The Fiscal Basis of Josiah's Reforms

THE FISCALBASIS OF JOSIAH'SREFORMS W. EUGENECLABURN 105 SCENIC DR., WEST TRENTON, N.J. 08628

tHE famousreformsof Judah'sKingJosiahsurelyconstituteone of history's 1 mostlastinglyenigmaticoddities. Undera bannerproclaiming purification of Yahwisticworshipall Yahwisticshrinesin Judahwere desecratedand destroyedexcepttheonehavingperhapsthegreatestpropensity of all towardpagan syncretism the templein Jerusalem(2 Kgs 22:17 and 23:8a). And in the nameof sacrednationalunityagainstforeigninfluencemajortraditional religious practicesof a sizablesegmentof the indigenouspopulationwerevigorouslyattacked(2 Kgs 23:1-24). Couldsuchmeasuresactuallybe expectedto achieve purificationand unification,as these goals have been understoodby modern scholarship?Or wouldthey not, in fact,be expectedto producealmosteffects exactlyoppositeto thoseallegedintentionsof the reformers? It is not surprising thento learnfromthe failureof manydiligentsearchesfor parallelsin the historyof bothreligionandpoliticsthatthesecuriouseventsappearto remainat leastas uniquein the annalsof mankindas the earliestsource fromwhichwe havean accountof themclaimedthattheywere (2 Kgs23-25).1 1Moshe Weinfeld's relativelyrecent elaborateattempt ("Cult Centralizationin Israel in the Light of a Neo-BabylonianAnalogy,"JNES 23 [1964] 205 ) to understandJosiah's (and moreespeciallyHezekiah's)reformsthroughtheirsupposedanalogieswith Nabonidus of Babylongatheringvariousdeity images of his realm into the capitalat the approachof the Persianarmy seems particularlyfar-fetchedfor two reasons. In the first place this is one of those undoubtedlyrare instancesin which Assyriologistsmay well have more to learn from a biblical "parallel"than biblical scholarscan learn from the Mesopotamian sourcessince the biblical sourceson Josiah'sreforms (if not Hetekiah's) are both clearer and more extensivethan the Babyloniansourceson those activitiesof Nabonidus. In the second place there is enough evidence availableabout Nabonidus'actions to make them sound quite dissimilar to Josiah's or Hetekiah's. Nabonidus was blamed for building what he ought not to harlebuilt in sanctuaries(not for tearingdown sanctuaries)and the objectionsabout the deity images were to his removingthem from their properhomes to take them to Babylon (not to any attemptson his partto destroythe imagesor defile their prop.r sanctuaries). So whateverWeinfeld may mean by his suggestion (a comparison perhapsreally drawn from some contemporarysituationin this modern world) that Naboniduswas tryingto makethe people "religiouslydependenton the capital"in the face of the Persianmilitary threat,the transferabilityof the idea to either Josiah'sor Hetekiah's reformsdoes not appearto be well founded. UnfortunatelyWeinfeld's papnr,like E. W. Nicholson'spaper ("The Centralizationof the Cult in Deuteronomy,"vr 8 [1963] 38089), in which the goal set is primarilyone of explainingHetekiah'salleged earlieralmost ll

12

OF BIBLICAL LITLETURL JOURNAL

or political usualpracticeof eitherreligious the not in an understandably but isquite it lior allthe sacredplaces one to attemptto abolish movements preeminence, or institutions one suchcenterachieves Frequently politicallyviablerealm. entire to abolishall the localshrines. position seldomleadsto bloodycampaigns that but leavesus in a mostembarrassing cou'd comparison for material events lackof The the processby whichsuch andmuch we cometo the taskof discovering when connectionbetweenthe reforms close obviously thus the would Given transpire. thatmanyscholars understandable is it Deuteronomy, by pretendingto the of ofBook simplyto avoidexplanation dustyold unexcuse an as connection of some that use thatthe "finding" conceivable repairs a world in in whichit is live in a templeundergoing Deuteronomy of lines the transdocumentalong used in a sweepingnationalreligious of result automatically 22:8) would Kgs (2 unknownearlieredition discoveryof a previously the the life though as formation unknownsourcerelatedto previously a or form of the StatesConstitution United the presentlegallyconstituted the transform of Christenwouldsuddenly Jesus of religiousorganizations or the established original government their States from United arefar knowsthatsuchorganizations already everybody And Everybody dom! of theirfounders. expectations andevenfartherfromthe Nor can therebe any forms reasonswhy that is so. good many are there regardingthe authat knows ambiguityanduncertainty genuine a of situation a in that alwaysbe foundat least doubt significantchangetherecan for them demands of authenticate thenticity for everyHuldahreadyto andheededremoreprestigiousscoffers out hundred sought be to Huldahcouldcome as the finding Kgs22:14-20) . How a (2 then,asthereformsthemselves, While the explanation, much as at least quires of ourexistingbookof Deuteronomy. us as puzzled the book,andaCthe nature of towarda solution,it leaves how they elements many supplies account figureout biblical variouspiecestogetherand up to us to discover everabouthow to put the as entirely it is left almost haveactuallyworked. Thus andcontinuingsocialprocessesthatmake might kindof priorsocialrelationships the

