«The Prophets» and «The Levites» in Josiah's Covenant Ceremony

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

31

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony* 0

0

By Mark Leuchter (Department of Religion, Temple University, Philadelphia PA 19122 USA)

To Sara Japhet, with affection and admiration 1. The Variant Accounts of Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony The account of Josiah’s reign in the books of Kings and Chronicles presents major and minor textual variants that have long prompted scholarly inquiry, with profound implications regarding methods of ancient historiography, the identification of sources, and the history of interpretation.1 Among these variants is the list of people congregated by Josiah at the time of the covenant ceremony inspired by the discovery of the »scroll of the law« (most likely a form of Deuteronomy):2 And the king went up to the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great … (II Reg 23,2) And the king went up to the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, both great and small … (II Chr 34,30)

0 *

1

2

A version of this paper was read at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, California. I am grateful to Diana Edelman, Ehud Ben Zvi, and Ralph Klein for their valuable comments at the session and to Gary Knoppers and H.G.M. Williamson for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. All flaws and errors are of course my own. For a discussion of these variants, see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AncB, 1991, 69–74. For a more detailed discussion of Josiah’s reform in the Chronicler’s account, see E. Ben Zvi, Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context, 2006, 89–106. There is general agreement that this scroll is to be associated with an early version of Deuteronomy that emerged during the reign of King Josiah. However, scholars debate whether it was indeed discovered in the Temple or if the narrative of II Reg 22 attempts to establish hermeneutical connections between the scroll and the Temple via literary mythopoesis. For an overview, see M. Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45, 2007, 204 n.106.

ZAW 121. Bd., S. 31–47 © Walter de Gruyter 2009

DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2009.003

32

Mark Leuchter

The outstanding change from the Kings account to that in Chronicles is, of course, the move from »prophets« to »Levites«,3 an unsubtle change recognized by most scholars. Some have suggested that this reflects different sources used by the authors of these accounts, which of course carries significant text-critical implications, though most scholars maintain that the Chronicler’s primary source was a version of Samuel–Kings very similar to the canonical version(s), though not identical to them.4 Others have viewed the shift as a result of the Chronicler’s interest in Levites, bringing them into the Temple’s cultic infrastructure at every turn and granting to them the prominence that the book of Kings granted the prophets of an earlier period.5 The move from prophets to Levites must be understood with respect to the nature of prophetic phenomenology and tradition in the Chronicler’s own time.6 Certainly, prophecy had been transformed during the Persian period, as earlier socio-religious institutions once part of an independent (or pseudo-independent) Israelite culture adjusted to the paradigm shift of Achaemenid imperialism.7 The influence of the Persian administration left an indelible impression upon the literati of Jerusalem and beyond; Persian scribal methods became a vehicle for socio-religious discourse in Yehud, and this invariably affected prophetic phenomenology.8 The prophetic »word of God« from an earlier time had been relocated specifically to the textual realm by the Chronicler,9 3

4

5

6

7 8

9

The change appears in the LXX as well as the MT. We should note, though, that some MT manuscripts of II Reg 23,2 appear to follow the reading in II Chr 34,30 by replacing »prophets« with »Levites«, and Tg. Jonathan replaces them both with the term »scribes« (I am indebted to G.N. Knoppers for drawing my attention to these other text-critical variants). See below for some proposals regarding the significance of these variants. H.G.M. Williamson, VT 32 (1982), 242–248; B. Halpern and D.S. Vanderhooft, HUCA 62 (1991), 235–237. D.L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 1977, 98–100; P.D. Hanson, Shaarei Talmon, 1992, 69–77; W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period, JSOTS, 1995, 252; I. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 2005, 273. With the majority of scholars, we may place the composition and redaction of Chronicles in the mid to late 4th century BCE. For a complete discussion regarding this period as the best background to the Chronicler’s activity, see G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, AncB, 2003, 116; S. Japhet, I–II Chronicles, OTL, 1993, 3–7; Y. Levin, JBL 122 (2003), 229–230 n. 3. Schniedewind, Word of God in Transition. Judean scribes were intimately familiar with Persian scribal and administrative practices, which impacted significantly on socio-linguistic, linguistic, and redactional features in Persian-era Biblical texts. See F.H. Polak, Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period, 2006, 589–628; R.C. Steiner, JBL 125 (2006), 641–685; D.S. Vanderhooft, Yahwism After The Exile, 2003, 231–235. Schniedewind, Word of God in Transition, 246–249.

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

33

so it is not surprising that this divine word would be associated with Levites in Chronicles as the Persian-era sources repeatedly stress the literary and scribal role of this caste.10 Nevertheless, a few significant factors emerge that indicate a deeper and more complex issue at work in the Chronicler’s substitution of »Levites« for »prophets«. It is true that the Chronicler regularly interpolates Levites into narrative episodes reworked from his sources, but in virtually all cases, this is accompanied by detailed descriptions of the function of these Levites. They are musicians, gatekeepers, scribes, administrators, mantic singers, etc., and such descriptions are curiously absent from II Chr 34,30.11 In addition, when the Chronicler does introduce such Levitical figures, their lineage is typically indicated in detail. They are Asaphites, Hemanites, Korahites, etc. By contrast, the Levites in II Chr 34,30 are generic.12 We are not informed of their activities or their kinship ties. Finally, the shift from »prophets« in II Reg 23 to »Levites« in II Chr 34 is not the only variant in these two otherwise near-identical passages. The Kings account tells us that all the people, »from the small to the great« (lvdg div ]uqml ), congregated with Josiah in Jerusalem. The Chronicler, on the other hand, uses the phrase »from the great to the small«(]uq div lvdgm ). It is, of course, possible that this is an inadvertent variant or textual corruption,13 but considering the unique and deliberate replacement of

10

11

12

13

See especially M.S. Smith, ZAW 103 (1991), 258–263. Caution is needed in attempting to define the nature of the Levites in epochs earlier than that of the Chronicler. Though Pentateuchal tradition presents Levi as a singular tribe, most scholars recognize that this is a relatively late literary construct. L.E. Stager’s analysis provides a suitable model for understanding the development of the Levites as a social typology and caste that amalgamated around a few major priestly lineages that eventually came to form broader kinship categories (Stager, BASOR 260 [1985], 27–28; building on F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973, 195–215, with respect to Mushite and Aaronide priestly lines). See also S.M. Olyan, JBL 101 (1982), 177–193. For a thorough classification and analysis of the Levitical families in Chronicles, see most recently Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 415–430. It is indeed the case that the Chronicler returns to his standard method of describing Levites in the following chapter (II Chr 35,3–5.9–15), but read in sequence as part of the same Josianic regnal period, even these Levites are qualified under the unique rubric of II Chr 34,30. S.J. Schweitzer notes that it is only here where Levites are generically identified with prophecy via the variant, whereas prophetic status is elsewhere bestowed by the Chronicler on only specific Levites (Reading Utopia in Chronicles, LHBOTS, 2007, 161). See further below. D.M. Carr’s investigation of scribal praxis may be used to support the view that a scribe is simply re-writing a memorized text, and that such minor variants in sequence and terminology are characteristic of these memory-based reconstructions (Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature, 2005, 168).

34

Mark Leuchter

»prophets« with »Levites«, this is more likely an example of Seidel’s Law of inverted intertextual citation.14 As with other cases of Seidel’s Law, the Chronicler appears to be directing our attention to his source material in Kings, and intimating some deeper, even esoteric understanding of the »prophets« in his source and the »Levites« of his own composition that appear alongside this formula and its inversion. 2. The Chronicler and the Jeremiah Tradition The Chronicler’s inversion of the lvdg div ]uqml formula provides some additional indication of why »prophets« have been replaced with »Levites« in his account, since the formula is also characteristic of the book of Jeremiah; this is only one of the well-known commonalities shared by the Jeremiah tradition and the book of Kings (and the Deuteronomistic literature more generally).15 Virtually all scholars recognize the relationship between these works, both of which address the fall of monarchic Judah in a consistent manner. And yet despite the prophet’s pivotal role during this period (according to his own literary tradition), the book of Kings makes no mention of Jeremiah.16 By contrast, Jeremiah plays a central role in the parallel narrative in Chronicles and goes on to serve as a typological prophetic figure in subsequent periods discussed by the Chronicler. This may be attributed not only to the Chronicler’s familiarity with the narrative materials in the book of Jeremiah but also to the genetic relationship forged between the book of Kings and the book of Jeremiah during the period of the exile. By the Chronicler’s day, Jeremiah and Kings were part of a single literary tradition fostered by a distinct scribal group, and it is thus fitting that he conflated both sources as he created his own narrative.17 What is especially poignant regarding the Chronicler’s frequent mention of Jeremiah in the closing chapters of his work is that the

14

15

16

17

For a discussion of Seidel’s Law, see B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 1997, 18–20. For the formal and thematic connections between Jeremiah and Kings, see, among others, R.E. Friedman, Fortunate The Eyes That See, 1995, 70–80; J.C. Geoghegan, The Time, Place and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History. The Evidence of »Until This Day«, 2006, 159–164; S. Joo, Provocation and Punishment. The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History, BZAW, 2006. I have elsewhere discussed a reason for this otherwise curious absence (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 177–180). For an alternate perspective, see J.A. Dearman, JBL 109 (1990), 421. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 178–184. See also G. Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases, SBLM, 2001, 107, who notes that the Chronicler conflates language from Jeremiah and Kings.

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

35

prophet appears to have replaced the Chronicler’s other favorite characters, the Levites, as the bearer of the prophetic and liturgical mantles. Following the depiction of Josiah’s death, there is nary a mention of Levites, while the prophet’s name is repeatedly invoked alongside detailed depictions of his oracles and his role as a leader of communal prayer and lament. There are, in fact, no references to Levites following the initial appearance of Jeremiah in II Chr 35,25,18 nor is there a mention of any other prophet.19 The Chronicler treats Josiah’s reign as a turning point of sorts, where the role of the Levites and prophets are channeled into the character of Jeremiah. This is not altogether inconsistent with what the Chronicler would have known about the prophet, since the book of Jeremiah repeatedly highlights the prophet’s own Levitical heritage (Jer 1,1; 11,3–5 [cf. Deut 27]; 15,1; 34,14).20 Yet the Chronicler goes even further, subsuming all prophetic categories under the name of Jeremiah long after that prophet would have faded from history (e.g., the ascription of the Cyrus oracles in Isa 44,28 and 45,1 to Jeremiah in II Chr 36,22).21 The Jeremiah tradition thus factors significantly into the Chronicler’s substitution of »prophets« from his source in Kings with »Levites« in his own account and takes center-stage in the formation of the Chronicler’s historiography of Judah’s final years and

