The Deuteronomistic History: Two Milestones in the History of Scholarship
Introduction
One of my doctoral seminars this semester is about the so-called Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), which comprises the biblical books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings, as well as possibly Judges and Jeremiah. One of the assignments for this course is to create a 10,000-word (ca. 20 pages single-spaced) handbook-style summary of the Deuteronomistic History. This assignment is designed in part as preparation for our PhD comprehensive exams, one entire day of which is devoted to questions about biblical criticism (especially Pentateuchal criticism and DtrH). In preparation for this assignment (and therefore, comps next year), I plan to post a series of essays this semester about DtrH, specifically with regard to its history of scholarship, the features which have led scholars to suggest a cohesive history of composition/redaction, and various theories concerning its theological and ideological purposes. This inaugural post covers two key milestones in the origins and development of the DtrH as a theoretical model, namely Martin Noth and Frank Moore Cross. In the next post of this series, we’ll expand our coverage with further developments by Rudolf Smend, John Van Seters, and Thomas Römer.[1]
[1] The source of much of the information in this post is Thomas Römer, “The So-called Deuteronomistic History and Its Theories of Composition,” The Oxford Handbook of the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible, ed. by Brad E. Kelle and Brent A. Strawn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
Pre-History of DtrH
Before Noth, scholars noticed that Deuteronomy provided an exception to classical (Wellhausian [better: Wellhausenian]) source criticism in that Genesis-Numbers comprises three sources (J, E, and P), but that D was more or less its own source. Scholars such as John William Colenso (1814-1883), an Anglican cleric from Cornwall in southwest England, advocated for a deuteronomistic redaction to other books. In 1806, Wilhelm M. L. De Wette had already argued that Joshua was deuteronomistic in style and theology, and in the mid-19th century Heinrich Ewald attributed to similarities between Deuteronomy and Joshua to a deuteronomistic reworking of the Hexateuch. Albrecht Alt (1883-1956), Noth’s teacher at Leipzig, challenged a unified Hexateuch, since the conquest narratives (Joshua 1-12) seemed to be an independent Benjaminite composition.
Martin Noth (1902-1968)
Noth divided the historical traditions of the Hebrew Bible into three large compilations: the histories of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomist, and Chronicler. Rather than attribute the similarities between Deuteronomy and Joshua to the redactor of the Pentateuch, he understood the Pentateuchist and Deuteronomist to be different redactors of independent historical compilations. Building on the work of Richard Simon, Julius Wellhausen, and Hermann Gunkel, Noth was primarily a historian who adopted a tradition-historical approach, asking whether we can penetrate the preliterary period in reconstructing earlier historical traditions about Israelite history.
In 1943, Noth published Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (“Studies in the Transmission of Traditions”; the first part of which was translated into English in 1981). Noth spoke, for the first time, about a “deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk” alongside the “chronistisches Geschichtswerk,” the terminus a quo (earliest possible date) for the former being 562 BCE since that’s when the Babylonian king Amel-Marduk released the Judean king Jehoiachin from prison as mentioned in 2 Kgs 25. For Noth, the Deuteronomist (Dtr) was an independent author (not redactor), one not commissioned by an individual or group (like the royal or temple administration). Dtr’s theme, according to Noth, was “a proclamation of unrelieved and irreversible doom”; addressed to the exiles, his theology of history justifies God’s wrath as an explanation for the exile.[1]
[1] Frank Moore Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), 275. Against Noth’s view, compare H. W. Wolff who took a more positive view, that the Deuteronomist was not merely teaching the message of the finality of the disaster of Israel, but rather that the Deuteronomist was teaching a future hope (kērygma) about return. Von Rad also pointed out that the release of Jehoiachin from prison was an indication that the Davidic dynasty did not come to an end. For Cross, “Wolff correctly discerns a theme of hope which comes from the hand of a Deuteronomistic editor in the Exile (our Dtr2),” especially in the framing material of Deuteronomy (4:25-31; 30:1-20) as well as Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:46-53).
Frank Moore Cross (1921-2012)
Reactions to Noth’s theory in Europe were generally positive, especially in Germany (Alfreh Jepsen; Hans Walter Wolff). Rather than a single author, Wolff spoke of a deuteronomistic circle, which ultimately laid the groundwork for theories about the deuteronomistic school (i.e., a multi-layered deuteronomistic edition) as advocated by Frank Moore Cross. In 1968 Cross published his classic article, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic History” which was republished five years later as “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History” in his book Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (pp. 274-289).
Cross disagreed with Noth that the entirety of DtrH was (post-)exilic, favoring at least two editions of the Deuteronomistic complex of traditions. He points to the following arguments: (1) the use of the expression “to this day” in cases which presume the existence of the Judean state;[1] (2) the complex syntactic style of the Deuteronomist characterizes late pre-exilic prose; and (3) the availability of sources to Dtr requires a pre-exilic date. He then elaborates two themes of the first (pre-exilic = Josianic) edition of the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr1): (1) the crucial event in the downfall of the Northern Kingdom was the sin of Jeroboam; and (2) the crucial event in Judah, comparable to the sin of Jeroboam, was the faithfulness of David. Importantly, for Cross, “The second theme reaches its climax in the reform of Josiah, 2 Kings 22:1-23:25” (p. 283). He also outlines the major theme of the exilic edition of the history (Dtr2) which was an attempt to record the fall of Jerusalem, reshaping the history with minimal reworking, in order to make the document relevant to exiles. Finally, in the last section of the article, Cross outlines most clearly his conclusion that there were two distinct editions of DtrH, “one written in the era of Josiah as a programmatic document of his reform and of his revival of the Davidic state” where themes of judgment and hope interact to provide a motivation for Judeans to remain faithful, and the second completed about 550 BCE which updated the history and transform the work into a sermon on history addressed to Judean exiles. In positing two editions to DtrH, “a number of puzzles and apparent contradictions in the Deuteronomistic history are dissolved or explained” (p. 288).
[1] Notably 2 Kgs 8:22, “So Edom revolted from underneath the hand of Judah until this day”; 2 Kgs 16:6, “At that time, Rezin the king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram, and he drove out the Judeans from Elath, and the Arameans [q: Edomites] came to Elath. And they dwell there to this day.”
Conclusion
DtrH remains a significant focus in biblical scholarship with ongoing debates concerning its composition (especially the phases of authorship/redaction), purpose, and historical context(s). From Noth’s initial hypothesis of a single exilic Deuteronomist to Cross’s theory of two major editions under Josiah and during the exile, scholars continue to find new models for understanding the apparent cohesion and diachronic development of the the main historical portion of the Former Prophets. In the coming essays, I will explore further contributions and developments in North American and European scholarship, considering how these theories shape contemporary interpretations of the DtrH.
About The Author
M. Richey: A (Brief) Literature Review
Well done. I studied in my graduate studies a few years back and you have summarized it well. I am out of the field now but I would love to hear about more recent developments.