deuteronomy kings.pdf

8/17/2019 Deuteronomy Kings.pdf

1/304

DEUTERONOMYKINGS

as EMERGING

AUTHORITATIVE

BOOKS

A Conversation

Edited by

Diana V. Edelman

Ancient Near East Monographs – Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente

Society of Biblical Literature

Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA)


2/304

DEUERONOMYKINGS AS

EMERGING AUHORIAIVE BOOKS


3/304

Ancient Near East Monographs

General Editors

Ehud Ben ZviRoxana Flammini

Editorial Board

Reinhard AchenbachEsther J. Hamori

Steven W. Holloway René KrügerAlan Lenzi

Steven L. McKenzieMartti Nissinen

Graciela Gestoso SingerJuan Manuel Tebes

Number 6


4/304

DEUERONOMYKINGS AS

EMERGING AUHORIAIVE BOOKS

A CONVERSAION

Edited by

Diana V. Edelman

Society o Biblical LiteratureAtlanta


5/304

Copyright © 2014 by the Society o Biblical Literature

All rights reserved. No part o this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any ormor by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or bymeans o any inormation storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing rom the publisher. Requests or permissionshould be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Offi ce, Society o BiblicalLiterature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.

Library o Congress Control Number: 2014931428

Te Ancient Near East Monographs/Monograas Sobre El Antiguo Cercano Orienteseries is published jointly by the Society o Biblical Literature and the Universidad CatólicaArgentina Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Políticas y de la Comunicación, Centro de Estu-dios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente.

For urther inormation, see:http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/Books_ANEmonographs.aspxhttp://www.uca.edu.ar/cehao

Printed on acid-ree, recycled paper conorming toANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994

standards or paper permanence.


6/304

o the memory o my ather, Arthur . Vikander, who wasso proud o my scholarly pursuits and accomplishments.

Te nal editing o this volume was completedduring our last weeks together.


7/304


8/304

C

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................ix

IntroductionDiana V. Edelman .......................................................................................1

Te Authority o Deuteronomy Philip R. Davies ........................................................................................27

Rereading Deuteronomy in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods:

Te Ethics o Brotherhood and the Care o the PoorChristoph Levin ........................................................................................49

Why “Joshua”?E. Axel Knau ............................................................................................73

Te Case o JoshuaSerge Frolov...............................................................................................85

Who Was Interested in the Book o Judges in the Persian-Hellenistic Periods?Yairah Amit .............................................................................................103

Memories Laid to Rest: Te Book o Judges in the Persian PeriodSusanne Gillmayr-Bucher .....................................................................115

1–2 Samuel and Jewish Paideia in the Persian and HellenisticPeriodsTomas M. Bolin ....................................................................................133


9/304

viii CONENS

What Made the Books o Samuel Authoritative in the Discourseso the Persian Period? Reections on the Legal Discourse in

2 Samuel 14Klaus-Peter Adam ..................................................................................159

Te Case o the Book o KingsTomas Römer .......................................................................................187

On the Authority o Dead KingsJames R. Linville .....................................................................................203

Contributors ...................................................................................................223

Bibliography ...................................................................................................225

Primary Sources Index .................................................................................257

Modern Authors Index .................................................................................273

Subject Index ..................................................................................................279


10/304

A

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary . Edited by David Noel Freed-man. 6 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992.

ABRL Anchor Bible Reerence Library AnBib Analecta biblicaAOA Alter Orient und Altes estamentBA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin o the American Schools o Oriental ResearchBEAAJ Beiträge zur Erorschung des Alten estaments und

des antiken JudentumsBEL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovanien-sium

Bib BiblicaBibInt Biblical InterpretationBWAN Beiträge zur Wissenschat vom Alten (und Neuen)

estamentBZAW Beihefe zur Zeitschrif ür die alttestamentliche Wis-

senschafCahRB Cahiers de la Revue bibliqueCBE Contributions to Biblical ExegesisCBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly GA Grundrisse zum Alten estamentGKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar . Edited by Emil Kautzsch.

ranslated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd. ed. Oxord: OxordUniversity Press, 1910.

ESHM European Seminar in Historical Methodology FA Forschungen zum Alten estamentsFOL Forms o Old estament LiteratureFRLAN Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und

Neuen estament

-ix-


11/304

x ABBREVIAIONS

HKA Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten esta-ment.

HSM Harvard Semitic MonographsICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JBL Journal o Biblical Literature JHS Journal o Hebrew Scriptures JJS Journal o Jewish Studies JNSL Journal o Northwest Semitic Languages JRAS Journal o the Royal Asiatic Society

JSO Journal or the Study o the Old estament JSOSup Journal or the Study o the Old estament Supple-

ment SeriesJSPSup Journal or the Study o the Pseudepigrapha Supple-

ment SeriesKHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten estamentLHBOS Library o Hebrew Bible/Old estament StudiesLSS Library o Second emple Studies

NCBS New Century Bible SeriesNICO New International Commentary on the Old estamentOBO Orbis biblicus et orientalisOL Old estament Library OP Old estament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H.

Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985.

OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly QD Quaestiones disputataeSAA State Archives o AssyriaSBAB Stuttgarter biblische Ausatzbände, Altes estamentSBL Society o Biblical LiteratureSBLAIL Society o Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Lit-

eratureSBLSymS Society o Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SB Studies in Biblical Teology SCSS Septuagint and Cognate Studies SeriesSJO Scandinavian Journal o the Old estament SOSMS Society or Old estament Studies Monograph SeriesSAR Studies in Teology and Religion


12/304

ABBREVIAIONS xi

SW Suhrkamp aschenbuch WissenschafSSB Suomalainen iedakatemie oimituksia, Sarja B.

B Teologische BüchereiTWA Teologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten estament. Edited

by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohl-hammer, 1970–2006.

ransSup Supplément à ranseuphratèneV Vetus estamentumVSup Vetus estamentum SupplementsWBC Word Biblical Commentary

WMAN Wissenschatliche Monographien zum Alten undNeuen estament

ZAR Zeitschrif ür Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsge-schichte

ZAW Zeitschrif ür die alttestamentliche Wissenschaf ZBKA Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes estament


13/304


14/304

I

Diana V. Edelman

Te existence o a “Deuteronomistic History,” consisting o the books oDeuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, is under review.1 Is thisscholarly construct an accurate understanding o what ancient writerso the Hebrew Bible conceived to be a coherent sequence o books thatshould be read together? Did the books ever orm an independent collec-tion, without Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers prexed, or without Gen-esis-Numbers prexed? I we are not as certain as past generations that

they ever ormed a recognized literary unit,2

why ask what was deemed

1. For convenient summaries o the history o the theory o the existence o Deu-teronomistic historiography, see Douglas A. Knight, “Deuteronomy and the Deuter-onomists,” in Old estament Interpretation Past, Present, and Future: Essays in Honouro Gene M. ucker (ed. James L. Mays, David L. Petersen and Kent H. Richards; Edin-burgh: & Clark, 1995), 61–79; Tomas Römer and Albert de Pury, “Deuteronomis-tic Historiography (DH): History o Research and Debated Issues,” in Israel Constructs

its History: Deuteronomistic History in Recent Research (ed. Albert de Pury, TomasRömer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi; JSOSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,2000), 24–141.

2. For essays and studies dealing with various aspects o this debate, see conve-niently, A. Graeme Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land: etrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexa-teuch in a Generation since 1938 (Edinburgh: & Clark, 1980); Claus Westermann,Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten estaments: gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichts-werk? (B 87; Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1994); James R. Linville, Israel in the Book o Kings:Te Past as a Project o Social Identity (JSOSup 272; Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1998), 46–73; Reinhard G. Kratz, Te Composition o the Narrative Books o theBible (trans. J. Bowden; New York: & Clark, International, 2000), 1–5, 153–221;Albert de Pury, Tomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi, eds., Israel Constructs itsHistory: Deuteronomistic History in Recent Research (JSOSup 306; Sheffield: She-eld Academic Press, 2000); Christian Frevel, “Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerkoder Gechichtswerke? Die Tese Martin Noths zwischen etrateuch, Hexateuch und

-1-


15/304

2 DEUERONOMYKINGS AS EMERGING AUHORIAIVE BOOKS

authoritative about these ve books in the late Persian and early Hellenis-tic periods, by which time it is generally agreed they existed close to their

current nal orms?Te purpose o the present volume is not to ocus on the important

debate about the status o the so-called Deuteronomistic History, thoughthe results might contribute toward raming arguments on one side or theother. Instead, it is to try to understand the element o authority in relationto each book, which can be construed in two different ways. On the onehand, it can lead us to ask why we have each o the ve individual booksand what concerns led to their creation using which older materials to

address those issues, because these earlier traditions carried some weighto authority or the community o scribes who penned the narratives aswell as or their implied target audience(s). Currently, the dates o com-position or the various books are generally assigned to the late monar-chic period, the Neo-Babylonian period, or the early Persian period. In allthree cases, a second question naturally arises then that needs a reasonedresponse: once created, why would the concerns addressed have had ongo-ing relevance and resonance or audiences in the late Persian and early

