(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...Members of the blog at the Platinum level have the opportunity to publish posts (just) for other Platinums, and after a number of these appear, the members vote on which should be posted on the blog itself. Here is the most recent winner, an insightful and intriguing Platinum guest post by Dennis Folds. Many of you on the blog are interested in Christian pseudepigrapha (= forgeries), especially those in the New Testament. But what about the Old Testament? Now *here* is a bold thesis! Read it and remark!
Being allowed to publish these posts is a very nice perk of the Platinum level of membership. Another is that I do a a special platinum webinar every three months. Are you interested? Check out the various membership tiers and the perks that come with them all: Register – The Bart Ehrman Blog.
And now, check out the post!
******************************
Jeremiah Versus the Deuteronomist Forger
Dennis J. Folds, Ph.D.
Given the interest in potential forgeries of NT books and other early Christian writings, I’d like to describe what may have been the most consequential forgery in the history of our Judeo-Christian faith: the “discovery” of the long-lost book of the law of Moses, which purportedly contained the original covenant between YHWH and the Hebrews. The discovery is described in 2 Kings 22, during the renovation of the Temple commissioned by the young King Josiah. The actions taken in the aftermath of discovery leads scholars to identify the document as the core of our book of Deuteronomy, particularly beginning in DT 12 and the next few chapters. In this post I’ll argue that the document was a forgery, and this forgery was denounced by the prophet Jeremiah. The consequences of the forgery include the centralization of YHWH worship in Jerusalem, acceptance of the existence of a written law of Moses that required animal sacrifices and agricultural donations (tithes) to the priests in Jerusalem, and establishment of priests and Levites as the authoritative custodians of the law. In short, it became the basis of the Jewish religion that existed at the time of Jesus. And, I maintain, it was forged.
Our book of Jeremiah is
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
[Jer 8:8] “How can you say, `We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”
Of course I can’t prove that the forgery he condemns is the one “found” in the temple, But the things Jeremiah denounces in his conflict with the religious leaders align rather well with some of the contents of the middle chapters of Deuteronomy.
The primary basis of the conflict was disagreement on the content of the authentic covenant between YHWH and Israel. Jeremiah did not believe that the elaborate system of offerings and festivals were part of the law of YHWH. He did believe that YHWH’s law required worshiping YHWH only, plus ethical treatment of fellow human beings. Jeremiah believed that failure to comply with those requirements could not be ablated by offerings and feasts. Jeremiah believed that the failure of the people to comply with the true requirements of the law would result in their punishment, in the form of being conquered by Babylon. Although worship of other gods was at the top of the list of transgressions, mistreatment of vulnerable people was also prominent in Jeremiah’s complaint.
Prior to this forged document, there was no reference to a written law of YHWH (or of Moses). Scour the stories in Judges, in Samuel, and in Kings, and the literary prophets who preceded Jeremiah. There’s no indication of any awareness of a written law. Nor is there any veneration of Moses as the great lawgiver. None of the stories about Samuel, David, Elijah, or Elisha involve a written law or reference to Moses as lawgiver. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah are critical of sacrifices and feasts, and call for protection of the vulnerable. There is resounding condemnation of sacrifices and other rituals while mistreating fellow human beings. There are almost zero references to Moses.
Only in our book of Deuteronomy, and a few follow-up passages early in Joshua, is there a claim that Moses wrote the law. The only writing mentioned elsewhere was the Decalogue, on two stone tablets, carried in the ark of the covenant. But Deuteronomy claims that Moses wrote the entire law. (One of my eye-opening realizations came to me spontaneously decades ago: if Moses had indeed written the law, he would have written it in Egyptian hieroglyphics, having been raised an Egyptian prince. And none of the freed Hebrew slaves would have been literate, so they could not have read it!)
The key passages in Deuteronomy tip off the forgery. YHWH is said to have told Moses that after they conquer the promised land, eventually YHWH will choose a place for himself, and all worship is to be centralized there. Moreover, the people may one day decide to install a king, and when they do, he will have responsibilities to ensure the covenant is kept as written. Mighty handy, wasn’t it, to find such a document in the Temple, in the face of the Babylonian threat, and to foist that forgery onto a young king who didn’t want to lose his throne. This covenant promised that YHWH would protect the nation if the people followed its rules. So Josiah set in motion the reformation that centralized worship in Jerusalem and put the religious power in the hands of the priests there. The ancillary places of worship, spread throughout the countryside, were shut down. People had to come to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices and bring their tithes.
