JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES, VIII-XVII, Jeroboam to Herod: Solved

[alon]

Oct 11, 2019 14:28:31 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For (Question 2) (Did (A) Elijah's chariot deliver ELijah to heaven for ages, or did (B) the chariot just transport him via heaven to another location and that Elijah show up as still alive on earth within his normal lifespan in a later passage?), one of the main arguments that Elijah didn't go up for ages in heaven is that later in the Bible, it says that a writing came from Elijah to the king of Judah. But even here there is ambiguity, because Elijah himself didn't arrive, and one could ask why he didn't: A) because he wrote the letter in expectation of what would happen with the king and then left for heaven, B) the letter did come from Elijah in heaven like being brought from a whirlwind, or C) Elijah was somewhere else on earth like in a cave and it was easier to send a letter.

Typically it seems like the Old Testament prophets gave their prophecies in person, and the wording sounds mysterious in this verse, when it says that there came a letter, instead of eg. "Elijah sent a letter."

In his commentary on the verse in 2 Chron. 21, "Толкование на Вторую книгу Паралипоменон", Lopuhin writes that the verse about the letter to King Joram created difficulty because the usual opinion was that Elijah ascended earlier, under King Jehosaphat, although Lopuhin says that the assumption that he ascended under King Jehosaphat is not certain in the Biblical text. He says that different rabbinical ways to explain the letter were that an angel brought the letter from heaven or that Elijah wrote it before his ascension. He comments that the year of Elijah's ascension is unknown and could gave occurred under King Joram. In his commentary on 4 Kings 1:17, Lopuhin says that Joram and his father Jehosaphat may have ruled jointly at the beginning of Joram's reign. In his commentary on 2 Chron. 21, Lopuhin says it's not odd that Elijah didn't appear himself to speak to King Joram, because Elijah lived in the northern kingdom of Israel, not in Judah.

First, the fact that Elijah left his cloak for Elisha suggests to me that he remained in heaven, because he would need it if he returned to earth. It seems he left it as a memento.

Second, in 2 Kings 2:12, the claim that Elisha saw Elijah "no more" tends to suggest to me that Elisha never saw Elijah again because the same term is used of Enoch's disappearance.

Third, 2 Kings 2:3 makes it sound like Elisha was losing Elijah as his teacher: "...the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head to day?" If Elijah was just transported across the sky, his Elijah's absence wouldn't be such a big deal.

Fourth, although he was writing centuries later, Josephus confirmed the interpretation that Elijah remained in heaven.

Fifth, before Elijah was taken up, he smote the Jordan and crossed it on dry land with Elisha, which brings to mind crossing the earthly plane through death, perhaps without dying. That Elijah and later Elisha smote the water with the clothes to make it divide also suggests the concept of Elijah's body being able to conquer death, since clothes can represent skin like in the story of the Garden of Eden. Remember that Elijah resurrected a boy.

Sixth, Elisha's rending his own clothes when Elijah was taken up suggests his loss of Elijah because Israelites rent their clothes under major distress.

Seventh, Elijah granting Elisha's request to have a double portion of Elijah's spirit sounds like granting an inheritance, not just a gift for a temporary earthly separation.

Eighth, the 50 sons of prophets couldn't find Elijah, even though they searched three days. BTW, I think the three days' searching alludes to the concept of the third day bodily resurrection.

I think I answered this one enough.

Elijah was taken up to the heavens. Only he and Enoch were ever given this privilage to be taken up without suffering death. Because of this, it is speculated they will be the two witnesses in Revelation. But since the Bible doesn't say he was "transported" somewhere else, but that he was taken up, then up I believe!

[alon]

Oct 11, 2019 21:05:49 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I wonder where it says, like you mentioned, that Persians allowed the Northern Kingdom's exiles dispersed by the Assyrians 3 or 4 centuries earlier to return.

Ezra 1:1-4  (ESV) In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing:

 “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.  Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem.  And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”


This information confirms what you said about them being a mix.

I was just repeating what God said in His Word,  so I was pretty sure of myself! 

[alon]

Oct 11, 2019 23:19:34 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Regarding Question 4(Could the Assyrian king's warning to King Hezekiah cryptically allude to the Crucifixion?), this question is based on Isaiah 36:6.

Alexander Cruden theorizes that a broken red signals one's weakness or inability, a bruised reed signals one crushed and contrite, based on Isaiah 43, and a reed shaken by the wind signals someone of no settled purpose, being used as a metaphorical antonym of John the Baptist in Matthew 11.

Isaiah 42:3 says about God's servant:
"A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth."
Ezekiel 29:6-7 describes Egypt as a reed that broke when Israel leaned on it, maybe referring to Hezekiah leaning on Egypt; "6. And all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am the Lord, because they have been a staff of reed to the house of Israel. 7. When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and rend all their shoulder: and when they leaned upon thee, thou brakest, and madest all their loins to be at a stand."

