Topic: The article covers the topic of Deuteronomistic History including the early development of the theory, the work of Martin Noth, the history after Noth, and current scholarships.
Summary
The article is divided into five sections organized in chronological order starting with the general overview of the topic.
Deuteronomistic History is defined as a historical work regarding the biblical books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings. Noth was the one to change the face of biblical studies by proposing that this piece of the bible is a single literary complex written or edited by one person who compiled the collection of older source material with a singular theology and intent. The content of the piece is the story of Israel’s emergence, success, and failure in the land of Canaan.
The first section titled “The Early Development of the Theory” includes the following topics:
- by the late 1800s, the book of Joshua was considered to be the continuation of the pentateuchal sources;
- a number of bible researchers proposed that the sources behind Joshua-2 Kings should be understood as multiple, independent literary units and complexes not related to the biblical divisions of the books.
The second section “Martin Noth” provides an overview of Noth’s theory. He argued that none of the pentateuchal sources extended beyond Numbers and assumed that the sources underlying the Deuteronomistic History were an assortment of the pre-exilic traditional material arranged by one historian.
According to Noth, the first section was critical because the theology of the Deuteronomy dictated the entire treatment of Israel’s history and the speech of Moses served as the opening of the larger composition. To support his argument, Noth used the following evidence: repetition of the similar phraseology, prophecy/fulfillment schema, strategic speeches, leading characters, stylized chronology, and overarching ideology. Noth defined the Deuteronomistic Historian as an exile.
The third section “The Deuteronomistic History after Noth” is the longer part of the article and offers a critical overview of theories and interpretations of Noth’s work. In particular, Rad countered that Noth has failed to account for powerful messages of hope and grace within the History while the promise of hope to Davidides was significant and had to be incorporated into the evaluation.
Noth’s thesis was expanded into the Harvard school (proposed pre- and postexilic redaction) and the Gottingen school (proposed three postexilic redactions).
Cross criticizes the theory of Noth for the absence of Nathan’s oracle and the speech of David among Noth’s transitional speeches. Noth attributed these passages to sources other than the Deuteronomistic Historian.
Harvard school has altered the original thesis by postulating that the historian is a pre-exilic figure (an optimistic perspective that governs the Deuteronomistic History). The Gottingen school argued for postexilic authorship because of the two related themes (the law and the foreign people remaining in the land).
In addition, there were literary (addressing History as a literary and theological piece) and historiographic movements.
The fourth section talks about the lack of scholarly consensus on the existence of Deuteronomistic History. The fundamental tenets of Noth are doubted today.
Knauf, in particular, noted that Deuteronomistic History is composed of the series of independent works of both exilic and postexilic redactions. However, the majority of scholars argue against any editorial coherence as offered by Noth.
The article is concluded with the overview of six major truths about Deuteronomistic History as generated in the previous sections.
Response
The reading of the article has significantly contributed to my knowledge of Deuteronomistic History; however, I failed to gain a better understanding of the authorship. The author of the article does not express his opinion and it is still not clear which of the theories is more reliable. I tend to accept the theory of Noth despite the recent criticism and denial of the editorial coherence. I think that the arguments used by Noth are reliable and trustworthy.
In particular, the repetition of the similar phraseology, stylized chronology, and prophecy/fulfillment schema are the factors pointing out to the Deuteronomistic History being the work of the single writer or editor.
In addition, this article gained my interest with the discussion of whether the Deuteronomistic History was written in the pre-exilic or postexilic period. The author of the article provided a detailed overview of opposing schools of thought; nevertheless, more research is needed to clarify this issue.
I disagree that Deuteronomistic History is literary writing lacking any historical grounds. I do accept the theory of Noth as empirical because the structure of Deuteronomistic History does point out literary elements such as leading characters and plot lines. I agree with the criticism by Halpern that the function of Deuteronomistic History is ancient history writing because the piece is based on historically proved evidence.
Taking into account my interest in Deuteronomistic History, I found this article extremely interesting and valuable. In addition, the author provides detailed references that can be used for further research on this topic. Overall, the simple language and logical structure of the article makes the content easy to understand. I think that students as well as teachers, and researchers will find this article valuable.