Although he certainly supported the ouster of the worship of gods other than YHWH, Jeremiah did not believe that the system of offerings and festivals of YHWH were part of the authentic covenant, and did not support the mandatory centralization of worship in Jerusalem. Mostly, however, Jeremiah objected to the assurances given to the people by the prophets and priests that they would be delivered from YHWH’s punishment when, in his view, they were still practicing a corrupted faith. He considered these assurances to be fraudulent representations of the true covenant between YHWH and the people. Jeremiah’s ongoing disagreement with the Jerusalem establishment resulted in his imprisonment on more than one occasion.
Jeremiah’s family may have been directly impacted by Josiah’s reformation. According to Jer. 1:1, Jeremiah’s family was a family of priests in An’athoth in the land of Benjamin. As such they may have had their authority, and indeed their livelihood, greatly reduced by the reformation. No information is available on the extent to which Jeremiah’s family was affected by Josiah’s centralization of worship in Jerusalem. Given that they were not Levites and were not in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to infer that the impact was significant. This may have set the tone for the later on-going conflict between Jeremiah and the religious leaders in Jerusalem.
From his preaching, we can infer that Jeremiah’s view of the covenant included the following:
Worship YHWH only
Do not oppress the widows, orphans, or aliens
Do not shed innocent blood
Do not murder
Do not steal
Do not commit adultery
Do not swear falsely
Observe the Sabbath
Deal justly with the poor and needy
Jeremiah’s view is consistent with the understanding reflected in his literary predecessors (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah), and in the stories about the pre-literary prophets (Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha). They, too, uniformly denounced the sacrifices and rituals, and called for justice and ethical behavior. Although our current Deuteronomy contains memorable calls for good behavior, it also calls for ritualistic sacrifices, systematic extraction of resources to support the priests and Levites, and concentration of religious authority. This, I assert, was the heart of the forgery.
As the decades in Babylonian captivity turned into two centuries since the forgery, it became accepted that Moses was the greatest of all time and that he had written this perfect law, received straight from the mouth of YHWH. Luckily, the preserved tradition also included the laudable ethical demands from the deity on how we treat one another. But this concentration of power in elite keepers of the written law, the emphasis on ritual purity, and the smug piety of the self-righteous also permeated this faith. Much of it transmuted into our Christian faith, too. We still have people who claim there is a written contract – God’s promises as written in the Bible – and we still have experts who are eager to explain it to us. It all originated in this forged document. It was all based on a lie.
This is _very_ interesting! It fires the imagination and inspires “what if” questions about the history that might have been. I want to see it turned into a blockbuster movie! Sadly, there are factors that would make such a movie more than a little difficult to sell.
Hard to sell indeed. It calls into question the system of animal sacrifices that forms one of the foundations of a Christian theory of atonement. Despite the clear condemnation of sacrifices to YHWY by all the pre-exilic prophets, the idea that God requires death of the innocent to forgive the sins of the guilty was (and still is) accepted by many. Cultures around the world sacrificed animals and people to appease their gods, and the Hebrews (and later Jews) mirrored this practice. But I think there was a thread of thought throughout the ancient Hebrew religion, and continuing into the post-exilic Jewish religion, that God wants us to treat one another right. In the NT, Hebrews says it was never possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. Many still teach that God “couldn’t” forgive our sin unless a sinless person died to pay for them. Balderdash! Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him as righteousness…
However, this need not devalidate Jesus sacrifice if it is veiwed from a revolutionary subversion perspective. The requirement of sacrifice and the issues of blame and wrath and retribution that orbited that custom were what needed to be demolished. They were symptoms of what was wrong within the human heart.
What would happen if God himself came down and said, “I will be the sacrifice. I will put an end once and for all to the religious regime of blame, guilt, scapegoating and retribution by being the final and ultimate sacrifice to usher in a new age of forgiveness, grace and restorative justice.”
In this way the sacrifice of Jesus becomes the a way of escape from the old and contrived system that was tragically ubiquitous in the ancient world.
