276 RA supplements with "who stood before the king of Babylon." In this way this standing before the king becomes a kind of official designation. The "men-before-the-presence-ofthe-king" (2 Kgs 25:19) who are arrested thus acquire a pattern that can clearly be understood as a technical term for the civil service.

277 Ant. explicitly mentions the "officials of the bodyguard." He thus acquires primary responsibility for the torching.

278 RA abstains from using "great ones" and so explicitly portrays the fire as consuming all of Jerusalem.

279 The entire verse is de facto missing in RA. According to Disse (of the Richter school) saviv can also be understood as an appended attribute to the topicalized object, i. e. the walls around Jerusalem were torn down (A.Disse, Informationsstrukturen 201).

280 RA adds "rest of the reliable citizenry." This creates a sharper contrast with the defectors; this hints at the great rift known to us from the Persian period that existed between the former exiles and those who had remained in the land (see K.Weingart, Israel 297–311).

281 Ant. adds "the poorest of the people of the land," a conjecture which brings in the technical term "people-of-the-land."

13And the Chaldeans smashed the copper pillars that were from the house of YHWH, and the pedestals283 [?], and the copper sea that belonged to the house of YHWH; and they carried their copper to Babylon.

14And they took the pots [thorns, hooks] and the shovels284 and the candle snuffers and the dishes and all the utensils out of copper that were used for its285 service.

15And the captain of the body guard took away the fire pans and the bowls that were of gold and those that were of silver.286

16Both pillars, the one sea and the socle that Solomon287 had made for the house of YHWH288—it does not happen (that) the weight of the copper of all of these utensils can be determined.

17One pillar (was) eighteen cubits high and a capital289 upon it was out of copper and the height of the capital was three cubits and work of latticed tendrils290 and pomegranates (are) around the capital; their totality was of copper. And the lattice work on the second pillar was (made) likewise.291

18And the captain of the bodyguard took Seraiah, the first priest, and Zephaniah, the second292 priest, and three guards of the gates.

19And from the city he took a eunuch who had been appointed over the fighters and five of the men-before-the-presence-of-the-king who were found in the city

284 It is not clear what this term refers to. Ant. has "meat forks," RA uses "Yamin."

282 The addition of "for the gifts" in RA suggests that the poorest became the servants of another group rather than (corvée) farmers.

283 Ant. translates with "frame," which may be an allusion to the cauldron cart; RA uses its own distinct term "mechonoth."

285 The Greek texts speak of "divine service," thereby specifically relating the term to God. In Hebrew the term can also be applied to the temple or the king.

286 The amplifications "golden gold" and "silvern silver" are contracted to "gold" and "silver" in the Greek versions.

287 Ant. expands to "King Solomon."

288 Ant. adds "that Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard took away." This once again places responsibility for the plundering and destruction of the temple and city on his shoulders.

289 Ant. translates "capital" more literally with "top part, socle"; RA uses the Hebrewword as the proper name "Chotar."

290 Ant. translates "net" instead of latticework; RA once again uses the Hebrewword as a proper noun, "Zabcha." By retaining the original sounds RA creates a kind of "secret language" that cannot be decoded. Only those capable of understanding Hebrew are able to know that these are definitional terms and not specific ornaments.

291 Ant. adds as an explication: "also on the second pillar top part and net and 100 pomegranates." It is actually the case that both pillars together have 100 pomegranates (see 1 Kgs 7:18–20), but this seems to have escaped the notice of the redacting translator of Ant.

292 RA understands the term "second" to indicate rank: "priest of secondary rank." It is not clear whether he imagines this to refer to two hierarchical levels or to a "vice-priest" who functions as representative of the first priest.

and the scribe of the commander of the army293 who musters of the people-ofthe-land; and sixty man of the people-of-the-land who were found in the city.

20And Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard, took them and led them to the king of Babylon at Riblah.

21And the king of Babylon struck them (down) and he killed them in Riblah, in the land of Hamath; and he exposed Judah away from its soil.

 [Do not shoot any arrows] before the servants297 of the Chaldeans! Remain in the land and serve/be servants of Babylon's king and you are doing / will do well!" 25And it happened in the seventh month (that) Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, son of Elishama, of royal298 seed, and ten men with him, came and struck299 Gedaliah (down) and he died; and the Judeans and Chaldeans who were with him in Mizpah300 .

293 Instead of "scribe of the commander of the army" Ant. translates "Shaphan, the commanderin-chief." This imports Gedaliah's grandfather into the text, who is here held hostage. This reading puts Gedaliah under pressure, for as a Babylonian official he must serve Babylonian interests, whether he wants to or not. In my opinion this addition has an apologetic function.

294 Ant. inserts here "and over … the people he appointed." This emphasizes Gedaliah's function as ruler.

295 In the Greek versions "Godolya."

296 In Ant. "Mazzepha," in RA "Mazzephtah."

297 Ant. leaves out "the servants"; RA replaces it with "the invasion of the Chaldeans."

298 Ant. says "seed of the king," RA "seed of the kings." The first version leaves open whether a specific king is in view and if so, which one.

299 RA makes Ishmael alone responsible: "he struck down." The meaning is ambivalent. Should the deed portray him as a hero who singlehandedly carries out the assassination, or is the function apologetic? Just as it was not all Israel but rather just the house of Judah that had to be exiled, so here we haveaone-off deed committed by a few rebels rather than the people of Israel. In my opinion the latter interpretation is more fitting for a diaspora community that constantly had to take care of its reputation. In otherwords, relativization is more important that hybris.

300 Ant. adds "Ishmael struck down."As in RA so herewe find a tendency to completely transfer the final responsibility for this deed to Ishmael.

26And the entire people, from the smallest to the greatest, and the army commanders arose and came to Egypt because they were afraid of the presence of the Chaldeans301 .

#### Jehoiachin's Release from Prison (25:27–30)

27And it happened in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in the twelfth month on the twenty-seventh302 of the month (that) Evil-Merodach, king of Babylon, lifted the head of Jehoiachin the king of Judah away from303 the house of chains [= prison].

28And he spoke good things to him and placed him on the place of honour [= throne] above the thrones of the kings who were with him in Babylon.

29And he exchanged his prison clothes; and he ate bread continuously [= daily] in his presence, all the days of his life

30And his livelihood, a continuous livelihood, was given to him from the king304; according to his daily needs all the days of his life.

301 The Greek versions talk of fear of "the Chaldeans," which is simply a stylistic adjustment to the target language.

302 Jer 52:31 speaks of the twenty-fifth day of the month, which is why some manuscripts probably made emendations here.

303 Ant. and RA both add "and he led him out." This reinforces the impression that the Babylonian ruler personally fetched Jehoiachin from prison, in my opinion a rather unlikely scenario.

304 Ant. and RA read "out of the house of the king." The Peshitta reads "from the king of Babylon," in dependence on Jer 52:34.

Open-Access-Publikation (CC-Lizenz BY 4.0) © 2023 V&R unipress | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print:<PHONE_NUMBER>447 – ISBN E-Lib:<PHONE_NUMBER>444

### C. Narratological Analysis

### 0. Methodology

#### Narrative Voice

Our primary reference work305 for analysing narrative voice as well as the diverging perspectives among the various characters (Firgurenkonstellationen) in the text is B. Schmitz's Prophetie und Königtum306 (2008).

An important initial step is to distinguish between the authorial voice (K I) and the narrative voice307 (K II), both of which precede direct speech (K III) within a text, both logically and compositionally.308 In 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 the primary role is played by K II, for direct speech occurs in only one sentence (2 Kgs 25:24).

We must inquire into the role this narrative voice plays within the narrative.309 For example, in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 it is neither identified with a particular character nor is it the value-neutral voice of an author.310 What we have instead is an "extradiegetic narrative voice," 311 i. e. a voice that remains consistently on the level of K II and which grants us no insight into the thought world of the characters. It stylizes its relation to the events as once of distance, only commenting upon and evaluating them occasionally (2 Kgs 23:32: 37; 24:3 f.). It is also for responsible for focalization, i. e. providing the "eyes through which the fictional

305 For a general introduction, see S.Lahn/ J.C.Meister, Einführung, 59–100.

306 B.Schmitz, Prophetie, especially 9–108.

307 Schmitz prefers this term to the more familiar "narrator" because the focus is on a textual function rather than a personal agent (see p. 22).

308 See ibid. 10. For the meaning of the concept of author, which plays no significant role in this work, see 58–108. Among other things this has to do with the absence of narrative elements that intend to connect the narrator with the author (see S.Lahn/ J.C.Meister, Einführung 170–188), as well as the fact that from a theological perspective the Biblical text does not have a purely human source (see B.Schmitz, Prophetie 104–107).

309 For the backgrounds to these theories, see S.Lahn/ J.C.Meister, Einführung 103–131. The schema used here is based on Genette's concept. J.Schneider provides a succinct and good explanation which portrays the concept in relation to other positions in Einführung 76–83.

310 See B.Schmitz, Prophetie 24.

311 Ibid. 25.

world is perceived. […] This term avoids reducing that world to specifically visual-optical phenomena as well as any psychological implications." 312 Focalization consciously creates a reader's perspective while also leaving room for the "filling of gaps based on the reader's broader interpretations." 313 . "Zero focalization" (Genette) is a narrative voice that knows more than any other character, taking on the role of a superordinate narrative instance (ontologically and compositionally).314 This kind of narrative voice can also be found in 2 Kgs 23:30– 25:30.315

However, the primary function of the narrative voice is "to constitute the functional world […]. It constructs the temporal and spatial structure of the narrated world, supplies it with characters, and narrates the plot." 316

It is necessary to adapt these functions to the Biblical text. The texts of the Former Prophets / Historical Books often consist of reflections upon historical experiences that incorporate the dimension of God, who is a central character in the Biblical text.317

This brief outline should suffice for our description of the narrative voice in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30, for it lies so much in the background that is hardly noticeable. Its function is description of the plot and occasionally the guidance of the reader. For this reason, over the course of the analysis note will be taken of the function of the narrative voice when necessary. The primary focus, however, will be on the various phenomena that this voice presents to us.

312 Ibid. 43.

313 Ibid. 43. To learn more about knowledge and communication, especially concerning the guidance of the readers ("Lesendenlenkung"), See S.Lahn/ J.C.Meister, Einführung 156– 164.

314 See ibid. 44. For further ways of interpreting possible focalizations, e. g. what can focalize who how, see pp. 448 f.

315 Scholars debate whether it is possible for zero focalization to exist. In the Bible, where "God" plays a central role, this question takes on a special nuance.

316 Ibid. 35; J.Schneider, Einführung 73–76 additional explains the more detailed model developed by Boris Uspenskijs (see his Poetik), which differentiates between six categories: temporal, spatial, ontological, psychological, stylistic, and world-view related perspectives. Although this theory is more detailed than Genette's, which is used here, it is not necessarily more appropriate for Biblical texts. This is because not all of his categories are applicable to ancient texts. On the function of the narrative voice within biblical narrative texts, see S.Gillmayr-Bucher, Erzählte Welten, 21–24.

317 The particular witness-character of religious interpretations of experience lies on the boundary between illusionary fictionality and subjective perception of everyday reality. The horizon within which it is constituted usually differs to that of a fictional work and so the method required for its analysis needs to be adapted accordingly.

#### Concept of Time

Schmitz summarizes the temporal structures using the usual318 categories of order, duration, and frequency.319 Following the work of Mieke Bal320 and Gérard Genette321 she further differentiates order into fabula and story. The fabula is the chronological sequence of the events,322 the story embeds this sequence into the narrative. The two together generate a relation that is called duration, which can be expressed, for example, in either shortened or extended form and which can be divided into four basic tempos: summary, pause, ellipse, scene.323 Frequency determines whether there are repetitions and relations of frequency within the text and, if so, what their role is.324

#### Concept of Space325

Space applies to many things, for example places, settings, landscapes, buildings, paths etc.326 To analyse a text from this perspective the interpreter asks where a narrative takes place and the role that space plays within that narrative. Often the fictive space is enriched with descriptions taken from the world known to the readers in order to create a sense of familiarity with the place.327 Nevertheless, there is little value in completely identifying the narrated world (Erzählwelt) with its equivalent in the external the world (erzählte Welt). This is because

[it] is inadvisable to immediately and without reserve assume an identification between the referent of the spatial narration and that referent's text-external equivalent in the real world. The places mentioned in the narrative do point us to places outside the text, that is clear and inevitable simply by virtue of their sharing the same names. […] At the same time, however, both places are not completely identical and interchangeable.328

318 See S.Lahn/ J.C.Meister, Einführung 133–155.

319 See B.Schmitz, Prophetie, 35; see also I.Müllner, Zeit 8 f.

320 M.Bal, Narratology.

321 G.Genette, Erzählung.

322 For chronology once can further distinguish between "natural temporal process" (chronological) and "inverted sequence" (anachronistic) and an achronistic perspective, in which "it is impossible to identify or reconstruct any sequence of events at all" (see J.Schneider, Einführung 43).

