Contemporary Auditing 9th Edition

Knapp Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/contemporary-auditing-9th-edition-knapp-solutions-manual/
242 Case 6.1 Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant

CASE 6.1

LEIGH ANN WALKER,

STAFF ACCOUNTANT

Synopsis

In this case, a staff accountant of a large, international accounting firm is dismissed by her
employer when her integrity is questioned by a senior auditor. The staff accountant had told the
senior auditor, who at the time was her immediate supervisor on an audit engagement, that she had
not taken the CPA exam the month prior to joining the firm. In fact, the staff accountant had taken
the exam but did not want to disclose that fact to her co-workers because she believed that she had
not done well on the exam. After learning that she had passed all parts of the exam, the staff
accountant informed the senior. The senior immediately brought the matter to the attention of the
office managing partner. The senior insisted that since the staff accountant had been untruthful, she
could not be trusted in the future and, as a result, was not suited for the independent auditor role.
After consultation with other audit partners in the practice office, the office managing partner agreed
with the senior and dismissed the staff accountant. In addition to the ethical issues implicit in this
case, the case also provides several insights on the work role and work environment of a newly-hired
staff accountant.

242
Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant--Key Facts

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Case 6.1 Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant 243

1. Leigh Ann was well qualified for an entry-level position in public accounting given her college
credentials.

2. According to Leigh Ann's college friends, she was sometimes too "intense."

3. Leigh Ann performed very well on her first job assignment.

4. Leigh Ann was dishonest with her supervisor, Jackie Vaughn, when Jackie asked her if she had
taken the CPA exam.

5. Leigh Ann was dishonest with Jackie because she was afraid that she had not done well on the
CPA exam and wanted to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that fact when she received her
grades on the exam.

6. Following the discovery of Leigh Ann's dishonesty, Jackie told the office managing partner that
she did not want Leigh Ann assigned to any of her jobs in the future.

7. After consulting with the other audit partners in the office, the office managing partner informed
Leigh Ann that she was being dismissed.

Instructional Objectives

1. To illustrate the critical importance of independent auditors possessing personal integrity.

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
244 Case 6.1 Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant

2. To demonstrate the importance of supervisors on audit engagements being able to trust their
subordinates.

3. To illustrate the nature of the newly-hired staff accountant's work role and the frustrations and
job-related pressures that individuals occupying that role often experience.

Suggestions for Use

I typically assign this case early in the semester to give students insight into the staff
accountant's work role and work environment. Given the ethical issues raised in this case, it could
be assigned as well during discussion of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. The key point
that I believe should be stressed in this case is the critical need for auditors to be able to trust their
colleagues. This is particularly important for auditors in supervisory positions who have to "sign
off" on the work of their subordinates. A common reaction to this case by students is that Jackie
Vaughn over-reacted to the "white lie" told by Leigh Ann. In the past, several of my students have
pointed out that the dishonesty exhibited by Leigh Ann was not directly job-related. When students
express that view, I encourage them to look at this issue from the standpoint of Jackie. Ironically,
Jackie was apparently a very "intense" person, similar to Leigh Ann , and committed to advancing as
rapidly as possible within the firm. From her perspective, she simply did not want to assume the risk
of taking responsibility for the work of an individual who had proven that she could rationalize or
justify dishonesty.
Another lesson that I hope students learn from this case is the need for them to have a
"balanced" perspective when they assume that first professional role in their careers. For
professionals to be "successful" in the fullest sense of that word, they need to recognize that their
work roles should not consume their entire existence. As proven by this case, individuals with
excellent credentials and an extremely high level of motivation sometimes fail because they place
too much emphasis on succeeding and on being perceived as successful.

Suggested Solutions to Case Questions

1. Students tend to react quite differently to this series of questions. Following are summaries of
some of my former students' responses to these questions.

a. Jackie should have given Leigh Ann a chance to prove that she could be trusted. If I had
been Jackie, I would have watched her very closely on her next few assignments. If I saw
any indication of a lack of integrity on those assignments, I would have gone to the office
managing partner at that point and asked that she be dismissed. Roberts was placed in a
very difficult situation. He probably trusted the judgment of Jackie, given her reputation
within the office, and likely did not want to offend her by going against her wishes.
Apparently, the other audit partners sided with Jackie, so Roberts probably had no choice
other than to dismiss Leigh Ann.