18

19

20

21

The Chronicler’s Vorlage likely had the introduction to Jeremiah appears even earlier than this, in what is now II Chr 35,22; this earlier stage is reflected in the parallel account in I Esd 1,28. Though Williamson sees the Esdras account as a later adjustment of the Chronicles material (VT 32, 245), it is likely that the Chronicler has adjusted an earlier tradition to include Necho in the stead of Jeremiah due to the influence of II Reg 23,29, which presents Necho as an enemy of the king of Assyria and thus a default ally to Josiah (thereby allowing for the latter to die »in peace« at Necho’s hands. See B. Halpern, VT 48 [1998], 501–502). See further M. Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll. Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response, 2006, 103–105. The Chronicler does speak of prophets in II Chr 36,15–16 but only generically. Even this reference, though, rings of Jeremianic language (cf. Jer 7,13; 25,3) and may also draw influence from literary trends in Kings; see E. Ben Zvi, ZAW 113 (2004), 555–567. Jer 34,14 is introduced via the formula ,yn> ib> /qm , qualifying the prophet’s exhortation in the ensuing verses as a Levitical affirmation of Torah akin to the similar Levitical responsibility, qualified by the same terminology, in Deut 31,9–11. See Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 91–93. Some scholars view this as a reference to Jeremiah 70-year prophecy, appearing again at the outset of the book of Ezra (see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 75–80, for a discussion). For different perspectives on this reading, see S. Frolov, ZAW 116 (2004), 595–601; D. Edelman, The Origins of the ›Second‹ Temple, 2005, 167–168. The reference in II Chr 36,22/Esr 1,1, though, contains terminological features that point to a phenomenological issue rather than a specific oracle. See Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 188–190.

36

Mark Leuchter

eventual restoration.22 A useful purpose may therefore be served by looking to the portrayal of both prophets and Levites in the book of Jeremiah. 3. Prophets and Levites in the Book of Jeremiah The current shape of the Jeremiah texts reflects redactional accretions that would have long post-dated the prophet and his lifetime.23 Very little in the book of Jeremiah reflects unbiased accounts of the Josianic period or the twilight years of monarchic Judah.24 Nevertheless, these texts contain valuable information regarding the memory of authors and audiences, and reveal much about the historical presuppositions of both. While they should not be used as accurate witnesses to history, the Jeremiah texts may be helpful in reconstructing public perceptions concerning the late 7th-early 6th centuries, and indeed contain some historically reliable elements.25 Regardless of whether or not the texts in the book of Jeremiah possess genuine historical valences, though, they were authoritative works in the Chronicler’s day and thereby established literary and ideological precedents which shaped his understandings of the remote past.26 22

23

24

25

26

This is not to discount, of course, the Chronicler’s engagement of other prophetic traditions. See K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, 2007, 230; E. Ben Zvi, Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., 2007, 354–360; H.G.M. Williamson, Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, FAT, 2004, 242–243; P.C. Beentjes, The Elusive Prophet. The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist, 45–53. A case in point is Jer 33,14–26, which was constructed during the period of the Restoration to Yehud under Persia. This oracle, however, was built around an earlier kernel that may indeed have derived from the prophet himself. See Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 72–81. The locus classicus of this issue is Jeremiah 36, which mediates between historicity and hermeneutical agenda regarding the prophet Jeremiah, the scribal school of Shaphan, the royal circles and the many collections of Jeremianic texts in circulation. With respect to the prophet’s connection to the scribal characters in that chapter, Dearman states the matter perfectly: »It may not be historically accurate to associate Jeremiah with members of [the] Shaphanite family, but there is little doubt that this is what the editor(s) of the book of Jeremiah intended to do« (JBL 109 [1990], 406 n. 8). See also C.J. Sharp, VT 47 (1997), 508–509, who notes that the chapter symbolically recognizes the diversity of Jeremianic collections that must have already existed in antiquity. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 21–22. See also M.A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah, 2001, 208–233, who identifies a stratum of oracles attributed to the prophet that best reflect a Josianic period and assist in reconstructing the history of that time. Regarding the Chronicler’s use of Jeremiah, see C.D. Mitchell, CBQ 68 (2006), 435; Halpern, VT 48, 511–512; Parke-Taylor, The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah, 107. K. Schmid posits a late redaction of a Jeremianic book (Buchgestalten des Jeremia-

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

37

Let us therefore first consider the presentation of Jeremiah’s own lineage roots and his self-perception as a prophet and Levite. It is not enough to view Jeremiah as a Levite by virtue of his kinship ties to the Shilonite Levites of Anatoth (Jer 1,1; 32,6–15); rather, both the prophet’s oracles and the narrative episodes repeatedly draw attention to the theological and even political significance of this Levitical connection.27 In addition, as virtually all commentators have noted, Jeremiah is equated with Moses (Jer 1,9; see also 15,1), the founder of a powerful Levite line, and is presented as the final link in a long chain of Mosaic prophets.28 Reinforcing this equation is the relationship that obtains between Jeremiah and his scribal supporters, who read, transmit and safeguard his words akin to Deuteronomy’s charge for the Levites to do the same with Moses’ teachings. It is within the book of Jeremiah, in fact, that the Levitical qualifications of the Shaphanide scribes are most amplified, perhaps to support Jeremiah’s own prophetic mission as consistent with both the interests of the Jerusalem elite and the traditional interests of the rural Levitical groups.29 We must further reconsider the nature and purpose of Jeremiah’s early oracles, several of which likely originated during the Josianic period.30 The prophet served under Josiah as a propagandist not only to the mixed population of the north but also to the Shilonite priesthood at Anatoth long held at arm’s length from Israel’s monarchic institutions.31 This was part of a larger Deuteronomic enterprise to qualify all regional priesthoods as »Levites« and to redefine them as administrators of the

