Josiah and The Torah Book, 1

Josiah and The Torah Book:

A comparison of 2 Kgs 22:1-23:28 and 2 Chr 34:1-35:19.

Lyle Eslinger
The Calgary Institute for the Humanities
The University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2N 1N4

Theoreticians of narrative literaturenarratologistsvalue the distinction

between temporal and causal order in narrative. Both are seen as more or
less reflective of a sometimes hypothetical actual sequence of events
described by the literary artist. E.M. Forster described the difference vividly:
The king died and then the queen died is a narrative [temporal order].
The king died, and then the queen died of grief is a plot [causal order]
(1976, p. 87). But as Roland Barthes says, readers only rarely make the
distinction, falling prey to a logical fallacypost hoc, ergo propter hoc .
Indeed, there is a strong presumption that the mainspring of the narrative
activity is to be traced to that very confusion between consecutiveness and
consequence, what-comes-after being read in a narrative as what-is-caused-
by (cit. T. Todorov 1981, p. 42).

Literary theorists are not the only ones to have noticed this common
reading practice; authors put it to good use in their manipulations of plot
and event sequence. To get a reader thinking that event B is the result of
event A, an author need only put the two in the sequence A, B. The least in
the kingdom of expositional manipulations at an authors disposal, event
sequencing is greater than any explicit expositional voice that the author
might use to prepare the way for his tale; greater, because causality is so
commonly assumed in temporal sequences. And a readers assumptions are
stronger elements in a tales power over the reader than anything an author
might try to impose by brute expositional force.

The authors of biblical narrative were well aware of the expositional value
of plot manipulation, as Sternberg has so ably demonstrated (1985, esp.
chs. 6-8). Their preference, in fact, is to let the tale do its own talking, or
more exactly, to let the exposition surface implicitly within the story rather
than by means of the external voice of narratorial commentary. The biblical
narrator is a narrator bent on self-effacement (Sternberg, 1985, p. 266). 1

An extended illustration of plot structuring using parallel sequencing of

event and action to imply causality is found in the mirror-like plot structures
of 2 Kgs 22:1-23:8 and its daughter text, 2 Chr 34:1-35:19. Here the Bible
presents two plot sequences based on a single presumed historical episode.
In both, a concatenation of events and actions is described with causal
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 2

relationships remaining more or less implicit. The implicitness of causality is,

nevertheless, robust as is most narratorial exposition in the Bible. Here its
strength lies in the devices of scenic parallelismthe narrative device used
to compare separate scenes by paralleling important elements in them, such
as plot sequence, actions and events- and in Leitwort connections between
the parallels.2

We cannot fully appreciate the rhetoric of plot sequencing in the book of

Kings anymore, because we are not privy to the sources of that book. But we
are privileged with the source of the Chroniclers account, so we can see
how plot sequencing is manipulated by biblical authors and extrapolate that
result to plot structure in the book of Kings. These related texts provide an
opportunity to study the effects of two related but different plot sequences
on the meaning of this particular episode in Israels history.

There is little to support the idea that both accounts go back to one
source or to the events themselves.3 The literary relationships between the
books of Chronicles and Kings have led to the universal assumption that the
former depends on the latter. But the dependence, far from diminishing our
opportunity for comparative plot analysis, enhances it. For though we do not
know and will probably never know how the book of Kings has reconstrued
the actual sequence of events in Josiahs reign, we are able to see the
source of the Chroniclers account and compare it with his own arrangement
of the plot.
The Kings Version

Even without the comparative source material that we have for

evaluating the Chroniclers account of Josiahs reform, it is clear that the plot
sequence of 2 Kings is contrived and probably not factually oriented. The
narrative is so structured that each major event of ch. 22 is echoed by a
response, a parallel action or statement, in ch. 23. This series of
correspondences begins in 22:3, with the events leading to the discovery of
the law book, and ends in 24:24, with the last response to the discovered
law book. The pattern of repeated events or actions transgresses mimetic
probability to underline the importance of the discovery of the law book. 4
The transgression is as strong an expositional tactic as the reticent narrator
will make. If the reader is to understand this particular view of events, then,
he must pay careful attention to the structural pattern that develops across
the two chapters.5 In outline form the correspondences are as follows:

One

A B

Josiah sends (s]lh> ) Shaphan to Josiah sends (s]lh> ) for the

the house of the Lord (22:3). elders and they gather. Josiah and
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 3

retinue go up to the house of the

Lord. (23:1).6

Two

A B

The purpose: to pay the Temple The purpose: to read the book of
restorers (vv. 4-7). the covenant and to make a
covenant (vv. 2- 3).

[The law book is found (vv. 8-

10).]7

Three

Shaphan reads the book to the Josiah reads the book to the
king (v. 10). assembly (v. 2).8

Four

A B

The response: Josiah tears his The response: a covenant is

clothes (v. 11). made and accepted by all (v. 3).

Five

A B

The king commands (s>wh ) The king commands (s>wh )

Hilkiah and retinue (v. 12). Hilkiah and retinue (v. 4).

Six

A B

Required action: to inquire of the Required action: to bring out all

Lord about how to propitiate the idolatrous para- phernalia from
wrath of the Lord which has been the Temple.9
kindled because of the fathers
neg- lect of the words of the book
(v. 13).

Seven

A B
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 4

The word of the Lord through Josiah responds (to Huldahs

Huldah: God is about to bring evil word) by initiating a purge (vv.
and the words of the book upon 4ff.).10
this place (Judah) (vv. 15-16).

Eight

A B

Why is God doing this? They Josiah responds by destroy- ing

have burnt incense to other gods (s]bt , a permanent sab- batical!)
and provoked him with the work the incense burn- ing priests (v.
of their hands (v. 17). 5) and pul- verizing and burning
the offensive works of their
hands (vv. 4-20).11

Nine

A B

A special oracle to Josiah:

because he has humbled himself,
he will die in peace (vv. 19-20).

Ten

A B

Hilkiah and retinue return and bring Josiah returns (s]wb ) to Jerusalem,
back (s]wb ) word to the king (v. 20). signifying the completion of his task
and response (v. 20).12

Eleven

A B

The king gathers all the elders of The king commands all the people to
Judah and Jerusalem to hear and celebrate a pass- over in accord with
respond to the book of the law (23:1- the the book of the covenant (v. 21).
3).

Twelve

A B

In order to establish the legal

prescriptions of the law book, Josiah
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 5

destroys the mediums, wizards,

teraphim, idols, and abominations in
Judah and Jerusalem (v. 24).

Josiah initiates the entire series with his efforts to continue the Temple
restorations begun by Jehoash in 2 Kgs 12. But it is not for his continuation
of Jehoashs project that Josiah is toasted as the outstanding king (23:25).
The corresponding phraseology in descriptions of the workers and the
conditions of payment in Jehoashs reforms (2 Kgs 12:11-15) and in Josiahs
(23:5-7) underlines the fact that Josiahs restorations are not innovations. 13
He is simply carrying on the work initiated by Jehoash and this is not his
outstanding contribution.

The qualitative difference between Josiahs actions in 22:3-7, and his

special actions following the discovery of the law book, is emphasized by the
correlations between items 1 and 2. Only in these two pairs does the
parallelism foreground a strong discontinuity. The gap dissociates Josiahs
reform from his actions prior to discovering the law book. All his reforming
activities are governed and guided by the law book; without it, he would not
have instituted the reform. The law book, in the book of Kings, is not just a
catalyst for reform; it is the very formula that makes the purge and
covenant renewal possible.