b. I believe that Jackie treated Leigh Ann unfairly since she did not even discuss the matter
with her. Jackie should have taken into consideration the fact that Leigh Ann was a newly-
hired employee who simply wanted to make a good first impression. At the very least,
© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
 Case 6.1 Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant 245

Jackie should have sat down with Leigh Ann and explained her view of the matter and then
given Leigh Ann an opportunity to defend herself. Rather than immediately taking the
matter to the other audit partners in the office, the office managing partner should have
spoken with Leigh Ann first and then arranged a meeting with Leigh Ann, Jackie, and
himself to discuss the situation. Since Leigh Ann was apparently a very bright individual,
she almost certainly would have understood the mistake that she had made and been very
careful to avoid making similar errors of judgment in the future.

c. I believe that Jackie was justified in insisting that Leigh Ann be fired. Leigh Ann's ability
to "lie on the spot" about a fairly trivial matter indicated that she could not be trusted
regarding more serious matters. If she had not been fired, then this situation would
probably have leaked out eventually and damaged her credibility with the other members of
the audit staff in her office. Consequently, it was probably best that Roberts took the action
that he did. Of course, he could have been much more harsh and not given her two months
to find a job, and he could have disclosed the real reason that she was dismissed to
prospective employers that she subsequently contacted. So, in a sense, she was not
penalized that heavily for her dishonesty. [Note: According to the placement counselor
who provided much of the information for this case, the reason given for Leigh Ann's
dismissal by the office managing partner to prospective employers she contacted was
overstaffing, i.e., his office had hired too many staff accountants that particular year.]

Note: This case has easily been among the most popular cases in the earlier editions of this
textbook. Several adopters have sent me comments regarding this case. I appreciate all such
feedback. Bob Eskew, Purdue University, sent me a note reporting that his students were much
more supportive of Leigh Ann’s dismissal than were my students. Additionally, Bob noted that his
students were “unanimously critical” of the office managing partner: “They felt that he fired
someone for lying and then engaged in exactly the same behavior when explaining externally the
reason for Ms. Walker’s departure from the firm.” That’s an excellent point and one that instructors
might consider raising if their students do not.

2. Again, this is a very subjective question that evokes quite different responses from students.
Following are summaries of some of the general points made by former students of mine in response
to this question.

a. Independence and integrity are the two key traits that auditors should possess. If an auditor
lacks either one of these traits, his or her work cannot be trusted. Granted, an individual
such as Leigh Ann may not do something very "dumb" like lying about whether or not she
completed an audit procedure. But, she probably would be inclined to under-report the
number of hours she worked so that she could come in under budget on her assignments
and do other somewhat dishonest things to impress her supervisors. Overall, I believe that
having her on the audit staff of an office would be disruptive to the operations of that
office.

b. The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct says nothing about the need for integrity on the
part of auditors while they are not in their professional role. I do not believe that it is the

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
246 Case 6.1 Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant

responsibility or right of CPA firms to attempt to monitor the "personal" integrity of their
employees. I can see where one might argue that a person who is dishonest or "immoral" in
some sense away from work would likely engage in similar behavior while at work.
However, until an employer demonstrates that a lack of personal integrity causes an
individual to be a poor employee, I do not believe the employer has a right to penalize such
an employee in any way.

c. It is impossible to distinguish between one's personal integrity and his or her professional
integrity. If someone is dishonest, they will be dishonest in all phases of their life.

Note: It is quite interesting that most students express the view that Jackie Vaughn and Don Roberts
overreacted to the dishonest statement made by Leigh Ann. However, in response to the second
question, the majority of students tend to imply that an individual such as Leigh Ann is unsuited for
the auditor's professional role.

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 ¹⁵And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan
the scribe, I have found the book of the law in
the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered
the book to Shaphan. ¹⁶And Shaphan carried
the book to the king, and moreover brought
the king word again, saying, All that was
committed to thy servants, they do it. ¹⁷And
they have emptied out ¹ the money that was
found in the house of the Lord, and have
delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and
into the hand of the workmen.
¹ Or, poured out.

15. answered and said] For the use of “answer” where no

question had been asked compare xxix. 31, note.

¹⁸And Shaphan the scribe told the king,

saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a
book. And Shaphan read therein before the
king.
18. And Shaphan read therein] Contrast 2 Kings, “And Shaphan
read it,” implying that he read the whole book, which of course was a
simple matter, if it consisted of the nucleus of Deuteronomy (see
note, verse 14). The Chronicler, however, believing the book to have
been the whole Pentateuch, could not suppose that the whole was
read to the king, and accordingly he writes therein in place of it.