than attested reforms rather in trend but only briefly and questionably recent disturbing characterized a identically participatesin also from reforms, not Israel more solidly documented processesin ancient Josiah's understandingof social but from the earliestavailable scholarshiptowardseeking OT available, is most sourcematerial the with such an approach which problem from The periods to be explained. thing by the reof sort the of mention obscure restrictionson free speculation evidential hypossible testing of disconfirmable isthat it places the fewest with the developmentand satisfying drastically institutionally) interferes and to the point, searcher a conan emotionally (or more period is establishedthrough potheses. Then, once earlier obscure the in evidence on went plentiful what more the aspectsof hypothesisabout a neglectof manyputtling later developmentscan be easily exthe sensusof fellow believers, that asstlmed is since it of thing that had been fromlater periodssets in, continuationof the kind obvious or scholarto do outgrowth plainedas the natural is thc obligationof every strategy earlierperiod. Surelyit research A the in circles. already happening closed theological such of eviout plentiful break is to begin where there everythingin his power carefulthinkingwould requires and periods evidence earlier both from to evidence more open processes,then ask where denceat hand aboutsocial differentgoing on then. us to posit somethingsharply

CLABURN: FISCAL BASIS OF JOSIAH'S RLFORMS

13

possibleandlikelythe pressingof demandslike thosemadein Deuteronomy and the actualexecutionof policieslike thosedescribedin 2 Kings23 a tasksadly neglectedin the voluminousscholarly literatureavailableon the topic.2 Sometimesscholarsalertenoughto be awareof the formidabledifficulties createdbytheuniqueness of thereformsandeagerto get on withstudyof aspects of Deuteronomy andof the reformsthatseemsomewhatmoreamenableto the kindsof explanationusuallyattemptedin OT scholarship have triedsimplyto bypassthisparticular gordianknotby isolatingcentralization fromotherdeuteronomicconcernsandthenconcentrating on the others. Gerhardvon Rad,for instance,has insistedthat from a literarycriticalstandpointthe centralization elementin Deuteronomy"restson a very narrowbase only."3 But Rosario Merendino's recentanalysisof Deuteronomy 12-26hasdemonstrated in excruciating detailthe impossibilityof so easilyextricatingthe centralization demands fromotherdeuteronomic material.4Instead,an insistentdemandfor centralization is foundinextricably connectedwith morestrataof the developingdeuteronomicmaterialthanwe havebeenaccustomed to recognize. Underthe combinedimpactof both the inexplicability and inexpungibility a }ior a convenientbrief list of some of the most importantliteratureon the topic, see the bibliographyin E. W. Nicholson, Degteronofryand Trogditiorz (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1967). For the beginningsof a new approachin OT studiestowardansweringsuch questions aboutsocialprocess,see my dissertation,Degteronoy oFnd ColgectiveBehoFvior (Princeton: 1968), in which the analysis of Deuteronomyuses collective behavior theory (in deliberatecontrastto the currentlypredominantAlt-Noth-von Rad institutionalisticapproach) in the sociologicaldimension. My findilngsemphasizethe radicalnessof social changeresultingin and from a powerfulpeasantmovementfor national liberationunder Josiah'sleadership,and the resultingexplanationof the most salient stylisticfeaturesand ideological themes of both Deuteronomyand the reformsdepartsratherwidely from the currentlyprevailing traditio-historicalexplanations. In features frequentlyattributedto professionalismand institutionalinertia I have found evidence for volatile "extra-institutionaL"social interactiontowardrapid change. In featuresusually interpretedas evidence for pious paternalismand antiquarianrestorationism,I have found evidencefor rebellious humanismand deliberateinnovation. For valuablecriticismof the kind of social theory that I have used in the thesis (demonstratingits deeply conservativebias), see Alvin W. Gouldner,The CotningCrisisof WesternSociology (New York: BasicBooks, 1970) . The positionsI take in this paperrepresentadditionaldeparturesfrom the "von Rad approach" tC issues concerningDeuteronomyand the reforms on mattersin which I still largely agreedwith von Rad at the time I completedthe thesis. 85tgdies in Degteronomy (London: SCM, 1953), 67; Degteronomy:A Commentogry (Philadelphia:Westminster,1966),16. 4Dos degteronomischeGesetz (BBB 31; Bonn: Hanstein, 1969). My acceptanceof Merendino'sresultsin this respectdoes not extend as far as his extremeconclusionsabout the "literary"natureof the material. On that issue, I adhere to the judgmentof S. R. Driver (in his famous ICC commentaryon Deuteronomy,lxxxvi-lxxxviii) and von Rad (Stgdies in Degteronomy,16; Degteronotry,19-23) that it is fundamentallyan oraZstyle, whetherit containsas many deliberateliteraryand rhetoricaldevices as Merendinofinds thereor not. Nor does my acceptanceof Merendino'sview on the ubiquityof the centralization demandmean that I accepthis speculationson the time scale accordingto which the variousstrataof the deuteronomicmaterialdeveloped. What he would stretchout across centuriesI would telescopeto decadesor years.