I have trouble finding theories that Hezekiah, whose third day recovery prefigured the Resurrection, also had a prefigurement of the crucifixion in the image of him piercing his hand on the broken reed.


Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 27:29, about the soldiers putting a reed in Yeshua's hand to mock Him at the Passion, says:

And a reed in his right hand - A reed is a straight, slender herb, growing in marshy places, and abundant on the banks of the Jordan. It was often used for the purpose of making staves for walking, and it is not improbable that this was such a staff in the possession of some person present. The word is several times thus used. See 2 Kings 18:21; Isaiah 36:6; Ezekiel 29:6. Kings commonly carried a "sceptre," made of ivory or gold, as a sign of their office or rank, Esther 4:11; Esther 8:4. This "reed" or "staff" they put in his hand, in imitation of a "sceptre," to deride, also, his pretensions of being a king.

The broken reed, metaphorically used as a staff to lean on for support, then broke and, since metaphorical Judah was leaning on it "his" hand slipped quickly down and was pierced by the broken end. This is a picture of those who depend on Egypt for support. Their support breaks off and you are left to face the enemy alone, a picture of your hand being injured. You now must fight as a cripple, a warrior with a serious injury with which to contend. I really see no metaphor for the Cross in that.  

[rakovsky]

Oct 12, 2019 8:59:05 GMT -8 alon said:

Oct 11, 2019 21:05:49 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I wonder where it says, like you mentioned, that Persians allowed the Northern Kingdom's exiles dispersed by the Assyrians 3 or 4 centuries earlier to return.

Ezra 1:1-4  (ESV) In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing:

 “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.  Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem.  And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”


This information confirms what you said about them being a mix.

I was just repeating what God said in His Word,  so I was pretty sure of myself! 

Well, regarding the Persians' allowance of the refugees to return, it didn't specify that there were exiles from the 10 tribes dispersed 3 to 4 centuries earlier returning. Over 300 years, conceivably some of them might not have returned because they lost their identity like the potential Israelites of northern India. Or let's say they retained their identity, they might still not choose to return, similar to how in other periods some Jews haven't returned even when feasible. The Babylonian Jewish community remained large even after this decree, for example. Plus, due to conflict between the North and Judah, they might not have identified with the Jews - for whom the decree was fundamentally aimed - enough to return.

So it's not clear if this decree meant that the northern exiles actually returned to Samaria, unfortunately.

[rakovsky]

Oct 12, 2019 9:17:11 GMT -8 alon said:

Oct 11, 2019 23:19:34 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Regarding Question 4(Could the Assyrian king's warning to King Hezekiah cryptically allude to the Crucifixion?), this question is based on Isaiah 36:6.

The broken reed, metaphorically used as a staff to lean on for support, then broke and, since metaphorical Judah was leaning on it "his" hand slipped quickly down and was pierced by the broken end. This is a picture of those who depend on Egypt for support. Their support breaks off and you are left to face the enemy alone, a picture of your hand being injured. You now must fight as a cripple, a warrior with a serious injury with which to contend. I really see no metaphor for the Cross in that.  

• My idea was that Hezekiah's experience resembled Yeshua's. 
  His three day healing was a prefigurement of Yeshua's third day resurrection.
  So along with this, the image of Hezekiah's suffering with the piercing of his hand by a reed on which his weight rested could also relate to Yeshua's piercing passion, particularly the piercing of his hand by the nail on which his weight rested on the cross.
  Just as Isaiah's Book had a cryptic allusion to the resurrection, it could also have an allusion to the crucifixion.
• Whereas the reed was broken in the metaphor, the cross is a set of broken boards and pieces of iron.
• Although Ezekiel said that Egypt was like a broken reed that Judah relied on and was pierced by so that it ruined Judah's shoulder, Hezekiah ultimately was victorious against Assyria, just as Yeshua was in His own mission.
• Just as ultimately Hezekiah was saved by God's power, so was Yeshua saved by God's power.

One obstacle with this analogy between Hezekiah and the reed and Yeshua and the Cross is that in Isaiah 36:6, it says that the reed will go "ḇə-ḵap-pōw", into the kaph or palm of the hand, whereas Yeshua's nails probably went into his forearms. 

You could reply that the connection between Hezekiah and Yeshua is very weak regarding the reed and the cross, but then someone else could claim that the connection about the third day resurrection is also weak. Or consider the connection between the serpeant on the staff in Moses' story and Yeshua on the cross. The connection could be seen as weak, yet Yeshua drew a connection that may have been in the story itself, ie. the story of Moses' staff may have actually alluded to the Cross.

[rakovsky]

For Question 5, the king in question whose priest discovered the Books of the Law was Josiah, not Hezekiah. Josephus narrated the passage praising Josiah that I quoted in Book X, Chapter IV, sections 1-2, and he was referring to Josiah's accession to the throne and Hilkiah's discovery of Moses' Laws in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34. The priest who is named Eliakas in Greek is named Hilkiah in Hebrew.

