The notion that the law scroll
discovered in 621 B.C. was a copy of Deuteronomy was first suggested in modern
times by W.M.L. De Wette in 1805. The identification had been suggested earlier
by Jewish and Christian sources. For the Jewish sources, see L. Ginzberg, Legends
of the Jews, vol.6, p. 377, n.116; cf. pseudo-Rashi on 2Ch34:14. For the
Christian sources, see the references cited by E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy
and Tradition, p.1, n.2. The notion that Deuteronomy was a "pious
forgery" written shortly before its "discovery" in 621 B.C.
received its classic formulation in Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the
History of Ancient Israel. He wrote, op.cit., p. 9:
About the origin of Deuteronomy
there is still less dispute; in all circles where appreciation of scientific
results can be looked for at all, it is recognized that it was composed in the
same age as that in which it was discovered, and that it was made the rule of
Josiah's reformation, which took place about a generation before the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans.
Against Wellhausen's view,
scholars have noted that one of Josiah's reforms, as described in 2K23:9,
contradicts Deut.18x6-8. It is most unlikely that the reformers would have
composed a law only to neglect its observance. More likely, Deuteronomy was authored
long before 621 B.C.; some of its legislation could no longer be implemented
when rediscovered in 621 B.C. Furthermore, the Josianic episode clearly
describes a lost book, called ספר התורה, which was suddenly found. Neither
Josiah nor anyone else doubted its authenticity. Huldah the Prophetess was
consulted, not in order to authenticate the book, but in order to inquire of
her how Josiah could avert the doom it foretold. It seems likely that a
formerly canonical book was conveniently "lost” during the reigns of
Manasseh (ca. 687-642) and Amon (ca. 642-640), and rediscovered during the
reign of Josiah. (According to rabbinic legend, Manasseh and Amon attempted to
destroy or alter all copies of the Torah. See Sanhedrin 103b, and cf. L.
Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol.6, pp. 376-377, notes 112 and 115. If
such an attempt did occur, the disappearance of all Torah scrolls shortly
before the discovery of Josiah's scroll becomes plausible, Deuteronomy 31:10-13
implies that Torah scrolls did not generally circulate among the people. When
Jehoshaphat engages in educational activity among the populace (2Chl7:9), he
must carry a copy of the Torah with him. It would have been a relatively simple
matter for a monarch to destroy all copies deposited in the temple archives, and
the very few copies, if any, in circulation. Moses Stuart, Critical History
and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, p. 77, cites the following analogy
from the French Reign of Terror:
In less than an eighth part of
the time in which idolatry prevailed under Manasseh and Amon, France had
succeeded so entirely in obliterating all traces of the Scriptures, in and
about Paris, numerous as Bibles were in that city at a period preceding the
reign of terror, that for many weeks the Committee of the Bible Society could
not find a single copy from which they might print a new edition. How much
easier to produce a like effect in the time of Manasseh, when the copies of the
Scriptures were so very few, and when almost every individual who possessed
them, must be publicly known as possessor.)
In any event, the narrative as it
unfolds in 2k 22:8 ff. assumes the existence of a pre-Josianic torah. Moreover,
the people could hardly have been held accountable for violating a law code
which neither they nor their forefathers had ever seen. For these and other
reasons, many scholars have assigned an early date to Deuteronomy. These
include Theodor Oestreicher, Das Deuteronomische Grundgesetz; Adam C.
Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy, and Deuteronomy: The Framework of the Code;
Franz Domseiff, "Die Abfassungszeit des Pentateuch und die Deuteronomiumsfrage,"
ZAW 56 (1938) 64-85; Edward Robertson, The Old Testament Problem: G. T.
Manley, The Book of the Law; U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis: M.
H. Segal, "The Composition of the Pentateuch— A Fresh Examination," Scripta
Hierosolymitana 8 (1961) 68-114; and E. J. Young, An Introduction to the
Old Testament. (Sid Zalman Leiman, “The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence for
the Canonization of Hebrew Scripture” [PhD Dissertation; University of Pennsylvania,
1970], 22-23 n. 76)