My way of putting it — in agreement with you — is that the NT message can be seen as reflecting the various belief systems in place at the time. Atoning blood sacrifice for sin? Here’s your blood sacrifice, Jesus of Nazareth. Redemption from the curse on creation? Here’s your redeemer, Jesus of Nazareth. Deliverance from bondage to sin? Here’s your deliverer, Jesus of Nazareth. This good news was, as you say, the way of escape from several old and contrived systems of beliefs.
Revisiting this, I continue to find it interesting, though more narratively inspiring than intellectually compelling to be honest. If we can’t have a historical movie based around it, I would settle for a Jeremiah vs Josiah rap battle.
So Josiah’s tearing of his clothes at the first reading of Deuteronomy has even more significance now. This was a major shift in understanding for him that was no easy to accept (e.g.; how could the jewish leaders have been ignorant of all these [new] laws for so long?)
But what was the motivation behind this new document? Was this simply an attempt at Moses glorification?
Perhaps it was sincere – maybe someone thought they could save the nation if only people would worship YHWH correctly, and this could only be ensured if overseen by the experts in Jerusalem. I don’t think it was just to glorify Moses. Rather, they appealed to Moses as authoritative, and claimed that YHWH had told him the stuff that’s in DT 12 and following. So one motivation was just to concentrate the religious power in their own hands. It appears those ancillary worship centers were largely autonomous, and often featured polytheistic opportunities to worship (as did the Jerusalem temple before the reform). It was fake but true, in their eyes, and all for the better. Jeremiah didn’t buy it.
…so the potential author might of been a very privileged person from the Jerusalem area and possibly a priestly figure, who desired to see(have) more control(dominance) of the jewish people without having to directly challenge the most powerful authorities. I see the unusual administrative shift in tone in DT 12 which does support your hypothesis and we see similar administrative shifts in disputed documents such as the Pastoral letters (Tim/Titus). Since there was no Sanhedrin as yet, there would have been no safer way for potential jewish leadership to inset new policies and procedures than to use authoritative forgeries. If this was a forgery, it certainly was a bold and impressive one.
Thank you for this insightful posting!
Excellent article.
Yes, when I read through the history books of the OT they seemed quite ignorant of the Law supposedly handed down by Moses. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the law professed by the priests dictate a tenth of everything goes to those priests, and only the best for them!
“Mighty handy, wasn’t it, to find such a document in the Temple, in the face of the Babylonian threat, and to foist that forgery onto a young king who didn’t want to lose his throne. ”
Absolutely!!!
“People had to come to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices and bring their tithes.”
Just as the Roman christian church invented all those tales about Peter being the first Roman bishop, nor Paul’s Romans nor Acts says a word about it… but Rome became the christian Jerusalem,
What is striking is that Deuteronomy AND Jeremiah made it into the Hebrew Bible !!
Great article.
Thanks – it is indeed striking that conflicting stories are found throughout the OT. It starts with two quite different, and quite conflicting, stories of creation. We have David killing Goliath but also a different dude killing Goliath. We have three different stories of a patriarch pretending that his wife was his sister. But the one most relevant here takes the cake: stories about how God wants sacrifices (animals, sometimes humans) intermingled with pronouncements that he despises them.
Jon White, a scholar of Indo-European mythology asserts that there are two creation myths in the OT because the Hebrews inherited one from Egypt and the other from Sumerian/Babylonian myth. Check him out on YouTube.
Thanks for the article. It’s always encouraging to read that (alleged) facts can be derived solely from the HB or NT without necessitating the
” obligatory ” archaeology.
Are you suggesting that the people figuring in the books you allege are false ( a lie, you write) didn’t exist, like …..David?
Or that all those books were made up, and in a very short period of time?
What would have been the priests’ benefit in creating the person of Joshua ( who most likely indeed didn’t exist)?
It would be great to have a bibliography.
What is the subject of your PHD?
I’m not suggesting that the major characters in the OT didn’t exist. Rather, I appeal to those stories to show there was no apparent knowledge of a written law of YHWH. The books about them may have been pulled together in a relatively short period of time, for all I know. Joshua, it seems to me, is at best a composite character of various leaders who may have had some local success during the late Bronze Age collapse. I think the benefit of creating a Joshua may have been to assert to the Persians that, at some point in the distant past, Israel+Judah had conquered and then ruled the Beyond the River province. That’s pure speculation on my part, but I see a Persian period influence in some of the book of Joshua. My Ph.D.? I’m an engineering psychologist (and definitely not a biblical scholar); my dissertation was on Response Organization and Time Sharing in Dual Task Performance.
