The Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Kings:

Regnal Formulae as Indicators of Redactional Stages and Directions in Study in the Deuteronomistic History

For: Professor James Kugel Course: By: Yaakov Beasley TZ: 311063333

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. B. i. ii. C. D. E.

An Overview of the Deuteronomistic History ....................................................................................... 3 Noth and the Book of Kings .................................................................................................................. 5 Internal Issues within the Book of Kings ........................................................................................... 5 Two Directions in Research ............................................................................................................... 6 Regnal Formulae as Redactional Indicators .......................................................................................... 9 Appendix The Regnal Formulae in Kings .......................................................................................... 12 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 16

A. An Overview of the Deuteronomistic History

Martin Noths work berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien1 has become the paradigm through which the historical books of the Bible Joshua to Kings have been evaluated. While Julius Welhausen acknowledged that the various historical books represented the milieu in which they were written,2 and scholars after him began to identify similar themes and larger narrative units within them,3 it was Noth who first demonstrated the thematic unity between the book of Deuteronomy and the historical works. He argued: . . . these books were not separate compositions, but rather formed one continuous Deuteronomistic History which began with the law book of Deuteronomy and extended to the end of 2 Kings. This is why in the work the law of Deuteronomy is regarded as expressing the divine will by which the subsequent account of the rise and fall of Israel is judged and interpreted. Deuteronomy 1-3 had been composed as the historical preface to this major piece of history-writing. Subsequently some additions had been made, notably in Judges 1, Joshua 13-19 and Joshua 24.4 According to Noth, the historical books are linked through the pivotal interpretive speeches which look backward and forward, its common chronological scheme, and its single purpose of tracing the history of disaster that led up to the events of conquest and deportation.

M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 2nd edn, 1957). An English translation of the section dealing with the Former Prophets is available as The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.; JSOTSup, 41; Shefeld: JSOT Press, 1981).
2

. . . not only in the case of the Chronicler but also in Judges, Samuel and Kings, that the views and distinctive religious ideals of a particular age have been impressed on the earlier sources. In the case of the Chronicler's history these were the ideals of the Persian period, but in Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings the ideals were those that had arisen in the Babylonian exile which bore strong affinity with the ideas and aims to be found in the book of Deuteronomy. Ronald E. Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 33.
3

E.g. Rost (1926) designated 2 Samuel 9-20 as the "Succession Narrative," arguing that it was recorded to legitimize Solomon's succession to the throne, and as such continued until 1 Kings 3.
4

Clements, 44.

Unity is also created by a prophecy-fulfillment schema, through which historical periods are bridged by the announcement of a word of Yahweh and its subsequent fulfillment.5 Noths theory disputed the previous scholarly viewpoint, that the Hexateuch (Genesis Judges 1) was a work that was subsequently updated by the Deuteronomist, in two major areas in contention. First, he denied any relationship between Genesis-Numbers and the Deuteronomistic History (DH), and second, he argued that the books from Deuteronomy until the ends of 2 Kings are a literary unity, containing a unified theological agenda, and were composed by someone living in Babylonia during the Exile.6 To produce his work, this author/redactor/editor/compiler drew upon a body of earlier written and oral traditions. The history was then expanded through secondary additions by later redactors who belonged to a Deuteronomistic School. Since the DH theorys appearance, it has become the paradigm by which scholars discuss the historical books. As such, both proponents of the DH and those that reject it have engaged in a process of revisionism and clarification of the theory, so that the term Deuteronomistic History quite often bears little resemblance to Noths original ideas, both in the number and identity of the authors, and in the dating of the various writings and redactions. By focusing on the book of Kings in general, and a specific literary feature of the book of Kings, the regnal formulae, in particular, we shall attempt to trace the development and evolution of the DH theory over the past several decades and point to potential future directions in research.

Nelson, R. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic Theory, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) p. 13. Noth, 46-7.