[alon]

Nov 27, 2019 5:23:07 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 5, the king in question whose priest discovered the Books of the Law was Josiah, not Hezekiah. Josephus narrated the passage praising Josiah that I quoted in Book X, Chapter IV, sections 1-2, and he was referring to Josiah's accession to the throne and Hilkiah's discovery of Moses' Laws in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34. The priest who is named Eliakas in Greek is named Hilkiah in Hebrew.

Makes a little more sense. I'd say when confronted by the enormity of the transgression of the kingdom his reaction is understandable. At the time true godly men mourned for their nation. And they had a fear of God and His wrath we have lost today, but may yet soon come to regret. Whereas Kings of Israel were supposed to themselves write 2 copies of , it and its precepts had been ignored and violated. But this is what does, it instructs us on what is sin and what is godly living, and it convicts us of that sin before a holy God. So the kings reaction is not just understandable, but is exactly what we should expect from a truly repentant man of this time. 

[rakovsky]

Also for Question 5, Ellicott's Commentary notes that 2 Kings 22 literally says, "the book of the have I found." This implies that the priest found a particular book. Ellicott theorizes that this was the same thing as the Testimony, which I thought was the Ten Commandments, but Ellicott apparently theorizes that this was a longer summary of the Laws:

What is meant is a collection of the statutes and ordinances of Moses, which has been worked up (verarbeitet) in the Pentateuch, and especially in Deuteronomy. This work is referred to by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 11:1-17),and was called “The Book of the Covenant” (2Kings 23:2). According to 2Chronicles 17:9 it already existed in the time of Jehoshaphat (comp. 2Kings 11:12, “the Testimony”); was probably preserved in the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), along with which in the reign of Manasseh it was put on one side. When after half a century of disuse it was found again by the high priest in going through the chambers of the Temple with a view to the intended repairs, in the Ark which, though cast aside, was still kept in the Temple, it appeared like something new, because it had been wholly forgotten (for a time), so that Shaphan could say: ‘Hilkiah has given me a book’ (2Kings 22:10).”

Really what I am asking is how could the pious law abiding king Josiah have been surprised apparently when the discovered Law was unread. Like had he not really known what the Law had said, or was this a newly created set of new rules. It seems a strange conflictual issue. Maybe when Josephus described Josiah as law abiding and pious, he meant that the king was law abiding to the extent that the king knew the Law.

Maclaren's Exposition theorizes:

How it came to have been lost is a more puzzling question; but if we recall that seventy-five years had passed since Hezekiah, and that these were almost entirely years of apostasy and of tumult, we shall not wonder that it was so. Unvalued things easily slip out of sight, and if the preservation of Scripture depended on the estimation which some of us have of it, it would have been lost long ago. But the fact of the loss suggests the wonder of the preservation. It would appear that this copy was the only one existing,-at all events, the only one known... Hilkiah’s announcement to Shaphan has a ring of wonder and of awe in it. It sounds as if he had not known that such a book was anywhere in the Temple.

Benson's Commentary theorizes:

But it is much disputed, whether it was the whole Pentateuch, emphatically called ה תורה, he , the law, or only Deuteronomy, or even barely the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st chapters of that book. Josephus, by calling it the sacred books of Moses, seems to declare entirely for the former; as do far the greater number of Jews and Christians.
...
What appears most surprising is, that all the copies of the Scriptures, which the good King Hezekiah seems to have caused to be written and dispersed about the kingdom, (see Proverbs 25:1,) should be so soon vanished, that neither Josiah nor the high-priest had ever seen any of them till this one was brought to light. All that can be said in this case is, that Manasseh, during the former part of his reign, had made such a havoc of them, that if there were any left, they were only in a few private hands, who preserved them with the utmost caution and secrecy.

Barnes' Notes argues that the discovered books were not forgeries because eg. the Samaritans had the independently preserved:

If Hilkiah had been bold enough and wicked enough to forge, or if he had been foolish enough to accept hastily as the real "book of the law" a composition of which he really knew nothing, there were four means of detecting his error or his fraud:
(1) The Jewish Liturgies, which embodied large portions of the Law;

(2) The memory of living men, which in many instances may have extended to the entire five books, as it does now with the modern Samaritans;

(3) Other copies, entire or fragmentary, existing among the more learned Jews, or in the Schools of the prophets; and

(4) Quotations from the Law in other works, especially in the Psalmists and prophets, who refer to it on almost every page.

The copy of the Book of the Law found by Hilkiah was no doubt that deposited, in accordance with the command of God, by Moses, by the side of the ark of the covenant, and kept ordinarily in the holy of holies (marginal reference). It had been lost, or secreted, during the desecration of the temple by Manasseh, but had not been removed out of the temple building.

