Canter Bridge

Marvin Sweeney’s distinguished career has so often touched upon the compositional urges that lie behind different tranches of biblical literature that he has become one of the most-mentioned points of reference in introductions and prefaces to works that travel the same road. This 2001 publication now turns to one of the personalities—whether one defines such in historical or literary terms—that appears to lie behind the literature and to illuminate the product by filling out our understanding of the process. Temperamental considerations suggest that the book’s provocative—and not entirely misleading—subtitle is likely the invention of Sweeney’s editors rather than the author himself.

King Josiah of Judah is essentially a two-part exploration of the Deuteronomistic History and classical prophetic history, respectively, with an attached introduction and conclusion.

Sweeney’s masterful and inviting introduction traces tensions within the biblical presentation(s) of the Judahite king, a figure at points more celebrated than the paradigmatic good king David yet apparently damned or at least demeaned by faint praise. His early death and the absence of an explanation of this strange event belies the fact that modern scholars consider Josiah and his eponymous reform efforts virtually formative of the book of Deuteronomy (based on the correlation between the former’s practice and the latter’s paranesis) and therefore at the architectonic core of biblical criticism’s reconstruction of Israelite religion and literature. Yet, paradoxically at least for an author whose book is so titled, Sweeney suspects that biblical scholars and their relative ignorance of the archaeological record conspire to make too much of Josiah. Though Sweeney is by no means prepared to deny the historical kernel that lies at the heart of the biblical portrayal of Josiah, neither does he view this king as David redivivus either in terms of historical achievement or in those of monarchical intention.

Sweeney finds the key to slicing through the Gordian knot in the assumption that major portions of the DtrH and the prophetic books were reworked—particularly those with a northern, Israelite origin—to support Josiah’s efforts to bring the north back in under Jerusalemite, Davidic rule as the recreation of ‘all Israel’. Would that all scholarly writers produced as clear a road map to their detailed arguments as Sweeney does in the final three pages of his introduction, where a series of ‘I argue …’ statements clearly indicates the way forward.

In chapter one, Sweeney provides a better-than-garden-variety explanation of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) as a theodicy explaining Israel’s failure in terms of covenantal treason that are laid out in the book of Deuteronomy (‘The Deuteronomistic History’, pp. 21–39). After a survey of 20th-century criticism’s tinkering at the margins of the pessimistic and optimistic views of DtrH’s intention ascribed, respectively, to Noth and von Rad, the author introduces Cross’ ‘most influential model for understanding the presentation of Josiah in the biblical literature’. Cross and his disciples argue ‘for an original Josianic edition of the DtrH that presents Josiah’s reign as the culmination of Israel’s history.’

Since subsequent history, pardon the redundancy, makes such a claim for Josiah’s rule dubious at best, a literary climb-down is required and duly executed by one or more later, post-Josianic redactions of the DtrH.

This survey of work on Josiah and the DtrH sets the reader up sympathetically to receive Sweeney’s contention in favor of ‘an overall evaluation of the hypothesis of a Josianic edition of the DtrH. A number of factors seem to point to the likelihood of such an edition, but a number of key questions remain open.’ In the chapter’s closing paragraphs, Sweeney hints that no less a greater luminary than King David will come under his microscope, for ‘(a)lthough a great deal of evidence seems to identify Hezekiah as an ideal Davidic figure, questions must be raised as to whether this justifies naming him as the ideal monarch of the DtrH. The question is further complicated by the fact that Davidic kingship is not necessarily the model of ideal leadership in the DtrH … This raises the possibility that the DtrH is concerned not merely with ideal Davidic kingship, but with ideal leadership in general that extends ultimately back to the time of Moses and Joshua.’

Lost messiahs indeed.

The prophetic nature of the DtrH is recognized in Sweeney’s insistence that its treatment of Josiah is an ‘evaluation’ rather than an ‘account’, an observation that he elevates preemptively to the level of a title (Chapter 2, ‘The Regnal Evaluation of Josiah in 2 Kings 22:1—23:30’, pp. 40–51). As an accomplished form critic, the author is aware of disruption in the narrative’s syntax that suggests interpolations, emphatic intention, and the like. Early in this second chapter, he singles out one such moment of syntactical awkwardness (23.26–27) and finds in it evidence the narrative has been adjusted in the (exilic) direction of a destroyed Judah, Jerusalem, and Temple.

