DtrH: Five Further Developments

Introduction

In two previous posts here and here, we’ve outlined a few views on the compositional and redactional history of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH).

The first post addressed two milestones in the history of scholarship which established two distinct camps on the chronology of the composition of DtrH. Noth believed the Deuteronomist (Dtr) was an independent editor (“Redaktor”) writing sometime shortly after the downfall of the Judahite monarchy and exile; Dtr wrote a theology of history that justifies God’s wrath as an explanation for the exile. For Cross, on the other hand, DtrH (especially the book of Kings) juxtaposes two themes—the sin of Jeroboam and the promise to David (which reach their peak most clearly in the reforms of Josiah)—suggesting that there were in fact at least two phases of composition/redaction, one (Dtr¹) pre-exilic likely written under Josiah as a programmatic document of his reform and a second, exilic redaction (Dtr²) that updated and transformed the historiographic work in light of the Judean exile. On the relationship between Dtr¹ and Dtr², Knoppers summarizes Cross’s view as follows: “Unlike the Josianic editor, who was fond of recording major speeches, edifying prayers, and summarizing reflections, the exilic editor does not compose any such long editorial on the sack of Jerusalem… Like Noth, Cross argues that most of Joshua through 2 Kings is the work of one author. Dtr² only lightly edits and supplements the work of Dtr¹.” (Knoppers 1993, p. 47, 50).

Our second post expanded coverage to consider the works of Smend, Dietrich, and Veijola on the one hand as well as Van Seters and McKenzie on the other hand. The former three are the core of what scholars refer to as the “Göttingen School” (or “model”) which argued for multiple exilic redactions. These scholars are prone to find multiple Deuteronomistic editorial hands (or “layers”) which have played a part in the long redactional history of the corpus of texts before it was added to the Torah. Smend, for example, attributed some texts to the Deuteronomist Nomist (DtrN) whose primarily concern was obedience to the law. Dietrich argued for a distinctly prophetic redactor (DtrP) and Veijola for a distinctly covenantal theological redactor, so-called “Bundestheologischer Dtr” (DtrB). Hermann Spieckermann (1982), and Ludger Camp (1990) also belong to this Triple Redaction Theory. On the other hand, Van Seters and McKenzie affirm and modify Noth’s view of a single (post-)exilic author, making them in essence “Neo-Nothian.” Knoppers calls this the “Single Edition Theory” and includes scholars such as Alfred Jepsen and Hans Walter Wolff as well.

In this third post in our series, I consider the contributions of five more scholars: Richard D. Nelson (1945-present), Norbert Lohfink SJ (1928-2024), Moshe Weinfeld (1925–2009), Bernard M. Levinson (1952-present), and Gary N. Knoppers (1956-2018).

Richard Nelson (1945-present): Representative of the Crossian Double Redaction Model

Richard Nelson was a student a John Bright (1908–1995) and thus was trained, like Frank Moore Cross, in the Albright tradition of American biblical and archaeological scholarship. His first book, called The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (1981), was a revision of his 1973 doctoral dissertation under Patrick D. Miller at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. Nelson emphasizes the theological agenda of the DtrH as a coherent narrative with themes of divine punishment and restoration rather than merely a historiographical work. Central to the Deuteronomist’s worldview is the conditional covenantal theology. Furthermore, Nelson criticized the approach that tore DtrH into so many different redactional layers: Noth’s historian has a ‘disturbing tendency to fall apart in the hands of those who work with him’. Instead, Nelson affirmed Cross’s view that DtrH is a product of a two-stage literary process, thus cementing his place in the “American School” of Deuteronomistic scholarship. Scholars have generally referred to this model as the “Double Redaction Theory” (e.g. Knoppers 1993, p. 46).

Norbert Lohfink SJ (1928-2024): Representative of the Göttingen Multiple Redaction Model

If Nelson became a bulwark of the American model, so Lohfink made equally valuable contributions in German Deuteronomistic scholarship. Lohfink’s most significant contribution to the Göttingen model was his articulation of the deuteronomistische Landeroberungserzählung (DtrL) theory, which focuses on the conquest and settlement narratives of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The central theological theme of this Deuteronomistic layer was land as divine gift contingent upon covenantal obedience. Lohfink’s view has been affirmed and revised by Georg Braulik OSB (1943-present).

Moshe Weinfeld (1925-2009): ANE Comparative Approach

Moshe Weinfeld’s methodology emphasizes how Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History were products of scribal innovation influenced by a complex interplay of Near Eastern traditions such as the Assyrian vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (= VTE). Forming the core of his book Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Weinfeld writes, “A close study of these treaties, the longest ever discovered in Mesopotamia, revealed a great number of parallels to the covenant form of the book of Deuteronomy (which is not surprising in view of the fact that the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon were written in 672 B.C., that is, close to the time of composition of the book of Deuteronomy)” (1972, p. vii). For example, Weinfeld points to the phraseology of treaty forms in Deuteronomy and the ancient Near East, including the stipulation of undivided allegiance, a scene of the covenant and oath imprecation, and curses (esp. Deut 28). In so doing, Weinfeld emphasizes the role of scribes as active agents who incorporate, adapt, and innovate within existing Israelite and broader ancient Near Eastern traditions. [Note: I’ve labeled Weinfeld’s approach as the “ANE Comparative Approach” because it doesn’t align neatly with the other three categories we’ve discussed; however, it’s important to acknowledge that other scholars also employ comparative methods, notably Van Seters, who draws on ancient Near Eastern and especially Greek historiographical traditions to argue for the (late) unity of the Deuteronomistic History.] Ultimately, if the origins of covenantal texts such as Deut 13 and 28 are literarily dependent upon VTE as some scholars have argued (e.g. Dion; Steymans; Otto), then some of the earliest elements of Deuteronomy can be dated to the end of the monarchy which has redactional implications for the relationship between the Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic cultic and legal traditions.