¹⁹And it came to pass, when the king had

heard the words of the law, that he rent his
 clothes.
19. rent his clothes] A sign of grief. “Clothes” is in the plural
because both inner and outer garments are meant. See Ezra ix. 3
(with Ryle’s note).

²⁰And the king commanded Hilkiah, and

Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the
son of Micah ¹, and Shaphan the scribe, and
Asaiah the king’s servant, saying,
¹ In 2 Kings xxii. 12, Achbor the son of Micaiah.

20. Ahikam the son of Shaphan] Compare Jeremiah xxvi. 24, xl.
5.

Abdon the son of Micah] In 2 Kings “Achbor the son of Micaiah.”

²¹Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for

them that are left in Israel and in Judah,
concerning the words of the book that is
found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is
poured out upon us, because our fathers have
not kept the word of the Lord, to do according
unto all that is written in this book.
21. for them that are left in Israel] Not in 2 Kings The Chronicler
likes to mention the remnants of the northern tribes, as in verses 6,
9.

that is poured out upon us] In 2 Kings “that is kindled against us,”
so LXX. ἐκκέκαυται. Compare verse 25.
 ²²So Hilkiah, and they whom the king had
commanded, went to Huldah the prophetess,
the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath ¹, the
son of Hasrah ², keeper of the wardrobe; (now
she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second
quarter ³;) and they spake to her to that effect.
²³And she said unto them, Thus saith the
Lord, the God of Israel: Tell ye the man that
sent you unto me,
¹ In 2 Kings xxii. 14, Tikvah.

² In 2 Kings xxii. 14, Harhas. ³ Hebrew Mishneh.

22. had commanded] These words, which are obviously required,

are not in the Hebrew: the verb āmar has fallen out of the text by
some accident.

the prophetess] This title is given to Miriam (Exodus xv. 20),

Deborah (Judges iv. 4), Anna (Luke ii. 36); compare also Nehemiah
vi. 14; Revelation ii. 20.

Tokhath] In 2 Kings Tikvah.

Hasrah] In 2 Kings Harhas.

keeper of the wardrobe] Literally “keeper of the garments.” The

Hebrew word for garments (bĕgādim]) is applied to a king’s robes
(xviii. 29), to a high-priest’s vestments (Exodus xxviii. 2, 4), and to
clothes in general; it is therefore not easy to say what office precisely
is here referred to. Perhaps the garments here meant were
ecclesiastical and not royal. There is ample evidence that ancient
temples possessed a store of ceremonial garments for the use not
only of the worshippers but also of the images, compare 2 Kings x.
22, and generally the Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹ s.v. costume, pp.
230a, 231b. As early as the VIth dynasty an Egyptian priest is
mentioned as “master of the wardrobe.”

in the second quarter] Or, in the second division. Compare

Zephaniah i. 10. The physical configuration of ancient Jerusalem
was such that it might naturally be regarded as divided into two
districts, the eastern and western, with the valley of the Tyropœon
between. Compare Nehemiah iii. 9, 12, and also Nehemiah xi. 9
(with Ryle’s note on second over the city, which should probably be
rendered over the second part of the city).

²⁴Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil

upon this place, and upon the inhabitants
thereof, even all the curses that are written in
the book which they have read before the king
of Judah: ²⁵because they have forsaken me,
and have burned incense unto other gods,
that they might provoke me to anger with all
the works of their hands; therefore is my wrath
poured out upon this place, and it shall not be
quenched.
24. all the curses] Deuteronomy xxvii. 15‒26, xxviii. 15‒68.

²⁶But unto the king of Judah, who sent you to

inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him,
Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: As
touching the words which thou hast heard,
²⁷because thine heart was tender, and thou
didst humble thyself before God, when thou
heardest his words against this place, and
 against the inhabitants thereof, and hast
humbled thyself before me, and hast rent thy
clothes, and wept before me; I also have
heard thee, saith the Lord.
26. As touching the words which thou hast heard, because thine
heart] Read perhaps, Inasmuch as thou hast heard my words,
and thine heart. There is some slight flaw in the Hebrew text.