14

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEUTURL

of the centralization demandsin Deuteronomy, I haverecentlybeenled to ask whatit is thatevenopposingpreviousexplanations havein commonthatmakes theminadequate so thatI couldtry to imaginewhata moreviableexplanation mightlooklike. I haveconcludedthatthe remarkable presupposition on which allexistingcompetingexplanations dependis theassumption thatthesignificance of thereforms(whetherconsidered primarily religiousor primarily political)can be ascertained by contemplating theirsymbolFc «mpoB(usuallyrelatedto some supposedpowerwhichtheyhadto affectpeople'sadherence to or understanding of monotheistic theology,nationalistic unity,ethnicpurity,etc.) . On the basisof thatgeneralization it becameapparentwhy Josiah'sactionsrepresented as religiousor politicalsymbolismseemso odd. The reasonis thatthereis no scarc«ty pr«nc«ple operatingin the realmof symbols. Itemslike gods,flags,andmoral scruplescanordinarily be sharedpeacefullybecauseevengivingthemawaydoes not requiregivingthemup. It is in connectionwith the disposalof moresubstantialitemsof whichshortages frequently existthatsmashing,looting,andkilling aremorecommonlyundertaken, even when doneofficiallyin the rwame of re lglonorpatrlotlsm. Thusone canfurtherask,"Couldit be thatsomewhere behindall thatgrisly, rampaging,sanctuary-smashing piety of Josiahsomebodywas out to get somethingmoresubstantial thansomebodyelse'sdeitysymbols?If so, who wasafter whatfromwhom?"Now readoneof thedeuteronomic versionsof thecentralization demandandnoticeits punchline:"Threetimesa yearall yourmalesshall appearbeforeYahwehyourGodat theplacewhichhe will choose:at the feastof unleavened bread,at the feastof weeks,at the feastof booths. Theyshallnot appearbeforeYahwehempty-handed" ( Deut 1:16) .5 Anotherversionof the centralization demand,fromwhatmaywell be a quite differentstratumof the material,presentsan even morestrikingjuxtaposition of concerns: .

.

.

.

You shall teardown theiraltars,and dashin piecestheirpillarsand burntheirAsherim with fire; you shall chop down the graven images of their gods, and destroytheir name out of that place.... But you shall seek the place which Yahwehyour god will choose out of all your tribes to put his name to dwell there;there you shall go, and there you shall bring your burntofferingsand your sacrifices,your tithes . . . (Deut 12 :3-6a). 6The warningat the end of the quotationappearspreviouslyin Exod 23:15 and 34:20. But it iS the specialset of interactingfactorsthat accountfor the centralizationreformsthat we are concernedwith here (some of which would be long-termtrends,some immediately precedingoccurrences),and not the distributionof occurrencesin the Bible of a particular phraseor even its possible foreign origin in the tributeclauseof treatyforms. The 'ttax" purposeof the tithes and offerings undoubtedlylong antedatedJosiah'sparticularinnovations regardingthem, and a warningconcerningthem was as relevantto the purposesof its announcersearlierin a local setting as it was laterin a nationalsetting. The point is that used in thiscontextit furnishesthe previouslyinsufficientlyutilized clue to the reasonfor the centralizationreforms. On the antiquityof the tithe as a tax, see Otto Eissfeldt,ErstZinge;4ndZehstenim A1tten Testvsent(BWANT 22; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1917) 32 and 161.

CLABURN:FISCALBASISOF JOSIAHS REFOS

15

The answerto the questionwas right therein frontof us for centuries,directlyandfranklystated,hadthe questionbeenrightlyposed. It is this: How doesan ambitiouskingmostefficientlyget his handson the largestpossibleproportionof the peasantry's agricultural surplus?6Andthe answer:If he is smart, he does it not by raisingthe assessedlevel of taxes,but by reforminghis fiscal systemso thathe bringsinto the capitala largerproportionof the taxesalready beingassessed.He doesthisby substituting for thesemi-independent localdigni tariesto whomthepeasantshadbeenpayingthetaxes(butwhohadbeenpocketing mostof the proceedslocally)a hierarchically organizedcentralinternalrevenuebureauof paidofficialsunderhis directcontrol.7It followsthatif the society in whichsucha fiscalreformis beingcarriedout is still so undifferentiated as to institutionandrolespecialization thatthe sameinstitutionsthathavebeencarry ing on othergovernmental functionshavealsobeenservingas the religiousorganization, altarswill probably haveto be torndown,pillarsdashedin pieces,and sacredpolesburnedat the sacredplacesto whichthe titheshavepreviouslybeen eTo try to explain why such ambitionsbecamenecessaryor feasible in Judah at this juncturewould be a delicatehistoriographicaltask exceedingthe limits of this paper;but a few hints may be in order. One might at least guess at connectionsamong the unprecedented (at least since the days of David and Solomon) degreesof independenceof most of ruralJudahfrom Jerusalemcontrolafter the campaignof Sennacheribin 701; the subsequent weakeningof Assyrianpower in Josiah's time; the related growth of a powerful peasantmovementof nationalliberationoffering Josiah the availablealternativesourceof powerneededboth to bring the local notablesundercontroland to expel the Assyrians;the need for logistical supportof the nationalmilitia and for pay and other supportfor the kind of mercenariesapparentlyreferredto in the documentsfrom Araddatedto this period by YohananAharoni ("The IsraeliteSanctuaryat Arad,"NewDirections in BiblicalArchozeology[eds. David Noel Freedmanand Jonas Greenfield;GardenCity: Doubleday,1969], 28). Those who might doubt the availabilityof the tithe funds for such purposesas defense do not even have to assumethe identityof the monarchicaltithe describedso vividly in 1 Sam 8:10-18 with the "religious"tithe; I would, but see the objectionsof Eissfeldtin Brstlingegnd Zehnten,154-55, and sexreralsubsequentscholarseven to the present day. The use of the "treasuresof Yahweh'shouse"by the kings for defense is directlyattested in 1 Kgs 15 :18-20 and 2 Kgs 16:7-9. For interestingremarkson these and other passages on the natureand uses of Yahweh'streasury,see the paper by M. Delcor, "Le tresorde la maison de Yahweh des origines a l'Exil," VT 12 (1962) 353-77. As to all the "vesse]s" kept in the temple, noticethat the ambiguityof the term keZ«is such that in many contexts it is impossibleto tell whethercultic utensilsor weaponsare meant. Notice too that while the existing contentsof the high-placetreasuriesand warehousesat the time of the reforms may have been of some immediateimportanceto Josiah, far more importantin the long run was the permanentredirectionof the income itself. Hence the importanceof defiling the sanctuariesratherthan merelylooting them. 7 For interestingcomparative materialon the role of the fiscal policy and relatedmatters in attemptsat political centralizationand nation-building,see the chaptersby Tilly, Finer, Ardant,Braun,and Bayleyin the forthcomingvolumeeditedby CharlesTilly, TheBgiZding of StoFtes i7aWesternl7grope(to be publishedundersponsorshipof the Committeeon ComparativePolitics of the Social ScienceResearchCouncil). For a wider survey,see Gabriel Ardant,Historiede l'impot(Paris: Fayard,1971). For a systematictreatmentof the subject, see his Theoriesociologiqm6e de l'impot (Paris: Sevpen, 1965).

