Vindicating Josiah

[Bill Hamblin]

My article responding to Margaret Barkers interpretation of the reforms of Josiah as an apostasy.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/vindicating-josiah/

[Jude2]

From Br Hamblin’s paper; “Thus, while I agree with Barker that there was a corruption and apostasy of ancient Israelite temple theology, mysticism and cult in ancient Israel, I think it occurred in the second century BC, not the seventh”

What do you say to Mal 2

“But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts… Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? …Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.”

What year would this have been written?

From Br. Hamblin’s paper; It also included the veneration of a divine feminine figure associated with the biblical "Lady" Wisdom.

I just always thought it was at this point where the knowledge of a heavenly mother was taken from the earth because she had become a symbol of idol worship.

[Kevin Christensen]

Interesting and useful in general, and very well informed as always, though I dispute this point:

"The first thing to note is that no biblical prophet ever opposed or criticized Josiah’s reforms."

One of the things that Margaret does in The Mother of the Lord is to give Jeremiah a very close reading on this topic. At one point she goes on for 30 pages just on Jeremiah. Among other things, I think she strengthens the case that Jeremiah opposed the reform. The reform was a top down, King initiated, institutionally supported, and violently enacted event.Jeremiah is called “against the Kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.” (Jer. 1:18). It was these “people of the land” who installed Josiah as King (2 Kings 21:24), and it was the Kings, the princes, and the priests connected to Josiah institutionally (2 Kings 23:4), that implemented the reforms. I think "people of the land" in these passages refers not to the rabble, but the land owners, the men of power and influence who had installed the eight year old boy as King after the assassination of Amon. (I notice that Amon is a good Book of Mormon name, and Josiah is not. Why, given that Lehi probably witnessed the reform?) Ezekiel 22:6-30 contains another more detailed condemnation of these same social groups.

Zepaniah 3:1-4 has another contemporary condemnation.

Jeremiah says in summary:

From the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon King of Judah [that is, the year when Josiah came of age and began the reform], even unto this

day, that is the three and twentieth year, the word of the LORD hath come unto me, and I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking, but ye have not

hearkened. (Jer 25:3)

Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit…For my people have

committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:11, 13)

Granting that issues and people are complex, part of the issue involves defining what is essential and definitive about Josiah's reform. Bill has this, which I agree is present and important.

But the fact remains that in the

surviving texts, all the prophets agree with at least these three basics of Josiah’s reforms: 1-

Israel should worship only YHWH; Israel must not worship foreign gods; 2- Israel must not

worship idols (or worship YHWH as an idol), or follow other Canaanite cultic practices; and, to

the extent they discuss it, 3- Israel must worship only in the Jerusalem temple.

Nephi clearly did not believe the 3rd. Nephi also was commended for his belief in the son of God Most High, presumably Yahweh, son of El Elyon.

Granting the importance of these three issues, what else was going on with the reform and can it all be defended? What about the absence of the Day of Atonement from the sacred calendar in Deuteronomy 16? What about the public violence? Was it cleansing corruption, or does propaganda slander the victims? What about the change to the role of the High Priest so that the priest was no longer the anointed? Why does Lehi's first public discourse in 1 Nephi 1 have to assert that there would be a Messiah (that is the annointed) and the Redemption of the world (ritually enacted on the day of atonement)? What was it at that time in Jerusalem that made those themes important enough for Lehi speak out on, and controversial enough that he had to leave town after doing so? What about the tensions about whether God could be seen ( as asserted against in Deuteronomy) versus Lehi's claims to have seen? What about the rejection of the Hosts compared to Lehi's vision of the hosts? What about the destruction of the tree of life versus Lehi's vision of the tree of life?

Margaret Barker often refers to passages in 1st Enoch 93:7-8 that describe a condition of blindness that prevailed in Jerusalem at that time.

And after that in the fifth week, at its close, The house of glory and dominion

shall be built for ever.

And after that in the sixth week all who live in it shall be blinded, And the hearts

of all of them shall godlessly forsake wisdom. And in it a man shall ascend; And

at its close the house of dominion shall be burnt with fire, And the whole race of

the chosen root shall be dispersed.

Ezekiel, a priest taken as part of the first group of exiles writes:

Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to

see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious

house. (Ezek. 12:2)

Jeremiah also talks about the blindness, and relates it to a loss of understanding

(which implies a lack of wisdom that corresponds to the description in 1st Enoch).