²⁸Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and

thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace,
neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I
will bring upon this place, and upon the
inhabitants thereof. And they brought the king
word again.
28. thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace] So also in 2
Kings But in point of fact Josiah met with a violent death, being slain
by Neco, king of Egypt, according both to Kings (2 Kings xxiii. 29)
and Chronicles (2 Chronicles xxxv. 23 f.). From the contradiction
between this prediction and the event, we may infer that in the
prophecy of Huldah we have an old and reliable tradition, which
obviously must have been made before the death of Josiah. That the
contradiction was allowed to stand in Kings is not perhaps surprising,
but it is remarkable in the Chronicler’s narrative. Not only does the
idea of a genuine prophecy failing to come true run counter to his
fixed principles, but (judging from many definite instances as well as
from the whole tone of his history) the tradition that a king so pious
from the start to the finish of his reign should meet his death in a
disastrous battle must have seemed to him well-nigh incredible. The
fact remains that he has allowed the tradition to stand, but it is
certainly surprising.
 neither shall thine eyes see] Compare the similar promise made
to Ahab (1 Kings xxi. 29).

29‒33 (= 2 Kings xxiii. 1‒3).

The Renewal of the Covenant with Jehovah.

This renewal of the covenant should be compared with the

passage describing Hezekiah’s great service of atonement for the
breach of the covenant (xxix. 20 ff.).

²⁹Then the king sent and gathered together

all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. ³⁰And
the king went up to the house of the Lord,
and all the men of Judah and the inhabitants
of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites,
and all the people, both great and small: and
he read in their ears all the words of the book
of the covenant that was found in the house of
the Lord.
30. the Levites] In 2 Kings “the prophets.”

³¹And the king stood in his place, and made a

covenant before the Lord, to walk after the
Lord, and to keep his commandments, and
his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his
heart, and with all his soul, to perform the
words of the covenant that were written in this
book. ³²And he caused all that were found in
Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to
the covenant of God, the God of their fathers.
31. to walk after the Lord] Compare Deuteronomy x. 12, 13.

³³And Josiah took away all the abominations

out of all the countries that pertained to the
children of Israel, and made all that were
found in Israel to serve, even to serve the
Lord their God. All his days they departed not
from following the Lord, the God of their
fathers.
33. And Josiah took away] Compare verses 3‒7.

all that were found in Israel] i.e. the remnant of the northern
tribes, compare verse 21.

All his days] Contrast the evil record of his son Jehoiakim, xxxvi.
5‒8.

Additional Note on verse 14.

Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of the Lord] This
remarkable statement has proved to be a fruitful subject of
discussion. What precisely is meant by “the book of the law” said to
have been found by Hilkiah in the Temple? It is essential to
distinguish between the answer which the Chronicler would have
given to this question and the conclusions reached by an
independent survey of the problem. (1) Undoubtedly the Chronicler
supposed “the book of the law” to be the whole Pentateuch, since he
believed that the entire Law existed as it now is from the time of
Moses. The argument against his view is obvious to us at the
present time. Beside the practical objection of the impossibility of
reading the whole Pentateuchal Law twice in succession to different
persons on the same day (2 Kings xxii. 8, 10)—a difficulty which
perhaps the Chronicler himself perceived and sought to avoid, see
note on verse 18,—there is the overwhelming testimony of the
general evidence that a large part of the Pentateuch in its final form,
with which the Chronicler was familiar, is of post-exilic date. His
Pentateuch was quite certainly not “the book” found by Hilkiah. (2) It
is extremely interesting to observe that the first step towards the
judgement of modern criticism was taken at a very early date and by
certain of the Christian Fathers—Jerome, Procopius of Gaza,
Chrysostom—who put forward the view that the book in question
was not the whole Pentateuch but only the Book of Deuteronomy.
[For the details the student must be referred to articles in the
Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, pp. 170 f., 312
f., and the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1903, p. 50.] This view, first
developed scientifically by De Wette, gained eventually a very wide
acceptance amongst scholars. Stress is laid upon the resemblance
between the reforms ascribed to Josiah and the exhortations and
injunctions of Deuteronomy, particularly as regards the restriction of
sacrificial worship to one sanctuary (i.e. Jerusalem; compare
Deuteronomy xii. 10‒14). For the evidence the student may consult
Chapman, Introduction to the Pentateuch, pp. 135‒146, especially
pp. 142‒145 (in this series); or Driver, Deuteronomy (International
Critical Commentaries), pp. xliv ff. (3) Further, internal consideration
of the Book of Deuteronomy has led to the conclusion that it cannot
all date from the time of Josiah: and thus it is now generally held that
Hilkiah’s “book of the law” was not the final form of Deuteronomy, but
only the nucleus of that Book—probably chapters v.‒xxvi. and xxviii.,
or xii.‒xxvi. and xxviii., or even certain passages from those chapters
(see Chapman, Introduction to the Pentateuch, pp. 144, 145; or
Driver, Deuteronomy, pp. lxv ff.). (4) Finally, there are grounds for
doubting whether any part of Deuteronomy can be dated from the
time of Josiah. It is suggested that the Deuteronomic code is not
earlier than Jeremiah but later. Although this view does not yet
command general acceptance, it is fair to insist that it rests upon
evidence which cannot be so lightly set aside as is occasionally
supposed. The student may conveniently refer to remarks by R. H.
Kennett in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. vii., s.v.
Israel p. 447, and to the references there given, especially the
Journal of Theological Studies, VII. [1906], pp. 481 ff. If
Deuteronomy be later than the time of Josiah, what then can we
suppose this “book of the law” (sēpher hattōrah) to have been; for
there is no reason to question the accuracy of the tradition that some
impressive writing was discovered in the Temple? The answer will be
—in all probability—some scroll of prophetic teaching, in which the
abuses of worship (perhaps in Manasseh’s reign) and in particular
the corruptions of the country “high places” were searchingly
denounced and an appeal made for reform. Since at that date the
term tōrah was applicable to prophetic teaching as well as to legal
instruction, such a work would be known as “a book of tōrah.” It is
not a very serious objection that the text here and in Kings reads “the
book of the law (hattōrah),” partly because a peculiarity of Hebrew
grammar would still allow the translation “a book of tōrah,” partly
because the introduction of the definite article into the text would be
most natural, so soon as it came to be thought that the phrase
referred to Deuteronomy or the Pentateuch. We may summarise as
follows:—To the Chronicler “the book of the law” signified the whole
Pentateuch in its final form; to the compilers or editors of Kings (the
Chronicler’s source), who probably wrote at the “Deuteronomic”
stage of the history, it no doubt meant Deuteronomy; and lastly,
according to modern judgement the book actually discovered was
either the earliest or essential portions of Deuteronomy or possibly a
pre-Deuteronomic prophetic writing demanding the purification of
worship in Jerusalem and urging the abolition of the sacrifices and
feasts at the local shrines.
 Chapter XXXV.
1‒19 (= 1 Esdras i. 1‒22; compare 2 Kings xxiii. 21‒23).
Josiah’s Passover.

Regarding the reference to 1 Esdras i. in the heading above, see

the Introduction § 10, s.v. Greek Versions, where the important fact
is noted that in 1 Esdras we have an old LXX. text, earlier than the
so-called LXX. of Chronicles, and representing a Hebrew text older
than the present Masoretic form. For introduction and notes on the
text of 1 Esdras see the edition by S. A. Cook in Charles’ Apocrypha,
vol. i.

¹And Josiah kept a passover unto the Lord

in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on
the fourteenth day of the first month.
1. the first month] The legal month was Nisan, or as it was called
in pre-exilic times Abib; compare Exodus xii. Compare also xxx. 2
(with note).

²And he set the priests in their charges, and

encouraged them to the service of the house
of the Lord.
2. in their charges] i.e. at their duties.

encouraged them] As Hezekiah had done; compare xxix. 5‒11,

xxx. 22.
 ³And he said unto the Levites that taught all
Israel, which were holy unto the Lord, Put the
holy ark in the house which Solomon the son
of David king of Israel did build; there shall no
more be a burden upon your shoulders: now
serve the Lord your God, and his people
Israel.
3. that taught all Israel] Compare Nehemiah viii. 7, 9.

Put the holy ark in the house] This rather curious remark seems
to imply that the ark had been removed from the Temple either by
Manasseh or by Josiah during the repairing of the house. The
Levites are bidden to set it in its place without delay, and to devote
themselves to the tasks related in verses 4 ff.

⁴And prepare yourselves after your fathers’

houses by your courses, according to the
writing of David king of Israel, and according
to the writing of Solomon his son.
4. the writing of David] Compare 1 Chronicles xxiii. 27, xxviii. 19‒
21.

