The Sunday School curriculum calls this lesson “Come to the House of the Lord.” This is an appropriate title for this block of scripture, as the narrative here relates how kings Hezekiah and Josiah of Judah cleansed the Temple of Jerusalem of all the alleged idolatrous paraphernalia and doctrines that were introduced to it during the reigns of previous kings.  As a result, these are celebrated (while most kings are routinely condemned) in the biblical histories as two of the great and “godly” kings, being compared to King David in righteousness (2 Kgs. 22:2; 2 Chr. 29:2; note that 2 Chr. 28:1 has a more negative opinion of David, comparing him to the wicked King Ahaz).

As these stories are presented, there is much of value that can be gleaned from them. These are tales of rulers who had the strength, courage, and faith to reject the errors of their fathers and foreign influences in order to return to the correct worship of the God of Israel. Most importantly, they recognized the importance of temple worship and the Law and turned the tide against generations of idolatry and false indoctrination.  It is no wonder, in light of how they are presented, that these kings are held up as heroes of the history of pre-exilic Judaism.

We are told that Hezekiah and his great-grandson Josiah carried out reforms that changed the religious practices of the people of Judah, especially in regards to the temple(s). The sweeping “cleansing” done by Hezekiah was repeated and apparently greatly magnified by Josiah.  Hezekiah left his mark when he “removed the high places, and brake the images (Heb. “pillars”), and cut down the groves (Heb. “asherah”), and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made” (2 Kings 18:4).  The religion of Judah was centralized — apparently all places of worship were destroyed, or at least condemned, outside of the Temple of Jerusalem.

If we take a look at what Hezekiah allegedly destroyed, we see that it was some important stuff!  The “high places” (bamot) were sanctuaries, or places of worship, where altars could be found for sacrifice.  They were generally set in high places, such as hilltops or were artificial mounds meant to represent the same idea.  There were many traditional “high places” that apparently were originally very legitimate places of worship (e.g. Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, etc.) but were, with the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, condemned as idolatrous, pagan centers.  It is likely that each village had its own high place where the residents conducted their routine worship.  However, the reformers attempted to enforce the idea that the only place worthy of the performance of holy rites was Jerusalem.  In this centralization of worship to Jerusalem, Hezekiah and Josiah are understood to be following the instructions given in Deut. 12 which prohibits the offering of sacrifice anywhere but in the holy city of Jerusalem.  We should question the reliability of this scripture, however, as we read that sacrifices were legitimately offered outside of Jerusalem both before and after the time of Moses.  We read in the Book of Mormon in several places that Lehi and his family, who lived in Jerusalem during and just after the reign of Josiah, have no qualms about offering sacrifice at many points along their great journey (obviously outside of Jerusalem).

Ruins of the "High Place" of Dan

Apparently, Hezekiah was not terribly thorough in his enforcement of this ideal, as a number of sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem, including at Lachish, Arad, and Beersheva, were built or continued to function during his reign. In fact, some scholars argue that there is no archaeological evidence of any mass destruction of high places in the area in the 7th and 8th centuries BC (see here for a related article). William Dever, renowned biblical archaelogist, for example, believes that all of this talk of destroying the high places was made up by the authors/editors of these histories to fit their own theological/political agendas.  Whether or not Hezekiah did try to implement this facet of the reformation, we know that the high places are back up and running by the time of Josiah!

Besides the high places, we are told that Hezekiah destroyed the “idols” (in the KJV), which were actually “standing stones” or “pillars” (massebot).  Earlier in Israel’s history, there had been no problems with setting up massebot, and they were frequently set up by the Patriarchs and others as monuments to memorialize important sacred events, especially appearances of Deity (e.g. when Jacob sets up a pillar to mark the place where he had encountered God, Gen. 28:18; Gen. 32:20; etc.).  Moses himself sets up pillars (Ex. 24:4). They were associated with altars of sacrifice and delineated holy space.  We can probably compare these with the obelisks of Egypt and the stone circles of places like Stonehenge.  Hezekiah, however, decides that they are representative of idol worship and allegedly broke them all down.