323 See B.Schmitz, Prophetie 36. Schneider uses the term tempo and describes a text as "rich in tempo" when it creates an almost hectic environment through the quick succession of changing scenes. On the other hand, a text is "poor in tempo" when little happens, little is described, and so an atmosphere dominated by an "non-signified hustle and bustle" ("leere Betriebsamkeit") is generated with little plot (see J.Schneider, Einführung 45).

324 See ibid. 37.

325 E.Ballhorn's work on spatial and temporal concepts is seminal (see Israel 73–134).

326 See B.Schmitz, Prophetie 37.

327 See ibid. 38.

328 E.Ballhorn, Israel 99. In this context he also speaks of a narrated place as a "memory repository," i. e. a space that is connected with certain emotions and memories. This occurs

A similarly significant role is played by individual spaces, the relations among them, and the various functions that spaces have or the perspectives from which they are perceived.329 An example of such spatial conceptualizations are boarders, for they are actually non-spaces. They separate spaces from each other and often create an inside and an outside.330 A further example are group categories such as Egypt or the people of God that render space as a relational entity.331 Martina Löw uses the term spacing and says that this category is concerned with "setting up, building or positioning […] in relation to other positionings," in the sense of "primarily symbolic markings with the purpose of distinguishing ensembles of goods and people." 332 She calls the combination of several ensembles into a single space "synthesis achievement" ("Syntheseleistung").333 In other words, what happens is that various elements are brought into a particular arrangement so that their relation can be known and, to a degree, constituted.

From within the field of spatial sociology Michel Foucault has developed the term heterotopia in order describe the way in which "several spaces as well as contradictory spatial statements can be superimposed upon each other." 334

Of interest to our concerns here is also the question of how space is described within a narrative, i. e. the moment in which the space is named, described in more detail etc.335 This relation—called chronotopos by Mikhail M. Bakhtin binds the spatial dimension to the temporal, thus making it possible for the actions of the narrative's characters to become visible.336

in in the form of narratives in oral or written form which are responsible for constructing the space in the first place (see p. 88).

329 See B.Schmitz, Prophetie 38.

330 See E.Ballhorn, Israel 116–118.

331 See ibid. 80–82; 87. H.Lefebvre provides an alternative division of social space into three spheres (spatial praxis, presentation of space, lived space; see H.Lefebvre, Produktion 330– 342). This division is only of limited value for our study because it "can only be implemented on the theoretical level, in practice these processes are closely linked with each other" (S.Gillmayr-Bucher, Erzählte Welten 31 fn. 139).

332 M.Löw, Raumsoziologie 158.

333 See ibid. 159 f.

334 See E.Ballhorn, Israel 127. Ballhorn provides a more detailed analysis of the distinction between crisis and compensation heterotopia in Gestaltung 415–429, especially 418–421; M.Foucault, Heterotopien/ Les hétérotopies 44; 48 f. Of significance for Foucault in these apparently paradoxical superimpositions is theway they challenge spaces. Thy do this by "en créant une illusion qui dénonce tout le reste de la réalité comme illusion, ou bien, au contraire, en créant réellement un autre espace réel aussi parfait, aussi méticuleux, aussi arrangé que le nôtre est désordonné, mal agencé et brouillon." (pp. 49 f.).

335 See B.Schmitz, Prophetie 39.

336 M.M.Bachtin, Chronotopos 7 f., also describes this aspect. It binds time to space as a fourth dimension.

#### Characters and Character Constellation

It is the narrative voice that enables the characters to communicate and interact with each other. It does so by construing social groups, collective identities, and societies and by introducing individual characters.337 It also determines the role and amount of activity and relevance of the character within the story, e. g. through direct speech, description of behaviour, simple mentioning of their name, etc.338 In this way multiple perspectives can be created; by looking at the interactions among them it is possible to identify both corresponding and contrasting character perspectives, which in turn makes it it possible to compare, categorize, and (temporally) relate them.339

Possible worlds theory340 postulates five elements that motivate the actions of a literary character: knowledge, intention, wishes, morality, and obligation. In order to interpret a character it is decisive that we know the state of its knowledge. Knowing what it knows or could known reveals the meaningfulness and intentionality of its actions and relativises the extremes of good and bad, meaningful and meaningless action.341 The values of the collectivity can also be determined on the basis of its actions. Given that the innerworld of the characters in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 is entirely inaccessible, the spheres of intention, wishes and morality will not be considered in our analysis.

A further reason why I do not consider the development of the individual characters to be relevant for our interpretation is the nature of the narrative at hand. Of help here is Aristotle's distinction, picked up and developed by Edwin Muir, between two kinds of novel: a novel of action and a novel of character.342 In the latter type the plot and the character develop in relation to each other, in the former it is the actions of the character that are more important than its personal development. Given that the characters in our narrative are judged according to their deeds rather than their individual traits, it is more appropriate to see them as actants rather than characters per se.343 The characters of our text are either victorious or they fail and in the end they return to where they started with their victory or failure being the decisive factor in the assessment of their actions rather than the development of their character. It may be possible to apply a less

337 Speech act theory, which is a recurrent topic within the hermeneutical discourse of narratology, is of little methodological value for Biblical interpretation (for the reasons see I.Müllner, Gewalt 55 fn. 37).

338 See ibid. 39.

339 See ibid. 53.

340 My explanation follows S.Gillmayr-Bucher, Erzählte Welten 10–16.

341 See ibid. 54.

342 See J.Schneider, Einführung 25; E.Muir, structure, who develops G.Lukás, Theorie.

343 For the terms, their definitions, and development, see I.Müllner, Gewalt 52 f.; 66.

extreme form of this schema to the people of God, which starts with Abraham leaving Chaldea and ends with exile in the same place.

## 1. Demarcation and Structure of the Text

1.1 The Overall Structure of 1 Samuel to 2 Kings

According to Hentschel344 there is a broad consensus concerning the structure of the final form of the text, and this form deviates from the LXX's division of the books into a fourfold collection. The LXX's four books appear to have belonged together from the very outset345, and scholars have not been able to identify a compositional logic to the LXX's division.346 In the course of this study we will have occasion to observe whether considerations of content may not have played a compositional role after all. Nevertheless, the following structure may provide us with a general overall orientation:

### 1.2 The Overall Structure of 2 Kgs 18–25

2 Kings 18–25 can be divided into relatively clear sections by means of the regnal formula, and this is sufficient for a general overview of the structure of the material. The result is as follows:

344 G.Hentschel, Samuel 291: Könige 302. Knauf (see 1 Kgs 67) has recently deviated slightly from this division, though in relation to a section that is not of concern to us here.

345 See F.Blanco Wissmann, "Er tat das Rechte", 246; E.A.Knauf,1Kgs 1–14 37 in agreement. 346 The division may have been practical in nature; for example, each portion is roughly the same size, so that they could each have fitted onto their own scroll.

The narrative space dedicated to each king (here indicated by the number of verses) varies greatly and is clearly related to either the length of rule or the assessment of the king:

Excursus: Beginning – Middle – End as Structural Features (Georg Fischer347)

If one considers the beginning, middle, and end of our unit, its sum total of 230 verses disclose a distinct structure that could be significant for interpretation.

The first verses of the narrative that follow Hezekiah's regnal formula (2 Kgs 18:4–8) are as follows:

He removed the cultic high places, broke the cultic pillar, and cut down the copper serpent that Moses had made and to whom the Israelites had offered burnt offerings up until that time—it was called Nehushtan (copper image). He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. Of all the kings of Judah who came after him or who lived before him none was like him. He held fast to the Lord without departing from him, and he kept the commandments that the Lord had given to Moses. For that reason the Lord was with

347 See G.Fischer, Wege 7. He provides practical demonstrations of his approach in his commentary on Jeremiah (Jer 1–25).

him; in all that he did he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and was no longer subservient to him. He also struck the Philistines as far as Gaza and the surroundings of this city, from the watchtower until the fortified city.

In the central verse (2 Kgs 22:19) located in the beginning of the narrative about King Josiah we read:

You humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke about this place and its inhabitants, that they should become an image of horror and a curse. Your tore your garments and wept before me. For this reason, I have heard you—a saying of the Lord.

The concluding verses (2 Kgs 25:27–30) are as follows:

In the thirty-seventh year after Jehoiachin the king of Judah was led away, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, Evil-Merodach the king of Babylon pardoned Jehoiachin the king of Judah in the year that he began to reign and freed him from prison. He reconciled with him assigned him his seat above the seat of the other kings that were with him in Babylon. He was able to put off his prison garments and continuously eat with him as long as he lived. His allowance—a permanent allowance—was delivered to him daily from the king of Babylon according to the determined amount as long as he lived.

If Josiah was taken to mark the end, then the final verses (2 Kgs 23:25–27) would be as follows:

Before him there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might and who followed the Law of Moses so faithfully, and after him there was none like him. Yet the Lord did not relent from the powerful blaze of his wrath. He wrath had been kindled over Judah because of all the offenses that Manasseh had committed against him. For this reason, the Lord said: "I will also remove Judah from before my presence, just asI have removed Israel. I reject this city Jerusalem which I chose and the house of which I said, 'Here will be my name'."

This conclusion would be a contradictio in adjecto to the previous lines, which had stated that whoever is with God would live and experience victory over his enemies. Here God has turned away. In addition to this, the changed middle verse would no longer make any sense. The canonical conclusion found in 2 Kgs 25:30: by contrast, appears far more fitting.348

Among the very negative representations of the end of the monarchy three positive statements stand out. The composition of the narrative seems to include a positive dynamic that leads from the act of removing the cultic images and the remorse felt regarding them to a modus vivendi in exile—a end that is not ideal but at least is also not hopeless.

348 See the discussion in the chapter A.2.1.2.

The general structure outlined here demonstrates that there is a meaningful unity to 2 Kgs 18–25, as has already been demonstrated by Blanco-Wißmann and others.349

#### 1.3 The Demarcation of 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30

Hezekiah, Manasseh (with Amon), and Josiah were the kings who ruled during Judah's final years and they are granted a large amount of textual space. They implemented their reforms and counter-reforms and were still alive to hear the messages of the prophets. They also still had the ability to reverse the fate of their land and nation through repentance. A different perspective can be seen in the narrative in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30, which is dominated by other structural markers. The composition of this section must be analysed differently.

The boundary between the two sections must be placed before 2 Kgs 23:30b, for this is where Josiah's narrative is concluded and his successor Jehoahaz is mentioned for the first time.

The conclusion of the unit may at first appear straightforward, for 2 Kgs 25:30 is clearly the end of the second book of Kings. If one questions this thesis from a canonical perspective, two aspects appear that require explanation:

349 See ibid.

350 I am currently working on an article on this subject. Regarding the development of the canon: Peter Brandt has worked through a number of rare varieties found in, e. g., manuscripts. They are as follows (see Endgestalten): there are mixed forms of the Former and Latter prophets in which 1–2 Kings appears between Jeremiah and Ezekiel or before Jeremiah. No reasons for this sequence are given (see p. 143). In the Septuagint traditions the canons Epiphanius I–III constitute an exception to the scheme of Kings—Chronicles. Chronicles comes first, sometimes even occurring before 1–2 Samuel (see p. 201). In the Syriac traditions from the early period (p. 219) until later developments the usual sequence is Kings–Chronicles, sometimes the Psalms or Proverbs are added (p. 222). Here there is a clear break, i. e. a change in the wisdom writings (see ibid.).

#### 1.4 The Structure of 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30

The four kings (2 Kgs 23:30–25:7) and the three subsequent narratives (2 Kgs 25:8–30) need to be distinguished from one another, for the first unit is influenced by the regnal formula with little additional information whereas the latter has its own unique dynamic with numerous shifts in characters and locations.

The kings are connected with each other by means of their parallel structure.351

The narrative of the conquest of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:8–21) follows on from Zedekiah in terms of temporal development but spatially itshifts the location back to Jerusalem. The style of writing also changes, for now it is far more descriptive in nature. The Gedaliah pericope (2 Kgs 25:22–26) is connected with the previous pericope by means of the figure "Nebuchadnezzar," but its location and protagonists are changed so that this pericope acquires its own distinctiveness. There is a clear temporal and spatial break in the narration of the release of Jehoiachin from prison (2 Kgs 25:27–30: 26 years later; shift from Judah to Babylon). This pericope links up with the previous narrative about Jehoiachin, the third story of the aforementioned kings, and is thereby set within a broader context.

The narrative of the downfall of Jerusalem begins with the deposition of Jehoiachin and the investiture of Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:17) and is structured into three parallel units, the last of which is incomplete.

