jsot the history of israel's traditions

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENTSUPPLEMENT SERIES

182

EditorsDavid J.A. ClinesPhilip R. Davies

Executive EditorJohn Jarick

Editorial BoardRichard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, Tamara C. Eskenazi,

J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon,Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers,

Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The History of Israel'sTraditions

The Heritage of Martin Noth

edited bySteven L. McKcnzic

andM. Patrick Graham

Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement Series 182

Copyright © 1994 Sheffield Academic Press

Published bySheffield Academic Press Ltd

Mansion House19 Kingfield Road

Sheffield, S1 19ASEngland

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Pressand

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britainby Bookcraft

Midsomer Norton, Somerset

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-499-3

CONTENTS

AbbreviationsContributors and Editors

STEVEN L. MCKENZIE AND M. PATRICK GRAHAMIntroduction

Part I

THE IMPACT OF MARTIN NOTH'SUBERLIEFERUNGSGESCHICHTLICHESTUDIEN

CHRISTOPHER T. BEGGMartin Noth: Notes on his Life and Work

ANTONY F. CAMPBELL, SJMartin Noth and the Deuteronomistic History

RODDY L. BRAUNMartin Noth and the Chronicler's History

THOMAS L. THOMPSONMartin Noth and the History of Israel

ROLF RENDTORFFMartin Noth and Tradition Criticism

TIMO VEIJOLAMartin Noth's Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studienand Old Testament Theology

711

13

18

31

63

81

91

101

6 The History of Israel's Traditions

DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN WITH JEFFREY C. GEOGHEGANMartin Noth: Retrospect and Prospect

WALTER DIETRICHMartin Noth and the Future of the Deuteronomistic History

Part IITHE BOOKS OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

THOMAS ROMERThe Book of Deuteronomy

BRIAN PECKHAMThe Significance of the Book of Joshuain Noth's Theory of the Deuteronomistic History

MARK A. O'BRIENJudges and the Deuteronomistic History

P. KYLE MCCARTER, JRThe Books of Samuel

STEVEN L. MCKENZIEThe Books of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History

Index of ReferencesIndex of Authors

128

153

178

213

235

260

281

308322

ABBREVIATIONS

Alttestamentliche AbhandlungenAnnalae Academiae Scientiarum FennicaeAnchor BibleD.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York:Doubleday, 1992)Anchor Bible Reference LibraryAbhandlungen des Deutschen Palastina-VereinsAnnual of the Japanese Biblical InstituteAnalecta biblicaAlter Orient und Altes TestamentAbhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen TestamentsDas Alte Testament DeutschArbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten TestamentBiblical ArchaeologistBonner biblische BeitrageBibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensiumBeitrage zur evangelischen TheologieBeitrage zur Forderung christlicher TheologieBiblical InterpretationBiblicaBiblischer KommentarBiblische NotizenBiblical ResearchBiblical Theology BulletinBeitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen TestamentBiblische ZeitschriftBeihefte zur ZAWCahiers de la RBContributions to Biblical Exegesis and TheologyCatholic Biblical QuarterlyCBQ, Monograph SeriesCentre d'Etude du Proche-Orient AncienSupplements to Cahier EvangileMartin Noth, The Chronicler's History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson;JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987)The Chronicler/the Chronicler's History

AAAASFABABD

ABRLADPVAJBIAnBibAOATATANTATDATSATBABBBBETLBEvTBFCTBIBibBKBNBRBTBBWANTBZBZAWCahRBCBETCBQCBQMSCEPOACESupCH

Chr.


Coniectanea biblica, Old TestamentDielheimer Blatter zum Alien TestamentMartin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al;JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1991)The Deuteronomist (may also be qualified with further sigla, such asDtr1, Dtr2, DtrH, DtrP, DtrN)Etudes bibliquesEuropaische Hochschulschriften. TheologieEretz IsraelErbe und AuftragErtrage der ForschungEphemerides theologicae lovaniensesEtudes theologiques et religieusesEvangelische TheologieForschungen zum Alten TestamentForms of Old Testament LiteratureForschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und NeuenTestamentsFreiburger theologische StudienGottinger theologische ArbeitenHebrew Annual ReviewHandbuch zum Alten TestamentHandkommentar zum Alten TestamentHarvard Semitic MonographsHarvard Semitic StudiesHarvard Theological ReviewHebrew Union College AnnualInterpreter's BibleInternational Critical CommentaryK. Crim (ed.), Supplementary Volume to the Interpreter'sDictionary of the BibleIsrael Exploration JournalInterpretationJournal of Biblical LiteratureJournal of Northwest Semitic LanguagesJournal for the Study of the Old TestamentJournal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement SeriesKommentar zum Alten TestamentKurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten TestamentKurzer Hand-CommentarLectio divinaMiinsteraner theologische AbhandlungenNew Century BibleNeue Echter BibelOrbis biblicus et orientalis

ConBOTDBATDH

Dtr

EBibEHS.TElErbAufErForETLETREvTFATFOTLFRLANT

FTSGTAHARHATHKATHSMHSSHTRHUCAIBICCIDBSup

IEJIntJBLJNSLJSOTJSOTSupKATKEHATKHCLDMTANCBNEBOBO

Abbreviations £

Orientalistische LiteraturzeitungOrientaliaOriens antiquusOld Testament LibraryOudtestamentische StudienPalastina-JahrbuchQuaestiones disputataeRevue bibliqueRestoration QuarterlyRevue d'histoire et de philosophie religieusesSources bibliquesStuttgarter biblische AufsatzbandeStuttgarter biblische BeitrageSociety of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSociety of Biblical Literature Monograph SeriesStuttgarter BibelstudienStudies in Biblical TheologyScripta hierosolymitanaStudio theologicaTheologische BuchereiTheologische WissenschaftTheologische LiteraturzeitungTheologie und PhilosophieTheologische RealenzyklopddieTheologische RundschauTheologische StudienTheologische Studien und KritikenTyndale BulletinTheologische ZeitschriftMartin Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen:Niemeyer, 1943)Uni-TaschenbiicherVerkiindigung und ForschungVetus TestamentumVetus Testamentum, SupplementsWord Biblical CommentaryWissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentWelt des OrientsZeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche WissenschaftZeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen GesellschaftZeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-VereinsZeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

OLZOrOrAntOTLOTSPJQDRBRe`sQRHP`RSBSBABSBBSBLDSSBL`MSSBSSETScrHierSTTBuThWT`LZT`PTRÈTRùTSTS`KTynBu`lTZÙS`

UTBV`FVTVTSupWBCWMANTWOZA`WZDM`GZD`PVZT`K

CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS

Christopher T. BeggThe Catholic University of AmericaWashington, DC

Roddy L. BraunOur Savior Lutheran ChurchArlington, VA

Antony F. Campbell, SJJesuit Theological CollegeParkville, VictoriaAustralia

Walter DietrichUniversity of BernSwitzerland

David Noel FreedmanUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MIand the University of California at San Diego

Jeffrey C. GeogheganUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego

M. Patrick GrahamPitts Theology LibraryEmory UniversityAtlanta, GA


P. Kyle McCarter, JrJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, MD

Steven L. McKenzieRhodes CollegeMemphis, TN

Mark A. O'BrienDominican Province of the AssumptionCamberwell, VictoriaAustralia

Brian PeckhamUniversity of TorontoCanada

RolfRend`torffUniversity of HeidelbergGermany

Thomas RomerUniversity of LausanneSwitzerland

Thomas L. ThompsonUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark

Timo VeijolaUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

INTRODUCTION

Martin Noth was clearly one of the giants in the history of scholarshipon the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. It is difficult to say which of hismany works is best known or most responsible for establishing hisreputation, but his 1943 monograph, UberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien, may well represent his most enduring legacy. Although Noth'sreconstruction of Israelite history, including his amphictyonic hypothesis,has been replaced by subsequent histories with their own models forunderstanding ancient Israel, his proposal of a Deuteronomistic Historyis still generally accepted by scholars fifty years later. Moreover, histreatment in US of the Chronicler's History, while not as influential,remains an important contribution to the study of Chronicles, Ezra andNehemiah and to that of Israelite historiography in general. It seemsquite fitting, therefore, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of thepublication of US.

The papers gathered in this volume were presented in summaryfashion at the 1993 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literatureheld November 20-23 in Washington, DC. The program, entitled'Martin Noth Symposium: The 50th Anniversary of the Publication ofUberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien', was jointly sponsored by two ofthe SBL's program units: the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Section andthe Composition of the Deuteronomistic History Group. Thissymposium was a historic occasion, not only because it recognized thework of an extremely important biblical scholar, but also because itbrought together an array of biblical scholars from Australia, Canada,Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the USA. In particular,this symposium marked the first real meeting of representatives of theso-called Smend and Cross schools, who have proposed the two mostpopular reconstructions of the Deuteronomistic History since Noth.While the symposium would certainly have benefited from morediscussion among the participants—both those on the program andthose in the audience—it has at least served to open the door for


increased dialogue and interaction in the future among representatives ofdifferent approaches to these two great historiographic works.

A word about language and abbreviations is in order here. Differentscholars, especially those who have worked on the DeuteronomisticHistory, have adopted different terminology and abbreviations in theirwritings. To avoid confusion in this volume we have chosen to spell outsuch terms as 'Deuteronomistic History', 'Deuteronomic' (relating tothe book of Deuteronomy) and 'deuteronomistic'. We retain Dtr for'the Deuteronomist' and Chr. for 'the Chronicler' (without making acommitment as to the authorship of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah).We have also kept abbreviations for different Deuteronomists (forexample, Dtr1, Dtr2, DtrH, DtrG, DtrP, DtrN), since these are essentialto the reconstructions adopted by the various contributors. Nonetheless,it is still evident that contributors sometimes use the same terms orabbreviations to mean different things. For example, Brian Peckham,who posits a single Dtr means something entirely different by theadjective 'Deuteronomistic' than Timo Veijola, who speaks of multiple'deuteronomistic' redactions. In certain cases, therefore, we haveretained differences in capitalization and abbreviation where these reflectdifferent viewpoints of the authors.

This project has been one of cooperation among scholars throughout.We are deeply grateful to the presenters for their willingness toparticipate in the symposium and especially for their contributions,which are uniformly of great quality and erudition. We would also like toexpress appreciation to David Lull and Gene Lovering of the SBL fortheir assistance in planning the symposium and to the members of thesteering committees for the two program units, who helped nurture andplan the program. In addition, Bernard M. Levinson, chair of the BiblicalLaw Group in the SBL, was enormously helpful as a consultant inputting together the roster of participants for the Noth symposium, andLinda Schearing was kind enough to preside at one of the sessionswhose papers are included in this volume. She also has graciously takenthe entire responsibility for planning the sessions of the DeuteronomisticHistory Section for the 1994 SBL meeting in order to allow SteveMcKenzie time to edit this volume. Finally, we are indebted to Philip R.Davies and the Sheffield Academic Press for their commitment to thispublication and their decision to include it in the JSOT SupplementSeries.

Introduction 15

Our collaboration as editors on this project has only increased ourmutual respect. McKenzie had the initial idea for the symposium, butGraham did the majority of the leg work to assemble the panel ofparticipants. McKenzie did the mechanical editing, but Graham's closereading and checking of bibliography proved indispensable for makingthe articles more readable. We both look forward to working togetheragain in the future.

Parti

THE IMPACT OF MARTIN NOTH'SUBERLIEFERUNGSGESCHICHTLICHESTUDIEN

MARTIN NOTH: NOTES ON HIS LIFE AND WORK

Christopher T. Begg

This presentation will attempt to do three things. First, it will reviewsummarily Martin Noth's life and scholarly career. Secondly, it will traceNoth's progress, as exhibited in his pre-1943 writings, towards theDeuteronomistic History thesis. Finally, it will comment on Noth's'dialogue partners' in the 'deuteronomistic section' of US itself.1

I . Noth's Life

In 1943, the year US appeared, Martin Noth was forty-one years oldand a well-established scholar, an Ordinarius of thirteen years' standing,as well as the author of five books and over thirty articles.2 Noth wasborn in Dresden on August 3, 1902, the eldest son of Gerhard (aGymnasium teacher) and his wife, Colestine. He had two youngerbrothers, one of whom became a Lutheran bishop, the other an execu-tive of the state railway system. Noth did his theological studies at the

1. I cite the (unchanged) 3rd edition of 1967. The first part of it is available in an(unfortunately not always reliable) English translation as The DeuteronomisticHistory (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1991), abbreviated in thisvolume as DH.

2. I base my account of Noth's life and writings on: H. Schult, 'BibliographicMartin Noth', TLZ 90 (1965), cols. 229-38 and Schult's update of this under thesame title in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament, II (TBii39; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1969), pp. 166-205; B. Jaspert, 'Geschichte undTradition Israels: In Memoriam Martin Noth', ErbAuf 44 (1968), pp. 328-31;W. Zimmerli, 'Martin Noth', VT 18 (1968), pp. 409-13; O. Ploger, 'Zum Gedenkenan Martin Noth', ZDPV 84 (1968), pp. 101-103; J. Alberto Soggin, 'Martin Noth,Biblista ed Orientalista', Or Ant 9 (1970), pp. 235-43 and R. Smend, 'Nachruf aufMartin Noth', in Wolff (ed.), Gesammelte Studien, II, pp. 139-65, issued in revisedform as 'Martin Noth, 1902-1968', Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 255-75.

BEGG Martin Noth: Notes on His Life and Work 19

Universities of Erlangen, Rostock and Leipzig in the years 1921-25,followed by a three-month course (August-October, 1925) in Jerusalem,conducted by the 'Deutsches Evangelische Institut fur Altertums-wissenschaft des Heiligen Landes'. Among his theology professors, theone who would exercise the greatest influence on the course of his workwas Albrecht Alt (1883-1956) at Leipzig.1

Returning from Palestine with a stipend from the 'Notgemeinschaftder Deutschen Wissenschaft', Noth proceeded, in November 1925, tothe University of Greifswald as volunteer Assistent of the Old Testamentseminar. There he produced in short order both his Inaugural-Dissertation for the licentiate in theology (1926)2 and his Habilitations-schrift (1927).3 Both of these writings dealt with ancient Israelite namesin light of general Semitic onomastics and developed, as well, the prizeessay that Noth had composed at Leipzig (1922-23) on thereligionsgeschichtliche significance of Israelite personal names.

Thus credentialed, Noth commenced his teaching career as aGreifswald Privatdozent with an Antrittsvorlesung on July 20, 1927,entitled, 'Die Historisierung des Mythus im Alten Testament' .4 He con-tinued for two years (1928-30) as Privatdozent at Leipzig, now as ajunior colleague of his mentor, Alt. During this period, Noth became(1929) editor of the ZDPV, an office he was to hold for a quarter of acentury. Already at the end of 1929, aged 28, Noth became fullprofessor (Ordinarius) with a call to Konigsberg, Germany's eastern-most university.

The US of 1943 itself represents the culmination of Noth's extensivepublication activity during his fourteen 'Konigsberger years'. That

1. On the Alt-Noth relationship, see Smend, 'Martin Noth', pp. 259-61.2. This work was (partially) published both in book form as Gemeinsemitische

Erscheinungen in der israelitischen Namengebung (Leipzig: Kreysing, n. d.) and,under the same title, as an article in ZDMG 81 (1927), pp. 1-45. Referent for the dis-sertation was Johannes Hempel (1891-1965); the licentiate oral examination tookplace on May 5, 1926. In 1930 the Greifswald theological faculty awarded Noth anhonorary doctorate in theology; he acknowledged the honor by dedicating his Joshuacommentary of 1938 to the faculty.

3. Portions of this work (along with other material drawn from his dissertation)were published as Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen derGemeinsemitischen Namengebung (BWANT 3.10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928);see Noth's statement in the 'Vorwort' to this work.

4. Published in Christ und Welt 4 (1928), pp. 265-72, 301-309.


activity encompassed books on the Israelite amphictyony (1930),1 thePentateuchal laws (1940),2 a survey of the 'allied disciplines' of OldTestament study (1940),3 as well as his first commentary—on Joshua(1938).4 Noth's thirty articles from the years 193CM4 evince a clearfocus, reflective of the continuing influence of Alt, on questions of thehistory, topography and archaeology of the ancient Near East, Syria-Palestine in particular. Only rather occasionally do they address other(linguistic, theological) matters.5 Finally, in the mid-1930s Nothundertook the text-critical work of editing Kings (published in 1934) andJoshua (1936)—two components of the Deuteronomistic History—forthe third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica.6

Noth's activity at Konigsberg, already interrupted by his militaryservice during the war, came to a definitive end with the Russiancapture of the city in April 1945. Later that same year Noth found anew home at the opposite end of Germany in Bonn, where he held theOld Testament chair until his retirement in 1967 (and where he twice,1947^8 and 1957-58, served as rector of the University). Noth's'Bonn period' saw no slackening of his scholarly productivity.Publication highlights of these years were his monograph on the

1. Das System der zwolfStamme Israels (BWANT 4.1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer;repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980).

2. Die Gesetze im Pentateuch: Ihre Voraussetzungen und ihr Sinn (Schriftender Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft; Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 17.2;Halle/Saale: Niemeyer, 1940); repr. in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament(TBii 6; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1957), pp. 9-141.

3. Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einfuhrung in die Grenzgebiete der alttesta-mentlichen Wissenschaft (Sammlung Topelmann 2.3; Berlin: Topelmann, 1940).

4. Das Buch Josua (HAT 1.7; Tubingen: Mohr, 1938). A second 'corrected'edition appeared in 1953.

5. See: 'Die fiinf syrisch iiberlieferten apokryphen Psalmen', ZAW48 (1930),pp. 1-23; trw im Palmyrenischen', OLZ40 (1937), pp. 345-46; 'Zur Auslegung desAlten Testaments', Deutsche Pfarrblatter 41 (1937), pp. 341-42, 359-62, 373-74;'Die mit des Gesetzes Werken umgehen, die sind unter dem Fluch' in In piammemoriam Alexander von Bulmerincq (Abhandlungen der Herder-Gesellschaft unddes Herder-Instituts zu Riga 6.3; Riga: Plates, 1938), pp. 127-45 (repr. in Noth'sGesammelte Studien, [TBu 6], pp. 155-71).

6. The complete edition appeared in 1937, Alt and Otto Eissfeldt having assumedthe editorship after Kittel's death in 1929. Noth completed the edition of 1 Kings leftunfinished by Kittel.


tradition history of the Pentateuch (1948),l a history of Israel (1950)2

and commentaries on Exodus (1959) and Leviticus (1962)3—all ofwhich have been translated into English.4

Noth's thirty articles from the years 1947-63 manifest an archaeo-logical/topographical/historical focus in obvious continuity with hisprevious research interests. Several of these later articles deal withindividual passages or segments of the books making up theDeuteronomistic History,5 while in one of them Noth addresses criti-cisms of his more general understanding of Dtr's 'notion of history'.6

During the 1950s as well, Noth played a leading role in the inaugurationof several major collaborative endeavors in Old Testament scholarship,particularly the journal Vetus Testamentum (of which he was co-editor,1950-59) and the Biblischer Kommentar series. In 1962, he presidedover the fourth Congress of the International Organization for the Studyof the Old Testament, which was held for the first time on German soilin Bonn.

Already before his 1967 official retirement from Bonn, Noth, took aleave from the University and moved (1964) to Jerusalem to assume

1. Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).2. Geschichte Israels (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).3. Das zweite Buck Mose, Exodus (ATD 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht) and Das dritte Buck Mose, Leviticus (ATD 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht).

4. The translations, respectively, are: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions(trans. B.W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972); The History ofIsrael (trans, of 2nd edn by S. Godman; London: A. & C. Black, 1958); Exodus: ACommentary (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) andLeviticus: A Commentary (trans. J.E. Anderson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,1965).

5. 'Uberlieferungsgeschichtliches zur zweiten Halfte des Josuabuches', inH. Junker and J. Botterweck (eds.), Alttestamentliche Studien: Friedrich Notscherzum 60. Geburtstag, 19. Juli 1950, gewidmet von Kollegen, Freunden und Schiilern(BBB 1; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1950), pp. 152-67; 'David und Israel in II Samuel, 7',in Melanges bibliques rediges en I'honneur de Andre Robert (Travaux de 1'Institutcatholique de Paris 4; Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957), pp. 122-30; 'The Background ofJudges 17-18', in B.W. Anderson and W.J. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's PropheticHeritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp.68-85.

6. 'Zur Geschichtsauffassung des Deuteronomisten', in Z.V. Togan (ed.),Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Congress of Orientalists, Held in IstanbulSeptember 15th to 22nd, 1951, II, Communications (Leiden: Brill, 1957), pp. 558-66.


(1965) the directorship of the Deutsches Evangelische Institut, of whichhe had been a student thirty years before. In Israel, Noth continuedpublishing: his ATD commentary on Numbers came out in 1966,1 whilefascicles of his BK Kings commentary began appearing in 1964. Thelatter work was abruptly terminated (at 1 Kgs 16) by Noth's unexpecteddeath at age sixty-five, while touring the ruins of Shivta (Subeita) inthe Negev on May 30, 1968. Following a funeral service in theErloserkirche in the Old City on May 31, he was buried, in accordancewith his oft-expressed wish, in the Protestant cemetery in Bethlehem.

2. Intimations of the Deuteronomistic History Thesis

In the second segment of this presentation, my purpose is to trace themovement of Noth's thought towards the Deuteronomistic Historythesis as this can be discerned in his pre-1943 writings. The first relevantsuch work is Das System of 1930. Here, Noth states that he is 'notconvinced' by the then widely held view that the 'Hexateuchal sources'continue beyond the book of Joshua.2 On the other hand, he displays atthis point no hesitation about accepting the existence of a 'Hexateuch',wherein the sources J and E continue into Joshua 1-11, with theirrespective conclusions now interwoven in Joshua 24.3 Eight years laterin his Joshua commentary, Noth's perspective on the question of thepresence of J and E in the book appears significantly altered. He nowaffirms that 'positive arguments' for the presence of J and E in the pre-deuteronomistic chapters 1-12* + 24* are lacking and that that materialwas, rather, assembled by a distinct Sammler working about 900 BCE.4

Thus in contrast to his arguments of 1930, Noth denies in 1938 that notonly J, but even E, is to be found in Joshua 24, doing so, incidentally,without mentioning his own change of opinion.5 Similarly, the 'source

1. Das vierte Buch Mose, Numeri (ATD 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht).

2. Page 67, n. 2. In this same note Noth avers that the 'Jahvistic elements' inJudg. 1.1-2.5 originally stood prior to Joshua 24.

3. Explicitly aligning himself with the views of Rudolf Smend (d. 1913) andOtto Eissfeldt—later among his chief scholarly opponents—on the matter, Noth (DasSystem, pp. 133-40), presents an elaborate argument for the presence of both J and Estrands in Joshua 24.

4. Noth, Josua, pp. ix-xiv.5. Noth's views on Joshua 24 continued to evolve. In Josua (p. xiii) he main-

tains that the deuteronomistic redactor of the book, who modelled his Joshua 23 on


P' is not to be found in Joshua 13-23; what one finds there areredactional, post-deuteronomistic reworkings 'in the style of P' of oldergeographical materials.1 So by 1938, Noth had arrived at the negativeaspect of his Deuteronomistic History thesis: none of the sources thatcommence in Genesis continues into Joshua as such. On the other hand,he still speaks here of the deuteronomistic redaction being responsiblefor the incorporation of Joshua into 'the Hexateuch or better theOctateuch'.2 At this point then, Noth was not yet thinking in terms of asharp distinction between the 'Tetrateuch' and the DeuteronomisticHistory, an idea that characterizes US.

The final item to be noted in this survey is a series of articles writtenbetween 1938 and 1943 that allude to the Deuteronomistic History andNoth's plans to treat this complex. The first such article is a study on theterritory of Gilead in 1941, in which Noth refers to the 'deuteronomisticUberlieferungswerk composed in the middle of the sixth century BC'.and promises to examine it in more detail elsewhere.3 Noth expresseshimself more definitely in an article completed on May 28, 1941,concerning Numbers 21, noting that he hopes to be able to show inanother context that Deuteronomy 1-3 (4) is not the framework of theDeuteronomic law but the introduction to the 'deuteronomistic historicalwork' that extends through 2 Kings.4 Finally, in a piece completed onJune 30, 1942 (the 'Foreword' of US is dated September, 1943), dealingwith the 'Israelite tribes between the Arnon and the Jabbok', Nothmakes several references to the 'deuteronomistic Uberlieferungswerk/Geschichtswerk' and to the 'deuteronomistic historiographer', seemingly

that chapter, allowed Joshua 24 to stand as an 'appendix' to his own composition. InUS (p. 9 and n. 1; DH, p. 23 and n. 1), Noth proposes that the previously freely cir-culating unit, Josh. 24.1-28, was inserted into the existing Deuteronomistic Historyby a later hand. Moreover, the (primary) Dtr would have formulated Joshua 23 with-out knowledge of Joshua 24 (in this instance Noth does acknowledge his change ofopinion).

1. Noth, Josua, pp. xiv-xx.2. Noth, Josua, p. xiii.3. 'Beitrage zur Geschichte des Ostjordanlandes I: Das Land Gilead als

Siedlungsgebiet israelitischer Sippen', PJ 37 (1941), pp. 50-101 (p. 53 and n. 4). Seealso his reference (p. 56, n. 2) to 'der deuteronomistische Geschichtsschreiber'.

4. 'Num. 21 als Glied der "Hexateuch"-Erzahlung', ZAW 58 (1940^1),pp. 161-89 (p. 162, n. 3); see also, p. 163, n. 2; p. 181; p. 184, n. 4; p. 186, n. 1. Inthe above title, note the use of the term 'Hexateuch' within quotation marks to indi-cate Noth's skepticism concerning that entity.


as known entities requiring no further explication.1 The evidence ofthese articles, then, combined with the statement in US itself that duringthe writing of his Joshua commentary, he had not yet come to the ideaof the Deuteronomistic History as such,2 indicate that it was some timebetween the end of 1937 (the Vorwort of the Joshua commentary isdated December of that year) and early 1941 that the idea ofthe Deuteronomistic History as a distinct complex encompassingDeuteronomy-Kings assumed shape in Noth's mind. As far as I havebeen able to determine, however, Noth left no published statements as towhat may have precipitated this further development in his thinking.

3. Conversation Partners

As would be expected, Noth develops his thesis about theDeuteronomistic History in US in dialogue with older and contemporaryscholars, although it must be said that he generally keeps his interactionswith these conversation partners rather perfunctory.3 Noth's minimal-istic engagement with his fellow scholars in US goes so far, in fact, thathe fails to mention one figure, some of whose views on an importantpassage of the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kgs 22-23) he adopts as his

1. 'Israelitische Stamme zwischen Ammon und Moab', ZAW60 (1944), pp. 11-57 (p. 14; p. 20, n. 2; p. 45; p. 49, n. 4; p. 50, n. 5). While this article appeared onlyafter US, it had been written a year before the latter's publication.

2. See US, p. 89, n. 2; DH, p. 119, n. 2, where Noth affirms that in Josua he hadconcluded that there is not sufficient evidence for the continuation of the Genesis-Numbers sources into Joshua solely on the basis of his reading of the latter book('noch ehe die hier vorgetragene Auffassung vom Werke des Dtr in meinenGesichtskreis getreten war').

3. The one exception in this regard is his detailed critique of the proposals con-cerning distinct deuteronomistic editions of the books of Joshua and Judges put for-ward by W. Rudolph (Der 'Elohist' von Exodus bis Josua [BZAW 68; Berlin:Topelmann, 1938], pp. 240-44). [75's discussion of these proposals encompassesalmost three pages (pp. 6-10; DH, pp. 20-24) together with eight footnotes.Concerning the length of his critique, Noth states (p. 9), 'Die Auseinandersetzung mitRudolph musste so eingehend vollzogen werden, weil es sich hier...urn den einzigenim einzelnen ausgefuhrten Versuch handelt, das Nebeneinander selbstandiger"deuteronomistischer Redaktionen" fur die einzelnen "Biicher" literarkritisch zuerweisen, und weil iiberhaupt die Grenze zwischen Josua- und Richterbuch dereinzige Punkt ist, an dem ein solcher Versuch unternommen und in jedem Falle dieFrage, ob wir mit einem in sich zusammenha'ngenden Dtr zu rechnen haben, gepriiftwerden muss.'


own. The figure in question is Theodor Oestreicher, author of a work onDeuteronomy's 'fundamental law', which appeared precisely twodecades prior to US itself.1 In that work Oestreicher argues thatunderlying the current sequence of 2 Kgs 22.3-23.25 are two distinctpre-deuteronomistic sources: an Aujfindungsbericht (now preserved in22.3-23.3, 21-25) and an Annalenbericht (the nucleus of 23.4-20). Helikewise maintains that, contrary to the impression conveyed by 2 Kings22-23 (but cf. the parallel in 2 Chron. 34), Josiah's cultic reform wasalready underway when the lawbook was discovered in the temple, thatreform being a kind of political 'declaration of independence' from thevisibly weakening Assyrian overlord, who had imposed his deities andforms of worship on the Jerusalem temple. In his 1940 work on thePentateuchal laws, Noth cites Oestreicher and expresses agreement withboth of the views just mentioned.2 In US one finds Noth continuing toadvocate those views, both for what concerns the sources behind2 Kings 22-23 and for the historical sequence of Josiah's initiatives, butnow passing over Oestreicher's name in silence.3

Who then are the scholars with whom Noth agrees/disagrees by namein US7 We have already cited Rudolph, whose distinction of separatedeuteronomistic editors for Joshua and Judges was critiqued at length byNoth (see n. 3, p. 24). Of all £75" s adversarii, the one most frequentlycited, however, is Otto Eissfeldt.4 Noth's disagreements with his older(Eissfeldt was born in 1887) colleague have to do both with the latter'soverall view of the formation history of the Former Prophets and thePentateuch in relation to each other and with his handling of particular

1. Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz (BFCT 27.4; Giitersloh: Bertelsmann,1923).

2. Die Gesetze, pp. 50-60 and n. 108 (I cite the reprint edition mentioned in n. 2,p. 20).

3. Pp. 86, 92-93; DH, pp. 115-16, 123-25. In contrast to 1940, when he seemsto accept it (see Die Gesetze, p. 59), Noth here (US, p. 86, n. 4; DH, p. 116, n. 3)rejects (without naming him) Oestreicher's ascription of 2 Kgs 23.21-25 to theAuffindungsbericht, attributing it to Dtr himself.

4. Noth's polemic is directed above all against views enunciated in Eissfeldt'sEinleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen undPseudepigraphen (Tubingen: Mohr, 1934). On occasion, however, he makes refer-ence to earlier writings by Eissfeldt, i.e., 'Konige', in A. Bertholet (ed.), Die HeiligeSchrift des Alten Testaments, I (Tubingen: Mohr, 4th edn, 1922), pp. 492-585; DieQuellen des Richterbuches (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1925); Die Komposition derSamuelisbiicher (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1931).


texts. Thus, for example, he rejects Eissfeldt's proposal of a doubledeuteronomistic redaction—one preexilic and one exilic—in Joshua-Kings.1 As for Eissfeldt's attribution of various pre-deuteronomisticmaterials in these books to the Pentateuchal sources (E in particular),Noth demurs both in the case of the framework of the book of Judges2

and in that of 1 Samuel 12.3 Noth is equally negative regardingEissfeldt's identification of the whole sequence 1 Sam. 7.2-8.22;10.17-27a; 12.1-25 as constituting a self-contained, pre-deuteronomisticstrand.4 Eissfeldt's view of Deuteronomy as a compilation of distincteditions of the Deuteronomic Code does not meet with Noth's approvaleither,5 just as he disavows Eissfeldt's claim that the references to a/theprophet in 1 Kings 20 are secondary.6 The one instance where Nothdoes express qualified agreement with Eissfeldt concerns 1 Sam. 10.21-27a. He deems 'obviously correct' Eissfeldt's 'penetrating surmise' thatthis passage preserves, in fragmentary form, a tradition according towhich God designated Saul as king because of his outstanding height.7

1. Noth, US, p. 6 and n. 1; DH, p. 20 and n. 1. According to Noth, while thereare certainly secondary deuteronomistic elements in these books, their presence (paceEissfeldt) is no argument against the 'Geschlossenheit des urspriinglichen Dtr'. Nothfurther avers (p. 6, n. 2; p. 20, n. 2) that Eissfeldt dates the (first) deuteronomisticredaction 'too early' with the result that he must then ascribe material that is clearlyreflective of a later (exilic) time (e.g., portions of Solomon's prayer in 1 Kgs 8.14-53)to a second deuteronomistic redactor.

2. Noth, US, p. 11, n. 1; DH, p. 25, n. 1. Here, Noth affirms that Eissfeldt'sassigning these sections to E 'beruht nicht auf neuen Erkenntnissen der literarkrit-ischen Analyse, sondern auf allgemeinen literarkritischen Voraussetzungen'. See alsop. 50, n. 2; DH, p. 72, n. 3, where Noth signifies his agreement with K. Wiese (ZurLiterarkritik des Buches der Richter [BWANT 3.4; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926],p. 5, n. 1) against Eissfeldt that the occurrences of the name 'Israel' in Judges cannotbe seen as indicative of the continuation of the 'Hexateuchal sources' into that book.

3. Noth, US, p. 5, n. 2; DH, p. 19, n. 2. Once again (see n. 2, above) Noth dis-misses Eissfeldt's ascription with the comment that it is based merely on 'general lit-erary-critical presuppositions'. Similarly, Noth comments (p. 59, n. 7; DH, p. 83,n. 4) that Eissfeldt 'wrongly' takes 1 Sam. 12.11 in isolation from vv. 9-10 anddraws 'wide-ranging literary-critical conclusions' on that basis.

4. Noth, US, p. 55 and n. 1; DH, p. 77 and n. 4.5. Noth, US, p. 16 and n. 3; DH, p. 32 and n. 2.6. Noth, US, p. 80, n. 1; DH, p. 108, n. 3.7. Noth, US, p. 58; DH, p. 81. See also p. 59, n. 1; DH, p. 82, n. 3, where Noth

states that Eissfeldt is 'quite right' to reject the usual view that 1 Sam. 10.25b-27arepresents a redactional suture.


On the other hand, he does not admit Eissfeldt's further claim that thepassage constitutes part of a continuous pre-deuteronomistic sequence in1 Samuel 7-12* (see above).1

Noth's other 'opponents' in US receive only limited mention. Amongthem I would note the following figures. Artur Weiser's Einleitung of1939 is cited for its agreement with Eissfeldt's erroneous conceptionson the status of both 1 Samuel 12 and 1 Samuel 9-11 (see above).2

Johannes Hempel (1930) and Ernst Sellin (1933) are singled outas recent representatives of the 'customary supposition' that theDeuteronomistic History begins with creation—a view that Noth, ofcourse, is eager to refute.3 Willy Staerk's (1894) 'arbitrary' conjecturethat originally Deut. 31.24 spoke not of 'the law', but rather of 'thesong' has, according to Noth, 'only confused the literary-critical analysisof Deuteronomy 31'.4 Noth faults Karl Budde (1890, 1897) for hisunacceptable reconstruction of the chronology of the period of thejudges, as well as for the literary-critical options with which this isintimately connected5 (e.g., the supposition that the current Judg. 13.1displaced an earlier introduction to the period of Philistine domination).6

Also in the case of Judges, Noth disavows Wiese's contention (1926)that it was Dtr who inserted the references to 'Israel' into the book.7 Inhis discussion of the book of Joshua, Noth qualifies as 'baseless' KurtMb'hlenbrink's (1938) eventual attempt to establish a connectionbetween the book's account of Israel's 'occupation' of Canaan and theGenesis sources, notwithstanding his recognition that the former

1. Noth, US, p. 58; DH, p. 81. For Noth, the pre-deuteronomistic component inthe passage is 10.21b/3-27a, which Dtr provided with an introduction of his owncomposition, i.e., w. 17-21aba.

2. Noth, OS, p. 55, n. 1; DH, p. 77, n.l. In addition, Noth (OS, p. 65, n. 3; DH,p. 90, n. 1) charges Weiser with 'inconsistency' in his acceptance of Alt's view that2 Samuel 8 (rather than 2 Samuel 5) represents the original conclusion of the 'Storyof David's Rise', even though he (Weiser) does not share Alt's presuppositionsconcerning the original arrangement of the latter chapter on which that view is based.See further n. 4, p. 28 below.

3. Noth, OS, p, 12 and n. 1; DH, p. 27 and n. 1.4. Noth, OS, p. 40, n. 2; DH, p. 60, n. 2.5. Noth, US, p. 20 and n. 4; DH, p. 36, n. 5.6. Noth (OS, p. 22, n. 2; DH, p. 39, n. 1) designates that supposition as

'arbitrary'.7. Noth, OS, p. 50, n. 2; DH, p. 12, n. 3. See also n. 2, p. 26 above.


antedates the latter.1 On a more specific point, he further argues againstMohlenbrink's attempt to trace (the original stratum in) Josh. 8.30-35 toa pre-deuteronomistic 'source'.2 As for the books of Samuel, Nothdesignates as 'impossible' the attribution by Abraham Kuenen (1890)and Wilhelm Nowack (1902) of 2 Samuel 7 to a Deuteronomist.3 Ofparticular interest then is Noth's dissent from his mentor Alt's opinionthat 2 Samuel 8 once originally followed 2 Sam. 5.17-25 as the con-clusion of the entire Story of David's Rise.4 Finally, Noth sees no reasonto follow Julian Morgenstern's surmise (1940) that the story originallyfollowing 1 Kgs 22.1-2a was lost in the course of transmission.5

In US Noth expresses what might be called significant agreementswith only a few authors. Of these, two stand out. Repeatedly, he refersapprovingly to Gerhard von Rad's proposals concerning the history ofthe formation of the 'Pentateuch', as developed in the latter's Dasformgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch of 1938.6 In another con-nection Noth cites von Rad's discussion of two secondary passageswithin the book of Deuteronomy that express a future hope, namely4.29ff and 30.Iff, which, von Rad proceeds to argue, postdate Dtrhimself.7 This additional invocation of von Rad, it might be noted,appears problematic in view of Noth's statements elsewhere in US.

1. Noth, US, p. 41, n. 3; DH, p. 61, n. 3. In this context Noth (p. 41, n. 1; DH,p. 61, n. 1) acknowledges that Mohlenbrink is correct in his supposition that, rightfrom the start, the individual 'legends' underlying Judges 1-11 had as theirpresupposition that Israel's entry into the land involved a 'conquest'.

2. Noth, US, p. 43 and n. 1; DH, p. 63, n. 2.3. Noth, US, p. 64 and n. 3; DH, p. 89, n. 1. Noth's grounds for this assertion

are that neither the chapter's rejection of the temple nor its positive emphasis on themonarchy are in accordance with Dtr's mentality. See also n. 3, p. 29 below.

4. Noth, US, p. 65 and n. 2; DH, p. 89, n. 9. Against Alt, Noth argues thatoriginally 2 Sam. 5.17-25 preceded vv. 6-10 (12) and that 2 Sam. 5.10 constitutesa fitting conclusion to the Story of David's Rise, after which one does not expectanything further. See also n. 2, p. 27 above.

5. Noth, US, pp. 79-80, n. 4; DH, p. 108, n. 2.6. BWANT 4; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Cf. US, p. 1, n. 1; p. 2, n. 2; p. 27, n. 1;

p. 88, n. 1; p. 102, n. 1; DH, p. 13, n. 1; p. 14, n. 2; p. 45, n. 1; p. 119, n. 1; p. 136,n. 1. Of course, Noth does not accept the existence of a 'Hexateuch' as cited in vonRad's title; in view of his own theory, one would have to speak of a Tetrateuch'(although Noth himself does not seem to employ that term in US).

1. Noth, US, p. 109 and n. 2; DH, p. 144, n. 1. The reference is to G. von Rad,Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium (BWANT 3.11; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929),pp. 70-71.


Specifically, whereas Noth's formulation at this juncture seems to assignDeuteronomy 30 (the promises of vv. 1-10 in particular) a post-deuteronomistic origin, Noth had affirmed earlier that Dtr had Deut.4.44-30.20 before him in essentially its present form.1

The second author who frequently receives Noth's approbation isLeonhard Rost. In fact, for what concerns the larger complexes that areidentifiable within the pre-deuteronomistic materials in the books ofSamuel (the Story of Samuel's Youth, the Ark Narrative, the SaulNarrative, the Story of David's Rise, the Succession Narrative), Nothtypically refers readers to Rost's 1926 monograph on the subject.2 Nothalso adopts Rost's views on several individual passages. Thus, Rost's'literary analysis' of 2 Samuel 7 is 'essentially correct',3 just as Rost isright in seeing 7.22-24 as a deuteronomistic reutilization of pre-existingelements of the text. These elements had been used originally of God'spromises for the Davidic monarchy's future, but Dtr turned them intostatements about the whole people's past history.4 Rost is likewise'certainly correct' regarding the pre-deuteronomistic character of 1 Kgs2.1,2*, 5-9.5

Among authors with whom Noth expresses more occasionalagreement, two more should be mentioned here. Against the morerecent tendency represented by Eissfeldt and Weiser, Noth aligns himselfwith the older opinion of Julius Wellhausen on the deuteronomisticcomposition of 1 Sam. 7.2-8.22; 10.17-27a; 12.1-25.6 It is also thenagainst another of Eissfeldt's views—that Deuteronomy represents a

1. Noth, US, p. l6;DH,p. 31.2. Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3.6; Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 1926). For Noth's general references to this work, see US, p. 54, n. 1;p. 62, n. 3; DH, p. 77, n. 1; p. 86, n. 3.

3. Noth, US, p. 64 and n. 5; DH, p. 89, n. 3. Rost's analysis, which Noth adoptshere (in preference to Kuenen's and Nowack's ascription of the entire chapter to a'Deuteronomist', see n. 3, p. 28 above), envisages a Grundbestand in 2 Samuel 7,which was subsequently amplified twice, once at the pre-deuteronomistic stage andthen at the deuteronomistic stage.

4. Noth, US, p. 64 and n. 8; DH, p. 89 and n. 6. Noth deviates from Rost'sanalysis of 2 Samuel 7 on one small point: for him it is v. 12b, rather than its parallelin v. 13a, which derives from Dtr, since the latter with its use of the phrase 'for ever'would 'hardly' have been formulated by Dtr.

5. Noth, US, p. 66, n. 2; DH, p. 91, n. 2.6. Noth, US, pp. 54-55 and n. 3; DH, pp. 77-78. See also p. 5, n. 2; DH, p. 19,

n. 2 (on 1 Samuel 12).


compilation of originally separate 'editions' of the Code (see above)—that Noth evokes Gustav Hb'lscher's 'quite convincing demonstration'.1

Summing up \heforschungsgeschichtlich aspect of US, one might saythat therein Noth evinces his awareness of previous discussions on theformation history of the books Deuteronomy-Kings. On the other hand,he shows a rather minimal concern with acknowledging all participantsin the discussion, and even less with providing detailed discussion oftheir proposals—whether by way.of agreement or disagreement.Perhaps Noth thought he had better things to do in his US. Who wouldgainsay him on that point?

1. Noth, US, p. 16 and n. 2; DH, p. 32 and n. 1. Holscher's essay that Nothcites here is 'Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums', ZAW 40 (1922),pp. 161-225.

MARTIN NOTH AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Antony F. Campbell, SJ

My topic is 'Noth and the Deuteronomistic History', and my instructionsfrom my handlers were to stay close to Noth, which I am happy to do.In a short paper, it would be unwise to do anything else. Fifty years ago,in the middle of the bleak horror of World War II, Martin Nothpresented the Deuteronomistic History to the world of biblical scholar-ship. It met with wide but not total acceptance; it has been with us eversince. An architectural metaphor will help to structure discussion, so Iinvite you to think of it as 'the house that Noth built'. Over recentyears, people have been sounding out its structures, suggesting substantialrebuilding or extensive redecorating. To some, the house seems to totter.The question is: Can it still stand? To begin to answer that, we have tolook closely at the foundations on which Noth built.

The concept of a Pentateuch gives a structuring unity to the earlytraditions of Israel. The picture of the known human world leads into theorigins of what was to become the people of Israel. In the generationthat is spanned by the birth and death of Moses, Israel is constituted as apeople, brought out of Egypt into independence and shaped as thepeople of God before being set on the journey to a promised land.Israel's tradition had given these texts a recognized unity as Torah.

To the contrary, the books that followed bore a nomenclature thatpointed away from unity toward diversity; they were placed among theprophets, later specified as the Former Prophets. The immense varietyof traditions in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings lacked any sort ofconceptual unifying focus, such as the idea of Pentateuch/Torah gave tothe earlier traditions.

1. Noth's Original Design

When Noth came to his task, the source-critical foundations had longbeen laid and were generally accepted, viz., the identification of the


'Deuteronomistic' elements in the text. Noth's interest was not in theseparate elements but in the whole. The question he set out to answerwas: 'Do we in fact have here a comprehensive framework indicating alarge literary unit which has adopted much traditional material?' *

The first foundational evidence for the 'whole' that Noth sought tobuild was the structural organization. 'In particular, at all the importantpoints in the course of the history, Dtr. brings forward the leadingpersonages with a speech, long or short, which looks forward andbackward in an attempt to interpret the course of events, and draws therelevant practical conclusions about what people should do.'2 Nothidentifies seven of these passages—either speeches or summaries:Joshua 1; 12; 23; Judg. 2.1 Iff.; 1 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 8; 2 Kgs 17.7ff.

The second piece of foundational evidence alleged is an extension ofthis organizational claim. From close source-critical study of the junctionbetween Joshua and Judges, Noth argues against separate, individualbiblical books in favor of a direct transition from Joshua 23 to the periodof the judges. The other transitions are considered 'smooth and clear'.3

Against the division into books, the structural divisions in thedeuteronomistic text are marked for Noth by Joshua 23; 1 Samuel 12and 1 Kings 8.4

The third piece of foundational evidence—and in many ways the keyclaim—is the contrast between the remarkable diversity of the oldtraditional material and the coherent uniformity of the deuteronomisticparts. 'The unity of the latter is the more obvious because it stands incontrast to the diversity of the older material.'5

The fourth and final piece of foundational evidence built on by Noth isthe recognition that the key date of 480 years from exodus to temple(1 Kgs 6.1) emerges from a calculation based on the figures that aregiven explicitly in the Deuteronomistic History, with a little fiddling ofthe facts at the end of the careers of Joshua and Samuel. All of thisconfirms the understanding of the history as a self-contained unit.6

1. Noth, US, p. 3; DH, p. 15.2. Noth, US, p. 5; DH, p. 18.3. Noth, US, pp. 6-10; DH, pp. 20-24.4. Noth, US, p. 10; DH, p. 24.5. Noth, US, p. 10; DH, p. 25.6. Noth, US, pp. 18-27; DH, pp. 34-44. The correctness of this observation is

not changed by the fact that different judgments about what belonged in theDeuteronomistic History can lead in other ways to the same figure of 480 years—the

CAMPBELL Martin Noth and the Deuteronomistic History 33

Noth's conclusion: 'Dtr. was not merely an editor but ['nichtnur...sondern'] the author of a history which brought together materialfrom highly varied traditions and arranged it according to a carefullyconceived plan.'1 It is worth noting that much of subsequent scholarshiprevolves around the tension between editor and author, alreadyembedded here by Noth in his description of the DeuteronomisticHistory.

Certain positions that were considered and rejected by Noth havebeen picked up and developed in subsequent studies. First, Noth did notallow for compiled sources available to Dtr, beyond the collection of thesettlement traditions and the combination of the extended writings onSaul and David.2 Secondly, Noth insisted on the unity of theDeuteronomistic History. There were subsequent additions in the samestyle that do not take away from the unity of the original. This originalshould not be dated so early that obviously later passages—for example,substantial parts of Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8—must be attributedto a second deuteronomistic author.3 For Noth, therefore, an exilic datepreempts the need for an exilic edition.

The vision of this structured, unified, coherent literary whole that soimpressed Noth over against the diversity of the older traditions can bestbe seen in an overview of the text. The deuteronomistic contributionsare in italics; the older traditions are in roman; the major later additionsare noted in square brackets.4

2. Overview

Deuteronomy 1—4 provides the introduction, a speech by Moses pre-senting the final great act of his life—with some additions in ch. 4.Deut. 4.44-30.20 is already existing tradition—the deuteronomic law-code (chs. 12-26), with its own introduction and conclusion—presented

figures needed remain exclusive to the Deuteronomistic History (see W. Richter, DieBearbeitungen des 'Retterbuches' in der deuteronomischen Epoche [BBB 21; Bonn:Peter Hanstein, 1964], pp. 132-41; G. Sauer, 'Die chronologischen Angaben in denBuchern Deut. bis 2. Kon.', 7Z24 [1968], pp. 1-14).

1. Noth, #S,p. ll;DH,p. 26.2. Noth, US, p. 10; DH, p. 25.3. Noth, US, p. 6; DH, p. 20.4. This overview cannot pretend to be a complete identification of the text of

Noth's Deuteronomistic History. For that, readers must consult Noth. See also theappendix at the end of this chapter.


as the law by which Israel was to live in the land (12.1). The originalcore of Deuteronomy 31* and 34* forms an account of thecommissioning of Joshua, the writing of the law and the death ofMoses.

Joshua 1 is a speech to Joshua preparing for the conquest [vv. 7-9are secondary]. Joshua 2-11 is the old tradition on the conquest of theland. Noth attributes Joshua 12 to Dtr. [In Noth's view, Josh. 13-22 didnot originally belong in the Deuteronomistic History and Josh. 24 wasalso added later.] Joshua 23 is a speech of Joshua looking back over theconquest and forward to life in the land.

Judg. 2.6-16, 18-19 is a theological introduction to the period of thejudges. [In Noth's view, Judg. 1.1-2.5 and 2.20-3.6 did not belong inthe Deuteronomistic History.] The period of the judges was worked upfrom the stories of the tribal heroes and a list of the minor judges. Afterchs. 3-9, Judg. 10.6-16 is a midway interpretation, after the abortivekingship ofAbimelech. The minor judges and the Jephthah story follow.[In Noth's view, Judg. 13.2-16.31 was possibly a later addition, andchs. 17-21 certainly so.] 1 Samuel 7 concludes the period of the judgeswith an act of deliverance by Samuel.

1 Sam. 8.1-22; 10.17-27a and 12.1-25 were arranged around oldermaterial (esp. 1 Sam. 9.1-10.16 and 11.1-15), to provide a suitablynuanced introduction to the monarchy. Samuel's speech in 12.1-25looks back over the period of the judges and forward to life under thekings.

Stories of Saul and David—above all the Story of David's Rise in1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.12—bring the narrative up to the arrival of theark in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6) and the promise to David of a dynasty(2 Sam. 7). Since 2 Samuel 7 already looked back over David's rise topower and forward to his successors, all Dtr had to add was a focus onthe building of the temple in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7.1b, 11 a, 12b-13a,22-24). The old material continues with 2 Samuel 8 and the SuccessionNarrative (2 Sam. 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2). [In Noth's view, 2 Sam. 21-24were added later.] 1 Kings 3-7 chronicles Solomon's reign and, aboveall, the construction of the temple. 1 Kings 8, as Solomon's prayer atthe dedication of the temple, looks back to the promise in 2 Samuel 7and forward to the future history of Israel.

1 Kgs 9.1-9 is a warning to Solomon of the need to keep theDeuteronomic law. There is a brief account of Solomon's reign andwisdom. 1 Kgs 11.1-13 reports Solomon's apostasy and the Lord's


anger. There is then an account of both the northern and southern king-doms, incorporating a considerable variety of traditions. Dtr contributedthe framework of chronological notices and judgments on each of thekings and also a number of observations. This account begins with thedivision of the united kingdom into north and south, prophesied byAhijah (1 Kgs 11.26-40) and realized in history under Jeroboam(1 Kgs 12). A theological interpretation of the fall of the northernkingdom is given in 2 Kgs 17.7-20, 32-34a. Older material continuesthe account of the southern kingdom. 2 Kgs 21.1-18 prepares for thefailure of Josiah 's reform and the fall of the southern kingdom. Thefinding of the Deuteronomic law was already recounted in 2 Kgs 22.3-23.3, and the consequent reform under Josiah in 2 Kgs 23.4-15, 19-20a.2 Kgs 23.16-18, 21-27 comments on the reform of Josiah, and thereason for its failure is attributed to the sin of Manasseh. 2 Kgs 25.1-26 was adapted from Jeremiah 39-41. 2 Kgs 25.27-30, the favorshown to Jehoiachin in Babylon, concludes the DeuteronomisticHistory.

The conceptual vision which unifies and structures the whole can beseen in the following analysis.

The Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomy-2 KingsI. The preamble: the law of God for life

in the promised land DeuteronomyII. The history of Israel's life in the land,

in the light of this law Joshua-KingsA. Under Joshua: an account of the conquest

of the whole land Joshua 1-12; 23B. Reflection: transition of generations Judg. 2.7-10C. Life in the land: a history continued Judges-Kings

1. Under the judges Judg. 2.11-1 Samuel 72. Reflection: transition of institutions 1 Samuel 8-123. Under the kings 1 Samuel 13-2 Kings 25

a. Up to the building of the temple 1 Samuel 13-1 Kings 8b. After the building of the temple 1 Kings 9-2 Kings 25

This quasi-diagrammatic structure may help to concretize Noth'scontribution to the understanding of these texts as a DeuteronomisticHistory. For Dtr, the guidance of God—pointing Israel toward life livedrichly in the promised land—was expressed in Moses' final words toIsrael in the book of Deuteronomy. Suitably introduced, Deuteronomystands at the head of the history, as the guidebook for Israel's livingwithin the land. The whole history is placed under this book of law.


However, a prerequisite for living within the land is first possessingthe land. So a collection of stories and non-story material was takenfrom tradition and framed by speeches of Joshua. With the death ofJoshua and his generation, a watershed was visible within the people ofIsrael. To one side were those 'who had seen all the great work that theLord had done for Israel' (Judg. 2.7); on the other were those 'who didnot know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel' (Judg. 2.10)and who would live out their lives within the land until Israel was exiledfrom it. In Dtr's view, the inability to communicate across the watershedof this generation gap led to a recurring experience: the Israelites 'didwhat was evil in the sight of the Lord...abandoned the Lord, the God oftheir ancestors,... folio wed other gods' (Judg. 2.11-12).

Within the land, according to Dtr, the history of this people dividedaround a second watershed that was located in the politico-institutionallife of Israel: the establishment of the monarchy. On the far side of thiswatershed was life under the judges. Again, a collection of traditions wasavailable for this, and all Dtr needed to do in order to shape tradition tohis understanding was to provide an introduction, a midway reflectionand a conclusion. Otherwise, with some framing touches, the traditionspoke for itself.

On the near side of the watershed lay the extensive traditions of lifeunder the kings. Before entering into this critical and, in his view, fatalstage in Israel's history, Dtr provided a further reflection on thetransition from the institution of judgeship to that of monarchy. Theprophetic texts on the emergence of Saul as king in Israel were editedand interwoven with traditions more suited to the deuteronomisticjudgment on the kings. For Noth, 1 Samuel 12 was the greatdeuteronomistic utterance on the question of kings, drawing togetherand balancing the threads in the earlier tapestry of traditions.

Given the centrality of the Jerusalem temple in deuteronomistictheology, it is not surprising that the construction of the temple emergedas the watershed in this phase of Israel's history. The period of themonarchy leading up to and including the building of the temple wasdrawn almost exclusively from the already extensive Davidic andSolomonic traditions. According to Noth, much of 1 Kings 8 brought toexpression what was critical for Dtr at this stage in Israel's history.

With the temple built, Dtr could judge the kings of Israel and Judah bytwo criteria: Where they worshipped and how they worshipped. Werethey faithful to Jerusalem as the place of worship prescribed in


Deuteronomy? Were they faithful to the integrity of worship prescribedin Deuteronomy? Dtr laid down the criteria in 1 Kgs 9.1-9; in1 Kgs 11.1-13 Dtr spelled out the implications of the first major failureunder these criteria. The downfall is traced first to the northernkingdom's fall and finally to the fall of Judah. According to Noth, in2 Kgs 17.7-20 Dtr provided an extensive interpretation of the fall of theNorth, his last substantial contribution to the History.

Noth envisaged a five-stage structure in this carefully conceived plan:(1) the Mosaic period, ending in the transition to Joshua; (2) the periodof conquest, ending with Joshua 23; (3) the period of the judges, endingwith 1 Samuel 12 and the transition to monarchy; (4) the period of thefirst three kings, ending not with 1 Kings 8 and the consecration of thetemple but with 1 Kings 9 and 11 and the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh; and(5) the period of decline and fall under the kings of Israel and Judah. Inthe first two periods, under Moses and Joshua, there is fidelity. In thethird period, under the judges, there is instability. In the fourth period,under Saul, David and Solomon, there is an ascendant movementtoward the capture of Jerusalem and the building of the temple there,dropping suddenly and sharply at the end with the infidelity of the agedSolomon and its condemnation by Ahijah. From there on, in the fifthperiod—despite glimmers of light with Hezekiah and Josiah—themovement is steadily downward to destruction.

For Noth, Dtr's concern was to teach the authentic meaning of thehistory of Israel from the conquest to the exile. 'The meaning which hediscovered was that God was recognizably at work in this history,continuously meeting the accelerating moral decline with warning andpunishments and, finally, when these proved fruitless, with totalannihilation.'1 The echoes of Joshua 23, 1 Samuel 12 and 2 Kings 17 areunmistakable.

3. The House after Noth

What I have been examining is 'the house that Noth built'—its foun-dations, its structure, and the purpose that it served. The house was leftuntouched for a couple of decades, but then slowly admirers succumbedto the urge to be developers and improvers. Where 'the house that Nothbuilt' is concerned, what happened next can be best described in termsof restorers, rebuilders and redecorators.

1. Noth, US, p. 100; DH, p. 134.


a. RestorersThe restorers sanded back deuteronomistic surfaces and claimed to findold structures beneath. I will single out the work of Wolfgang Richter inJudges, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr, in Samuel and myself in Samuel-Kings.

Noth himself was well aware that his Dtr used extensive prefabricatedmaterials in his building. These included the Deuteronomic law code(Deut. 4.44-30.20), the old collection of stories on the conquest(Josh. 2-11), the stories of the tribal heroes and the list of the lesserjudges (for Judg. 3-12) and finally, those traditions—about 50chapters—from the time of Saul and David.1 These are prefabricatedstructures, with the exception of the Judges material.

In 1-2 Kings Dtr was dealing less with structures than with rawmaterials. For Solomon, Noth appeals to 'the book of the acts ofSolomon' (1 Kgs 11.41) and after Solomon, to the Chronicles of theKings of Israel and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. Besides these,Noth's Dtr drew on an extensive collection of prophetic narratives. Thetotals are of the order of 26 verses from the Chronicles of the Kings ofIsrael, 133 verses from the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and 23chapters or so from the prophetic narratives.

All told, of the approximately 156 chapters in Noth's DeuteronomisticHistory, he attributed more than two-thirds to prefabricated sources.2

No wonder Noth comments: 'In general, then, Dtr. gave his narrativevery markedly the character of a traditional work, the intention was tobe a compilation and explanation of the extant traditions concerning thehistory of his people.'3

In the book of Judges, Richter isolated shifts in thought and languagethat identified an earlier collection of stories that served as a source forDtr. Before being taken over by Dtr and given a deuteronomisticpreface (Judg. 2.1 Iff.), the deliverer stories had already been held

1. These traditions are 1 Sam. 1-4; 4-7; 9.1-10.16; 10.27b-11.15; 13-15; 16.1-13; 16.14-2 Sam. 5.25; 6-7; 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2.

2. If anything, this is an underestimate. The core of Deuteronomy (26 chapters),Joshua (10), Samuel (50) and the prophetic narratives in Kings (23) adds up to 109chapters. This total does not include the deliverer stories in Judges, the Book of theacts of Solomon or the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah. I have left theseas not being 'prefabricated sources'—a description that may legitimately be assignedto the individual prophetic narratives. The 156 is calculated as follows: Deuteronomy,34; Joshua, 13; Judges, 11; 1 Samuel, 31; 2 Samuel, 20; 1 Kings, 22; 2 Kings, 25.

3. Noth, OS, p. 100; DH, p. 133.

CAMPBELL Martin Noth and the Denteronomistic History 39

together by an interpretative framework and even given a modelparadigm in the Othniel story (Judg. 3.7-11). Richter's work is no threatto 'the house that Noth built'; it makes Judges 3-9 a source, as wasJoshua 2-11 for Noth. It allows Dtr to plead diminished responsibility toany charge of cyclic theology; the cyclic theology comes from thesource and is not Dtr's creation.

As part of the outcome of two massive and painstaking studies,Richter isolated shifts in thought and language within the redactionalmaterial of the book of Judges.1 The most easily identifiable andrepeatable aspect of Richter's complex observations is that in the earlypart of Judges the typical deuteronomistic language and thought—especially the term 'judge'—is found in Judg. 2.6-11, 14-16, 18-19 butnot in Judg. 3.7-11 or the framework surrounding the deliverance storiesof Ehud, Deborah/Barak and Gideon. The framework speaks of Israeldoing evil but does not identify that evil, and in the framework thedeliverers are not termed judges.2 Judg. 3.7-11 does not itself constitutea story but is a combination of the elements that make up theframework around the stories that follow. However, it moves a step inthe direction of the deuteronomistic material in Judg. 2.6-11, 14-16, 18-19 when it names the evil (v. 7) and refers to the deliverer 'judgingIsrael' (v. 10). The language of v. 7 and the ideas of vv. 9-10 are notquite those of Judg. 2.6-11, 14-16, 18-19. For example, the Lord raisesup a deliverer who delivers Israel (v. 9), and Othniel, called the deliverer,is assigned the activity of judging (v. 10) but is not given the title ofjudge.

In Richter's view, therefore, Dtr took over from tradition a narrativein which three stories of deliverers were contrasted with the abysmalepisode of Israel's first attempt at monarchy under King Abimelech. Aframework surrounded the three different stories of deliverance, pointingout that Israel's peril was punishment for evil, that the deliverer wasgiven when Israel cried to the Lord and that deliverance was followed

1. Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des 'Retterbuches' and TraditionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB 18; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 2nd edn, 1966).Noth expressed his approval of the first part of Richter's work in a review in VT 15(1965), pp. 126-28. In his final paragraph Noth commented ominously that the authorwrote in a style that was fairly difficult even for a German and above all for theforeigners who really ought to read the book.

2. Deborah's activity at the start (Judg. 4.4b) is not that of a deliverer-judge; thiscomes in the course of the story.


by rest for the deliverer's lifetime. The attempt at institutionalizedmonarchy, on the other hand, was a disaster. Dtr's contribution was toexpress the message of the framework formally in a preface, clarifyingthe nature of the evil in deuteronomistic terms and characterizing thedeliverers as judges. Thus what might have been seen as a series ofsignificant episodes is transformed into a major period in Israel's history,extending from the generation after Joshua to the generation of Samuel.

In the books of Samuel, McCarter argues for

a prophetic history of the origin of the monarchy that was intended to pre-sent the advent of kingship in Israel as a concession to a wanton demandof the people. Beyond this purely negative purpose, however, the historywas written to set forth according to a prophetic perspective the essentialelements of the new system by which Israel would be governed.l

Its trace is to be found right across 1-2 Samuel, although the concen-tration is in 1 Samuel 1-16.2 The criteria for its identification are notformally discussed, but they include form-critical considerations andissues of theme and content. McCarter includes in it pre-deuteronomistictexts in 1 Sam. 8; 10.17-25; and 12. The prophetic history is of northernorigin, from the late eighth century.

A comment by Noth is significant here: 'As in the occupation story,the existence of this traditional material [in Samuel] absolved Dtr. fromthe need to organize and construct the narrative himself.'3 McCarter'sclaim that part of the organization had been done by a northernprophetic redaction would pose no threat to 'the house that Noth built'.Noth's comment interests me, because I think it suggests that Nothhimself—like his Dtr—paid less attention to Samuel than to Kings. Ibelieve that the prophetic texts in Kings cannot be adequately handledunless they are associated with those in Samuel, a point that will beevident in what follows.

According to Noth, there were

some narrative cycles, each of which accumulated around one propheticfigure and was handed down in the circle of homines religiosi. Muchspace is given to the Elijah and Elisha cycle, which is made up of originally

1. P.K. McCarter, Jr, / Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980),p. 21.

2. In 2 Samuel, McCarter attributes to prophetic redaction 2 Sam. 7.9a, 15b, 20-21; 11.2-12.24; and 24.10-14, 16a, 17-19 (see II Samuel [AB 9; Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1984], p. 8).

3. Noth, US, p. 62; DH, p. 86.


independent episodes and a short series of anecdotes, welded together intoa more or less unified continuous narrative before Dtr. 's time. Dtr.incorporated it into his history splitting it up into parts.1

Noth speaks in similar terms of the Isaiah cycle, the story of Ahijah ofShiloh, Micaiah ben Imlah and a further cycle of stories of the prophets'interventions in the succession of Israelite kings and dynasties.2 Mostnoteworthy is that Noth relates these cycles of prophetic narrativesexclusively to the books of Kings.

In view of later developments, it is significant that Noth paid almostno attention to the prophetic materials in the books of Samuel. As Nothsaw it, for telling the stories of David and Saul Dtr 'had access to acomprehensive and coherent narrative tradition'.3 Its componentsincluded: the old Saul traditions (1 Sam. 9.1-10.16; 10.27b-11.15; 13-14; with 1 Sam. 15 added later and 16.1-13 added last), the story of therise of David (1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.25), and the story of thesuccession to David ([1 Sam. 4.1b-7.1] 2 Sam. 6-7; 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2).The degree to which Noth saw this Saul-David material as a source thatdid not need further attention is emphasized by his comment quotedabove (p. 40) that Dtr was absolved from the need to organize andconstruct the narrative.

It is important to see what Noth made of these prophetic traditions.There is a revealing comment at the beginning of his treatment: 'Theprophets, "men of God", appear chiefly as opponents to the kings andsurely Dtr. meant them to be understood in this way.'4 The role ofprophets like Samuel (who anointed King Saul and King David), Ahijah(who designated King Jeroboam) and Elisha's disciple (who anointedKing Jehu) does not fit at all well with this comment. It puts intolerablestrain on Noth's 'chiefly' (vorzugsweise).

Since Noth, the literature exploring this prophetic activity in Samuelhas been extensive. In Jepsen's work, overshadowed by Noth's, theequivalent of Dtr's contribution is designated a prophetic ('nebiistische')

1. Noth, US, pp. 78-79; DH, p. 107 (emphasis mine).2. Noth, US, pp. 78-80; DH, pp. 107-109. Noth continues: ' 1 Kings * 11, * 12,

* 14 and 1 Kings (20) 22 and 2 Kings 9-10 would have belonged to this cycle; but itcannot be proved since these sections are not specifically linked with each other andthey have in common only the subject and the idea of the word of the prophet and ofits effect' (US, p. 80; DH, p. 109).

3. Noth, US, p. 66;DH,p. 91.4. Noth, US, p. 78; DH, p. 107. Emphasis mine.


redaction.1 Afterwards, several German dissertations—Niibel, 1959;Mildenberger, 1962; Macholz, 1966; Schiipphaus, 1967—concluded thatthere was a level of prophetic redaction in the text of 1-2 Samuel.2

Along with these, Bruce Birch's 1970 Yale dissertation may be singledout.3

In the books of Samuel and Kings, I have argued in Part I of OfProphets and Kings that three sets of signals in the text indicate a pre-deuteronomistic interrelatedness that needs to be accounted for.4 First,there are the similarities between the prophetic anointing texts for Saul,David and Jehu; only these three of all Israel's kings are so anointed byprophets. Secondly, the similarities between the prophetic texts desig-nating or dismissing kings (esp. Jeroboam, Ahab and Jehu)—despitelater expansions—are strong. Jehu is the figure common to both series.Thirdly, there are interrelationships and a wider context to be con-sidered. These signals need to be explained. My claim is that a con-tinuous and coherent pre-deuteronomistic narrative can be identified,extending from 1 Samuel 1 to 2 Kings 10, which I call the PropheticRecord and which makes a claim for prophetic authority over kings inIsrael, consequently legitimating Jehu's coup and his campaign againstthe worship of Baal. It dates from the late ninth century.

The Prophetic Record does not constitute a threat to 'the house thatNoth built', since it merely extends into Kings what Noth saw as alreadystructured in Samuel, and it gives a tighter focus and unity to thatstructure. McCarter and I have a lot in common, but we differ in our

1. A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Konigsbuches (Halle: Niemeyer, 2nd edn, 1956).2. H.U. Niibel, Davids Aufstieg in der Friihe israelitischer Geschichtsschrei-

bung (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat, 1959); F. Mildenberger,'Die vordeuteronomistische Saul-Davidiiberlieferung', doctoral dissertation,Eberhard-Karls-Universitat, Tubingen, 1962; G.C. Macholz, 'Untersuchungen zurGeschichte der Samuel-Uberlieferungen', doctoral dissertation, Heidelberg, 1966;J. Schiipphaus, Richter- und Prophetengeschichten als Glieder der Geschichts-darstellung der Richter- und Konigszeit (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat, 1967).

3. B.C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth andDevelopment of 1 Samuel 7-15 (SBLDS 27; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).

4. A.F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document(1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS 17; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Associationof America, 1986); see esp. Tables I, II, and III, pp. 23, 39 and 63 respectively. Theonly change I would make since 1986 is to omit 1 Kings 1* from the PropheticRecord. The text moves from 2 Sam 8.15 to 1 Kgs 2. la, 10, 12—or equivalent.


basic criteria and on the issue of whether kingship as wanton populardemand came within the early prophetic perspective—I think it did not.1

On a pre-deuteronomistic date, we agree.Some additional remarks may perhaps be permitted here. The

northern use of so-called southern documents is much easier tounderstand when it is recognized that the material is used to legitimatethe power of northern kings. These prophets claim that they, God'sprophets, were God's instruments in the designation of Saul, therejection of Saul and the designation of David. What they had given inGod's name, they were entitled in God's name to take away; indeedthey claimed to take away the substance of the Davidic kingdom andtransfer it with the legitimacy of divine election to Jeroboam and theNorth (1 Kgs 11.37, 38b). What they had done in the first place to Saul,they did now to Solomon. The interest for northern circles is evident.

It is worth noting that the hypothesis of a Prophetic Record is not inthe least dependent on the analysis of the patterns in regnal formulas.The only connection between them is that the odd distribution of thepatterns happens to coincide with the end of the Prophetic Record. Sothe Prophetic Record can make sense of the distribution of the regnalformulas; the regnal formulas do not contribute anything to theProphetic Record. The Prophetic Record is dependent on the signals setby the texts schematized in Tables I, II and III in Of Prophets and Kings.

The similarity between the texts in these Tables I, II and III is not sorigid as to demand an individual author. The growth of ideas and textswithin a like-minded group would make satisfactory sense of the signals.The followers of Elisha are prime candidates for such a group. The roleof a disciple of Elisha in anointing Jehu is scarcely an invention; forbetter or worse, invention would surely attach the anointing directly toElisha himself. It is most plausibly seen as a fragment of historicalmemory within the group of Elisha's followers.

There is no mention of something like a Prophetic Record in thesources identified by the Deuteronomists. The sources that theDeuteronomists specify are cited in reference to information that is notrecorded in the history—now 'the rest of the acts' of X are they notwritten in source Y? The Prophetic Record is preserved in its entirety inthe Deuteronomistic History; there is no need to identify a source for'the rest'.

1. In his presentation to the Noth Symposium, McCarter indicated that he nolonger considered this popular demand material as part of a prophetic history.


b. RebuildersFrank Cross launched the campaign to rebuild 'the house that Nothbuilt'.1 Cross strongly endorsed Noth's description of the primaryDeuteronomist as a creative author and historian and fully agreed withthe sharp distinction between the Tetrateuch and the DeuteronomisticHistory.2 In opting for a Josianic first edition, Cross was opposing astrongly held conviction of Noth's. The basis of the argument, at least atfirst, was intuitive and thematic. Cross claimed two themes for theJosianic history: God's commitment to David and Jerusalem, and thedestructive influence of the sin of Jeroboam. The subtheme of the exilicedition was the unforgivable sins of Manasseh.

The material attributed to this exilic edition by Cross is limited: a fewspots in Deuteronomy, five verses in Joshua 23, one verse in 1 Samuel12, a handful of verses in 1 Kings and a few more verses in 2 Kings, aswell as the final chapters of 2 Kings.3

Decisive evidence is hard to come by. For example, and by way ofanticipation, Cross claims the expression 'to this day' as a very strongargument; Noth relegates it to Dtr's sources or to secondary additions—no occurrence is attributed to Dtr. Cross appeals to the theme of God'sunconditional promise to the house of David. For Noth, the promise hasbeen rendered conditional; for Cross, the conditional material issecondary.

A Josianic history not only runs counter to Noth's vigorous opposi-tion, but it also reverses the understanding of the basic DeuteronomisticHistory. It is no longer, with Noth, an account of the definitive downfallof Israel. It becomes, with Cross, 'a propaganda work of the Josianicreformation...in David and in his son Josiah is salvation'.4 Despite thefact that the creativity and integrity is held intact, this is a majorrebuilding project. Ironically, its success or failure depends on numerous

1. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of theReligion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 274-89 (firstpublished as 'The Structure of the Deuteronomic History', Perspectives in JewishLearning [Annual of the College of Jewish Studies 3; Chicago: College of JewishStudies, 1968], pp. 9-24).

2. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 289.3. Specifically Deut. 4.27-31; 28.36-37, 63-68; 29.27; 30.1-10 (11-20);

Josh. 23.11-13, 15-16; 1 Sam. 12:25; 1 Kgs 2.4; 3.14 (?); 6.11-13; 8.25b, 46-53; 9.4-9; 2 Kgs 17.19; 20.17-18; 21.2-15; 22.15-20; 23.25b-25.30.

4. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 284.


other factors—not the least of which is the evidence to be uncovered inthe redecorating proposal to be looked at next.

In the light of later developments, it is valuable to consider what Nothoverlooked—at least in the judgment of later critics. Since Noth optedfor an exilic date, he had no problem incorporating evidently exilicmaterial. The question is: how did he treat the texts that were laterclaimed as evidence for a Josianic Deuteronomist? For this, it isappropriate to compare Noth with Cross, contrasting the founder of theDeuteronomistic History with the founder of its Josianic edition.

Cross, as mentioned, cites from earlier scholarship as a strongargument for a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic History the presence of thephrase 'to this day', which in context presumes the existence of theJudean state. According to Cross, it occurs 'not merely in the sourcesbut also in portions by the Deuteronomistic author'.1 Cross singles out2 Kgs 8.22 and 16.6 but adds also 1 Kgs 8.8; 9.21; 10.12; 12.19; 2 Kgs10.27; 14.7; 17.23. However, Noth attributes none of these occurrencesto Dtr; they either belong to his sources or are secondary. They createno problem for Noth's exilic history.2 The problem they create is forothers wondering how best to read these signals. If one agrees withNoth's judgment on the nature of these texts, they are certainly notevidence for a Josianic edition, but then neither do they exclude one.Certainly, it is almost impossible to argue their attribution to the

1. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 275.2. According to Noth, both 2 Kgs 8.22 and 16.6 were taken from the Chronicles

of the Kings of Judah (US, pp. 77-78 and 76, respectively; DH, pp. 106 and 104).Noth claims that 1 Kgs 8.7-8 'were evidently added, but prior to Dtr.' (US, p. 70,n. 2; DH, p. 96, n. 1—although among Noth's reasons for this claim appears to bethe presence of 'to this day' in v. 8). 1 Kgs 9.21 was from 'the Book of the Acts ofSolomon' (cf. 1 Kgs 11.41); Noth explicitly refers to 'the official tradition in 9.20-22' ('und abweichend von der amtlichen Uberlieferung in 9,20-22' [US, p. 69]). Thetranslation in DH (p. 94) is misleading—'letting Solomon levy forced labour fromthe whole of Israel (9.20-22)' is not from 9.20-22, of course, but from 5.13-18(NRSV; = 5.27-32 in Hebrew and German). It contradicts the 'official tradition' in9.20-22. 1 Kgs 10.11-12 is attributed to the Book of the Acts of Solomon (US,pp. 67, 68, 71; DH, pp. 92, 94, 97); 1 Kgs 12.19 was written before the end of thenorthern kingdom (US, p. 79; DH, p. 108); 2 Kgs 10.27 belonged to a propheticstory (2 Kgs 9.1-10.27, US, p. 80; DH, pp. 108-109); 2 Kgs 14.7 is attributed to theChronicles of the Kings of Judah (US, p. 76; DH, p. 104) and 2 Kgs 17.21-23 is alater addition (US, p. 85, n. 4; DH, p. 115, n. 2). As a general statement about thenorthern exile, v. 23 could have been written by either a Josianic or an exilic historian.


Deuteronomistic Historian on grounds of language or ideology.For Cross, the strongest arguments are thematic. The two themes of

the first edition of the Deuteronomistic History are: (1) the destructiveweight of the sin of the house of Jeroboam and (2) the commitment ofGod to David and Jerusalem. 'These themes must stem from a veryspecific setting having a specific social function'—a Josianic edition ofthe Deuteronomistic History.1 Clearly these themes in themselves willnot nail down specific dates: the destruction of the northern kingdomcan be a theme earlier or later than Josiah, as well as Josianic; the hopeplaced in the figure of David is capable of being sustained after Josiah.The interest, therefore, lies in the way specific texts are handled.

Cross considers the neglect of the theme of God's promise to thehouse of David to be 'a serious failure in Noth's study', the more so asit appears that 'the Deuteronomist never really repudiated thispromise'.2 The key texts are 1 Kgs 2.3-4; 9.5-7; 2 Kgs 24.2. For Cross,1 Kgs 9.6-9 is secondary, 'in direct conflict with 2 Samuel 7.18-29 andthe Deuteronomistic theme [of the promise to David]'; 2 Kgs 20.17-19is 'an obvious addition'.3

Neither Noth nor Cross discusses 1 Kgs 2.3-4; it is deuteronomisticfor Noth, while for Cross v. 4 belongs to the second edition. However,v. 4 is the second of two ]3£b clauses following one another without anintervening main clause; in all other cases, each ]uo^ clause is attached toits own main clause.4 This supports Cross, strongly suggesting that v. 4is an addition, attaching a conditional aspect to the promise made toDavid in 2 Samuel 7.

Noth claims 1 Kgs 9.1-9 for Dtr, with the comment that only anerroneous early dating for the deuteronomistic redaction would cause itto be considered post-deuteronomistic.5 Cross claims 9.4-9 for his exilicedition, because it conflicts with 2 Sam. 7.18-29 and the theme ofCross's Josianic edition.6 Against Cross, v. 3 as the original theophany isunsatisfactory; the simple declaratory statement is too terse to beplausible. Against Noth, the change at v. 6 from singular to plural—you(plural) and your children (oym DDK)—has to be taken into account. It

1. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 279.2. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 277 and 276, respectively.3. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 276, n. 11.4. See, for example, Deut. 8.1, 2, 3; 17.19, 20; Josh. 1.7, 8.5. Noth, OS, p. 70, n. 8; DH, p. 96, n. 7.6. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 276, n. 11.


suggests that vv. 6-9 are added with the exile in view, while vv. 4-5merely prepare for the loss of the northern kingdom after Solomon.1

On 2 Kgs 24.2, Noth derives vv. l-2aoc from the Chronicles of theKings of Judah but does not say a word about the rest.

1 Kgs 11.39 is an important text for Cross, 'a striking promise'.2 Itenables the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 to be kept intact. Notheliminates any hint of promise, since at best only v. 39a is to be attri-buted to Dtr: 'For this reason I will punish the descendants of David.'Verse 39b is an addition; perhaps the whole of vv. 38bp~39 is to beconsidered an addition (from 'And I give Israel to you'; it is lacking inthe Greek).3

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that arguments like these are vul-nerable to the tactic we might jestingly call 'secondary pingpong' or'redactional roulette', in which Rule One requires that the opposition'skey texts be relegated to the status of secondary additions, and RuleTwo requires that Rule One always be applied. Clearly there are con-texts in which secondary additions can be convincingly identified. Butthat is not always the case. In some of the contexts just mentioned, it isevidently not the case. We might conclude: many of the key texts herewill not be immune to secondary pingpong; the overall decision resultsfrom a basically intuitive survey of the signals, under the influence ofexegetical observations.

c. RedecoratorsWith an article in the von Rad Festschrift, between the first and secondpublications of Cross's study, Rudolf Smend opened a campaign toredecorate 'the house that Noth built'. His article was followed by amonograph on Kings by Walter Dietrich (1972) and two on Samuel byTimo Veijola (1975 and 1977).4

1. See, for example, the discussion by R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction ofthe Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 73-76,103-105, and M.A. O'Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: AReassessment (OBO 92; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 159-60.

2. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 283.3. Noth, US, p. 72, n. 9; DH, p. 99, n. 2.4. R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen

Redaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. vonRad zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 494-509;W. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung


Smend began with Joshua 1.7-9, a text that Noth agreed was asecondary addition to the Deuteronomistic History. However, Smendidentified thought and language that could be found elsewhere, especi-ally in Joshua 23 and also in other passages, again considered secondaryby Noth, in Judges 1-2. Identifying a common level of redaction here,which he called 'nomistic', Smend suggested a reorganization of thedeuteronomistic book of Joshua: ch. 23 goes out, while the bulk of chs.13-21 goes in, as does ch. 24. The new redactor, responsible for acarefully planned rereading of the deuteronomistic text, is designatedDtrN. In the material studied, Smend attributes to DtrN Josh. 1.7-9;13.(lb(3) 2-6; 23.1-16; and Judg. 1.1-2.9; 2.17, 20-21, 23. Contrary toNoth, Smend includes Josh. 13.1-21.45 and Joshua 24 in the originalDeuteronomistic History.

Dietrich introduced a new figure, DtrP. Dietrich's work is a carefulstudy of the deuteronomistically influenced prophetic passages in1-2 Kings. Working through the prophetic threats and texts, with ananalysis of the language used, Dietrich gave the Smend school's pictureof the Deuteronomistic History its classic form: DtrG (now DtrH) after587, DtrP between 580-60 and DtrN about 560. Some key texts in1 Kings 8 and 9 and 2 Kings 17 go to these later redactions.1 The detailsof Dietrich's attributions are:To DtrP: 1 Kgs 11.29-31, 33a, 34a, 35aba, 37apyb; 12.15; 14.7-11;15.29; 16.1-4, 12; 21.18a*, 19b, 20b(3-24, 27-29; and 22:38; 2 Kgs 9.7-lOa; 10.17; 17.21-23; 21.10-14; 22.16-17, 18-20; 24.2.To DtrN: 1 Kgs 2.4; 8.14-26, 28-30a, 53-61; 9.1-9; 11.32, 33b, 34b,35bp, 36, 37aa, 38aba; 14.8b-9a; 15.30; 16.13; and 2 Kgs 8.19; 9.36b-37 (?); 10.10, 30-31a; 13.4-6, 23; 14.15-16, 26-27; 15.12; 17.12-19; 18.6-7a, 12; 21.4, 7b-9, 15-16, 25-26; 22.17ap, 19b (?); 23.26-27; 24.3-4, 20a;25.22-30.

Beyond this, Dietrich identified prophetic traditions, assumed asoriginal, that were incorporated by DtrP into the Deuteronomistic

zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1972); T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastic: David und die Entstehung seinerDynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, B, 193; Helsinki:Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975) and Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung derdeuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung(AASF, B, 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).

1. Specifically, 1 Kgs 8.14-26, 28-30a, 53-61; 9.1-9; and 2 Kgs 17.12-19(DtrN), 21-23 (DtrP).


History. The prophetic traditions are given in roman, and redactionalseaming is noted in italics within parentheses. The texts are: 2 Sam 12.1-14 (11.27b and 12.15a; also 12.7b, 8afo, 9aa [from 'to do'] fa,lOaba); 1 Kgs 13.1-32 (13.2bp, 32b, 33b-34a; also 2 Kgs 23.15*,16b, 19b); 1 Kgs 14.1-18* (14.13b); 1 Kgs 16.34; 1 Kgs 17.2-24(17.2-4, 5a, 8-9, 14aa*; 18.1-2a); 1 Kgs 20; 1 Kgs 22.1-38; ('Ahab'and 22.38); 2 Kgs 1 (1.17apb); 2 Kgs 14.25; 2 Kgs 18.17-20.19.