⁵And stand in the holy place according to the

divisions of the fathers’ houses of your
brethren the children of the people, and let
there be for each a portion of a fathers’ house ¹
of the Levites.
¹ Or, and according to the distribution of each fathers’ house.
 5. the children of the people] i.e. the laity. The same phrase is
translated in 2 Kings xxiii. 6 “the common people” (without any
invidious meaning).

let there be for each a portion ... of the Levites] Each great
division of the laity was to be served by a small division of the
Levites.

⁶And kill the passover, and sanctify

yourselves, and prepare for your brethren, to
do according to the word of the Lord by the
hand of Moses.
6. prepare for your brethren] Compare verses 12, 13.

⁷And Josiah gave ¹ to the children of the

people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all of
them for the passover offerings, unto all that
were present, to the number of thirty
thousand, and three thousand bullocks: these
were of the king’s substance.
¹ Or, gave for offerings and so in verses 8, 9. See chapter xxx.
24.

7. gave] margin gave for offerings; compare xxx. 24, where it is

said that Hezekiah did the same at his great Passover.

⁸And his princes gave for ¹ a freewill offering

unto the people, to the priests, and to the
Levites. Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, the
rulers of the house of God, gave unto the
 priests for the passover offerings two
thousand and six hundred small cattle, and
three hundred oxen.
¹ Or, willingly.

8. for a freewill offering] Better, as Authorized Version and

margin, willingly.

Jehiel] 1 Esdras (Ἠσύηλος) suggests a different name, probably

Haziel.

rulers of the house of God] Compare 1 Chronicles ix. 11, note.

⁹Conaniah also, and Shemaiah and Nethanel,

his brethren, and Hashabiah and Jeiel and
Jozabad, the chiefs of the Levites, gave unto
the Levites for the passover offerings five
thousand small cattle, and five hundred oxen.
9. Conaniah ... and Shemaiah] Compare the “Conaniah and
Shimei his brother” of xxxi. 12, and for Jozabad compare the
“Jozabad” of xxxi. 13. Different persons, however, must surely be
meant, or perhaps the names represent families rather than
individuals; nearly sixty years separate the reigns of Hezekiah and
Josiah.

¹⁰So the service was prepared, and the priests

stood in their place, and the Levites by their
courses, according to the king’s
commandment.
 10‒13. The variations in 1 Esdras i. 10‒12 are
misunderstandings of the Hebrew; see Cook, Apocrypha.

¹¹And they killed the passover, and the priests

sprinkled the blood, which they received of
their hand, ¹²and the Levites flayed them. And
they removed the burnt offerings, that they
might give them according to the divisions of
the fathers’ houses of the children of the
people, to offer unto the Lord, as it is written
in the book of Moses. And so did they with the
oxen.
11. sprinkled] Compare xxix. 22, note.

the Levites flayed] Compare xxix. 34.

¹³And they roasted the passover with fire

according to the ordinance: and the holy
offerings sod they in pots, and in caldrons,
and in pans, and carried them quickly to all the
children of the people.
13. the ordinance] Exodus xii. 9.

and the holy offerings] The bullocks mentioned in verses 7, 8, 9.

Possibly these were slain not on the Passover day itself, but on the
days which immediately followed. The practice of later times,
however, seems to have admitted the sacrifice of oxen as a thank
offering along with the Passover lambs (see Mishnah, Pesachim, vi.
3, 4); and it is possible that in the Chronicler’s time oxen were thus
killed and eaten on the Passover day, although they were, as this
verse indicates, prepared differently from the Passover lambs.
 ¹⁴And afterward they prepared for themselves,
and for the priests; because the priests the
sons of Aaron were busied in offering the
burnt offerings and the fat until night: therefore
the Levites prepared for themselves, and for
the priests the sons of Aaron.
14. the fat] Compare vii. 7, note; xxix. 35.

¹⁵And the singers the sons of Asaph were in

their place, according to the commandment of
David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun
the king’s seer; and the porters were at every
gate: they needed not to depart from their
service, for their brethren the Levites prepared
for them.
15. the singers] Compare 1 Chronicles xxv. 1 ff.

Heman] But 1 Esdras has Zacharias, a reading which finds some

support in 1 Chronicles xv. 18, xvi. 5.

¹⁶So all the service of the Lord was prepared

the same day, to keep the passover, and to
offer burnt offerings upon the altar of the
Lord, according to the commandment of king
Josiah. ¹⁷And the children of Israel that were
present kept the passover at that time, and the
feast of unleavened bread seven days.
 16. the same day] Literally “on that day,” i.e. the fourteenth of
Nisan.