First deportation (24:11–16)

Babylon's initiative: Appointment of a vassal for Judah by Babylon's king (24:17)

Rebellion against Babylon by a son of David (25:1–3)

Flight from Babylon (25:4–5)

Punishment of all Judah (25:6–21)

Second deportation (25:20)

Babylon's initiative: Appointment of a governor for Judah by Babylon's king (25:22)

Rebellion against Babylon by a son of David (25:25)

Flight from Babylon (25,26a)

Fear of punishment for all Judah (25:26b)

351 Similarly R.L.Cohn, 2 Kgs 163 f.; he is followed by J.P.Leithart, 1.2 Kgs 273 f.

Third (self-imposed) deportation (25:26)

Babylonian initiative: Reinstalment of the leader of Judah by the king of Babylon (25:27)

On the whole this division coheres with the "depth structure of the text" ("Texttiefenstruktur"),352 presenting us with a "linear thematic progression" that achieves a resolution at the end.353 This indicates that the structure is closed, which also enables it to serve as the conclusion of a book.

#### 1.5 Structural Markers for the Conclusion of a Narrative (Susan Zeelander)

The conclusion of a narrative involves a process that usually extends over several stages.354 It constitutes the integrity of the characters by definitively defining them and rendering a final judgement concerning them.355 In this process the trajectories that commenced within the narrative are brought together so that they acquire a new stability at the end.356 A significant role is often played by rituals and the conclusion of contracts in particular but also shared meals, e. g. in Gen 21:22–34; 26:12–33; 31:1–32:2. In this concluding position they always have a transformative character,357 which suggests that 2 Kgs 25:27–30 may also have such a character.

In addition to this, repetitions frequently occur with a framing function.358 A good example of this is the regnal formula, which demarcates the boundaries between the treatment of each king within the book of Kings.359 The "natural end" 360 of a story is often reached when the narrative comes to a halt in a particular location. In 1–2 Kings this usually occurs in the notice concerning the death of the king. For Jehoiachin, however, it is the phrase "all the days of his life" in 2 Kgs 25:29 and 25:30 that describes his irreversible settlement in Babylon. The

352 For this term, see S.A.Nitsche/ H.Utzschneider, Arbeitsbuch 75–77.

353 Nitsche/ Utzschneider understand this to refer to a text in which each subsequent theme builds upon the one that precedes it (see their Arbeitsbuch 74). This structure is provided by the regnal formula. Only the destruction of the temple (2 Kgs 25:9) is followed by its plundering (vv.13–17), which leads to a temporal sequence requiring explanation (for more, see the discussion of the temporal dimensions below).

354 S.Zeelander, Closure 170.

355 See ibid. 174.

356 See ibid. 164.

357 See ibid. 144.

358 Ibid. 63.

359 See ibid. 56 f.

360 Ibid. 97 f.

lack of a notice concerning his death simultaneously disrupts the regnal formula's linear sequence by not mentioning a successor.361

Places already mentioned in the narrative can also be repeated, as this can help many readers recall specific occurrences.362 Examples in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 are Egypt (2 Kgs 24:7; 25:26), the steppes of Jericho (2 Kgs 25:5), and Mizpah (2 Kgs 25:23). Another kind of repetition is the use of keywords that can be of significance both for the individual narrative or within an intertextual context.363

Anti-closure is a special kind of concluding feature. This occurs when the narrative is open ended, leaving the future open to interpretation. The resolution to this openness is usually construed and constituted in the mind of the reader.364 Such an open-ended ending can be found in 2 Kgs 25, where neither the wellbeing of the Judeans in Egypt nor the fate of the Northern Kingdom and the other exiles is clear.

The great temporal leap from 2 Kgs 25:26 to 25:27 has an additionally conclusive character. In theories of film and prose such temporal leaps often function as a concluding summary.365 All the actions that had been initiated such as the unmentioned homecoming of the main characters or the restoration of a land are completed at this point. After this, a concluding statement is made concerning how the solution that has been found will fair in the future.

All of these criteria can be identified in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30. This portion of Kings clearly functions as a conclusion, and it does so in several stages: (1) the increasing dependence of and threat to Judah as well as the beginnings of the loss of the population under kings Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin; (2) the end of the Jerusalemite monarchy as well as Jerusalem itself and thus the final end of Judah under Zedekiah; (3) the final failure to establish a state in the promised land and the final depopulation of the land in the Gedaliah pericope; (4) the release of Jehoiachin from prison as an epilogue and potential turning point.

361 This is not the first disruption. The regnal formula is also not consistently maintained for Kings Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. This could be a stylistic device that signals the growing disorder in Judah by disrupting the text's schemas and frames.

362 See ibid. 113.

363 See ibid. 88 f. It would be possible to provide here a list of words that are intertextually significant; I have refrained from doing so at this juncture as their significance will worked out in the course of this study.

364 See ibid. 181–183.

365 See S.Lahn/ J.C.Meister, Einführung 263–265.

#### Interim Conclusion

In light of the results so far, we can postulate the presence of a tentatively optimistic perspective that frames the catastrophic end of the Judean state. We have demonstrated that 2 Kgs 23:30 until the end of the book in 2 Kgs 25:30 constitute a meaningful unit. The question of the role of the pericope within the book of Kings as a whole as well as within the canon must still be answered. Within the first sectionwe must take two parallel structures into account. The two first kings are paralleled with the two last kings, with the only difference being the identity of the conquerors (Egypt and Babylon).

A parallel structure unfolds between the first wave of deportations under Jehoiachin and his pardon; this structure is unfolded completely twice and only partially a third time. In addition to this it is possible to state with a high degree of certainty that 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 functions as a well-composed conclusion to a larger narrative.

### 2. Temporal Conceptions, Data, and their Meaning

In the first part of this study (A.1) we introduced our basic methods and hermeneutical approach. The task now is to apply the theory to the material. This is not so difficult for the analysis of temporal conceptions, even though time is a very abstract concept.366 To grasp the concept of time we need to look at three aspects: 1) Are there words that signify time, e. g. dates, time periods, times of the day etc.? 2) Do the events occur according to a semantically logical sequence so that they can be brought into relation with time? 3) Is information provided that accelerates the pace of the narrative, such as leaps in time, or are there summaries and decelerations, such as repetitions or detailed descriptions? Once one has collated all this data one must ask whether it displays an order and, if so, what understanding of time that order is operating with, for example whether it is linear, cyclical, or atomistic.

366 See the relevant sections in Lahn/ Meisters and Nitsche/ Utzschneider (see chapter A.1).

#### 2.1 Temporal Order

#### 2.1.1 Fabula

2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 consist in a chronological representation of events. This chronology is only interrupted once, namely during the representation of the plundering of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:9: 13–17). The sequence is as follows:

Jehoahaz (23 years old) succeeds his father to the throne and is proclaimed king. After only three months he is deposed, exiled to Egypt, and replaced by his other brother Eliakim/ Jehoiakim (25 years old); no death notice or any other information is provided. Jehoiakim reigns for eleven years. His period of rule is eventful; after having been a vassal to Babylon for three years he rebels, dies, and is succeeded by his son Jehoiachin (18 years old). Jehoiachin rules for only three months367 before being replaced by his uncle Mattaniah/ Zedekiah (21 years old). His eleven years of rule and an undated rebellion are followed by the precisely dated siege of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem's siege begins on the tenth day of the tenth month of Zedekiah's ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1). The siege continues for the next two years, until a famine breaks out in the ninth month of the eleventh year (vv.2 f.). Reports of the conquest of Jerusalem follow, then the capture of Zedekiah etc. (vv.4–7) and the transport into exile, without precise dating.368

We then have a break in the chronology, for in 2 Kgs 25:8 there is a switch to the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (first indicated in 24:10). Jerusalem is conquered on the seventh day of the fifth month of the nineteenth year of his reign; everything is burned down (25:9) and the population is exiled (vv.12.20 f.). At this point we come across an anachronism, for the temple that had already been burned down is now plundered, an event described in detail (vv.13–17). In v.16 we also find a flashback to King Solomon who had organized the creation of the temple utensils.

We then have the appointment of Gedaliah who, like his generals and the assassin Ishmael, is embedded into his own genealogy by means of names and places (vv. 22 f, 25). Gedaliah is murdered in the seventh month of an otherwise unspecified year (v. 25). As a result, that part of the nation that had not yet been exiled flees to Egypt (vv. 26).

367 According to 2 Chr 36, which is quoted by Josephus and other sources, he ruled for three months and ten days. This number probably has symbolic significance within the context of the Chronicles, which tends to calculate in tens. 30 x3+ 10 = 100 days, which is also 10x10 days or 2 Jubilees (2x [49+1]).

368 Jer 52:11 says that Zedekiah's captivity lasted until his death. This information is missing here.

After a gap in time lasting more than two decades we then read of the release of Jehoiachin, the last king but one, on the twenty-seventh day369 of the twelfth month in the thirty-seventh year of his exile (v. 27); this date coincides with the accession of Evil-Merodach to the Babylonian throne. Once again there is a change in the way time is calculated, back to Judah and the Davidic dynasty. The death of Nebuchadnezzar is not mentioned and Babylonian chronology is no longer taken into account. Jehoiachin's release is followed by his symbolic acceptance and a continual provision for his daily needs all the days of his life (vv. 28–30). It is unclear if this is a reference to the days of the life of Evil-Merodach or Jehoiachin. The temporal end is left open—a stylistic device known from other Biblical texts (cf. Exod 40:38; 1 Kgs 22:54; 2 Chr 36:23; Acts 28:30).370

#### 2.1.2 Story

Within the narrative the age of the kings is integrated into the framing regnal formula and has no independent meaning for itself. Its primary function seems to consist in guaranteeing the unbroken, continuous nature of the history of the kings. References to the genealogical chain also seems to have this function. The length of their rule is not necessarily connected to the space that they take up in the narrative, for although Jehoahaz has the least number of verses, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are granted roughly the same amount of text and Zedekiah gets the most, if we include the conquest and plundering of Jerusalem. Time specifications mark the accession or deposition of kings and sometimes their deaths. The two changes in chronology symbolize the change of sovereignty in Judah, as does the complete withdrawal of Egypt back into its territory (24:7). Important events are dated, e. g. the rebellions of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. The famine under Zedekiah (25:3) and the murder of Gedaliah (25:25) are dated to the month. The only events to be dated to the day are Babylon's second siege of Jerusalem (25:1), the day of Jerusalem's capture (25:8), and Jehoiachin's release from prison (25:27).

At this point the meaning of the phrase "going up in his days" (24:1) is still not clear; it can be connected with either Nebuchadnezzar or Jehoiakim.371 All the years counted together amount to 22.5 years of Davidic rule up until the destruction of the temple and then a further 26.5 years in which Jehoiachin "rules"

369 Jer 52:31 dates this to the twenty-fifth day of this month. The reason could be related to his seventy-year calculation.

370 Jer 52:34 adds "until the day of his death," which presupposes a reference to the death of Jehoiachin.

371 Ant. changes the text to "in those days." This reading leaves no room for interpretation. As a result, the dynastic dimension is almost completed eliminated.

as a exilic king. This makes 49 years altogether (7 x 7), which implies that a year of jubilee is just around the corner.

#### 2.2 Narrative Pace

The first part of the narrative (2 Kgs 23:30–25:7) is narrated in succinct form with a quick pace. It provides us with hardly any details; only the beginning, end and a few stations along the way are marked. Long periods of time are briefly summarized with description limited to only the most necessary elements. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern a slowing down of the pace for the period between Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Whereas we have hardly any information about Jehoahaz, we have more details about Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin's capitulation and deportation are described in detail, and with Zedekiah we transition to the conquest of Jerusalem. In this part of the narrative (25:8–22) the plot slows down considerably; the focus is on the day of the conquest, which is named and described in detail. The precise description of the plundering of the temple (vv. 13–18) contrasts particularly strongly with the previous narrative pace, which is why the action appears to creep along. The deportation is mentioned twice, further reducing the pace (25:11: 22). The Gedaliah pericope comes next (25:22–26), which is once again narrated at a significantly higher pace (roughly like that of Zedekiah). The conclusion is provided by the pardon of Jehoiachin. Here the greatest pace is achieved because no information is provided for the intervening period of several decades (v. 27). Jehoiachin's release is roughly as detailed as the first narrative about him; it ends with a glance towards a future that is almost completely unknown. It ends with a continually open movement.

A summary of the narrative pace reveals the following pattern (see fig. 2). The variations in pace evince a concentric pattern. The pace is very high for Jehoahaz at the beginning and the concluding future outlook at the end (A-A'); it slows down towards both sides of the Jehoiachin scenes (B-B'), speeds up a little for Zedekiah and Gedaliah (C-C'), and finds its centre and slowest point in the conquest and plundering of Jerusalem (D).372 When looked at in light of the turbulent and chaotic nature of the events that are structured by this pattern, the image that comes to mind is that of a whirlwind: towards the centre the action gradually slows down until, upon arrival at the eye of the storm, we are confronted with a blunt, merciless rendering of reality, before the pace picks up again and the whirlwind returns to its roaring.