Josiahs actions in 1 and 2 A, prior to the discovery of the law book are
distinctly different than their opposing parallels in 1 and 2 B, which are
post-law book actions. In the remaining parallels there is both continuity
and historical development between the A and B members of the pairs.
For example, in item 3, Shaphan reads the book to Josiah (A) and Josiah
reads the book to the people (B). In item 4, the king responds positively to
the book (A) and then the people do likewise (B). In item 6, Josiah inquires
about the proper course of action to take in response to the law book (A),
and then makes the actual attempt at proper response (B).

This repetitive sequence of initiative and response is absent in numbers 1

and 2. In 1A Josiah sends Shaphan the secretary to the house of the Lord
because it is pay day. But in 1B Josiah himself, along with all the men of
Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and all the priests, prophets, and
people, goes to the house of the Lorda full house!to read the law book
and renew the covenant. The continuation of Jehoashs restorations to the
building that symbolized the covenant has metamorposed into a renewal
and restoration of the covenant relationship itself. And the cause of this
radical transformation, according to the plot structure of 2 Kings, is the
intervening discovery of the law book.14

There is, nevertheless, one strong continuity between these parallel

pairs: Josiah, who is the active force behind the restorations of both the
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 6

Temple and the covenant relationship. In the plot sequence of 2 Kgs 22-23,
the discovered law book focuses Josiahs attentions on the crucial themes of
obedience to the covenant and the concomitant abolition of idolatry. 15

In this remarkable series of parallels, the most interesting pairs are items
4-8. Here the narrator describes Josiahs responses to the words of the law
book and Huldahs oracle. When the plot sequence in numbers 4-8 is
compared with that of the book of Chronicles, which maintains the initiative-
response structure, its uniqueness stands out. The sequential revisions in
the Chronicles plot lead to an entirely different conception of the
significance of the reform. Almost the only change in the Chroniclers
account is in the sequencing of events. Yet, thanks to the common
assumption of causality in narrative sequences, the result of resequencing is
a strikingly different reform.

In addition to the purely literary pleasure of observing the intricate

structure of parallels within each of these plots, we also gain a better sense
of the merits of these represented sequences of events as sources for the
historian. The prospect is not promising. History may indeed repeat itself,
but probably not in the filigreed parallelisms that one finds here and
throughout biblical narrative. 16

Item 4 shows that action is the desired response to a reading of the law
book. Josiahs expression of humility and contrition after reading the book
(A) is matched by the assemblys acceptance of the need for covenant
renewal in 4B. Josiah commands Hilkiah and his retinue to inquire about the
proper course of action in 5A and in 5B he issues a matching command to
Hilkiah and others to begin the purge with the cleansing of the Temple. In
response to Gods general complaints against the inhabitants of the land
-that they have burned incense to other gods and provoked God with the
works of their handsJosiah takes painstaking redressive measures. 17 He
aims to please.

In the Kings narrative the most important result of the discovery of the
law book is the purge of idolatrous objects and practices: first from the
Temple, then from the lands of all of Judah (from Geba to Beersheba)
(23:8), and finally even into the precincts of Samaria (23:15-20). The B
members of numbers 7 and 8 are Josiahs best efforts to address Huldahs
explanation of the significance of the law book for his historical hour.

Just as the end of Huldahs oracle is signalled by the return and retelling
(s]wb ) of the oracle to the king in 9A, so Josiahs response is completed
when he himself returns (s]wb ) to Jerusalem (9B; 22:20). Item 11 lies
outside the most important series of pairs bracketed by numbers 3, the
discovery of the law book (22:8-10), and 10, Josiahs return to Jerusalem
(23:20). Within these brackets lies the quintessence of Josiahs response as
presented in the plot structure of the book of Kings. The importance of this
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 7

section is marked by the placement of the purge. It is set in parallel with the
sole divulgence anywhere in the entire episode of the contents of the law
book.

The parallel members of item 11 (A: 23:1 and B: 23:21-23) form a bracket
around the vital responses to the law book and the oracle. The initiative
the assembly of the people to hear the law (A)raises some doubt: how will
the people respond, and so, how successful will Josiahs efforts to promote
obedience and allay Gods anger be? In answer, 11B describes the passover
celebration. Although the passover stands outside the central response (the
purge), it is a fitting conclusion to Josiahs reforms and bears the same
imprint as his other zealous responses. The passover resolves the doubts
raised by 11A and displays again Josiahs willingness to go the extra
distance to placate God.18

The series of responses conclude with 12B, the only response without a
corresponding initiative. Here Josiah literally outdoes himself in his limitless
desire to establish the legal prescriptions of the law book. Even though there
is no initiating parallel to cue his response, the momentum of his previous
responses continues. Josiah performs one last reform operation, ensuring
that the law books prescriptions are obeyed. The kings unstinting support
of the law book is proclaimed to God and man. The narratorial comment in v.
25 shows just how hard Josiah tried to meet the challenge of the law book.
He was a king who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, soul and might, in
accordance with all the law of Moses. More than anything else, this Josiah
is obedient. Unfortunately, obedience is not enough (23:26).

The theological issue probed by the author of Kings is not difficult to see,
even without the contrast provided by the book of Chronicles. In the
contextual bounds of chs. 22-23, Josiahs response (23:4-20) is an active
interpretation of the oracle of Huldah. Throughout the series of initiatives
and responses there is little more he could have done to respond to the
demands of the situation and the law book. The plot structure directs our
eyes to the speedy and active response of Josiah to the law book and its
interpretation. And yet, the net result of all his effort is slight. Having shown
all of Josiahs pious bustle and having eulogized him incomparably (23:25),
the narrator turns to heaven to reveal the effect on God and the
consequence for Israels survival:

But the Lord did not deviate from his burning anger . . . and he said I will also
remove Judah from my sight . . (2 Kgs 23:26-27).

The conjunction of this revelation and the eulogy immediately after the
exhaustive description of Josiahs emergency measures raises enormous
questions about the efficacy of redressive piety and the possibility of human
behaviour changing the course that God has plotted for Israelite history. If
an effort such as Josiahs is so futile, what of the craven masses lesser
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 8

efforts? If the Dtr narrative is the theodicy it is often called, and I have my
doubts, it certainly does not seem here to call for the repentance of a sinful
Israel toward a God who listens to the broken and contrite spirit. Without
attempting to work out all the implications of this narrative conjunction it is
safe to say that the detailed plot structure of 2 Kgs 22-23 is a strong
implication of several theological problems here and especially in the
conventional reading of Dtr theology. 19

The Chroniclers Version

The Chroniclers account of Josiahs reform bears the imprint of Kings

phraseology and narrative structure. A relationship of literary dependence
between the two narratives is indisputable. Most would agree that the
Chronicler is the dependent and that the text of 2 Kings was his primary
source throughout. 20 More important than the similarity between the two
accounts is the Chroniclers divergent plot sequencing and pair correlations.
By relocating some of the paired initiative/response parallels and even
deleting sections of his source materials, the Chronicler transforms the
nature and significance of Josiahs response.