Hellenistic periods?On the other hand, the concept o authority can lead us to ask why the

ve individual books gained authoritative status, regardless o the age oro the materials in them; why was it desirable to give authority to writtennarratives about YHWH’s relation to the people o Israel? Many o theessays in the volume emphasize the close connection between authorityand group identity, where the texts can help dene a group by servingas a written, authoritative depository o valued social memories that are

Enneateuch,” in Martin Noth: Aus der Sicht heutiger Forschung (ed. Udo Rüterswörden;biblisch-theologische Studien 58; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004),60–94; Philippe Guillaume, Waiting or Josiah: Te Judges (JSOSup 385; London:& Clark, 2004), 227–36; Eckhard Otto and Reinhard Achenbach, eds., Das Deu-teronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLAN206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); Markus Witte et al., Die deuter-onomistischen Geschichtswerk: redaktions- und religionsgesichtliche Perspektiven zur“Deuteronomismus”- Diskussion in ora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW 365; Berlin:de Gruyter, 2006); Tomas B. Dozeman, Tomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid, eds.,Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identiying Literary Works in Genesis throughKings (SBLAIL 8; Atlanta: Society o Biblical Literature, 2011); Konrad Schmid andRaymond F. Person Jr., eds., Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deu-teronomistic History (FA 2/56; übingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).


16/304

EDELMAN: INRODUCION 3

to be learned and passed on by those considering themselves to belongto the group. In this case, the book o Deuteronomy had audiences in

both Samaria and Yehud/Judea who considered themselves to belong toIsrael, while Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings eventually were consideredauthoritative only or Judean-rooted Israel. Tus, the volume is primar-ily concerned with the issues o authority, identity, and social memory,though only that o authority is addressed directly in each contribution.Te other two will surace in varying degrees as each scholar seeks toanswer “why” their book gained authority.

Te ve essays by C. Levin, Y. Amit, E. A. Knau, K.-P. Adam, and

. Römer were initially presented at the European Association o BiblicalStudies Meeting in artu, Estonia, July 25–29, 2010, in a session o theresearch program “Israel and the Production and Reception o Authori-tative Books in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods,” co-chaired by EhudBen Zvi and mysel. Te announced theme was “What made these booksauthoritative within the discourse o Persian Yehud/early HellenisticJudah?” It was worthwhile to commission a second set o essays on eachbook rom scholars who would not likely agree with the rst group, as a way

o teasing out issues and beginning a conversation about why the books oDeuteronomy–2 Kings became authoritative as individual compositionsand, it was hoped, secondarily, as part o a larger grouping, whether thatbe conceived as a Deuteronomistic collection or the traditional “Deuter-onomistic History.” Ehud had many other commitments at the time, andthus I took ull and sole control o this project. Te current volume is theresult o my efforts. Te authors o the rst ve papers were encouragedto make any necessary revisions to ensure they engaged directly with the

thematic question while the second group was being assembled. Te mostsuccessul conversations have been initiated when both essays on a givenbook have ocused the majority o their discussion on the central theme.

Te contributors were asked to ocus on a single book as an individualunit, though they were encouraged to explore links between their bookand the other our. wo essays are devoted to each book. What was deemedauthoritative in or about Deuteronomy? Joshua? Judges? Samuel? Kings?Individual scholars have been encouraged to state whether they believe the

author o their book also wrote one or more o the other books, or whetherone or more editors joined together independently created compositionsto create a larger, intentional literary unit. Like the debate about the exis-tence o a “Deuteronomistic History,” the compositional and redactionalhistory o these books is not the primary ocus.


17/304


A case has been made or seeing a set o theologically coherent ideasand certain idiomatic words or phrases in these ve books, suggesting

they ormed a literary unit or subunit.3 Yet, ultimately, Judaism identiedthe rst ve books, Genesis-Deuteronomy, as a literary unit and joinedJoshua-Kings with the ensuing collection o prophetic books to create aunit dubbed “Te Prophets.” aking a closer thematic look at the initialnine books in the Hebrew Bible, it can be argued that Exodus-Deuteron-omy comprise a “biography o Moses,” a “Quatrateuch,” to which a narra-tive about the oreathers was preaced—Genesis—creating the authorized“Pentateuch.” But it has also long been debated whether originally, a Penta-

teuch was envisioned by the ancient authors or a Hexateuch that includedJoshua, since the promise o the land is a prominent theme in Genesis thatonly nds it nal ullment in the occupation o Canaan in Joshua.4 Stillothers propose that Genesis–Kings comprises a single, coherent narrativethat should not be subdivided, because Judges, Samuel, and Kings cannotstand independently rom what precedes. Tey, too, exempliy the themeo the Promised Land, justiying its eventual loss or the repeated ailure othe people o Israel and its leaders to keep the terms o the covenant made

by YHWH with the ancestors. It has even been suggested that an origi-nal Pentateuch included Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Joshua,with Deuteronomy being placed in its current position later on, when theEnneateuch was created, to extend the original narrative later in time, tothe exile.5

In these many debates, Deuteronomy plays a pivotal role, creating abridge between the ancestors and a series o divine covenants made out-side the land and the ailure to observe the terms o many o the covenants

once inside the land. It becomes somewhat moot whether the book ends

3. See the classical ormulation o the hypothesis o the existence o a Deuter-onomistic History developed by Martin Noth in Te Deuteronomistic History (2ded.; JSOSup 15; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991; German original Über-lieerungs-geschichtliche Studien I [Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1943]). For a list o allegedlyDeuteronomic phraseology, see Moshe Weineld, Deuteronomy and the DeuteronomicSchool (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 320–65; idem, Deuteronomy 1–11: ANew ranslation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday,1991), 35–37. For uniying techniques amongst the books, see e.g. Richard D. Nelson,Te Historical Books (Interpreting Biblical exts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 70–77.

4. For an evaluation o the Hexateuch hypothesis, see, or example, Frevel, “Deu-teronomistisches Geschichtswerk oder Gechichtswerke,” 80–86.

5. E. Axel Knau, Josua (ZBKA 6; Zürich: VZ, 2008), 18.


18/304


a plot-line that began in Genesis or begins a new plot-line that ends inKings, with exile.6 Endings are beginnings; the introduction o idiomatic

language that will recur throughout the story developed in Joshua, Judges,Samuel, and Kings can come at the beginning o a new direction in whichthe plot moves or can be anticipated already in the ongoing plot beoredramatic new events unold. Afer all, there is arguably a single story beingnarrated rom Genesis-Kings, whether a preconceived one meant to bedeveloped over a multivolume project or an ad hoc one that evolved overtime as individual compositions that worked with similar themes, motis,and concerns were placed side by side, resulting in the emergence o a

series o successive, discrete periods.7 Bearing this in mind, it is possi-ble to examine the ve books o Deuteronomy–2 Kings as a subunit o alarger whole, whether or not one chooses to designate them officially bythe scholarly moniker, “Te Deuteronomistic History,” with all the presup-positions that label and construct entails.

A

Te ten contributors have understood authority in different ways. Teseinclude: a socially constructed interpretative ramework into which a read-ership places texts they consider to embody truths or insights consideredto be necessary or valuable resources or public discourse on socially sig-

6. One should take note with E. A. Knau o how the end o Kings is a very weakconclusion to the proposed Enneateuch but serves well as an opening to a continuing

history instead, consituting an excellent introduction to the prophetic books (“Does‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’ Exist?” in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteron-omistic History in Recent Research [ed. Albert de Pury, Tomas Römer, and Jean-Dan-iel Macchi; JSOSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000], 388–98 [397]).As such, it could be seen to occupy a pivotal role, similar to Deuteronomy.

7. An interesting question is whether the literary technique o interweavinghas been used to join together two ormerly independent cycles; a “Pentateuch” thatincluded Gen-Num + Josh, and a “Quatrateuch” that included Deut + Judg-Kgs. ocombine the two, the rst book o the second unit has been placed immediately beorethe last book o the rst cycle, creating anticipation. It is noteworthy that the internal

justication given to explain the two law-giving accounts in Exod and Deut is thattwo sets o laws were revealed to Moses by God: the rst was to apply while the peopleremained outside the Promised Land, and the second was to come into orce once thepeople were settled in the Promised Land. Tus, Exod applies to the narrative throughthe occupation in Josh, while Deut applies through to the exile.