The other items that the text claims that Hezekiah ordered destroyed were the “groves” or the “sacred poles” — the asherot. These objects were wooden poles of some sort that were meant to represent sacred trees. Asherah is known to have been a mother goddess venerated throughout the region.  In some way, these stylized “trees” were meant to represent her.  In the biblical narrative, these asherot are associated with the pagan worship of Baal.  They were placed standing near the altars of sacrifice in the high places.  More will be said shortly regarding these objects, but it is claimed that these too were condemned and cut down by Hezekiah. Also, we are told that Hezekiah destroyed the Nehushtan, the bronze serpent that Moses made!  This act is justified by the explanation that the people had been offering sacrifices to it for some time.  I can’t help but see this as tragic!  How do you go and destroy the bronze serpent which was made by Moses to be a savior to the people of Israel, healing them during their travels in the desert? We often take the bronze serpent to be a symbol of Jesus Christ  –  and it apparently had been given some role in the temple — until Hezekiah smashed it to smithereens.

After Hezekiah’s death, we are told that his reforms were reversed by the wickedness of kings Manasseh and Amon. It is not until the young Josiah comes to power that the standard is once against raised against the encroachment of idol worship back into Judah. Josiah reportedly conducts a much more thorough reform, but with roughly the same ideals as the earlier one.  In 2 Chronicles 34 we get the account of the massive campaign carried out to purge the kingdom of idol worship, which including destroying the same basic elements that Hezekiah had previously condemned.  Furthermore, it appears that he killed all the priests that served in these locations, burning their bones upon their various altars (2 Chron. 34:5).  In 2 Kings 23, there is an even more detailed account of the specific items he destroyed, which includes:

• burned the vessels/instruments in the temple that were made for Baal, Asherah, and the host of heaven (sons of God/angels)
• removed the priests that burned incense in the high places to Baal, the sun, moon, planets, and host of heaven (sons of God/angels)
• took the asherah pole/tree out of its place in the temple and burned it, stamped it into powder, and scattered it on the graves near Jerusalem
• broke down the houses of the “sodomites” (Heb. q’deshim, probably “male temple prostitutes”) that were near the temple, where the women wove hangings (perhaps tents/veils/garments) for Asherah
• stopped the sacrifice of children by fire to Molech
• burned the sun chariot and horses that apparently stood at the entrance to the temple (compare to the chariot and horses that took Elijah to heaven from my last post)
• apparently desecrated a number of graves, removing the bones therefrom and burning them on the altar (I am really not sure what the significance of this was, but the text says that it had been prophesied earlier)
• did all the other things mentioned above and more…

This is a very detailed list — there were specific things going on that Josiah, or perhaps his advisors, were very much against.  Although Chronicles seems to put this event as following the great purge, 2 Kings 22-23 indicates that the massive reform movement was at least partly a result of Josiah’s high priest, Hilkiah, finding “the book of the law” in the temple while they were cleansing it (2 Kgs. 22:8).  Scholars generally agree that this book was the Book of Deuteronomy.  Margaret Barker gave a great summary of Josiah’s reform and its association with the finding of this book.

King Josiah changed the religion of Israel in 623 BC. According to the Old Testament account in 2 Kings 23 he removed all manner of idolatrous items from the temple and purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices. Temple vessels made for Baal, Asherah and the host of heaven were removed, idolatrous priests were deposed, the Asherah itself was taken from the temple and burned, and much more besides. An old law book had been discovered in the temple, and this had prompted the king to bring the religion of his kingdom into line with the requirements of that book. There could be only one temple, it stated, and so all other places of sacrificial worship had to be destroyed. The law book is easily recognizable as Deuteronomy, and so King Josiah’s purge is usually known as the Deuteronomic reform of the temple.¹

As Barker notes, Josiah’s reforms are often referred to in modern scholarship as the “Deuteronomic” reforms.  Many scholars believe that this Book of the Law, identified as the Book of Deuteronomy, was either heavily revised, or even written at the time of King Josiah. I don’t think we need to dismiss the tradition that it was originally written by Moses, but I do agree that it was at least heavily edited by later parties, beginning before or during the reign of Josiah that had a strong religious agenda. The book may have been further revised subsequently during and/or after the Babylonian exile.  Thus, it appears that Josiah, in his reforms, was likely not taking Judah back to a more ancient tradition, the religion of Moses, but was essentially creating a new religious belief system, following the ideals of this “Deuteronomist” movement. It is this Deuteronomist theology that influences not only the book of Deuteronomy itself, but the whole so-called Deuteronomist history, from the book of Deuteronomy to the book of 2 Kings. Their theology influenced later writers such as the priestly author(s) of the Chronicles.