B. Noth and the Book of Kings i. Internal Issues within the Book of Kings

Noths assertion that the book of Kings was the work of a single author, produced in the time of the exile, has led scholars to revisit the books text to ascertain the validity of his claim.7 The book of Kings acknowledges that it contains material extracted from earlier sources. However, while certain sections in Kings passages in Kings which presuppose the fall of Judea and the peoples going into exile (e.g. 1 Kg. 5:4; 9:1-9; 11:9-13; 2 Kg. 17:19-20; 20:17-18; 21:11-15; 22:15-20; 23:26-27; 24:2-4; 24:18-25:30);8 other passages appear to be completely unaware of the exile! Already in the 19th century, Abraham Kuenen argued that the constant appearance of the phrase unto this day would be inappropriate been writing at any time after 586 BCE - especially in those passages where this formula is connected to Kings structural frame (2 Kings 8:22; 14:7; 16:6). To Kuenen, the possibility that this was used in a careless way by an exilic editor was remote.9 Similarly, there are repeated passages that take the continued (and eternal) existence of the Temple and the Davidic dynasty as a given (1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Sometimes the text alternatives in its use of the same formula - 1 Kings 5:4 is exilic because of the expression "beyond the river" meaning the Palestinian side of the Euphrates, in contrast to 1 Kings 14:15. Due to these issues, Kuenen argued that the material in Kings consisted of two strains: a main text that originated in pre-exilic
7

Others disputed his claim on thematic grounds. For example, von Rad argued that it was near impossible to suggest that the same author produced both the book of Judges and the book of Kings. He stated that Whereas Judges works with a cyclical outline of history, there is complete absence of cycles from Kings; the historian consistently sits in judgment on the kings, but not on the judges; in Judges there is a distinction between the attitude of the people and their judges, but in Kings the people and kings are coupled together in the guilt caused by the kings; history in the period of the kings, was directed by the creative word of God, but in Judges by the charisma of the judges. Gerard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row, 1962-65, 1:346. However, this claim has been disputed by others. See Gwelyn H. Jones. 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 1:38-39. Similarly, the attitude towards the monarchy oscillates between express disapproval of the institution (Judges 8, 1 Samuel 8 and 12) to unrestricted positive appraisal (Judges 17, 19, 21; positive portrayals of David, Solomon and Josiah throughout the DH).
8

Of course, all this presupposes that there is no predictive prophecy.

Nelson, p. 15. Nelson, however, dismisses the strength of these claims, arguing that neither the mention of a potential exile, especially after the Assyrian example to the northern kingdom less than a century earlier, was a preposterous option; nor the appearance of the phrase unto this day necessary indicted a Palestinian original text rewritten in Babylon (he provides what he considers stronger proofs for the double redaction theory afterwards), p. 23-26.

times and then an exilic redaction after the release of Jehoiachin from prison in 561 B.C. He did not attempt to divide up the book completely because he felt that this would be methodologically impossible: "It is implicit in the nature of things that the activity of the pre-exilic author cannot be distinguished from the later additions with certainty in every place. However, with regard to Kings, Noths theory of a single author/redactor clearly needs to be revised.

ii. Two Directions in Research

One direction in dealing with these difficulties is to posit a process of double redaction, one pre-exilic dating from the time of Josiah, and the original redactor/author from Noths theory in Babylonia, during the Exile. The first to suggest this approach in a systematic, organized manner was Cross.10 His work is predicated on identifying the genuinely contradictory themes or tendencies and trying to relate them to the historical situation of a pre-exilic or exilic author.11 He noted several issues, including both a change in tone in the concluding section of the book (destruction being inevitable with no change for repentance, as well as evidence that strikingly different theological perspectives are present within Kings. In the chapters after Josiahs untimely death, there is a notable change in the prophecy-fulfillment scheme (2 Kgs 21:10-15 predicts the punishment of Manasseh without mentioning the prophet's name), and the destruction of Judah, unlike the downfall of Samaria, is not marked with a summarizing sermon. Noting literary parallels between Josiah and David, Cross argued that the first section, which emphasizes the loyalty of the southern kingdom compared to the perfidy of Jereboam and the north, was written (edited) in preexilic times. As such, he accepts Kuenens view that the first edition of the Deuteronomistic history was issued in the time of Josiah as propaganda for that king's policies. He pointed out that the historian never repudiated the unconditional promise made to David's house.12 However, the later
10

F. M. Cross, The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, 1973), 274-89.
11

Nelson, p. 22.