Dietrich's major contribution lies in focusing on the deuteronomisticinterest in the prophetic materials incorporated into the history and itstheological implications. Theoretically, there is minimal conflict here withNoth; Dietrich's conflict is with McCarter and myself as to whethermuch of his DtrP is better allocated to pre-deuteronomistic propheticsources. This conflict highlights the lacuna in Prophetic undGeschichte—a study of prophecy and history that does not treat thebooks of Samuel.1

Veijola's two monographs fill the Samuel lacuna. He ventures into ter-ritory where Noth feared to tread and finds extensive traces of deuter-onomistic redaction. As a pioneer, we can be grateful to Veijola thatpractically every possibility has been explored for us. The correspondingrisk, of course, is that what is possible or desirable sometimes becomesdistanced from what is demonstrable. Particularly helpful is the identi-fication of levels of deuteronomistic editing in what Noth had alreadyclaimed for Dtr. This is an important gain. One of its results is that1 Samuel 12 goes to DtrN. The details of Veijola's attributions are:2

To DtrG (now often termed DtrH): 1 Sam. 2.27-36; 4.4b, lib, 17ba,19ay, 21b, 22a; 7.2-15, 17; 8.1-5, 22b; 9.16b; lO.lb LXX, 16b, 17, 19b-27a; 11.12-14; 13.1; 14.3, *18, 47-52; 20.12-17, 42b; 22.18by; 23.16-18;24.18-19 (20a) 20b-23a; 25.21-22, 23b, 24b-26, 28-34, *39a; 2 Sam.3.9-10, 17-19, 28-29, 38-39; 4.2b-4; 5.1-2, 4-5, 11, 12a, 17a; 6.*21; 7.8b,lib, 13, 16, 18-21, 25-29; 8.1a, 14b-15; 9.1, *7, *10, lib, 13a(3; (14.9);15.25-26; 16.11-12; 19.22-23, 29; 21.2b, 7; 24.1, 19b, 23b, 25ba;

1. I hasten to add that Dietrich moved into selected Samuel texts in a 1987monograph, David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhaltnis von Religion und Politiknach den prophetischen Uberlieferungen vom fruhesten Konigtum in Israel(BWANT 122; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987; 2nd edn, 1992). Within the Smendschool, however, he had been preceded by Timo Veijola's more extensive coverage.

2. Developed from W. Dietrich, 'David in Uberlieferung und Geschichte', VF22 (1977), p. 49.


1 Kgs l.*30, 35-37,46-48; 2.1-2,4accb, 5-11, 15by, 24, 26b, 27, 31b-33,35b, 37b, 42-45.To DtrP: 1 Sam. 3.11-14; 15.1-16.13 (?); 22.19; 28.17-19aa; 2Sam. 12.*7b-10, 13-14; 24.3-4a, 10-14, 15a(3, 17, 21b(3, 25b(3.To DtrN: 1 Sam. 8.6-22a; 12.1-25; 13.13-14; 2 Sam. 5.12b; 7.1b, 6, lla,22-24; 22.1, 22-25, 51; 1 Kgs 2.3,4a(3.

d. Interim ConclusionIt is highly ironic that one of the major implications of the Smend redeco-rating proposal is to confirm the lightness of the Cross rebuilding pro-posal. Early in this paper, I noted the unmistakable echoes of Joshua 23,1 Samuel 12 and 2 Kings 17 in Noth's view of an exilic history in whichthe ultimate outcome of God's work was to meet accelerating moraldecline with warning and punishment and, finally, total annihilation. Withsuch a message, such a text must be exilic. But once the three greatminatory pillars have been removed and clearly identified with laterredactional levels,1 the likelihood of a Josianic Deuteronomistic Historysuddenly gains weight and momentum. It is highly ironic, but there it is.

Many recent studies have supported the idea of a Josianic edition. Isingle out among early studies Richard Nelson, who was converted fromopponent to supporter in mid-thesis,2 and more recently GottfriedVanoni, whose 1985 article on 2 Kgs 23.25-25.30 is regarded by manyas bringing the case for a Josianic Deuteronomistic History to asuccessful close.3 In these, the detailed issues are discussed far beyondthe irony highlighted in the preceding paragraph.

The impact of the Smend approach on the Cross approach is, how-ever, twofold: (1) the identification of DtrP and DtrN with much that isnegative in the Deuteronomistic History generates an openness toward aJosianic edition of the history, and (2) on the other hand, the identifi-cation of DtrP and DtrN points to the weaknesses and oversimplificationof a two-edition hypothesis. The observations of both groups must betaken into account, but attempts to do this have so far been regrettablysporadic.

1. Rather than removed, 2 Kings 17 has been seriously weakened, with theattribution of vv. 12-19 to DtrN and vv. 21-23 to DtrP.

2. See Nelson, Double Redaction, in which the reference to the mid-thesischange of heart has been omitted. The original ThD thesis was presented in 1973.

3. G. Vanoni, 'Beobachtungen zur deuteronomistischen Terminologie in 2 Kon23,25-25,30', in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt undBotschaft a(BETL 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), pp. 357-62.


Space and focus force me to leave aside large quantities of scholar-ship.1 It is appropriate to focus on the two schools with a widefollowing—Cross and Smend; it is immensely regrettable to have toleave so many others untouched. Three that make far-reaching claimsabout the Deuteronomistic History cannot be left without some mention.

Brian Peckham's Composition of the Deuteronomistic History is afundamental reworking of the Pentateuch and the DeuteronomisticHistory from the ground up.2 There are some fine observations aboutpotential early text forms. The enterprise as a whole fails, because almostall the problem texts from Genesis to 2 Kings are tipped unresolved intohis Dtr2 level.

Iain Pro van's Hezekiah and the Books of Kings proposes a pre-exilicdeuteronomistic history, beginning with an early form of the books ofSamuel and ending with Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-19), and its composition

1. Regular reviews of the literature are, of course, available in TheologischeRundschau. Selective mention may be made of: R.E. Friedman, 'From Egypt toEgypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2', in B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions inTransformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Festschrift P.M. Cross; WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 167-92; A.R. Whitney Green, 'Regnal Formulas inthe Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Books of Kings', JNES 42 (1983), pp. 167-80;R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (London: SCM Press, 1985),pp. 183-88; J. Van Seters, 'Historiography in the Books of Samuel', In Search ofHistory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 249-91; N. Lohfink, 'Zurneueren Diskussion iiber 2 Kon 22-23', in idem (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, pp. 24-48; M. Weinfeld, The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The HistoricalAntecedents', in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, pp. 76-98; A. Lemaire,'Vers 1'histoire de la Redaction des Livres des Rois', ZAW98 (1986), pp. 221-36;N. Lohfink, 'The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22-23 as a Source for theHistory of Israelite Religion', in P.D. Miller, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.),Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 459-75; B. Halpern, The First Historians: The HebrewBible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); B. Halpern andD.S. Vanderhooft, 'The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.' HUCA 62(1991), pp. 179-244; H.M. Niemann, Herrschafi, Konigtum und Staat: Skizzen zursoziokulturellen Entwicklung im monarchischen Israel (FAT 6; Tubingen: Mohr,1993); E. Talstra, Solomon's Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Compositionof I Kings 8,14-61 (CBET 3; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993).

2. B. Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 35;Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). In my experience, it is helpful to identify Peckham'stext from his listings of biblical citations (figures 1-7) before reading the corres-ponding chapter of his monograph.


is dated early in Josiah's reign.1 In an exilic edition, the books ofDeuteronomy, Joshua and Judges were added, as well as redactionalactivity in Samuel and Kings. The primary observations are based on ashift in the understanding of the high places and a shift in the nature ofthe references to David. The proposal for the beginning in Samuel, withDeuteronomy-Judges as secondary, is acknowledged by Provan to bebrief and tentative; handled within a dozen pages, it is not broadly based.A thorough evaluation cannot be done here.

Steven McKenzie's The Trouble with Kings proposes a JosianicDeuteronomistic History, with a diminished Dtr2, and subsequentadditions that do not constitute redactional levels.2 In what is a com-prehensive and irenic study, drawing inspiration from John Van Seters,McKenzie nevertheless disagrees with Noth, Cross and the Smendschool—with Noth, because he argues for a Josianic history; with Cross,because he reduces Dtr2 to 2 Kgs 21.8-15 (16) and 23.26-25.26; andwith the Smend school, because he denies any redactional coherence inthe later additions. Regrettably, as with Provan, this cannot be the placefor a thorough evaluation.3

1. I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debateabout the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Berlin: deGruyter, 1988). Provan is one of those who argues with regard to the judgmentformulas that 'the minor variations by themselves.. .can easily be understood in termsof a single author' (p. 54). This may be correct, but it seriously misses the point. Theissue is why these finely nuanced differences of expression are distributed across thetext with a remarkable and determined regularity. They are not random variations.There is a patterned regularity, and it is this that needs explanation—whether it isfrom one author or several.

2. S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book ofKings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991).

3. McKenzie remarks, There is no evidence for any kind of earlier runninghistory, prophetic or otherwise beneath Dtr's composition in the book of Kings'(pp. 147-48). -In this, he disavows his 1985 article, wisely in my view (The PropheticHistory and the Redaction of Kings', HAR 9 [1985], pp. 203-20). In his treatment ofthe prophetic confrontation with northern kings—especially Jeroboam, Ahab andJehu—while McKenzie has taken potshots at outposts of my positions, he has not, inmy respectful judgment, come to grips with my case for a pre-deuteronomistic core inthese texts. Despite the potshots, I believe my analysis stands up extremely well andcontinues to offer a valid hypothesis.


4. The House Now: Disaster or Comfortable Renovation ?

Despite myriad studies, it is surprising how little has been done tocompare or integrate the insights of the Cross arid Smend schools. Ourneeds are (1) a treatment of the shape and form of the supposed originalDeuteronomistic History and (2) a thorough and careful scrutiny of thecharacteristics of language and thought identifying the laterdeuteronomistic levels. Has 'the house that Noth built' shifted off itsfoundations to the point where it is in danger of collapse?

Mark O'Brien's The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: AReassessment (above p. 47 n. 1) is a serious move toward answeringthese questions. There is room only to note the insight O'Brien offersinto the overarching structure and driving forces of a JosianicDeuteronomistic History and to outline the three discernible focuses oflater redaction. Three factors are isolated: fidelity to the God of Israel,fidelity to Jerusalem and fidelity to proper leadership. Proper leadershipis dependent on God's word and God's prophets. At stage one, Moses,the prophet par excellence, hands on authority to Joshua and all is well.At stage two, no one takes up the leadership from Joshua, and a newphase is begun and all is not well. God raises up judges, but there is nota stable leadership. The last judge is Samuel the prophet, and as prophetSamuel presides over the transition to Israel's monarchy. Finally, atstage three, the prophetic power over the monarchy is shown inSamuel's dismissal of Saul (1 Sam. 13-15) and anointing of David, inDavid's consultation with Nathan regarding his temple proposal and inthe interventions of subsequent prophets to designate or dismiss kings.The collapse after Solomon is authorized by the prophet Ahijah, whotransfers not only power but also legitimacy and divine promise toJeroboam. There are the further prophetic roles of Elijah, of the discipleof Elisha and of Isaiah. Deuteronomistic texts mark the key transitions.1

The relentless downhill slide is momentarily halted with Hezekiah, areforming king rescued from the Assyrians after consulting the prophet

1. The key deuteronomistic texts are the introduction to the period of the judges(Josh. 24.29-31 and Judg. 2.10 along with Judg. 2.1 Iff.) and the introduction to theperiod of the kings (1 Sam. 8.1-11.15*). At three key points in the history of Israelunder the prophets and kings, prophetic consultation is of critical significance: (1)Nathan, following the coming of the ark to Jerusalem; (2) Isaiah, following theAssyrian threat to Jerusalem; (3) Huldah, following the discovery of the law book.These are the three good kings: David, Hezekiah and Josiah.


Isaiah. Finally, the upturn comes when the word of God is brought toJosiah and confirmed by a prophet, Huldah. Josiah's reform andrestoration is in conformity with this word of God, purging the wrongsof Manasseh.1 The new era, returning to the ideal, is ushered in with aformal covenant (2 Kgs 23.1-3*), a cleansing of temple, city and land(23.4-12*) and a proper celebration of the passover, such as had notoccurred under the kings or under the judges (23.21-23). On this highnote, the Josianic history ends.

According to O'Brien, there are three discernible stages of redactionin the continuing development of the Deuteronomistic History. The firstis from 2 Kgs 23.28 to 2 Kgs 25.21 (without 2 Kgs 24.2-4, 13-14, 20a)and takes the narrative down to the exile; with its limited scope and itsuniformity, it might well be the work of one person. The next two stagesare more extensive and their boundaries more fluid, with someoverlapping of terminology and theology. A degree of variation withineach stage cautions against attributing these to individual redactors;'stage of redaction' is the preferred term.2 Three elements characterizethe second stage of redaction: a focus on the sin of Manasseh and alsoon the evil ways of kings, emphasis on the prophet-king relationship andinsistence on the schema of prophecy and fulfillment.3 The third stage isalso marked by three characteristics: the use of nomistic (law-oriented)language, a shift of responsibility from monarchy to people and adifferent perception of the role of the prophets who become preachersof the law.4 The seven prayers of 1 Kgs 8.29b-54, along with someother additions, may well be later still.5

The picture offered is one of considerable fluidity after the primarycomposition of a Josianic Deuteronomistic History but with certainpoints of focus emerging, identifiable both by the thematic concerns andthe language used to express them.

1. Manasseh rebuilt the high places (2 Kgs 21.3), erected altars for Baal (v. 3),made an Asherah (v. 3), worshipped all the host of heaven (v. 3), built altars for thehost of heaven in the two courts of the temple (v. 5) and set a carved image ofAsherah in the temple (v. 7). Josiah brought out the vessels made for Baal(2 Kgs 23.4), for Asherah (v. 4) and for all the host of heaven (v. 4), pulled down thetwo altars that Manasseh had made in the two courts of the temple (v. 12) and broughtout the (image of) Asherah from the temple (v. 6).

2. O'Brien, Reassessment, p. 272.3. O'Brien, Reassessment, pp. 273-80.4. O'Brien, Reassessment, pp. 280-83.5. O'Brien, Reassessment, pp. 283-87.


5. Deuteronomistic Language

I do not want to conclude without a word on deuteronomistic language.Weinfeld is right—identification has to be based not on words alone buton words, or better phrases, in the service of thought. The only surefoundation for claiming deuteronomistic attribution is language shapedexclusively in the service of deuteronomistic ideology.1 As anyoneknows who has looked for it, it exists. All else has to be correlated withthis foundation or run the risk of being built on sand. Nothing wrongwith sand—but it is risky to build on. It is not that the Deuteronomistscannot express ideas in ordinary language. It is simply that the primarycriterion we have to differentiate their utterance from that of ordinaryfolk is when the utterance consists of or is associated with 'thoserecurrent phrases that express the essence of the theology ofDeuteronomy'.

A cautionary comment is also in order. Noth asserts that solutions tothe Pentateuch must be built on the whole Pentateuch and not onsections, such as Genesis. It is equally true, and probably just as fruitless,to insist that solutions to the Deuteronomistic History must be built onDeuteronomy through 2 Kings. Partial studies cannot generate definitiveresults.2

6. Conclusion

It is right that this Noth Symposium has been organized. Gratitude is inorder to Steven McKenzie and Patrick Graham. The contribution madeby Martin Noth is magnificent: the trees of individual books are nowseen within the context of the single unified wood where they belong.

There is no longer a single Deuteronomistic History. In its place thereis a concerted Deuteronomistic industry. The primary edition wasprobably Josianic; any Hezekianic forerunners are yet to be thoroughly

1. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1972); see pp. 1-3 and pp. 320-65. 'Only those recurrent phrasesthat express the essence of the theology of Deuteronomy can be considered"deuteronomic"' (p. 3).

2. Fortress Press has contracted with Mark O'Brien and myself to present themass of observations involved in the growth of the Deuteronomistic History in avisually accessible form, under the title Sources and the Deuteronomistic History, asa companion volume to Sources of the Pentateuch.


explored and accepted. Overtaken by events, it was updated andreworked. In the reworking, certain major shifts of focus can beidentified, with corresponding characteristics of thought and language.

We who now live and work in 'the house that Noth built' need tolearn how to see it and use it as a whole. We need to be aware of thepast structures built into it and recognize the contributions made byrebuilders and redecorators since Noth.

Recently, after a warm review of Mark O'Brien's Reassessment,Richard Nelson heaved a great sigh in print: 'Nostalgia has no place inscholarship, but perhaps the time has come for us to reread Noth withan open mind'—even after fifty years, Noth's Deuteronomistic Historyin a form something like that which he proposed still 'explains so muchso well that it deserves a fair and sympathetic hearing'.1

Perhaps we cannot reoccupy the Deuteronomistic History as Nothbuilt the house, but we can do something similar: we can live in thehouse we now have without closing our eyes in ignorance of its past.The architectural metaphor may help. Our clan, of course, has lived onthe same site for generations. Guests have visited and died here. Theghosts of prophets past and even kings are said to walk the occasionalcorridor. Our forebears may have laid the foundations for this imposingstructure back in Hezekiah's time. There are traces of an old buildingvisible, a cornice here and a beam there. The most notable feature weinherited was the idea of a great staircase. As father said with a twinkle,they were very concerned then about going up to the high places. Ourgrandparents' generation built most of the present structure, verysplendid and grand, reflecting all the optimism and hope of the goodtimes under Josiah. After the bubble burst and the national collapsecame, we grandchildren realized that parts of the old structure wereunrealistic and insecure and needed careful restoration, shoring up andreshaping. Our children have helped since, redecorating here and there,now and then. We turned over the conservatory and the library forarchival storage, theology in the conservatory and prophetic art in thelibrary. The more appropriate bits have been put on display around thehouse. If you keep the family history in mind, the house makes a richlyevocative dwelling. In short, the house that Noth built has not been leftuntouched, but it can be inhabited now more comfortably than before.

We are badly in need of metaphors for reading the present biblical

1. R.D. Nelson, Bib 71 (1990), p. 567.


text. We have not yet, it seems, found our way to a comfortable andresponsible post-critical reading of that complex entity that is our biblicaltext. We badly need to escape from the redactional fragmentation ofmuch past study. The instincts and literary insights of a print mediaculture that treats all text as literary text proves to be a blind alley,offering an escape that is ultimately illusory. We need metaphors thatallow for the appropriate display of traditions, their touching-up occa-sionally, and their interactive association. The architectural metaphor ofthe building is, I believe, a good one. The art gallery with its exhibitionhalls is another metaphor that is helpful. One other that I have foundvaluable in reflecting on the Deuteronomistic History is a version of thefamily album—the metaphor of the collages of memories, snapshots andtreasures that are preserved and presented in some form of extendedfamily or community album. The possibilities are considerable.

There is the sepia picture of grandmother as a young woman, with theextract from grandfather's diary that describes her as loving andsupportive, the only one who knew how to guide us to living rightly inthis new land. On the facing page, there may be a photo of grandmotheras an older woman, with a snippet from one of the granddaughters'letters describing her as hateful and domineering, the major stumblingblock to our living creatively and fruitfully in this new land.

There might be reminiscences from great-grandfather and great-grandmother of their journey out here and the establishment of them-selves and their family in this new land. Interestingly, and perhaps to beexpected, the reminiscences are remarkably different; it is hard to believethey happened to the same couple.

Then there are more recent pictures and letters, and with themfather's account of how we nearly lost the farm or the business butsurvived, thanks to a radical change in the way we operated.

After this, there are newspaper clippings on the bankruptcy andaccounts by the children of how it happened and why—how the eco-nomic and social situation had not been fully understood, how thechange in operations was not carried through thoroughly enough, howwe lost faith and so on.

Every now and then, one of the family (or the community) takes thealbum away for a month or so—along with the memorabilia casecontaining all the leftovers and unused bits—and rearranges parts of it.Then we all gather to look at it and talk over the rearrangement andexplore once again where we have come from and who we are.


Studying the Deuteronomistic History, we may not be able toreconstruct the past documents with enough accuracy to win full con-sensus. However, we can read the signals that point to the forces thatpowered the shaping of our text. We are not concerned with the vestigesof an author, but we listen for the voices of a text.

7. Appendix:The Deuteronomistic History as Identified by Martin Noth

This identification of the Deuteronomistic History (DH) presents the textdescribed by Martin Noth in US. The presentation follows thechronological sequence in this sense that the text assumed as original isaligned with the left margin, the deuteronomistic material is indentedfrom the left margin and italicized, and the principal texts considered byNoth as subsequent additions are aligned with the right margin and alsoitalicized.DEUTERONOMY

1.1-3.29 is essentially from Dtr4.1, 2, 5-8, 10-14, 22-23a, 25-28 is from Dtr

Subsequent additions: 4.3-4, 9, 15-21, 23b-24, 29-43Deut. 4.44-30.20 already existed as the deuteronomic law code(chs. 12-26) with its own introduction and conclusion.

31.1, 2, 7-9aa, (10, llafib, 12b-13), 24-26a is from Dtr34.1aftba, 4-6 is from Dtr

Most of the verses omitted from ch. 31 areconsidered to be later additions, as are chs. 32; 33; and 34.10-12.

34.1bf3-3 is an explanatory addition; 34.1aa, 7-9 is from P.JOSHUA

1.1-6, 10-18 are from Dtr Subsequent addition: 1.7-9Joshua 2-11 already existed as a collection of stories on the conquest.

In Joshua 2-11, Noth attributes the following to Dtr:2.10b3.2-3, 4b, 6, 7, 8, and the word 'priests' in 3.13, 14, 15, 174.12, 14, 24, and the word 'priests' in 4.3, 9, 10, 185.4, 6, 76.4aab, 6, 8, 9a, 12b, 13a, 16afi (the priests), 26, cf. 1 Kgs 16:348. la, 30-359.9bp, 10, 27bp10.25


11.15, 20b, 2314.6af$b-15a—these may belong after 11.21-23a12

Joshua 13-22, according to Noth, did not originallybelong in DH, but was added shortly after its

conclusion. The material is very similar to thework ofDtr; within it, 21.1-42 and 22.7-34 are

secondary additions.23

Joshua 24, for Noth, is an independent passage,probably unknown to Dtr, which was later re-

worked in deuteronomistic style and added to DHJUDGES

Judg. 1.1-2.5, for Noth, does not belong to DH.2.6-11, 14-16, 18-19 are from Dtr.

Subsequent additions: 2.12-13, 20—3.6Judges 3-12 was worked up by Dtr from two complexes of tradition:stories of the tribal heroes and a list of the lesser judges.

In Judges 3-12, Noth attributes the following to Dtr:3.7-11—Othniel3.12-15a, 30b—Ehud4.1a, 2-3a, 4b; 5.31b—Deborah & Barak6.1, 6b-10; 8.27b-28, 30-35—Gideon10.6-1613.1 is from Dtr.

13.2-16.31, according to Noth, was possibly addedlater to DH; note the absence of Samson in the list

of judges in 1 Sam. 12.9-11. Judges 17-21 iswidely recognized as a subsequent addition.

1-2 SAMUELFor the portrayal of the end of the period of the judges, in whichSamuel is the last judge, and the establishment of kingship in Israel, Dtrhad several blocks of old tradition available:1 Sam. 1.1-4. la—prophetic traditions1 Sam. 4.1b-7.1—ark narrative (first part)1 Sam. 9.1-10.16; 10.27b-l 1.15—old account of Saul's kingship.

In 1 Samuel 1-12, Noth attributes the following to Dtr:2.25b, 34-35 (Note: 2.27-33 is a pre-deuteronomistic addition)7.2-77


8.1-2210.17-27a12.1-25

For the portrayal of the period of Saul and David, Dtr had the extensiveSaul-David traditions available. For example:Saul— 1 Sam. 13-15; 16.1-13David— 1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.25

2 Sam. 6-72 Sam. 8.1-14*, 15-182 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2

In 1 Samuel 13—2 Samuel 20, Noth attributes the following to Dtr:1 Sam. 13.12 Sam. 2.10a, 11 (Note: 2 Sam. 3.2-6a is a

pre-deuteronomistic addition)2 5am. 5.4-5 (Note: 2 Sam. 5.13-16 is a

pre-deuteronomistic addition)2 Sam. 7.1b, 7a*, 11 a, 12b-13a, 22-242 Sam. S.laa, 14b

Subsequent addition: 2 Samuel 21-241-2 KINGS

1 Kgs 2.2*, 3-4, 27b are Dtr'sfinal insertions in the Davidtraditions.

For the portrayal of the period of Solomon after 1 Kings 1-2, Dtr drewon traditions of a different kind, building from various disparate and asyet unconnected elements. The main source appears to have been 'thebook of the acts of Solomon' (1 Kgs 11.41).

In this material in 1 Kings, Noth attributes the following to Dtr:3.3, 14, 15ba4.1-5.8 (NRSV, 4.1-28) Based on official records5.75-32 (NRSV, 5.1-18)6.1, 19b7.47-518.1b-2aa, 4b, 9, 14-669.1-9, 10, 1411.1-13, 29aa, 36bp, 38-39a, 41-43

For the portrayal of the final period of the history, Dtr drew on theChronicles of the Kings of Israel or Judah. From this, Dtr derivedparticularly the framework of the presentation, as a history not ofindividual kings but of the monarchy as a whole in Israel and Judah.


Apart from the framework, Noth assumes that Dtr derived thefollowing material from these Chronicles.From the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel:

Usurpations1 Kgs 15.27-28; 16.9-12, 15-18, 21-222Kgsl5.10, 14, 16,25, 30a

Changes of royal residence1 Kgs 12.25; 16.24

Other1 Kgs 16.31,34; 22.39*2 Kgs 14.25; 15.19-20, 29

From the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah:Mainly plundering of the temple

1 Kgs 14.25-28; 15.12-13, 16-222 Kgs 12.5-17, 18-19; 14.7, 8-14, 22; 15.35b; 16.5-6, 7-18;

18.4b, 13-16; 23.4-15, 19, 20a; 24.10-16Usurpations, etc.

2 Kgs 11.1-20; 12.21-22; 14.5,19-21; 15.5; 21.23-24;23.29-30, 33-35; 24.17

Other1 Kgs 22.48-502 Kgs 8.20-22; 17.3-6, 24, 29-31; 18.9-11; 24.1-2aa, 7

Noth assumes that Dtr also drew widely on prophetic narratives:1 Kgs 11.29a(3b-31, 36abcc, 37; 12.1-20, 26-31; 14.1-18—AhijahofShiloh1 Kgs 12.32-13.32—prophetic legend about Bethel1 Kgs 17-19; 21—Elijah1 Kgs 20.1-43—prophetic anecdotes1 Kgs 22.1-37—Micaiah ben Imlah2 Kgs 1.2-17acc; 2; 3.4-8.15; 13.14-21—Elijah and Elisha2 Kgs 9.1-10.27—anointing of Jehu2 Kgs 18.17-20.19—Isaiah narratives2 Kgs 22.3-23.3—finding of Deuteronomic law

Apart in general from the framing passages for each king, Nothattributes the following to Dtr:

1 Kings13.33-3414.14-16, 19-20, 27* 22-24


15.15, 29-3016.1-421.21-22, 24-26 Subsequent additions: 21.20, 2322.38-40, 43, 472 Kings1.1 (cf. 3.5)8.28-29 (cf. 9.15a, 16b)9.8b-10a10.28-3313.3-7, 22-2514.6, 26-2715.12, 37 (cf. 10.30, also deuteronomistic )16.3-417.7-20, 32-34a Subsequent addition: 17.34b-40 (41)21.1-1823.16-18, 21-2724.19-2025.1-26 (using material from Jer. 39-41),

27-30 (from Dtr's own knowledge)

MARTIN NOTH AND THE CHRONICLER'S HISTORY*

Roddy L. Braun

First of all, I should thank two individuals for making my task in thispaper much easier. The first is Hugh Williamson, who, among his othercontributions to the study of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, has alsodeigned to translate the second part of Martin Noth's classicUberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien into English.1 Williamson himselfwrites, with characteristic understatement, 'It is no secret that Noth'sGerman is not always easily rendered into English.'2 We are all indebtedto him for this labor of love.

The second is Professor Ralph Klein, former colleague at the nowdefunct Concordia Senior College, later advisor for my doctoral dis-sertation at Concordia Seminary, St Louis. Most recently, ProfessorKlein has written the articles on Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah inthe Anchor Bible Dictionary.3 He has there summarized with charac-teristic thoroughness and insight the history of research into these books.For those of us who are somewhat removed from the trenches ofscholarly research, this is a great help. My errors, of course, should notbe laid to the charge of either of these fine men.

I have been asked to divide my presentation into three parts: first, tosummarize Noth's work in this area; secondly, to survey the work doneand issues to emerge since Noth; and finally, to evaluate Noth's workand suggest directions for future research.

* I wish to thank the SBL and especially Pat Graham and Steve McKenzie forhonoring me with the invitation to present a paper at this symposium.

1. The Chronicler's History (JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987),abbreviated hereafter as CH.

2. CH, p. 7.3. R.W. Klein, 'Chronicles, Book of 1-2', ABD I, pp. 992-1002; 'Ezra-

Nehemiah, Books of, ABD IE, pp. 731-42.


1. Noth and the Chronicler

Within the space limitations of the present essay, I can only reviewNoth's work briefly. Noth divides 'The Chronicler's History' into twomajor parts: the first three chapters deal with the composition of thework and the last four with its character.

In discussing the original form of composition, Noth assigns1 Chronicles 23-27 (with the exception of 23.1-2a) to later hands; soalso ch. 12 and most of chs. 15-16.1 He retains almost all of 2Chronicles, questioning only parts of five verses.2 Of the genealogicalprologue to the work, he is more critical. While keeping all of ch. 1 and2.1-17, only a small core of the remainder is retained, dependent uponNumbers 26 and enriched only by a genealogy for David in the case ofJudah and a genealogy of the high priests in the case of Levi.3

Noth accepts all essentials of Ezra 1-6 as original to Chr.,4 includingthe list of 2.1-69.5 Later additions to the Ezra story include 7.8-10;8.18d-19 and parts of 8.24 and 8.31. However, Ezra 10.18, 20^4 isjudged later.6

Neh. 1.1-7.3 comes to us as it left the hand of Chr., who has addedonly 1.5-1 la and bits of 6.11, 13 to the Nehemiah Memoir. The list ofNeh. 7.6-72 is taken from Ezra (v. 5b is redactional). Also secondary isNeh. 10.2-28, 38b-40a. Noth argues that the position of Nehemiah 8-10is original to Chr., because the chapters 'belong in such an obvious waywith Ezra 7-10 that it would be utterly impossible to understand how alater redactor could have arrived at the decision secondarily to separatethese two elements which ex hypothesi once stood together'.7

In Nehemiah 11-13, the original part of the work is only 11.1-2,concluded by 12.27-13.31. (Within this corpus, 12.27-29, 46-47 andch. 13 are later additions.)8

1. Noth, US, pp. 112-15; CH, pp. 31-35.2. Noth, US, pp. 116-17; CH, pp. 35-36.3. Noth, US, pp. 116-22; CH, pp. 36-42.4. This article uses the traditional abbreviation, 'Chr.', for the Chronicler and the

Chronicler's Work without prejudice as to the unity of the work or the number ofwriters involved in its production.

5. Noth, US, pp. 123-24; CH, pp. 42-43.6. Noth, US, p. 126; CH, pp. 45-46.7. Noth, US, p. 128; CH, p. 47.8. Noth, US, pp. 130-31; CH, pp. 49-50.

BRAUN Martin Noth and the Chronicler's History 65

Noth believes that Chr.'s source for 1 Chronicles 1-9 was thePentateuch in its present form.1 For 1 Chronicles 10-2 Chronicles 36,the main source was the books of Samuel and Kings, again, in theirpresent form.2 Chr.'s use of other non-biblical sources is problematic. Inthe citation of sources at the end of each reign, Noth believes that Chr.has simply adopted a literary convention.3 Only two passages notpresent in Samuel-Kings are so accurate historically that we mustassume that Chr. had before him a pre-exilic source—2 Chron. 32.30(Siloam tunnel) and 2 Chron. 35.20-24 (the description of Josiah'sdeath).4

Noth also mentions passages that discuss the fortifications ofthe Judaean kings and that appear to be reliable (2 Chron. 11.5b-10aoc,Rehoboam; 2 Chron. 26.9, 15a, Uzziah; 33.14a, Manasseh). Other pas-sages suggest that the writer himself 'had a general idea of what wasappropriate for a genuine national mobilization but does not reveal anyevidence for the use of an ancient source'.5

Noth concludes,

It seems, therefore, that Chr. had available to him an ancient source inwhich he found various items concerning the defensive building workundertaken by the kings of Judah. On the basis of this, he seems to havedeveloped his own presentation of the royal armaments which he appliedprimarily to his favorite characters in the history of the kings of Judah.6

Similarly, certain accounts of the wars of Judaean kings, which are notrecorded in the Deuteronomistic History, do not look like Chr.'sinvention.7 Noth again concludes, 'Since the themes of fortification andwar belong together, it may be suspected that Chr. made use of just one,

1. Noth, OS, p. 132; CH, p. 51.2. Noth, OS, p. 133; CH, p. 52.3. Noth, OS, p. 133; CH, p. 53.4. Noth, US, pp. 139-40; CH, p. 57. Noth mentions that Josephus (Ant. 10.74)

also had an additional historical source at his disposal here, perhaps the same as theone used by Chr. (OS, p. 140; CH, p. 58).

5. Noth, US, p. 141; CH, p. 59. Passages included here, many of which havebeen attached to the sources cited previously, are parts of 2 Chron. 11.10-12; 14.5-7;17.2a, 12b-19; 25.5, 6-10, 13; 26.11-14; 27.3b-4; 32.3-6a; 33.14b (OS, pp. 140-41;CH, p. 59).

6. Noth, US, pp. 141-42; CH, p. 59.7. 2 Chron. 26.6-8a; 27.5; 28.18; 13.3-20; 14.8-14; US, p. 142; CH, p. 60.


single source document besides Dtr. for the period of the monarchy.'1

Sources used by the author of Ezra 1-6 include Ezra 1.9-1 la, the listof 2.1-69 and the Aramaic passage of 4.6-6.18. According to Noth, theauthor of the narrative framework was clearly Chr. himself: 'Hischaracteristics are everywhere present.'2

The original author of the 'Ezra history' in Ezra 7-10 has used sev-eral sources, including Ezra's genealogy in 7.1b-5, the Aramaic decreein 7.12-26 and 8.1-14. The basic text of this 'Ezra Memoir' (chs. 7-10)is clearly Chr.'s own composition.3

For the history of Nehemiah, Chr. had available to him the NehemiahMemoir, which he has followed word for word from 1.1 to 7.5a, withthe exception of the prayer that he attributed to Nehemiah in 1.5-11 a.Nehemiah 8-10 is again the work of Chr. These chapters have from thebeginning been integrated with the Nehemiah Memoir,4 so that therecan be no question of an original Ezra history being split by the insertionof the Nehemiah history. For Nehemiah 11-13, Chr. again follows theNehemiah Memoir, adding brief information of his own at a few placesof special importance to him (12.30, 33-36, 41, 42; 13.5, 6, 7, 22a, 26,27, 29, 30).

Noth deals with the question of the date of composition of Chr.relatively briefly, working from Ezra 4.6-6.18. Since the date of anArtaxerxes II (405-359 BCE) already lay so far in the past that Chr.could mistakenly suppose that it was during this king's reign that Ezraand Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem, Chr. could hardly have writtenbefore about 300 BCE. No arguments can really be adduced againstthose who would date it as late as 200 BCE, with later additions perhapsin the Maccabean period.5

In chs. 17-20, Noth deals with the character of Chr.'s work. Chr., hestates, 'stands out much more strongly as an independent narrator thanis commonly supposed'.6 In contrast to Dtr, Chr.'s contribution is moreto enliven and develop the details of history than to give a systematicpresentation of it. Noth calls Chr.'s style 'untidy and uneven'.7 Dtr,

1. Noth, US, p. 142; CH, p. 60.2. Noth, US, p. 145; CH, p. 62.3. Noth, US, p. 146; CH, p. 63.4. Noth, US, p. 149; CH, p. 66.5. Noth, US, pp. 154-55; CH, p. 73.6. Noth, US, p. 155; CH, p. 75.7. Noth, US, p. 156; CH, p. 16.


according to Noth, was hesitant to interfere with his source; Chr. ismuch less so, developing on his own the accounts of various kingswhom he considers important.1 Again, in contrast to Dtr, Noth findsthat 'the working up of connections was not one of his strong points'.2

Chr. showed no interest in an overall chronology, although he 'wasgenerous in supplying information about the dates and times ofindividual events' .3 Chr. further sought to enliven the presentation of hisVorlage by elaborating it in terms of the conceptions of his own day,even to the point of assigning personal names to various people andgroups. Although Chr. uses speeches, they are not concentrated athistorical turning points but are inserted at opportune moments.4 Nothagrees with von Rad that such speeches are couched 'in the style of theLevitical sermon that was current in his own day' .5 Finally, Chr. has hisprophets appear often as spokesmen for the doctrine of retribution, andthat particularly as directed toward Judah.6

Chr.'s outlook was conditioned by the institutions and conceptions ofhis own day, although his work stood at quite a chronological distancefrom the latest of the events it records. 'The determinative key thoughtsof his work...naturally grew out of the special concerns of his time, andtheir intention was precisely to give historical justification to theseconcerns themselves.'7

Chr. springs from the post-exilic community in Judah, which by thethird century BCE existed in a fixed and permanent state. The essentialelements of the inner life of this community were so familiar to Chr. thathe was scarcely able to perceive that they were historically conditioned,and he assumed that they held true for the past that he was describing.Noth mentions four of these elements:

1. The law of Moses, which was so 'unquestionably valid that hewas able to use the expression without in fact ever introducingthe figure of Moses...or even offering an explanation of whatthe "law of Moses" was'.8

1. Noth, US, p. 157; CH, p. 77.2. Noth, US, p. 157; CH, p. 77.3. Noth, US, p. 157; CH, p. 77.4. Noth, US, p. 160; CH, p. 80.5. Noth, US, p. 160; CH, p. 80.6. Noth, US, p. 161; CH, p. 81.7. Noth, US, p. 162; CH, p. 83.8. Noth, US, pp. 162-63; CH, p. 84.


2. The high value placed on the cultic activity conducted in theone single legitimate sanctuary.1

3. Chr.'s concept of holiness, which led him to believe that onlycultic personnel who had been specifically designated couldgain access to holy places and be involved in holy activities.This does not permit us to conclude, says Noth, that Chr. hadany special interest in the Levites. In his day no one knew anydifferent.2

4. Finally, the relation with the Samaritan cultic community.Although Noth dismisses Josephus's account of the negotia-tions at the time of Alexander's appearance in Syria andPalestine in 332 BCE, the date implied for the establishment ofthe Samaritan temple on Gerizim 'will hardly be completelymisleading'.3 While there would have been tension with theinhabitants of the province of Samaria from the time ofCyrus's decree, the breaking point does not seem to have beenreached for some time. The most probable theory is that thishappened near the end of the Persian empire. Even then therewould have been some elements that remained loyal to theJerusalem cult. Such a recent separation would have poseda serious problem for Chr. and all those who regarded thecommunity gathered around the Jerusalem cult as the directsuccessor to ancient Israel.4

Chr. generally intended to submit to the tradition that he had receivedand 'was broadly successful in this aim'.5 He selected only a part of hissource material, sometimes arranging events in a different order andsometimes making minor corrections to his sources. He removed anumber of unpleasant features from his sources and changed detailsunder the influence of conceptions of his own day. Nevertheless, 'Whatreally gives Chr.'s historical narrative its different appearance are hisadditions.'6 Here 'he entertained the belief that he could offer anappropriate interpretation of his Vorlage without having to touch its

1. Noth, US, p. 163; CH, p. 84.2. Noth, £75, p. 163; CH, p. 85.3. Noth, US, p. 164; CH, p. 86.4. Noth, US, pp. 165-66; CH, p. 87.5. Noth, OS, p. 166; CH, p. 89.6. Noth, US, p. 169; CH, p. 93.


wording.'1 Noth cites as the most important example of this theascription to David of the preparations for the building of the temple.'By retaining the actual construction of the building for Solomon, heavoided at least a blatant contradiction of the ancient tradition.'2 Acomparable correction is the way that Chr. has Ezra anticipateNehemiah's reform measures, thereby leaving Nehemiah with no morethan the gleanings.3 In other cases he made additions of his own,dependent upon combining various statements of his sources, such asthe tabernacle at Gibeon and the wording of Cyrus's edict (Ezra 1.2-4).4

Noth concludes:

Chr. changed the presentation of history offered by his sources to a fargreater extent than did Dtr., for Dtr. gave expression to his viewpointprimarily in the framework of his composition but interfered only rela-tively slightly in the wording of his sources.5

Noth begins his chapter on Chr.'s theology by referring to von Rad'smonograph, which he regards as detailed and first rate, and in view ofwhich his own presentation will be abbreviated and more limited toareas where von Rad needs to be corrected or expanded. Chr., Nothstates, did indeed mean to write history, that is, what really happened.6

History was the arena of God's dealings with humans, and the doctrineof retribution as applied to individuals (and even to periods within theindividual's life) was one means that Chr. used to give expression to thatfact. Noth views as 'unquestionably mistaken' the idea that Chr.'sprimary purpose was the justification of Levitical claims. His centralconcern was to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty andof the Jerusalem temple as Yahweh's valid cult center.7 His oppositioncan only have been the Samaritans and their cult center on Gerizim. So,Noth argues, Chr. omitted the traditions common to the twocommunities. It is only with the rise of David that these traditionsdiverged. Thus Chr. began his historical account proper with the story ofDavid, which is a [sic] kingdom of God on earth. In theDeuteronomistic History the people of Israel were the object of divine

1. Noth, OS, p. 169; CH, p. 93.2. Noth, US, p. 170; CH, p. 94.3. Noth, US, p. 170; CH, p. 94.4. Noth, OS, p. \ll;CH,p.95.5. Noth, US, p. 171; CH, p. 95.6. Noth, OS, p. 172; CH, p. 98.7. Noth, OS, p. 174; CH, p. 100.


election; in Chr.'s work 'this concept is applied to the kingdom of theJudaean dynasty of David (1 Chron. 28.4).'!

Chr. believed that David must have regarded the building of thetemple as his most important task.2 The apostate tribes had renouncedthe sole legitimate cult. At the time of the defection of the northerntribes, the genuine priests and Levites, as well as the pious lay people,had moved to Jerusalem and Judah. 'In fact, Chr. seems even to havebeen of the opinion that the Davidides had always ruled the hill-countryof Samaria too, at least in part.'3

In the case of the kingdom, Chr. was left with an open questionregarding the future. Noth believes that Chr. clearly shared the expec-tation that this kingdom would be revived. Chr.'s alternative ending toSolomon's dedicatory prayer in 2 Chron. 6.40-42 cites Ps. 132.8-9, apsalm dealing with the divine promise made to David and Zion, but alsorefers to the 'sure mercies' of David (Isa. 55.3) and alludes to Psalm 89,which requests the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. It is from thisangle that Chr.'s interest in the Judaean kings' development of theexternals of power is to be understood. These references set before hisreaders a counterpart to the miserable political situation of his own day,and at the same time, they suggested the form that a future renewal ofthe Davidic kingdom would take.4

Noth concludes by pointing out that not long after Chr.'s time manyof his concerns were fulfilled in the Maccabean period. 'One can wellimagine that at this time the work of Chr. would have been read withparticular interest and understanding.'5

2. Developments Since Martin Noth

The past fifty years have seen numerous changes in the study of theChronicler's History, both in matters of detail and in matters of largerscope. I mention a few of these as examples.

a. The Relative Flood of Materials Related to ChroniclesIn the first half of the twentieth century one could almost count thesignificant works on Chr. on the fingers of one's hands. A part of this

1. Noth, OS, p. 176; CH, p. 101.2. Noth, OS, p. 177; CH, p. 103.3. Noth, OS, p. 178; CH, p. 104.4. Noth, US, p. 179; CH, p. 105.5. Noth, US, p. 180; CH, p. 106.


was due to its reputation as a kind of second-rate supplement toSamuel-Kings, an attitude amply reflected by its Greek name,Paraleipomena, 'the things left out'. Related to that was a rathercommon disdain (which it shares with P) for what is often consideredthe principal subject matter of the books: priests, Levites, temples, culticregulations, choirs and the like.1 Furthermore, the books of Chroniclesespecially were at best historically suspect, and therefore of little valuefor the reconstruction of Israel's past. It is not for nothing, if one mayparaphrase Paul, that in the Hebrew canon as we commonly know it,dibre hayyamim stands at the very end, even after Ezra and Nehemiah.In an age with a predilection for historicism, the preachy theologizing ofthe writer(s) of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah has a hard time securinga pulpit or an audience.

I recall discovering, with a certain amount of delight, the relativelymeager amount of information written on Chr., and especiallyChronicles itself, when I began looking into a subject for my doctoraldissertation. In addition to Noth's work, there were, of course,Rudolph's commentaries, the standard ICC commentary by Curtis,completed with the assistance of Madsen, and that of Rothstein, com-pleted after his death by Hanel.2 But beyond the linguistic work ofKropat and Rehm,3 and the monographs of von Rad, Torrey andWelch,4 there was little else. And of course, there was that incredible

1. J. Wellhausen's depiction of Chr.'s picture of David is well known: 'Seewhat Chronicles has made out of David! The founder of the kingdom has become thefounder of the temple and public worship, the king and hero at the head of his com-panions in arms has become the singer and master of ceremonies at the head of aswarm of priests and Levites' (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [trans.J.S. Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885; repr. Cleveland: World,1957], p. 182).

2. W. Rudolph, Chronikbucher (HAT 21; Tubingen: Mohr, 1955) and Esra undNehemiah samt 3. Esra (HAT 20; Tubingen: Mohr, 1949); E.L. Curtis andA.A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC 11; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910);J.W. Rothstein and J. Hanel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT 18.2;Leipzig: D. Werner Scholl, 1927).

3. A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seinerQuellen: Bin Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebrdischen (BZAW 16; Giessen:Topelmann, 1909); M. Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellender Samuel-Kdnigsbiicher und der Chronik (AA 13.3; Miinster: Aschendorf, 1937).

4. G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 54;Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930); C.C. Torrey, The Chronicler's History of Israel (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1954) and Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of


synopsis of Vannutelli's,1 for which the devout student of Chroniclesgives thanks daily.

Today that corpus has expanded considerably, including commen-taries by Clines, Dillard, Williamson and the present writer;2 major booksby McKenzie, Mosis, Petersen, Throntveit, Welten, Willi andWilliamson;3 and a host of valuable periodical articles.4 Here are some ofthe developments I believe we can see in these studies:1. There is here a greater appreciation of Chr. as an author. Noth, itshould be observed, shared this opinion. Many of the longer genealogicalsections that tend to put the modern reader to sleep, such as1 Chronicles 1-9 and 23-27, as well as other longer and shorter lists, aretoday most commonly denied to Chr.2. There is a keener appreciation of the value of the non-synoptic ornon-parallel passages of Chronicles. In part, this is a natural reaction tothe discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In displaying on many occasionsa Hebrew text in agreement with certain manuscripts of the Septuagint,these discoveries have indicated that Chr. was not altering the text of

Chicago Press, 1910); A.C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and ItsDate (London: Oxford University Press, 1939).

1. P. Vannutelli, Libri synoptici Veteris Testamenti... (Scripta Pontificii InstitutiBiblici; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1931,1934).

2. D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1984); R.B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987);H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) andEzra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985); R.L. Braun,1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986).

3. S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie deschronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973); D.L. Petersen,Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles(SBLMS 23; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977); M.A. Throntveit, When KingsSpeak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1987); P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in denChronikbuchern (WMANT 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973);T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1972); H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1977).

4. Excellent and extensive bibliographies are now available and need not berepeated here. See most recently I. Kalimi, The Books of Chronicles: A ClassifiedBibliography (Simor Bible Bibliographies; Jerusalem: Simor, 1990) and the items byKlein on p. 63 n. 3.


Samuel-Kings that he had before him, as often thought, but wasaccurately reflecting a different family of Hebrew manuscripts. Hence,not every difference between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings reflects aspecial Tendenz on the part of the author. This has led to a greaterinterest in the non-synoptic portions of the work. (I confess to using thatas one reason to justify my concentration upon the non-synopticportions of Chronicles in my dissertation, later narrowed to 1 Chronicles22, 28, 29).l I think it must be added, however, that the discovery ofalternate text types in Chronicles has thus far proved of little significancefor understanding Chr.'s work.3. There is a greatly altered understanding of the relationship betweenDavid and Solomon and their relationship to the temple. Earlier studieshad focused almost entirely on David:2 David was elevated and Solomondenigrated, despite the fact that Chr. had reserved for Solomon thenoblest of endeavors—the building of the temple—and removed fromhim any responsibility for the division of the kingdom. Placing Davidand Solomon in proper perspective supplies the basis for a newunderstanding of Chronicles and of the relationship between theaccounts of Ezra and Nehemiah as well.3

4. There is a better understanding of Chr.'s dogma of retribution, of itspervasiveness and the terminology and ideology associated with it.4 It isnot often enough noted that Chr. regularly and rigorously follows theDeuteronomistic History in his overall evaluation of every king exceptSolomon. However, the knowledge of his vocabulary and the manner inwhich he portrays both blessing and curse have become increasinglyprecise. For example, royal building activities are always restricted to theportion of the king's life in which he was faithful to the Lord. To hiscredit, it must be said that Noth saw these developments also.5

5. There is a greater appreciation of patterning in Chronicles (and Ezraand Nehemiah). Parallels are drawn, for example, between the reigns of

1. It is interesting that Noth gave scant attention to such small variations andemphasized the importance of studying the non-synoptic portions of Chr.'s History.

2. Von Rad's Das Geschichtsbild is the primary example, but the number couldbe multiplied.

3. See especially R.L. Braun, 'Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles', JBL 92(1973), pp. 503-16; H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Accession of Solomon in the Booksof Chronicles', VT26 (1976), pp. 351-61.

4. See most elaborately Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung.5. Noth, VS, pp. 140-43; CH, pp. 58-61.


David and Hezekiah, or between David and Solomon and Hezekiah andJosiah, or Ezra and Nehemiah. While I may be responsible for this to adegree,1 I must say that I remain skeptical toward the patternsdiscovered by others. It seems clear that Mosis's work2 has crossed theline into typology.6. There is a better understanding of the role of the speech in Chronicles(and Ezra-Nehemiah). Noth observed this but remarked that, in contrastto Dtr, Chr. placed speeches at every available opportunity rather thanat major turning points.3 This is not the case, and Ploger's work wasseminal on this issue.4 Chr. used speeches to make important points andplaced them at critical junctures within the narrative to give expressionto his ideas. Von Rad's arguments with regard to the Levitical Sermon,followed also by Noth and most commentators, are largely unfoundedand should be rejected.5

b. Questioning the Unity of Chronicles-Ezra—NehemiahThe most significant development since Noth clearly lies with studiesrelating to the unity of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah. In harmony with thethinking of his day, Noth simply assumed this unity, given its classicalexpression by Zunz in 1832.6 Noth concludes his opening paragraphwith the sentence,

It is generally accepted as certain that in 1 and 2 Chronicles + Ezra andNehemiah we have but a single work. In this case, therefore, in contrastwith the analysis of the Deuteronomic History, there is no need to startwith a demonstration of the work's literary unity.7

1. Cf. Braun, 'Solomonic Apologetic', pp. 502-14.2. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie.3. Noth, OS, p. 160; CH, p. 80.4. O. Ploger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1959).5. Cf. R.L. Braun, The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, & 29 for the

Structure and Theology of the Work of the Chronicler' (ThD dissertation, ConcordiaSeminary, 1971), pp. 225-49. See also most recently Throntveit, When Kings Speak.

6. L. Zunz, 'Dibre hajamim oder die Biicher der Chronik', Die gottes-dienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (Berlin: A. Asher, 1832),pp. 13-36.

7. Noth, OS, p. 110; CH, p. 29.


That position has been called into question first of all by Japhet,1

Freedman2 and Cross,3 and their arguments expanded and broadenedby Williamson,4 this writer5 and others. While it cannot be said that anyconsensus has been reached in the matter, and some recent studiescontinue to support the unity of the entire corpus of Chronicles, Ezraand Nehemiah, it is at least fair to say that many see increasing difficultyin ascribing to a single author works that differ so radically in theirunderstanding of such fundamental aspects of Chr.'s thought as themonarchy, retribution and their attitude toward the North.6

c. Date and PurposeThat points us toward a final difference that has developed of late. IfChronicles is to be separated from all or parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, whenwas it written, to whom and for what purpose? Older scholarsresponded, positively, that its purpose was to elevate Levitical claims,and, negatively, that it was to set forth the Jerusalem temple over againstthe claims of the Samaritans and their temple on Gerizim. However,most of the materials to substantiate these hypotheses are either found tobe later additions to Chronicles or to belong to Ezra-Nehemiah. Presentscholarship believes the definitive break between the Jews and theSamaritans occurred much later than previously envisioned, perhaps aslate as the erection of the Samaritan temple in the second century BCE.

I admit to finding some such scenario as that sketched by Freedmanand Cross attractive for explaining both the similarities and differencesbetween Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. A first edition of Chr.'s workcould have ended either with the current text of Chronicles or, as seemsmore likely to me, with the dedication of the temple. The original endinghas now been replaced by the material of Ezra 4ff. In the final editionbefore us now, for which the Nehemiah Memoir served as a model, the

1. S. Japhet, 'The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VT18 (1968), pp. 330-71.

2. D.N. Freedman, 'The Chronicler's Purpose', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 436-42.3. P.M. Cross, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975),

pp. 4-18.4. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles.5. R.L. Braun, 'Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary

History', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament(VTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 52-64.

6. See the excellent summaries in the articles by Klein p. 63 n. 3.


careers of Ezra and Nehemiah have been paralleled.1

To Noth's credit, it must be acknowledged that he isolated thosepassages in Chronicles that dealt with the North, passages that are nowcited as evidence of a positive message. However, he read them in anegative—rather than a positive—way.2

Finally, we should add that there is no consensus on the place of themonarchy in the work. Chronicles would offer the strongest support forhopes of a revival of the monarchy, though some see the monarchyachieving its aim in the construction of the temple. It is difficult to find aplace for a Davidic hope in Ezra-Nehemiah, although Noth himself didso.

It is obvious that little has been said in these remarks about studies ofthe books of Ezra and Nehemiah per se. There are at least two reasonsfor this. First, if I have an area of some expertise, it is not Ezra-Nehemiah. But secondly, to my limited knowledge it does not appearthat a consensus, or even a movement toward a consensus, has begun todevelop about those two books. In fact, one might argue that some ofthe 'assured results' of earlier days have been lost. In such matters asthe date of Ezra, for example, the earlier and most traditional date, 458BCE, is now increasingly popular, after brief flirtations with 398(Ackroyd, Galling, Rowley and others) and 428 (Albright, Bright).3 Thetwo most recent commentaries, those of Clines and Williamson, differsubstantially in their assessments not only of the unity of the work, butof the compositional stages of Ezra and Nehemiah as well. Williamsonbelieves that the Ezra and Nehemiah materials were joined togetherabout 400 BCE and then—about 300 BCE—incorporated into the largerwork by the writer of Ezra 1-6. Most still see the Ezra Memoir ascontinuing in Nehemiah 8, and some in chs. 9 and 10 as well, whileNehemiah 8 is often moved after Ezra 8 or 10. Neh. 9.1-5 originally laybetween 10.15 and 10.16, according to Williamson, but Clines placesall of Nehemiah 8-9 immediately after Ezra 8. Cross has proposedthree editions of Chr.'s work.4 If there is a common ground, it is that

1. Note most tellingly the prayers of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9. For other parallels,see Braun, 'Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah', pp. 63-64.

2. Noth, US, p. 178; CH, p. 104.3. Again, see the works of Klein (p. 63 n. 3) for a summary of the positions

held, especially 'Ezra-Nehemiah', pp. 735-37.4. Cross, 'Reconstruction'. Summarized in Klein, 'Ezra-Nehemiah', pp. 734-35.


Neh. 11.20-26 and 12.1-26 belong to a very late redaction.1 Suchdivergencies do not inspire confidence.

3. Future Prospects

Martin Noth's work on Chronicles is not frequently cited in books orjournal articles today. Williamson attributes part of this neglect to thesuccess of Rudolph's fine commentaries, which appeared shortly afterUS,2 and that may be so. Rudolph utilized much the same methodologyas Noth and arrived at many of the same conclusions.

But that is perhaps only part of the story. Noth, like many others,could be accused of having only a tangential interest in the Chronicler'sHistory, although we must say, I believe, that he has dealt with it quitesympathetically and adequately. Noth's principal interest was in history,not theology, and it is through his history that most Americans havebecome acquainted with him. Moreover, within the arena of history, hisprimary interest lay in pre-exilic rather than post-exilic Israel, and hefound little in Chronicles useful for reconstructing that history. Onecould argue that, having dealt with the remaining 'histories' of Israel—the classical sources of the Pentateuch and the related work of Dtr—heshould have felt some compulsion to investigate the so-called Chr.'sHistory as well. Accordingly, his work is largely a thoroughgoinganalysis of the text, carried out in a literary-critical method basedprimarily on internal coherence.3 His work was not particularly creativeor ground-breaking. Williamson's statement, made with regard to Ezra-Nehemiah, is equally true of the books of Chronicles: 'In fact, there isonly one major subject on which [Noth] advanced a fresh suggestionwhich has had a significant impact on subsequent study, and thatconcerns the nature of the so-called "Ezra Memoir".'4

Williamson's critique of Noth's work mentions the fact that a number

1. See also Noth, OS, pp. 130-31; CH, p. 49.2. Williamson, 'Introduction', CH, p. 11.3. Williamson, 'Introduction', CH, p. 14.4. Williamson, 'Introduction', CH, pp. 21-22. In essence, Noth accepted the

Aramaic edict in Ezra 7.12 and the list of those who returned to Jerusalem with Ezrain 8.1-14 as antecedent sources, and Chr., who also knew the Nehemiah Memoirs,composed the whole of the Ezra account on that basis. This position was adopted byKellermann and In der Smitten (references given by Williamson), but, somewhatsurprisingly, it was rejected by Rudolph (and Williamson).


of recent studies of Chronicles have tended to draw their conclusionsabout Chronicles from a much broader appreciation of the work'soverall narrative structure, since this must be due to Chr. himself.Emphasis here lies in detecting themes and relationships—even'patterns'—within Chr.'s compositions. He states, 'there are signs ofunease about the manner in which Noth pursued the literary-criticalmethod in isolation from other considerations.'1 Here Williamson againlists patterning and literary devices such as 'repetitive resumption'. Hecontinues, 'Thus, whilst it is clear that there can be no going back to"pre-Nothian" approaches, it is also the case that he did not speak thelast word on the issue of determining the precise shape of the workwhich left Chr.'s hands.'2

Nevertheless, we must reiterate that Noth has dealt with Chr. in agenerally sympathetic and satisfactory way. If his literary analysis is notthe last word, it is nevertheless a substantial word, and it continues to befollowed in sizeable measure by most students of the work. Acceptingthe entire work as a unity, his statement of the message, audience anddate of the book is consistent and reasonable. He summarized well thestatus of Chronicles studies and set us on a firmer foundation.

Also in details, we might add, Noth's observations were often acute.As mentioned before, he spoke highly of Chr.'s ability as an author. Inworking through his material again to prepare this paper, I found severalthings there that I honestly thought were original with me. I suspect thatI am not the only one who has had that experience. Noth isolatedvarious passages that dealt with the northern tribes during themonarchy. He identified those elements found only in Chr.'s workwhich seem to have a historical basis, and that list still remains today. Heobserved that Chr. seems to have had a special interest in and knowl-edge of military and building operations, and this seems to have been thesource of many of his non-synoptic sections. He observed—and it wouldhave taken detailed study to do so—that Chr. alone saw the Davidicdynasty as the object of God's election.3 The reasoning that he adoptedwith regard to the messianic hope in Chronicles, based strongly onChronicles' conclusion to Solomon's dedicatory prayer, remains thestandard argument today. His analysis of the so-called Ezra Memoir—

1. Williamson, 'Introduction', CH, p. 18.2. Williamson, 'Introduction', CH, p. 19.3. However, Noth failed to notice that this divine choice was specifically related

to Solomon.


that it was Chr.'s free composition based on two brief written noticesand the model of the Nehemiah Memoir—is, in my estimation,splendidly done. Noth himself saw parallels between, for example, Ezraand Nehemiah, which we are only beginning to believe may have beenin the mind of the author.

Although many questions remain about matters that elude clarifica-tion, many of these are questions left over from earlier days: problems ofmessianism, eschatology, audience and the like. Assuming that themonarchy occupies a rather central position in Chronicles, how does oneaccount for its virtual disappearance in Ezra-Nehemiah? Those of allpositions still must face the problem of kingship as it existed at the timeof the exile, or after the return from exile, or in 400 or 300 BCE.Somehow the appeal to 2 Chron. 6.41-42 seems strained, as does anappeal to Davidic and/or Solomonic parallels. Is Rudolph right after all inhis contention that Chr. saw the office and function of the Davidicmonarchy fulfilled in the construction of the temple? If so, then howdoes one explain the frequency and definitiveness of the dynasticpronouncements throughout the earlier part of the work, not only inportions borrowed from Samuel-Kings, but also in sections that areChr.'s own composition?

All in all, it would certainly be easiest to attribute the entire work to asingle person, as Noth does. But by any reading, is 1 Chronicles 10 asuitable beginning to the work? And is 1 Chronicles 1-9 in any form anappropriate prologue?

How does one explain both the similarities and the differencesbetween Chronicles, loosely speaking, and Ezra-Nehemiah? Surely it isnot adequate in every case to appeal to the use of different sources asthe solution—didn't the author read the same sources he expected us toread?

How does one distinguish between earlier and later additions to orlayers in a work, when genealogies and other such lists are in factalready an accumulation of layers? Or how does one unravel the per-plexing mystery of the arrangement of Ezra and Nehemiah? Do we tryto make sense of Ezra-Nehemiah in its present shape, or re-arrange itaccording to some other pattern—chronological, theological, literary orotherwise? At a minimum, we must say that no one has been able to dothis to the satisfaction of all.

If one denies the unity of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, of course,additional questions arise that are only now beginning to be addressed.


Has the original ending of Chronicles survived, or has it been droppedand replaced with another? Is it possible to imagine an ending ofChronicles that does not include the building of the second temple? Thereconstruction of Cross, with his proposal of successive editions of thework, although complex, has in this sense much to commend it. Wheredid the original work end? What was its message? To whom was itaddressed, and under what circumstances?

Finally, by what kind of logic do we conclude that a later author oreditor has been willing to introduce contradictions into a text that anearlier author had not? Should we excuse Noth for his unusual logic instating that Chr. himself must have been responsible for the currentposition of the Ezra materials, since no later editor would have putthings hi such disarray?

In closing, let me make one suggestion and ask one question, neitherof which is new. The suggestion relates to the relative historical reliabilityof Chronicles and Kings and is that the students of Samuel-Kings applythe same standards to, for example, the reforms of Josiah as they askothers to use on Abijah or Hezekiah in Chronicles. The question is: Is itpossible that the author of Chronicles or that of Ezra viewed the PersianCyrus in any sense as the fulfillment of the messianic hope? If SecondIsaiah could do this, why not Chr.?

In many ways it might seem that, compared to other areas of OldTestament scholarship, the study of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah is inits infancy, or at best in its adolescence. If that is the case, we must bethankful for the rebirth of interest that has given it new direction andlife. Perhaps this time, after other attempts that seem to have beenabortive, we are on our way to a more mature and settled judgment.

MARTIN NOTH AND THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL

Thomas L. Thompson

This short paper is dedicated to my new colleagues, Heike Friis andNiels Peter Lemche, who, 25 years ago (1968) in independent studentprize essays at the University of Copenhagen, first attacked MartinNoth's central contributions to the ancient history of Israel: his famousamphictyony hypothesis, the period of the Judges and the historicity ofthe Davidic empire. These are perhaps the earliest efforts at thedeconstruction of the biblical history that had been created by bothAmerican and continental scholarship during the height of the biblicalarchaeology movement of the 1940s and 1950s. The studies by VanSeters and myself on the patriarchs had already been begun by 1968,!

but neither of them was completed before the early 1970s.2

It is unfortunate that Lemche's book was published only in Danish.3

Friis's book, though quite revolutionary, was not published at all until itfinally appeared in German in 1986 thanks to Bernd Diebner's effortsfrom Heidelberg.4 I mention this awkward element in the history of

1. J. Van Seters, 'The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law andthe Patriarchs of Israel', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 401-408; 'Jacob's Marriages andAncient Near Eastern Customs: A Reexamination', HTR 62 (1969), pp. 377-95;T.L. Thompson, Review of W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, in CBQ32 (1970), pp. 251-52.

2. J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1975); T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the PatriarchalNarratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133; Berlin: Topelmann,1974). The latter work was a published version of my 1971 Tubingen dissertation.

3. N.P. Lemche, Israel i Dommertiden: En oversigt over diskussionen omMartin Noths 'Das System der zwolf Stamme Israels' (Tekst og Tolkning 4;Copenhagen: Institut for Bibelsk Eksgese, 1972).

4. H. Friis, Die Bedingungen fur die Errichtung des davidischen Reichs inIsrael und seiner Umwelt (DBAT6; Heidelberg: B.J. Diebner and C. Nauerth, 1986);original Danish: Forudsoetninger i of uden for Israel for oprettelsen af Davids


Noth scholarship, because I think we need to evaluate just such events ifwe are to understand the long-term influence of the great scholars ofour field.

I doubt that we would be holding this celebration today if either ofthese works had been published in English or German in 1968. Giventheir originality and significance and the long-standing Scandinavianliteracy in both of these languages, one needs to ask why they were notpublished earlier.1 Greatness of scholarship is not only an issue oftemporary perception and fashion—which, of course, are often acci-dental in nature. It is also often indebted to the intentional and accidentalsuppression of alternative ideas, not least among which are those ofstudents. This particular aspect of European Old Testament studies overthe past quarter century is distinguished by a narrowness that cannot bepassed over silently. Professorial fecklessness in the face of thewidespread, albeit quiet, repression of many of our students' mostoriginal intellectual contributions has been more the rule in Europeduring the past 25 years than has been the democracy that waspromised in 1968.2

There is one line of Martin Noth's great corpus of writing that hasalways impressed me. It occurs in a paper presented at the 1959 inter-national Old Testament congress in Oxford.3 While fencing with some ofthe more fictitious fantasies of the Albright school, Noth made a rapierthrust with such deadly accuracy that it left this student, reading it manyyears later, shaking with understanding: 'Es geht nicht darum ob wir

imperium (Copenhagen, 1968). It is particularly instructive to read the defensive andapologetic tone of the faculty evaluations of 1969 related to this research that Diebnerhas translated and published on pp. 291-97 of the German edition, as well as themuch more appreciative evaluation by Diebner himself on pp. 217-41.

1. I did not learn of Friis's essay until Bernd Diebner gave me a copy of it in1991 (see my Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and theArchaeological Sources [Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 4; Leiden:Brill, 1992], p. 89), and it was not until I arrived in Copenhagen in 1993 that I firstsaw Lemche's essay.

2. In a regional meeting of the SBL (Chicago, 1991), I discussed the similarstranglehold that the Albright school had held over American scholarship during thissame period. The paper was submitted for publication to the meeting's annualproceedings but never published.

3. M. Noth, 'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels' inG.W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden:Brill, 1960), pp. 262-82.

THOMPSON Martin Noth and the History of Israel 83

external evidence brauchen, sondern ob wir sie haben.' If one were toselect a single, decisive remark that turned the long, acrimonious debateover approaches to Israel's early history between German and Americanscholarship around, it was this one. As soon as this observation began tobe systematically applied, the Albrightian approach to biblical studiescollapsed. After all, evidence was the great mirage of the early biblicalarchaeology movement.

However, Noth's rapier thrust had a double-edged Wilkinson blade.That he had decapitated himself was not to become apparent for nearlyanother decade, when he was finally shaken by the young students ofCopenhagen.1 In fact, it was the year after Weippert published thesuccessful defense of Noth (1967)2—a defense that caused Americanbiblical archaeology's 'assured results' to begin to unravel—thatLemche and Friis destroyed the house that Alt built. Now, 25 yearslater, when Noth's historical work exists only in the history ofscholarship, we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of this misdirection ofour field.

I do not think that I understood Noth very well when I was a studentin the 1960s. For example, when I first read his argument about Moses'lost tomb and its implications for tracing the historical roots of theMoses tradition, it impressed me that a major German scholar wouldmake such a funny joke deadpan. It took nearly the rest of my stay inGermany to realize that the great man had not been joking. He hadmeant what he said; in fact, it was not an argument against Moses'historicity at all, but the central argument by which Noth desperatelytried to salvage a modicum of piety.

I am beginning with Noth's commentaries and Geschichte Israels,because it is far easier to understand what he was doing there than it isin some of his more systematically argued analytical pieces such as US.Noth was a prolific writer and immensely creative. The effectiveness ofhis creativity was enhanced by his formidable ability to reconstruct andcoherently describe whatever he perceived as historically plausible. With

1. I do not mean to imply that the younger German scholars were either sub-servient or imperceptive. Revolutions in a field can be expected to begin among thosewho are forced to work on the margins, where the Danes tend to be due to bothgeography and language.

2. M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stamme in der neuerenwissenschaftlichen Diskussion: Ein kritischer Bericht (FRLANT 92; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).


impressive erudition, he was able to lead his reader through the manyimplications of his historical decisions. It was in reading Noth that I firstbecame aware of the hubris intrinsic to the role of the historian ofancient Israel, who almost singlehandedly is capable of creating the past.Because of the competitive comparison often made with Bright'shistory,1 many Americans thought of Noth as a critical historian. He hadalso been much praised on this side of the Atlantic as a model of bothcritical and historical exegesis, though I suspect that this was largely dueto a widespread lack of either interest or ability in exegesis in Americaduring this time. It was specifically his opposition to the claim thatbiblical archaeology had provided proof of historicity for thepatriarchical period and the conquest that marked his historical work formany as critical.

What was not seen was that his opposition to Albright's claim forhistoricity (and it must be recognized that Noth attacked only the mostobvious and outrageous of the excesses of some of Albright's students)was not in truth an attack on the historicity of biblical traditions so muchas it was an attack on a competitor's biblicism in favor of his own! ForNoth, the 'essential' historicity of the patriarchal traditions and even a'patriarchal period' was to be confirmed on the basis of his own 'Proto-Aramaean hypothesis'.2 It is, of course, well known that his own argu-ment for the historicity of Judges 1 formed the core of his opposition toAlbright's conquest, not his conviction of either the superior historicalityor historical reliability of the tales in Judges. In fact, apart from what wemight assume is reflected in such rhetorical remarks as that of the 1959congress, Noth's opposition to biblical archaeology and particularly tobiblical archaeology's efforts to create a pre-settlement history hadnothing to do with critical scholarship. It was drawn rather from therequirements of his amphictyony hypothesis, which was only viable ifIsrael's unity was a developing characteristic of settlement rather than ofany earlier event. In terms of the history of Old Testament scholarship,Noth's dominance over historical work on the continent was hardly avictory of critical thought. Instead, it marked the success of a notablyuncritical shift away from the liberal Wellhausenians and could even beseen as a theologically motivated rejection of the positivism andhistoricism of Noth's teacher, Albrecht Alt.3 Methodologically, Noth was

1. J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959).2. See the discussion in my Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, pp. 75-78.3. It has impressed me that when Alt presented his early ideas of the amphicty-


far more a theologian than he was a historian. Whether he was dealingwith his proto-Aramaeans, his amphictyony or his Grundlage, he everpreferred logic and necessity to evidence, rationalistic paraphrase to thedecidedly revolutionary departures in Palestine's historical studies thathad been taken by both Alt and Albright.

When Noth observed in Oxford that biblical archaeology had noexternal evidence after all, he was not merely objecting to hisTransatlantic competitors, as all correctly understood him to be doing;he was also making explicit the long march away from evidence that hislife's work had been. 'Es geht nicht darum ob wir external evidencebrauchen...' In the context of Noth's entire lecture, this statement isrhetorical—and I am arguing that for Noth this was clearly intentional:'Everyone understands the need for evidence. Would that we had it!'That is, by pointing out first the reality of the archaeological situation, hewas proposing that we make a virtue out of necessity and proceed towrite history without evidence. And this is exactly what he did and hadalways done. We Americans are too used to reading this as if Noth weredefining an anti-biblicistic and anti-fundamentalistic stand. But what isour evidence for that assumption? Like Noth for his history, we havenone but our faith.

Albright's conclusions had long flirted with the theologically reac-tionary, and some of his conclusions were easy to confuse with fun-damentalist assertions. However, this was partly due to the fact thatAlbright did not have a scholarly interest in the Bible as he did withmost other fields of oriental studies. He was most often quite contentwith the naive Bible history of his evangelical childhood. His lifetimegoal of trying to bring the Bible into the history of the ancient NearEast1 did not start methodologically with the Bible. Rather, he startedwith the data and from the perspective of the radically new method-ologies of the linguistics and philology of ancient Near Eastern studies.Rather than taking as his own the hermeneutical circle of continentalbiblical scholarship—using texts to interpret themselves—Albright

ony, he presented it as one of many plausible scenarios, whose historiographicalfunction was to show that his independent historical constructions could conceivablybe integrated with biblical narratives. But for Noth, the biblicized scenario itself washis primary historiography. For more on this, see the discussion of Alt and Noth inmy Early History, pp. 26-41.

1. Most notably in W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2nd edn, 1957).


argued for the necessity of external evidence. And in 1959 it was exactlythis that Noth objected to. As the second generation of Albrightiansrepeatedly published declarations throughout both the academic andpopular media that they had once again found that elusive 'evidence'that would finally allow them to confirm the historicity of the biblicalnarrative, Noth's explicit statement was to suggest that the shoutingstop. Noth was trying to point out what only very few from completelydifferent perspectives were beginning to realize: There was no externalevidence with which one could establish the historicity of biblicalnarratives. What Alt and Albright had seen as necessary to a history ofIsrael, and had looked to archaeology to provide for the future of thediscipline, did not exist and was not in sight. In this Noth was prescient.

However, Noth was recommending more than patience, resignationor truthful modesty. He was also suggesting that critical historical work,in its search for evidential support for its historiography, be abandoned.And we would do well to remember that what Noth was abandoninghad been as much Alt's project as Albright's. What did he propose tooffer as an alternative? Nothing really different from what he had beendoing since 1929, for Noth had never needed evidence, and his historyhad always been immensely convincing. Ever a logician and theologian,Noth sought truth through reason and the euphoria of conviction. Hehad no qualms about following the principle that if an element within hisreconstructed historiographical world were necessary, then it had tohave existed. As evidence was of its very nature circumstantial—andancient evidence both circumstantial and arbitrarily accidental—it couldplay only a minor role in Noth's rationalistic history. When the need forit surfaced—that is, when a theory reached an impasse and analogiesseemed too distant for convincing confirmation, implying a need forvery specific historical realities as yet unknown—Noth, like any goodmetaphysician, made them up. He invented what he needed: a migrationfrom Mari to Jericho, a cultic covenant among a historically unrelatedbut nevertheless numerically specific grouping of pastoralists, a uniqueconjunction among the tribal storytellers at the watering holes to savehim from the embarrassment about the Pentateuch's variant tales, animperial catalogue of provinces as a cure for the geographical inco-herence of tales and finally a cornucopia of historical events refractedfrom that mother of all fictions, the Deuteronomistic History.

The plausibility Noth demanded was complex. He well understoodthat the appropriate context for a critical historical perspective could not


simply be the imagined-to-be-real world of the text's composition.Unfortunately, far too often Noth took this hard won axiom ofWellhausen's day, and through a logical inversion, derived his contextfrom his text, thereby creating a history of which we have no knowl-edge whatever.

This willingness to make up evidence was pervasive. Noth did not tryto interpret texts within their historical contexts; he even abandoned theliterary contexts in which he read them, preferring to create both asfitting reflections of his interpretations. We are given such interpretativematrices as dei ex machina. They are fully comparable to and equallychimerical as Gunkel's Sitz im Leben. This analogy with Gunkel is, Ithink, apt. In his US, Noth draws explicitly on Gunkel's analyticalcriteria in order to create the historical refractions of his tradition history.In every case, we need to know: Who is the narrator? What is theaudience? What perspective governs the situation? and What function oractivity is furthered?1 Gunkel's criteria are sound. More than admirable,these criteria are necessary and essential. Both form and tradition historyrequire that we be able to establish the real Sitz im Leben des Volkes ofa Gattung and a real historical context of a tradition's development if weare to use them as historical matrices of interpretation. In fact, thesecriteria crippled Gunkel's project. Albeit necessary, it was far more thanOld Testament scholarship could reasonably do. These same criteria alsodestroy Noth's project of Uberlieferungsgeschichte as he pursued it.Having cited the criteria, Noth proceeded rather to determine anddelineate as history the unknown on the basis of the even less known, inthe certain confidence that, having stated his principles, none wouldnotice that he did not follow them.

Although we cannot any longer know whether Noth consciously heldhis tongue in his cheek, the practitioners of tradition history that havefollowed in his footsteps were firmly convinced that if these criteria werenecessary, they were possible, and that if they were possible, we wereprogressively fulfilling them. Confidence has been so high that even themost disillusioned are convinced that their 'best' answers somehow dovery nicely. Any full professor could answer such simple questions of atleast our richest 'texts, such as Jeremiah:2 Question: the narrator?Answer: Jeremiah or one of his 'students' or 'circle'. Question: the

1. H. Gunkel, Reden undAufsdtze (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913),p. 33.

2. But see R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM 1986).


audience? Answer: the 'biblical' or 'prophetic' community.1 Question:the situation? Answer: impending destruction. Question: ideology?Answer: on the side of God. How do we full professors know all this?Well, first of all it is necessary from the texts themselves and from theanalytical criteria of the tradition-historical method. If the text can readitself, surely creating a context can be accomplished. But much moreimportant than creating for us the means of answering our questions,tradition history has supplied our field with the possibility of infinitevariations of tradition history. Already it has provided the academicindustry with a fifty-year supply of things to write. And—as has beenpointed out by some of my colleagues at this symposium—our projecthas just begun. Noth, we are told, is just as viable today as he ever was.

However, we do not know anything more historically today aboutany of these traditions or their history that Noth and hundreds of youhave described—nor, in fact, of their existence as just such traditions—than we did in 1943. I want to soften this harshness by asserting thatnone of us should feel shame that we have not surpassed such a giant ofa scholar. But unfortunately, the Catholic in me reminds me that I wouldsound like Jacques Maritain declaring that we have not surpassedThomas in philosophy! What kind of a history do we have here that isneither cumulative nor progressively clarifying? What kind of evidenceare we dealing with that changes with every practitioner? What kind ofintegrity adheres to discussions we call critical, when our conclusionscarry no more conviction than the recognition of another variant'splausibility?

But we have moved beyond Noth historically. Well beyond him. Inthe largely uncritical atmosphere of German Old Testament exegesis inwhich Noth worked, his assumption that this traditional literaturereflected the historical realities and interests of its authors and tradentsmay have been so strong that he felt confident that he could delineatethe interests, the Tendenz and the historical events and situationssurrounding a text solely on the basis of the literature these past realitiesproduced. But who today has the hubris to move from story tohistorical reality without some very serious consultation about thedegree of refraction that exists between our context and its text?

However much I have enjoyed using Noth's famous Oxford quotation

1. Of course, it is too often assumed that the literary prophets must havehad groups of students, followers or at least a prophetic community. Otherwise, ouranalytical criteria would not be met, and these questions could not be answered.


to highlight the dubiousness of creating historical periods out of legendsand tall tales, that was not what Noth was doing. To reiterate myargument, for Noth the patriarchs could not have existed because of thelogical axiom that Israel had to have some bond holding it togetherbefore it could have existed. This had nothing to do with evidence,external or not. The amphictyony made the patriarchs redundant. Itnever occurred to Noth to ask whether there was evidence for anamphictyony in twelfth-century Palestine, because he was doing exegesisnot history, and none would deny the implicit tribal bond of such textsas Joshua 24. Noth's question was anti-historical—the philosophical andinterpretive question of analogy. Since the existence of such a socialstructure could explain for Noth what he found necessary in his effort tounderstand Israel's origins, it must have happened just so.

If we are not to suffer another fifty years like these past, we need tobe a bit less pious about this great scholar. While it is undoubtedly truethat this most famous of Alt's students set the agenda for more than ageneration of German scholarship on the history of Israel and itstraditions, and while it is also undoubtedly true that Noth's US is amongthe two or three most influential books of the century in our field, thesetruths in fact describe not Noth's work, but the production of theGerman scholarship that followed Noth, and which thought his thoughts,rather than their own. Noth himself, in the excessive rationalism of hismethodology, almost singlehandedly destroyed—and the US was hisprimary tool—the historical goals with which Alt had inspired hisstudents.1 Noth's historical contributions to our understanding of Israel'searly history were a deformation of Alt's early articles. Only veryrecently has some German scholarship shown signs of recovery andof becoming once again a significant voice in the historical work ofour field.2 Much good research has been lost to what has become the

1. I am thinking above all of Alt's immensely fruitful essay, Die Landnahme derIsraeliten in Paldstina: Territorialgeschichtliche Studien (Reformationsprogrammder Universitat Leipzig; Leipzig: Druckerei der Werkgemeinschaft, 1925).

2. Among several, the following younger scholars immediately come to mind:H.M. Niemann, 'Stadt, Land und Herrschaft' (Habilitationsschrift, Rostock, 1990);U. Hiibner, 'Die Kultur und Religion eines Transjordanisches Volkes im 1.Jahrtausends', (Heidelberg dissertation, 1991) and E.A. Knauf, Midian: Unter-suchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2.Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1988); Ismael: Unter-suchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.(ADPV; Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 2nd edn, 1989).


anti-historical pseudo-discipline we call tradition history—that mythicalrealm where not only does history take on meaning, but where eventshappen and contexts occur wherever and whenever a rational personneeds them.

MARTIN NOTH AND TRADITION CRITICISM

RolfRendtorff

'Despite...occasional appearances of "tradition history" in the work ofGunkel and others, the first real attempt to develop a traditio-historicalapproach...for the Old Testament was made by Martin Noth.' Thisquotation comes from the standard work on tradition history byDouglas Knight.1 Accordingly, the question of Noth's contribution totradition history must be turned around: Noth himself was the founderof this approach. There are also good reasons to speak of Gerhard vonRad and Martin Noth together as 'the fathers of traditio-historicalresearch', as Knight does in the heading for the chapter on them in hisbook.2 If Uberlieferungsgeschichte had already been coined as a ter-minus technicus, von Rad would surely have used it in his famous book,Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (1938).3 The work ofthese two scholars marked Old Testament scholarship for decades, withremarkable consequences for the fields of history and theology.

I

In order to describe the fundamental step that Noth took with his newapproach, it will be useful first of all to reflect on the relations betweenhis two major works: Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (hereafterUS) of 1943 and Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (hereafterUP) of 1948.4 The five years between their dates of publication included

1. D.A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of theTraditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration ofScandinavian Contributions (SBLDS 9; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, rev. edn,1975), p. 21.

2. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions, p. 97.3. G. von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT 4;

Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938).4. M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1943);


the terrible final years of the Second World War and the difficult firstyear after the war, when little new work could be accomplished. Nothhimself declares in the preface to UP that originally he had planned topublish it as the second volume of a series that began with US. That iswhy Knight, 'departing from the chronological order', examines UPfirst, arguing that this would 'enabl[e] us to understand more clearly themethod which Noth employs in his UberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien'.1

I doubt that Knight's argument is correct, since one finds almost nocross references linking Noth's two books themselves, except theremark in the preface (quoted above) and one or two footnotes in UP.Even more important are Noth's own remarks in the introduction toUS. Here he explains the difference in character between the Pentateuchand the Deuteronomistic History and gives his reasons for leaving thePentateuch out of consideration in this book. In a long footnote he hintsat the different character of Dtr and the Yahwist, whom he understandsas von Rad did.2 He does not, however, mention his own intent to dealwith Pentateuchal problems in a separate book.

I find these observations very important, because they show that Nothdid not regard his work on the Deuteronomistic History merely as a partof a greater project, as it seems from hindsight. (Of course, this does notat all mean that US and UP do not belong together, as we will see later.)It also shows that when writing US, Noth did not intend to develop anew, comprehensive method for Old Testament interpretation (as heactually did). Knight quotes a very interesting passage from Noth about'the scope and task of traditio-historical work', which ends with thesentence, 'It is the task of a "history of Pentateuchal traditions" toinvestigate this whole process from beginning to end.'3 The statement isfound in UP, though, and it speaks explicitly about an 'Uberlieferungs-geschichte des Pentateuch', not about traditio-historical work in general.

Knight himself deplores the fact that Noth did not apply his ownmethod to the Deuteronomistic History:

Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948).1. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions, p. 143.2. Noth, US, p. 2, n. 3; DH, p. 14, n. 2.3. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions, p. 144. Noth, UP, p. 1. Knight

quotes from the English translation, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans.B.W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 1.