16

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITLMTURL

broughtin orderto validateandenforcethereform. Thusis to be explainedthe tealousearnestness with whichthe localsanctuaries throughouthis realmwere defiledby Josiah. Thus is also to be explainedthe specificationof the death penaltyin Deuteronomy 13 for crimeswe mightotherwisehavethought wereno worsethanreligiousdissent. But if peasantsusedto transporting the sacredportionof theirgrain,wine, andoil onlyas faras theirlocalsanctuary werenowto be requiredto bringit all thewayup to Jerusalem, threeadditionalprovisionswouldhaveto be made for thefeasibilityof the new system: ( 1) thoselivingfarthestawaywouldhaveto be allowedto sell the titheportionof theirgrainandbringthe easier-to-carry silverto Jerusalem in the assessed amount(Deut 14:24-25) ;8 (2 ) the peasantswouldin anycasehaveto be partiallycompensated for the extratransportcoststo themselvesby allowingthem to deducttheir travelling expenses fromthe amountof the tax due i.e.,to live out of the assessedtithe during the trip (Deut 12:7, 12, 18; 14:23,26; 16:7-8,11, 14; 26:11);9 8 The natureand extent of the economicand social changesboth presupposedand likely tobe triggeredby such a market-oriented measureis anothermajor question bearing in various ways on the concernsof this paper,but it unfortunatelyraisesquestionsfar too extensive and complicatedto be dealt with here. These passageshave traditionallybeen taken as evidencefor the continuation in the deuteronomic era of an allegedlyancientcustomin Israelof the consumptionby the offerer ofhis own offeringat the festivals. Notice, however,that in pre-deuteronomic information onthe subject (Gen 28:22; Exod 22:28; 23:19; Amos 4:4) what happenedto the tithes and offeringsof producefrom the fields is not stated. What is now known gPnerallyabout the exploitedrole of peasantsas participantsin larger social contextsand particularlyabout the long traditionof exploitationof Palestinian peasantsthat existed even before development of the Hebrewkingdomsthere (as reflectedin the Amarnaletters) would lead us tO expect that they probablyhad not had the opportunity to consumetheir own tithes at the religious festivals since the Stone Age. Notice also the contrastbetween this stipulation regarding the use of tithes and offerings to be broughtto the centralsanctuaryas a result ofthe reformsand the stipulationsin Deuteronomyas to the use of the strictlywelfare offerings which were to be kept at the local level in the traditionalmanner (Deut 14:28 and 26:12-14 perhapstranslating'ors in this context "my [selfishor independent]power or wealth"insteadof "my mourning"as in the usual translationsof 26:14). While the bringer's consumptionof some of the newly centralizedtithe is explicitly allowed, it appears to be forbiddenwith regardto the "welfare" portion the traditionalmanner. This would seem to indicatethat remainingat the local level in the more traditionalpracticewas non-participation of the bringer in the consumptionof his offerings, with participation being a deuteronomicinnovation. It seemsmost likely then that,so far from being the kind ofholdover from traditionalreligion,which even the Hegelian Wellhausensaw in it (Prolegomerv to theHistoryof Anciertlsrvel[MeridianLibrary, ed.; New York: World, 1957] 156), the deuteronomicstipulationof worshipper-participation in tithe consumptionwas an innovation of the seventhcenturyto sweetenJosiah'sfiscal reformsfor the peasants. On this point the BritishmaverickW. RobertsonSmithseems to have had the betterof Wellhausen. Though he vastlyunderestimatedthe antiquityof the operationof the revenue-principle in Hebrew worshipand failed to notice its operationin the case of the deuteronomicprogram, hewasright in his assessmentof the deuteronomictithe-regulationsas innovationsrather

