Full Text for Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo (Text)

. 13e~tetlnnen? [fiie ttletben ble .IHnbet untmid)tel, faUll bie @eme!nbe feitle tegeltedjte @emeinbe(d)ule ~ut1 lBe( onbere lBemetfungen. lim ben lnifitut oren bie lBericf)tetftuttung au edeidjietn, f olHe bief e~ ~ot:murut:, tuo moglidj, in beutfdjet unb engfifcf)et 6\)racf)e gebtudt bOt:~ fiegen unb beim ~taf e§ De§ st>ifitift§ au ljuoen f ein. @. lB e t: net. Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. Tho boast of the Lutheran Ohurch has ever been that it is "the Ohureh of the opell Bible," that the Holy Scriptures are given into the hands of every member, and that every Ohristian is urged to ransack the Bible for the truths of sulvution :md the revelation of God's grace and goodness in general. The Lutheran Ohureh has ever acknowledged, in addition, that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," Rom. 15,4, so that, while a difference is rightly made in the relative importance of the various parts of the Bible for the way of salvation, there is no book and no chapter that does not contain some instruction of value to the be- liever. Hence the Lutheran Ohurch is committed to Bible-study, a study whose base and nucleus indeed may and should be the systematic presentation of doctrinal theology, but which should extend from there into every department of knowledge set forth or even Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. 39 touched upon in the Bible, including in particular also the historical data with which so many of the doctrinal parts of tIle Bible are connected. Among the historical incidents of the Old Testament which have eaused scholars some difficulty is that of one of the last kings of Judah, Josiah, the grandson of the wicked king Manasseh, whose con- version late in life failed to make a sufficient impression upon his Bon Amon, of whom it is said that he walked not in the way of the Lord, but that he did that which was cvil in the sight of the Lord, 2 Kings 21, 20. 22. In marked contrast to the career of Manasseh and Amon we find that of Josiah described, who ascended the throne of Judah about 641--40 B. C. and died as the resnlt of wounds received in the Battle of Megiddo in the year 609 B. C. It is this incident that has given occasion to much comment, since its connection with the history of the times does not seem quite clear. Among the solutions of the problem which have been offered the following ones are representative. Urquhart (New Biblical Guide, Vol. VI, 199 if.) has the following remarks: "Is there anything' to show that Esarhaddon was aware of Manasseh's existence? An in- scription found at Kouyounyik contains in its fifth column the fol- lowing passage: - 'I assembled the kings of Syria and of the nations beyond the sea: Baal, King of Tyre, Manasseh, King of Judah, Kadnmnkh, King of Edam, Mitznri, King of Moab ... .' Here Manasseh, King of Judah, is placed second on the list of the subject kings of Syria. [This was before 661 B. C., the date of Esal'haddon's death.] . .. The first sign that the day of mercy had rcached its limit and that the day of judgment was about to begin, came in the cutting down of J udall's last 110pe. Assyria had fallen on evil times. The armies of the long-oppressed pcoples were closing in upon it on every side. Necho, with the Egyptian host, was pressing onward to the Euphrates to join them [i. e., the oppressed, who were trying to throw off the Assyrian yoke]. But to loyal-heartcd Josiah thero was an l1'rcsistible appeal in Assyria's need. He and the rcst had dwelt securely under its shadow. -Whatever others might do, he could not lightly cast away his oft-professed allegiance. He gathered his army together and threw himself between N echo and the Euphrates. The result was the defeat of the Jews [more correctly:. the army of Judah] and the death of the king." Urquhart then quotes 2 Kings 23, 29, apparently stressing the phrase "against the king of Assyria."l) He then criticizes Maspero (Histoire Ancienne, 411. 516. 538) because the latter states that the Egyptian king was marching 1) The preposition against, the Hebrew >31. may have the neutral sense, "in the direction of, toward," but also the negative sense, "against." Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. Ys' /A.;'.,,';F .. c,+' Babylon and not against Assyria. "He seems to assume," C' .