THEORIES OF THE REDACTIONS OF KINGS

Gary N. Knoppers
Te Pennsylvania State University
Te redaction history of Kings is rarely discussed without also address-
ing the redaction history of other books in the Former Prophets or,
more broadly, other books in the Enneateuch. Tat this is so refects
some basic facts. First, as the MT and the Versions readily attest, the
book of Kings continues the narratives that conclude the book of Sam-
uel. Te book of Samuel introduces the monarchy of Saul and David
and the book of Kings begins with the story of Davids fnal years and
the rise of Solomon. Indeed, the titles of 1 and Samuel and 1 and 2
Kings in the LXX bear witness to this narrative unity, Basilein A,
B, , (1, 2, 3, and 4 Reigns). Second, some of the characteristic
vocabulary, style, and themes found in earlier books, especially those
found in Deuteronomy, are also found in Kings. Tird, the writers
of Kings cite specifc earlier passages and themes from Samuel, such
as the citations of and allusions to the Davidic promises (2 Sam 7),
in their own work. Fourth, the Deuteronomistically-worded speeches,
prayers, and summarizing refections that orchestrate the transitions
between major epochs within the monarchy are also found in certain
books that precede Kings in the Hebrew canon (Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Samuel).
1
Fifh, certain motifs, such as the prophecy-fulfll-
ment schema that operates on both short-range and long-range levels,
tie Kings to the books that precede it in the Hebrew canon.
2
Beginning with an overview of the case for viewing Kings as part of
the Deuteronomistic History, this essay will review various attempts to
identify two or more redactional strata within the book. My article will
1
Te LXX includes the book of (Ruth) in the historical books afer
(Judges) and before Basilein A (1 Samuel), probably because the story of Ruth is
situated within the era of Judges (Ruth 1:1).
2
H. Weippert, Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheissung und Erfllung im deu-
teronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leu-
ven, 1989 (1991) 11631 [translated in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville (eds.),
Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (SBTS
8; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000)].
70 gary n. knoppers
then discuss the recent arguments for separating Kings as a distinct
redactional unit from the books preceding it in the Hebrew canon.
Te essay will end with some concluding observations about the many
diferent directions contemporary scholarship has taken to explain the
compositional history of the book of Kings.
1. Kings as an Integral Part of the
Deuteronomistic History
Te connection between Kings and the books that immediately pre-
cede it in the Hebrew Canon (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel)
is most ofen expressed in terms of the hypothesis of a Deuteronomis-
tic (or Deuteronomic) History (DH).
3
Tis common view owes much
to Martin Noths seminal study, in his berlieferungsgeschichtliche
Studien (original edition in 1943), which emphasized that the books
of Deuteronomy through Kings constitute a continuous literary work
identifed by a basic homogeneity in language, style, and content.
4
In
this theory, the Deuteronomistic writer incorporated the old Deuter-
onomic law into the beginning of his work, framed it with Mosaic
speeches, and added other sources-stories of conquest and of defeat,
prophetic tales and speeches, and royal annals and records. Te Deu-
teronomist ordered and shaped these materials, introduced his own
distinctive chronology, and inserted his own comments and speeches,
sometimes in the mouths of major characters such as Solomon (1 Kgs
8), at critical junctures in his work. Noths study was directed against
3
It is beyond the scope of this work to furnish a complete history of criticism. A
helpful recent overview of criticism on the DH may be found in T. C. Rmer and
A. de Pury, Lhistoriographie deutronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et
enjeux du dbat, in A. de Pury, T. Rmer, and J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Isral construit
son histoire: lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lumire des recherches rcentes (Le
monde de la Bible 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996) 9120 [transl.: Shef eld Academic
Press, 2000]; while a helpful overview of recent criticism specifcally on Kings may be
found in M. Avioz, Te Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part I), CBR 4.1 (2005)
1144; M. Avioz, Te Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part II), CBR 5 (2006)
1157.
4
As Noth and others have pointed out [especially M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 32060], Deuteronomic (or
Deuteronomistic) style is characterized by distinctive vocabulary and diction. Tis
style can be imitated, but this is no reason to reject its importance altogether as one
means to discern Deuteronomistic authorship. M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche
Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd
ed.; Tbingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957).
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 71
those earlier scholars who concentrated solely upon isolated books
without recognizing their relationship to others within the DH and
to those who attempted to identify strands within the DH continuous
with or analogous to Pentateuchal sources.
Tematically, Noth viewed the DH as a pessimistic work that chron-
icled the record of Israels existence in the land to censure it. Although
there were highpoints in this long story, such as the construction of
the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 68), such positive events could nei-
ther prevent the monarchys eventual downfall nor provide a basis for
future hope. In Noths view, the history of Israel in the land, written
by a single author for his own interests, presents the past as a record
of ever-intensifying decline that ends in disaster-the Assyrian exile
of the northern kingdom in the late-eighth century (2 Kgs 17) and the
Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom in the early-sixth century
(2 Kgs 2425).
Noths views have been developed, refned, and qualifed in some
recent scholarship. Hofmann traces an elaborate pattern of regres-
sion and reform throughout the story of the monarchy.
5
Van Seters
both defends the essential unity of the DH through a comparison with
ancient Near Eastern and Greek historiography and argues that some
large sections of this work, such as the so-called court history or suc-
cession narrative (2 Sam 920*; 1 Kgs 12*), were later interpolations.
6

Noth acknowledged many such later insertions, but recent scholarship
has added more. Rof argues that many of the prophetic stories found
in Kings date to the postexilic age.
7
Similarly, McKenzie accepts the
concept of a DH, but contends that many of the northern prophetic
stories represent later interpolations into this work.
