Does DtrH even exist?

Introduction

In four previous posts on the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), we’ve investigated in depth the history of research from Martin Noth’s seminal volume Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943) to the current doyen of Deuteronomistic scholarship, Thomas Römer (see here, here, here, and here). In this post, we turn to the text of DtrH itself by asking the deceptively simple question: In light of the past century of research on the question, does a “Deuteronomistic” Historiography even exist? Regardless of how and when it was composed and redacted, there are four types of arguments (called “claims” below) for a unified Deuteronomistic Historiography: a linguistic/stylistic unity, its theological/thematic coherence, a shared historical/structural framework, and its literary/form-critical integrity. Ultimately, these are all good arguments, but the reality is generally more complicated and nuanced than what can be assumed at face value. Thus, we must respond to each claim with “Yes, but…”

Language and Style

Claim: The books of DtrH (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) share a certain style which includes linguistic forms and key phrases to the exclusion of other books of the Hebrew Bible. Reality: This is generally true in the sense that there is certainly a concentration of certain forms and phrases in DtrH, but almost all such examples are attested outside of DtrH, mostly in the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Chronicles, all of which have been subject to theories of late Deuteronomistic editing of these books as well. A nice summary of Deuteronomistic phraseology can be found at the end of Weinfeld 1972 (“Appendix A: Deuteronomistic Phraseology,” in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School). Some of Weinfeld’s categories are as follows: warnings against false worship, e.g. עבד/הלך אלהים אחרים ‘to serve/follow other gods’; the polemic against idolatry, e.g. תועבת יהוה ‘the abomination of Yhwh’; centralization of worship, e.g. המקום/העיר אשר יבחר/בחר ‘the place/city which he will choose/has chosen’; liturgical terms; the monotheistic creed; loyalty to Yhwh alone; disloyalty, e.g. עשה הרע בעיני יהוה אלוהיך ‘to do evil in the eyes of Yhwh your God’; inheritance of the land; terms related to retribution and material motivation; etc. Not all of Weinfeld’s examples are convincing, but a few appear to be valid. For example, the phrase אלהים אחרים ‘other gods’ occurs 46x in the HB, 34 of which are in DtrH (dispersed through all five books), only 2x are in the Pentateuch (both in the context of the Decalogue which was, in my opinion, originally Deuteronomistic then secondarily imposed upon the Exodus narrative), 8x are in Jeremiah (the connection between DtrH and Jeremiah has long been noted as both “schools” may have been closely related), and only once more in each Hosea and 2 Chronicles. In other words, the distribution looks as follows:

With DtrH comprising only about 20% of the HB, the fact that it contains 74% of occurrences of the phrase אלהים אחרים is striking. If we add the book of Jeremiah as having undergone some Deuteronomistic editing as well, this means that 91% of occurrences appear in just 25% of the HB. A second example includes the C-stem of כעס ‘to provoke to anger’ which has a concentration of occurrences in DtrH (Deut 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; 32:16, 21; Judg. 2:12; 1 Sam 1:6-7; 1 Kgs 14:9, 15; 15:30; 16:2, 7, 13, 26, 33; 21:22; 22:54; 2 Kgs17:11, 17; 21:6, 15; 22:17; 23:19, 26) and Jeremiah (Jer. 7:18-19; 8:19; 11:17; 25:6-7; 32:29-30, 32; 44:3, 8), but only sporadically in other books. And finally, the language of “doing evil” (הרע + עשה) or “doing right” (הישר + עשה) “in the eyes of Yhwh (בְּעֵינֵ֖י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ)” occurs most frequently in Deuteronomy and Kings (and for “doing evil” also in Judges). None of these examples are a smoking gun when taken individually, but enough examples of shared formulaic language show that the books of DtrH are linguistically and stylistically unified.

Hits graph: “doing evil in the sight of Yhwh”

Hits graph: “doing right in the sight of Yhwh”

Theology and Themes

Claim: The shared theology and themes—including centralized worship, covenantal obedience, divine retribution for disobedience, and possession of the Promised Land—create a coherent theological framework across the narrative. Reality: Yes, but the theological and thematic coherence of DtrH is complicated by tensions within the text. The theme of possession of the land is idealized in Joshua but left unrealized in Judges. Likewise, centralized worship is an ideal, but there is evidence of worship outside of Jerusalem, even among the “good” Yahwists (e.g. Elijah sacrifices to God on Mt. Carmel and the Lord accepts his sacrifice). A final example: While the exile is framed as a consequence of persistent disobedience, the narrative also hints at divine mercy and restoration (e.g. 2 Kgs 25:27-30 and Jehoiachin’s release from prison), complicating a strict retributional framework. This has led scholars to debate whether DtrH ultimately has a pessimistic (Noth) or optimistic (von Rad) outlook. Ultimately, while covenant theology and its implications for Israel’s success or failure are central, the narrative reflects diverse perspectives (rooted in different sources and/or redactional layers) that nuance this claim.

