight after the circumstances of Josiahs death became known. Thus only statement four need be viewed as an editorial attempt to explain how the Huldah pronouncement and the death of Josiah could be &dquo;harmonized.&dquo;
one

part of 2 Kgs 22:15-20

pre-exilic &dquo;first edition.&dquo; short phrase is problematic.

II

It must be remembered that one of the harshest elements of Jer 36 was the understanding that the evil which faced the nation would be personalized and brought to focus upon a single royal family, Jehoiakim and his sons. Similarly, the statement, 1 which I will &dquo;your eyes will not see all the evil bring upon this place,&dquo; while clearly presupposing the exile, also presupposes a need to certify that Josiah personally would not be involved in punishment. In this context, the death of Josiah could be viewed as a necessary prelude to the actualization of the evil which Yahweh had in store for Israel. In sum, it is my judgment that the content the entire narrative (2 Kgs 22:3-23:24) even including the Huldah prophecy (with the exception noted above) belongs fairly enough to the Josianic era and the &dquo;first edition&dquo; of the Deuteronomic of

43

I also believe that it is reasonable to that the narrator of Jer 36 had at his disposal a literary document chronicling the events now described in this passage in Kings. It was precisely because of this that he would be able to design his own description of the reaction of King Jehoiakim to portray such an obvious contrast to King Josiah. The contrast between the two men was What Jer 36 attempted was to give real enough. literary expression to this contrast in such a way as to highlight it and to show the theological and political consequences involved in the attitude of each man.

history.

assume

NOTES
1.

Martin
81

Kessler, "The Significance of Jer

has hinted at the relationship between the reaction of kings Josiah and Jehoiakim. However, I am referring to a full scale investigation comparing the two passages, and this has not been done so far as I am aware. 2. Compare, for example, the problem of the audience response to Jeremiahs "Temple Sermon" (Jer 7:3-15; 26). Kessler also links Jer 36 and 26 together in ZAW 81, 382, and more fully in "FormCritical Suggestions on Jer 36," CBQ 28 (1966) 392.
3.

36," ZAW

(381-3,

See

Georg Fohrer, "Prophetie und Magie,"

for a useful discussion of the cultural reasons which underlay the need to produce See also materials of this nature in written form. the good discussions cited in Kessler (ZAW 81, 381). ZAW 78 been 4. Although Jeremiah would undoubtely have in basic agreement with the earlier traditions.

(1966) 25-47,

5. See the excellent discussion of the significance of ? in William Holladay, Jeremiah: Spokesman Out of Time (Philadelphia: United Church

Press, 1974) 24-25.

44

6.
7.
about

Kessler, ZAW 81, 381. Kesslers assertion that, "nothing is said

in Jer 36 3 and 7.

averting calamity" apparently overlooks vss.

(ZAW 81, 381)

"It may be that the house of Judah will 8. hear all the evil which I intend to do to them, so that every one may turn from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin" (RSV).
Kessler has noted that, "the key verb, seven times in 9-32) ... suggests the purpose for which the scroll was composed" (CBQ 28, 393). ? is also employed several times in 2 Kgs 22, and no doubt functions as a key verb there as well. The sound identity between ? and ? is not to be overlooked.
9.

qr

(which

occurs

morse

10. The practice of exhibiting grief or reby tearing ones garments is of course quite

widely attested in the Old Testament. Cf. for example Gen 37:34; 44:13; Josh 7:6; Job 1:20, etc.

(all

with

?).

11. Kessler is certainly correct in identi36 as a "symbolic act" Jer (CBQ 28, 391). fying What needs to be emphasized in addition is the symbolic significance of the kings actions in burning what a prophet had so carefully produced.

12.

Kessler, ZAW 81, 383.

13. A1 though ? is used in 2 Kgs 23:5, it does not refer to the reformation activities of the king, Josiah. Stylistically, there are several other words for "burn" which could have been chosen, including ?, ?, ?, ?, etc. But none of these occurs either in Kings or in Jer 36. 14. See Kessler (CBQ 28, divisions of the chapter which I 15. See Jer 36:25 and the ? .

389-401)

for the have followed.

pointed statement,

45

16. 17. below. 18.

teil

Note ? Note 2

in Jer 36:31.
on

Kgs 22:20,

which

see

further

The verb
even as

to ?

is of course a perfect Gegen? and ? are contrasted in

Kgs 22.
to

19. John Gray notes that, "it seems reasonable suppose that the prediction of Josiahs death salom was part of the original response of Huldah e b in so far as a date after the violent death of Josiah seems precluded" ( I and II Kings. Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963] 661). But note also his following statement of caution, and see further on this verse below.

20. 21.

Note ? in
See

vs.

32.

Jeremiah, 62-73 and note More recently, Holladay has upespecially dated his view of this problem in The Architecture of Jeremiah J-20 (London: Associated University The literature on the Presses, Inc., 1974) 169-74. Urrolle question is too massive to survey here. A list of the more basic works may be found in Prof. Holladays Architecture, 188-92.

Holladay,

155-6.

22.

Epic (Cambridge: 287-9.

23. 19 above.
24.

Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Harvard University Press, 1973)

And cf.

the

comment of

Gray cited in note

Cross, CMHE, 287.

Cross, CMHE, 286, note 46.

25.