8
Te work of
Susanne Otto also deals with the northern prophetic stories, but pos-
its a longer and more elaborate sequence of stages in composition: an
exilic Deuteronomistic level, as well as three late exilic and postexilic
5
H.-D. Hofmann, Reform und Reformen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema
der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zrich: Teologischer
Verlag, 1980).
6
J. Van Seters, In Search of History, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983
[repr.: Eisenbrauns, 1997]).
7
A. Rof, Te Prophetical Stories: Te Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew
Bible, Teir Literary Types and History (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988).
8
S. L. McKenzie, Te Trouble with Kings: Te Composition of the Book of Kings in
the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991).
72 gary n. knoppers
post-Deuteronomistic levels each of which involved the interpolation
of new materials.
9
Te study of Mullen explores how the Deuteronomistic story of the
monarchy creates a new national and ethnic myth, cast in the form of
a history written during the Babylonian exile, which both explains the
past and provides a paradigm for the reformation of a new Israel.
10

Van Keulen conducts a very detailed study of the reign of Manasseh
(2 Kgs 21:118) and defends an exilic date for the substance of the
Deuteronomistic commentary in this passage, while also allowing
for several later interpolations.
11
Some scholars, while not necessarily
agreeing with Noths exilic dating of the DH, have found it helpful
to conceive of this writing as a single entity, but argue that this long
work was the product of a scribal school. Nicholson and Weinfeld,
for example, think that the DH went through an extensive editorial
process beginning in the eighth (or seventh) century and continuing
into the Neo-Babylonian period.
12
Recently, Person has added a new
twist to this theory by proposing that this slow process of development
came to a major conclusion only during the Persian period.
13
Writers working with the so-called new literary criticism, such as
Cohn,
14
Long,
15
Hobbs,
16
Savran,
17
and Walsh,
18
stress the coherence
of the DH by treating it as a complicated, dense, and carefully crafed
work of art. Tese scholars work with diferent methods, but approach
the text from a strictly synchronic perspective. Whereas source criti-
cism and redaction criticism see tensions, repetition, gaps, contradic-
tions, and stylistic variations as keys to uncovering disparate sources or
9
S. Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: die Erzhlung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Kom-
position der Elia-Elisa-Erzhlungen (BWANT 8/12; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001).
10
E. T. Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1993).
11
P. S. F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists (OTS 38;
Leiden: Brill, 1996).
12
E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967);
M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
13
R. F. Person, Te Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature
(Atlanta: SBL Press, 2002).
14
R. L. Cohn, 2 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000).
15
B. O. Long, 1 Kings. (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); B. O. Long,
2 Kings. (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).
16
T. R. Hobbs, 1, 2 Kings (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989).
17
G. Savran, 1 and 2 Kings in R. Alter, R. and F. Kermode (eds.), Te Literary
Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987) 14664.
18
J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996).
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 73
layers of composition, this particular form of literary criticism accounts
for these same features by recourse to techniques of repetition, point
of view, reported and reporting speech, inclusions, small- and large-
scale symmetries, and wordplays. In this context, scholars have also
explored the important interplay between composition and reception
history. Starting from the vantage point of the last event referred to in
Kings, the mercies shown to King Jehoiachin in exile (2 Kgs 25:2730),
Linville,
19
for instance, explores how the exilist book of Kings may
have been understood during the Persian period.
20
In spite of the positive reactions to Noths work, many scholars have
been unwilling to accept his proposition that one major editorial hand
was responsible for the complete work. To begin with, there are seri-
ous issues at the fundamental level of textual criticism that would seem
to belie such a simple development of the text. Te work of Noth coin-
cided with a back to the Masoretic Text movement in biblical stud-
ies on the continent. With the discovery of a variety of Hebrew texts
at Qumran, some of which resemble the Greek witnesses to certain
biblical books, scholars have gained unprecedented insight into the
development of the biblical text in the last centuries BCE and the frst
centuries CE. Te issues of textual criticism and the use of the Septua-
gint are treated in more detail elsewhere in this volume, so there is no
need to delve into these matters at any length here. Nevertheless, it is
relevant to note that, as a variety of scholars have shown, many of the
variants among the Hebrew, Greek, and Old Latin texts of Kings do
not constitute tendentious alterations of a standard and fxed text, but
rather form genuine witnesses in their own right to diferent versions
of the text in the development of this particular writing. Readings from
the Dead Sea Scrolls and from the Versions can refect earlier stages in
the process of editing and redacting the biblical text than are refected
in the received rabbinic text. Hence, the clear boundary that Noth and
others assumed between lower criticism (e.g., textual criticism) and
higher criticism (e.g., historical criticism, source criticism, redaction
criticism) can no longer be maintained.
19
J. Linville, Rethinking the Exilic Book of Kings, JSOT 75 (1997) 2142;
J. Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: Te Past as a Project of Social Identity (JSOTSup,
272; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1998).
20
See elsewhere in this volume for how the material in Kings was appropriated,
reworked, and recontextualized in later works, such as Chronicles.
74 gary n. knoppers
Perhaps two of the areas in which Noths views have encountered
the staunchest resistance are purpose and theme. Merely with a view
to the theological interplay of thematic motifs evident in Kings, his
somber assessment has been challenged by a great variety of scholars.
Von Rad,
21
Cross
22
and others point to the important role that the
Davidic promises play in delaying and mitigating divine punishment
(e.g., 1 Kgs 11:1113, 3135). Corresponding to the role of the Davidic
promises in the history of Judah is the negative role of the sin(s) of
Jeroboam in the history of the northern kingdom.