Of course the suggestion that the Chronicler made creative use of his
main literary source in the story of Josiahs reform is contrary to much
received, but decaying opinion about his ingenuity. In Wellhausens view, the
Chronicler was forced to adhere to the text of 2 Kings. . . . the free flight of
the Chroniclers law-crazed fancy is hampered by the copy to which he is
tied, and which gives not the results merely, but the details of the
proceedings themselves . . . (1973, p. 195). But elsewhere the Chronicler
demonstrates a ready willingness to modify and summarize his source when
it is detailed and he wishes to compress description or collapse extended
plotting.21 Wellhausens assertion flies in the face of such readiness. His
opinion does, however, show the importance of a careful study of plot
structure and the other implicit means by which the biblical narrators
characteristically frame their view. On the surface, at the level of explicit
exposition, Wellhausen is quite right: it appears that the Chronicler has
changed little if anything. But underneath, at the powerful level of
implication, the Chroniclers account is very subversive of the Kings account.

Wellhausens view is a reflection of the narratives insidious camoflage of

hidebound adherence to its source. It is conceivable that the text of Kings
was already authoritative, perhaps even canonical, in the Chroniclers day. If
he wanted to rewrite sacred history and gain an audience for his own
version, the Chronicler needed to seem in agreement with his scriptural
source. The problem is, how to create a tendentious modification of received
religious literature that would be credible to the community that preserves
the sacred text? The solution: to appear to say the same things as the
normative tradition while implicitly revamping it. The Chroniclers
combination of a substantial retention of the material in the book of Kings,
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 9

in combination with subtle expositional manipulation of the material in

altered plotting, is a crafty way of presenting his partisan view. 22 It has a
much greater chance of winning others over than a blatant contradiction of
the book of Kings normative presentation. In such a case the evocative role
of narrative implication for reader response is exactly the device to achieve
the desired result.

The pattern of parallel pairs seen in 2 Kings is repeated in 2 Chr 34-35.

 Josiah and The Torah Book, 10

One
A B
Having purged the land and the The king sends (jlv) for the fathers
house (or in order to continue and the elders. Josiah and retinue go
purging the land and the house) up to the house of the Lord (34:29). 24
Josiah sends (jlv) Shaphan,
Maaseiah, and Joah to the house of
the Lord (34:8). 23
Two
A B
Purpose: to repair the house (34:8). Purpose: to read the book of the
covenant and to make a covenant
(34:30-31).

[The law book is found (34:14-18).]

Three
A B
Shaphan reads the book to the king Josiah reads the book to the
(34:18). assembly (34:30). 25

Four
A B
Response: Josiah tears his clothes Response: a covenant is made;
(3:19). Josiah makes all present stand to it;
and the people act in accordance
with the covenant of God, the God of
their fathers(34:32).

Five
A B
The king commands Hilkiah and Josiah removes the abominations
retinue (34:20). from N. Israelite territories (34:33a).

Six
A B
Required action: to inquire of the Josiah makes all present in Israel
Lord about how to propitiate the serve God, and in his lifetime they
wrath of the Lord which has been do not depart from the service of the
kindled because of the fathers Lord, God of their fathers
neglect of the words of the book (34:33b,c).26
(34:21).

Seven
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 11

A B
The word of the Lord through Response: in accordance with the
Huldah: Godis about to bring evil word of the Lord by Moses (35:6),
and the curses of the book upon this the kings command (v. 10), the
place (Judah) (34:24). book of Moses (v. 12), the ordi-
nance (fpvm, v. 13), and in the
service of the Lord, Josiahs
insurpassable passover is celebrated
(35:1-19).27

Eight
A B
Why is God doing this? They have [Cf. 7B.]
burned incense to other gods and
provoked him with the work of their
hands (34:25).

Nine
A B
A special oracle to Josiah: because
he has humbled himself, he will die
in peace (34:26-28).

Ten
A B
Hilkiah and retinue return and bring Summation report of the completion
back (bwv) word to the king (34:28). of the passover celebration and
Josiahs response (35:16).

Eleven
A B
The king gathers the elders of Judah The Israelite priests and Levites, all
and Jerusalem, men of Judah and Judah and Israel and the inhabitants
inhabitants of Jerusalem, priests and of Jerusalem who were present
Levites, and all the people to make a performed the passover.
covenant (34:29-32).

The Josiah of Chronicles is more astute, religiously speaking, than that of

Kings . He begins his reform while yet a lad, in the twelfth year of his reign
(2 Chr 34:3). Compared to the Josiah of Kings, who is still following in
Jehoashs footsteps (2 Kgs 12:4-15) in his eighteenth year (2 Kgs 23:2-7), he
is a fast starter. 28 The reason for the Chroniclers emendation is plain. In
addition to piety (34:2a,c), Josiah also had the quality of Davidic lineage
(34:2b). So he is presented as pious from his youth and not needful of the
special cause of the discovered law book to influence him to remove
idolatries (cf. Curtis & Madsen (1910, p. 502).
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 12

An interesting deviation from the Kings account of the reform appears in

the extent and sequencing of places purged. In the book of Kings the order
is: Temple (23:4), Jerusalem and Judah (vv. 5-14), and outlying territories
formerly belonging to Israel (vv. 15-20); in Chronicles it is: Jerusalem and
Judah (34:3-5), outlying areas bordering on Judah both in the north and
south, even as far north as Naphtali (vv. 6-7), and last, the Temple (v. 8). For
Kings the Temple is the first place in need of purification; for Chronicles it is
last. Even then it only gets a renovation.

The discontinuity, so apparent in the Kings account, between pairs 1 and

2 in the series of parallels disappears almost entirely in Chronicles. The
purge and reformation in 2 Chr 34:8, which culminate in the reparations to
the Temple building, are complemented and completed by the gathering of
the Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem to go up to the renovated house to
renovate the covenant relationship (34:29-31). The unaided actions of Josiah
in the first members of the pairs are, to be sure, not of the same importance
as his actions in the second pair, which are guided by the discovered book.
Gone, however, is the great disparity of the Kings account.

This change is a product of the Chroniclers greater respect for the results
of Josiahs actions insofar as they are guided by the ways of David, (34:2),
and the directions of David and Solomon (35:4). As Myers has suggested
(1966, p. 269), the Chronicler saw David as a second Moses, with the
prerogatives of king and priest: Moses built and planned the tabernacle
(Exod 25:9), and David the Temple ((2 Chr 28:11-19). For the Chronicler, the
existence of this alternate source of authority in the royal dictates of David
and Solomon is at least of equal importance as the newly discovered law
book.29 From the deuteronomistic viewpoint of the book of Kings, such was
simply not the case.30 Such indications of catholicity in the Chroniclers
recognition of diverse sources of authority may betray an attempt to win the
affections of the various groups in Israelite society, whose own sources of
authority are honored by the Chroniclers narrative. He modifies the Kings
account, mitigating its delegation of exclusive authority to the law book in
order to accommodate these other sources of social authority. 31

The Chroniclers description of the collection and distribution of the

monies gathered for the restoration also illustrates one of his characteristic
themes. In 2 Chr 34:9 (= 2 Kgs 22:4) the Chronicler adds that the money
was collected by the Levites. Also it was collected not simply from the
people (as in Kings), but from Manasseh, Ephraim, all the remnant of
Israel, all Judah, Benjamin, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Furthermore,
the Levites in Chronicles become the accountants, superintendants, and
foremen over the construction workers (34:9-13). In this section, the
magnification of the Levites is combined with the theme of unification of
disparate elements in Israelite society in their common support of the
Temple restorations. The Levites become leaders in Temple restorations that
have been supported even by the remnant of Israel. 32 If the Chronicler is
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 13

interested in unifying various groups and traditions, the Temple is the place
where it is to occur, and the Levites are among those at the helm.