27 28 29

30

31

buches. Untersuchungen der Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jeremia 30–33 im Kontext des Buches, WMANT 72, 1996) revolving around the function of chs. 30–33 in a variety of redactional strata, but much of these central chapters was already worked into a fairly mature form of the Jeremianic literary tradition during the exilic period (Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 50–61; see also B.D. Sommer, CBQ 61 [1999], 659, 664). This is not to discount Schmid’s detailed argument regarding later periods of redaction. I suggest only that a major redaction during the exilic period already produced a version of the Jeremiah tradition that the Chronicler knew and utilized as a resource. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, passim. See C.R. Seitz, ZAW 101 (1989), 3–27. Dearman discusses the prominence and function of the scribes in the book of Jeremiah and makes brief note of this Levitical parallel (JBL 109, 409 n.16). See also Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 166–176. Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll, 70–97; Sweeney, Kings Josiah, 208–233; N. Lohfink, Le Livre de Jérémie, BETL, 1997 [original, 1981], 351–368. M. Leuchter, VT 57 (2007), 313–314. Even if one prefers not to see the early strata of these oracles as connected to the prophet himself in the Josianic era, the redaction-critical examinations cited immediately above make clear that in the early version of these oracles, Jeremiah is at least presented in terms that support the literary image of Josiah in II Reg 22–23.

38

Mark Leuchter

Deuteronomic law code, essential to unifying a fragmented populace with diverse lineage roots and kinship allegiances.32 Deuteronomy itself addresses the need to level this ethnographic playing field by stating that YHWH’s binding covenant – the determiner of Israel’s »ethnos« – was made with those bearing witness in the present, irrespective of their conditions of ancestry (Deut 5,2–3). It is unlikely, therefore, that Jeremiah’s Josianic career was an anomaly. Other prophetic figures associated with other regional priesthoods (monolithically identified as »Levites«) would have functioned similarly in the hopes of amalgamating diverse populations under the banner of Deuteronomy. This policy was no doubt influenced by similar neo-Assyrian praxes adopted by the Josianic court,33 and would have been remembered by later writers as they shaped prophetic texts to support the idea of Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform.34 Here again, the book of Jeremiah presents us with a number of prophetic personalities who would have fit such a profile. We turn first to Uriah b. Shemaiah in Jer 26,20–23, who is identified as hailing from Kiriath Yearim. In Josiah’s time, the city of Kiriath Yearim would have been purged of any local cultic installations during the king’s program of centralization, but as little as a century earlier, it possessed a thriving cult center and a venerated priestly order dating back to the pre-monarchic period.35 It was with Hezekiah’s preparations for the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 that the city’s cult site was shut down, and it is to this event that Micah alludes when proclaiming doom for Jerusalem and its Temple in Mic 3,12 (riy tvmbl tybh rhv ), an oracle cited nearly verbatim in Jer 26,18. Immediately after the citation of Micah’s words, the chapter introduces us to Uriah, identifies Kiriath Yearim as his home, and informs us that he functioned identically to Jeremiah (v. 20). This last qualification suggests that Uriah, too, was active during Josiah’s reign and functioned in a capacity analogous to Jeremiah, addressing his priestly kin in Kiriath Yearim as an advocate of the Deuteronomic program.36 The

32

33

34

35

36

M. Leuchter, JBL 126 (2007), 417–436. For the Deuteronomic attempt to supersede and displace older kinship connections and religious traditions, see B. Halpern, Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel, JSOTS, 1991, 71–75. See M. Nissinen, Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East, 2001, 172–209; idem, Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabain Perspectives, SBLSymS, 2000, 89–114. There are good grounds for viewing the redaction of these texts as taking place during Josiah’s reign, though exilic and even early post-exilic redaction would still preserve Mesopotamian influences. See A. Laato, ZAW 106 (1994), 53–69. B. Rosen, VT 38 (1988) 115–117. See also M. Leuchter, »The Cult At Kiriath Yearim: Implications from the Biblical Record«, forthcoming in VT. For an overview, see Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 35–36.

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

39

categorization of Uriah’s critique of Jehoiakim as identical to that of Jeremiah further characterizes his critique as based on Deuteronomic standards. As with Uriah in Jeremiah 26, the episode of Jeremiah 28 presents a similar priestly(Levite) image of Hananiah b. Azur. According to later passages in the book of Jeremiah, Hananiah’s grandchild Irijah was an adult and in a position of power by 587 BCE (Jer 37,13);37 Hananiah himself thus appears as a contemporary of Jeremiah, and would have been a young adult during Josiah’s reform. The narrative of Jeremiah 28 attempts to contrast Hananiah and Jeremiah with respect to their differing political views, but the actions, mannerisms and speech patterns of both prophets are nearly identical.38 The substance of their debate is in the understanding of Babylon’s influence over Judah and, ultimately, in the proper adjustment or application of Deuteronomic ideology. Whereas Jeremiah counsels submission to Babylon pursuant to the Deuteronomic argument against hypostatization of icons and institutions (such as the Temple or the Davidic covenant [cf. Jer 7,8–13]), Hananiah’s position is in line with Deuteronomy’s anti-imperialist ethic.39 Jeremiah and Hananiah thus operate within the same ideological paradigm, albeit from different perspectives. As evidenced by Jeremiah 28, their parting of ways involved substantial agreement on the topic of discourse, and further supports common types of activity and outlook earlier in their respective careers. Since Jer 28,1 also identifies Hananiah as a Gibeonite, we may conclude that during Josiah’s time, the prophet would have addressed his Gibeonite kinsmen and their cultic functionaries just as Uriah and Jeremiah addressed their own priestly kin. Significantly, all three prophets are bound to lineages with connections to the early Ark cult.40 The selection of such prophets to address 37 38