Hear now this, O foolish people, without understanding, which have eyes, and see

not; which have ears, and hear not. (Jer. 5:21)

Jacob, like Ezekiel, a temple priest, provides important details about the blindness:

But behold, the Jews [that Lehi knew in Jerusalem in the period before the

destruction] were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness,

and killed the prophets, and sought for things which they could not understand.

Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came from looking

beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken his plainness away

from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand

because they desired it. And because they desired it, God hath done it that they

may stumble.

Jacob 4:14

I think that Jacob's mark is the same as that described in Ezekiel, the tau on the foreheads of the annointed high priests. Jacob 4 clearly demonstrates the Wisdom tradition.

When I gather the descriptions of what the prophets were criticizing at the time, in addition to the three significant points that Bill emphasizes here, I'm left with a condition of willful blindness associated with people in Jerusalem rejecting wisdom as represented by a fountain and a tree of life, rejection of the idea of council visions, and someone making deliberate changes to the role of the anointed high priest (that is, the messiah), and killing prophets.

And someone, we are told, was changing scripture:

And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word

shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the

LORD of hosts our God. (Jer. 23:36)

A passage in Deuteronomy 4:6 sets out the agenda of the reformers:

Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law] for this

is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall

hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding

people. (Deut. 4:6)

Jeremiah, who knew Deuteronomy well enough to quote or allude to it over 200

times, seems to be commenting on this very passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in

vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected

the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? (Jer. 8:8-9)

Richard Elliot Friedman‟s translation of Jer. 8:8 is stronger than that in the Kings James

version: “How do you say „We are wise, and Yahweh‟s torah is with is‟? In fact, here it

was made for a lie, the lying pen of the scribes.” The King James translators were

reluctant to describe a Torah as having been falsified, but such a translation appears in the

margins as an alternate reading. John Bright also offers the stronger translation. “How

can you say, “Why we are the wise, For we have the law of Yahweh”? Now do but see—

the deception it‟s wrought, the deceiving pen of the scribes.”

If not the Josiah and the Reformers, who fits the profile requiring the prophetic critique on these issues? Who was involved in public, institutionally backed violence, removing the Day of Atonement from the calendar in Deuteronomy 16, rejecting of the tree of life and the equivlalent image of the fountain of living waters,, changing the temple and priesthood, rejecting the visions of the kind that began Lehi's ministry, and changing scripture? Who was blind and who was visionary?

When I wrote Paradigms Regained, I accepted the notion that Josiah's reform was a good thing, and attributed the sorts of things that Lehi protested as due to later corruptions of the reform. It was Margaret's observations at her BYU talk, especially that "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests and thus were changes at the very heart of the temple" that raised questions that sent me back for a closer look at Jeremiah, Lehi, Jacob, Ezekiel and such.

When I wrote Paradigms Regained, I saw the Isaiah issue as the highest point of tension with Margaret's work and the Book of Mormon. I think there have been promising developments, if not complete satisfaction on that front, where her comments about the Moses religion have raised other questions. That is where Bill's observations about the complexity of opinion and tradition offer promising avenues to explore. So I think reconcilliation is available.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited November 15, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[J Green]

Interesting discussion, ya sadiiqy. A few questions from the sidelines:

1. Any thoughts on where the Day of Atonement fits into this discussion? There is a growing body of literature on the Deuteronomists' antipathy to this festival, and the friction over this is central to Barker's body of work. How would you contextualize your recent presentation on 2 Nephi 6-10 and the DofA in terms of your thesis that Josiah's reforms were inspired and that no temple cult apostasy had occurred at this time? Do you think that the DofA was central to the temple cult? Do you think it was intentionally surpressed by the Deuteronomists? If you would answer yes to both of those, what does that mean in terms of apostasy under Josiah?

2. The idea that the Deuteronomist reforms were not a return to the original Sinai revelation but a complete reworking of it has resonance beyond Barker. Even more convincing than Barker (at least to me) is the textual analysis very carefully laid out in Bernard Levinson's Deuteronomy and the Hermaneutics of Legal Innovation. I fiind his analysis and conclusions very persuasive. If you've read it, what are your thoughts?

