Observations and Considerations on the Epilogue Formulae in the Books of Kings
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_0913FA8AD218
Type
A part of a book
Publication sub-type
Chapter: chapter ou part
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Observations and Considerations on the Epilogue Formulae in the Books of Kings
Title of the book
A King like all the Nations ? Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Bible and History
Publisher
LIT Verlag
Address of publication
Vienne et Zurich
ISBN
978-3-643-90674-8
Publication state
Published
Issued date
07/2015
Editor
Oeming M., Slama P.
Volume
28
Series
Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel
Chapter
15
Pages
175-192
Language
english
Abstract
The present article examines the final part of the regnal formulas in the Book of Kings, i.e. the epilogue formulary.
Most reports of the kings of Israel and Judah end with an epilogue containing formulaic statements about the death of the king and his succession. Typically, the epilogue formula is introduced by the phrase (source reference): 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel)?' and consists of three elements: 1. Dynastic notice ('PN1 slept with his fathers'); 2. Statement of burial; 3. Statement of succession.
Sometimes one, two or all three of these elements are altered or lacking. The epilogue formulae of the Judean kings are more consistent than those of the Israelite kings; the latter often lacks a burial notice. Interestingly, the accounts of the deported (arrested) kings (Hoshea: 2 Kgs 17:6, Jehoahaz: 23:34, Zedekiah:25:7 and Jehoiachin: 25:27-30) do not contain an epilogue at all, nor the accounts of the reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah which mark an episode of disruption in the history of the Davidic kingdom. For all these kings even the phrase 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of... ?' is lacking. The absence of an epilogue in these cases is probably due to the fact that the king's succession (cf. element 3) is considered a constitutive and indispensable component of the epilogue.
In the first instance, the approach of this study is descriptive and philological; it aims to contribute to the understanding of the notices. Secondly, the study addresses the question how the irregularities and variations within the formulae are to be explained. In particular, the study will pay attention to differences between the epilogue formulae concerning the kings of Israel and those concerning the Judean kings. At the end, questions concerning the epilogues formula's provenance and its formation date and concerning further redactional developments will be considered.
Most reports of the kings of Israel and Judah end with an epilogue containing formulaic statements about the death of the king and his succession. Typically, the epilogue formula is introduced by the phrase (source reference): 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel)?' and consists of three elements: 1. Dynastic notice ('PN1 slept with his fathers'); 2. Statement of burial; 3. Statement of succession.
Sometimes one, two or all three of these elements are altered or lacking. The epilogue formulae of the Judean kings are more consistent than those of the Israelite kings; the latter often lacks a burial notice. Interestingly, the accounts of the deported (arrested) kings (Hoshea: 2 Kgs 17:6, Jehoahaz: 23:34, Zedekiah:25:7 and Jehoiachin: 25:27-30) do not contain an epilogue at all, nor the accounts of the reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah which mark an episode of disruption in the history of the Davidic kingdom. For all these kings even the phrase 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of... ?' is lacking. The absence of an epilogue in these cases is probably due to the fact that the king's succession (cf. element 3) is considered a constitutive and indispensable component of the epilogue.
In the first instance, the approach of this study is descriptive and philological; it aims to contribute to the understanding of the notices. Secondly, the study addresses the question how the irregularities and variations within the formulae are to be explained. In particular, the study will pay attention to differences between the epilogue formulae concerning the kings of Israel and those concerning the Judean kings. At the end, questions concerning the epilogues formula's provenance and its formation date and concerning further redactional developments will be considered.
Create date
25/02/2016 0:23
Last modification date
20/08/2019 12:31
Usage data