39

40

See D.A. Glatt-Gilad, Hebrew Studies 4 (2000), 31–45. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 213 n.20. For the relationship between Jeremiah, Hananiah and the Deuteronomic stipulations regarding prophetic evaluation, see C.J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah, 2004, 152–153. R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings. Cults and Society in First Temple Judah, JSOT.S, 1991, 151–155. For Jeremiah’s anti-hypostatization arguments and their development of the ideas within Deuteronomy, see B. Halpern, Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, 1987, 98–102. See G.A. Ahlströhm, JNES 43 (1984), 144, who identifies the ark cult at Shiloh as Gibeonite. While Shilonite territory may have overlapped with that of the Gibeonites, the dominant traditions regarding the Shiloh priesthood do not support a Gibeonite origin for their Ark cult; see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 205–213; M. Leuchter, VT 55 (2005), 30–36. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to imagine that the Gibeonites, as a kinship group situated nearby the Shiloh sanctuary in a formative earlier period, possessed their own priesthood that engaged the dominant Ephraimite cult culture represented by the Shilonites and their iconography.

40

Mark Leuchter

these groups would have been appropriate given the demotion of the Ark from divine footstool to simple repository for the Decalogue and Mosaic Torah (Deut 31,25–26; I Reg 8,9) and the negative response this may have provoked (cf. Jer 3,16).41 It is possible that the other prophets named in the book of Jeremiah were also remembered as possessing priestly (Levite) heritage. The prophets named in Jeremiah 29 are deeply concerned with the Jerusalem cult and the Temple Vessels, and they too have connections to the priesthood in Jerusalem. Very little information is available regarding their activity and origins, though in at least in the case of Shemaiah the Nehelemite (Jer 29,24), reference to a kinship group is indicated.42 Like Hananiah, Shemaiah appears similarly to Jeremiah: both carry some influence with the Jerusalem priesthood, both communicate their prophetic messages via letter, and Jeremiah’s threat to Shemaiah regarding the extinguishing of his lineage (v. 32) echoes not only earlier threats made by the prophets against priestly groups in Judah but the prohibition on progeny endured by Jeremiah himself (Jer 16,2).43 All of these literary details contribute to the composite image of prophets and priesthoods in the book of Jeremiah. Though Jeremiah emerges as the only prophet of his day with a legitimate message,44 all the prophets appear tied to priestly lineages, which would have indeed been understood in Josiah’s time as Levitical in nature.45

41

42

43

44

45

W.M. Schniedewind views this as part of the Jerusalemite scribal elite’s attempt to subordinate older oral traditions to a specifically literary orthodoxy; see his How The Bible Became A Book, 2004, 106–114. Holladay notes that Shelemiah’s reference back to Jeremiah in Jer 29,27 establishes a parallel between the gentilics ytvtnih and ymlxn (Jeremiah 2, 146; so also J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 2004, 363). The vitality and political significance of Levitical lines of descent receives special consideration in the Chronicler’s work, but can be sensed in earlier literature as well (Jdc 18,30–31; I Sam 8,3) Hosea, of course, provides the prime example of a Leviteprophet whose progeny carry metaphorical significance; the prohibition on progeny would carry a similar metaphorical message. These observations support Lundbom’s suggestion that Shemaiah did in fact possess priestly heritage (Jeremiah 21–36, 366). For Hosea’s Levite heritage, see S.L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, 2004, 231–266. Though Uriah is said to have spoken words identical to those of Jeremiah, his death at the hands of Jehoiakim’s henchmen and lack of any specific citable words leaves Jeremiah as the only prophet of the time to successfully carry out his mission. We should note also along with J. Schaper the relationship between written prophecy, scribalism and priesthood that appears to crystallize in the late pre-exilic and exilic period (VT 55 [2005], 334–335). Schaper correctly states that these prophetic figures mediate between literate and less literate groups as opposed to non-literate groups (335). This would also be consistent with prophetic figures trained in the scribal school

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

41

4. Other echoes of lineage diversity in the »Josianic« literature The prophetic characterizations in Jeremiah are not sui generis in the prophetic literature; as S.L. Cook has demonstrated, both Micah and Hosea function similarly in earlier historical contexts, both strongly bound to their own respective lineages and kin groups.46 In these cases, each prophet voices the interests of his kin group in a public forum, directed at the central, royal establishments of the north (Hosea) and the south (Micah) and employing the characteristic language and concerns of the kin group. The mission of Jeremiah and the implicit role of the other prophets mentioned in the book of Jeremiah see this dynamic functioning in reverse, i.e., the interests of the central establishment are voiced to the kin groups. Nevertheless, this still presupposes prophets as mediating figures between the leadership groups of the rural lineages (with priests ranking high on that scale) and the institutions of the state, and we encounter some indication of this in texts ascribed to Josiah’s reign. The book of Zephaniah, for example, presents that prophet as an early Josianic propagandist,47 and the superscription to Zephaniah’s book contains an abundance of information regarding his lineage: The word of YHWH which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi (y>vk ]b ) the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah,48 in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah.

