Глава 22

1–7. The accession of the 16th King of Judah Josiah, the pious nature of the reign and the beginning of the restoration of religious and church order 8–11. The “book of the law” found in the church and the impression the king had from reading it. 12–20. Embassy to the prophetess Huldama and her answer about the future destinies of Judea and its king. 2 Kings 22:1. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem; His mother's name was Jedida, daughter of Adaiah, from Bozkapha. 2 Kings 22:2. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all things in the way of David his father, and turned neither to the right nor to the left. The last pious king of Judah (the 16th), Josiah, “who directed his heart to the Lord and established piety in the days of lawlessness” and glorified along with David and Hezekiah for righteousness and zeal according to the law (Sir.49:3-5), entered the kingdom as an eight-year-old boy (LXX: ὑιὸς ὀκτὼ ἐτῶν, slav.: “son of eight years” - literal rendering of the Hebrew ben, which, in conjunction with the numeral years, has the meaning of age) in 641 or 640. His father Amon, who died at the age of 24, had a son aged 16, and Josiah, who died after a 31-year reign - 39 years, left his eldest son Joachim, 25 years old (2 Kings 23:36), therefore, had a son in the 15th year of his life: with early puberty in the east, these figures should not surprise us. His mother came from Bozkatha, LXX: Βαβηδώθ, Vulg.: Baschath, slav.: “Basuroth” (Onomasticon, 199, 225) - a city in the tribe of Judah near Lachish (Joshua 15:39). The general description of the reign of Josiah (v. 2), which describes the seemingly ideal fidelity of this king to the law (cf. 2 Kings 23:25), surpasses reviews of all other kings: only Josiah is taught “not to turn aside to the right or to the left” (cf. Deut.5:32,17:11,20,28:14) from the way of David. This characteristic also serves as a transition to the depiction of Josiah’s theocratic activity. To compare the narrative (2 Kings 22:1–23) about the reign of Josiah with the parallel narrative about the same book (2 Chronicles 34–35), the difference between them is revealed that the book of 2 Kings examines the activities of Josiah from a theocratic pragmatic point of view and, accordingly, devotes most of the space (2 Kings 23:4–20) to the depiction of Josiah’s eradication of idolatrous cults and illegal service to Jehovah and generally represents Josiah as the only king in terms of religious zeal and strict implementation of theocratic principles (2 Kings 23:24–25), meanwhile, the sacred writer of 2 Chronicles looks at the reign and activities of Josiah primarily from a ritual point of view and therefore pays primary attention to the celebration of the Passover holiday under Josiah (in the 18th year of his reign) with exceptionally precise observance of all ritual precepts of the law, with exceptional solemnity, (2 Chron. 35:1-19). In this regard, the chronological order of events in both editions of the sacred narrative is not the same, and the 4th book of Kings takes as its starting point the fact of the opening of the book of the law in the church in the 18th year of the reign of Josiah and then sequentially moves on to the events of Josiah caused by this fact, such as: the renewal of the nation-wide covenant with God, the eradication of illegal cults, the celebration of Passover, etc., and the 2nd book of Chronicles presents the same events, apparently, not in such a natural sequence. In general, both narratives not only confirm, but also complement one another. 2 Kings 22:3. In the eighteenth year of King Josiah, the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, a scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying: 2 Kings 22:4. go to Hilkiah the high priest, let him count the money brought into the house of the Lord, which those who stood guard at the threshold collected from the people, 2 Kings 22:5. and let them give it into the hands of the laborers assigned to the house of the Lord, and let them distribute it to those who work in the house of the Lord, to repair the damages of the house, 2 Kings 22:6. carpenters and masons, and wall-makers, and for the purchase of wood and cut stones to repair the house; 2 Kings 22:7. however, do not demand an account from them for the silver transferred into their hands, because they act honestly. “In the eighteenth year of King Josiah...” LXX more precisely determine the time of the important event of the opening of the book of the law, adding: ἐν τῶ μηνὶ τῶ ὁγδοῶ, or according to codes 52, 64, 72, 92, 106, 119, 121, 123, 134, 144, 236, 242, 245, 247, etc. – ἐν μηνὶ τῶ ὲββόμφ, glav.: “in the seventh month.” The book of the law was found during the restoration of the church, which now followed, about 230 years later, after what had happened under King Joash (2 Kings 12:5 ff.), now necessitated by the need to cleanse the temple of pagan impurities introduced into it under Manasseh and Amun. The mention of this new restoration of the church closely resembles the story of Chapter XII. about the previous and in the XXII chapter more briefly, only assuming that in the XII chapter. expresses himself directly; Moreover, the talk about the restoration of the church here is only a pretext for the story about the book of the law found during this process. The restoration of the church probably began not only in the 18th year of Josiah’s reign, but much earlier, since according to (2 Chronicles 34:3) Josiah, already in the 8th, and even more so in the 12th year of his reign, began to show special zeal for God. About the position of a scribe, Heb. sofer, LXX: γραμματεύς, Vulg.: Scriba, see. commentary on (1 Kings 4:3). According to (2 Chronicles 34:8), in addition to Shaphan, the king also sends the mayor Maaseiah and the writer Joah to the church. Hilkiah is a high priest (cf. v. 8, (2 Kings 23:4)) from the family of Zadok (1 Chr. 9:11). At the initiative of Clement of Alexandria, some interpreters identified him with the priest Helkiah, (Jer. 1: 1), the father of Jeremiah (Eichhorn, Bogen, etc.), but this is contradicted by both the complete failure to mention the book of the prophet Jeremiah about the high priestly dignity of the prophet’s father, and the fact that in Akathoth, the prophet’s hometown, priests lived not from the line of Eleazar and Zadok, but from the line of Ithamar and Abiathar (cf. 1 Kings 2:26). 2 Kings 22:8. And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 2 Kings 22:9. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king an answer, and said: Thy servants took the silver that was found in the house, and delivered it into the hands of the workmen assigned to the house of the Lord. 2 Kings 22:10. And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest gave me the book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 2 Kings 22:11. When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. What kind of “book of the law” ([ha] sefer [ha]) Torah, in the LXX: βιβλίον τοῦ νομου, Vulg.: liber legis), was found by Hilkiah in the church, and how could it have been hidden or lost here? how to explain her stunning impression on Josiah (verse 2 Kings 22:11). “This place is absolutely wonderful. If it were possible to explain completely satisfactorily what this find means, then much would be explained in the history of the Jews. The newest non-Orthodox scholars like to claim that books from ancient times, known under the name Moshe, came to light and became known to the Jews much later than Moshe; according to some. It was after Helkiah found the ancient copy in the church” (Prof. Gulyaev, p. 371). The latest assumption of the so-called development theorists about the origin of a certain part of the Pentateuch, namely Deuteronomy, at this time (see, for example, Stade, Geschirhe Isr. I, s. 650 et seq.) is countered by the fact that the found book of the law in the biblical text does not seem to be a newly appeared book, but has long been well known (hence the definite term: (ha) sefer – (ha) torah), and in a parallel place (2 Chronicles 34:14) it is directly called “the book of the law of the Lord (given) by the hand of Moses” (sefer torat Jehovah beyad Moshe). The expression “book of the law” was, undoubtedly, a technical term for the entire body of writings of Moses, which, all under the general name “book of the law,” Moses commanded the Levites (the priesthood headed by the high priest) to store in the ark of the covenant itself (Deut. 31:24–26). If the book found by Hilkiah is further called “the book of the covenant” (sefer-gabberit 2 Kings 23:2–3,21; 2 Chronicles 34:30–31), then this name, like the previous one, is much more applicable to the entire Pentateuch than to any separate part of it, for example, to Deuteronomy. If against the recognition of the found book as the whole Pentateuch they point out, among other things, the short time in which Shaphan (2 Kings 22:8,10) and after Josiah (2 Kings 23:2) could read it, then in (2 Chronicles 34:18) it is said that Shaphan read in it (Heb. bo), i.e., there is no need to think that the whole book was read; if, further, they say that the rebuke of God, obviously contained in the book and which so amazed the king (vv. 11, 16) and the people (2 Kings 23:2-3), most of all reminds of the rebuke (Deut. 28 and others), then the rebuke of this kind is also found in other parts of the Pentateuch, for example, (Lev. 26). The most important thing is that just as the covenant of the people with Jehovah was concluded and could be concluded only on the basis of the whole law (2 Kings 23:2-3), and not a separate part of it, so the subsequent reform of the cult (2 Kings 