RENDTORFF Martin Noth and Tradition Criticism 93

But in all of this, one aspect is enigmatic from a traditio-historical point ofview: Why does Noth restrict his attention to the Dtr and its author? Hespecifies and describes the sources which the Deuteronomist used, but hedoes not attempt here to uncover the prehistory of these sources...Onewould expect that this also belongs to the traditio-historical task. The com-position of the final opus is only one of many stages to be examined, asNoth himself emphasizes in his definition of Uberlieferungsgeschichte.1

The solution to this enigma appears rather simple: when Noth wrote UShe did not yet know this definition of 'Uberlieferungsgeschichte'. Hedeveloped it only later. Thus, we must interpret US from the book itself,not in the light of this later definition of tradition history.

This does not minimize the fundamental importance of that book butonly transposes it into another context. Noth himself hinted at how itshould be read by the subtitle of the volume: Die sammelnden undbearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament ('the collecting andreworking history works in the Old Testament'). His methodologicalinterest was directed to the deuteronomistic (and also Chr.'s) works intheir final forms as works of history. With regard to the former, thedecisive step was 'that this work must first be "discovered" as a literaryentity and unity'.2

Let us look more closely at what happened here. Earlier researchersconcluded that certain passages within the books from Joshua to 2 Kingsshowed 'deuteronomistic' features. They also realized that in severalcases those deuteronomistic texts served to frame earlier non-deuteronomistic passages. Noth's fundamental insight was that all thesedeuteronomistic elements belonged together and formed a whole thatconstitutes a literary and theological unit. Therefore, it was not merely adeuteronomistic 'redaction' but the work of one author. I believe that,methodologically speaking, this was the decisive step: to understand thatthis deuteronomistic collector of earlier traditions was an 'author'.

Let us focus on this point for a moment. Before Noth, the definitionof 'deuteronomistic' elements occurred in the methodological frame-work of traditional 'literary criticism', that is, of source criticism. The'deuteronomistic' passages belonged to later redactional levels thatbrought the older 'sources' together but did not mean anything bythemselves. From that perspective, Noth's idea was quite revolutionary.Classical source criticism was always interested primarily in the earlier

1. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions, pp. 162-63. The italics are Knight's.2. Noth, US, p. 2; DH, p. 15.


stages—the later the texts, the less important they were. Therefore, toascribe to a final redactor the designation of 'author' seemedincredible—even more so if one reads Noth's own description of this'author's' compositional technique: he 'brought together material fromhighly varied traditions and arranged it according to a carefullyconceived plan'.1 In a sense, he was really a redactor, but Nothunderstood that the work of a redactor and that of an author are notmutually exclusive. Before Noth's day, the term 'redactor' was regu-larly used in a depreciatory sense. Noth gave it a new connotation byredefining the work of the person responsible. Thus the 'Deuteronomist'was born.

It would go beyond the scope of this paper to explain the greatimportance of this thesis. In the course of this symposium others will doso or have done so already. From a methodological point of view, Iwould say that the clear-cut and seemingly simple nature of this thesis,together with its far-reaching and often convincing consequences, arethe main reasons for its great success. I am not sure about the extent towhich US has been regarded as a success of the recently-introducedmethod of Uberlieferungsgeschichte as well. I will come back to thisquestion later.

n

Now let me turn to Noth's other main book in this context, UP. It ismuch more difficult to do justice to that work. On the one hand, it ismore explicitly presented as a traditio-historical work. I have alreadyquoted the basic statement that a tradition history of the Pentateuchmust follow the path of the Pentateuchal traditions 'from beginning toend'. Coming from US, however, we encounter immediately in thisintroductory statement a very interesting difference. Noth distinguishesfour stages of tradition:2

1. orally circulated and transmitted traditions,2. that were written down3. brought together in large, literary works,4. that were finally compiled 'through the purely literary labors of

so-called redactors'.

1. Noth, US, p. ll;DH,p. 26.2. Noth, UP, p. 1; History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 1.


Thus the reader learns on the first page of the book that one may notexpect to hear about something like a final 'author', comparable to Dtr.On the contrary, there will be, in the final analysis, only 'so-called redac-tors' engaged in 'purely literary labors'. What these redactors have puttogether is exactly what the traditional Documentary Hypothesis hadalways assumed: three main sources—those of the Yahwist, the Elohistand the Priestly writer. According to Noth, each was written by an indi-vidual author.1 This, by the way, is a clear deviation from the position ofNoth's great forerunners, Gunkel and Gressmann, for whom the so-called sources were only schools of collectors. One suspects that theimpact of von Rad's discovery of the Yahwist as theologian played acertain role here.

Noth departs in only one detail from the traditional view: he postulatesan earlier, common source for J and E, which he calls 'G' for theGerman (gemeinsame) Grundlage (common basis). He avoids com-mitting himself, though, as to whether this was still an oral or already awritten stage of transmission. Moreover, even the idea of 'G' does notgo beyond the framework of traditional source criticism.2

Another interesting point is Noth's thesis that the redactor (or perhapsone of several redactors) took 'P' as the literary basis for the wholePentateuch narration and 'enriched' it with materials from the othersources. At this point, one wants to ask whether this 'P' does not comeclose to Dtr and so could also be called an 'author'. Noth does not evenmention such a possibility, however, probably because he was convincedthat 'P' had existed before as an independent 'source', while Dtr's workhad not. This would again demonstrate that with regard to thePentateuch, Noth operates completely within the framework of theDocumentary Hypothesis.3

The chapter on the sources in UP is just called 'Prolegomena', whilethe 'main part' of the book deals with the traditio-historical treatment of

1. Noth, UP, p. 247; History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 228.2. Noth refers to the similar idea of Otto Procksch (Genesis [KAT 1; Leipzig:

Deichert, 1924], p. 290), who in his commentary on Genesis spoke about 'U' ='Ursage'.

3. Of further interest is Noth's idea that 'P' has to be taken as a purely narrativework. This is in fundamental contrast to the way that the Kaufmann school handles'P'—almost completely as cultic-legal traditions. See my article, 'Two Kinds of P?Some Reflections on the Occasion of the Publishing of Jacob Milgrom'sCommentary on Leviticus 1-16', JSOT60 (1993), pp. 75-81.


the Pentateuch proper. Again, the difference with US is evident. In thelatter, Noth dealt exclusively with the last stage of the traditio, thewritten materials that Dtr had before him as the sources for his work. InUP, Noth starts from the opposite end. He deals only with 'themes','narrative materials' (Erzahlungsstoffe) and 'human figures', but neverwith clearly defined texts. What he treats is the earliest of the variousstages uncovered by traditio-historical research: the stage of orallytransmitted traditions. These are fascinating chapters, and they showNoth's highly developed faculty of imagination. At the same time, theymake a very important contribution by demonstrating the first step oftraditio-historical work. Finally, they show the close relationship betweenNoth's methodology and those of Gunkel and especially Gressmann.

As one continues to read, however, Noth returns again in the lastchapters of the book to the topic of the 'Prolegomena', viz., the classicalsources. This means that he totally skips the second stage, the writingdown of the traditions before their collection into larger works. In otherwords, he ignores Gunkel's main interest: the 'smallest literary units'.For example, we learn about Jacob that 'at Bethel the holiness of theplace is unexpectedly revealed to him at night in a great theophany(Gen. 28.11-22 [JE]; cf. Gen 35.9-13, 15 [P]), and he erects there amasseba and an altar (Gen. 28.18; 35.7 [E])'.1 We do not hear anything,though, about the Bethel narration itself—neither the J nor the Eversions—nor do we hear anything about the relationship of the twoversions to one another. We can reconstruct the two accounts from thechart that Noth provides in the 'Prolegomena', but from a traditio-historical point of view we do not learn anything about the stagebetween the 'theme' and the 'human figure', on the one hand, and the'sources' JE in their conflated form, on the other.

Therefore, one could say that from a traditio-historical point of view,Noth's UP is something like a fragment. Of the four stages of traditionhistory that he lists in the book, Noth focuses primarily on the first (oraltradition) and third (collection in large literary works), gives only limitedattention to the fourth (the work of redactors) and is completely silentabout the second (the transition from oral traditions to texts). In myview, this is one of the main shortcomings of the book2—that it deals

1. Noth, UP, p. 87; History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 80.2. See my critique in Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch

(BZAW 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), pp. 5-19; [ET The Problem of the Process of


little with clearly definable texts. This in turn causes many of Noth'straditio-historical explanations to appear highly speculative.

The figure of Lot provides a useful example. Noth explains thedevelopment of the biblical account by means of a complex theoryabout how several local traditions around the Dead Sea were combinedwith personal exchanges from Haran to Lot.1 Noth himself admits thathis explanation is 'just an attempt', mainly in order to show what sort oftraditio-historical problems have to be solved with this text. In my view,one could call it pure speculation, very interesting but without verifiable,fixed points in the texts themselves.

I want to discuss one more point in Noth's UP—the so-called'themes' that Noth saw as forming the basis for the whole Pentateuchalnarrative. He took these 'themes' from von Rad, who had developed inhis book on the Hexateuch the well-known thesis that a 'credo' formedthe nucleus from which the whole Pentateuch grew. This 'credo' includeda distinct number of credenda, which at the same time formed the mainthemes of the Pentateuch. Although Noth took up the idea of these'themes', he removed them almost completely from the cultic sphere anddiscussed them as 'themes of tradition' (Uberlieferungsthemen). Let megive two quotations. Von Rad says:2

Now these statements, which summarise the contents of the Hexateuch, areunderstood in the source documents to be essentially statements ofbelief. ..That which is recounted, from the creation of the world and thecall of Abraham to the completion of the conquest under Joshua, is purelyand simply a 'history of redemption'. We might equally well call it acreed, a summary of the principal facts of God's redemptive activity.

Noth writes:3

In conclusion, a minimum of narrative material was included within each ofthe themes out of which the imposing work of the Pentateuchal narrativewas created. This is true to the extent that the theme was not only meant tobe recited in a confessional manner, purely as theme, in the context of a

Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J.J. Scullion; JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOTPress), pp. 16-31].

1. Noth, UP, pp. 167-70; History of Pentateuchal Traditions, pp. 151-54.2. Von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem, p. 10. The English translation is

from The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E.W.T. Dicken; NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 2.

3. Noth, UP, p. 67; History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 62.


hymnic formulation determined by cultic use, but was meant to benarrated in a manner which would communicate an event concretely andvividly and arouse participation and interest.

The difference is obvious. On the one hand, Noth is much less con-cerned with the theological side of the Pentateuchal traditions than withhistorical questions and exegetical aspects of the narrative. On the otherhand, I believe that when the themes moved from being elements of the'credo' to become themes of tradition, they became less concrete andessentially abstract points for the crystallization of narrative materials.They are also much less concrete than Gunkel's literary units. This iscongruent with Noth's neglect of the second stage of tradition history(the shaping of texts), a matter discussed earlier.

m

A comparison of Noth's two main books on tradition history leaves uswith a fragmentary picture of what traditio-historical interpretation couldor should be. This does not diminish the great importance of the twobooks, and it does not at all call into question the fact that Noth is thereal founder of this extremely important new approach. I also believethat it is legitimate to say that Hebrew Bible scholarship is in fact'primarily traditio-historical in orientation'.1

In my view, though, the actual impact of Noth's two books is signif-icantly different. US deeply marked Old Testament scholarship andtheology. 'Dtr' has become a central figure in every explanation of thedevelopment of Old Testament literature and theology. Even with thegrowing tendency toward late dating of Old Testament texts, theDeuteronomist (or the Deuteronomists) has become a central figurefrom which one can date texts as 'pre-deuteronomistic' or 'post-deuteronomistic'.

In spite of the wide acceptance that Noth's literary analysis has found,there have been several attempts to distinguish the contributions of morethan one Dtr or deuteronomistic redactor in the work. Even Noth'sclosest disciples found it necessary to change their master's results.Rudolf Smend and his disciples (sometimes called the 'Gottingenschool') divided Noth's Dtr into three: DtrG (for Geschichtswerk) or

1. R. Morgan and J. Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford Bible Series;Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 101.


DtrH (for History or Historical Work),1 DtrP (prophetic redactor) andDtrN (nomistic redactor). I do not see progress in these subdivisions butan erosion of Noth's epoch-making thesis. This debate, however, goesbeyond the scope of my paper.

Even more regrettable in my view is the substitution, also introducedby Smend, of the term Redaktionsgeschichte (redaction criticism) forUberlieferungsgeschichte.2 This coincides with the uncontrolled use ofthe terms Uberlieferung and Tradition in some German publications. Irefer in particular to student textbooks like the widely used Exegese desAlten Testaments by O.H. Steck, where one finds the termsUberlieferungsgeschichte, Redaktionsgeschichte and Traditionsge-schichte referring to three different steps of exegetical work, withoutany relation to Noth's fundamental insights.3 At the moment, it isdifficult to learn from German literature what Uberlieferungsgeschichtereally is. Fortunately, Knight's article on 'Tradition History' in theAnchor Bible Dictionary uses clear language.4

The reception of Noth's UP was much less uniform than thataccorded to his US. His idea of a source (or perhaps a pre-source 'G')that had already been used by J and E has not found much acceptance.Even Smend finds Noth's thesis 'not very evident',5 and other scholarsrefer to it rather casually. As mentioned above, more have favoredNoth's idea that 'P' was used as the basis for the final redaction of thePentateuch. I will return to this momentarily.

With regard to the central traditio-historical part of Noth's analysis of

1. Thus T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and SacralLegitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), p. 20.

2. R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur deuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie:Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag), pp. 494-509.

3. O.H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik: EinArbeitsbuch fiir Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen (Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 12th edn, 1989), pp. 63-64. Steck's remarks show that he isfully aware of his divergence from the scholarly tradition marked by Noth.

4. ABD VI, pp. 633-38. Unfortunately, John Barton, in his article on 'RedactionCriticism (OT)' (ABD V, pp. 644-47), argues that the works of von Rad and Nothaccording to 'the more literary side of their interests (nowadays) would be calledredaction criticism' (p. 645). I can only disagree and must add that I do notunderstand Barton's criticism of Noth in the subsequent passage of his article.

5. R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1978), p. 89.

2


the Pentateuchal materials, I want to make two seemingly contradictoryobservations. First, it appears that few have accepted specific exegeticalconclusions from Noth's analyses. Rather, in the field of historicalgeography Noth's observations are used because his interpretations ofbiblical figures and events are always closely related to land and history.Nevertheless, the details of Noth's exegetical contributions in the mainpart of UP have not been widely adopted. On the other hand, UP hasapparently encouraged a new methodological openness in Pentateuchalresearch. As one of von Rad's students, I felt this very clearly. Welearned how von Rad and Noth had continued the work of Gunkel andGressmann, and we were taught to push forward, not only to repeat andrefine the older methods but to ask new questions and make newobservations. We felt that the field was open and that von Rad and Nothhad opened it.

In this way, I am a grateful student of Noth's. Though never hispersonal disciple, I was always an attentive reader of his publications,and through the years I had the chance in the context of work on theBiblischer Kommentar to meet him—together with the other greatfigures of that generation—rather frequently.

When I tried to take my own steps in the field ofUberlieferungsgeschichte, it was in critical discussion with Noth that Imoved ahead in the same direction that he had already gone. In thiscontext, I want to mention one final point. Noth had the idea that 'P'had provided the 'literary framework of the Pentateuch as a whole'.1

Earlier, I asked whether this 'P' could be understood as an 'author' inthe same sense as Dtr. It is not by accident that Frank Cross, whenwriting on the Priestly Work that 'never existed as an independentnarrative document',2 began his discussion with Noth. In my view, onlyone step beyond Noth's position was required to reach the question ofthe final shape of the Pentateuch and to understand that even here wefind the place of the Priestly stratum of the Pentateuch. Thus, Nothappears to me as one of those who opened the field even to questionsabout the final or canonical shape of the Hebrew Bible, questions thatwere surely still beyond his own ideas. With these last remarks I mean toexpress again the great importance of Noth's work for traditio-historicalresearch and, beyond that, for Old Testament scholarship in general.

1. Noth, UP, p. 7; History of Pentateuchal Traditions, p. 8.2. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the

Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 324.

MARTIN NOTH'S UBERLIEFERUNGSGESCHICHTLICHESTUDIENAND OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Timo Veijola

I

Martin Noth was more historian than theologian. His scholarly work wasguided by the ultimate purpose of discovering the specific character ofIsrael's history in the world of the ancient Near East, making use ofliterary, archaeological, geographical and topographical sources. In thisrespect he was a faithful student of his teachers, Rudolf Kittel (1853-1929) and Albrecht Alt (1883-1956). Alt especially, with whom he wasclosely associated, first as a pupil and later as a colleague, had aprofound influence on the methods and goals of his research.

Religion and theology were not, however, alien to Noth, as they werenot to his teachers. As was the case with Alt, he had 'an almost childlikepiety of Lutheran type', which released him from an exhausting strugglewith the problems of hermeneutical principles,1 and in the same way asKittel in 1921,2 Noth in 1963 welcomed the return of Old Testamenttheology to the agenda of scholarly research.3 Noth himself wasreluctant to take a position on theological issues, and therefore those fewcases where he expressed his opinion on a theological matter are all the

1. R. Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten (Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 261.

2. R. Kittel, 'Die Zukunft der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft', ZAW 39(1921), pp. 84-99.

3. M. Noth, 'Tendenzen theologischer Forschung in Deutschland', the Germanversion of the unpublished English lecture, 'Developing Lines of TheologicalThought in Germany', Fourth Annual Bibliographical Lecture (Union TheologicalSeminary in Virginia, 1963), repr. in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Gesammelte Studien zumAlien Testament, II (TBu 39; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1969), pp. 113-32 (122).Noth's special concern here is the Old Testament theology of G. von Rad (Theologiedes Allen Testaments, I-H [Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1957, I960]).


more important.1 Some of them also deserve attention on account of thehistorical situation at the time they arose, namely the time of Naziideology, against which Noth took a critical stance and defended thevalue of the Old Testament2—as did Alt for his own part.3 This is alsothe case in the more comprehensive and theologically perhaps the mostimportant work by Noth, Die Gesetze im Pentateuch (1940), whichrejects from the outset the view of the leading systematic theologian ofthe 'German Christians', Emanuel Hirsch,4 who made a straightforwardidentification of the Old Testament with the law.

Noth's opposition to Nazi ideology also had a biographical back-ground. His closest colleagues and friends in Konigsberg, where he heldthe chair of Old Testament professor from 1930 until the end of theSecond World War, were the central figures of the Confessing Church(die Bekennende Kirche): the New Testament scholar, Julius Schniewind(1883-1948), and the systematic theologian, Hans Joachim Iwand(1899-1960).5 Later on (1952), Iwand followed Noth to Bonn but wasapparently disappointed, as he could not engage Noth in new debates in

1. They are, besides the lecture mentioned in the preceding note, the following:'Die Historisierung des Mythus im Alten Testament', inaugural lecture on July 20,1927, at the University of Greifswald, in Gesammelte Studien, II, pp. 29-47; 'ZurAuslegung des Alten Testaments', Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 41 (1937), pp. 341-42,359-60, 373-74; repr. in Gesammelte Studien, II, pp. 48-61; 'Von der Knechtsgestaltdes Alten Testaments. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis der neueren Geschichteder alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft', from an unpublished Festschrift to ProfessorD.J. Schniewind (1943), in EvT 6 (1946/47), pp. 302-10, repr. in GesammelteStudien, II, pp. 62-70; 'Die Vergegenwartigung des Alten Testaments in derVerkundigung', EvT 12 (1952/53), pp. 6-17, repr. in Gesammelte Studien, II, pp. 86-98.

2. This concerns in particular the articles, 'Zur Auslegung des Alten Testaments'and 'Von der Knechtsgestalt des Alten Testaments'.

3. See Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler, p. 184.4. M. Noth, Die Gesetze im Pentateuch: Ihre Voraussetzungen und ihr Sinn

(Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse,17.2; Halle/Saale: Niemeyer, 1940); repr. in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum AltenTestament (TBii 6; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 3rd edn, 1966), pp. 9-141 (14).

5. Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler, p. 259. Noth's position in Kirchenkampfwas also the reason why the dean of the theological faculty in Konigsberg did notrecommend him as Otto Procksch's successor in Erlangen; see K. Beyschlag, DieErlanger Theologie (Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns 67; Erlangen:Martin-Luther-Verlag, 1993), p. 285.

VEIJOLA Martin Noth 's US and Old Testament Theology 103

the field of political ideology.1 In Bonn Noth became acquainted withthe founding father of Dialectical Theology, Karl Earth (1886-1968),who appreciated Noth perhaps more than Noth appreciated him.Although Earth's Dialectical Theology obviously had a certain influenceon Noth, the latter grew more and more skeptical of a 'theology of theWord', which seemed to run the risk of displacing history,2 which inNoth's view is the main forum for God's revelation.3

The theological impact of most of Noth's studies has been indirect,but by no means insignificant. This statement also pertains to his book,Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943).4 At its core this bookdeals not with a theological issue but with a historical one: A truereconstruction of Israel's history is predicated on a correct picture of thenature and purpose of the sources wherein this history is told. The mostimportant sources in this connection are the large compositional worksof the Old Testament: the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History andthe Chronicler's History.5 Noth later dedicated a large, separate study,Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (1948),6 to the criticism of thePentateuchal sources, whereas the Deuteronomistic History and theChronicler's History are the subjects in US. In the following survey Ishall concentrate on the first part of the book, which deals with theDeuteronomistic History, owing not only to my personal preferences butalso to the overriding theological importance of this part of US.

Noth's book laid the foundation for the study of the theology of theDeuteronomistic History both indirectly and directly: indirectly so far asit formulates a theory of one, coherent Deuteronomistic History, whichcan be supposed to have a clear theological purpose, and directly so far

1. R. Smend, in a discussion on August 5, 1992.2. Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler, p. 259.3. Already in 1927, Noth opened his inaugural lecture at Greifswald with a

quotation from Schleiermacher, which ended with the following words: 'Geschichteim eigentlichsten Sinn ist der hochste Gegenstand der Religion, mit ihr hebt sie anund endigt mit ihr' (Gesammelte Studien, II, p. 29). Throughout his later work,history remained the major sphere of revelation, and therefore, he took a criticalposition on the existential interpretation undertaken by R. Bultmann and his pupils(see Gesammelte Studien, II, pp. 123-24).

4. I cite the 3rd, unchanged edition of 1967 (Tubingen: Niemeyer). Hereafter,US.

5. M. Noth, US, p. l;DH,p. 13.6. M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,

1948).


as Noth presents his own view of the central theological ideas of theDeuteronomistic History. The preconditions for defining the theologicalmessage of this work were lacking in older research, where it wastypical to speak in an indefinite way about deuteronomistic ordeuteronomic redactors in the plural, without any certainty about wheretheir work started or ended. The situation changed completely whenNoth created his theory of a single deuteronomistic author (Dtr),1 whodescribes, according to a deliberate plan, the history of Israel, from theplains of Moab (Deut. 1-3) until the exile and the release of kingJehoiachin from prison (2 Kgs 25.27-30).

One argument that Noth advanced for the unity of the work con-sisted, in addition to the vocabulary and the chronology, of the allegedlyuniform theological view of history, which appears most clearly in thespeeches given at the turning points of history, in Joshua 1; 23;1 Samuel 12; 1 Kgs 8.14ff., as well as in the theological resumes inJoshua 12; Judg. 2.1 Iff.; 2 Kgs 17.7ff.2 The description of history isgoverned by the conviction that God had acted in the history of Israel ina visible way, responding to the growing disobedience first withwarnings and punishments and finally, when those proved ineffective,allowing his people to perish completely and forever.3

The standard used for the evaluation of the history is the law inDeuteronomy, which represents the authentic, divine interpretation ofthe Decalogue. Yet the background and basis of Israel's existence as thepeople of God is the exodus and the gift of the Promised Land.4 Israel,however, did not prove worthy of the gift, but rejected the will of Godthat was expressed in the law. Dtr considered as most important inDeuteronomy the orders that were put into effect during the cult-reformof Josiah.5 The kings of Israel and Judah are judged on the grounds of

1. Noth refutes in plain terms the existence of a double redaction in US (pp. 6-9;DH, pp. 20-24) and again in the lecture 'Zur Geschichtsauffassung desDeuteronomisten', in Z.V. Togan (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Congressof Orientalists held in Istanbul... 1951, II, Communications (Leiden: Brill, 1957),pp. 558-66 (563-66). However, he does take into account the possibility that the workwas later supplemented by additions (e.g., Judg. 2.20-3.6), which were written indeuteronomistic style (US, pp. 7-8; DH, p. 21).

2. Noth, US, pp. 5-6; DH, pp. 18-20.3. Noth, US, p. 100; DH, p. 134.4. Noth, US, pp. 101-102; DH, p. 135.5. Noth, US, p. 103; DH, p. 137.

VEIJOLA Martin Noth's US and Old Testament Theology

their cultic decisions.1 The author pays great attention to the temple ofJerusalem2 and its cult, recording with special care all materialconcerning them.3 In spite of this, Dtr does not display any positiveinterest in the cult.4 On the contrary, characteristic of Dtr is 'a stronglynegative attitude' toward cultic practices,5 which represent to him only ahuman attempt to serve God.6 Therefore, he does not see the end ofcultic sacrifices in Jerusalem in 587 as 'any great loss', because thetemple for Dtr was above all a place of prayer, not a place of sacrifice.7

The decisive step on the way to the catastrophes of Israel and Judahwas the establishment of the monarchy (1 Sam. 8-12), which accordingto Dtr was an act of unfaithfulness to Yahweh.8 This, however, did notprevent Dtr from sharing the positive attitude of the older traditionstoward David and giving to the kings the primary role as guardians ofthe law.9 Yet, there was no hope for the continuation of the royal line.The release of King Jehoiachin in the end of the work (2 Kgs 25.27-30)was simply the last fact that Dtr recorded, and it was added only for thesake of its historical significance, without any hope for the restoration ofthe kingdom.10 According to Noth, the catastrophe of 587 marked theend of Israel/Judah, at least from a human perspective. Another time heput it in a way that resembles the tone of Dialectical Theology: 'Onlyafter having suffered completely the punishment which God hadinflicted upon her, could "Israel" be told the message of Deutero-Isaiahthat now God will create "a new thing".'11

Concerning the background of the author of the DeuteronomisticHistory, Noth concluded that he was not affiliated with any institution—especially not priestly and cultic ones.12 He was rather a private

1. Noth, US, pp. 85, 93-94; DH, pp. 115, 123-26.2. Noth, US, p. 69; DH, p. 95.3. Noth, US, pp. 75-77; DH, pp. 103-105.4. Noth, US, p. 6; DH, p. 20.5. Noth, US, p. 103; DH, p. 137.6. Noth, US, p. 104; DH, p. 138.7. Noth, US, p. 105; DH, p. 139.8. Noth, US, p. 54; DH, p. 77.9. Noth, US, p. 95;DH,p. 127.10. Noth, US, pp. 107-108; DH, p. 143.11. M. Noth, 'Die Katastrophe von Jerusalem im Jahre 587 v. Chr. und ihre

Bedeutung fiir Israel', RHPR 33 (1953), pp. 82-102; repr. in Gesammelte Studien, I,pp. 346-71 (371). The italics are Noth's.

12. Noth, US, p. 109; DH, p. 145.

105


individual, who on his own initiative undertook the task of explaining thecatastrophe that he himself had experienced.1 He wrote between theyears 560 and 540,2 probably in Palestine and perhaps in the region ofMizpah and Bethel, where many of the local traditions that he used hadtheir origin.3

I

One possible way to assess the impact of Noth's work on the latertheological study of the Old Testament is to examine the role thatdeuteronomistic theology played in textbooks and other presentations ofOld Testament theology before US on the one hand, and after itspublication on the other. The most appropriate reference material for thetime before 1943 is provided by the works of Ernst Sellin, LudwigKohler and Walther Eichrodt, which appeared in the 1930s in responseto demands made in the 1920s for a closer scrutiny of the theologicalmessage of the Old Testament.4 A common feature of all three of thesetheologies is the fact that in none of them is deuteronomistic theologyconsidered a phenomenon deserving a separate description, and they allspeak about deuteronomistic theology in quite indefinite terms.

The theology of Sellin from 1933,5 where the tension between OldTestament theology and the history of Israel's religion is solved bydividing the work into two separate volumes, contains some referencesto the Deuteronomists. This designation is used by Sellin of both theauthor of the book of Deuteronomy and of the final editors of the

1. Noth, #S, p. 110;D#,p. 145.2. In US (p. 12; DH, p. 27) Noth defines, on account of 2 Kgs 25.27-30, the

year 562 BCE as the terminus a quo, maintaining that there is no reason to put Dtr'much later than this terminus a quo'. In the later lecture 'Zur Geschichtsauffassungdes Deuteronomisten', he gives a more precise date, between 560 and 540(Proceedings, p. 561).

3. Noth, VS, p. 97 and n. 6; p. 110, n. 1; DH, p. 130 and n. 3; p. 145 and n. 1.4. On these demands see, for example, H. Graf Reventlow, Hauptprobleme der

alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert (ErFor 173; Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982), pp. 1 1-14; J.H. Hayes and F.C. Prussner,Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (London: SCM Press, 1985),pp. 153-66.

5. E. Sellin, Alttestamentliche Theologie auf religions geschichtlicher Grundlage,I, Israelitisch-judische Religions geschichte and II, Theologie des Alien Testaments(Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1933).

VEIJOLA Martin Noth 's US and Old Testament Theology

subsequent historical books.1 Although Sellin acknowledges that theDeuteronomists left a crucial stamp on the final literary shape and thetheological meaning of the historical books,2 nowhere does he give anindependent overview of their theology. The neglect is astonishing inview of the fact that already in 1910 in his introduction3 Sellin had givena very distinct portrayal of deuteronomistic literature and its theologicalpurpose.

In his introduction Sellin took two Deuteronomists into account,supposing that the first one—the actual initiator of the work—had livedin Palestine shortly after the year 596, editing the books of Kings in thespirit of Deuteronomy.4 His work was continued by a secondDeuteronomist, who was a pupil of the first and lived in Babylon duringthe exile. He supplemented the work of his master in the books of Kingswith several additions (e.g., 2 Kgs 25) and expanded it by including therest of the historical books as well as the whole Pentateuch, except forthe Priestly work.5 So he composed an extensive history reaching fromthe creation (Gen. 2.4b) to the release of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25.27-30)and containing a distinct message: the history of the world(Weltgeschichte) is the doom of the world (Weltgericht). The reason forthe failure of Israel and Judah was their sin, in particular their waywardcult.6 So far, Sellin defined the aim of the Deuteronomistic History alongthe same lines as Noth did thirty-three years later, but he went on toclaim that the work also had a pedagogical goal. The proclamation ofdoom had the positive function of calling the people to repentance andpaving the way for the future, which was secured by the dynasticpromise given to David, 'the servant of God', and reaffirmed by therelease of Jehoiachin from prison.7 As we shall later observe, Sellin'sview of deuteronomistic theology was in fact very modern, but it isastonishing to find it in his introduction from 1910, but lacking in his

1. Sellin, Alttestamentliche Theologie, I, pp. 42, 45, 51, 102; II, pp. 13, 25, 92,102. Sellin refers to the author of Deuteronomy in the singular ('derDeuteronomist')—II, pp. 97, 109.

2. Sellin, Alttestamentliche Theologie, I, pp. 51, 102, 141; II, pp. 102, 107-108.3. E. Sellin, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Evangelisch-Theologische

Bibliothek 2; Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1910).4. Sellin, Einleitung, p. 65.5. Sellin, Einleitung, pp. 65, 67.6. Sellin, Einleitung, p. 67.7. Sellin, Einleitung, p. 67.

107


theology from 1933! A reason may be the tripartite arrangement of histheology (the doctrine of God, the doctrine of humanity and the doctrineof doom and salvation), which was clearly borrowed from Christiandogmatics and did not allow for a separate description ofdeuteronomistic theology.

The Old Testament theology published by Kohler in 19361 also has atripartite plan (God, humanity, and doom and salvation), thus followingthe traditional structure of systematic theology. In this work there aresome references to the book of Deuteronomy,2 but on theDeuteronomistic History and deuteronomistic theology Kohler iscompletely silent!3 This is surprising in light of Kohler's emphasis on thehistorical nature of Old Testament revelation, which according to himrequires a historical and not a systematic approach for its properdescription.4 In fact, Kohler has little interest in the kerygma of thehistorical books of the Old Testament. Instead, he deals with the actualhistory behind them, though he often uses that history in a fairlyuncritical way. In so far as the historical parts of the DeuteronomisticHistory occasionally occur in his theology, he seems to suppose acommon plot in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings, explaining thatthey 'record what was' but do not offer any hope for the future. In thisconnection he also mentions the release of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25.27-30),claiming that it is only 'a silver thread to give light to the dreadful end,but nothing more'.5 On this point he actually agrees with Noth's lateropinion, although he does not address the Deuteronomistic History.

Moreover, there is a link between Kohler and Noth in their positionson the cult. As mentioned above, Noth insisted very strongly—and infact inconsistently—that Dtr held a negative view of the cult generally,and of the sacrificial system in particular. The same feature can be foundon a more general level in the theology of Kohler, where the cult istreated at the end of the anthropological section under the heading, 'TheSelf-Redemption of Men' (§52), for Kohler considers the sacrificial cultas a failed attempt of human beings to redeem themselves, and it was,

1. L. Kohler, Theologie des Alien Testaments (Tubingen: Mohr, 1936).2. Kohler, Theologie, pp. 30, 37, 38, 52,65,79, 194-98.3. This pertains also to the 3rd edition, which appeared in 1953—10 years after

Noth's US. According to the preface (p. vi) this edition was supplemented by 'theimportant literature' published since 1936.

4. Kohler, Theologie, pp. 42,47, 62-64,76-79.5. Kohler, Theologie, p. 211.

VEIJOLA Martin Noth 's US and Old Testament Theology

according to him, borrowed from Israel's neighboring cultures.1 It isobvious that Kohler's negative attitude towards the cult reflects aposition that had its origin more in the prejudices of Neo-Protestantismthan in ancient Israel.

The third presentation of Old Testament theology from the 1930s tobe mentioned here is the most extensive of them all—Eichrodt's work,which appeared in three volumes in 1933, 1935 and 1939.2 It soonbecame a basic textbook, at least in Europe, and went through manyeditions, as the author revised and supplemented his work repeatedlyuntil the end of the 1960s.3 It is surprising that, even in the editions thatwere published after 1943, Noth's US is not mentioned, althoughEichrodt has generally taken into account later publications. Eichrodtdoes not discuss the issues raised by Noth's study or even give theimpression that he is familiar with the work.

Deuteronomistic theology appears nowhere in Eichrodt's work as anindependent subject in its own right. The apparent reason is also in thiscase the systematic structure—not based on Christian dogmatics, but ona broadly-conceived notion of covenant. Consequently, references todeuteronomistic literature and theology occur throughout the work inmany different connections. A confusing feature is the vague use ofterminology: In part I, there occurs only the adjective 'deuteronomic',which is applied by the author to both the book of Deuteronomy andthe redactional levels of the subsequent historical books,4 whereas inparts II and III, it is complemented by the adjective 'deuteronomistic',5

which is used without any clear semantic difference from the term'deuteronomic'.6 Even if Eichrodt ignored Noth's US, one mighthave expected him to be familiar with the distinction between thesetwo terms, which Wellhausen had made years before in his magisterial

1. Kohler, Theologie, pp. v-vi, 170.2. W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alien Testaments, I-III (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich,

1933, 1935, 1939).3. When using a later edition in what follows, I refer for part I to the 8th edition

from 1968 (Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klotz; Gb'ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), whichhas the preface from 1967, and for parts II and III to the 6th edition, which appearedin one volume in 1974 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) and has the prefacefrom 1960.

4. Eichrodt, Theologie, I, pp. 20-22; 36, n. 13; 58; 67; 80; 124; 166; 202; 353.5. Eichrodt, Theologie, H-IH, 43,44,171,204-206, 235, 238,277, 320, 327, 373.6. See II-DI (6th edn), pp. 22,43, 166, 172, 248, 258-59, 348, 373.

109


work, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels.1

From the occasional references to the deuteronomistic writing ofhistory, it appears that Eichrodt dates it to the exilic period,2 just as Nothdid, but in contrast to the latter, Eichrodt emphasizes its propheticbackground:3 the word of Yahweh, which is transmitted to the peoplethrough the prophets beginning with Moses, is the crucial factor behindthe history of Israel.4 Disobedience to that word leads to doom anddeath, but on the other hand, history is also affected by the word ofblessing and promise, in particular by the dynastic promise (2 Sam. 7),which Eichrodt interprets as a positive indication that there is still hopefor the future.5 When underlining the connection between thedeuteronomistic view of history and the prophetic theology of the wordof God with its positive perspective on the future, Eichrodt anticipatesGerhard von Rad, who in his theology (1957-1960; see p. 112 n. 5below) and already in his Deuteronomium-Studien of 1947 describes theword of God as the central power of history according todeuteronomistic belief.6

The first noteworthy presentation of Old Testament theology toappear after Noth's US was not, however, written by von Rad but byT.C. Vriezen, whose Dutch work Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van hetOude Testament1 found a wide circulation in German and Englishtranslations.8 Like its predecessors in the 1930s, this book is also

1. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Georg Reimer,6th edn, 1905), p. 278.

2. Eichrodt, Theologie, H/ffl (6th edn), pp. 171,172, 206.3. Eichrodt, Theologie, I (8th edn), p. 166; ME (6th edn), pp. 43,171, 259, 348.4. Eichrodt, Theologie, II/ffl (6th edn), p. 43.5. Eichrodt, Theologie, II/III (6th edn), p. 43. Besides the Davidic promise, the

temple of Jerusalem has a permanent role as a place where the people may pray forforgiveness at any time (p. 320).

6. G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 58; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1947), pp. 52-64. In Eichrodt's work the decisive role of the propheticword in deuteronomistic theology is present already in the first edition of his book(see I [1933], p. 130; II [1935], p. 34; III [1939], pp. 128, 150). Thus, it cannot havebeen adopted from von Rad.

7. T.C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament(Wageningen: H. Veenman, 1949).

8. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzugen (Neukirchen: H. Veenman/

m


structured according to the dictates of systematic theology, having at itscore the communion between God and human beings, or in a widersense between God and the world. One result of this approach is thatdeuteronomistic theology is not treated independently in its own section,but the reader is compelled to reconstruct the opinion of the authorfrom the various remarks scattered here and there in the book.

In general, it is worth noting that for Vriezen, Noth represents anesteemed exegetical authority, whose work receives a great deal ofattention throughout the book.1 It goes without saying that Vriezen isacquainted with US,2 but one is surprised to discover that the picture hegives of the Deuteronomistic History differs significantly from Noth'sdescription. One difference concerns the inconsistent use of terminology:sometimes Vriezen speaks of the Deuteronomist in the singular;3 at othertimes of the Deuteronomists in the plural,4 applying the term'Deuteronomist' even to the author of Deuteronomy.5 The activity ofthe deuteronomistic movement is dated during the period of theexile after 587,6 but contrary to Noth, Vriezen claims that theDeuteronomistic History does not first begin in Deuteronomy 1-3, butalready in Genesis 27—as Sellin conjectured in his introduction from1910—and that it underwent a further, priestly redaction after the exile.8

Vriezen does not accept Noth's view that Dtr considered the disaster of587 as the end of Israel but maintains that the real aim of theDeuteronomistic History was to call the people back to obedience and tothe fulfillment of its role as God's elect nation.9 Hence the work is

Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1956); An Outline of OldTestament Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell; Newton: Charles T. Branford, 1958).In the following I use the German translation.

1. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 10, 12, 17, 26-30, 38, 39, 46, 83, 164, 185, 204, 215,225,229,301.

2. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 38, n. 2; 46, n. 3; 204; 215, n. 2.3. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 51, 195.4. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 40,46,47.5. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 147,148, 212.6. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 39-40.7. Vriezen, Theologie, p. 46, n. 3.8. Vriezen, Theologie, p. 48.9. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 46-47. On the subject of election, see also idem, Die

Erwdhlung Israels nach dem Alien Testament (ATANT 24; Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag,1953).


concerned to preach repentance rather than proclaim the end.1 Itsbackground is provided by the preaching of the prophets and their viewof history as the sphere of action for God's word.2 The hope of thefuture is incorporated in David, the messianic, ideal king.3 Thus, it turnsout that Vriezen's view of the purpose of the Deuteronomistic History isbased less on Noth than on von Rad, whose Deuteronomium-Studien iscited in crucial places in Vriezen's theology.4

Gerhard von Rad's monumental Theologie des Alien Testaments^ isthe work where the Deuteronomistic History received for the first timedue theological attention and an independent treatment. That was madepossible, on one hand, by the structure of von Rad's work, which isarranged according to the traditions within the Old Testament and notaccording to foreign principles of systematic theology, and on the otherhand, by von Rad's basic view that Israel's faith had essentially ahistorical orientation.6 When choosing as the starting point of histheology some credal summaries (in particular Deut. 26.5-9), which gavehim the outline for the description of the larger historical traditions ofthe Hexateuch, the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler'sHistory,7 von Rad in fact granted to deuteronomistic theology a largerrole than he himself could imagine, for in subsequent research thesesummaries have turned out to be late resumes that have their origin inclose proximity to deuteronomistic theology.8

1. Vriezen, Theologie, p. 195.2. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 40,47, 65, 204, 215.3. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 47, 51.4. Vriezen, Theologie, pp. 47, n. 3; 215.5. G. von Rad, Theologie des Alien Testaments (2 vols.; 1957, 1960). In the

following I use for part I the second edition from 1958 and the fifth edition from1966, for part II the first edition from 1960 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag).

6. Von Rad, Theologie, I (5th edn), pp. 118,128.7. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), pp. 7, 113, 127-33. Cf. von Rad's former

study, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT 4.26; Stuttgart:Kohlhammer, 1938; repr. in Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament [TBii 8;Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958], pp. 9-86).

8. See L. Rost, 'Das kleine geschichtliche Credo', in idem, Das Kleine Credound andere Studien zum Allen Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965),pp. 11-25; W. Richter, 'Beobachtungen zur theologischen Systembildung in deralttestamentlichen Literatur und des "kleinen geschichtlichen Credo"', inL. Scheffczyk, W. Dettloff and R. Heinzmann (eds.), Wahrheit und Verkundigung:Michael Schmaus zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich/Paderborn/Vienna: Verlag FerdinandSchoningh, 1967), I, pp. 175-212; B.S. Childs, 'Deuteronomic Formulae of the


It is quite understandable that von Rad, given the state of research inhis day, limited his presentation of deuteronomistic theology explicitly tothe Deuteronomistic History, whose literary nature and historicalbackground he understood in almost the same manner as Noth.1 Only ina couple of instances does he suggest some reservations about Noth'stheory. First, against Noth,2 he continues to speak about the Hexateuch,supposing that the old sources J and E contained a story about theconquest of the land and hence had a sequel in the book of Joshua,3

even though the theological profile dominating the book of Joshuacomes from Dtr.4 Clearly, von Rad tries in this matter to keep a balancebetween his former study of the Hexateuch5 and the deuteronomisticconception of Noth, without any attempt to offer a solution as to theircloser relationship. A second critical reservation expressed by von Radabout Noth's theory is a theological one concerning the different typesof description and theological criteria employed in the book of Judgesand the books of Kings.6 Because of these differences von Radcautiously assumes that the deuteronomistic redaction of these bookswas hardly accomplished as a single act.7 Yet he does not consider thepossibility of several redactors.

Exodus Traditions', in B. Hartmann et al. (eds.), Hebraische Wortforschung:Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (VTSup 16; Leiden: Brill,1967), pp. 30-39; N. Lohfink, 'Zum "Kleinen geschichtlichen Credo" Dtn 26,5-9',TP 46 (1971), pp. 19-39.

1. The Deuteronomistic History is the object of continuous description in thesection dedicated to the books of Kings (I [2nd edn], pp. 332-44), but also the pre-ceding sections dealing with King Saul and the judges (pp. 322-32) contain a greatnumber of important references to deuteronomistic literature and theology.

2. See Noth, US, pp. 180-82.3. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), pp. 14, 122, 124, 135-303.4. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), pp. 302-303.5. Von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (see p. 112 n. 7

above).6. In the description of the period of the judges, a regular rhythm prevails

(apostasy—threat of enemies—repentance—liberation), whereas in the period of thekings the sin accumulates over several generations. The kings receive theologicalevaluations, which are lacking in the case of the judges. In the history of the kings theeffecting force is the word of Yahweh; in the time of the judges, the personal charismaof the judge. The kings and the people are together responsible for their deeds, whilea distinction is made between the religious attitude of the judges and that of the people(von Rad, Theologie, I [2nd edn], pp. 342-44).

7. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), p. 344.


Although von Rad adopts in outline Noth's view of the literary shapeof the Deuteronomistic History, he does not follow Noth's theologicalinterpretation of its message. In von Rad's opinion, the work is not 'anaetiology of nothing' ('Atiologie des Nullpunkts')1 but contains severalfeatures that are optimistic about the future. Nevertheless, von Radadmits that a central task of the work is to give a theological explanationfor the catastrophes of 721 and 587, emphasizing that their cause laynot with Yahweh but with Israel, who had rejected the chance of lifegiven to it in the law and instead had chosen death and become a victimof catastrophe.2 Therefore, it is justifiable to call the work 'a greatdoxology of doom transposed from the cult to the literature',3 where theobject of the divine punishment recognizes the righteousness of thejudgment.4 Yet, repentance5 and confession of sins6 are at the same timecombined with an aspect showing a way to the future. They imply thewillingness to return to God. In the later editions of his theology vonRad adopts the view of H.W. Wolff, who proposed in 1961 that theactual purpose of the Deuteronomistic History was to promote returning(Umkehr) to God in prayer.7

The return and hope of the future are made possible in the lastinstance by the prophetic word of God, which affects the course ofhistory in two opposite ways: first, in the form of law condemning anddestroying, and secondly, in the form of gospel saving and pardoning.8

In the catastrophes experienced by Israel, the people had encounteredthe condemning aspect of the word of God, but in addition in its historythere was prevalent as gospel the promise of the eternal permanence of

1. So Noth's view in the terms used by W. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte:Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichts-werk (FRLANT 108; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), p. 141.

2. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), pp. 89, 132.3. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), p. 340.4. As concrete examples of the genre, von Rad refers to Josh. 7.19; 1 Kgs 8.33;

Ezra lO.Vff.; Dan. 3.31-4.34; Neh. 9 and Dan. 9 (Theologie, I [6th edn], p. 369).5. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), p. 89.6. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), p. 336.7. H.W. Wolff, 'Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks',

Z4W73 (1961), pp. 171-86; repr. in idem, Gesammelte Studien zumAlten Testament(TBii 22; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964), pp. 308-24; von Rad, Theologie, I (6thedn), p. 358.

8. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), p. 341. Similarly in Deuteronomium-Studien, p. 63.


David's dynasty (2 Sam. 7).1 The promise functioned in the history ofJudah as a power restraining (Katexcov) the doom,2 and its finaloutcome was deliberately left open. A sign of its effectiveness was thepardon granted to King Jehoiachin.3 In this event von Rad discerns infact a messianic feature hinting at a remote future beyond theDeuteronomistic History.4 As a conclusion we can say that von Radconstructs on the literary foundation laid by Noth an imposingtheological interpretation, which goes far beyond its predecessors andopens up new vistas for future research.

The influence of the synthesis created by von Rad is clearly dis-cernible in two well-known textbooks of Old Testament theology writtenin German in the 1970s, Walther Zimmerli's Grundriss deralttestamentlichen Theologie (1972)5 and Claus Westermann'sTheologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzugen (1978).6 As would beexpected following von Rad, the Deuteronomistic History receives anindependent treatment in both of these works,7 which resemble eachother from the point of view of their basic theological approach.8

Moreover, both accept as their starting point Noth's theory of the lit-erary range and historical setting of the Deuteronomistic History,9

although Zimmerli also takes note of some secondary, redactional

1. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), pp. 308-309, 339-40, and cf. already inDeuteronomium-Studien, pp. 60-64.

2. Von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, p. 63.3. Von Rad, Theologie, I (2nd edn), p. 341.4. 'War denn der unendliche Aufwand an Heilssetzungen in der

Konigsgeschichte, dieser Aufwand an Fiihrungen und Strafen damit gerechtfertigt,dass am letzten Ende ein armer Konig seine Gefangenenkleider ausziehen und sichals Vasallenkonig an den Tisch des babylonischen Konigs setzen durfte...?' (vonRad, Theologie, E, [1st edn], p. 331).

5. W. Zimmerli, Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThW 3; Stuttgart:Kohlhammer, 1972).

6. C. Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzugen (ATDErganzungsreihe 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978).

7. Zimmerli, Theologie, pp. 156-59 (cf. also pp. 70-71); Westermann, Theologie,pp. 185-87 (cf. also pp. 181, 183).

8. Both Zimmerli and Westermann understand revelation in the Old Testamentas a dialogical event consisting of divine challenge and human response. SeeT. Veijola, 'Offenbarung als Begegnung: Von der Moglichkeit einer Theologie desAlten Testaments', 77X88 (1991), pp. 427-50 (436-41).

9. Zimmerli, Theologie, p. 156; Westermann, Theologie, p. 185.


expansions of the work.1 Yet, in theological interpretation, neitherZimmerli nor Westermann follows the pessimistic view suggested byNoth. Rather, they adopt in their own ways the more optimistic per-spectives that were initiated by von Rad and Wolff.

Zimmerli's theology typically underscores the sovereignty of Godwho acts in history: the Deuteronomistic History is an extended accountabout the breaking of the law and the catastrophic effects of this for thepeople—the prophetic announcement of doom has found its fulfillment.2

Yahweh is, however, in both his judgments and mercy a free, livingGod, for whom the future is open, and, if willing, he is also able to fulfillthe dynastic promise he gave to David.3 Therefore, the possibility is notexcluded that the pardon granted to the offspring of David at the end ofthe work points to Yahweh's faithfulness and to hope for the future. Inany case, that future depends solely on Yahweh's sovereign decision.4

Hence, we may conclude that in the theological interpretation of theDeuteronomistic History, Zimmerli makes use of the dialectic betweenpromise and fulfillment,5 which was present already in von Rad's work,6emphasizing at the same time its contingent nature.

Von Rad also expressed the view that the Deuteronomistic Historywas a great confession of sins aiming at repentance (Umkehr).Westermann's theology agrees on this point with von Rad7 but gives an

1. Zimmerli (Theologie, p. 158) refers to texts (Josh. 13.1bp-6; 23; Judg. 2.21-22; 3.la, 4) that are ascribed by Smend to the later nomistic redactor, DtrN. SeeR. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. vonRadzum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 494-509; repr. inSmend, Die Mitte des Alien Testaments: Gesammelte Studien, 1 (BEvT 99; Munich:Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1986), pp. 124-37.

2. Zimmerli, Theologie, pp. 157-58.3. Zimmerli, Theologie, p. 159.4. 'Man wird nicht ausschliessen konnen, dass im Schlussbericht iiber die

Begnadigung des Davididen, wenn es schon mit keinem Wort ausdriicklich ange-sprochen ist, die Frage sich leise regt, ob Jahwe nicht auch iiber diesen Tod Israelsum seiner Treue zu seinem Wort willen noch eine weitere Zukunft zu eroffnen bereitsein konne. In jedem Fall aber wird solche Zukunft sein freier Entscheid sein.'Zimmerli, Theologie, p. 159.

5. On this category in connection with the Deuteronomistic History, cf. alsoZimmerli, Theologie, pp. 23-24.

6. See in particular von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, pp. 55-64.7. Westermann does not mention von Rad explicitly, but only Wolffs article

(see p. 114 n. 7), noting that he essentially accepts Wolffs view (Theologie, p. 187).


independent interpretation of this aspect. According to Westermann, thetwo basic dimensions of God's action are salvation and doom, whichcorrespond on the human side to praise (Lob) and lament (Klage)—which also happen to be the main genres of the psalms.1 TheDeuteronomistic History is an answer generated by theological reflec-tion on the problem of 587: why had God destroyed Judah?2 Thisanswer is presented in the form of a confession of sins, where history isdescribed as a just realization of the prophetic preaching of doom.3 Atthe same time, however, the confession of sins anticipates the future, forits background is the communal lament (Volksklage), which in the lastinstance always aimed at the resolution of the crisis.4 Therefore, theDeuteronomistic History not only depicts the materialization of doombut also describes the promises that have not materialized, especially thedynastic promise given to David (2 Sam. 7), whose fate occupiedpeople's minds in the exilic period (cf. Ps. 89).5 Consequently, theDeuteronomistic History, besides being an honest confession of sins, isalso a strong appeal to God to hear the lament of his people and grant tothem a totally new, unprecedented chance for life.6 Westermann's owncontribution to the interpretation of the Deuteronomistic History canthus be seen in the way that he derives the aspects of confession andrepentance, which were present in former research, from the communallament with its implicit orientation toward the future.

The same year (1978) that Westermann's textbook on Old Testamenttheology was published in Europe, Samuel Terrien's presentation ofbiblical theology, The Elusive Presence,1 appeared in the USA. Thiswork, which has certain similarities to the theological approaches ofZimmerli and Westermann,8 affords an opportunity to examine in thelight of one example the effect of Noth's US on the study of OldTestament theology outside of Europe.

1. Westermann, Theologie, pp. 7, 22-23, 71, 137.2. Westermann, Theologie, pp. 181, 185.3. Westermann, Theologie, p. 186.4. Westermann, Theologie, p. 187.5. Westermann, Theologie, p. 186.6. Westermann, Theologie, p. 187.7. S.L. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology

(Religious Perspectives 26; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).8. The essence of the biblical message is found in the divine presence taking

place in a dialogical encounter between God and human beings (Terrien, ElusivePresence, pp. xxvii, 6,26,70, 110, etc.).


The result turns out, in this case at least, to be negative. AlthoughTerrien is, generally speaking, well acquainted with German scholarshipand refers to many of Noth's works1—mostly in English translations—he does not appear to be familiar with Noth's US. Thus, a separatetreatment of the Deuteronomistic History is lacking, and the randomremarks on it remind one of the situation that was common in researchbefore 1943. As with his predecessors of that era, Terrien uses the terms'deuteronomic' and 'deuteronomistic' without distinction, applyingthem to the book of Deuteronomy as well as to the editors of historicalbooks.2 He dates the activity of this group of writers to the latemonarchic period, about 610,3 thus following a dating that was commonin the 19th century and that has found new adherents with the rebirth ofthe model of the double deuteronomistic redaction advocated by Cross4

and his successors.5 When Terrien occasionally pays closer attention todeuteronomistic theology, he is dealing with the theology of the name ofGod, where he finds an important manifestation of the divine presence.6

The idea of a specific theology based on the divine name is, as onemight suspect, borrowed from von Rad.7

European Old Testament theology is experiencing a renaissance in the1990s, when the generation of scholars who began their academiccareers after the Second World War has begun gathering the results ofits work into larger presentations of Old Testament theology. In thefollowing I shall treat two of them, H.-D. Preuss's Theologie des Alten

1. Terrien, Elusive Presence, pp. 17-18; 47, n. 53; 62, n. 48; 96, n. 6; 97, n. 16;100, n. 56; 158, n. 74; 159, n. 81; 216, n. 28; 219, n. 63; 221, n. 92; 342, n. 54; 407,n. 39.

2. Terrien, Elusive Presence, pp. 44; 163; 166; 174; 193; 197; 201; 214, n. 5.3. Terrien, Elusive Presence, pp. 185, 193, 197.4. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the

Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 274-89.5. See H. Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und

Ende in der neueren Forschung', TRu 50 (1985), pp. 213-49 (237-45).6. Terrien, Elusive Presence, pp. 197-203.7. Terrien, Elusive Presence, p. 222, n. 104; p. 223, n. 112. Terrien refers to von

Rad's Deuteronomium-Studien (pp. 25-30), using it in the English translation Studiesin Deuteronomy (SET 9; London: SCM, 1953). He knows and rejects (p. 222,n. 107) the criticism raised about the possibility of a theology of the name by R. deVaux, 'Le lieu que Yahve a choisi pour etablir son nom', in F. Maass (ed.), Das femeundnahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost (BZAW 105; Berlin: Topelmann, 1967),pp. 219-28.


Testaments, I-II1 and the first volume of Otto Kaiser's Theologie desAlten Testaments.2 The interesting question is whether the concept ofthe Deuteronomistic History created by Noth is still alive in these twoworks.

Preuss's work, where the election of God manifested in historyconstitutes the theological centre of the Old Testament, is a combinationof the historical and systematic approaches to Old Testament theology,the consequence being that the Deuteronomistic History and deuteron-omistic theology are treated in many different connections, sometimeswithout avoiding repetition.3 An astonishing fact is that Preuss nowherementions Noth's US, although the bibliography of his theology isextremely comprehensive. There is no doubt that Preuss was familiarwith this basic work of Noth's, whose position on the DeuteronomisticHistory is in the main shared by Preuss.4 At the same time the latter'stheology clearly reflects the progress that has taken place in the study ofdeuteronomistic literature since the days of Noth.

First, this progress is evident in the expansion of the area assigned todeuteronomistic literature. Thus, many central texts and themes thatwere formerly assigned an early date are now considered products ofthe deuteronomistic movement. This pertains, for example, to the credo-texts of Deut. 26.5-9; Deut. 6.20-24; Josh. 24.2b-13 and Num. 20.14b-16,5 which were of great importance for von Rad, and further to thewhole theology of covenant,6 which gave Eichrodt the structuringprinciple for Old Testament theology. Even the final form of theDecalogue is attributed to the deuteronomistic school.7 The expansion of

1. H.D. Preuss, Theologie des Alten Testaments, I (JHWHs erwdhlendes undverpflichtendes Handeln), II (Israels Weg mil JHWH) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1991-92).

2. O. Kaiser, Der Gott des Alten Testaments (UTB 1747; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). The second volume is not yet available to me.

3. The most important sections are: I, pp. 214-15, 248-49; II, pp. 239-40, 284-85.

4. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 59, 117,186, 208, 248.5. Preuss, Theologie, I, p. 53.6. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 81, 84. Cf. the influential work of L. Perlitt,

Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1969).

7. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 112-13; II, p. 213, n. 101. Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld, DerDekalog: Seine spdten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen(OBO 45; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).


space devoted to deuteronomistic literature is discernible in the books ofSamuel, too, where Preuss reckons far more texts among deuterono-mistic literature than Noth did,1 and most significantly in the book ofDeuteronomy, of which Preuss, based on his own study onDeuteronomy,2 ascribes substantial parts to deuteronomistic authors.3 Asa result of his procedure, the borderline between deuteronomic anddeuteronomistic literature oscillates, and more and more often Preussresorts to the inclusive sign 'dtn/dtr'.4

Secondly, the progress made in the field of deuteronomistic studies isvisible in the fact that Preuss pays attention to different strata indeuteronomistic literature with their characteristic features. In principle,he accepts the division into the three main levels DtrH, DtrP and DtrN,5

without limiting, however, the deuteronomistic school to only thesethree redactional strata.6 The consideration of several Deuteronomistsenables him to cope with the conflicting views regarding, for example,the law7 and the institution of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8-12.8

Concerning the interpretation of the theological message of theDeuteronomistic History, Preuss does not approve of Noth's pessimisticexposition but rather puts the emphasis on the future aspects, which wefound already in the works of von Rad, Wolff, Zimmerli andWestermann. According to Preuss, the Deuteronomistic History is agreat confession of penitence,9 where past history is depicted as the

1. Theologie, II, pp. 24, 26. Cf. T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und dieEntstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, B,193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975).

2. H.D. Preuss, Deuteronomium (ErFor 164; Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1982).

3. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 155, 248; H, pp. 28, 75, 91, 201.4. See Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 81, 84, 129-30, 143, 172, 195, 242, 277; II,

pp. 16,48-49, 164-67,175, 189, 203, etc.5. On this division, see R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alien Testaments (ThW

1; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1978), pp. 111-25.6. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 102; 137, n. 592; 215; 226; 248; II, pp. 23, 29, 82.7. Preuss, Theologie, I, p. 102.8. Preuss, Theologie, II, pp. 22-23, 29. On the role of the monarchy cf.

T. Veijola, Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischenHistoriographic: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, B, 198;Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).

9. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 215, 248.


fulfillment of prophetic preaching,1 in the confidence that a return(Umkehr) to Yahweh will make possible the realization of the propheticpromises, in particular that of 2 Samuel 7.2 A new aspect advanced byPreuss is the suggestion that the concept of the Promised Land, which isespecially characteristic of the 'deuteronomistic' Deuteronomy, wasintended to create the hope for a new conquest of the land after theBabylonian exile's 40 years of 'wandering in the wilderness'(Deuteronomy 1-3).3

Kaiser's theology—judging from the first volume—marks the reap-pearance of Old Testament theology in the true sense of the word,allotting considerable space to principal reflections on the hermeneuticaland theological side of the work.4 Kaiser considers the dialectic betweenlaw and gospel as fundamental to the message of the Old Testament andthe question of God's justice as its essential subject matter.5 Thisquestion actually arises in the exilic period, which extends far beyond theyear 5386 and affects in a crucial way the beginning and development ofOld Testament theology.7 The different answers given to the problem oftheodicy are ultimately united by the Torah, which according to Kaiserconstitutes the centre of the Old Testament scriptures.8

In an approach of this kind, deuteronomistic theology plays animportant role, of course, and receives an independent treatment in itsown right,9 for humanly judged, Israel owes its survival of the exiliccatastrophe as God's people to the deuteronomic/deuteronomisticschool.10 Kaiser takes as a basis for his presentation the DeuteronomisticHistory in the extent defined by Noth (Deuteronomy 1-2 Kings 25),n

and he understands it—as Noth did—primarily as an explanation of the

1. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 226-27; H, pp. 284-85.2. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 215, 248; H, pp. 284-85.3. Preuss, Theologie, I, pp. 135, 215, 242, 248, 254; E, pp. 16-17, 284-85.4. Kaiser, Theologie, pp. 13-89.5. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 23.6. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 126.7. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 22.8. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 22. Cf. also §17 under the heading, 'Die Tora als Mitte

der Schrift' (p. 329).9. See in particular Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 186-201, but also pp. 128-31 and

pp. 333-36.10. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 126.11. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 129, 189. Noth's US is cited on p. 212.


disaster of 587.! Contrary to Noth, however, he conjectures that thework is the result of a prolonged process with many phases, where thesigns DtrH, DtrP and DtrN mark the general divisions, provided thatDtrP and especially DtrN are not understood as individuals but as circlesof editors.2 In exactly the same way as Preuss, Kaiser brings the book ofDeuteronomy into close proximity with deuteronomistic thinking,3 withthe consequence that the distinction between deuteronomic anddeuteronomistic becomes vague in his presentation also.4

The function of the deuteronomistic writing of history according toKaiser is both aetiological and paradigmatic.5 The aetiological purpose ofthe work is to offer an explanation of the catastrophes of Israel andJudah based on prophetic preaching and using the neglect of the law asthe standard6—all in accordance with Noth. Yet Kaiser elaborates onthis aspect, maintaining that the law signifies, on the one hand, 'thefundamental commandment' (Grundgebot), which prescribed thecentralization of the cultic service in Jerusalem (Deut. 12), and on theother hand, 'the main commandment' (Hauptgebof),1 which demandedthat Israel serve Yahweh alone (Deut. 6.4-5). The history of Israel andJudah is judged in the light of these criteria,8 and the Torah receives anincreasingly central role in the later stages of the redactional process.9

The paradigmatic purpose of the work, which is clearly shown, forexample, by the description of the period of the judges,10 is to offer amodel that displays the consequences of obedience and disobedience to

1. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 128-30.2. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 126, 187, 189, 192, 194,199.3. Kaiser does not mark the limits exactly but seems to suppose that in particular

the conception of Deuteronomy as a book of covenant derives from theDeuteronomists (p. 312). On this, cf. C. Levin, Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes inihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), pp. 105-14.

4. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 312-18.5. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 186.6. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 128-29.7. The term goes back to N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung

literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5-11 (AnBib 20; Rome: PontificiumInstitutum Biblicum, 1963).

8. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 129, 186, 189.9. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 333-36.10. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 191-93.


Yahweh.1 David represents an ideal figure among the kings, incor-porating the future hope, which on the level of the late deuteronomisticredaction is extended to the whole people of Israel (cf. 2 Sam. T.23-24).2

The ultimate goal of the paradigmatic description is to demonstrate thatYahweh has not rejected his people, although the people had rejectedhim,3 and so to call the survivors of the catastrophe to repentance.4 It isevident that Kaiser does not accept Noth's basic view of theDeuteronomistic History solely as 'an aetiology of nothing', butrecognizes in it also a call to a new beginning and hence to future hope.

The foregoing survey of the influence of Noth's US on Old Testamenttheology concentrated chiefly on European—especially German—research, due not only to the limited perspective of the surveyor but alsoto the fact that Noth's work did not play an equivalent role outside theGerman-speaking world.5 Examples of this were provided by the OldTestament theology of Vriezen, which appeared originally in Dutch in1949, and the biblical theology of Terrien, published in 1978 in theUSA. The English translation of Noth's book appeared in 1981,6 toolate to have any great influence. At that time, US had already become aclassic of biblical scholarship, which was highly appreciated but in factno longer used or even read.

In German scholarship the publication of Noth's work in 1943undoubtedly signified a turning point that also affected the description ofOld Testament theology. One of its consequences was that it put an endto the total silence about the Deuteronomistic History (Kb'hler) or to thevague use of the terms 'deuteronomic' and 'deuteronomistic' (Sellin,Eichrodt), prevalent in the presentations of Old Testament theology inthe 1930s. Owing to the literary foundation laid by Noth and on accountof the theological interpretation given in particular by von Rad, the

1. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 186.2. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 196-97, 201. Cf. T. Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise:

Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms (AASF, B,220; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), pp. 143-61.

3. Kaiser, Der Gott, p. 128.4. Kaiser, Der Gott, pp. 121-22, 186, 189, 201.5. Cf. Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk', p. 216.6. The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).

IV


Deuteronomistic History became an independent locus in Old Testamenttheology. This was fully justified, considering the fact that deuterono-mistic literature contains many features typical of doctrinal theology1

and therefore simply calls for a theological exposition in order to beunderstood properly. The main contribution of Noth's work to thetheological study of the Old Testament seems to consist in its placementof deuteronomistic literature on the agenda of Old Testament theology,although Noth's own theological conception of the DeuteronomisticHistory has not been accepted as such.

The broadest and most unanimous approval in the presentations ofOld Testament theologies was given for Noth's position that theDeuteronomistic History was written after the year 587 and is a theo-logical explanation of that catastrophe. In my opinion, Noth and hissuccessors are right on this point, contrary to those who date the firstedition of the work to the time of King Josiah.2 The period of Josiah,which was marked by dramatic political activity and finally came to anuntimely end, hardly provided the circumstances necessary for the birthof a large-scale historiographic work like the Deuteronomistic History,for only the actual consequences that have materialized in history enablethe historiographic reconstruction of their causes.3 Moreover, thegeneral nature of the work does not favor the view that it was written inthe spirit of 'a theology of glory' in order to legitimate the politicalaspirations of King Josiah. On the contrary, from the very beginning thework is marked by 'a theology of the cross', displaying without pity thetransgressions of the people and their leaders. The whole work—and notjust certain parts of it—attests a strong effort to cope with Israel andJudah's total failure.4

Noth's insistence on a single Dtr still prevailed in the presentations ofOld Testament theology that were published in the 1970s (Zimmerli andWestermann). The progress that was made in the literary-critical study of

1. See R. Smend, Theologie im Alien Testament', in E. Jungel, J. Wallmannand W. Werbeck (eds.), Verifikationen, Festschrift fiir Gerhard Ebeling zum 70.Geburtstag (Tubingen: Mohr, 1982), pp. 11-26; repr. in Smend, Die Mine desAltenTestaments, pp. 104-17 (111-15).

2. See Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk', pp. 235-45.3. Cf. F. Rapp, Fortschritt: Entwicklung und Sinngehalt einer philosophischen

Idee (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992), p. 14.4. Cf. E. Aurelius, Der Furbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alien

Testament (ConBOT 27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988), p. 19, n. 47.

VEIJOLA Martin Noth's US and Old Testament Theology 125

the Deuteronomistic History during the same decade and that called theunity of the work into question is taken into account first in the mostrecent theologies written in the 1990s by Preuss and Kaiser. They showthat it is no longer possible to treat the Deuteronomistic History as atheologically uniform entity but that one has to consider various andeven contradictory positions regarding, for example, the land,1 the law2

and the kingship.3 The problem and the danger for future literary-criticalresearch will be how to cope with the inner complexity of the workwithout losing sight of its ultimate unity.

Research after Noth has not only demonstrated the diversity ofdeuteronomistic literature but also the large extent of deuteronomisticredaction. Within the Deuteronomistic History this observation pertainsin particular to the books of Samuel and, according to recent studies,also to the book of Deuteronomy, where deuteronomistic influence canno longer be limited to the introduction in Deuteronomy 1-3(4) and to afew verses in chs. 31 and 34, as was the case in Noth's study.4 Thetheologies of Preuss and Kaiser reflect the new position in research,which regards (to a greater extent than previously) especially theparaenesis of chs. 6-11 but also the Decalogue (ch. 5) and even theDeuteronomic law code proper (chs. 12-26) as products of deutero-nomistic theology. The difficult task for future research is to make aclearer distinction between deuteronomic and deuteronomistic areas.

The interpretation of the ultimate goal of the Deuteronomistic Historythat Noth offered has had little if any success in theological study. Allagree with him, of course, that the history of Israel and Judah is depictedas a history of growing apostasy, using the Deuteronomic law code asthe standard, but there the unanimity ends. The negative attitude towardthe cult, which according to Noth is a central feature of deuteronomistictheology, was accepted by none of those who produced Old Testamenttheologies.5 One could, indeed, hardly imagine that a person who

1. See R. Smend, 'Das uneroberte Land', in G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land Israelin biblischer Zeit (GTA 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 91-102;repr. in Smend, Gesammelte Studien, II, pp. 217-28.

2. See, e.g., M. Kockert, 'Das nahe Wort: Zum entscheidenden Wandel desGesetzesverstandnisses im Alten Testament', TP 60 (1985), pp. 496-519.

3. See, e.g., Veijola, Konigtum, pp. 115-22.4. US, pp. 27-40; DH, pp. 45-60.5. There are, however, scholars elsewhere who have adopted Noth's cult-critical

view. See Veijola, Verheissung, p. 207, n. 46.


censures the people and its leaders on the basis of their behavior towardcultic sacrifice outside of Jerusalem would have taken a negative stancetoward sacrifice or toward the cult in general.

A new aspect lacking in Noth's study but found in the presentationsof Old Testament theology is the unanimous emphasis on prophecy asthe spiritual background of deuteronomistic theology (Eichrodt, Vriezen,von Rad, Zimmerli, Westermann, Preuss, Kaiser). The prediction ofjudgment by the prophets had prepared the people to encounter thecatastrophe of 587, not as an anonymous stroke of fate but as adeserved punishment imposed by God. This notion also implied the hopethat God, nevertheless, had not rejected his people forever, although thepeople had rejected him (Kaiser). Therefore, Noth's view of theDeuteronomistic History as 'an aetiology of nothing' has been foundinadequate, but most scholars consider it—as did Julius Wellhausen in histime1—as a great confession of sins (von Rad, Zimmerli, Westermann,Preuss, Kaiser). Westermann traces the central role of the confession ofsins in the Deuteronomistic History back to the communal lament of theexilic period. Hence, it may be concluded that the deuteronomisticmovement was connected with Mizpah and Bethel, where feasts ofcommunal lament were celebrated during the exile (cf. Jer. 41.4-9;Zech. 7.2-3; 8.18-19),2 and it is hardly coincidental that the same twosites were mentioned by Noth as places where the DeuteronomisticHistory was possibly written.3

If confession of sins or communal lament—which are closelyrelated—is the point at issue in the Deuteronomistic History, then thework necessarily implies a call to repentance, which was underlined firstby Wolff and after him by other scholars (von Rad, Westermann, Preuss,Kaiser). Furthermore, it is not justified to see in the release of KingJehoiachin from prison (2 Kgs 25.27-30) a purely neutral fact that Dtrrecorded as simply the last historical event known to him. It is rather ahighly significant hint of the possibility that God has not completelyforgotten his promise to the Davidic dynasty4 (Eichrodt, von Rad,

1. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 276.2. See further Veijola, Verheissung, pp. 177-210.3. See above. Concerning Mizpah, M. Weinfeld has come to the same con-

clusion, unfortunately without mentioning Noth or other predecessors. SeeDeuteronomy 1-11 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 80-81.

4. On the details, see E. Zenger, 'Die deuteronomistische Interpretation derRehabilitierung Jojachins', BZ 12 (1968), pp. 16-30.

VEIJOLA Martin Noth's US and Old Testament Theology 127

Zimmerli, Preuss). Although Noth came to another conclusion, it doesnot diminish his honor to have laid the foundation upon which othershave been able to build their own theories.

MARTIN NOTH: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

David Noel Freedmanwith Jeffrey C. Geoghegan

It is altogether fitting that a serious review of Martin Noth's magisterialvolume, US, be undertaken now in 1993, not only in recognition ofNoth's marvelous achievement, but also to situate our field fifty yearslater and to explore the prospects and direction for future research.

I

The abiding value of Noth's contribution to biblical criticism in US lies inhis recognition of the larger literary compilations we all know as 'theDeuteronomistic History', 'the Chronicler's work' and 'the Priestlywriting'. The necessary corollary was his insistence that the critical liter-ary enterprise encompass both the analytic dissection of the literarysources (whether oral or written) and the synthetic recombination of theisolated elements into substantive literary wholes. As to future prospects,I would point to what I call the 'Primary History' (all nine books of theTorah and Former Prophets in the Hebrew Bible) as the most invitingtarget for similar investigation. The application of the same analytical andsynthetic procedures to the complete Primary History would provide abeginning and an end point to the critical study of the major narrativeparts of the Hebrew Bible (the Primary History and Chronicler's work,respectively). Noth did not neglect this aspect of the literary task entirelybut tended to regard the final assembly of the Primary History, which issimply a merger of the Priestly work with the Deuteronomistic History,as somewhat secondary and peripheral to the more central scholarlystudy of the separate literary corpora. In the end, however, it is the workof the last editor, who put a definitive stamp on the extant literature, thatrequires our attention. After all, there is nothing hypothetical or restoredabout the Primary History, which is before our eyes in its final form,

FREEDMAN AND GEOGHEGAN Retrospect and Prospect 129

subject only to the marginal vagaries of scribal transmission over theintervening centuries. Scholars must begin with the Primary History andthen, having analyzed and dissected the numerous sources and assem-blages, return by the same route to the complete work.

Noth devoted much time and effort to the detailed analysis of thetexts that comprise the Primary History, including the Priestly work andthe Deuteronomistic History. The meticulous care with which heweighed the choices and allocated passages to their sources reflects thehigh value he placed on this essential understanding. The analysis oftexts and the assignment of sources formed the necessary basis for theisolation of the larger literary units that are the end results of the wholeliterary enterprise. In the long chain of scholarship that winds throughsource analysis of the Torah and the Former Prophets over the past 300years, Noth is an important link. In terms of the DocumentaryHypothesis and established source criticism, he was in the mainstream,essentially conventional and conservative, especially in comparison withmore recent and radical scholars. Clearly, he accepted the basic four-source documentary theory with the relative order JEDP. On specificpoints he could and did differ sharply with predecessors and contempo-raries, and he occasionally parted company with that nebulous and con-stantly shifting consensus. Many of his observations and insights arenoteworthy and have rightly gained a permanent place in the ongoingprocess of the refinement of the theory. Now, fifty years later, the stateof this most venerable of all the different 'criticisms' is under fire. Notonly is it open season on any and all specific attributions, with wholesalereassignments of long-established designations, but the underlying ideaof separate, identifiable written sources with distinctive labels is alsounder attack.1

On the one hand, oral traditionalists continue to flourish in our midst,questioning the whole idea of written sources of any kind, especially inthe pre-exilic period. On the other hand, more and more material hasbeen attributed to creative authors and editors of the post-exilic era (andthe later the better) so that little of the Hebrew Bible (or its presumedpredecessors) can be assigned with any confidence to the period beforethe Babylonian Exile. Noth, along with his predecessors and contempo-raries, swept away any notion of historicity in the biblical accounts of the

1. See R.N. Whybray' s treatment of old and new critiques of the DocumentaryHypothesis, including his own dissenting view in The Making of the Pentateuch: AMethodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).


period before the judges and the Israelite amphictyony. Those accountswere deemed unhistorical and categorized as myth, legend and aetiology.Similarly, the next generation of continental scholars has challengedNoth's reconstruction of the amphictyony as equally unhistorical.1

Nor has the mood of skepticism stopped there. Practically the wholeof the pre-exilic experience described in the Hebrew Bible, including themonarchy, is regarded as the fictional creation of an imaginary past byan unrelated group. For example, one recent scholar has challenged theveracity of the so-called Court History of the house of David (the core isin 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2).2 This narrative, with its wealth ofcolorful detail apparently available only to the members of the royalfamily and their associates, has generally been assigned to a contempo-rary insider and considered, with due regard for the author's biases, anauthentic and roughly contemporary account of the actual experience ofthe royal court in those days. In this new wave of skepticism, not onlyare the events questioned but also the existence of the persons. Similarsuspicions have been expressed for other great figures of antiquity,especially those celebrated in Homer and other epic poetry. The activi-ties and reality of the gods have, of course, long been questioned, butnow those of the humans involved have been as well. This same moodhas pervaded biblical studies.

It must be acknowledged that evidentiary proof is hard to come byfor any person or event in ancient history. If the requirement is proofbeyond a reasonable doubt, we would have to put a large question markbefore and behind any statement about antiquity. However, if a standardof probability is applied, then we can make a case for much of thenarrative in the Hebrew Bible, especially that dealing with the monarchicera in Israel and Judah. In response to the claims of the more extremeskeptics about the historicity of David and Solomon and their

1. Even in the 'Foreword' to the English translation of Noth's US,E.W. Nicholson rightly comments that Noth's conclusions regarding the twelve tribeamphictyony 'no longer command the widespread support they once enjoyed'. SeeDH, p. 9.

2. See especially P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup 148;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). See also J. Van Seters, In Search of History:Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1983) and more recently Prologue to History: TheYahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992). For acritique of Prologue to History see the review by R.E. Friedman, 'Late for a VeryImportant Date', Bible Review 9 (1993), pp. 12-16.


successors, we can point to the recently discovered inscription from TelDan that explicitly refers to 'the house of David'.1 While the inscriptiontells us nothing about the founding kings of that dynasty, it shows thatwithin a hundred years of its founding, the kings of the nation-stateJudah were identified as belonging to the house (dynasty) of David. So itis a reasonable inference that the biblical records concerning this dynastyare rooted in history rather than imagination. Common sense and anintelligent reading of the biblical materials should have led to the sameconclusion.

Noth took a moderate position on the historicity of the Hebrew Bible,one that seems immensely attractive in contrast with the more extremepositions that have surfaced recently. The key to his position lay in histraining and experience as a Palestinian archaeologist, as well as a lin-guist and historian. He recognized that, as in the best modern historicalnovels, there is an inevitable and often indissoluble mixture of real his-tory, with its objective data about persons, places and events, and fiction,with its additions, alterations and other features that shape and sharpenthe story line. It is much easier, in some respects, to move from thecenter to either extreme and proclaim by fiat that the Bible is all true,regardless of the nature of its contents, or that the Bible is all false, againdisregarding specific contents. Perhaps at this distance, the essentialmoderation of a serious scholar like Noth can save our discipline fromthe patent excesses of pseudo-scholarship—on the one hand, a funda-mentalistic literalism that cannot rationally be maintained, or on theother hand, a skepticism that is equally unwarranted because it professesallegiance to scientific methodology and respect for historical-criticalapproaches but comes with ready-made results based on assumptionsthat have little to do with science or the search for truth.

The case regarding sources is very similar. Noth stayed deliberatelywithin the framework of the guidelines of source criticism that had beenestablished by generations of great continental scholars who discovered,identified and isolated the different literary strands and devised the rulesof the analytic game. While there are numerous significant deviationsfrom the consensus in his work, there is also a large area of agreement,

1. The stele on which the inscription was found is fragmentary and dates to theninth century BCE. It may be attributed to a king of Aram Damascus, perhaps one ofseveral kings named Ben-hadad, or possibly the usurping regicide Hazael, known tous from the vivid biblical account. It refers to a king of Israel (unnamed) and also to aking of 'the house of David', i.e., of Judah.


so that it would be unfair to say that the disagreements undercut thewhole approach or the particular results. Overall, there has been wide-spread concurrence among scholars as to the defining characteristics ofthe P and D sources and how they differ from J and E.1 Distinguishingbetween the latter two, especially after the revelation of the nameYHWH in Exodus, has been more difficult. But even at this point, inspite of negative judgments of different kinds, radical reassignments anddismemberments of one or the other of these sources, the basic analysishas survived substantially intact. There are also ongoing disagreementsabout the work of editors, who clearly played an important role atvarious stages in the story (e.g., the suture of J and E, followed by theincorporation of JE with P in the Tetrateuch), but whose labors are noteasily distinguished from those of the authors, on the one hand, or fromeach other, on the other hand. But such disagreements will always occuraround the edges of the theory and in certain individual cases.

While there has been generated in the decades since Noth's historicwork a vast amount of criticism against almost every specific point inthe established source-critical blueprint of the Torah and FormerProphets—from the original components to the extant present conglom-erated whole (the Primary History)—it is fair to say that no one hascome up with a replacement model. As a consequence, practically allserious scholars use a consensus pattern for identifying the sources, evenif they differ on questions of date, scope, contents and intentions ofindividual sources. So here we vote with and for Noth, affirming hisbasic assumptions and approach to the material, while allowing and evenadvocating dissent regarding certain details.

When it comes to the larger configurations, Noth's determinationsalso have withstood the test of time. Most scholars continue to speakand write confidently about the P-work and the D-work orDeuteronomistic History, and even about the C-work or Chronicler'sHistory. Perhaps it is not coincidental that precisely at the point of theemergence of these large, written compositions, notable Scandinavianscholars and their schools come into the picture. The battle over the ear-liest traditions, that is, questions of oral composition and transmissionversus written sources, continues to rage. Scholars are still attempting toachieve some agreement as to the relationship between oral and written

1. For an excellent treatment of this subject, see R.E. Friedman, Who Wrote theBible? (New York: Summit Books, 1987).


sources and the interactive process between them, and there may wellbe agreement on the ultimate priority of oral traditions and dominanceof the written end product. Tracing the original oral work forward andthe written end product backward to their nexus and the overlapping oftheir parallel paths during the period when each affects the other indifferent ways remains the topic of discussion. But considering the begin-ning, the end and the intervening interactive process, we must acknowl-edge the vast importance of both in the creation of biblical literature,especially in the case of the Primary History. What begins as oral presen-tation ends as a fixed literary composition. The process is not linear anddirect, and the latter method does not entirely replace the former. Just asoral tradition is the basis for written formulation, so the latter providesthe text for further oral presentation (with its inevitable alterations to suitchanging circumstances and audiences), so that the interaction of oraland written traditions provides the basis for newer written versions.

The convergence between the German and Swedish schools on themajor written narrative works of the Hebrew Bible became clear afterWorld War II. While arising from different approaches to the origin anddevelopment of the sources, both agreed on the primacy of oral tradition(e.g., Noth's 'G-source' [for Grundlage], the oral source behind thewritten sources J and E) and the written end products—the P-work andthe D-work, the former extending through the Tetrateuch and the latterpresent in the remaining books of the Primary History, either exilic orpost-exilic in their final written form. It followed that the even later,post-exilic C-work (ca. 250 BCE according to Noth) was itself a writtencompilation from its inception, whatever the nature of its sources. Giventhe impact of these powerful scholarly groups and the additional supportof the Albright school in America (with some notable differences), it isnot surprising that a consensus emerged after the war. The major con-tentions remain the standard for our field, to be challenged and defendedeven now. We still speak with confidence about these major literarycomplexes, although they have suffered some structural damage overthe years. New analyses and syntheses appear from time to time, and theconfidence level in the older views varies and may be more depressednow than earlier. Still, rival and replacement theories have not won theday and are not likely to, because the views espoused by Noth and hisfollowers, as well as by Engnell and his adherents, along with generalsupport from Albright and his school, are firmly rooted in scholarly


method and have proved far too useful over the decades to bediscarded.

