The new Madduwattas

Hermann-Josef Stipp in his "Concept of Empty Land" (2010; ed. 2021) had argued in Jeremiah 37-44/44-51 for an affidavit of Ishmael's crimes as did not happen to involve Jeremiah. Stipp called this "The Ishmael File" even in 2010 so not as edgy as we'd deem it today.

That a file like this could exist, seems reasonable. Hittologists and Trojan War enjoyers have expended much ink on the Indictment of Madduwattas. Later, Ochus "Darius II" will be presiding over various complaints the Jews of the elephantine island were raising.

The original file would have been draughted over at Mizpah, by Ishmael's enemies. Chief among the latter would be Johanan, according to the file proper. Johanan then likely went to Nabuchadrezzar in person, or at least to his transeuphratic legate. His aim was to explain what happened to Gedaliah, to absolve himself and his coterie of blame, and to inform on the antagonist of the story Ishmael: still alive, and infesting the transjordanian hills.

When Johanan reports that Ishmael had killed everybody, he means everyone who matters to the great king. When he notes women among the men, he is playing to the king's sense of pathos, inasmuch as he owned one; alternatively, the king injected this for reasons I'll get to.

Pace Stipp (2010 ed.) p. 124 I deem easier how come this ephemeral affidavit was preserved. The great king would have kept his own copy, likely wedged into Akkadian and baked into clay. More copies would have been gone to the Judaean quarter in Babylon: this would tell the exiles that, yes, a rebellion had broken out back home, but don't get your hopes up. Nabuchadrezzar would not fail to note that Ishmael had butchered women too, that villain. And of course the king would have sent some troops either to back up Johanan or else to see if he was lying.

At some point in the narrative we got, comes Johanan's personal motive, to protect the remnant of Judah from obliteration. This has Johanan warn Gedaliah of Ishmael's plans in advance, in the hope Gedaliah will get at Ishmael first (which he didn't). I don't know how much of that went to the king; more likely it went into the local annal, as Johanan presented his case before his own people, several of whom might grouse that Ishmael had done nothing wrong and/or that Johanan was an opportunistic vulture. Stipp would roll that whole account into the "JDP", arguing that such existed to showcase the emptying of Judah and the fulfilment of the Deuteronomic curse; all beyond my scope. We do agree that Jeremiah MT 44 be a pseudepigraph, likely Baruch's work.

As for Jeremiah (perhaps more-so, Baruch): if they hadn't been in Mizpah, they were no victims of the massacre of collaborators. Although Jeremiah was uninvolved (he was probably in Egypt already) he assuredly agreed with Johanan's action. Baruch, perhaps, had inserted the prophet (his hero) into the events so as to make of him an eyewitness.