While at first glance, I was willing to concede that indeed this would appear to be a very weak link in our chain, on second thought I find that using this "insertion point", involves a certain large amount of circular logic.
If we are to accept the narrative of this event (or even the entire narrative from Hilkiah onwards (inclusive)), as representative of history, then accordingly this miraculous "find" occurred in the temple, in a country, with a large population who knew enough of their "tradition", to readily agree to accept this "lost" book, as authentic.
Where then did this Temple and the entire tradition around it come from? According to most Bible scholars, the Priesthood parts of the Torah, are the later additions, not the older ones. Where did this nation so different from the original Canaanites come from? If the Exodus is fable, then what is their source?
Hilkiah
If we are to accept the narrative of this event (or even the entire narrative from Hilkiah onwards (inclusive)), as representative of history, then accordingly this miraculous "find" occurred in the temple, in a country, with a large population who knew enough of their "tradition", to readily agree to accept this "lost" book, as authentic.
Where then did this Temple and the entire tradition around it come from? According to most Bible scholars, the Priesthood parts of the Torah, are the later additions, not the older ones. Where did this nation so different from the original Canaanites come from? If the Exodus is fable, then what is their source?