19/304


nicant topics such as matters o religious practice, belie, the symbolicboundaries o society, and social order; the nal orm o the text; the deni-

tive version o certain past events; the torah-based ethic expressed in manytexts in the Hebrew Bible; a text that has become established by virture ohaving being read and reread; an established text that is updated to main-tain its authority; an established text that prompts the composition o a newtext that leaves it intact but creates an updated version as an independentcompostion, as in the cases o Deuteronomy and Chronicles; and the abil-ity to understand the enigmas and the disjunctions in a collection o textscontaining a matrix o stories and myths that allowed different views o

what makes an ideal society and its norms to be considered and debated.Tis uidity opens a vital conversation about who created these books ini-tially, or whom, why, and when, and additionally, who were subsequentaudiences who read them, and why? Were the books authoritative romtheir inception and creation or did they only become so over time, and i so,why? Who had authority to “update” the texts or subsequent audiences?

Te essay by . Bolin situates their authoritative use as educational textsor the children o priests, Levites, and the inuential amilies o Yehud, on

analogy with the Greek and Hellenistic educational system in particular,as opposed to ormer scribal training in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Cer-tainly, Ben Sira indicates that the texts were being used to educate Jewishyouth whose athers could afford to send their children to a private tutorby ca. 190 ... But it is unclear i this were a relatively new developmentduring the Hellenistic period, which emulated the Greek system but used“native” texts instead o Homer to enculturate Jewish youth, emphasiz-ing Jewish ideals, morals, and ethics, or i it had begun already during

the Persian Empire or earlier. Te depiction o Ezra’s memorization andinteriorization o YHWH’s teaching in Ezra 7:10 so that he was “skilled”in it (Ezra 8:6) and o his study o it with priests, Levites, and the heads othe ancestral clans o all the people with in Neh 8:13 seems to presume aHellenistic educational system.

Like most biblical books, the dating o Ezra and Nehemiah is disputed.While many presume a Persian-era date close to the events depicted, aminority avor a Hellenistic date.8 Te ormer group would likely see the

books to provide evidence or the use o such an educational system in

8. For the varying dates o composition and the rationales underlying them, see,or example, Jacob M. Myers, Ezra Nehemiah: Introduction, ranslation, and Notes (AB14; Garden City, N.Y.: 1965), lxviii-lxx; Leonard H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah and


20/304


the mid-fh century, under Persian imperialism, while the latter groupwould see them to conrm the picture presented in Ben Sira. Tey would

argue it is logical to associate this educational system with social memo-ries about the group’s “new beginning,” when Jerusalem was reinhabited,the temple was rebuilt, and orah was to play a new, central role in den-ing the people.

Were the books o Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kingscreated as educational texts, or did they eventually come to serve that asone purpose among others, as they gained authoritative status? Here wereturn to the conundrum about their original purposes and audiences.

Te early work by A. Lemaire on scribal schools argued there was a wide-spread educational system in monarchic Judah that eatured royal scribalschools in various cities as well as local schools in outlying sites like Arad,Kadesh-Barnea and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and separate schools or the trainingo priests and prophets. He argued the biblical canon developed rom thecurricula used in these various schools.9 His theories have not gained widesupport. E. Ben Zvi has proposed a model or their composition and earlyuse that sees them to be created or the small circle o “literati” as a means

o exploring vital issues and pressing concerns in the present and uture bydrawing on lessons rom the past, without pushing or a consensus view.10 He emphasizes the didactic and socializing roles o reading and reread-ing these works within that group. D. M. Carr similarly thinks that theoriginal intended audience was a small group. He denes its members asscribes, priests, administrators, and kings. He also argues that the purposewas educational. According to him, students memorized and recited longpassages rom an authoritative curriculum, which simultaneously served

as templates or the composition o new texts. Te written corpus servedat the same time as a means o enculturation and preservation o nationaltradition. For Carr literacy was training in and mastery o the tradition

Esther (NCBS; London: Tomas Nelson, 1969), 24–25; Hugh G. M. Williamson, Ezra,Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, ex.: Word Books, 1985), xxv-xxxvi.

9. André Lemaire, Les Écoles et la ormation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israël (OBO39; Fribourg: University Press, 1981).

10. See, or example, Ehud Ben Zvi, “Te Concept o Prophetic Books and ItsHistorical Setting,” in Te Production o Prophecy: Constructing Prophets and Prophecyin Yehud (ed. Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi; BibleWorld; London: Equinox,2009), 73–95; idem, “Reconstructing the Intellectual Discourse o Ancient Yehud,”Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 39 (2010): 7–23.


21/304


and not necessarily alphabetic competency.11 He concludes that mucho what is currently contained in the literature o the Hebrew Bible had

served as key parts o an indigenous curriculum or early Israelite scribesand other literate members o the upper class.12

K. van der oorn considers the biblical texts to have been created orthe scribal community by Levitical scribes attached to the temple, thoughthe contents o the scrolls became more widely disseminated and knowndue to oral recitation. He identies six ways scribes produced written texts:transcription o oral lore, invention o a new text, compilation o existinglore, either oral or written, expansion o an inherited text, adaptation o an

existing text or a new audience, and integration o individual documentsinto a more comprehensive composition and then asserts no text in theHebrew Bible is the explicit invention o a scribe.13 However, he has notattempted to understand scribal compositional techniques, per se, and hasnot addressed the purpose o the creation o this written literature.

J. A. Sanders, on the other hand, has identied seven modes o inter-textuality that were involved in the creation o the biblical literature. Teliterature is presumed to be be made up o previous literature, which is

reected through citation, allusion and paraphrases o the preceding lit-erature so that the existing texts serve as the “generating orce” underlyingthe elaboration o narrative or other textual expansion.14 Tese include:citation with or without ormula, weaving o scriptural phrases into newercomposition, paraphrasing scriptural passages, reection o the structureo scriptural passage, allusions to scriptural persons, episodes, or events,and echoes o Scripture passages in a later composition.15 Unlike van der

11. David M. Carr, Writing on the ablet o the Heart: Origins o Scripture andLiterature (Oxord: Oxord University Press, 2005), 116–73.

12. Carr, Writing on the ablet , 156. Although the approaches o Carr and BenZvi share signicant similarites, key differences emerge rom their different dating othe texts and rom Carr’s willingness to address orerunners or earlier versions o textsand Ben Zvi’s reticence to do so.

13. Karel van der oorn, Scribal Culture and the Making o the Hebrew Bible(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 92, 110, 115.

14. James A. Sanders, “Canon as Dialogue,” in Te Bible at Qumran: ext, Shape,and Interpretation (ed. Peter W. Flint; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Lit-erature; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 7–26 (17).

15. James A. Sanders, “Intertextuality and Canon,” in On the Way to Nineveh:Studies in Honor o George M. Landes (ed. Stephen L. Cook and Sarah C. Winter;Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 316–33; idem, “Canon as Dialogue,” 19.


22/304


oorn, whose list seems to address what scribes typically did when work-ing with texts, Sanders has addressed how they created literature.

P. Davies notes that some texts, like Esther, Ruth and Jonah, appear tohave been written or enjoyment by a wider public and not just scribes, buthe also notes this might have arisen in the Hellenistic setting, where thespread o literacy led to the adaptation o scribal education and its “canon”to a wider nonproessional education, which led to changes to the “canon.”He cautions against assuming the Masoretic-rabbinic canon representedsolely a school curriculum and notes that the canonizing process seemsto have involved debate over the movement o history, internationalizing,

and universalizing, with a deliberate move to include texts that preventeda consensus view.16 Tis brie survey demonstrates our lack o inormationabout ormal or inormal education in Judah during the monarchy or inYehud in the Persian period as well as the ultimate purpose behind creat-ing a collection o written works o literature to be read and reread.

A, I, S M

A shared common past is a typical trait along with perceived kinship,a common language, a common religion, shared culture and customs,and sometimes regionalism, which help a group establish its identity anddene who is an ethnic “insider” and who is an “outsider.”17 Tose in

16. Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: Te Canonization o the Hebrew Scrip-tures (Library o Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 85, 124.

17. So, or example, Clifford Geertz, Te Interpretation o Cultures: Selected Essays

by Clifford Geertz (New York: Basic Books, 1973); especially germane are “Te Inte-grative Revolution,” Te Interpretation o Cultures,” 255–310 (261–63) and “PoliticsPast, Politics Present: Some Notes on the Uses o Anthropology in Understandingthe New States,” 327–41 (331–35); Harry C. riandis, “Teoretical and Methodologi-cal Approaches to the Study o Collectivism and Individualism,” in Individualism andCollectivism: Teory, Method, and Applications (ed. Uichol Kim et al.; Cross-CulturalResearch and Methodology Series 18; London: Sage, 1994), 41–51; Anthony D. Smith,“Culture, community, and territory: the politics o ethnicity and nationalism,” Inter-national Affairs 72/3 (1996): 445–58; Steve Fenton, Ethnicity (2nd rev. and updateded.; Key Concepts in the Social Sciences; Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2013), 63–64. For adiscussion o characteristics o collectivism in social groups in contemporary Indianculture, see Jai B. P. Sinha, “Collectivism, Social Energy, and Development in India,”in From a Different Perspective: Studies o Behavior Across Cultures (ed. Isabel ReyesLagunes and Ype H. Poortinga; Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1985), 109–19. For the rela-tionship between individual and gender identity and ethnic identity, see Peter Wein-


23/304


power or with authority tend to control what is remembered and how,as well as what is orgotten in the collective memory o the larger group.