23
Dietrich
24
and
others have underscored the importance of individual prophets and
the value of the prophetic institution in the history of the northern
monarchy. Even the choice of a national entity as the subject for the
writing of a history is a highly-important decision. Given the creation
of an Assyrian province named Samaria in the eighth century and the
existence of two distinct provinces of Samaria and Judah in the Persian
period, the use in Kings of Israel for the people in general and for
the northern kingdom in particular is fraught with social, religious,
and political meaning.
25
Te function of King David as a comparative fgure, a paradigm for
subsequent monarchs to emulate, has been underscored by a num-
ber of commentators.
26
For von Rad, King Jehoiachins release from
prison, narrated at the close of the book (2 Kgs 25:2730), plays a
particularly critical role, adumbrating the ultimate revival of Davids
line and signaling that the DH ends with a measure of optimism and
not with a fnal judgment.
27
Disagreeing with both Noth and von Rad,
Wolf cites the importance of turning () to Yhwh in Deuteron-
21
G. von Rad, Old Testament Teology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962).
22
F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Reli-
gion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973).
23
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.
24
W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1972).
25
E. T. Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries; J. Linville, Israel in the
Book of Kings; K. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1998). Compare the use of Israel in Chronicles, in some instances, to
refer to the southern kingdom and the use of Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah as a term for
the returnees and their descendants.
26
See, for example, I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution
to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Ber-
lin: de Gruyter, 1988).
27
G. von Rad, Old Testament Teology; G. von Rad, Te Problem of the Hexateuch
and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 75
omy, Judges, and Kings to argue that the DH advances an element
of hope to its readers. Divine judgment does not entail Israels doom
but calls the expatriates to repent (), because the peoples return
() to God can elicit Gods compassionate return () to them
(1 Kgs 8:4653).
28
Te work of Wolf indirectly hints at the import of another motif in
Kings-the enduring signifcance of the Jersualem Temple, the house
for the name of Yhwh (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 18, 19; 8:17, 18, 19,
20, 44, 48; 9:7) as a unifying symbol for the entire nation.
29
Naaman
is therefore right to insist that continuity of cult is one of the major
themes of the Deuteronomistic treatment of the monarchy.
30
Even
those passages in Kings that announce the future divine judgment on
the temple may be read as underscoring the singular status of this par-
ticular shrine.
31
Associated with the stress on Yhwhs connection to the
temple is the stress on Jerusalem as the city Yhwh has chosen (1 Kgs
8:16, 44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27), the place where
God has placed his name (1 Kgs 9:3; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4, 7).
32
Te emphases on the privileged place of Jerusalem, the divine prom-
ises to David, the integrity of the people (both Israel and Judah), the
continuing relationship between Yhwh and his people, and the divine
election of the temple suggest that the Deuteronomist(s) had more of
a positive agenda than Noth thought. Indeed, the very fact that the
writers of Kings composed a centuries-long account of the monarchy
that highlighted the value of a variety of institutions, mostly but not
exclusively southern, suggests that although they stressed the northern
28
H. W. Wolf, Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, ZAW 73
(1961) 17186 [translated in W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolf (eds.), Te Vitality of
Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975)].
29
T. N. D. Mettinger, Te Dethronement of Sabaoth: Sudies in the Shem and Kabod
Teologies (ConBOT 18. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982); R. Albertz, A History of Israe-
lite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1994); G. N. Knoppers, Prayer and Propaganda: Te Dedication of Solomons
Temple and the Deuteronomists Program, CBQ 57 (1995) 22954.
30
N. Naaman, Te Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers,
JSOT 65 (1995) 3753.
31
G. N. Knoppers, Yhwhs Rejection of the House Built for his Name: On the
Signifcance of Anti-Temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History in Y. Amit,
E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near
Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naaman, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006)
21138.
32
S. L. Richter, Te Deuteronomistic History and the Name Teology: leakkn em
m in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002).
76 gary n. knoppers
and southern exiles as catastrophes for their readers, they also looked
beyond them to what could be learned from these times of national
defeat, humiliation, and loss. Te positive emphasis on distinct themes
indicates that the editors of this work conceived of certain beliefs,
practices, and institutions as having enduring value beyond the time
of death and destruction that characterized the early-sixth century in
much of Judah.
We have been discussing issues of text, theme, and purpose as they
relate to the relationship between the redaction of Kings to the larger
Deuteronomistic History, but there have been some attempts to move
beyond the margins of this literary work in discussing the editorial
context of Kings. Some scholars have sought to revise Noths views by,
among other things, bringing a wider range of biblical literature into
view. Tus some speak of a Primary History consisting of the books
of Genesis through Kings.
33
Similarly, Kratz,
34
Otto,
35
and Achenbach
36

explore the long process leading to the redaction of the Enneateuch.
Schmid argues that the DH should really begin with the Exodus, given
the prominence of the Exodus theme within the DH itself.
37
Tese
scholars have not abandoned the notion of a Deuteronomistic histori-
cal writing per se, but they do think that the origins of the work are
tied in various ways to the origins of the Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, and
Hexateuch.
38
Tey rightly point to the fact that Deuteronomy func-
33
See, for example, S. Mandell and D. N. Freedman, Te Relationship between
Herodotus History and the Primary History (South Florida Studies in the History of
Judaism 60; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); D. N. Freedman, and J. C. Geoghegan,
Martin Noth: Retrospect and Prospect, in S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (eds.),
Te History of Israels Traditions: Te Heritage of Martin Noth (JSOTSup, 182; Shef-
feld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1994) 12852.