Shared Historical Framework

Claim: The books of DtrH share a historical framework which revolves around their entry and exile from the Promised Land. Reality: While the books of DtrH share a historical framework centered on entry into and exile from the Promised Land, this structure is not uniform or straightforward. For example, it is widely acknowledged that Joshua and Judges differ in their presentation of the settlement of the land: Joshua emphasizes the idealized conquest, portraying a unified and divinely guided military campaign, while Judges presents a fragmented and incomplete settlement process, suggesting tensions or competing traditions in the narrative (which itself challenges Van Seters notion of a single exilic author/historian). Furthermore, the book of Ruth was clearly placed after Judges based on historical considerations (it takes place בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים ‘in the days of the judging of the judges’), despite the fact that Ruth is not by other metrics part of DtrH.

Literary and Form-Critical Unity

Claim: The literary patterns established in the book of Deuteronomy are found throughout DtrH, including lengthy orations (speeches), the “obituaries” of key leaders in Israelite history (so-and-so died at the age of such-and-such), as well as forms known from the ancient Near Eastern treaty genre. For example, in his 1972 volume (already mentioned above), Weinfeld outlined what he called the “typology of Deuteronomic composition,” which includes the four types of orations (valedictory address, prophetic oration, liturgical oration, and military oration), formal affinities with ANE treaty formulae, and the scribal role in the crystallization of Deuteronomy and their rhetorical technique. To take just the question of orations, Weinfeld argues, “The book of Deuteronomy, the archetype of all deuteronomic literature, is presented in its entirety as a valedictory oration delivered by Moses shortly before his death… This deuteronomic practice of ending the narratives about major national leaders with their delivery of a didactic valedictory oration is also encountered in the historical works redacted by the deuteronomic school” (pp. 10-11). Central to the literary argument is the use of Deuteronomic law as a hermeneutical lens for the rest of Israelite/Judean history; for example the kings are judged against the standard of the Deuteronomic principles.

Reality: There are numerous other cases of lengthy addresses that have a similar rhetorical function in other non-DtrH contexts, including the prophetic oracles of the major prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as the monologues of Job.[1] Furthermore, the use of orations is inconsistent throughout DtrH; for example, Moses (Deut 31-34), Joshua (Josh 23), and David (1 Kgs 2) have similar valedictory/farewell speeches, but Solomon’s major speeches come by way of prayers (1 Kgs 3 and 8), whereas Hezekiah and Josiah—the two most pious kings of Judah—do not have farewell speeches at all. Notably, the narrative treatment of their deaths is relatively brief and lacks the reflective-type oration known from earlier figures.

[1] The familiar treaty forms, too, are known from outside DtrH, including the Sinai Covenant in Exod 19-24 and the blessings and curses for (dis)obedience in Lev 26 (similar to Deut 28).

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the arguments for a unified DtrH are compelling and supported by significant scholarship, they are far from straightforward. Each claim—linguistic/stylistic unity, theological/thematic coherence, a shared historical framework, and literary/form-critical integrity—reveals underlying complexities when scrutinized. In reality, biblical texts such as DtrH are the product of layered composition, redaction, and diverse ideological currents that evolved over many centuries. There can be no doubt that DtrH is too complex to be the result of a single composition (pace Van Seters and McKenzie), leaving us to revisit our initial question: “Does DtrH even exist?” By approaching DtrH with a “Yes, but…” framework, we acknowledge its coherence, rooted in the four arguments listed above, while remaining acutely aware of its complexities. This approach keeps the discussion open and dynamic for continued scholarly exploration, allowing for fresh perspectives on the composition, theology, and historical significance of DtrH.

About The Author

Matthew Saunders

Matthew Saunders is a PhD student in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He researches the languages and literatures of the ancient Near East, especially Aramaic Studies, Ugaritic Studies, and Comparative Semitics.

See author's posts