372 Jehoiakim lies exactly on the descending line; apart from his existence the leap in time has no supporting details so that it has been omitted from this graph.

Fig. 2

### 2.3 Frequency

#### 2.3.1 Twice-Occurring Repetitions

Our narrative contains a series of repeated actions that take place at different points in time. Upon closer analysis these repetitions evince a conspicuous and persistent structure of twofold-repetitions that had already come into view when we outlined the overall structure373 of the pericope:

373 See chapter C.1.

It seems obvious that frequency has a structuring function within the story. It generates connections between various kings from different periods and, as long as the sons of David still rule in Jerusalem (23:30–25:7), gives order to various actions. After this point, frequencing as a stylistic device is largely given up. Given that it is the same subject matter that is repeated, the parallelism functions to indicate key passages, an emphasis further strengthened by the fact that the repetition slows down the pace of reading (see C.2.2). Such repetitions mark significant transformation points in the history of Judah. This dimension will be further analysed below.

### 2.3.2 Striking Repetitions

In addition to twofold repetitions we find a whole series of persons and place names that either have a regular distribution or are especially focussed. Because the narrative is chronological in nature, their frequency provides insight into the temporal development.

### a) YHWH

YHWH plays a role throughout the entire narrative, for the Tetragrammaton occurs twelve times in 23:32–25:16 (mostly in the construct state). The absence of this name from the account of the destruction and plundering of the temple and also afterwards is striking. This character is virtually omnipresent as long as the temple is still standing.

### b) Babylon and Egypt

Nebuchadnezzar or the "king of Babylon" is mentioned eighteen times in all, making him the most frequently mentioned character in our pericope. He appears in 2 Kgs 24:1–25:24 where he replaces Pharaoh, who is mentioned precisely seven times in 23:33–35; 24:7. If we include Nebuchadnezzar's successor Evil-Merodach/ king of Babylon dazu, the Babylonian ruler is even mentioned twenty times.374

Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldean army, and Nebuzaradan appear seven times each in 2 Kgs 25:1–26. Deportation and exile are also mentioned seven times (23:34; 24:15: 16; 25:7: 11: 13: 21). A coming up from Babylon is mentioned three times (24:1: 10 f.; 25:1). Egypt is also mentioned at various points in the narrative (23:34; 24:7; 25:26). The military points of Riblah in the land of Hamath (23:33; 25:6: 20) and Mizpah (25:22: 25) are mentioned four times and twice respectively, with each marking a different violent change in sovereignty over Judah.

374 For the significance of this phenomenon, see "Character Analysis" in C.4.

#### c) Judah

Of all the designations for Judah within the narrative, Jerusalem is the most frequent and widely distributed. It occurs twelve times in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:7 and three times in 25:8–30.

The kings appear in strict chronological order, which is why the names always occur concentrated together. Jehoahaz, for example, is only mentioned in 23:30– 36, three times in all. The four kings are discussed during their lifetimes and reference is made to three who have already died (Josiah 23:30, 34 [2x]; Solomon in 24:13; 25:16: Manasseh 24:3). If one includes their original names, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah are each mentioned seven times, Jehoiachin three times the first time he appears (24:8–17) and twice the second time he appears (25:27–30). His mother is also mentioned three times (24:8, 12, 15).375

Jehoiachin is not the only one to be mentioned five times. Gedaliah is mentioned five times (25:22–26) as well as three groups in 2 Kgs 25: the men before the presence of the king (25:18), the priests and temple guards (25:19), and Gedaliah's military leaders (25:23). The sixty (5x12) men from the people-of-the-land are also arrested and executed (25:19). This use of the number five can only be observed during the phase of the fall of Jerusalem.

The people-of-the-land, on the other hand, appear seven times (23:30, 35 et passim), if we identify the "poorest of the land" (25:12) with the "poorest of the people-of-the-land" (24:14), a reading suggested by Ant., the most ancient textual witness we possess.376 Just as with "Jerusalem" this term occurs throughout the entire period, and as with 'YHWH' it is no longer mentioned after the destruction of Jerusalem.

#### 2.4 Summary and Interpretation

The narrative2Kgs 23:30–25:30 is structured according to a chronological sequence of events that can be divided into two parts. The first part describes the period of the rule of the four kings (23:30–25:7) in an orderly, decelerating form with an overall high narrative pace. This is typical for the end of prosaic (Biblical) books.377

In the second part, with its description of the conquest of Jerusalem, we reach the slowest point in the narrative pace; only towards the end of this section does

375 For more details, see C.4.

376 In the MT we have ץראהתלדמ whereas Ant's. translation corresponds to ץ מ ראה עם דלת .

377 See also F.Blanco Wissmann, Er tat das Rechte 240 f. This is also the true with the book of Kings, e. g. in 2 Kgs 17 (p. 240).

the pace pick up again. Here precise dating plays a greater role than periods of time.378

This development intimates a rupture in the macrostructure, for the temporal structure collapses in on itself. The clear temporal schema that had been integrated into the beginning and end of 2 Kgs 23:30–25:7 (age, years of rule, dynastic connection) is now abandoned from 2 Kgs 25:8 onwards. The Gedaliah pericope does refer to genealogical relations, but only Ishmael is connected with the house of David. In 25:13–17 we find an anachronism and in 25:27 a leap in time as well as a change in dynastic chronology (25:8, 27) which disrupts the narrative's linearity.379

This rupturing of chronological time is further underscored by the déjà vu effect of the twice occurring repetitions within the narrative as well as the constant repetition of characters and places at a frequency of five or seven mentions.

This contrasts with the precise dating that can be as specific as the day one which the event took place (25:27 et passim). This development can be characterized as a move from time as an extended period to time as individual moments. This development is reversed at the end of our text. In 25:27–30 we read of the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin. The narrative has returned to the extended period of Davidic chronology, a time understood to be salvific for Judah.380 We read of the provision of a continual livelihood for an open period of time (25:29 f.)—time as an extended period has returned.

The thirty-seventh year has a second function, one that has already been addressed (see C.2.2), namely that of the year of Jubilee. The total amount of years ruled by the kings of Judah since Josiah, the last good king (see 2 Kgs 22:2; 23:25), amount to forty-nine years, which is the number of the seventh Sabbath year (7 x 7) that is followed by a Jubilee year.381

Other observations reveal a temporal arc that comprehends the entire narrative. 1) The three appearances of Egypt within the narrative mark the beginning of bad times for Judah. 2) YHWH is mentioned twelve times in connection with the temple, the last time in 25:16. 3) The same configuration is true seven times for the people-of-the-land. This is only the case, however, until Jerusalem is burned down and the population exiled, so that the two-fold division is dis-

378 For the issue of a possible text-external model for the dating see the section on the chronology debate in the online appendix to this book. Recently there is a new study by K.Weingart, Geschichte (2020), especially 5–8; 37; 173; 214; 218.

379 Knauf explains these kinds of breaks, which also occur elsewhere in the DtrH, as a reflection of Israel's lack of temporal-linear thought; he argues that Israel oriented itself towards chronological-dynastic time rather than chronological time (see E.A.Knauf, 1 Kgs 53).

380 K.Koch, Zahlen 433–441, especially 440.

381 Koch also notes that the time from the destruction of the temple amounts to half a Jubilee, which signifies that a change is about to take place for the redemption of the nation (see Zahlen 436).

regarded in favour of an overarching framework. What connects these three examples is the fact that they refer to a negative event, so that their (temporal) appearance appears to be limited as a result.

A few further observations are worthy of note that have not yet been treated in our interpretation:

### 3. Spatial Concepts

Spatial analysis triangulates various concepts. Lahn/ Meisters suggest that we first work through all the places and landscapes that are explicitly mentioned in the text, i. e. the settings within which the action takes place, describing them by making use of the information provided by the narrative. As in many other narratives, the Biblical settings are based on real prototypes that the authors have either consciously or unconsciously drawn upon. An overview of these "textexternal anchors" ("textexternen Verankerungen"; B. Schmitz) is provided in an online appendix; in the context of a narrative analysis they can only have descriptive but not instructive significance.383

(1) Settings appear to be static entities, for streets, buildings, trees etc. have fixed locations that cannot be easily changed. However, a spatial concept ori-

382 See G.Galil, Chronology Appendix C (S. 155): the kings of Judah are aged around 21:5 years on average when they accede to the throne. Their successors are born nine months later (22.3) and they die at the age of forty-six.

383 I reflect upon why these text-external horizons could be important for a correct understanding of the narrative and I describe their hermeneutical significance in Verankerungen.

ented towards place is by nature much more dynamic. Change is possible. For example, a house can be painted, a river can be redirected, trees can be felled or planted; fields can be created, etc. (2) In addition to this, 'space' can be filled (narrow – broad), it can be feared (claustrophobia – agoraphobia), both loved (home, parental home etc.) and hated (enemy territory). In this case we have an emotional space. However, spaces can also be ambivalent, for the parental home of one person, for example, can simultaneously be the home of somebody else's hated neighbours. A last refuge for one person can be an enemy's lair for someone else. This is what Foucault so aptly described as heterotopia.384

Spaces are heavily dependent upon the beings that design them, build them, or destroy them. Within a story a space can be seen as real (Jerusalem) and it can be felt (one's home city), but it can also be a place that is yearned for (exiles remembering their own) or a utopia in the sense of a place of promise or hope. Space per se can be intended but space can also be representative of social space, i. e. a family, kingdom, occupational group, collectivity, nation, and much more. All of these movable, transformatory elements will be described and interpreted in the second part of our analysis.

Information will be collected about the relations between individuals, individuals and groups, and between various groups themselves, relations that can be for or against each other or simply parallel to each other. "Relational spaces" refers to the inner boundaries between I and thou, we and ye, spheres of sovereignty and the world views and ideologies that are derived from them; this dimension will require its own separate analysis (spacing), where we will inquire into the nature of these relations and their permeability.

Before a preliminary judgment concerning the narrative's spatial concept can be made it will be necessary to take one final step (3), namely to analyse its relation to the narrative's concept of time. This is because the fourth dimension is also an important part of the concept of space (chronotopy). The following questions are constructive in this respect: Do the observations converge or diverge? Do the results of the spatial analysis confirm or contradict the results of the temporal analysis, or are time and space simply parallel to each other? Is the result a unified picture, i. e. are the individual scenes more like fragments, or is a mosaic created, or does everything change so quickly, occur so parallel, that a kaleidoscope is a more appropriate metaphor?

384 See chapter A.1 above on methodology.

#### 3.1 The Settings of the Narrative

#### 3.1.1 The Southern Kingdom and its Cities

The southern kingdom of Judah is only mentioned very rarely, mostly in connection with individuals (25:27 et passim). It is striking that it is only ever referred to as the sphere of Davidic sovereignty in connection with Jehoiachin in exile (24:12; 25:27). The kings of Judah ceased receiving a comment in this regard (cf. 2 Kgs 21:1.19; 22:1; 23:31.36; 24:8.18)385 from the time of the downfall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17) and onwards.

Within the narrative Judah is used eight times and "the Judeans" once (25:25). 2 Kings 24:2 f. and 20 are concerned with the land and the people of Judah who are the recipients of YHWH's wrath, 25:21 f. is about the execution of YHWH's wrath by means of exile. In 24:5 it occurs as part of Jehoiakim's death notice and three times it is said of Jehoiachin that he is the "king of Judah." At this point we can note that land and people of Judah appear to be interchangeable terms. Only Jehoiachin is said to be their "king." After the destruction of Jerusalem and the instalment of Gedaliah those who are left behind are indeed called "Judeans," but it is only in relation to Jehoiachin during the exile that the meaning is once again open to include the land. Judah as a territorial entity appears in one way or another to be connected with the monarchy.

In addition to the city of Jerusalem, which will be treated separately in its own section, three further places are mentioned within Judah, insofar as we identify it with a historical map:

Libnah (23:31; 25:18) and Rumah (23:36) are cities from which the wives of Josiah and thus the mothers of the queens originate. The narrative does not provide any further comments on these places so that at first glance their significance would appear to be limited. The only striking details is the fact that Jehoiachin's mother, one of the wives of Jehoiakim, is from Jerusalem. Josiah had wives (plural) from Judah whereas Jehoiakim is limited to a much smaller territory.386

Jericho, or to be more precise the steppes before Jericho (25:4 f.), is the region in which Zedekiah is caught while trying to flee. It is also not yet possible to say anything further about this region.387

385 In contrast, from the period of the division of the kingdom until the downfall of Israel all the kings of Judah are explicitly titled as such and their capital is located in Jerusalem (see 1 Kgs 15:1 f., 9f.; 2 Kgs 14:1 f.; 15:1 f., 32 f.; 16:1 f.; 18:1 f.).