It is here that I would like to explain that I do not mean to throw out entirely the history we are given in the books of Kings and Chronicles. As the Sunday School curriculum rightly delineates, there are many great and important lessons to be learned from these histories. Whether or not they were written with a certain religious or political agenda in mind, they provide us with precious principles regarding obedience, purity, and standing up for what is right and holy. They teach about the supreme value of the temple and correct worship and doctrine. Taken as such and applied to our own lives, these are very valuable lessons indeed.  On the other hand, we can also learn, if we follow the theories of some biblical scholars, that there was likely more to ancient Israelite history and religion than what is provided to us through the filter of the Deuteronomistic and later redactors.  Through a study of the themes of this reform we can begin to understand why the Old Testament seems to contain such a different theology than the New Testament, and why it appears to differ, as well, from the picture of ancient religious beliefs as understood by the prophet Joseph Smith.

King Josiah’s reform largely involved the temple and items that were in the temple. Also, it involved a consolidation of Israelite worship to Jerusalem and its temple–other Israelite temples/sanctuaries were torn down. The historical narrative we read in the Old Testament presents this as a good and necessary reform. It was aimed at “idolatrous” practices. However, as I have alluded to, many of the features/items condemned were considered perfectly legitimate in earlier times, especially from what we know of the Patriarchal period. While the picture painted is of Josiah bringing Judah back to the most ancient and correct beliefs, what it seemed to accomplish, in reality, was banish many of Israel’s most ancient practices.  Josiah changed the Israelite religion and the practices of the First Temple.  Some Jews would later claim that it was Josiah’s reform that, instead of delaying disaster, brought the wrath of God upon them. As Barker notes:

Twenty five years after the work of Josiah, Jerusalem was attacked by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar, and eleven years after the first attack, they returned to destroy the city and the temple. Refugees fled south to Egypt, and we read in the book of Jeremiah how they would not accept the prophet’s interpretation of the disaster. He insisted that Jerusalem had fallen because of the sins of her people, but the refugees said it had fallen because of Josiah. The king is not mentioned by name, but there can be no doubt what the refugees had in mind. Until very recently, they said, they and their ancestors in Judah and Jerusalem had worshipped differently and had prospered, but when they changed their manner of worship, disaster had followed.

The refugees who fled to Egypt were not the only ones who thought that Josiah’s purge had been a disaster. By surveying the texts that still survive, we can begin to piece together what Josiah destroyed. Many of those texts imply that Josiah’s purge was a disaster.

Expounding on the above scriptural list, some of the things that Barker believes were removed include:

• The Asherah, a stylized tree, that had been placed beside the temple altar (cf. Rev 22:1-3), had represented the Queen of Heaven, the Mother Goddess, and also the Tree of Life and Wisdom–Barker believes that the Asherah was the true Menorah, and it was removed by Josiah
• Many of the holiest items of the Temple, especially the Holy of Holies–The Babylonian Talmud records that Josiah had hidden away the ark, the holy anointing oil, the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod (b.Horayoth 12a).
• The vision of God–while earlier traditions present Yahweh as appearing to mortals, the Deuteronomic account denies that any vision of God was seen when the Law was given: ‘You saw no form; only a voice was heard’ (Deut 4:12)
• The Hosts of Heaven–Deuteronomy condemns regard for the host of heaven (Deut 4:19), the angels, even though an ancient title for the Lord was the Lord of Hosts. The heavenly host of angels must have been part of the older faith.
• The Spirit Creation–Barker notes that alternative accounts of the Creation (such as the one found in the Book of Jubilees) remember that the angels/sons of God were created before anything material was made–the Deuteronomic account never mentions angels
• The sacred knowledge of the Holy of Holies–The Deuteronomists didn’t deny that such knowledge existed, but warn against mortals having access to them: ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God’ (Deut 29:29). They emphasized that all that was necessary for mortals was to obey the Law and keep the revealed commandments.