In item 3 of the structural outline, Chronicles corresponds to Kings with

one variation. In both accounts Shaphan reads the book to the king and he
reads it to the assembly. Wellhausen suggested, on the basis of the reading
wayyiqra\ -bo[ (2 Chr 34:18) instead of wayyiqra\ e\hu[ (2 Kgs 22:10),
that the Chronicler thought that the discovered law book was the entire
Pentateuch, rather than just Deuteronomy (cf. Willi, 1972, pp. 125-26). But
the same idiom (wayyiqra\ ba\ru[k basse\per ) appears in Jer 36:10,
where it simply means that Baruch read from the book without qualifying
whether he read all or only a part of it.33 The same would seem to be so in 2
Chr 34:18, were it not for the fact that the Chronicler differs so persistently
from Kings in this matter. In 2 Kgs 22:18 we find he read it, but in 2 Chr
34:18, he read (from) it; continuing, in 2 Kgs 22:12, when the king heard
the words of the book of the law . . . is opposed to when the king heard
the words of the law . . . (2 Chr 34:19). The implication is that in Kings,
the king heard the whole book, while in Chronicles, he heard only a portion
(cf. Curtis & A.A. Madsen, 1910, p. 508). Although it is possible to explain
these as mere stylistic differences, the fact that two consecutive, non-
identical differences point toward the same semantic difference should not
be ignored.34

In item 4A, the response to the words of the law book, the Chronicler
follows Kings closely. Josiah shows compunction on hearing the words of the
law book (2 Kgs 22:1 = 2 Chr 34:19). In Kings, Josiahs response is
understandable, given that the land and Temple have yet to be purged. In
Chronicles, where Josiah has completed his purge of the land and where the
purge or renovations to the Temple are well under way, the reason for
Josiahs contrition must lie elsewhere. 35

Chronicles differs from Kings in 4B. Several divergencies are random

stylistic variations,36 such as the presence of absence of et before the
definite object, or spelling variations. The most significant variation is found
in the difference between 2 Kgs 23:3 and 2 Chr 34:32. In Kings the people
voluntarily agree to stand (wayya a]mo\d kol-ha\a\m babbe]ri{t ) by
the covenant, but in Chronicles, Josiah first makes the people stand
(wayya a]me\d e\t kol-hannims>a\ . .) by the covenant, and then
they act in accordance with it. The people of Kings, on hearing the words of
the law book, see an obvious need for covenant renewal and act
immediately upon that conviction. Perhaps the Chroniclers people do not
respond immediately because it seems that Josiah had already done what
the law book required. More likely, however, this is another example of the
Chroniclers attempts to exalt Josiah as the moving force behind the reform.
In Chronicles, Josiah is directly responsible for the reform of the land, the
Temple, and the people.
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 14

The Chroniclers portrait of Josiah not only allows him to exalt the Davidic
kingship as the corner stone of the nation`s continued existence, but also
seems to be in better agreement with Huldahs oracle than that of Kings. 37
In the oracle, the inhabitants of the land are responsible for the coming evil
because they have forsaken the Lord. Josiah, on the other hand, is
commended and rewarded for his humility. The similarity of the peoples
response to Josiahs response in Kings, is uncharacteristic; it demonstrates
the convincing power of the law book. In Chronicles, on the other hand, the
peoples response agrees with their characterization in the oracle. The words
of the law book do not convince them and the kings own authority and
power are required before they stand to the covenant. Perhaps this
difference is another example of the Chroniclers de-emphasis of the law
book in favor of the kings authority. Chronicles recognizes a dual authority
because it combines two separate streams of tradition that originally
recognized different sources of authority.

In Chronicles, item 5 of the narrative structure lacks the B part of the pair
formations. With this major departure from the narrative structure of Kings
the Chronicler openly begins to state his differences. In 5A, Josiahs
command to inquire of the Lord about what to do agrees with Kings. In
numbers 5 and 6 B the Chronicler creates his own version of the text of 2
Kgs 23:24. In the Kings narrative, 23:24 appears as a superlative finishing
touch in the series of Josiahs responses to the law book. For Kings, v. 24
describes a special type of reformative effort to remove a particular
category of objectionable religious practices from the precincts of Judah and
Jerusalem.38 The Chronicler transposes this account of superlative reform
and sets it in the gap left by the absence of a B part in numbers 5 and 6,
the evicted Temple purge, which was unnecessary in his view.

The Chronicler also radically alters the content of 2 Kgs 23:24. The
meaning of the alteration can only be appreciated in the light of what has
gone before. Josiah has already purged Judah and Jerusalem (34:3-5) and
has even made a few forays into old Israel (34:6-7). He has renovated, or is
in the process of renovating the Temple (34:8-13). Finally, he has
reestablished the covenant and made all inhabitants of Jerusalem and the
tribe of Benjamin stand to it (34:32). There would seem to be no possiblity
of further improvements in response to the great wrath of God poured out
on account of the fathers dereliction of duty to the law.

The Chroniclers solution to this difficulty is to have Josiah complete the

purge of the northern kingdom, begun already in 34:6-7. Josiah removes all
the abominations from Israelite territory. 39 Furthermore, just as he had
made those present in Judah and Jerusalem stand to a covenant (34:32), he
now makes those in the northern kingdom serve the Lord. Thus 34:33 is the
northern equivalent of the accomplished southern reform. The equivalence
is highlighted by the parallel structuring of vv. 32 (item 4B) and 33 (numbers
5 and 6 B) in ch. 34:
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 15

4B. wayyaa]me\d e\t kol-hannims>a\ bi{ru[s]a\laim u[binya\min

5B. wayya\sar yo\s] i{ya\hu[ et-kol-hatto[ e\bo[t mikkol-
ha\ a]ra\s>>o\t a]s]er libne[
yis;ra\ e\l

4B. wayyaa]s;u[ yo\s]e]be[ ye]ru[s]a\laim kibri{t e]lo\hi{m

e]lo\he\ a]bo[te[hem
5B. wayya a]be\d e\t kol-hannims>a\ be]yis;ra\ e\l la a]bo[d
et-yhwh
e]lo\he[hem kol-ya\ma\yw

4B. He made all found in Jerusalem and Benjamin stand.

5B. Josiah removed all the abominations from Israelite

possessions.

4B. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem acted according to

the covenant of God, the God of their fathers.

5B. He made all found in Israel serve the Lord their God
all his days they did not turn from following the Lord,
God of their fathers.

Having already put his own kingdom in order, Josiah proceeds to do the
same for the remnants of the northern kingdom.