Jamiesson-Faucet's commentary theorizes:

It is thought, with great probability, that the passage read to the king, and by which the royal mind was so greatly excited, was a portion of Deuteronomy, the twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth chapters, in which is recorded a renewal of the national covenant, and an enumeration of the terrible threats and curses denounced against all who violated the law, whether prince or people. The impressions of grief and terror which the reading produced on the mind of Josiah have seemed to many unaccountable. But, as it is certain from the extensive and familiar knowledge displayed by the prophets, that there were numbers of other copies in popular circulation, the king must have known its sacred contents in some degree. But he might have been a stranger to the passage read him, or the reading of it might, in the peculiar circumstances, have found a way to his heart in a manner that he never felt before.

The hypothesis that the book discovered was a summary of reminds me of the theory that the book was Deuteronomy, because I read that Deuteronomy summarizes the laws of the preceding books.
In Deuteronomy 31, Moses writes God's commands in a book, and God instructs:
“Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;"
It sounds like this was the book that Hilkiah found.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says:

That an authoritative copy of the Law, whatever it may have comprised, would be supplied for preservation in the temple we certainly might expect, but after nearly sixty years of neglect of the temple and its services we can feel little surprise that neither Hilkiah nor his fellows were aware of its existence, and that Josiah knew concerning it only what had been taught him by the priests. The half-century previous to Josiah’s accession had been a period of utter darkness both for people, priests and king.

...The high priest describes it to Shaphan by a form of words which must have had a definite meaning before he used them. That is, there was known among the priests, and to some degree no doubt among the people, a collection of precepts which were called by the name of ‘the book of the Law’. Therefore the finding mentioned in this verse was not a discovery of something unknown before, but the rescuing of the temple-copy of the Law from the hiding-place in which it had long lain...

The Pulpit Commentary agrees with Josephus' reading that the discovered book was the :

The words, סֵפֶר הַתּורָה, "the book of the Law," are really sufficient to decide the point; since, as Keil says, they "cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of the Law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles and the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah."

Keilar and Delitzsch's commentary says about Josiah:

The description of his character, "he turned not aside to the right hand and to the left," sc. from that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, is based upon Deuteronomy 5:29; Deuteronomy 17:11, Deuteronomy 17:20, and Deuteronomy 28:14, and expresses an unwavering adherence to the law of the Lord.

"Affable Geek" writes on Christianity Stackexchange:

It had been ignored for up to 57 years - after the days of Hezekiah, but during the 55 year reign of Manessah, 2 years of Amon's reign and 18 years of Josiah's reign up to this point.

Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before? Whether or not it was "known" is debatable. It was in the Temple and always had been. But imagine trying to find a single artifact in a large building that served as a storehouse. (Remember, people didn't enter the Temple on a regular basis - only the priests did. It wasn't a church!)

Also on Christianity Stackexchange, thingy Harfield theorizes that the discovered book was a forgery:

A very similar instance is reported in the Book of Jeremiah, demonstrating that this would not be the only case in which a document was hidden then 'found' by the priests in order to establish its antiquity and enable them to impress the king (who immediately saw through the ruse):

Jeremiah 36:19-23: "Then said the princes unto Baruch, Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah; and let no man know where ye be. And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king. So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth."

In 'Ideas of Law and Legal Administration: a Semiotic Approach', published in The World of Ancient Israel (edited by R.E. Clements), page 193, Bernard S. Jackson agrees that the passage in Jeremiah suggests that the scroll found in the time of Josiah, just a few years earlier, had also been a ‘plant’. He says that Jeremiah has given us a vivid description of how it might have been done.

The Haaretz article "Who Wrote the ?" comments:"Shaphan claimed that the book had been found in the Temple while the priests were cleaning up the storeroom."

[rakovsky]

Also for Question 5 about why Josiah was surprised if he was pious, I think the answer is that in the Bible it says he was pious, but it doesn't specify that he knew what the said before the Book of the Law was discovered. When Josephus wrote about Josiah being law abiding, he was just summarizing Josiah's life, not specifically talking about the time when he was a youth before the book was found. Verse 13 specifies that Josiah was distraught because the Lord would act wrathfully because of his and the people's predecessors' sins. Then the prophetess Huldah predicted that Josiah himself would not see the desolation imposed on the nation, since he was humble and wept because of the wrongdoing.

2 Kings 22 says:

2. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.
3. And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying,
4. Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people:
5. And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them give it to the doers of the work which is in the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches of the house,

In this text, the Book was later discovered when David arranged for the Temple to be repaired:

8. And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
10. And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
11. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
12. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying,
13. Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.
14. So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
15. And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, ...
18. But to the king of Judah which sent you to enquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard;
19. Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the Lord.
20. Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.

[alon]

Nov 27, 2019 17:14:27 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also for Question 5, Ellicott's Commentary notes that 2 Kings 22 literally says, "the book of the have I found." This implies that the priest found a particular book. "Books" then, as you know, were scrolls, and all of could be placed on one scroll:

סֵפֶר çêpher, say'-fer; or (feminine) סִפְרָה çiphrâh; (Psalm 56:8 (H9)), from H5608; properly, writing (the art or a document); by implication, a book:—bill, book, evidence, × learn(-ed) (-ing), letter, register, scroll.