=1'1T.'~" Urquhart, "that Assyria had already fallen and that' Babylon, under Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzal', had become the great power of the East. But if this were so, why should Necho advance to attack it ~ It had had no time as yet, though we should admit that AssYl'ia had already fallen, to subdue, or even to threaten, the West." Price (Monuments of the Old Testament, 339 f. 351 f.) con- tributes the following points to the discussion: "That Manasseh had been tributary to Ashurbanipa] is attested by the fact that we find 'Manasseh, king of J'udah,' in a list of twenty-two oihis vassal king"S in the Westland. It is identical with that of Esarhaddon except in two instances. . .. Assyria and Egypt, formerly enemies, were allies against Babylon and later against the combined armies of Babylon and the Medes. Nineveh was wiped out in 612 B. G., and the As- syrian capital was transferred to Harran, in Northwestern Mesopo- tamia. As its ally we find a formidable Egyptian army, later under N echo, the new king of Egypt. Josiah's foolhardy attempt to hold back the Egyptian army at the pass of Megiddo resulted disastrously for himself and the little kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 23, 29 f.)." We next refer to the Canadian Jou1'nal of Religious Thoughts (Vol. I, 1924, 307 ff.), where we have an article on "Josiah and Gadd, Babylonian Tablet," a cuneiform tablet of the BabylOIi.ian chronicle, discussed also by Price (l. c., 343 f.). The author of the article, W. T. McGree, writes : "We have this combination of circumstances, then, to study. An intense enmity on the part of Judah to Assyria, an enmity bred by the haughty, cruel policy of the empire toward its subject peoples. This finds abundant expression in the prophecies of Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Nor is the attitude to Egypt much more favorable. The fickle policy of Egypt (Is. 30) had too often proved Judah's undoing to compel consideration for that country, When the Assyrian Empire began to totter under the repeated shocks administered by the Scythians, Medes, and Babylo- nians, it is extremely probable that Josiah would carry into effect the policy of his great-grandfather, Hezekiah, and would enter into some kind of alliance with Babylon. This alliance would adequately explain Josiah's attempt to prevent Pharaoh N echo's marching to the Euphrates, in 608 [609] B. G. In the light of what the Chronicle reveals we must conclude that Pharaoh was hastening to the assistance of the Assyrians. . .. Josiah, wishing to carry out his part of the treaty, marched to intercept Necho. Perhaps he relied on the neighboring states to aid him, for it is likely that they as well as he were eager to see the power of Assyria completely crippled. Some Buch betrayal in the face of danger might well be the basis of the oracles against the neighboring states in Jer.47-49. Or perhaps he .Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. 41 l'elied on· Babylon, and she once again played her old game of allow- ing her ally tobear the brunt of the fighting, whilc she waited in the background to reap the rcsults. Megiddo does not seem, however, to have been a regular, pitched battle, but rather what we would call a 'reconnaissance in force,' which was brought to a sudden close by the tragic death of Josiah." :For the sake of complcteness we add here the conclusions of a German scholar, Landcrsdorfer (K uZtur de?' Babylonie?' and As- syrier, 37): "Del' Fall Ninives [612~] und Assyriens verschaffte del' altehrwuerdigen l'Iardukstadt am Euphrat nochmals auf einige J ahr- zelmte die leitende Stellung im vorderen Orient. Ein neubabylo- nisches Weltreich loeste das assyrische abo Und zwar war es dicsmal cine chaldaeischc Dynastie, del' die altc Kulturmetropole diese letzte Bluete verdankte. N abopolassM, del' Begruender derselbcn, war ur- spruenglich Feldherr dcs assyrischen Grosskoenigs; e1' scheint abel' bcrcits vom letzten assyrischen Koenig dcn Titel cines Koenigs von Babylon erhaltcl1 zu habc11. Zunaechst wi I'd er wohl nul' das Stadt- gebiet von Babylon besessen haben, abel' schon 609 legt cr sich den Titel 'Koenig del' Welt' bei. Nach del' Zerstocrung Ninives durch seine Bundesgenossen, die Medcr, teilte er sich mit ihnen in die Reste dcs assyrischen Reiches und erhielt