There were many other beliefs that Josiah supposedly purged that pertained the older religion of Israel. For Barker,these were the traditions of the First Temple. These traditions are so ancient that it is hard to know what exactly they entailed and what happened to them. We must go by scarce evidence and much inference. Barker explains:

We can never know for certain what it was that Josiah purged or why he did it. No actual texts or records survive from that period, but even the stories as they have come down to us in various sources show that this was a time of major upheaval which was not forgotten. A thousand years after the events themselves, even mainstream Jewish texts remembered that the temple had been drastically changed, that large numbers of people had left the land, and that the true temple would be only be restored in the time of the Messiah.

I could go on and on about this topic and not do it justice.  There is much more that could be said about this, and I have treated it in many previous posts. Again, my desire is not to dismiss these biblical histories out of hand, nor diminish your trust in the Scriptures as a whole, but to indicate that there is likely more to these stories than we can get from a superficial reading of the received text. If Hezekiah and Josiah did change the religion of Judah, I believe it is important for us to know what the religion was like previously, what it was changed to, and what that means for our understanding of ancient Judaism, Christianity, and religious beliefs today.

If you want to know more about the reforms of the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, kings of Judah, check out some of the following resources.

Some of my previous posts on the topic:

• The Suppression of Ancient Truths
• The Priestly Suppression of Ancient Truths — covers the priestly reforms that occurred after the exile which were allegedly similar to Josiah’s reforms
• The Tree of Life as Nurturing Mother — this post doesn’t focus specifically on the reforms, but emphasizes the important of the Tree of Life in ancient religion, which Barker believes was represented by the asherah tree that Josiah removed from the temple

Articles by Margaret Barker (who, FYI, is not LDS) on the topic (a very small sample of a topic that she treats in most of her writings):

• What Did King Josiah Reform? – forum address given at BYU on 6 May 2003
• Joseph Smith and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion – speech given at The Worlds of Joseph Smith conference held at the Library of Congress, 6 May 2005 — besides treating the topic of the Deuteronomic reforms, she relates what these meant for the religion of Jerusalem at the time of Lehi and for Joseph Smith’s contributions

A few additional helpful articles:

• Kevin Christensen’s writings on Margaret Barker — this is a link to a page that has several links to Kevin’s great studies, but the Meridian links unfortunately don’t appear to be working
• Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon’s Book — great article by Brant Gardner
• Antecedents of the Restoration in the Ancient Temple — great overview of Barker’s work by Frederick M. Huchel
• Lehi’s Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness — article by David R. Seely that specifically treats the topic of the Deuteronomic reform, centralization of the cult, and how that reflects on the practice of Lehi and family of offering sacrifice outside of Jerusalem.

1. Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?”, forum address given at Brigham Young University on 6 May 2003, accessed online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=36

As I was studying recently about the “transfer of power” from the prophet Moses to his young aide, Joshua, it hit me that there was a similarity in this motif with the ideas presented in a paper by Julian Morgenstern  that I recently read called “The King-God among the Western Semites and the Meaning of Epiphanes.” This is quite an intriguing, even if somewhat old and outdated, work that looks at the ancient ideology of the Near East regarding kingship. I must preface my thoughts here by explaining that I don’t necessarily share all of Prof. Morgenstern’s reasoning or conclusions, but I found the pattern he describes strangely applicable to the Moses-Joshua narrative.

Morgenstern’s argument is that the religious traditions of the Ancient Near East, which he sees as background to, and an influence on, Israel’s religious thought, were associated with their understanding of the patterns of nature.  More specifically, the life-cycle of their gods, in their view, was reflected in, for example, the annual cycles of the sun that provide the different seasons, or the vegetation cycles of death in the winter and rebirth in the spring.  Examples of these traditions pervade the religions of the ancient world.

