1, 2 (= 2 Kings xxii. 1, 2).
Josiah’s good Reign.
Of Josiah only good is recorded in Kings: “he did that which was right in the eyes 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” (2 Kings xxii. 2). In the eighteenth year of his reign he is said to have ordered a repair of the Temple in the course of which a discovery was made of a book of the Law. In consequence of its injunctions a thorough reformation was carried out by Josiah, a solemn covenant with God being entered into by the king and all the people, and attested first by a crusade against all idolatrous images and symbols throughout the land and then by a grand celebration of the Passover feast (2 Kings xxii. 3–xxiii. 27). Obviously Josiah was a king after the Chronicler’s own heart. He makes Josiah’s reforming energy begin as early as his eighth year, causing some changes in the order of events (see the note on verse 3). On the record of the Passover feast the Chronicler has naturally fastened with special pleasure, and he expands the brief allusions to it in Kings into a detailed account occupying xxxv. 1–19. His narrative of the death of Josiah differs considerably from that in Kings. Several other minor variations are pointed out in the notes below.
¹Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem.
1. in Jerusalem] Here the Chronicler omits the name of Josiah’s mother; compare xxxiii. 1, 21.
²And he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in the ways of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.
2. turned not aside, etc.] A commendatory phrase applied to Josiah alone of the kings.
3–7 (compare verse 33; 2 Kings xxiii. 4–20).
Josiah destroys the Symbols of
Idolatry.
³For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the graven images, and the molten images.
3. in the eighth year ... and in the twelfth] It should be noticed that the order of the events of Josiah’s reign given in Chronicles varies from that given in 2 Kings Thus we have in 2 Chronicles:
(1) Destruction of idolatrous symbols throughout Jerusalem, Judah and Israel; xxxiv. 3–7.
(2) Repair of the Temple and Finding of the Law; xxxiv. 8–28.
(3) Renewal of the Covenant with Jehovah; xxxiv. 29–33.
(4) Great Passover kept; xxxv. 1–19.
(5) Death of Josiah; xxxv. 20–27.
In 2 Kings on the other hand (2) and (3) precede (1), and the reforming activity of the king is accordingly placed subsequent to the finding of the Law in the eighteenth year of his reign. There can be little doubt that the order in Kings is correct. The Chronicler thought it desirable that the piety of the king should be displayed earlier, and he has therefore dated its commencement from the eighth and twelfth years. [This is preferable to the suggestion that “eighth” (bishĕmōneh) and “twelfth” (bishtēym ‘esreh) may be due to a transcriptional error of “eighteenth” (bishĕmōneh ‘esreh).]
while he was yet young] There is no clause corresponding to this in 2 Kings, and the statement is probably due to the motive indicated in the previous note. There is, of course, no reason to question the piety of Josiah in his early years, for though in 2 Kings his reformation is dated in the eighteenth year of his reign, i.e. when he was 25 years of age (hardly “young” for a king), the favourable judgement passed on him (2 Kings xxii. 2) is unqualified by any suggestion that he was tardy in turning to Jehovah, and the prophetic activity of Jeremiah is dated from the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign (Jeremiah xxv. 3).
in the twelfth year he began] The Chronicler spreads the cleansing of the land over six years, i.e. from the twelfth to the eighteenth; compare verse 8.
to purge] Josiah’s measures are more fully enumerated and described in 2 Kings xxiii.; notice e.g. the removal of the Asherah from the Temple (verse 6), the destruction of the houses of the Ḳĕdēshim (compare Deuteronomy xxiii. 17, 18) which were in the house of the Lord (verse 7), the deportation of priests from the cities of Judah into Jerusalem (verses 8, 9), and the defiling of Topheth and of Beth-el (verses 10, 15, 16). The Chronicler not unnaturally prefers to avoid these details and employs the usual general terms here, partly because he has already credited the penitent Manasseh with a reform of this character (xxxiii. 15), partly also because he may have been unwilling to suppose that such flagrant abuses in the Temple as are mentioned in Kings had continued to this date.
the Asherim] compare xiv. 3 (note).
⁴And they brake down the altars of the Baalim in his presence; and the sun-images, that were on high above them, he hewed down; and the Asherim, and the graven images, and the molten images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them, and strowed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them.
4. the Baalim] Compare xxxiii. 3 (note).
the sun-images] See note on xiv. 5; and compare 2 Kings xxiii. 11.
⁵And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, and purged Judah and Jerusalem.
5. he burnt the bones of the priests] Specially at Beth-el; 2 Kings xxiii. 15, 16.
⁶And so did he in the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, in their ruins¹ round about. ⁷And he brake down the altars, and beat the Asherim and the graven images into powder, and hewed down all the sun-images throughout all the land of Israel, and returned to Jerusalem.