Tey also are involved in the means used to make those memories amil-iar to, and inculcated in, members across society, which usually involvesinstitutionalizing them to provide a material as well as intellectual exis-tence in society.18

While subgroups exist that can have different understandings o com-munal memory that challenge hegemonic ones, they still are reacting tothe established authoritative accounts that are accepted by either a major-ity o the wider group or those in power, who control what is considered

to be “orthodox.” Subgroups also ofen create and perpetuate a set otheir own additional memories that they recall in particular gatheringsand contexts, which are meaningul primarily or them. Tese, in turn,inuence their understandings o the “orthodox” texts. An individual in agiven society will assign meaning to the common social past, however it isexpressed, on the basis o his or her cumulative experience and memories,individual and shared.19 But even though the human brain operates in thisway, socialization and enculturation rom the time o birth predispose

individuals to assign similar values and meanings to “concepts” consistingo semantic and sensory patterns that derive rom interaction with one’senvironment.20

reich, “Te Operationalization o Ethnic Identity,” in Ethnic Psychology: Research andPractice with Immigrants, Reugees, Native Peoples, Ethnic Groups and Sojourners (ed.John W. Berry and Robert C. Annis; Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1988), 149–68.

18. For the content o knowledge and mode o thought in traditional social set-

tings, see Robin Horton, “Arican raditional Tought and Western Science: Part1: From radition to Science,” Arica 37 (1967): 50–71; idem, “Arican raditionalTought and Western Science: Part 2: Te Closed and Open Predicaments,” Arica 37(1967): 155–87.

19. For essays rom multidisciplinary perspectives on how an individual’s sel-concept and constructed identity affect his or her behavior, see, e.g., Anita Jacobson-Widding (ed.), Identity: Personal and Socio-Cultural (Acta Universitatis UpsaliensisUppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology 5; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell Inter-national, 1983).

20. For a study o how mother-child communication helps impart the prevailingsocio-cultural system, see Soo Hang Choi, “Communicative Socialization Processes:Korea and Canada,” in Innovations in Cross-Cultural Psychology: Selected Papers romthe enth International Conerence o the International Association or Cross-CulturalPsychology (ed. Saburo Iwawaki, Yoshihisa Kashima and Kwok Leung; Amsterdam:Swets & Zeitlinger, 1992), 103–22; more generally, see James Fentress and Chris Wick-


24/304


One o the most common ways to remember is narrative emplot-ment, oral or written. It is generally recognized amongst those engaged

in memory studies in various disciplines that acts and details relating toselected events and experiences are lost in the early stages o the ormula-tion o social memory as stories are created so the group can easily recallthe incidents. Tere is a ltering process at work in the transormation oexperienced events into images and “concepts” that will be easy to grasp,which will evoke a shared value-system and meaning amongst the group,and which will be capable o transmission.21 By denition then, socialmemory is a deliberately simplied version o the past that has elimi-

nated specic, nontypical details or the sake o easy recall, using standardelements and plot-lines that will evoke shared meanings that have beeninculcated through socialization and inormal or ormal education.

Te move to create a canon o authoritative texts within a societyinvolves the selection and organization o certain texts rom a larger groupand putting in place a means to ensure their transmission.22 Canons servemultiple unctions in a society. Tey create collective identities, legitimatepolitical power, and uphold or undermine value systems.23 As the col-

lective sel-identity or value systems o the group change over time, thecorpus o texts can be modied or adapted to reect the new situation. TeHebrew Bible represents such a canon or emergent Jewish communitiesthat sel-identied as “children o Israel” and eventually, or Jewish-Chris-tian and Christian communities as well, with modications via truncationand expansion over time.

ham, Social Memory (New Perspectives on the Past; Oxord: Blackwell, 1992), 47;Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained : Te Human Instincts that Fashion Gods, Spirits, and Ancestors (London: Vintage Books, 2002), 21, 47–51; Astrid Erll, Memory in Culture(trans. S. B. Young; Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies; New York: Palgrave Macmil-lan, 2011), 82–89.

21. See, or example, Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Temes in theSocial Sciences; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 76; Fentress andWickham, Social Memory , 47–48, 71–74. It has also been noted that the inclusion oan element that does not t with an expected plot-line or which is counter-intuitivemakes it more memorable.

22. For the role o literature more generally in individual and social memory, seeErll, Memory in Culture, 75–82, 89–91, 160–71.

23. For these unctions, see, or example, Jan Assmann, Religion and Culture Memory: en Studies (trans. R. Livingstone; Cultural Memory in the Present; Stanord,Cali.: Stanord University Press, 2006).


25/304


C S C O

D

P. Davies begins his investigation o Deuteronomy by examining questionso authorship beore moving on to questions about its growing authority.He notes its author blends the two genres o vassal treaty and law code andhas the suzerain, unusually in this case, the deity YHWH, use an interme-diary patron, secondarily identied as Moses, to address the vassal Israeldirectly, rather than its king, as would have been standard. In contrast to

the call or the centralization o the temple cult in the book, the adminis-tration o orah is not centralized or located in that temple cult; it is sepa-rate. He posits the need to give careul consideration to the book’s creationin Samaria rather than in Yehud in the early Persian period.

He then argues that Deuteronomy did not have intrinsic authoritywhen it was composed but gained it subsequently, through giving it sec-ondary endorsement via the two institutions that are central to the booko Kings: kingship (King Josiah) and prophecy (Huldah). Deuteronomy

envisages a society in which the token king rules by the law book (Deut17:14–20) and in which prophets can only give messages that are consis-tent with the commandments in the law book (Deut 13). It also envisagesLevites working in towns and villages throughout Samaria and Yehud toimplement the law book, in accordance with requirements o the Per-sian Empire. Yet, Davies also argues the book o Deuteronomy was nevertaught outside the scribal schools in Jerusalem and Samaria or Gerizim;the text remained or the most part the domain o the clerics and educated

laity. He thinks we can iner rom the move to give it added authority byintroducing it into the book o Kings that its contents did not carry su-cient authority or that they were challenged by another group, such asthose responsible or Chronicles.

Deuteronomy is seen to be a utopian book in its vision o an Israelbound by a religious treaty to create a specic, “ideal” society. It repre-sents a program or the new religion o YHWH and its new “Israel” tobecome not just a cult but a culture, in which orah replaces monarchy

and prophecy and indeed almost everything else, and its ministers areLevites—priests, but mostly without a sanctuary. It advocates a new pat-tern o religion in which the people become responsible or their ownbehavior and ate by choosing or not choosing to observe the communityand domestic laws commanded by YHWH, which serve as the condi-


26/304


tional basis o his election o Israel. Its authority resides in its ethic, theset o principles it contains, by which its reenvisioned, new “Israel” was

to dene itsel.Te pilgrimage estivals, especially Passover, become the most impor-

tant element o the envisioned ongoing, centralized temple cult; its dailypriestly rituals are o little or no import. Deuteronomy has Moses deliverthe “book o the law” as part o a larger speech that recalls the exodus. Itthus identies the exodus story as the ounding event and the law bookas the ounding constitution o the new nation and in the process, assignsitsel the status o a oundational text .

In the second article on Deuteronomy, C. Levin accepts that the ear-liest nucleus o Deuteronomy is a reworking o the Covenant Code toemphasize centralization o the national cult; it contains social-ethicalintentions in its paraenetic sections, like the Covenant Code. Tis nucleusdates rom the time o Josiah at the end o the seventh century ... and,by implication, was to give divine weight to the desired centralizationprogram by associating its promotion by YHWH himsel as a part o thestipulations to be obeyed by Israel when the covenant was made at Mt

Sinai. It is presented as something that is to apply once the people enterthe Promised Land, revealed to the people by Moses only on the eve othe conquest, when the need or cult centralization would become directlyrelevant. Subsequently, at the beginning o the sixth century when thecountry was under impending Neo-Babylonian conquest, the code was setinto its historical ramework. He then argues that, at the end o the sixthcentury .., afer Yehud had become a Persian province and hope or therebirth o the Davidic monarchy had died, the cultic community o Jeru-

salem considered itsel to be YHWH’s direct vassal in place o the ormerDavidic line and the law code o Deuteronomy was revised to take on theorm o a treaty between YHWH Elohim and Israel directly, and thus, toserve as a code o behavior toward YHWH Elohim himsel.