3. I'd be interested in seeing an editing timeline associated with the Hasmonean thesis for apostasy. There are many ancillary issues Barker discusses that resonate with the LDS. Only one of the many examples of this would include the supression of a higher priesthood that she says is patterned after either Enoch or Melchizedek. (And as an aside, the very name Zadok sounds Canaanite and his Levitical geneology appears to be contrived.) Frank Moore Cross and others would point to several of the priesthood rebellions as evidence that a competing or additional priesthood has been eliminated or edited out of the current record. Whatever the case, many of these issues that resonate with the LDS (like the priesthood issue) appear to be predicated on priestly re-working of the texts that surely would have had to have happened before the Hasmonean era. Do you think there was extensive editing of the texts? If so, do you think this is a product of the Hasmoneans? If not, how does an extensive reworking of the texts in the early pre-exilic, exilic, and immediate post-exilic periods not point to at least some form of apostasy?

4. Since you know Margaret personally, I'm interested if you've had any discussions with her on these issues and what her reactions were if you did. For example, does she agree with your characterization of her assessment of the pre-Exilic temple cult as static and singular?

Cheers,

Joey

PS, a quick editing observation: On page 6, second paragraph, second sentence, I think the word "never" was intended to be "ever." In its associated footnote (16), I think "believes" should be "beliefs."

Edited November 15, 2012 by J Green

[Bill Hamblin]

Interesting and useful in general, and very well informed as always, though I dispute this point:

"The first thing to note is that no biblical prophet ever opposed or criticized Josiah’s reforms."

One of the things that Margaret does in The Mother of the Lord is to give Jeremiah a very close reading on this topic. At one point she goes on for 30 pages just on Jeremiah. Among other things, I think she strengthens the case that Jeremiah opposed the reform. The reform was a top down, King initiated, institutionally supported, and violently enacted event.Jeremiah is called “against the Kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.” (Jer. 1:18). It was these “people of the land” who installed Josiah as King (2 Kings 21:24), and it was the Kings, the princes, and the priests connected to Josiah institutionally (2 Kings 23:4), that implemented the reforms. I think "people of the land" in these passages refers not to the rabble, but the land owners, the men of power and influence who had installed the eight year old boy as King after the assassination of Amon. (I notice that Amon is a good Book of Mormon name, and Josiah is not. Why, given that Lehi probably witnessed the reform?) Ezekiel 22:6-30 contains another more detailed condemnation of these same social groups.

I haven't had a chance to read the new book yet, but I can say a couple of things.

Jeremiah never directly condemns Josiah. His criticisms are directed against the sons of Josiah, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. (Note, too that Lehi's prophetic reign begins in opposition to Zedekiah, not Josiah.)

Jeremiah's critique is against the sons, because they failed to maintain the reforms of Josiah, not because they followed the reforms. Jeremiah is explicitly clear in his condemnation of tree veneration (3:6), idols (10:5-14, etc.), and the Queen of Heaven (7:18, 44:17-25), Asherah (17:2), and worshipping "other gods" (1:16, 5:7, 7:9, 18; 18 total examples), and cultic child sacrifice (7:31, 19:5).

Edited November 16, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Jeremiah says in summary:

From the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon King of Judah [that is, the year when Josiah came of age and began the reform], even unto this

day, that is the three and twentieth year, the word of the LORD hath come unto me, and I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking, but ye have not

hearkened. (Jer 25:3)

Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit…For my people have

committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:11, 13)

The first passage simply says Jeremiah was prophesying during the reign of Josiah. It does not say he was against Josiah. It says the people have not harkened to what Jeremiah said. This could just as easily mean that he preached for Josiah's reforms, and the people rejected his pro-Josiah preaching. As I noted in my previous post, there is ample evidence of what Jeremiah thinks the people are doing wrong, and it is not following Deuteronomy.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Nephi clearly did not believe the 3rd [only Jerusalem temple.] Nephi also was commended for his belief in the son of God Most High, presumably Yahweh, son of El Elyon.

True. But Nephite builds a new temple because he is a new Moses, has a new covenant, has a new promised land, and because Nephites could not make pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Granting the importance of these three issues, what else was going on with the reform and can it all be defended? What about the absence of the Day of Atonement from the sacred calendar in Deuteronomy 16?

Day of Atonement is not mentioned in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or any other prophet for that matter.

What about the change to the role of the High Priest so that the priest was no longer the anointed? Why does Lehi's first public discourse in 1 Nephi 1 have to assert that there would be a Messiah (that is the annointed) and the Redemption of the world (ritually enacted on the day of atonement)? What was it at that time in Jerusalem that made those themes important enough for Lehi speak out on, and controversial enough that he had to leave town after doing so?