Weinfeld also outlines a typology of Deuteronomistic composition which revolves around at least four types of orations: valedictory address, prophetic oration, liturgical oration, and military oration; these form key transition points in the historiography of the Deuteronomist(s). Of particular value is his Appendix A which outlines “Deuteronomic Phraseology,” namely phrases which are repeated throughout DtrH to the near exclusion of non-Deuteronom(ist)ic texts. He provides the Hebrew expression as well as all references, such as ירא את יהוה ‘to fear Yahweh’ in the sense of serving (corresponding to palāḫu in Akk. treaties); it occurs in Deut.: 4:10; 5:26; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:12, 20; 13:5; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12, 13; Josh 4:24; 1 Sam. 12:14, 24; 1 Kgs. 8:40, 43; 2 Kgs. 17:32, 33, 34, 39, 41 (also Jer: 32:39 which is deuteronomistic), but occurs few places elsewhere (only Hos 10:3; Ps 34:10; 112:1; Prov 3:7; and 24:21). Weinfeld categorizes these deuteronomic expressions into several categories: (1) the struggle against idolatry, (2) centralization of worship (the chosen place and ‘name’ theology), (3) exodus, covenant, and election terminology (e.g. liturgical terms), (4) the monotheistic creed, (5) observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant (including disloyalty, e.g. סור… ימין ושמאל ‘to turn right or left’), (6) inheritance of the land, (7) retribution and military motivation, (8) the fulfillment of prophecy, (9) the Davidic dynasty, (10), rhetoric and parenthetic phraseology, and (11) the influence of Deuteronomy upon Jeremiah.

Bernard M. Levinson (1952-present): The Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation

Like Weinfeld, Levinson’s book, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (1997), doesn’t focus on the redaction critical history of DtrH, but rather aims to show how the Deuteronomist reshaped earlier Israelite social and religious traditions as enshrined in the Pentateuch. He writes, “This book is concerned with how the authors of Deuteronomy drew on and transformed earlier literary sources in order to mandate a major transformation of religion and society in ancient Israel” (p. vii). Thus, Levinson asks why the traditions of the Pentateuch (esp. the Covenant Code and Holiness Code) differ from Deuteronomy. In particular, he addresses three areas of ancient Israelite tradition: (1) the innovation of cultic centralization, (2) the transformation of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and (3) the transformation of justice in light of centralization. For Levinson, the authors of Deuteronomy “deliberately presented their new vision of the Judaean polity as continuous with the abrogated past and used the earlier textual material, carefully transformed, to sanction their own independent agenda” (p. 3-4).

Gary Knoppers (1956-2018): A Middle Ground Between Cross and Smend?

Knoppers obtained his PhD from Harvard University with a doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Frank Moore Cross titled “What Share Have We in David?”: The Division of the Kingdom in Kings and Chronicles. This dissertation formed the basis of a two-volume work titled Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, vol. 1 covering from the reign of Solomon to the rise of Jeroboam and vol. 2 from Jeroboam to the reign of Josiah (including the fall of Israel). He also co-edited and contributed to the volume Reconsidering Israel and Judah: The Deuteronomistic History in Recent Thought and wrote extensively on Chronicles.

Like Cross, Knoppers situates much of the deuteronomistic editing during the monarchic period; he criticizes Noth and Smend et al. for dating the entirety of DtrH to exilic and post-exilic redactions. Resonating the Cross model of pre-exilic at least one pre-exilic redaction, Knoppers writes, “the supposition of three redactions in the Deuteronomistic History is certainly possible, but the Smend theory of three exilic editions after centuries of transmission is unconvincing. I find myself in sympathy with the view that if there were three redactions to the Deuteronomistic History, the first should be posited considerably earlier, perhaps in the time of Hezekiah” (1993, pp. 41-42; emphasis mine).  Knoppers admits that a redaction critical analysis of DtrH is beyond the scope of his study which otherwise focuses on the deuteronomistic treatment of the major kings of Israelite and Judean history, especially Solomon, Jeroboam, and Josiah. Nevertheless, he summarizes his view in one particularly telling quote: “I agree with the claim of Mayes and McKenzie that more than one editor has added comments to a primary Josianic edition of Kings. I do not see any difficulty, however, in also maintaining that most of 2 Kings 23:26-25:30 stem from one exilic editor. I acknowledge, then, the existence of a preexilic history (Dtr¹), an exilic supplement (Dtr²), and a number of scattered, mostly minor, additions” (1993, p. 51-52). In this way, Knoppers presents a sort of middle ground between Cross, who affirmed a primary pre-exilic edition, and Smend et al. who argue for multiple exilic redactional layers.

Conclusion

DtrH remains a significant focus in biblical scholarship with ongoing debates concerning its composition (authorship and redaction), purpose, and historical context(s). Contemporary scholarship has settled into three broad trends: (1) Noth and Neo-Nothians, (2) Cross and the Double Redaction model which contains at least one pre-exilic strata, and (3) the Göttingen model of multiple exilic/post-exilic redactions. Some scholars, such as Knoppers and Römer, have sought a middle ground. In addition to these broad trends on the redaction critical history of DtrH, several scholars have contributed on the non-redactional side, including Weinfeld who situates DtrH in its ancient Near Eastern context as well as Levinson who engages the historical and literary relationship between Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic traditions. The next post in this series will focus on the scholarship of Thomas Römer, the doyen of DtrH studies today.

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