Te main thrust o the paper ocuses on urther adaptations to thebook undertaken in the Persian and Hellenistic periods that center on twothemes: the ethics o brotherhood and the care o the poor. Careul, ana-lytical readings o Deut 15:1–6, 7–11, 12–18; 19:16–21; 22:1–4; 23:20–2;

24:7, 10–13, 14–15; 25:1–3 in various versions are undertaken to teaseout editorial layers. Levin argues that passages that develop the theme othe ethics o brotherhood assume the presence o the covenant theologyrevisions and so reect a chronologically subsequent development. Teywere not part o the original law code, as commonly assumed. Rather, they


27/304


reect the morality o the Jewish temple community, which constitutedan ethno-religious minority within the larger population o Yehud in the

Persian period. Te theme o the care o the poor reects links with the“devout poor” in the Psalms and similar supplements also made to theprophetic books that identiy “the poor” as a religiously devout group witha special closeness to God who will survive the eschatological judgment. Itreects concerns that developed in the Hellenistic period.

Tere is little direct conversation between the two papers, yet together,they raise a number o important issues or uther reection. One positsthe monarchic era as the time o composition and the other the Persian

period; each provides a rationale or the proposed socio-historical context.How does a decision about origin impact on the book’s authority? Howdoes purpose relate to authority? While one sees authority rom the begin-ning, inherent in the book’s composition, the other posits authority beinga secondary development, which accounts or the story o the nding othe law scroll during temple renovations in the reign o King Josiah. Whatclues can be used to deduce or understand a text’s primary or secondaryauthority? When can we identiy the existence o something we would

call a book o Deuteronomy; would it only be once the law code was setin its narrative ramework? How did authority work in emerging Jewishcommunities such that it was possible to alter the text o an authoritiavebook over centuries, on the one hand, and yet create a different book romExodus, rather than simply updating that book? Why did this book orm acore or both the Samarian and Judean communities?

J

E. A. Knau tackles the twoold question o authority relating to the booko Joshua: why the Joshua character grew in authority, and why his storywas ormulated as a book, which became authoritative. He answers therst by noting that the narrative beginning either in Genesis or Exodusneeds an ending other than what is in Deut 34, where the Israelites arestill in the desert, outside time and space. Te account o how they cameinto their land and possessed it under Moses’ appointed prophetic succes-

sor, Joshua (Deut 31–34 i not Exod 15–Deut 34), is required. Its specicormat as a book derives rom the growth o the corpora o texts that even-tually became the two collections that comprise orah and Prophets. Asthe rst book o the latter corpus, it exemplies the role o the prophetswho will succeed Moses but never be his equal: God talks to them and they


28/304


may perorm miracles but primarily, they are to learn, teach, and applyorah and write down their divine encounters. Te core o the book is

the distribution o the land or Israelite tenure. Tis theology was particu-larly germane to two developments in the Persian period: 1) the impe-rial bureaucracy was interested in conscating communal land to createmilitary es; and 2) once money was introduced, land could be used tosecure agricultural credit. Te book offers its intended Persian audience autopian political vision o every person under his or her vine and g tree,orever. Jerusalem is conspicuously absent but is implied: a new Jerusalem,regulated by orah and associated with the Second emple.

In the second article on Joshua, S. Frolov argues that, like the book oJudges, Joshua is not likely to have been read independently. It cannot beknown i it were created as a separate unit prior to the ormation o thecanonical Enneateuch, but the internal use o the opening ormula, “And ithappened afer the death o PN” in Josh 1:1; Judg 1:1; 2 Sam 1:1 and 2 Kgs1:1suggests it was part o an integral composition. It also ts the roughlysymmetrical distribution o the most prominent genres (narratives, gene-alogies, commandments and admonitions) in the Enneateuch. As a result,

he thinks we can only ask how Joshua affected the reception o the largercorpus o Genesis–2 Kings, o which it was an integral part. He notes itunctions in the larger whole by highlighting the rewards that come romobserving orah, especially keeping the First Commandment, in contrastto the transgression o orah and the associated punishment and declinein Judges-Kings. As such, it serves to represent blessing, as opposed tocurse, matching blessing in Lev 26:3–39 and curse in Deut 28:1–68 andhelping to shape the Enneateuch as a suzerain treaty, with the preamble

in Gen 1–Exod 19; the stipulations in Exod 20–Deut 34, and the blessingsand curses in Joshua-Kings.For Frolov, the reassurance that YHWH will reward those who

observe orah with uncontested control over land o their own and “restround about” was particularly important or a group whose collectivememory included orced relocation. Yet, he also notes how the politicalsituation in the Persian period did not correspond to what is depicted ineither Joshua or in Kings, which could generate doubts about the por-

trayed causal link between land and orah observance as well as doubtsthat the entrenched imperial system could ever change. At the same time,by the later Persian period, Joshua’s depiction o a nondynastic, non-Davidic leader working in tandem with the high priest could providea working model or Israel beyond monarchy, even i it originally were


29/304


meant to be an inadequate, temporary solution. In the Hellenistic period,however, the “transormative” plot-line o the book, where the Canaanite

landscape becomes reapportioned to orah-observant Israelites, but notunder Davidic leadership, was closer to experienced reality. As a result,an original Enneateuch, which had been truncated in the Persian periodto create a Pentateuch without a problematic link between land and orahobservance, could be restored, but now as two collections instead o one:the orah and the Former Prophets.

Both o these essays grapple with the role o the book o Joshua withina story-line that extends rom Genesis through 2 Kings. Both authors

agree that a main ocus in the book is ownership o the Promised Land,which ulls the Abrahamic promise. Both also tend to argue that Joshuawould not have existed as an independent composition set side by sidewith other existing compositions so that over time, a periodized “time-line” would have developed via juxtaposition; rather, it would have beencomposed as part o a multivolume project. Yet, as the rst book o theeventual prophetic collection in Jewish tradition, it seems odd that Joshuais never called a prophet. His leadership role in Israel afer Moses is depen-

dent upon accounts in earlier Pentateuchal books that depict or describehim directly as Moses’ “assistant” (mešeret ) (Exod 17, 24, 33; Num 11, 13,14; Deut 1:38; 3:21, 28; 31:3, 7; 34:9) and which depict YHWH selectinghim to be the new leader (Num 14; 27:18–22) and directly commission-ing him (Deut 31:14, 23). Te audience is lef to iner that Joshua is the“prophet like Moses.”

How can we sort out the dual depiction o Joshua as military leaderand yet as an obedient orah-ollower and orah-interpreter, who also ol-

lows direct commands rom YHWH? Were both an integral part o theoriginal plot and i so, why? Is the opening line o the book original or parto the redactional process that has created the Hexateuch or Enneateuch?Is the unstated prophetic unction actually intended at the compositionalor redactional level? As noted by Knau, Jerusalem is not mentioneddirectly either but certainly is implied.

While both scholars seem to avor a date o composition in the Per-sian period, neither addresses directly the relationship between purpose

and authority. Both, however, seem to assume that the meta-story linewas meant to carry social authority as a denitive version o a shared past,lending the book o Joshua authority because o the role it plays in devel-oping a denitive version o the past. Does it also serve to endorse a ormo political leadership that is relevant or its originating community as


30/304


well as or subsequent communites? Does it both uphold a orah-based value system and undermine another competing system at the time o

writing?

J

Y. Amit argues that a book o Judges was the earliest composition that isnow part o the collected books that can be classied as ancient “history-writing.” It was composed in Judah near the end o the eighth century... to understand and justiy the conquest o Israel by the Assyrians in

722 ... and its conversion to a province. It was meant to explore howJudah could avoid a similar ate in the uture. It also explored whether or-eign imperial kings derived their power rom YHWH or not, and whetherhistory has meaning or is arbitrary. Tis preliminary composition, whichwas authoritative by virtue o having gained a certain status rom beingread and reread, was subsequently taken up by Deuteronomistic editorsand made into a description o the period rom the death o Joshua tothe birth o Samuel, with chapters 19–21 being a subsequent addition to

address concerns o a later audience.Evidence o the book’s ongoing authority in the Persian and Helle-

nistic periods is then provided; not only did it enjoy status as part o theso-called Deuteronomistic History, but it dealt with a number o issues theJudean intellectuals o the time deemed central: divine mercy, the status o“the north” vis à vis Yehud; the paradigmatic character o history; divinekingship; Saulide-Davidic rivalry, and the legitimacy o oreign women.It allowed the past to serve as a source o inspiration and brain-storming

about central issues o concern in later generations.In the second article on Judges, S. Gillmayr-Bucher, on the other hand,argues two central themes in Judges ensured its ongoing relevance in thePersian period, leading to its growing authoritative status: the search orIsrael’s identity and the question o leadership. While the specic tribes varywithin the book, there is, nevertheless, an emphasis throughout on Israelas a distinct ethnic unit to be distinguished rom other groups living in thearea and dened particularly by its religion. Te borders are established,

so the issue is not primarily conquest, which is mentioned in chapters 1and 18–19, but rather, maintaining supremacy over the land in the aceo threats rom outside nations. Israel’s sel-identity is reected in two keyelements: a shared origin story—the exodus rom Egypt—and solidarity,which is vital to its survival. Te same ideas appear in the book o Joshua.