23:4-20) and the final legal celebration of the Passover (vv. 21-24) could be carried out only on the basis of the laws of the entire Pentateuch ( 2 Kings 23:24–25), in particular the Passover holiday - based on the chapter of Exodus 12 (Exodus 23:15,34:18; Lev.23:5–8; Num.28:18–24). The real reason prompting many new biblical scholars to see in the book of the law found under Josiah not the entire Pentateuch, but only some part of it (mainly a work that resembled the present Deuteronomy, but not identical with it 20), is one: the assumption of the non-existence of the Pentateuch and its current edition before the time of Josiah and even before the Babylonian captivity (according to the assumption of these scientists, the Pentateuch received that form and the composition that it now has, not earlier than the time of Ezra, about 444 BC; see Prof. A. P. Smirnov, “New Construction of the History of the Jewish People,” cf. Of course, the exact volume of the found book of the law cannot be established with indisputable accuracy (St. Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret revered it as Deuteronomy). But there is no doubt that the Bible does not know about any promulgation of the newly compiled “book of the law” through the efforts of the now united priestly and prophetic parties (as proof of the participation, for example, of the prophet Jeremiah in this matter, they point to the chapters of Jer. 11 and Jer. 34 of his book), and the very assumption about the different chronological origins of individual parts of the Pentateuch, and in particular, Deuteronomy under Josiah, is pure a hypothesis, and not at all a postulate of scientific truth. Assuming that Hilkiah found the entire Pentateuch, we do not see, however, the need to consider the found book, based on a narrow literal understanding (2 Chronicles 34:14) (“by the hand of Moses”: Bayyad-Moshe, can also mean the simple mediatorial participation of Moses in the giving of the law of God, cf. Jer. 37:2), the autograph of Moses himself. The cleric correctly remarks: “Satis est exemplar quoddam Legis antiquum fuisse irique anthenticum.” The copy found in the church was obviously an official church copy (perhaps different in quality, writing, material from those used by private Jews), which, according to the instructions of Moses, was to be kept in the Ark of the Covenant and read to the people every Sabbath year, on the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 31:10–12,24–26), but, obviously, due to the negligence of the priests and under the influence of difficult conditions for the religion of Jehovah under the wicked kings Manasseh and Ammon, lost or deliberately hidden from Manasseh, who, according to Jewish tradition, ordered that all copies of the Torah be taken and burned. “However, although the king (Josiah), born of an unclean father, did not know the predictions contained in St. Books, however, therefore, one cannot think that copies of them were not in the hands of other pious Jews” (Filaret, pp. 270–271 note). The liturgical practice was performed by the priests at this time, obviously, according to the written and always faithful tradition. The stronger the impression should have been from the book, which struck, perhaps, with its most archaic appearance. The impression of reading it, in particular, on the king was amazing: like Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:1-2), in horror for the fate of his people, Josiah tore his clothes. The obvious and constant violation by the people of the laws prescribed in the book itself suggested the imminence of those punishments and disasters that God threatened the people for violating those laws. Contemporary political circumstances and international relations instilled in Josiah even greater fear for the future of Judah. The once terrible Assyria was now falling under the blows of the newly formed independent states: the New Chaldean kingdom, which had to decide the fate of the kingdom of Judah, the Median kingdom, Egypt, and especially from the wild wandering hordes of the Scythians, who swept in a devastating hurricane (c. 630) from the north of Mesopotamia and the Caspian Sea to Egypt itself and on the return route plundered the country of the Philistines ( Jer. 5:15-17; Zeph. 2:4-5; Dunker M. "Geschichte des Alterthums", 1863, 5, S. 750 et seq.; Ep. Plato, op. 266 et seq. 1902, 104–105). All these symptoms of new political catastrophes in connection with the repentant feeling of Josiah could deeply shake his pious feeling, although the weakness of Assyria could favor the free implementation of religious reform not only in Judea itself, but also within the former kingdom of Israel (cf. 2 Kings 23:15). 2 Kings 22:12. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying: 2 Kings 22:13. Go, ask the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judea about the words of this book that has been found, because the wrath of the Lord is great, which has kindled against us because our fathers did not listen to the words of this book, to do what was prescribed for us. 2 Kings 22:14. And Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, the keeper of the garments—she lived in Jerusalem in the second part—and they spoke to her. Shocked by everything he heard from the law, Josiah (like Hezekiah, 2 Kings 19:2-4) wants to “ask the Lord,” that is, to hear the prophetic word about whether and in what way it is possible to avert the punishments and disasters of God’s judgment coming to Judah for violating the law of God. The delegation, led by the high priest, turns for this not to modern prophets - Jeremiah (Jer. 1: 1) and Zephaniah ( Zeph. 1: 1), perhaps, who were not in Jerusalem at that time, but to a certain prophetess Huldama, obviously quite well-known and respected among the people, Heb. Gould, in the LXX: Ολδαν, Vulg.: Holda (one of the four female prophetesses in the Old Testament, according to Jewish tradition - along with Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Virgo (Judg. 4:4) and Anna (1 Sam. 2:1 ff.)), the wife of the keeper of the royal or church robes (cf. 2 Kings 10:22); “she lived in Jerusalem in the second part,” Heb.: bemishne, Vulg.: in secunda. In the LXX they leave the last word without translation: ἐν τῆ Μασενᾶ, glorious: “in Masen”; probably, as in (Zeph. 1:10), of course the northern part of Jerusalem with the inclusion of the so-called Acre, between the first (David - Solomon) and second (Hezekiah - Manasseh) walls of the city (ἄλλη πόλις in I. Flavius). 2 Kings 22:15. And she said to them, Thus says the Lord God of Israel: Tell the man who sent you to me: 2 Kings 22:16. Thus says the Lord: I will bring evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants—all the words of the book which the king of Judah read. 2 Kings 22:17. Because they have forsaken Me and burn incense to other gods to provoke Me with all the works of their hands, My anger has kindled against this place and will not be quenched. 2 Kings 22:18. And say to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, “This is what the Lord God of Israel says about the words that you have heard: 2 Kings 22:19. because your heart was softened, and you humbled yourself before the Lord, having heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they would be the object of horror and curse, and you tore your clothes and wept before Me, then I also heard you, says the Lord. 2 Kings 22:20. For this, behold, I will add you to your fathers, and you will be laid in your tomb in peace, and your eyes will not see all the disaster that I will bring on this place. And they brought the answer to the king. “The original answer given to the king, they say, has not survived to us; the answer given in (2 Kings 22:15-20) is attributed by scholars to a later time" (History of the People of Israel, p. 105; cf. Benzinger, s. 191; Kittel, s. 300), on the grounds that if Huldah announced the destruction of Judah and its inhabitants in fulfillment of the curses of the law (vv. 16-17), and to the pious, Having happened before God and the repentant king is promised a peaceful death before the onset of the disasters awaiting his country (verses 19–20), then the religious reform undertaken by Josiah (chap. XXIII) did not make sense: “after such an answer (2 Kings 22:15–20), one could expect anything but a decisive reform of the state: was it worth working if its destruction was inevitable? Rather, one would expect that Josiah would only thank God for his mercy, like Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:19). (Stade, Gesch. Isr. I, 651–652). The extreme subjectivism of the new biblical critics is self-evident here. From the point of view of normal religious psychology, it is quite understandable that the pious king, having learned about the inevitable fate of his kingdom, however, considers it his duty and decides to do everything possible in order to put the life of his people in accordance with the requirements of the law and, first of all, to restore the truly covenantal relationship of the people of God with Jehovah (2 Kings 23: 1-3). “A pious king benefits his subjects as much as the wicked harm them” (Blessed Theodoret, question 54). In the already mentioned “History of the Israeli People” (Moscow, 1902), which generally popularizes the latest views of biblical criticism on the Bible of the Old Testament and on the history of biblical Israel, it is said about the book found under Josiah: “This book of the Law formed the main part of the present fifth book of Moses (Deut. 5:21–26,28). That’s all that can be said about this based on research about the Old Testament” (p. 105) You might be interested in: