IOSIA. — King of Judah (639–609 B.C.). He ascended the throne at the age of eight, succeeding his father Amon (v.), who was murdered in a palace conspiracy after two years of reign. “While still a boy he began to seek the God of David his father” (II Par. 34:3). He found the country in a state of grave religious and moral decline, as a result of the long period of official apostasy under the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. When he was able to act according to his conscience (at the age of twenty, that is, in the twelfth year of his reign, II Par. 34:3), he boldly and zealously undertook a work of radical reform, purging the country of the entire idolatrous apparatus that had taken root almost everywhere and had penetrated even into the sacred precincts of the Temple.
He swept away all the abominations from the holy place: he demolished the idolatrous altars that King Manasseh had had built in the two courts (II Reg. 23:12) and the “chariot of the sun”; he destroyed the 'Āšērāh (II Reg. 23:6), that is, the sacred pole, symbol of the goddess 'Āšērāh: the worship of this goddess was associated with the infamous practices of ritual prostitution, which the king energetically suppressed. With equal zeal he purged the other places of Jerusalem and Judah: he desecrated the Topheth, in the valley of Gē-HinnōGehenna (v.), where human sacrifices had been offered to Moloch (II Reg. 23:10); he overturned the altar of the šē'īrīm (Vulg. satyrs), which stood beside the city gate; he desecrated the high places (maššēhōth) erected by Solomon (I Reg. 11:7) near the Mount of Olives in honor of Astarte, Chamos, and Moloch: there stood stelae and sacred poles dedicated to Baal and 'Āšērāh, which I. had demolished, filling the sites with human bones (II Reg. 23:13–14). The same fate befell the other maššēhōth scattered throughout the country, from Gabaa to Bersabea, and tolerated by almost all his predecessors (II Reg. 23:8). The purging action also extended to persons: I. removed the magicians and diviners, together with all their idols (II Reg. 23:24); he deposed the hierophants (hēmārīm), or idolatrous priests attached to the astral cults imported from Assyria, and summoned to Jerusalem from every quarter all those priests who in any way had taken part in the illicit rites of the maššēhōth: nevertheless, he showed consideration for the priests of Levitical origin, who, although suspended from priestly functions, continued to be supported by the offerings made at the altar. The zeal of the pious king extended even beyond the borders of his state, into the lands of the destroyed kingdom of Israel. He himself went in person through the various cities and villages as far as the distant territory of Nephthali, overthrowing altars, images, stelae, and sacred poles, as well as the mozzabbih (II Reg. 23:19 ff.; II Par. 34:6 ff.); above all, he destroyed the schismatic sanctuary of Bethel and desecrated its altar (II Reg. 23:15–18), carrying out what, three centuries earlier, at the inauguration of that sanctuary, a prophet of Yahweh had foretold (v. HEDROAM 1; cf. I Reg. 13:2 ff).
The king’s action was effectively supported not only by the high priest Helcia but also by the prophets Jeremiah (his prophetic vocation dates from the thirteenth year of I.’s reign, cf. Ier. 1:2), Nahum, and Zephaniah, although it is impossible to determine precisely what part they played. An extremely important event then occurred to encourage and stimulate the pious king: the discovery of the “book of the Töräh” in the eighteenth year of his reign (622 B.C.), during restoration work in the Temple (II Reg. 22:8 ff.; II Par. 34:8 ff.). The king ordered it to be read in his presence, and, profoundly impressed by the most severe curses of Yahweh against those who transgressed that Law (Deut. 28:15–68), Holda (v.), who confirmed the threatening sanctions of the Töräh, while proclaiming that they would not be enforced during I.’s reign, as a reward for his zeal (II Par. 34:19–28). I. intensified his reforming work in accordance with the prescriptions contained in that same Law. And it was a period of constructive reform: while continuing to eradicate the last remnants of superstition and idolatry, he successfully promoted throughout the country a general revival of faith and piety. The recovered document was to be, as in the times of Moses and David, the foundation of the nation’s entire religious and civil life; it was therefore promulgated with great solemnity: the people, the priests, the prophets, and the king having assembled in the Temple, the recovered Töräh was read aloud, and all swore to observe its statutes, renewing the covenant or alliance with Yahweh (II Par. 34:29–33). As the seal of this great event, in that same eighteenth year of I.’s reign an exceedingly solemn Passover was celebrated, such as had not been remembered in Israel since the time of Samuel (II Par. 35:1–19).
