Re. Jer 36:26 and Jerahmeel the son of the king (hammelech, KJV) (cf. Jer 38:6)
Numerous other seal impressions have turned up with “the king’s son”
after the name (Avigad 1986a: 51; 1986b: 25–26 ##6–7; 1997: 174–75 ##412–15),
and in 38:6 there is mention of a certain “Malchiah, the king’s son.” In
ancient Sumer, Kramer (1951: 241) reports that no scribe was ever designated
“son of the king.” These recent bullae finds have also revived the old debate
as to whether “the king’s son” means a son of the reigning king, a son of
another king, or simply an officer in the king’s employ. It has been argued
that “the king’s son” may simply designate a low-rank officer not of royal
blood (de Vaux 1965b: 119–20). Görg (1985) says similar titles for court
functionaries appear in Egyptian chronicles. Jerahmeel, because he is assigned
police duties, could argue for a broader interpretation of the term. But many
have rejected the broader interpretation, arguing that “son of the king” means
just what it says, a member of the royal family (Torrey 1923: 108; Rainey 1975;
Lemaire 1979; Avigad 1986b: 28). Jerahmeel could not be a grown son of
Jehoiakim, who is only 30 years old at the time (2 Kgs 23:36; Jer 36:9), but he
could belong to the royal family, as kings had large harems and thus, many
sons. (Jack L. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary [Anchor Yale Bible 21B; New Haven: Yale University Press,
2008], 606-7)