The idea of books is western, and can refer to as a book, or any one of the 5 books which makes it up. So we must be careful of placing our own ideas on what is said (a thing the church- all of them- is very bad about), and further about transposition of terms within our own system. Cepher in Judaism is a scroll. That's probably what was found. 

Ellicott theorizes that this was the same thing as the Testimony, which I thought was the Ten Commandments, but Ellicott apparently theorizes that this was a longer summary of the Laws:

What is meant is a collection of the statutes and ordinances of Moses, which has been worked up (verarbeitet) in the Pentateuch, and especially in Deuteronomy. This work is referred to by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 11:1-17),and was called “The Book of the Covenant” (2Kings 23:2). According to 2Chronicles 17:9 it already existed in the time of Jehoshaphat (comp. 2Kings 11:12, “the Testimony”); was probably preserved in the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), along with which in the reign of Manasseh it was put on one side. When after half a century of disuse it was found again by the high priest in going through the chambers of the Temple with a view to the intended repairs, in the Ark which, though cast aside, was still kept in the Temple, it appeared like something new, because it had been wholly forgotten (for a time), so that Shaphan could say: ‘Hilkiah has given me a book’ (2Kings 22:10).” Those statutes to an observant Jew would not have been "entirely forgotten." Ellicot is showing a complete lack of understanding of Judaism here, as the precepts of their faith are before even the lowest of them daily. And scrolls being expensive and very fragile, the average man never had access to one. But he well knew what was said. However there is a difference in hearing the word of God and actually reading it. Those like priests and kings who did have access could more deeply search it out and ponder it. We today are spoiled with our many Bibles. But we need to be reminded of both the privilege and responsibility of carrying our own. We have the Word. We are responsible for what it says. If we instead chose to just accept what men say about it instead of searching it out ourselves, then we'll be judged for their shortcomings as well as our own. We cannot say "But that's what he told me," because we have what God told us before us at all times.

Really what I am asking is how could the pious law abiding king Josiah have been surprised apparently when the discovered Law was unread. Surprised they'd found a copy. Surprised that, in spite of his living with its precepts there was so much more: more deapth, more meaning, more interconnection, more relevance ... .  

Like had he not really known what the Law had said, No, like he knew, but he was surprised at how much he was missing. See all my above.

or was this a newly created set of new rules. Absolutely not! You need to get past this Christian concept that God just changed His mind, and His rules whenever He felt like it! There was a progressive revelation in , which is clearly delineated. But once completed, and finalized, it became immutable! It has not been changed by God since. Man, in particular the church, yes- both by misinterpretation and by outright rewriting it to suit themselves. But not only the church or even Gentiles. Look at the Samaritans, who rewrote parts of so they could worship on Mt. Gerazim.

It seems a strange conflictual issue. Maybe when Josephus described Josiah as law abiding and pious, he meant that the king was law abiding to the extent that the king knew the Law. I'd say that is what Jo meant, except that it is the truth and you know what I think of Ol'Jo and the truth! 

Maclaren's Exposition theorizes:

How it came to have been lost is a more puzzling question; but if we recall that seventy-five years had passed since Hezekiah, and that these were almost entirely years of apostasy and of tumult, we shall not wonder that it was so. Unvalued things easily slip out of sight, and if the preservation of Scripture depended on the estimation which some of us have of it, it would have been lost long ago. But the fact of the loss suggests the wonder of the preservation. It would appear that this copy was the only one existing,-at all events, the only one known... Hilkiah’s announcement to Shaphan has a ring of wonder and of awe in it. It sounds as if he had not known that such a book was anywhere in the Temple. Maclaren has a good handle on things here!  

Benson's Commentary theorizes: But it is much disputed, whether it was the whole Pentateuch, emphatically called ה תורה, he , the law, or only Deuteronomy, or even barely the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st chapters of that book. Josephus, by calling it the sacred books of Moses, seems to declare entirely for the former; as do far the greater number of Jews and Christians.

...
What appears most surprising is, that all the copies of the Scriptures, which the good King Hezekiah seems to have caused to be written and dispersed about the kingdom, (see Proverbs 25:1,) should be so soon vanished, that neither Josiah nor the high-priest had ever seen any of them till this one was brought to light. All that can be said in this case is, that Manasseh, during the former part of his reign, had made such a havoc of them, that if there were any left, they were only in a few private hands, who preserved them with the utmost caution and secrecy. Benson too understands. When evil men gain the upper hand, the first thing they do is try to squash dissenting voices. The second is to destroy books. And all this in an effort to squelch the truth, because they can sell their load of bilge-water as long as theirs are the only voices heard. But let even a flicker of the light of truth shine out and the darkness cannot withstand it! scrolls were very perishable, and so would not last long, even in storage unless very carefully preserved. Add to that copies would have been searched out and destroyed and the wonderment of the king at finding an intact copy should be no surprise.   