31/304


Leadership is also a central ocus in the book. By depicting the achieve-ment o individual leaders over a span o time, the book shows they accom-

plish nothing; the behavior o the people remains wayward and unaccept-able to YHWH. Judges 2:11–19 reduces the heroic judges to instruments oGod, who ail, ultimately, to guide Israel, raising the question, can anyonedo so? It is unclear i the reerences to the lack o a king in chapters 17–21are an appeal to an ideal king as a solution to leadership or not, but there isa strong implication that the temporal leader must teach the people orahso they have a guideline or how to live their lives as a united community otribes on its land, even i not necessarily as an independent political entity.

Judges offered readers and rereaders in the Persian era a critique o theorms o heroic and royal leadership depicted in the books o Joshua andKings; neither worked, ultimately. It also offered an alternate vision to thatset orth in Ezra-Nehemiah that ocuses on Judah/Yehud only; in Judges,Judah is not a leader and is not on its own; it is one o the constituenttribes that comprise Israel. Te debate over the relationship and commonidentity o those living in the adjoining provinces o Samaria and Yehudnds support or wider unity, in spite o its problematic nature, not or

isolationalism.Both contributors understand Judges to have as a central ocus the

issue o leadership; however, is that only leadership by oreign imperialkings, native leaders, or both? How does the other ocus on Israelite iden-tity play out and interact with the emphasis on leadership? Does the bookultimately advocate a orm o theocracy based on orah-teaching andgroup solidarity expressed through torah-observance, without a temporalleader? Or, does it accept that there inevitably will be a temporal leader,

native or oreign, who most likely will exhibit many ailings and rule inad-equately, but that his policies and shortcomings are ultimately irrelevantsince the people o Israel have orah and can survive and even thrive ithey, as a group, ollow it? Who does this book understand should be theteacher(s) o orah? Is it civil or religious authorities? Can Israel rely ondivine mercy and leniency i the people disobey orah or is exile rom thehomeland a possible catastrophe that can be repeated?

How can we rmly identiy earlier versions o a current biblical book

and locate their period and place o composition? Is the “all-Israel” perspec-tive part o the original shaping o the book or the product o later editing,when Judges ound its location amongst other books that resulted in itscurrent place in the periodization o the past that envisioned a twelve-tribepremonarchic Israel? Does the ailure o judges who have tribal affiliations


32/304


other than with Judah and Benjamin intentionally denigrate Samaria inavor o Yehud? When the past serves as a source o inspiration and brain-

storming, should we assume that the past as depicted is historically accu-rate or might it equally be idealized or ashioned to examine painul orpotentially dangerous present situations saely by setting them in a differ-ent time period and exploring likely consequences o certain courses opresent action? What concerns are addressed by chapters 19–21?

S

. Bolin ocuses his essay on those who read 1–2 Samuel in the Persianand Hellenistic periods and what they saw as authoritative in this narra-tive. He concentrates on the educational system in Jerusalem in Yehud inorder better to understand the context in which collecting, copying, andthe incorporation o texts, including Samuel, took place. Arguing or thelikely clearing away o Persian-era remains in Jerusalem or building proj-ects undertaken in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, he suggests that thepopulation in the city and its environs in the Persian period would have

been sufficiently large to have supported an educational system. Noting thepresence o Greek imports and, thereore, Greek inuence in the southernLevant already in the Persian period, he suggests the Judean educationalsystem was likely to have been modeled already under the Persians on thegoals current in Greece and western Asia Minor rather than on those othe older ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian systems, but denitely wasset up in this way by the Hellenistic period. While both involved the mas-tery o a canon o set texts, the latter aimed at acquiring knowledge that

was to be used in the ongoing service o kings and gods, while the ormeraimed at instilling the inherited cultural norms in the next generation oelite priestly and nonpriestly boys.

Te only clues we have about how 1–2 Samuel were understood inthese two periods are in the partially paralleled sections in 1–2 Chronicles,in the ourteen psalms with superscriptions related to the lie o David,twelve o which allude to stories in Samuel, and apparent allusions toevents in Samuel ound in Qohelet, whose speaker has assumed the per-

sona o Solomon. It is suggested that the ourteen psalms with superscrip-tions associated with the lie o David represent recorded exemplars o thebest oral recitations o advanced students who were set the task o gener-ating a response to a morally or theologically problematic episode in thelearned canon as the culmination o their years o training.


33/304


In the second article on the books o Samuel, K.-P. Adam suggests theway to determine how the books were authoritative in the Persian period

is to ocus on the themes, Deuteronomistic language, and traditions thatgrew or were revised in this era. Different versions o the text help estab-lish these later developments. ypical modes o reception also determinetheir authority. He then examines the contribution the books make to legaldebates in the Persian period in a number o narratives that comment indetail on decision-making and legal authority, procedure, and content.Tese include rights o the king (2 Sam 8:10–22; 2 Sam 7*) and violencebetween individuals, including homicide and revenge (1 Sam 18–27*; 2

Sam 1–4; 11–14). He examines two legal parables in more depth, 2 Sam 12and 2 Sam 14:2–22, the latter o which he suggests was created in Yehud inthe Persian period. 2 Sam 12:1–4 is considered a secondary unit, inventedto reveal the legal liability David bears or Uriah’s death, while 2 Sam12:15–24b is seen to be a later insertion rebutting claims that Solomon haddishonorable origins. It is based on the principle o individual retributive justice typical o the Chronicler but not the Dtr.

A number o other likely Persian-era expansions are identied in the

ootnotes. Tese include 1 Sam 8*, 12*; 1 Sam 14:23–46; 1 Sam 17:1–18:5M; the eud-like quarrel between the protagonists Saul and David in1 Sam 18–27*; the theme o the undamental solidarity o the living withthe dead (1 Sam 17:44, 46; 2 Sam 21:1–14); the ascination with heroicscenes o single combat (1 Sam 17; 2 Sam 23:9–12, 20–23); the Greek tra-dition o lists o heroes (2 Sam 23:24–39), the superiority o prophet overking (e.g.1 Sam 19:18–24) and the tragic character o Saul (1 Sam 10:8;13:7–13a; 10:17–27; 14:24–46; 26*; 28* and 1 Sam 31*). Te reasons or

their appeal to a Persian-era audience are not explored, however, since theocus o the chapter is on legal narratives in the book, especially 2 Sam 14.Te incident involving the wise woman o ekoa in 2 Sam 14:2–22 is

identied as an inserted, stylized case narrative or “judicial parable” on various grounds: 1) the change in David’s attitude between 13:39 and 14:1,which likely prompted the episode’s insertion; 2) the use o generic des-ignations or the protagonists that typiy inserted case narrative; 3) theailure o the wise woman episode otherwise to be reerenced; 4) the story’s

consideration o legal aspects o Absalom’s return, whose short plot is anexcursus on a closely related theme o relevance or key characters in thebooks o Samuel; and 5) the use o nuanced categories o guilt. Te nar-rative modies the existing laws on homicide, asylum, and revenge in thePentateuch while juxtaposing two contrasting images o David in connec-


34/304


tion with royal judicial authority in the macro-text. 2 Samuel 14 depictshim as a mellow king, but 1 Kgs 1–2 portrays him as a law-abiding hard-

liner who deers the execution o justice in the case o Joab to his succes-sor. Te possibility is raised that the judicial parable in 1 Sam 14, whichuses the device o entrapment like Greek drama and is ramed primar-ily as direct speech, had an origin in oral perormance. Be that as it may,the current written orm is directed at a particular audience whose socio-historical, religious and social contexts are acknowledged to need urtherinvestigation.

Tere is no real intersection between these two essays, each o which

ocuses on aspects o authority or the compositional history o the bookso Samuel more than on the issue o the way(s) in which the books oSamuel would have been deemed authoritative by audiences in the laterPersian and early Hellenistic periods. Nevertheless, each essay gener-ates a ew questions. Te date o the use o the texts or scribal educationor a more widely based philosophical and moral education has alreadybeen raised in an earlier section o the Introduction. What is the relation-ship between the books o Samuel and the books o Kings, both o which

ocus on kings during the time o the monarchies o Israel and Judah butwhich are developed in different ways? Why was the social memory oDavid shifed over time rom being ounding hero and warrior to being aparagon o personal piety? Was this a deliberate expansion o David as amemory node, or an attempt to reshape and privilege a new image over anolder one? Which social subgroup might have been responsible, and whatmight be revealed about the issue o the eternal Davidic covenant? Howdoes a ocus on the themes, Deuteronomistic language, and traditions that

grew or were revised in the later Persian or early Hellenistic period help usdetermine how the books were authoritative in these two periods?Were the proposed additions necessary in order or the book to be

seen to be relevant and gain some sort o authority, or was the earlierorm already authoritative to some degree so that such expansions, whichit is assumed reect live issues in the reading community at the time otheir additions, enhance it existing status? Was the administration o lawa new key issue in one or both o these time periods, or does 1 Sam 14

help qualiy the portrait o David as a allible human, which might beintended to counter the growing trend in other circles to idealize him,which ound expression in the books o Chronicles? Was there a perceivedneed to undermine royal authority in the administration o justice in avoro priestly or Levitical administration o local law? Why would the bibli-


35/304


cal redactors be so open to using Greek literary techniques and trendsto shape the shared account o their own group’s past, which is meant to

dene them as an ethnos with a distinctive value system? Would any othese literary techniques or trends have been utilized in a way to opposeHellenistic culture, or would their use have been an embracing o some oit elements?