The prosecution of such diminutive evidence is both the weakness and the appeal of Sweeney’s brand of criticism. Sweeney teases out of such data a redactional purpose that ‘goes beyond even a simple evaluation of Josiah. Rather, its purpose is to reiterate and perhaps to justify YHWH’s decision to punish Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple despite Josiah’s exemplary behavior. From the perspective of the narrative, Josiah’s actions are of absolutely no consequence for deciding the future of Judah and Jerusalem; the decision was already made in relation to Manasseh’s actions … But the intention to reiterate and justify YHWH’s decision to destroy Judah also points to the grounds for a redaction-critical reconstruction of the Josiah narrative, primarily because it appears to be working at cross purposes. Why should the narrator make the effort to portray Josiah’s righteousness in such detail so that he potentially becomes the figure who resolves the major problems of the DtrH?’

The answer to this and other musings can be found, Sweeney argues, in our ability to disentangle narratives like the famous Huldah narrative, locating those elements that must have served a pre-exilic, Josianic edition and then—in turn—those adjustments that seem to reckon with a national destruction even as they carefully absolve Josiah for this tragic denouement.

If Josiah is to be absolved from responsibility for the catastrophe of exile, who then will shoulder the blame? According to Sweeney and a relatively broad range of scholars, the exilic edition of the DtrH chooses Manasseh as its scapegoat (chapter three, ‘The Regnal Evaluation of Manasseh in 2 Kings 21:1–18’, pp. 52–63). Yet Sweeney finds the sin of Manasseh so pervasive a motif that it is nigh unto impossible to separate the ‘blame elements’ in order to discover a pre-exilic version with a more high-minded assessment of Manasseh.

Almost impossible, but not quite. Sweeney tracks down a series of syntactical disruptions in the text that allows him to conclude, in spite of the mentioned difficulties, that an earlier (Josianic) redaction of the DtrH did not lay at Manasseh’s feet such exile-provoking misdeeds as, say, the erection of an Asherah.

The Hezekiah narrative in 2 Kings ‘clearly points to exilic concerns’ (chapter four ‘The Regnal Evaluation of Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18—20’, pp. 64–76). This appraisal lends momentum to Sweeney’s wish to identify ‘an exilic edition of the Hezekiah narrative distinct from an earlier form’, is possible. A familiar pattern emerges, one that signals ‘an exilic reworking of this (pre-existing) text’. Specifically, ‘(a) narrative that portrays the righteous acts of Hezekiah (reviewer: he removed the high places) as a cause for YHWH’s deliverance to one that attempts to employ Hezekiah’s image to point to the coming Babylonian exile (reviewer: in that he showed the temple treasures to the Merodach Baladan embassy).’ One important characteristic of the Josianic narrative that Sweeney is sketching out is ‘the strong stamp of YHWH’s promise to the house of David and the restoration of Jerusalem’, whereas an exilic redaction has for obvious reasons come to believe less energetically in the now ruined mother city’s inviolability.

The prominence of King Jeroboam ben Nebat as the northern kingdom’s founding monarch and royal sanctioner of the calf images at Dan and Beth-el pervades the DtrH’s assessment of Israel (chapter five, ‘The Presentation of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 1 Kings 12—2 Kings 17’, pp. 77–92). Sweeney approves F. Cross’ argument that ‘the theme of Jeroboam’s sins provides the counterpoint to the faithfulness of David and YHWH’s promise of an eternal house for David as a basic motif of the Josianic edition of the DtrH.’ Along these lines the author develops his theory that ‘the present form of the narrative clearly looks forward to the reign of King Josiah as a time when the prophecies of the unnamed man of G-d will be fulfilled, viz., the destruction of the altar at Beth-el by Josiah.’

In an extraordinarily dense chapter six, Sweeney ranges widely across DtrH attitudes towards David and Solomon (‘The Critique of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–11 and 2 Samuel 9:11–24”, pp. 93–109). As things stand in the DtrH, is David an ideal king or rather does he figure—with son Solomon—as the root cause of all that has gone awry?

It is self-evident that Solomon is lauded in this literature. But does the knife that praises him cut in two directions? It would appear so, for embedded even in the narratives that would seem to exalt this first scion of David’s house are descriptions of behavior that run at cross currents with Torah instruction. Indeed, Sweeney indicates that ‘the narrative in 1 Kings 1–11 portrays Solomon as violating every one of these (Deuteronomy’s monarchic foundation) guidelines.’