6. Simeon] Here as in xv. 9 Simeon is regarded as belonging to the northern tribes, but its cities were in the south; compare the note on xv. 9, and 1 Chronicles iv. 28 ff.
in their ruins] Remark the margin, “with their axes. The text is probably corrupt.” The Versions afford no real help. A plausible conjecture is given by Curtis, who would read, he laid waste their houses.
8–28 (= 2 Kings xxii. 3–20).
Repair of the Temple. Discovery of the
Book of the Law.
⁸Now in the eighteenth year of his reign, when he had purged the land, and the house, he sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, and Maaseiah the governor of the city, and Joah the son of Joahaz the recorder¹, to repair the house of the Lord his God.
8. Shaphan] According to 2 Kings he was Scribe. See 1 Chronicles xviii. 16 (note).
the governor of the city] Render, a ruler of the city; compare xxix. 20.
the recorder] margin the chronicler; compare 1 Chronicles xviii. 15 (note). Neither Maaseiah nor Joah is mentioned in 2 Kings.
to repair the house of the Lord] It may be conjectured that the disrepair was not due solely to the abuses of Manasseh’s reign, but was connected with the disaster recorded in xxxiii. 11, when an Assyrian army carried off Manasseh to Babylon. Probably the capture of the king was not achieved without the conquest of Jerusalem, and the Temple may easily have suffered serious damage at that time. Note that Kings (which does not record the disaster mentioned in Chronicles) uses strong terms regarding the condition of the Temple when Josiah’s work was put in hand—“to repair the breaches of the house,” 2 Kings xxii. 5.
⁹And they came to Hilkiah the high priest, and delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites, the keepers of the door¹, had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin, and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem².
9. And they came ... and delivered] The matter is differently stated in 2 Kings according to which they are sent to Hilkiah with a message to him to “sum,” i.e. to reckon, the total of the money collected in the Temple. The Chronicler has in mind the idea which he set forth in xxiv. 6 ff.—namely, that the money was gathered by a body of Levites who went round the country collecting it.
the Levites, the keepers of the door] In 2 Kings xii. 9 the keepers of the doors are called priests; compare 2 Kings xxv. 18.
of the hand of Manasseh, etc.] In 2 Kings simply “of the people”: i.e. Kings thinks only of the Southern Kingdom; the Chronicler includes the remnant of the northern tribes. But see also the note on xv. 9.
and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem] So one reading of the Hebrew (the Kethīb), in agreement with the LXX. The margin and they returned to Jerusalem follows the other reading (the Ḳerī).
¹⁰And they delivered it into the hand of the workmen that had the oversight of the house of the Lord; and the workmen¹ that wrought in the house of the Lord gave it to amend and repair the house;
10. and the workmen that wrought in the house of the Lord gave it] The “workmen” are distinguished from the “carpenters and builders” (verse 11); overseers of some kind are meant. To oversee the work and to do the work may be synonymous phrases here as in 1 Chronicles xxiii. 4 and 1 Chronicles xxiii. verse 24. On the other hand 2 Kings xxii. 5 favours the rendering “And they (i.e. Shaphan, etc., and Hilkiah, verses 8, 9) delivered it into the hand of the workmen that had the oversight ... and they (i.e. these overseers) gave it to the workmen that wrought....” (Compare the margin.)
¹¹even to the carpenters and to the builders gave they it, to buy hewn stone, and timber for couplings, and to make beams for the houses which the kings of Judah had destroyed.
11. the houses] Compare 1 Chronicles xxviii. 11.
¹²And the men did the work faithfully: and the overseers of them were Jahath and Obadiah, the Levites, of the sons of Merari; and Zechariah and Meshullam, of the sons of the Kohathites, to set it forward¹: and other of the Levites, all that could skill of instruments of music. ¹³Also they were over the bearers of burdens, and set forward all that did the work in every manner of service: and of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters.
12. the overseers] There is no parallel in 2 Kings for the rest of this verse and for verse 13. The addition is characteristic of the Chronicler, exemplifying (1) his habit of inserting proper names, (2) his interest in the Levites, particularly the musical class.
to set it forward] The same Hebrew word is used in 1 Chronicles xxiii. 4, and is there rendered “to oversee the work.” (Compare the margin.)
could skill] “Skill” is used as a verb also in ii. 7, 8. Skill of instruments = “play skilfully upon instruments.”
¹⁴And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of the Lord given by¹ Moses.
14. This verse has no parallel in 2 Kings.
the book of the law] See the Additional Note at the end of the chapter, pp. 337 ff.