34
R. G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grund-
wissen der Bibelkritik (BZABR; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000 [transl.:
T. & T. Clark, 2005]).
35
E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Litera-
turgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens
(FAT 30; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
36
R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des
Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Wisebaden: Har-
rassowitz, 2003).
37
K. Schmid, Erzvter und Exodus: Untersuchungen sur doppelten Begrndung der
Ursprnge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1999).
38
In this context, see also the essays in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deu-
teronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT
206; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 77
tions as a critical hinge, serving as both the conclusion to the Pen-
tateuch and as the introduction to the DH. Any theory that seeks to
explain the redaction of the DH must also address in some way the
compositional history of these other works.
Many have accepted the notion that the redaction of Kings is tied
to the larger redaction of the Deuteronomistic work, but view the his-
tory of redaction as a more complicated process than Noth envisaged.
Cross and Smend challenge Noths notion that the DH was the product
of one exilic author. Tese scholars, and the schools of thought they
have come to represent, contend for a series of editions. For Cross, the
redaction of Kings is key to the redaction of the DH itself. He argues
that the main edition of the DH (Dtr
1
) was composed during the
reign of King Josiah as a programmatic document promoting Josiahs
attempt to revive the Davidic state. Tis primary edition was lightly
revised and expanded in a second edition (2 Kgs 23:2525:30) during
the Neo-Babylonian period (Dtr
2
). Te exilic editor (Dtr
2
) retouched
the earlier work, introduced the sub-theme of Manassehs apostasy,
attributing the destruction of Judah to his perfdy, and briefy narrated
the story of Judahs deportation.
Tis theory of editing has sometimes been called an exemplar of
the block model of literary composition, because it conceives of
the redaction of the DH as basically taking place by major additions
occurring in successive stages. Te work of one writer appends a sub-
stantial amount of consecutively-ordered material to the work of his
predecessor(s). To be sure, adherents of the dual redaction theory also
posit occasional editorial interpolations from the hand of Dtr
2
into
the earlier work of Dtr
1
(e.g., 2 Kgs 17:34b40), but they generally
conceive of the exilic editor as only occasionally intruding into the
material composed by Dtr
1
.
Te proponents of the dual redaction theory have elaborated on
Cross hypothesis and applied it in considerable detail to specifc clus-
ters of passages.
39
Tey have also debated whether the contribution
39
For example, R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975);
R. G. Boling and G. E. Wright, Joshua (AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982); R.
E. Friedman, Te Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM 22; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981);
B. Halpern, Te Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981); B. Halpern, Te First Historians: Te Hebrew Bible and History (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); R. D. Nelson, Te Double Redaction of the Deute-
ronomistic History (JSOTSup, 18; Shef eld: JSOT Press, 1981); E. Cortese, Da Mos
a Esdra: i libri storici dellantico Israele (Collana La Bibbia nella storia 2; Bologna:
78 gary n. knoppers
of Dtr
2
to Kings and to the rest of the DH may have been more sub-
stantial
40
or less so.
41
Some have focused attention on the northern
prophetic tales, contending for a pre-Deuteronomistic edition or col-
lection dating to the time of the northern monarchy.
42
Others have
focused on the work of Dtr
1
. Dutcher-Walls, for example, combines
literary (narrative) criticism with the dual redaction theory to illumine
Dtr
1
s portrayal of Queen Athaliahs reign.
43
Knoppers argues that the
attention given to the history of the northern monarchy, the fall of
Israel, and the reforms of Josiah, can only be understood in the con-
text of Dtr
1
s treatment of the united monarchy of David and Solomon
and the causes he imputes to the creation of the dual monarchies of
(northern) Israel and Judah.
44
If the dual-redaction theory of Cross proceeds according to a block
model of composition, the triple-redaction theory of Smend proceeds
according to what might be called a layer model (Schichten Modell)
of composition. Like Cross, Smend argues for a series of editions, but
construes these editions as strata that are present throughout much of
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Starting from the base of a Deu-
teronomistically-edited set of texts in Joshua (1:79; 13:1b-6; 23) and
Judges (1:12:5, 17, 2021, 23) concerned with the observance of law,
Smend adds a second nomistically-oriented Deuteronomistic edition
Edizioni Dehoniane, 1985); M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1988); G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: Te Deuteronomistic
History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies; 1: Te Reign of Solomon and the Rise
of Jeroboam (HSM 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations
Under God: Te Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies; 2: Te
Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (HSM 53; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1994); B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); M. Cogan, I Kings (AB 10; New York:
Doubleday, 2000).
40
For example, R. G. Boling, and G. E. Wright, Joshua; A. D. H. Mayes, Te Story
of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic
History (London: SCM, 1983); B. Peckham, History and Prophecy: the Development
of Late Judean Literary Traditions (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1993). In some
respects, the Dtr
2
of Mayes resembles the DtrN of Smend (see further below).
41
For example, S. L. McKenzie, Te Trouble with Kings.
42
For example, M. C. White, Te Elijah Legends and Jehus Coup (BJS 311; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997).
43
P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: Te Case of Athaliah and
Joash (JSOTSup, 209; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1996).
44
G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1: Te Reign of Solomon and the Rise
of Jeroboam; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2: Te Reign of Jeroboam, the
Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah.
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 79
(DtrN) to the historically-oriented Deuteronomist posited by Noth
(DtrH[istorie]).
45
Smends views have been developed and refned by a number of
scholars, the most infuential being Dietrich and Veijola. Dietrich
revises Smends redactional analysis in his examination of prophetic
narratives and speeches in Kings, arguing for a major prophetically-
oriented redaction of the DH (DtrP) in addition to the DtrH and DtrN
editions posited by Smend.