CLABURN: FISCAL BASIS OF JOSIAHS REFOS

17

( 3) the seasonalcollectiondaysin the capitalwouldhaveto be turnedinto a moreimpressive celebration thaneverbeforeto give the peasantsadditionalpositive motivationto go up to the capitalto do the king'snewthing (2 Kgs 23:2223) .10 By usingthis fiscal explanationfor the centralization aspectof the reforms, however,we runafoulof anotherfamousvonRadhypothesis:thatof the country Levitesas crucialearlyadvocates of the Josianicreformsin the roTeof preservers and developersof the deuteronomic material. Surprisingly, however,quite in contrastwiththecentralization elementso deeplyembeddedin Deuteronomy, the connectionof the Leviteswith thatmaterial"restson a verynarrowbaseonly." And eventhatis presupposition ratherthanfact. The frequentlyallegedlink throughthe presumed"teaching" activityof the Levitessupposedly referredto in Nehemiah8:7 hardlydeservesseriousattention. The passagebothcomesfromandrefersto timesfarremovedfromthe Josianic period;the exactnatureof the activityreferredto in the situationremainsentirelyunclear("teaching," or merely"translating," or what?); andevidenceconnectingthatactivityto the deuteronomic styleis missing. Evenits connection withthe latedeuteronomistic imitationsof it appearing in Chronicles is flimsy.1l The formerlyfrequently invokedlink betweentheso-calledllolywarideology of Deuteronomy andthe allegedspecialconnectionof Leviteswith holywarwas achievedby meansof Leviticalguardianship of the ark and thus restedon an assumption thatthe arkwas"plainlythe Palladiumof the HolyWar.''12But in morerecentliterature thatassumption hasbeenvigorouslydisputedby highlyrethan as archaicsurvivalson the point of allowing worshipperconsumptionof tithes (The ReZigior of theSefrites[MeridianLibraryed.; New York: World, 1956] 248-51) . As for the proportionof the offerings consumedby the worshippers,Eissfeldtdemonstratedmany yearsago the absurdityof assumingthat the deuteronomicpassageswhich allowed for consumptionby the bringer of the tithe intended that the worshipperand his family would consumethe entiretyof them (ErstZinge urd Zehnten,49-51). Among other considerations in supportof his contention,Eissfeldtadducedthe fact that among the offeringslisted along with such a majorrevenueitem as the tithe in the lists of things to be eaten by the worshippersat the festivalwerethe 'olah (which is known to have been an offering burned in its entirety,of which nobodyconsumedany part) and the zsebah and rest (specified in Deut 18:1-5 as in part Leviticaltribute). The king's loss of revenue,entailedby the consumptionof simplepeasantsfor a few daysat a festival,was probablytrivialwhen compared with the loss formerlyentailed by the Leviticaldiversionof local funds to their own enrichment. 10Forthe kind of circusesJosiah was capableof staging for his followers,one should read2 Kings 23 in its entiretyand recallthe betterknown Sitzeim Lebenof similarmass meetings,public spectacles,and courtroomdramasstagedin recenttimes in variouscountries betterleft unnamed. Perhapsthe more exciting the circus,the less the breadis missed. 11For the view I argueagainstin this paragraph,see Gerhardvon Rad, "The Levitical Sermonin I and II Chronicles,"TheProblewof theHexateuch vrd OtherEssays(London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) and Studiesin Deuteronomy, 13-14. My argumentsat this point are simply a recapitulationof familiar,well-substantiated objectionsto von Rad. 13

Studiesin Deuteroromy, 67.

18

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

spectedauthoritiesin thatline of investigation ('tJedenfalls wardie Ladekein Kriegspalladium''l3) andthuscanno longerbe takenas a firmbasison whichto erectsuchextensivetheoriesin otherareasof research. AnotherlinkbetweenDeuteronomy andtheLevites the provisionby Deut 18:6-8thatLevitesshouldcomein fromthe countryside to takepositionsin the Jerusalem templebureaucracy takeson an entirelydifferentset of implications nowthata fiscalexpianation for the reformsmustbe considered.Forif competitionbetweenthe monarchyandthe Levitesover accessto a given arnountof titheincomefromthepeasantswaswhatwasat stake in thecentralization attempt, previousassumptions thatdeuteronomic demandsfora placein Jerusalem for the Leviteswouldhavebeenauthoredby Levitesbecause advancingLeviteinterests willhaveto be revised. In this newlydefined situationthe Levitescouldonly loseto whateverextentthe kinggain.edby the reforms,evenif theydid go up to takejobson his staffin Jerusalem for somestipulatedsmallershareof the proceeds.Thus,one wouldnowsee thisveryprovisionin Deuteronomy concerning theLevitesas anattemptby the kingto imposehis controlovertheLeviresrather thanas demandsby the Levitesfor an opportunity to go to Jerusalem.Perhaps additional supportfor that interpretation is to be foundin the accompanying insistent innovationof the deuteronomic literature(Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27; 18:1-2 ) acrording to whichtheLevitesarenotto haveanyportionor inheritance inIsraelexcept theirofficialshareof the sacred Yahwehportion.14 The onlyothermajorassumption realistically invocablein supportof Leviticaladvocacyof the reformsis the universal assumption thatthe namingof the Levites in the lists of categoriesof personsto receive welfarecontributions in Deuteronomy (14:28-29; 16:11, 14; 26:12-13) indicatesthatthe Levites were indigent or disadvantaged liketheothercategories of personsnamedin thoselists (and for thatreasonto be considered advocates of suchcontributions).As reasonable as it seems,however,that assumptionis quite arbitrary.Ouremphasis on the crucialityof the tax-collecting aspectof the Leviticalrole in connection with the motivationforthe reformsremindsus thatin similarlistsof thoseeligiGeorgFohrer,Geschichte derisrveNtischer ReZigion Aage Benttenexpressedthe opinion thatthe Levites (Berlin: de Gruyter,1969) 101. wantedto go to Jerusalembecause most of the offeringshad alreadybegun to flow into Jerusalem insteadof the local sanctuaries before the programof centralizationwas explicitly formulatedor the reformsundertaken (Die iosianische ReformundibreVoragssetzgnger 19261 68-72). Againstthat view I acceptthe argumentof [Copenhagen:P. Haase & Sons, Nicholson (VT 13 [1963] 382) that there is simply no evidencethat local revenues had been decliningat the ruralcenters and that the very difficultiesthe king(s) had in getting rid of them testify to their continuing strengthand income until the reformsdestroyed them. The reforms>7ereneither advocated nor enforcedbecausethe incomehad shifted,but in orderto shift it. Notice also that the above argumentsmake it no longer necessaryto invoke Zadokitejealousyof the Levites, as is usuallydone, to accountfor the state of affairsreportedin 2 Kgs 23:9. The Levites' own desiresand their continuingpower up to the time referredto would account for the failureto come up to Jerusalem,as well as for the (temporary?)con1promiseon7er the dispositionof the "welfare"segmentof the tithes veflectedin Deut 14:28-29 and 26:12. 15