One of the remarkable curiosities about the P-work and the D-workconcerns the scope and extent of each and how well they fit togetherwhile being so clearly and dramatically different in diction, style andother respects. How is it that two such independent works, different inalmost every measurable fashion, including the details of cultic and civillegislation, fit together so well in a continuous chronological narrative?Was there some kind of prior agreement or tacit understanding that Pwould deal only with the patriarchal and Mosaic periods, while Dtrwould pick up the story only with the last year of Moses' life and thencarry it down to the end of the first temple? Such a proposition is unac-ceptable on its face, and it must be assumed that substantial editorialactivity was involved in joining the two works. There is an obviousoverlap between Deuteronomy and the P-work, and it is also doubtfulthat the latter originally ended with the book of Numbers, where theIsraelites are still on the east bank of the Jordan and far from realizingthe promises of Genesis (both JE and P).

The classical critical view was that P extended beyond the conclusionof Numbers and the end of the Tetrateuch and included the conquest ofthe west bank and distribution of the tribal allotments recorded in thebook of Joshua. The P-work constituted an epic of promise and fulfill-ment beginning with the patriarchs, who established a presence in thepromised land, and reaching its climax and conclusion with the genera-tions of Moses and Joshua, who came out of Egypt and took permanentpossession of the land of Canaan. The D-work, on the contrary, in itsclassical form, begins with Deuteronomy, which serves as an introduc-tion to the Deuteronomistic History, carrying the story forward from theend of Moses' life and career through the conquest and settlement of thepromised land, including the west bank with the already capturedeastern territories.

The subsequent history, including the period of the judges and theunited and divided monarchies, is reported in characteristic deuterono-mistic fashion. The narrative is based upon, or often incorporates, olderwritten and oral materials but provides a solid framework conveying itsparticular theological interpretation of historical causation. From the endof Solomon's reign and the division of the two kingdoms the road leadsinevitably to the destruction and demise of first Israel and then Judah.

From beginning to end, it is the story of consequences, the working


out of the covenant made at Horeb between Yahweh and Israel, medi-ated and expounded by Moses. It begins with the fulfillment of promisesmade to the fathers about the acquisition of the land, already partiallyaccomplished by the time of Moses's farewell sermons, the rest to followunder the leadership of Moses's designated successor, Joshua (Deut.31.14-23). Once that is achieved, it will be up to Israel: obey the terms ofthe covenant and live and prosper; disobey the covenant and die, like theindividual culprit who violates any of the basic terms of the agreement(Deut. 28.1, 15). Yahweh may be the God of grace and mercy ('elraMm wehannuri), but he will not brook rebellion or countenance willfuldisobedience (Exod. 34.67). On the contrary, he will visit punishmentupon the guilty nation(s) according to the nature and degree of the vio-lations. As the editor is at pains to point out, the results were inevitable,not because they were predetermined, but because of the deliberate dis-affection of the human party to the agreement. Yahweh had not onlycommitted himself by oath to the fathers but had already fulfilled hispart of the pact by bringing Israel out of slavery in Egypt, by givingthem a land flowing with milk and honey and by watching over themever since. In response, Israel defied his injunctions, challenged his indis-putable and unique authority and violated every one of the TenCommandments, especially the first one, 'You shall have no other godsbefore me' (Ezek. 6.4-7).!

Different explanations are given for the way in which these two greatworks were put together. On the one hand, it seems obvious that Dtrwas dependent upon the traditions and narratives preserved in JE(perhaps separately or more likely in unified form) and therefore couldrefer back to the patriarchal promises without having to recount themhimself. Dtr begins the story at the end of Moses's life instead ofretelling the story of the exodus and the pilgrimage to the sacredmountain (Horeb for D and E, Sinai for J and P). Here we are torecognize a literary stroke similar to Greek epic style, namely to fixupon a particularly dramatic moment in the story as the point of entry.In this case, the author chose the end of the life of Moses.

Israel, having defeated its enemies on the east bank, has nowestablished a foothold there and is poised to cross the Jordan and take

1. On the chronological breakdown of the commandments in the PrimaryHistory according to the order found in Jer. 7, see D.N. Freedman, The Unity of theBible (Distinguished Faculty Lecture Series; Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 1991),pp.70ff.


possession of the heartland of Canaan, the land in which the patriarchshad lived for a time and which had been promised to them and theirdescendants long since by Yahweh. In typical epic fashion Mosesrehearses the central events of Israel's history, especially the definingmoments of Yahweh's revelation at Mt Horeb and the ratification of thecovenant between Yahweh and Israel. Moses is thus given anopportunity to explain the meaning of that all important central eventand expound the obligations of the covenant whereby Israel bound itselfto be the people of God and live by his commands (Deut. 30.19-20).Moses can then offer Israel the choice between life and death, obedienceand defiance, and trace the history of the first commonwealth,forecasting the course of events and the inevitable outcome based uponhow Israel will behave. The positive side requires little further commentbeyond the description of the paradisiacal existence in a second Gardenof Eden that awaits the obedient. The alternative is spelled out in grimdetail—God will turn all the forces of nature and humanity against thewillfully disobedient, bringing famine, plague and the utter devastation ofwar until the nation is destroyed and the people are banished from theirland and dispersed to the four corners of the world (Deut. 28.20).

Thus, the Deuteronomistic History makes very good sense as a liter-ary work, as Noth argued.1 The problem lies with the P-work. Olderscholarship recognized all four sources as occurring in Joshua and thenexplained the linkage of P with the D-work as an overlapping and inter-locking arrangement whose seams remained visible. Nevertheless, it waspossible to intertwine the ends and weave certain parts together withoutseriously disturbing the chronology and thereby to create a continuousnarrative from Genesis through Kings. Noth argued for a different solu-tion in which P's original conclusion, bringing Israel into possession ofthe west bank, is discarded in favor of the present book of Joshua, whichcomes from the hand of Dtr.2 As a result, P is no longer to be found inJoshua, and the parts formerly assigned to P, including the tribal bound-aries and territorial allocations, are assigned to other sources, whichultimately belong to the Deuteronomistic History.3 Thus, in the PrimaryHistory, the P-work came to an end in the book of Numbers. While thissolution is neat, it leaves P a truncated torso with only a hypotheticalending, which has to be supplied largely by conjecture.

1. Noth, US, pp. 3-12.2. Noth, US, p. 88.3. Noth, US, p. 88.


On other grounds, it may be questioned whether the P-work in itsoriginal construction was stranded in time somewhere in the distant andmore ideal past. While the era of Moses is surely the period of primaryconcern for P, the latter is no Utopian but continually draws attention tothe application of Mosaic rules in the setting in which P lives (presumablyin the range from the eighth century to the sixth centuries BCE,according to a spectrum of modern scholarly opinion). So if in the booksof the Torah, the contemporary scene is much on P's mind, and hechallenges the community with the choice between holy and profane inmuch the same way that Dtr does in giving the same audience thechoice between life and death, we might have expected P to extend hisstory from the age of Moses (and Joshua) to that of David and Solomonand their successors, as Dtr did. The obvious complement to Dtr's con-tinuation of P in the Primary History is the Chronicler's History, whichpicks up the story's sacerdotal and liturgical concerns, concentrating onthe temple in Jerusalem, the only permanent, legitimate successor to thetabernacle, which plays a central role in P. In addition, the city ofJerusalem and the dynasty of David receive added emphasis, as wouldbe expected of the priests of the temple in Jerusalem, who presumablywere also responsible for the P-work.

It would have made sense to track the history of the earthly palace ofGod through its material representations from the beginnings in thewilderness until its reincarnation in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem.Presumably the author or editor knew of the fate of the first temple andits restoration in the early post-exilic period under the direction of theDavidide Zerubbabel and the Zadokite High Priest Joshua. Whether it ispossible to stitch together a single Priestly source from Genesis throughNumbers and Joshua on into Chronicles, thereby restoring a work com-parable in scope and focus to the Deuteronomistic History, is uncertain.At the least, the literary structure, with its pattern and goal, is present inthe surviving materials and deserves research and further discussion.

Others, dissatisfied with the solution proposed by Noth, have tackledthe Deuteronomistic side of the literary complex and proposed that asecond or third Dtr is the assembler of the Primary History. They seestrong evidence of this editor in the Tetrateuch, thereby breaching thedivision between the P-work and the Deuteronomistic History. While thetreatment is somewhat different in the Tetrateuch from what it is in theDeuteronomistic History proper, instances of deuteronomistic editingand insertions are found all over the Tetrateuch. As a result, the Primary


History is conceived as the literary enterprise of a late post-exilicwriter/editor of that school. In effect, this approach changes the tradi-tional sequence from JEDP to JEPD. In itself, this may be a meritoriousproposal, but questions arise about the details, since this requires amassive reallocation of materials in the Tetrateuch from JE and P to Dor Dtr.

Are there, then, objective criteria for such massive shifts, or is Dtrbeing reinvented solely for the purpose of establishing its presence in theTetrateuch? Since the differences between the P-work and theDeuteronomistic History remain substantial, the changes occur mainly inredefining J and JE and in transferring large blocks of text to Dtr. Isthere a genuine gain, or do we have as many problems or more thanbefore? If one or more Dtrs framed and annotated the Tetrateuch, it iscurious that earlier analysts failed to observe this phenomenon at thevery time when Dtr's work was being isolated and traced in fine detailin the books of the Deuteronomistic History. It may also be asked whythe end results for the Tetrateuch and the rest of the Primary Historyare so strikingly different.

I would agree that signs of an editorial hand are present throughoutthe Primary History, but the hands at work in the Tetrateuch and theDeuteronomistic History seem to be different. For the final assembly ofthe major parts of the Primary History we must postulate an overalleditor, but it may be premature to identify him as a final Dtr or aPriestly writer, although he may have affinities more with one of thesegroups than with the other.

In spite of efforts to alter the basic source analysis by expanding therange of territory of this source or that editor at the expense of another,the classic framework remains substantially intact, and we can generallysupport the position adopted by Noth on these matters. My only seriousreservation, already noted, concerns his peculiar treatment of P, truncat-ing the P-work by limiting its scope to the Tetrateuch, while at the sametime acknowledging that at one time P must have contained a story ofthe conquest and distribution of the tribal allotments. My own view isthat the Priestly writer, like his contemporary, Dtr, was just as muchinterested in the later outcomes as in the earliest traditions. While Pregarded the Mosaic era as decisive for the establishment of the sacredcongregation and commonwealth, he also believed that the wholehistory of his people was under the special guidance of God, whether inthe way of protection or of punishment, penalty or reward, good or ill.


Hence, the appropriate continuation of P beyond Joshua is to befound, if at all, not in the Deuteronomistic History but in theChronicler's work, where the narrative, beginning with 1 Chronicles 10,picks up with the accession of David and his glorious reign, unscarredby the damaging domestic and dynastic struggles and scandals, recordedin detail in the so-called Court History and preserved by Dtr. David isespecially exalted as the real founder of the liturgy and cult of theJerusalem temple, yet to be constructed by his son Solomon (1 Chron.16.4-42; 29.1-3). But David is also given credit for proposing and plan-ning for the temple. The work itself, however, is to be carried out by hisillustrious successor. It is David the pious Psalmist, the preserver of thetabernacle in its latest incarnation and the planner of the more perma-nent edifice on Mt Zion, who is celebrated by the Chronicler. ThusDavid, the leading hero in the Chronicler's work, is a fitting counterpartfor Moses, the leading figure of the P-work. Both men excel in thevirtues appropriate to a priestly tradition, whether in planning andbuilding the tabernacle or in preserving the tabernacle and planning thetemple, along with the appropriate rules and procedures for the HolyPlaces, whether the detailed regulations derived from Moses or the richmusical tradition associated with David.

It is the same editor or faithful follower who tracks the fate of thetemple of David and Solomon to its demise at the hands ofNebuchadrezzar nearly 400 years later. But he does not leave mattersthere. This is in dramatic contrast to the Deuteronomistic History, whichcloses out the story with the city and temple in ruins and the people incaptivity (2 Kgs 25). Rather, the Chronicler's work continues with anaccount of the return from exile and the rebuilding of the temple, thework sponsored and carried out by the legitimate and divinely approvedauthorities: Zerubbabel, lineal descendant and official heir of David andSolomon, with a valid claim to the throne of Judah, and Joshua the HighPriest, also a lineal descendant and official heir of Zadok the High Priestat the time the first temple was built and dedicated (Ezra 3.2; 6.14-15).

The P-work and the Chronicler's work combine to tell the story ofthe sacred congregation with its holy habitation, the earthly counterpartof the heavenly original, in its various material structures—the taberna-cle in the wilderness wanderings and early pre-monarchic settlement inthe promised land. The account involved both temples, including thechoice of a sacred site (where Abraham offered up his son Isaac as asacrifice to Yahweh), the building plans, the gathering of supplies and


the construction that followed the pattern laid down for the tabernacle.This pattern was adapted for the first temple, with a reprise for the newconstruction and dedication of the second temple on the same site. It isimportant that the sponsorship and leadership have the same officialpositions and that the leaders in the case of the second temple are thelineal descendants and official heirs of those who built and dedicated thefirst temple. The line is both unitary and continuous, even if the literarytrail is somewhat jumbled and now separated into different works.

Where do we go from here? We owe Noth a great debt of gratitude forstanding in the breach and redirecting traffic in a better direction. Whilehe was a faithful heir of the critical task defined by illustrious predeces-sors, he continued the detailed work of source analysis with importantcontributions at critical junctures in the texts. More important, in myopinion, was his emphasis on macro-analysis and synthesis in theDeuteronomistic History, the P-work and the Chronicler's work. In thisway, Noth brought into focus the undertakings of the nameless editorsand compilers who put an indelible stamp on the literary outcome andthus have guided the reactions of all subsequent readers of the texts.These works are not only visible parts of the Hebrew Bible but havebecome standard reference points for scholarly discussion and debate. Itremains, however, to take one more major step and focus attention onthe most important continuous narrative in the Hebrew Bible, thePrimary History, which includes both the Torah and Former Prophets,comprising nine books and almost exactly 150,000 words (or close tohalf of the entire Hebrew Bible). Instead of describing it as a combina-tion of the Torah and Former Prophets, or the merger of the P-workand the Deuteronomistic History, we should see it for the single, totalwork that it is—the Primary History of the Hebrew Bible, the dominantwork by far in Scripture, the official story of the people of God.

Noth discusses the merger of the P-work and the DeuteronomisticHistory but devotes little attention to the matter.1 Apparently, this finalstep in the process of the final fixing of the text was somewhat perfunc-tory in Noth's view, so he concentrates on its major constituent parts.Perhaps it seemed too obvious. After all, the Primary History is there,almost by definition, in one piece and in final form, except for minor

1. Noth, US, pp. 206-11.

n


transmissional glitches that occurred over the past two thousand years.For me, that is all the more reason to identify and consider this work. Itis with the Primary History that the scholarly enterprise must begin.While the circumstances are not exactly the same, and we are at differ-ent stages in the development of a sacred text, a comparable case can bemade for regarding the combination of the Synoptic Gospels and thebook of Acts as constituting the Primary History of the New Testament.Although the process of amalgamation and consolidation was never car-ried out in the evolution of the canonical New Testament, this block offour books, with their complex interconnections, has to be dealt with inany attempt to identify and isolate earlier sources and the work of thedifferent authors, compilers and editors.

The importance of firmly establishing the Primary History as the pointboth of departure and return can hardly be exaggerated. It is symbolizedby the term babel (= Babylon), with which the dispersion of the peoples(including the immediate ancestors of Abraham) begins in Genesis 11,and where at the very end of the story in 2 Kings, the descendants ofthe same Abraham are brought back, thereby completing the circle. Thestory begins and ends at Babylon, thus closing the first long chapter oftheir history. However, there are already hints that a new chapter isabout to begin, and it will bring them on a new, exciting adventure backto the same target set for the first migration.

The second chapter will be, at least in part, a replay of the first. Thedescendants of Abraham will end up in Jerusalem and Judah just as theydid the first time around. So too, the scholarly journey begins with thePrimary History as a whole and should trace the literary lines back tothe original oral sources, the raw materials from which the whole narra-tive has taken shape. The critical enterprise, undertaken so many timesby so many eager experts, must be done again and again, from finish tostart, and then from start to finish. This enterprise should come to thesources through their different collections and combinations, through thewell-marked and not so well-marked paths, back to square one—thefinished product, the Primary History. The purpose is to account for thepresence (and absence if possible) of every feature of the compositework in as efficient a manner as possible, to explain what we have andwhy we have it, with all the anomalies and inconsistencies, which showclearly that disparate sources make up the whole. Then, an accountof their presence and extent, their contents and style, is obligatory if weare going to understand what we read.


It is at least equally important to give an account of the finished work:who did what and why, when and where, along with all of the otherquestions that investigative reporters are supposed to ask and answer,without claiming to ask all of them or even the right ones or the mostpressing ones or to answer definitively any of them. Let me challengecolleagues, both those who have been on the scene for many years andthose who are just coming into the arena, to produce definitiveresponses or at least better ones than those currently at our disposal.

First, I propose that the work in its present form must have had highexecutive sponsorship to have claimed its place and maintained it with-out serious challenge. One naturally looks to the royal house and theecclesiastical establishment, exiled in Babylon, for the sponsoring author-ities, since the narrative steers us away from the wrecked city and aban-doned homeland with its shattered institutions. The homeland was leftwithout king or priest, without temple or palace, and now, for thePrimary History, any future for the people must rest with the captives inBabylon.

The key question is when, and while we do not have a first edition orautograph with its colophon indicating when and where the scrolls werewritten, we need to make an affirmative judgment about this issue. Notonly does it set in place this all important component of the HebrewBible, nothing less than the official history of the people of God, it alsoprovides an anchor, a benchmark, from which all the other questionsreceive their definitions. This history also provides the basis for how theanswers to these questions can be derived. From when we can proceedto where and why, and thence to how and by whom and under whosesponsorship.

The upper date of the work's completion is fixed by the explicitstatement at the end of the Primary History—the 37th year of the exileof King Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25.27). By definition, the work in its presentform cannot have been produced before that date, roughly 561 BCE(we have an exact date for the exile of Jehoiachin from the BabylonianChronicle, 7 March 597 BCE). This same datum may prove helpful forother questions, e.g., where, who and why. However, the story itselfcomes to an end with the capture of Jerusalem, the destruction ofthe temple and the exile of various groups in the local population, alongwith some details of the aftermath, such as the death of Gedaliah and afinal captivity in 582 BCE (2 Kgs 25.1-25). There is nothing more until2 Kgs 25.27-30, so we can say that there was little direct interest in the


period between 582 and 561 or in the experience of the exile, exceptperhaps for the details about the king.

The continuous narrative, therefore, ends with the climactic eventssurrounding the fall of Judah, to which a brief postscript about the exiledking has been appended (25.27-30). Clearly it was the intention of thefinal author or editor to end the literary work there, and the implicationis that so far as factual data are concerned the contents of the work allpertain to the era before that final date. Scholars who find reflections oflater circumstances (e.g., in the Torah, much of which is placed in latepost-exilic times) automatically bear the burden of proof. Aside fromgeneralized prophecies about future return and restoration, largely con-tained in the Deuteronomic speeches of Moses, the story of the PrimaryHistory covers the period from the beginning—creation itself—untilthe middle of the sixth century BCE, specifically the synchronic date inthe thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's exile corresponding to the firstyear of Awil-Marduk (= Evil-Merodach), the son and successor ofNebuchadrezzar II (604-562 BCE; the first year of Awil-Marduk wouldbegin in the Spring of 561). If 561 is the earliest possible date ofcompletion, what is the latest, or most likely actual date? The latestpossible date can only be when we have proof positive of the existenceof the whole Primary History. Direct primary evidence in the form ofcomplete MSS of the Hebrew Bible begins to appear in the second andfirst centuries BCE, but no book in the Primary History is complete, andthere is no way to show that the nine-book collection was considered aunit. While it seems probable that the Greek translation of the wholePrimary History was complete by some time in the second century BCE,if not earlier, only a few fragments of the LXX survive from the pre-Christian period, and these can only attest the existence of separatebooks of the Primary History, not the work as a whole. Secondarytestimony from sources such as Ben Sira also derives from theHellenistic era. It is nevertheless reasonable to infer that these witnessespoint to an earlier date for the completion of the Primary History andthus to posit a terminal date not later than about 400 BCE for the actualexistence of the Primary History.

But it is possible to narrow the range of dates for the completion ofthe Primary History even further by both positive and negative evi-dence. Direct references to known persons or events of a later timewould provide positive evidence, the lack of such references negativeevidence. Thus, scholars have claimed that in the Primary History


(mostly in the Torah, because Noth's date of ca. 550 BCE for theDeuteronomistic History is widely accepted) there are allusions to per-sons and events from the post-exilic period and that the Primary Historycannot therefore be dated before this period (specifically, that of Ezra-Nehemiah at the earliest). None of the evidence of this sort that I haveseen is convincing. The reason is that in those cases where a connectioncan be shown between provisions in the Torah and the narrativedescriptions in the Chronicler's work, for example, it is impossible todetermine the direction of influence, that is, whether the written form ofthe Torah has been influenced by persons and events from the post-exilic period or the behavior of such persons has been influenced bywhat is written in the Torah. I agree that such links exist, but that iswhat we would expect, especially if the Primary History already existedand had influence, as clearly it does in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.Such connections between passages in the Torah, on the one hand, andthe stories in post-exilic writings, on the other, can be explained on thereasonable supposition that the post-exilic community attempted toorder its life according to the prescriptions of the Torah, and thedifferences are due to conditions that made it difficult to carry out theTorah's rules. In all cases, the priority would properly go to theprescriptions not to their implementation. The negative evidence issimply that if the Primary History had not been completed until a post-exilic, post-return date, the editors would surely have incorporated suchdifferences and explained or otherwise eliminated them.

It is curious that most scholars agree that the Deuteronomistic Historywas finished around 550 BCE (i.e., between 560 and 540, before thereturn from exile beginning in 538 BCE) but believe that the Torah wascompleted at a much later date. While it is possible to reason in thatfashion, I think that once it is recognized that the Primary History is asingle, continuous work, then the arguments applied to the dating of theDeuteronomistic History will be extended to cover the Torah and thePrimary History as a whole.

To pursue the point a little further, I think it was precisely the chang-ing of the guard, that is, the accession of a new emperor, that providedthe impetus for the promulgation of the Primary History. Surely theintention of the final editors was not merely to write an extendedepitaph for the dead nation but to say something about the present stateof affairs and to point to a different and perhaps brighter future. Whilethe destruction of the state was a central theme, and the effort to explain


this tragedy was agonizing and prolonged, the work has other features,some of at least equal importance. Promise and hope undergird andinterfuse the warnings, threats and disasters, along with admonitionsabout present circumstances. So it would be appropriate to regard thePrimary History as a handbook for survivors and a guide to the futurefor the understandably perplexed. It was written by native Hebrewspeakers for Hebrew readers, an internal document, not an externalapologia. As such, its purpose was at least twofold: (1) to explain thesad sequence of events leading to the tragedy of total destruction andthe present, unhappy condition of exile, and at the same time, (2) to giveoccasion for hope and renewed expectation. Promises had been madewhich would be fulfilled in the near future. Therefore, it was necessaryfor the faithful to hold on until the dawning of the new day of release.As to the duration of the exile, Jeremiah apparently predicted that itwould last for seventy years, although there is confusion about the exactstarting date (perhaps 605 BCE, perhaps a later date) and the reliabilityof the statement (Jer. 25.11-12). At the other end of the pendulum swingwas the flat prediction of Hananiah the prophet, dated around 594 BCE,that the exiled king and people would return along with the sacredvessels of the temple (removed to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar) within avery short time, two years to be exact (Jer. 28.10-11). The latterprophecy proved false in short order (and the prior premature death ofHananiah was taken as a sign of divine displeasure with the prophet andhis prediction, Jer. 28.15-17). We need not doubt that hopes andexpectations of a return from exile ran high among the Babyloniancaptives, and as events unrolled the intensity of feelings would wax andwane. But there could be no realistic expectation of release during thelifetime of the great emperor himself. Hence, attention doubtless wasdrawn to the less-remarked prediction by the resident (in Babylon)prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel prophesied that the exile would last for fortyyears, at the end of which one could expect a new generation to takeover the government of the empire. Ezekiel's forty-year prediction (thecountdown begins with the reign and exile of the unfortunate king,Jehoiachin) echoes the wilderness wandering, which, according totradition, lasted just forty years, the standard length of time to allow onegeneration to pass from the scene and another to take its place. Thecorrelation is spelled out in the narrative of Numbers, where it isspecified that all the adults (twenty years and older) who went out ofEgypt would not be permitted to enter the promised land but would die


in the wilderness (Num. 14.29). A period of sixty years would be a veryrealistic estimate of expected lifespans in antiquity. There might be someexceptions, and two are specified: Caleb and Joshua. The nextgeneration, including all those under the age of twenty at the time of theexodus and born after the departure would replace the fallen generationand enter the land under the leadership of Joshua. In the same way,Ezekiel predicts that those who were adults when the exile took placewould die in exile, but their children (under the age of twenty and thoseborn in exile) would be able to return when the period of forty yearsended. Since Ezekiel dates his prophecy by what would have been theregnal years of the exiled king, Jehoiachin, the final date in the PrimaryHistory, the thirty-seventh year, is just three years before the expectedend of the period of exile and the day of release and return. Theaccession of a new emperor could well be taken as a sign of theimpending change of fortunes of the exiles.

That new kings, on accession to the throne, issued amnesties and pro-claimed other bounties to their subjects, is well known, and in the case ofAwil-Marduk we have the information that he granted special dispensa-tions to the captive king, Jehoiachin. These were of a modest nature,mere tokens of good will, but they must have been seen as presagingeven better things to come. Hence, the citation of the action by the newemperor and the subsequent release of the Primary History to the liter-ate Jews in Babylon. Now was the time to gird up one's loins and beready for the next stage, which came twenty years later when Cyrusissued his famous edict of release (Ezra 1.2-4; 6.3-5).

In the meantime, however, the fact that we know nothing that actuallyhappened at the end of the literal forty-year period only serves toconfirm the authenticity of the prediction itself. Surely later writers,knowing the facts in the case, would not have invented a false prophecyto put in the mouth of a prophet like Ezekiel, whom they regarded as afaithful spokesman for Yahweh. We may infer that there was heightenedexpectation in the years immediately following the death of the greatNebuchadrezzar and the accession of his son, a new emperor, and thatthis expectation was strengthened by the prophecy of Ezekiel, whichfocused on a date not long after the events mentioned.

Such circumstances would provide a very suitable setting for the pub-lication of the great Primary History. Neither then nor later wereauthors or editors in the habit of inventing and attributing unfulfilledprophecies, certainly not to true and later canonized prophets such as


Ezekiel. Unfulfilled prophecy is most likely to be the genuine words ofthe prophet. As regards Ezekiel, we have at least one other example ofan unfulfilled prophecy, fully documented by the prophet himself,namely, the prophecy against Tyre in Ezek. 26.1-14, esp. vv. 7-14, andthen the retraction and revision in 29.17-20. The initial prophecy is datedto the eleventh year, while the revision comes in the twenty-seventhyear, after Nebuchadrezzar abandoned the futile siege of Tyre.1

In short, I would say that the best date for the promulgation of thewhole Primary History is between 560 and 540 BCE, obviously after thelast fixed date in the work and just as clearly before the decisive eventsassociated with the capture of Babylon by Cyrus the Great of Persia andthe subsequent promulgation of the edict of release and return in 538BCE. This date is essentially the same as that proposed by Noth and stillwidely accepted as the most suitable for the Deuteronomistic History.21am only extending the reasoning and affirmation to the rest of thePrimary History. What this means is that the work as a whole was fin-ished by that date except for slight changes in the long history of scribaltransmission, including inadvertent errors and perhaps minor editorialimprovements. The literary history, the long process of composing dif-ferent sources, merging them and splitting them apart (all the majorchanges that source-critical analysis tracks from their origins to theirfinal status in the larger work), has come to an end. The full text is nowfixed for all time, and aside from the minor changes mentioned abovewill remain that way through the whole history of scribal transmission. Itis at the same point in time that textual history in the proper sensebegins.

From the question of when, we go to the matter of where. In view ofthe clear statement in the postscript to 2 Kings (25.27-30), the conclu-sion must be that the Primary History was compiled and published inBabylon. It was intended primarily for the exiles, to explain the past,prepare them for the future and, in the meantime, guide them in theirpresent circumstances. In view of the heavy emphasis on the centralityand legitimacy of the exilic community for the future of God's people incontrast to the people left behind in the land (cf. also the books of

1. Incidentally, there is as yet no convincing evidence that Nebuchadrezzarsucceeded in conquering Egypt either, although there is a tantalizing fragmentaryinscription mentioning that the king of Babylon undertook a military expeditionagainst Egypt in the year 567. Information about the outcome is lacking.

2. Noth, OS, p. 12.


Jeremiah and Ezekiel and their metaphor of the good figs and bad figs),there can be little question as to the orientation of the Primary History.It was the core literature of the exilic community as it prepared to returnto the homeland.

We have already alluded to the why. The purpose of this great workwas essentially threefold. First, it explains the tragedy of defeat anddestruction in terms that would make sense to the exiled remnant. It wasa matter of exceptional importance to maintain a careful balance, that is,to hold fast to the traditional faith in Yahweh and his commitment to hispeople but not minimize the dimensions of the disaster. The central pointwas that Yahweh had finally punished his people for egregious violationsof the solemn pact between them. The terrible outcome was not theaction of alien gods, who exist only as idols, but of alien armies (thatpoint could hardly be denied), who unknowingly carried out Yahweh'sorders. From first to last, Yahweh is in full charge of his universe andalways decides the outcome of all political and military actions. Just asYahweh has demonstrated his moral righteousness along with his awe-some power in destroying his people, his city and his temple, so he hasboth the power and the intention to restore them. On the one hand, he isin full charge. On the other, he has not repudiated them forever. Itrequires a delicate balance, but just as the covenant mediated by Mosescontains sanctions for persistent violators, so the covenant with thepatriarchs ensures that Yahweh will never finally abandon them but willrestore them to their land. Nothing that has happened or could happenhas changed or could change the fundamental relationship, which is forall time.

Secondly, it reinforces the hope for future restoration. Just as thethreats of the covenant at Sinai/Horeb have been carried out with devas-tating effects, so the future restoration is equally guaranteed by theunconditional promises sworn to the fathers by Yahweh's solemn oath(cf. Gen. 15.7-21). As bad as the past has been, the future is sure andsecure. In the meantime, the faithful must be patient and wait for God toprovide both the occasion and the action in initiating the restoration.

Finally, it provides guidance in the present circumstances. In theinterim, between a deadly past and a hopeful future, there is muchimportant work to be done. The Jews in exile must remain Jews.Identity, in the midst of an overwhelmingly alien population must bemaintained. The way to achieve this goal is through the observance ofsuch rites as the Sabbath, circumcision and dietary restrictions, all spelled


out in detail in the Primary History.1 The new threat of assimilationwas as great as or greater than the threat of annihilation posed by theinvading armies during the last days of Israel and then Judah.

In short, with the help and support of this book of God's truth, theJews in captivity can prevail with their identity intact and return torebuild their nation as it had been once. Only this time it will be with anew spirit and a happier outcome.

We move on to the question of how and by whom. The PrimaryHistory is the product of a bold decision to combine two literary worksof considerable size and substance, the P-work and the DeuteronomisticHistory, into a single unit. The ultimate redactor ('R' or perhaps RPH)must have had the highest authority and credentials to undertake thetask set for him. It is not difficult to identify him with the priestly orders,because both the P-work and Deuteronomistic History are priestlyworks, even if they oppose and contradict each other at many importantpoints. In the end, R must be a mediator, belonging to neither camp,although presumably coming out of one of them.

In order to unite these two major writings, R had to bring togetherthe two groups in exile, the group in Babylon with its prophet-priest,Ezekiel, and the group in exile in Egypt with its prophet-priest, Jeremiah(not to overlook the professional scribe, Baruch, who certainly had alarge role to play in assembling the book of Jeremiah, and very likelyalso the Deuteronomistic History). The task was facilitated by the factthat Jeremiah and Ezekiel, though very different in many respects,agreed on most essential points. A typical compromise was reached:accept the major works of both groups and combine them with a mini-mum of damage to each. By simply combining the two complete works,discrepancies between them in matters of rules and procedures, as wellas details of the narratives, were retained in the larger work. Matters ofreconciliation or accommodation were left for future generations. Eventhe most pressing problems of conflicting rituals and the rules drawnfrom the major sources could be delayed and resolved later on, becauseneither group of priests was functioning at the time; both were far fromJerusalem, the temple was in ruins and there was time to ponder anddebate and, if possible, resolve matters of procedure. For the present, theimportant matter was to bring two groups and their authoritative writ-ings (the P-work and the Deuteronomistic History, along with the books

1. As illustrated in part by Daniel and his friends in the book that bears hisname.


of Jeremiah and Ezekiel) together on an equal basis. In the face of thelarger challenge to maintain identity and restore a real existence, theimportant decision was to merge their works and combine forces againstthe more dangerous, external threats. Only when this union had beenforged, was it possible to declare those inside (both works and people)legitimate and those outside excluded. Thus, did the canonical processreceive a powerful impetus, and the first Hebrew Bible emerge from theexilic community.

The credentials of the Jewish community in Babylon were superior tothose of any other group, whether in Egypt or left behind in Judah.Thanks to the vigorous interventions of the Babylonian monarchs, therewas only one legitimate pretender to the Judahite throne, Jehoiachin.Likewise, there was only one legitimate high priest left whenNebuchadrezzar had finished his conquest and reordered the leader-ship—Seraiah, the high priest at the time of the capture of Jerusalemand the destruction of the temple. He was executed by Nebuchadrezzar,but his son Jehozadak was recognized as the next high priest and takeninto captivity in Babylon (Jer. 52.24-27; 1 Chron. 5.41). In turn his son,Joshua, and Jehoiachin's grandson, Zerubbabel, were the chosen leadersof the community that returned from exile and set about to rebuild thetemple and re-establish a political order (Ezra 3.2). In other words, con-tinuity and legitimacy were the prerogatives of the Babylonian commu-nity, because that is where the legitimate king and high priest residedduring the exile, and it was their descendants who exercised that rightwhen the time came to return to the land. They were aided in this enter-prise by the imperial authorities, whether Babylonian in protecting them,or Persian in returning them to places of power in the restoredcommunity.

Thus, the line of legitimacy and continuity was maintained through theexile and after the return. These claims were supported by the PrimaryHistory, which had the sponsorship of the leadership, whose position itin turn supported. A tight circle had been formed, but an entirely under-standable one under the circumstances. The solution, both literary andpolitical, served the interests of the imperial authorities, whetherBabylonian or Persian, and of the exiles, both those in Babylon andthose in Egypt. The ultimate losers would be those who remainedbehind in the land. The imperial authorities would give priority to theBabylonian Jews, who constituted the elite of the nation, including espe-cially the royal and sacerdotal authorities. For the Babylonian Jews, and


especially the leadership, this was a chance to re-establish their authorityin guiding the return and future redevelopment. They would also definethe enemy, in due course, as the people left in the land, who naturallywould be expected to resist the return of the people who had departed,whether they had been forced out or departed under their own power.

In order to guarantee their success against the native-born people, theBabylonian Jews could make common cause with the Egyptian Jews,who had fled from Jerusalem and Judah after the assassination ofGedaliah and who had taken Jeremiah and Baruch with them. By com-bining forces and making whatever mutual concessions were necessary,these two groups would claim control of the first Bible (with thePrimary History combining the P-work and the Deuteronomistic Historyand books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel). This work offered firm support forreading the past tragedies, interpreting the present critical situation, andoutlining the course of future restoration. With this powerful combi-nation of forces, the local groups in the Holy Land would be over-whelmed, and the elites would reclaim their positions of power. The newBible would serve to legitimize their activities and provide a foundationfor the future by which the organization and operation of the commu-nity could be judged.

There is good reason to believe that the system worked well for sev-eral centuries until it was all swept away by the tides of Hellenism thatflooded the Near East under Alexander the Great and his successors. Bythe time of Daniel, a new order was in the making, and at least one newbook was needed to make the Bible whole and, more important, usefulin very dire times.

Returning to the Primary History, this work is at once the point ofdeparture and the point of return. Its publication constitutes the definingmoment for Scripture, when it becomes an authoritative and perma-nently fixed work of literary art. The task of literary criticism, with all itsoffshoots and parallel and subordinate undertakings, goes back from thefinished product to its sources, oral and written, just as the PrimaryHistory itself traces its story back to the very beginnings. Then it is nec-essary to retrace all of these steps, proceeding from the ultimate sourcesto the final product, which I have placed toward the end of the exilicperiod. It may, in a literary way, be compared with the mission of theprophet Jeremiah: to tear down and pluck up, but also to plant and buildup(Jer. 1.10).

The other part of the task, tracing the history of the text from the first


compilation to the final fixing of the text, and its transmission over themillennia, is just as important, and we must handle that responsibilitytoo. We must start on both tasks from that single point at which the fulltext of the Primary History emerged as a literary work around 550 BCE,probably in Babylon, most likely a product of and a message for theJewish community there, and issued under the auspices of the acknowl-edged leaders of Judah-in-exile: the royal pretender (presumably one ofthe sons of Jehoiachin who would be succeeded by Zerubbabel after-wards) and the high priest (presumably Jehozadak, to be succeeded inturn by his son, Joshua).

MARTIN NOTH AND THE FUTUREOF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY*

Walter Dietrich

In the first volume of the new journal Biblical Interpretation, which isdedicated to promoting 'contemporary approaches' to the Bible, one ofthe authors expresses astonishment at an 'emancipated' Americanscholar whose work 'is still based on the hypothesis of theDeuteronomistic History'.1 Evidently, the methods and results of thework of Martin Noth are no longer 'contemporary'.

Let us imagine for a moment that future research was not based onthe hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic History encompassing the books ofDeuteronomy-2 Kings. What would happen? One would read thesebiblical books primarily in two ways: either biblicistically as instruc-tional and factual reports on the history of the people of God or in anenlightened way as devotional and inspirational stories of Jewish writerson the fictionally constructed 'history of Israel'.

It may seem surprising, but Noth's insights into the DeuteronomisticHistory can provide a firm foundation for both a positive-literalapproach and a narrative-critical approach to the historical books of theOld Testament. On the one hand, Noth, at that time in an almost avantgarde manner, did not focus on the oldest discernible reports but ratheremphasized the final redactional form, which he dated quite late. That isto say, Noth was concerned with the 'final shape' of the text. On theother hand, he attempted to discern and evaluate the historical andtheological value of the deuteronomistic historical writing, and in thatendeavor he achieved remarkable results.

The desire to read the historical books without paying due attention toNoth's work threatens to expose those books to both pious and liberal

* Translated by Dwight R. Daniels.1. D. Jobling ('Globalization in Biblical Studies/Biblical Studies in

Globalization', BI1 [1993], pp. 96-110 [107]), in reference to Robert Polzin.


whimsy. To read them in the light of Noth's work may not be the onlyor even the most important task of Old Testament research, but it iscertainly a profitable one, and it is to this task that I wish to turn byconsidering three prominent issues raised by the DeuteronomisticHistory: the literary, the historical and the theological.

1. Unity and Diversity in the Deuteronomistic History

The Deuteronomistic History postulated by Martin Noth encompassesapproximately 160 chapters of the Bible and spans the time from theentry into the land to its loss, a period of more than half a millennium.Such a composition is unusually large for antiquity, and it includeswidely divergent materials, resulting on occasion in significant tension. Isit really possible to see this as the creation of a single person?

Eissfeldt once remarked, somewhat disparagingly, that 'the actualfather of the Deuteronomistic History' was Martin Noth himself.1

According to this view we are celebrating not only the fiftieth birthdayof US, but also of the Deuteronomistic History itself. Noth, of course,would have replied that not he but Dtr was the father of theDeuteronomistic History and that it is not fifty but about 2500 years old.And to the question as to whether, given the composite appearance ofthe child, there might be more than one 'father', Noth would have, andin fact did, answer 'no'.2 In his judgment the individual biblical booksneither underwent their own deuteronomistic redactions3 nor was there

1. Cf. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P.R. Ackroyd;New York: Harper & Row, 1965), p. 243. There, however, we find a less literal trans-lation of the original German: 'the real originator of the idea of the Deuteronomistichistorical work'. See idem, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss derApokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Tubingen: Mohr, 3rd edn, 1964), p. 323.

2. Noth's sharp eye nevertheless recognized a series of passages that appearedto be secondary additions to the work of his 'Dtr', but he considered them not to be acontinuous redaction but ad hoc additions. These include Deut. l.*2, 8bp, 21; 2.10-12, 20-23, 29b(5, 30b, 31, 37; 3.2, *8, 13a; 4.9-10, 23b, 24, 25bcc, 29-40; 31.3a, 4-6;Josh. 1.7-9; 13-22; 24; Judg. 1.1-2.5, 17; 4.1b; 10.*8; 11.12-28; (13-16); 17-21;1 Sam. 4.18b; 12.*8; 2 Sam. 21-24; 1 Kgs 2.11; 3.1-2; (S.lap, 4a, *6, 10-11,27,34);10.23-25, 27; 11.39b; 12.2-3, 12; 16.7; 21.20, 23; 2 Kgs 2.*17; 9.29; 14.25; 15.6, 32;17.34b-40; cf. US, pp. 27-87; DH, pp. 45-117.

3. For example, in Joshua and Judges as advocated by Rudolph. Cf. US, pp. 6-10; DH, pp. 20-24.

DIETRICH Martin Noth and the Future 155

an initial pre-exilic and subsequent exilic edition of the work.1 Thisdecision of the master appears to conflict primarily with the currentblock model (Blockinodell)2 of the redaction of the DeuteronomisticHistory,3 although the so-called strata model (Schichtenmodell)presumably would not fare any better in his critical eyes.4 But would hebe right?

Noth had a predilection for clearly contoured, uncomplicated(sometimes perhaps simplistic) pictures. For example, he considered theposition of Dtr on kingship to be completely negative, as could beclearly seen in the anti-monarchic strand of 1 Samuel 7-12 composedby Dtr.5 Yet this unembellished position entails a few difficulties.Interspersed among the allegedly deuteronomistic and anti-monarchictexts, there are also pre-deuteronomistic, pro-monarchic passages.6

Furthermore, in these chapters we would have the unique case of Dtrblatantly contradicting his (supposedly strictly pro-monarchic) source

1. Contra Eissfeldt, US, pp. 6 and 91, n. 1; DH, pp. 20 and 122, n. 1: 'Recentlythe notion that there were two phases of "Deuteronomistic redaction" of the booksJoshua-Kings has become popular. But the assumption that the material was firstedited in Deuteronomistic style before the exile is based on a mistaken attribution, tothis first editor, of all sorts of traditional materials, which in fact come from Dtr'ssources.'

2. On the terminology and the relationship of the various redactional models, seeH. Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in derneueren Forschung', TRu 50 (1985), pp. 213-49.

3. This model was initiated by P.M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic:Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1973], pp. 274-89; originally published as 'The Structure of the DeuteronomicHistory', in Perspectives in Jewish Learning [Annual of the College of JewishStudies 3; Chicago: College of Jewish Studies 1968], pp. 9-24) and developedespecially by R.D. Nelson (The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History[JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981]).

4. The best summary presentation of this model to date is that of its initiator,R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alien Testaments (ThW 1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 4thedn, 1988 [1978]), §19.

5. 1 Sam. 7; 8; 10.17-27; 12; cf. US, pp. 54-60, 99-100; DH, pp. 77-84, 133.6. 1 Sam. 8.1-5, 20b-22; 10.19b-27. Noth himself saw Dtr in 8.7, 22a

'follow(ing) the old tradition and its view of the monarchy' (US, p. 57; DH, p. 80)and in 10.17-27a reworking 'a traditional story of Saul's accession, found in one ofhis sources which we do not know' (US, p. 58; DH, p. 81)—all against his ownconvictions!


material.1 And if he were a committed anti-monarchist, how could hehave painted such positive portraits of David and Josiah?2

This evidence appears to support those who reckon with severaldeuteronomistic redactions. According to the block model, the preexilicredaction written in support of Josiah would naturally be pro-monarchic,while the exilic redaction, written with the collapse of the kingdom inmind, would presumably be anti-monarchic, although this issue is notdirectly addressed by the model's proponents.3 According to the stratamodel,4 the first redactor is still pro-monarchic, whereas the laterredactors of the late exilic and perhaps early post-exilic period are anti-monarchic. With both models the historical contextualizations are fairlyapparent. According to the block model, the Deuteronomists expressthemselves in conformity with their age (during the monarchy pro-monarchic, thereafter anti-monarchic), but according to the strata model,they sound counterpoints (pro-monarchic following the fall of the

1. Dtr's (ostensibly) extensive insertions in 1 Sam. 7-12 were considered byNoth to be 'Dtr's one very exceptional contradiction of the account given by hissource' (OS, p. 92; DH, p. 133).

2. That Josiah was faithful to YHWH evidently was sufficient to outweigh thestigma of being king. According to Noth, in the case of David the sources were posi-tively predisposed and the monarchy still 'an unknown quantity' (US, p. 92; DH,p. 123). Yet, the latter was even truer for Saul, who nevertheless did not benefit from it.

3. Nelson, for example, does not discuss the issue but in a completely conven-tional manner, i.e., following Noth, attributes the pro-monarchic texts to older traditionand the anti-monarchic texts to the first, pre-exilic Deuteronomist who warns againstthe negative aspects of the monarchy (Double Redaction, p. 108). M.A. O'Brien (TheDeuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment [OBO 92; Freiburg:Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989], pp. 109-28, 272-87)differentiates more extensively: the anti-monarchic series derives from the 'PropheticRecord' of the late ninth century, postulated by A.F. Campbell (Of Prophets andKings: A Late Ninth Century Document [1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10] [CBQMS 17;Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1986]); the second series is indeeddeuteronomistic, but the pro-monarchic statements in 1 Sam. 8.(l-3), 4-6a, 19-22 (andoddly, 8.11-17 as well) and 10.20-27 are attributed to the first, Josianic redactor('DTR'), the anti-monarchic statements in 1 Sam. 8.6b-10; 10.17-19; 12, on the otherhand, are attributed to various exilic reworkings. In this way O'Brien attempts toreconcile the block and the strata models—a noble and irenic, though complicatedeffort.

4. Cf. T. Veijola, Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischenHistoriographic: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, B, 198;Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).


kingdom, anti-monarchic when its restitution becomes a real possibility).1

1 confess my own sympathy for the second model: first, because Iconsider Noth's arguments for an (at the earliest) exilic origin of theDeuteronomistic History to be difficult to disprove, and secondly,because a critical theology seems to me to be more biblically based thana conformist theology.

Now there is a third possibility. Instead of attributing contrarystatements regarding kingship to various authors, one could attribute toa single author a dialectical position or the consideration of variouspositions. Perhaps Dtr did not reject the monarchy per se, but only aspecific form of monarchy considered to be irreconcilable with theTorah.2 Or perhaps he produced a narrative drama in which the variousactors—the people, Samuel, God—represent well-defined positions,while he himself remains neutral.3 However, such ambiguous signals orthe adoption of an observer's role is not the style of the Deuteronomists.They speak their minds clearly. In my opinion, Noth was correct inviewing the intention of the Deuteronomistic History to be ultimatelycritical of the monarchy, but it is possible that he underestimated thehistorical agitation of the sixth century and the theological adaptability ofthe deuteronomistic school.4

1. Cf. the controversies reflected in texts such as Hag. 1-2; Zech. 3-4 (pro) andEzek. 40-48 (contra).

2. So M. Buber ('Die Erzahlung von Sauls Konigswahl', VT6 [1956], pp. 113-73), who is followed in part by H.J. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfdnge desKonigtums in den deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des ersten Samuelbuches: EinBeitrag zum Problem des 'Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks' (WMANT 31;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969).

3. So L.M. Eslinger, 'Viewpoints and Points of View in 1 Samuel 8-12', JSOT26 (1983), pp. 61-76, and Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel1-12 (Bible and Literature Series 10; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985), especiallypp. 55-62.

4. Even DtrN of the 'Gottingen school' is not simply anti-monarchic. He has ahigh view of David (or should one say of the Davidic-messianic idea?). Cf.2 Sam. 7.26; 1 Kgs 2.4; 11.38. U. Becker ('Der innere Widerspruch der deuterono-mistischen Beurteilung des Konigtums [am Beispiel von 1 Sam 8]', in M. Oemingand A. Graupner [eds.], Altes Testament und christliche Verkundigung: Festschriftfur Antonius H.J. Gunneweg zum 65. Geburtstag [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987],pp. 246-70) sees pro-monarchic aspects in 1 Sam. 12 (DtrN), as well as anti-monarchic aspects in DtrH (to whom he surprisingly attributes the entirety of 1 Sam.8, except for v. 8). Only DtrP, the most controversial layer in the strata model, hasnothing positive to say about the kings, David included. Cf. my Prophetic und


The situation is similar for the deuteronomistic attitude toward thetemple in Jerusalem, which plays a prominent role in the History.According to Noth, this is because for Dtr, who was strongly influencedby Deuteronomy and the Josianic reform, the temple was 'the locationof the invisible divine presence' and consequently 'the one legitimatecenter for the cult'.1 Thus, he could only have 'his own favorableopinion'2 of the site.

How does this positive attitude correspond with the vehementlycritical speech of the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7? Noth correctlyrecognizes that this speech is 'fundamentally formulated', but thatbecause of his positive attitude toward the temple, Dtr could onlyunderstand this speech as 'provisional' and consequently had Nathanrefer immediately to Solomon's building of the temple (2 Sam. 7.13a).3

A completely different picture would result if there were not onesingle deuteronomistic attitude toward the temple but several thatcompeted with one another and changed over time. Precisely this couldbe reflected in 2 Samuel 7, which displays far more deuteronomisticinfluence than Noth thought.

On this point, as well as on many others,4 future research will need toclarify the issue of unity and diversity in the Deuteronomistic History.5

Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), esp.pp. 127-32 on 2 Sam. 12.

1. US, p. 105; DH, p. 140. It is hence all the more astounding that Dtr showslittle interest in the functioning of the temple cult (US, pp. 103-104; DH, pp. 137-38)and is quite tolerant of sacrificial worship outside Jerusalem in the period prior toSolomon (US, pp. 106-107; DH, pp. 140-42).

2. US, p. 99; DH, p. 132.3. US. p. 99; DH, p. 132; cf. also US, pp. 64-65; DH, pp. 88-89.4. Cf. my David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhdltnis von Religion und

Politik nach den prophetischen Uberlieferungen vom friihesten Konigtum in Israel(BWANT 122; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2nd edn, 1992), pp. 131-36, 158-59, wherethe thesis is defended that DtrH, in the exilic period, harbored a positive attitudetoward the temple and perhaps also toward its reconstruction (2 Sam. 7.1-5a, 8a|3b-9),whereas DtrN, perhaps in the early post-exilic period, sharply rejected the salvificnecessity of a temple (2 Sam. 7.5b-8acc, 10-1 la). The same dissension can be feltbehind texts such as 1 Kgs 8.16, 27; Hag. 1; Isa. 66.1-2.

5. R. Smend ('Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur deuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff [ed.], Probleme biblischer Theologie:Gerhard von Rod zum 70. Geburtstag [Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971], pp. 494-509; repr. in Smend, Die Mitte des Alien Testaments: Gesammelte Studien, 1 [BEvT


What is the basis of the work's unity, which transcends its manifestdiversity?1 How much differentiation and subtlety can a single authordisplay? How great must the differences be to indicate different authors(and different times)? With how many redactional layers should oneoperate? Or is the process to be conceived more in terms of continuousliterary additions? There are, however, limits to these types ofconsiderations, not only methodologically,2 but also chronologically.Even before Chronicles, the language and thought of the Persian periodas a whole3 represents a terminus ad quern for the Deuteronomistichistorical writing.

2. Redaction and Sources in the Deuteronomistic History

According to Noth, the tensions within the Deuteronomistic History areessentially due to the juxtaposition of redactional texts and sourcematerial. Though not one to lavish praise, he considered the work of Dtr'a work that merits our respect', because 'like an honest broker hebegan by taking, in principle, a favorable view of the material in thetraditions' and adopted wherever possible the policy of 'letting the oldtraditions speak for themselves'. Furthermore, 'we owe the preservationof valuable old material wholly and solely to this respect for the value ofold narratives and historical accounts'. This great reverence for traditionevinced by Dtr, a person of antiquity and hence of a pre-critical age, iscomparable to a great respect for historical fact.4

Here a modern historian pays tribute to a biblical colleague. Noth'sown picture of the history of Israel (and not only his!) rests in large partnot on the picture given by Dtr but on the source material preserved inthe latter's presentation.5 In the meantime, however, both Noth's view

99; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1986], pp. 124-37) made a notable foray into thequestion of the settlement—radical and national, or successive and tribal?

1. Cf. the suggestive reflections on this in my Prophetic und Geschichte,pp. 144-48.

2. The plausibility ̂ d acceptance of redactional models is inversely proportionalto their complexity. Noth's 'Dtr' is proof positive of this principle.

3. Important textual material of the Persian period includes Ezra, Nehemiah andP, as well as prophetic (Haggai, Zechariah, Joel) and sapiential (Prov. 1-9) texts.

4. OS, pp. 95-96; DH, p. 128.5. In the introduction to his Geschichte Israels (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1950, p. 46; ET The History of Israel [trans. P.R. Ackroyd; London: A. &C. Black, 2nd edn, 1960], p. 42), Noth identifies the sources of his presentation. 'In


of Dtr's use of his sources and Noth's own use of them have becomequestionable.

The first question is whether deuteronomistic and pre-deuteronomisticmaterial can always be clearly distinguished. Noth considered languageto be the surest basis for attributing individual elements of tradition toDtr. The idiosyncrasies of deuteronomistic language are so obvious forNoth that he does not even bother to list them.1 This language can befound especially in the series of summarizing and explanatory texts thatmark the decisive turning points of the work.2 Dtr formulated thesetexts himself, whereas he was otherwise very restrained with hisalterations and additions and let his sources speak for themselves,3 with

the Old Testament one must mention first of all the great (dtr) historical work.. .Theauthor of this compilation passed on numerous sources... verbatim... and without hiswork we should know very little about the earlier phases of the history of Israel'('verbatim' has been added to the English translation in accordance with the Germanoriginal). Noth could not have better honored his predecessor than by beginning hisbook not with the period depicted in the Pentateuch but with that depicted in theDeuteronomistic History. On one point, however, Noth feels obliged to expresscriticism: 'One crucial omission from his history is the institution of the sacralalliance between the twelve tribes' (US, p. 95; DH, p. 127). But how could Dtr recallsomething that was first invented in 1930 CE and in 1993 is already beginning to beforgotten (again)?

1. He describes it simply as unadorned language: The language of Dtr is verystraight-forward and dispenses with any particular artistry or refinement...Thecharacteristics of this style... are, therefore, undisputed; we need not consider them indetail' (US, p. 4; DH, p. 18). Later works have rectified this omission; cf. theextensive treatment by M. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972]).

2. In summary, and in contradistinction to Chronicles, Noth writes (US, p. 156;CH, p. 76): 'In writing his own contributions, Dtr. obviously made conscious use ofa simple, stereotyped style. It is found partly in longer speeches made by the charac-ters in question at particular historical turning points and partly in the elements whichgo to make up a framework which from time to time summarizes a given historicalperiod. It also occurs in shorter remarks which have been introduced here and there toforge connections either backwards or forwards.' He is referring to (extensivepassages from) Deut. 1-3; Josh. 1; 13; 23; Judg. 2; 1 Sam. *7-12; 1 Kgs 8;2 Kgs 17. D.J. McCarthy ('II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the DeuteronomicHistory', JBL [1965], pp. 131-38) advanced good reasons for adding 2 Sam. 7 to thelist.

3. Citing C.C. Torrey and with a slightly chiding undertone Noth contrasts thiswith the Chronicler: 'material particular to Chr. constitutes nearly half of the total'(US, pp. 156-57; CH, p. 75).


one major exception: the long anti-monarchic passages in 1 Samuel 7-12. Here he does not comment on history but steps within that historyas a narrator.1

Since Noth's day there has developed a greater willingness to reckonwith the possibility that deuteronomistic authors did not always have toemploy 'typically deuteronomistic' language. Their vocabulary mayhave been much richer than has generally—and somewhat condescend-ingly—been conceded. They could speak the language of others,specifically that of their sources. In fact, given that they reproducedthese sources, was it not ultimately necessary for them to adopt thelanguage (and the thought) contained in them?

The problem with such considerations lies in the resulting inability todefine limits. On this line of reasoning, no text between Deuteronomyand 2 Kings2 is immune to being judged 'deuteronomistic'.3 In the endthere is the danger of the indiscriminant levelling of the entire body ofmaterial into a single deuteronomistic historical narrative,4 which can be

1. Noth does not appear to have been quite comfortable with this, and so hepostulated underlying fragments of tradition for 1 Sam. 8.Iff and 10.20ff. In myopinion this is correct, except that it is not a case of fragments but of a continuouspre-deuteronomistic presentation. Cf. my David, Saul und die Propheten, 2nd edn,pp. 92-99.

2. A bit of deuteronomistic fever has also spilled over into prophetic research; cf.e.g., the two-volume Isaiah commentary of O. Kaiser (Das Buck des ProphetenJesaja, Kapitel 1-12 [ATD 17; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 5th edn, 1981];Kapitel 13-39 [ATD 18; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd edn, 1983]) andthe reply of L. Perlitt, ('Jesaja und die Deuteronomisten' in V. Fritz et al. [eds.],Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift fiir Otto Kaiser turn 65. Geburtstag[BZAW 185; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], pp. 133-49).

3. Extreme examples of this can be found in E. Wurthwein (Die Bucher derKonige. 1 Ron. 17-2 Kon. 25 [ATD 11.2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1984] and Die Bucher der Konige: 1 Kon. 1-16 [ATD 11.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1985]), C. Levin (Der Sturz der Konigin Atalja: Bin Kapitelzur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. [SBS 105; Stuttgart: KatholischesBibelwerk, 1982]) and Y. Minokami (Die Revolution des Jehu [GTA 38; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989])—all in the domain of the so-called 'Gottingenschool'.

4. This step has for the most part already been taken by R.A. Carlson (David,the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel[trans. E.J. Sharpe and S. Rudman; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964]), J. VanSeters (In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Originsof Biblical History [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983]), B. Peckham ('The


just about anything—entertaining, instructive, profound—excepthistorically meaningful for the pre-exilic period. It can be this at best forthe (post-)exilic period.

Now there can be no doubt that every word from Deuteronomy to2 Kings has come to us through the hands of deuteronomistic redaction.And there can also be no doubt that it is justified, indeed necessary, toappreciate and take seriously the form of the text that lies before us,since the final author and every postulated predecessor considered hisedition to be a complete and meaningful entity. Let us not forget that itwas Noth who, in a quite modern fashion, focused attention on the finalredaction and its techniques and intentions. I do not think he wasmistaken when he perceived a decidedly historiographic interest. Hemay have underestimated the narrative skill of his 'Dtr',1 but theisolation of source material and redactional texts remains both necessaryand possible.2 Yet it is also necessary to address questions pertaining tothe criteria to be used and the conclusions to be drawn.

For future research the 'proof from language' must certainly remainthe primary indication of deuteronomistic redaction—but not the soleindication. The classical literary-critical criteria of tensions and doubletsremain valid, primarily for distinguishing between underlying sourcesand redactional texts, possibly also between redactional layers. It can, ofcourse, be objected that such a method transforms material problemsinto historical sequences and merely attributes the inconsistencies to thefinal edition. Nevertheless, when applied with restraint and sensitivity it

Deuteronomistic History of Saul', ZAW 97 [1985], pp. 189-209), D.V. Edelman(King Saul in the Historiography ofJudah [JSOTSup 121; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1991]) and in the voluminous work of J.P. Fokkelman (Narrative Art and Poetry inthe Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and StructuralAnalyses, I, King David [II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2] [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981];II, The Crossing Fates [I Sam. 13-31 & II Sam. 1] [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986]; III,Throne and City [II Sam. 2-8 & 21-24] [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990]).

1. Although in the case of 1 Sam. 8-12 he tended instead to overestimate it!2. In the studies based on the strata model it is becoming apparent that not only

the first redaction, DtrH, but also the later redactions tapped source material uponwhich they based their presentations: DtrP upon a 'Book of Prophetic Narratives'(Dietrich, David, Saul und die Propheten, 2nd. edn, pp. 38-49), DtrN upon the fableof Jotham in Judg. 9.7-15 (Veijola, Das Konigtum, pp. 100-14) as well as the lists ofunconquered cities in Judg. 1.27-36 (Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker') and ofSolomonic construction projects in 1 Kgs 9.15ff (Dietrich, 'Das harte Joch [1 Kon12,4]: Fronarbeit in der Salomo-Uberlieferung', BN34 [1986], pp. 7-16).


affords the most plausible explanation and at the same time has theinvaluable advantage of historical depth. The Deuteronomistic Historydid not flow from a single pen but grew perceptively over time. Toconfirm this impression one need only cast a glance at the Chronicler'sHistory, which Noth incorrectly characterized as 'in disposition andkind...the nearest relative'.1 Chr.2 conceptualizes and formulates muchmore freely than the deuteronomistic redaction, and in his own way alsomore creatively. Although he draws upon older tradition (the Pentateuchand the Deuteronomistic History), his concern is not to pass them on (incontrast to the sources of the Deuteronomistic History, they continue asindependent works) but to interpret them.3

This is not to say that the deuteronomistic redactors did not intend tointerpret their sources. But in line with their primary concern, in Noth'swords, they collected, selected and 'linked the various traditions...andtried to eliminate inconsistencies between them'.4 This leads us toanother criterion for discerning redactional activity: the historical horizonof a redaction is as broad as the combined horizons of its sources.Wherever a text points beyond itself to other contexts, it is suspect ofbeing redactional in origin, whether its language is 'typicallydeuteronomistic' or not. Thus, an important criterion for the attributionof a text to a redactional layer is an overarching horizon or perspectivewhich is not confined to the individual unit. Yet this raises anotherdifficulty: in certain bodies of literature the deuteronomistic redactionwas not the first but the last to rework the older material.5

1. My translation, US, p. 156; cf. CH, p. 76.2. Not the composer of the Chronistic History including Ezra and Nehemiah, as

Noth (and many others) hold, and not the Chroniclers (plural), as D.N. Freedman('The Chronicler's Purpose', CBQ 23 [1961], pp. 436-42), who dates the first editionto the exile, holds!

3. Cf. especially T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zurliterarischen Gestaltung der historischen Uberlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).

4. VS, p. (95-)98; DH, p. (129-)131.5. Noth was aware of this problem. He reckoned with the presence of a finished

block of material in Deut. 5-30, with a pre-deuteronomistic collection of Benjaminitesettlement narratives in Josh. *2-9, curiously though not with a pre-deuteronomistic'Retterbuch' in Judg. 3-12 or 3-16 (cf. the works of W. Richter, Traditions-geschichtliche Untersuchungen turn Richterbuch [BBB 18; Bonn: Peter Hanstein,2nd edn, 1966 (1963)] and Die Bearbeitungen des 'Retterbuches' in derdeuteronomischen Epoche [BBB 21; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1964]) and then again


In the books of Samuel, for example, at least three stages are per-ceptible. First, the author of the Succession Narrative combined indi-vidual reports, perhaps also earlier compositions, in a quasi-redactionalmanner, though with great freedom, into a continuous narrative. Hisextremely critical attitude toward the monarchy has been significantlysoftened by a pro-Davidic redaction.1 It appears that this layer, which isto be dated to the mid-monarchic period and located at the court ofJerusalem, was responsible for the inclusion of the history of Saul andDavid to precede the Succession Narrative.2 The deuteronomisticredaction then took this complex of tradition and, presumably in aninitial stage, transformed it into the transition from the period of thejudges to the monarchic period. Later stages subsequently added'prophetic' and 'nomistic' material critical of the monarchy.3

The analysis is thus confronted with the question of which redactionaltexts are to be attributed to which redactional layers.4 Should largeportions be assigned to the pre-deuteronomistic levels but only small

with essentially completed blocks of tradition for the history of the first kings and,finally, from 1 Kgs 12 on with the 'Chronicles of the Kings' and collections ofprophetic narratives. Noth, however, was not interested in the redaction of these olderworks and their relationship to the deuteronomistic redaction.

1. Cf. E. Wtirtwein (Die Erzdhlung von der Thronfolge Davids—theologischeoder politische Geschichtsschreibung? [Theologische Studien 115; Zurich:Theologischer Verlag, 1974]), F. Langlamet ('Pour ou contre Salomon? La redactionpro-salomonienne de 1 Rois, I-IF, RB 83 [1976], pp. 321-79, 481-528) and myDavid, Saul und die Propheten, 2nd edn, pp. 103-13.

2. Three earlier traditions serve this redaction as sutures connecting * 1 Sam. 9-2Sam. 5 and *2 Sam. 9-1 Kgs 2: the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6),Nathan's prophecy (2 Sam. 7.11-16—extensively touched up) and the wars of David(2 Sam. 8). The order of presentation is well considered: David, having just capturedJerusalem and defeated the Philistines, brings the ark to his new residence as a ges-ture of thanks to God and then receives God's promise and God's help against allexternal enemies before having to address the internal problems of the empire and theroyal house.

3. This view agrees partly with, but is clearly distinct from, the thesis ofCampbell (Of Prophets and Kings), who advocates a 'Prophetic Record' that origi-nated in the ninth century in the circles around Elisha and spanned the period fromSaul to Jehu.

4. The next question is then: Which older traditions were utilized by each of theredactions?


amounts to the deuteronomistic level,1 or vice versa?2 A basic rule isthat the later a redactional layer or historical presentation is, the moreextensive it becomes and the broader its historical horizon.

One is certainly on deuteronomistic ground where the redactionalperspective effectively spans the entire deuteronomistic history fromsettlement to exile.3 The remaining pre-deuteronomistic material mustthen be examined to determine the extent to which it is comprised ofindividual traditions4 or—and this is likely to be the rule—of alreadyedited text complexes. In the latter case, the scope, location and intentionof the respective redaction(s) need to be clarified, and then in turn thesetext complexes examined to determine the extent to which they arecomprised of individual traditions or betray traces of redactionalactivity. Ideally, the diachronic investigation results in a historically and

1. So implicitly Noth. With regard to the Succession Narrative this is also theposition of L. Rost (Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids [BWANT3.6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926]; ET The Succession to the Throne of David[Historic Texts and Interpreters Series, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982]), whoattributed to it the utilization of the Ark Narrative, Nathan's prophecy and the reporton the Ammonite war, and hence also a many-faceted message.

2. So Veijola, who consistently credits the redaction of the entire David traditionto a deuteronomistic account. E.g., the pro-dynastic passages in 1 Kgs 1.36-37; 2.5-10 and 1 Sam. 25.*21-34 which, according to Veijola (Die ewige Dynastic: Davidund die Entstehung seiner Dynastic nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung[AASF, B, 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975], pp. 16-23,47-55), areall deuteronomistic. Veijola correctly notes that the horizon of the respective narrativesextends beyond them. It does not, however, extend backwards to Moses and forwardsto the exile but is limited to the (not yet concluded) monarchic period.

3. This appears to be the case for the prophetic 'threats' and the accompanying'notations of fulfillment' in Kings (attributed by me to DtrP; Prophetic undGeschichte). Already the Deuteronomic Moses treats the issue of prophecy preciselyfrom the perspective of its fulfillment (Deut. 18). Also, similar prophecies of disas-ter—the similarity itself betraying a broad horizon—run through the books of Kingsand are aimed first at the fall of northern dynasties and of the northern kingdom(2 Kgs 17.21-23!), and then at the decline (2 Kgs 21.10-15) and fall (2 Kgs 22.15-20) of the southern kingdom. Campbell (Of Prophets and Kings, pp. 5-11) hasobjected to this view because of the lack of deuteronomistic language. Butdeuteronomists do not always have to speak deuteronomistically. On the other hand,the strongly Jeremianic language in these texts (cf. Dietrich, Prophetic undGeschichte, pp. 70-79) is not exactly favorable to Campbell's hypothesis of a'Prophetic Record' of the ninth century.

4. DtrN seems to have been fond of employing such traditions; cf. above p. 162n. 2.


theologically differentiated picture of the incremental development1 ofthe extant 'comprehensive historical work'.2

Every source and every redaction must be examined for its historicalvalue. The narrator of the Succession Narrative, indeed even his possiblesources,3 do not dispassionately relate historical facts. They ardentlypaint historical pictures. In so doing they no doubt provide valuablehistorical information, which, however, must be carefully gleaned andprocessed. The same holds for all subsequent redactions and theirsources, whereby the historical value of the sources will generally begreater than that of the redaction. Also, the closer a source or redactionis to the events it portrays and the softer the ideological coloring inwhich it presents them, the more suitable it is for reconstructing theactual course of history. It is a direct witness for the period of its origin,4

about which, however, it rarely speaks directly but almost always

1. In both procedure and desired result, this agrees with the'Kompositionskritik' of E. Blum. In his 1984 book (Die Komposition derVatergeschichte [WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag), Blum pre-sents a model of the successive growth of the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 18-50)from the early monarchic period to the exilic period and then the Persian period forthe P-version. In his 1990 book (Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch [BZAW189; Berlin: de Gruyter]), he attempts to present the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch, of whichthe patriarchal narratives are only one component, as a single redaction that ischronologically later than the Deuteronomistic History but that precedes it both geo-graphically and thematically. Of course, this massive expansion of the history ofIsrael back to the primeval history had to have repercussions for the corpus in Deut.-2 Kgs. Hence, it is no wonder that the final redactional layer ('DtrN') cannot every-where be comprehended as the work of a single person. On this, see the observationsof Smend ('Das Gesetz und die Vb'lker') on the two layers in Josh. 1.7-9. To thismay be added texts such as Deut. 4; 1 Kgs 8 and 2 Kgs 17, which evince a lengthy,late-deuteronomistic history of interpretation.

2. This is Noth's expression (US p. 89 [Traditionswerk']; DH, p. 120).3. Such sources have been seen in the report on the war against the Ammonites

(2 Sam. *10-12) or in a series of narratives about Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. *13-20).

4. This also includes 'recent history'. It is hence precarious whenH.D. Hoffmann (Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema derdeuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung [ATANT 66; Zurich: TheologischerVerlag, 1980], p. 166) declares the tyrannical and heretical character of Manasseh tobe a deuteronomistic construct intended as a 'negative foil for the subsequent reformof Josiah', which itself has been deuteronomistically enhanced. The Deuteronomistscould hardly have been so free-wheeling with events still fresh in people's memory.


indirectly through the medium of history.1

At all levels of its development2 the Deuteronomistic History exhibitswhat might be termed a historical eros. The love of history—notnecessarily as it really was, but as it truly could have or should have orshould not have been—reveals itself in the carefully conceived mannerin which the narrators and redactors preserve historical traditions,rework them and pass them on to subsequent generations. In this sensethe Deuteronomistic History remains what Noth recognized it to be: ahistorical source of the first order.

3. Setting and Objective of the Deuteronomistic History

According to Noth, Dtr 'did not write his history...to satisfy a curiosityabout national history, but intended to teach the true meaning of thehistory of Israel...The meaning which he discovered was that God wasrecognizably at work in this history.'3

The question of the place of history in the Deuteronomistic opus hasnot only a historical but also a theological dimension. The author orauthors felt that they could best describe the activity and nature of Godby writing the history of Israel. What Israel experienced in its historywas neither random nor inadvertent, since in those experiences God wasencountered. It is therefore not inconsequential which aspects of Israel'shistory are reported and whether these reports are pure fiction or havesome basis in reality.

To be more concrete, it is theologically meaningful that Israel was notalways in possession of the land; that in the beginning Israel wasmortally threatened by its neighbors and yet, more astonishingly thanlogically, survived; that for a long time it existed in an acephalic tribalorganization before hesitantly switching to a state organization and thatits history as a state was almost constantly marked by internal and

1. This is also true for such vivid narratives as that of Jehu's putsch in 2 Kgs 9-10 (even if it only had the emaciated contours of the 'original' form suggested byMinokami, Die Revolution des Jehu, pp. 124-66) or that of the fall of Jerusalem in2 Kgs 25.

2. One may be inclined to exclude to some extent complexes such as theDeuteronomic legal corpus or the Elisha traditions, but one cannot do so completely,since at some point they too were included in a chain of historical events.

3. US, p. 100; DH, p. 134.


external struggles until it finally came to a violent end.1 One mightobject that whether or not these things actually happened is not theo-logically important but only that the history of Israel was at one time soconceived. Yet, how could such conceptions come about if not on thebasis of actually experienced (and also consciously contemplated)history? Israel's history was not that of the Egyptian or Assyrianempire; otherwise, it would not have been able to develop its pensiveand humble view of its own history.2

The history presented in the Deuteronomistic History is more ahistory of suffering than of triumph. And it is—both are intercon-nected—the history of the people, not 'history from above'. Events areviewed not from the vantage point of the pharaohs and great kings, noteven from the perspective of the Judaean kings and the Jerusalem upperclass. Noth remarks quite correctly that the 'work is not of an officialnature'.3 The great individuals and the grand events of Israel's historyare as a rule viewed cautiously, indeed skeptically and critically.4

There are two profound reasons for this posture: the experience ofactual history and faith in the God who was experienced in that history.God tolerates neither other gods nor other persons next to him. Allpeople stand together under God. It is God who guides their history, notarbitrarily but with righteousness. According to Noth the fundamentalaxiom of the Deuteronomistic History is the operation of 'a just divineretribution'.5

We can test this assessment in an area that appears to run contrary to

1. This aspect of Israel's history, which scarcely enhances a people's conceptionof itself, is expressed in a completely appropriate manner and with exquisite beautyand profundity in the introductory speeches of Deuteronomy (especially chs. 6-9).

2. The ancient Near Eastern attestations to history are all, to put it mildly,susceptible to what the deuteronomistic historians considered a mortal sin: self-aggrandizement.

3. US, p. 109; DH, p. 145.4. Characteristic is the 'law of the king' (Deut. 17.14-20), which is without

parallel in the thought world of the ancient Near East. Its earliest, perhaps pre-exilic,version probably merely stated that only an Israelite could be king (17.14, 15b).Significantly, already at this stage the nation is addressed with 'you' (singular) and as'brothers', and appears as the active subject. The remainder of the text is clearlydeuteronomistic. In v. 15a, DtrH casts a glance ahead to Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 10.19b-24)and in vv. 16-17 to Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 10.28-11.4). DtrN places the king firmlywithin the parameters of the faithful congregation (vv. 18-20).

5. US, p. 100; DH, p. 134.


the deuteronomistic theology of history: the treatment of King David. IsGod not partisanly committed to David (and his dynasty)? Is this not acase of 'history from above'? Yes and No. In this section of the biblicalhistory of David various feelings and viewpoints compete with oneanother. The narrator of the Succession Narrative sketches a deeplydivided portrait of David. The court version paints a decidedly brightpicture, not only by brightening—not removing—the dark colors of hispredecessor, but especially by beginning with the narrative of David'srise (* 1 Sam. 9-2 Sam. 5) with its luminous depiction of David and theglowing tradition of the transfer of the ark and Nathan's prophecy(2 Sam. 6; 7.11-16). At precisely this point the classical oriental do-ut-des relationship between God and king ('grant me your favor and I willprovide for your worship') looms dangerously at hand. Sensing this, thedeuteronomistic redaction inserts Nathan's prohibition of the building ofthe temple (2 Sam. 7.1-16). It also provides a concrete example of thetheoretical possibility, contained in the dynastic promise, of the'castigation' (7.14b) of the ruler: Nathan's appearance following theaffair with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12). Where the Deuteronomists portrayDavid positively, he humbles himself before God (2 Sam. 7.18-20) orNathan (2 Sam. 12.13). On the other hand, they add emphaticallydemocratic accents to the tradition and so make it clear that ultimatelyGod is concerned with the relationship to the people, not to their king(7.10, 1 la, 22-26).

What is the 'spiritual world' of this historical work? Noth observes:'nor did it come from the priestly sphere...nor is it rooted in the attitudeof the governing class'. He then seizes upon the explanation—somewhatprematurely—that 'the history was probably the independent project ofone man.'1 In view of the immense variety of the materials and sourcesutilized, the sole perpetrator theory hardly seems credible, and it runscompletely aground when one reckons not with one author but with a'deuteronomistic school'.

Noth advanced good arguments for locating this school, at least tobegin with, in Babylonian-occupied Judah, perhaps specifically in thevicinity of Bethel and Mizpah.2 It was here that the governor installed by

1. US, pp. 109-110; DH, p. 145; italics mine.2. Cf. US, pp. 58 and 110, n. 1; DH, pp. 81 and 145, n. 1. T. Veijola

(Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhanddes 89. Psalms [AASF, B, 220; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982],


the Babylonians, Gedaliah, a scion of the Shaphan family, which wasassociated with both Josiah and Jeremiah,1 sought to gather 'the poorestof the land' .2

At this point a social development comes full circle: Deuteronomicmovement, Josiah, Shaphan family, Jeremiah, the simple people—deuteronomistic school! Everything in the Deuteronomistic History hasa place in the resulting picture:3 the simple language, thought patternsinfluenced by Deuteronomy and by prophecy,4 the primacy of thepeople over against state institutions, such as the monarchy and the statecultus, and not least of all, the recognition of divine judgment in the

pp. 190-97) has expanded on this by convincingly locating lamentation ceremonies inMizpah and Bethel.

1. 2 Kgs 22; Jer. 26; 36.2. 2 Kgs 25.12, 22-26. This fits well with Jeremiah's (supposedly?) pro-

Babylonian attitude (Jer. 37, also 29) and his decision to remain in the land withGedaliah after the catastrophe (Jer. 40).

3. R. Albertz ('Die Intentionen und die Tra'ger des DeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks', in R. Albertz, F.W. Golka and J. Kegler [eds.], Schopfung undBefreiung: Fiir Claus Westermann turn 80. Geburtstag [Stuttgart: Calwer, 1989]pp. 37-53, esp. 46-47) wants to divide this picture into a Jeremianic and adeuteronomistic half: 'Im Unterschied zu den dtr. Redaktoren des Jeremiabuches, dieweder dem Tempel noch den Davididen irgendwelche Heilsbedeutung beimaBen...,waren sie [die Kreise hinter dem dtr Geschichtswerk] fest entschlossen, an diesenbeiden positiven staatlichen Heilsgaben Jahwes festzuhalten'; they were 'ausge-sprochen konservativ, nationalstaatlich und staatskultisch'. After what has been saidabove, this assessment is hardly tenable.

4. Especially the prophecy of Jeremiah, cf. my Prophetic und Geschichte,pp. 70-79. It is no accident that the book of Jeremiah not only underwent an extensivedeuteronomistic redaction but was also deuteronomistically composed. Mentionshould also be made of the deuteronomistic redaction of the books of Amos, Micahand Zephaniah. This also sheds some light on the question of the silence of theDeuteronomistic History on the prophets. Noth himself noted that 'Dtr.'s worknowhere refers to the words of what are known as the writing prophets' and that 'inDtr.'s time, collections of their prophecies did not yet exist' (US, pp. 97-98; DH,pp. 130-31). I would like to argue in the reverse direction: first, several prophets ofdisaster appear in the Deuteronomistic History; secondly, extensive deuteronomisti-cally redacted prophetic books were at the disposal of the deuteronomistic school.Why should they combine everything? The quest for material reasons for theDeuteronomists' rejection and suppression of the message of Amos, Hosea andMicah (so C.T. Begg, 'The Non-mention of Amos, Hosea and Micah in theDeuteronomistic History', BN 32 [1986], pp. 41-53) seems to me not onlyunnecessary but also inappropriate.


form of the Babylonians on the people of God.1

But the question remains whether submission to the punishing hand ofGod is the sole 'kerygma of the Deuteronomistic History' or whetherthere are in fact several 'kerygmata' .2 For Noth the situation was clear:Dtr wrote a history 'of ever-intensifying decline' and saw the divinejudgment of 587 'as something final and definitive and he expressed nohope for the future'.3

In this negative characterization Noth has found not only followers4

but also detractors. Does this work not repeatedly speak of repentanceand the new beginning it makes possible?5 Does it not also describe the

1. A glance at the attitude expressed in Lamentations may add greater clarity tothe picture. Here, too, the judgment of God is acknowledged as just (1.14, 18), but theloss of the monarchy and the temple (2.1-22; 4.20; 5.16-18) and the decimation anddeportation of the upper class (1.5-6; 4.7; 5.12) are also more intensely lamented, andthere are self-recriminations for having listened to the national prophets of salvation(2.14; 4.13). Such thoughts and the cultivated language reveal a sociologicalproximity to the upper class but also a theological willingness to repent. The labelplaced on the group responsible for the Deuteronomistic history by Albertz ('DieIntentionen', p. 49) may well be more appropriate for Lamentations: 'the children andgrandchildren of deceased or unemployed priests, temple prophets and civil servantsof the national-religious party', who sought a 'theological compromise' between'prophecy of judgment' and their own 'national-religious convictions'.

2. Cf. H.W. Wolff ('Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes',ZAW13 [1961], pp. 171-86) and N. Lohfink ('Kerygmata des deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks', in J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt [eds.], Die Botschaft und die Boten:Festschrift fur Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag [Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1981], pp. 87-100).

3. US, pp. 91, 108; DH, pp. 122, 143.4. G. von Rad called the Deuteronomistic History 'eine groBe, aus dem

Kultischen ins Literarische transponierte "Gerichtsdoxologie"' (Theologie des AlienTestaments, I [4th edn] 1962, p. 355). I myself described (only!) the work of the firstredactor, DtrH, as an 'Atiologie des Nullpunkts' (Prophetic und Geschichte, p. 141),whereas for L. Schmidt ('Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk', in HJ. Boecker etal. [eds.], Altes Testament [Neukirchener Arbeitsbiicher; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1983], pp. 101-14 [112]) it is 'ein Bekenntnis der SchuldIsraels und ein Lobpreis Jahwes'. In the block model the trajectory of decline isattributed (solely) to the second, exilic redactor.

5. Wolff ('Das Kerygma') draws upon passages considered secondary-deuteronomistic by Noth (and the 'Gottingen school'); however, though less explicit,the necessity of an 'unequivocal return to YHWH' ('riickhaltlose Hinkehr zu Jahwe',Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte, p. 141) is also indicated in primary -deuteronomistic texts.


'good' that God has done and that Israel should and can do?1 Could itpresent the conquest and consolidation of the land as such a grandsuccess;2 could it describe in such detail the construction and fate of theJerusalem temple;3 could it harbor such a positive view of David andsome of his successors4 and conclude with the notice about the pardonof the last Davidide legitimately to sit on the throne5—could it do all thatstrictly out of an antiquarian interest in the past without any thought ofor consideration for a new future made possible by God's goodness?

Noth is certainly correct that the Deuteronomistic History givesexpression to a mortifying experience of catastrophe. The question,though, is whether this has a strictly negative judgmental intention andeffect, or whether it also possesses a positive, uplifting effect. If theoverall deuteronomistic view of humankind appears more skeptical thanoptimistic, its view of God more demanding and punishing than friendlyand consoling, it is in this regard inherently related to prophetic theologyand anthropology. Perhaps it can be said that the deuteronomisticmovement marks the breakthrough of critical prophecy from marginal-ization to canonization. To be sure, this breakthrough did not occurin a single instant nor with a single person,6 but rather in stages, as

1. W. Brueggemann, The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian', Int 22(1968), pp. 387-402.

2. G.E. Wright, 'Israel in the Promised Land: History Interpreted by a Covenantof Faith', Encounter 35 (1974), pp. 318-34; cf. also the brief remark of Smend(Entstehung des Alien Testaments [4th edn], p. 124): 'Und ob man sagen darf, diebeiden groBen Themen des Landes und des Konigs seien fiir DtrH erledigteVergangenheit?'

3. Noth reflected extensively on the central importance of the temple for Dtr (US,pp. 104-107; DH, pp. 138-42) and saw that the dedicatory prayer (1 Kgs 8.44-53)has the future beyond the catastrophe in view (US, p. 108; DH, p. 143). Nevertheless,he considered only Dtr's view of sacrifices at other sanctuaries prior to theconstruction of the temple and Dtr's lack of interest in the actual temple worship tobe important. But can this really be said, given the factual situation following 587 andin light of such passages as 2 Sam. 6.13 and 1 Kgs 8.54-56?

4. According to Cross (Canaanite Myth, p. 284), the first edition of theDeuteronomistic History can 'be described as a propaganda work of the Josianicreformation and imperial program'. Individuals such as David and Hezekiah, andeven Joshua (R.D. Nelson, 'Josiah in the Book of Joshua', JBL 100 [1981], pp. 531-40), prefigure the ideal king, Josiah.

5. E. Zenger, 'Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der RehabilitierungJojachins', BZ 12 (1968), pp. 16-30.