Very thought-provoking article! I wonder, is there anything that gives us a clue as to whether the forgers put one over on Josiah, or if Josiah was in cahoots with them?
Not much of a clue, but the story is told that Josiah rent his garments when the book was read to him, so the author of Kings wants us to think it was a surprise to him. Perhaps a bit unlikely that he would follow the book’s instructions if he knew it was forged — unless he believed its contents anyway. If so, he might have condoned the forgery as a necessary tactic. But the book (if indeed found in the heart of current DT) placed some constraints on the king and gave the upper hand to the priests, so my intuition is that the forgery was foisted on him and he fell for it.
Thematically this makes a great deal of sense to me. It reminds me a lot of what my professors referred to as a shift from Mosaic theology to Davidic theology. It sounds to me as if Jesus would be very much on the side of the authentic Jeremiah texts as he was critical of what you’re calling the core message of the forgery. For what it’s worth, I consider this hypothesis extremely plausible.
So, the Old Testament also has discrepancies, errors, mistakes, and contradictions? I give up!
A thought provoking thesis. My understanding is that, although Deuteronomy wasn’t written by Moses and may be a forgery as well, all of the five books of Moses were written from earlier source material that is now lost to history (e.g. Wikipedia link). It’s reasonable to assume that Mosaic law came from those lost books since there is archaeological evidence of pre-exile Israeli burnt offerings (e.g. academia link). What are the implications of your thesis for the books of Exodus and Leviticus and the existence of Solomon’s temple? Jeremiah may have rejected Mosaic law but not denied its ancient lineage since, as you write, he wants sabbath observance. As you probably know, there is evidence that Judaism was polytheistic prior to the exile and I’d be curious to know if you think that has any ramifications for your thesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Wars_of_the_Lord
https://www.academia.edu/16698505/Pre_Israelite_and_Israelite_Burnt_Offering_Altars_in_Canaan_Archaeological_Evidence
Thanks for the comment. DT 12 and following is the only place in the Torah that seems to establish Jerusalem and a centralized priesthood as ascendent in the religion, so I don’t think my these particularly affects the traditions expressed in Exodus and Leviticus (and Numbers, for that matter.) Some sort of Temple did exist – whether some ancient king Solomon built it is a matter of conjecture. Clearly, it was polytheistic. The ancient lineage (which I think is best embodied in Exodus 34) called for observance of the Sabbath, but also for three main festivals. It did not call for atoning sacrifices. It did not prohibit worship of other gods, as long as YHWH remained “first” — no other gods before me.
Good point. I don’t think Moses could have written that Jerusalem is to be the religious center since that was chosen and established several centuries after his time (if I remember correctly). Does your thesis maintain that there was no atoning sacrifices in Mosaic law until the book of Deuteronomy? I can understand Jeremiah rejecting that part of Mosaic law because he disagreed with it personally. But I don’t see how Jeremiah could deny that it was in the ancient lineage of Mosaic law in light of Exodus 29:36, 30:10, Leviticus 1:4, 15, 16, 17:11, 23:26-32 and Numbers 15:25, for example. It seems sensible to me that Jeremiah rejected the atonement part of Mosaic law while not denying that it is part of that law. I think that is a different matter than him knowing that the book of Deuteronomy is a fake (which he may well have been in a position to know).
Clearly, Jeremiah and his predecessors knew that animal sacrifices were part of the worship of YHWH, just as they were of Baal. I don’t think they would have considered it “Mosaic” law since none of them mention Moses as the lawgiver. I think their main point, though, was that the “atoning” aspect of the sacrifice didn’t work: YHWH wanted people to act right, not to offer sacrifices, and he was not appeased by those sacrifices. In the sacrifices described in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, there was really just one a year: the Day of Atonement. (The Passover lamb, for example, was not an atoning sacrifice.) Others mentioned that perhaps had an element of atonement were more like paying a fine than really atoning for sin. But you’re right, there is a difference between him knowing that the book found in the Temple was a fake versus him disagreeing with its contents. He certainly agreed with the prohibition on worshipping the Canaanite gods.
Very interesting! While it’s clear to modern scholarship that Deuteronomy was written in Josiah’s time or shortly before (it may have been started under Hezekiah, and certainly was further edited after Josiah), it’s useful to see Jeremiah complaining about it back then.