46 47

48

of the Jerusalem court mediating between that royal court and the rural priesthoods (who likely possessed literacy of a less sophisticated sort), and would also perhaps explain the background to the »scribes« textual variant in the Tg. Jonathan (see above). For at least a basic level of literacy among the rural priesthoods, see Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 118–121, 165; I. Young, VT 48 (1998), 414–416. More sophisticated modes of literacy evident in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah would require scribal training; see J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 1999, 92; idem, VT 46 (1996), 314–315 (though Lundbom’s view that the units in Deuteronomy originate in the context of oral rhetoric is open to question; see Levinson, Deuteronomy, passim); C.A. Rollston, BASOR 344 (2006), 47–69. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, passim. Opinions vary considerably on whether or not the material in Zephaniah actually derives from the prophet active during Josiah’s reign or if the oracles are later compositions simply set in this period by the shapers of the book. It is enough to note here that the tradition of a prophet named Zephaniah active in the last quarter of the 7th century BCE under the rule of Josiah is preserved in the book bearing his name, and the literary character of the book may reflect elements of the prophet’s own rhetorical predilections. For differing views on the origin of the oracles, see M.A. Sweeney, Zephaniah, Hermeneia, 2003; A. Berlin, Zephaniah, AncB, 1994, 32–47, E. Ben-Zvi, A HistoricalCritical Study of the Book of Zephaniah, BZAW, 1991. The phrase »son of Hezekiah« (hyqzx ]b ) would also more likely be a title than an indication of Zephaniah’s direct descent from the Judean king of the same name. There are no records that Hezekiah had a son named Amariah. Moreover, we might expect

42

Mark Leuchter

Though many view the term y>vk as the name of Zephaniah’s father, it may just as easily be a gentilic notice pertaining to Zephaniah himself (y>vk ]b = »a Cushite«). In either case, this has led some scholars to suggest that the y>vk in Zephaniah’s superscription relates to the prophet’s sub-Saharan ethnicity. However, it may also be an alloform of ]>vk , an ancient alternate name for Midian (Hab 3,7) and the original home to the Kenite priestly line that had long maintained a place within Israelite society.49 As M.A. Sweeney has noted, Zephaniah’s oracles are highly liturgical in nature.50 Sweeney views Zephaniah’s oracles as conceived for recitation in the Jerusalem Temple, but the liturgical forms and content may suggest or (re)affirm Zephaniah’s own priestly heritage and indicate an intended priestly audience (akin to Jeremiah’s oracles directed to the Shilonites of Anatoth). Given their connection to ancient Mosaic tradition, it would certainly have served Josiah’s purposes to enlist the approval and support of Midianite-Kenites present in Judah just as the support of the Shilonites would have facilitated the king’s interest in the north.51 Some additional evidence appears in the account of the federalization of the hinterland during Josiah’s reform in II Reg 23,9: Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of YHWH in Jerusalem until they ate unleavened bread among their brethren (,hyxX ) …

This verse is a proleptic reference to the Passover ceremony that takes place later in the same chapter, and attests to the process whereby the regional priests of the Judean countryside were redefined as equal members of a single Levitical caste (,hyxX ). The partaking of the Passover ritual on the regional level serves as a pre-requisite for any such regional priest eventually qualifying as fit to serve in the central sanctuary (Deut 18,6–8).52 Yet this ritual pre-requisite implies that these regional priests and the kin groups to which they ministered preserved a certain degree of atomistic identity bound to their lineage that the Deuteronomic reform sought to dissolve, at least in principle.53 Lineage based

49 50 51

52 53

that the Josianic scribes would have emphasized such a connection if it existed since Zephaniah’s oracles benefited their interests, qualifying their reform activity as consistent with the favorable presentation of Hezekiah in the extant historiographic material. On similar titles identifying individuals as part of the royal administration, see Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 171. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 572–574. Sweeney, Zephaniah, passim. For an overview of the Midianite-Kenite presence in Judah specifically, see Cross, CMHE, 200–201. See also B. Mazar, JNES 42 (1965), 299–303 for the Kenite ties to an ancient Mosaic priestly cult at Arad. Leuchter, JBL 126, 428–429. Halpern, Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel, 73–75.

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

43

traditions of discourse sustained by these groups would account for the lexical and rhetorical differences in Hosea’s and Micah’s respective oracles as discussed by Cook, as well as the rhetorical strategies in Jeremiah and Zephaniah using the language of their own respective kin groups.54 The points of similarity in the latter and the redactional commonalities in the former evidence the influence of the Deuteronomistic literature and the rhetorical standards associated with Josiah’s reign superimposed over these persistent lineage-based discourse traditions.55 We thus encounter a significant tension between the Josianic literature and the political situation and ethnographic composition of Judah during in the late 7th century. The Deuteronomic Torah was conceived to be the basis for a cultural makeover, at least in theory, with the royal establishment in Jerusalem taking dramatic measures to homogenize diverse kinship groups under the law.56 This is most evident in the peer term xX that regularly characterizes the Israelite in Deuteronomy’s direct addresses, applying to the king (Deut 17,15) and even the succession of prophets like Moses (Deut 18,15).57 Nevertheless, the very fact that the author of II Reg 23,2 recognizes social hierarchy via the expression »all the people, from the greatest (lvdg ) to the least (]uq )« informs us that the Deuteronomic covenant and its rhetoric of peer equality functioned as an ideal that was meant to inform or guide more practical deci-