Morgenstern explains that, for example, in the ancient Tyrian (western-Semitic) religion, Baal-Haddad was the reigning god, the god of the storms, who brought rain and fertility to the earth. His consort was Astarte, the mother goddess who was represented as a type of Mother Earth. Their offspring was Tammuz, who was represented by the yearly crops. According to the myth, in the spring, Tammuz, the divine child, was born and grew to maturity to the point where he was identified with, or even supplanted, the Father god. In the autumn, the old god was seen as dying and being buried, only to be born again in the spring as the young god. The cycle repeated itself annually as the young god rose up from the soil (from the Underworld), grew up to become the old Father god, died, and then was born again with new and vigorous life.  (For me, personally, I think it is hard for us to know if this is how the ancients actually saw their gods, as dying and resurrecting each year, or if they saw the cycles of nature as merely reflecting a more archetypal divine example)

Later on, the Tyrian king Hiram, who had so much influence on Solomon and the building of his temple, supposedly reformed his people’s religion so that it no longer followed the pattern of the vegetation cycle, but followed the solar phases. The main phases of this new belief were following the steadily increasing light of the winter/spring sun and then the receding radiance of the summer/autumn sun. The summer/autumn sun, representing the god Baal-Shamem, grew older and dimmer as the year went on, until at the winter solstice, the point of least light in the year, the old god was believed to have died, fallen asleep, or departed on a journey.  The sun-god journeys to the darkness of the Netherworld through the portals of the West, only to be reborn far in the East. When he is reborn as the winter/spring sun, he is Melcarth, the Lord of Heaven, the young warrior god that brings new life as he grows in brightness and strength throughout these seasons of the year. Essentially, according to Morgenstern, the two gods, Baal-Shamem and Melcarth, were the same god, but in two basic phases — one mortal and one immortal. Often, the old god never truly dies but is replaced in the world of the living by the young god, who rules from his throne. The old god continues to rule, but more remotely, from the realm of the Afterlife. This general pattern can be seen in similar Egyptian beliefs regarding the dying Osiris who is avenged and “replaced” by his son Horus, the Greek traditions of the son god killing and replacing the father god, Zeus and Heracles, the Phoenix, Babylonian beliefs regarding Marduk, and so on.

While Morgenstern goes on extensively to then compare this pattern to ancient Israelite religion, including yearly temple rites in the autumn and spring at the Temple of Solomon, I will only briefly relate some of his ideas that concern the Israelite concept of kingship.  Morgenstern argues that the kings throughout the region of the Near East followed a similar pattern for their transfers of power, imitating the trajectory of the gods.  As the reigning king became old, he would appoint his son, his heir, to rule in his stead. The son symbolically “became” his father, the king, ruling on his throne. The old king would die and the new, young king would continue ruling in his stead, the embodiment of his father. Although the old king had died and journeyed to the Underworld, he would continue to rule, in a sense, through his seed who occupied his throne.

Similarly, the new reigning king would go through an annual cycle represented in the great religious festivals at the temple.  In these festivals, there were dramatic re-enactments in which, according to Morgenstern, the king would play the role of the god, as the embodiment of the god. At the Autumn New Year Festival, on the day of the autumn equinox, the king-god would, in a dramatic presentation, die and be buried in the earth (which Morgenstern seems to be saying would have been represented by the king entering the temple, the pillars of which represented the gates to the world of the dead). At the festival of the vernal equinox, there would have been a celebration of the god/king’s “awakening” or “resurrection” when, at the point of greatest light hitting the temple, he would emerge from its eastern entrance and appear to his people, glorious and radiant (the sun likely reflecting brightly off his throne and/or silver or gold colored crown/clothing) and full of new life, giving new hope to his people. (If such ideas were ever represented in Israelite religion, which I believe that they were, at least to an extent, they were greatly modified over time. According to some theories, all of these themes were represented in one great Autumn festival, and the Spring festival represented different ideas altogether).