¹⁵And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. ¹⁶And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and moreover brought the king word again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it. ¹⁷And they have emptied out¹ the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and into the hand of the workmen.
15. answered and said] For the use of “answer” where no question had been asked compare xxix. 31, note.
¹⁸And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read therein before the king.
18. And Shaphan read therein] Contrast 2 Kings, “And Shaphan read it,” implying that he read the whole book, which of course was a simple matter, if it consisted of the nucleus of Deuteronomy (see note, verse 14). The Chronicler, however, believing the book to have been the whole Pentateuch, could not suppose that the whole was read to the king, and accordingly he writes therein in place of it.
¹⁹And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes.
19. rent his clothes] A sign of grief. “Clothes” is in the plural because both inner and outer garments are meant. See Ezra ix. 3 (with Ryle’s note).
²⁰And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah¹, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying,
20. Ahikam the son of Shaphan] Compare Jeremiah xxvi. 24, xl. 5.
Abdon the son of Micah] In 2 Kings “Achbor the son of Micaiah.”
²¹Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do according unto all that is written in this book.
21. for them that are left in Israel] Not in 2 Kings The Chronicler likes to mention the remnants of the northern tribes, as in verses 6, 9.
that is poured out upon us] In 2 Kings “that is kindled against us,” so LXX. ἐκκέκαυται. Compare verse 25.
²²So Hilkiah, and they whom the king had commanded, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath¹, the son of Hasrah², keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter³;) and they spake to her to that effect. ²³And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: Tell ye the man that sent you unto me,
22. had commanded] These words, which are obviously required, are not in the Hebrew: the verb āmar has fallen out of the text by some accident.
the prophetess] This title is given to Miriam (Exodus xv. 20), Deborah (Judges iv. 4), Anna (Luke ii. 36); compare also Nehemiah vi. 14; Revelation ii. 20.
Tokhath] In 2 Kings Tikvah.
Hasrah] In 2 Kings Harhas.
keeper of the wardrobe] Literally “keeper of the garments.” The Hebrew word for garments (bĕgādim]) is applied to a king’s robes (xviii. 29), to a high-priest’s vestments (Exodus xxviii. 2, 4), and to clothes in general; it is therefore not easy to say what office precisely is here referred to. Perhaps the garments here meant were ecclesiastical and not royal. There is ample evidence that ancient temples possessed a store of ceremonial garments for the use not only of the worshippers but also of the images, compare 2 Kings x. 22, and generally the Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹ s.v. costume, pp. 230a, 231b. As early as the VIth dynasty an Egyptian priest is mentioned as “master of the wardrobe.”
in the second quarter] Or, in the second division. Compare Zephaniah i. 10. The physical configuration of ancient Jerusalem was such that it might naturally be regarded as divided into two districts, the eastern and western, with the valley of the Tyropœon between. Compare Nehemiah iii. 9, 12, and also Nehemiah xi. 9 (with Ryle’s note on second over the city, which should probably be rendered over the second part of the city).
²⁴Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: ²⁵because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore is my wrath poured out upon this place, and it shall not be quenched.
24. all the curses] Deuteronomy xxvii. 15–26, xxviii. 15–68.
²⁶But unto the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: As touching the words which thou hast heard, ²⁷because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and hast humbled thyself before me, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the Lord.
26. As touching the words which thou hast heard, because thine heart] Read perhaps, Inasmuch as thou hast heard my words, and thine heart. There is some slight flaw in the Hebrew text.
²⁸Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof. And they brought the king word again.
28. thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace] So also in 2 Kings But in point of fact Josiah met with a violent death, being slain by Neco, king of Egypt, according both to Kings (2 Kings xxiii. 29) and Chronicles (2 Chronicles xxxv. 23 f.). From the contradiction between this prediction and the event, we may infer that in the prophecy of Huldah we have an old and reliable tradition, which obviously must have been made before the death of Josiah. That the contradiction was allowed to stand in Kings is not perhaps surprising, but it is remarkable in the Chronicler’s narrative. Not only does the idea of a genuine prophecy failing to come true run counter to his fixed principles, but (judging from many definite instances as well as from the whole tone of his history) the tradition that a king so pious from the start to the finish of his reign should meet his death in a disastrous battle must have seemed to him well-nigh incredible. The fact remains that he has allowed the tradition to stand, but it is certainly surprising.
neither shall thine eyes see] Compare the similar promise made to Ahab (1 Kings xxi. 29).
29–33 (= 2 Kings xxiii. 1–3).
The Renewal of the Covenant with
Jehovah.
This renewal of the covenant should be compared with the passage describing Hezekiah’s great service of atonement for the breach of the covenant (xxix. 20 ff.).
²⁹Then the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. ³⁰And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, both great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord.
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.