46
Dietrich thinks that DtrP drew upon and
edited a substantial body of preexilic prophetic stories dating to the
reign of King Manasseh (1 Kgs 172 Kgs 10*).
47
Dietrich believes that
the work of DtrP was added to the older literary layer (DtrH), but prior
to a later nomistic redaction (DtrN). Te editor/author DtrP assails
the political and cultic misdeeds of northern royalty, while DtrN adds
material of a nomistic nature, containing assorted legal sayings, the
royal traditions of Jerusalem, and the law code itself. Dietrich con-
tends that all three redactions date to the Babylonian exile and were
completed by 560 BCE, but Smend is inclined to think that there was
a longer chronological gap between redactions.
48
Smend situates DtrN,
which he conceives as representing the work of multiple writers, in the
early Achaemenid era.
Veijola accepts the nomenclature proposed by Dietrich (DtrH, DtrP,
DtrN), but advocates a diferent reconstruction of DtrH and DtrN.
49

In Veijolas view, DtrH, and not DtrN, stresses the eternal and uncon-
ditional nature of the Davidic promises. Reacting to DtrPs negative
stance toward kingship, DtrN adopts a mediating position between
DtrH and DtrP by democratizing the Davidic promises and by empha-
sizing that blessings for people and royalty alike are keyed to obedi-
ence. Following the work of Smend, Dietrich, and Veijola, a number
45
Smend and Dietrich originally called the frst edition DtrG, but later renamed it
as DtrH[istorie].
46
W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1972).
47
W. Dietrich, Prophetie im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in Tomas
Rmer (ed.), Te Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters,
2000) 4765.
48
R. Smend, Die Enstehung des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1989).
49
T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Annalae Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, srie B,
Tom 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975); T. Veijola, Das Knigtum in
der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie (Annalae Academiae Scien-
tiarum Fennicae, srie B, Tom 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).
80 gary n. knoppers
of scholars have applied this approach to particular problems or sets of
passages in Kings. For example, the treatment of the theme of wisdom
in the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 35, 911) by Srki posits pre-Deu-
teronomistic material and fve Deuteronomistic strata.
50
Wlchli, who
also works within the Gttingen tradition of interpretation, fnds three
pre-Deuteronomistic stages in the formation of 1 Kgs 311, as well as a
succession of Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic editions.
51
Te northern prophetic narratives in Kings have also aroused sig-
nifcant scholarly interest. Te work of Alvarez Barredo, for instance,
posits several levels of composition and editing in the Elijah and Elisha
narratives.
52
Independent tales of the prophets were successively taken
up, edited, and supplemented by both DtrP and DtrN. A series of post-
Deuteronomistic additions and reworkings resulted in the completion
of the Elijah-Elisha cycle (1 Kgs 172 Kgs 2; 3:18:15; 13:1421). By
contrast, Keinnens work on the Elijah narratives of 1 Kgs 1719 con-
tends for an edition of DtrP of older traditions followed by a later,
postexilic anti-Baal oriented edition, and several later post-Deuteron-
omistic expansions.
53
Te dual and triple redaction theories of Cross and Smend by no
means exhaust the ways in which Noths hypothesis has been revisited,
modifed, and challenged in the past few decades. Te compositional
model proposed by Rof, for example, departs from both the theory
proposed by Noth and the revisions of that theory proposed by vari-
ous other scholars.
54
Rof sees a disjunction between the redaction of
much of Samuel-Kings and that of the books that immediately precede
50
P. Srki, Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der Israelitischen Historiogra-
phie: Eine traditions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung ber 1 Kn 35 und 911
(Schrifen der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaf 60; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1994).
51
S. Wlchli, Der weise Knig Salomo: eine Studie zu den Erzhlungen von der
Weisheit Salomos in ihrem alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Kontext (BWANT
141; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999).
52
M. Alvarez Barredo, Las Narraciones sobre Elas y Eliseo en los Libros de los Reyes:
Formacin y Teologa (Publicaciones Instituto Teolgico Franciscano Serie Mayor 21;
Murcia: Espigas, 1996).
53
J. Keinnen, Traditions in Collision: A Literary and Redaction-Critical Study of
the Elijah Narratives in 1 Kings 1719 (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society,
80; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001).
54
A. Rof, Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History, in D. Garrone and
F. Israel (eds.), Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Bres-
cia: Paideia, 1991) 22135 [repr. in Knoppers and McConville (eds.), Reconsidering
Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History].
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 81
it. He contends that Noth overlooked or ignored decisive older argu-
ments for a major block in the narrative Josh 24 through 1 Sam
12 being fundamentally non-Deuteronomistic in character. Instead,
Rof speaks of Josh 24 through 1 Sam 12* as constituting a coherent,
(northern) Israel-oriented, pre-Deuteronomistic historical work. Only
at a later point was this unit was incorporated into the larger DH that
included Kings.
Te work of Lohfnk moves beyond previous scholarship in a some-
what diferent way from that of Rof.
55
Lohfnk speaks of two Josianic
literary works (not one) and limits the work of one of these (similar to
Cross Dtr
1
) to a much shorter and more thematically-circumscribed
set of texts (basically an earlier edition of Kings). Another Josianic
document constituted the basis for the material covered by Deut 1
through Josh 22* (DtrL[anderoberungserzhlung]). Both of these liter-
ary works were taken up in the larger Deuteronomistic work (Noths
DtrG). Two later Deuteronomists completed the work. Rmer has also
endorsed the notion of the Josianic edition as being a rather limited
document.