Barnes' Notes argues that the discovered books were not forgeries because eg. the Samaritans had the independently preserved:

If Hilkiah had been bold enough and wicked enough to forge, or if he had been foolish enough to accept hastily as the real "book of the law" a composition of which he really knew nothing, there were four means of detecting his error or his fraud:
(1) The Jewish Liturgies, which embodied large portions of the Law;

(2) The memory of living men, which in many instances may have extended to the entire five books, as it does now with the modern Samaritans;

(3) Other copies, entire or fragmentary, existing among the more learned Jews, or in the Schools of the prophets; and

(4) Quotations from the Law in other works, especially in the Psalmists and prophets, who refer to it on almost every page.

The copy of the Book of the Law found by Hilkiah was no doubt that deposited, in accordance with the command of God, by Moses, by the side of the ark of the covenant, and kept ordinarily in the holy of holies (marginal reference). It had been lost, or secreted, during the desecration of the temple by Manasseh, but had not been removed out of the temple building.

The Samaritans, as I said earlier, changed portions of to suit themselves.

Jamiesson-Faucet's commentary theorizes:

It is thought, with great probability, that the passage read to the king, and by which the royal mind was so greatly excited, was a portion of Deuteronomy, the twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth chapters, in which is recorded a renewal of the national covenant, and an enumeration of the terrible threats and curses denounced against all who violated the law, whether prince or people. The impressions of grief and terror which the reading produced on the mind of Josiah have seemed to many unaccountable. But, as it is certain from the extensive and familiar knowledge displayed by the prophets, that there were numbers of other copies in popular circulation, the king must have known its sacred contents in some degree. But he might have been a stranger to the passage read him, or the reading of it might, in the peculiar circumstances, have found a way to his heart in a manner that he never felt before. convicts us. It shows us what sin is, what holiness is, and it shows the depths of our depravity.

The hypothesis that the book discovered was a summary of reminds me of the theory that the book was Deuteronomy, because I read that Deuteronomy summarizes the laws of the preceding books. Read it for yourself. Deuteronomy summarizes the Law and instructions in their final and condensed format. 
In Deuteronomy 31, Moses writes God's commands in a book, and God instructs:
“Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;"
It sounds like this was the book that Hilkiah found. 

26 לָקֹ֗חַ אֵ֣ת סֵ֤פֶר הַתּוֹרָה֙ הַזֶּ֔ה וְשַׂמְתֶּ֣ם אֹת֔וֹ מִצַּ֛ד אֲר֥וֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֑ם וְהָֽיָה־שָׁ֥ם בְּךָ֖ לְעֵֽד׃

Deuteronomy 31:26 (ESV) “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.

The underlined part in the Hebrew version is הַתּוֹרָה֙, ha'. It is very simple: it was not some legal document, but itself we are talking about here. The misunderstanding comes from a complete lack of knowledge of things Jewish, commentators desire to sound knowledgeable (both ego driven and so they can sell more commentaries), and the idea of the so called "New Testament," which means a new Greek legal document. Bull! It is a Hebrew document, start to finish, there is nothing "new" therein, and like itself it contains instructions. 


The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says:

That an authoritative copy of the Law, whatever it may have comprised, would be supplied for preservation in the temple we certainly might expect, but after nearly sixty years of neglect of the temple and its services we can feel little surprise that neither Hilkiah nor his fellows were aware of its existence, and that Josiah knew concerning it only what had been taught him by the priests. The half-century previous to Josiah’s accession had been a period of utter darkness both for people, priests and king.

...The high priest describes it to Shaphan by a form of words which must have had a definite meaning before he used them. That is, there was known among the priests, and to some degree no doubt among the people, a collection of precepts which were called by the name of ‘the book of the Law’. Therefore the finding mentioned in this verse was not a discovery of something unknown before, but the rescuing of the temple-copy of the Law from the hiding-place in which it had long lain...

Not all commentators were in the dark though. This one, like the ones I mentioned earlier, gets it.

The Pulpit Commentary agrees with Josephus' reading that the discovered book was the :

The words, סֵפֶר הַתּורָה, "the book of the Law," are really sufficient to decide the point; since, as Keil says, they "cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of the Law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles and the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah." Cephir , just as I said. He gets it, even if he did agree with Josephus! 

Keilar and Delitzsch's commentary says about Josiah:

The description of his character, "he turned not aside to the right hand and to the left," sc. from that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, is based upon Deuteronomy 5:29; Deuteronomy 17:11, Deuteronomy 17:20, and Deuteronomy 28:14, and expresses an unwavering adherence to the law of the Lord.

"Affable Geek" writes on Christianity Stackexchange:

It had been ignored for up to 57 years - after the days of Hezekiah, but during the 55 year reign of Manessah, 2 years of Amon's reign and 18 years of Josiah's reign up to this point.

Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before? Whether or not it was "known" is debatable. It was in the Temple and always had been. But imagine trying to find a single artifact in a large building that served as a storehouse. (Remember, people didn't enter the Temple on a regular basis - only the priests did. It wasn't a church!)