Numbers 5 and 6 B also exhibit the Chroniclers veneration of the

Davidic monarchy. In 5A the task is simple information gathering, the task of
priest, secretary, and servant (34:20). In 5B the response is the action
resulting from that inquiry, the task of King Josiah himself. In 6A Gods wrath
is poured out because of the fathers neglect of the word of the Lord, as
found in the law book (34:21). In 6B, therefore, Josiah makes the
contemporary Israelites serve the God of their fathers, thereby redressing
the carelessness of the fathers.

To the demands of the law book Josiah has presented a recovenanted,

obedient Judah and a serving Israel. Unless he is to begin converting the
heathen, his reformation activities are finished. The Chronicler moves on,
therefore, to a more plausible responsive action, the passover. He follows
Kings in this transition from reform activities followed by passover
celebrations (2 Kgs 23:4-20, followed by vv. 21-23), but differs in making the
passover the response to the only explicit reference to the content of the
book and the reason for Gods wrath. This brings difficulties for the
Chroniclers adapted narrative structure, which up to this point has been
more or less verisimilar, on account of the incongruity between the A and
B elements of numbers 7 and 8.40
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 16

Huldahs oracle forecasts immanent evil because of the peoples

apostasy and idolatry (34:24-25). The expected response to numbers 7 and
8 A would be a religious reform and renewal, as in 2 Kgs 23:4-20. 41
Instead, the Chronicler places the great passover celebration as a response
to the impending doom and the curses of the book. There is no explicit
requirement for a passover celebration in items 7 or 8 A, and one looks in
vain for a pentateuchal law that directly promises evil and curses for failure
to keep the passover. Both Lev 23:5ff. and Deut 16:1-8 require passover
celebration and both are set within bodies of commands, ordinances, and
statutes culminating in the possibility of blessing or curse (Lev 26:3-39; Deut
28). But the connection between the passover and the curses is weak, due
to the amount of intervening material. By situating 35:1-19 as the response
to the impending evil and the curses of the book, the Chronicler effectively
eliminates this separation of curses and the command to keep the passover
in his own narrative.

The result is not a false claim for the requirement of such a passover.
Rather it is an emphasis on the commandment of passover observance. The
Chronicler makes the passover a binding duty, the neglect of which brings
evil and the curses of the law on the head of the disobedient. In spite of the
importance of this claim for the Chroniclers argument, contained implicitly
in the plot structure, he avoids making any explicit expositional statement in
its support. Instead, he relies exclusively on the readers normal assumption
that sequence implies causality.

Remaining is the problem of the incongruity between the complaints of

numbers 7 and 8, and the response. How could the great passover
celebration be legitimated against the reform of Kings as a proper response
to such criticisms? The first step in the Chroniclers legitimation is to close
the gap between the command of Torah to keep the passover, and the
curses that do, in fact, result from real neglect of it. Second, the Chronicler
changes the wording of the Kings text from God is bringing all the words of
the book upon the people, to God is bringing all the curses written in the
book upon the people. In Deut 28:15, the curses are invoked whenever
someone neglects the voice of God, or the commandments, or the statutes
that Moses commands. When the Chronicler says the curses instead of
simply the words are being brought against the people, he emphasizes
that some form of legal breach has occurred, and so that some form of
atonement in accord with the broken law or laws is necessary. While this
maneuvering has not completely altered the sense of numbers 7 and 8 A,
which remain under the influence of the reference to idolatry in 8A (2 Chr
34:25), it has gained the necessary foothold for the passover as a plausible
response to the words of the Mosaic law book (34:14).

Next, in describing the proceedings of the passover the Chronicler takes

care to note that it is done according to the word of the Lord through Moses
(35:6), as written in the book of Moses (v. 12), and in accordance with the
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 17

ordinance (v. 13). By emphasizing that the reason for Gods wrath is the
non-fulfillment of the commandments and that the passover was carried out
in detailed response to the commandments through Moses, the Chronicler
removes much of the incongruity. 42 The other obvious justification for the
appearance of the passover celebration as response in items 7 and 8 is that
Josiah has already rectified the problems of idolatry by the purge of Judah
and Israel, the restorations performed on the Temple, the covenant renewal
in Judah and the religious reform in Israel. The only thing lacking, therefore,
is the correct performance of the cultic ceremonies and duties.

In item 10, the Chronicler continues his substitution of a passover for a

purge by changing 10B into a report of the completion of the passover
(35:16), instead of the completion of a purge (2 Kgs 23:20). Again as in
Kings, the description of the oracles recitation to Josiah is balanced by a
description of the conclusion of Josiahs response.

Finally, the Chronicler agrees with Kings in the last item, number 11. The
call to covenant renewal is balanced by the celebration of passover in both
Kings and Chronicles, although in Chronicles it is merely a recollection and
not an actual performance.
Summary

For Kings, the law book is primary in the reform. Josiah merely supplies
the means to accomplish the dictates of the law book. The means of
accomplishment involves, in particular, the willingness to act in accordance
with the law. Josiah was unsurpassable in his willingness to comply with the
law of Moses (2 Kgs 23:25). Without the guidance of the book of the law,
however, Josiah was simply one of a line of kings who did right in the eyes of
the Lord, as demonstrated by his pre-law book continuation of Jehoashs
Temple restorations, in which the Kings presentation shows nothing that
goes beyond his predecessor. The mirror-like plot structure of the Kings
account has been contructed to pinpoint the law book as the reason for the
Josianic reform.

Extrapolating from the Chroniclers radical transformation of his source

through plot manipulation , we can legitimately surmise that the paramount
position of the law book in the Kings account is similarly a tendentious
narrative assertion, of which historians should be chary. The reliability of the
surmise depends on the formal analogy between plot structures and
functions in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Given the intricacy of each
and the apparent artifice of the paralleled scenic panels, the impugnment of
historicity seems a consequence that flows from the artistry of the text
itself, once it is appreciated as literary artifice. Just as the historian would
not trust the plot sequence of the book of Chronicles as the framework for
his own reconstructed narrative sequence in his history, so the sequence of
the book of Kings, and especially the pivotal discovery of the law book,
 Josiah and The Torah Book, 18

should be treated with greater circumspection than hitherto. 43 If a new

understanding of the plot structures of these parallel accounts carries a
depreciation in their value as historical sources, the incomparable dividend
is a more exact appreciation of their meaning, which is so inextricably bound
up in the implications of plot structure.

The Chroniclers handling of the Kings text suggests that he may have
been dealing with a text that had already attained an authoritative status in
the community. Given that his own views differed from those of the author of
Kings, the Chronicler expressed his views in subtle alterations to the plot
structure, and by deleting Kings material or adding new expansionistic
details. That he was often constrained to leave the Kings text as it stood,
however, is evidenced by those places in his narrative where he has to
maneuver, as for example around the implications of 34:25.

Josiahs ability to carry out reform measures in anticipation of the

undiscovered law book, and his dominant role in the responses to the law
book once it is found, illustrate the Chroniclers respect for the Davidic
monarchy and the traditions that had been developed with respect for the
authority of the Davidic king. In the Chroniclers account of Josiah we see a
blending of two sources of authority: the monarchy and the law. Of course
the blend is a well-known trait; 44 here we see it in a structural form.

