this period lies before us so clearly that it dissipates in some degree the mist which hangs over Manasseh's reign. Nothing can be more natural than that the upholders of the exclusive worship of Jahveh—for the sake of brevity we can call them the Mosaic party-not only looked forward longingly to better times, but also did their best to prepare the way for them. They neither could nor would submit to their defeat. They could not well do otherwise than exert all their strength to win back the days of Hezekiah. In connection with this, we involuntarily ask, whether Amon's violent death* was not, perchance, their work? They certainly had grounds enough for being exasperated against him; and they reaped substantial benefit from the change. But we believe we may acquit them of this crime. It is expressly said that the conspirators against Amon were "his servants," and that the "people of the land" slew them all, and then made the son of Amon king. Probably the unfortunate prince fell a victim to some court intrigue, and the people came forward for the rightful successor, and also for the race of their beloved David. Josiah, his successor, was a boy of But whoever may have caused it, Amon's death was a blessing for the Mosaic party. They had nothing to hope and everything to fear from him. eight: what might not be effected if they could only acquire influence over him, and make him embrace their views! A king's power is absolute in the East, and so it was in the kingdom of Judah. "When there was yet no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own eyes ;"‡ " afterwards— we can add to the historian's remark-afterwards all or most of them bowed, at all events outwardly, to the will and orders of the prince. No wonder that the Mosaic party first conceived the hope, and then formed the plan, of winning Josiah, and, through him, of carrying out what, in their eyes, was the duty and also the interest of the state. * 2 Kings xxi. 23, 24. 2 Kings xxii. 1. Judges xvii, 6. But before they could succeed in this, it was necessary that they should speak out their wishes plainly, and lay them before the king in such a manner that there could remain no doubt as to their meaning and the way in which they were to be realized. It sounds strange, and yet it is a fact, that hitherto they had had no accurately defined programme. They knew very well what they thought needful, but they had failed to commit their demands to writing with the necessary fulness. Probably it was partly to this that the failure of their plans after the temporary triumph under Hezekiah was to be attributed. In any case, a collection of legal precepts was deemed indispensable in order to obtain any permanent result. But to understand this thoroughly, it will be necessary for us again to glance back for a moment. It need not be repeated here that Moses bequeathed no book of the law to the tribes of Israel.* Certainly nothing more was committed to writing by him or in his time than "the ten words" in their original form. We do not know with certainty where these fundamental laws were kept. Probably, however, it was in the temple;† perhaps even, as subsequent tradition says, in "the ark of Jahveh," which may then have borrowed from this circumstance its later name of “ark of the covenant of Jahveh." In Manasseh's reign "the ten words" were no doubt formulated and enlarged nearly as we now read them in the Pentateuch. But for the end which the Mosaic party were struggling to gain, they were altogether inadequate. In the first place, they were absolutely silent upon many most important points. In the second, they were wanting in what one might call legal validity. Jahveh's temple at Jerusalem, where they had been deposited, was by no means the only sanctuary, merely the first or chief one. That which was acknowledged and pro * Comp. Vol. I. pp. 272 seq. + According to the ordinary translation of 2 Kings xi. 12, the "testimony," i. e. the Decalogue, was used at the coronation of Jehoash (878 B. C.). But this rendering is rejected by many, who consider that a royal ornament is referred to. Comp. Vol. I. pp. 257 seq. claimed there as the will of Jahveh was not binding upon the other sanctuaries, on "the high places," and upon those who regularly frequented them. But surely other written laws existed? Undoubtedly, but they were of a private nature, so to speak. At all events nothing certain is known of their promulgation and introduction by the competent authority, i.e. the king. The prophetic historians included them in their narratives concerning the Mosaic time, and no doubt made use of the opportunity to add to and extend them. In so far as these laws did not simply reproduce that which had long been legalized by custom, and was therefore also followed in the administration of justice, they had as much or as little-effect as the exhortations of the prophets, i.e. they were observed by those who saw in them the expression of Jahveh's will, and by no one else. This is evident from the very character of these laws. The oldest collection which we know, the so-called Book of the Covenant,* contains a number of precepts concerning the civil life, of which the majority are obviously taken from existing customs.