Zechariah 4:14 mentions the anointed high priest. Because Dt doesn't mention doesn't mean that believing in an anointed high priest opposes Dt.

What about the tensions about whether God could be seen ( as asserted against in Deuteronomy) versus Lehi's claims to have seen? What about the rejection of the Hosts compared to Lehi's vision of the hosts?

Dt 4:19 reads as follows: “And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.”

Note Dt here says the stars are “the host of heaven” = “sons of god.” It does not deny their existence or object to this idea. It objects to bowing down and worshipping them. Thus, 1 Ne 1:8-14 does not contradict Deuteronomy because Nephi doesn’t worship the stars/sons of god. Dt does not deny the existence of the host of heaven. It says that the non-Israelites can worship them. It objects only to Israelites worshipping them.

Margaret Barker often refers to passages in 1st Enoch 93:7-8 that describe a condition of blindness that prevailed in Jerusalem at that time.

The apostasy of the first temple described by 1 Enoch need not be Josiah's; it could just as well describe the failure of Josiah's reforms. The blind motif is vague and could apply to any who reject a prophet. The Enoch community's rejected the authority of the post-exilic Jerusalem priests, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that following Deuteronomy was the reason Encoh thinks the temple is is apostasy. The language is much to vague (and may be discussing 2nd century BC issues).

[Bill Hamblin]

A passage in Deuteronomy 4:6 sets out the agenda of the reformers:

Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law] for this

is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall

hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding

people. (Deut. 4:6)

Jeremiah, who knew Deuteronomy well enough to quote or allude to it over 200

times, seems to be commenting on this very passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in

vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected

the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? (Jer. 8:8-9)

Richard Elliot Friedman‟s translation of Jer. 8:8 is stronger than that in the Kings James

version: “How do you say „We are wise, and Yahweh‟s torah is with is‟? In fact, here it

was made for a lie, the lying pen of the scribes.” The King James translators were

reluctant to describe a Torah as having been falsified, but such a translation appears in the

margins as an alternate reading. John Bright also offers the stronger translation. “How

can you say, “Why we are the wise, For we have the law of Yahweh”? Now do but see—

the deception it‟s wrought, the deceiving pen of the scribes.”

Note that Jeremiah's problem here is that "they [the scribes] have rejected the word of the YHWH." The rejection of the "word of YHWH" is what makes them unwise. This could just as easily be understood to mean that they/scribes think they are wise because they have the Law/Torah, which is the Book of the Law of YHWH discovered in the temple (2 Kgs. 22:8, 11; 2 Chr. 34:14) which begins Josiah's reforms, in other words Deuteronomy. But they are unwise because they reject the "word of YHWH" = the prophecies of Jeremiah. The problem is not that they like Deuteronomy. The problem is that they reject Jeremiah.

[Bill Hamblin]

Interesting discussion, ya sadiiqy. A few questions from the sidelines:

1. Any thoughts on where the Day of Atonement fits into this discussion? There is a growing body of literature on the Deuteronomists' antipathy to this festival, and the friction over this is central to Barker's body of work. How would you contextualize your recent presentation on 2 Nephi 6-10 and the DofA in terms of your thesis that Josiah's reforms were inspired and that no temple cult apostasy had occurred at this time? Do you think that the DofA was central to the temple cult? Do you think it was intentionally surpressed by the Deuteronomists? If you would answer yes to both of those, what does that mean in terms of apostasy under Josiah?

I don't know what to make of the Day of Atonement issue. The problem is, it's not mentioned much in the Bible at all. Many scholars think it is post-exilic. If so, then its absence from Deuteronomy is understandable, since it didn't exist.

Personally I think it is pre-exilic, since I think we find it in the BOM. But be that as it may, it is clear that later Jews found no problem with performing the Day of Atonement at the temple despite its absence from Deuteronomy. They didn't see it as a contradiction at all. Ignoring the DA is not necessarily rejecting the DA.

[Bill Hamblin]

2. The idea that the Deuteronomist reforms were not a return to the original Sinai revelation but a complete reworking of it has resonance beyond Barker. Even more convincing than Barker (at least to me) is the textual analysis very carefully laid out in Bernard Levinson's Deuteronomy and the Hermaneutics of Legal Innovation. I fiind his analysis and conclusions very persuasive. If you've read it, what are your thoughts?