The Chronicler shows a strong interest in the rehabilitation of the

northern kingdom and its reunification with Judah. This interest is almost
completely absent in Kings. In Chronicles the remnant of Israel is seen
united with Judah, Benjamin, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the effort to
renovate the Temple (2 Chr 34:9). Furthermore, Josiah later makes the
Israelites serve Yahweh, just as he makes the inhabitants of Jerusalem and
the Benjaminites stand to a covenant (34:23-34). The nearest the book of
Kings comes to this interest in a unified Israelite religious community is its
description of Josiahs brief forays into Samaritan territory to wipe out the
remnants of the idolatrous practices instituted by the former northern kings
(2 Kgs 23:15-20).45 The Chronicler seems to suggest that the Temple can
serve as a common place of worship for Judahites and Israelites (34:9) in the
common worship of the Lord, God of the fathers (34:32-33). 46

In both narratives the implicit commentary by way of plot structuring in

scenic parallels and implied causality is the dominant expositional strategy.
Deficiencies in previous discussions of these narratives are mainly due to
failure to attend to this typical manner of exposition. Both narratives use
narrative sequence to stake their own unique claims about the significance
and consequences of the Josianic reform.
1
. Cf. Alter's literary-theological observations on narratorial inobtrusiveness
(1981, p. 184). "The assurance of comprehensive knowledge is thus implicit in
the narratives but it is shared with the reader only intermittently and at that
quite partially. In this way, the very mode of narration conveys a double sense of
a total coherent knowledge available to God (and by implication, to His surrogate,
the anonymous authoritative narrator) and the necessary incompleteness of
human knowledge, for which much about character, motive, and moral status
will remain shrouded in ambiguity."
2
. "Recurrence, parallels, analogy are the hallmarks of reported action in the
biblical tale. The use of narrative analogy, where one part of the story privides a
commentary on or a foil to another, should be familiar enough from later
literature, as anyone who has ever followed the workings of a Shakespearian
double plot may attest. In the Bible, however, such analogies often play an
especially critical role because the writers tend to avoid more explicit modes of
conveying evaluation of particular characters and acts" (Alter, 1981, p. 180).
3
. Cf. Porter (1982, p. 17) for a similar agnosticism on the relationship between
the Deuteronomistic history and the history of Israel.
4
. Though it is not improbable that Josiah might have made exactly the responses
that the book of Kings says he did, it seems unlikely that he would have made
them in the exact order and manner as to produce the nicely structured series of
repetitions that one finds in this narrative reproduction. Hollenstein comes to a
similar skepticism about the historicity of the existing account, though from a
redaction critic's point of view (1977, pp. 335-36). On the logic of this
intentionalistic reading of scenic parallelism see Sternberg (1985, p. 411).
Whatever the historical probability of such a remarkable series of corresponding
actions, the literary correspondences argue against the older attempts to
separate the report of the discovery of the book from the report of the reform as
distinct literary units (see Dietrich, 1977, pp. 14-16 for a listing of such attempts).
5
. W. Dietrich (1977, p. 17) has already pointed to the insufficient literary analysis
of studies on 2 Kgs 23, which hitherto have been concerned almost exclusively
with the historical questions broached by de Wette's famous suggestion about
the relationship between the discovered book of 2 Kgs 23 and the book of
Deuteronomy. (See Eissfeldt (1965, p. 171) for a summary presentation of De
Wette's position.)
6
. Significant vocabulary linkages: s] lh> (22:3; 23:1): first to pay for repairs,
second to gather repentants; lh (22:4; 23:2): first to pay, second to repent;
sp (22:4; 23:1) first to collect monies for repairs, second to gather repentants.
The linkages are significant because they show continuity - the same verbal
element is used to describe action in each - and difference - the action in the
second member is conditioned by the discovery of the law book.
7
. Another nice Leitwort connection in vv. 8-10 highlights the transformation of
activities brought about by the discovery of the law book. In v. 8 Hilkiah tells
Shaphan that he has found (ms> ) a Torah book in the Temple. Already here
there is a hint of the reformation of activities to take place in the play on the
words "scribe" and "book" and in their syntactic conjunction. "Hilkiah, the high
priest, said to Shaphan, the scribe (so\per ), a book (se\per ) I've found in the
house of the Lord." The play foreshadows the characters' ensuing change of
interest, from Temple restorations, administered by the scribe (so\per ), to all-
encompassing concern for the dictates of the discovered book (se\per ). On
Shaphan's return to Josiah he reports that he paid out the monies found (ms> )
in the Temple; his duties complete, however, he turns his attention to the book
found (ms> , 22:8; 23:2) in the Temple. And it is the latter find that henceforth
occupies attention to the former's neglect.
8
. Significant vocabulary linkage: "read" qr (22:10; 23:3). Again there is a shift
in the usage of the word. First, Shaphan reads the book "before" (lipne[ ) the
king; then the king proclaims the book to (be] ozne[ hem ) the people.
Granted that there is a difference in the reader's rank in the two situations, it
seems nevertheless that the contents of the book are themselves responsible for
the transformation in the way the book is read the second time around. On the
covenantal atmosphere that attends the king's public reading of the book see
Delcor (1981, p. 93).
9
. Though there is no specific vocabulary linkage, there is a conceptual linkage
here. Josiah seeks a way to placate the fiery anger (cf. 23:17) of Yahweh against
them in 22:13. In 23:4 the response is to burn any offensive paraphernalia found
in the Temple.
10
. Again there are no strong vocabulary linkages, but the double reference to
"this place" in Huldah's oracle (22:16-17) elicits a strong geographical orientation
in Josiah's response: outside Jerusalem (23:4); in the cities of Judah and the
precincts of Jerusalem (23:5); outside Jerusalem, at the brook of Kidron (23:6);
from the cities of Judah, from Geba to Beersheba (23:8); in the palace (23:12);
before Jerusalem (23:13); at Bethel (23:15); and even as far as the cities of
Samaria (23:19).
11
. Significant vocabulary linkages: "to burn incense", qt>r (22:17; 23:5, 8); "to
vex"ks (22:17; 23:19).
12
. Again the vocabulary linkage (s] w b ) bears an important point of
development within itself. In the first instance, Hilkiah and his retinue return word
(ya\s] i{ bu[ ) to Josiah about what Huldah had said (22:20). And then Josiah,
having exhaustively responded to that same word and completed his mission
insofar as possible, himself returns (ya\s]ob ) to Jerusalem (23:20).
13
. Dietrich (1977, p. 18) also notes the literary relationship between the two
reports of repairs to the Temple. But he goes on to conclude that the two reports
must come from two different hands because of small, though significant
variations between the two, which cannot be explained as the consequence of
the differing historical contexts. His assumption does not allow for the simpler
explanation that the author of the two reports, wanting to make different
emphases in each report, has changed the necessary items while keeping the
rest the same to show the connection. Montgomery (1951, p. 524), on the other
hand, approves of Stade's elimination of the entire passage (vv. 4b-7) as a
clumsy, secondary addition. Literary tastes change and in Montgomery's day
scenic parallelism was neither used nor understood.
14
. The same disjunction is foregrounded by the temporal and causal gap that falls
between 22:7, in which Shaphan is given his orders for paying the workers, and