Sweeney finds few exilic concerns in the Solomon narratives. This is one key point in his assessment of these passages as part of an early, Josianic redaction that will place Josiah over against Solomon (and even David!) as the ideal king whose comportment hearkens back to the genuine leadership of Moses and Joshua.

Perhaps more clearly than any of the book’s nineteen chapters for comprehending Sweeney’s strong reliance on the principle of cui bono fuisset principle, chapter seven outlines the author’s understanding of how precisely the Book of Judges prepares DtrH’s reader for Saul’s downfall and David’s rise (‘David, Saul, and the Presentation of the Judges’, pp. 110–124). The book’s striking narratives were originally independent, but have been carefully reworked and integrated into the extant text in a way that underscores Judah’s and David’s credentials for ruling. Yet the Book of Samuel’s ensuing Succession Narrative will take pains not to idealize the very king it accredits, leaving to Josiah the prerogative of repairing the damage done by David’s misdemeanors. Judges and Samuel, then, both laud and blame their kings, the first by implication and the establishment of complex typologies that refer forward to doomed Saul without mentioning his name.

For Sweeney, then, ‘the present form of the book of Judges is clearly a Judean composition … (It) obviously prepares the reader for the rise of David, and, given the polemic against Saul, suggests that the narrative could stem from the court of David or Solomon themselves’ … ‘The narrative thereby presupposes a setting in which Judah exists in some form as a viable entity, and it has an agenda to serve in pointing to the failure of the northern tribes with their sanctuaries at Dan and Beth-El. This precludes the exilic period or any later time as the collapse of Israel was hardly an issue unless it pointed to the collapse of Judah as well. Rather, the narrative seems to presuppose a setting in which Judah attempts to assert its ability to maintain order and security and to promote justice over against Israel.’

A Josian or perhaps Hezekian context is thus warranted.

Chapter eight (‘Joshua, pp. 125–136) is the first of ten one-word chapter titles, the content of which surveys the treatment that Josiah receives in each of the named biblical books. Sweeney surveys Noth’s still definitive de-linking of Joshua from the Pentateuchal sources and his anchoring of this book to the root of the Deuteronomic evaluation of Israel’s conduct and destiny. He notes as well the twin themes of the land as YHWH’s ‘gift’ and Israel’s corresponding responsibility to maintain covenant fidelity.

The material of Joshua is resolutely ‘northern’. This points to an earlier form of the book that was unconcerned with the destiny of Judah and Jerusalem. At some point, it seems that this edition was reworked into a Josianic redaction that underscored the parallels between Joshua and Josiah, making of the latter a new-Joshua figure.

Sweeney’s thirty-odd pages on Deuteronomy are worth the formidable price of the book (chapter nine, ‘Deuteronomy’, pp. 137–169). The author profiles the critical consensus regarding the similarities between the legislation found in Deuteronomy and the reform movement credited by DtrH to Josiah. It is principally the profound and multivalent resemblances between the two that place some form of Deuteronomy at the center of the impulse that generated DtrH.

Sweeney is deeply aware of the ‘northern’ influences in the book. Yet in a discussion that is eminently attentive to the function of law in Israelite literature (and society?), he develops a program for understanding Deuteronomy as both an adoption and an adaptation of northern, covenantal tradition by the southern King Josiah for the sake of suppression of the far-flung Levites, centralization of the cult and its economic benefits in Jerusalem, and empowerment of the Davidic monarchy. In this scheme, the book undermines the power of the Levites by speaking their language: ‘(T)he Levitical sermon form is used in Deuteronomy expressly for the purpose of challenging Levitical rights.’

With regard to the complex interplay between the decalog (Sweeney’s preferred spelling) and the more discursive legal materials in Deuteronomy, the author is particularly compelling. The blend of apodictic and casuistic genres creates a legal framework that is heavily reliant upon example and principle, indeed ‘a guidebook for legal reasoning.’ With regard to the demonstrable differences between the Covenant Code of Exodus 20-23 and the Deuteronomic legislation, ‘… Deuteronomy does not modify or replace all the laws of the Covenant Code; rather, it must be read together with the Covenant Code in that it represents a revision of the older code that allows the unmodified laws in Exodus 20–23 to stand as written.’

Seldom are compositional, literary, socio-economic, legal, and history-of-Israelite religion matters treated so masterfully in such a short space as this chapter, one that would represent solid ‘introduction’ reading in any number of university and seminary courses.