56
Rmer thinks that such a Josianic redaction was re-edited
and greatly expanded during the Babylonian exile and again during
the Persian period. Kratz proposes a more complex understanding of
the development and growth of the DH. He thinks that the histori-
cal work developed by blocks (the earliest being 1 Sam 1:12 Kgs 25*
during the Neo-Babylonian era) over a long period of time and was
subject to a succession of editions. One of the later redactions brought
together the story of the people in an earlier form of the Hexateuch
with the story of the people in the monarchy, creating a history that
extended from the Exodus to the exile. A series of Deuteronomistic
and post-Deuteronomistic additions to Joshua-Kings, some of which
were extensive, rounded out the work. Te theories of Lohfnk, Rmer,
and Kratz thus combine aspects of both the block and the layer models
of composition.
55
N. Lohfnk, Kerygmata des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in J. Jere-
mias and L. Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaf und die Boten (Fs. H. W. Wolf) (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 87100; N. Lohfnk, Te Cult Reform of Josiah of
Judah: 2 Kings 2223 as a Source for the Story of Israelite Religion, in P. D. Miller,
P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of
Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 459476.
56
T. R. Rmer, Te So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical
and Literary Introduction (New York: Continuum, 2005).
82 gary n. knoppers
Te reconstruction advanced by Campbell and OBrien, while
indebted to the Cross model, goes far beyond it in speaking of a major
prophetic source, comprising a Prophetic Record (1 Sam 1:12 Kgs
10:28) with a series of extensions, as well as a pre-exilic Josianic edi-
tion along with a series of later extensions and revisions.
57
In this
respect, the intricate theory of Campbell and OBrien, like those of
Lohfnk and Rmer, incorporates features of both the block and the
layer models of composition.
Some scholars have developed new theories of multiple redactions,
citing as evidence variations in the regnal formulae dealing with the
evaluation of northern and southern monarchs. Teir arguments do
not fall easily into any one particular pattern, because they approach
the redaction history of Kings from a variety of distinct perspectives.
Since the variations in regnal judgment formulas do not seem to be
random phenomena, commentators have employed the regular pat-
terns in these formulas to create detailed theories about the composi-
tional history of Kings. Tese scholars difer, however, on what types
of variations they consider to be signifcant and how much to make of
the variations they admit into their primary corpus of evidence.
58
Com-
mentators also difer to the extent that they consider material evidence
or literary evidence from other writings (e.g., the prophetic writings,
Chronicles) in their reconstructions of the editions they posit in the
formation of Kings. Halpern situates the Hezekian redaction within
the larger historical context of the late-eighth and early-seventh cen-
turies and makes a series of careful comparisons between Kings and
57
A. F. Campbell and M. A. OBrien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Ori-
gins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000).
58
For example, H. Weippert, Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige
von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher, Bib 53 (1972)
30139; W. B. Barrick, Te King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding
of Josiahs Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002); A. Lemaire, Les coles et la for-
mation de la Bible dans lancien Isral (OBO 39; ditions Universitaires Fribourg;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); Vers lhistoire de la rdaction des
Livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986) 221236 [transl. in Knoppers and McConville (eds.),
Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History]; A. F.
Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 12
Kings 10) (CBQMS 17; Washington, DC: Te Catholic Biblical Association of Ame-
rica, 1986); M. A. OBrien, Te Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment
(OBO 92; Freiburg: Universittsverlag/Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989);
I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about
the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988);
B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhoof, Te Editions of Kings in the 7th6th Centuries
BCE, HUCA 62 (1991) 179244.
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 83
Chronicles.
59
Sweeney devotes considerable attention to the eighth-
and seventh-century prophets in his understanding of what motivates
the pre-exilic Deuteronomists, whereas others pay little attention to
this material.
60
Some generalizations may be possible, however. First, all of these
scholars speak of one or more substantial preexilic editions of the
DH and of at least one exilic edition. Second, they view the preexilic
edition(s) as substantial and the exilic edition(s) as relatively minor.
Tird, in many cases, major preexilic editions are associated with the
reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah (or both). So, for instance, the recent
work of Barrick
61
isolates four diferent editorial levels within certain
texts of Kings: KH 1 (Hezekian); KH 2 (Josianic, based on a royal
memorial inscription); KH 3 (post-Josianic, written in the early exile);
and KH 4 (postexilic, adding much of 1 Kings 13). Fourth, these theo-
ries regard each distinctive judgment formula as a kind of signature
lef by a given editor. Tat is, the scholars promoting these multiple
redaction hypotheses believe that successive redactors did not disturb
or overwrite the work of previous editors. In this way, the very exis-
tence of multiple types of royal evaluations is itself viewed as proof for
the composite authorship of Kings.
In the context of discussing the possible existence of multiple edi-
tions of Kings, one should address an even more complicated theory
of the redaction of Kings, one that is also tied to the interpretation of
disparate judgment formulas. If the block model of Cross and the layer
model of Smend revise Noths redactional analysis by positing two and
three editions, respectively, Lemaire contends that these revisions do
not go far enough.
62
Citing variations in the regnal formulae of north-
ern and southern kings, Lemaire posits multiple preexilic editions in
addition to the Josianic and exilic editions advocated by Cross. Tis
point of view has sometimes been called the rolling corpus model of
59
B. Halpern, Te Constitution of the Monarchy; B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhoof,
Te Editions of Kings in the 7th6th Centuries BCE.
60
M. A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: the Lost Messiah of Israel (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001).
61
W. B. Barrick, Te King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of
Josiahs Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002).
62
A. Lemaire, Les coles et la formation de la Bible dans lancien Isral (OBO 39;
ditions Universitaires Fribourg; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); A.
