Hilkiah, a priest, made a critical
discovery relatively early in the reign of Josiah of Judah. The discovery of a
scroll during repairs to the temple suggests that it might have been a
foundation document (2 Kg. 22:3-8//2 Chr. 34:8-16). Foundation texts were
well-known in the ancient Near East, documents including royal inscriptions and
information to any king who might undertake a restoration of the building in
future days. The Book of the Law might have been enshrined in such a foundation
box or concealed in the temple walls. Alternatively, it could have been found
in the temple archives. In the Kings
record, it was simply called the “book of the Torah,” a title that is somewhat
ambiguous, since presumably all the books of Moses were single scrolls (2 Kg.
22:8-10; cf. 2 Chr. 34:14ff.). However, when the scroll was read to Josiah and
later read and interpreted by the prophetess Huldah, the king’s reaction was
immediate and visceral. It was apparent from what was rehearsed that the
national life of Judah was in serious violation of the statutes contained in
this scroll, and the contents of the scroll became a powerful incentive for
Josiah’s reforms, including a heart-felt renewal of the ancient covenant (2 Kg.
23:1-3). In accord with what was written in this scroll, Josiah directed a nation-wide
purge of pagan elements. He burned all the implements dedicated to Ba’al and
Asherah and did away with their priests. He dismantled all vestiges of the
astral cult. He destroyed the shrines and altars of paganism, smashing them to
bits, and he even carried his reforms beyond his national borders to the
ancient high places of northern Israel .
Finally, he instituted a Passover celebration that was unlike anything the
citizens of Judah
had seen since the period of the judges. All this sweeping reform was prompted
by “the requirements of the Torah written in the book that Hilkiah the priest
had discovered in the temple of Yahweh” (2 Kg. 23:4-24). The assessment of
Josiah’s work was that “neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like
him who turned to Yahweh as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and
with all his strength, in accordance with all the law of Moses” (2 Kg. 23:25).
While no title to the newly discovered
book of the law was given in either 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles, virtually all
interpreters conclude that it must have been some form of Deuteronomy. None of
the scrolls of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers seemed likely to have
caused such distress. The king’s anguished reaction to its contents, especially
the threat of severe divine reprisals for disobedience, seem consonant with the
curses of Deuteronomy 28. Further, the language “book of the Torah” is used in
Deuteronomy about itself (Dt. 28:58, 61; 31:26; cf. Jos. 1:8). The law of the
king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 made the king liable for maintaining moral
leadership for the nation. Combined, all these factors makes Deuteronomy the
most likely candidate for what was discovered by Hilkiah. The fact that the
assessment of Josiah’s reforms was framed in words directly taken from the
language of Deuteronomy 6:5 (cf. 2 Kg. 23:25) only strengthens this conclusion.
How came this book to be deposited in
the temple and effectively lost? Here, there are several theories. Some suggest
that technically it was not lost at all but was a fresh composition. Collins
and others bluntly conclude that “the finding of the book [was] a fiction,
designed to ensure its ready acceptance by the people.” While he concedes that
some earlier material may have been edited and incorporated into the book, the
larger composition was the product of Josiah’s own scribes. Both Deuteronomy
and the traditions in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were either composed or
edited from a Deuteronomic perspective at this time, and the process went on
for some years even after Josiah’s reign ended at his death. Such a
reconstruction not only would provide a rationale for Josiah’s reforms, it
would explain the similarities between the Book of Deuteronomy and the vassal
treaties of Esarhaddon, which are from about the same period.
Other scholars, however, are reluctant
to sever Deuteronomy so completely from the older traditions. Some suggest that
the larger corpus of Deuteronomy was composed earlier in the northern kingdom
before its Assyrian exile. Here, Deuteronomy’s origin was believed to be among
priestly Levites or northern prophets who, in light of what was happening in
the north, set down traditions in opposition to the prevailing Ba’al cult in
order to stem the tide of apostasy. Fleeing southward after the fall of the
northern kingdom, they brought with them their text, which was hidden in the
temple, possibly during the dark days of Manasseh’s kingship in Judah, when
Manasseh’s so thoroughly reversed the reforms of his father Hezekiah (cf. 2 Kg.
21:1-9). Indeed, during Manasseh’s reign, Jerusalem
was filled “from end to end” with the innocent blood of all who opposed him (2
Kg. 21:16), which certainly would have been an understandable context for
hiding a Torah scroll whose very existence might have meant life or death. The
scroll presumably was hidden in the temple for preservation and only
rediscovered during the safer period of Josiah’s reign when workers were
refurbishing the central sanctuary.
An even more conservative alternative
to the above scenarios is the suggestion that Deuteronomy was composed in the
time of Solomon as a direct rebuke to Solomon’s self-exaltation and apostasy
(cf. Dt. 17:14-20; 1 Kg. 11:1-13). Deuteronomy is clear: the king of Israel must not
elevate himself (he must be a “brother” Israelite), he must not amass a large
chariot corps, and he must not surround himself with a large harem. All these
things Solomon did! Deuteronomy, by contrast, shows that power in Israel would
not be concentrated in any single individual, but spread through other
officials, such as, judges (Dt. 16:18), priests (Dt. 18:5) and prophets (Dt.
18:15) as well as a king (Dt. 17:14ff.). Those who held offices as judges or
kings were to be appointed by the people themselves, not some central figure
(Dt. 16:18; 17:15), and the real authority for the nation lay not in any single
person, but in the Torah itself (Dt. 31:10-13). Hence, the nation of Israelites
was to be a true brotherhood living under the covenant of Torah. This primacy
of the Torah explains the central role of Moses, who mediates God’s will by his
speeches (cf. Dt. 4:14), and it is to be carried out by the people within their
families (Dt. 6:7-9). Such a setting for Deuteronomy would be earlier and
different in orientation than the context of the Josianic reforms. That
Deuteronomy fulfilled an important role in Josiah’s reform need not be
discounted, but the ideas in Deuteronomy are older and more primitive than a 7th
century BC context.
No comments:
Post a Comment