¹⁸And there was no passover like to that kept

in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet;
neither did any of the kings of Israel keep such
a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests,
and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that
were present, and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem.
18. there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days
of Samuel] The statement is simply a reproduction of 2 Kings xxiii.
22, where we read “there was not kept such a passover from the
days of the judges that judged Israel ... but in the eighteenth year of
king Josiah was this passover kept to the Lord in Jerusalem.”
Actually the novelty of Josiah’s festival was (i) that it was kept in
Jerusalem, whereas previously the Passover had been a household
feast observed at any “high-place” throughout the country, and
(ii) that it thus marked the inauguration of the system of only one
legitimate sanctuary—Jerusalem—which was codified in
Deuteronomy. The writer in Kings may have clearly understood that
the point lay in the words “in Jerusalem.” To the Chronicler, the
statement meant merely an assertion that this feast was the
grandest Passover since the days of the judges (he prefers to write
since Samuel, reckoning him the last of the judges).

A similar but not identical remark regarding Hezekiah’s Passover

is made in xxx. 26—“since the time of Solomon there was not the
like in Jerusalem.” In some points Hezekiah’s feast as described in
xxx. 1 ff. may be said to have surpassed Josiah’s, but it is most
unnecessary and indeed pedantic so to magnify this fact as to insist
that the sweeping assertion of the present verse about Josiah’s
Passover cannot be from the same source as xxx. 1‒26. Both
passages may well be from the Chronicler (so Curtis, p. 471); in xxx.
1 ff. he was writing a free description of Hezekiah’s feast, and the
verse (xxx. 26) quoted above was written by him to impress us duly
with its magnificence; in the present verse he was naturally
reproducing his source in Kings, and it is most unlikely that he would
notice any slight inconsistency with xxx. 26, or that, if he did, he
would have been troubled thereby.

from the days of Samuel] In 2 Kings xxiii. 22 “from the days of the
judges.”

¹⁹In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah

was this passover kept.
19. In the eighteenth year] Comparison of the later Greek version
(the so-called LXX.) of this verse with the earlier Greek version (the
old LXX.) preserved in 1 Esdras reveals that this passage is one of
great interest for the history of the text. After verse 19 “In the
eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept,” 1
Esdras i. 23, 24 has a remarkable addition as follows: “And the
works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart full of
godliness. Moreover the things that came to pass in his days [or ‘the
things concerning him’] have been written in times past concerning
... those that sinned and did wickedly against the Lord above every
people and kingdom, and how they grieved him exceedingly, so that
the words of the Lord were confirmed against Israel.” Then follows
verse 25 (compare Hebrew verse 20) “Now after all these acts of
Josias it came to pass that Pharaoh, king of Egypt,” etc. Probably
some words have been lost at the point where the dots are placed.
As it stands, the passage seems to associate the reign of the godly
Josiah with wicked and irreligious doings. The inference to be drawn
is that this passage was originally part of the Hebrew text (from
which the old LXX. was translated), but was subsequently excised
on account of its apparent aspersion on the character of Josiah. The
gap thus created was filled in some Hebrew MSS. by the insertion of
2 Kings xxiii. 24‒27, and from such a Hebrew text the later Greek
version (the present LXX.) was made. In other Hebrew MSS.,
however, the gap was left unfilled, and from one of these was
derived the Hebrew text which has reached us (see Torrey, Ezra
Studies, pp. 87‒89). It is only by the use of the Greek versions that
we are now able to perceive that an omission has been made.

20‒24 (= 1 Esdras i. 25‒31; compare 2 Kings xxiii. 29, 30a).

The Death of Josiah.

The account of Josiah’s death is very much fuller in Chronicles

than in Kings. The features which are peculiar to the Chronicler are,
(1) Neco’s message to dissuade Josiah from war, (2) Josiah’s
disguising himself and coming to fight in the valley of Megiddo,
(3) the wounding of Josiah by archers, (4) the transfer of the
wounded king from a war chariot to another chariot. Thus all the
details which represent the meeting at Megiddo as a battle are
peculiar to Chronicles.