Also on Christianity Stackexchange, thingy Harfield theorizes that the discovered book was a forgery:

A very similar instance is reported in the Book of Jeremiah, demonstrating that this would not be the only case in which a document was hidden then 'found' by the priests in order to establish its antiquity and enable them to impress the king (who immediately saw through the ruse):

Jeremiah 36:19-23: "Then said the princes unto Baruch, Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah; and let no man know where ye be. And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king. So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth."

In 'Ideas of Law and Legal Administration: a Semiotic Approach', published in The World of Ancient Israel (edited by R.E. Clements), page 193, Bernard S. Jackson agrees that the passage in Jeremiah suggests that the scroll found in the time of Josiah, just a few years earlier, had also been a ‘plant’. He says that Jeremiah has given us a vivid description of how it might have been done. Again I say- READ* IT*IN*CONTEXT!!!

Jeremiah 36:1-3 (ESV) In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord:  “Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today.  It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the disaster that I intend to do to them, so that every one may turn from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”

This is about a scroll written by the prophet Jerimayah on instructions of God, NOT about itself, forgery or otherwise! Is it so hard to read for ourselves that we have to take the word of some self proclaimed expert on a FORUM? And that include me! Read and think and understand for yourself. If I or they are right, the only way you will really know it is to prove it yourself. I we, and in particular me, are wrong, the I/we need to be made aware of it. But moreover you/me/we do not need a bunch of false garbage clogging our memory.

Also allow me to point out, if a prophet of the Most High God writes something it is neither a forgery nor a document to be lightly burned because it scares or worries us, or because it crimps our style. He scares, worries, and restricts us for our own good. But He gives us free will in this lifetime. He will not be so lenient in the next. Choose this day who you will serve ... .   

The Haaretz article "Who Wrote the ?" comments:"Shaphan claimed that the book had been found in the Temple while the priests were cleaning up the storeroom." And his point would be ... ?

[rakovsky]

Nov 28, 2019 8:41:27 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 27, 2019 17:14:27 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also for Question 5, Ellicott's Commentary notes that 2 Kings 22 literally says, "the book of the have I found." This implies that the priest found a particular book. "Books" then, as you know, were scrolls, and all of could be placed on one scroll:

סֵפֶר çêpher, say'-fer; or (feminine) סִפְרָה çiphrâh; (Psalm 56:8 (H9)), from H5608; properly, writing (the art or a document); by implication, a book:—bill, book, evidence, × learn(-ed) (-ing), letter, register, scroll.

The idea of books is western, and can refer to as a book, or any one of the 5 books which makes it up. So we must be careful of placing our own ideas on what is said (a thing the church- all of them- is very bad about), and further about transposition of terms within our own system. Cepher in Judaism is a scroll. That's probably what was found. 

Great point by you above for Question 5. 2 Kings 22:8 has Hilkiah say that he found Sepher hatōwrāh (הַתּוֹרָ֛ה), literally, the Writing/scroll/book/document of the Law. That sounds like "Scroll of the ", ie a Scroll.

Another that came up for me by reading the Hebrew was the issue there in that the commentaries that I quoted had said that this chapter refers to "the book of the law", and they concluded that this meant that Hilkiah was already familiar with "the" book's existence, by introducing it with the word "the". Grammatically, we use "the" to refer to nouns with which we are already familiar. But here in 2 Kings 22:8, it just says "book of the Law". Hilkiah doesn't introduce the book to Shaphan as "the book of the Law". It says literally "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it." I don't know if you can shed any light on this, but it looks to me like those commentaries were just going by the English translation.

[rakovsky]

Nov 28, 2019 8:41:27 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 27, 2019 17:14:27 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also for Question 5, 
Jamiesson-Faucet's commentary theorizes:The hypothesis that the book discovered was a summary of reminds me of the theory that the book was Deuteronomy, because I read that Deuteronomy summarizes the laws of the preceding books. Read it for yourself. Deuteronomy summarizes the Law and instructions in their final and condensed format. 
In Deuteronomy 31, Moses writes God's commands in a book, and God instructs:
“Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;"
It sounds like this was the book that Hilkiah found. 

26 לָקֹ֗חַ אֵ֣ת סֵ֤פֶר הַתּוֹרָה֙ הַזֶּ֔ה וְשַׂמְתֶּ֣ם אֹת֔וֹ מִצַּ֛ד אֲר֥וֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֑ם וְהָֽיָה־שָׁ֥ם בְּךָ֖ לְעֵֽד׃

Deuteronomy 31:26 (ESV) “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.

The underlined part in the Hebrew version is הַתּוֹרָה֙, ha'. It is very simple: it was not some legal document, but itself we are talking about here. 

Deuteronomy 31 in context suggests to me that you are right that "this book of the " refers to the book/scroll that Moses had written, the whole scroll of :

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,

26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Thanks for bearing with me.