Lemaire Vers lhistoire de la rdaction des Livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986) 221236
[transl. in Knoppers and McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent
Studies on the Deuteronomistic History].
84 gary n. knoppers
composition. Te history and conception of the Deuteronomistic work
evident in Lemaires proposal are therefore quite diferent from those
implicit in the models proposed by Noth, Cross, and Smend. Rather
than thinking of a work that underwent one, two, or even three major
editions, Lemaire envisions a basic work being constantly updated and
expanded over the course of a few hundred years.
2. By the Book:
Kings as a Separate Unit within the Former Prophets
In recent times, a number of commentators have expressed profound
misgivings about the existence of a carefully unifed Deuteronomistic
redaction of material stretching from Deuteronomy to Kings. Tese
scholars propose that one should begin instead with each of the rele-
vant biblical books and approach such works as discrete literary units.
63

To be sure, the representative writings of scholars holding this broad
viewpoint operate with a bewildering variety of assumptions and argue
a variety of propositions. Nevertheless, a few generalizations are pos-
sible. To begin with, there is the book model of composition advo-
cated by Westermann,
64
McConville,
65
and others.
66
Tese writers take
issue with both the limits of the DH and its unity. Tey contend that
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings do not collectively
constitute a connected story. Only loose connections exist between a
series of books-Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings-each of which was
composed and edited in a distinctive way.
67
In as much as Wester-
mann thinks of a Deuteronomistic redaction, he envisions an editor
63
In many respects, this is return to an older position as some never accepted
Noths new understanding of the DH. For example, G. Fohrer (Introduction to the Old
Testament [Nashville: Abingdon, 1968] 195) comments, we have a series of books
Deuteronomy-Kings, each composed or edited in a diferent way.
64
C. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testament: Gab es ein deutero-
nomistisches Geschichtswerk? (Teologische Bcherei Altes Testament, 87; Gtersloh:
Chr. Kaiser, 1994).
65
J. G. McConville, Te Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship,
Temelios 22/3 (1997) 313.
66
For a fuller review, see my essay, G. N. Knoppers, Is Tere a Future for the
Deuteronomistic History? in T. C. Rmer (ed.), Te Future of the Deuteronomistic
History (BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 11934.
67
In this view, the divisions between the primary units within the larger narrative
coincide directly with the beginnings and ends of books and are not necessarily mar-
ked by speeches, prayers, and summarizing refections (so Noth).
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 85
lightly supplying theological interpretations of certain events narrated
within individual books. Hence, Westermann discards older views of
both a Deuteronomistic author and a Deuteronomistic historian.
68
Knauf presents a diferent version of the book-centred theory.
69
Like
Westermann and McConville, Knauf advocates a return to a focus
upon disparate, separately authored books; but, unlike Westermann
and McConville, Knauf regards these books as themselves resulting
from a series of fundamentally unrelated exilic and postexilic redac-
tions. Te issue is thus not simply that Kings was authored separately
from Samuel and the other volumes in the Former Prophets, but also
that Kings was repeatedly redacted during Neo-Babylonian and Per-
sian period times in a manner not connected to the redaction of other
books. Moreover, according to this view, the mode of composition
found within Kings may qualify as a type of historiography, but the
same cannot be said for most of the rest of the Former Prophets. In
sum, Knaufs theory strikes at many diferent aspects of the prevailing
view that the editing of Kings is connected to and continuous with the
editing of the rest of the Former Prophets.
Another version of the book-centred theory is promoted by Graeme
Auld,
70
who sees some connections among the books of the Former
Prophets, but also many diferences in composition, style, theme, and
date.
71
He advocates what might be called a new version of the rolling
corpus model.
72
Whereas Lemaire proposes a rolling corpus model to
explain the gradual development of the Deuteronomistic account of
68
On this point, McConville difers from Westermann. McConville thinks that
Deuteronomy through Kings is a history and one that manifests some continuity in
characters, themes, and plot.
69
E. A. Knauf, LHistoriographie Deutronomiste (DtrG) existe-t-elle? in A. de
Pury, T. Rmer, and J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Isral construit son histoire: lhistoriographie
deutronomiste la lumire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34; Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1996) 40918.
70
A. G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bibles
Kings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993).
71
For a more complete overview and assessment, see my commentary, G. N. Knop-
pers, I Chronicles 19 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004).
72
Wrthwein has recently also favored an approach to the DH that begins with
Kings as a basis for the composition of the entire work, E. Wrthwein Studien zum
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). In his two-
volume commentary on Kings (1977; 1984), Wrthwein works with the Smend model
of composition; E. Wrthwein, Die Bcher der Knige: 1 Knige 116 (ATD 11/1;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977); E. Wrthwein, Die Bcher der Knige:
1 Kn. 172 Kn. 25 (ATD 11/2; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
86 gary n. knoppers
the monarchy, Auld envisions a rolling corpus model to explain the
development of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets, extending
from Kings back to Deuteronomy. Tat is, Auld begins with Kings and
not with the Deuteronomic law code.
73
Auld contends that both Kings
and Chronicles represent alternate or competing appropriations of an
earlier story of Judahs kings. In this view, the theological language
refected in Solomons visions (1 Kgs 3, 9) and prayer (1 Kgs 8), for
example, is part of the shared source and does not comprise the work
of the Deuteronomistic redactor(s). Te writers of Kings add material
to the common source that criticizes Solomon and presents him as a
devious fgure who leads his nation astray (1 Kgs 11). Auld dates both
the Chronistic History and the Deuteronomistic History to the Persian
period. Hence, Aulds work creatively reevaluates the relationships of
Deuteronomy to Samuel-Kings and of Samuel-Kings to Chronicles.
