DtrH: The Göttingen School and Neo-Nothians

Introduction

In a previous post, I introduced the theory of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), the idea that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were composed and redacted as a unified corpus of texts which was later incorporated in the larger corpus of the Tanakh. We looked at two early milestones in the history of scholarship on DtrH: Martin Noth (1902-1968) and Frank Moore Cross (1921-2012). For Noth, the deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk (Deuteronomistic historical work) was composed in about 562 BCE shortly after the events of 2 Kgs 25 and the release of the Judean king Jehoiachin from a Babylonian prison by Amel-Marduk; the purpose of DtrH was an apologia of exile that justifies God’s wrath and the Judean exile on account that the Judahites were responsible for abandoning the covenant. Cross modified Noth’s theory by arguing for two primary phases for the composition of DtrH: a pre-exilic composition during the reform of Josiah and an exilic redaction in the mid-sixth century which updated and transformed the first Deuteronomistic history in light of more recent events.

After Noth published his theory about DtrH, three trends defined twentieth century scholarship on the question: (1) the Double Redaction theory of Cross and Nelson, (2) the dual or multiple exilic and post-exilic redactions, known colloquially as the Göttingen model and adopted by most European scholars, and (3) the Neo-Nothian model which modified Noth’s theory about a single Deuteronomist who authored his history shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. In this post, we continue our review of the history of scholarship by looking at representatives from the latter two trends: the Göttingen School (Rudolf Smend, Walter Dietrich, and Timo Veijola) as well as the Neo-Nothians (John Van Seters and Steve L. McKenzie).

Göttingen School (Smend, Dietrich, and Veijola)

Rudolf Smend is a professor emeritus at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen and former assistant of Noth. Like Cross, Smend recognized that DtrH is a composite of two or more redactional layers, wherein later texts modify or even correct the ideology of previous versions of DtrH. For example, some passages are seemingly incompatible with regard to whether the conquest of the land under Joshua was completed (Josh 11:23; 21:43-45) or not (Josh 13:1-6; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13). Unlike Cross, however, Smend’s first compositional layer was not pre-exilic, but entirely exilic, which he labeled DtrH (the Deuteronomist Historian). He ascribed later additions to the Deuteronomist Nomist, or DtrN, whose primarily concern was obedience to the law.

Smend’s idea about multiple exilic redactions was expanded by his student, Walter Dietrich, who argued for a distinctly prophetic redactor, DtrP. In his short but landmark 1972 book, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (‘Prophecy and History: A Redaction Historical Investigation of the Deuteronomistic History’), Dietrich suggested that traditional blocks of prophetic materials (e.g. Elijah and Elisha) as well as prophetic-like comments can be attributed to a redactional strata whose editor emphasized the role and authority of the prophets in interpreting Israel’s history. The older stories recorded by DtrP include, for example, the prophet who confronts Jeroboam at Bethel (1 Kgs 13), the prophecy against Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14), Elijah and the widow of Zarepath and resurrection of the widow’s son (1 Kgs 17), Elijah’s denunciation of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1), and so forth. Additionally, in the “Literarische Schichtung” (‘literary stratification’), we can recognize other “Prophetenworte” (1 Kgs 11:29ff; 14:7-11; 21:19b, 20b-24; 22:38; 2 Kgs 9:7-10a; 22:15-20) and “Erfüllungsvermerke” (1 Kgs 15:29; 16:11ff; 2 Kgs 9:36; 10:17; 24:2).

Timo Veijola (1947-2005), a Finnish scholar from Helsinki, was a student of Smend in Göttingen and advanced the Göttingen model by developing the idea of a threefold (post-)exilic edition of DtrH which was compiled throughout the Babylonian and Persian periods: DtrH, DtrP, and DtrN. Two of Veijola’s early publications pursued the topic of seemingly contradictory views on kingship in the books of Samuel and Kings: Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (1975) and Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (1977). For Veijola, DtrH had a positive view of kingship, whereas DtrP viewed the failed experiment more critically. DtrN, also critical about the institution generally, attempted to whitewash David and Solomon who were otherwise too important for criticism as Founding Fathers of the Israelite state.

Neo-Nothian Model (Van Seters and McKenzie)

Two other influential scholars have views more consistent with Noth than either Cross’s Double Redaction theory or the Göttingen School. John Van Seters, a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina, is best known for his revisionist approach to the Documentary Hypothesis and downdating the patriarchal narratives. As a contextual aside, a brief discussion on the influence of Van Seters is worthwhile for understanding recent trends in biblical scholarship. Along with the so-called biblical minimalists (Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson of the Copenhagen school as well as Phillip R. Davies and Keith Whitelam), Van Seters contributed to a major paradigm shift in biblical scholarship, especially European scholarship, which challenged the W. F. Albright school of biblical archaeology. Albright and his students (dubbed “maximalists” or neo-Albrightians), such as John Bright, G. Ernest Wright, and Frank Moore Cross, viewed Syro-Levantine archaeology as supporting the essential historicity of the Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic narratives. While some scholars have continued to support the basic conclusions about the historicity of the biblical narratives (e.g. Kenneth Kitchen, Alan Millard, Iain Provan, etc.), others among the recent generations of the Albright lineage have taken a more sober approach to the “Baltimore school,” especially William Dever. While Dever advocates looking back on Albright with admiration and awe, his famous 1993 essay (“What Remains of the House That Albright Built?”) suggests that “The superstructure (i.e., the overarching synthesis) has largely collapsed,” even though “Of the foundations, however, much more remains” (p. 34). One wonders, of course, about the influence of Van Seters et al. on this more critical strand of American biblical and archaeological scholarship; Dever is clearly well-aware of scholars like Van Seters and Thompson as he cites them liberally in the 1993 essay and elsewhere.

Returning to DtrH, Van Seters views the composer of DtrH as a historian and author who freely and creatively manipulates earlier traditions in the composition of his literary work. Rather than merely compiled of earlier traditions, the historian is comparable to Herodotus and Thucydides in the Greek historiographical tradition. Ideological contradictions are the product of post-deuteronomistic additions, such as the late, anti-Davidic “Court History” (2 Sam 2-4, 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1–2) which was written to challenge or diminish hopes for a post-exilic restoration of the Davidic monarchy (see esp. The Biblical Saga of King David [2009]). Furthermore, Van Seters argued extensively that the J-source of the Pentateuch was written as an historical prologue and framework for D and DtrH: see, inter alia, Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (1992); The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (1994); A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code (2003); and The Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins (2013).

Steven L. McKenzie, a professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, also considers DtrH to be the work of a single exilic historian. Contrary to Noth and Van Seters, however, McKenzie sees DtrH as having a more positive outlook on the continuation of the post-exilic Davidic monarchy. The release of Jehoiachin from the Babylonian prison provides a degree of hope for the restoration of Israelite kingship: “So he [Jehoiachin] changed his prison garments, and he ate food regularly before him [the king] all the days of his life. And as for his allowance, a regular allowance was given to him from the king, according to his daily needs, all the days of his life” (2 Kgs 25:29-30, my translation). Consistent with DtrP of the Göttingen school, McKenzie views the anti-monarchic prophetic material as later additions.

Conclusion

As I mentioned in my previous post, 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. Naturally, things are never this simplistic, but this threefold division provides a helpful starting point for understanding the complex network of approaches to biblical historiography. In the next two posts, we’ll round out our coverage of the history of scholarship by looking at unique contributions to Deuteronomy and DtrH by scholars such as Moshe Weinfeld, Norbert Lohfink, Richard Nelson, and Gary Knoppers, as well as one post dedicated to the doyen of DtrH today: Thomas Römer.