The discovery of the book of the Töräh under I. is also of great importance from the historical-literary standpoint for the question of the Pentateuch. The ancient Fathers, and above all modern critics and exegetes over the past century, have asked themselves: what book was discovered on that occasion? and what is to be made of the biblical account (II Reg. 22; II Par. 34)? Beginning with the second question, rationalist critics down to the present day, for the most part denying its historical truth, have supposed that this was not a genuine discovery but a pious fraud, by which an entirely new sacred book was passed off as having been found; this would essentially have been the Deuteronomy, or its substratum, the first nucleus (according to the Wellhausen theory) in the process of forming the Pentateuch and the other historical books. The fact remains, however, that in the ancient East important documents, especially those of a religious nature, were very often deposited in sacred places, and that their whereabouts were not infrequently lost until they were rediscovered during restorations or other works. This hypothesis alone corresponds to the truth, as some critics are also inclined to admit (E. Sellin, Geschichte des ir.-jüd. Volkes, I, Leipzig 1924, p. 289 ff.; R. Kittel, Geschichte des jüd. Volkes, II, 7th ed., Stuttgart 1925, p. 445). Nothing would have been easier than for the sacred text to have been hidden in a safe place by some pious Yahwist during the time of the impious kings Manasseh and Amon, or for someone else to have thrown it away as an old object into a storeroom, where it eventually returned to the light, thereby making a profound impression. That this book was the Deuteronomy alone was the opinion of several ancients (Jerome, Athanasius, Chrysostom, etc.), and it is a fairly common view among modern critics and exegetes (many rationalists and not a few Catholics, such as I. Coppens, G. Ricciotti, and A. Vaccarī, Sacra Bibbia, II, Florence 1947, p. 467). The account itself might give the impression that the recovered text was not very extensive, since it was immediately read twice (II Reg. 22:8, 10), and at the ceremony of promulgation “all its words” were read to the people (II Reg. 23:2). But this hypothesis is uncertain; it does not appear that the two readings took place on the same
day, nor that the Deuteronomy alone was read in its entirety at one time; moreover, the title of the codex, “book of the Töräh” (II Reg. 22:8), “book of the covenant” (II Reg. 23:2), “the book of the Töräh of Yahweh written by the hand of Moses” (II Par. 34:14), rather suggests the entire book of the Pentateuch (A. Bea [V. BIBLICA.], p. 85 ff.). That the recovered codex was a book known to everyone in Israel is evident from the biblical account (II Reg. 22:12).
La vasta riforma di I., estesa pacificamente anche nei paesi dell'ex-Regno di Samaria, faceva intravedere non lontano il giorno in cui sarebbe stata restaurata anche l'unità politica della nazione, spezzata dopo la morte di Salomone. E forse lo stesso I. ne caldeggiava la speranza e il disegno. Ma gli avvenimenti politici fecero tutto fallire. Caduta Ninive nel 612 sotto i colpi dei Medi e Babilonesi, si mosse dall'Egitto il faraone Nechao II per portare soccorso all'agonizzante Impero assiro. Ma il Re di Giuda gli sbarrò la strada, senza dubbio per impedire che l'aiuto egiziano salvasse da sicura rovina una nazione che era stata sempre avversa al popolo di Jahweh; e si schierò con l'esercito a Mageddo, importante nodo strategico. Riuscite vane le trattative da parte del Faraone per ottenere il passaggio, si venne a battaglia; combattendo, I. fu ferito gravemente e morì di lì a poco (II Reg. 22, 28-30; II Par. 35, 20-25). La sua morte (609 a. C.) fu un'irreparabile sciagura per il Regno di Giuda ed il preludio della catastrofe finale (v. ELIACIM; IOACHIN).