22:8, which completely skips any mention of Shaphan carrying out his duty and
jumps straight to a description of Hilkiah telling Shaphan what he has found.
Dietrich notes the discontinuity (1977, pp. 22-23, "in hebrischen Erzhlung
muss das nicht geschehen" [Dietrich's emphasis]) but reads it as a redactional
seam caused by the redactor's rush to get to the law book, his real concern.
Literary-historical concerns aside, Dietrich's response to the text is a good
example of how a gap such as this elicits a strong impression of discontinuity in
the reader.
Although Dietrich's historical-critical concerns have led him away from the
narrative function of the gap, his response still intimates the intended one: an
appreciation of the radical turn of events brought about by the discovery of the
book. No more talk of monies or methods of payment or even repairs to the
Temple: instead, "I have found the book of the law in the Temple." With that
discovery all ongoing activity ceases.
Shaphan's report in v. 9 on the completion of his task is not an expression of the
narrator's continuing interest in the subject. It is, rather, the interest of an
involved character, who does not know the tremendous significance of the book
he bears, reporting back to his king that he has been a good and faithful servant.
The relativized context of Shaphan's continuing interest in the repairs is
highlighted in two ways. First, he reports on the payments first, before
mentioning the book, even though the latter will prove to be of paramount
importance and urgency. His dalliance with fiscal matters only excites the
reader's curiosity about the contents of the mysterious book. Second, the
narrator contextualizes Shaphan's interest with his descriptions of how Shaphan
relates the two pieces of information to Josiah. On financial matters Shaphan
"brings a report" (wayya\s]eb et-hammelek da\ba\r ), in contrast to the news of
the book, of which he simply "tells" (wayyagge\d ) the king, following which he
reads it to the king. For Shaphan, the monetary matters are official; the
discovered book, incidental.
15
. Montgomery (1951, p. 528) says, "the reading by the king is a formalism; a
scribe would have been the actual lector." Whatever he means by a formalism
and regardless of any verisimilar hypotheses one might conceive, the reason for
having Josiah do the reading is quite obviously a part of the total effort to portray
his herculean response to the problems at hand. (Montgomery seemed convinced
that the narrative was historical by the quality of the scenic description in chs.
22-23; cf. p. 545.)
16
. On the ubiquity of scenic analogies and parallelisms in biblical narrative see
Alter (1981, pp. 10, 21, 166, 180-1); Sternberg (1985, ch. 11); and Eslinger
(1985, pp. 195, 200, 219).
17
. The question of which deuteronomic laws Josiah responds to must remain
subsidiary to our attempt to understand the narrative logic of 2 Kgs 22-23. In
context, what is important is that Josiah responds to the word of God as
expressed in the discovered law book -whatever that might have been - and in its
accompanying oracular interpretation. See, nevertheless, Deut 12:3-6a and 4:19
with respect to 2 Kgs 23:4-20 and Deut 18:9-14 on 23:24.
18
. Nowhere in ch. 22 is it said that God is angry because the passover is not
properly observed. Yet Josiah commands a passover celebration. And the narrator
adds that the passover he legislates was without equal in Israelite history
(23:22).
19
. Needless to say, the last word has not been said about the historical theology
that is presented in the Deuteronomistic narrative. My reading of 2 Kgs 23 does
imply that standard views about the Dtr's putative emphasis on the immediate
need for repentance is wrong. Other work that I have done (e.g. Eslinger 1985)
and am doing (e.g. "Rahab & the Gibeonites," presented at the 1985 SBL seminar
on narrative) on the Dtr supports this implication. But the topic requires more
room than could be given in this already lengthy essay.
20
. The main addition in the Chronicler's version is the elaborate rendition of the
passover in ch. 35. Cf. Willi (1972, p. 239).
21
. Driver (1913, pp. 519-25) has a complete listing of such divergencies. Cf. Noth
(1943, pp. 155-6), who agreed that the Chronicler did use written sources as the
basis for his work, but also called for recognition of the fact that the way they had
been used marked the Chronicler as an author/narrator in his own right.
22
. Cf. Noth (1943, p. 167-8),
23
. The phrase "to purge the land and the house," (le]t>ahe\r ha\ a\res>
we]habba\yit ) in 34:8 presents serious exegetical difficulties. There are two
grammatical possibilities:
a. According to Rudolph (1955, p. 320) le]t>ahe\r is gerundive. He states that
Luther's translation, "nachdem er gereinigt hatte," is factually desirable, though
grammatically impossible. Reading with LXX(A al) (ote sunelelesan ), he
suggests inserting either ke]klot or me]klot before le]t>ahe\r and that the
former could easily have been omitted after malko[. . GKC 45f-g; 114o also
notes the gerundive quality of the infinitive construct + l but does not discuss 2
Chr 34:8. Following this line of reasoning, the translation would be "when he had
purged the land and the house," or "having purged the land and the house."
b. A second possibility is that le]t>ahe\r ha\a\res> we]habba\yit is a clause of
purpose placed before the governing verb (s]lh> ) for emphasis (cf. GKC
114f,g). Here the second purpose clause of v. 8 is equated with the first; the
strengthening (repair) of the temple is part of the purge. The translation would
be: the king sent Shaphan and the others "to purge the land and the house and
to strengthen the house of the Lord."
There are problems with both options. A major obstacle to the first is that the
house has been purged nowhere in the preceding context (vv. 3-7). Furthermore
there was no need to have it purged, since in the Chronicler's account it had
remained uncontaminated since Manasseh's repentant efforts at Temple
cleansing in 33:15-16. Here the second purpose clause of v. 8 is equated with the
first; the strengthening (repair) of the temple is part of the purge. The translation
would be: the king sent Shaphan and the others "to purge the land and the house
and to strengthen the house of the Lord." It is possible that the appearance of
"the house" in the phrase "having purged the land and the house" is an example
of the Chronicler's efforts to appear to follow the text of Kings, which does have a
Temple purification (2 Kgs 23:4), without actually describing such a purification.
Maybe the Chronicler was averse to the idea that the Temple needed any
cleansing, but was forced to mention the house in connection with the general
purge by the Kings account. The economy of his description in the tiny word bayit
is matched by his unbroken silence about a Temple cleansing in the remainder of
chs. 34-35.
The problem with the second alternative is just the opposite. First the double
purpose clauses present the ludicrous picture of the three officials, Shaphan the
scribe, Ma'aseiah the mayor, and Joah the recorder setting out to continue the
purge in the land as well as beginning it in the Temple. Apparently Josiah was
incapable of completing his purge of Judean territory. Second, the disagreement
with the statement ending in v. 7 that Josiah returned to Jerusalem signals the
completion of the purge of the land as it does also in 2 Kgs 23:20.
Maybe that the Chronicler was trying to suggest that the strengthening
(renovation) of the house of Yahweh was the natural continuation of the purge of
the land and was synonymous with the purge of the Temple. The mechanism
whereby this equation is made is to set the two clauses to be equated in
equivalent grammatical forms and to balance them by placing one at the
beginning of the sentence, a syntactically unusual position for a clause of
purpose, and one at the end. Thus there would seem to be a Temple purge
without actually having one. The purge becomes a restoration, and the latter is
imbued with the approbation that the former receives in Kings.