[rakovsky]

Nov 28, 2019 8:41:27 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 27, 2019 17:14:27 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also for Question 5, 
Also on Christianity Stackexchange, thingy Harfield theorizes that the discovered book was a forgery:
=====================================================================
A very similar instance is reported in the Book of Jeremiah, demonstrating that this would not be the only case in which a document was hidden then 'found' by the priests in order to establish its antiquity and enable them to impress the king (who immediately saw through the ruse):



Jeremiah 36:19-23: "Then said the princes unto Baruch, Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah; and let no man know where ye be. And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king. So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth."



In 'Ideas of Law and Legal Administration: a Semiotic Approach', published in The World of Ancient Israel (edited by R.E. Clements), page 193, Bernard S. Jackson agrees that the passage in Jeremiah suggests that the scroll found in the time of Josiah, just a few years earlier, had also been a ‘plant’. He says that Jeremiah has given us a vivid description of how it might have been done. Again I say- READ* IT*IN*CONTEXT!!!



Jeremiah 36:1-3 (ESV) In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the disaster that I intend to do to them, so that every one may turn from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”



This is about a scroll written by the prophet Jerimayah on instructions of God, NOT about itself, forgery or otherwise! Is it so hard to read for ourselves that we have to take the word of some self proclaimed expert on a FORUM? And that include me! Read and think and understand for yourself. If I or they are right, the only way you will really know it is to prove it yourself. I we, and in particular me, are wrong, the I/we need to be made aware of it. But moreover you/me/we do not need a bunch of false garbage clogging our memory.



Also allow me to point out, if a prophet of the Most High God writes something it is neither a forgery nor a document to be lightly burned because it scares or worries us, or because it crimps our style. He scares, worries, and restricts us for our own good. But He gives us free will in this lifetime. He will not be so lenient in the next. Choose this day who you will serve ... .

========================================================
The Haaretz article "Who Wrote the ?" comments:"Shaphan claimed that the book had been found in the Temple while the priests were cleaning up the storeroom." And his point would be ... ?

Good analysis of Harfield's claim about Jeremiah 36. I missed that, Dan.

The Haaretz article was theorizing that the book discovered was Deuteronomy and that Shaphan authored it. In fact, Shaphan might not have authored it of we consider that this incident was the basis for its composition. Instead, the text says that Hilkiah found it and showed it to Shaphan, which could suggest that Hilkiah authored it. Anyway, for reasons that we discussed, I think that the book was more likely the , and that the was already written.
You can find the Haaretz article online on the Haaretz website with this heading: 

Who Wrote the ?

For thousands of years people believed that the five books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses. But it couldn't have been, academics say.

Elon Gilad, Oct 22, 2014  ....

[alon]

Nov 28, 2019 23:55:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Who Wrote the ?

For thousands of years people believed that the five books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses. But it couldn't have been, academics say.

Elon Gilad, Oct 22, 2014  ....

I never believed Moshe wrote the entire . I've given my view on the forum here before that he was commissioned to compile and led by ELohim he gathered existing documents, spoke with witnesses or had scribes do it, assigned different scribes to write different parts or sometimes to take dictation ... however he assigned the duties he oversaw and vetted it every step of the way. But that's my opinion. Academics are of the opinion there were at least 4 types of people who wrote , most of them saying these modifications took place over hundreds of years. I don't remember the specific types off hand, but one was (predictably) priests. However these "scholars" also give as evidence that some things happened much later, so the writer could not have known about it. Duh, what part of "Prophet of God" are these people missing? And yes, I imagine some of it was given to priests to write. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't.

Throughout the Bible, God never just dictated an entire book to someone. He gave visions, spoke to men, or allowed them to witness events. Godly men, they then as accurately as they could wrote about it. But their personality comes through in the writings. These men were formed for and raised up to the tasks they were given. God knows how to choose an author. And I believe was no exception. 

This is why we have synoptic accounts. Each account is told from the perspective of its author, so we learn something different from each account of the same events. The Bible is a very personal book, just like our God is a very personal God. And it should be read with this in mind. My opinion.

[alon]

Nov 28, 2019 23:17:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Another that came up for me by reading the Hebrew was the issue there in that the commentaries that I quoted had said that this chapter refers to "the book of the law", and they concluded that this meant that Hilkiah was already familiar with "the" book's existence, by introducing it with the word "the". Grammatically, we use "the" to refer to nouns with which we are already familiar. But here in 2 Kings 22:8, it just says "book of the Law". Hilkiah doesn't introduce the book to Shaphan as "the book of the Law". It says literally "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it." I don't know if you can shed any light on this, but it looks to me like those commentaries were just going by the English translation.

And that's a problem. Languages do not translate directly, and often words like "the" are inserted at discretion of the translator to make the English more grammatically correct, or just to sound and read better.

Thanks for bearing with me.

No problem. Your questions stretch me, make me think. And at my age, that can be a good thing!


Dan