dabci aIle Laender diesseits des Tigris, also Mesopotamien und Syrien. Zum Teil musste er sich sein E1'be freilich erst erobern; denn N echo II., del' Koenig von Aegypten, machte die alten Ansprueche del' Pharaonen auf Syrien von neuem g'A1tend. Schon 607 [609J wal' diesel' in Palaestina erschienen und, nachdem er dAn juedischen Koenig J osias, del' ihm als treUel' Vasall Assyriens entgcgengetreten, bei Mcgiddo geschlagen, bis an dAn Euphrat vorgedrungen." Since the scholars working in this field naturally draw on Josephus for some of their material, it may serve our purpose to quote the passage here concerned (Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. V, No.1): "Now Neco, king of Egypt, raised an army and marched to the river Euphratcs in order to fight with the Medes and Babylonians, who had overthrown the dominion of the Assyrians, for he had a desire to reign over Asia.2) Now, when he was come to the city Mendes, which belonged to the kingdom of Josiah, he brought an arIDY to hinder him from passing through his own country, in his expedition against the Medes." The remainder of the account of Josephus is practically that of the Bible. It is hard to tell whether 2) Whision remarks in hiA edition of Josephus: "This is a remarkable passage of chronology ill Josephus, that about the latter end of the reign of Josiah the JllIedes amI Babylonians overthrow the empire of the As- syrians, or, in the words of Tobit's continuator, that 'before Tobit died, he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, which was taken by Nebuchodonosor tlw Babylonian and Assuerus the Mede.' " 42 Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. Josephus possessed reliable information or whether he was merely quoting from hearsay, possibly from apocryphal sources. The facts with regard to the situation in the East dm:ing the last half of the seventh century B. O. seem to be the following. When Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, lost Egypt, he found that it took his strongest efforts to maintain his ascendency in his southwestern pos- sessions, especially those bordering on Egypt. The last years of this king, who died in 626 B. 0., are wrapped in obscurity, which may have been due chiefly to the Scythian invasion, which rolled down through Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine to the very borders of Egypt. Op. J er. 5,15 ff.; 6,18 ff.; Ezek. 38. It seems that, to the menace of this Scythian invasion, was added that of the Medes, who, especially under Oyaxares, 01' Kyaxares, became strong enough to con- quer Nineveh. It seems clear also that N abopolassar, who became king in 625, allied himself with the rising power of the Medes, thereby throwing off the yoke of the hated Assyrian and founding the new Babylonia. After the fall of Nineveh (612 B.O.) the whole As- syrian empire west and south of the mountains fell to him. When an Assyrian noble bearing the name of Ashur-uballit escaped and proclaimed himeslf king of .Assyria, with Hanan as his capital, he was attacked by N abopolassar and with the help of the Medes driven out of his new capital. It seems that Ashur-uballit became an ally of Pharaoh N echo II when the latter invaded Asia. This is the his- torical setting as it has now been pretty definitely determined. Let us now look somewhat closely at the Bible-passages con- cm'ned in the pl'oblem before us. In 2 Kings 23, 29 f. we read: "In his [Josiah's] days Pharaoh-nechoh, king of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria [,~ being used as the preposition] by the river Euphrates; and King Josiah went up against him [inN;~?] j and he slew him at Megiddo when he had Been him. And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own sepulcher." The account in 2 Ohron. 35,20 ff. is somewhat longer: "Mter all this, when Josiah had pre- pared the Temple, N echo, king of Egypt, came up to fight against Oarchemish by Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him.S) But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against tho house wherewith I have war; for God commanded me to make haste. Forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that He destroy thee not. Nevertheless Josiah would not tUl'll his face from him, but disguised himself that he might fight with him and hearkened not unto the words of N echo from the mouth of God and came to fight in the Valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at 3) Preposition and verb as in the Kings passage. Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. 43 King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away, for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem. And he died and was buried in one of the sepulchers. of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day and made them an ordinance in Israel; and, behold, they aro written in the lamentations." Cpo J er. 22, 10. 11. The lamenta- tion is also referred to in Zech.12, 11-14: "In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. . .." And the final chapter of this story is alluded to in J er. 46, 1. 2: "The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah, the prophet, against the Gentiles, against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh-necho, king of Egypt, which was by thA river Euphrates in Cal'ehemish, which N ebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, smote in the fourth year of J Ahoiakim, the son of .r osiah, king of Judah." This was in the year 605, when the ascendency of the Chaldeans or of Babylon was definitely established. What conclusions may now be drawn fro+tl the available material concerning the campaign undertaken by Josiah in attempting to hin- der the progress of Pharaoh N echo II on his way to the :Euphrates ~ Thcre can be no doubt of the fact that Manassch was tributary to both Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, for here the statements of the chronicles agree with those of Scripture. It seems just as certain that Amon remained in this state of dependency during' his short reign. This condition also continued during the first decades of Josiah's reign, when he was not involved in any world politics. But Assyria was overthrown in 612 B. C., and the feeble attemp~s of Ashur~uballit to maintain himself, even as an ally of N ccho, did not have much success. It seems that one may well assume a condition favoring Josiah and his kingdom. He evidently brought his kingdom to a position of independence at this time, a situation to be desired all the more since the I,ord had constantly issued warnings against entangling alliances. Op. ]~zck. 29, 6. - On the other hand, Pharaoh Necho II might well have intended to join the conquered Assyrian forces in an attempt to crush, or at least to hold in check, the power of the new Babylonian kingdom, with Nabopolassar at its head, first of Aldmd, or North Babylonia, then of the whole country. A sug'- gestion which is of some value in solving the difficulty connected with the preposition ,~ is that offered by Keil (Kommenia1', Die Buecher der Koenigl3, on 2 Kings 23, 2'7-29), when he suggests that both pos- sibilities would agree with the text, namely, that the campaign of Pharaoh Necho might have been either against the last king of the Assyrian empire or against the king who had made himself master Josiah and the Battle of Megiddo. of the fallen Assyrian territory, namely, N abopolassar, the latter being the more likely solution. The conclusion seems to be warranted that Josiah made an at- tempt to safeguard the neutmlity of the buffer state of which he was the head, since he felt that this was the only course left to him in the circumstances. Reil puts his conclusions in this form: "Del' Grund, welchel' J osia bewog, dem V orruecken des Aegypters an den Euphrat, ungeachtet del' Versicherung N ech08, nicht wider J uda streiten zu wollen, mit Waffengewalt entgegenzutreten, ist wedel' darin zu suchen, dass J osia unter babylonischer Abhaengigkeit ge- standen, was mit del' Geschichte streitet, noch darin~ dass das Reich J uda damals aIle Gebiete des alten Erbes Israel in Besitz genommen hatte und Josia die ganze alte Herrlichkeit des Davidischen Hauses uebel' die umliegenden Voelkel' herzusteHen suchte ... , sondern einzig in del' Ueberzeugung J osias, dass bei dem zwischen Aegypten und Babel losbrechenden Rriege J uda nicht neutral bleiben koenne, und in del' Hoffnung, durch Bekaempfung N echos und Vereitlung seines Zuges an den Euphrat grosses Unheil von seinem Lande und Reiche abwenden zu koennen." To this we may add the interesting excursus given by DaechseI, who writes: "Auf del' einen Seite war es eine ganz richtige Politik J osias, dass er die von dem aegyptischen