54

55

56

57

See especially the discussion in Leuchter, VT 57, 304–305, 314 regarding Jeremiah’s use of Shilonite language. Insofar as Zephaniah is concerned, even if one is reluctant to view the contents of the book as largely original to the prophet, the memory of Zephaniah’s lineage affiliations may have influenced the choice of later authors to shape the book according to specific rhetorical standards associated with traditions regarding this kin group. II Reg 22–23 is a literary adaptation of royal archives (Na^aman, Congress Volume 2004, VT.S, 2006, 129–152), though much of the narrative likely does derive from the late 7th century and scribal circles closely connected to Josiah’s court. See especially B. Halpern, Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past, 2003, 335–336. Homogenizing different kinship groups via an authoritative text was, of course, a strategy deployed by the Chronicler himself. See G.N. Knoppers, JBL 120 (2001), 15–30; Y. Levin, JBL 123 (2004), 601–636. The Mosaic prophet of Deut 18,15.18 is clearly presented in the book of Kings as one in a line of prophets (II Reg 17,13.23), with indications that Jeremiah serves as a contemporaneous example of one such prophet (II Reg 17,15=Jer 2,5; see Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 145–147). While it is unclear as to whether or not Deuteronomy was written with the prophetic narratives of I–II Reg in mind (though good arguments have been made in favor of this view), the language of Deut 18,18 indeed appears to presuppose a succession of prophets in the Mosaic mould rather than a single subsequent prophetic personality. See R.R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, Fortress, 1980, 162 n. 52; Seitz, ZAW 101, 5.

44

Mark Leuchter

sions and processes among a population with defined hierarchies,58 a characteristic of clan society. It is in this social milieu that the prophets of Josiah’s day such as Jeremiah operated, charged with the responsibility of realizing the ideological mandates of Deuteronomy among a reluctant population through interaction with their own priestly kin.59 5. Conclusion The »Levites« variant in II Chr 34,30 is part of a larger pattern that facilitates the inclusion of Jeremiah into the narrative of Josiah’s reign and establishes him as the archetypal Levite-prophet in the closing chapters of the Chronicler’s historiography. The variant should thus not be understood as a textual corruption or drawn from a Vorlage that differs from that of II Reg 23,2,60 and it is not part of an historiography that attempts to rival the account in Kings. Rather, the Chronicler deliberately guides us to re-read the narrative of Josiah’s covenant ceremony in Kings with a specific understanding of who constituted the prophets in that account and how their voices persisted into his own day.61 By directing us to the Jeremiah tradition, the Chronicler suggests that we view the prophets of II Reg 23,2 as Levites like Jeremiah; that the »Levites« variant occurs within the narrative of Josiah’s covenant ceremony points to the Chronicler’s awareness that the Levite-prophet typology of the Jeremiah tradition was forged during that king’s reign.

58

59

60

61

Ergo, the regional judges/scribal magistrates legislated by Deut 16,18–20 who would have been empowered to apply Deuteronomic ideology in a practical setting and, notably, replacing the clan elders in this role. See Leuchter, JBL 126, 419–425; Levinson, Deuteronomy, 125–126. Passages such as Deut 30,15–20 and the oracles in Jer 2,2–4,2 (see also Jer 7,16–20; 44,15–19) are suggestive of the public reluctance to adopt Deuteronomistic ideology and the failure of the Josianic reform to fully reshape popular society and religion. For a full analysis of the Chronicler’s use of I Sam-II Reg and other sources, see S. Japhet, I–II Chronicles, 1993, passim. See also Z. Talshir, ZAW 113 (2001), 386–403. So also the purpose of ,vyh di regarding the lamentations for Josiah led by Jeremiah in II Chr 35,25, which would otherwise seem to be anachronistic and historically unlikely in the Chronicler’s day (Williamson, VT 32, 246). The phrase is a variant of the more familiar formula hzh ,vyh di found throughout the Deuteronomistic works and Jeremiah; the Chronicler’s use of this Deuteronomistic-Jeremianic phrase further suggests his awareness that the events of Josiah’s day and the personnel behind the book of Jeremiah are intimately connected to the development of the book of Kings. For a full discussion, see Geoghegan, The Time, Place and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History, especially pp. 159–164. See also E. Ben Zvi, »Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap Between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles?«, forthcoming in a volume edited by Gary N. Knoppers for Eisenbrauns, for a discussion of the literary relationship between Kings and Chronicles.

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

45

The Chronicler’s hermeneutical strategy here relies upon extant inter-textual connections between Jeremiah and Kings and establishes new connections through his own composition and its engagement of the Jeremiah tradition. Nevertheless, his understanding of the prophetic paradigm in Jeremiah echoes genuine sociological dynamics remembered from Josiah’s reign. Whatever the ideological predilections of the later redactors of Kings and the prophetic corpus, this appears to reflect some element of historical realia of Josiah’s reign and its literary propaganda. The memory of the prophets’ connection to regional Levite groups and their related kinship communities would have been particularly significance for the Chronicler,62 whose own work attempted to reintegrate diverse lineages that had been marginalized from the Temple community since the time of Ezra.63 Indeed, the rhetoric in I–II Chronicles concerning the administrative role of Levites and their prophetic duties may have been conceived for similar purposes.64 W.M. Schniedewind’s observation that only the heads of the Levitical orders are designated as prophets is significant here, as this would indicate that the teaching role of their Levite confreres would have been deeply informed by their prophetic status.65 This exactly parallels the prophet/Levite relationship implied in the relevant texts ascribed to the Josianic period or related to it: the exhortations of the state-sponsored prophets were intended to enculturate their respective Levite kin groups, who in turn were to administer state policy and teach the law to the hinterland communities to whom they had long ministered.66 The Chronicler’s strategy in II Chr 34,30 and the ensuing narrative reifies his own composition as a work that mediated between diverse kinship groups in a manner akin to the literature ascribed to the Josianic period that was conceived for the same purpose. 62