The second alternative, that le]t>ahe\r ha\a\res> we]habba\yit should be
translated as a purpose clause, has two advantages. First the Chronicler may be
seen to turn the "purge of the house" to positive advantage through its
transformation, rather than simply trying to be acceptable by slipping in the little
word ba\yit without compromising his own position with an all-out purge. Second
it is possible, when translating the clause as "to purge the land and the Temple,"
to see the "Temple purge" (i.e. restoration) as the continuation of the land purge,
and thus to see the purpose clause as a summation of the process culminating in
the restoration. In addition the first alternative, "having purged the land and the
house," still has the problem of disagreement with the preceding context - small
as the word bayit may be. In either case there is, contrary to McKenzie (1985, p.
165), what the latter calls "bias" in this addition to the Chronicler's source in the
book of Kings.
24
As in the source text, the significant vocabulary linkages here are: "send"
s]lh> (34:8, 29), first to pay for repairs, second to gather repentants; and
"gather"sp (34:9, 29) first to collect monies for repairs, second to gather
repentants. lh ,"go up", is omitted and "the Levites" are added as the
collectors (sp ) of the monies.
25
. Cf. note 6.
26
. Significant vocabulary linkage: ab "father": (34:21, 33).
27
. Significant vocabulary linkage: se\per, "book": (34:24; 35:12).
28
. The age comparison of Josiah in the books of Kings and Chronicles is not
without difficulties. According to Kings, Josiah sends Shaphan to the temple in his
eighteenth year, which is to say the tenth year of his reign (he begins to reign
when eight years old, 2 Kgs 22:1). The reform of Kings' Josiah following
immediately on the discovery of the law book would, therefore, be in the tenth
year of Josiah's reign and so, earlier than the Chronicler's date in the twelfth year
of Josiah's reign (2 Chr 34:3).
This difficulty disappears when 2 Kgs 22:3 is compared with 2 Chr 34:8, the
parallel description of the preliminary events leading to the law book's discovery.
Clearly the Chronicler was not trying to say that Josiah's command to Shaphan,
occurring in the eighteenth year of his reign' (le]molko[ ) was any later than
Kings' eighteenth year 'of the king' (lammelek ) (= tenth year 'of his reign'
(le]molko[ ). le]molko[ may be a corruption or more likely, the late Hebrew
equivalent of lammelek . The Chronicler in any event was not trying to set up a
different chronology of events from the book of Kings. Rather, he was simply
saying that Josiah's reform came at an early period in Josiah's reign, before the
discovery of the law book. Cf. Noth (1943, p. 158)
29
. The passover celebration, which for the Chronicler is the central event of
Josiah's reformative response to the discovery of the law book of Moses, is guided
not only by the word of Yahweh through Moses (2 Chr 35:6), the book of Moses (v.
12), and the ordinance (v. 13), but also by the directions of King David and
Solomon, his son (vv. 4, 15), and by the command of Josiah himself (vv. 3, 10,
16).
30
. Josiah either acts in direct correspondence with the words of the oracle (2 Kgs
23:4-20, items 7 and 8 in the parallels), or else "as written in the book of the
covenant" (23:24), in accord with the law of Moses (23:25). On the centrality of
obedience to the law in the Dtr and the subjugation of even the monarchy
thereto, see Weinfeld, (1972, pp. 79-81).
31
. Cf. Ackroyd (1973b, p. 108), "[we] see in the Chronicler's presentation an
endeavour to unify, to draw together the diverse strands of Israel's thought into a
more coherent whole. We may be even more precise in our delineation of him as
a theologian, and see him as one who aimed at presenting a unified concept of
the nature of the Jewish religious community and hence of its theology and the
meaning of its rich and varied traditions."
32
. On the central role given to the Levites by the Chronicler, see von Rad (1930,
pp. 80-1, 119).
33
. Ackroyd (1973a, p. 202) discusses this matter at length.
34
. To decide the issue would require a detailed examination of the
correspondences between the responses to the law book in Chronicles and Kings,
including a comparison of the passages in the Pentateuch to which they might be
related. If there is significance in the difference between Chronicles and Kings,
the expected result would be that Chronicles would refer to Deuteronomy or
deuteronomistically redacted traditions.
35
. It is possible that the lack of motivation is just a lapse in verisimilitude due to
the Chronicler's overriding concern to replace the purge with the passover.
36
. By random, I mean only that there is no consistent pattern of Chronicles
supplying all the definite object markers or clarifying grammatical points in the
manner of a Lucianic recension of the LXX.
37
. On the Davidism of the Chronicler see North (1963, pp. 376-81).
38
. For the possible legal basis of this additional purge, see Deut 18:9-14; Lev
19:31; 20:6.
39
. The Chronicler's source, 2 Kgs 23:24, described such actions only within the
boundaries of Judah/Jerusalem.
40
. The same difficulty appears in item 4A and its unexpected response. See
previous note 31.
41
. The covenant has already been renewed in 2 Kgs 23:3, and it parallels Josiah's
garment tearing as a sign of contrition.
42
. The acceptability of the passover done in accordance with the book of Moses
as a response to the discovered law book is made even more so by the
Chronicler's description of the book found in 34:14. It is "the book of the law of
the Lord through Moses" (no parallel in Kings; cf. 2 Kgs 22:8).
43
. By analogy, the same may be said of other pejorative comparisons that
detriment the Chronicler's narrative when compared to Kings as a historical
source. Noth, for example, says that the Chronicler's version of the Temple
construction is a product of the central role that David and Jerusalem play in the
theology of this historical novel (Geschichtserzhlung ). Noth views this change
as a correction to the "old and genuine tradition about the construction of the
Jerusalem Temple by Solomon" (1943, p. 113). A similar comparison of Kings to
Chronicles on that episode reveals as much tendentiousness in Kings as there is
in Chronicles. The critical promises to David (2 Sam 7) are so recurrent and
central to the Kings version of the Temple building project and so problematic in
the entire Dtr narrative (cf., e.g. Cross, 1973, pp. 241-89; Nelson, 1981 pp. 99-
128) that no one, especially not the usually circumspect Noth (e.g. p. 112),
should fall prey to the assumption that Kings is the "older, more genuine
account." Older yes; more genuine - who is to say? The contrivance in Kings'
version is plainly visible in Yhwh's illogical remarks on why David cannot, but
Solomon can build the Temple in 2 Sam 7. The problem resurfaces in Solomon's
own tendentious views about why it was that he, and not David, was designated
to build the Temple (1 K 5:3-5). Moreover, Solomon's view contradicts Yhwh's (2
Sam 7) but aligns closely to that expressed by David in 1 Chr 22:8 (cf. 28:3).
44
. Cf. Noth (1943, p. 174), " . . . the central concern of the Chr was to establish
the legitimacy of the Davidic monarchy and the Jerusalem Temple as the true
Yahwistic cult site."
45
. The use of the name Samaria in 2 Kgs 23:19 instead of Israel to describe the
northern kingdom is pointed and reflects a more negative attitude to the
northern kingdom, just as the prophecy of v. 17 does (cf. 1 K 13:1-4). There is no
hint of any concern to reform Israel, as there is in Chronicles.
46
. Presumably, the reference to the fathers is to those Israelites before the
divided kingdom, and likely to the Israelites under the unified reign of David.
Noth's view (1943, pp. 174-5) that the Chronicler was probably addressing the
issue of the Samaritans and the legitimacy of their cult is supported by this
comparatve reading of 2 Chr 34. For more detailed consideration of the
Chronicler's open-armed attitude to all descendants of the Israelite tribes see
Williamson (1977, e.g. pp., 126, 140; cf. McKenzie, 1985, p. 165).