Jeremiah 37 , among other biblical sources, reports that Egyptian forces, which we
know to have been under Pharaoh Apries, brought temporary relief to Jerusalem even
during its final, long siege. The Hebrew Bible sees things from the prophetic point
of view, which, as it turned out, was validated by subsequent events, but we are not
to assume that, at the time, the last kings of Judah were simply acting out of
recalcitrance in their repetitive, anti-Babylonian policies.
The reader is directed to other studies that shed light on Judah’s tenuous situation.
Anson Rainey ( 1975 ) brings to bear archaeological evidence, especially that pertaining
to Lachish, on the phases of the Babylonian conquest of Judah. The relevance of the
sparse, but highly informative epigraphic finds at Lachish and Arad, and of the Adon
inscription, has long been recognized, ever since W.F. Albright ( 1936 ) called attention
to the importance of epigraphy for biblical history. Most recently, Lawrence Stager
( 1996 ) has provided preliminary archaeological information on Nabuchadnezzar’s
campaign of 604 – 603 BCEon the Levantine coast, particularly at Ashkelon, and Jean-
Baptiste Humbert (by verbal communication) has now discovered evidence of
Nebuchadrezzar’s destruction level at Gaza (cf. Jer 47 : 1 – 7 ). Finally, the historically
oriented Anchor Bible commentary on II Kings, by Cogan and Tadmor ( 1988 ),
provides, along with its careful interpretation of the text, a succinct and detailed
review of the events of the period, correlated with the evidence of The Babylonian
Chronicle Series, and, as well, with the historical references in the Book of Jeremiah.
Let us then return to the biblical record in Second Kings. Nebuchadnezzar II comes
on stage in Kings 24 : 1 , at the point when Jehoiakim, king of Judah, who had been
his vassal for three years, probably between 604 and 602 , rebelled against him.
Previously, Jehoiakim had been a faithful vassal of Pharaoh Necho II for most of his
eleven-year reign ( 2 Kings 23 : 35 ). Second Kings 23 : 29 – 30 had reported that during
the reign of Josiah, Necho advanced against the Assyrians all the way to the Euphrates.
The Book of Kings fails to tell us the objective of Necho’s campaign, which was to
gain hegemony over areas in Hatti subsequent to the Assyrian demise. After the
major defeat of the Egyptian forces at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE,
Nebuchadnezzar marched through Judah as part of his larger effort to gain control
of the whole area. This is the import of the statement in 2 Kings 24 : 7 to the effect
that the king of Egypt undertook no further campaigns outside of his country, having
lost his former hegemony to the king of Babylonia. And so, Jehoiakim switched
allegiance to the king of Babylonia.
Several years later, Jehoiakim saw a chance to break free of Nebuchadnezzar after
that king’s debacle at the hands of the Egyptians in the winter of 601 / 600 , when,
as we know from the Babylonian Chronicle Series, Nebuchadnezzar attempted to
attack Egypt, proper, and was forced to withdraw to Babylon. After regrouping,
Nebuchadnezzar returned and attacked Judah punitively, using diverse troops that
were positioned in the west. Jehoiakim may have died in these battles, for there is
no credible record of his having been taken to Babylon. In 2 Kings 23 : 37 , Jehoiakim
is given the usual, bad report card: he, like his royal ancestors, did what was evil in
Yahweh’s sight. Here is how the text of 2 Kings 24 : 2 – 4 explains the results
of Jehoiakim’s mistaken strategy:
Then Yahweh let loose bands of Chaldeans, Arameans, Moabites and Ammonites
against him, He let them loose against Judah to destroy it, in accordance with— The view from Jerusalem —