63 64

65 66

Despite the temporal distance between the Josianic period and the time of the Chronicler (mid 4th century BCE), I–II Chronicles preserves accurate archival information in many places and carries forward sociological categories from earlier periods as well. See M. Weinfeld, Ancient Israelite Religion, 1987, 305; Leuchter, JBL 127, 433 n. 64. Levin, JBL 123, 602 n. 9 with bibliography cited there. Levin (JBL 123, 635–636) discusses the Chronicler’s strategy in addressing various lineages of his day by re-incorporating them into the sacred history of the nation through the structure of his genealogies. The Ezra tradition contains information regarding the distancing of these groups during the Restoration period and, later, during Ezra’s own mission. The entire Persian period sees an ebb and flow in the orchestration of kinship groups, but ancestral lineage affiliation (or at least the perception thereof) persists in all cases. See H.G.M. Williamson, Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past, 2003, 469–481. Schniedewind, Word of God, 186; Schweitzer, Utopia, 161. Leuchter, JBL 126, 423–425.

46

Mark Leuchter

Finally, the Chronicler’s own exegetical impulses carry significant implications for later Jewish exegetical traditions. The Chronicler’s exegesis regarding the prophets in II Reg 23,2 and the prophetic typologies in Jeremiah may establish the precedent for the Talmudic view that the book of Kings itself could only be understood through the Jeremiah tradition (b. Baba Bathra 14b). Scholars often view this Talmudic tradition as deriving from the obvious lexical and formal similarities between the book of Kings and that of Jeremiah, but the connection may also be influenced by the interpretive presuppositions underlying the Chronicler’s work and the implications that arise from it. Needless to say, attempts to reconcile Rabbinic ideas and etiologies with ancient Israel’s social and political institutions are fraught with difficulty. The foregoing discussion, however, suggests some significant hermeneutical continuity underlying the formation of both Biblical and post-Biblical traditions as their authors reflect back upon important moments and figures that shaped their shared history.67 Scholars have long noticed the curious variant from »The Prophets« in II Reg 23,2 to »The Levites« in II Chr 34,30 in the parallel accounts of Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony. The present study suggests that the Chronicler’s variant is part of a deliberate strategy to direct his readers to the Jeremiah tradition as a hermeneutical lens through which the source material in Kings must be read. The Chronicler’s strategy, however, also reveals deeper layers of meaning regarding the Levite-prophet typology that emerge in the Jeremiah tradition and which informed his perceptions of the past. The »Levite« variant in II Chr 34,30 indicates a far more complex sociological universe in the literary traditions regarding the reign of Josiah, one remembered by the Chronicler and put to use for his own historiographic interests. Ainsi qu’on l’a noté depuis longtemps, il existe une variante curieuse entre »les prophètes« en II Reg 23, 2 et »les Lévites« en II Chr 34, 30, dans les récits parallèles de la cérémonie d’alliance du roi Josias. Cette étude présente la variante du Chroniste comme élément d’une stratégie délibérée; celle-ci tente d’orienter ses lecteurs vers la tradition jérémienne comme grille de lecture des livres des Rois. La stratégie du Chroniste révèle cependant d’autres niveaux de sens de la typologie »Lévites – prophètes«, qui conditionnent sa perception du passé. La variante »Lévites« en II Chr 34, 3 renvoie ainsi à un monde sociologique bien plus complexe, celui des traditions littéraires relatives au règne de Josias; le Chroniste se souvient de l’une d’elles et l’utilise dans le sens de ses propres intérêts historiographiques.

67

J. Weingreen, From Bible To Mishna. The Continuity of Tradition, 1976; Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 190–194. J. Milgrom argues for continuity in the development of cultic ideology from the pre-exilic period through Second Temple times as reflected in the Rabbinic writings; see his Leviticus 1–16, AB, 1991, passim. Milgrom’s observations are discussed by V.A. Hurowitz, AJS Review 19 (1994) 220–222. In a different manner, M. Fishbane has demonstrated that ancient near eastern myth underlying many Biblical texts persevere into Rabbinic thought; see his Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 2004, 31–229.

»The Prophets« and »The Levites« in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony

47

Es ist seit langem beobachtet worden, dass in den Parallelberichten über Josias Bundesschluss die Lesart »die Propheten« von II Reg 23,2 in IIChr 34,30 in »die Leviten« geändert ist. Die vorliegende Studie versteht die Variante des Chronisten als Teil einer bewussten Strategie, um die Leser auf die Jeremia-Tradition als einer »hermeneutischen Brille« hinzuweisen, durch die das Quellenmaterial der Königsbücher zu lesen sei. Die Strategie des Chronisten lässt jedoch auch weitere in der Jeremiatradition erscheinende Sinnschichten der Leviten-Propheten-Typologie erkennen, die seine Wahrnehmungen der Vergangenheit bestimmen. Die Variante »Leviten« in II Chr 34,30 verweist somit auf eine komplexere soziologische Welt der die Herrschaft Josias betrachtenden literarischen Traditionen. An eine von ihnen erinnert sich der Chronist und benutzt sie für seine eigenen historiographischen Interessen.