Roenig ihm angebotene N eutralitaet nicht annahm, sondern des sen V orruecken nach dem Euphrat sich in den Weg steHte; denn e8 war vorauszusehen, dass Pharao N echo das Reich J uda nul' fuel' jetzt in Ruhe lassen wollte, bis er am Euphrat feste SteHung genommen, dann abel' dasselbe desto sicherer unter seine Gewalt zu zwingen suchen wuerde; gelang ihm dagegen sein Unternehmen nicht, sondern wuel'de er zurueck- geschlagen, so stand mit Gewissheit zu befuerchten, dass del' Siegel' in den Laendern an dem Euphart und Tigris, mochte nun del' assYl'ische odeI' del' babylonische Roenig den Preis davontragen, wider Aegypten aufbl'echen und unterwegs auch Palaestina seinem Reiche einver- leiben wuerde. . .. Auf del' andern Seite hingegen war J osias Politik eine voellig ver£ehlte; es waere bessel' gewesen, er haette dem aegyp- tischen Roenige den Durchzug durch das Gebiet des ehemaligen noerdlichen Reichs, da er in staatsrechtlicher Hinsicht nicht ver- antwortlich dafuer war, ohne Wider stand gestattet. Judas Zeit war naemlich nunmehr vorueber und del' Tag des Gerichts uebel' dasselbe nicht mehr aufzuhalten; in J er. 15,1 ff. hoeren wir, dass del' Herr kein Herz mehr hatte zu diesem V olke, und wenngleich ein Moses oder Samuel Fuerbitte fuel' dasselbe einlegen wollte. Und so musste J osias VOl'llehmen nul' dazu dienen, das Wort del' goettlichen Zusage in Rap. 22, 18 ff., dass er hinweggerafft werden soUte VOl' dem Un- glueck, an ihm in Erfuellung zu bringen, in und mit ihm abel' auch die letze Mauer urn das V olk her niederzureissen und den letzten ~nthlurf au etner 5\(befter~rebiot Uber !lIf. 103, 2. 45 Damm wider das iIruner naeher rueckende Verderben zu durch- brechen. Dass er, den eigentlichen Stand del' Dinge verkennend, in Pharao N echos Wort, welches ihn zu ruhigem Gewaehrenlassen er- mahnte, da er, del' Koenig von Aegypten, ein goettliches Orakel fuel' sich habe, das ihm den Durchzug durch Samaria gestatte, die Stimme des Herrn nicht verstand, sondeI'll den Eingebungen seines eigenen, wenn auch noch so frommen u"nd wohlmeinenden, Herzens folgte, das ist es, was in 2 Ohron. 35, 20 ff. ihm zum V orwurf gemacht wird." This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation in view of all attendant circumstances, also with reference to the situation on the Euphrates. P. E. METZMANN. 4 • " ~er ;satjte§3fdjIuf3 ift ein ernfter ~lienb. 2Rieber ein ;satjt niitjer unferm ~ob, bem ®rali, bem ®erid)t, bet @:toigleit. ~f. 39, 6. 7. 12. ~~tie, e!eifon 1 - 2ReItmenfd)en liebenfen ba§3 nid)t mit (§rnft. @)ie feiern @)ilbefter in @)au§3 unb !Btau§3, am @)pieltifd), aUf bem ~analioben, oft in fd)iinblid)er iYleifdje§3Iuft. 5 Wlof. 32, 5. 6 a. IDland)et bon itjnen Hegt liinnen futaem tot unb laIt aUf bet !Batjte. - C£tjriften, bie ja in ®otte§3 2Regen toanbe!n tooUen, ettoiigen gerabe liei bief et ®elegentjeit bie erfatjtene S)ulb unb ®unft be§3 (§tliarmet§3. ;se etnftHd)et fie nad)~ benlen, befto metjr Utfad)e tjalien fie au bet @)e!liftetmunfetung: 20lie ben ~a:nn, meine eleele! 1. 2Ratum1 A. Wlannigfad) unb unaiitjUlat Hnb bie 2B 0 tj I tat e n be§3 ~(§ttn. a. ;stjm betbanfen toit Utfptung, Beben unb ~afein, ben Beib mit bet wunbewaten @:inrid)tung bet ~ugen, £JI)ten unb aUet ®liebmaf3en, bie unftetbIidje @)eele, metnunft unb aUe @)inne (@)etjen, ~iiren, !ltied) en, @)d)meden, iYiitjlen). ~a3u aud) unf ete @:ttjartung unb !ltegierung: bie (§rbe, aUf bet toit Ieben; bie ®efd)opfe, bie et auf, in unb iibet bet @:tbe un~ au ~ienft liefterrt tjat; aUe iYlotburft unb iYlatjtung, toomit et uni3 nun wiebet berfotgt ljat; ben @)d)ut in ®efatjren, bie !Bewaljtung bot bie!en ftlieln (~rieg, ltbetfd)toemmung, ~eftHena, buHanifd)e @:d)ebun~ gen, ~ungeti3not). 2Re!d) eine begIilcrenbe iYiifIe bon @5egeni3giltern 1 b. ;stjm betbanfen toit, bie wit bon iYlatut ali3 iYeinbe unter f einem iYlud) lagen, ben gniibigen !ltatfd)Iuf3 unferet @:dofung, bie @5enbung bei3 ~ei~ Ianbei3, C£tjtifti 2RiUigfeit oUt @)teUberitetung, bie @:twetbung bei3 ~eili3. £J @)ftome ber !Batmtjet3igleit aui3 bem milben ~eiIanMl)etilen! c. ;stjm betbanfen wir bie Bueignung bet metfiitjnung burd) ®ottei3 ted)tfetti~ genbe§3 UrieH, unfere (§infilgung in ben !Bau bet unfid)tbaren ~itd)e, unfere etfoIgteid)e !Beliimpfung bet ~obe§3futd)t, unfete ~offnung auf ein ewigei3 Belien. iYiltwatjt, eine teid)gebedte ~afeI gniibigen G!it~ batmeni3! @:ptj. 1, 3.