K

. Römer begins by noting that the Septuagint translators considered

1–2 Kings to belong together with 1–2 Samuel; they called this history othe monarchies o Israel and Judah 1–4 Reigns, so it is uncertain that Kingswas ever intended to be read without Samuel preceding it. In the Persianperiod, Kings was not authoritative in the sense o its having reached anal, agreed orm, as indicated by the divergent orm rom the M thatunderlies the Greek translation. It was also not yet authoritative in Yehudor Babylonia or its implied, intended Judean audiences in the sense obeing “the” accepted view o the era o the monarchies or else Chronicles

would not have been composed in the later Persian or early Hellenisticperiod and included in the Hebrew and Christian canons. However, byimplication, the story o the monarchies was deemed an important tradi-tion to be preserved and transmitted to uture generations. Te ambigu-ous ending allows or different meanings and unctions; i Kings is readin isolation or as the end to an Enneateuch, then 2 Kgs 25:27–30 is anacceptance o the exile; but read as part o the Prophets, as it is in Jewishtradition, it is a transition to prophetic oracles concerning an ideal king in

Isaiah or a new David in Ezekiel.Te condemnation o Solomon’s mingling with oreign women reectsone ideological option in the discussion taking place in the Persian periodabout how nascent Jewish identity should be built: via segregation. Tebook relates how kingship nally ailed, due to the actions o people andkings, and suggests another authority is needed. Read in the second hal othe Persian period, this message would have resonated with the acceptanceo the loss o political autonomy by the economic and intellectual leaders

o nascent Judaism.Kings contains a discourse about good kings and bad kings and thelimitation o royal authority. Good kings ollow two prescriptions rom thebook o Deuteronomy: the exclusive veneration o YHWH and the accep-tance o the temple in Jerusalem as the only legitimate place to worship


36/304


him. In the Persian period, most o the prophetic narratives in Kings wereadded to oster its prophetic character and authority. By the end o the

book, prophets move rom being messengers o doom to kings to preach-ers o tōrâ. In the Persian period, then, the book o Kings ranks propheticauthority above royal authority or its readers, but both types become rela-tive and subordinate to the nal authority o Moses and the orah, whichwould have been understood to be the Pentateuch or a orerunner to it. In2 Kgs 22–23, orah replaces the traditional markers o religious identity:temple, prophet, and king. For those who accepted integration into thePersian Empire, prophetic proclamations o the restoration o the Davidic

kingship would have been seen to be problematic and were to be curbedby making orah the authoritative word o God.

In the second article on the books o Kings, J. Linville argues that theauthority o Kings lay not in its endorsement o certain ideological pointsbut rather, in its being part o a exible, open-ended social discourse thatallowed readers to use ritual episodes and prototypical events to reect onthe differences between their lives and the social constructions ound inKings and other texts. It was part o a larger matrix o stories and myths

that allowed different views o what makes an ideal society and its norms tobe considered and debated, while also establishing status and authority orthose who could understand the enigmas addressed in, and the disjunc-tions between, different texts. Te key to understanding Kings is to com-pare and contrast it with other myths o Israel’s history and identity. Tebook endorses acceptance o a unied Israel willingly bound to YHWH bya covenant, an ideal that would have been open to debate and reinterpre-tation in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Te ending, which

leaves Judah in exile, also would have raised questions about the status oSecond emple Jerusalem.“Exilicist” thought is not the purview o a single ideology but rather,

an ancient Judean way o conceptualizing the past and present that oundexpression in various orms in the books that now constitute the HebrewBible. It was not the only lens used to understand the termination o themonarchic past in the Persian and Hellenistic periods; Chronicles viewsthe exile as the end to Sabbath rest (2 Chr 36:20–21). Kings gained author-

ity rom recognizing the authority o Moses but at the same time, pro-duced a new myth at odds with aspects o the old myth in order to provokenew ways o imagining society.

Te book, as well as the entire collection o books comprising theFormer Prophets, can be seen to constitute a myth about the myth o


37/304


how orah was revealed and how its covenant curses became reality. Itturns the myth o exile into the myth o exodus but omits the myth o a

new, successul conquest, thereby providing a useul, alternate reality inwhich readers in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods could ques-tion, affirm, or perhaps subvert both the status quo and projected socialor political agendas. In its myths concerning the rituals o Sukkot (1 Kgs8–9) and Passover (2 Kgs 22–23), as well as in stories dealing with regulartemple rituals, the book authorizes the ongoing signicance o all threetypes o rituals in the social situations o its readers while also contribut-ing to important discourses on the boundaries, characteristic eatures, and

dening social actions o the group identiying itsel as Israel in the targetperiods, and later.

An interesting dialogue emerges rom reading these two articles insuccession. Tere is agreement over an emphasis on orah and on exile,but a different view o how readers would have interacted with the storiesthey encountered in Kings and the message they would have taken away.For Römer, the addition o prophetic authority to the texts in the Persianperiod has resulted in a relegation o royal authority to third-place, with

Moses and orah becoming the central authority taught by the prophetsthat ultimately replaces king, prophet, and temple, the traditional mark-ers o religious identity. Originally, the book had been a discourse overgood kings and bad kings, and so, more generally, about the limitations oroyal authority. For Linville, the stories that highlight temple rituals andpilgrimage estivals send a clear signal that the temple and its calendarcontinued to play a central role in the social abric o Judeans in the Per-sian and Hellenistic periods. He agrees that orah is operative in the book

in that the plot-line tells how the covenant curses rom Sinai/Horeb weremade reality but does not see it to be a central aspect, although he thinksthe authority o the book was enhanced by its acceptance o the author-ity o Moses. Yet Linville also sees scope or readers not only to affirmthe implied status quo o the temple o their day but also to question orsubvert it, offering two additional options that reect what Römer con-sidered to be the only option. Linville sees the book to allow hearers toreect over their own situation in contrast to what is ound in the texts, as

part o a larger exible discourse over what makes an ideal society, withno endorsement o certain ideologies and rejection o others. Römer, onthe other hand, seems to think the book is modeling certain ideologiesthat it wants hearers to endorse, though perhaps he would agree that some


38/304


ideas are oated without necessarily expecting ull agreement, as ways toprompt reection and debate.

Since both Kings and Chronicles, which cover much o the sameground but also differ in terms o overall scope, were accepted as authori-tative, can we assume Chronicles could only have been written at a pointin time beore Samuel had gained authority? Does authoritative statusmean no urther changes to a given book can be introduced? I so, doesthis necessitate the writing o a new work i one wants to object to ideasin the authoritative one? How can we iner authorial intent rom nished,edited products? Don’t authors usually have points o view they want their

readers to accept and endorse, over against competing views? I so, doesany single composition encourage open reection and debate, or is thisonly the net result o a collection o compositions that advocate different views, orcing the reader to reect and take a personal stand amongst theoptions on offer? I we were to read Samuel and Kings as a single literarycomposition, as the LXX translators did, would it modiy any o the viewsexpressed by the two contributors or reinorce their points implicitly orexplicitly?

It is time or you, the reader, to engage directly with the ull text o theten essays in this volume and discover what questions and urther thoughtsthey trigger in your mind, whether as monologues or as dialogues. Tereare many interesting ideas on offer here, relating to authority as well as toother aspects o individual books.


39/304


40/304

A D

Philip R. Davies

I

Te reception o a text does not necessarily depend upon the nature o itsconception. However, the imputed origins o Deuteronomy given in thebook itsel (1:1) and its “rediscovery” in 2 Kgs 22 are themselves part othe book’s own reception, and we must thereore try to determine whatwe regard as its historical origin, not or its own sake, but to evaluate the

stories told o its origin and history.How Deuteronomy came about and what kind o a composition it isare mutually entailed questions that still need to be addressed separatelyand in the right sequence. Unortunately, the question o dating (or rea-sons connected with the classical documentary theory o Pentateuchalormation) has too ofen taken priority over the question o purpose, and,having been widely regarded as settled, has rather predetermined the morebasic questions o nature and purpose. How this scroll became “author-

ized” in the rst place can only be determined with some probability iwe begin not with an accepted date and setting but by asking what it wasseeking to achieve. What do its implied objectives—or its vision o Israel-ite society—tell us about the circumstances o its conception? o answerthis question is not, o course, the primary purpose o this essay, which isabout its reception as an authoritative book: but at the very least the pur-pose should disclose its intended reception, and so very probably its initial reception.