Yet another challenge to the supposition that Kings was closely
redacted in connection with the redaction of the rest of the DH comes
from scholars, who advocate a particular form of the block model of
composition. Tis approach is not mutually exclusive with the book-
centred approach, because books can be edited to form parts of larger
blocks and blocks can be edited to form books. Te recent monographs
of Eynikel on the Josianic reforms
74
and Rsel on the development of
the DH
75
may serve as illustrations of this new challenge. Rsel begins
with the formation of a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic literary work (or
73
Even for those accepting the existence of a DH, the issue of the relationship
between the old Deuteronomic law-code (the original extent of this work is debated)
and the historical work is in dispute. Noth thought that the Deuteronomist used the
code as a yardstick to judge the conduct of major characters in his work. Some think,
however, that the Deuteronomic law-code was a late insertion. See, for example, J. D.
Levenson, Who Inserted the Book of the Torah? HTR 68 (1975) 20333; C. Wester-
mann, Die Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testament. Yet others contend the authors of
Kings used some form of Deuteronomy, but that the Deuteronomistic use of Urdeu-
teronomium was much more sophisticated and complex than Noth recognized. See,
for example, G. N. Knoppers, Te Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the
King: A Reexamination of a Relationship, ZAW 108 (1996) 32946; G. N. Knop-
pers, Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic
History: Te Case of Kings, CBQ 63 (2001) 393415; B. M. Levinson, Te Recon-
ceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic Historys Trans-
formation of Torah, VT 51 (2001) 51134.
74
E. Eynikel, Te Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic
History (OTS 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996).
75
H. N. Rsel, Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen
Geschichtsbchern des Alten Testaments (VTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
theories of the redaction(s) of kings 87
book of Kings), extending from Solomon to Hezekiah, that was sub-
sequently augmented with new material, such as the condemnation
of the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17) and the story of the
Judaean monarchy in the seventh and early-sixth centuries (2 Kgs 21
25). Tis material was conjoined with the preexisting books of Deu-
teronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.
Eynikel prefers not to speak of a DH, but of a variety of blocks that
were written independently: Joshua 11 Samuel 12, 1 Samuel 132
Samuel and 1 Kings 12, and 1 Kings 32 Kings 23.24 Whereas Wes-
termann, McConville, and Knauf speak of separately authored, distinct
books, Eynikel speaks of distinct blocks that incorporate separately-
authored books. Te diferent blocks were not brought together until
fairly late in the editorial process. According to Eynikel, there were
three editions of Kings that relate (or do not relate, as the case may
be) to the union of the separate blocks: RI, who wrote sometime afer
Hezekiah, RII (= Crosss Dtr
1
), who wrote sometime afer Josiah, and
RIII (= Crosss Dtr
2
), who wrote during or afer the exile. Te work
of RI and RII did not extend beyond Kings. Later redaction, perhaps
by the same author (RIII/Dtr
2
) who wrote about the demise of the
kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 2425), fused the disparate blocks into a
larger whole. Hence, in the theories of Rsel and Eynikel, the editorial
process that led to the formation of Kings was fundamentally separate
from the editorial processes that led to the formation of the rest of the
Former Prophets.
3. Concluding Observations
Over the past four decades scholars have taken divergent paths in
explaining the redaction history of Kings and the rest of the Former
Prophets (sources, blocks, layers, books, interpolations, glosses, or
some combination thereof ). Whatever the individual case, most recent
studies view the compositional history of the book of Kings as a much
longer and more complicated process than Noth imagined some six
decades ago. Scholars generally recognize a rich variety of theological
commentary within the work. Because this diversity of themes extends
to Deuteronomistic compositions (speeches, prayers, summarizing
refections), one cannot attribute all of the diversity found within the
book of Kings to the heterogeneous sources that a single Deuterono-
mist incorporated, but did not rewrite, within his larger work. Te
thematic diversity extends to Deuteronomistic commentary itself.
88 gary n. knoppers
Rather than thinking of the primary composition of Kings as the
brilliant work of a single individual living in the Neo-Babylonian era,
most current scholars think of this composition as developing by
stages over a signifcant period of time. Seen from this perspective, the
individuals (or groups) responsible for the writing of Kings refected
a living tradition that repeatedly adapted to new challenges and new
settings. At this point, certain questions emerge in the discussion as
scholars disagree avidly about a variety of important issues: how many
changes took place within the Deuteronomistic tradition, how long
a process this entailed, the original length and nature of the literary
work, the social contexts of the work(s), the amount of heterogeneity
within the work, and how many diferent writers participated in the
development of the writing. Looking at developments within the past
several decades, one can say both that the old order is passing away
and that the new order is much more complex.
Yet, surveying this same period of time also suggests that exercis-
ing some degree of caution might be helpful. One of the fundamental
assertions of Noth was that a single author brought together a variety of
disparate, even contradictory, sources and edited them into his work.
Tis basic insight enabled Noth to acknowledge variety of viewpoints
in the Deuteronomistic historical work without splintering that work
into a long series of redactions, each with its own theological profle
and distinctive Tendenz. Seen from this perspective, the Deuterono-
mist did not seek to suppress historically diferent points of view or
harmonize them all into one basic position. Rather, the ancient writer
looked back over his peoples past and reacted against certain views,
while mediating others. If this understanding of ancient authorship is
categorically rejected, as some scholars seem to have assumed that it
should be, the number of redactions and insertions (large and small)
posited by modern commentators will only continue to multiply in
the years ahead.