6. Noth also clearly separates his Dtr from prophecy (US, p. 110; DH, p. 145).


attested not only in the extensive cultivation of prophetic traditionin the deuteronomistic school but also within the DeuteronomisticHistory itself.

The first edition closely followed the earlier salvific acts of YHWH—on this point all redactional models are agreed. But already at this stageit is difficult to overlook the grim mood concerning the faithlessness ofIsrael and the wrath and judgment of YHWH. In the course of theredactional history the tendency toward an unrelenting reckoning withthe past increased, while at the same time a perspective for a renewedfuture became apparent. There emerged the contours of a new self-understanding which, although arising out of historical experience,nevertheless divested itself of constitutive elements of that previoushistory. Full possession of the land, the guaranteed local presence ofYHWH in the Jerusalem temple, national sovereignty and a native kingwere no longer considered essential to Israel's existence. In this regardthe deuteronomistic movement underwent some radical rethinking,which was vital to Israel's survival in the face of one of its most severecrises.1

Martin Noth understood the Deuteronomistic History as a type oftheodicy, an attempt to comprehend and justify the divine judgment.2

Others have correctly wondered if the category of lament might not bemore appropriate:3 the presentation of the history of Israel as anextended lament over the repeated failure of the people of God and theresulting loss of the good gifts of God. But lamentation in the OldTestament (as in the entire ancient Near East) entails various aspects:that associated with woe and that associated with accusation, that asso-ciated with the acquiescence to one's suffering and that associated withthe refusal to acquiesce.4 Of these, Martin Noth was prone to focus on

1. It must be seriously questioned whether in the eyes of the Deuteronomists theBabylonian exile was so incomparably more significant than other catastrophes, asmodern (nota bene: Christian!) research maintains (and not just in the interests of aclear distinction between 'Israel'/pre-exilic and 'Judaism'/post-exilic). Israelite-Jewish history is, lamentably, full of catastrophes, including that of 30 or 33 CE, aswell as those of 722 BCE, 70 CE and during 'the thousand year Reich'.

2. Cf. the formulation, citing Noth, of J.N. Carreira ('Formen des Geschichts-denkens in altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Geschichtsschreibung', 5Z31[1987], pp. 36-57 [56]): 'eine grandiose Theodizee in Form einer Erzahlung'.

3. Veijola (Verheissung, pp. 206-207), picking up some intimations of Zimmerliand Westermann.

4. Cf. C. Westermann, Lob und Klage in den Psalmen (Gottingen:


the aspects of resignation and to neglect the aspects of innovation.The Deuteronomistic History indicts not Israel generally but early

Israel, and not early Israel generally but Israel after the settlement inCanaan, and even then not generally but only for specific eras betweenwhich good periods were interspersed. During the monarchy it blamesprimarily the kings.1 In short, those responsible for the disaster areidentified. This occurs in the laments in order to make the guilt pun-ishable and hence to allow the suffering to cease.2 Those accused in theDeuteronomistic History have long ago atoned for their guilt3—mostrecently through the two deportations of the politically responsible upperclass to Babylonia.4 So what stands in the way of YHWH's turning inlove and forgiveness toward those left behind in Judah?

Furthermore, nothing in the deuteronomistic presentation of historysuggests that the allocation of guilt occurs only within and not alsowithout. Are the motives of Israel's enemies—the Midianites, Philistines,Assyrians and finally the Babylonians—beyond reproach? Clearly Godbrings about Israel's deserved punishment through them, but that doesnot in itself legitimize their actions. This is indicated by the fact that,when Israel placed its trust in and followed God, the nation won variousvictories over its enemies, even when these had previously been God'schosen instruments. If God had not allowed Israel's trees to reach to theheavens, would those of Israel's enemies have been allowed to reachsuch heights?

Finally, in the laments God also frequently stands accused. NoDeuteronomist would maintain that God's punishments of Israel were

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 5th edn, 1977), pp. 125ff.1. The issue is not simply improper cultic activity. The Deuteronomists are not

nearly as myopic as their reputation would have it; cf. Judg. 8-9; 19-21; 1 Sam. 11-12; 1 Kgs21.

2. This is the purpose of the individual and corporate laments sung when ene-mies threaten or attack.

3. The unfaithful generations of the period of the judges through enemy attacks,the immoral kings through both external and internal enemies. In this regard there ismuch latitude for shaping and adopting old tradition: Saul's punishment lies in hisrejection in favor of David and in his defeat at the hands of the Philistines, that ofDavid in the revolts of his sons, that of Solomon in the loss of vassals and northerntribes, that of most northern dynasties in their overthrow, etc.

4. In particular, the members of the royal household were subjected to especiallysevere punishments; cf. 2 Kgs 24.15 and 25.7. Can the notice in 2 Kgs 25.27-30 beinterpreted in this light, as a sign that even the guilt of the kings has been atoned?


arbitrary.1 But the punishment did not have to be as it was, nor did Godhave to insist further on divine rights. Many instances in theDeuteronomistic History show that God could also place mercy beforejustice.2 Why should God not do likewise in the current situation of theexile?

The blow inflicted by the Babylonians had shattered something veryprecious to Israel: a picture, painted in bright and soothing colors, ofitself, of its God YHWH and of its relationship to YHWH. TheDeuteronomistic History attempts to show that already at an early stagethe canvas on which that picture was painted had the cracks and tearsthat inevitably led to its deterioration. But although the canvas had beendestroyed, what was depicted in the picture had not: YHWH (althoughone could very well have lost faith in YHWH), Israel (although it wasexposed to mortal dangers) and the exclusive relationship betweenYHWH and Israel (although it now seemed at an end). TheDeuteronomistic History presents YHWH as the one who was, is andremains turned toward Israel, whether in affection or in anger. ForGod's anger is nothing other than the form of God's turning towardIsrael that is appropriate to Israel's turning away from God. Why shouldGod not again be able to turn toward Israel in affection?3

1. Given the movement from the sin of (only) the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2.11-17)to the punishment of (all) Israel in the defeat by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4), Eslinger('Viewpoints') considers this idea at least a possibility. He then draws (excessively)far-reaching conclusions from this for the roles played by the participants in theconflict of 1 Sam. 8-12.

2. And that not only when a guilty person repents (2 Sam. 12.13-14;1 Kgs 21.27-29), but also when it is completely undeserved. Cf., e.g., the passageswith n(y)r (1 Kgs 11.36; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19), which are incorrectly interpreted by someexegetes as evidence of a pre-exilic historical work that does not yet reckon with thejudgment of 587.

3. Our calculating mode of thought demands the prior repentance of Israel, yetthe Deuteronomistic History speaks of this only in a few, late passages (a point notsufficiently appreciated by Wolff, 'Das Kerygma'). Israel's hope depends not on itsability to return to YHWH but on YHWH's willingness to turn to Israel. This alternativeis profoundly contemplated in Hosea (cf. J. Jeremias, 'Zur Eschatologie desHoseabuches', in Jeremias and Perlitt [eds.], Die Botschaft und die Boten, pp. 217-34) and in Deuteronomy (cf. L. Perlitt, ' "Evangelium" und Gesetz imDeuteronomium', in T. Veijola (ed.), The Law in the Bible and Its Environment[Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 51; Helsinki: Finnish ExegeticalSociety; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990], pp. 23-38).

Part II

THE BOOKS OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY

Thomas Romer

1. Martin Noth and Deuteronomy

a. Research on Deuteronomy before Martin NothWhen Martin Noth wrote his US in 1943, Deuteronomy was not a focusof attention in Old Testament scholarship. Since Wellhausen, it had foundits (maybe somewhat special) place in the Documentary Hypothesis. Theidentification of the 'Urdeuteronomium' with the lawbook of Josiah'sreform had been widely accepted since de Wette's 'Dissertatio critico-exegetical',1 and Noth did not find it necessary to dispute the point.2 Ofcourse, the reconstruction of the nucleus of Deuteronomy was debatedand literary-critical approaches proliferated. In the 1940s most scholarstook the book of Deuteronomy to be a combination of different editionsof an original work. This view was made credible to German scholarshipthrough Steuernagel's commentary on Deuteronomy,3 to which Nothoften refers. Noth's US contributed significantly toward halting this'multiple editions-hypothesis'. Quoting Holscher,4 he declared such anidea 'implausible because of the contrived and complicated literary pro-cesses which it presupposes'.5 For Noth, as for others, the original edi-tion of Deuteronomy lay in chs. 6-28*, especially in the passages with

1. 'Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchilibris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur' (Jena,1805). For the history of research on Deuteronomy before Noth, cf. S. Loersch, DasDeuteronomium und seine Deutungen: Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher Uberblick(SBS 22; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967).

2. Noth, US, p. 92, n. 1; DH, p. 124, n. 1.3. C. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HKAT 1.3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1923).4. G. Holscher, 'Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums', ZAW 40

(1922), pp. 161-225.5. Noth, OS, p. 16; DH, p. 32.

ROMER The Book of Deuteronomy 179

singular addressees.1 There was nothing very new here. The novelty inNoth's treatment of Deuteronomy consisted in ascribing it a new con-text—the 'Deuteronomistic History'. It is astonishing to discover,though, that the book of Deuteronomy did not play a major role inNoth' s conception of the Deuteronomistic History.

b. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic HistoryIn order to describe the structure and coherence of the DeuteronomisticHistory, Noth began his inquiry with the books of Joshua-Kings, 'inwhich Dtr is most conspicuous'.2 The whole description of particularfeatures of the Deuteronomistic History—the insertion of speeches atcrucial points of history, stylistic and linguistic uniformity and the use ofold traditions—was made without any reference to Deuteronomy.3 Thelatter came into consideration only when Noth dealt with the actualbeginning of the History. This beginning did not seem very clear cut toNoth, so he proceeded by via negationis. He stated that 'there is no signof "deuteronomistic editing" in Genesis-Numbers'4 (a view that is lessobvious today than it was to Noth). Hence, the most likely beginning ofthe Deuteronomistic History was Deuteronomy, where direct links tothe following history (31.1-13; 34*) appeared for the first time.

More important still was Noth's observation that Deuteronomy 1-3(4) did not function as an introduction to the Deuteronomic law(chs. 12-25), but as a prelude to the entire Deuteronomistic History.This thesis explains why these chapters have no essential contact withthe law and why they contain doublets to the exodus and wildernesstraditions of the Tetrateuch.5 Herein lies one of Noth's major contribu-tions to research on Deuteronomy, since his insights are still acceptedtoday (with some modifications) by most scholars.6 According to Noth,

1. Noth, OS, pp. 16-18; DH, pp. 32-33.2. Noth, OS, p. 4; DH, p. 18.3. Noth, US, pp. 3-12; DH, pp. 17-26. The English translation is problematic on

p. 24 (US, p. 10). Noth does not say that the unity of the Deuteronomistic History isapparent 'only' when considering the use of material from the old tradition. Theexpression he uses ('erst recht') should be translated 'especially'.

4. Noth, 05, p. 13; DH, p. 28.5. Noth, OS, pp. 13-15; DH, pp. 28-30.6. See the statement of M.A. O'Brien, The Deuteronomistic History

Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 56 and the history of research on Deut. 1-3 by


with chs. 1-3*, and 31, 34* Dtr provided a framework that placed thelaw into historiography, as read in 4.44-30.20. Noth's further interest inDeuteronomy was therefore limited to the framework. There was nomore need for him 'to consider the literary history of the DeuteronomicLaw in further detail'.1 This did not mean that the kernel of chs. 5-30came from a single hand; rather, Noth concluded that it had undergonea great deal of unrelated editing, to which belong the passages withplural addressees as well as the Decalogue in ch. 5. Although Nothavoided a detailed investigation of this point, it is clear that a diachronicanalysis of Deuteronomy can hardly do with only two layers(Deuteronomic and deuteronomistic). In his analysis of the framework,Noth detected a large number of later additions to the work of Dtr.

c. Deuteronomy and DiachronyAfter a somewhat general presentation of the structure and purpose ofthe Deuteronomistic History, Noth examined in detail the texts that heconsidered deuteronomistic creations. Deuteronomy Iff. and 30ff. werecharacterized as the 'History of the Mosaic Period'.2 The following tablesummarizes Noth's results.3

text1.1-5

1.6-8

1.9-181.19-46

2.1-25

source Dtrfragment of a lost 1.1,2+ "OK1? in 5accountlost source 1.6, 7*, Sabcc

cf.Exod. 18; Num. 11same traditions that liebehind Num. 13-14

informational items dif-ferent from Numbers

1.9-181.19-20,22-27,28*,31b-32,34,35*,36,39apb, 40-46

2.1-6, 8,9aa, 13-17,24aa

additions3,4,5*

'land of the Canaan-ites' in 7, 8b|3

21 (sing.), 'cities...'in 28, 3la (sing.), 33,'evil generation' in35,37,38, 39aa7 (sing.), 9a|3b-12,18, 19 (sing.), [20-23], 24a|3b, 25

H.D. Preuss, Deuteronomium (ErFor 164; Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1982), pp. 75-84.

1. Noth, US, p. 16; DH, p. 32.2. Cf. Noth, US, p. 27; DH, p. 45, where Noth discusses sources used by Dtr

and later additions to the deuteronomistic work.3. A.N. Radjawane ('Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Bin Forschungs-

bericht', TRu 38 [1974], pp. 177-216) sums up the texts that Noth consideredtraditional and those he thought were written by Dtr himself. But, except for Deut. 1-3, he does not take into account the complexity of Noth's analysis.


text source2.26-3.22 source lost to us,

and Num. 21

3.23-294.1-40

Dtr2.26-29aba, 30a, 32-36,3.1,3-7,8*, 12,13a

additions29bp(lpl.),30b,31,37 (sing.); 3.2(sing.), 8*, 9-11,13b, 14-22

3.23-29questionable whether Deut. 4* is to beattributed to Dtr or seen as later addition

31.1-8

31.9-24 on the basis of anactual practice

34.1-12

1-2, 5-8,10-14, 22-23aba, 25-27

31.1-2,7-8

31.9aa,(10, llapb,12b-13 added laterpossibly by Dtr him-self), 22-24

34.1,* 4-6 (onlyfragments)

(sing.: secondary)3-4, 9, 19-21, 23bp,24, 29-40; 15-18('perhaps')3a, 4, 6b (sing.); 3b,5-6a9apb(?), llaa, 12a(sing.), 14-15 + 23,16-22, 27-30

32.1-52

33.1-29 (multipleinsertions)1*, 2, 3, 7-12

This list shows that Noth was aware of the diachronic problems of thedeuteronomistic framework of Deuteronomy. He considered at least halfof chs. 1—4, 31-34 as later insertions by various redactors or glossators.But Noth was not interested in going into detail regarding the layers andcharacteristics of these additions. As will become clear, through this gapin his research Noth (unwittingly) paved the way for several diachronictheories positing two or three Deuteronomists or more in Deuteronomyand the Deuteronomistic History.

As far as the kernel of Deuteronomy is concerned, Noth held thatthere were manifold insertions, as we have seen. But none of these'unconnected additions'1 is linked to the deuteronomistic layer ofchs. 1-3, 31, 34.2 We may, then, conclude that Noth's main interest inDeuteronomy lay in the analysis of the deuteronomistic framework. Hescarcely used Deuteronomy to describe deuteronomistic ideology. Of

1. Noth, US, p. 17; DH, p.32.2. The English translation (DH, p. 135) indicates that 9.9ff. and 10. Iff. were

written by Dtr, but the German original (US, p. 101) suggests that these texts weretheological Vorlagen for Dtr.


course, he stated that 'Dtr. has centered his history on the themeof worship of God as required by the law,'1 but he did not investigatethe structure and editing of the law any further; he merely remarkedthat 'law' for Dtr meant the ordinances about worship of 'other gods'and cultic centralization and that 'he apparently ignores the rest ofthe law',2 Nevertheless, Noth detected theological continuity betweenDeuteronomic law and Dtr, when he implied that all texts inDeuteronomy that mention the possibility of a new future after judg-ment were very late additions, attributable to the final redactors of thePentateuch.3 A few remarks about the link between Deuteronomy andPentateuch, are, thus, in order.

d. Deuteronomy and the PentateuchFrom Wellhausen to von Rad, critical scholarship had seen in the bookof Joshua the logical conclusion to the account of Israel's origins as toldby the Pentateuchal sources. It was therefore common to speak ofa Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch.4 Noth's investigations onDeuteronomy made this perception much less attractive: if the first

1. Noth, OS, p. 103; DH, p. 137.2. Noth, US, p. 94; DH, p. 125. In 1940 Noth wrote Die Gesetze im Pentateuch:

Ihre Voraussetzungen und ihr Sinn (Schriften der Konigsberger gelehrtenGesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 17.2; Halle/Saale: Niemeyer; repr. inGesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament [TBii 6; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 3rdedn, 1966], pp. 9-141; ET, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays [London:SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1984]). In this essay he intended to show that theDeuteronomic law had been 'perverted' by the Josianic reform, because it was usedexclusively to legitimate the centralization of worship (cf. pp. 55-67). In his 1938article, '"Die mit des Gesetzes Werken umgehen, die sind unter dem Fluch"', in Inpiam memoriam Alexander von Bulmerincq (Abhandlungen der Herder-Gesellschaftund des Herder-Institut zu Riga 6.3; Riga: Plates), pp. 127-45 (repr. in GesammelteStudien, pp. 155-71), it becomes quite clear that Noth is aware of the diachronicproblems of Deut. 12-26.

3. Noth, US, p. 109; DH, p. 144. The passages in question are especially Deut.4.29ff.; 10.16; 30. Iff. Noth refers to G. von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium(BWANT 47; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929), pp. 70-71; repr. in Gesammelte Studienzum Alien Testament II (TBii 48; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1973), pp. 9-108 (78-79).

4. Cf. von Rad's famous Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch(BWANT 78; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938) repr. in Gesammelte Studien zum AlienTestament (TBu 8; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 4th edn, 1971), pp. 9-86; ET, TheProblem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1984).


corpus into which Deuteronomy was incorporated was theDeuteronomistic History, then there was no reason to posit a Hexateuch.For Noth, the absence of Pentateuchal sources in the book of Joshuamade a Hexateuch impossible.1 The Pentateuch therefore was a late con-struction brought about by the excision of Deuteronomy from theDeuteronomistic History and its insertion into the structure of thePriestly writing.2 This view implies a radical change in the interpretationof Deuteronomy: it should no longer be read as the end of thePentateuch but as the beginning of the Deuteronomistic History.Perhaps Noth did not realize the dynamite that this new orientation heldin reserve, since he remains quite conservative on the subject of therelationship between the 'Tetrateuch' and Deuteronomy. He takes it forgranted that in Deuteronomy, Dtr 'has taken over some of the materialfrom the old "Hexateuchal" sources' and 'obviously assumes a knowl-edge of the content of these sources'.3 Nowadays scholars are lesscertain about this point. The question of the 'parallel traditions' inDeuteronomy and Genesis-Numbers is presently one of the centralissues in the debate on the Pentateuch.

To sum up Noth's main contributions to research on Deuteronomy,we may say that the insertion of Deuteronomy into the DeuteronomisticHistory opened three major issues: (1) the question of diachrony before,during and after the deuteronomistic editing; (2) the question ofdeuteronomistic ideology in the book of Deuteronomy and (3) the ques-tion of the growth of the Pentateuchal traditions. Other points to whichNoth paid less attention, but which played a major role in the discussionafter him, were: redaction and composition of the Deuteronomic lawcode and, more generally, compositional techniques in the book as awhole.

1. Noth came to this insight in 1938 while working on his commentary onJoshua (Das Buch Josua [HAT 1.7; Tubingen: Mohr, 2nd edn, 1953). In US he dealswith it in an appendix (pp. 180-216) that may be found in translation in CH, pp. 107-47.

2. With the majority of critics, Noth considered Deut. 34.1 *, 4-9 as belonging toP and 32.48-52 as a secondary repetition of Num. 27.12-14 (P). Cf. US, pp. 190-91;CH, pp. 121-22.

3. Noth, OS, p. 96; DH, p. 129.


2. Issues since Noth

a. Diachronic IssuesThe problem of the different strata and the 'Numeruswechsel'. Fromthe start, critical scholarship used the mixing of second person singularand plural forms of address in Deuteronomy as a criterion to determinestages of growth.1 In his diachronic analysis of the deuteronomisticframework, Noth employed this criterion. He considered parts written inthe plural as the original deuteronomistic layer and the singular sectionsas later additions.

In 1962, Minette de Tillesse, who thought of himself as one of themost faithful followers of Noth,2 applied this distinction to the wholebook of Deuteronomy, claiming that all sections of chs. 5-30 with pluralforms of address belonged to Dtr; texts written in the singular shouldthen be seen as belonging to the original form of Deuteronomy.3 In aletter to Minette de Tillesse, Noth agreed with this thesis and concededthat it was a mistake not to expect traces of deuteronomistic editingwithin Deuteronomy.4 This was an important modification of Noth'sinitial approach.5 Soon, however, Minette de Tillesse's work appearedtoo schematic, and literary-critical analysis working with the criterion ofthe Numeruswechsel produced a multiplicity of Deuteronomic anddeuteronomistic layers.6

1. For the history of research on the Numeruswechsel before Noth, cf.C.T. Begg, 'The Significance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The "Pre-History" of the Question', ETL 55 (1979), pp. 116-24.

2. Cf. what he wrote in the 'complements' to the Portuguese translation of US inRevista Biblica Brasileira 10 (1993), pp. 229-67.

3. G. Minette de Tillesse, 'Sections "Tu" et Sections "Vous" dans leDeuteronome', VT 12 (1962), pp. 29-87; 'Martin Noth et la "Redaktionsgeschichte"des livres historiques', in C. Hauret (ed.), Aux grands carrefours de la revelation etde I'exegese de I'Ancien Testament (Recherches bibliques 8; Paris: Desclee, deBrouwer, 1967), pp. 51-75.

4. This letter is quoted by Minette de Tillesse in his 'complements' (cf. n. 2),pp. 236-37.

5. Cf. the remarks of S.D. McBride, 'Deuteronomium', TRE 8 (1981), pp. 530-43 (538).

6. Cf. especially F. Garcia Lopez, 'Analyse litteraire de Deuteronome V-XI',RB 84 (1977), pp. 481-522; 85 (1978), pp. 5-49 and Y. Suzuki, 'The"Numeruswechsel" in Deuteronomy' (PhD dissertation, Claremont GraduateSchool, 1982); Linguistic Studies in Deuteronomy (Japanese; Tokyo, 1987). Suzuki


There were, however, other voices claiming that the alternationbetween passages in the singular and in the plural should be explaineddifferently. For Buis and Leclerq this phenomenon reflected a strategyof oral discourse and could be found in other oral cultures.1 Lohfinkinterpreted the Numeruswechsel as belonging to the stylistic instrumen-tation of the authors of Deuteronomy.2 Indeed, it seems hazardous touse the Numeruswechsel as an automatic criterion in the diachronicanalysis of Deuteronomy. First, we must remember that changes fromplural to singular addressees occur in many other texts outside ofDeuteronomy that do not all belong to the Deuteronomic/ deuterono-mistic tradition (cf. Exod. 23.20-33; Lev. 19 and extra-biblical texts suchas the Sefire inscription).3 Moreover, even within Deuteronomy we findtexts (ch. 4;4 6.1-3; 11 and many others) where it is impossible topostulate another stratum for each change in addressee. This does notmean that all occurrences of the Numeruswechsel can be explained onstylistic grounds, as Lohfink, Braulik and others have argued. There areindeed in Deuteronomy several occasions where the change of addressseems to coincide with other literary-critical criteria, as for instance in10.14-19, 20-22 or 12.2-12, 13-28.5 Nevertheless, it appears that most ofthe literary-critical problems of Deuteronomy do not coincide withNumeruswechsel. The diachronic problem of Deuteronomy appearsmuch more complex.

finds 10 different strata in Deuteronomy. Cf. the presentation by K.-H. Walkenhorst,'Neueste Deuteronomiumforschung in Japan', BZ 33 (1989), pp. 81-92.

1. P. Buis and J. Leclerq, Le Deuteronome (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1963), p. 9.2. N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Erne Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungs-

fragen zu Dtn 5-11 (AnBib 20; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963),pp. 239-58.

3. For other examples, see K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in OldTestament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings (Oxford: D. E. Green; Philadelphia:Fortress, 1971), p. 33, n. 71.

4. As A.D.H. Mayes (Deuteronomy [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London:Morgan & Scott, 1981], p. 36), rightly puts it, the diachronic use of theNumeruswechsel in those texts 'succeeds only in doing unacceptable violence to thetext'.

5. Cf. Preuss, Deuteronomium, pp. 50-52, 133-34. But even in these texts theNumeruswechsel is not easy to interpret. In the plural section, 10.20-22, v. 22 canvery well be considered a later addition since it is probably dependent on Priestlypassages (cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy , pp. 211-12), and in Deut. 12, one generallyconsiders the plural passage as combining two different strata (cf. R. Smend, DieEntstehung des Alien Testaments [ThW 1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978]), p. 73.


Presently, most scholars agree that within Deuteronomy 5-30an important number of 'deuteronomistic' texts can be detected.Deut. 5. Iff.; 9.7ff. and others show clear thematic and linguistic links tothe deuteronomistic framework. Other units such as 28.45ff.; 29.21ff. or30.Iff. presuppose the events of 597-587 BCE. Often, thosedeuteronomistic texts seem to be the product of more than one hand.Indeed, scholars have discovered several deuteronomistic strata inchs. 5ff., even in the legal texts.

German language exegetes are considerably influenced by the'Gottingen school' model,1 which applies to the whole DeuteronomisticHistory. According to Smend and his followers, three major strata haveto be distinguished in the Deuteronomistic History: DtrH (the exilicdeuteronomistic 'historian'), DtrP (the deuteronomistic 'prophetic'redactor, basically limited to the books of Samuel and Kings)2 and DtrN(the [post-]exilic deuteronomistic 'nomist', whose work should bedivided further into DtrNi, DtrN2, etc.).3 DtrH covers Deut. 1.1 to2 Kgs 25.21; DtrN probably starts in Deut. 1.5 (or already in theTetrateuch?) and ends with 2 Kgs 25.30.4 This theory offers a systemati-zation of the supposed complexity of deuteronomistic strata.Nevertheless, it introduces new problems into the debate. First, asMcKenzie puts it, 'the proponents of this approach have not producedan entirely clear picture of the three redactors'.5 The Smend school isespecially silent about the redactional history of Deuteronomy.

The question of the nature and extent of the different layers inDeuteronomy and the rest of the Deuteronomistic History has not yetbeen satisfactorily resolved. It is not convincing to designate onedeuteronomistic stratum 'nomistic', when the whole deuteronomisticconcern is about the law of YHWH. And do we really have linguistic orother criteria that enable us to trace a specific deuteronomistic layer

1. Cf. the presentation of W. Roth, 'Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk/Deuteronomistische Schule', TRE8 (1981), pp. 543-52.

2. Cf. W. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).

3. Cf. Smend, Entstehung, pp. 71 -73, 114-25.4. H. Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende

in der neueren Forschung', TRu 50 (1985), pp. 213-49 (231-35), gives a convenientsummary of the (sometimes different) opinions of the Smend school. Cf. alsoF. Langlamet's review of Dietrich's book in RB 81 (1974), pp. 601-606.

5. S.L. McKenzie, 'Deuteronomistic History', ABD 2 (1992), pp. 160-68 (163).


from beginning to end? It is, therefore, not astonishing that Smend'scolleague in Gottingen, Lothar Perlitt, charged with a monumentalcommentary on Deuteronomy and Doktorvater of several theses onDeuteronomy,1 shows more caution in defining the different layers inthe book.2 He insists that, contrary to the prophetic books, none of theDeuteronomic or deuteronomistic layers in Deuteronomy attests anyspecific language, which means that 'stylistic problems' in Deuteronomyare very difficult to interpret.3 Perlitt therefore considers the reconstruc-tion of the redactional history of Deuteronomy to be virtuallyimpossible.4

Perlitt's students have been more optimistic. Knapp's literary-criticalanalysis of Deuteronomy 4 discovered three 'late' deuteronomisticlayers, which reappear in chs. 29-3O5 and provide a triple frame forchs. 5-28.* All of these layers presuppose the first (exilic) edition of theDeuteronomistic History in which Deut. 3.29 is followed by 4.45, whichmeans at least four deuteronomistic strata. Knapp is certainly right inpointing out the multiple links between chs. 4 and 29-30,6 as well as thedeuteronomistic concern of a constant reactualization. But he fails toinvestigate the literary relationship between his threefold frameworkand the framed chapters. Achenbach has analyzed a new part ofthese chapters: chs. 5-11, where he discovered a large number7 of

1. D. Knapp, Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analyse und theologischeInterpretation (GTA 35; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987); J. Buchholz,Die Altesten Israels im Deuteronomium (GTA 36; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1988); R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheifiung und Gebot:Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5-11 (EHS.T 422; Frankfurt:Peter Lang, 1991). These works (and others) are critically presented in H.D. Preuss,'Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', TRu 58 (1993), pp. 229-64 (237-42).

2. L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium (BK 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1990).

3. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, p. 38.4. Deuteronomium, p. 37.5. Knapp, Deuteronomium 4. Stratum I: 4.1-4, 9-14; 29.1b-14*; II: 4.15-16a,

19-28; 29.15-27*; III: 4.29-35 (vv. 36-40 are a later addition); 30.1-10. I and IIbelong to the exilic, HI to the post-exilic period.

6. Cf. also A.D.H. Mayes, 'Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism ofDeuteronomy', JBL 100 (1981), pp. 23-51.

7. This recalls the Jena dissertation of R. Stahl ('Aspekte der Geschichtedeuteronomistischer Theologie: Zur Tradltionsgeschichte der Terminologie und zurRedaktionsgeschichte der Redekompositionen' [1982]; cf. 7LZ 108 [1983], cols. 74-76), who postulates about 10 deuteronomistic strata.


deuteronomistic, late-deuteronomistic and post-deuteronomisticlayers1—too many, in fact, to count. In a way, Achenbach confirms thecommon idea that the original introduction to the Deuteronomic law isin 6.4-5, 10-13.2 But, according to him, this text belongs already to theexilic period,3 so that there is no pre-exilic (Josianic) introduction to theDeuteronomic law code in chs. 12ff. This conclusion is the outcome of atype of research that centers more and more on the deuteronomisticcharacter of Deuteronomy.4

All of these works depend on Noth's thesis that deuteronomistic edit-ing of Deuteronomy (and the Deuteronomistic History) means exilicediting. However, this idea has been challenged, especially by Americanscholarship. Following Cross's work on the Deuteronomistic History,5

the first deuteronomistic layer in Deuteronomy is dated to the Josianicperiod, and for Friedman,6 Deuteronomy shows clear indications of anoriginal Josianic edition of the Deuteronomistic History (in texts such as6.5; 9.21; 12.1ff.; 17.8-12; 34.10) that ends in 2 Kings 23. To the exiliclayer of deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr2) belong 4.24-31; 8.19-20; 28.36-37, 63-68; 29.21-27; 30.15-20; 31.16-22, 28-30; 32.44; plus the insertedsong of Moses.7 However, neither Friedman nor other representatives ofthe Cross-school8 have offered a thoroughgoing analysis of the Josianic

1. Achenbach, Israel. He quite often uses the criterion of the Numeruswechsel.According to him, a text that used the singular was reworked by a redaction that pre-ferred the plural. Then several 'singular' reworkings took place.

2. Achenbach, Israel, pp. 180-82.3. Achenbach considers Deut. 6.4-5, 10-13 younger than Josh. 24 but older than

Josh. 23.4. Cf. also J. Vermeylen (Le Dieu de la Promesse et le Dieu de I'Alliance: Le

dialogue des grandes intuitions theologiques de I'Ancien Testament [LD 126; Paris:Cerf, 1986], pp. 118-22), who discovers three Deuteronomists in Deuteronomy(Dtr575, Dtr560, Dtr525). More problematic is the thesis of Preuss, Achenbach andothers that the law code was not included in the first edition of DeuteronomisticHistory. I agree with O'Brien (Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, pp. 47-48) thatthere are no convincing reasons to support such an idea.

5. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of theReligion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 274-89.

6. R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of theDeuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981),esp. pp. 7-10.

7. Friedman, Exile, pp. 26-27.8. Such as R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

(JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).


history in Deuteronomy or the other books of Deuteronomistic History.The first to do this was Mayes, followed by Peckham and O'Brien.1

Each of these authors attempts a rapprochement between the Smendand Cross schools of interpretation. Mayes attributes the historicizationof the 'Law of Moses' (Deut. 6-25*) to the Josianic historian who pro-duced the Deuteronomistic History. In Deuteronomy this historian'swork is especially manifest in chs. 1-3;* 5;* 9-10;* 12.8-12, 16; 31.1-8,14-15, 23; 34.1-6. A second redaction appears in texts such as 4.1-40;6.10-18; 7.4-5, 7-16, 25-26; 8.1-6, lib, 14b-16, 18b-20; 10.12-11.32;12.1-7, 32; 14.1,14-21; 15.4-6; 17.2-3; 25.17-19; (26.1-15); 26.16-27.26;28(7); 29-30; 32.45-47. This redaction is ascribed to an exilicdeuteronomistic 'editor' who stands quite close to Second Isaiah. Heemphasizes the demand for exclusive worship of YHWH and obedienceto the law and comes near to the DtrN of the 'Gottingen school'. In10.8-9; 11.29-30; 27.1-8, 11-26; 31.9-13, 24-29, Mayes discovers signsof a third deuteronomistic redaction. He also isolates post-deuteronomistic additions that reflect the literary stage at whichDeuteronomy became part of the Pentateuch (e.g., 32.48-52; 33; 34.7-9,10-12). This well and cautiously argued investigation considerablyincreases the number of exilic deuteronomistic texts in comparison withthe 'classical' approach of the Cross school. This tendency is also per-ceptible in the dissertation of O'Brien, who interprets theDeuteronomistic History as a history of Israel's leaders,2 of whichDeut. 1.1-Judg. 2.10 is the first part ('Israel under Moses and Joshua').Against some critics3 O'Brien maintains firmly Noth's proposal that theintroduction to the Deuteronomistic History is to be found inDeuteronomy 1-3. The first layer of these chapters and of chs. 31-34should be attributed to a Josianic DtrH. But the major part of the textsaround the law code belongs to extensive exilic and post-exilic

1. A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: ARedactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London: SCM Press, 1983),pp. 22-39 (cf. also his Deuteronomy); B. Peckham, The Composition of theDeuteronomistic History (HSM 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); O'Brien, TheDeuteronomistic History Hypothesis.

2. O'Brien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, p. 27.3. Especially S. Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1-6:3 literarkritisch und

traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 139; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975).


redactions,1 completed by late and post-deuteronomistic additions.2

These major works opened the way to virtual consensus in researchon Deuteronomy.3 They are probably right that there should be someJosianic frame around the law code, but this is not the same as suppos-ing a Josianic edition of the first version of the Deuteronomistic History.Even if literary activity in Josiah's time is plausible, it does not mean thatthe whole Deuteronomistic History was edited then. In this context,Lohfink's view should be taken into account.4 Although he is also con-vinced of Josianic editing of Deuteronomy, for him this does not affectthe whole Deuteronomistic History, only Deuteronomy 1-Joshua 22*,where he finds a 'DtrL' (deuteronomistische Landeroberungs-erzdhlung), a history of the conquest of the land. In DeuteronomyLohfink ascribes to this redaction, which can be characterized by itsfrequent use of szrr, roughly the same texts that Noth attributed to hisDtr (chs. 1-3*; 5*; 9-10*; 31*).5 The other parenetic and historical textsin Deuteronomy belong to several (post-)exilic redactions.6 Acombination of 'German' and 'Anglo-Saxon' approaches might thus bepossible. A sort of consensus may arise around the idea that much ofchs. 1-11 and 26-34 is due to exilic deuteronomistic redactions, even ifwe lack reliable criteria to differentiate between them. But, there is also

1. For the whole Deuteronomistic History, O'Brien argues for three subsequentexilic redactions. In Deuteronomy, the third 'nomistic' stage is to be found in 4.1-40;30.1-20 etc.

2. O'Brien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, pp. 285-86.3. Cf. E. Cortese, 'Theories concerning Dtr: A Possible Rapprochement', in

C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: PapersRead at the Xlllth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989 (BETL 94; Leuven: UniversityPress & Peeters, 1990), pp. 179-90.

4. N. Lohfink, 'Kerygmata des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks', inJ. Jeremias and L. Perlitt, Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fiir Hans WalterWolff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), pp. 87-100; repr. in N. Lohfink, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischenLiteratur II (SBAB 12; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), pp. 125-42; cf. alsoG. Braulik, Deuteronomium 1-16, 17 (NEB 15; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1986), pp.10-12and A. Moenikes, 'Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des sogenannten DeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks', ZAW104 (1992), pp. 333-48.

5. Lohfink, 'Kerygmata', pp. 92-96.6. For one of the latest layers Lohfink coins a new abbreviation: 'DtrU' (= Dtr

Uberarbeiter), who is responsible for the final redaction of Deut. 7; 8; 9.1-8, 22-24(p. 141).


evidence for a Josianic redaction of the lawbook, and this brings us tosome remarks about the problem of the 'original Deuteronomy'.

The lawbook of Josiah and the problem of the original Deuteronomy.According to 2 Kings 22-23,! Josiah's reform was initiated with thefinding of a lawbook that scholars generally identified with the earliestor one of the earlier forms of Deuteronomy. Reconstructing the originalDeuteronomy, therefore, was important. For many scholars, the firstedition was written in the time of Hezekiah.2 Others maintained that theoriginal Deuteronomy was produced by Josiah's supporters as a propa-ganda document for his reform.3 Even if the relationship of 2 Kings 22and the book of Deuteronomy 'has remained a cornerstone of criticalscholarship',4 research on this topic since Noth has produced somechallenges. Recently, Eleanore Reuter has contested this linkage, arguingthat the book of the Josianic reform must be the book of the Covenant(Exod. 20.22-23.33*).5 According to her, the original Deuteronomy waswritten at the same time or shortly after the Josianic reform. This thesisis difficult to maintain since there are no clear links between Exod.20.22-23.33 and the account in 2 Kings 22-23,6 which clearly alludes toDeuteronomy.

The real problem is the very historicity of 2 Kings 22-23. It has longbeen recognized that the story in its present form is due to the attemptby deuteronomistic redactors to provide a myth of origin for the

1. A bibliography of recent works on these chapters is presented by Preuss,'Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', pp. 246-50.

2. For example, N. Lohfink, 'Culture Shock and Theology: A Discussion ofTheology as a Cultural and Sociological Phenomenon Based on the Example ofDeuteronomic Law', BTB1 (1977), pp. 12-22; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 44-54; F. Garcia Lopez, Le Deuteronome: UneLoiprechee (Cahiers Evangile 63; Paris: Cerf, 1988), p. 10.

3. R.E. Clements, Deuteronomy (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 71; Y. Suzuki,'A New Aspect of the Occupation Policy by King Josiah', AJBI18 (1992), pp. 31-61.

4. Clements, Deuteronomy, p. 71.5. E. Reuter, Kultzentralisation: Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12

(Athenaums Monographien, Theologie, BBB 87; Frankfurt: A. Hain, 1993), pp. 243-58.

6. Cf. N. Lohfink, 'Gibt es eine deuteronomistische Bearbeitung imBundesbuch?', in Brekelmans and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and DeuteronomisticStudies, pp. 91-113.


deuteronomistic movement.1 Indeed, as Diebner and Nauerth haveshown, the motif of book finding is a common literary strategy inantiquity, aiming at legitimation of changes in society and religion.2 So,even if there was a Josianic 'reform' (and it does not seem necessary todoubt this), it is not certain that such a reform was impelled by the dis-covery of a book. It is more likely that the original Deuteronomy waswritten to accompany and legitimate Josianic policy.3 At any rate, thereconstruction of an Urdeuteronomiwn remains an open problem. Forthose who regard such a reconstruction as possible, the classical thesisthat the original Deuteronomy began in 6.4 is still attractive. Recentresearch allows one to maintain that historical texts are more or lessabsent; parenetic texts quite limited; and the real nucleus is the laws ofthe code.4 But even in the code, scholars discover more and more exilictexts.

Diachronic work on the law code. After they treated the exegetical andtheological problem of the rediscovery of the law code, scholars in the1960s and 1970s were busy reconstructing the various independent col-lections of laws that had been integrated into the first edition ofDeuteronomy. Merendino, Seitz, L'Hour and others5 postulated the

1. I cannot enter here into the debate on the redactional history of this text. SeeK. ViSaticki, Die Reform des Josija und die religiose Heterodoxie in Israel(Dissertationen, Theologische Reihe 21; St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1987).

2. B.J. Diebner and C. Nauerth, 'Die Inventio des minn ISO in 2 Kon 22:Struktur, Intention und Funktion von Auffindungslegenden', DBAT 18 (1984),pp. 95-118. This strategy is still in use in the origin myth of the Mormons, forexample.

3. On this point I tend to agree with Mayes, Deuteronomy, pp. 102-103 andReuter, Kultzentralisation, p. 258.

4. A consensus concerning the original Deuteronomy belongs to eschatology.Cf. the different reconstructions of Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 48; Preuss,Deuteronomium, pp. 49-61 and O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament(Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 5th edn, 1984), pp. 134-35.

5. R.P. Merendino, Das deuteronomische Gesetz: Fine literarkritische,gattungs- und iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt 12-26 (BBB 31;Bonn: P. Hansen, 1969); G. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zumDeuteronomium (BWANT 93; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971); J. L'Hour, 'Unelegislation criminelle dans le Deuteronome', Bib 44 (1963), pp. 1-28; cf. alsoG. Nebeling, 'Die Schichten des deuteronomischen Gesetzeskorpus: Eine traditions-und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Dtn 12-26' (ThD dissertation, Miinster,1970). The existence of independant pre-Deuteronomic collections had already been


following collections: the to'ebd-lav/s (16.21-17.1; 18.10-12a; 22.5;23.18-19b; 25.13-16), the bi'arta-laws (13.2-6; 17.2-7; 19.16-19; 21.8-21; 22.13-21,23-27; 24.7), laws concerning war (20; 21.10-14; 23.10-15;25.17-19), 'humanitarian laws' (15; 22-24) and centralization laws (12;14.22-27; 15.19-23; 16.1-15; 17.8-13; 18.1-8; 26.1-11). It quickly becameclear that some 'collections' (on centralization, war, humanitarianism)were narrowly linked to deuteronomistic ideology, making it unneces-sary to speculate about non-Deuteronomic origins. The various hi 'artd-and to 'ebd-laws seemed to belong together above all because of theiridentical motivation, which may well be the product of a Deuteronomic/deuteronomistic redaction.1 Even if the possibility of pre-Deuteronomiclaws in chs. 12-25 remains probable, current scholarship is much morecautious about the existence of older collections and concentrates on theDeuteronomic revision of earlier law (in Exod. 21-23). There ispresently also a tendency to view important parts of the legal material asdating from exilic times. Lohfink, Braulik and others consider the lawsabout authorities (16.18-18.26), as well as chs. 19-25, as resulting fromexilic and post-exilic redactions,2 which reduces considerably the Josianicor pre-Josianic lawbook. Consequently, most of the legal texts are notinterpreted concretely but as highly theoretical and theological,describing the ideal deuteronomistic society.3 This view is vigorouslycontested by McBride and Criisemann.4 According to Criisemann,

postulated by Steuernagel. For the history of research cf. Preuss, Deuteronomium,pp. 103-48.

1. Cf. Seitz, Studien, pp. 159-64, 206-11.2. N. Lohfink, 'Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das

Prinzip der Schriftlichkeit der Tora und durch das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nachden Amtergesetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt 16,18-18,22)', in H. Wolter(ed.), Testimonium Veritati: philosophische und theologische Studien zu kirchlichenFragen der Gegenwart (FTS 7; Frankfurt: Knecht, 1971), pp. 143-55; repr. inStudien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, I (SBAB 8;Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), pp. 305-23; G. Braulik; Die deuterono-mischen Gesetze und der Dekalog: Studien zum Aufbau von Deuteronomium 12-26(SBS 145; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991). A more differentiated approachis presented by U. Riitersworden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde:Studien zu Dt 16,1-18,22 (BBB 65; Frankfurt: Athenaum, 1987).

3. This was a common interpretation of Deut. 12-25 in the beginning of thetwentieth century.

4. S.D. McBride, 'Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy',Int4\ (1987), pp. 229-44; F. Criisemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichtedes alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1992); cf. also


Christian exegesis of Deuteronomy is mainly interested in describing theconception of God in this book and constantly forgets to ponder thefoundations of the theological reflection of Deuteronomy—the law.1 Hecannot find indications for strong redactional activity in chs. 12-26 inexilic or post-exilic times.2 The law of Deuteronomy is not Utopian butreflects the political constitution of the 'am hd'dres, the landowners whosupported the Josianic reform. Even if some of Criisemann's interpreta-tions sound a bit apologetic (especially about women's liberation inDeuteronomy),3 he identifies a methodological problem regardinginterpretation of legal texts in the Old Testament. Have they beenwritten to serve as a constitution or a sermon? What are our criteria tolocate them in history? These questions have theological as well asexegetical implications.

The question of authorship. Von Rad's classic thesis equating theauthors of the original Deuteronomy with the Levitical priesthood4 is nolonger supported by more than a few.5 After Weinfeld's important studyon links between Deuteronomy and wisdom traditions,6 most scholarsagree in locating the authors of Deuteronomy among the scribes of theJerusalem court. This explains the continuity between Josianic and exilicediting of Deuteronomy (if one places the Deuteronomists among theexiled officials of the court),7 as well as the familiarity of Deuteronomy

J.G. McConville (Law and Theology in Deuteronomy [JSOTSup 33; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1984]), whose propositions concerning the date of Deuteronomy arequite eccentric, and R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit,I (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 8.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992),pp. 327-60.

1. Criisemann, Die Tora, p. 238.2. Criisemann, Die Tora, p. 251.3. Criisemann, Die Tora, pp. 291-94. Cf. also G. Braulik, 'Die Ablehnung der

Gottin Aschera in Israel: War sie erst deuteronomisch, diente sie der Unterdriickungder Frauen?', in M.-T. Wacker and E. Zenger (eds.), Der eine Gott und die Gottin:Gottesvorstellungen des biblischen Israel im Horizont feministischer Theologie (QD135; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), pp. 106-36. I cannot agree with such hermeneuticshort-circuits.

4. G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (SET 9; London: SCM, 1953), pp. 66-70.

5. E.g., Mayes, Deuteronomy, pp. 107-108.6. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1972).7. Noth suggested that Dtr lived in Palestine (US, p. 110, n. 1; DH, p. 145, n. 1), a


with Assyrian documents and culture. But there are also Levitical andprophetic interests in Deuteronomy, where much place is given to theelders.1 So it is too rigid to identify the authors of Deuteronomydefinitely with any one professional class. Following Clements andAlbertz, we may rather speak of a 'coalition'—a sort of 'reformingparty'—under the guidance of intellectuals from the court of Jerusalem.2

b. Issues concerning Structure and Compositional Techniquesof DeuteronomyAs Christensen puts it, a major development in the study ofDeuteronomy after Noth was the interest in stylistic features.3 This canbest be understood as a reaction against an overdone diachronic criti-cism. One of the pioneer works of this new approach was Lohfink's dis-sertation on chs. 5-II,4 where he tried to list rhetorical techniques andparenetic structures. From then on much more attention was paid tostylistic features such as chiasm, inclusions, word-plays, etc.5 It is quitenatural that the investigation of the structure of smaller units inDeuteronomy was linked to the question of the structure of the book orof the law code.

suggestion that became the standard opinion. Nowadays, however, more and morescholars locate the exilic edition of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic Historyamong the exiles; cf. J.A. Soggin, Einfuhrung in die Geschichte Israels und Judas:Von den Ursprungen bis zum Aufstand Bar Kochbas (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1991), p. 148.

1. On Deuteronomy and prophecy, see E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy andTradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967). On Deuteronomy and the elders, seeL.J. Hoppe, 'The Origins of Deuteronomy' (PhD dissertation, NorthwesternUniversity, 1978).

2. Clements, Deuteronomy, pp. 78-79; R. Albertz, 'Die Intentionen der Tragerdes Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks', in R. Albertz et al. (eds.), Schopfungund Befreiung. Fur Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Calwer,1989), pp. 37-53 (39-40).

3. D.L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-11 (WBC 6A; Dallas: Word Books,1991), p. 1.

4. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot.5. Cf. the works of Lohfink's student, G. Braulik, esp. Die Mittel

deuteronomischer Rhetorik, erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4,1-40 (AnBib 68; Rome:Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1978); C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (DePrediking van het Oude Testament; 2 vols.; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987, 1990);R.H. Connell, 'Deuteronomy 7,1-26: Assymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoricof Conquest', VT42 (1992), pp. 248-65; cf. also Christensen's commentary.


The structure of Deuteronomy. Research on the treaties of the Hittiteempire gave impetus to the question of structures. Scholars such asMendenhall1 insisted on the parallels between these texts andDeuteronomy, often in order to claim a second-millennium origin of thelatter. However, Weinfeld,2 followed by many others, asserted that betterparallels are to be found in the Assyrian treaties, and this confirms aneighth- or seventh-century origin for Deuteronomy. As a result, thestructure of Deuteronomy was often described according to that of anAssyrian treaty document: preamble (1.1-5); historical prologue (1.6-11.32); stipulations (chs. 12-26); sanctions, curse and blessing in case ofobservance or violation of the treaty (chs. 27-29); list of witnesses(31.24-28). But this treaty euphoria very soon led to serious problemsand criticisms.3 For one thing, almost all the available Assyrian treaties4

are in fragmentary condition, so that it is difficult to postulate a standardpattern for these texts. Furthermore, the proposed structure ofDeuteronomy according to the so-called treaty pattern is quitesuperficial; it frequently ignores diachronic problems of the text and pre-supposes the book in its deuteronomistic and exilic (!) form. The originalDeuteronomy (6.4ff.; 12ff.*, 28* [?]) hardly contains all the elementsfound in Assyrian (or other) treaties. Thus, there is a considerable lack ofclarity on the nature of the relationship between Deuteronomy and theAssyrian documents.

Still, it is clear that there exist important connections betweenDeuteronomy and the ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition. One mayeasily find treaty terminology in Deuteronomy (e.g., the command to'love' YHWH, to 'follow' and to 'listen to the voice' of the Lord, thevalidity of the treaty 'for the sons and sons of sons'). The curses in28.20-68 have such close connections with Esarhaddon's treaties5 that

1. G.E. Mendenhall, 'Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition', BA 17 (1954),pp. 49-76. For the history of research see D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: AStudy in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib21 A; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1978).

2. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School, pp. 59-157.3. Cf. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), esp. pp. 93-101.4. English and French translations of these treaties have recently been provided.

Cf. S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (StateArchives of Assyria 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988); J. Briend et al.,Traites et Serments dans le Proche-Orient Ancien (Suppl. CE 81; Paris: Cerf, 1992).

5. See Preuss's synopsis, Deuteronomium, pp. 72-73.


there must be a literary relationship. It is certainly exaggerated to see inDeuteronomy a simple literary imitation of Hittite and Assyrian treaties,but we have to acknowledge 'that treaty forms and vocabulary haveinfluenced the form, vocabulary and ideas of the book'.1 So it is possibleto investigate the ideological implications of this affinity. If the Josianicand even exilic authors of Deuteronomy made use of Assyrian treatyrhetoric and ideology and integrated the making of a treaty into theYahwistic culture, we may detect there a subversive intention.2

Israel's suzerain is not the Assyrian or Babylonian king, but YHWH, theonly lord of his people. Using the Assyrian covenant terms, theDeuteronomists beat the 'enemy' with his own weapons!

It still seems too imprecise, however, to present the structure ofDeuteronomy as a treaty. Recent publications emphasize the four head-ings of the book that frame the central law code (1.1; 4.44-49; 28.69;33.1) and may provide a rough but objective structure to the book in itsfinal form.3 There are other proposals,4 but further work needs to bedone on the relationship between the structure and literary form(s) ofthe book. Deuteronomy presents itself as Moses' final discourse(s)—histestament. Does this have implications for its structure, considering thatother (much shorter) testaments occur in the Deuteronomistic History(Josh. 23; 1 Sam. 12)?

The other question, to which we shall turn now, is the arrangement ofthe law code. Until recently there was not much interest on this topic.The 'classical' proposition was the following division: (1) laws governingworship in 12.1-16.17; (2) authorities and institutions in 16.18-18.22; (3)other private and publics laws in chs. 19-25. This structure remainsblurred and signals hesitation in scholarship about the organization of

1. Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 34.2. Cf. also the stimulating article by Lohfink on 'Culture Shock and Theology'.3. Cf. Braulik (Deuteronomium, pp. 5-6) and Clements (Deuteronomy, pp. 13-

14), for whom chs. 1-4 is Historical prologue; 5-26, Tora (5-11, Introduction; 12-26,Central Law code); 27-28, Conclusion; 29-32, Covenant in the plains of Moab; 33-34,Moses' farewell and death.

4. Christensen (Deuteronomy, p. xli) finds a concentric structure: A. The outerframe—a look backwards (chs. 1-3); B. The inner frame the great peroration (chs. 4-11); C. The central core: covenant stipulations (12-26); B'. The inner frame—thecovenant ceremony (chs. 27-30); A'. The outer frame—a look forwards (chs. 31-34). Indeed, concentric structures are quite frequent in Deuteronomy, andChristensen's structure seems tight. But does this degree of abstraction reflect theintention of the book's editors?


chs. 12-25. A new attempt was made by Carmichael, who claimed thatthe organization of chs. 12-25 depends on associations with the penta-teuchal narrative (ch. 13, for instance, should be read in the light of thetraditions about Balaam).1 This approach seems quite speculative and isunconvincing. Much more stimulating is the idea put forward bySchultz, Kaufmann and Braulik that the arrangement of the law code ismade according to the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5.2 This intuition canbe found in Noth's US, where he writes, 'the special relationshipbetween God and the people is confirmed through the promulgation ofthe Decalogue, of which the Deuteronomic law is, according to 5.28ff.,the authentic divine exposition.'3 The influence of the ten command-ments on the structure of the law code can easily be demonstrated. Ofcourse, this does not apply to every law in chs. 12-25 (e.g., 24.10-17), afact that the history of redaction of the law code should explain.According to Braulik, the Decalogue pattern is less perceptible in chs.12-18 than in chs. 19-25. This means that the collection in 12-18* wasalready established when the Decalogue was written. The arrangementof 19-25 is definitely due to the 'Decalogue-redaction'. The Decaloguepattern should therefore be considered the result of the exilic edition ofDeuteronomy,4 which is the origin of the ten commandments. TheDecalogue should not be interpreted as an independent summary ofIsrael's ethical principles, but rather as a table of contents of the central

1. C.M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1974) and Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the DeuteronomicLaws and the Decalogue (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). An arrangement ofthe law code due to association techniques was advocated by A. Rofe, 'TheArrangement of the Laws in Deuteronomy', ETL 64 (1988), pp. 265-87.

2. H. Schulz, 'Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament' (Dissertation, Marburg,1966). The excursus about the link between Deut. 12-26 and the Decalogue was notincluded in the published form of the work (Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament:Studien zur Rechtsform der Mot-Jumat-Satze [BZAW 114; Berlin: Topelmann,1969]); S.A. Kaufmann, 'The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law', Maarav 1 (1979),pp. 105-58; Braulik, Die deuteronomischen Gesetze (on pp. 15-16 he mentions theprecursors of this idea). The Decalogue-inspired structure of Deut. 12-25 can bedescribed in the following way: I-III =12.2-16.7; IV=16.18-18.22; V=19.1-21.23;VI=22.13-23.15; VII=23.16-24.7; VIII=24.8-25.4; IX=25.5-12; X=25.13-16. Thefourth commandment is interpreted as referring generally to authorities (so alreadyLuther).

3. Noth, LfS, p. 101; DH, p. 135.1 have corrected the English translation, whichoddly renders the 'Dekalog' of the German original by 'law'.

4. Braulik, Die deuteronomischen Gesetze, pp. 115-18.


law code. The Decalogue pattern does not apply to the earlier stages ofthe growth of chs. 12-25,1 but it is an important clue to the exilic under-standing of the legal collection.

A final word should be said about holistic readings of the structure ofDeuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. Hoffmann sees theDeuteronomistic History, which he considers the work of one exilicauthor, as structured according to the antithesis of reform/counter-reform.2 Deuteronomy lays the foundation for this structure by describ-ing Moses as the archetype of the deuteronomistic reformers. Hoffmannhas certainly put forward an important feature of deuteronomisticideology. But this is not the only such feature, and it does not providea comprehensive structure that embraces the whole book ofDeuteronomy. Against Hoffmann, who builds on former research,Polzin states that critical investigation on Deuteronomy has not pro-duced any result 'that can be described as historically or literarily ade-quate'.3 The only authority he recognizes is Noth, since Polzin acceptsthe existence of the Deuteronomistic History. He describesDeuteronomy as 'the speech of the Deuteronomic narrator'4 and distin-guishes between 'reported speech' and 'reporting speech'.5 This canhardly be considered wrong, but it is not clear how it helps to improveour understanding of the structure of Deuteronomy6—a matter thatneeds further exploration.

1. Cf. E. Otto, 'Soziale Verantwortung und Reinheit des Landes: Zur Redaktionder kasuistischen Rechtssatze in Deuteronomium 19-25', in R. Liwak and S. Wagner(eds.), Prophetic und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alien Israel: Festschrift furSiegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), pp. 290-306.

2. H.D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einemGrundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zurich:Theologischer Verlag, 1980). Hoffmann claims to be holding to Noth's conception ofthe Deuteronomist, but Noth did not eliminate the diachronic problems in his treat-ment of the Deuteronomistic History.

3. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of theDeuteronomic History, I, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980),p. 13.

4. Polzin, Moses, p. 26.5. Polzin, Moses, p. 19.6. L. Perlitt ('Deuteronomium 1-3 im Streit der exegetischen Methoden', in

N. Lohfink [ed.], Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft [BETL68; Leuven: Peeters, 1985], pp. 149-73) is extremely critical of Polzin's approach.


c. Theological and Ideological MattersWhen Noth dealt with Dtr's central theological ideas, he understoodDeuteronomy 5-28* as the source of much of his theological inspiration.Noth provides the following list: the special bond between God andpeople as expressed in the concept of the covenant; the theme of theauthentic worship of YHWH as required by the law and the interdictionof other forms of worship; the observance of divine law that coincideswith a lack of interest in cultic observance; the frequent references to theexodus, conquest of the land and promises to the ancestors.1 Accordingto Noth, all of these issues were already at the disposal of Dtr. Todaymany of these concepts are attributed to the deuteronomistic editing ofDeuteronomy. Nevertheless, there is a consensus about the ideologicalfunction of several of these items in Deuteronomy.

The exclusiveness of the worship of YHWH and the other gods. Theemphasis of Deuteronomy on YHWH being the only God of Israel andthe strict prohibition against turning to other gods is one of the book'sleitmotifs. A discussion has arisen about whether the ideology ofDeuteronomy can be characterized as monotheistic. Rose's dissertationon the claim of Yahwistic worship for exclusiveness in Deuteronomy hasbeen very helpful in clarifying the situation.2 According to Rose, theJosianic and the first exilic level of the book reflect a monolatrous out-look, since the 'other gods' are resented as a real danger for Israel. Onlyin the second (late exilic) deuteronomistic redaction (especially ch. 4) dowe have clear monotheistic affirmations, reminiscent of those of SecondIsaiah.3 As Rose puts it, the real theological enemy of the Josianic andearly exilic Deuteronomists is not the 'orgiastic Canaanite cult ofnature', which is the phantasm of several scholars, but the popularJudean religion where YHWH was worshipped alongside other deities(Ashera) and under different forms of manifestation (YHWH of Teman,YHWH of Samaria).4 This brings us to the discussion about the inter-pretation of the tn« mrr in the shema' of Deut. 6.4-6. The traditional

1. Cf. Noth, US, pp. 100-104; DH, pp. 134-38.2. M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische

Schultheologie und die Volksfrommigkeit in der spdten Konigszeit (BWANT 106;Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975).

3. Cf. also A. Rofe, 'The Monotheistic Argumentation in Deuteronomy iv 32-40: Contents, Composition and Context', VT35 (1985), pp. 434-45.

4. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes, pp. 170-94.


interpretation, which understands the in« as 'unique', has generally beengiven up. Most scholars agree that the affirmation of Deut. 6.4 should beconsidered polemical towards poly-Yahwism.1 YHWH is one indivisibleGod, and he does not exist in different forms and in different sanctuaries.It is possible that the 'YHWH One' also includes (at least since the timeof the exile) the idea of diachronic identity. YHWH, 'the God of thefathers', remains the same for the present and future generations in spiteof the dramatic events of 597-587 BCE.2 In any case, the application ofDeut 6.4b is to be found in Deuteronomy 12. Reuter's recent workshows that the formula 'the place that YHWH will choose' alwaysreferred to Jerusalem and that the first version of this chapter (12.13-14a, 15-18) is from Josiah's time.3 There is no Deuteronomy withoutcentralization of worship.

YHWH and his people. The special link between YHWH and Israel isexpressed in Deuteronomy with the ideas of election and covenant,which Noth considered traditional elements of Israelite thought. Thisposition has since been challenged. Perlitt's argument that covenanttheology was elaborated in the Deuteronomic/deuteronomistic milieuinitiated an extensive discussion.4 The texts that speak of Israel's election(4.37-39; 7.6-11; 10.14-15)5 are now considered part of the latest layersof the book. Does this mean that the ideas of election and covenant weredeuteronomistic inventions? This seems hardly plausible. It was no doubtin the literature of the Deuteronomic school that they came to promi-nence. However, this may be the result of a transformation, especially of

1. Cf. M. Peter, 'Dtn 6,4—ein monotheistischer Text?' BZ 24 (1980), pp. 252-62; P. Hoffken, 'Eine Bemerkung zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Dt6,4', 5Z28 (1984), pp. 88-93; T. Veijola, 'Hore Israel! Der Sinn und Hintergrundvon Deuteronomium 6,4-9', VT42 (1992), pp. 528-41.

2. Cf. S. Amsler, '"Un seul et meme Yhwh": Pour un sens diachronique de Dt6,4b', in Le dernier et I'avant-dernier: Etudes sur I'Ancien Testament (Le Monde dela Bible 28; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1993), pp. 145-53.

3. Kultzentralisation, pp. 42-191.4. Perlitt (Bundestheologie) was sharply attacked by N. Lohfink,

'Bundestheologie im Alten Testament: Zum gleichnamigen Buch von Lothar Perlitt',Studien zum Deuteronomium, I, pp. 325-61. Cf. E.W. Nicholson, God and HisPeople: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1986).

5. Cf. R. Rendtorff, 'Die Erwahlung Israels als Thema der deuteronomischenTheologie', in Jeremias and Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten, pp. 75-86.


royal ideology, where election and covenant are the privilege of theking.1 The chosen king (Ps. 2; 2 Sam. 7 etc.) became the chosen people.This phenomenon may be considered a 'democratization' of older tradi-tions, and this fits well with the 'secularization' of cultic and ritual mat-ters observed by Weinfeld. It is the pater familias who assumes thepriest's role in (exilic) Deuteronomy.2

The 'people' appears as the direct interlocutor of Mosaic speech, andthe only mediator between the people and God is the law as communi-cated by Moses. This is a people who does not really need a king (in thelaws, only Deut. 17.14-20 deals with the king) and no real politicalorganization can be detected.3 Why are the addressees of Deuteronomycalled 'Israel' or 'all Israel'? Does it mean that the authors ofDeuteronomy want to claim a heritage from the northern kingdom, ordo they want to create an ideal community?4 The question of theaddressees of Deuteronomy merits further exploration. Who are theaddressees of the law—of the Josianic edition and of the exilic editions?The answers to these questions will have implications for the globalinterpretation of Deuteronomy.

The land in Deuteronomy. 'The land is in fact central to Deuteronomy'swhole theology.'5 Among the important studies about the land inDeuteronomy,6 Diepold insisted on the different conceptions of the

1. Cf. M. Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from theAncient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK,1987), pp. 142-54.

2. On the importance of the father in the catechetic texts of Deuteronomy, cf.A. de Pury and T. Romer, 'Memoire et catechisme dans 1'Ancien Testament', inA. de Pury (ed.), Histoire et conscience historique dans les civilisations du Proche-Orient ancien (Cahiers du CEPOA 5; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), pp. 81-92.

3. Noth's discovery of a reflection of the pre-monarchic amphictyony ideologyhas become highly questionable. Cf. Noth, Laws in the Pentateuch, pp. 28-36.

4. Cf. O. Bachli, Israel und die Volker: Fine Studie zum Deuteronomium(ATANT 41; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1962); Clements, Deuteronomy, p. 56.

5. Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 79.6. Especially J.G. Ploger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische

Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB 26; Bonn: P. Hansen, 1967);P.D. Miller, The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land', Int 23(1969), pp. 451-65; G.C. Macholz, 'Israel und das Land: Vorarbeiten zu einemVergleich zwischen Priesterschrift und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk'(Habilitationsschrift, Heidelberg, 1969); P. Diepold, Israels Land (BWANT 95;Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972).


borders of the promised land. One conception takes the Jordan to be thefrontier of the promised land (9.1; 12.10, etc.), which is therefore limitedto the territory west of the Jordan. In 4.45-49 the district east of theJordan is included in Israel's land. Deut. 1.7 and 11.24 extend the landof Israel as far as the Euphrates. Diepold links the latter texts to Josiah'sexpansionism,1 but 1.7b and 11.24, as well as 4.45-49, probably belongto the latest strata of Deuteronomy2 and reflect the Utopian conceptionof a 'Great Empire'. In chs. 2-3, we find a tradition about the conquestof Cisjordan. O'Brien confirms Noth's intuition that the deuteronomisticstory is founded on a pre-deuteronomistic account.3 The Deuteronomiststransformed this tradition in order to provide a counterpoint to the spystory in ch. I4 and as a prelude to the 'real' conquest in the book ofJoshua.

Scholars have often pointed out that there is a tendency to idealize theland, which is described in the exilic strata as a paradise on earth (11.10-12; cf. 8.7-9). In the deuteronomistic edition of Deuteronomy, 'landtheology' is linked to the 'rest theology'. Roth distinguishes between thelatter in Dtr1 (rest is given to all Israel in the conquest of the land; cf.3.20) and that in Dtr2 (rest is a counterpart to obedience to the lawwherever Israel finds itself; cf. 12.9-10).5

A standard formula in Deuteronomy is the 'land flowing withmilk and honey' (6.3; 11.9; 26.9, 15; 27.3; 31.20), which occurs first inExod. 3.8. Because of this text there still is debate about whether theexpression should be considered 'proto-Deuteronomic'.6 The occur-rences in Deuteronomy belong, according to Preuss,7 to the deuterono-mistic layers. Often they appear in grammatically difficult constructionsand seem to be later additions. The 'milk and honey' formula does not

1. Diepold, Israels Land, pp. 29-41.2. Cf. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, pp. 45-49.3. O'Brien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, p. 288.4. Cf. N. Lohfink, 'Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6-3,29', Bib 41

(1960), pp. 105-34.5. W. Roth, 'The Deuteronomic Rest-Theology: A Redactional-Critical Story',

BR 21 (1976), pp. 1-10. Roth identifies his Dtr2 as the DtrN of the Gottingen school.6. So for example D.E. Skweres, Die Riickverweise im Buch Deuteronomium

(AnBib 79; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1979), pp. 158-65. Presentlyseveral scholars consider Exod. 3 as a product of the 'D' composition of thePentateuch. Cf. W. Johnstone, Exodus (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 48, 73-86.

7. Preuss, Deuteronomium, p. 192.


occur in the patriarchal promises of the book of Genesis but is linkedwith the exodus tradition, which brings me to my next point.

Allusions to Egypt and the exodus in Deuteronomy. The outline ofDeuteronomy in its final form revolves around the exodus. First weshould remember the growing emphasis on the figure of Moses in theframework1 and above all the fact that almost every chapter of the bookcontains allusions to the exodus or the situation of the people in Egypt.2

On this matter there is no difference between the framework and thelaw code.3 It is possible to discuss whether there ever was an originalcode without reference to Egypt, but Criisemann may be right againstLohfink, when he points out the hypothetical character of such assump-tions.4 If the Josianic edition of Deuteronomy is influenced by prophetic(Hoseanic) ideology, references to the exodus are anything but astonish-ing. All strata of Deuteronomy contain 'frequent references to "beingbrought up out of Egypt"' .5 Scholars have paid attention to a series ofparticular points of the 'Egyptian' allusions in Deuteronomy, but noglobal investigation of the exodus ideology of Deuteronomy has beenmade hitherto. This is probably due to the fact that the references to theexodus seem to be counterbalanced by those to the 'fathers'.

Fathers and patriarchs in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy contains aboutfifty 'theological' references to the fathers—often in formulaic expres-sion. They mainly concern the land or the covenant sworn to the fathersand the God of the fathers, as well as objects 'that your fathers did notknow'. Scholars currently identify these fathers with the patriarchs,Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose names occur seven times in the book.It may be noted that as far as I can see, Noth was quite cautious aboutthis question, since he always speaks of 'ancestors' and never of thepatriarchs when alluding to the fathers of Deuteronomy.

1. Cf. Clements, Deuteronomy, pp. 36-38.2. See the list by Preuss, Deuteronomium, pp. 187-88.3. Cf. J. Pons, 'La reference a 1'Egypte dans les codes de loi de 1'Ancien

Testament', ETR 63 (1988), pp. 169-82.4. Criisemann, Die Tom, pp. 244-45, against Lohfink, 'Kerygmata', p. 129.5. Noth, US, p. 101; DH, p. 135.


Picking up one of Van Seters's ideas,11 tried to show in my disserta-tion2 that 'the fathers' in Deuteronomy refers not to the patriarchs butto the ancestors of Israel in Egypt or at the exodus—the generation thatentered the land—or, more generally, the forefathers of those addressed.The formula about the land having been sworn to the fathers whoseexpressions can be divided into three categories,3 does not refer to thepatriarchal narratives,4 where the verb into appears only in a few latepost-deuteronomistic texts (Gen. 22.16; 24.7; 26.3; 50.24), but to thebeginning of YHWH's history with Israel in Egypt (cf. Ezek. 20).5 Forexample, the prayer of Deut. 26.15, which should be pronounced byevery generation living in the land, contains the following demand:'Look down from heaven, your holy dwelling-place and bless the peopleIsrael and the land you have given to us as you swore to our fathers, aland flowing with milk and honey.' The land is described with theexodus 'milk and honey' formula, and the prayer follows the credo in26.5-9, which is centered on the exodus events. So already Nahmanides(ca. 1195-1270) doubted that 'fathers' here refers to the patriarchs;6 itapparently means the first generation of the exodus. The same statementis possible on the covenant (4.31; 7.12; 8.18; 29.11-12)7 or more gener-ally on the 'oath' (7.8; 9.5; 13.18) sworn to the fathers.8 'The covenant

1. J. Van Seters, 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT 22(1972), pp. 448-59. See now his Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian inGenesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), pp. 227-45.

2. T. Romer, Israels Vater: Untersuchungen zur Vdterthematik imDeuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg:Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990); cf. also 'LeDeuteronome a la quete des origines', in P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: DebatsetRecherches (LD 151; Paris: Cerf, 1992), pp. 65-98.

3. I: 'the land sworn to the fathers', 6.18; 8.1; (19.8a); 31.20, 21; II: the oath tothe fathers + urb nnb, 1.8; 1.35; (19.8b); 10.11; 11.9; 11.21; 30.20; 31.7; III: theoath to the fathers+ i±> nnb: 6.23; 26.3; 26.15, or + ~p nrb: 6.10; 7.13; 28.11;(34.4).

4. This was explicitly argued by Skweres, who considered that every JOB'] ~KBKrefers to a written text. For a critique of Skweres, see Romer, Israels Vater, pp. 229-30; E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin:de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 172-76.

5. Cf. Romer, Israels Voter, pp. 173-250.6. RAMBAN, Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy (trans. C.B. Chavel;

New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1976), p. 315.7. Cf. Romer, Israels Vater, pp. 135-54.8. Cf. Romer, Israels Vater, pp. 160-72.


and love sworn to the fathers' of Deut. 7.12 is defined in 7.9 as the'covenant and love to a thousand generations of those who love himand keep his commands'. This is a clear allusion to the Decalogue and toHoreb/Sinai and excludes the idea of a patriarchal bent.l YHWH is calledthe 'God of the fathers'2 in order to signal the continuity of Yahwisticworship in spite of the disruption of the exile.3 The 'fathers' in this idiomdo not generally point to a specific generation but symbolize the past.On the other hand, the references to the fathers 'not knowing'4 expressdiscontinuity in Israel's history with YHWH.5 The fathers stand for aformer state in this history—in Egypt or after the conquest. The non-formulaic usage of 'abofi confirms this basic principle. All the referencesto the fathers belong to the first (Dtr) and later (Dtr2) exilic editions ofDeuteronomy. We may conclude that in the original core of the bookthere is no 'father' theology. Indeed, in the Code the fathers are onlymentioned in the deuteronomistic introduction (12.1) and conclusion (ch.26). Deut. 19.8 and 13.7, 18 are post-deuteronomistic. The identificationof the fathers with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (1.8; 6.10; 9.5; 29.12;30.20), as well as the insertion of the patriarchal names in 9.27 and 34.4,belong to a post-deuteronomistic redaction. In 9.27, for example, theappeal to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob interrupts the continuity of theexodus-motif in Moses's prayer,7 and this is the only verse inDeuteronomy where ~DT is applied to YHWH (a usage more typical ofP). The identification of the fathers and the patriarchs in 9.5 is also quiteastonishing, since the fathers are linked here to a divine promise to expelthe other peoples, clearly belonging to the exodus tradition (cf.Exod. 23.27-33). The sevenfold8 insertion of the patriarchal names in

1. The idea that the concept of covenant as related to the three Patriarchs occursonly in P-texts in the Tetrateuch needs to be reassessed.

2. Deut. 1.11, 21; 4.1; 6.3; 12.1; 26.7; 27.3; 29.24.3. Cf. Romer, Israels Voter, pp. 105-34.4. Other gods: 13.7; 28.64; 32.18; manna: 8.3, 16; a people: 28.36.5. Cf. Romer, Israels Vdter, pp. 73-104.6. Deut. 4.37; 5.3; 10.15, 22; 26.5; 30.5, 9; cf. Romer, Israels Vdter, pp. 23-73.7. Cf. J. Vermeylen, 'Les sections narratives de Dt 5-11 et leur relation a Ex 19-

34', in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, pp. 174-207 (201).8. For the importance of the number 'seven' in the final form of Deuteronomy,

see G. Braulik, 'Die Funktion von Siebenergruppierungen im Endtext desDeuteronomiums', in F.V. Reiterer (ed.), Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beitrage zurbiblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitat: Festschrift fur Notker Fuglister OSBzum 60. Geburtstag (Wurzburg: Echter, 1991), pp. 37-50.


Deuteronomy and their 'strategic' place (cf. the patriarchal frame in 1.8and 34.4) are probably due to the final redaction of the Pentateuch,since this separates Deuteronomy from the Deuteronomistic History soas to endow the work with conceptual congruence.1 The absence of anyexplicit equation of the fathers with the patriarchs in Joshua-Kings or inJeremiah supports this affirmation. It seems that at the time of theBabylonian exile (and probably earlier, cf. Hos. 12) there were alterna-tive concepts about Israel's origin. The deuteronomistic exiles foundtheir identity in an exodus view of origins, while those who had stayedin the 'land' referred to the patriarchal tradition (cf. Ezek. 33.24).Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomists rejected this genealogical con-ception.2 For them, Israel's identity depended on its vocation and theresponse to its call.

These propositions have been sharply criticized by Lohfink,3 whorejects the notion that the names of the patriarchs in Deuteronomy arelater additions. He contends that the first mention of the fathers in Deut.1.8 explicitly identifies them as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and gives thekey for understanding all further occurrences of 'abot. He contests myliterary-critical analysis of the patriarchal texts in Deuteronomy (withoutdenying that some of these texts may be post-deuteronomistic)and argues that all the deuteronomistic references to the fathers mayinclude the patriarchs. Of course, every diachronic hypothesis remainshypothetical and cannot be subject to 'proof in a scientific sense. Icertainly agree with Lohfink that Deut. 1.8 leads the reader to identifythe fathers with the patriarchs, but the question is: Who is responsible forthis identification?41 am still convinced that this is not deuteronomistic,since, as Lohfink concedes, Deuteronomy and the DeuteronomisticHistory refer in extenso only to events that occur in the exodus,

1. Cf. Romer, Israels Vdter, pp. 251-70.2. See the pertinent remarks of A. de Pury about the depreciation of the father

who went down to Egypt in Deut. 26.5, 'Le cycle de Jacob comme legende autonomedes origines d'IsraeT, in Congress Volume, Leuven 1989 (VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill,1991), pp. 78-96(83).

3. N. Lohfink, Die Vdter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellungnahmevon Thomas Romer (OBO 111; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). For other reviews, cf. C.T. Begg, Bib 73 (1992),pp. 112-16; E. Blum, WO 28 (1992), pp. 180-83; H.D. Preuss, 'Zum deuterono-mistischen Geschichtswerk', pp. 242-45; W. Roth, JBL 111 (1992), pp. 125-26;H. Seebass, TLZ97 (1991), cols. 102-105.

4. Cf. the review of Lohfink by S L. McKenzie, JBL 112 (1993), pp. 128-30 (129).


wilderness and conquest traditions.1 Literary-critical observations mustnecessarily be complemented by considerations from history of tradi-tions and other (e.g., sociological, ideological) analyses.2 The discussionsabout the fathers in Deuteronomy should proceed in an effort to clarify,among other things, the relationship between the promises in Genesisand those in Deuteronomy.3 The discrepancy between Lohfink's viewand the thesis I defended, is also due to different presuppositions con-cerning Deuteronomy. Lohfink reads it primarily as the finale of thepre-sacerdotal Pentateuch, while my analysis of Deuteronomy dependson the context of the Deuteronomistic History. This brings us to thequestion about the relationship between Deuteronomy and theTetrateuch, which I shall now take up briefly.

d. Deuteronomy and the PentateuchFor Noth and his colleagues, it was obvious that the authors ofDeuteronomy, especially in chs. 1-3(4), had 'taken over some material ofthe old "Hexateuchal" sources'.4 Where Noth had been quite cautiousabout the utilization of 'older sources' in Deuteronomy,5 his protago-nists postulated for the Josianic edition of Deuteronomy thoroughresume's of the narratives of the pre-priestly Tetrateuch ('J/E'). The sameapproach can be found in the recent commentaries by Braulik, Perlittand Weinfeld. However, in light of current discussion about the validityof the classical documentary hypothesis,6 the literary relationship

1. Cf. N. Lohfink, 'Deuteronome et Pentateuque', in Haudebert (ed.), LePentateuque, pp. 35-64 (59).

2. Cf. my 'Nachwort' to Lohfink's Vdter, pp. 111-23.3. On this matter see recently L. Schmidt, 'VaterverheiBungen und

Pentateuchfrage', ZAW 104 (1992), pp. 1-27; J. Scharbert, 'Die LandverheiBung andie Vater als einfache Zusage, als Bid und als Bund', in R. Bartelmus et al. (eds.),Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift fur Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag(OBO 126; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1993), pp. 337-54.

4. Noth, US, p. 97; DH, p. 129.5. Cf. Noth, US, pp. 27-40; DH, pp. 45-60.6. For the history of research see R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch:

A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) and A. de Puryand T. Romer, 'Le Pentateuque en question: position du probleme et breve histoire dela recherche', in de Pury (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la com-position des cinq premiers livres de la Bible a la lumiere des recherches recentes (LeMonde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2nd edn, 1991), pp. 9-80.


between Genesis-Numbers and Deuteronomy has again become amatter of debate. In their treatments of the parallel traditions inDeuteronomy and the Tetrateuch, Van Seters and Rose came to theconclusion that the stories in Exodus and Numbers depend onDeuteronomy.1 Rose, for instance, argues (against the traditional view)that the T spy story in Numbers 13-14 presupposes the story in Deut.1.19-25. But, as Blum has shown,2 this alternative is too simple. Therelations between the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch and the deuteronomisticDeuteronomy are certainly more complex, and one cannot be contentwith the idea of unilateral dependency in either direction. If we compareNumbers 13-14 (without 'P') to Deut. 1.19-25, we may, followingRose, notice a number of arguments for the earlier date of Deuteronomy1, where there is no equivalent to Moses' intercessory prayer. Thestatement of Deut. 1.37 would have been impossible if the author'sVorlage was Numbers 13-14 ('J/E'), and Num. 14.25 looks like a blindor theological motif compared to Deut. 1.40; 2.1. On the other hand,some items seem more 'primitive' in Numbers 13-14 than inDeuteronomy 1 (e.g., Num. 13.28//Deut. 1.28; Num. 13.23//Deut. 1.24).So we may assume that Numbers 13-14* is based on Deut 1.19-25 butalso on an older (oral or written) tradition, which may also have beenthe Vorlage of Deut. 1.19-25. In any case, it seems less and less con-vincing to postulate a literary dependency of Deuteronomy's narrativesections on the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch. If Perlitt's recent denial ofP-elements in Deuteronomy3 is established, the integration ofDeuteronomy into the Pentateuch could be ascribed to the 'final redac-tor'. Whatever may come of this discussion,4 the first and originalcontext for an adequate interpretation of Deuteronomy should not bethe Tetrateuch but the Deuteronomistic History as established by Noth.

1. J. Van Seters, 'The Conquest of §ihon's Kingdom: A Literary Examination',JBL 91 (1972), pp. 182-97 and 'Etiology in the Moses Tradition: The Case ofExodus 18', HAR 9 (1985), pp. 355-61; M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist:Untersuchungen zu den Beruhrungspunkten beider Liter aturwerke (AT ANT 67;Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981).

2. Blum, Studien, pp. 177-81.3. L. Perlitt, Triesterschrift im Deuteronomium?' ZAW 100 (1988),

Supplement, pp. 65-88; cf. also P. Stoellger, 'Deuteronomium 34 ohnePriesterschrift', ZAW 105 (1993), pp. 26-51.

4. The traditional view that P ends in Deut. 34 was recently defended byL. Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993).


3. Prospects for Further Research on Deuteronomy

How may the current state of research on Deuteronomy be summarized?Preuss is certainly right to stress the diversity of approaches and results.He is quite pessimistic about the possibilities of consensus, since suchconsensus seems limited to members of individual exegetical schools.1

All the same, perhaps Preuss is too pessimistic. Noth taught us to seeDeuteronomy as the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History, andthis is presently one of the safest results of critical biblical research.2

Noth made a clear distinction between the original Deuteronomy, thedeuteronomistic editing of the book and later additions. Most scholarsapparently accept these major distinctions, even if they define them quitedifferently. And even those who are not interested in diachronic workwould scarcely deny the possibility of this approach. On the other hand,most current practitioners of the literary-critical method recognize thenecessity of investigating structure and compositional techniques. Wecan also observe a growing interest in the legal texts of Deuteronomy.Regarding research on the ideological or theological function ofDeuteronomy in the context of the Deuteronomistic History, thePentateuch and the Hebrew Bible, since the end of the covenant eupho-ria we may observe some hesitation to put forth new ideas.

As for further research on Deuteronomy, the first desideratum shouldbe a methodological one. We may agree with McKenzie's wishthat 'historical criticism and literary criticism [on Deuteronomy] shouldbe complementary'.3 For the diachronic problems of Deuteronomy,discussion between the Cross and Smend schools should be intensified.We must discuss anew the criteria for distinguishing between'deuteronomic' and 'deuteronomistic' layers and for postulating two,three or more deuteronomistic redactors. Scholars should clarify the lit-erary-critical presuppositions that guide their investigations. Personally,I find it quite difficult to imagine that Deuteronomy (and theDeuteronomistic History) should have wandered during one century orless through the hands of ten or more deuteronomistic redactors. The

1. Cf. Preuss, 'Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', p. 245.2. It seems that C. Westermann (Die Geschichtsbiicher des Alien Testaments:

Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? [TBii 87; Giitersloh: Chr. KaiserVerlag; Giitersloher Verlagshaus, 1994]) denies the existence of a DeuteronomisticHistory, but, I very much doubt that he will convince many.