386 Jehoiakim became a vassal of Egypt. Below (in section C) we will discuss the question of whether this is connected with the narrowing of his horizon.

387 These statements are somewhat unsatisfying. Given that in accordance with the narrative's historical fictitiousness we may and indeed should assume that the real cities along with their geographic locations etc. ought to be taken into account, I have made a chapter on the

#### 3.1.2 Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the only setting within the entire narrative that is described in detail; after Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar it is also the most frequently used term.388 Jerusalem is mentioned by name 15x; the phrase the city (in Hebrew ריע ה(, which is exclusively reserved for Jerusalem, is used a further five times (24:10 f.; 25:2, 4). The distribution of the name is very regular and ends with the torching of the city in 25:10. It functions as a nomen rectum on five occasions in coordination with the king (23:31, 33, 36; 24:8, 18) and once in coordination with Elnathan, the father of the mother of a king (24:8). In seven cases it refers to the city itself (24:4, 10, 14 f., 20; 25:1, 8), once it its connected with the city walls (25:10), and once with the houses (25:9) in the city.

The city serves as the seat of royal Judean power, which indicates that it is located within Judah, though this is not explicitly confirmed by the narrative itself. The city is besieged twice by Babylon (24:10; 25:1 f.) and suffers once from famine during the second siege (25:3). Before its destruction Jerusalem was in possession of city walls (25:4, 10) and gates, one of which may be referred to (25:4). In addition to houses that are not further defined (25:9) there are also "great houses" or "houses of the Great Ones" (25:9; םיל וד גםית יב( , a house of God (25:9; הוה יתיב( , at least one palace (25:9, ךלמהתיב( , and a garden (25:4; ךלמהןג( .

The area upon which the temple, royal palace and presumably the "garden of the king" are located are all called לכיה) 24:13(. The royal palace is only mentioned twice (24:13; 25:9) and always in connection with the temple. The temple is mentioned six times, seven if one includes the use of the term hechal (24:13; 25:9, 13 [2x]; 25:16). The "house of YHWH" is plundered twice (24:13; 25:13–17); there are three acts of plundering altogether if we include the tribute demanded by Egypt (23:34 f.). In 25:22 all of the above mentioned places in Jerusalem along with the city itself are burned down, plundered, and depopulated.

narrative's text-external anchors available online. The question of what the greater area "Judah" is is particularly unsatisfactory because the text itself does not provide an answer. It will only be possible to analyse this term in the context of our intertextual interpretation (see part C). Important questions are as follows: Is it a place, a social space, a land, a kingdom, all these simultaneously or is it something entirely different?

388 Because the author(s) of 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 was/were most likely (a) Jerusalemite(s) who lived near the temple (see A.2.1.1) and so would have known the city and the temple well this subject is treated in an independent section in the online appendix that accompanies this book.

#### 3.1.3 Egypt, the River of Egypt, and the River Euphrates

Egypt is mentioned three times in the course of the narrative: 1) as the place to which Jehoahaz is exiled (23:34), 2) as the living space of the Egyptians (24:7), and 3) as a place of refuge for those Judeans who remained after the murder of Gedaliah (25:26). It is thus a place to which Judah goes, whether voluntarily or forced, rather than Babylon. The River of Egypt (24:7) seems to serve as a new boarder after all that lies between it and the River Euphrates comes under the control of the king of Babylon (24:7). Regarding Egypt itself, we only have information that is connected with Pharaoh Neco (23:33–35) but not with the setting itself.389

#### 3.1.4 Babylon, Riblah in the land of Chamath, and the Bands of Robbers

Just as with Egypt and Judah, Babylon is barely described in spatial terms. The only elements provided are the "house of chains" אלכתיב , i. e. the prison in Babylon, and a royal palace only hinted at implicitly by reference to the throne/ seats of honour and the act of eating before the king (2 Kgs 25:27–30).390 Nevertheless, with twenty-five mentions Babylon is the most common term in the entire narrative. There are nineteen references to the king of Babylon, four to the exile to Babylon (of which three are related to Jehoiachin and one to Zedekiah), one to a period of stay in Babylon (25:27), and one to the carrying off of the temple treasures to Babylon (25:13),391 all references being evenly distributed.

Riblah in the land of Chamath is described as a place in which foreign rulers both pronounce and execute judgements upon their vassals. Both Pharaoh Neco (23:33) and Nebuchadnezzar (25:6) dethrone kings there. Nebuchadnezzar also carries out public executions there (25:6, 20 f.).392

389 There is much that could be said about Egypt from a historical and inner-Biblical perspective; a portion of this can be found in the character analysis below (C.4) and in section D. At this point it should suffice to note that the River of Egypt may be a "boarder stream" located in any number of possible places but it could also refer to the Nile (see D.Jericke, Ortsangaben 148 f.). Philo of Alexandria (In Fug. 180; Leg I.34) argued that the "River of Egypt" refers to the Nile, so that it is not necessarily the case that a simple boundary river should be assumed.

390 This house is the only building mentioned outside of the Jerusalem.

391 In the sixth Century the historical Neo-Babylonian Empire roughly stretched from Carchemish (in present-day Turkey) in the North to the mouth of the Tigris (its eastern boarder). In the South a clear boarder was formed by the desert, and in the West its boarder was constituted by the Red Sea, the Egyptian sphere of sovereignty, and the Mediterranean. The capital city Babylon was located in the South-East, in the very fertile territory at the point where the Euphrates and Tigris are the closest to each other.

392 The city of Riblah is located on the river Orontes north northwest of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (in the territory of modern Syria), just north of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel.

The bands of robbers described in 2 Kgs 24:2 are not described in any more detail within the context of the narrative. In this context, the Chaldeans, which obviously belong to Babylon because they make up its army (25:4 f., 10, 13, 25 f.), are a "band of robbers". The "sons of Ammon" are similarly introduced as an ethnic group and so are not necessarily limited to a specific territory. In contrast, Moab and Aram are clearly demarcated territories that send out bands of robbers.393 The text does not permit us to identify the origin or relation of any of these groups to Judah. All that can be said with certainty is that their actions transgress established boundaries and that they constitute an independent entity within the broader group of Judah's enemies. It is interesting to note that the reference to the "sons of Ammon" establishes a relation between nations and the mention of "Moab and Aram" establishes a relation between states. The harassment of Judah is comprehensive and 'personal' in the full sense of theword. At this juncture it is not yet possible to identify the cause of this harassment, for we have too little information about the motivation and origin of the bands of robbers.394

#### 3.2 Transformations, Movements, and Relations between Spaces and Groups

#### 3.2.1 Judah: From a Space of Life to a Space of Death

Judah and especially its capital Jerusalem undergo the clearest spatial development. In the beginning (23:30 f.) Jerusalem is a city that is able to choose its own king, that is in possession of a degree prosperity, and, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, whose day-to-day operations appear to run smoothly. This argument from silence is appropriate because the first radical change already takes place in 23:33–36. Pharaoh Neco deposes the king of Judah and takes him to Egypt where he remains until his death (23:33 f.). The next king is installed by Egypt and must immediately pay a penitence fee, which he in turn extracts from the general population (23:33, 35). Gold and silver leave the country, which may have led to lower standards of living. Just a few verses later Egypt is replaced by Babylon (24:1, 7), i. e. Judah receives a new overlord that did not even conquer it personally in battle. The result is a rebellion (24:1) that leads to a state of war with

393 There is very limited historical information that is of relevance here. The neighbouring states of Ammon, Aram, and Moab are all located to the east of Judah and all have a similar size. At this point in time they were already under the influence of Assyria and were vassals of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In addition to this, the territory of Aram contained within it the kingdom of the Maacathites, from which one of Gedaliah's companions originated (see Josh 13:11–13; 2 Kgs 25:23).

394 See C.4 and D.

plundering hordes invading Judah (24:2) and Jerusalem being filled with innocent blood (24:4). Evidently the living space of Jerusalem and Judah is being threatened by chaotic powers that senselessly shed blood, understood to be the seat of life, and extract further goods from Judah.395

Siege is laid against Jerusalem (24:10 f.) after the death of Jehoiakim (24:6) and it can only be saved by Jehoiachin's unconditional capitulation (24:12). This leads to the first great deportation to Babylon of the king and his court; the latter includes the royal mother, the royal wives, and the palace functionaries along with 10,000 military men who are experienced in battle, 7,000 other soldiers along with their leaders, all stonemasons, the smith, and 1,000 artisans, who are called the "pillars of the land" ץראהיל יא) 24:12, 13–16(. Only the poorest of the elite are left behind, the "poorest of the people-of-the-land" ץראהםע) 24:14(. Babylon also plunders the temple treasure, the royal treasure, and all the golden utensils of the temple that were made during the time of Solomon (24:13). A new vassal king is installed in order to rule the now heavily reduced nation (24:17). Here, too, we see how the space of Jerusalem is further disassembled so that there is hardly any space left to live. Judah is now completely occupied and plundered and so ceases to be a space that can operate according to its own dynamic. Its is determined by external forces rather than by natural inner development or the intervention of the people who belonged to it.

Zedekiah rules in Jerusalem, yet the moment he rebels—an autonomous action—(24:20) Babylon returns to the scene as besieger (25:1 f.). This time the army not only draws near to the city, it builds siegeworks around the walls of Jerusalem, so that the living space of the city is bounded and constricted by two walls. The city, the quality of which has already been restricted, begins to suffer hunger (25:3). Enemies from without and starvation from within threaten its very capacity to survive.

395 Krzysztof Kinowski's dissertation on this subject provides us with new insights. He argues that the phrase "innocent blood" was inserted into the text secondarily in order to place the blame on Manasseh. As such, it functions as the interpretive key in the final form of the text to the downfall of Judah. The expression stands for blood guilt that requires vengeance according to the law of talion in order to bring about "radical purification," a necessity according to Deut 29:19. The vengeance for the guilt of Manasseh that is enacted upon Judah is not caused by him alone but also all the un-atoned for murders committed by the sons of David (see, e. g., 1 Kgs 22:35, 38; 2 Kgs 9 f.). This parallels the downfall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17), which had been condemned for Menahem's murderous acts (see, e. g., 2 Kgs 15:16; Hos 14:1) for which there was no other option than the destruction of the entire land (Num 35:33; 2 Kgs 21:13; Ezek 24:6, 11–13) (see Bloodshed; Dissertation PBI Rom2017 [as of yet unpublished]). The relationships to Manasseh that have been worked out here receive a more detailed treatment below in part C of this thesis.

The breaching of the wall (25:4) leads to the flight of the king and his soldiers (25:4–6), robbing the city of its source of protection and even the ability to capitulate in order to save itself.

In rapid succession the city is plundered, with particular attention being paid to the temple as the final location with objects of value (25:13–17). Literally every single object of value that can be transported is taken; two priests and three gate keepers are also taken out of the country and then executed (25:18, 20 f.). As a result, cultic worship in Jerusalem ceases to be a possibility. The removal of all the gold, personnel, and the buildings has rendered Jerusalem as a cultic site dead.

In the meantime, the flight of the king takes him through walls (actually a defensive wall [!]), past a garden, a blossoming sphere of life, into the steppes of Jericho.396 In and of themselves steppes תוב רע are a barely inhabitable space and —especially when compared to gardens or fields—they are clearly not a cultivated living space. In addition to this, they are the place of the arrest of the king, whom no one comes out to help, not even from Jericho; even his men, his last source of protection, abandon him. Zedekiah is taken outside his land (25:6), his sons are killed, he himself is blinded and put into prison in Babylon (25:7). The last two living kings of Judah now find themselves in prison outside of Judah and Zedekiah no longer has any eyes; as such he does not even posses a "field" of vision, a "space" that he can see. The protection that should be provided by the monarchy is definitively extinguished in the flames of the royal palace (25:9). The only kings to remain in the land are the dead kings in their graves in Jerusalem (24:6) and Ishmael as a distant relative (25:25). Kingship as a social "sphere" of sovereignty that functions to guarantee security has now ceased to exist.

And nowa large part the rest of Jerusalem and Judah is removed from the land in a number of different ways: There are defectors, people who are no longer Judaeans, and the city dwellers who survived (25:11). Both groups are taken into exile in Babylon. The third group consists of city officials, cult personnel, and members of the people-of-the-land who still resided within the city (25:18 f.). This group is removed form the land and executed (25:20 f.). After the entire population of Jerusalem has been removed, all the houses are burned to the ground and the walls are torn down (25:9 f.). Jerusalem is now a place that no longer has houses, inhabitants, infrastructure, and protective walls. It no longer has a temple or a palace, so that it is bereft of every cultic and political function. Jerusalem as a "living space" has become a "non-space," a necropolis.