I could go on and on about Morgenstern’s interesting analysis of these themes, but my point in bringing this up is that the idea of the old dying god/king and the rise of the young, vibrant god/king seems to have had some influence on the Israelite traditions regarding Moses and Joshua. We could say that history does have a tendency to repeat itself, or perhaps it is a case of ancient stories recontextualized to shape narrations of historical events, but the story of the transfer of power between Moses and Joshua does seem to follow this ancient pattern of cyclical transition as described by Morgenstern.  Moses, the old prophet (who was, for all intents and purposes, Israel’s earthly king), having lived a full life in service of the Lord, reaches the point when it is time for him to die and be replaced by a young, vibrant new leader.  There is a period where Moses is commanded to “share” the authority of his office with Joshua, in preparation for the transition. It is interesting that this takes place just as the people of Israel are reaching the promised land. It is as if God, when bringing his people into a new land for a new life, wants them to be led by a new, younger Moses into the promised land.  Just as Moses had, in earlier years, been both the spiritual and military leader of Israel, Joshua comes as a young warrior-prophet ready to lead the people to further conquests. This is how the resurrected, young god of the ancient traditions was depicted — as a warrior who comes to deliver his people.

However, as some traditions affirm, Moses does not really die, but was “translated” — he is essentially deified and continues ruling, in a sense, from beyond and afar, guiding still his young replacement through the prophetic mantle passed on, through the law that he had recorded, and perhaps, like the succession of Elisha following Elijah, through the endowment of a portion of his “spirit” to Joshua. Certainly, the same prophetic Spirit that had guided Moses was now operating in the Lord’s new servant.

The Reforms of King Josiah, or the Deuteronomic Reforms

The Reforms of King Josiah

So what did King Josiah reform? To begin this discussion I would like to quote from a talk given at BYU in 2003 by Margaret Barker succinctly entitled, “What did King Josiah Reform?” This talk can be found posted here on Kevin Christensen’s site (revision: it is actually Howard Hopkins’ site, with some of Kevin’s material posted), www.thinlyveiled.com. She begins by relating what the Bible informs us that Josiah did:

King Josiah Hears the Book of the Law

King Josiah changed the religion of Israel in 623 BC. According to the Old Testament account in 2 Kings 23 he removed all manner of idolatrous items from the temple and purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices. Temple vessels made for Baal, Asherah and the host of heaven were removed, idolatrous priests were deposed, the Asherah itself was taken from the temple and burned, and much more besides. An old law book had been discovered in the temple, and this had prompted the king to bring the religion of his kingdom into line with the requirements of that book. There could be only one temple, it stated, and so all other places of sacrificial worship had to be destroyed. The law book is easily recognizable as Deuteronomy, and so King Josiah’s purge is usually known as the Deuteronomic reform of the temple.

Many scholars believe that this Book of the Law, identified as the Book of Deuteronomy, was either heavily revised, or even written at the time of King Josiah. Thus, Josiah was not taking Judah back to a more ancient tradition, but was essentially creating a new religious belief system.

King Josiah’s reform largely involved the temple and items that were in the temple. Also, it involved a consolidation of Israelite worship to Jerusalem and its temple–other Israelite temples/sanctuaries were torn down. The historical narrative we read in the Old Testament presents this as a good and necessary reform. It was aimed at “idolatrous” practices. What it did, however (and this will become more apparent here), was banish many of Israel’s most ancient practices.  Josiah changed the Israelite religion, and many were not happy about it. Barker explains:

Twenty five years after the work of Josiah, Jerusalem was attacked by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar, and eleven years after the first attack, they returned to destroy the city and the temple. Refugees fled south to Egypt, and we read in the book of Jeremiah how they would not accept the prophet’s interpretation of the disaster. He insisted that Jerusalem had fallen because of the sins of her people, but the refugees said it had fallen because of Josiah. The king is not mentioned by name, but there can be no doubt what the refugees had in mind. Until very recently, they said, they and their ancestors in Judah and Jerusalem had worshipped differently and had prospered, but when they changed their manner of worship, disaster had followed.

The refugees who fled to Egypt were not the only ones who thought that Josiah’s purge had been a disaster. By surveying the texts that still survive, we can begin to piece together what Josiah destroyed. Many of those texts imply that Josiah’s purge was a disaster.

