submission to Assyria in obedience to Yahweh. As such, it may be seen as expressing
a contemporary reaction to the sparing of Jerusalem, one consonant with Isaiah’s
ideology. In contrast, the latter passage reflects the ideology of a later period; specifically,
the horrific consequences of Jehoiakim’s rebellion (see further). It seizes upon an
episode from Hezekiah’s reign that had presaged, as it were, the later disaster. Unlike
the threat to Judah in Hezekiah’s time, it would not be averted. And yet, criticism
of Hezekiah is muted; he is not blamed for the future catastrophe, as was his son and
successor, Manasseh, because he was a king who had done what was upright in
Yahweh’s sight.
The mission of Merodach-Baladan II was of little historical importance, as it turned
out. And yet, the report in 2 Kings 20 provides a valuable test-case by which to
identify the ideological agenda of the biblical writers and redactors who produced
the Book of Kings. Rather than fixing on the cultic and moral evaluations of the
Judean kings, this report directs our attention to the primary political issue in the
prophetic agenda: rebellions against world empires, or alliances and coalitions formed
against them, threatened the survival of the Israelites in the land.
Nebuchadnezzar II and the last kings of JudahThe chronicle of events presented in Second Kings pertaining to the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar II, and the years leading up to it, is admittedly skeletal. It is fairly
accurate as far as it goes, but it is very short on background. The interpretations
given to events and the ideology that peers through the narrative are most often
stated in brief, formulaic fashion, and give the impression of condensed, prophetic
utterances. Thus, Robert Wilson on the overall composition of the Book of Kings:
Of course, it is always possible that, as a composite work, Kings makes no general
points and has no overarching themes... However, even the most enthusiastic
proponents of literary analysis rarely push the argument this far, and almost all
scholars see the book as tied together by a complex of overarching themes or
motifs. The most frequent account of this thematic unity points to the evaluations
made by the editors in the formulaic statements used to introduce and to conclude
the reigns of individual Israelite and Judean kings.
(Wilson 1995 : 85 )In reporting the rapidly changing political situation after the fall of the Neo-
Assyrian empire in the late seventh century BCE, Second Kings follows the alternating
pattern of submission and rebellion on the part of the last Judean kings with respect
to both Egypt and Babylonia. To understand this pattern requires knowledge well
beyond what the Hebrew Bible provides. An excellent treatment of the shifting
international scene, as Judah was caught in the crossfire between Egypt and Babylonia,
is that of D.J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon ( 1983 ). Viewing history from
the Babylonian perspective, Wiseman fully integrates the biblical data into the overall
scheme of things, as he summarizes the valuable information provided by the
Babylonian Chronicle Series (“Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings”), which he edited
(Wiseman 1956 , and see Grayson 1975 a). Chronicle 5 records Babylonian military
campaigns, and related royal activities, between the years 608 – 594 BCE.
— The view from Jerusalem —