The walls that had once separated this space from the already desolated landscape of Judah have fallen, which means that there is no longer a boundary

396 For a reconstruction of the route taken and the meaning of the expression "between the walls" םית מחהןיב , see B.Collinet, Verankerungen 25–31.

between these two spheres. Babylon has devoured everything, razing it all to the ground.

All that remains are a few Judeans left behind as farmers (25:12) and Mizpah, the seat of a Judean governor rather than a king and son of David (25:21). The governor has no real power, for all he has are five army commanders and some soldiers from Babylon. Three of his officials are from Judah, the fourth is a Maacathite (25:23), from one of the neighbouring lands that had invaded Judah (24:2).397 The fifth is Ishmael, a sons of David who kills Gedaliah and all who are with him (25:25). This event is followed by the flight of Ishmael and all those who had remained in Judah to Egypt (25:26). Although as little is said about Mizpah's destruction as about the destruction of Jericho, Libnah, and Rumah, it is clear they are all abandoned places. There is no longer a single living Judean in Judah. That land that once flowed with milk and honey has now become a wilderness, a non-place, a u-topia.398

#### 3.2.2 Egypt: An Ambivalent Space

Egypt signifies a sphere of sovereignty. At the beginning of the narrative its key elements are foreign domination and threat (23:33–35). It is a sphere of power that dominates Judah, is capable of deposing its kings, and possess territory stretching as far as Riblah. It lies both to the west and north of Judah. In 23:34 it is clear that for Judah Egypt is a sphere of captivity and death, for it is the place to which Jehoahaz is exiled and where he dies. However, Egypt's power is demonstrated not only in its appointing of new monarchs but also in Pharaoh's granting them new throne names, which has the effect of establishingaclear boundary and hierarchy. With the imposition of tribute, a large quantity of silver and gold makes its way to Egypt (23:34 f.) so that it not only increases in power but also prosperity.

The second time Egypt appears in the narrative its power has been strongly curtailed. The Judean king is now under the dominion of Babylon and even if he could have given loyalty to Egypt (his throne name is not changed) he eventually dies and so Egyptian influence is irretrievably lost (24:1, 6). Relative to Babylon Egypt loses a significant amount of power for it is driven back to its river, i. e. all of its northern territories are lost, including Riblah (24:7; 25:6). However, there is no talk of a deportation of Egyptians, Pharaoh is neither described as dependent on Babylon nor is he obliged to pay tribute. Egypt's "living space" remains thus

397 See the discussion in the online appendix to this book.

398 For an intertextual discussion of this image, particularly as it occurs, e. g., in Mic 3:12, see the relevant chapter in part D. I use the term "u-topia" in the same sense as Thomas Morus in his work Utopia, for whom it has the dual meaning of a non-place (ou-topos) and, simultaneously, a promised or beautiful place (eu-topos) (see T.Morus, Utopia [1516] intr.s

intact, even if reduced in size, which means that it continues to enjoy a degree of protection against Babylon within the limits of its own boundaries.

The third time Egypt is mentioned (25:26) there is no longer a reference to Pharaoh as ruler, the Judeans do not go there as prisoners, and their death is not reported. Even though itwould not be fully accurate to say that they went to Egypt 'voluntarily', for it was fear of the Chaldeans that drove them to flee (25:26), flight was nevertheless an option that they personally chose. For them, Egypt could be conceived as a "living space." However, Egypt appears to be nothing more than a mere "survival space," for in contrast to Babylon we are provided with no further information about the fate of Judah or Ishmael the son of David. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Egypt has been transformed from a game changing "big player" to a lion licking its own wounds; in the end, it cannot even be considered a social space, for Pharaoh is not present to either receive or reject the Judeans. Egypt has become the place of Judah's self-imposed exile.

#### 3.2.3 Babylon: A Desolation with an Oasis

Babylon is consistently portrayed as powerful and threatening. It is a space that is permanently enlarging itself. This can be seen in its acquisition of territory and objects of value (24:1 f., 7, 10–17; 25:1 f., 4–6, 9–15), the number of nations it controls (24:1 f., 7), and the number of verses in which Babylon appears (see the graph399 in fig. 3). In this way it becomes an entity that takes up space within the narrative.

Beyond these initial observations we discover that Babylon is also a very dynamic space. It is the point of departure for armies going into battle (24:1, 10; 25:1) and it is the place to which people are brought (24:15 f.; 25:13). Its inhabitants do not have the same name as the land ( םיד שכ ( and they find themselves in constant movement. This is exemplified by the "king of Babylon" לבב־ך למ himself, who moves from Babylon to Judah (24:1), then Egypt (24:7) and Jerusalem (24:11), then Babylon again (24:16), then Jerusalem again (25:1, 8), and finally to Riblah (25:6, 20). This movement evinces an A-B-A'-C-A''-D pattern; if we include the reference to Evil-Merodach as לבב־ך למ then this route ends in Babylon (25:27), though the schema would have led us to expect Judah to be the final station.400

In parallel to the group 'Egypt' note should be made of the acts of going out (23:33), returning home (24:7), and being in one's own land (25:26). The two also have in common that no mention is made of their own cities, only the places over

399 This graph does not articulate the active-passive relation. In most verses Babylon is an agitator with Judah/Jerusalem and Egyptian being reactors.

400 Only the broader context enables us to interpret Babylon as a "new Judah" (see D.5.3).

Fig. 3

which they have dominion, such as Riblah. This further accentuates the dynamic. Babylon's need to move infects the occupied nations for, whether intended or not, we read of the movements of bands of robbers (24:2) and Judah's deportations (24:15 f.; 25:11 et passim).

One result of Babylon's permanent movement is that it enriches itself while devastating other territories. Whereas Egypt had only demanded tribute from Judah (23:34 f.), Babylon takes whatever it wants with no consideration for the well-being of the conquered areas (i. e. it plunders the territories and the deports the elite). Nothing stands in its way, neither military opponents such as Egypt or the kings of Judah, nor stones, such as walls or houses; apparently even YHWH does not stand in his way, for his name is no longer mentioned after the torching and sacking of the temple (25:10, 16). From this we can conclude that Babylon represents the power of chaos that threatens to devour Judah; Judah has no option but to rebel in order to retain its own living space (24:1.20), an action all the more necessary since YHWH apparently refuses to grant his own protective "space" (24:2–4).

In this manner Babylon's (social) space is characterized by a certain ruthlessness, for it takes space at any cost. Whoever does not immediately capitulate when under siege (24:7.10–12) is eliminated (25:1–21). At first glance Babylon appears to be nothing other than the chaotic powers of tohu wavohu.

However, it is possible to identify other dimensions; these find their high point in the concluding scene (25:27–30). In his text Zum ewigen Frieden (1795) Kant states that "the problem of a well organized state […] is solvable even for a nation of devils (as long has they are rational)." 401 By this he means that an organized form of government is necessary for the preservations of one's private interests. This is demonstrated by the 'chaotic power' of Babylon in various places.

Babylon accepts a Western boarder with Egypt (24:7) and thus a minimum of self-limitation. Its first makes its subdued nations vassals (24:1 f.) and facilitates their subjugation (24:10–12; 25:1 f.), even if this is primarily for the sake of its own troops. On two occasions they install an administrator in Judah, with Zedekiah even being allowed to retain his royal status with his own court (24:17 f.). Gedaliah is only a governor and is no longer located in Jerusalem (25:22 f.), yet Babylon provides him with troops so that he can organize the land (25:22–25). Enough people are left behind as farmers so that continued existence remains possible (25:12). The financial, cultural, and cultic reserves of the country are only removed in their entirety after a second rebellion (25:8–21). This means that an independent if limited life would have been possible beforehand, even if Babylon's primary interest was taxes rather than the prosperity of the subjected territory. Babylon only demonstrates its power to destroy all life when executing its captives (25:6 f., 18–21) and torching Jerusalem (25:9 f.), and even here these acts are only carried out upon royal instruction. It is interesting that the king chooses Riblah in the land of Chamath to be the setting for such executions, a place that Egypt had already used as a seat of judgement (23:33; 25:6, 20 f.). Continuity is also provided in Babylon's decision to grant new throne names (23:34; 24:17). Babylon is not a legal vacuum; it is willing to maintain legal regularities. It has the power to construct and transform spaces. Egypt becomes smaller, Riblah remains the same. Jerusalem is utterly annihilated whereas Mizpah is promoted. Spaces can be depopulated and plundered, but—as is the case with Babylon—they can also be enriched with wealth and culture.

In 2 Kgs 25:27–30 Babylon is transformed. Jehoiachin, the captured king of Judah, is released from prison אלכתיב and brought to the king of Babylon where he is promoted in several respects. He can leave his imprisoned space and now eat before the king, i. e. he is allocated a new space (25:28–30). He is spoken to in a friendly manner ( תוב סרבד ( and he is allowed to change his clothing (25:28 f. הנש דגב( . He receives a seat of honour אסכ not only alongside but over the thrones of all the other kings in Babylon. Sentences passed can be revised, life in Babylon can be made possible. This becomes particularly clear in the reference to bread (25:29 f.), which contrasts sharply with the famine in Jerusalem (25:3).

Babylon turns out to be a heterotopos402 in several ways. On the one hand it is a threatening and overpowering place, on the other it is an oasis in the middle of a

401 I.Kant, Frieden, 222 f.

402 For an explanation of this term according to Foucault, see the section on method in the introductory chapter A.1.

desert that it itself has created. It is also the place in which Judah's cultural, cultic, and royal potential resides—even as it continues to live in captivity. Judah and Babylon achieve a degree of congruence. In this sense, we can say that it is Judah rather than Babylon that changes its spatiality. A territorial entity in a particular land has become a people in Babylon. This applies to Judah itself403 (25:27) rather than the ethnic group of the Judeans (25:26), for what is located in Babylon is the king with all the personnel that he requires for his civic duties as well as the temple's cultic objects. From a spatial perspective Judah has become a place of (felt) belonging.

#### 3.3 Chronotopicity

From the perspective of the relation between time and space we must note at this point that we are still not able to resolve any of the questions left open at the end of our temporal analysis. The tendencies that we have identified thus far continue to be valid, such as the description of the conquest of Jerusalem as constituting the climactic, slowest point in the temporal development, as well as the presence of a sudden change in 2 Kgs 25:27–30. The slow deceleration of the pace towards this centre along with its gradual acceleration after this point has been passed can also be found in the spatial structure. This is because the nation constantly shrinks in size through deportations, defectors, and executions (for this observation to stand we must establish that the relational entity 'Judah' is the core theme of the interpretation). Our various observations thus reinforce each other in relation to the overall plot.

A similar pattern emerges when we relate the more frequent term 'Babylon' to the phenomenon of a shrinking Judah or Jerusalem. Although Babylon only first appears in 24:1, it narrows the spatial perspective and decelerates the plot. As a result, the transformation of Jerusalem into a space characterized by lifelessness co-occurs with the creeping, almost paralysed pace of the narrative. The appearance of Babylon and—as we will see when we analyse the characters—the actions of Nebuchadnezzar and his servants force Jerusalem into slow motion.

The temporal change from Egyptian to Babylonian hegemony merges with the spatial changes, especially in 2 Kgs 24:7. Nebuchadnezzar's dynastic chronology is parallel to the devastation of Judah's space, just as the return of a Davidic chronology for Jehoiachin parallels the simultaneous emergence of a new "living space" in Babylon. Egypt also corrects the temporal incoherence of a younger brother sitting on the throne before his elder brother by removing the one and

403 It is still not yet clear what kind of a space Judah is; all we know is that it is correlated with Jehoiachin as its king.

installing the other. We can thus see that already at this point in the story the order that prevailed before Babylon (as postulated in chapter C2) had already been dented by Egypt. As such, there never is a fully intact Judean monarchy within the scope of this narrative.

This impression is further reinforced by a number of observations concerning the royal history of Judah. From a spatial perspective the dynastic references to Solomon, Manasseh, and Josiah are always connected with negative events. Under Jehoiakim the son of Josiah (23:34) the scope of Judah's sovereignty is limited by Egypt. The reference to Manasseh is linked to the spilling of innocent blood that floods Jerusalem (24:3 f.). Solomon is mentioned (24:13; 25:16) when the cultic objects are removed from the temple. Every temporal reference to the past royal history of Judah only serves to highlight what has been lost since then; the "space" of tradition thus becomes a symbol of loss. This is closely connected to the kings' brief periods of rule. The "space" of tradition and the "period" of rule shrink in equal measure. The climax of a false understanding of tradition is achieved during the rule of Jehoiakim, who follows Manasseh rather than Josiah; however, missteps also occur during the reign of Zedekiah. Jehoiachin is the son of Jehoiakim, the elder brother, and he ascends the throne after the latter's death. However, Zedekiah is presented as his uncle דוד , a successor from an antecedent dynastic era who succeeds a still living king. Every perspective he may have had for the future is extinguished with the execution of his children and the removal of his eyes. The possibility of a future only becomes conceivable again with Jehoiachin, who is presented as the king of Judah (25:27). In Zedekiah the spatial and temporal aspects of the de(con)struction of Judah's history merge, in Jehoiachin they reappear—albeit twenty-six years later and at the other end of the Babylonian empire, i. e. the greatest conceivable distance from Judah.