I haven't read it, but it is certainly possible. There are three possibilities:

1- Dt is just what it claims to be--the words of Moses

2- Dt contains authentic Moses teachings (or other pre-7th century BC teachings) as reworked in the late seventh century (I probably believe this).

3- Dt is a pseudepigraphic text of the late 7th century put into the mouth of Moses to legitimize their radical innovations.

I think it is worth noting here that Nephi discusses the brass plates containing “the five books of Moses” 1 Ne 5:11. He treats them as authoritative scripture, and presumably one of these five was (some form of?) Deuteronomy. Why, if he rejected Deuteronomy, does he speak of five instead of four books of Moses.

[Bill Hamblin]

3. I'd be interested in seeing an editing timeline associated with the Hasmonean thesis for apostasy. There are many ancillary issues Barker discusses that resonate with the LDS. Only one of the many examples of this would include the supression of a higher priesthood that she says is patterned after either Enoch or Melchizedek. (And as an aside, the very name Zadok sounds Canaanite and his Levitical geneology appears to be contrived.) Frank Moore Cross and others would point to several of the priesthood rebellions as evidence that a competing or additional priesthood has been eliminated or edited out of the current record. Whatever the case, many of these issues that resonate with the LDS (like the priesthood issue) appear to be predicated on priestly re-working of the texts that surely would have had to have happened before the Hasmonean era. Do you think there was extensive editing of the texts? If so, do you think this is a product of the Hasmoneans? If not, how does an extensive reworking of the texts in the early pre-exilic, exilic, and immediate post-exilic periods not point to at least some form of apostasy?

I think there were multiple reworkings and multiple sectarian interpretations throughout Israelite history. I suspect it is probably too complex to figure out the details.

4. Since you know Margaret personally, I'm interested if you've had any discussions with her on these issues and what her reactions were if you did. For example, does she agree with your characterization of her assessment of the pre-Exilic temple cult as static and singular?

I haven't.

PS, a quick editing observation: On page 6, second paragraph, second sentence, I think the word "never" was intended to be "ever." In its associated footnote (16), I think "believes" should be "beliefs."

Thanks!

[Bob Crockett]

My article responding to Margaret Barkers interpretation of the reforms of Josiah as an apostasy.

http://mormonscriptu...icating-josiah/

Finally, some reputable LDS scholar steps forward to counter Barker and the veneration of her. I need to read your paper in greater detail, but it states more eloquently than I have ever done what I think is a response to Barker and the reform. Certainly, whenever a modern prophet has referred to Josiah's reforms, it has always been an endorsement.

Kudos and kisses.

[Vance]

Certainly, whenever a modern prophet has referred to Josiah's reforms, it has always been an endorsement.

Do you have some examples to share?

[Bill Hamblin]

Finally, some reputable LDS scholar steps forward to counter Barker and the veneration of her. I need to read your paper in greater detail, but it states more eloquently than I have ever done what I think is a response to Barker and the reform. Certainly, whenever a modern prophet has referred to Josiah's reforms, it has always been an endorsement.

Kudos and kisses.

Don't exaggerate. I think Barker is a great scholar. I disagree with her interpretation about the nature and significance of Josiah's reforms.

[Bob Crockett]

Do you have some examples to share?

I've documented this so many times in other threads.

[Bob Crockett]

Don't exaggerate. I think Barker is a great scholar. I disagree with her interpretation about the nature and significance of Josiah's reforms.

I am not in a position to judge whether somebody is a great or poor Canaanite scholar. I just disagree with her conclusions.

[volgadon]

I am not in a position to judge whether somebody is a great or poor Canaanite scholar. I just disagree with her conclusions.

Of course, you would only be using the descriptor 'Canaanite' to refer to someone who studies Cananaanites, and never as a slight or slur, right?

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, you would only be using the descriptor 'Canaanite' to refer to someone who studies Cananaanites, and never as a slight or slur, right?

Well, she is a Bible scholar; but I don't think that makes her a Bible!

[volgadon]

Well, she is a Bible scholar; but I don't think that makes her a Bible!

Oops, yes.

[Kevin Christensen]

It's not the points of agreement between Jeremiah and the Reformers that I find the most telling, but rather the specific points of disagreement. Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith both agreed on a great many things. Both were striving to return to a purer Christianity. Both taught extensively from the same scriptures. They knew some of the same people. For all the points of agreement between the Jeremiah and the reformers, they disagree on crucially on vision.