In closing his first of two sections (‘The Deuteronomistic History’), the author turns the wheel of the kaleidoscope, deftly bringing the myriad details of his first nine chapters into coherent focus (chapter ten, ‘Conclusion to Part I’, pp. 170-177). Sweeney weaves together the disparate elements of his argument to argue for a Josianic edition of the DtrH in addition to the extant exilic edition known to us in our canonical texts, as well as for a possible earlier Hezekian edition. The reader would do well to engage this section after the book’s introduction and before plunging into chapters 2–9.

Since the entire second half of the book addresses ‘Prophetic Literature and Josiah’s Reign’, Sweeney quite rightly begins with a general discussion of advances in the study of the biblical prophets (pp. 179–184). Beginning by noticing the frequency with which prophetic individuals appear as bearers of Deuteronomistic news in DtrH, the author moves on to sketch the post-war scholarly move away from paring the prophetic literature down to its ‘original’ core in a quest for the prophetic persona. Contemporary scholarship is more likely to understand the prophets as culturally embedded persons who utilized their social location in attempt to move Israel and/or Judah towards their particular understanding of Yahwistic obedience. In this line of approach, the literature is taken seriously as testimony to ‘readings’ of prophetic tradition in the light of subsequent events, an historical subsequence that in theory my include the possibility of ‘Josianic’ readings of some of the prophets.

In ‘Zephaniah’, Sweeney provides a reading of the eponymous book that counters the widespread critical attribution of the book’s ‘universalist’ passages to post-exilic authors or redactors. Instead, the book’s ‘scenario corresponds precisely to the early years of Josiah’s reign.’ Josiah, it is noted, is the only king mentioned in the book’s superscription. Similar pro-Josianic motives and origin are credited to the book of Nahum (chapter twelve, pp. 198–207).

Given the proximity of the book of Jeremiah to Deuteronomistic ideology that is purported by biblical scholars, it is to be expected that Sweeney’s treatment of Jeremiah should be relatively extensive. In this regard, the author’s approach is predictable (chapter thirteen, ‘Jeremiah’, pp. 208–233).

Sweeney capably parses indications that the prophet might have been hostile to the Josianic reforms with contrary evidence that he located himself relatively close both to the protagonists who carried them out and to the motives that animated them.

The bulk of the chapter is devoted to the relationship between Jeremiah’s message to Israel and its subsequent adaptation as a summons to Judah. Sweeney is able to detect a ‘shift of addressees’ in the texts he examines that signal just such a reutilization of the prophet’s proclamation: ‘… a redaction has transformed a text addressed to the former northern kingdom of Israel to one addressed to Jerusalem and Judah. It employs the model of Israel’s failure to repent and to return to YHWH as the premise for what will befall Jerusalem and Judah if they fail to do so. It is only the redactional material … that establishes this analogy between Israel and Judah. If this material is removed, a relatively coherent text remains in which the northern kingdom of Israel is called to repentance and to return to YHWH in Zion … The setting for the earlier text addressed to Israel in Jeremiah 2:2—4.2 must be placed in the reign of Josiah insofar as Josiah attempted to bring the former northern kingdom back under Davidic rule.’

This reconstruction contemplates a revision in the prophet’s own perception of Judah’s destiny. His initial optimism regarding reunification of the two monarchies gave way after Josiah’s death at the hands of Pharaoh Neco to an expectation that ‘Judah would suffer punishment for rebellion against YHWH’s will at the hands of northern powers. Nevertheless, this analysis indicates that the seeds for a message of restoration also are evident in the earliest preaching of Jeremiah. Just as the prophet envisioned the restoration of Israel in earliest work, so that message of restoration influenced the message of later forms of the book Jeremiah and its promises of a restored Jerusalem, Israel, and house of David in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile.’

Sweeney’s rejection of an absolute antithesis between a more classical ‘doom message’ and its reversal by hopeful redactors together with his assessment that circumstances did in fact alter the shape of this prophet’s expectation will be welcomed as well by Isaiah scholars.

Speaking of which, chapter fourteen shows Sweeney finding Josiah at the compositional root of a sixty-six chapter book that never mentions this king’s name (chapter seven, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 234–255). ‘How is this possible?’, one might ask. Indeed.

The author’s Big Idea may have outrun the evidence here, but the reader ought not to make that judgment without first understanding that Sweeney is here in the company of several extremely accomplished scholars and that he is not without argument in discovering Josiah where no one has recorded his name.

