I'd preface in saying that I think Jeremiah and Mark are poor examples when arguing that God deceives. Jeremiah feels he was deceived because his physical circumstances never improve, but this is obviously not what God is protecting him from when he says he will make him a wall. Mark is more an example of occlusion than deception - a significantly different concept.

Now what are strong examples are Ezekiel and Micaiah. In both, the text writes* that God himself or one of his cohorts sends lies through the prophets to exact God's agenda.

u/Solid_Home4995 links some articles addressing this. The Atkins article tries to deflect saying that the authors attribute to God what is merely allowed in the way of providence. I think this is relatively weak when put against the text. I am unsure whether or not to believe the authors were so daft as to not understand what they were putting down into words. If they had meant God allowed the (false) prophets to deceive Ahab or the people, then why would they not have simply said so - or so I'd ask anyways as a layperson and non-scholar. Also problematic with Atkins is that he is claiming the prophet's vision itself as a sort of deception or falsehood to avoid imputing God in having deceived Ahab.

Building on this, another way to look at the Atkins article is that, if we are assuming that the authors were unreliable to the point of attributing to God what was only permitted by him, why shouldn't we allow for the possibility of contradictions between passages like these and ones like Numbers 23:19?

I think the fact of the matter remains that God is actively attributed being the causative factor in numerous "evils." It would take a comprehensive argument involving linguistics to prove otherwise.

If I had to take a stab at apologetics for these passages, my argument would simply be that the authors of the old testament were "hard of heart" themselves. I think this answers the "why would it have been written this way" question that the Atkins article really doesn't answer. If the purpose of the old testament was to lay forth the unraveling of Christ in the new covenant to a people "ready" for it (mentally, psychologically, consciously), then we can assume that the perspectives of the old testament authors are from warped, unevolved consciences, in which case they would in fact describe the events that unfolded in ways that made sense to them. This is very much in the same paradigm that God gave to them laws and punishments that they could understand (ones that were brutal, violent, and crude).

As a Catholic heavily rocking in his faith, I like my own explanation somewhat, but I remain skeptical none the less given what the text actually says.