Some of the things that Barker believes were removed include:

• The Asherah, a stylized tree, that had been placed beside the temple altar (cf. Rev 22:1-3), had represented the Queen of Heaven, the Mother Goddess, and also the Tree of Life and Wisdom–Barker believes that the Asherah was the true Menorah, and it was removed by Josiah
• Many of the holiest items of the Temple, especially the Holy of Holies–The Babylonian Talmud records that Josiah had hidden away the ark, the holy anointing oil, the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod (b.Horayoth 12a).
• The vision of God–while earlier traditions present Yahweh as appearing to mortals, the Deuteronomic account denies that any vision of God was seen when the Law was given: ‘You saw no form; only a voice was heard’ (Deut 4:12)
• The Hosts of Heaven–Deuteronomy condemns regard for the host of heaven (Deut 4:19), the angels, even though an ancient title for the Lord was the Lord of Hosts. The heavenly host of angels must have been part of the older faith.
• The Spirit Creation–Barker notes that alternative accounts of the Creation (such as the one found in the Book of Jubilees) remember that the angels/sons of God were created before anything material was made–the Deuteronomic account never mentions angels
• The sacred knowledge of the Holy of Holies–The Deuteronomists didn’t deny that such knowledge existed, but warn against mortals having access to them: ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God’ (Deut 29:29). They emphasized that all that was necessary for mortals was to obey the Law and keep the revealed commandments.

There were many other beliefs that Josiah supposedly purged that pertained the older religion of Israel. For Barker, these were the traditions of the First Temple. These traditions are so ancient that it is hard to know what exactly they entailed and what happened to them. We must go by scarce evidence and much inference. Barker explains:

We can never know for certain what it was that Josiah purged or why he did it. No actual texts or records survive from that period, but even the stories as they have come down to us in various sources show that this was a time of major upheaval which was not forgotten. A thousand years after the events themselves, even mainstream Jewish texts remembered that the temple had been drastically changed, that large numbers of people had left the land, and that the true temple would be only be restored in the time of the Messiah.

Because of the lack of pertinent texts from the period, we must be cautious in our conclusions. To back up Barker’s conclusions, let us look at the work of a few other scholars. Please forgive the briefness of the following quick notes.

Moshe Weinfeld. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

In the seventh century B.C. we can see a turning-point in the history of Israelite literary composition. In the latter half of this century a new and unique literary style emerged which was to dominate most of the Israelite literature composed during a period of approximately 150 years (650-500 B.C.). This new way of thinking is apparent in our Bible in the books of Deuteronomy (composed latter half of seventh century B.C.), the deuteronomic history of Joshua-Kings (received fixed form in sixth century), and the deuteronomic prose sermons in Jeremiah (second half of sixth century) (Intro, pp. 1, 7).

Deuteronomic writers had a much different view of the nature of God than did more ancient writers. Earlier writings represented God in anthropomorphic terms (p. 191). God had a human form and had need of a House or Tabernacle. God sat on a physical throne between two cherubim with the Ark of the Covenant as his footstool. The Deity was enveloped by a screen of fire. Those who approached unauthorized/unworthily were consumed by fire. The idea of God sitting enthroned on cherubim is very ancient.

Ahiram of Byblos on Cherub Throne

In the earlier theology, God actually dwells in the Temple. It is his abode on Earth. In Deuteronomic theology, God resides in Heaven only. The Temple becomes not a house for God but for his Name (p. 198).

The Deuteronomic school initiated a polemic against anthropomorphic and corporeal conceptions of Deity. In pre-deuteronomic sources, God is seen by elders, prophets, etc. Man is created in God’s image. In deuteronomic materials, God is not seen–only heard from Heaven. In older sources, the heavenly hosts serve as God’s council. The Deuteronomic writings do not mention the heavenly hosts (p. 200).

Tryggve N.D. Mettinger. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (trans. Frederick H. Cryer, Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982)

The Deuteronomistic theology is programmatically abstract. It presents God with an auditive, non-visual theme. God is in Heaven and does not appear to man–He does not dwell in Temple on Earth (p. 46). Instead of descending from Heaven, Yahweh speaks from Heaven only (p. 48). Only God’s Name dwells in Temple. God’s actual presence in Temple becomes obsolete in Name theology.

Deuteronomy does not speak of the cherubim throne (p. 46).  Cherubim throne was not acceptable in the Deuteronomistic work (p. 51). Deut 10:1–5 does not mention cherubim in construction of Temple. There seems to be a conscious suppression of God sitting on his throne. This theology is not seen again until Ezekiel. Ezekiel sees anthropomorphic figure seated on throne (p. 97).