Deuteronomy relates the following: “And the LORD spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.” (Deut. 4:12). Barker notes the direct contradiction with the account in Exodus 24:9-11 which reports that Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders of Israel “saw the God of Israel.”

Jeremiah speaks as one who has seen:

For who hath stood in the counselof the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? (Jer. 23:18. Compare II Kings, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel, and 1^stEnoch)

But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. (Jer. 23:22)

Deuteronomy says that “The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Further, it explains that “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear and do it?” (Deut. 30:11-12)

Against this, Jeremiah speaks as one who has been invited to learn and declare the secret things:

Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. (Jer. 33:3)

Compare these arguments with Jeremiah’s protest that the nation has “forsaken the fountain of living waters,” and adopted a form of Torah-based wisdom that involves “rejecting the word of the Lord.” In 1^st Enoch and in 1 Nephi the tree and the fountain, both temple symbols, and are understood to be interchangeable symbols of the LORD.

Against the denigration of the secret things in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah speaks as one who has been invited to learn and declare the secret things:

Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. (Jer. 33:3)

These differences relate specifically to the actions of the reformers. None of the points of agreement cancel out their signficance.

And I find the notion of blindness and vision very important and in context centering on some very specific notions and events, all harking back to Isaiah's initial anthropomorphic temple vision, and the warning about those with eyes to see, who would not see. Margaret works though this in exquisite detail in the Mother of the Lord.

Ezekiel 40:2-4 reports of visions of God, being set upon a "very high mountain..."and behold there was a man who appearance was like the appearance of brass... and the man said unto me...behind with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears and set thine heart upon al that I shall shew thee.."

Ezekiel 13:3, "Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing."

All of these blindness passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Jacob allude back to Isaiah's call vision. And Margaret traces ties between the issues of Hezekiah's time leading over time to the agenda of the Deuteronomists. They want a God who is caught between the pages of a book and subject to the control of the priests. For Jeremiah, God is one who can respond,

"Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD and not a God afar off?"

And it's just not a matter of Deuteronomy or the Law of Moses, but of which edition? For instance, which version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 does Jeremiah know? If he knows a version and is alluding to it in Jer. 12:7 in mentioning the LORD's inheritance, which version? The one in which Yahweh is one of the sons of El Elyon, in which the hosts exist, or not?

In Jeremiah 2:8

The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not..." It's not enough that someone has change of the books of Moses, and that they quote them and use them. What else are they doing with them? Jeremiah uses the divine title LORD of Hosts constantly, and the Lamantations also uses Most High. The Deuteronomist histories almost never use those titles. Is this a significant point, or just a stylistic preference?

Compare The Great Angel, 100

T.N.D. Mettinger has explored the transformation in detail in his book The Dethronement of the Sabaoth, and his conclusions are important.

The concept of God in the Deuteronomistic theology is strikingly abstract. The throne concept has vanished and the anthropomorphic characteristics of God are on their way to oblivion. Thus the form of God plays no part in the D work of the Sinai theophany. (Deut 4:12)

This warns us more clearly than anything else that the traditions which emphasized the throne of God, e.g. those of Dan 7, Matt. 25.31-46, and Revelation must be understood in terms of something other than the Deuteronomic point of view which has come to dominate our reading of the Old Testament.” (Barker, The Great Angel, 100)

Compare

Jeremiah 17:12

A glorious high throne from the beginning [is] the place of our sanctuary.

And think about Lehi's throne vision at the beginning of the Book of Mormon.

In King Josiah: Lost Messiah of Israel, Sweeny observes:

Josiah was the first King of Judah to be placed on the throne by the people of the land. Insofar as the Deuteronomic Torah protects the rights of family lines, it protects the rights of family inheritance and possession of the land. Furthermore, the various measures pertaining to debt and slavery made it easier for those who find themselves in economic trouble to get out of it and to have a basis on which to rebuild their lives. It would appear that the Deuteronomic Torah addresses the needs of the people of the land, the very group that put Josiah in power after the assassination of his father Amon. This would suggest that the Deuteronomic Torah played a role in supporting Josiah’s reign and reform program. [Marvin K. Sweeny, King Josiah: Lost Messiah of Israel (New York: Oxford Press, 2001), 166.