It is also interesting to see how time and space are combined in Zedekiah's abandonment of Jerusalem. He attempts to flee during the night (25:4 הליל ה(, which is the only verse that makes reference to specific time in the day, and he does so through the walls, i. e. through a shadowy space, thereby ending his protection of Jerusalem. This marks the beginning of the time in which Jerusalem will be plunged into ash-filled darkness. The next concrete reference to time is the precise dating of the destruction of Jerusalem, in the context of which we find the only anachronism in the narrative (see C.2). The darkness of night is exchanged for the glaring light of an all-devouring fire that is even able to consume the temple of God, thus causing Judah's microcosmic world to collapse definitively. At precisely this point, right after the destruction of 2 Kgs 25:9, time itself is also ruptured, the cosmic equilibrium is disrupted. The image painted by the narrator of 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 can hardly be surpassed in its drama and intense emotionality.

The next event to be dated is the murder of Gedaliah. This triggers the final abandonment of Judean space by the last free scion of the house of David, Ishmael, and thus the final moment in which Judah's history is spatially and temporally demolished.

Jehoiachin's rehabilitation, which leads to a resumption of spatial and temporal categories that are open to the future, only occurs after a leap in time and a change in place. The final scene is detached from the rest of the narrative both spatially and temporally.

In sum, we have been able to identify a convergence in spatial and temporal conceptualisations that are not only coherent but also mutually reinforcing. In what follows we shall ask whether the same dynamic can be identified in an analysis of the narrative's characters.

#### 3.4 Spacing (Martin Löw404)

This part of the analysis has already been partially discussed above in chapter 3.2, and some of it can only be clarified either during or after the character analysis (C.4.3). For this reason, we will here only reflect up a number of key points and formulate the relevant questions.

404 For M. Löw's understanding of the term and its use in Biblical scholarship, see A.1.

defined. It may be possible to clarify this relation in the context of a character analysis; the same is true regarding criteria for the actions of the kings.

#### 3.5 Summary and Interpretation

Our spatial analysis has provided us with a wealth of information. To simply collate it all here would be too reductionistic. Instead, I will only name the most important points and further substantiate them.

In the course of this narrative Judah and Jerusalem in particular develop from a living environment to a u-topos. Egypt is more of a fringe figure that is soon pushed to the margins by Babylon. Babylon appears to have all the characteristics of a tyrant and yet it, too, is subject to development. Although it destroys the living space of Jerusalem and Judah, in exile it offers a new living space to the king and people of Judah. Jerusalem, temple, and the entity Babylon are spaces with which the readers can identify emotionally (sympathetische Räume).405 The way they are portrayed, including the developments they go through, evoke a variety of emotions in the reader, such as helplessness, mourning, hopelessness, fear, and hope.

These emotions are not arbitrary. They are intentionally evoked by the narrative, as can be demonstrated with a number of examples.

S. Jafet has pointed out that in Chronicles the construction of the walls of Jerusalem are dated, whereas in 1 Kgs 9:15–19 they are simply portrayed as completed.406 In the context of Kings these walls symbolize Judah's physical

405 See J.Schneider, Einführung 42.

406 S.Japhet, Wall 205–219, especially 207.

strength, which is extinguished under Zedekiah.407 As such, Zedekiah's abandonment of the walls in 25:4 has a symbolic meaning that can be clearly felt.

The shock of this moment is increased if we agree with L.J. Hoppe408 that from the time of Josiah onwards Jerusalem itself and not just the temple was considered the primary sanctuary. In this case, the breaching of the walls amounts a violation of the gift of YHWH, who does not intervene, just as he had threatened in 2 Kgs 24:2–4. With the fulfilment of this threat he ceases to exercise influence upon the city409—or does he? In any case, Jerusalem is no longer a place that can help itself; the fortress of God is threatened.410

A second example is the plundering of all the precious metals in Judah and the temple in particular, an act that includes payments of gold and silver as tribute as well as the smashing of the bronze basin and the pillars of Boaz ("in him is strength" and Yachin ("YHWH makes firm"). In his study of metals in the Bible, K.Singer makes the following interesting observations:

Gold is a powerful metal that is used for cultic objects in particular and which cannot be made impure by fire.411 In the context of the Jerusalem temple only gold can be used for the most important objects. Nevertheless, it is never directly associated with YHWH so that it cannot be mistaken as an idol.412 In general it is used for "gifts, tribute, as an object of trade, as a means of profit through wisdom," but also as a symbol of "theft, robbery, betrayal, and greed." 413

Silveris more valuable forfinancial rather than cultic reasons. The presence of silver in a land displays that land's well-being, for only silver was used as currency.414 Its absence is a setback forworldy power, just as the loss of gold leads to a loss of cultic power.415 Because silver can be purified by fire it fulfils the cultic function of repentance; its loss signifies that something is unforgiveable.416 Singer summarizes as follows:

Whenaland loses its silver it is overcome by poverty and desolation. On an individual level the loss of this precious metal leads to distress and social disadvantage […] human trafficking, theft, treacherousness, apostasy […] unbridled craving for silver […] corruptibility, infidelity, lying oracles, greed, and hybris […] In a political context the

414 See ibid. 41.

407 Ibid. 213.

408 L.J.Hoppe, Jerusalem 107–110.

409 See O.H.Steck, Zion 265.

410 See ibid. 272; 278.

411 See K.Singer, Metalle 32; 39; 58; 79.

412 See ibid. 161 f.; 164 f.

413 Ibid. 56.

415 See ibid. 79; 172 f.

416 See ibid. 81; 101 mit Ausnahme von Deut 7,25.

unlimited acquisitiveness of silver […] leads to the vulnerability of a militarily weak state to foreign threats.417

According to Singer bronze, the most frequently mentioned of the valuable metals, symbolizes hardness, malleability, and the potential for creating weapons.418 It is of little cultic value, though the similarity of its colour to gold led to its cultic use during times of need in the pre-exilic period.419 Its primary function is military in nature, where it stands for invulnerability.420 What all valuable metals share in common is that they can lead people astray morally; in this capacity they are considered harmful.421

If we take these symbolic meanings into account and assume that the reader would have intuitively understood the negative impact the loss of precious metals would have had for the land, then we can conclude that the Judah's fate was already presaged with its first payment of tribute. First, all economic resources disappear, for after 2 Kgs 23:34 f. silver is only mentioned one more time; then large quantities of material suitable for cultic and military purposes are lost; finally, there is the loss of the great symbols of national invulnerability in the form of the temple objects. Gold and bronze had made this place into a fortress; as divine trophies these objects displayed YHWH's victory over chaos; Boaz and Yachin are names signifying strength, the bronze basin displays God's overcoming of the chaotic waters. Conversely, their destruction or plundering implies that God is impotent.422

These two example should suffice to demonstrate how the reader is being guided through the construction of space within the narrative. The following character analysis will show whether and, if so, how Judah, Babylon, the Egyptian Pharaoh, and Israel's neighbouring nations interact with each other, how they act and whether these actions correspond to the results of our spatial analyses.

### 4. Analysis of Characters and Their Actions

As we have already demonstrated in A.1 and C.0, 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30 as a narrative is primarily oriented towards the actions of its characters rather than they psyche or their development as individual persons. Our discussion of method (A.1) has

417 Ibid. 76; 78.

418 See ibid. 46–48; 104–106; 113.

419 Cf. ibid. 108 f.; 184. K.Singer references 1 Kgs 14:27 and parallels and Isa 60:17.

420 See ibid. 179.

421 See ibid. 133. If copper is meant rather than bronze then sinfulness is symbolized by the verdigris that devours (for Biblical references, see pp. 111 f.).

422 For details, see the discussion of the symbolism and iconography of the temple in the online appendix to this book.

already shown how little we know about the inner life or the physical features of the characters. This effect is further strengthened by the almost total absence of direct speech.423 Nevertheless, there are still a number of cases of "indirect characterization" ("indirekter Figurencharakterisierung") 424 in which we are provided with additional information about a character's status, place of residence, relationships, degree of freedom or confinement, instrumentalization, power relations etc. Given that the author wasaJudean in Babylonian exile (see A.2.1), the online appendix to this book will provide an excursus on the relationships between Judah and its neighbouring countries in the sixth Century along with socio-historical observations concerning society, cult, and law in the ancient Near East in general and Judah in particular. This information supports our analysis in that it opens up to us the "sociology of the characters" ("Figurensoziologie"; Schneider)425, the agreement between the characters as literarily construed, and the conceptual horizon of the text's author and potential original addressees. This is the only way in which we can determine the narrative's subtle strategies for generating sympathy with its characters among its original readers, and this in turn helps us as modern readers better identify and interpret unclear feelings and tensions.426

These preliminary considerations raise several questions for the following analysis:

423 I.Müllner (Gewalt 54) correctly points out how important direct speech is for the reconstruction of a character's inner world. Its absence renders a number of criteria for character analysis unusable (see p. 60).

424 J.Schneider, Einführung 24.

425 Ibid. 26.

426 See ibid. 29 f. Schneider adds the important qualification that it is difficult to analyse the emotional level or the strategies for engendering a sympathetic response for they are subject to the intuitions of each individual reader and their own distinctive horizons. The key work for grasping the significance of this observation and its intellectual roots is H.G. Gadamer's Wahrheit und Methode (1961), which provides the foundation for Schneider's concept of "horizon" as well as all theories of reader response processes, i. e. interpretation.

### a) Jehoahaz (23:30b–34)

The first king of Judah to be mentioned in this narrative is also the one about whom we know the least, for hardly any information is provided about him beyond what can be found in the regnal formula. This formula tells that Josiah, Jehoahaz's father, is buried and that Jehoahaz succeeds him. We are also told the name of his mother and her background, his age upon acceding to the throne, and the length of his rule. An assessment of his rule is also provided (23:30 f.). Nevertheless, there are some divergences from the classic version of the regnal formula, for he is not the natural successor to his father. The people-of-the-land chose him to be king in place of his older brother Eliakim. He is also the first of the kings for whom reference is only made to Jerusalem rather than Judah when they are enthroned. This indicates the highly restricted scope of his sovereignty. The legitimacy of his rule is not guaranteed and it is also not initiated by a significant act such as a prophetic anointing. In 23:33 Jehoahaz suddenly appears in Riblah without ever actually going there; there he is put in chains by Pharaoh Neco and a "penitence fee" ( שנע ( is required of his land, something that Jehoahaz's successor must provide for (23:34 f.). He himself is brought to Egypt by himself, without his court or his mother,428 where he dies in a manner that is not reported. His body is not brought back to Jerusalem and so the report of his life lacks the concluding element of the regnal formula.429

The name 'Jehoahaz' is mentioned exactly three times within these few verses and its meaning is "YHWH initiates / begins to do." This initiative could refer to the fact that the people of Judah have taken upon themselves to choose a king. Jehoahaz himself never acts, he is only the object of the actions of others. He is always completely passive, whether during his enthronement, his deposition, or his exile. As such, the "strangely negative" 430 assessment of his reign is surprising. His failures seem to only consist in his unwillingness to fulfil his obligation of

427 It is necessary at the outset to make a few observations concerning the history of interpretation. Most monographs and commentaries interpret the kings of Judah in 2 Kgs 23:30– 25:30 in light of the much more detailed versions found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In my opinion this compromises these chapters' own distinctive witness. Given the degree to which these works mix the various versions together it is hardly possible to cite this in this chapter. Examples are the dissertations by C.Seitz, E.Aurelius and J.Job.

428 See K.-D.Fricke, 2 Kgs 342.

429 For the absence of the concluding formulae in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30, see M.J.Suriano, Politics 89; 126.