Together with—inter alia—H. Barth and R. Clements, Sweeney believes that a Josianic redaction of the book gathers up promise of Assyria’s downfall and a truly just Davidic king in a first edition that as yet had nothing of the elaborate exilic celebration of Babylon’s downfall. Even those who are not persuaded by Sweeney’s case will read with pleasure his explanation of how concern with exile in the period under review extended well beyond the notorious Babylonian exile. Indeed, Israel’s first horrific first-millennium experience of captivity and dispersion came at the hands of the Assyrians in 722 and thereabouts. Standard reconstruction of Deuteronomistic materials references the likely presence in Judah of refugees of that catastrophe, intent not only on theodicy but also on warning their Judean cousins away from the behaviors that they believed had occasioned the loss of kith and kin in the catastrophic annihilation of the ten-tribe northern kingdom.

This reviewer finds Sweeney’s case for a Josianic redaction of Isaiah on the basis of a ‘what would fit in Josiah’s time and motivation’ argument unproven, though set down with the kind of consistency, complexity, and coherence that one comes to expect in his works.

If Sweeney leaves us gasping for evidence for his discovery of Josiah in Isaiah, he is both more restrained and more persuasive when he treats the book of Hosea (chapter fifteen, pp. 256–272). The author presents and develops the scholarly opinion in favor of the book’s presentation of the prophet’s message to Israel for a post-722 Judean audience. In summary fashion, Sweeney’s research indicates that ‘the book of Hosea is presented not simply as a transcript or report of the prophet’s career and message, but that the book is presented for didactic or persuasive purposes—that is, the reader is intended to learn something from this book and to apply what is learned as a means to choose a preferred course of action over one that is considered to be undesirable.’ As such, ‘the present form of the book as a whole is addressed not to the people of Israel, but to the people of Judah.’

Unexpectedly—and although the book can be read in a way that fits well with Josiah’s term as Judah’s king—Sweeney does not arrive at this conclusion. Though plausibly Josianic, the evidence seems to the author to line up just as well with a Hezekian time frame.

Sweeney brings a similarly nuanced touch to his superb chapter on Amos (chapter sixteen, pp. 273–286). The author is particularly helpful in his recognition of Judah’s vassal status vis-à–vis Israel and how this power imbalance between the kingdoms casts light on Amos’ mission and message.

One appreciates as well Sweeney’s recognition that certain critical reconstructions are ‘undergirded by the assumption that Deuteronomic thought is exilic, but the Dtr connection with Josiah’s program is increasingly evident.’ It is precisely this tendency towards correlating a pre-exilic Dtr tradition with given historical circumstances and a laudable post-classical-Formgeschichte openness to lengthy, complex, and unified prophetic literature that moves Sweeney towards positing an eight-century date for the final form of Amos. A similar treatment of the book of Micah (chapter seventeen, pp. 287–300) locates its composition neither in the time of Micah nor in the post-exilic period. Over against those established critical conclusions, Sweeney argues that the notion of ‘exile’ as depicted in this book can well refer not to the Babylonian dispersion but rather to the trauma inflicted upon the northern kingdom by Assyria. By similar coin, ‘restoration’ can mean the renewal of Davidic rule over the north. When the book’s content is seen in this light, a Josianic matrix becomes plausibly generative.

A final themed chapter on Habakkuk follows (chapter 18, pp. 301–313), in which the author provides a reading of Habakkuk over against Jeremiah. Habakkuk sees the Judah of the early seventh century as innocent. The ‘evil’ represented by Habakkuk is the Babylonian incursion and its perpetrators. Theodicy consists in YHWH’s assertion that he will not tarry in bringing justice. For Jeremiah, on the other hand, the Judeans are culpable and deserving of exile by the Babylonians, who are God’s servant in the accomplishment of such punishment. Habakkuk dates from the period after Josiah’s reign, when Judean resurgence seems a failed project.

