2 Kings 22:8

“And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, etc.] Not at the first time of his message to him, but afterwards that he attended on him upon the same business; after the high priest had examined the temple to know what repairs it wanted, and where: I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord; some think this was only the book of Deuteronomy, and some only some part of that; rather the whole Pentateuch, and that not a copy of it, but the very autograph of Moses, written with his own hand, as it seems from (<143414>2 Chronicles 34:14). Some say he found it in the holy of holies, on the side of the ark; there it was put originally; but, indeed, had it been there, he…”

“HILKIAH FINDS THE BOOK OF THE LAW. (Kg2 22:8-15) Hilkiah said . . . I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord, &c.--that is, the law of Moses, the Pentateuch. It was the temple copy which, had been laid (Deu 31:25-26) beside the ark in the most holy place. During the ungodly reigns of Manasseh and Amon--or perhaps under Ahaz, when the temple itself had been profaned by idols, and the ark also (Ch2 35:3) removed from its site; it was somehow lost, and was now found again during the repair of the temple [KEIL]. Delivered by Hilkiah the discoverer to Shaphan the scribe [Kg2 22:8], it was by the latter shown and read to the king. It is thought, with great probability, that the…”

“Some have concluded from this discovery, either that no “book of the law” had ever existed before, the work now said to have been “found” having been forged for the occasion by Hilkiah; or that all knowledge of the old “book” had been lost, and that a work of unknown date and authorship having been at this time found was accepted as the Law of Moses on account of its contents, and has thus come down to us under his name. But this is to see in the narrative far more than it naturally implies. If Hilkiah had been bold enough and wicked enough to forge, or if he had been foolish enough to accept hastily as the real “book of the law” a composition of which he really knew nothing, there were four…”

“The book - That original book of the law of the Lord, given or written by the hand of Moses, as it is expressed, Ch2 34:14, which by God's command was put beside the ark, Deu 31:26, and probably taken from thence and hid, by the care of some godly priest, when some of the idolatrous kings of Judah persecuted the true religion, and defaced the temple, and (which the Jewish writers affirm) burnt all the copies of God's law which they could find. It was now found among the rubbish, or in some secret place. 4 Kings (2 Kings) 22:11”

“22:8-10 The scroll known as the Book of the Law might have contained all or part of Deuteronomy or even the entire Pentateuch (cp. Deut 31:26). How it had become lost or where it was found in the Temple is unknown. Shaphan reported the momentous discovery immediately and read it to the king.”

“I have found: This certainly was a genuine copy of the divine law, and probably the autograph of Moses, as it is said, in the parallel place of Chronicles, to be the book of the law of the Lord by Moses. It is not probable that this was the only copy of the law in the land, or that Josiah had never before seen the book of Moses; but the fact seems to be, that this was the original of the covenant renewed by Moses in the plains of Moab, and now being unexpectedly found, its antiquity, the occasion of its being made, the present circumstances of the people, the imperfect state in which the reformation was as yet, after all that had been done, would all concur to produce the effect here…”

“Hilkiah the high priest (cf. Ch2 34:15) said, "I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah." התּורה ספר, the book of the law (not a law-book or a roll of laws), cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. (Note: Thenius has correctly observed, that "the expression shows very clearly, that the allusion is to something already known, not to anything that had come to light for the first time;" but is he greatly mistaken when, notwithstanding this, he supposes that what we are to understand by this is merely a…”