Deut. definitely tries to establish Jerusalem as the sole locale to offer sacrifices. But it’s not the only one. Joshua (a version of which may have been written around the same time as Deut.) records how the Reubenites and Gadites had built their own altar east of the Jordan. The Israelites under the leadership of Pinchas the priest (not Joshua) went there and objected, and the two tribes practically groveled in apology (Josh. 22:10-34). In Robert Alter’s comment here, this passage probably was put in to advance the priestly (ie. Levite) agenda.
As for Josiah, the priests may have tried to use Deut. to make him subordinate to them, but it’s at all clear that it worked. In 2 Kings 23:21, it’s the king, not the priests, who proclaims the Passover.
One last thought: The Assyrians were still in charge when Josiah became king, and the Babylonians took over during his reign.
Dear Dankoh,
The Josh. 22:10-34 episode is very interesting, and a little difficult to make out what is going on in places. It seems that in v18 the understanding of the 10 angry tribes is that the Reubenites and Gadites had built an altar to worship foreign gods, however when they explain it is an altar of witness, and a copy of that in Jerusalem that is used to worship YHWH, then this placates the 10 tribes.
There is also some careful wording to explain that the altar isn’t used for sacrifices, as those are only to be performed before the tabernacle in Jerusalem where YHWH is said to dwell. Perhaps prayers were offered, and hymns were sung instead? Regardless, it sounds like this altar would be serviced by some priests, and the 10 tribes sounds happy about that because it was YHWH being worshipped, rather than some foreign gods.
Would that be a reasonable interpretation of the passage in your view?
My reading of the passage is that it was a warning from the author – who was most likely writing sometime well after the temple was built – against worshiping – ie, sacrificing to – Yahweh anywhere other than Jerusalem, even though the center of worship in the story was Shiloh. A Yahwist priest led the delegation to Reuben and Gad, and the Yahwist priesthood had a vested interest in closing off all other worship sites.
Sacrifice wasn’t just an offering to Yahweh; it was the priests’ source of income. They didn’t want any competition.
At any rate, that’s what I – and others – think was the most likely reason for including that story in Joshua.
Wow, you’ve obviously put many hours into studying what the HB Bible actually says, rather than what so many want it to say, including myself for most of my life.
For me the most interesting statement is this, “Moreover, the people may one day decide to install a king, and when they do, he will have responsibilities to ensure the covenant is kept as written.”
Without a king mentioned in the law, maybe Jews would not have felt entitled to one. That in turn eliminates the rationale for a messiah king to set things right, and keep the covenant.
Thanks – I just read the text. There were two competing ideas about the king: 1. YHWH didn’t want them to have a king; he wanted to be their king, and he would raise up judges as he did back in the old days, send prophets with his message, etc. 2. YHWH would let them have a king but he got to select the king, and if that king was faithful to YHWH, the nation would have good fortune. I think part of the forgery was putting in the part that in essence condoned them having a king, but gave the priesthood significant authority over what the king was allowed to do. Since YHWH was selecting the king (“God’s anointed”) all their hopes of deliverance were pinned on him.
One important thing to note is that the Israelites started out being led by tribal elders, priests, and judges (the word shoftim has a broader meaning here than just a court judge) long before they had kings. So there was already a governing infrastructure in place by the time of Saul, and this infrastructure didn’t want to give up its power. This is why, as I see it, we find more tension between the priests and the monarchy than we do in other parts of the ANE, except Egypt. In those other places, the king was often part of the priesthood – and in fact, we do see David and Solomon acting as priests. Deut. was thus a power play by the priests to reclaim their pre-monarchic status.
So when you say “YHWH didn’t want them to have a king,” I would rephrase that as “the Yahwist priesthood didn’t want them to have a king.”
I agree that the priesthood wanted to be in charge — which they were, in large part, in the Persian period (when a lot of this literature came together). The two competing ideas, though, were expressed in terms of what YHWH wanted. Some thought he didn’t want them to have a king at all; others thought he was hand-picking them.