D’ “I”

Deuteronomy denes a novel conception o the manner o the relationshipbetween “Israel” and its “tribes” (1:13,15; 5:23; 12:5,14; 16:18; 18:5 etc.) on

-27-


41/304


the one hand and its deity on the other. Tis relationship is articulated interms o a “covenant” (

רית bĕrît occurs twenty-seven times in the book)

between the deity and the people, and encompasses nearly all aspects osocial and domestic lie. “Israel” is also strongly distinguished rom itsneighbors in the land given to it by its god, with whom it is not to inter-marry nor share any cultural traits; such an imposition o strict boundar-ies suggest an ethnicizing agenda. Such an agenda is urther indicated byregular allusions to the land as promised to Israel’s ancestors (orty-sevenreerences to “athers/ancestors”) and to an original event o ethnogenesis,the deliverance rom Egypt (orty-six reerences to “Egypt”).1 Deuteron-

omy seeks to dene Israel in terms o its religion and not by its genealogicaldescent or its cult or its political status. Its religion, moreover, embracesmost aspects o its cultural lie. In addition, Deuteronomy is not as suchconcerned with monotheism as we now understand that: the question othe existence o other gods remains obscure. What is crucial is that Israel’sexclusive identity is mirrored by the exclusive identity o its own god.2

But what is Deuteronomy’s “Israel”? It is not the kingdom o thatname, nor its political successor, the province o Samerina. Its “tribes” are

enumerated as twelve in the blessing-and-curse ritual o ch. 27 and includesix on Mt. Ebal and six on Mt. Gerizim; both kingdoms or provinces arethus included in what is a religious and cultural entity, a tribal people. Butwhen and how did such an entity—or such a concept—come into exis-tence? In a detailed examination o this question, I have proposed that theonly possible terminus a quo or such a concept is afer 586 ..., withthe ending o the royal dynasty in Jerusalem and the emergence o Ben- jaminite hegemony in Yehud.3 One important consequence o this shif o

political power was a reversal o previous hostile relations between the two

1. Festive meals have also recently been suggested by as a urther identity-orm-ing practice; see Peter Altmann, Festive Meals in Ancient Israel: Deuteronomy's IdentityPolitics in Teir Ancient Near Eastern Context (BZAW 424; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011).

2. Te nature o Deuteronomy’s “monotheism” might provide an important clueto its historical context. But the major study by Nathan MacDonald connes itsel totheological denitions and does not engage with the diachronic aspect o the emer-gence o “high god” belies within the imperialized world o the Levant (Deuteronomyand the Meaning o “Monotheism” [FA 2/1; übingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003]). Else-where I have termed such belies “imperial theism”; see Philip R. Davies, “M*n*th**sm”(paper presented at the SBL International Meeting, London, July 6, 2011).

3. Philip R. Davies, Te Origins o Biblical Israel (LHBOS 485; London: &Clark, 2007).


42/304

DAVIES: HE AUHORIY OF DEUERONOMY 29

ormer kingdoms, and, more importantly, the adoption o the cult o the“god o Israel” within Judah, a cult centered on the temple o Bethel, which

lay at this time within the borders o Judah but had previously unctionedas a royal temple in the kingdom o Israel. Its association with Jacob prob-ably dates rom the monarchic period, in which the patriarch was alsogiven the name “Israel.” One result o this cultic integration o Samariaand Judah was, thereore, the adoption o the patriarch Judah as a son oJacob, the eponymous “Israel,” and thus the adoption o a religious Israel-ite identity within Judah. Hereafer “Israel” remains a religious and nevera political designation.4 Tis is the “Israel” o Deuteronomy—and o the

Pentateuch as a whole—and hence both populations shared these docu-ments. We can thus conclude that Deuteronomy is at least in part aboutproviding a new or recently developed “Israel” with a number o crucialethnic characteristics: cult, ancestry, ounding legend, legal customs.

G D

Te literary orm that this denition takes, at least in its canonized shape,

seems to have been inspired by two standard diplomatic-scribal genres:the vassal treaty and the law code. Both genres are o considerable antiq-uity and no doubt comprised part o the scribal repertory o the kingdomso Israel and Judah and also later o the provinces o Samaria and Yehud.Tere remains some disagreement5 over whether the Hittite vassal treaty

4. Tat the inhabitants o Samaria continued to be addressed as “Israel,” however,

can be deduced rom a number o oracles in the book o Jeremiah that are clearlyaddressed to Samaria and not to Judah. See Davies, Origins o Biblical Israel , 119–20.5. Te similarities between Deuteronomy and the Hittite vassal treaty were rst

pointed out by George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite radition,” BA 17(1954): 49–76. Later studies extended the comparison to Assyrian treaties or “loyaltyoaths”; see, or example, Dennis J. McCarthy, reaty and Covenant: A Study in Formin Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old estament (AnBib 21; Rome: PonticalBiblical Institute, 1963). Moshe Weineld provides an excellent review (Deuteronomyand the Deuteronomic School [Oxord: Clarendon, 1972], 59–157), as do George E.Mendenhall and Gary Herion (“Covenant,” ABD 1:1179–1202). Tomas Römer arguesagainst any possibility o dependence on Hittite treaties and avors the loyalty oathso Esarhaddon (Te So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical andLiterary Introduction [London: & Clark, 2007], 74–78). Compare the views o Ber-nard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics o Legal Innovation (New York:Oxord University Press, 1998); Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, eds., Neo-Assyr-


43/304


or the Neo-Assyrian loyalty oath urnishes the more precise model. Tehistorical prologue (chs. 1–11) is characteristic o Hittite treaties and is

ollowed by stipulations, provision or the deposit o the treaty or publicreading, witnesses, and nally, blessing and curses. Apart rom the invoca-tion o witnesses, all these are present in Deuteronomy. Te vassal treatieso Esarhaddon are characterized by demands to “love” the king; the identi-cal language is present in Deuteronomy. Both also contain curses. Teseoptions are not exclusive: i the authors knew both genres, they could wellhave been combined. Nor should either model be taken to imply eithera terminus a quo date6 or an anti-imperial device. Te laws in Deuter-

onomy’s central section (chs. 12–26), afer all, bear comparison with a veryancient Akkadian tradition. Tese law codes, like Deuteronomy’s, governmost aspects o social lie (unlike vassal treaties). But unlike the law codes,Deuteronomy expresses the laws in a hortatory style that utilizes both sin-gular and plural second person orms (explanations or this alternation arenumerous and mostly unconvincing.7) What this rhetorical style implies

ian reaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988); and

JohnVan Seters, A Law Book or the Diaspora: Revision in the Study o the CovenantCode (Oxord: Oxord University Press, 2003), 99–101. On the orms o the ancientMesopotamian law code, see Martha . Roth, Law Collections rom Mesopotamia and

Asia Minor (Writings rom the Ancient World 6; Atlanta: Society o Biblical Literature,1995). For a recent convenient summary, see Diana Edelman et al., Te Books o Moses: Opening the Books (BibleWorld; Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 147–54.

6. So pointed out by E. Axel Knau, “Observations on Judah’s Social and Eco-nomic History and Te Dating o Te Laws In Deuteronomy,” JHS 9:18 (2009), avail-able online at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_120.pd and in Perspectives in

Hebrew Scriptures VI: Comprising the Contents o Journal o Hebrew Scriptures, vol. 9(ed. Ehud Ben Zvi; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2010), 387–93.7. Explanations include the presence o different redactional layers, that the sin-

gular is addressed to the king, and that it is a rhetorical device to address each Israeliteindividually. Te book itsel nowhere suggests that any particular individual is beingaddressed, and the notion o a king, or example, as the addressee is an inerence romthe book’s conjectured original context in the reign o Josiah and the injunction thatthe king is to be presented with a copy (17:18–19). But the possibility that a later writerwould expand an existing singular text, or attach it to another, in a plural address,while leaving the singular mode o address, is problematic. For discussion and critiqueo the major alternatives, see imothy A. Lenchak, Choose Lie! A Rhetorical-CriticalInvestigation o Deuteronomy 28, 69–30,20 (AnBib 129; Rome: Pontical Biblical Insti-tute, 1993), 10–16. Te view taken here, that they are stylistic, ollows, among others,Norbert Lohnk, Das Hauptgebot: eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsragen zuDtn 5–11(AnBib 20; Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute, 1963); Walter Beyerlin, “Die


44/304

DAVIES: HE AUHORIY OF DEUERONOMY 31

by way o speech is given a concrete setting (1:1) i