The account given in Kings is simply:—“King Josiah went to meet

him (Neco), and he put him to death at Megiddo when he saw him.
And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and
brought him to Jerusalem.” The Hebrew expression for “went to
meet” in this passage is the same as in 1 Kings xviii. 16; 2 Kings xvi.
10; it does not suggest a hostile meeting, though it can be used in a
suitable context to describe one. The phrase “when he saw him”
suggests an interview rather than a battle. Thus we have two
versions of Josiah’s death: according to Chronicles he was mortally
wounded in battle, according to Kings he sought an interview with
Neco and was assassinated by him at the town of Megiddo.

These differences may be due to two distinct traditions, but it

seems more probable that the Chronicler’s account is an intentional
adaptation of the Kings narrative to suit the main principles of his
work. We can easily realise that the bald fact of Josiah’s death at the
hands of Neco presented a distressing moral perplexity to the
Chronicler’s mind. Why, when Josiah had been so diligent in the
service of his God, did Jehovah abandon him to death in this
fashion? The stress of the problem is reflected in the rather pathetic
phrase of verse 20, “After all this ... came Neco.” The same words
are used of Hezekiah (xxxii. 1), “After these things and this
faithfulness, Sennacherib came ...,” but in his case the sore trial of
faith proved to be for the greater glory of the God of Israel. Here the
plea of a successful issue to the trouble was not available, and no
doubt the story of Josiah’s end was too famous to be passed over in
silence. It would seem as if the Chronicler therefore adapted the
narrative so as to make it appear that Josiah made an attack on
Neco in defiance of a Divine warning (verse 21), and thus deserved
his fate. The somewhat similar tale of Ahab’s death (xviii. 28‒34 = 1
Kings xxii. 29‒37) was in the Chronicler’s mind, and he appears to
have drawn upon it for certain details introduced into his version of
Josiah’s end (see verses 22, 23).

²⁰After all this, when Josiah had prepared

the temple, Neco king of Egypt went up to
fight against Carchemish by Euphrates: and
Josiah went out against him.
20. Neco] This was Neco II who reigned 610‒594 b.c. (Flinders
Petrie, History of Egypt, iii. 335). According to Herodotus (ii. 159) he
conquered the “Syrians” at “Magdolus,” and then captured Cadytis
(Kadesh on the Orontes, or Gaza?), an important city of Syria.
Herodotus no doubt refers to the same great campaign of Neco
which is recorded in Kings and Chronicles, though it is not at all likely
that the victory over the Syrians at Magdolus is to be identified with
the encounter of Neco and Josiah at Megiddo. The account of
Herodotus is obscure, ambiguous, and defective, but a comparison
of 2 Kings with an inscription of Nabu-na’id king of Babylon (555‒538
b.c.) sets Neco’s action in a clearer light. The campaign (which took
place about 608 b.c.) was directed “against the king of Assyria” (2
Kings xxiii. 29), i.e. against the last king Sin-šariškun (Saracos) who
was at war with Nabopolassar (father of Nebuchadrezzar), king of
Babylon. Nabopolassar, hard pressed, called in to his help the
Umman-manda (Scythians), who destroyed Nineveh circa 607 b.c.;
compare Messerschmidt, Die Inschrift der Stele Nabu-na’id’s (pp. 5‒
13). Neco advanced to the Euphrates to secure some of the spoils of
the Assyrian overthrow, but the crushing victory of Nebuchadrezzar
over Neco at Carchemish (circa 605 b.c.) finally excluded Egypt from
any share.

against Carchemish] compare Jeremiah xlvi. 2. It was a city

situated near the junction of the Habor and Euphrates. In 2 Kings,
“against the king of Assyria.”

²¹But 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 the house wherewith I have war; and
God hath commanded me to make haste ¹:
forbear thee from meddling with God, who is
with me, that he destroy thee not.
¹ Or, hath given command to speed me.

21. against the house wherewith I have war] In 1 Esdras i. 27

there is a different reading, “my war is upon Euphrates.”

²²Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face

from him, but disguised himself, that he might
fight with him, and hearkened not unto the
words of Neco, from the mouth of God, and
came to fight in the valley of Megiddo.
22. disguised himself] Like Ahab at Ramoth-gilead (xviii. 29), to
reduce the risk. The LXX. reads ἐκραταιώθη, “was strengthened.”
The Hebrew text is probably correct (see Torrey, Ezra Studies, p.
221).

the valley of Megiddo] Compare Judges v. 19; Zechariah xii. 11.

In 1 Esdras i. 29, “the plain of Megiddo.” The whole (or perhaps only