Josiah’s Reform–Reform culminates in celebration of Passover ceremony. Passover promoted to most important of three yearly festivals. Passover achieved status previously held by Autumn Festival. Main subject of the Autumn Festival was the kingship of the Lord. During monarchical period, Autumn Festival was most important. 1 Sam 1:3 is probably referring to Autumn Festival. Temple dedicated at time of Autumn Festival (see Psalms 24,29,47,93-99; Zech. 14:16–19). Autumn Festival celebrated God’s victory over Chaos (see Ps 29:10). Autumn/New Year Festival associated with creation of the world. During week of festival, they read part of Creation account each day. The Festival celebrated Kingship of YHWH, victory over chaos, and subsequent creation. Josiah favored Passover over New Year festival because it was more uniquely Israelite (p. 73). Cultic rites no longer centered on “sacramental experience” of the theophanic coming and victory of the LORD-rites became acts of “remembrance.”

Further Information

This is just a very minimal and sketchy look at some of the research that has been done on this topic. Those interested should also look at the formative works of Martin Noth on the subject, and also authors such as William Doorly, Richard Elliott Friedman, and R.D. Nelson, to name a few.

For a great overview of Margaret Barker’s research on the Deuteronomists’ suppression of more ancient truths and the effects of King Josiah’s reform from and LDS perspective, see Kevin Christensen’s Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its significance for Mormon Studies published as one of FARMS Occasional Papers. It is a wonderful read, and among other things, shows how Josiah’s Reform affected Lehi and the Book of Mormon (as Lehi was contemporary to these reforms). Have a look at his site www.thinlyveiled.com, and also his articles posted here by www.meridianmagazine.com. On the topic of Josiah’s reform, Christensen gives this summary:

[Josiah's] reform has been closely identified with an editorial school that scholarship calls the Deuteronomists. [1] This group apparently produced an edition of the books of Deuteronomy, Judges, 1& 2 Samuel, and 1&2 Kings during the reign of King Josiah. The Deuteronomists are known as innovators and are known to have edited scriptures in their care. This is important. They worked with texts and traditions that had an established status, including Deuteronomy, but they imposed their own perspectives on those texts.

Their edition of Deuteronomy is notable for claiming that God had not been seen (Deut. 4:12) and for the claim that possession of their Torah meant that there was no need for anyone to go to heaven to bring the word of God (Deut. 30:11–12). This is despite accounts of visions elsewhere in scripture, notably in Exodus 24:9–10, Isaiah 6:1–5, Jeremiah 23:18, 22; 33:3, and Ezekiel 1. These declarations in Deuteromony challenge the claims of the anointed temple priests such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jacob to provide visions. The passages in Deuteronomy deny the possibility of vision, which becomes very suggestive in considering the claims 1st Enoch and elsewhere that just before the destruction of the first Temple, that Israel became blinded. (Plain and Precious Things Restored: Margaret Barker and Josiah’s Reform).

Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Francesco Hayez

Much more could be said on this topic. What I’ve hoped to present is an example and brief outline of a major reform to the religion of Israel, a suppression of older truths, and an attempt to obscure what was formerly believed. Our current Bible text reflects the views of these reformers. “Plain and precious truths” of more ancient origin, especially those that concern the nature of God and the Temple, have been purposefully altered, removed, or otherwise suppressed. Although this likely happened over time in a number of stages, the Deuteronomistic reforms took place prior to the Babylonian exile. There were yet further reforms made during the exile and afterwards. Those who were taken into exile were the higher officials, royalty, and priests–many of whom likely shared the views of the earlier reforms.  These are the people who again took power after the exile, imposing their views on the population who had remained behind in Judah. In my next post, I will look at the further reforms that were made after the exile, in the period of the Second Temple, and how many of those upon whom these reforms were imposed rejected them, favoring the beliefs of the old religion.  My goal is to show how, once again, the religion of ancient Israel was modified, suppressing the ancient beliefs.

]]> http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2008/07/12/the-suppression-of-ancient-truths/feed/ 7