3. McKenzie, 'Deuteronomistic History', p. 167.


Deuteronomists did not have computers or the leisure of constantlyrewriting their history. Maybe we should return to Noth's fundamentaldistinction between the first deuteronomistic edition of Deuteronomyplus the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr1) and later additions (Dtr2), rec-ognizing the difficulty of specifying the character and possible interrela-tions of those insertions.1 New attention should be paid to the outline ofDeuteronomy. Many interesting analyses concern the structure of indi-vidual chapters, but few take up the structure of the book. IfDeuteronomy presents itself as a farewell speech of Moses, does it thenprovide the model for the speeches in the following books? This wouldconfirm and make precise Noth's observation that those speechesbelong to the most important features that create the unity of theDeuteronomistic History.2 And if Deuteronomy can be characterized asa (literary) testament or a sort of memoir, does it then depend on theconventions of that genre?

Regarding the law code, further research should go to the core of thequestion of its status and function. In a recent article, Mayes describedtwo main interpretations of the Deuteronomic law that come from twodifferent philosophical traditions.3 According to the 'parenetical' inter-pretation, chs. 12-25 is primarily a general teaching about an ideal soci-ety; according to the 'institutional' interpretation, it was written as statelegislation and should be understood as such. Perhaps this is no realalternative since the two interpretations may delineate different aspectsof the code. If the original law code was conceived as state law, whathappened when it was integrated into the Deuteronomistic History? Onthe other hand, some laws (especially in chs. 19-25) are apparently theproduct of a stateless ([post-]exilic) time and must have had purposesother than those of the Josianic law-book. In order to come to an ade-quate understanding of the role of law in Deuteronomy, we need toknow more about the making and the role of laws in the ancient NearEast and their relationships to biblical law. Generally, I would say thatbiblical scholarship should open itself to more interdisciplinary work. If

1. The question of the Josianic date of the first deuteronomistic layer depends onthe analysis of the whole Deuteronomistic History, especially the books of Kings. InDeuteronomy we certainly may find 'Josianic texts', but are they necessarily linked toa historiographic project covering the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings?

2. Cf. Noth, US, pp. 4-6; DH, pp. 18-19.3. A.D.H. Mayes, 'On Describing the Purpose of Deuteronomy', JSOT 58

(1993), pp. 13-33.


we want fresh insights in the matter of the theological issues ofDeuteronomy, we can no longer be content with a list of theological loci(God, people, land, etc.). Scholars should take into account the socialworld(s) of Deuteronomy1 and listen to what anthropology can tell usabout how the 'origins' of a community are set.2 Deuteronomy certainlycould be read at the different levels of its editing as a response to trans-formations in Judaean society. The authors of Deuteronomy proposenew models for the identity of the 'people of YHWH', which theyimplant in a discourse about the people's origin. But reference to theorigin helps transform the present. Deuteronomy is probably the genera-tor of the most important transformation of Judaism—when the book ofthe Torah is substituted for the temple.3

As it now stands in the Bible, Deuteronomy has a double identity andcan be compared to a hinge. It is the conclusion of what the redactors ofthe Torah considered as the 'official' origin traditions of the people, butat the same time and first of all, Deuteronomy is the beginning and thekey of another story—the 'Deuteronomistic History'—discovered andmasterfully described by Martin Noth fifty years ago. Thus, seriouswork on Deuteronomy will help us gain new insights on this criticaljuncture in the Bible. Mayes rightly reminds us of Gadamer's hermeneu-tical principle 'that insofar as interpretation is a matter of a dialoguebetween interpreter and the text, there can be no such thing as the finaland definitive interpretation'.4 But the survey of critical work onDeuteronomy since Noth clearly argues for more intensive dialoguebetween scholars of different exegetical schools and between scholarsand Deuteronomy.

1. See the recent effort of L. Stulman, 'Encroachment in Deuteronomy: AnAnalysis of the Social World of the D Code', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 613-32.

2. See, for example, M. de Perrot, et al., La mythologie programmee:L'economic des croyances dans la societe moderne (Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance, 1992).

3. On this point cf. F. Smyth-Florentin, 'La maison et le livre', in O. Abel and F.Smyth-Florentin (eds.), Le livre de traverse: De Vexegese biblique a Vanthropologie(Patrimonies; Paris: Cerf, 1992), pp. 15-21.

4. Mayes, 'Purpose of Deuteronomy', p. 20.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUAIN NOTH'S THEORY OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Brian Peckham

Martin Noth's basic insight was that Dtr was an author and a historian.He was not able to sustain this basic insight in his analysis of the book ofJoshua, because he lacked the appropriate literary techniques and histor-ical methods. As a result, Dtr, in the book of Joshua, turned out to be aneditor and a pedant, a visible manipulator of traditions, a most persistentideologue.

Noth's analysis of the book of Joshua determined the course of schol-arship. Some rejected his theory of the Deuteronomistic History, someseemed not to understand it, but all accepted the details of his literaryand historical analysis. As a result, his basic insight was lost, and Dtr wasunderstood, as Noth's peculiar analysis seemed to allow, as just the chiefamong many editors of Joshua, the one whose constant interventions inthe text were marked by provincialism, pettiness and prejudice, anintruder in the tradition, whose views were essentially without historicalinterest. Dtr became a historian whose ancient sources were critical foran understanding of the history of Israel, but whose personal views itwas easy to discount.

Noth's basic insight remains intact and barely explored. If it could beretrieved and refurbished it might still produce the results he envisaged.But if scholarship continues in the errors unwittingly fostered by hisliterary and historical analyses, it may be time to abandon hisDeuteronomistic theory and begin again with a better reading of thetext.

1. Noth's Theory and Analysis of Joshua

Noth's presentation of the book of Joshua was based on his own workand on an established scholarly tradition. The divisions of the book were


obvious and there was general agreement on what texts wereDeuteronomistic. What Noth added was an insistence on the pointingand historical design that Dtr gave to the book.

a. The TheoryThe historical design consisted of an introduction (ch. 1) and a conclu-sion (ch. 12) to the narrative of the taking of the land, and a farewellspeech by Joshua (ch. 23) that marked the end of the era and thebeginning of the period of the judges. The pointing consisted of inser-tions that adapted the intervening narrative to the specific interests ofthe History that had begun in the book of Deuteronomy. All the restwas traditional and much earlier, or editorial and from the time of Dtrand later.1

This was a remarkable simplification imposed by the theory. TheHistory had a structure and a point, its own peculiar themes and theo-logical interests, and everything else either fit in or was excised. Thebook of Joshua clearly did not fit the theory, and most of it was excised,but the theory situated what was left in a unified, planned, complete andconsistent historical work.2

What was left was what was original and traditional. It was composedof aetiological narratives, stories built around visible features of the land-scape (chs. 3-5; 7-8) or glaring anomalies in actual religious practice(chs. 2; 6; 9), and of heroic legends or battle accounts, stories builtaround famous victories against impossible odds (chs. 10-11). The aetio-logical stories were based on facts. The facts, like stones in the Jordan,became associated with isolated events, such as the crossing of theJordan. Stories about these events were combined with records of con-quest, such as the battle of Ai, and both were integrated into the tradi-tion of Benjamin's territorial acquisitions. Finally, by attachment to theshrine at Gilgal, where the stories were told and transmitted, the factsbecame part of the history of Israel's appropriation of the land ofCanaan. This all happened orally and spontaneously in a religious envi-ronment. It was only long after the fact that an antiquarian, a Collectorof traditions (Sammler), wrote it down,3 made Joshua the conqueror of

1. Noth, OS, pp. 40-47, 95-96; DH, pp. 61-68, 128-29.2. Noth, OS, pp. 11, 45-47, 89-110; DH, pp. 26, 66-68, 119-45.3. The aetiologies may have been gathered in written form before the Collector

combined them with the heroic legends. The evidence is slight (9.1-4), and Nothwavers in his interpretation (cf. Noth, Das Buck Josua [HAT 7; Tubingen: Mohr;

PECKHAM The Significance of the Book of Joshua 215

the land and attributed to him the heroic legends. The Collector addedonly a few words to summarize (5.1; 6.27; 10.42; 11.16-20) and connect(9.3-4acc; 10.5, 43; 11.2) the narratives, but the rest is original andtraditional.1

Dtr, almost four centuries later, framed and repointed the tradition,and incorporated the facts into a brand new history of Israel. The stylewas new, and the idea of fitting the past into a single consistent perspec-tive was new, but the story was old and true and not invented. Theframework attaches the taking of the land under Joshua to the occupa-tion of the land in Transjordan (chs. 1; 12) and turns Joshua into a truesuccessor of Moses. The repointing, besides introducing the same topicsinto the narrative (3.7; 4.12, 14, 24), is concerned mainly with the regu-lation of cultic matters—it is priests who carry the ark and blow thetrumpets—and with exemplary events recounted in Deuteronomy andin the Pentateuchal sources: Joshua builds an altar on Ebal as Moses pre-scribed, the exodus is the model of all victories and Caleb receives thecity he once visited as a scout in the time of Moses. This is all said in thejargon and stilted speech of Dtr and, apart from a couple of transcrip-tions from unrecorded laws (5.4, 6-7), official documents (Josh. 6.24; 1Kgs 16.34) or sources that are now lost (Josh. 11.21-22; 12.13b-24a), itis all a reflection of theological rather than historical interest.2

The rest of the book of Joshua, according to Noth's theory, is not partof the History. The last part of the book (chs. 13-22) and the last chap-ter (ch. 24) were inserted into the History by a contemporary whoshared Dtr's perspectives and assumptions and who wrote in an almostundistinguishable style. Like Dtr, this writer used authentic sources in awritten edition done by a Compiler, reworked them reflectively andaccording to an overall plan, attributed them to Joshua the successor ofMoses and framed them between an introduction (ch. 13) and aconclusion (21.43-22.6).3 The writer altered the structure of the

1938], pp. xii, 32; [2nd edn, 1953], pp. 13, 57).1. Noth, US, pp. 40-41; DH, pp. 61-62; cf. Josua, (1938), pp. x-xiii; (1953),

pp. 11-13.2. Noth, US, pp. 2-3, 41-44; DH, pp. 14-16, 61-65.3. In US (p. 45; [DH, pp. 66-67]) 21.43-45 and 22.1-6 conclude the geographi-

cal and topographic material added to the book of Joshua. But, in the earlier and latereditions of his commentary, Noth makes 21.43-22.6 part of the originalDeuteronomistic version that was displaced by the later restructuring of the book(Josua [1938], p. xiii; [1953], p. 9).


Deuteronomistic version by including historical documents (chs. 14-19)and a source that mirrors or parallels the sources used by the Collector(ch. 24) l and by removing the story of Caleb from its proper place(between 11.23a and 23b) to its logical position in the story of theapportionment of the land (14.6apb-15). However, this writer is not aneditor, but an Augmentor. The new version contains recent lists of citiesand ancient information on tribal boundaries, but it is intrusive in theHistory, not a new edition of it, and apart from its sources it has nohistorical interest.2

The principle of simplicity and exclusion that Noth used to isolate theDeuteronomistic Historian in the book of Joshua was extended to isolatethis secondary, pseudo-Deuteronomistic writer from later but randomglossators. There are sporadic insertions in the Deuteronomistic narra-tives at the beginning of the book, but nothing either systematic orsignificant. Manifold glosses, added in layers, and whole sections, addedone after the other, were inserted in the territorial lists,3 but they eitherwere made for the occasion or copied from other contexts and, apartfrom traces of original information that they may contain, contributenothing of authentic interest. What counts in the book of Joshua are theancient and reliable sources that it contains and the Deuteronomisticversion that made it fashionable to include them.

The sources are peculiar to Dtr and unrelated to the Pentateuchalsources. The narratives at the beginning of the book resemble narrativesin the Pentateuch, but they have none of the characteristics of itssources, and they cannot be separated into the continuous and parallelstrands that typify the inclusion of these sources in the Pentateuch andespecially in Genesis. A few items in these narratives and the lists in thelatter part of the book may be reminiscent of the hand of the Priestlywriter, but the lists are old, authentic pre-Priestly documents, and the

1. In US (pp. 9, n. 1; 181; [DH, p. 23, n.l; CH, p. 108]) Noth said that 24.1-28was an independent and literarily isolated tradition, unrelated to the traditions in chs.2-11 and unknown to Dtr, and he repudiated the opinion expressed in his commen-tary that it had been the model for ch. 23. The same opinion, however, is repeated inthe second edition of his commentary (pp. 10, 15-16). In both editions of the com-mentary he also allows that the pre-Deuteronomistic version of ch. 24 may have hadsome relation to an early version of chs. 2-11 (1938, p. 109; 1953, 16).

2. OS, pp. 6-10, 45-47; DH, pp. 20-24, 66-68; cf. Josua (1938), pp. ix-x;(1953), pp. 13-16.

3. Noth, US, pp. 182-90; CH, pp. 111-19.


glosses and additions are merely very late intrusions in the style of thePriestly writer. Dtr made a new beginning and wrote a new kind of his-tory. Its only serious literary connection with the Pentateuch consisted ofpost-Priestly additions in the book of Numbers (chs. 32-35) and a fewstill later in the book of Joshua that were meant to bind the two origi-nally completely distinct works.1

What is most obvious in all this is that the theory does not fit the facts.If Noth's theory of a Deuteronomistic History can be traced to hiscommentary on Joshua,2 it is not because the book provided literaryevidence for the theory, but because it proved to him that Dtr was theauthor of a historical work that began in Deuteronomy and whosesources were completely unrelated to those of the Pentateuch. The manytexts that do not fit Dtr's orderly plan and perspective are simplyexcised.3 The really problematic texts, those that could obscure theDeuteronomistic theory by suggesting that the Priestly writer had ahand in the composition of the book of Joshua, are relegated to anappendix.4 The theory was brilliant and actually seemed to work, but theavailable methods were unequal to the literary and historical facts.

b. The AnalysisThe idea that Dtr is an author and historian means that Dtr selected,collected, arranged and interpreted all the available written traditions onthe history of Israel.5 Dtr was more a thinker than a writer and usuallywas content to let the sources speak for themselves.6 The Historian didnot compose a history but just added direction and emphases to literaryand historical traditions. Nobody, in fact, composed anything. The tradi-tions reflected religious practice or local pride and were fully formedbefore they were transcribed by the Collector. The official lists of townsand boundary points were manipulated into a system of territorial allot-ments just by cutting and pasting and adding a few verbs.7 Being anauthor and historian was intellectually bold and original but personallywas not very taxing.

1. Noth, OS, pp. 190-206, CH, pp. 121-34.2. Noth, OS, p. 88, n. 2; DH, p. 119, n. 2.3. Noth, Josua (1953), pp. 10-11.4. Noth, US, pp. 180-90; CH, pp. 105-19.5. Noth, OS, pp. 95-100; DH, pp. 128-33.6. Noth, OS, pp. 1-3, 11, 95; DH, pp. 13-16, 26, 128.7. Noth, Josua, (1938), pp. ix-x; (1953), pp. 13-15.


c. The Literary AnalysisNoth kept insisting that Dtr was an author but constantly described theDeuteronomistic literary contributions in terms that, apart from thetheory, would be characteristic of an editor or redactor. The problemwas that he had inherited Dtr, and with it a literary method that wasinadequate to his historical insight.1

The Dtr that Noth inherited was an editor with a distinctive style or aseries of editors with the same style, who reworked the narratives fromJoshua through Kings according to a clear and preconceived theology ofhistory. There was no need to give a detailed list of what they did, hesaid, because the critical list had already been compiled. Nor was it nec-essary to define the style, because its characteristics were evident andunquestioned—its lexicon, its reliance on formulaic expressions and itsrepetitive unadorned cadence.2

Noth did not agree that his Dtr was an editor, someone who workedwith ready and essentially complete works, but his denials made no dif-ference, because his Dtr was a product of classical literary criticism andso was distinguished only by its editorial habits and limited literary skills.Noth's Dtr was an author, he said, but authorship did not entail compo-sition or literary production. Noth's Dtr was a historian and so author-ship entailed only the ability to select and organize historical sources.Distinctive style? It was simple and unsophisticated, and anybody couldcopy it, just as some hack could imitate the style of the Priestly writer.3

It was not style but a kind of source and historical insight that distin-guished Noth's Dtr from the writer of the second half of Joshua, whohad exactly the same style but different ideas and different kinds ofsources.4

This Dtr was not responsible for the Pentateuch and did not usePentateuchal sources.5 But the idea of historical authorship made itcrucial to find out what kinds of sources were used, and the only modelor method that was available to Noth was the critical theory that hadbeen applied to the Pentateuch. The sources used by Dtr in Joshuamight differ in content,6 but they had the same general characteristics as

1. Cf. Noth, OS, p. 11; DH, p. 26.2. Noth, US, pp. 3-5; DH, pp. 17-19.3. Noth, US, pp. 184, 188; CH, pp. 113, 117.4. Noth, OS, pp. 45, 184-86; DH, p. 66; CH, pp. 112-15.5. Noth, OS, pp. 13, 180-82; DH, p. 28; CH, pp. 107-109.6. Noth, US, p. 88; DH, p. 119.


the Pentateuchal sources, and they were isolated by the same meticuloushistorical-critical method.

First, there was the obvious distinction between narrative sources,sources like J and E, at the beginning of the book of Joshua, and docu-mentary or formal list-like sources, such as were most familiar from P, atthe end of the book. This, in fact, was how scholarly tradition haddescribed them,1 but Noth disagreed, because P was an independentsource and not an editor of documents, and because the narratives didnot contain parallel sources or, if they did, because the parallel sourceswere unlike those in the Pentateuch and were not continuous from onenarrative to the next. Still there was no other reason, apart from thisreliance on the Pentateuchal model, for Noth to make Dtr the author ofthe narrative parts and to invent a secondary pseudo-Deuteronomist toaccount for the inclusion and editing of the lists.2

Secondly, the sources were discovered by the tried and true methodof stripping secondary material from a solid streak of narrative. In thePentateuch, the sources were put together by a nameless and facelessredactor. In Joshua, they were assembled by a Collector, and the sec-ondary material, except for completely random additions, was attributedto an individual Dtr with character and clear historical interests. Literarycriticism went no further than responsibility for the sources, and literaryfeatures such as the fact that Joshua was a distinct book in a series ofbooks were suppressed in favor of historical features, such as the factthat the book of Joshua, in its Deuteronomistic and its post-Deuteronomistic versions, dealt with a distinct era.3

Noth's insight that Dtr was the author of a historical work was notsustained by the literary method at his disposal. The literary method wasdesigned to isolate historical sources, not to appreciate writers of history.Dtr, despite the theory, was not the author of a literary work, but aneditor or redactor of a traditional historical work.

d. The Historical AnalysisThe mania for sources, and the adoption of a literary method to match,was also determined by historical theory and method. If history was a

1. Noth, OS, pp. 180-90; CH, pp. 107-19.2. The literary reasons for considering chs. 13-19 to be secondary are that 13.la

anticipates 23. Ib, and the apportionment of the land is just an elaborate expansion onthe Deuteronomistic remark in 11.23 (US, p. 45; DH, pp. 66-67).

3. Noth, US, pp. 3, 45,47, 87-88; DH, pp. 15, 66, 68, 118-19.


true record of the past, it was the facts that mattered and those wereconveyed, not by writers with personality and will, but by the traditionsthat spontaneously sprang from the facts and unthinkingly expressedthem.

The facts were assured by local aetiologies and impersonal documents.The aetiologies declared that something happened, but they did not nec-essarily report what happened or how it occurred. They merely revealthat a concrete physical fact existed and how it was remembered andrepeated. The association of aetiologies with landmarks and holy places,their original independence from each other and the lack of correspon-dence between the topography and the historical traditions it supported,assured their pristine reliability. The documents, to the same effect, werelists of border points and towns.1 The fact that they were just lists, thatthe place names were not connected literarily but were just points on amap, that the points could be understood as the boundaries of more thanone tribe or as places in more than one region and that there were notenough places to describe the boundaries of all twelve tribes or to fill outthe system to which they were adapted, attests the authenticity of thelists. The sources were given a new twist by a Collector or a Compiler,by Dtr and by a later, likeminded writer. However, by abstracting fromtheir work, the sources and the immemorial traditions they conveyedremain an uncontrived basis for the history of Israel.

The interpretation of the sources that was denied to Dtr was taken upin Noth's historical synthesis. The documents, deciphered and dated byAlt, had been fitted into the amphictyonic scheme that Noth discov-ered.2 The aetiologies, at all but the first factual stage of the tradition,were dubious sources for the history of the nation, but by implicit refer-ence to these documents and by absorption into his tribal scheme, theybecame true relics of the tribe of Benjamin, transmitted in the amphicty-onic meetings at Gilgal, where Judaeans also worshipped and whereJoshua the Ephraimite eventually found acceptance.3 The book ofJoshua, in this way, could be reduced to useful sources from the

1. Noth, 'Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josua-Buches', ZDPV 58 (1935), pp. 185-255; repr. in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Aufsatze zurbiblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1971), I, pp. 229-80.

2. Noth, Das System der zwolf Stdmme Israels (BWANT 4.1; Stuttgart:Kohlhammer, 1930), p. 32 and Josua (1938), p. xi; (1953), p. 13.

3. Noth, Josua (1938), pp. 2-6,19-20, 29.


beginning of Israel's history in the land, and from the earliest and latestheydays of the monarchy under David and Josiah. The DeuteronomisticHistory, touted as new and original, was just the last significant stage inthe transmission of tradition, and all but irrelevant to the interpretationof that tradition.

The historical analysis essentially consisted in fabricating sources andimagining a time and place for them to fit. It seemed to have the supportof critical literary method, and it acquired credibility in the historical syn-thesis that Noth created. But it undermined the theory that it was sup-posed to prove and turned Dtr, whom the literary analysis had revealedas an editor, into a mute or very marginal purveyor of curiosities fromthe distant past.

2. The Dilemma of the Successors of Noth

Noth completely redefined the terrain. Those who disagreed with histheory still dealt with the data as he presented them. His view of thebook of Joshua became the reality that everyone else had to interpret.The Deuteronomistic theory floated free of the book and could beaccepted, emended or ignored with impunity, but Noth's literary andhistorical methods, and the results that they achieved, became the sourceand worry of subsequent literary and historical research.

a. Historical AnalysesSome commentators on Joshua attempted to move forward and stillhold in their hands all the elements of Noth's synthetic view. Theirresults were wildly divergent and not always a real advance, but theirreliance on Noth's analyses and distortion of his overridingDeuteronomistic theory were invariable and often perplexing compo-nents of their work.

Hertzberg1 took over the whole system but tried to go deeper. Hethought that Dtr was not an individual author and historian but a groupof theologians. He believed that there was a metahistory beyond the his-torical sources that Noth described, that aetiologies marked theologicalevents and that the significance of the tribal allotments was theirreflection of a plan and their fulfillment of a promise that occurred,following the standard dating of the sources, in the time of David.

1. H.W. Hertzberg, Die Biicher Josua, Richter, Ruth (ATD 9; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1969).


Soggin1 followed Noth almost slavishly and, even though they no longermade much sense, included all the elements of the standard system.Noth's Collector freely interchanges with J. Aetiologies give a focus toliturgical events, not to historical traditions. Dtr is a solution toinconsistencies in the stories but also a notable theologian. There areclues—such as parallel recensions of the crossing of the Jordan—thatsuggested serious rethinking was in order, but they were neglected andthe system was saved.

Noth's historical analysis also became the basis of bold new synthesesthat were at odds or totally inconsistent with it. The canonical approachespoused by Childs2 allowed him to treat Joshua as a book, but the bookis exactly the mixture of sources and redaction that Noth described, andthe canonical approach to it provides the means to juggle the inconsis-tencies and still believe that, even if not historical, it is relevant and true.The first part of the book presents the taking of the land as a unified andcompletely successful assault and is a theological construct that made theera of the conquest a model of obedience to the law. The last partproves that the promise of the land was fulfilled. Both parts conflict witheditorial statements to the contrary, so that the land remains an idealpossession, much of which is left to be conquered. Dtr is responsible forthe tensions that make the book gripping but is a theologian and not ahistorian, and rather than just marking the end of the tradition, is itsmost significant canonical impulse.

Gottwald3 used Noth's data and the historical reconstruction thatNoth proposed as the basis of his own sociological approach to theancient traditions. What is important are the sources and the religious orarchival contexts that Gottwald can imagine as their origins. The amph-ictyony is a dead letter, but the twelve-tribe system, which originatedand functioned for a while in the time of David, survives in the lists thatwere truncated for inclusion in the book of Joshua. The narratives at thebeginning of the book mask an indeterminate historical reality thatacquired its actual form in the ritual cycles at Gilgal. Everything is asNoth left it, except that Dtr becomes even more peripheral in

1. J.A. Soggin, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,1972).

2. B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1979).

3. N.K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion ofLiberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979).


Gottwald's eclectic acceptance of two editions of the History (neither ofwhich seems to make any difference) and in his association of the narra-tive sources with those in the Pentateuch. Noth's analyses, as thesequirky and divergent distillations might suggest, had a life of their ownthat made them apt for almost any application but entirely tangential tothe Deuteronomistic theory they were meant to support.

Noth's results, similarly, were easily adaptable to the needs ofdeveloping historical research. Aetiologies were disputed for a time andbecame symptomatic of stages of redaction rather than of original facts.1

But, since they were attached to the narratives which had little historicalworth, the subject soon was abandoned.2 The boundary and city listswere dated to different reigns3 or were considered Utopian4 or historio-graphical rather than administrative records,5 but their existence andauthenticity were never in doubt, and the historical reconstruction thatthey promoted was confirmed by the archaeological facts.6 The amphic-tyony fell on hard times,7 and the tribal organization of Israel came to beconsidered a projection from later years.8 The facts that Noth presented

1. J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing: A Study in Method (SET19; London: SCM Press, 1956), pp. 91-104; B.S. Childs, 'A Study of the Formula"Until This Day'", JBL 82 (1963), pp. 279-92.

2. Cf. S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (trans.J.S. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), pp. 97-98.

3. P.M. Cross and G.E. Wright, 'The Boundary and Province Lists of theKingdom of Judah', JBL 75 (1956), pp. 202-26; Z. Kallai(-Kleinman), The TownLists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan', VT 8 (1958), pp. 134-60; Y. Aharoni,The Province-List of Judah', VT9 (1959), pp. 225-46 and The Land of the Bible: AHistorical Geography (trans. A.F. Rainey; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967);S. Talmon, The Town Lists of Simeon', IEJ 15 (1965), pp. 235-41.

4. Y. Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine (Jerusalem:Magnes, 1953).

5. R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schweich Lectures,1959; London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 47; N. Na'aman, Borders andDistricts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical Geographic Lists(Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4; Jerusalem: Simor, 1986).

6. I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society, 1988).

7. C.H.J. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of thePresuppositions of Martin Noth's Ampictyony Hypothesis (Assen: Van Gorcum,1976).

8. A.G. Auld, Tribal Terminology in Joshua and Judges', in Convegno sulTema: Le Origini di Israele (Roma, 10-11 Febbraio 1986) (Rome: Accademia


and the synthesis that he devised, however, for want of an alternativetheory or any other information, were retained and defended, althoughat times with pathetic diffidence1 or agnostic indecision.2

True history meant true records. The improbable sources that Nothproposed acquired life and momentum in his history of the origins ofIsrael in the land. The elements of his reconstruction were graduallywhittled away, but the sources remained and could be incorporated intoendless historical and theological theories. Dtr might have made a differ-ence as the historian that Noth proposed but survived in any theory onlyas the editor and commentator that Noth described. True records, itturned out, meant whatever the fiction and fantasy of the later inter-preters prescribed.

b. Literary AnalysesNoth's literary analysis was based on meticulous attention to every detailin the text. His successors turned to aspects of the text that he had onlytreated in passing—the history of the text and the composition of thenarratives—or to his hasty and heavy-handed insistence that Joshua wasintegral to the Deuteronomistic History and had nothing to do with thePentateuch. His divisions of the text and the Pentateuchal relationshipsthat he had probed were in every instance the impetus to furtherresearch.

Noth's literary analysis was both seconded and emended by work onthe history of the text. Auld's studies attempted to solve the problemsarising from his analysis. Tov's essays illustrated, in regard to issues thatNoth had defined, the textual history of the book. A few items that Nothconsidered secondary could be shown to be random accretions to theHebrew text3 with no original position in it.4 Expansions in the list of

Nazionale del Lincei, 1987), pp. 87-98; N.P. Lemche, '"Israel in the Period of theJudges": The Tribal League in Recent Research', ST 38 (1984), pp. 1-28;J.A. Soggin, A History of Israel: From the Beginnings to the Bar Kochba Revolt, AD135 (London: SCM Press, 1984).

1. J. Bright, A History of Israel (London: SCM Press, 3rd edn, 1981), pp. 161 -62.2. J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 74-79.3. A.G. Auld, Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua', ZAW 90

(1978), pp. 412-17.4. E. Tov, 'Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and their

Ramifications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible', JNSL 13 (1987), pp. 151-60(152-54).


Levitical cities were related to late developments in the Chronicler's his-tory.1 The lists in the latter part of the book were described, on the basisof the variant Greek and Hebrew texts, as original to its narrativestratum, although they had been jostled by later additions, reorganiza-tions, intrusions and appendices.2 The Hebrew text of Joshua, all in all,could be said to represent a late and expansive edition of the book.3

These particular uses of textual criticism often impinged on texts thatNoth had considered accretions to the Deuteronomistic version, but theydid not affect his explanation of the development of tradition up to thatcritical point.

Other types of literary criticism intentionally ignored Noth's theoriesof tradition and redaction in order to concentrate on the texture andimplications of the text. Some explored the literary qualities of traditionalcomposition;4 some described the flow of a complete cycle5 and somedelved into the art of an inspired narrator.6 Others, eschewing sourcesand editors, focused on the theories, meaning and interpretation inherentin particular texts7 or in thematic sequences8 or in the whole book.9

In a few instances, Noth's explanation of the growth of the literary

1. A.G. Auld, The "Levitical Cities": Texts and History', ZAW 91 (1979),pp. 194-206.

2. A.G. Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch—Pentateuch—Hexateuch in a Generation Since 1938 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980).

3. E. Tov, The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence ofthe LXX Translation', in S. Japhet (ed.), Studies in Bible 1986 (ScrHier 31; Jerusalem:Magnes, 1986), pp. 321-39.

4. R.C. Culley, 'Stories of the Conquest: Joshua 2, 6, 7, and 8', HAR 8 (1984),pp. 25-44.

5. J.A. Wilcoxen, 'Narrative Structure and Cult Legend: A Study of Joshua 1-6', in J.C. Rylaarsdam (ed.), Transitions in Biblical Scholarship (Essays in Divinity6; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 43-70.

6. W.L. Moran, The Repose of Rahab's Israelite Guests', Studi sull'Oriente ela Bibbia offerti al P. Giovanni Rinaldi nel 60. compleanno (Genova: Studio e Vita,1967), pp. 273-84.

7. P.A. Bird, The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presupposition inThree Old Testament Texts', Semeia 46 (1989), pp. 119-40.

8. L.M. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God (JSOTSup 84; Bible andLiterature Series 24; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), pp. 25-54.

9. L.D. Hawk, Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (LiteraryCurrents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991);R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the DeuteronomisticHistory, I, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), pp. 73-145.


traditions barely survived close critical scrutiny.1

Most literary analysis of the book of Joshua was concerned with itsrelationship to the Pentateuch. There were two principal views, bothaffirming its use of Pentateuchal sources and making it continuous withthe earlier books, each differing in the dates to be assigned to thesources. One was a reaffirmation of the old Hexateuchal theory thatNoth had tried to displace,2 and the other was a revision of the classicaltheory of the Pentateuch that let his theory stand.3 Noth's theoryrequired that the Deuteronomistic History begin in Deuteronomy, andhis determination to exclude any connection between Joshua and thePentateuchal sources inevitably came back to undermine his work. It isindicative of the contradictions in his system that it was only byredefining the book's relationship to the Pentateuch that his convictionthat Dtr was an author and historian could begin to be defended.

All parts of Joshua were affected. The opening narratives were tracedto J4 or E5 or an amalgam of both,6 and it became routine to admitediting by the Priestly writer.7 The lists in the latter part of the book

1. G.M. Tucker, 'The Rahab Saga (Joshua 2): Some Form-Critical andTradition-Historical Observations', in J.M. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testamentin the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), pp. 66-82.

2. G. von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT 4.26;Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938); repr. in Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament(TBii 8; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958), pp. 9-86.

3. M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu denBeriihrungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67; Zurich: TheologischerVerlag, 1981); J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the AncientWorld and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983),pp. 322-53.

4. E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT 107; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1975).

5. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh.6. J. Bright, 'Joshua', IB, 2 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), pp. 541-673;

F. Langlamet, 'Josue 2 et les traditions de 1'Hexateuque', RB 78 (1971), pp. 5-17,161-83, 321-54 and 'La traversee du Jourdain et les documents de 1'Hexateuque:Note complementaire sur Jos., III-IV, RB 79 (1972), pp. 7-38; S. Tengstrom, DieHexateucherzahlung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie (ConBOT 7; Lund: Gleerup,1976).

7. J. Blenkinsopp, The Structure of P', CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 275-92; J. Halbe,'Gibeon und Israel: Art, Veranlassung und Ort der Deutung ihres Verhaltnisses inJos. IX', VT 25 (1975), pp. 613-41; N. Lohfink, 'Die Priesterschrift und die


were considered an appendage to J1 or were attributed to P2 or to aJerusalem source similar to P3 or to contamination from the P source inthe Pentateuch.4 The idea that they were derived from documents forwhich no one was responsible was countered by invoking an oral tradi-tion that P then recorded from scratch.5 The appendices were explainedby their dependence on P,6 and the end of the book was assigned to J7

or was derived from Pentateuchal sources8 or, exceptionally and indefiance of Noth's thesis, was accepted as a key composition of theDeuteronomistic school.9 The book of Joshua might still be considered aDeuteronomistic work, but it became a matter of indifference whether it

Geschichte', in Congress Volume, Gottingen 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978),pp. 189-255; J.R. Porter, 'Old Testament Historiography', in G.W. Anderson (ed.),Tradition and Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), pp. 125-62.

1. E. Cortese, Josua 13-21: Bin priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuterono-mistischen Geschichtswerk (OBO 94; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).

2. I.E. Petersen, 'Priestly Materials in Joshua 13-22: A Return to theHexateuch?', HAR 4 (1980), pp. 131-46; A. Ibanez Arana, 'Los marcos redaccionalesde Jos 13-19', in R. Aguirre and F. Garcia Lopez (eds.), Escritos de Biblia y Oriente(Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 38; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1981), pp. 71-95.

3. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of theReligion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 320-21.

4. M. Wiist, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des AlienTestaments, I, Ostjordanland (Tubingen Atlas des Vorderen Orients, B, 9;Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1975).

5. S. Mowinckel, Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch: Die Berichte iiber dieLandnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken (BZAW 90; Berlin:Topelmann, 1964).

6. J.S. Kloppenborg, 'Joshua 22: The Priestly Editing of an Ancient Tradition',Bib 62 (1981), pp. 347-71; A. Rofe, 'Joshua 20: Historico-Literary CriticismIllustrated', in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), pp. 131-47.

7. J. Van Seters, 'Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament',in W.B. Barrick and J.R. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter ofElyon: Essays on AncientPalestinian Life and Literature in Honor ofG. W. Ahlstrom (JSOTSup 31; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 139-58.

8. W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOTSup 93; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1990); S.D. Sperling, 'Joshua 24 Re-examined', HUCA 58 (1987) 119-36.

9. H.D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einemGrundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zurich:Theologischer Verlag, 1980), pp. 300-306.


was composed from Pentateuchal sources or merely completed a basicPentateuchal theme.1

Noth's theory that Dtr was the author of a historical work was notwell served by the methods he used. He noticed every nook and crannyin the text but did not dally with its ultimate appeal. He saw all the con-nections within it and between it and the Pentateuch, but there wasalways an editor waiting in the wings to take the blame. He did not tran-scend an inherited fixation on objective facts, and he did not think thatthe author of a history actually wrote it or was responsible for its presen-tation of the facts. His theory, consequently, was not tested, and mostscholarly attention was diverted to its peculiarities and to the ready anduseful results that it produced.

3. The Next Generation: Intimations and Prospects

Study of the book of Joshua, whether through progress or regression,seems to be stuck in its pre-Nothian position. There is a multiplicity ofDeuteronomists, either authors or editors; the novelty of their work isblurred by the encroachment of Pentateuchal sources or themes; theonly certain sign of their presence is an attachment to words; the onlydistinction between them is their particular obsessions and the onlyjustification for them at all is an attempt to systematize the randomadditions postulated by Noth or the hypothetical place they might havein a predetermined history of institutions and ideas.2 Noth may have

1. G.W. Coats, 'An Exposition for the Conquest Theme', CBQ 47 (1985),pp. 47-54 and 'The Book of Joshua: Heroic Saga or Conquest Theme?', JSOT 38(1987), pp. 15-32; D.M. Gunn, 'Joshua and Judges', in R. Alter and F. Kermode(eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1987),pp. 102-22; G.J. Wenham, 'The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua',JBL 70 (1971), pp. 140-48.

2. Examples of these tendencies (R.G. Boling, Joshua: A New Translation withNotes and Commentary [AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982] and 'Joshua,Book of, ABD, IJJ, pp. 1002-15; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth [NCB; London:Oliphants, rev. edn, 1977]; N. Lohfink, 'Kerygmata des deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks', in J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt [eds.], Die Botschqft und die Boten:Festschrift fur Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag [Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1981], pp. 87-100; A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel betweenSettlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History [London:SCM Press, 1983], pp. 40-57; B. Peckham, 'The Composition of Joshua 3-^T, CBQ46 [1984], pp. 413-31; R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur


meant something different or better, and it might be time, with the helpof clues that have eluded the ideal control of the system, to dust off hisoriginal insight.

It may be supposed, if only to get out of a scholarly rut, that being anauthor involves composing a literary work, and being a historian meanssomething other than having a fixation on facts from the past. It mightbe useful, then, to consider how the book of Joshua is a literary workand how its author managed to write a new kind of history that startedin Deuteronomy and did not use the old familiar sources.

a. Dtr as AuthorThe examination of Joshua as a literary work might begin with the formof the whole and the form of its parts and the relation between them. Itwill be noticed that it is a literary work that belongs to a series, a bookattached by literal repetition to the books that precede and follow. Itbecomes obvious, then, that the books are about people and eras, realpeople or types, and epochs that follow each other but also clearlyoverlap. The parts of the book, similarly, are phases in a single careerand periods in the era that follow each other and backtrack to earliertimes.

Joshua is the biography of a hero. Its individual parts recount thewonders that confirmed the hero's calling (chs. 1-4), his legendary vic-tories (chs. 5-8), his defeat of the kings and occupation of the land fromnorth to south and to the distant sea (chs. 9-12), his last will and testa-ment that distributed inheritances to the tribes (chs. 13-21) and hisparting addresses to his bodyguard, to the leaders of the troops and tothe people (chs. 22-24). The story of Joshua fills the time betweenMoses' farewell address and the fulfillment of his dreadful predictions bythe following generation.

In each part everything is said twice from different points of view. In

deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff [ed.], Problemebiblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rod zum 70. Geburtstag [Munich: Chr. Kaiser,1971], pp. 494-509) are situated and evaluated by M.A. O'Brien, TheDeuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 67-81. Significant interest in Dtr as an individ-ual author and historian can be found in the partial studies of D.J. McCarthy (TheTheology of Leadership in Joshua 1-9', Bib 52 [1971], pp. 165-75) and C.T. Begg('The Function of Josh 7,1-8,29 in the Deuteronomistic History', Bib 67 [1986],pp. 320-24).


the first part Joshua is sent to take the land and is also commissioned toapportion it (1.1-5, 6-9); the invasion is heralded by preparing the peopleand by sending spies (1.10-18; 2.1-24); the people cross the Jordan andso do the priests (3.1-17; 4.1-24). In the second part (chs. 5-8) there aretwo attacks on Ai and two reasons for the capture of Jericho. In thethird part (chs. 9-12) there are two sides to the covenant with Gibeon,two versions of the victory over the southern kings, two battles with theking of Hazor and two summaries of the conquered land. In the fourthpart there is (1) an introduction relating unfinished business from thetime of Moses, which deals twice with the land of the Transjordaniantribes (chs. 13-14), (2) a conclusion with more unfinished business,which deals twice in different ways with the cities of refuge (chs. 20-21)that together enclose (3) the boundaries of Judah and a list of its cities(15.1-19, 20-63), (4) the double share of the tribe of Joseph (chs. 16-17)and (5) the boundaries and cities allotted to the remaining tribes (chs.18-19). The last part has two views on the Transjordanian tribes (22.1-9,10-34) and two final speeches by Joshua (chs. 23-24). In every iterationthe story of Joshua and the history of the tribes overlap or meet on atangent.

Between the parts there are literal and topical connections. The firstpart introduces items that are repeated in the last—Joshua's bargainwith the Transjordanian tribes (1.12-18; 22.1-9), his commitment to thebook of the law (1.7-9; 24.19-28), the crossing of the Jordan or the Seato the land of the Amorites (4.19-24 + 5.1 and 24.6-8), the capture ofJericho as emblematic of victory over the nations in the land (3.5; 24.11)and even an obsession with stones (4.3, 8-9, 20; 24.26-27)—but theseand other ordinary items also relate this first part to the second (ch. 6,the capture of Jericho), the third (9.1-2, the nations in the land) and thefourth (13.8-32; 14.1-5, the Transjordanian tribes) parts. The secondpart, similarly, recounts the battle of Jericho that began in the first, thebattle of Ai that motivates the action in the third part, the parade of thetribes that become the topic of the fourth part and a ceremony betweenEbal and Gerizim that foreshadows the closing covenant at Shechem.The third part is linked to the first by its mention of the exodus and ofSihon and Og (9.9-10; 2.10), to the second by its allusion to a temple ofYahweh (9.27; 6.19), to the fourth by its interest in tribal allotments(11.23) and its concern for the Transjordanian tribes (12.1-6) and to thelast by its summary of victories and by some of the same particularpoints. The fourth part begins like the last (13.1-7; 23.2-13), fulfills the


command given to Joshua in the first (1.6) and takes place mostly atGilgal, as did the second and third. The connections are cumulative andinterpret the tasks completed during Joshua's career.

Each part has an introduction and conclusion and a distinctive distri-bution of its compositional segments. The first part opens with thecommand to cross the Jordan and ends with an explanation of thecrossing. The narrative is discontinuous and its segments are staggeredaround items they enclose: it skips from a promise to a prayer thatYahweh would be with Joshua (1.1-5, 12-18), from the assurance thatthe land is theirs (1.1-5) to reassurance on the same point (ch. 2), fromorders to their performance (1.10-11 and 3.2-4; 1.12-18 and 4.12-14)and is filled with digressions and asides that become principal topics asthe narrative proceeds.1

The second part opens with a transition from the end of the first (5.1)and ends with Joshua's accomplishment of his initial commission (8.30-35; 1.6-9). The narrative proceeds in segments related discretely totopics in the first part: the rite of circumcision distinguishes the childrenof Israel to whom the land was given (5.2-7; cf. 1.2-3), Gilgal is defined(5.8-9; 4.19-24), the chronology of the crossing is completed (5.10-12;cf. 1.11; 2.22; 3.2; 4.14, 19), the encouragement Joshua received takesshape (5.13-15; 1.5), Rahab and her family are spared as the spies agreed(6.17, 22-25; 2.12-21), the ark and the crossing of the Jordan becomethe focus of attention (7.6-9) and the law is inscribed in the land (8.30-35; 1.6-9).

The third part begins with a reference to the second (9.1-2) and endswith summaries and references to the first and second parts (11.23;12.1-6, 9). Each narrative begins the same way, has its own conclusionand refers to the preceding.

The fourth part has an introduction and a conclusion (13.1-7; 21.43-45); its segments are paired and each successive pair refers in some wayto the first (e.g., 15.13-19 and 14.6-15; chs. 16-17 and 14.4). The lastpart is composed of speeches with similar introductions and wasdesigned to conclude the book.

It suited Noth's literary method and his predilection for sources thatthe Deuteronomistic History should flow continuously and not bedivided into books.2 But if the History was composed in books, as thissurvey of the structure of Joshua might suggest, it may be time to look

1. Peckham, 'Composition of Joshua 3-4'.2. Noth, US, pp. 3, 88; DH, pp. 17, 118.


at it from another critical angle and treat it as an author's creation, as asophisticated work that both flows and reflects on itself, whose abrupt-ness is an appeal for understanding, rather than an occasion for assigningthe difficult parts to irresponsible editors with little literary ability andeven less sense of the developing whole.

b. Dtr as HistorianIn considering Joshua as a historical work, a beginning might be toabandon Noth's traditions and sources, which suited his system butbedevilled the Historian's craft. Instead of the common but vain suppo-sition that facts are first, it might be supposed—if only to free the inquir-ing mind—that true history means true interpretation, based on data,derived from research, sifted as evidence, reasonably arranged, formedfor a purpose and issuing in narrative, descriptive or explanatory state-ments of fact. Dtr, in reality, is the principal source of a History, whosefacts depend entirely on the argument for which they were conceivedand the theory from which they were all reconstructed.

Dtr's facts are drawn from the past and geared to the future. The pastbelongs to an interpretive scheme that is compiled in the foregoingbooks, and the future is the proleptic and persuasive form of the ongo-ing story. Everything that is said has been told and will be told again,each time with a difference but always with the same deliberate purpose.The Deuteronomistic book of Joshua is one stage in a cumulative andself-reflective interpretation of the history of Israel, which, by tracing anera's origins, structure and purpose, engaged the reader in the processof historical understanding.

The past centers on Moses and the mystic age from which heemerged. The first part begins with the death of Moses and Joshua as hisreplacement, with orders for the army officers whose role Moses haddefined, and with his partition of Transjordan that was recounted inNumbers. The spies are sent from Shittim beyond the Jordan, where(according to the same book) the people had settled, and they success-fully relive the earlier debacle that already has been recounted twice,going to Rahab instead of Rehob (Num. 13.21) and finding that thewalled cities are manned by a woman. The ark and the priests lead theway, as they did in the wilderness, and the crossing fulfills the conditionsof the Sinai covenant (3.5, 10; Exod. 19.10-11; 34.10-11) and repeatsthe crossing of the Sea. In the second part, circumcision with swordsmade of flint seals off the wilderness where Moses (Exod. 4.24-26) and


men of war wrestled with God; Gilgal replaces Egypt; a vision at Jerichoassumes the features of revelation to Moses and Balaam; trumpets soundbefore a battle; the progress of the ark spells victory; war follows therules that Moses determined; Joshua's gesture wins the day at Ai, asMoses did against Amalek; and Achan in his own way relives the stupidmistake of Dathan and Abiram. In the third part, the role of the chief-tains and the congregation, the tasks assigned to the Gibeonites, the rulesof war, the end of the Anakim and the wars in Transjordan reflectMosaic problems and solutions from Numbers and Deuteronomy. Thefourth part begins and ends with references to the Mosaic era, and thenarrative thread linking the tribes is strung with people, doctrines andstories spun out of the already recorded past. In the last part, theTransjordanian tribes get to go home as Moses promised, Eleazarhandles their affairs as Moses instructed but confuses the altar they buildwith the altar Moses prescribed, Joshua quotes from the law in Exodusand Deuteronomy in speaking to the leaders of the army, and the con-clusion of the book, when all the covenants and promises are complete,recounts a patchwork of incidents and interpretations from Abraham tothe present. It is Joshua's story, but his career overlaps, reflects andfulfills the mission that Moses assumed.

Dtr, as Noth said, wrote a new kind of history that began inDeuteronomy. As he knew, Joshua did not incorporate any of the oldfamiliar sources. However, as his method would not allow, the book wasconstructed throughout with reference to them and to the interpretationthat they had received in the previous books. Joshua is the history of anera and the story of a people, as seen through the lives of a few men andwomen and in relation to earlier and later eras and the people who madea difference in their own times. From Deuteronomy on, each book tellsa different story and different versions of stories already told, as one erasucceeds the last and history moves to a close.

Dtr was not the first historian but was the first to rewrite history withconstant reference to its origins, motives and causes and with repeatedlaws, types, patterns and paradigms that made it interesting, persuasiveand applicable to all times. Dtr, as Noth insisted, did not use thePentateuchal sources, but Dtr, as Noth surely must have suspected, diduse the Pentateuch as a source.

Martin Noth's basic insight that Dtr was an author and historian canbe sustained simply by abandoning the traditional literary and historicalmethods that he inherited and that so badly misled him. By not fixing on


facts, or on tradition which supposedly lies behind the text or on ahistorical system constructed from vain imaginings about a past wheresuch things might have mattered, it is possible to deal with the facts asDtr understood them and wanted them to be known.

4. Other Works Consulted

Butler, T.C., Joshua (WBC 7; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983).Eissfeldt, O., 'Die Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament', TLZ 72 (1947), pp. 71-76;

repr. in R. Sellheim and F. Maass (eds.), Kleine Schriften, III (Tubingen: Mohr,1968).

—Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tubingen: Mohr, 3rd edn, 1964).Fohrer, G., Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. D.E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon,

1968).Gorg, M., Josua (NEB 26; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991).Kallai(-Kleinmann), Z., Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of

Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986).Langlamet, F., Gilgal et les recits de la traversee du Jourdain (Jos. III-IV) (CahRB 11;

Paris: Gabalda, 1969).Noth, M., 'Uberlieferungsgeschichtliches zur zweiten Halfte des Josuabuches', in

H. Junker and J. Botterweck (eds.), Alttestamentliche Studien Friedrich Notscherzum Sechzigsten Geburtstag, 19, Juli 1950 (BBB 1; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1950).

—The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 2nd edn, 1960).Ottosson, M., Josuaboken: en programskrift for davidisk restauration (Acta

Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Biblica Upsaliensis 1; Uppsala: Almqvist &Wiksell, 1991).

Vaux, R. de, Histoire ancienne d'Israel. I. Des origines a I'installation en Canaan(Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1971).

JUDGES AND THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Mark A. O'Brien

1. Martin Noth

The book of Judges holds a rather special place in Noth's hypothesis ofa Deuteronomistic History. According to him, 'Dtr. did the largestamount of original work on the period between the occupation and thebeginning of the monarchy.'1 It was Dtr who created the notion of aperiod of the judges between that of the occupation of the land underMoses and Joshua and that of the monarchy. In Noth's view this periodof the judges ran from Judg. 2.6 to 1 Samuel 12. To create it Dtr com-bined quite diverse traditional material and shaped it in a way that wouldmake it an integral yet unique part of the larger story of Israel.

Noth followed the consensus of his day for the separation of tradi-tional material from Dtr's own contribution. The traditional material wasidentified as the stories about tribal leaders in Judg. 3.12-12.6 and thelists of 'judges' in 10.1-5 and 12.7-15.2 Within 1 Samuel 1-12 traditionalmaterial includes the story of Samuel's birth and childhood in chs. 1-3,the 'ark narrative' in 4.1b-7.1, the story of Saul's secret anointing in9.1-10.16 and his deliverance of Israel in 10.27b-11.15. The storiesabout tribal leaders had already been collected before the composition ofthe Deuteronomistic History but lacked thematic unity. The two lists ofjudges were originally a single list. According to Noth, Dtr combined thecollection of stories and the list of judges by splitting the latter into twoparts to accommodate the story of Jephthah. The reason for this musthave been that Dtr noticed that the name Jephthah occurs in the story as

1. Noth, US, p. 90;D#, p. 121.2. As Noth observed, the judges are referred to by exegetes as the 'minor

judges'. This is presumably because they appear in simple lists and not dramaticstories as the other judges, described as the 'major judges' (US, pp. 20-21, 47-48;DH, pp. 37, 69-70).


well as in the list of judges in 12.7, so he decided to join the latter to theend of the story in 12.6. Noth claimed that it was the conjunction of thetwo traditions in the figure of Jephthah that prompted Dtr to use theterm 'judge' in 2.16-19 as a general designation for Israel's leaders fromOthniel to Samuel.1

Dtr composed a programmatic introduction for the period of thejudges in 2.6-16, 18-19.2 This introduction explained how the judgescame about, and it linked them with the preceding period of the con-quest under Moses and Joshua. The generation that had seen the greatworks of the Lord during the conquest remained faithful even afterJoshua died (2.6-9). The next generation, however, did not know theLord and turned repeatedly to the worship of foreign gods. In keepingwith the terms of the Deuteronomic covenant, each occasion of Israeliteinfidelity brought divine retribution. The Lord handed Israel over toforeign oppression but, moved to pity by the people's distress, repeat-edly raised up judges who delivered them. Nevertheless, as soon as ajudge died, Israel lapsed into apostasy (2.11-16, 18-19). Dtr's evaluationof this new form of leadership was that it was unable to instil in Israel anenduring commitment to the Horeb covenant. 2.19 points to a spirallingdecline in Israel's behavior as they became 'worse than their ancestors'.

According to Noth, Dtr also composed for each story of deliverance aframework that validated the viewpoint presented in the introductoryoverview.3 Set in this deuteronomistic context, the stories acquired a

1. According to Noth, the title 'judge' is, for Dtr, 'not a question of judicialactivity but of leading the people' (US, p. 55, n. 3; DH, p. 78, n. 2). He subsequentlypublished a special study of the office of judge entitled, 'Das Amt des "RichtersIsraels"', in W. Baumgartner, O. Eissfeldt, K. Elliger and L. Rost (eds.), FestschriftAlfred Bertholet (Tubingen: Mohr, 1950), pp. 404-17. Since then, there has beenconsiderable debate about how the term 'judge' is to be understood in Old Testamenttexts. The literature was reviewed by H.N. Rosel, 'Die "Richter Israels": Riickblickund neuer Ansatz', BZ 25 (1981), pp. 180-203. Rosel's own position has subse-quently been criticized by N.P. Lemche, The Judges—Once More', BN 20 (1983),pp. 47-55. See also E.T. Mullen, 'The "Minor Judges": Some Literary andHistorical Considerations', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 185-201.

2. Noth's discussion of the introduction is in US, pp. 6-10; DH, pp. 20-24.3. Six elements of the framework can be identified, although not all are present in

each story. They are: (1) accusation of infidelity (3.7, 12; 4.1; 6.1; 10.6; 13.1); (2)oppression by an enemy (3.8, 12; 4.2; 6.1; 10.7; 13.1); (3) cry to God (3.9, 15; 4.3;6.6; lO.lOa); (4) God raises a deliverer (3.9, 15); (5) subjugation of the enemy (3.10,

O'BRIEN Judges and the Deuteronomistic History 237

certain conceptual unity. Furthermore, Dtr punctuated the narrative attwo strategic points to accentuate the theme of Israel's increasinginfidelity. The first one is 6.7-10, in which a message is delivered by anunnamed prophet; the second is 10.6-16, where the Lord personallyindicts Israel in vv. 11-14.

The traditional material in 1 Samuel 1-3; 4.1b-7.1; 9.1-10.16; 10.27b-11.15 was combined with Dtr's own compositions in 7.2-8.22; 10.17-27a and 12.1-25 to bring the period of the judges to an end and link itwith the subsequent period of the monarchy. Samuel is portrayed as thelast judge who delivers Israel from foreign oppression (7.2-17), yet he isalso the prophet commissioned to set a king over Israel (8.1-22; 10.17-27a). In Noth's understanding of the Deuteronomistic History, 1 Samuel12 is the programmatic speech that marks the end of the period of thejudges and inaugurates that of the monarchy, a period that endedignominiously in exile (2 Kgs 17; 25).

The integration of the period of the judges within the DeuteronomisticHistory was cemented even more firmly by a chronological schema thatDtr constructed. According to Noth, the pivotal date in this chronologywas the building of the temple 480 years after the exodus (cf. 1 Kgs6.1). Dtr assembled the chronology for the period of the judges with thisdate in mind by combining information in the traditional material withpersonal calculations. Noth found traditional chronological information inthe years during which Israel was oppressed by foreigners and in theyears attributed to the so-called 'minor judges'.1 Dtr's own calculationsare to be found in the years of peace that followed Israel's deliverancefrom oppression. These are all round figures of forty and are pre-sumably meant to indicate the passing of a generation of adults.2 WhenNoth added the combined figures to the chronological information forthe period from the exodus to the conquest and for the period from Saul

30; 4.23; 8.28; 11.33); (6) period of rest (3.11, 30; 5.31; 8.28). Noth believed that thestory of Othniel in 3.7-11, which is almost entirely made up of elements of theframework, was composed by Dtr.

1. The one exception is the round figure of 40 years for Israel's oppression bythe Philistines (Judg. 13.1), a figure that Noth attributes to Dtr (US, p. 22; DH, p. 38).

2. The figures continue the theme of the passage of generations found earlier inDeut. 2.14-16 (38 + 2 years from the Exodus to Kadesh-barnea = 40 years) andJudg. 2.10. The 80 years of rest given in 3.30 are presumably meant to cover the ruleof Ehud and his successor Shamgar.


to the building of the temple by Solomon, he arrived at the figure of480 years.1

Thus, by a judicious combination of tradition and redaction, byascribing the title of judge to the leaders of Israel and by a suitablechronology, Dtr created the period of the judges and made it an integralpart of the History and its principal theme of divine retribution forIsrael's infidelity.

Noth believed that a number of passages were later additions. Dtr'saccount of the transition from the period of the conquest to the periodof the judges is to be found in Joshua 23 and Judg. 2.6-19. Josh. 24.1-33and Judg. 1.1-2.5 are later expansions associated with the division of theHistory into books. For example, Josh. 24.29-31 is a doublet of Dtr'saccount of the death of Joshua in Judg. 2.6-9 and, along with Josh.24.32-33, forms the conclusion to that book. Judges 1 is a conglomerateof traditional elements that shows no signs of deuteronomistic redaction.Instead, it serves as an introduction to the book of Judges.

In a similar vein Noth did not consider Judges 13-21 part of Dtr'sHistory. He believed that Dtr's conceptual plan was flexible enough tohave accommodated the story of Samson, even though the latter did notwin rest for the people as the other leaders had. Nevertheless, he inclinedagainst including it for several reasons. The story shows no evidence ofbeing redacted by Dtr. The deuteronomistic comments about Samuel asa judge in 15.20 and 16.31b are similar to the one about Eli in1 Sam. 4.18b, which Noth considered a later addition. Furthermore,Samson is not mentioned in Dtr's list of deliverers in 1 Sam. 12.11.2 For

1. In fact, the total came to 481, but Noth rounded it off to 480 by proposing anoverlap between David's last year and Solomon's first year. His reconstruction of thechronology is as follows: (1) from the exodus to the conquest, 45; (2) from Othniel toGideon, 253; (3) the reign of Abimelech, 3; (4) the minor judges Tola and Jair, 45; (5)oppression by the Ammonites, 18; (6) minor judges Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon and Abdon,31; (7) oppression by the Philistines, 40; (8) Saul, 2; (9) David, 40; (10) Solomon, tothe building of the temple, 4 (US, pp. 18-27; DH, pp. 34-44). Noth omitted thechronological information in Judg. 15.20 and 16.31 from his calculation, regardingthem as later additions. W. Richter arrives at the figure of 480 by including these textsbut omitting as additions texts that Noth included (Judg. 9.22; 10.8 and 13.1) (DieBearbeitung des 'Retterbuches' in der deuteronomischen Epoche [BBB 21; Bonn:Peter Hanstein, 1964], pp. 132-41). Cf. also G. Sauer, 'Die chronologischenAngaben in den Buchern Deut. bis 2. Kon.', 7Z 24 (1968), pp. 1-14.

2. Noth here follows the MT and LXXBA which have 'Samuel', whereas the LXXL

and Syriac have 'Samson'.


chs. 17-21 Noth followed the scholarly opinion that these chapters werea later addition associated with the division of the History into separatebooks.1 The direct continuation of 13.1 in Dtr's History is to be found in1 Sam. 1.1.

2. Developments since Noth

Noth's hypothesis has been the focal point for most subsequent study ofthe book of Judges, and only recently has there been a move to examineit independently of his hypothesis. This move is to be expected and willhopefully provide fresh insights into the book. However, its success willdepend in some measure on the way it accounts for the literary phe-nomena that, for Noth, pointed so clearly to the existence of theDeuteronomistic History. In tracing developments since Noth, only themajor contributions that are of significance for the DeuteronomisticHistory hypothesis can be reviewed here.2

Richter's investigation of the compositional history of Judges duringthe 1960s marked a considerable departure from the scholarly consensusthat Noth followed.3 Noth believed that Dtr was the author of theframework passages that gave conceptual unity to a loose collection ofstories. Contrary to this view, Richter found that the stories had under-gone considerable development before Dtr arrived on the scene. A

1. Cf. Noth, US, p. 54, n. 2; DH, p. 77, n. 2. In a subsequent study of Judg. 17-18, Noth stated that 'the entire story does not fit at all well into the Deuteronomisticconception of "the period of the Judges'" (The Background of Judges 17-18', inB.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson [eds.], Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays inHonour of James Muilenberg [London: SCM, 1962], pp. 68-85). He found that therefrain in 17.6 and 18.1 ('in those days there was no king in Israel; all the people didwhat was right in their own eyes') was an integral part of chs. 17-18 but redactionalin chs. 19-21. This indicated that chs. 19-21 were added to chs. 17-18.

2. A full review of literature on Judges since Noth can be found in R. Bartelmus,'Forschung am Richterbuch seit Martin Noth', TRu 56 (1991), pp. 221-59.Bartelmus does not engage in a full discussion of the Deuteronomistic History andJudges, referring the reader to the earlier review by H. Weippert, 'Dasdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung',TRu 50 (1985), pp. 213-49.

3. W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch(BBB 18; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963); Die Bearbeitung des 'Retterbuches' in derdeuteronomischen Epoche; 'Die Uberlieferungen um Jephtah: Ri 10,17-12,6', Bib 47(1966), pp. 485-556.


redactor around the time of king Jehu first compiled a Retterbuch froma number of stories and other traditions. This book of deliverers beganwith Ehud and ended with the disaster of Abimelech's attempt to estab-lish monarchy in Israel. In Richter's opinion the book was probably apolemical response to the turbulent period in the northern kingdombetween Jeroboam I and the Omrides.

The Retterbuch was subsequently revised by a northernDeuteronomic redactor who added the framework passages around thestories. Later on, another Deuteronomic redactor in Judah composed the'typical' account of Othniel as a suitable introduction to the book ofdeliverers. It also gave some southern content to a document that waspredominantly about northern figures. The already thrice-redacted textwas then taken up by Dtr, who combined it with the lists of minorjudges and the Jephthah and Samson stories. Dtr also composed 2.7, 10-12, 14, 15accb, 16, 18apb, 19 and 10.6-16.1

Richter confirmed Noth's view that Dtr created the period of thejudges as part of his History and bestowed the title 'judge' on Israel'sdeliverers (cf. 2.16), but his analysis pointed to considerable complexity:four stages instead of the one supposed by Noth. Furthermore, whereasNoth thought that the collection of deliverer stories 'lacked thematicunity' prior to Dtr, Richter argued that the redactor of the Retterbuchhad in fact worked the stories into a document with a strong anti-monarchical flavour.2

There were two important implications for subsequent scholarship inRichter's analysis. The first arose from his critique of the supposed unityof deuteronomistic redaction. This is something that has been pursuedvigorously since Richter. The second is that his reconstruction of thecompositional history of the text opened a fascinating window on howdifferent generations of Israelites may have read the stories of the judgesand the factors that may have influenced their reading. For Richter, theaddition of the framework passages by the first Deuteronomic redactorreveals a move away from the Retterbuch's anti-monarchical focus tothe themes of retribution and mercy. God was merciful in the face ofIsrael's continued failures and brought it peace through the deliverers.The tenor of this redaction is more positive than the Retterbuch and

1. Richter also assigned to Dtr the judging formulas in 3.10; 4.4b-5, the deathnotices in 3.11; 4.16 and the information about Shamgar in 3.31.

2. Noth stated, They still lacked thematic unity and so Dtr. had to supply themwith connecting material' (US, p. 47; DH, pp. 69-70).


may reflect the restoration of the citizens' militia under Josiah. Thesecond Deuteronomic redaction is quite limited in scope but seems tohave been more negative, identifying apostasy as the sin that provokedGod's anger (cf. 3.7b, 8a). It may reflect Josiah's reforms againstforeign cults. Dtr then created the period of the judges, a time markedby Israel's repeated lapses into apostasy (2.14, 19). Dtr also signalled ananti-monarchical attitude by remarking that it was Tola the judge whodelivered Israel after the disastrous end to Abimelech's reign (10.1).1

According to Richter, this negative reading of the stories in Judgesshows that it is more than likely that Dtr wrote out of the trauma of theexile.

There have been other studies on the pre-deuteronomistic growth ofJudges, but none has matched or supplanted Richter's comprehensiveform-critical and redactional analysis.2 The story is, however, somewhatdifferent when one turns to deuteronomistic redaction. Here two impor-tant modifications to Noth's notion of a single, exilic historian, whichRichter accepted, have been proposed. These are the hypotheses of whathave come to be called the Smend and Cross schools. A full discussionof their theories about the composition of the Deuteronomistic Historycan be found in Antony Campbell's essay in this volume. Only theirproposals for the book of Judges will be considered here.

Noth recognized that there had been some retouching of the Historyin a deuteronomistic vein. Smend took this a step further, arguing that in

1. Richter observed that the verb 'deliver' in 10.1 is the same one used by Dtr in2A6(Bearbeitungen,p. 18).

2. Cf. W. Beyerlin, 'Gattung und Herkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch', inE. Wiirthwein and O. Kaiser (eds.), Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttesta-mentlichen Prophetic, Artur Weiser zum 70. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 1-29; R.G. Doling, Judges (AB 6a; Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1975); A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile:A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London: SCM, 1983), pp. 58-80; F.E. Greenspahn, The Theology of the Framework of Judges', VT 36 (1986),pp. 385-96.

A quite different explanation of the pre-deuteronomistic text of Judges hasbeen proposed by H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im AlienIsrael (BZAW 128; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972) and M. Weinfeld, The Period of theConquest and of the Judges as Seen by the Earlier and the Later Sources', VT 17(1967), pp. 93-113. Both find a continuation of the Pentateuchal sources J and E inJudges. Weinfeld does, however, accept that this material underwent a thoroughgoingdeuteronomistic redaction.


fact the work of the initial historian (DtrH) had been revised by adeuteronomistic redactor to highlight the issue of obedience to the law.1

In Judges he identified the contribution of this redactor, termed DtrN(for nomistic), in 1.1-2.9 and 2.17, 20-21, 23. Except for 2.6-9, thisaccords with what Noth himself identified as later deuteronomistic addi-tions.2 Smend's special contribution was to see in these additions adefinite shape and purpose.

Veijola has claimed more material for DtrN by proposing that 6.7-10and 10.6-16 belong to him rather than to the original History as Noththought.3 He also proposes that DtrN inserted Jotham's fable in 9.8-15,adding vv. 7,16-21 to recast it as a condemnation of Abimelech and hissupporters in Shechem. 9.5b, 24by§, 57 is also identified as part ofDtrN's modification of the story of Abimelech.4

If Veijola claims material for DtrN at the expense of Noth's Dtr in thefirst half of Judges, his analysis of chs. 17-21 moves in the oppositedirection. Whereas Noth believed these chapters to be a late post-deuteronomistic addition to the History, Veijola argues for their inclu-sion. Noth saw no evidence of deuteronomistic redaction in chs. 17-21.Veijola, in contrast, claims that the remark on the absence of a king in17.6; 18.1; 19.1; 21.25 is deuteronomistic and that there is alsodeuteronomistic redaction in 17.5, 7bp\ 13; 18.16, 19, 20, 31b; 19.1b,30; 20.4, 27b-28aa.5The repeated remark reveals a positive attitude

1. R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur deuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie:Gerhard von Rod zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 494-509.

2. There are two versions of the death of Joshua and accompanying comment:Josh. 24.29-31 and Judg. 2.6-9. Noth assigned the version in Judges to the Historian(his Dtr), whereas Smend assigns to the Historian (his DtrH) the version in Joshua.

3. T. Veijola, Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischenHistoric graphic: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, B, 198;Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977), pp. 43-48. Smend has more recentlyalso claimed 6.7-10; 8.33-35; 10.10-16 for DtrN (Die Entstehung des AllenTestaments [ThW 1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2ndedn, 1984], p. 116).

4. Veijola also assigns 9.22, 24abccp, 56 to Dtr, although Noth saw no contribu-tion by the Historian to the story of Abimelech (Das Konigtum, p. 112).

5. In support of the deuteronomistic character of the remark, Veijola drawsattention to Deut. 12.8, which speaks of everyone doing what is right in their owneyes, as in Judg. 17.6; 21.25. The other texts are identified as deuteronomisticbecause of the occurrence of an alleged deuteronomistic word or phrase.


toward monarchy and belongs to Dtr, who (contra Noth) was not anti-monarchical.1 The anti-monarchical strain that Noth found in his text ofthe Deuteronomistic History is, according to Veijola, the result of twosubsequent revisions of the History, those of DtrP (prophetic) andDtrN.2 Judges 17-21 functions in a manner similar to the repeated accu-sation earlier in Judges that 'Israel did what was evil in the sight of theLord.' These chapters, therefore, belong to the cycle of apostasy-punishment-deliverance that characterizes the period of the judges. Itwas the advent of monarchy that delivered Israel from the cultic andsocial disorders recounted in chs. 17-18 and 19-21, respectively.3

Veijola's inclusion of chs. 17-21 in the work of DtrH has been followedby Soggin in his commentary on Judges.4

Cross did not claim any texts in Judges as exilic deuteronomistic addi-tions to his Josianic History (= Dtr1). However, Nelson has subsequentlyproposed that 2.1-5 and 6.7-10 were the work of the exilicdeuteronomist (Dtr2).5 This redactor also inserted the account of theconquest in ch. 1 to provide a suitable context for the angel's indictmentin 2.1-5. The excision of 1.1-2.5 from the DtrH level agrees with bothNoth and Veijola; that of 6.7-10 agrees with Veijola against Noth. Nelsonis drawn to attribute these texts to a later hand because of their formaland linguistic similarities, especially the charge that Israel did not listen toGod's voice (cf. 2.2b; 6.10b). He also determines that these passages aresecondary in their contexts and that they share a more critical andpessimistic view of Israel than that of the Josianic historian. Because oftheir similarities to 2.1-5 and 6.7-10 Nelson is prepared to grant that2.17 and 2.20-23 may also be the work of the exilic redactor.6 This is in

1. A positive understanding of the repeated remark is also advocated byW.J. Dumbrell, ' "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what wasright in his own eyes": The Purpose of the Book of Judges Reconsidered', JSOT25(1983), pp. 23-33.

2. Smend and Veijola do not see any DtrP in Judges, whereas W. Roth does in2.13-15, 18, 19; 8.22-23 ('DeuteronomistischesGeschichtswerk/DeuteronomistischeSchule', THE 8 [1981], pp. 543-52).

3. Veijola does not examine chs. 13-16 but seems to assume that it was part ofthe initial History (Das Konigtum, p. 77). Smend also includes it in the work of DtrH(Die Entstehung, p. 117).

4. J.A. Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1981).5. R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of The Deuteronomistic History

(JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 43-53.6. Nelson, Double Redaction, pp. 20,44.


substantial agreement with both Noth and Smend. The only significantdifference that Nelson brings to Noth's analysis of Judges, therefore, isthe elision of 6.7-10 as a later addition.

A far more radical revision of Judges in the light of Cross's hypothesishas been carried out by Boling.1 He agrees with Richter that the storiesof Israel's leaders had been gathered and edited before theDeuteronomic phases of redaction. However, he parts company withhim on the nature and extent of these redactions. According to Boling,the collection of stories was combined in the time of Josiah with the listsof minor judges, the stories of Samson in chs. 13-16 and Micah theLevite in chs. 17-18, and embellished with suitable redactional commen-tary to form part of a 'Deuteronomic History' running from 2.1 to18.31. Boling's belief that it begins with the angel's indictment atBochim, is centred around Abimelech's destruction of Shechem andends with the erection of an idol in Dan prompts him to see in it apolemic against rivals to Jerusalem and its temple. In his view such anarrangement accords nicely with the reform of Josiah.2 This account ofthe period of the judges was expanded during the exile by the additionof chs. 1 and 19-21, creating what Boling calls a second or'deuteronomistic' edition of the History. Among post-Nothian advocatesof the Deuteronomistic History, Boling is the only one who includes 2.1-5 and chs. 17-18 in the Historian's work but excludes chs. 1 and 19-21as later additions.

More recently, Mayes and O'Brien have reviewed the literary evi-dence and concluded that the initial DtrH was composed in the time ofJosiah.3 Nevertheless, their understanding of the composition of Judgesdiffers sharply from Boling's. Both accept Richter's proposal of aRetterbuch that underwent two Deuteronomic redactions prior to thecreation of the History. The text that Mayes assigns to DtrH reachesfrom 2.11 to 16.31; in disagreement with Noth but in agreement with

1. R.G. Boling, Judges. See also 'In Those Days There Was No King in Israel',in H.M. Bream, R.D. Heim and C.A. Moore (eds.), A Light Unto My Path: OldTestament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers (Gettysburg Theological Studies 4;Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), pp. 33-48, and 'Response', JSOT 1(1976), pp. 47-52.

2. Boling, Judges, pp. 184-85.3. A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile, pp. 58-80;

M.A. O'Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 82-98.


Richter, he includes the story of Samson. An exilic redactor revised thistext by working in a number of comments that draw attention to Israel'scontinued disobedience to the Deuteronomic law.1 1.1-2.10 andchs. 17-21 are later, post-deuteronomistic additions, not necessarily fromthe same hand.

According to O'Brien, the text of the pre-exilic DtrH in Judgesreaches from 2.10 to 13.1. During the exile it underwent a nomisticredaction that emphasized the people's disobedience to the law. It is tobe found in 2.12-13, 17, 20-21, 23a; 3.5-6; 6.7-10; 10.6b, 10-16. 1.1-2.5and 13.2-21.25 were most likely post-deuteronomistic additions.2 WhileMayes and O'Brien differ on specific points, they agree that the JosianicHistory was subsequently revised to draw attention to Israel's continueddisobedience to the law.3 Their understanding of this revision sharescommon ground with the Smend school's notion of a DtrN redaction.

The most recent monograph-length study of Judges that advocatesmultiple deuteronomistic redaction is by Becker,4 who locates the text ofDtrH in Judges at 2.8-16.31. Dtr's work is essentially an anti-monarchical treatise, which was revised by DtrN to stress the impor-tance of the law and the people's failure to keep it. Becker rejectsRichter's view that Dtr redacted an already well-developed text. In areturn to Noth, he believes that it was Dtr who assembled and redacteda variety of independent materials. His identification of a DtrN revisionfollows the line of the Smend school and is similar to the proposalsabout subsequent redaction from Mayes and O'Brien.

All of these studies have confirmed Noth's hypothesis of aDeuteronomistic History with the period of the judges as an integral partof it. They have also confirmed his view that the text of the History inJudges is a combination of traditional stories, a list of 'minor judges' andredaction. However they have altered considerably his understanding ofhow these ingredients were combined. According to Noth, Dtr was theone figure whose reading of the traditional stories gave them a definite

1. Mayes identifies these comments in 2.12a|3b, 13a, 17, 18aoc, 19ap, 20-21, 23;3.5-6; 10.6a|ib, 10-16 (The Story of Israel, p. 78).

2. O'Brien identifies 2.22, 23b; 3.1-2, 3-4 as later (but still deuteronomistic)additions (Reassessment, p. 285).

3. Mayes identifies an exilic redactor, whereas O'Brien speaks of a stage ofredaction.

4. U. Becker, Richterzeit und Konigtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zumRichterbuch (BZAW 192; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).


shape and meaning. Before Dtr they lacked a thematic unity and at bestcould be described as a collection of stories. After Dtr there were somediscrete deuteronomistic additions, but they do not point to a systematicrereading and revision of the History. The most extensive additions in1.1-2.5 and chs. 17-21 were part of the later transformation of theDeuteronomistic History into separate books of suitable length.

Richter's hypothesis of three pre-deuteronomistic stages in the forma-tion of Judges can be seen as the result of rather different readings ofthe old stories. This impinges on one's understanding of the text thatDtr was reading, which in turn affects one's evaluation of the natureand scope of Dtr's contribution. The hypotheses of the Smend andCross schools envisage an ongoing close rereading of the initialDeuteronomistic History by subsequent deuteronomists whose differentviews have not been harmonized. Each of the readings which historical-critical analysis claims to uncover amounts to a more or less extensivereshaping of the existing text. The overall impression is something likethe weaving of a complex tapestry, which took much time and manyhands to create. The tapestry is rich and powerful in its impact, yet thereis a certain unfinished quality about it. It prompts the viewer to wonderhow it might have appeared if this or that feature had been highlighted afraction more or had been extended just that much further.

Hoffmann and Van Seters have sought to defend Noth's one exilicDtr against the hypotheses of multiple redactions.1 Hoffmann analyzeskey deuteronomistic themes and the structure of deuteronomisticpassages. Van Seters compares compositional techniques in theDeuteronomistic History with Greek historiography. Both come to the

1. H.D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einemGrundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zurich:Theologischer Verlag, 1980); J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography inthe Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1983). D.W. Gooding also defends a unified composition of Judges againsttheories of multiple redaction (The Composition of the Book of Judges', El 16[1982], pp. 70-80).

Brian Peckham advocates one exilic author for a Deuteronomistic History thatreached from Genesis to 2 Kings and incorporated a number of existing documents: aJ narrative, an earlier deuteronomistic history from Moses to Hezekiah, a P documentand an E history. The Judges section was composed entirely by the exilic author, theearlier deuteronomistic history containing no material at all on the judges (TheComposition of the Deuteronomistic History [HSM 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press,1985]).


conclusion that the History is the product of one creative author.Nevertheless, there are significant departures from Noth's understandingof the composition of the History. According to Hoffmann and VanSeters, the creative impact of Dtr is so pervasive that one cannot tracethe contours between traditional material and deuteronomistic redactionas Noth and others suppose. There were no doubt several old traditions,but these were freely shaped to advance Dtr's ideology. Both authorsposit later additions, but these are not the product of a systematic revi-sion of the History by subsequent deuteronomistic redactors.1

In a lively and provocative contribution to the debate, Halpern takesboth sides to task for losing sight of Noth's understanding of Dtr as ahistorian and of the Deuteronomistic History as historiography.2 InHalpern's eyes, both sides are guilty of over-emphasizing the ideologicalfactor in the Deuteronomistic History to the neglect of the historio-graphic factor. They portray the History principally as a message forDtr's contemporaries and fail to perceive its genuine antiquarian side,viz., its interest in the past as past.

Halpern argues that what makes a text historiographic is not its accu-racy about known facts from the past but the author's intention to writehistory. This intention can be determined with reasonable certainty bychecking the author's adherence to sources where these were used. Hebelieves that the historiographic attitude is deeply embedded in the nar-rative tradition of Judges and sets out to demonstrate it by showing, forexample, how the prose version of the Deborah-Barak story in ch. 4 isbased on a close reading of the older poetic version in ch. 5. He thenproceeds to show how the framework passages have been carefully tai-lored to the stories. The logical conclusion to draw from this is that theauthor of the framework passages is the one who assembled the stories.3

The framework passages have not been imposed on the stories simply toserve their author's theology; rather 'the whole causal logic of the theo-logical cycle arises from the material it frames.'4

In basic agreement with Richter, Halpern assigns the framework

1. Hoffmann identifies 2 Kgs 17.34-41 as a later addition, while Van Setersregards the so-called Succession Narrative as the product of a post-exilic, anti-messianic tendency.

2. B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (SanFrancisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

3. Halpern, First Historians, p. 124.4. Halpern, First Historians, p. 130.


passages to a pre-deuteronomistic historian and the introduction in 2.11-19 to Dtr. He points to a number of literary-critical features to justify thedistinction, at the same time insisting that 2.11-19 reveals an author whowas committed to introducing source material—the stories with theirframework passages—not to peddling a personal ideology. In contrast toRichter and others, however, he holds that 1.1-3.11 is not a compositebut wholly the work of Dtr. There is a consistent antiquarian or histori-cal logic operative in this text which he sets out in considerable detail.1

The consistent logic is in keeping with an author who wrote an accountof the transition from the era of Moses and Joshua to the judges via acombination of source material and plausible historical reconstructionwhen required. Halpern is more than ready to recognize the ideologicalfactor in the Deuteronomistic History. What he is at pains to point out,however, is that it is tempered by a genuine historical interest. AlthoughNoth recognized this, according to Halpern, much subsequent analysis ofthe Deuteronomistic History has been more or less blind to it.

It would probably be unfair to say that historical-critical study of theDeuteronomistic History since Noth has completely neglected the storiesin the book of Judges. Richter, for example, made a detailed form-criticalanalysis of them as part of his reconstruction of the text's compositionalhistory. As pointed out above, his theory of several stages in the growthof the text provided a valuable opportunity for reflecting on how thestories were read within Israelite tradition. Nevertheless, Halpern isjustified in his complaint that advocates of the Deuteronomistic Historyhypothesis have tended to become preoccupied with the nature andextent of deuteronomistic redaction to the neglect of the stories and theirrelationship to this redaction.

Halpern has found an ally in the synchronic literary analysis of biblicaltexts that has developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. This isironic because Halpern does not take kindly to its tendency to dismissauthorial intention. Nevertheless, the intense study of narrative that itfostered has led to a new appreciation of the literary and theologicalqualities of biblical narrative and of the intricate relationship between thevarious parts of a narrative. The implications of these new developmentsfor Judges were signalled in a 1967 article by Lilley, who outlined anunderstanding of the book on the assumption that it is a coherent unified

1. Halpern's presentation of it can be found in First Historians, pp. 134-37.

O'BRIEN Judges and the Denteronomistic History 249

whole with a definite conceptual plan.1 According to Lilley, the variousparts of the book combine to show a spiralling decline in Israel's rela-tionship with God. This progressive deterioration can be seen in thesequence of stories that reaches its nadir in chs. 17-21. It can also beseen in the framework passages that Noth assigned to Dtr. Lilleyobserves a gradual dismantling of the formulaic nature of these passagesthat parallels the spiralling decline in the sequence of stories. In chs. 17-21 the earlier formulas associated with the deliverers of Israel have dis-appeared and been replaced by the refrain, 'In those days there was noking in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.' Inshort, Lilley argues that stories and framework contribute integrally andequally to the overall conceptual plan of the book.

The pace of literary analysis of the stories in Judges and of the bookas a whole has quickened over the intervening years. Individual storiesthat have received considerable attention are Deborah-Barak, Jephthahand Samson.2 Monograph-length studies of Judges have been made byWebb and Klein.3 Each declines historical-critical analysis in order tofocus on a literary study of the present text, believing that Judges can beread as an integrated whole.

Webb believes that Noth's hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic Historyhas 'strongly disposed subsequent scholarship against giving seriousconsideration to Judges as a literary unit in its own right' .4 It has also ledto a sharp distinction between 'deuteronomic and non-deuteronomic'texts in Judges—principally, the framework passages as distinct from theactual stories. Webb sets out to redress this perceived imbalance byemploying rhetorical analysis to discern the book's overall structure.5 Ina test study of the story of Jephthah he discusses the rhetorical

1. J.P.U. Lilley, 'A Literary Appreciation of the Book of Judges', TynBul 18(1967), pp. 94-102.

2. Cf. Bartelmus, 'Forschung am Richterbuch seit Martin Noth', pp. 224-29,239-51.

3. E.G. Webb, The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); L.R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book ofJudges (JSOTSup 68; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988) and 'Structure, Irony andMeaning in the Book of Judges', in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress ofJewish Studies; Division A: The Bible and Its World (Jerusalem: World Union ofJewish Studies, 1990), pp. 83-90.

4. Webb, Book of the Judges, p. 207.5. Webb's investigation is concerned with the surface structure of the book, not

the deep structure probed by practitioners of structural analysis.


techniques that structure the narrative and convey meaning: alliteration,assonance, chiasm, inclusion, recurring motifs and patterns, semanticshifts and transitions. What Noth and others identified asdeuteronomistic terms and cliches are treated as integral parts of theoverall rhetorical repertoire of the narrative. Webb then carries out asimilar examination of the rest of the book, though not in the samedetail. He concludes that the dominant theme of Judges is the non-fulfilment of God's promise of the land to Israel's ancestors. Themesrelated to this are Israel's persistent apostasy and divine freedom con-trasted with Israel's presumption of divine mercy. According to Webb,these themes are developed in the sequence of stories about judges andreach their climax in the story of Samson. Chs. 17-21 round out thebook as a literary unit by relating the major themes to elements in theintroduction (1.1-3.6).