Unique, far-reaching, and book-worthy theory! And kudos to another Amateur Bible Scholar who, not having been through the education mill, is still thinking outside the box. Jeremiah 8:8 is indeed one of the most noteworthy verses in the Bible, and I’ve thought of it often, although not in your vein. For one thing, being a verse in the Bible that says there are other verses in the Bible that are false, it single-handedly crashes the Protestant (especially Evangelical) conviction that the Bible is the “True, literal, and inspired Word of God.” So you could ask an Evangelical, “Do you believe everything in the Bible is the true, literal, and inspired Word of God?” “Yes.” “Then what about Jeremiah 8:8, which says the Bible contains lies?” Philosophically, how can they answer? “Um, Jeremiah 8:8, which says the Bible has falsehoods in it, is the one verse in the Bible that isn’t literally true?” It’d be case dismissed. Good job, man, hit us up with another post someday!
Thanks — I’ll not try to defend the inerrancy point of view, but I think they would retort that Jer 8:8 doesn’t necessarily refer to verses in our Bible. I, of course, am claiming that it does. There’s no way to prove that the “lie” is found in our book of Deuteronomy, but it sure looks to me like it does.
“
From experience, they point to commentaries that make the verse fit their theology. Usually, it means saying, It doesn’t really mean what it says.
Signed,
A former evangelical that believed it was the infallible word of God.
Might there be some irony in the fact that this long lost book of the law was discovered while they were bringing money out of the temple?
“Hey, look what we found under this pile of donations!”
Where does the Moses Scroll fit into this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW9q92b8fjM
I have no idea. I think that culture generate a lot of literature posing as contributions from the great men of old. But anything actually from Moses would have been written in middle Egyptian.
Why does it end with ‘It all..’.
Was there more?
Ah, usually that means either that you need to refresh your browswer OR that there’s a problem with renewing your membership; click Help and send a note to Support, and someone will give you a hand.
So, if “Jeremiah’s family was a family of priests in An’athoth in the land of Benjamin [and] as such they may have had their authority, and indeed their livelihood, greatly reduced by the reformation,” then why would Jeremiah object to animal sacrifice? I can certainly see his objecting to the centralization of sacrifice in Jerusalem under the Levites; but why would he object to sacrifice and embrace only a minimal ethical code?
I’m also curious about the state of the question: hasn’t the suggestion been made before that the scroll discovered in 2 Kings 22 was the Torah and that it had been recently invented by the priests in Jerusalem? The particular connection of Jeremiah and Deut 12 sqq is fascinating, but I’m quite certain I’ve heard the general suggestion that the scroll discovered under Josiah was a fraudulent book which is today known as the Torah (or at least, big chunks of it relating to ceremonial law) before–though I’d have to search to find the place.
So, I’m curious how much of this thesis is truly novel, how much is advancing a prior, minority position, and how much (if any) is fairly standard fare?
Given that I’m not a biblical scholar, I don’t know how much of what I put forth is novel, but I haven’t read anything saying the document found in the temple was the forgery denounced by Jeremiah. AFAIK scholars identify the scroll with some part of our current Deuteronomy – not the entire Torah. Further, I don’t say that Jeremiah eschewed all animal sacrifices(though he may have); rather, he specifically rejected animal sacrifices as a way to atone for (and hence escape punishment for) sims that continued to be committed. He condemned nonobservance of the sabbath, and certainly condemned worship of other gods. Some scholars have noted the condemnation of sacrifices by the pre-exilic prophets, but I think the general sentiment of the scholars is that YHWH rejected the sacrifices because of the idolatry. So if my thesis is fairly standard fare, it’s not in the limited material I’ve read.
Hasn’t it been suggested that Jeremiah himself was the forger who wrote (part of) Deuteronomy, found in the temple?
I don’t know if there is any credible basis for saying Jeremiah was the forger, but certainly scholars see much similarity between Jeremiah’s message and other passages in Deuteronomy. My assertion is that the conflict specifically was over the contents of DT that begin in chapter 12, which I believe to be the heart of the forgery he denounced. Other parts of DT are quite memorable, and seem to be significant improvements over their counterparts in Exodus and Leviticus. But this business about centralizing worship in Jerusalem and the responsibilities of the king – and the promise that God would protect them if they’d play along – these things are directly in conflict with Jeremiah’s proclamations.
I thought it seemed strange in Deuteronomy that Israelites were supposed to celebrate the Feast of Booths but no one did until Josiah. Assuming he was real, David would have celebrated it if he knew he was supposed to.
I received so much flack for posting something very similar that I started searching for a commentary that found the same conclusion. Thank you for this post!! I absolutely love it!