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.