In his conclusion, Webb briefly explores the implications of his studyfor Noth's hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic History. He proposes thatthe recognition of Judges as a unified literary work calls for a reassess-ment of Noth's structure of the Deuteronomistic History, that is, that theperiod of the judges extends to 1 Samuel 12. He further argues that therefrain on the absence of a king in Judges 17-21 shows that the bookends by closing the period of the judges and pointing to the new era ofthe monarchy. 1 Samuel, in turn, functions as a transition between thetwo eras, and monarchy is only really established with the success ofDavid in 2 Samuel. The transition to the period of the monarchy is sig-nalled by the recapitulation of Saul's death—already reported in1 Samuel 31—in 2 Samuel 1. According to Webb, this same techniqueis used earlier for the death of Joshua to signal the transition from theperiod of the conquest to the period of the judges (cf. Judg. 2.6-10 andJosh. 24.29-31). In a more radical move against Noth, Webb claims thathe does not find in Judges the severe moralism and its tendency toadopt a 'mechanistic historiography' which he finds characteristic of thebooks of Kings. This, coupled with the that lack of such moralism in thebooks of Samuel, leads Webb to suggest—as an alternative to Noth'sDeuteronomistic History—that such differences may be better explainedby positing 'an edited series of books'. As Webb acknowledges, this is areturn to the earlier position of Fohrer and Weiser in response to Noth'shypothesis.1

1. G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1976),pp. 193-94; A. Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon, the


Klein pinpoints irony as the dominant literary device in Judges. Thestructure of the book reveals a progressive development of the use ofirony in its many guises. The 'exposition' of the book in 1.1-3.11 makesminimal use of irony, but the contrast between the occupation describedfrom the points of view of Israel (cf. 1.1-36) and of God (cf. 2.1-19)creates the potential for irony. This potential is then developed in thestories of the judges, where the character of the hero is undermined inironic fashion by contrasting him with another character (Barak in con-trast to Deborah) or by the exposure of character flaws (Gideon ascoward or Samson as the victim of his passions). According to Klein,irony is most pronounced in the 'resolution' of the book (chs. 17-21),where it forms an integral part of the narrative drama. Israel's attemptto resolve the rape and murder of the Levite's concubine brings thenation to the brink of disaster. In the words of Klein, 'the book ofJudges does not resolve; it devolves in disorder.'1 Klein does not com-ment on the implications of her study for the Deuteronomistic Historyhypothesis, and her bibliography does not list Noth or subsequentstudies of the deuteronomistic factor in Judges.

Klein's view of Judges as a literary work that does not resolve butdevolves in disorder has some affinity with Polzin's analysis, whichaccepts the hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic History, but unlike Noth,equates it with the present text of Deuteronomy-2 Kings. His plan is toexamine the whole text from a literary point of view, specifically that ofRussian Formalism and Structuralism, rather than the historical-criticalanalysis employed by Noth and others. Polzin has so far publishedstudies of Deuteronomy-Judges and 1 Samuel.2

Historical-critical analysis of the Deuteronomistic History regards thenarrative frame around Moses' reported speech in Deuteronomy, alongwith a number of other narrative passages in the body of the speechitself, as the work of Dtr or other redactors. Polzin objects that the con-cern with different authors and redactors leads to neglect of the 'integraland important function' that these narrative passages have in the text.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961),pp. 161, 180-82.

1. Klein, Triumph of Irony, p. 190.2. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the

Deuteronomic History. I. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980);Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. II.1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989).


They 'represent the narrator's subtle but powerful claim to his audienceto be the sole interpreter of Moses' words'.1

In Polzin's view, the combination of reported speech and narrative inDeuteronomy establishes a subtle dialogue between the 'authoritariandogmatism' voiced by Moses and the 'critical traditionalism' of the nar-rator. This dialogue is developed in the subsequent text of theDeuteronomistic History. It is weighted in favour of authoritarian dog-matism in Deuteronomy, since the bulk of the book is devoted to a pre-sentation of the words of Moses. In the book of Joshua the voice ofcritical traditionalism comes to the fore, as the unchangeable divine lawproclaimed by Moses is constantly reinterpreted in the story of Israel'soccupation of the land. The Deuteronomic doctrine of retributive justiceis countered by Israel's tradition of a God who is both merciful and just,who gives Israel the land despite disobedience. Polzin believes that hiscareful literary reading of Joshua challenges the prevailing view that Dtrapplied the law with its doctrine of retribution in a more or less mecha-nistic way to the history of Israel.

With the book of Judges the dialogue becomes more complex andsubtle. In the light of Deuteronomy and Joshua the reader initially isdrawn to identify the voice of authoritarian dogmatism in the program-matic statement in 2.6-3.6 and the framework passages around theindividual stories. The voice of critical traditionalism is heard in thestories that tell of a merciful God who raises up deliverers in response tothe cry of a disobedient Israel. However, a closer reading of the respec-tive texts reveals that they cannot be categorized so neatly. For example,while 2.20-22 hammers the doctrine of retribution, the surroundingdeuteronomistic material sounds a softer note.2 Israel's repeated disobe-dience and the disasters that this brings are more than matchedby God's demonstrations of compassion on Israel's behalf. For theirpart, the stories of the judges exploit the ambiguous, the unpredictableand the unexpected in a way that serves to undermine any assurancethat critical traditionalism can interpret the law in a consistent and

1. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 31.2. W. Brueggemann had earlier argued that the framework passages combine

two contrasting viewpoints, that of 'deed-consequence' and 'cry-save' ('SocialCriticism and Social Vision in the Deuteronomic Formula of the Judges', inJ. Jeremias and L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fur HansWalter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981],pp. 101-14).


satisfactory manner. The once clear voices of authoritarian dogmatismand critical traditionalism become fractured and unsure. The alternationbetween framework passages and story serves to intensify in the readera growing sense of ambiguity and chaos, paralleling the experience ofIsrael in this turbulent period. In the words of Polzin, 'both authoritariandogmatism and critical traditionalism falter here as reliable theological orhermeneutic frames of reference'.1 In effect, Dtr warns the readeragainst putting too much faith in any theology, even one that had beenpresented with such assurance in the book of Joshua. Nowhere is thisambiguity, chaos and uncertainty more apparent than in the closingchapters of Judges, which recount the rape and murder of the Levite'sconcubine and the disastrous aftermath of this terrible crime.

Unlike Webb, Polzin does not seem particularly concerned aboutNoth's understanding of the extent or structure of the period of thejudges. Some passing remarks do indicate that he regards the period asending with the last chapters of the book.2 What is significant about hisanalysis in comparison to those of Webb and Klein is that it gives fullweight to the differences between the framework passages and thestories. Webb and Klein argue that the framework passages and thestories together strike a harmonious chord. For Polzin, they are discor-dant, competing viewpoints that interact in different and complex waysthroughout the course of the book. Yet this apparently tangled skein isseen on closer inspection to be an artistic piece that has been composedwith consummate skill as part of the larger tapestry of theDeuteronomistic History. Thus, Polzin claims to give full recognition towhat historical-critical analysis distinguished as traditional material anddeuteronomistic redaction and at the same time to demonstrate that theyare integral parts of a literary whole.

3. Reflections and Future Prospects

The abiding issue in the book of Judges seems to be the relationshipbetween the individuality of the stories and the formulaic quality of2.11-3.6 and the framework passages. Whether one approaches the textfrom a diachronic or a synchronic perspective, these differences have to

1. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 211.2. In his discussion of Judg. 19-21, Polzin observes that 'we are at the finale of

our stories about Israel's exploits during the period of the judges' (Moses and theDeuteronomist, p. 200).


be acknowledged and an explanation offered.The identification of the introduction and framework passages as

'deuteronomistic' pre-dates Noth. What is at stake is whether his expla-nation of their provenance and function remains the best on offer. Torecall briefly the salient points of his hypothesis: the differences are to beexplained by attributing 2.6-16, 18-19 and the framework passages toDtr, who assembled a history in which the period of the judges was anintegral part of its overall conceptual plan; the content of the traditionalstories was respected by Dtr, even when it did not on occasion fitsmoothly into the conceptual plan; Dtr derived the notion of the judgefrom the list in 10.1-5 and 12.7-15, and Dtr constructed a chronologyfrom traditional information and personal calculation to situate theperiod of the judges within a historical continuum.

Noth accepted the consensus of the day about what was and whatwas not deuteronomistic material. It is hardly surprising that subsequentscholarship set about testing this consensus. His identification of Judg. 1;2.1-5; 2.20-3.6 and chs. 13-21 as later, random deuteronomistic andpost-deuteronomistic additions appears vague in comparison with hiscomprehensive explanation of the rest of the book. It is not surprisingthat this too came under scrutiny.

The subsequent testing of the extent and unity of deuteronomisticredaction by Richter, the Smend and Cross schools and others has beenpainstaking and detailed. There has also been a concern to demonstratehow each stage of deuteronomistic redaction builds on the precedingone, even if it is to correct it in some way. Of course, there are stillsignificant disagreements and it is unlikely there will ever be completeagreement about the composition of such a complex text.1 Nevertheless,the overall picture of DtrH as a major achievement in Israelite literaturethat provoked an ongoing and sustained rereading in the tradition seemshighly plausible, given the scope of the work and the evidence ofdeuteronomistic redaction elsewhere in the Old Testament.2 It is a more

1. In relation to Judges, A.G. Auld, for example, has proposed that the story ofGideon was not part of DtrH, but a very late supplement, made after the addition ofchs. 17-21 ('Gideon: Hacking at the Heart of the Old Testament', VT 39 [1989],pp. 257-67).

2. See the comments on subsequent deuteronomistic redaction by O'Brien inReassessment, pp. 272-87. Deuteronomistic redaction is a major issue in the analysisof Jeremiah. Several recent studies of the Pentateuch, in disagreement with Noth, havefound evidence of extensive deuteronomistic redaction. Specifically, on Judges


realistic picture than Noth's proposal that DtrH received only limitedand random deuteronomistic reworking.

Preoccupation with the deuteronomistic factor has resulted, however,in some neglect of the stories and their contribution to the meaning ofthe text. Polzin endeavors to redress the imbalance and proposes thatthe relationship between stories and framework in Judges is part of anongoing dialogue in DtrH between the voices of critical traditionalismand authoritarian dogmatism. Webb and Klein have developed interpre-tations that recognize the differences between the framework passagesand the stories but argue that they are integral components of the largerliterary unit that is the book of Judges. For Klein the cyclical effectcreated by the framework passages is part of a wider narrative spiralthat traces Israel's ever increasing separation from its God.1 Webbbelieves that the framework passages are carefully moulded to thestories 'to reflect the changing state of Israel as seen in the succession ofepisodes'.2 His understanding of the relationship between frameworkand stories is similar to that of Halpern, who approaches the questionmore from a historical-critical point of view. For Halpern, the relation-ship between the framework passages, deuteronomistic redaction andstories reveals a genuine historiographic interest in the past as past.

The surge of interest in the stories is timely and, given the currenthigh profile of Hebrew narrative art in Old Testament studies, it isunlikely that they will suffer from further neglect. However, literaryanalysis is accompanied by a concern to defend textual unity, which attimes tends to distort some of the literary phenomena and to neglectothers. A full discussion is not possible here, but some observations onthe introductory section in 1.1-3.6 will serve to illustrate the point.3

Historical-critical analysis has been fairly consistent in proposing that1.1-2.5 and 2.6-3.6 come from different hands. There is also a widebody of opinion that each block shows signs of being composite. Polzin

M.Z. Brettler has recently carried out a literary-historical analysis to identify thehistorical factors that influenced the editors who shaped the book ('The Book ofJudges: Literature as Polities', JBL 108 [1989], pp. 395-418).

1. Klein, Triumph of Irony, pp. 19-20.2. Webb, Book of J`udges, p. 175.`3. Another area of Judges and one on which literary critics have so far offered

little comment is its chronology. Nevertheless, it would seem essential that this dis-tinctive literary phenomenon be taken into account in any understanding of the book,a point that Noth clearly recognized.


counters this by arguing that 1.1-3.6 is a highly complex but unifiedliterary construct. 2.6-23 takes the reader back to the events reported inJosh. 24.28-31 and provides a parallel account of Israel's conduct afterJoshua's death.1 Judg. 1.1-2.5 narrates the account from a psychologicalpoint of view external to the characters of the story, whereas 2.6-23does so from within the consciousness of the characters.

Polzin's understanding of the relationship between 1.1-2.5 and 2.6-23does not, however, account for the change of generations reported in2.10. From this point the characters are a different generation ofIsraelites from the ones described in 1.1-2.5, for, as Polzin acknowl-edges, the events narrated in 1.1-2.5 begin 'shortly after Joshua'sdeath'.2 This passage does not presuppose a change of generations,something which is only reported in 2.10. There is a further difficulty inparalleling 1.1-2.5 and 2.6-23, because the indictment of Israel by theangel at Bochim (2.2b) clashes with the assessment of 2.7 that 'Thepeople worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days ofthe elders who outlived Joshua.' It is hard to see how these two state-ments can be applied to the same generation without emptying one ofthem of meaning. Webb's attempt to defend a unified text here also failsto take due account of these conflicting literary phenomena.3

Halpern argues that 1.1-3.6 contains Dtr's carefully crafted and his-torically logical explanation of the causes of Israelite apostasy. His recon-struction of Dtr' s logic does account for the passage of generations butstill fails to explain satisfactorily the clash between 2.2b and 2.7. One hasthe impression here that Halpern's concern to demonstrate an organicand intelligible logic works against his other concern to defend the his-toriographic commitment of authors like Dtr. Could not 2.7 and 2.2brecord Dtr's and a subsequent redactor's deep respect for the sources intheir respective care? That is, Dtr was reading material indicating thatthe conquest generation must have served the Lord faithfully and sopenned an appropriate comment in 2.7. Judg. 1.1-36 called for a differ-ent but equally appropriate response from the hand that inserted it,namely the accusation in 2.2b. This redactor was not the clumsy oaf

1. 'The time-line of 1.1-2.5 is schematically linear, while that of 2.6-3.6 iscircular' (Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 151).`

2. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 151.`3. Webb, Book of Judges, pp. 106-107. The same can be said of the analysis by

L.M. Eslinger in Into the Hands of the Living God (JSOTSup 84; Bible andLiterature Series, 24; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), pp. 55-80.


rightly dismissed by Halpern but someone who was well aware that thepast may be 'recorded' in different ways and that good historiographyrequires such diversity to be preserved. It should not be compromisedfor the sake of a logically satisfying argument.

To argue that a text is composite is not to deny that it is a sophisti-cated and artistic piece of literature. Rather, it may be the product of thesophistication and artistry of more than one person. Dtr exhibited greatliterary skill in combining a variety of source material and judiciousredactional comment to forge an interpretation of Israel's history.Moreover, Noth believed that Dtr was a sophisticated historian who letthe sources speak for themselves wherever possible.1 The scribe orscribes who subsequently revised the History can be seen to have asimilar level of sophistication. Dtr's view is preserved, but a variant inter-pretation is inserted in a skilful way that enables the reader to spot it andcompare the two. In this way a dialogue is established between thecompeting viewpoints and the reader, the implication being that under-standing the past is a complex business and that it is open to a variety ofinterpretations.

The notion of the text as dialectic echoes Polzin but there are differ-ences that derive from the various explanations of what are perceived tobe the significant literary phenomena. What is valuable about this sort ofdisagreement is that it can provide an opportunity for another type ofdialogue, one that takes place between the practitioners of the variousforms of analysis. In this way the strengths and weaknesses of each formof analysis can be clarified and the understanding of texts enhanced.

The potential of this critical exchange to enhance the study of Judgeshas been developed in a fresh and stimulating way by Mieke Bal. InMurder and Difference she provides a 'metacritical' analysis of anumber of disciplinary 'codes' that have been used in the study ofJudges, specifically the story of Deborah and Barak in Judges 4-5.2

These chapters are chosen because they contain prose and poetic ver-sions of the victory over Sisera and thus allow Bal to focus on howvarious forms of analysis have handled the difference between the two

1. Noth, US, pp. 95-96; DH, p. 128.2. M. Bal, Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on

Sisera's Death (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1988). A 'metacritical' analysis of a text involves a critical appraisalof the interpretations of the text that have already been made. A 'code' is a particularmode of discourse employed for the interpretation of texts.


accounts. The codes that Bal examines have all been employed widely inacademic circles: historical, theological, anthropological and literary.

Bal acknowledges that all these disciplinary codes are designed to beconsistent and critically accountable; to become part of the academicenterprise they must be. But she also points out how the design containsa number of built-in factors that flaw each code. A disciplinary codeseeks to delineate a particular field or discipline, but in fact it is alwayscontaminated by other fields and disciplines. Their presence can gounobserved. A disciplinary code inevitably creates certain biases in itspractitioners, and Bal points in particular to the bias of gender that hasoperated virtually unacknowledged in the hitherto male-dominated studyof the Bible. A disciplinary code also creates a predisposition for acertain kind of coherence in the interpretation of a text which mayoverlook evidence that challenges it and reveals what Bal calls a'countercoherence'.

Bal then explores two transdisciplinary codes that she believes canhelp overcome the problems inherent in the disciplinary codes. These arethe thematic code and the gender code. The thematic code, in askingwhat the text is about, has the advantage of being able to begin fromany position and of being prepared to engage a plurality of disciplinesfor an answer. Nevertheless, it is flawed by a predisposition to coher-ence at the expense of contradiction and difference. The gender codecan transcend this shortcoming, because, when made an explicit andintegral part of the interpretative process, it discloses what those disci-plinary codes practised in academic circles dominated by men tend tooverlook or suppress. This is the difference that can open up the under-standing of a text and lead to a new awareness of the bias or subjectivityinherent in all analysis.

In Death & Dissymmetry Bal undertakes a study of the book ofJudges from a transdisciplinary perspective.1 She finds that historical-critical analysis of the book exhibits a bias that favours history overanthropology, the public or national arena over the private or domesticarena, culture over nature and change over continuity. Bal observes thatthe emphasis on the public or national arena gives the affairs of menprominence over those of women.

Bal counters this coherence by focusing on these suppressed or

1. M. Bal, Death & Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book ofJudges (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1988).


neglected areas. By bringing them into prominence, she is able todevelop an interpretation that discloses the importance of conflict at thedomestic level and how it is this, rather than the national arena, that isthe driving force in a number of stories. Specifically, it is conflictbetween 'virilocal' marriage (where the wife moves to the husband'shouse) and 'patrilocal' marriage (where the husband moves to thefather-in-law's house). It is a power struggle between men over women.

Bal does not discuss the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, but Ibelieve her work has important implications for it. Scholarly researchsince Moth has shown how much hinges on—in Bal's terms—difference,the difference between the stories on the one hand and the introductionand framework passages on the other. Her notion of the gender codeopens new possibilities for reassessing our understanding of each ofthese components and their interrelationship. The perennial questionabout the attitude of Dtr and later redactors to source material acquiresa sharper edge. Did Dtr neglect or try to suppress the domestic(women's) component in the sources in favour of national (men's)issues? Or was Dtr, as Noth believed, prepared to let the sources speakfor themselves wherever possible? Bal's approach also opens up avenuesfor a more fruitful dialogue between the disciplinary codes of historical-critical and literary analysis as well as providing them with a way ofengaging in self-critical reflection.

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr

Martin Noth's analysis of the biblical narratives about Samuel, Saul andDavid fundamentally transformed the investigation of the literary historyof the books of Samuel. Prior to the publication of US, scholarly deliber-ation on the growth of 1-2 Samuel had been concerned almost exclu-sively with the origin and characteristics of the source materials thatunderlie the present text. Under the impact of Noth's discussion, how-ever, the focus of scholarly attention shifted to the editorial processes bywhich the books of Samuel were produced. Another way of saying thisis that before Noth's work most attention was given to the pre-deuteronomistic history of the Samuel narratives, while subsequently thestudy of the books of Samuel has given substantial attention to the evi-dence they show of deuteronomistic revision and to their place in thelarger Deuteronomistic Historical work of Deuteronomy-2 Kings. It istrue that this change of focus has been more dramatic in the study of thesurrounding books of Judges and Kings than in Samuel, where, as notedbelow, deuteronomistic editorial activity is less evident. This contrast,however, should not be permitted to obscure the transformation inSamuel scholarship that Noth's work stimulated.

At the time Noth undertook his investigation of the DeuteronomisticHistory, the analysis of the literary sources of the books of Samuel wasthe subject of a longstanding dispute between scholars who favored thehypotheses that are sometimes designated 'documentary' and'fragmentary', terminology that originated in the debates about theliterary history of the Pentateuch. Proponents of the documentaryhypothesis analyzed the Samuel narratives as a combination of two (ormore) continuous literary strands, analogous or identical to the Yahwistic(J) and Elohistic (E) strata posited by Pentateuchal criticism. Proponentsof the fragmentary hypothesis, however, found the Samuel literature tobe the result of an editorial combination of longer and shorter narrativeunits of independent origin.

MCCARTER The Books of Samuel 261

The analysis of Samuel as a combination of two narrative strandsgoes back at least to the late-eighteenh-century work of Eichhorn1 andthe 1842 commentary on Die Biicher Samuelis by Thenius2 but wasexpressed in its most influential form by Wellhausen.3 As noted, thisappraisal of the literary history of Samuel seems to reflect the influenceof the conclusions of Pentateuchal criticism. Early and late strata com-parable to the Pentateuchal sources J and E were identified in Samuel,and, in the work of some scholars—notably Cornill4 and Budde5—thesestrata were explicitly identified as continuations of J and E. This positionwas criticized by other scholars—notably Kittel6—who not only deniedthe continuation of J and E in Samuel but argued, in the manner of theproponents of fragmentary hypothesis, that Samuel was not the productof a combination of parallel strands, but of an amalgamation of a varietyof narratives and narrative complexes of larger and smaller size.7

According to the fragmentary hypothesis, the books of Samuel arethe product of such an amalgamation, a point of view espoused most

1. J.G. Eichhom, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, HI, (Gottingen: Rosenbusch,4th edn, 1823), pp. 464-533.

2. O. Thenius, Die Biicher Samuels (KEHAT 4; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 2nd edn,1864), pp. ix-xvi.

3. Wellhausen's views on the historical books (Judges, Samuel and Kings) werefirst published in 1878 as part of his fourth edition of F. Bleek's Einleitung in dasAlte Testament. They were combined with his essays on 'Die Composition desHexateuchs' (Jahrbuchfurdeutsche Theologie 21 [1876], pp. 392-450, 531-602; 22[1877], pp. 407-79) as Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischenBiicher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: B. Reimar, 1885; 3rd edn, 1899); for the perti-nent material see pp. 238-66.

4. C.H. Cornill, 'Bin elohistischer Bericht iiber die Entstehung des israelitischenKonigthums in I. Samuelis 1-15 aufgezeigt', Zeitschrift fiir kirkliche Wissenschaftund kirkliches Leben 6 (1885), pp. 113-41; 'Zur Quellenkritik der Bucher Samuelis',Konigsberger Studien 1 (1887), pp. 25-89; 'Noch einmal Sauls Konigswahl undVerwerfung', ZAW10 (1890), pp. 96-109.

5. K. Budde, Die Bucher Samuel (KHC 8; Tubingen: Mohr, 1902).6. R. Kittel, 'Die pentateuchischen Urkunden in den Biichern Richter und

Samuel', TSK 65 (1892), pp. 44-71; 'Das erste Buch Samuel', in A. Bertholet (ed.),Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, I (Tubingen: Mohr, 4th edn, 1922),pp. 407-51.

7. In the third edition (1898) of Thenius's commentary on Samuel (see n. 2above) Max Lohr added a tabulation of the source analyses of Budde, Cornill, Kitteland Wellhausen (pp. xii-lxviii).


vigorously in the work of Caspar!1 and Gressmann,2 in whose commen-tary on Samuel it found its fullest expression. In the opinion of thesescholars, the original narrative sources of Samuel were not parallel incontent, as in the documentary hypothesis, and they were not inter-woven by an editor. Instead, they were discrete narrative units, unrelatedin content though concerned with the same historical period, and theywere arranged sequentially by an editor, so that they now stand oneafter the other in the present form of the books. Rost's analysis fromthis perspective of the major narrative sources of Samuel—the arknarrative (1 Sam. 4.1b-7.1 + 2 Sam. 6), the story of David's rise(1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5) and the story of the succession to David'sthrone (2 Sam. 9-20 + 1 Kgs 1-2)—had a substantial effect on thework of Noth.3

In his attempt to identify a unified Deuteronomistic History inDeuteronomy-2 Kings, Noth was departing in significant ways fromboth the documentary and fragmentary hypotheses as they wereespoused at the time, though at points his work reflects a clear indebt-edness to both. In refutation of the central tenet of the documentaryhypothesis, he maintained the original diversity and independence of thesources of the Deuteronomistic History, and in this respect his conclu-sions support the fragmentary hypothesis. 'We must stress above all', hewrote, 'that the pre-deuteronomistic material shows no intrinsic continu-ity in Joshua-Kings'.4 On the other hand, he seems to have regarded theSamuel narratives as at least a partial exception to this rule. In his treat-ment of the older materials in Samuel he closely followed Rost's analysisof the principal sources, which, as noted above, was very much in

1. W. Caspar!, 'Literarische Art und historische Wert von 2 Sam. 15-20', TSK82 (1909), 317-48; 'Der Stil des Eingangs der israelitischen Novelle Zeitschrift furwissenschaftliche Theologie 53 (1911), pp. 218-53; Die Samuelbiicher (KAT 7;Leipzig: Deichert, 1926).

2. H. Gressmann, Die dlteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic Israel vonSamuel bis Amos und Hosea (Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 2.1; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910; 2nd edn, 1921).

3. L. Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3.6;Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926); The Succession to the Throne of David (trans. M.D.Rutter and D.M. Gunn; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1;Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982).

4. Noth, US, p. 10; DH, p. 25. He adds (OS, p. 11, n. 2; DH, p. 25, n. 2), 'Inprinciple, it is immaterial whether one identifies these sources with the "Hexateuchal"sources or only sees them as analogous.'


keeping with the fragmentary hypothesis. Nevertheless, he admits that'extended writings on Saul and David were linked with one another' inpre-deuteronomistic tradition into something approximating a continu-ous early source, a situation that he contrasted with that found in Judgesand Kings.1 In his treatment of the materials about the origin of themonarchy, he acknowledged the existence of a continuous late source(1 Sam. 7.2-17; 8.1-22; 10.17-27a; 12.1-25), though, as we shall see, heidentifies it as the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian, who wasengaging at that point in an uncharacteristic kind of free composition. Tothis extent, Noth's conclusions as they pertain to Samuel occasionallyecho those of the documentary hypothesis, with its supposition of con-tinuous parallel narrative strands of early and late date. In general, how-ever, it can be stated again that Noth's work had the effect of directingattention away from the discussion of early sources, which was the chiefconcern of his predecessors whether they viewed Samuel and the sur-rounding books as built on a foundation of interwoven documents orjuxtaposed independent narrative units, and towards the investigation ofthe editorial framework that binds the source materials together.

It was an essential element in Noth's hypothesis that this editorialframework was a unity. The Deuteronomistic Historian was not merelyan editor but an author who organized a diversity of older materialsaccording to an overarching and carefully conceived plan. Noth madethis point in criticism of a tendency among his contemporaries to seetwo stages in the deuteronomistic editorial process or to suppose that thedifferent sections of the History were originally independent works withtheir own, separate deuteronomistic editorial frameworks.2 DespiteNoth's insistence on the essential unity of the Deuteronomistic History,most scholars have continued to think differently, and it is perhaps onthis point that his hypothesis has been most seriously challenged.

Cross's highly influential analysis, for example, posits two editions of

1. Noth, US, p. 10; DH, p. 25, where he goes on to say, 'Between the separatestories in Judges, however, there is no evidence of pre-Deuteronomistic cohesion, andit is generally recognized that the same is true of the separate sections, of varyinglengths, on the kings of Israel and Judah, which are held together only by the work ofDtr. with their chronological framework.'

2. Noth, US, pp. 6-7; DH, pp. 20-21. Noth associates the latter point of viewwith the work of Rudolph, who argued for originally independent deuteronomisticeditions of Joshua and Judges. See W. Rudolph, Der 'Elohist' von Exodus bis Josua(BZAW 68; Berlin: Topelmann, 1938), pp. 240-44.


the Deuteronomistic History.1 His starting point is a criticism of Noth'sanalysis of the Deuteronomist's historiographical and theologicalpurposes. According to Noth, this historian was an exilic writer lookingback on Israel's experience in the Promised Land, which he viewed inwholly negative terms, a cyclical history of sin and retribution endinginevitably in the fall of the kingdom and the departure of the peoplefrom the land. Cross dissents from Noth's characterization of theHistory as an unmitigated condemnation of Israel's past that offered nohope for its future. Drawing on the work of von Rad2 and Wolff,3 Crossnotes the existence of an important positive theme in the deuterono-mistic presentation of history, viz., Yahweh's unfailing promises toDavid and his dynasty. The principal repository of this theme is theoracle of Nathan (2 Sam. 7.1-7) in its final, deuteronomistic form,4 andCross criticizes Noth for neglecting these passages in his identification ofthe central thematic passages of the History. Stressing that this motifholds out hope for the future, Cross argues for a date for the primaryedition of the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr1) in the time of Josiah. Thisedition was composed during Josiah's reform, for which it was intendedto provide literary support. Cross explains those deuteronomistic

1. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of theReligion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], pp. 274-89;originally published as 'The Structure of the Deuteronomic History', in Perspectivesin Jewish Learning [Annual of the College of Jewish Studies 3; Chicago: College ofJewish Studies, 1968], pp. 9-24. Some of the earlier literary critics, whose work waslargely eclipsed by the widespread influence of Noth's monograph, had alreadyargued for a primary pre-exilic deuteronomistic edition of the historical books(Joshua-Kings), which was supplemented and updated during the exile in anotherdeuteronomistic edition; see especially A. Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung indie Bucher des alien Testaments 1.2 (trans. Th. Weber; Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1890).

2. G. von Rad, 'Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in denKonigsbiichern', in Deuteronomium-Studien, II (FRLANT 40; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 52-64; Studies in Deuteronomy (SET 9; London:SCM, 1953), pp. 74-79.

3. H.W. Wolff, 'Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', ZAW73 (1961), pp. 171-86.

4. Cf. Cross's analysis of this chapter on pp. 261-64 of Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic, with a detailed tabulation of deuteronomistic expressions on pp. 252-54. According to my own analysis, which follows Cross while differing on severalpoints, the following parts of 2 Sam. 7.1-17 should be assigned to theDeuteronomistic Historian: vv. Ib, 9b-ll, 13a, 16; see P.K. McCarter, Jr, IISamuel(AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 190-231, esp. p. 230.


passages that require an exilic date—such as the end of the History(2 Kgs 23.26-25.30), portions of Deuteronomy addressed to an audiencein captivity (4.27-31; 30.1-10) and the passages explaining the failure ofJosiah's reform to save Judah (2 Kgs 21.2-15; 22.15-20)—as the workof a second, exilic Deuteronomist (Dtr2), who did little more than bringthe larger history up to date. In Samuel, Cross finds the hand of thiseditor only in 1 Sam. 12.25.!

Despite Cross's stress on the existence of two editions of theDeuteronomistic History, his conclusions are actually quite close to thoseof Noth in terms of editorial structure. Cross regards Dtrbs work as theprimary edition of the History, of which Dtr2's rather limited revisionwas only supplementary. But, it did not escape Noth's attention that theprimary Deuteronomistic History has been secondarily expanded atcertain points by a later hand writing in the deuteronomistic style, andhe explicitly accepts 'the perfectly correct observation that in variousplaces...Dtr.'s work was subsequently added to in the same style; butthis does not disprove the unity of the original Dtr.'2 Thus Cross's prin-cipal divergence from Noth is in his thematic analysis, with its emphasison the dynastic promise articulated in Nathan's oracle, and his prefer-ence for a Josianic rather than exilic date for the primary edition.

Cross's arguments for the importance of the theme of the dynasticpromise to David in the Deuteronomistic History and for a Josianic datefor its first edition have persuaded a significant number of scholars todepart from Noth's position on one or both of these matters. In my ownreconstruction of the literary history of Samuel, I found that Cross'sscheme worked very well for adjudicating questions of deuteronomisticeditorial activity.3 McKenzie, accepting the essential points of Cross's

1. For Cross's discussion of Dtr2 in general, see Canaanite Myth and HebrewEpic, pp. 285-87, and for the exilic origin of 1 Sam. 12.25 (to which should be addedat least 12.15), see p. 278, n. 17.

2. Noth, OS, p. 6; DH, p. 20.3. P.K. McCarter, Jr, / Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), pp.

14-17; II Samuel, pp. 4-8. According to my analysis, the deuteronomistic contributionto Samuel can be tabulated as follows:

1 Sam. 2.27-36; 3.11-14; 4.18b; 7.2aM. 6b, 13-17; 8.8; 12.6-15, 19b?, 20b-22, 24-25;13.1-2; 14.47-51; 17passim; 20.11-17, 23, 40-42; 23.14-24.23; 25.28-312Sam.2.10a?, 11?; 3.9-10,17-18a?, 18b, 28-29; 5.1-2,4-5?, 12;6.21;7.1b,9b-lla, 13a,16, 22b-24?, 25-26, 29ba; 8.14b-15?; 14.9; 15.24a|3?; 21.7?1 Sam. 12.252 Sam. 7.22b-24?; 15.24ap?

Dtr2

Dtr1


argument about the date of the Deuteronomistic History, has recentlyrevived the case that the history was composed by a single author,whose work was updated and slightly revised but not substantiallychanged by subsequent editing.1 Thus McKenzie, although he differswith Noth's dating, stands closer to Noth in his understanding of thecomposition of the History than most other scholars working today. Hisspecific conclusion, which he applies only to the books of Kings, is that'the Deuteronomistic History was written by a single author/editorduring Josiah's reign in order to recount the history of Israel andJudah.'2

Peckham has utilized Cross's sigla (Dtr1 and Dtr2) in attempting todevise a comprehensive theory of deuteronomistic authorship for boththe Pentateuch and the Former Prophets.3 He identifies Noth'sDeuteronomistic Historian with Cross's Dtr2, whom he believes to havebeen the author of the larger history that extends from Genesis throughKings and incorporates as its principal sources both the Pentateuchaldocuments (J, E, P) and the work of Dtr1. For Peckham, Dtr1 was anearlier history composed as a sequel to J; it interprets history from thepoint of view of Judah, is devoted unswervingly to the law of centraliza-tion and locates hope for prosperity in the land in the dynasty of David.The Davidic dynasty is also a principal positive concept for Peckham'sDtr2, in contrast to Noth's Historian. Thus, the Samuel narrative andmore especially the oracle of Nathan (2 Sam. 7.1-17) are central toPeckham's scheme. The promise of dynasty in Nathan's oracle is thefocus of attention for Dtr1, and in Dtr2

Nathan's oracle and Dtr^s narrative of the birth of Solomon are incorpo-rated into a theory of history and divine government that attributes to

1. S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book ofKings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991).

2. McKenzie, Trouble, p. 150. McKenzie's understanding of the purpose of thehistory represents a departure from Cross's position that the History was composedto support the program of Josiah's reform in the direction of Van Seters's notion thatGreek ideas of historiography can be used to shed light on the biblical histories. SeeJ. Van Seters, 'Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Israelites', Or50 (1981), pp. 137-85; In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press,1983).

3. B. Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 35;Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).


David the culmination of the wilderness wanderings, the finalization of theconquest, the unification of the tribes, and the inauguration of a perpetualorder.1

Mayes accepts the idea of two editions of the Deuteronomistic History,citing Cross as well as earlier studies; he designates these editions the'early' and 'late' stages in the deuteronomistic compilation of theHistory2 and concludes with Weiser and others (see below) that inSamuel this involved the incorporation of substantial, older material,including traditions transmitted in prophetic circles. Lohfink has alsoadopted Cross's idea of earlier deuteronomistic literature underlying thefinal, exilic History as outlined by Noth.3 He posits the existence of two

1. Peckham, Composition, p. 38. Peckham identifies Dtr1 and Dtr2 in Samuel asfollows:

1 Sam. l.l-3a, 4-9aa, llabp, 18b, 19ab(J-20aba, 21-22aba, 24ap; 9.1-2aa, 3-6aa, 6b,10, 14ba, 18, 19aa, 20a; 10.27b; ll.l-2a, 4aa, 9-1 la, 14a, 15aa; 14.52; 17.1aa, 2-4aa,7b-9, 12aa, 13a, 17, 18bcx, 19, 21, 22apb, 23, 25aab-26aa, 27, 31-32aa, 32b, 40-41,49, 57aa, 59; 18.2, 5apba, 20, 27b; 31.la, 2-3,4b-62 Sam. 5.1a, 3b; 7.4b-5a, 12, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17aab; 11.1-3, 14-19, 21b-24, 26-27aa;12.24ba; 13.1-2aa, 2b-3a, 4-12aa, 14-15, 19aab, 23-30aba, 32-36; 15.1-3, 7b, 9-10,13, 17a, 18a; 18.1, 2b-4, 9, lOa, 14b-15, 29-32; 19.1-5, 6aba, 7-9aba1 Sam. 1.3b, 9apb-10, llbp-18a, 19aa, 20bp, 22bp, 23a/3, 24aa, 24b-28; 2.1-36; 3.1-21; 4.1-22; 5.1-12; 6.1-21; 7.1-17; 8.1-22; 9.2apb, 6ap, 7-9, ll-14aa, 14bp-17, 19apb,20b-21, 22b-24a, 25-26a, 27; 10.1-9, 10apb-27a; 11.2b-3, 4apb-8, llb-13, 14b, 15apb;12.1-25; 13.1-23; 14.1-51; 15.1-35; 16.1-23; 17.1apb, 4apb-7a, 10-12apb, 13b-16,18abp, 20, 22aa, 24, 25ap, 26a/3b, 28-30, 32ap, 33-39, 42-48, 50-57apb; 18.1, 3-4,5aabp-19, 21-27a, 28-30; 19.1-24; 20.1-42; 21.1-16; 22.1-23; 23.1-28; 24.1-23; 25.1-44; 26.1-25; 27.1-12; 28.1-25; 29.1-11; 30.1-31; 31.Ib, 4, 8-132 Sam. 1.1-27; 2.1-32; 3.1-39; 4.1-12; 5.1b-3a, 4-25; 6.1-23; 7.1-4a, 5b-ll, 13, 14b, 15b,16b, 17ap, 18-29; 8.1-18; 9.1-13; 10.1-19; 11.4-13, 20-21a, 25, 27apb; 12.1-24abp, 25-31; 13.2ap, 3b, 12apb-13, 16-18, 19ap, 20-22, 30bp-31, 37-39; 14.1-33; 15.4-7a, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 17b, 18b-37; 16.1-23; 17.1-29; 18.2a, 5-8, 10b-14a, 16-18; 19.6bp, 9bp-43;20.1-26; 21.1-22; 22.1-51; 23.1-39; 24.1-25

2. A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: ARedactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London: SCM, 1983). In hisanalysis of 1 Sam. 7-12 (pp. 85-102), Mayes identifies the early layer of editorialoverlay in 1 Sam. 7.2, 5; 8.6a, 11-22; 10.17-18aa, 19b-21ba, 25-27; he finds the latelayer in 1 Sam. 7.3-4; 8.6b-10, 18a|3-19a; 12.2-25. He also gives special attention to2 Sam. 7 (pp. 102-105), where he assigns vv. Ib, 8-9, 1 Ib, 16 in the oracles and all ofthe prayer in vv. 18-29 to the early editor, while designating vv. 10-1 la and 22-24 asthe contribution of the late editor.

3. Among his numerous articles on related subjects, see especially N. Lohfink,'Kerygmata des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', in J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt(eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fur Hans Walter Wolff zum 70.

Dtr2

Dtr1


such documents from the time of Josiah—a narrative setting forthIsrael's acquisition of the land and perpetual right to its possession,which underlies Deuteronomy 1-Joshua 22 and which drew in turnupon a still older Urdeuteronomiwn underlying Deuteronomy 12-26,and an early edition of the books of Kings (Cross's Dtr1). Thus far,Lohfink has not applied his ideas to the books of Samuel in any detail,but he shares with Cross and others against Noth a high estimation ofthe importance of the dynastic promise to David, which he links espe-cially with cultic centralization and the election of Jerusalem.1 Lohfinknevertheless maintains Noth's position that the primary edition of theHistory was exilic. He does, however, identify two levels of deuterono-mistic redactional activity subsequent to the completion of the primaryhistory.

In this last conclusion—that the Deuteronomistic History was editori-ally retouched twice after the completion of the work of theDeuteronomistic Historian—Lohfink aligns himself with the position of agroup of scholars associated with Gottingen who accept Noth's exilicdating of the Deuteronomistic History but differ substantially in theiranalysis of its basic editorial structure. Building on the work ofSmend and Dietrich,2 they have developed an approach that positsthree Deuteronomists, all exilic. The first was the author of theDeuteronomistic History itself (DtrG or, more recently, DtrH), whocompleted his work early in the exile (ca. 580). The second, identified byDietrich on the basis of his examination of a group of passages in Kingsorganized around a pattern of prophecy and fulfillment, was a propheticredactor (DtrP), who evaluated the history of the monarchy from atheological perspective influenced by the prophets, especially Jeremiah.3

Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), pp. 87-100; The CultReform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22-23 as a Source for the History of IsraeliteReligion', in P.D. Miller, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.), Israelite Religion:Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), pp. 459-75.

1. N. Lohfink, 'Zur deuteronomistischen Zentralisationsformel', Bib 65 (1984),pp. 297-329.

2. R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur deuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. vonRad zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 494-509;W. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungzum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1972).

3. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte, pp. 103-109.


DtrP made his contribution at some time subsequent to the compositionof DtrG (ca. 570) and in any case before the time of the thirdDeuteronomist, a still later redactor (ca. 560) who worked soon after therehabilitation of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25.27-30). This third Deuteronomist,whose interests were chiefly legal, was the nomistic redactor (DtrN),whom Smend identified on the basis of his study of certain passages inJoshua and Judges that are reworked to reflect the motif of thecontingency of the promise of the land upon obedience to the law.

This approach has been applied in thoroughgoing fashion to the booksof Samuel in two monographs by Timo Veijola, in which he investigatesthe deuteronomistic attitude towards the Davidic dynasty and Israelitekingship in general.1 He finds that, as a whole, the presentation of themonarchy in DtrG was completely positive, even when its older sourceswere negative. Thus, for example, he follows a number of recent schol-ars who understand the Succession Narrative in its original form to havebeen hostile to David and especially to Solomon but to have undergonea revision that was favorable to David and Solomon.2 In Veijola's opin-ion, this revision was the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian.3 The

1. T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastic: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastienach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, B, 193; Helsinki: SuomalainenTiedeakatemia, 1975) and Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischenHistoriographic: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, B, 198;Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977). Veijola assigns passages to the threeDeuteronomists as follows:

1 Sam. 2.27-36; 3.11-14; 4.18b; 7.3-4, 6a, 15-17; 14.3a, 18; 22.18by, 19; 25.21-2, 23b,24b-26, 28-34, 39a.2 Sam. 3.9-10, 17-19, 28-29, 38-39; 4.2b-4; 5.1-2, 4-5, 11, 12a, 17a; 6.21ap; 7.8b, lib,13ap, 16, 18-21, 25-29; 14.9; 15.25-26; 16.11-12; 19.22-23, 29; 21.2b, 7; 24.1, 19b,23b, 25ba1 Sam. 3.11-14; 28.17-19aa2 Sam. 12.7b-10,13-14; 24.3-4a, 10-14,15ap, 17,21bp, 25bp1 Sam. 13.13-142 Sam. 5.12b; 7.1b, 6, lla, 22-24; 22.1,22-25, 51

2. L. Delekat, 'Tendenz und Theologie der David-Salomo-Erzahlung', inF. Maass (ed.), Das feme und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost (BZAW 105;Berlin: Topelmann, 1967), pp. 22-36; E. Wurthwein, Die Erzdhlung von derThronfolge Davids—theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (TS 115;Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974).

3. This issue has been investigated in detail by F. Langlamet, who agrees withVeijola on many essentials but denies that the pro-Solomonic revision wasdeuteronomistic. See especially his review of Wurthwein, Die Erzdhlung von der

DtrG

DtrP

DtrN


subsequent deuteronomistic redactions, however, were less positivetowards kingship. DtrP's treatment presents a qualified evaluation, withreservations expressed in the language of classical prophecy, and DtrN'sattitude is wholly negative, passing judgment on the institution ofmonarchy on the basis of narrow legal criteria.

An opinion shared, to a greater or lesser degree, by Cross, Veijola andmost of the scholars whose work is cited immediately above is thatNoth's failure to take adequate account of the importance of the Davidicdynasty in deuteronomistic thought was a critical deficiency in his pre-sentation of the History. According to Noth, the Historian 'saw the divinejudgment which was acted out in his account of the external collapse ofIsrael as a nation as something final and definitive and he expressed nohope for the future'.1 Nevertheless, most scholars who have built uponNoth's foundation, whether they regard the Deuteronomistic History asprimarily a pre-exilic or exilic composition, have disagreed, concludinginstead from their reading of the text that, as von Rad expressed it,'It was because Jahweh had his special plans for history with the houseof David...that Judah and Jerusalem were preserved in history in spiteof the long-due judgment.'2 From this point of view, the booksof Samuel, because they contain the stories about David, are seen tohave central importance in the Deuteronomistic History, and moreparticularly, the oracle of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 emerges as a key

Thronfolge Davids, and Veijola, Die ewige Dynastic, in RB 83 (1976), pp. 114-17.Other pertinent studies by Langlamet include, Tour ou centre Salomon? La redactionprosalomonienne de 1 Rois, I-II', RB 83 (1976), pp. 321-79, 481-529; 'Absalom etles concubines de son pere: Recherches sur II Sam., XVI, 21-22', RB 84 (1977), 161-209; 'Ahitofel et Houshai': Redaction prosalomonienne en 2 Sam 15-17?', inY. Avishur and J. Blau (eds.), Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East:Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday (Jerusalem:Rubinstein, 1978), pp. 57-90; 'David et la maison de Saul', RB 86 (1979), pp. 194-213, 385-436, 481-513; 87 (1980), pp. 161-210; 88 (1981), 321-32; 'Affinites sacer-dotales, deuteronomiques, elohistes dans 1'histoire de la succession (2 S 9-20; 1 R 1-2)', in A. Caquot and M. Delcor (eds.), Melanges bibliques et orientaux en I'honneurde M. Henri Gazelles (AOAT 212; Kevelaer: Butzon & Becker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), pp. 233-46.

1. Noth, US, p. 108; DH, p. 143.2. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; New York:

Harper & Row, 1962), p. 341. For von Rad's highly influential interpretation of 'TheDeuteronomist's Theology of History', see more generally pp. 334-47 and the perti-nent section of his Studies in Deuteronomy.


passage, as stressed in a number of important studies.1

For Noth, however, the importance of the books of Samuel was to beunderstood differently. It lay in the fact that these books occupy animportant juncture within the deuteronomistic chronological schemeaccording to which the History is organized. This scheme, which is anessential component of the framework of the history, is characterized bya fairly rigid periodization of the history of Israel. The stories related in1 and 2 Samuel belong to the end and beginning of two epochs. Thatpart of the narrative which describes, in Noth's words, 'the Philistineoppression and the career of Samuel',2 is the second and final part ofthe account of 'the "judges" period'. That section that contains thestories of Saul and David is the beginning of the account of 'the "kings"period'. In his presentation of both of these periods, the DeuteronomisticHistorian drew extensively upon previously existing written materials, sothat he followed what Noth described as his 'normal practice of basicallyletting the old accounts speak for themselves and setting forth his owntheological interpretation of history only in the introductions andconclusions'.3

In the former section, where the Philistine oppression and the careerof Samuel are recounted, the Historian utilized a framework built uponhis own combination of an existing story about Samuel's childhood(1 Sam. l.l-4.1a)4 and the beginning of the ark narrative (4.1b-18a, 19-7.1).5 He edited this material primarily by arranging it, finding it neces-sary to expand his sources by his own hand only once, in his additionsto the oracle against the house of Eli found in 1 Sam. 2.25b, 34-35.6 Theeffect of this arrangement was to depict Samuel, who presides over both

1. In addition to the studies of von Rad, Cross (Canaanite Myth, pp. 241-64),Veijola (Die ewige Dynastic, pp. 72-78) and the others cited above, see especiallyD.J. McCarthy, 'II Samuel and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84(1965), pp. 131-38 and T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and SacralLegitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8; Lund: Gleerup, 1976), pp. 48-63.

2. Noth, VS, p. 54; DH, p. 76.3. Noth, US, p. 54; DH, p. 77.4. For Noth's reconstruction of the complex history of this material, see his

article, 'Samuel und Silo', VT 13 (1963), pp. 390-400.5. Noth, US, p. 54; DH, p. 77.6. Noth, US, pp. 60-61; DH, p. 84. The formulaic statement in 1 Sam. 4.18b

about Eli's judging of Israel is intended to incorporate Eli into the deuteronomisticscheme of judges. But according to Noth (US, p. 23; DH, pp. 39-40), it was insertednot by the Historian but by another editor using the deuteronomistic style.


the return of the ark from Philistine territory and the installation of Saul,as the last of the judges who saved the Israelites from their oppressors.Noth expresses uncertainty about the existence of an independent sourcedepicting Samuel as a judge,1 but he stresses the unsuitability, from theHistorian's point of view, of leaving room for the interpretation thatSaul's own victory over the Philistines had avenged the defeat recordedin the ark narrative.2

In the latter section, where the principal stories about Saul and Davidare preserved, the Historian once again availed himself of existing mate-rials upon which he relied for the basic shape of his narrative. In thiscase the source was 'an extensive collection of Saul-David traditionscompiled long before Dtr. from different elements—the old tradition onSaul and, in particular, the story of the rise of David and the story of theDavidic succession'.3 What Noth meant by 'the old tradition on Saul'was a loose collection of stories that now underlie 1 Samuel 13-14.4 Forthe story of David's rise (1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.25) and the successionnarrative ([1 Sam. 4.1b-7.1] 2 Sam. 6-7; 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2), Noth forthe most part followed the analysis of Rost.5 The Historian supplementedthese major sources by attaching other existing materials, including acatalogue of David's wars (2 Sam. 8.1ap~14a) and two lists of David'sofficers (2 Sam. 8.15-18; 20.23-26).6 His own additions and expansionsare modest in scope, recognizable in Noth's opinion only in the formu-laic notices on the kingship of Saul (1 Sam. 13.1),7 Ishbaal and David(2 Sam. 2.10a, II),8 additions to Nathan's prophecy (2 Sam. 7.1b, 7a,1 la, 12b-13a, 22-24), intended (especially in the case of vv. 12b-13a) torender the temple prohibition only temporary in accordance with

1. According to Noth, elements of this kind may be contained in parts of ch. 7,especially vv. 16-17 (OS, p. 55; DH, p. 78).

2. Noth, US, p. 55; DH, p. 78.3. Noth, OS, pp. 61-62; DH, p. 86.4. Noth, US, p. 62, n. 1; DH, p. 86, n. 1.5. Rost, Succession to the Throne.6. Noth, US, pp. 64-65; DH, pp. 89-90. In Noth's opinion (OS, p. 62, n. 3; DH,

p. 86, n. 3) the miscellaneous materials collected in 2 Samuel 21-24 were added at alate date, after the division of the Deuteronomistic History into the present scheme ofbooks.

7. Noth (US, p. 63; DH, p. 87) regarded two other interpolations in the Saulstory—1 Sam. 14.47-51 and 15.24-31—as the contributions of a late editor, but notthe Deuteronomistic Historian.

8. Noth, US, p. 62, n. 7; DH, p. 87, n. 3.


deuteronomistic theology,1 and additions to the catalogue of David'swars (2 Sam. S.laa, 14b).2

Noth, in short, regarded the two sections of the History that relate theend of 'the "judges" period' and the beginning of 'the "king's" period'as having been incorporated by the Deuteronomistic Historian with onlyslight changes. His understanding of the portion of narrative by whichthey are joined, however, was quite different. This portion is the accountof the origin of the monarchy, and here, said Noth, the DeuteronomisticHistorian set his own understanding of history above the tradition. Acentral tenet of that understanding was the Historian's belief that, asNoth expressed it, 'the rise of the monarchy was of fundamental impor-tance...' because, as an Israelite living in the aftermath of the fall ofJerusalem and 'with hindsight afforded by the situation of his own time,he inevitably concluded that the monarchy had led the Israelite nation todestruction.'3 Therefore, he broke with what, as we have seen, Nothcalled his 'normal practice of letting the old accounts...speak for them-selves' and composed most of the narrative himself. The result was whatNoth, in another context, described as the only time in his entire historywhen the Deuteronomistic Historian made 'a conscious correction, thatis, an alteration of the evident sense of the source used which is notmotivated in any other tradition'.4

The material to which Noth attributed such distinctiveness and impor-tance is, for the most part, found in a group of four passages: theaccount of the battle of Ebenezer with its appendix on Samuel's on-going work as a judge (1 Sam. 7.2-17), the story of the people's demandfor a king (1 Sam. 8.1-22), the report of the lottery by which Saul isidentified as king (1 Sam. 10.17-27a) and the report of Samuel'sfarewell address (1 Sam. 12.1-25). These passages not only describe theorigin of the institution of monarchy in Israel but also cast a shadowover it in the process. Accordingly, they have often been described as'anti-monarchical', a characterization that emphasizes their incongruitywith the earlier, 'pro-monarchical' materials with which they are nowcombined.5

1. Noth, OS, p. 64, n. 7; DH, p. 89, n. 5.2. US, p. 65; DH, p. 90.3. US, p. 54; DH, p. 77.4. #5, p. 99-100; DH, p. 88.5. For the longstanding debate over the 'pro-' and 'anti-monarchical' sources in

Samuel and of issues in 1 Sam. 7-12 generally, see F. Langlament, 'Les recits de


In their depiction of the election and rejection of Saul, the anti-monar-chical passages exhibit a marked suspicion, not just of Saul's kingship,but of the institution of monarchy itself. This situation was clearly recog-nized by Noth, though it caused him some difficulty in explaining whyan editor with such a point of view would have utilized sourcesfavorable to kingship. Thus he explained that 'it was not without effortand contrivance that Dtr. supplemented the old accounts which dealfavourably with the institution of monarchy by adding long passagesreflecting his disapproval of the institution.'1 There have been attemptsby some of Noth's successors to address this issue in ways that wouldremove the possible contradiction in Noth's assumption that the authorof the anti-monarchical passages deliberately selected pro-monarchicalsources for inclusion in the account of the inauguration of the monarchy.Boecker, for example, has pointed out that only certain aspects ofmonarchy are condemned so that the true deuteronomistic view of king-ship is acceptance, though sharply qualified, as expressed succinctly in1 Sam. 12.14-15.2

Boecker's point seems quite valid with regard to the materialsincluded in 1 Samuel 7-12. The older passages are favorable or at leastneutral towards the institution of monarchy, the passages identified byNoth as deuteronomistic are hostile to it, and the overall impression is ofkingship as an institution to which Yahweh has given his approval, how-ever unenthusiastically and reluctantly, but which is strictly limited in anumber of ways. When we look beyond these chapters to the Historyas a whole, however, difficulties in identifying the anti-monarchicalmaterials as deuteronomistic are still apparent. As explained above, mostof Noth's successors have felt that he gave too little attention to thedivine promise of kingship to David, which they see as one of the prin-cipal themes in the Deuteronomistic History. While the identification ofthis theme as deuteronomistic would create no difficulty in seeing thosepassages that confirm the kingship of Saul (1 Sam. 13.7b-15a; 15.1-34)as deuteronomistic (cf. 2 Sam. 7.15), the same cannot be said of the

I'institution de la royaute (I Sam. VII-XII): De Wellhausen aux travaux recents', RB77 (1970), pp. 161-200.

1. US, p. 60; DH, p. 83-84.2. H.J. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfdnge des Konigtums in den

deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des 1. Samuelbuches: Ein Beitrag zum Problemdes 'Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks' (WMANT 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1969).


anti-monarchical parts of 1 Samuel 7-12, in which kingship itself is unam-biguously condemned. The viewpoint they represent does not deny thatkingship came into existence, since this was the ineluctable fact of his-tory, or even that Yahweh accepted it, since otherwise it could not havearisen. Nevertheless, their viewpoint presents kingship in Israel as some-thing that is to be strictly controlled, specifically by prophecy. That is,kings are to be tolerated only insofar as their actions are superintendedby prophets, whose divine selection is not compromised by dynasticconsiderations and through whom a kind of theocracy can be main-tained even under a monarchy. This viewpoint is, in a word, prophetic.

Scholars since Noth have found a variety of ways of addressing thetension between the prophetic, anti-monarchical point of view in theseallegedly deuteronomistic passages and the importance of the dynasticpromise to David in the larger deuteronomistic scheme. One solution isto assume, against Noth, that the deuteronomistic redaction of Samuelwas not the work of a single historian. This, as noted above, is the posi-tion of the Gb'ttingen school, which has argued that the DeuteronomisticHistory (DtrG or DtrH) underwent subsequent prophetic (DtrP) andnomistic (DtrN) redactions. In his two monographs on Samuel (seep. 269 n. 1), Veijola argues that the anti-monarchical passages in Samuelreflect the editorial concerns of DtrP, who evaluated the history of themonarchy from a theological perspective influenced by the prophets,especially Jeremiah,1 and DtrN. These passages are also the subject of amore recent monograph by Dietrich,2 in which he develops the follow-ing account of their editorial history. The older narrative sources werefirst brought together as part of DtrG. Although the deuteronomisticschool had a positive attitude towards kingship, especially Davidic king-ship, at the time of the compilation of DtrG, this attitude changed withtime. Thus DtrP introduced into the story a tone that is sharply criticalof monarchy and that presents kingship as controlled by prophecy. DtrNpressed forward to a full rejection of kingship, advocating the view that

1. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte, pp. 103-109.2. W. Dietrich, David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhdltnis von Religion

und Politik nach den prophetischen Uberlieferungen vom frilhesten Konigtum inIsrael (BWANT 122; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2nd edn, 1992). Dietrich identifies thedeuteronomistic contributions to 1 Samuel 1-16 as follows:

DtrH 1 Sam. Z.llb, 21b; 3.19bp-21a; 4.18b; 7.2-4, 5b, 8-9, lOaa, 13-15; 8.21-22; 13.1-2DtrP 1 Sam. 3.1, 12-14; 15.1-23, 27-28 (with older material); 16.1-4aa, 6ap, 7-10, 12bDtrN 1 Sam. 8.6-lla, 18-20a; 10.18-19*; 12.1-24; 13.13b, 14; 15.24-26, 29?


Israel should be the people of God not the people of a state.Another way of dealing with the contradiction between the passages

that express a prophetic, anti-monarchical sentiment and those that con-tain the deuteronomistic theme of the dynastic promise is to supposethat the former are not deuteronomistic. Whereas Wellhausen and manyother scholars prior to Noth's time regarded the anti-monarchical mate-rial as deuteronomistic,1 others did not. Indeed, among Noth's contem-poraries, there was what he called a 'tendency...to see these passages asthe bare bones of a self-contained pre-Deuteronomistic narrative'.2 Hewas thinking of the work of scholars such as Eissfeldt,3 who favored adocumentary hypothesis of the literary history of Samuel, and Weiser,4 aleading proponent of the fragmentary hypothesis. Weiser believed theanti-monarchical material had a long tradition history in propheticcircles. He argued, moreover, that the biblical stories about Samuel andSaul received their primary shape at a pre-deuteronomistic stage from aprocess of what he called 'prophetic formation into a complete historyinterpreted theologically' as seen in 1 Samuel 1-3; 7; 8; 10.17ff; 12; 15;16.1-13; 28.5

Following Weiser, both Birch6 and I7 have posited the existence of a

1. See Noth's comment (US, pp. 54-55; DH, p. 77) that 'Wellhausen was cer-tainly right to claim that the passages 1 Sam. 7.2-8.22, 10.17-27a and 12.1-25, whichhave a common theme, are to be ascribed to Dtr. on the ground of their language andtheir subject matter; and he rightly points out that they presuppose the existence of theolder tradition in 1 Sam. 9-11.' Noth here cites Wellhausen, Composition desHexateuchs, p. 243.

2. Noth, US, pp. 55; DH, p. 77.3. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; New

York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 268-81. In Eissfeldt's three-source (L, J, E) versionof the documentary hypothesis, the anti-monarchy materials belong to the latest,Elohistic stratum (pp. 272-73); he assigns only 1 Sam. 2.27-36 and 2 Sam. 7 todeuteronomistic redaction (p. 280).

4. A. Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development (trans. D.M.Barton; New York: Association, [1961]), pp. 157-70. Weiser (p. 168) finds evidenceof deuteronomistic editing only in 1 Sam. 2.35-36; 4.18b; 7.2b; 2 Sam. 5.4-5; 7.13.

5. Weiser, Old Testament, p. 170; for Weiser's detailed arguments see hisSamuel: Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiose Bedeutung: Traditionsgeschicht-liche Untersuchungen zu 1. Samuel 7-12 (FRLANT 81; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1962).

6. B.C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth andDevelopment of 1 Samuel 7-15 (SBLDS 27; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).

7. McCarter, I Samuel, pp. 18-23; // Samuel, pp. 7-8 and passim in the


prophetic history underlying the first half of 1 Samuel and, at least inmy case, extending into 2 Samuel—where it is most clearly representedin the episode of David, Bathsheba and Uriah—and Kings. Workingalong similar lines, Campbell has developed a comprehensive hypothesisof a document he calls the 'Prophetic Record'.1 Composed late in theninth century among the disciples of the prophet Elisha, it represented aview of the history of Israel's kings as an ongoing process of selectionand rejection that reflected the will of Yahweh as mediated through hisprophets. It was inspired by Jehu's revolution and served as ajustification for the bloodbath with which he seized power from theOmrides and suppressed the supporters of Baalism in Israel. It was ahighly influential source of the Deuteronomistic History, which it nowunderlies. It begins in 1 Sam. 1.1 with Samuel's birth, his anointing andcondemnation of Saul, and his anointing of David; it climaxes with theanointing of Jehu and concludes with the account of his coup d'etat in2 Kgs 10.18-28. In Campbell's view, however, the 'Prophetic Record'did not include most of the anti-monarchical passages in 1 Samuel 7-12,since they reflect a complete rejection of monarchy in contrast to itsview of kingship as divinely instituted though prophetically controlled.2

On the last point Campbell's argument seems excessively subtle. Evenan editor whose attitude towards kingship was completely hostile wouldhave had to reckon with the historical reality that Israel did infact become a monarchy, so that the era of kings must have had somekind of divine approval, however minimal and qualified. On the otherhand, it is clear that the anti-monarchical view expressed in parts of

notes and comments of both volumes.1. A.F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Ninth-Century Document

(1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS 17; Washington, DC: Catholic BiblicalAssociation, 1986).

2. According to Campbell (Of Prophets and Kings, p. 69, n. 9),' 1 Sam 8:1-22;10:17-25; and any pre-dtr substratum in 12:1-25...cannot derive from the sameprophetic circles as the Prophetic Record.. .For the prophetic redactors of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16; 15:1-35; 16:1-13, etc., kingship is a providential gift from Yahweh; it is neitherdemand by the people nor rejection of Yahweh.' Thus in Samuel, Campbell's'Prophetic Record' includes the following passages:

1 Sam. 1.1-4. la (evidently as a whole); 4.1b-2?, 4?, 10-11?, 23-18a?; 7.2b?, 5-6a?, 7-12?; 9.1-2a, 3-8, 9?, 10-13; 10.1-4, 5-6?, 7, 8?, 9, 10-13?, 14-16; 11.1-11, 14-15; 14.52;15.1-35 (or only lapb, 10-12, 16, 17b, 23b, 26-30, 35b); 28.17-19a2Sam7.1a,2-5,7b-10, llb-12, 14-17; 12.7b-10? (or 7-15?)


1 Samuel 7-12 is entirely at variance with the strongly affirmative viewof the dynastic promise to David which, as explained above, was char-acteristic of the primary edition of the Deuteronomistic History, and thisclash of views makes it probable that the anti-monarchical material arosein the form of secondary additions to the primary history. Moreover,there is a common feature in these passages (1 Sam. 7.2-17; 8.1-22;10.17-27a; 12.1-25) that strongly favors their attribution to an exilichand. This is their representation of Mizpah as a place of assembly for allIsrael (cf. 1 Sam. 7.5; 10.17), which, apart from their prophetic or anti-monarchical tone, is their most striking peculiarity.1

Discussions of the provenance and literary history of this 'Mizpahmaterial' should be controlled by what we can establish about the his-tory of Mizpah itself.2 The town was located near the northern tribalboundary of Benjamin (cf. Josh. 18.26) and thus of the kingdom ofJudah. Asa fortified it against Baasha of Israel early in the ninth century(1 Kgs 15.22 = 2 Chron. 16.6). As far as we know, however, its onlyperiod of real prominence was during the early years of the exile, whenit served as the Babylonian provincial capital and headquarters ofGedaliah, following and in consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem(2 Kgs 25.23).

This suggests the early exile as a likely time for the composition of theMizpah material, and its negative judgment on the history of the monar-chy would fit well into this period when the kingdoms of Israel andJudah had failed to survive. Moreover, an attempt to identify an earlierperiod in which the depiction of Mizpah as a meeting place for all Israelwould fit meets with difficulty. To be sure, it is present in 1 Samuel asan ancient place of worship, but there is little evidence to suggest that

1. Whereas the chief meeting place in the earlier material in 1 Sam. 7-12 seemsto be Gilgal (11.14; cf. 13.7b), in the anti-monarchical material it is Mizpah or Ramah(8.4). Among earlier scholars Budde, for example, provisionally identified the twosources he found in this part of Samuel as 'G', for the earlier 'Gilgal source' (in1 Sam. 9.1-10.16; 11; 13-14), and 'M', for the later 'Mizpah source' (in 1 Sam. 8;10.17-24; 12); see Budde, Die Biicher Samuel, p. 169 and, for detailed discussion ofM, pp. 177-202, and of G, pp. 203-208.

2. See J. Muilenburg in Tell en Nasbeh, Excavated under the Direction of theLate William Frederic Bade, I (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School ofReligion; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947), pp. 13-49; 'Mizpah ofBenjamin', ST 8 (1954), pp. 25-43; D. Diringer, 'Mizpah', in D.W. Thomas (ed.),Archaeology and Old Testament Study: Jubilee Volume of the Society for OldTestament Study, 1917-1967 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 329-42.


this is anything more than a retrojection from the time of the author ofthe anti-monarchical material. The statement in 1 Mace. 3.46 that'Mizpah was in time past a place of prayer in Israel' is not by itself asufficient indication of this, since the tradition reflected there couldhave been derived from the biblical Samuel traditions if it does not, infact, refer to the time of the governorship of Gedaliah, when Mizpahfunctioned as a cultic center (cf. Jer. 41.4-8).

The only other place in the Bible where Mizpah has such a role is inJudges 19-21. There it is depicted as a place of worship in pre-monar-chical Israel, when the tribes are said to have gathered at the shrine ofYahweh of Mizpah (Judg. 20.1, 3; 21.1, 5, 8). Note, however, that thisdepiction is confined to the special material appended to Judges (orprefixed to Samuel!) that describes the civil war against Benjamin. Thismaterial represents Israel as consisting of Judah and Benjamin with a bitof the Ephraimite highlands attached—the actual extent of the land atthe end of the monarchy—and it is widely regarded as an exilic or post-exilic addition to Judges or a late insertion in the DeuteronomisticHistory.1

In all probability, then, the Mizpah material derives from the circleof Jews who were permitted to remain in the land during the earlyexilic period and who gathered around Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed governor, at Mizpah. In its primary, pre-exilic edition theDeuteronomistic History was hostile to Saul and favorable to David andhis dynasty. It placed the hopes and survival of the nation in Josiah andhis reforms, and represented the history of the northern kingdom, whichoriginated in different ways with Saul and Jeroboam, as a counter-example or foil—a model Judah should not emulate. The reformulationof the story of the origin of the monarchy by the author of the Mizpahmaterial transformed the original hostility towards Saul into a negativejudgment on kingship in general.

This conclusion, however, raises a further question. If we characterizethe Mizpah material as an exilic revision of the primary edition ofthe Deuteronomistic History, should we also assign it to Cross's Dtr2?2

This is possible, but the passages in question lack the characteristic

1. Cf. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (trans.W.R. Smith; New York: Meridian, 1957), pp. 235-37.

2. Cross himself seems not to think so; see Canaanite Myth, p. 220, n. 4, where,evidently following older literary critics, he assigns the essential portions of theMizpah material to 'the younger northern source' of the Deuteronomistic History.


deuteronomistic language that would require their association with Dtr2,and we cannot assume that every post-Josianic revision in the Historycame from deuteronomistic circles. For this reason I prefer to beg thequestion of the association of the Mizpah material with deuteronomisticeditorial activity and to identify it as an exilic revision from a propheticperspective of the biblical account of the origin of kingship in Israel.1

1. I do not wish to imply that there is anything improbable about an exilic revi-sion that can be characterized specifically as deuteronomistic. On the contrary, I thinkCross's case for Dtr2 is quite strong and that, in fact, it is not unlikely that there wasmore than one exilic revision, as argued by Lohfink. It does seem unlikely, however,that a convincing case can be made for a single edition of the DeuteronomisticHistory, whether exilic, as Noth proposed, or pre-exilic, as argued with such eruditionand acuity by McKenzie (The Trouble with Kings). The full scope and duration ofthe deuteronomistic phenomenon have not yet been described or even appreciated.Not only is deuteronomistic editing discernible in a very large number of the books ofthe Hebrew Bible outside of the Deuteronomistic History, but ongoing adjustmentsand expansions with deuteronomistic characteristics are often discernible to the criticwho compares the textual witnesses in a number of books. Deuteronomistic editingwas done in Jeremiah, for example, after the divergence of the parent texts of the longand short editions of the book, represented by the MT and 4QJera, on the one hand,and by the LXX and 4QJerb on the other. Deuteronomistic-like changes were made inthe Samaritan Pentateuch after its divergence from the Jewish Pentateuch. All thisplaces the continuation of deuteronomistic activity quite late and, in any case, wellafter the exile. Thus, it is precarious to assume that all the characteristically deuterono-mistic changes found in Deuteronomy-2 Kings can be assigned to the work of asingle historian, whether pre-exilic or exilic, or even to two or three redactors workingin those periods.

THE BOOKS OF KINGS IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY*

Steven L. McKenzie

Brian Peckham has written, 'The world of the Bible is the world [theDeuteronomistic History] created,'1 and Richard D. Nelson has addedthat the deuteronomistic world's center of gravity is the books ofKings.2 The first statement needs no defense in this symposium; thesecond is the topic of this paper.

1. Martin Noth and the Books of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History

Recognizing that Dtr's original organization of his History differedsubstantially from its much later division into 'books',3 Noth treated thematerial in the books of Kings in two parts: the reign of Solomon in theunited monarchy and the subsequent period of the kings of Israel andJudah. Noth followed Rost4 in regarding the beginning of the account ofSolomon's reign in 1 Kings 1-2 as the conclusion of the 'SuccessionNarrative', which Dtr reproduced with only slight augmentations.5

For the rest of Solomon's reign, Dtr lacked the kind of runningnarrative that he had used for Saul and David and so was forced to

* I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Baruch Halpern for readingand commenting on a draft of this paper, and to Dr M. Patrick Graham both forreading the paper and for suggesting bibliography. Any errors, of course, are myresponsibility alone.

1. B. Peckham, History and Prophecy: The Development of Late JudeanLiterary Traditions (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 518.

2. R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History(JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), p. 21.

3. Noth, US, pp. 9-10; DH, p. 24.4. L. Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3.6;

Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926).5. Namely 1 Kgs 1.2; 2.*2, 3, 4, 27b. US, p. 66; DH, p. 91. 2.11 was probably a

later (post-Dtr) addition.


construct his own account from disparate traditional materials. Hisprimary source was the 'Book of the Acts of Solomon' that he cites in11.41. This was a document based on royal annals but organized topi-cally rather than chronologically.1 Dtr's other sources for Solomonincluded traditional stories,2 as well as assorted lists and other detailedinformation.3

Despite his reliance on sources, Dtr's creative hand was clearly atwork in shaping the account of Solomon. First of all, Dtr coveredSolomon's reign in two phases, each beginning with a theophany atGibeon (3.4-15; 9.1-9). This periodization allowed him to account forSolomon's positive contribution in the building of the temple as well asthe division and decline of the kingdom immediately following Solomon.The second theophany was entirely Dtr's invention and was only one ofseveral substantial texts created by Dtr for his treatment of Solomon.4

He also changed the order of his source, focusing first on the templeamong Solomon's building efforts,5 composed the present version ofAhijah's oracle in 11.29-396 and made numerous smaller additions andalterations.7

1. Noth believed that the contents and order of the 'Book of the Acts ofSolomon' could be roughly discerned on the basis of Dtr's account in Kings. Itincluded Solomon's construction projects (1 Kgs 6; 7.1-12), his bronze implements(7.13-46), the corvee (*9.15-23), building use (9.24; *8.1-13; 9.25) and Solomon'streasure expeditions (9.26-28; 10.11-12; 10.14-22; 10.26, 28-29). Cf. US, pp. 66-67;DH, pp. 91-92.

2. The theophany at Gibeon (3.4-15), the story of Solomon's wise judgment(3.16-28), Solomon's great wisdom (5.9-14), the aetiology on the name Cabul (9.10-14), the visit of the queen of Sheba (10.1-10, 13), the accounts of Solomon's adver-saries (11.14-22, 23-25aa, 25a|3, 25-28, 40) and the prophetic story of Ahijah(11.29a|3b-31, 36aba-37). Cf. US, pp. 68-72; DH, pp. 93-99.

3. Lists: 4.2-6; M.7-19; M.20-5.8. Other sources: 7.1a, 2-5, 6a, 6b, 7, 8a, 8b.US, pp. 68-72; DH, pp. 93-99.

4. These include: the preparations, with Hiram's help, for the temple construc-tion (5.15-32); an inventory of the gold in the temple (7.48-50); Solomon's prayerand dedication of the temple (8.14-66); Solomon's apostasy (11.1-13) and the con-cluding formulas (11.41-43). US, pp. 68-72; DH, pp. 93-99.

5. US, p. 69; DH, p. 95.6. For details see US, p. 72; DH, pp. 98-99.7. Including 2.4; 3.3, 14; 4.1; perhaps 4.13bay, 19bap, 20; 5.1; 6.1, 19b;

7.51; 8.1b, 2aa, 4b, 9. It is worth observing here that Noth also found a significantnumber of post-Dtr additions in this material: 3.1, 20; perhaps 4.13bay, 19ba|3;6.11-13; 7.40b-45; 8.lap, 4a, *6, 10, 11, 27, 34b; 10.23-25, 27; the last three

McKENZffi The Books of Kings 283

For the remainder of his History, Dtr's principal sources were the'Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel' and the 'Book of theChronicles of the Kings of Judah', from which he extracted the chrono-logical framework. Since his intention was to recount not the acts ofparticular kings but the history of the monarchical period as a whole,Dtr actually took few details from these 'Books of the Chronicles'. Thiswas especially true for Israel, whose history Dtr traced curtly as a rapiddecline to destruction.1

Dtr's use of the 'Book of the Chronicles' for the kings of Judah wasmore extensive. He especially took over material relating to the templeto show how it was progressively stripped of its wealth as Judah'shistory declined.2 He also lifted the information about the succession ofmonarchs.3 Otherwise, his citations from the 'Book of the Chronicles ofthe Kings of Judah' were sparse and sporadic.4

Dtr's third source for the divided monarchy was cycles of storiesabout specific prophets (Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah,5 Ahijah6 and Micaiah),some of which had been linked together before Dtr.7 In addition to these

words of 11.35. Cf. US, pp. 68-72; DH, pp. 93-99.1. The isolated notices that Dtr took from the 'Book of the Chronicles of the

Kings of Israel' referred to the various usurpations (1 Kgs 15.27-28; 16.9-12, 15-18,21, 22; 2 Kgs 15.10, 14, 16, 25, 30a), changes in the capital (1 Kgs 12.25; 16.24),connections with prophetic stories (1 Kgs 16.31 [as a prelude to the Elijah/Elishastories]; 1 Kgs 16.34; 2 Kgs 14.25-27), allusions to Israel's impending fall toAssyria (2 Kgs 15.19-20, 29) and Ahab's ivory palace (1 Kgs 22.39). US, pp. 74-75;DH, pp. 102-103. In addition, 2 Kgs 17.3-4, 24, 29-31 may also have come from the'Book of the Chronicles'. US, p. 78, n. 2; DH, p. 106, n. 3.

2. 1 Kgs 14.25-28; 15.12-13, 16-22; 2 Kgs 12.5-17, 18-19; 14.7, 8-14, 22;15.35b; 16.5-18; 18.4b, 13-16; 23.4-15, 19-20a; 24.10-16. Cf. OS, pp. 75-77; DH,pp. 103-105.

3. 2 Kgs 11.1-20; 12.21-22; 14.5, 19-21; 15.5; 21.23-24; 23.29-30, 33-35;24.17. OS, p. 77; DH, p. 105.

4. 1 Kgs 12.25 (OS, pp. 80-81; DH, p. 109); 15.23b; 22.48-50; 2 Kgs 8.20-22;18.9-11; 20.20; and possibly 2 Kgs 24.1-2a and 24.7. OS, pp. 77-78; DH, pp. 105-107.

5. 2 Kgs 18.17-20.19. OS, p. 85; DH, p. 115.6. Noth denned the Ahijah cycle as 1 Kgs 11.29apb-31, 36aba-37; 12.1-20

(minus the later additions in vv. 2-3a, 12), 26-31; 14.1-18. It is worth noting in thecontext of 1 Kgs 12 that Noth consistently dismissed LXX variants as arbitrary anddeliberate revisions of the MT. Cf. US, pp. 78-80; DH, pp. 107-109.

7. Besides the Elijah/Elisha cycle, the story of Micaiah (1 Kgs 22.2b-37) wastied with 1 Kgs 20 at a pre-deuteronomistic level. The story of Jehu's revolt


three sources, Dtr used a couple of local cultic traditions from Bethel,1 aswell as the Baruch narrative in Jeremiah 39-41, and he was able to drawon personal knowledge for information at the conclusion of his work(2 Kgs 25.18-21,27-30).2

Again, despite Noth's isolation of this source material, he ascribed agreat deal of creativity to Dtr. Dtr arranged his disparate sources andlinked them together.3 In doing so, he was responsible for a number ofsmall but significant additions,4 apart from his standard evaluation ofeach king. Some of his additions were longer and ultimately moreimportant for the message of his History than others. Among these werethe oracles of Jehu and Elijah against the houses of Baasha and Ahab,respectively (1 Kgs 16.1-4; 21.21-22, 24-26), the extensive peroration onthe demise of Israel (2 Kgs 17.7-20), the evaluation of Manasseh, whichcorresponds to the account of Israel's sins and thus prepares the readerfor the fall of Judah (2 Kgs 21.1-18), the extension of Josiah's reforms inaccordance with Deuteronomic law (2 Kgs 23.20b-27) and the revisionof the Baruch narrative from Jeremiah regarding Judah's last days(2 Kgs 25.1-26).

The books of Kings, in short, furnished perhaps the best illustration ofNoth's theory of composition. Dtr was not only a redactor, combiningdocuments or revising an earlier complete work, but also an author(Autor, Schriftsteller) who did research and then worked (bearbeitef) his

(2 Kgs 9.1-10.27) was distinct from the Elijah/Elisha cycle. It may have been part ofa cycle of stories about prophetic interventions in the succession of Israel's kings androyal houses that included the Ahijah and Micaiah (+ 1 Kgs 20) stories. However,Noth hastened to add that this pre-deuteronomistic link could not be proven, since theonly present connection between the stories was their overall theme of the propheticword. US, pp. 78-80; DH, pp. 107-109.

1. 1 Kgs 12.32-13.34 + 2 Kgs 23.16-18, minus Dtr's own additions in1 Kgs 13.32b, 33-34 and 2 Kgs 23.16. Dtr's introduction to the prophetic story in12.32-33 was later expanded, as is apparent from the three-fold occurrence ofraian *?s bin. Cf. US, p. 81, nn. 1-3; DH, p. 109, n. 3 and 110, nn. 1-2.

2. Noth, US, pp. 86-87; DH, pp. 116-17.3. Noth discusses especially the present order of the Ahijah stories (1 Kgs 11-

14), the complex in 1 Kgs 20-22, the reign of Ahaziah and career of Elisha (2 Kgs 1-8), Elisha's death (13.14-21) and the Isaiah cycle in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kgs18-20). Dtr's incorporation of prophetic stories, especially in 2 Kgs 1-8, forced himto come up with identifications for several kings of Israel and Judah whose names hadnot been given in the traditions passed down to him.

4. 1 Kgs 13.33-34; 14.14-16, 22-24; 15.15, 29-30; 16.31abp-33; 22.38, 43, 47;2 Kgs 8.28-29; 9.8b-10a; 10.1Gb, 28-33; 17.32-34a; 24.20.

MCKENZffi The Books of Kings 285

sources to create an entirely new composition. The books of Kings werealso especially influential in shaping Noth's theory of the date andpurpose of the Deuteronomistic History. Because 2 Kings ended withJehoiachin's release from Babylonian imprisonment in 562 BCE, theHistory was to be dated shortly thereafter, ca 560.! This date, in turn,was decisive for the purpose Noth assigned. The fall of Jerusalem was'the final act in a long historical drama' in Dtr's view, and it moved himto write a history of his people, interpreting it 'in the light of itsoutcome'.2

While Josiah's reign was but a brief hiatus on the descent to imminentdisaster, his finding of the Deuteronomic law and execution of reformsbased on it significantly informed Dtr's historical presuppositions.3 Thelaw in Deuteronomy provided the standard for the relationship betweenGod and humans, the yardstick by which to judge the past. And Josiah'sreign 'saw the realization of the ideal that should have been in forcethroughout the monarchical period'.4 That is why destruction, when itdid come, was final, as envisioned by Deuteronomy. Dtr evinced nohope for the future. Even Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8 does not sug-gest that the nation will be reassembled but only wishes that futureprayers for forgiveness toward Jerusalem be heard. Hence, by reportingJehoiachin's release in 2 Kgs 25.27-30, Dtr did not mean to herald anew age; he was simply reporting historical fact.

In his 1968 commentary on 1 Kings 1-16, Noth had the opportunityto explore his theory on a verse-by-verse basis.5 While some have dwelton the differences between US and the commentary,6 it seems to methat the two works are remarkably similar, especially considering thetwenty-five year span between them. Noth did retreat some in 1968from his earlier view that Dtr was the first to compile the sources heemployed. For instance, he now concluded that the 'Book of the Acts of

1. Noth, US, p. 12; DH, p. 27.2. Noth, US, p.9\;DH, p. 122.3. Noth, US, pp. 92-94; DH, pp. 124-26.4. Noth, US, p. 95; DH, p. 126.5. Noth, Konige. I. / Konige 1-16 (BK 9.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener

Verlag, 1968).6. H.D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem

Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zurich:Theologischer Verlag, 1980), pp. 16-17; B. Peckham, The Composition of theDeuteronomistic History (HSM 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 1.


Solomon' had been attached to the Succession Narrative before theycame to Dtr.1 But he still saw Dtr very much as the creator of a newwork and in fact assigned more material to Dtr (especially 11.29-39 andmuch of ch. 14) than he had in 1943. He pointed to 1 Kings 11 as agood example of Dtr's modus operandi —taking sources (Solomon'sadversaries) and reordering them with new meaning through hiscomposition of the introduction inll.1-13.2

2. Scholarship on the Books of Kingsin the Deuteronomistic History Since Noth

a. Early Reactions (1943-1953): Jepsen and von RodAs Nelson's remark, quoted at the beginning of this paper, indicates, thehistory of scholarship in the Deuteronomistic History has been tiedespecially closely to Kings.3 It was evident early on in the study of theHistory that this would be the case when the books of Kings figuredprominently in the most important initial reactions to Noth's theory.

Alfred Jepsen's volume on the sources of the books of Kings, com-pleted in 1939, is often cited as confirming Noth's conclusions,4 andJepsen's results were certainly comparable to Noth's in some respects.

1. Noth, Konige, p. 48.2. Noth, Konige, pp. 245-64.3. Compare also the statement of H. Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische

Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung', TRu 50 (1985),pp. 213-49 (217): 'In den Konigsbuchern erreicht das DtrG sein Ende. Absichten derdtr Historiographie und die Mittel, die sie einsetzt, um diesen Absichten Ausdruck zuverleihen, glaubt man hier am ehesten fassen zu konnen, und das hat den Hauptstromder Forschungsarbeit am DtrG auf diesen beiden Bucher gelenkt.'