14

CLABURN: FISCAL BASIS OF JOSLAHS RLFOS

19

ble for charityor welfarefromearlyIslam,ogl-amilur,"thosewho do the collecting" (KoroFn9:60 andin relatedtraditionsandlaws), areincludedamongthose specifiedin the lists alongsideof the categoriesof the needyandworthy. Some substantiation for the sameexplanation for the appearance of Levitesin the deuteronomiclists is to be foundin the fact thatthe Levitesare includednot only whenthe specifically charitable tithesarereferredto (Deut 14:28-29and26:1213), butin mostcasesin whichtithesandofferingsarerequiredfor presentation on ceremonialpublicoccasions(Deut 12:12, 18; 14:26-27;16:11, 13; 18:1-8; 26:10-11), while on the otherhandin ruleslike thosein Deut 24:19-22 connectedwith gleaningsleft in the field for the poor (for whichrecipientswould haveto go out and workwith theirown hands) Levitesare rot mentionedas recipientsalongwith widows,orphans,sojourners, etc.15 So insteadof the seductivepictureof the Levitesas piouspauperspreserving in the Judeanbackcountrythe ancienttraditionsof the commonpeople,with whichourmindshaverestedcuriouslycontentfor the lastfew decades,we suddenlyhavebeforeus the quitecontrasting pictureof a classof localdignitaries wealthyfrompeasantsacrificescombiningin theirhandselementsof localcivil, religious,andmilitarypower,collaborating with foreignoppressors andtheirle16Weinfeld ("Deuteronomy the PresentState of Inquiry,"JBL86 [1967]253-55) has alreadyobjectedto von Rad's theoryof Leviticalauthorshipof Deuteronomy,not becausehe finds it impossiblewith regardto Leviticalinterests,as I do here, but unnecessary in connectionwith his iudgment (cf. N. Lohfink, Das HvBptgebot [AnBib 20; Rome: Biblical Institute,1963];Merendino,Dasdeuteronomische Gesetz)that deuteronomicstyle is written rather than oral-allegedly belonging to a familiar literarytradition directly relatedto official ancient Near Easterntreatywriting ratherthan to the mediatingcultic institutionsin Palestine (with their oral traditions), postulatedby von Rad. Thus, while disagreeingwith a judgmentof von Rad that I still considervalid (the oral style of the deuteronomicmaterial), Weinfeld shareswith him the majoraspectof a position against which I arguemost: the attributionof the deuteronomicmaterialto normalactivityby establishedinstitutionsin relativelystable situations. Weinfeld has merely switched from temple to palace in his search for the proper institution to identify. I find most merit in Weinfeld's proposal of Jerusalemcourt scribes as the authors of Deuteronomyspecifically in connectionwith the centralizationelement. If my fiscal explanationfor that elementis accepted,then we are forcedto admit that, whateverelse we may say about the deuteronomicstyle and program,somebodyworking for Josiah must indeed have had a stronghand in its formulation. In spite of that, however,I think that other aspbctsof the deuteronomicstyle itself and of the reformprogram(centralizationbeing only one aspect, even though an importantone to Josiah) are to be accountedfor by understandingthe dynamicsof the specialaudienceto which it was orallyaddressedin the time of its development ratherthan by collectingmiscellaneoussimilaritiesof vocabularyand idea-fragments from Deuteronomyand some Wisdom writings. For whateverpoints of contactin detail there may be between Deuteronomyand Wisdom writers becauseof scribalparticipation in the monarchy'scarefullyorchestratednationalizationof the people'smovementfor liberation, a great gulf separatesthe infrastructures of the respectivesocial theories. For Wisdom's conservative,upper-class,leisure humanism,see Robert Gordis, "The Social Backgroundof WisdomLiterature," Poets,Prophets ownd Sowges (Bloomington:IndianaUniversity, 1971) 160-97; for Deuteronomy'sradicalworkerhumanism,see my paper,"The Meaning and Implicationsof 'Work of the Hands' in Deuteronomy,"VII Congressof the Interna-

20

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITLVTURL

gitimatinggodsin the mannerdepictedby Ezek44:10-14,and deliberately subvertingthe Yahwisticmonarchyfor personalgain. Now this whole line of argumentnot onlywouldeliminatethe countryLevitesfrom contentionas possible advocates of the reformsof earlydevelopersof the deuteronomic rhetoric;it placesthemin directopposition to thereformsandtheir interestsin conflictwith almosteverything forwhichDeuteronomy stands. Theywouldnot be the perpetratorsof the reforms,but thoseagainstwhomtheywere perpetrated! It is timethento turnfromvonRad'squestionaboutwhat theLevitesdid for thereformsto the nowmorepertinentquestionas to what Josiah'sreformsdidto the Levites. And fromthis newlywon vantagepointwe canobservethe wayin whicha particular monarch's attemptedsolutionof his fiscalproblemsactedas the principalleverfor profoundpermanent changesin the Palestiniansocialorganization.Previously, the Leviteswerea classof dignitarieswith traditionally generalized rolesin locallyorientedinstitutions.They not only collectedfrom the peasantsthe sacredwealthnecessaryto supportthem in their accustomed sacredstyle;theyalsoactedas localintermediaries betweenthe peasantsandthe gods(priests),betweenthe peasantsandthe king (administrators), betweendissidentrule-breakers andhigherauthority(policeandcourts),perhapseven betweenforeigninvadersandthe people(military),etc.16 The fundamental basis tionalOrganizationfor the Study of the Old Testament, Uppsala Sweden, 1971; for a paperthat does not considerthe distinction,see M. Weinfeld, "The Origin of Humanism inDeuteronomy,"JBL 80 (1961) 241-47. Aelred Codyrefusesto chooseone way or the otheron the Leviticalauthorshipof Deuteronomyand is content to point out that the Levites"neveroutgrew the cultic sphere"and that there are undoubtedsigns of priestly concernin deuteronomicmaterial (A Histov of 01W Testamert Priesthood[AnBib 35; Rome:Biblical Institute,1969] 133). Nicholson has also found the hypothesisof Leviticalauthorshipdoubtable,not for Weinfeld's reasonor mine, but becauseit would be incompatible with his theoryof a propheticpartyfrom the North as authors (mainly transmitters)of Deuteronomy'searly phases (Deuteronomy ownd Tradition,73). 16Presumablythey had not always been so independent. When they were originally putin their posts it was by David (W. F. Albright, "The List of Levitic Cities,"Logis Gsnzberg JubileeVolgme[New York: AmericanAcademyof Jewish Research,1945] 4973)or Solomon (B. Matar, "Citiesof the Priestsand the Levites,"VTSup7 [1960] 193205)or perhapsby the Egyptiansas earlyas the Bronze Age (cf. the notoriousnumberof Egyptian names among the Levites: Merari,Moses, Hophni, Phinehas;after all, why did theslogansin deuteronomicrhetoricabout achieving freedomfrom Egyptio^rslaveryseem soappropriateto their audience?). Even under Assyrianhegemonythey appearto have served their various mastersmore efficiently and enthusiastically. But the aftermathof Sennacherib's campaignin 701 B.C. loosened the ties between Jerusalem and the Judean countryside; then the later dwindlingof Assyrianpower left to the local dignitaries an opportunity to develop a degreeof independencein which they were of little use to Assyria, and perhapseven less to the kings in Jerusalem. It would be extremelyinterestingto know whether the Levitesor their retainersin a militarycapacitywere the missing or ineffective Judean horse and chariotforces furnishingpart of the basis of the AssyrianRabshakeh's mockery in 2 Kgs 18:22-24 or the terrifyingmobile forces againstwhich the peasantmilitia was encouragedin Deut 20:1-4. Our curiosityis at least piqued by the fact that the Rabshakeh seems to link the alleged cavalryweaknesswith the removalof thwhigh-places,as