None of the commentaries I have read have noted that Jeremiah appears to have been called against the very people who put Josiah in power, and thus against the very people and institutions who would have been implementing the reforms at the time of his call:

For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brazen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. (Jer. 1:18)

Ezekiel 22 provides a further near-contemporary description of these same groups. For instance, regarding the people of the land:

The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the ^apoor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

Sweeney also says of Jeremiah:

The matter is complicated by the fact that two forms of the book of Jeremiah are extant in the Masoretic and Septuagint forms, and that both were clearly composed into their present forms in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile. Scholars have noted that the books are heavily influenced by later theological viewpoints that play major roles in the presentation of the book and the prophet. There is extensive evidence of redaction and composition by hands that appear to be closely associated with or influenced by Deuteronomistic circles and outlooks. Overall, the present form of the book is shaped by a concern to address the problem of the Babylonian exile. (Sweeney, 208-9)

One of the clearest markers for editorial hands on Jeremiah is this:

The Kings account adds an explanation that despite Josiah’s righteousness (2 Kings 23:25), that the LORD’s wrath was kindled against Judah by “the provocations” of King Manasseh (2 Kings 23:26). This raises several problems. The most basic premise of the Deuteronomist History is that the righteous are blessed and the wicked are punished. If Josiah was the perfect King, why was he cut off? Why had the wicked Manesseh prospered so long in contrast? This same dubious explanation about the long dead King Manessah being the cause of wrath of the LORD falling on Judah also appears in Jeremiah (Jer. 15:4). But in Jeremiah it contradicts everything else the prophet says.

RUN ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it. (Jer. 5.1)

I think Jeremiah's criticisms of those "baking cakes to the Queen of Heaven" are akin to his criticisms of the temple in the famous Temple discourse (chapter 7). He's not so much anti-Temple (see Jer. 33:11) as against those who would substitute any ritual practice for repentence.

And there are a number of favorable references to Wisdom and the Tree of life in Jeremiah, which mesh nicely with what we get in the Book of Mormon.

I grant that the issue is controversial. I basically started out having been impressed by Friedman's case that Jeremiah or Baruch might even be the Deuteronomist. I've got one book that claims that Jeremiah was a court propagandist working for the Reform. (Why I should accept the writings of a court propagandist as a prophet?) But there is that business of "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests, and were thus changes at the very heart of the temple." None of the commentators besides Margaret have noticed that. For such people, it's all law, language, family connections, and politics. I think the key to the reform is in what they have not noticed.

It happens that the only clearly favorable thing that Jeremiah says about Josiah is that he at least did judgement and justice and judged the cause of the poor and needy. "Then it was well with him.' (Jer. 22:16). But that does not necessarily imply that all was well with him. The Chronicles account of his death gives the story in terms of a "disguise narrative," and the other kings that merited such a type scene were Saul, Jerobam, and Ahab, Alan Goff has observed that “The common elements to the kingly disguise type scenes are many: (1) The king is ultimately the punished/victim… (2) all the stories place limits on the king…

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited November 17, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Bill Hamblin]

I think the methodology that Kevin describes--looking for implied differences--is backwards. I think we must begin with what is clear and certain--Jeremiah opposed every one of the sins of Manasseh--use that as an established baseline, and only then try to understand what is implied and ambiguous. I'll discuss some of the specific Kevin raises issues later.

[Bob Crockett]

Of course, you would only be using the descriptor 'Canaanite' to refer to someone who studies Cananaanites, and never as a slight or slur, right?

You tell me how you'd like me to describe her branch of scholarship and I'll be careful to comply in the future.

[volgadon]

You tell me how you'd like me to describe her branch of scholarship and I'll be careful to comply in the future.

Does she deal primarily with Canaanite history, religion, and language? Why Canaanite, why not a Hittite, Hivite, Jebusite, Assyrian, or Egyptian scholar?

[Bob Crockett]

Does she deal primarily with Canaanite history, religion, and language? Why Canaanite, why not a Hittite, Hivite, Jebusite, Assyrian, or Egyptian scholar?

You tell me how you'd like me to describe her branch of scholarship and I'll be careful to comply in the future.

I don't pretend to be an expert.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[volgadon]

You tell me how you'd like me to describe her branch of scholarship and I'll be careful to comply in the future.

Does she deal primarily with Canaanite history, religion, and language? Why Canaanite, why not a Hittite, Hivite, Jebusite, Assyrian, or Egyptian scholar?

I don't pretend to be an expert.

You don't have to be an expert, or even a fan of her work to avoid derisive labels.