Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

The Deuteronomistic (or Deuteronomic) history (DH) is a theoretical construct used by modern scholars to comprehend the unity exhibited by the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. This scholarly consensus owes much to Martin Noth’s classic study, which emphasized that the books of Deuteronomy through Kings constitute a continuous history characterized by a basic homogeneity in language, style, and content. In Noth’s reconstruction, the Deuteronomist incorporated the Deuteronomic law into the beginning of his work, framing it with speeches by Moses, and then added other sources — tales of conquest and settlement, prophetic narratives and speeches, official annals and records. The Deuteronomist ordered and shaped these sources, introduced his own distinctive chronology, and inserted his own comments and speeches (often in the mouths of major characters) at critical junctures in his history. Because the Deuteronomist’s compositional technique included selection, editing, and creation of new material, the resulting work was not merely a compilation of tales, annals, and sagas, but a unified work manifesting a deliberate design and a uniformity of purpose. Noth’s study provided a cogent alternative both to those earlier scholars who concentrated solely upon isolated historical books without recognizing their relationship to others within the DH and to those who attempted to identify strands within the DH continuous with or analogous to pentateuchal sources.

Thematically, Noth viewed the DH as a pessimistic work that chronicled and censured the record of Israel’s existence in the land. To be sure, there were high points in Israel’s history, such as the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs. 8), but such positive events could neither prevent the monarchy’s eventual downfall nor provide a basis for future hope. The history of Israel is thus a record of “ever-intensifying decline” that ends in disaster — the Babylonian Exile. Noth’s views have been developed and refined in recent scholarship. John Van Seters defends the essential unity of the DH through a comparison with ancient Near Eastern and Greek historiography. New literary critics emphasize its unity as a carefully crafted work of art.

Many other scholars have sought to modify Noth’s views. Both Gerhard von Rad and Hans Walter Wolff challenge Noth’s conclusions about purpose and theme. Von Rad points to an alternation between themes of “gospel” and “law” in Samuel–Kings. The Davidic promises delay the Exile (e.g., 1 Kgs. 11:11-13, 31-35), while Jehoiachin’s release from prison (2 Kgs. 25:27-30) adumbrates the ultimate revival of David’s line, signalling that the DH ends with a messianic promise and not a final judgment. Wolff cites the importance of turning (šûḇ) to Yahweh in Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings to argue that the DH advances an element of hope. Divine judgment does not entail Israel’s doom but calls the exiles to repentance, because the people’s return (šûḇ) to God can elicit God’s compassionate return to them (1 Kgs. 8:46-53).

Frank M. Cross and Rudolf Smend challenge Noth’s notion that the DH was the product of one exilic author. These scholars, and the schools of thought they have come to represent, posit a series of editions. Cross argues that the main edition of the DH was composed during the reign of Josiah as a programmatic document promoting Josiah’s revival of the Davidic state. This primary edition of the DH (Dtr¹) was retouched and revised in a much less extensive edition (2 Kgs. 23:25–25:30) in the Exile (Dtr²). Cross bases his argument on the interplay between two main themes running through most of Kings: “the sin of Jeroboam,” which reverberates throughout the narration of the northern kingdom, and the promises to David, which restrain divine wrath in the history of Judah. The exilic editor (Dtr²) retouched the earlier work, introduced the sub-theme of Manasseh’s apostasy, attributing the destruction of Judah to his perfidy, and recorded Judah’s exile. Adherents of Cross’s theory have debated whether Dtr²’s contribution was more substantial (e.g., Brian Peckham) or less so (e.g., Steven L. McKenzie). Others have focused on the work of Dtr¹. Gary N. Knoppers, e.g., argues that the attention given to the history of the northern monarchy, the fall of Israel, and the reign of Josiah, can only be understood in the context of Dtr¹’s treatment of the United Monarchy and the causes he imputes to the creation of the Divided Monarchy.

Smend construes these successive editions as present throughout much of Joshua–2 Kings, and adds a second nomistically oriented Deuteronomist (DtrN) to the historically oriented Deuteronomist posited by Noth (DtrH). To these exilic editions Walter Dietrich adds a third prophetically-oriented edition (DtrP), written after DtrH but prior to DtrN. Whereas DtrH, much like Noth’s DH, functions as an etiology for the nadir of Judah, DtrP assails the political and cultic apostasy of northern royalty. The third redactor (DtrN) purportedly added assorted legal sayings, the law code itself, and the royal traditions of Jerusalem. Although Dietrich contends that all three redactions were completed by 560 b.c.e., Smend believes that DtrN stems from the early postexilic period. Other followers of Smend argue for a succession of DtrN editions. Yet others disagree with Dietrich about the nature and purpose of the major redactions — DtrH, DtrP, and DtrN.

Some recent scholars have developed new theories of multiple redactions, citing variations in the regnal formulae of northern and southern kings. Their arguments do not fall easily into any one particular pattern, but in many cases they incorporate features of the Cross or Smend hypotheses. All of these scholars (e.g., Manfred Weippert, André Lemaire, Mark A. O’Brien, Iain Provan, Baruch Halpern, and David S. Vanderhooft) speak of one or more substantial preexilic editions of the DH and of at least one exilic edition. In spite of the proliferation of different redactional hypotheses, most commentators still speak of a Deuteronomistic history, thus testifying to the profound influence of Noth’s theory.

Bibliography. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973); B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhooft, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries b.c.e.,” HUCA 62 (1991): 179-244; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, 2 vols. HSM 52-53 (Atlanta, 1993-94); S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTSup 42 (Leiden, 1991); M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15 (1943; Eng. trans. Sheffield, 1991); M. A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis. OBO 92 (Göttingen, 1989); B. Peckham, History and Prophecy (New York: Doubleday, 1993); I. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings. BZAW 172 (Berlin, 1988); G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy. SBT 9 (Chicago, 1953); J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven, 1983); H. W. Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, ed. W. Brueggemann and Wolff (1961; Eng. trans. Atlanta, 1975), 83-100.

Gary N. Knoppers

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)