† But side by side with these we find purely moral commandments and admonitions for which express motives are alleged, i.e. which are made dependent upon the assent of the reader. The Book concludes with a thoroughly prophetic discourse, setting forth the blessing attached to the observance of Jahveh's laws and the curse to their neglect.§ Collections such as these were by no means official. In that case surely men would not have dared to alter them, and would have considered themselves bound to accept them in their integrity. The contrary occurred. The author of Exodus xxxiv. borrows|| from the Book of the Covenant and from a few other laws ¶ the rules which seem to him to be the * Exod. xxi. -xxiii.; comp. Vol. I. p. 128. + Exod. xxi. 12—14, 15, 17, 16, 18-21, 22, &c. Exod. xxii. 21, 22—24, 25—27, xxiii. 9, &c. § Exod. xxiii. 20-33. ¶ Exod. xiii. 1-10, 11-16. Vers. 10-26. most important, and makes of them a whole after his own fashion. We shall see presently how the writer of Deuteronomy treats in exactly the same way the laws written before his time. Such freedom is conclusive proof that the codes of various ages which were extant at the beginning of Josiah's reign, had no validity in law. But granting even that it was otherwise, still the Mosaic party in Josiah's reign would not have thought themselves released from the duty of committing their demands to writing. If they found much in the more ancient collections with which they could agree with all their hearts, they missed also in them things which were absolutely necessary in their eyes, nay, they met in them with that which by no means harmonized with their opinions. Thus the Book of the Covenant* insisted upon the celebration of the three high festivals, but in such a way that the manner in which this was to be done was left to each man's own discretion or to custom, and the pilgrimages to "the high places" were decidedly not prohibited. Nay, in this very Book of the Covenant-or, at all events, in an old law which now immediately precedes it-express permission is given to sacrifice to Jahveh at more than one placet-a liberty which is also understood in other regulations. We already know enough of the ideas and wishes of the Mosaic party of those days to perceive that they could not rest content with such a code. What we asserted above, therefore, remains true: a double duty devolved upon the Mosaic party; they had to set forth their views plainly and definitely, and to prevail upon the king to carry them out. They understood their mission, and fully acted up to it. We have their programme in the book of Deuteronomy; Josiah's reformation proved that they had won the king. Let us begin by examining this reformation. It occurred when Josiah had reached his twenty-sixth year, * Exod. xxiii. 14-17. Exod. xx. 24. Exod. xxi. 6, &c.; comp. Note II. at the end of this Chapter. and in the 18th year of his reign (621 B. C.).* It is true, the Chronicler tells us that in the 8th year of his reign the king already "began to seek after the God of David his father," and four years afterwards "began to purge Judah and Jerusalem."+ But his account is irreconcilable with that of the older historian, and deserves no credit. It is founded on fact to this extent, however, that before the 18th year of his reign, Josiah's policy towards the Mosaic party already differed from that of his predecessors. At all events, we find no trace of persecutions instituted by him. Zephaniah-probably a relation of the king‡ -and Jeremiah laboured actively as prophets, from the year 626 B.C., § without molestation. Huldah, a prophetess of Jahveh, lived in Jerusalem and enjoyed great distinction. The very cause of the event which we shall presently relate, shows that Josiah gave substantial proof of his interest in the temple. It would not be unimportant now to know the exact political condition of the kingdom in the above-mentioned year of Josiah's reign. Our information respecting this condition is not quite positive.** But it may be accepted as probable that the kingdom not long before had happily escaped from an imminent danger. Scythian hordes had penetrated into Media, and had forced king Cyaxares to raise the siege of Nineveh. They had then turned westwards, and subsequently had taken the road to Egypt. In their course thither they would necessarily touch Palestine, and it seemed far from improbable that they would commit ravages in Judæa also. The prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah actually announced this. Their opinion of the religious-moral condition of the kingdom was so unfavourable, that a divine chastisement seemed to them to be at hand. They thus took advantage of the approach of the Scythians to ** Comp. Oort, Jeremia in de lijst van zijn tijd, pp. 42 seq., with my Hk. O. II. 177, 371 sq. |