CLABURN: FISGAL BASIS OF JOSIAHS R1RFORMS

21

of theirsovereigntyin the pitilessapplicationof physicalforceis candidlyreportedin the storyof their"ordination" in Exod32:27-28.1 After the reformswe find evidencein such later sourcesas Nehemiah's memoirs(Neh 13:10-13), the Priestlylegislation(Num 18:21-32), and the Chronicler(s)(2 Chr24:4-14;31:1-19;34:8-9;Neh 10:37b-39;12:44-47) for a strictlydelimitedrolefor the Levitesinsidethe centralnationalbureaucracy as specializedinternalrevenuecollectors(and arInedguardians of the sacred[treasure?]box). In otherwords,we canobservehereone vividexampleof a typical phasein the evolutionof increased societaldivisionof labor,of roleproliferation andspecialization, andof institutionalization of bureaucratic hierarchyandcentralizedcontrol.18 well as by the fact that a "priest"appearsin Deut 20:2 in a battlesituationon the side of deuteronomicmilitia in one of the only two occurrencesof the word "priest"in Deuteronomy which does not get qualified as "Levitical"somewherein the pericope. The only other such occurrenceis found a few lines earlierin 19:17. 17Fromthe standpointof official statementsof the participantswhich legalize and justify the economicand politicalrelationshipsinvolved,as contrastedwith mere "explanations" of those relationshipsby outsiderslike ourselves,the sovereigntyof the Leviteswas no doubt basedon typicalNear Easterncovenants (Mal 2:4-9 and 3:7-12). These were of some sort such as the documentsassigning tithe incomes (eAreti or ma'sasr) of "grain, wine, and oil" to various dignitariesin the Akkadiandocumentsfrom Ugarit (16.269; 16.275; 16.244; 16.238; 16.132; 16.153; 16.348; and 16.384); see Jean Nougayrol,Textes accadiens et Hogrritesdesarchivesest,ogestet centraZes (PRU III; Paris: ImprimerieNationale, 1955). Comparethe variousgrants, sales, exchanges,and gifts of rights to the agriculturalsurpTusin D. J. Wiseman, The AlalakhTabZets (London: British School of Archaeologyin Ankara,19S3), documents15, 52-58, 76-80, 86, 95, and 126. While these documentshave been taken by philologiststo belong to diverse formal types representing a varietyof different kinds of transactions,my guess would be that there are systematic schemesof power, property,and status relationshipsunderlyingthem which have not yet been fully reconstructed.Whateverthe nuancesof the principlesby which it was fought out and swappedamong representativesof the ruling classes as to who should get how much of the surplusborneby the peasants,the tas, rent, offering,or tribute (paid to kings, governors,merchants,priests,military officers, or what have you, under various arrangements) probablytended to remain fairly stable, unfairlyheavy, and relentlesslyenforced. In any case,the relationshipof the "covenantal"form of Deuteronomy,as a deliberaterhetoricalcountermeasure to established"legal"grantsof the sort that the movementproducing Deuteronomysought to overthrow,to various "treaty"and "grant"making traditionsof ancient Near Easternlife has hardly been as yet adequatelyspecified in OT scholarship. Surely the bruisessustainedby earlierfailures to notice at first the deliberatemisuses tO w-hichthe classicalprophetsso often put familiarGattungen and familiarideas should serve interpretersof Deuteronomyas a fair warningof the dangersimplicit in hasty giant leaps of faith from technicalphilologicalanalysisof actualMesopotamian,Syrian,or Anatolian legal documentsto directapprehensionof the theologicalor political import of deuteronomic rhetoricalblastsdeIiberattiyformulatedto resembletreatiesor grantsin certainexternal respects. 18Forsome useful accountsof how such changeshave occurredin varioussocieties in connectionwith the innovationsof radicalsocialmovements,see E. J. Hobsbawm,Pritnitive Rebels(New York: W. B. t3orton, 1965); BarringtonMoore,Jr., SociaZ Originsof Dictatorship andDemocracy ( Boston: Beacon,1966); Eric Wolf, PeasantTats in the Twen-

22

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITLETURL

Not only doessuchan interpretation of Josiah'sreformsandof the Levites' rolein themprovideus with the previouslymissingappropriate historicalparallels withwhichto comparethem (i.e.,the numerous episodesof fiscalconflictin variousperiodsandregionsof the worldbetweenvigorouslycentralizing protonationalistic regimesandantiquated, traditionalistic, parochial sometimesfeudal rulingelites), but it putsus in a positionto understand the meaningand significance of suchprotestsagainstLeviticalactivityas Gen49:5-7,the puzzled outrageat bureaucratic anti-nepotistic valuesexpressedin Deut 33:9, and the peculiardescriptionof Levitical"teaching" and its resultsin Deut 33:10 (i.e., the layingdownof the law to obstreperous oppressedpeasantsaboutthe exact amountof taxesrequiredof themto keepYahweh's andothergods' voraciousaltarsburningbrightly. ) To summarize briefly,I havetriedto opena newpathtowardthe explanation of the enigmaticcentralization aspectof Josiah'sreformsby viewingthemas part of a fiscalreorganization resultingin majorstructural changesin Hebrewsociety ratherthanby passingthemoff as senselessreligiousintolerance or merexenophobia. Findingthis fiscalhypothesisto be in conflictwith familiarviewsof Leviticalavlthorship of the reformprogram, I havere-examined the basesof such theoriesandfour!dthemto be no longerapplicable.Instead,someevidenceusuallycitedin supportof suchtheoriesis in factevidencefor the fiscalexplanation of the reformsas somethingperpetrated agozinst the Levites. And this interpretationsuggestssomeapt new interpretations for variousotherOT passagesnot previouslyutilizedextensivelyfor discoveryof developmentsin fiscal history. Whentakentogetherwith the resultsof my previousresearchon Deuteronomy comparingits specialrhetoricandthemeswith taTpical featuresof radicalmoX;ementsfor "nationalliberation," thesefindingsofferthe beginningsof a significantlydifferentinterpretation of a considerable segmentof theOT crucialfor the reconstruction of muchof ancientHebrewhistory.19

tieth Century(New York: Harper, 1969); Norman Miller and Roderick Aya (eds.), NdtionalLiberation(New York: FreePress, 1971); CharlesTilly, "Revolutionsand CollectiveViolence,"Handbook of PoliticalScsence, eds. Greensteinand Polsby;for additional relesantmaterialon social change,see the bibliographyof my dissertation. For one social movement'sstrenuousstruggle to transcendthe recurringcurse of eventual bureaucratic captureand perversionof the fruitsof revolution (as seen from a single village), see William Hinton, Panshen(New York: Vintage, 1966). 19This paperwas writtenat the Centerfor Coordinationof Ancientand ModernStudies of the Universityof Michigan (Gerald F. Else, Director). The researchon which it is basedwas made possible by a fellowship from the AmericanCouncil of LearnedSocieties duringthe academicyear 1971-72.