430 K.-D.Fricke, 2 Kgs 340.

rejecting the throne as the younger brother and to stand up to Egypt as Judah's king.431

#### b) Jehoiakim (23:35–24:7)

The second king of Judah in the narrative is called Eliakim. He was the actual claimant to the throne after Josaiah's death432 and is enthroned by Pharaoh Neco (23:34). This comes with a price, for he muss subordinate himself to the Pharaoh, which leads to a change in his name to 'Jehoiakim' 433 and his obligation to pay money (23:34 f.). He does not pay the gold and silver himself, he does not touch the royal and temple treasures, rather he lets the people-of-the-land pay, those who had chosen his brother Jehoahaz over him. There would seem to be tension between him and this collective entity.434

Jehoiakim is the last of the kings of Judah and the only one of the four in our narrative who is granted a complete regnal formula (23:36 f.; 24:5 f.). His age, the name of his mother and her ancestry provide little information about his actions. In v. 36 he, too, receives a negative assessment. As with Jehoahaz, this assessment is connected with his ancestors in the plural, thus making the entire Davidic dynasty liable for YHWH's judgement. The formula concerning his death in 24:5 f. corresponds precisely with the schema and v. 6 also only tells us that Jehoiakim dies and his son Jehoiachin succeeds him.435 Jehoiakim the lawful successor dies according to the schema and is buried, everything in accordance with usual standards in Judah.436

The complete regnal formula and the narration of these acts of state are surprising when we read about the rest of Jehoiakim's life. The narrative portrayal is far more detailed and negative than that of his brother Jehoahaz, who had to die in prison and whose schema only appears in broken form.437

431 In order to avoid making a rash judgement here, notice should be taken of the text-external anchors documented in the online appendix to this book.

432 See K.-D.Fricke, 2 Kgs 338.

433 The older commentaries see this kind of subordination as sacrilegious and malum in se (see E.Reuss, La Bible 7 572).

434 This view is shared by Sanda, 2 Kgs 360; E.Würthwein, 2 Kgs 467–469; J.Werlitz, Kgs 311 f.

435 Despite the complete schema a number of exegetes point out Jehoiakim's negative lifestyle which can be found implicitly within the concluding formula, e.g. U.Schulze/ G.Steuernagel, Aussage 267–275, especially 268–271.

436 The online appendix to this book explains what is meant by "usual." Würthwein, drawing on Ant and 2 Chr 36, suspects that the burial took place in the garden of Uzzah, as with Manasseh and Amos. This would accord with the king's garden in 2 Kgs 25:4 f..This detail would then be missing in the MT due to Homoioteleuton (see E.Würthwein, 2 Kgs 469).

437 Fricke explains this fact in reference to Jeremiah, who predicts a horrible end for Jehoiakim: "Because this prophecy […] does not appear to have been fulfilled, an anxious scribe decided it might be better to ignore Jehoiakim's funeral" (see K.-D.Fricke, 2 Kgs 344).

Jehoiakim ascends to his throne with the help of Egypt, Judah's archenemy, and he even pays Egypt to do this (23:33–35). However, he does not benefit too much from this deal. Before long, "in his days" ( וימ יב( , the new superpower Babylon appears on the scene and subjects him to its authority (24:1). He responds by rebelling, which should be understood as the insurrection of a servant rather than the deed of a free ruler. As a result of this action, which is assessed negatively for reasons unknown to us, YHWH438 "throws" bands of robbers against him and they plunder all of Judah. This demonstrates that Jehoiakim's sphere of influence is limited to Jerusalem (24:2). Yet this is not the end of the bad news. YHWH is so furious that now is the time that the prophetic words that had previously announced Judah's downfall come to fulfilment (see part D). The kingdom of Judah is rejected by YHWH for a) the sins of Manasseh and b) the innocent blood that has been spilt in Jerusalem (24:3 f.). All the other information that we have about Jehoiakim is found in the regnal formula (24:5). Apparently they were not considered worthy of more detailed treatment.

Jehoiakim is alluded to two more times within the narrative, so that he receives seven mentions altogether. These two are extremely negative. 24:9 states that Jehoiachin acted badly before YHWH just like "his father" ( ויב א(. This is the first time in 1–2 Kgs that the plural is not used. Josiah, the ancestor who had been assessed positively, is not in view here; only Jehoiakim as father provides the link of continuity for all the bad things committed in the past; his own bad deeds were connected with Manasseh.

The second reference can be found in 24:19 in connection with Zedekiah, the final king and Jehoiakim's younger brother. Of him, too, it is said that he did what was bad "as Jehoiakim had done before him." His name is even mentioned explicitly; he is thereby referred to as a predecessor, unlike the rest of the ancestors who are not mentioned at all in connection with Zedekiah. At the end of the narrative Jehoiakim thus assumes responsibility for the deeds of the entire dynasty.

In light of these observations we can conclude that Jehoiakim is by far the worst ruler of Judah within the entire narrative, and yet he fares better than all the others. Although this demands an explanation, the narrative is not willing to provide one.439 This may be partly connected with the fact that the person of

438 In the great LXX documents the reference to YHWH is missing, so that Nebuchadnezzar is the subject who unleashes the bands upon Judah. This may have served to rehabilitate God's image (so also W.Dietrich, Prophetie 61 fn. 41).

439 Barnes fills this unsatisfactory gap with the claim that Jehoiakim was assassinated and that this was his punishment (see W.E.Barnes, 2 Kgs 320). Yet there is nothing in the text to warrant such a reading, which is why it must be rejected.

Manasseh cannot be understood without the broader context (cf. part D), but that he simultaneously provides a key to God's verdict.440

#### c) Jehoiachin (24:8–17; 25:27–30)

Jehoiachin is the only figure apart from Nebuchadnezzar and YHWH who appears in more than one scene. His two appearances are connected with each other in 25:27 by means of a time specification that transforms the three-months of his rule over Judah (24:8) into a period spanning decades. Jehoiachin thus has the longest term in office of all the kings of the narrative, a circumstance that normally signifies divine benevolence.441 His capitulation also seems to speak in his favour, despite the fact that it led to the loss of the temple's treasures in 24:13. This is because the narrative's description of the event mentions the name of Solomon, a symbol of comprehensive peace, a peace that guarantees the continuity of Jerusalem but which can only be fully grasped in the context of the narrative of Kings as a whole (see part D). Jehoiachin sacrifices himself for his people. By doing so, he proves himself to be the rightful king of Judah. He is not a usurper like Jehoahaz and no vasal like his father, for he had rebelled and thus made his son into a free successor. Jehoiachin is the rightful successor in the Davidic line and he never swore an oath to Nebuchadnezzar, for otherwise Jerusalem would not have come under siege and he would never have spent decades in prison. Zedekiah, on the other hand, would become a complete vassal, indeed he is not really a king in the proper sense of the word. Jehoiachin goes into exile and his wives, who are not mentioned in 24:11 f., are allowed to accompany him (24:15). This, too, is a positive sign, for no potential successor to the eighteen-year-old is mentioned in the text. These women thus embody the possibility that the dynasty may survive.

Despite all this, the regnal formula's assessment of him and his actual period of rule (24:8 f.) are negative. This begs the question of why. What are his crimes?

In the first instance it isworth considering the proximity of his pericope to that of his uncle Jehoahaz. As with Jehoahaz, he is mentioned three times in the first part of the narrative, and there are also other parallels between the two in terms of content. Both are deported, both only reign for three months, both are replaced by another ruler, and both never reduce themselves to a state of vassalhood. Yet whereas this behaviour leads to Jehoahaz's death in an Egyptian prison, Jehoiachin continues to play a role (25:27–30). He is mentioned twice and is upgraded to "king of Judah," a title that none of the four kings in the first part of the

440 The only exception is the Codex Alexandrinus, which takes Zedekiah rather than Manasseh to be the principle offender (see J.Pakkala, Zedekiah's Fate 445).

441 Manasseh is an exception to this rule, for his reign lasted fifty-five years despite his catastrophic religious policies. Hellenistic Judaism responded to this anomaly by adding details to the version found in Chronicles and by the apocrypha. For details, see part D.

narrative bore; they were all kings "in/of Jerusalem" ( םיל שׁ ריב ( rather than "of Judah" ( הדוה יב( . His name means "YHWH makes firm/establishes," which predestines Jehoiachin to become a promise for Judah. After all his years in exile he is released from prison and receives a whole series of benefits that improve the quality of his life. These observations speak against connecting Jehoiachin's guilt with that of Jehoahaz. Instead they raise the question of why and to what degree his situation in exile under Evil-Merodach improves.

The first thing we read about is the fact of a twenty-six-year prison sentence that Jehoiachin has fulfilled. On the one hand, this means that he has had to endure a long detention; on the other had, it means that the Babylonians have allowed him to remain alive.442 His receipt of daily rations (25:29 f.) may indicate that his food has either improved in quality or increased in quantity, but this is not such a significant development.443 Even the setting up of thrones or seats of honour does not necessarily amount the granting of honour. They could just as easily suggest a legal proceeding in which Jehoiachin is granted improved conditions as an act of clemency on the occasion of Evil-Merodach's accession to the throne.444 The thrones could also characterize Jehoiachin as Babylon's newest vassal.445 Similarly, history teaches us that eating "before-the-presence-of-theking" is also ambivalent.446

The final scene portrays an improved situation that, from a purely human perspective, can hardly be considered significant and which requires a broader context in order to become meaningful. How ever it is interpreted, the event is certainly not negative and it also does not explain the nature of Jehoiachin's guilt, which has still not been forgiven. In light of the first scene (24:8–17) it may be that Jehoiachin's guilt consists in his continuation of what his father had done.447 But it is also possible that he has sinned against God, for example by surrendering to Babylon rather than trusting in YHWH's salvation as his predecessor Hezekiah

442 In Jer 52 this observation is sustained up until the death of Jehoiachin. In 2 Kgs 25:30 Jehoiachin is still alive, he still has a future-oriented function. For this view, see the older commentaries, such as I.Benzinger, Kgs 200; O.Thenius, Kgs 467 f.

443 This moment of a minimal improvement supports a philological observation made by Disse, a student of the Richter school. He identifies the continuity as an "adSyn2," i. e. as an abnominalis as an undetermined supplement. This means that it is a syntactically undetermined form that may function to underscore the patronizing nature of the deed (see A.Disse, Informationsstruktur 176; 197).

444 See M.Weigl, Achikar-Sprüche 304, especially fn. 97. The expression "to raise someone's head" also originates in ancient Near East juridical language, which underscores the ambivalence of the scene (see B.Becking, David 175).

445 This thesis is advocated for by M.Gerhards, in Begnadigung 62 f., where he draws upon a perceived parallelism with the Joseph narrative for support (Gen 41); A.Klostermann, Sam XXVIII is more cautious.

446 See the discussion in the online appendix to this book.

447 See K.-D.Fricke, 2 Kgs 347–349.

had done. This question will have to remain unresolved, for it is clear that the context in which it must be answered extends far beyond the narrative in 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30; indeed, it may well be the case that this context literally begins 'with Adam and Eve' (see part D).

### d) Zedekiah (24:18–25:7)

Mattaniah's reign also opens with the regnal formula (age; reference to his mother and her background; length of rule). As with his predecessors he is judged negatively (24:19), whereby his sin is connected with Jehoiakim rather than his father or even his immediate predecessor Jehoiachin. He is taken to Babylon, but because his death is not reported in 2 Kgs he does not receive the concluding element of the regnal formula. As a result, it is also not clear whether he is still alive at the time of the final scene (25:27–30). In any case, it is clear that he is no longer king, for this pericope counts the years of Jehoiachin's exile. Zedekiah's period of reign is simply subsumed within that period and thus effectively delegitimized. At this point the regnal formula is definitively broken. A king that genealogically speaking ought to have reigned before Jehoiachin but dynastically speaking would have only come into question after his death is now the ruler in Jerusalem. He derives his authority entirely from Nebuchadnezzar, for whom he rules vicariously in Jerusalem (24:17).448 Zedekiah's predecessor is named as Jehoiakim rather than Jehoiachin, and Jehoiakim is connected with Manasseh, so that Zedekiah, too, is take up into the sequence of especially bad kings. Yet this is not the only correlation between these two negative kings. Both rule for the same period of time, namely eleven years, a number that may symbolize the transgression of the decalogue (10 + 1), a dimension articulated in the Hebrew expression for the number הרשעדחא . As such, this number may characterize their reign as a period of transgression of the divine command. Both receive throne names from foreign rulers; rather than being Judean kings installed by the grace of God they are vassals of a human being. Both rebel against this human ruler, an act that in and of itself would surely be positive if it involved the recognition of YHWH as the only legitimate lord of Judah. But instead YHWH responds (24:20) by renewing the threat that he had once uttered during the reign of Jehoiakim (24:2–4). Their crime may be that of perjury, for as vassals their rebellion against their overlord amounts to a breach of oath, an oath that is usually sworn in the

448 The formulaic "[s. o.] תחת] s. o.] ךלמ " usually occurs in the regnal formula and refers to the transferal of power from father to son. In this context it can either refer to the substitution of Jehoiachin, who is still alive, or to Nebuchadnezzar. This is of interest, for then itwould mean that from the very outset Zedekiah's reign was nothing more than a governorship. The effect is that we haveagradual process of relegation from the vassalage of Jehoiakim to the crowned governor Zedekiah to the uncrowned administrator Gedaliah.

presence of the gods.449 An offence of this proportion would explain the draconian measures that Nebuchadnezzar personally ordered against Zedekiah.450