A fascinating and teasingly brief ‘Conclusion to Part II’ (chapter nineteen, pp. 311–313) underscores the supplementary manner in which the prophets reflect upon aspects of the Josianic project that did not come to the fore in DtrH. Sweeney hints that the disappointment of Josiah’s death became the matrix from which expectations once placed upon the shoulders of the now defunct king were projected into the future in a way that perhaps accords with the technical sense of ‘messianic’ expectation. The chapter’s concluding paragraph, at least as pregnant as summarizing, merits quotation in full:

Obviously, the prophetic tradition continued to develop in the aftermath of Josiah’s death as a means to reflect on and to define the significance of the Babylonian exile and the Persian period restoration. In the course of such development, the concern with Josiah appears to have faded as other more pressing concerns took their place in Judah’s experience. Josiah once represented the promise of YHWH to the royal house of David that a united Israel would stand with its Temple in Jerusalem and with YHWH’s glory and power recognized among the nations. Josiah’s death and the failure to realize the goals of his reform clearly compromised his standing and significance, but the Josianic patterns and projections of restoration for the house of David, the Jerusalem Temple, and the united people of Israel appear to have provided the basis for later projections of restoration during the course of the Babylonian exile and beyond. In this sense, Josiah’s legacy continued to live on in the prophetic tradition in that it provided Israel/Judah with the ideological strength necessary to face the challenges of national destruction and restoration. Without the prior model of Josiah, which informed the patterns of restoration evident in much of the pre-exilic prophetic tradition, restoration in the Persian period might well have been impossible.

Sweeney wraps up this formidable volume with nine powerfully suggestive pages of ‘Conclusion’ (chapter twenty, pp. 315–323). Along the lines of work done by Rainer Albertz (broadly) or Paul Hanson (more narrowly), Sweeney pulls together the segments of his argument into a more or less coherent whole. The need to qualify ‘wholeness’ in this way does not signal a deficiency on Sweeney’s part. Rather, it recognizes the disparate nature of the biblical materials he has reviewed.

Josiah, in the author’s reconstruction, represents a critical linchpin in the development of the biblical materials and the ideologies and hopes to which they bear testament. Sweeney has wanted to establish a ‘Josianic’ moment in the composition of many of the biblical books, when hopes ran high for a restoration of Davidic rule over fully twelve tribes on the basis, often, of Jerusalemite ideology and a Mosaic ethic. Yet the disappointment over Josiah’s death and recognition of what Sweeney unapologetically calls the abject ‘failure’ of his reform also played a role in shaping the exilic and post-exilic form of the same biblical materials.

While some of this reflection from the time of the exile forward reconceptualizes the kind of Davidic hope that was invested in Josiah for a new and better monarchy, other groups see Temple, priestly, and other non-royal entities as the bearer of what one might call the David function. All of this is fruitful even when not fully persuasive, and hints—if one discerns Sweeney’s insinuations correctly—at a work by the author that might take up these themes as they develop subsequently in Second Temple Judaism. At least one can hope.

What must one say about such an important work? Indeed, what can one say in the face of the erudition and the tenacity that it displays?

First, Sweeney is profoundly confident in a kind of form-critical methodology that has moved beyond the almost confessional belief that the prophets produced short, oracular statements of transparent simplicity. This is the ‘right kind’ of form criticism, it seems to this reviewer. Yet the confidence with which Sweeney discerns Josianic and exilic contributions to the whole on the basis of syntax and the proper ‘fit’ of ideas with historical moments leaves one slightly breathless.

Second, Sweeney maintains the tightest possible connection between what we know about ‘history that happened’ and the layers of the biblical material. Again, this reviewer both commends this approach and receives it with gratitude in a moment where such tenacious wrestling with history and literature is too often considered naive or not worth the bother.

Third, Sweeney has latched onto a Big Idea (the role of Josiah and his literary persona) in the formation of the biblical materials. This provides a potent center to his work and deepens our understanding of a no doubt essential consideration. Yet at times one wonders whether the author has not believed overmuch in Josiah’s near omnipresence.

Finally, his aggressive use of the cui bono fuisset principle sometimes strikes one as wooden and rigid. It seems to this reviewer that history is sometimes recorded from motivations more complex than the exercise of power. A corrollary to this is the observation that ‘stuff happens’, is taken into account, and is responded to as a given over and over in the individual and corporate versions of human experience. The matter of who benefits from an incident or process is only a rough guide to who (if anyone) made it happen, as to where the value of it lies in subsequent reflection and the shape of the motivation for registering it in written form.

These are quibbles of a sort. One offers them only reluctantly and at the margins of comment upon a truly admirable work. Though Sweeney has eschewed any hint of ‘biblical theology’, he has provided materials that must certainly nourish the practice of that craft, not least in terms of messianism, the shape of biblical hope, and the notions of divine-human community that do and/or ought to carry such hope forward.

King Josiah of Judah must be wrestled with, lingered over, and returned to often. It is a mine and throws down occasional minefields. Its chief and enduring value lies just there.