4. A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Konigsbuches (Halle: Niemeyer, 2nd edn, 1956).A better example of confirmation for Noth's theory is the work of I. Engnell, whose1945 introduction to the Old Testament (Gamla Testementet: En TraditionshistoriskInledning [Stockholm: Svensk Krykans Diakonistyrelses]; cf. A Rigid Scrutiny:Critical Essays on the Old Testament [trans, and ed. J.T. Willis; Nashville:Vanderbilt University Press, 1962; repr. 1969], pp. 50-67) independently reachedconclusions very similar to Noth's, though by different methods. Like Noth, Engnelldetermined that the 'D-work' (Noth's Deuteronomistic History) was a unit and wascompletely independent from the Tetrateuch (what he called the P-work). See the dis-cussions of G.E. Gerbrandt, Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic History(SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), p. 6 and H.A. Kenik, Design forKingship: The Deuteronomistic Narrative Technique in 1 Kings 3:4-15 (SBLDS 69;Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 23-25.

MCKENZIE The Books of Kings 287

Both broke with previous treatments of the Former Prophets, showingthat the sources and method of composition of these books were entirelydistinct from those of the Tetrateuch. Jepsen considered his secondredactor (Rn) to be essentially the same as Noth's Dtr.1 But there was afundamental difference between them: Dtr was not the redactor of aprevious, extended work but an author who created a new work using avariety of sources. Jepsen represented a distinct view of the compo-sition of the Former Prophets, what Weippert has dubbed theSchichtenmodell, in contrast to Noth's Blockmodell.2 Jepsen's analysisforeshadowed the search for redactional levels in the DeuteronomisticHistory that has preoccupied scholars in the last fifty years; it also makesclear how that search differs from Noth's original theory.

Gerhard Von Rad's 1947 study on the theology of history in thebooks of Kings also anticipated the subsequent discussion of theDeuteronomistic History in several important particulars.3 By high-lighting the important theme of the promise to David in Samuel andKings, von Rad first exposed the weakness of Noth's proposal regardingDtr's purpose in writing. Von Rad's treatment of the final three versesin Kings in light of that promise raised the possibility that Dtr's outlookfor the future was not completely hopeless.

b. Grounds for Hope (1953-1963): WolffLike von Rad, Hans Walter Wolff (1961) found grounds for hope in theDeuteronomistic History, though not in the Davidic promise.4 For Wolff,rather, Dtr's call to return (Die) in passages such as 1 Kgs 8.46-53 raisedthe possibility that Yahweh would act to deliver his repentant people ashe had in the past. Like Jepsen, Wolff also perceived more than onedeuteronomistic hand, albeit in Deuteronomy rather than Kings.

1. Jepsen postulated two primary sources—an eighth-century synchronisticchronicle and a seventh-century annalistic work from Judah—behind the books ofKings, which had been redacted twice in the exile, first by a priest and then by aprophet; a third, Levitical hand was responsible for a few, brief, midrashic additions.See his Quellen, pp. 100-101, 105.

2. Weippert, 'Geschichtswerk', p. 229 et passim.3. G. von Rad, 'Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den

Konigsbiichern', in idem, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 40; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) H, pp. 52-64.

4. H.W. Wolff, 'Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', ZAW73 (1961), pp. 171-86.


c. Redactional Models (1963-1973): Cross,Smend and Dietrich, and WeippertWolffs important article paved the way for the well-known approachesof Frank Cross in 1968 and Rudolf Smend in 1971. Cross's 'doubleredaction' theory represented a synthesis of older literary-critical treat-ments of the Former Prophets, especially Kings, with Noth's originalpostulate.1 Cross added thematic considerations to the literary argumentsof such scholars as de Wette, Kuenen and Wellhausen for an initial, pre-exilic edition of the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr1), subsequentlyupdated in the exile (Dtr2). Smend's incipient article,2 positing a second,nomistic redaction (DtrN) of the initial historical work (DtrG, as Smendcalled it then) in Joshua and Judges was immediately seconded in 1972by Walter Dietrich's perception of an intermediate propheticDeuteronomist (DtrP) in Kings.3

Also in 1972, Helga Weippert published her treatment of the regnalformulas in Kings, which agreed with Cross in finding a Josianic and anexilic edition but further indicated an even earlier version written duringthe reign of Hezekiah.4

d. Debate over Compositional Models (1973-1983):Veijola, Friedman, Nelson, Lohfink, HoffmannSeveral dissertations written and published in this decade analyzedmaterial in Kings in an effort to support and refine the models. TimoVeijola's 1975 dissertation and subsequent monograph (1977),while focused on Samuel, dealt with themes important to Kings and

1. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of theReligion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 274-89;originally published as 'The Structure of the Deuteronomic History', in idem,Perspectives in Jewish Learning (Annual of the College of Jewish Studies 3;Chicago: College of Jewish Studies, 1968), pp. 9-24.

2. R. Smend, 'Das Gesetz und die Volker: Bin Beitrag zur deuteronomistischenRedaktionsgeschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. vonRod zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 494-509.

3. W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).

4. H. Weippert, 'Die "deuteronomistischen" Beurteilung der Konige von Israelund Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Konigsbiicher', Bib 53 (1972),pp. 301-39.


distinguished the same three redactional layers that Dietrich haduncovered.1 Smend himself returned in 1978 and 1983 to add flesh tothe skeleton of his theory.2 He lowered Dietrich's dates for the threeDtrs,3 limited DtrP to the material about the monarchy and describedDtrN as a collection of additions in a nomistic style, rather than theunified work of a single editor.4

The dissertations of Richard Friedman and Richard Nelson, both pub-lished in 1981, supplemented and refined Cross's thesis.5 Among otherthings, they added literary-critical arguments for the secondary nature ofthe passages in Kings where Cross had identified his Dtr2. Nelson'swork has come to be regarded as the classic statement of the theory thathe initially set out to disprove.6

Also in 1981, Norbert Lohfink offered one of the few attempts everto combine the insights of Noth, Smend and Cross.7 Noth's Dtr, argued

1. T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastic: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastienach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, B, 193; Helsinki: SuomalainenTiedeakatemia, 1975) and Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischenHistoricgraphic: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, B, 198;Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).

2. R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1978); 'Der Ort des Staates im Alten Testament', ZTK 80 (1983), pp. 245-61.

3. Dietrich (Prophetic und Geschichte, pp. 139-44) had dated DtrH (his DtrG),DtrP and DtrN respectively to ca 580, 570 and 560 BCE. Smend has now placedDtrH after 560 and probably near the end of the exile. Disappointment in Zerubbabel,he argues, motivated DtrP to write, and DtrN reflects an even later shift—looking topriesthood instead of monarchy for leadership. See Smend, Entstehung, pp. 123-25;'Ort', pp. 256-57. Cf. also L. Camp, Hiskija und Hiskijabild: Analyse undInterpretation von 2 Kon 18-20 (MTA 9; Altenberge: Telos, 1990), pp. 26-27.

4. 'Die jungste Schicht, DtrN, scheint nicht einheitlich zu sein; mindestenswurden in ihrem "nomistischen" Stil noch weiter Zusatze gemacht' (Smend,Entstehung, p. 123). Cf. Camp, Hiskija, p. 312: 'Trotzdem scheint sich als Kerygmader unter diesem Sigel zusammengefaBten Redaktion eine realistische, illusionsloseSichtweise der Geschichte wie des Konigtums im besonderen ableiten zu lassen.'

5. R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of theDeuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981);Nelson, Double Redaction.

6. So he states on p. 38 of his original dissertation, 'The Redactional Duality ofthe Deuteronomistic History' (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1973).

7. N. Lohfink, 'Kerygmata des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', inJ. Jeremias and L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fiir HansWalter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981),pp. 87-100.


Lohfink, had brought together two documents from Josiah's time: adeuteronomistic Landeroberungserzdhlung underlying Deuteronomy 1-Joshua 22 and Cross's Dtr1 as the first edition of Kings. Dtr's productwas subsequently retouched in the exile by two writers, one of whomwas nomistic.

Yet another dissertation published in the early 1980s and of greatimportance for the study of the Deuteronomistic History was that ofHoffmann, whose perspective broke from both Smend's and Cross's.1

Drawing especially on the books of Kings, Hoffmann argued that theHistory was essentially a fictional account of Israel's cult, which Dtrcomposed principally from whole cloth using very few actual sources.Noth was correct in seeing Dtr as an author but incorrect in describingDtr's work as substantially editorial. Treatment of the question of theauthorship of the Deuteronomistic History, as Campbell noted,2 hadcome full circle.

e. The Last Decade (1983-1993)Reconstructions of composition. The past decade has witnessed anexplosion in the volume and diversity of work on the books of Kings inthe Deuteronomistic History.3 If the views of Cross and Smend stilldominate, they have undergone important transformations. Those in the'Smend school' have occupied themselves with literary-critical treat-ments of specific texts in Kings, trying to refine the layers of redaction.4

1. Reform und Reformen.2. A.F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Ninth-Century Document

(1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS 17; Washington, DC: Catholic BiblicalAssociation, 1986), p. 1.

3. One of my objectives in preparing this paper was to survey everythingpublished on the books of Kings in the decade 1983-1993.1 have probably not beencompletely successful, although I have come close. I have tried especially to reviewworks on Kings that relate to the issue of the composition of the DeuteronomisticHistory.

4. See, for example: E. Ben Zvi, The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in IIReg 21,1-18 and the Redactional History of the Book of Kings', ZAW 103 (1991),pp. 355-74; Camp, Hiskija; G.H. Jones, 1-2 Kings (NCB; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1984); C. Levin, 'Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', ZAW96 (1984), pp. 351-71 (cf. also Levin's 1982 work, Der Sturz der Konigin Atalja:Bin Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. [SBS, 105; Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk]); Y. Minokami, Die Revolution des Jehu (GTA 38;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); E. Wurthwein, Die Bticher der Konige.


While they share the same basic model of multiple exilic redactions,there has been a tendency to see the situation as more complicated, withsome scholars positing more than three levels.1

There is more diversity among those who accept Cross's idea of aJosianic edition of the History, but here as well, the tendency has been tomultiply levels of editing. Some have looked for redactional activity evenearlier than Josiah, taking their cue from Weippert's treatment of theregnal formulas and arguing for an earlier edition under Hezekiah.2 ButMark O'Brien, following his mentor, Antony Campbell, has argued forextensive editorial activity before the Josianic Dtr.3 O'Brien has also

1 Kon. 17-2 Kon. 25 (AID 11.2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) andDie Biicher der Konige: 1 Kon. 1-16 (AID 11.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1985).

1. The best illustrations of this tendency, though both were published before1983, are H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidezeit (FRLANT 129;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) and R. Stahl, 'Aspekte der Geschichtedeuteronomistischer Theologie: Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Terminologie und zurRedaktionsgeschichte der Redekompositionen' (PhD dissertation, Jena, 1982). Seethe abstract of the latter in 7LZ 108 (1983), pp. 74-75. Spieckermann finds six levelsof editing behind 2 Kings 22-23: a Grundbestand, reworked in turn by DtrH, DtrPand DtrN, and finally by late deuteronomistic (SD) and post-deuteronomistic (PD)hands. Stahl posits a total of nine redactions: DtrH, DtrP, DtrN1'2'3 and four'theological' levels—DtrTh1'2'3'4.

2. W.B. Barrick, 'On the "Removal of the 'High Places'" in 1-2 Kings', Bib55 (1974), pp. 257-59; F.J. Gon9alves, L'expedition de Sennacherib en Palestinedans la litterature hebraique ancienne (EBib NS 7; Louvain-la-Nueve: Institutorientaliste de 1'Universite catholique de Louvain, 1986); B. Halpern andD.S. Vanderhooft, The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.', HUCA62 (1991), pp. 179-244; A. Lemaire, 'Joas, roi d'Israel, et la premiere redaction ducycle d'Elisee', in C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal andDeuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the Xlllth IOSOT Congress, Leuven, 1989(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), pp. 245-54; A.D.H. Mayes, The Story ofIsrael Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the DeuteronomisticHistory (London: SCM Press, 1983), pp. 120-24. Barrick's article offered a smallbut important and widely accepted correction of Weippert's thesis.

3. M.A. O'Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment(OBO 92; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).Campbell (Of Prophets and Kings, especially p. 208) did not explicitly endorseCross's theory. P.K. McCarter's reconstruction of a pre-Dtr, Prophetic History inSamuel (/ Samuel [AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980] and // Samuel [AB 9;Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984]) is similar to Campbell's Prophetic Record. Fora comparison of the two, see my The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the


posited separate, exilic redactions of the Deuteronomistic History. Whileno other proponent of a Josianic Dtr to my knowledge has stratifiedDtr2, some have greatly increased the amount of material ascribed to theexilic edition, making it a full redactional level rather than the handful ofretouchings that Cross had originally described.1 Others, in contrast,have questioned whether there was a single, systematic, exilic redactionof the Josianic History (see p. 298 n.l).

Of course, some scholars continue to affirm or, like Hoffmann, havereasserted Noth's view that the Deuteronomistic History is the productof a single, exilic author.2 Recent years have also seen the emergence ofcompletely new and independent models of the History's composition.Iain Provan offers a reconstruction that is closest to Lohfink's but is stilldistinctive:3 a pre-exilic history of the monarchy beneath Samuel andKings that, while written early in Josiah's reign, extended only toHezekiah. The exilic deuteronomist revised and updated this document,prefacing it with Deuteronomy-Joshua and Judges.

Brian Peckham4 regards the Deuteronomistic History as part of an

Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991),pp. 11-14. In 1985,1 attempted to trace McCarter's Prophetic History into the booksof Kings ('The Prophetic History in Kings', HAR 10 [1985], pp. 203-20), althoughthis is a position I no longer hold.

1. For example, J.D. Levenson, 'The Last Four Verses in Kings', JBL 103(1984), pp. 353-61 and Mayes, Story of Israel. Cf. also Levenson's earlier works:'Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?' HTR 68 (1975), pp. 203-33 and 'FromTemple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8', in B. Halpern and J. Levenson (eds.), Traditionsin Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Festschrift P.M. Cross;WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 143-66.

2. T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (WBC 13; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985); B.O. Long,1 Kings; With an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1984) and 2 Kings (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); J.G.McConville, 'Narrative and Meaning in the Books of Kings', Bib 70 (1989), pp. 31-49; J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and theOrigins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

3. I. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debateabout the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Berlin:de Gruyter, 1988).

4. Peckham, Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (1985) and Historyand Prophecy (1993). Cf. D.N. Freedman, 'The Deuteronomic History', IDBSup(1976), pp. 226-28 and M. Nobile, 'Les quatre piques dans le cadre de la redactionfinale de Gen-2 Rois', in Brekelmans and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal andDeuteronomistic Studies, pp. 191-96.


even larger 'Primary History', encompassing the entire Pentateuch andFormer Prophets. He describes the process of composition from Jthrough Dtr not as layers of redaction but as a series of new works, eachincorporating and reacting to its predecessors.

The newest proposal by Graeme Auld posits a source document,essentially a history of Judah, common to Kings and Chronicles andrecoverable through their shared material (in their various textual wit-nesses), which each of them elaborated independently.1 Since this postu-lated 'shared source' includes passages that Noth initially viewed aspillars in the structure of the Deuteronomistic History, such as 2 Samuel7 and 1 Kings 8, Auld's book challenges the standard criteria for theidentification of deuteronomistic texts.

Other concentrations of research. In addition to reconstructions of theircomposition, the past decade has featured more detailed work on a vari-ety of topics and passages in the books of Kings. I can only note heretrends that have surfaced in relation to the broad topic of composition.The narratives about certain kings have attracted particular attention.Helen Kenik2 and Gary Knoppers3 have found the account of Solomonto be paradigmatic of Dtr's narrative techniques and for his treatmentof the history of Israel and Judah as a whole.4 The accounts ofJehu's revolt and of Athaliah's reign have been analyzed for theirhistorical value, literary artistry and ideology.5 The well-known recent

1. A.G. Auld, Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of theBible's Kings (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994). My thanks to Professor Auld forgraciously sharing with me the page proofs of his new book.

2. Kenik, Design for Kingship.3. G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of

Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. I. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise ofJeroboam (HSM 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); II. The Reign of Jeroboam, theFall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (forthcoming). My thanks to ProfessorKnoppers for allowing me to see a draft of both volumes.

4. On Solomon, cf. also D.M. Carr, From D to Q: A Study of Early JewishInterpretations of Solomon's Dream at Gibeon (SBLMS 44; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1991) and G. Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung derWiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kon 11-12 (ATSAT 21; St. Ottilien: EOS,1984).

5. On Jehu see: L.M. Barre, The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion: TheNarrative Artistry and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9-11 (CBQMS 20;Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1988); Minokami, Die Revolution


monographs by Gongalves (1986) and Spieckermann (1982) treating thehistorical and literary problems associated with Hezekiah in Kings havenow been complemented and balanced by those of several otherscholars.1

But it is Josiah's reign that has commanded the greatest attention, somuch so that Lohfink's 1985 Forschungsbericht just on 2 Kings 22-23must now be updated by mention of a series of monographs,2 not tomention a host of articles, one of which was contributed by Lohfinkhimself.3 The interest in Josiah and the account about him was spurred

des Jehu; S.M. Olyan, 'Hassalom: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kgs 9', CBQ46 (1984), pp. 652-58. On Athaliah, see L.S. Schearing, 'Models, Monarchs andMisconceptions: Athaliah and Joash of Judah' (PhD dissertation, Emory University,1992). Cf. also Levin, Der Sturz der Konigin Atalja and S. Timm, Die DynastieOmri: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vorChristus (FRLANT 124; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).

1. Gonsalves, L 'expedition de Sennacherib; Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur.See Camp, Hizkija; C. Hardmeier, Prophetic im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas:Erzdhlkommunikative Studien zur Enstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaer-zdhlungen in II Reg 18-20 und Jer 37-40 (BZAW 187; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990);R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah(JSOTSup 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); Provan, Hezekiah and the Book ofKings; G.W. Vera Chamaza, Hizkijjahu rey de Judd: Interpretation y recon-struccion de las narraciones de Ezequias (Valencia: Artes Graficas Soler, InstitucionSan Jeronimo, 1988). Cf. also C.R. Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny. The Development ofthe Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1991).

2. N. Lohfink, 'Zur neueren Diskussion iiber 2 Kon 22-23', in idem (ed.), DasDeuteronomium: Enstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 38; Leuven: LeuvenUniversity Press, 1985), pp. 24-48. Recent monographs include: Gerbrandt, Kingshipaccording to the Deuteronomistic History; Lowery, The Reforming Kings;S. Nakanose, Josiah's Passover: Sociology and the Liberating Bible (The Bible andLiberation; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993); P. Tagliacarne, 'Keiner war wie er':Untersuchung zur Struktur von 2 Konige 22-23 (ATSAT 31; St. Ottilien: EOS,1989); K. Visaticki, Die Reform des Josija und religiose Heterodoxie in Israel(Dissertationen, Theologische Reihe 21; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1987).

3. For example: C.T. Begg, 'The Death of Josiah in Chronicles: Another View',VT 37 (1987), pp. 1-8; C. Conroy, 'Reflections on the Exegetical Task: Apropos ofRecent Studies on 2 Kg 22-23', in Brekelmans and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal andDeuteronomistic Studies, pp. 255-68; W.G. Dever, 'The Silence of the Text: AnArchaeological Commentary on 2 Kings 23', in M.D. Coogan et al. (eds.), Scriptureand other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), pp. 143-68; L.M. Eslinger, 'Josiah and


by Hoffmann and Spieckermann, as Lohfink's report indicates. Most ofthe recent publications, therefore, are concerned with the historicity ofthe Josiah account or with Josiah's importance to Dtr as the ideal king.

The stories involving prophets have figured prominently in the dis-cussion about the composition of Kings. In addition to the works alreadycited that postulate a pre-deuteronomistic Prophetic History or PropheticRecord or a later DtrP editor, two recent studies are significant for theirconclusions regarding the relationship of most of the prophetic stories inKings to Dtr. H.J. Stipp's 1987 monograph argued that most of theElisha materials were post-Dtr additions to Kings.1 A year later,Alexander Rofe drew upon his own previous work, contending that thestories of the nameless prophet in 1 Kings 13 and of Elijah and Elishacontain the hallmarks of late legends, comparable to legends of miracle-working saints in early Christianity.2

While most research on the composition of Kings has been conductedfrom a literary (source)-critical perspective, other methods have occa-sionally come into play.3 Textual criticism has loomed especially large inthe past decade, thanks in great measure to the work of Julio Trebolle

the Torah Book: Comparison of 2 Kgs 22:1-23:38 and 2 Chr 34:1-35:19', HAR 10(1988), pp. 37-62; N. Lohfink, The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22-23as a Source for the History of Israelite Religion', in P.D. Miller, P.D. Hanson andS.D. McBride (eds.), Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 459-75. M.J. Paul, 'King Josiah's Renewalof the Covenant (2 Kings 22-23)', in Brekelmans and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal andDeuteronomistic Studies, pp. 269-76; G. Vanoni, 'Beobachtungen zur deuteronom-istischen Terminologie in 2 Kon 23,25-25,30', in Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuterono-mium, pp. 357-62; H.G.M. Williamson, The Death of Josiah and the ContinuingDevelopment of the Deuteronomic History', VT 32 (1982), pp. 242-47; idem,'Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C.T. Begg', VT 37 (1987),pp. 9-15.

1. H.J. Stipp, Elischa—Propheten—Gottesmdnner: Die Kompositionsgeschichtedes Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert aufder Basis von Text- undLiterarkritik zu 1 Kon 22.22 und 2 Kon 2-7 (ATSAT 24; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1987).

2. A. Rofe, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in theHebrew Bible; Their Literary Types and History (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988).See also Rofe's The Classification of the Prophetical Stories', JBL 89 (1974),pp. 427-40; 'Classes in the Prophetical Stories: Didactic Legenda and Parable', inStudies on Prophecy (VTSup 26; Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 143-64.

3. For example: Lowery, The Reforming Kings; Nakanose, Josiah's Passover,P.A. Viviano, '2 Kings 17: A Rhetorical and Form-Critical Analysis', CBQ 49(1987), pp. 548-59.


Barrera, whose 1980 work on Solomon and Jeroboam rekindled thedebate over the value of the large plus in the LXX at 1 Kgs 12.24.1 Hereand elsewhere2 Trebolle has maintained that there was no firm linebetween the actual composition of the text and its transmission. He hasstimulated other scholars, as well, to search the textual witnesses forevidence of compositional activity.3

Finally, for many recent scholars who employ various synchronicmethods of analysis, the interest in composition involves a range of con-siderations that Noth did not and probably could not have foreseen.These scholars focus not on the historical development of the narrativebut on its artistry and the reader's interaction with it. Although thebooks of Kings have not been the proving ground that Judges andSamuel have been, a number of articles using these approaches haveappeared over the past decade, especially in JSOT. Lyle Eslinger's 1989narratological analysis in the Deuteronomistic History includes twosections on Kings texts.4 In addition to this monograph, some piecesspecifically on the topic of methods in the Deuteronomistic History haveappeared.5 Robert Polzin's literary treatment of the History deserves

1. J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Salomon y Jerobodn: Historia de la recension yredaction de 1 Reyes 2-12, 14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis. Dissertationes 3;Salamanca, 1980). Cf. Knoppers, Two Nations, I, pp. 169-223; McKenzie, Trouble,pp. 21-40; Z. Talshir, 'Is the Alternate Tradition of the Division of the Kingdom(3 Kgdms 12:24a-z) Non-Deuteronomistic?', in GJ. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.),Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the InternationalSymposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and OtherWritings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 599-621.

2. J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Jehu y Joas: Texto y composition literaria de 2 Reyes9-11 (Instituci6n San Jer6nimo 17; Valencia: Edilva, 1984); Centena in librosSamuelis et Regum: Variantes textuales y composition literaria de Samuel y Reyes(Textos y estudios 'Cardinal Cisneros, 47; Madrid: Consejo Superior deInvestigaciones Cientificas, Institute de Filologfa, 1989).

3. Cf. Auld, Kings without Privilege; R. Penoyyer, 'Solomonic Apologetic: Textand Redaction in the Succession Narrative with Special Attention to the So-Called"Miscellanies" in 3 Reigns 2' (PhD dissertatioin, Johns Hopkins University, 1992);R.F. Person, 'II Kings 24,18-25,30 and Jeremiah 52: A Text-Critical Case Study inthe Redaction History of the Deuteronomistic History', ZAW 105 (1993), pp. 174-205.

4. L.M. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God (JSOTSup 84; Sheffield:Almond Press, 1989).

5. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of theDeuteronomic History. I. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980);


special mention,1 and we look forward to his volume on Kings.

3. Assessment and Prospects

Martin Noth's theory was brilliant. It is amazing that fifty years later weare still assuming the existence of the Deuteronomistic History and dis-cussing how it came to be. Yet, scholarship as a whole has strayed fromNoth's reconstruction in just about every aspect except the basic exis-tence of the History.

The first half of Noth's US put forward two very important conclu-sions. One of these was literary critical—that Deuteronomy plus theFormer Prophets was an original unit by a single author/editor.2

Although most scholars have accepted only the first half of this proposi-tion, I question whether it possible to accept the unity ofDeuteronomistic History without acknowledging its essential unity ofauthorship.

Weippert has put her finger on the heart of the issue: it is a differencebetween Block- and Schichtenmodell, and it goes back to the differencebetween Noth's Dtr and Jepsen's series of editors in Kings. Smend'shypothesis clearly relies on the Schichtenmodell and is closer to Jepsen'sview than to Noth's. Smend's DtrH has much the same interests, con-tent and, at least initially, the same date as Jepsen's R1, and his DtrP isalso very similar to Jepsen's Rn. Smend himself has stated as much:'Dieses Werk wurde, anders als Noth meinte spa'ter mehrfach von dtrHanden planmaBig iiberarbeitet, wobei sein Umfang erhablich wuchs;die Sicht Jepsens...hat sich in modifizierter Weise bestatigt.'3

Cross's suggestion of a Josianic edition updated in the exile seems to

Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. II. 1Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989).

1. Conroy, 'Reflections'; D. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant:Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1987); R.D. Moore, God Saves. Lessons from the Elisha Stories(JSOTSup 95; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). See also Robert Polzin's discussionsof methodology in the works cited in the following note.

2. Provan (Hezekiah, p. 5) has expressed this most succinctly: The originalityof the thesis lies in [Noth's] combination of these two views for the first time, that is,in his claim that the continuity between the historical books derives solely from Dtr,cannot be explained on any other basis, and is of quite a different nature to that foundin the Tetrateuch.'

3. Smend, Entstehung, p. 123.


retain the Blockmodell, though it is not incongruent with theSchichtenmodell. Since his suggestion was preliminary and Cross didnot return to it, it is impossible to say whether he would have increasedthe influence of his Dtr2. However, those who have taken up his sug-gestion and tried to advance it by increasing the material assigned toDtr2 are moving toward a Schichtenmodell, if they have not alreadyembraced it. The problem, as both Weippert and Halpern have recog-nized, is that it is increasingly difficult to ascribe secondary material inthe body of the History to the Dtr2 responsible for the last two and one-half chapters of 2 Kings, and the more material that one assigns to thisDtr2, the more Cross's theory is undercut.1 In the same way, the morematerial that one assigns to later redactions, the more the notion of the

1. Consider the following quotations from Halpern and Weippert. '[The searchfor Dtr2 texts] moves away from Cross's insight concerning doctrines of presentmoment to the redactor (the causes of exile, the import of Josiah's reform)...Thequest for DtT2 in the corpus before 2 Kings 21 is a risky venture' (Halpern, The FirstHistorians: The Hebrew Bible and History [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988],p. 114). In the context of his discussion of 1 Kgs 8, Halpern states, 'Even were partsof 1 Kings 8 exilic, thus, it would be dangerous to assign them to E(Dtr)x [= Dtr2], anauthor unrepresented in a wide context, instead of to glossation' (p. 168). 'Evenverses scattered here and there which may seem to stem from an exilic milieu are notevidence of a single-minded, exilic retouching of the narrative' (p. 173). Similarly,Weippert ('Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk', p. 242): 'Als grundsatzlicheRegel diirfte gelten: Je mehr Text man dem exilischen Redaktor in der friiherenGeschichtsdarstellung zuschreibt, desto weniger laBt er sich mit dem Bearbeiter von2. Kon 23,26-25,30 identifizieren. DaB der Ausbau der Cross'schen Thesen inAmerika scheinbar darauf hinauslauft, Dtr2 immer mehr Texte aufzubiirden (cf.Levenson, Boling) diirfte—so paradox das auch klingen mag—letzendlich dasurspriingliche Blockmodell unterminieren.' I have also argued along the thematiclines introduced by Cross that the exilic writer who added the account in 2 Kingsfollowing Josiah's death did not systematically edit the earlier material (McKenzie,Trouble, pp. 135-45). Interestingly, A. Kuenen (Historisch-kritische Einleitung in dieBiicher des alien Testaments 1,2 [trans. Th. Weber; Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1890],p. 96) took a similar view about the second, exilic edition that he posited: 'Von derzweiten Redaktion bezw. Uberarbeitung der Konigsbiicher, deren Umfang undVerhaltniss zu der ersten wir im Bisherigen festzustellen versuchten, kann man nichtannehmen, dass sie zu ein und derselben Zeit und von ein und demselben Autorbewirkt worden ist. Auch hier drangt sich uns, ebenso wie beim Hexateuch und denBuchern Samuelis, mit Nothwendigkeit die Vorstellung von einer fortgesetzenDiaskeue des Textes auf.' M.Z. Brettler ('The Structure of 1 Kings 1-11', JSOT49[1991], pp. 87-97 [88, n. 3]) also expresses doubts about a systematic Dtr2 redaction.


basic unity of the Deuteronomistic History—which was Noth's primaryinsight—is undercut.

This is not to say that the Blockmodell precludes the possibility oflater additions. Noth, in fact, found plenty of later additions—some, suchas Joshua 13-22 and Judges 13-21, were quite lengthy. Indeed, I wouldadd much of the prophetic material in Kings, including 1 Kings 13 andmost of the Elijah/Elisha stories, to that list, as well as the Dtr2

'appendix' in 2 Kgs 23.26-25.30.1 After all, it is not surprising that awork the length of the Deuteronomistic History, transmitted over gener-ations, would attract glosses and additions from different hands. But, alater addition does not a redaction make. Some who have followedCross, myself included, have been particularly careless about assumingthat every text determined to be secondary by literary criteria should beattributed to the same writer. In fact, such texts must be carefully com-pared in terms not only of style, but also of theme and ideology, beforetheir common authorship can be asserted.

The matter is further complicated by the widespread recognition sinceNoth that redactors and glossators employ the style and vocabulary oftheir Vorlagen2 and that authors employ devices such as repetition andparataxis, which might be mistaken for an editor's intervention. In short,literary (source) criticism, as important as it is, by itself is inadequate forproper analysis of the Deuteronomistic History. This brings me toNoth's second major conclusion, which was form-critical in nature.Citing Hellenistic and Roman histories as the closest parallels, heidentified the genre of the Deuteronomistic History as just that—ancienthistoriography.

1. See McKenzie, Trouble, pp. 81-100. Actually, I regard the notorious finalthree verses of 2 Kings (25.27-30), with R. Friedman (Exile and Biblical Narrative,pp. 35-36; 'From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2', in Halpern and Levenson [eds.],Traditions in Transformation, pp. 167-92 [189-91]), as an even later addition to theappendix because of the long chronological gap between events in vv. 26 and 27-30.

2. Noth, US, p. 6; DH, p. 20. Cf. Smend (Entstehung, p. 124), who says thatDtrH, DtrP and DtrN are difficult to distinguish, because each of the latter two was astudent of his predecessor(s), and all three are similar in theology and style. Similarly,Halpern (First Historians, p. 114) writes, 'In light of evidence that redactors wrote inthe language of their sources, and Tigay's admonitions in this regard...one cannotconfidently isolate a redactor's contributions by style alone.' This point is crucial toAuld (Kings without Privilege, pp. 149-51), who writes, 'This so-calledDeuteronomistic language was influential, and later scribes could also write it!'(p. 151).


What does it mean to call this material history? This is a question thathas received surprisingly little attention in scholarship on theDeuteronomistic History. Noth himself did not elaborate on his classi-fication, although it clearly had important implications for his decisionabout such matters as Dtr's purpose and techniques of composition. TheSmend school has subtly changed his genre classification to 'eineAtiologie des Nullpunkts'.1 Cross also altered the designation from'history' to 'royal propaganda'. Neither move is completely satisfying.The proponents of Smend's theory deny Noth's attribution of theDeuteronomistic History to a single hand, which was an integral part ofhis genre decision. Moreover, as the dates for DtrH, P and N are pushedlater, the questions of genre and purpose become more problematic. Theimplications of Cross's genre designation have yet to be explored form-critically, though Nakanose's sociological treatment is a start.2 Thebooks of Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges, however, do not seem to fitthis designation as well as Samuel and Kings, as Lohfink and Provanhave sensed.3 Calling Dtr's work 'history' may not necessarily precludeits serving a propandistic function as well.4 But this matter needs moreresearch, and it cannot be done on the basis of literary criticism alone.

John Van Seters has pointed out the crucial nature of this issue ofgenre,5 and he has been seconded in this, though with very differentconclusions about historical reliability, by Baruch Halpern and, to someextent, by David Damrosch.6 Van Seters's work with biblical historiog-raphy is part of his larger campaign to get scholars to recognize theneed for form-critical controls on literary (source)-critical analysis. Formcriticism calls us back to simple questions that we often miss because ofthe forest of literary concerns: How did the material come together?(Certainly not by itself!) Can one find a suitable beginning and end for areconstructed or theoretical unit? Thus Weippert rightly criticizesSmend's observation ('Einen volltonenden SchluB hat das Werk nicht')

1. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte, p. 141. This view essentially ignoresWolffs famous question ('Kerygma', p. 173): 'Warum wohl ein Israelit des 6. Jh.sv. Chr. iiberhaupt noch zur Feder griff, wenn er wirklich nur das abschlieBende Endeder Geschichte Israels als das gerechte Gericht Gottes verstandlich machen wollen?'

2. Nakanose, Josiah 's Passover.3. Lohfink, 'Kerygmata'; Provan, Hezekiah.4. Cf. Knoppers, Two Nations, I, pp. 33-34; McKenzie, Trouble, p. 150.5. Van Seters, In Search of History.6. Halpern, First Historians; Damrosch, Narrative Covenant.


that none of his three redactors felt compelled to provide a Schlufiwortto a work that consistently comments on important junctures in thenation's history.1

These form-critical considerations call for a renewed appreciation ofNoth's model of composition. Noth has been accused of ambivalence inhis model, of being unable to decide whether Dtr was an author or aneditor.2 But the dichotomy between author and editor as they apply toDtr is false, and it is not Noth but his heirs who have been ambivalentby overlooking Dtr's creativity in their search for sources and redac-tions. Scholarship has claimed to follow Noth, when it has really beenfollowing Jepsen.

A recent statement by JJ.M. Roberts illustrates the misdirection thisresearch has taken: 'Dtr's method of working, according to Noth, wasto incorporate preexisting blocks of material with little editorial rework-ing apart from the easily distinguishable Dtr framework.'3 The statementis true as far as it goes, but Roberts calls this Noth's 'fundamentalinsight', and this is misleading. Deuteronomistic editing of the FormerProphets had been recognized long before Noth. What was new withNoth and the real fundamental insight of his US was the unity of theDeuteronomistic History. Dtr's work, in Noth's view, involved morethan simply incorporating older material, as we have seen. Dtr orderedsources, filled in gaps within them, changed them and did whatever elsewas necessary in order to create an entirely new literary entity—ahistory of Israel.

The time has come—and some critics have begun—to focus more onthe creative process, that is, to investigate how Dtr combined andreshaped his sources and added material of his own in order to make hispoints. I do not mean to suggest ignoring source criticism where thereare genuine tensions or contradictions in the narrative. But we mustkeep the larger issues of form and the unity of the DeuteronomisticHistory in mind and thus be cautious not to multiply redactors at theslightest difference in language or content. I find the two recent books ofGraeme Auld and Gary Knoppers to be particularly helpful in thisregard. While form criticism may raise doubts about Auld's main thesis,

1. Weippert, 'Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk', p. 235. Smend,Entstehung, p. 123.

2. Hoffmann, Reform, pp. 15-21; Peckham, Composition, p. 1.3. JJ.M. Roberts, Review of The Trouble with Kings by Steven L. McKenzie,

ResQ 35 (1993), pp. 53-54 (54).


his stress on Dtr's creative elaboration is welcome.1 Knoppers dealscarefully with source-critical and text-critical evidence on his way todescribing Dtr's use of Solomon as a fountainhead for his portrait of thedivided kingdom.

Both books raise the issue of identifying Dtr's handiwork, which hasnever been so 'easily distinguishable' as Roberts makes it sound. If laterscribes copied Dtr's style, then language is not a foolproof criterion.There has been surprisingly little discussion of this methodological issuein modern scholarship. An exception is Campbell's very useful set ofthree criteria for isolating Dtr's product: characteristic phraseology, textthat is inseparable from passages marked by such phraseology andproximity to Dtr's thought or theology where the context makes hisintervention likely or reasonable.2 Where I differ with Campbell is in mybelief that following these criteria leads to the conclusion that one writer,Dtr, had a greater hand in shaping, revising and organizing his sourcematerial than scholarship as a whole, with its preoccupation with redac-tions, has credited him.

To oversimplify vastly a complicated issue, an example from theregnal formulas may illustrate my point. Campbell's isolation of patternsin the Northern evaluative formulas makes Weippert's earlier effort clearand concise.3 The first eight kings, Jeroboam through Joram, have thesame basic evaluation (with Joram being somewhat transitional): theywalk in the way of Jeroboam and provoke Yahweh to anger. The nexteight, Jehu through Pekah, share a different pattern: they do not departfrom the sin of Jeroboam. The last king, Hoshea, does evil but not likehis predecessors. The entire list is well balanced and seems to convey aclear message. The first eight kings belong to the royal houses ofJeroboam, Baasha and Omri, which are all in turn targets of the familiaroracle of annihilation incorporating the curse, 'He who dies in the citythe dogs will eat; he who dies in the country the birds will eat.' They arethe true apostates, ending with the Omrides, the worst of the lot. Thencomes the great reformer, Jehu. From him on, the Israelite kings are notso bad, but they perpetuate the sin of Jeroboam until the end. Hoshea

1. See Auld' s brief discussion of balance between the views of Halpern and VanSeters (Kings without Privilege, p. 174).

2. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings, p. 5. See also Dietrich's article in thisvolume.

3. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings, pp. 139-57. Weippert, 'Die"deuteronomistischen" Beurteilung'.


stands alone as not so bad as the other kings (or as the worst, if theLucianic reading is correct). In either case, he alone is not to blame forIsrael's demise; he is only the last in a long line of evil rulers.

Campbell judiciously limits his analysis to the evaluations; it is thererather than in the other elements of the regnal formulas where Dtr'shand would be most in evidence. But it is unnecessary to resort to dif-ferent hands as an explanation for these patterns. The balance, symmetryand uniformity of message seem to bear the imprint of a single com-poser, Dtr, especially in the light of the deuteronomistic language thatCampbell notes but limits to the pattern for the first eight kings.

Obviously, the issues raised early in the study of the DeuteronomisticHistory are still crucial. Scholars continue to debate the differencebetween Noth's and Jepsen's models of composition and the question,raised by Wolff, of Dtr's purpose in writing. There is also the matter ofthe Davidic promise first pointed out by von Rad. If the promise is inte-gral to Dtr's history, as I believe it is, then I cannot see any option but todate the Deuteronomistic History (or at least Samuel-Kings) before theexile. Burke Long has put forth the most compelling case yet to explainthe promise in the setting of the exile.1 He sees the references to an'eternal' covenant as the hyperbolic language of royal legitimation thatis not to be taken literally. Frankly, I wish I could be persuaded by hisargument, for it would fit well with my views of genre and authorship.But the issue is not what 'forever' meant in royal circles but what itmeant to Dtr, and his use of it to explain why Yahweh left Davidides onthe throne despite their misconduct (1 Kgs 15.3-5; 2 Kgs 8.18-19) indi-cates that he meant 'for all time'. I cannot believe that an exilic writerwho knows that there is no Davidide on the throne in Jerusalem wouldinclude and stress such a promise. The other option would be to date theHistory later in the early post-exilic period and see the promise as sup-porting the restoration of the monarchy or idealization of the restoredinstitution. But if that is the case, I do not understand why the Historyends where it does instead of continuing to the writer's time.

Finally, focusing on the creative process behind the DeuteronomisticHistory may help historical critics to have a greater appreciation of theliterary artistry of the work and of approaches that seek to describe it,even if they are not willing to put off diachronic concerns as Polzin andEslinger demand. Much of these two scholars' indictment of historical

1. Long, 1 Kings, pp. 15-21.


critics for overlooking the aesthetic aspect of the text and for ignoringliterary-critical scholarship is well taken, as is their plea for more atten-tion to Dtr's creativity. But their disdain for diachronic matters is bewil-dering in the light of their adoption of the notion of a DeuteronomisticHistory—itself a historical-critical construct, or 'pre-text' as Polzin callsit.11 agree with Knopper's criticism that such literary critics implicitlyaccept a theory (Noth's) of authorship and dating.2 Moreover, whileEslinger contends that considerations of genre should follow a closereading, it seems to me that he implicitly makes a decision about genrewhen he reads the Deuteronomistic History armed with analytical crite-ria developed primarily in the treatment of fiction—and modern fictionat that.3 Understanding a text's genre and form determines how oneinterprets a phenomenon such as repetition. Perhaps form criticismshould act as a control for newer literary criticism as much as it shouldfor older literary criticism.

4. Afterword

On a more personal note, I believe that the study of the DeuteronomisticHistory and the scholars present at this symposium reflect the health ofour field. There is a diversity of perspective, but there is also a respectfor differing viewpoints, an openness to engagement and a self-criticism.

In her 1985 survey of scholarship on the books of Kings, Weippertpointed out that in many ways the major views about composition in theDeuteronomistic History are not all that far apart. Whether we will everresolve these issues, we may be closer than we sometimes realize.

I am convinced that one of the barriers in the way of recognizing our

1. I do not understand how Polzin (Moses and the Deuteronomist, p. 18) canclaim that he does not base his assumption that there is a Deuteronomistic History onprevious historical critical analysis.

2. Knoppers, Two Nations, I, p. 29.3. Eslinger, Into the Hands, p. 9.1 confess a lack of expertise in newer literary

methods, including narratology as practiced by Eslinger. I offer these remarks partlyin response to his invitation to dialogue (p. 8). Polzin (Moses, p. 6) agrees withEslinger that literary considerations should precede historical ones. But his quotationsfrom Soter ('...only if we start from the book as an artistic creation...') andPomorska ('it seems impossible to study the process before knowing the nature ofthe product') on that page seem to support my contention that an initial decisionabout genre is unavoidable and crucial to determining how one reads or analyzes thetext.

McKENZffi The Books of Kings 305

proximity is the lack of dialogue among differing perspectives. Thissymposium, to my knowledge, is the first occasion when representativesof the 'Smend' and 'Cross' schools, as well as those of other perspec-tives, have met. It is my hope that the dialogue not only among histori-cal critics but also with literary scholars will continue. I am pleased toannounce, therefore, that this program unit, which began in 1990 as theComposition of the Deuteronomistic History Consultation, has, as of thisyear's meeting, been changed to the Deuteronomistic History Section inorder to accommodate a broadening discussion.

5. Other Works Consulted

Auld, A.G., 'Prophets Through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT27 (1983), pp. 3-23.

—'Prophets Through the Looking Glass: A Response', JSOT 21 (1983), pp. 41-44.—'Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 66-82.—'Salomo und die Deuteronomisten—eine Zukunftsvision?', TZ 48 (1992), pp. 343-

55.Becking, B., 'Jehojachin's Amnesty, Salvation for Israel? Notes on 2 Kings 25, 27-30',

in C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), pp. 283-93.

Begg, C.T., 'The Significance of Jehoiachin's Release: A New Proposal', JSOT 36(1986), pp. 59-56.

—'"DtrP" in 2 Kings 25: Some Further Thoughts', RB 96 (1989), pp. 49-55.Brekelmans, C., and J. Lust, (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers

Read at the XHIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress, 1990).

Busto Saiz, J.R., 'On the Lucianic Manuscripts in 1-2 Kings', in C.E. Cox (ed.), VICongress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate StudiesJerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 305-10.

Clements, R.E., The Isaiah Narrative of 2 Kings 20:12-19 and the Date of theDeuteronomic History', in A. Rof6 and Y. Zakovitch (eds.), Isac Leo SeeligmannVolume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, III, (Jerusalem: Rubinstein's,1983), pp. 209-20.

Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988).Cortese, E., 'Theories Concerning DTR: A Possible Rapprochement', in Brekelmans

and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, pp. 179-90.Cox, C.E. (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and

Cognate Studies Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987).Dietrich, W., 'Josia und das Gesetzbuch (2 Reg. XXII)', VT27 (1977), pp. 13-35.DeVries, S.J., / Kings (WBC 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985).Eynikel, E., 'Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Deuteronomistic History: 1 Kgs 13;

2 Kgs 23, 16-18', in Brekelmans and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal andDeuteronomistic Studies, pp. 227-37.


Fernandez Marcos, N., 'The Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms', in A. Pietersmaand C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta (Mississauga, ON: Benben Books, 1984),pp. 161-74.

—'Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text in Kings', in Cox (ed.),Septuagint and Cognate Studies, pp. 287-304.

Fewell, D.N., 'Sennacherib's Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18.13-19.37', JSOT 34(1986), pp. 79-90.

Frisch, A., 'Structure and its Significance: The Narrative of Solomon's Reign (1 Kings1-12:24)', JSOT 51 (1991), pp. 3-14.

—'The Narrative of Solomon's Reign: A Rejoinder', JSOT 51 (1991), pp. 21-22.Hardmeier, C., 'Umrisse eines vordeuteronomistischen Annalenwerks der Zidkijazeit:

Zu den Moglichkeiten Computergestiitzter Textanalyse', VT 40 (1990), pp. 165-84.

Knoppers, G.N., "There Was None Like Him": Incomparability in the Books ofKings', CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 411-31.

Koch, K., 'Das Profetenschweigen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks', inJ. Jeremias and L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fur HansWalter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1981), pp. 115-28.

Lohfink, N., 'Welches Orakel gab den Davididen Dauer? Bin Textproblem in 2 Kon8,19 und das Funktionieren der dynastischen Orakel im deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk', in T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (eds.),Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor ofWilliam L Moran (HSS 37; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 349-70.

Lubsczyk, H., 'Die Bundesurkunde: Ursprung und Wirkungsgeschichte desDeuteronomiums', in Brekelmans and Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal andDeuteronomistic Studies, pp. 161-77.

McConville, J.G., '1 Kings VIII 46-53 and the Deuteronomic Hope', VT 42 (1992),pp. 67-79.

McKenzie, S.L., The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta,GA: Scholars Press, 1985).

Mullen, E. T., 'Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation ofthe Treasures', CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 231-48.

Nelson, R.D., 'The Anatomy of the Book of Kings', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 39-48.Parker, K.I., 'Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1-11', JSOT 42 (1988),

pp. 19-27.—'The Limits to Solomon's Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch', JSOT 51 (1991),

pp. 15-21.Polzin, R., 'Reporting Speech in the Book of Deuteronomy: Toward a Compositional

Analysis of the Deuteronomic History', in B. Halpern and J. Levenson (eds.),Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 193-211.

PreuB, H.D., 'Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk', TRu 58 (1993), pp. 229-64.Roth, W., 'Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk /Deuteronomistische Schule', TRE 8

(1981), pp. 543-52.Savran, G., '1 and 2 Kings', in R. Alter and F. Kermode (eds.), The Literary Guide to

the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 146-64.


Smelik, K.A.D., The Literary Function of 1 Kings 17, 8-24', in Brekelmans and Lust(eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, pp. 239-43.

—Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (OTS28; Leiden: Brill, 1992).

Trebolle Barrera, J.C., 'A Preliminary Edition of 4QKings (4Q54)', in J. TrebolleBarrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress, I (Studieson the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 229-46.

Wallace, H.N., 'The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings', Bib 67(1986), pp. 21-40.

Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1972).

—'The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents', in N.Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Enstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 38;Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), pp. 76-98.

Wright, G.E., 'Israel in the Promised Land', Encounter 35 (1974), pp. 318-34.

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Genesis22.415.7-2122.1624.726.328.11-2228.1835.735.9-1335.1550.24

Exodus3.84.24-2619.10-1120.22-23.3321-2323.20-3323.27-3334.734.10-11

Leviticus19

Numbers13-1413.2113.2313.2814.2514.2920.14-16

1111071482052052059696969696205

203232232191193185206135232

185

209232209209209146119

212627.12-1432-35

Deuteronomy1-111-41-3

11.1-3.291.1-51.11.21.51.6-11.321.6-81.71.8

1.9-181.111.19-461.19-251.211.241.281.351.371.40

2364183217

126, 19033, 181, 19723, 104,111, 121,125, 160,179-81,189, 190,197, 199,208180, 20358180, 196186, 197154186196180203154, 205-207180206180209154, 206209209205209209

2-32.1-252.12.10-122.14-162.20-232.25-3.222.292.302.312.373.23.83.133.203.23-293.294-114

4.1-40

4.1-44.14.24.3-44.5-84.9-144.9-104.94.10-144.15-214.15-164.19-284.22-23

20318020915423715418115415415415415415415420318118719733, 166,185, 187,200181, 189,19018758, 206, 2:58, 220585818715458585818718758

Index of References 309

4.23-244.234.24-314.244.25-284.254.27-314.29-434.29-404.29-354.294.314.36-404.37-394.374.44-30.20

4.44-494.45-494.455-30

5-285-265-11

5

5.15.35.286-286-256-116-96.1-36.36.4-66.4-56.46.56.10-186.106.126.186.20-246.23

581541881545815444, 2655815418728, 18220518720120629, 33, 38,58, 180197203187163, 180,184187, 200197187, 195,197125, 180,189, 190,198186206198178189125168185203, 206200122, 188196, 201188189205, 206196205119205

6.2877.4-57.6-117.7-167.87.97.127.137.25-2688.1-68.18.38.7-98.118.14-168.168.18-208.188.19-209-109.1-89.19.59.79.99.219.22-249.2710-1310.110.8-910.1110.12-11.3210.14-1910.14-1510.1510.1610.20-2210.2211-201111.911.10-1211.2111.2311.24

196190189201189205206205, 206205189190189205206203189189206189205188189, 190190203205, 206186181188190206188181189205189185201206182185185, 20644185203, 205203205219203

11.29-3012-26

12-25

12-1812

12.1-16.1712.1-712.112.2-16.712.2-1212.8-1212.812.9-1012.1012.13-1412.15-1812.1612.3213-2813-191313.113.2-613.713.1814.114.14-2114.22-271515.4-615.19-2316.1-1516.18-18.2616.18-18.22

16.21-17.117.2-717.2-317.8-1317.8-1217.14-2017.14

18933, 58, 125,194, 196-98, 268179, 193,198, 199,211198122, 185,188, 193,20119718934, 188, 206198185189242203203201201189189185219198219193206205, 206189189193193189193193193193, 197,198193193189193188168, 202168


17.1517.16-1717.18-201818.1-818.10-1219-25

19.1-21.2319.819.16-192021.8-2121.10-1422-2422.522.13-23.1522.13-2122.23-2723.123.10-1523.16-24.723.18-1924-2924.724.8-25.424.10-1725.5-1225.13-1625.17-1926-342626.1-1526.1-1126.326.5-9

26.526.726.926.1526.16-27.2627-3027-2927-2827.1-827.327.11-26

168168168165193193193, 197,198, 211198205, 206193193193193193193198193193219193198193189193198198198193, 198189, 193190206189193205112, 119,205206, 207206203203, 205189197196197189203, 206189

2828.128.1128.1528.20-6828.2028.36-3728.3628.4528.63-6828.6428.6929-3229-3029.1-1429.11-1229.1229.15-2729.21-2729.2129.2429.273030.1-2030.1-10

30.130.530.930.15-2030.19-2030.2031-34

31

31.1-1331.1-831.131.231.331.4-631.7-931.731.9-2431.9-1331.10

18913520513519613644, 18820618644, 188206197197187, 1891872052061871881862064429, 18019029, 44, 187,26528, 182, 186206206188136205, 206181, 189,19727, 34, 58,125, 180,181, 190179181, 18958581541545820518118958

31.1131.12-1331.14-2331.14-1531.16-2231.2031.2131.2331.24-2831.24-2631.2431.28-3031.343232.1832.4432.45-4732.48-5233-343333.134

34.1-1234.1-634.1-334.134.4-934.4-634.434.7-934.10-1234.10

Joshua

1-121-111-41

1.1-61.1-51.2-31.51.6-91.6

5858135189188203, 205205189196582718817958206188189183, 18919758, 18919734, 125,180, 181,2091811895858, 18318358205, 20758, 18958, 189188

22, 352222932, 34, 104,160, 214,21558230, 231231231230, 231231


1.7-9

1.10-181.10-111.111.12-182-11

2-922.1-242.102.12-212.223-53.1-173.2-43.2-33.23.43.53.63.73.83.103.133.143.153.174.1-244.34.8-94.94.104.12-144.124.144.184.19-244.194.204.245-85.1

5.2-75.4

34, 48, 58,154, 166,23058, 230231231230, 23134, 38, 39,58, 216163214, 23123058, 2302312312142302315823158230, 2325858, 215582325858585823058, 230230585823158, 21558, 215, 23158230, 23123123058, 215229, 230215, 230,23123158, 215

5.65.75.8-95.10-125.13-156-766.46.66.86.96.126.136.166.176.196.22-256.246.266.277-87.6-97.198.18.30-359-1299.1-49.1-29.3-49.9-109.99.109.2710-1110.510.2510.4210.4311.211.1511.16-2011.2011.21-2311.21-2211.2312

5858231231231215214, 23058585858585858231230231215582152142311145828, 58, 231229, 230214214230, 231215230585858, 2302142155821521521559215595921559, 230, 23132, 59, 104,214, 215

12.1-612.912.13-2413-2313-22

13-2113-141313.1-21.4513.1-713.1-613.2-613.8-3214-1914.1-514.414.6-1515.1-1915.13-1915.20-6316-1718-1918.2620-2121.1-4221.43-22.621.43-4522-242222.1-922.7-3422.10-3423-2423

23.1-1623.2-1323.11-1323.15-1624

230, 2312312152334, 59, 154,215, 29948, 229230160, 21548230, 2311164823021623023159, 216, 231230231230230, 231230278230592152312292902305923023022, 23, 32,34, 35, 37,44, 48, 50,59, 104,116, 160,188, 197,214, 216,23848230444422, 23, 34,48, 59, 89,


24.1-3324.1-2824.2-1324.6-824.1124.19-2824.26-2724.28-3124.29-31

24.32-33

Judges1-111-21

1.1-3.111.1-3.6

1.1-2.101.1-2.91.1-2.5

1.1-361.12-281.171.27-3622.1-18.312.1-192.1-5

2.22.6-3.6

2.6-232.6-192.6-162.6-112.6-102.6-9

154, 188,215, 21623823, 21611923023023023025653, 238,242, 250238

284882, 243,244, 254248, 251250, 255,25624548, 24222, 34, 59,154, 238,243, 245,246, 255,256251, 256154154, 245162160244251243, 244,254243, 256252, 255,25625623834, 236, 25439, 59250236, 238,242

2.7-102.7

2.8-16.312.9-102.10-122.10

2.11-3.62.11-192.11-162.11-122.11

2.12-132.122.13-152.132.14-162.142.152.16-192.162.17

2.18-19

2.18

2.19

2.20-3.6

2.20-232.20-222.20-212.21-222.222.233-163-123-93.1-23.13.3-43.43.5-6

3536, 39, 240,2562453924036, 39, 53,237, 2562532482363632, 38, 53,104, 24459, 24524524324539, 59240, 24124023624048, 242,243, 24534, 39, 59,236, 254240, 243,245236, 240,241, 243,24534, 59, 104,25424325248, 242, 24511624548, 242, 24516338, 59, 16334, 39245116245116245

3.7-113.73.83.93.103.113.12-12.63.12-153.123.153.303.314-544.14.2-34.24.34.4-54.44.164.2355.316.16.6-106.66.7-106.107.138-98.22-238.27-288.288.30-358.33-359.59.7-159.79.8-159.16-219.229.249.569.5710.1-510.1

39, 59, 237236, 241236, 241236236, 240237, 2402355923623659, 23724025724759, 154, 2365923623624039, 5924023724759, 23759, 23659236237, 242-452432421742435923759242242162242242242238, 242242242242235, 254241


10.6-16

10.610.710.810.10-1610.1010.11-1411.3312.612.7-1512.713-21

13-16

13.1

13.2-21.2513.2-16.3115.2016.3117-21

17-18

17.517.617.718.118.1618.1918.2018.3119-21

19.119.3020.120.320.420.27-2821.1

34, 59, 237,240, 242236, 245236154, 238242, 245236237237236235, 254236238, 254,299154, 243,24427, 59, 236-3924534, 59238238, 24434, 59, 154,239, 242,243, 245,246, 249-51, 254239, 243,244242239, 242242239, 242242242242242174, 239,243, 244,253, 279242242279279242242279

21.521.821.25

1 Samuel1-161-121-41-3

1-21.1-4.11.1-3

1.3. 1.4-9.9 1.-10. 1.11-181..111.181.19-201.191.201.21-221.221.231.24-281.242.1-362.1-232.11-172.112.182.212.252.27-36

2.27-332.34-352.35-363.1-213.13.11-143.12-143.19-214-74

279279242

40, 27559, 23538235, 237,27626259, 271, 277267239, 27726726726726726726726726726726726726726726726726717527527627559, 27149, 265,269, 2765959, 27127626727550, 265, 26927527538175

4.1-7.1

4.1-224.1-184.1-24.44.10-114.114.174.18

4.19-7.14.194.214.2255.1-126.1-216.7-107-157-12

77.1-177.2-8.22

7.2-17

7.2-157.2-47.2

7.3-47.5-67.5

7.67.7-127.8-97.107.13-177.13-15

41, 59, 235,237, 262,27226727121149, 2772114949154, 238,265, 269,271, 2752714949491642672672754227, 155,156, 160,161, 267,273-75,277, 27834, 155, 27626726, 29, 237,27659, 237,263, 273,27849265, 275267, 276,277267, 269277267, 275,278265, 269277275275265275

1.1


7.15-177.16-177.178-12

8

8.1-11.158.1-22

8.1-58.1-38.18.4-68.48.6-228.6-118.6-108.68.78.88.11-228.11-178.18-208.18-198.20-228.21-228.229-209-119.1-10.16

9.1-29.29.3-89.3-69.69.7-99.99.10-139.109.11-14

2692724935, 105,120, 162,17540, 155,157, 276,2785334, 60, 237,263, 267,273, 277,27849, 15515616115627850275156, 26726715526526715627526715527549, 15526227, 27634, 38, 41,59, 235,237, 277,278267, 277267277267267267277277267267

9.14-179.149.169.189.199.20-219.209.22-249.25-269.2710.1-910.1-410.5-610.710.810.910.10-2710.10-1310.14-1610.1610.17-27

10.17-2510.17-2410.17-2110.17-1910.17-1810.1710.18-1910.19-2710.19-2410.19-2110.20-2710.2010.21-2710.25-2710.27-11.15

10.2711-121111.1-1511.1-1111.1-211.2-3

267267492672672672672672672672672112772772112112672772774926, 29, 34,60, 155,237, 263,273, 276,27840, 2772782715626749, 276, 27827549, 1551682671561612626, 26738, 41, 59,235, 23726717427834277267267

11.4-811.411.9-1111.11-1311.12-1411.14-1511.1411.1512

12.1-25

12.1-2412.2-2512.6-1512.812.9-1112.9-1012.1112.14-1512.1912.20-2212.24-2512.2513-1513-1413.1-2313.1-213.113.7-1513.713.13-1413.1313.1414.1-5114.314.1814.47-5214.47-5114.52

26726726726749277267, 27826726, 27, 29,32, 36, 37,40, 44, 49,50, 104,155-57,197, 237,250, 276,27826, 29, 34,50, 60, 237,263, 267,273, 276-78275267265154592626, 23827426526526544, 26538, 53, 6041, 272, 278267265, 27549, 60, 27227427850, 26927527526749, 26949, 26949265, 272267, 277


1515.1-16.1315.1-3515.1-3415.1-2315.115.10-1215.1615.1715.2315.24-3115.24-2615.26-3015.27-2815.2915.3516.1-2316.1-13

16.1-416.616.1216.14-231717.117.2-417.4-717.7-917.10-1217.1217.13-1617.1317.1717.1817.1917.2017.2117.2217.2317.2417.25-2617.2517.2617.2717.28-3017.31-3217.3217.33-39

41, 27650267, 27727427511111111111111111127511127527511126738, 41, 60,276, 27727527527534265267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267

17.40-4117.42-4817.4917.50-5717.5717.5918.118.218.3-418.5-1918.518.2018.21-2718.2718.28-3019-2219.1-2420.1-4220.11-1720.12-1720.2320.40-4220.4221.1-1622.1822.1923.1-2823.14-24.2323.16-1824.1-2324.18-1924.20-2324.2025.1-4425.21-3425.21-2225.2325.24-2625.28-3425.28-3125.3926.1-2527.1-122828.1-2528.17-1929.1-1130.1-31

267267267267267267267267267267267267267267267156267267265492652654926749, 26950, 2692672654926749494926716549, 26949, 26949, 26949, 26926549, 26926726727626750, 269, 277267267

3131.131.2-331.4-631.431.8-13

2 Samuel11.1-272.1-322.102.113.1-393.2-63.9-103.17-193.17-183.183.28-293.38-394.1-124.2-45.1-125.1-35.1-25.15.35.4-255.4-5

5.6-105.75.105.115.12

5.13-165.17-255.176-7

6

6.1-236.136.217

250267267267267267

25026726760, 265, 27260, 265, 2722676049, 265, 26949, 26926526549, 265, 26949, 26926749, 2693426749, 265, 26926726726749, 60, 265,269, 276282672849, 26949, 50, 265,269602849, 26938,41,60,27234, 164,169, 26226717249, 265, 26928, 29, 34,


7.1-177.1-167.1-77.1-57.1-47.1

7.2-57.4-57.5-117.5-87.67.7-107.77.8-97.87.9-117.97.10-117.107.11-167.11-127.11

7.12-137.127.13

7.14-177.147.157.16

7.177.18-29

46,47, 115,117, 121,158, 160,202, 267,270, 276,29326616926415826734, 50, 60,264, 265,267, 269,272, 27721126726715850, 26921160, 272158, 26749, 269264, 26540158, 267169164, 16927734, 49, 50,60, 169,267, 269,27234, 60, 27229, 26729, 49, 158,264, 265,267, 269,276277169, 26740, 267, 27449, 264,265, 267,26926746, 267

7.18-217.18-207.20-217.22-267.22-24

7.23-247.25-297.25-267.267.2988.1-188.1-148.18.14-158.148.15-188.159-20

9.1-139.19.79.109.119.1310-1210.1-1911.1-311.2-12.2411.4-1311.14-1911.20-2111.21-2411.2511.26-2711.271212.1-2412.1-1412.7-1512.7-1012.712.812.9

49, 2691694016929, 34, 50,60, 265,267, 269,27212349, 26926515726528, 16426760, 27249, 60, 27349, 26560, 27360, 2724234, 38, 41,60, 13026749494949491662672674026726726726726726749, 267158, 1692674927750, 269, 277494949

12.13-1412.1312.1512.2412.25-3113-2013.1-213.2-313.213.313.4-1213.12-1313.14-1513.16-1813.1913.20-2213.23-3013.30-3113.32-3613.37-3914.1-3314.915-2015.1-315.4-715.815.9-1015.11-1215.1315.14-1615.1715.18-3715.1815.2415.25-2616.1-2316.11-1217.1-2918.118.2-418.218.5-818.918.10-1418.1018.14-1518.16-1818.29-32

50, 175, 2691694926726716626726726726726726726726726726726726726726726749, 265, 26926226726726726726726726726726726726549, 26926749, 269267267267267267267267267267267267


19.1-519.619.7-919.9-4319.22-2319.2920.1-2620.23-2621-24

21.1-2221.221.722.1-5122.122.22-2522.5123.1-3924.1-2524.124.3-424.10-1424.1524.1624.17-1924.1724.1924.2124.2324.25

I Kings1-161-2

11.21.301.35-371.36-371.41-431.46-482.1-22.12.22.3-42.3

26726726726749, 26949, 26926727234, 60, 154,27226749, 26949, 265, 26926750, 26950, 26950, 26926726749, 26950, 26940, 50, 26950, 269404050, 26949, 26950, 26949, 26949, 50, 269

28538, 41, 60,130, 272,28142281505016560505029,4229, 60, 28146, 6050, 281

2.4

2.5-112.5-102.5-92.102.112.122.152.242.262.272.31-332.352.372.42-453-73.1-23.13.33.4-153.143.153.16-283.204.1-5.84.1-284.14.2-64.7-194.134.194.20-5.84.205.15.9-145.13-185.15-3266.1

6.11-136.15-186.197.1-127.17.2-5

44, 48, 50,157, 281,282501652942154, 2814250505050, 60, 281505050503415428260, 28228244, 60, 2826028228260602822822822822822822822822824560, 28228232, 60, 237,28244, 2826160, 282282282282

7.67.77.87.13-467.40-457.47-517.48-507.518

8.1-138.1-28.18.28.48.68.7-88.88.98.10-118.108.118.14-668.14-538.14-268.148.168.258.27

8.28-308.29-548.338.348.46-538.53-618.54-5699.1-9

9.39.4-99.4-59.5-79.6-99.6

2822822822822826028228232-34, 37,48, 160,166, 293,29828260154, 28228260, 154, 282154, 282454560, 28215428228260, 282264810415844154, 158,2824854114154, 28244, 2874817237, 4834, 37, 46,48, 60, 2824644,46474646, 4746


9.10-149.109.149.15-239.159.20-229.219.249.259.26-2810.1-1010.11-1210.1210.1310.14-2210.23-2510.2610.2710.28-11.410.28-2911-141111.1-13

11.14-2211.23-2511.25-2811.2511.26-4011.29-3911.29-31

11.2911.3211.3311.3411.3511.36-3711.36

11.3711.38-3911.3811.3911.4011.41-4311.41

2826060282162454528228228228245, 28245282282154, 282282154, 28216828228437, 41, 28634, 37, 60,282, 28628228228228235282, 28648, 61, 282,2836048484848, 283282, 28348, 60, 61,17543, 48, 616043, 48, 15747, 15428228238, 45, 60,282

12

12.1-2012.2-312.412.1212.1512.1912.2412.2512.26-3112.32-13.3412.32-13.3212.32-331313.1-3213.213.3213.33-341414.1-1814.7-1114.8-914.1314.14-1614.19-2014.2114.22-2414.25-2815.3-515.415.12-1315.1515.16-2215.2215.2315.27-2815.29-3015.2915.301616.1-416.716.9-1216.1216.1316.15-1816.21-22

35, 41, 164,28361, 283154, 283162154484529661, 28361, 28328461284295, 299494949, 28449, 61, 28441, 28649, 61, 28348484961, 284616161, 28461, 28330317561, 28362, 28461, 28327828361, 28362, 28448482248, 62, 28415461, 283484828361

16.2116.2216.2416.31-3316.3116.34

17-1917.2-2417.2-417.517.8-917.1418.1-220-2220

20.1-432121.1821.1921.20-2421.2021.21-2221.2321.24-2621.27-292222.1-3822.1-3722.1-222.2-3722.38-4022.3822.3922.4322.4722.48-50

2 Kings1-81-211.11.2-171.1722.17

28328361, 28328461, 28349, 58, 61,215, 2836149494949494928426, 49, 283,2846161, 17448484862, 15462, 28462, 15462, 28448, 175414961282836248, 49, 28461, 28362, 28462, 28461, 283

284344962614961154


3.4-8.153.58.18-198.198.20-228.228.28-299-109.1-10.279.7-109.8-109.159.169.299.36-3710.1010.1710.18-2810.2710.28-3310.30-3111.1-2012.5-1712.18-1912.21-2213.3-713.4-613.14-2113.22-2513.2314.514.614.714.8-1414.15-1614.19-2114.2214.25-2714.2514.26-2715.515.615.1015.1215.1415.1615.19-2015.25

616230348, 17561, 2834562, 28441, 16745, 61, 2844862, 28462621544848, 284482774562, 2844861, 28361, 28361, 28361, 283624861, 284624861, 2836245, 61, 28361, 2834861, 28361, 28328349, 61, 15448, 6261, 28315461, 28348, 6261, 28361, 28361, 28361, 283

15.2915.3015.3215.3515.3716.3-416.5-1816.5-616.616.7-1817

17.3-617.3-417.7-20

17.717.12-1917.1917.21-23

17.2317.2417.29-3117.32-3417.34-4117.34-4017.4118-2018-1918.418.6-718.9-1118.1218.13-1618.17-20.1920.17-1920.17-1820.202121.1-1821.2-1521.321.421.521.7-921.7

61, 28361, 28315461, 283626228361456137, 48, 50,160, 166,2376128335, 37, 62,28432, 10448, 504445, 48, 50,1654561, 28361, 28335, 62, 28424762, 154622845161, 2834861, 2834861, 28361, 283464428329835, 62, 28444, 2655448544854

21.8-1521.10-1521.10-1421.15-1621.23-2421.25-2622-23

2222.3-23.2522.3-23.322.15-2022.16-1722.1722.18-2022.192323.1-323.4-2023.4-1523.4-1223.423.623.1223.1523.16-1823.1623.19-2023.1923.20-2723.2023.21-2723.21-2523.21-2323.25-25.3023.26-25.3023.26-25.2623.26-2723.29-3023.33-3524.1-224.224.3-424.724.10-1624.1524.1724.19-20

52165484861, 2834824, 25, 191,268, 294170, 1912525, 35, 6144, 165, 26548484848188542535, 61, 283545454544935, 62, 28449, 28435, 28349, 612846135, 62255444, 50265, 299524861, 28361, 28347, 61, 28346-484861, 28361, 28317461, 28362


24.2025

25.1-2625.1-2525.725.1225.18-2125.22-3025.22-2625.2325.2625.27-30

25.2725.3027-3028.17-20.19

1 Chronicles1-95.41101215-1616.4-422223-2723.1-22828.42929.1-3

2 Chronicles12.1-176.40-426.41-4211.5-1011.10-1213.3-2014.5-714.8-14

48, 284107, 139,167, 23735, 62, 2841421741702844817027829935, 104-108, 126,142, 143,174, 269,284, 285,2991421866249

65, 72, 7915013964641397364,7264737073139

646470796565656565

16.617.217.12-1925.525.6-1025.1326.6-826.926.11-1426.1527.3-427.528.1832.3-632.3033.143435.20-24

Ezra1-61.2-41.9-112.1-693.244.6-6.186.3-56.14-157-107.1-57.8-107.12-267.1288.1-148.18-198.248.31910.710.1810.20-44

Nehemiah1.1-7.51.1-7.31.5-11

2786565656565656565656565656565652565

64, 66, 7669, 1466664, 66139, 150756614613964, 66666466777666, 77646464761146464

666464, 66

6.116.137.6-728-108-9899.1-51010.2-2810.1510.1610.38-4011-1311.1-211.20-2612.1-2612.27-13.3112.27-2912.3012.33-3612.4112.4212.46-471313.513.613.713.2213.2613.2713.2913.30

Psalms289132.8-9

Proverbs1-9

Isaiah55.366.1-2

Jeremiah1.10

64646464, 66767676, 11476766476766464,6664777764646666666664646666666666666666

20270, 11770

159

70158

151


725.11-122628.10-1128.15-1729363739-414041.4-941.4-852.25-27

Lamentations1.5-61.141.18

13514517014514517017017035, 62, 284170126279150

171171171

2.1-222.144.74.134.205.125.16-18

Ezekiel6.4-72025.27-3026.1-1426.7-1429.17-2033.2440-48

171 Daniel171 3.31-4.34 114171 9 114171171 Hosea171 12 207171

Haggai1-2 157

135 1 158205147 Zechariah147147 7.2-3 126147207157 1 Maccabees

3.46 279

3-4

8.18-19 126

126

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Achenbach, R. 187, 188Aharoni, Y. 223Albertz, R. 170, 171, 194, 195Albright, W.F. 82, 84-86, 133Alt, A. 19, 27, 28, 84-86, 89, 101, 102,

220Amsler, S. 201Anderson, B.W. 21Auld, A.G. 223-25, 254, 293, 296,

299, 301, 302, 305Aurelius, E. 124

Bachli, O. 202Bal, M. 257-59Baltzer, K. 185Barker, M. 202Barre, L.M. 293Barrick, W.B. 291Bartelmus, R. 239, 249Barton, J. 98, 99Becker, U. 157, 245Becking, B. 305Begg, C.T. 184, 207, 229, 294, 305BenZvi, E. 290Beyerlin, W. 241Beyschlag, K. 103Birch, B.C. 42, 276Bird, P.A. 225Bleek, F. 261Blenkinsopp, J. 226Blum, E. 166, 205, 209Boecker, H.J. 157, 274Boling, R.G. 228, 241, 244, 298Botterweck, J. 21Braulik, G. 185, 190, 193, 194, 197,

198, 206, 208Braun, R.L. 72-76Brekelmans, C. 305

Brettler, M.Z. 255, 298Briend, J. 196Bright, J. 84, 223, 224, 226Brueggemann, W. 172, 252Buber, M. 157Buchholz, J. 187Budde, K. 27, 261, 278Buis, P. 185Bultmann, R. 103Busto Saiz, J.R. 305Butler, T.C. 234

Camp, L. 289, 290, 294Campbell, A.F. 38, 42, 55, 156, 241,

277, 290, 291, 302, 303Carlson, R.A. 161Carmichael, C.M. 198Carr, D.M. 293Carreiras, J.N. 173Carroll, R.P. 87Caspari, W. 262Childs, B.S. 222, 223Christensen, D.L. 195, 197Clements, R.E. 191, 195, 204, 305Clines, D.J.A. 72,76Coats, G.W. 228Coogan, M.D. 305Connell, R.H. 195Conroy, C. 294, 297Cornill, C.H. 261Cortese, E. 190, 227, 305Cox, C.E. 305Cross, P.M. 44-47, 50-53, 75, 76, 100,

118, 155, 172, 188, 189, 210,223, 227, 241, 243, 244, 246,254, 263-68, 270, 271, 279, 280,288-92, 298-300, 305

Crtisemann, F. 193, 194

Index of Authors 323

Culley, R.C. 225Curtis, E.L. 71

Damrosch, D. 297, 300Davies, P.R. 130Delekat, L. 269Dever, W.G. 294Diebner, B.J. 82, 192Diepold, P. 202, 203Dietrich, W. 47-49, 114, 161, 163, 170,

186, 268, 275, 288, 289, 300,302, 305

Dillard, R.B. 72Diringer, D. 278Dumbrell, W.J. 243

Edelman, D.V. 162Eichhorn, J.G. 261Eichrodt, W. 106, 109, 110, 119, 123,

126Eissfeldt, O. 20, 22, 25-27, 29, 154,

155, 234, 276Engnell, I. 133, 286Eslinger, L.M. 157, 225, 256, 294,

296, 303, 304Eynikel, E. 305

Fernandez Marcos, N. 306Fewell, D.N. 306Finkelstein, I. 223Fohrer, G. 234, 250Fokkelman, J.P. 162Freedman, D.N. 75, 135, 163Friedman, R.E. 51, 130, 132, 188, 288,

289, 292, 299Friis, H. 81-83Frisch, A. 306

Garcia L6pez, F. 184, 191Gerbrandt, G.E. 286, 294Geus, C.H.J. de 223Gori9alves, F.J. 291, 294Gooding, D.W. 246Gorg, M. 234Gottwald, N.K. 222, 223, 226Graham, M.P. 55Gray, J. 228Green, A.R.W. 51

Greenspahn, F.E. 241Gressmann, H. 95, 96, 100, 262Gunkel, H. 87, 91, 95, 96, 98, 100Gunn, D.M. 228, 256

Halbe, J. 226Halpern, B. 51, 247, 248, 255, 291,

298-302Hanel, J. 71Hardmeier, C. 294, 306Harrelson, W.J. 21Hawk, L.D. 225Hayes, J.H. 106, 224Hempel, J. 19, 27Herrmann, S. 223Hertzberg, H.W. 221Hirsch, E. 102Hobbs, T.R. 292Hoffken, P. 201Hoffmann, H.D. 166, 199, 227, 246,

247, 285, 288, 290, 292, 295, 301Holscher, G. 30, 178Hoppe, L.J. 195Hiibner, U. 89

Ibanez Arana, A. 227Iwand, H.J. 102

Japhet, S. 75Jaspert, B. 18Jepsen, A. 41, 42, 286, 287, 297, 301,

303Jeremias, J. 175Jobling, D. 153Johnstone, W. 203Jones, G.H. 290Junker, H. 21

Kaiser, O. 119, 121-23, 125, 126, 161,192

Kalimi, I. 72Kallai, Z. 234Kaufmann, S.A. 198Kaufmann, Y. 223Kellermann, U. 77Kenik, H.A. 286, 293Kittel, R. 20, 101, 261Klein, L.R. 249, 251, 253, 255


Klein, R.W. 63,72,75,76Kloppenborg, J.S. 227Knapp, D. 187Knauf, E.A. 89Knight, D.A. 91-93, 99Knoppers, G.N. 293, 300-302, 304,

306Koch, K. 306Kockert, M. 125Kohler, L. 106, 108, 109, 123Koopmans, W.T. 227Kropat, A. 71Kuenen, A. 28, 29, 264, 288, 298

Labuschagne, C.J. 195Langlamet, F. 164, 186, 226, 234, 269,

270, 273Leclerq, J. 185Lemaire, A. 51, 291Lemche, N.P. 81-83, 224, 236Levenson, J.D. 292, 298Levin, C. 122, 161, 290, 294L'Hour, J. 192Lilley, J.P.U. 248, 249Loersch, S. 178Lohfink, N. 51, 113, 122, 171, 185,

190, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199,201, 203, 204, 207, 208, 226,228, 267, 268, 280, 288-90, 292,294, 295, 300, 306

Lohr, M. 261Long, B.O. 292, 303Lowery, R.H. 294, 295Lubsczyk, H. 306Lust, J. 305

Macholz, G.C. 42, 202Madsen, A.A. 71Maritain, J. 88Mayes, A.D.H. 185, 187, 189, 192,

194, 197,211,212,228,241,244, 245, 267, 291

McBride, S.D. 184, 193McCarter, P.K. 38, 40, 42, 43, 49, 264,

265, 276, 291, 292McCarthy, D.J. 160, 196, 229, 271McConville, J.G. 194, 292, 306McKenzie, S.L. 52, 55, 72, 186, 207,

210, 265, 266, 280, 296, 298-301,306

Mendenhall, G.E. 196Merendino, R.P. 192Mettinger, T.N.D. 99, 271Mildenberger, F. 42Miller, J.M. 224Miller, P.D. 202Minokami, Y. 161, 167, 290, 293Mittmann, S. 189Moenikes, A. 190Mohlenbrink, K. 27, 28Moore, R.D. 297Moran, W.L. 225Morgan, R. 98Morgenstern, J. 28Mosis, R. 72,74Mowinckel, S. 227Muilenburg, J. 278Mullen, E.T. 236, 306

Na'aman, N. 223Nakanose, S. 294, 295, 300Nauerth, C. 192Nebeling, G. 192Nelson, R. 50Nelson, R.D. 47, 56, 155, 156, 188,

243, 281, 286, 288, 289, 306Nicholson, E.W. 130, 195, 201Niemann, H.M. 51, 89Nobile, M. 292Nowack,W. 28,29Niibel, H.U. 42

O'Brien, M.A. 47, 53-56, 156, 179,188-90, 203, 229, 244, 245, 254,291

Oestreicher, T. 25Olyan, S.M. 294Otto, E. 199, 226Ottosson, M. 234

Parker, K.I. 306Parpola, S. 196Paul, M.J. 295Peckham, B. 51, 161, 189, 231, 246,

266, 267, 281, 285, 292, 301Penoyyer, R. 296

Index of Authors 325

Perlitt, L. 161, 175, 187, 196, 199, 201,203, 208, 209

Perrot, M. de 212Person, R.F. 296Peter, M. 201Petersen, D.L. 72Petersen, J.E. 227Ploger, J.G. 202Ploger, O. 18, 74Polzin, R. 153, 199, 225, 251-53, 255-

57, 296, 297, 303, 304, 306Pomorska, K. 304Pons, J. 204Porter, J.R. 227Preuss, H.D. 119-22, 125-27, 185, 187,

188, 191-93, 196, 203, 204, 207,210, 306

Procksch, O. 95Provan, I.W. 52, 292, 294, 297, 300Prussner, F.C. 106Pury, A. de 202, 207, 208

Rad, G. von 28, 47, 69, 71, 73, 74, 91,92, 95,97,99-101, 110, 112-16,119, 120, 123, 126, 171, 182,194, 226, 264, 270, 271, 287, 303

Radjawane, A.N. 180Rapp, F. 124Rehm, M. 71Rendtorff, R. 51, 95, 96, 201Reuter, E. 191Reventlow, H.G. 106Richter, W. 33, 38, 39, 112, 163, 239-

41, 245-48, 254Roberts, J.J.M. 301, 302Rofe, A. 198, 200, 227, 295Romer, T. 202, 205-208Rose, M. 200, 209, 226Rosel, H.N. 236Rost, L. 29, 112, 165, 262, 272, 281Roth, W. 186, 203, 207, 306Rothstein, J.W. 71Rudolph, W. 24, 25, 71, 77, 79, 154,

263Riitersworden, U. 193

Sauer, G. 33, 238Savran, G.W. 306

Scharbert, J. 208Schearing, L.S. 294Schleiermacher, F. 103Schmidt, L. 171, 208, 209Schniewind, J. 102Schult, H. 18Schulte, H. 241Schulz, H. 198Schiipphaus, J. 42Seebass, H. 207Seitz, C.R. 294Seitz, G. 192, 193Sellin, E. 27, 106, 107, 123Skweres, D.E. 203, 205Smelik, K.A.D. 307Smend, R. 19, 22, 47-53, 98, 99, 101,

103, 116, 120, 124, 125, 155,158, 166, 172, 185, 186, 189,210, 228, 241-46, 254, 268, 269,288-90, 297, 299-301, 305

Smyth-Florentin, F. 212Soggin, J.A. 18, 195, 222, 224, 243Spieckermann, H. 291, 294, 295Staerk, W. 27Stahl, R. 187,291Steck, O.H. 99Steuernagel, C. 178Stipp, H.-J. 295Stoellger, P. 209Stulman, L. 212Suzuki, Y. 184, 191

Tadmor, H. 305Tagliacarne, P. 294Talmon, S. 223Talshir, Z. 296Talstra, E. 51Tengstrom, S. 226Terrien, S.L. 117, 118, 123Thenius, O. 261Thompson, T.L. 81, 84Throntveit, M.A. 72Tigay, J.H. 299Tillesse, G.M. de 184Timm, S. 294Togan, Z.V. 21Torrey, C.C. 71, 160Tov, E. 224, 225


Trebolle Barrera, J.C. 295, 296, 307Tucker, G.M. 226

Van Seters, J. 51, 52, 81, 130, 161,205, 209, 226, 227, 246, 247,266, 292, 300, 302

Vanderhooft, D.S. 51, 291Vannutelli, P. 72Vanoni, G. 50, 293, 295Vaux, R. de 118,223, 234Veijola, T. 47-49, 115, 120, 125, 126,

156, 165, 169, 173, 201, 242,243, 269-71, 288, 289

Vera Chamaza, G.W. 294Vermeylen, J. 188, 206Visaticki, K. 192, 294Viviano, P.A. 295Vries, S.J. de 305Vriezen, T.C. 110-12, 123, 126

Walkenhorst, K.-H. 185Wallace, H.N. 307Watanabe, K. 196Webb, E.G. 249, 250, 253, 255, 256Weinfeld, M. 51, 126, 160, 191, 194,

196, 202, 208, 241, 307Weippert, H. 118, 123, 124, 155, 186,

239, 286-88, 291, 297, 298, 300-302, 304

Weippert, M. 83Weiser, A. 27, 29, 250, 267, 276Welch, A.C. 72Wellhausen, J. 29, 71, 87, 110, 126,

178, 182, 261, 274, 276, 279, 288Welten, P. 72,73Wenham, G.J. 228Westermann, C. 115-17, 120, 124, 126,

173, 210Wette, W.M.L. de 178,288Whybray, R.N. 129, 208Wiese, K. 26,27Wilcoxen, J.A. 225Willi, T. 72, 163Williamson, H.G.M. 63, 72, 73, 75-78,

295Wolff, H.W. 18, 47, 114, 116, 120, 126,

171, 175, 264, 287, 303Wright, G.E. 172, 223, 307Wiirthwein, E. 161, 269, 290Wurtwein, E. 164Wiist, M. 227

Zenger, E. 126, 172Zimmerli, W. 115-17, 120, 124, 126,

127Zunz, L. 74