The relationship between different biblical texts and how they all seem to tie into each other raises questions about the timing, legitimacy, and overall formation and purpose of the texts. Josiah (as seen in 2 Kings 22-23) becomes knowledgeable of a text that leads him to completely turn his life upside down. He begins to live his life and rule his country as a God fearing one. The description of the text is eerily familiar to what we see in Deuteronomy, which gives the command to, “break down (false gods and idols’) altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred poles with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out their name from their places (Deuteronomy 12: 3)”  In 2 Kings, Josiah was compelled by the readings of this new found ‘Book of the Law’ to, “(burn) the high place, crushing it to dust; he also burned the sacred pole (2 Kings 23:15).” The fact that both texts ended up sewn in the bindings of the same book that has been transcribed and interpreted hundreds of times begs the question; what was the original intent? In his book How the Bible Became Holy, Michael Satlow explains many theories and historical uses of the bible that help to understand why the bible is formulated the way it is today. One of his main arguments focuses on the opinion that interpretation of the bible, both today and in the past, has shaped the way that both the individual and society view the bible. Over time, biblical texts have gone from being in the background of religious activities, to being practice work for scribes, to being a luxury for the elite eyes only, and finally to a group of texts available for the whole public to see. However, through this process, the bible itself has to have been rearranged, translated, rewritten and interpreted by all sorts of scholars and religious figures. In Nehemiah, as Ezra read from ‘the book of the law of Moses’, several men, “read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense so that the people understood the reading (Nehemiah 8:8).” Well, what does that mean? Did they need to translate because of a language barrier? Perhaps dumb it down to a simpler level of general understanding? Or, perhaps, they took it upon themselves to interpret the meaning behind the text, as more of a normative authority type of translation, as Satlow would call it. It is because of interpretive conundrums like this that fuel the ongoing debate attempting to fully understanding the original purpose of biblical texts.