12

The question of whether or not the promise given to Davids dynasty was unconditional or otherwise, and if it is possible or wise to stratifying Kings into pro and anti monarchical sections, has also been questioned. See Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity, JSOT Supplement 272, p. 51-2.

exilic editor had a different perspective: He saw inevitable punishment for the sins of Manasseh, and ... introduces a theological motif that is out of tune with the rest of the history.13 Richard Nelson was the next to adopt the double redaction theory as the basis for his scholarship. However, unlike Noth and Kuenen who viewed the vast majority of composition and redaction as occurring in the exile, Nelson argued that the majority of the work occurred in the time of Josiah, with only the final chapters. European scholars, however, tend to discover later dates and more authors/redactors for the book of Kings then their American counterparts. Additionally, the tendency among the European schools is not to view the book as a collection of pre-edited texts (the block theory), but is intertwining strands and strata that weave throughout the texts (the Schichtmodel). Alfred Jespen argued that no single motive runs throughout the book, and that it is the result of constant editing and additions over an extended period of time. He traced two large-scale redactions in Kings, differing in theology and slightly in style. He believed that he found an early exilic compilation of a cultic history of Israel and Judah by a priest, which was supposedly reworked by someone with prophetic leanings one generation later. Smend refined this theory by arguing in favor of three layers of redaction. Firstly, the basic historical work (DtrH), which was then followed by a redaction that introduced prophetical texts (DtrP), and finally, law-oriented additions were included (DtrN). This preserved Noths fundamental contention that the Deuteronomistic History is a unified work while maintaining that the work is the result of continuous activity by that school, which worked at the basic material and brought out more explicitly certain emphases. However, the issues raised by Smend and Jespen are predicated on the presupposition of an ongoing conflict and dispute between two schools of thought in ancient Israel the prophetic school versus the legalitistic/cultic school.14 Similarly, the inconsistencies as to what defines the DH in each ones understanding (i.e. is the covenant as listed in Joshua 23 or the covenant as listed in Joshua 24 the original historical record, and the other an later exilic addition, or vice-versa etc.) Following in their footsteps, Thomas Rmer presents a novel approach about the composition of the DH in his work The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, arguing for what are
13

Jones, Kings, 1:34. Nelson, p. 20.

14

essentially three stages of redaction beginning with the time of Josiah and the exile, but lengthening the process of redaction to the Persian era.15 His understanding is essentially a layer model that traces successive redactional stages as strata through the whole text. As such it is similar to the Gttingen schools layer model of two topically oriented DtrN and DtrP strata overlaying an exilic DtrH base text [yet] shares with the rival block model the understanding that such redactional stages can be coordinated with and understood on the basis of definite watershed moments in history. For Rmer, however, those three decisive periods are the reform of Josiah, the exile, and the Persian era.16 Unlike the American school (Cross, Nelson), Rmer does not believe that Deuteronomy existed at the time of Josiah; at best, there was a library of individual scrolls a proto-Deuteronomy, as it were. Additionally, he argues that there was no theological necessity to engage in the writing of the DH to justify Josiahs reign (only the exile created the need), and reduces the finding of the book in 2 Kings 22-23 as a foundation myth, with parallels in Persian annals. In summary, at present times, modern scholarship is divided regarding the DH in general, and the composition of the book of Kings in particular. A short summary of the outstanding issues that remain to be dealt with include: the time of the original composition of the bulk of the DH (Josiah? Hezekiah? the exile?); whether the redactions followed a block or layer model; identifying the initial historical situation that triggered the composition of the DH, as well as the triggering events or historical situations that led to additional layers (or blocks); the dating of the (often competing) ideologies within the DH; and finally, when did the DH split from being understood as an organic whole to the individual units and books?17 Additionally, others have expressed concerns over pan-Deuteronomism a perceived tendency to associate the Deuteronomistic school with all of the Hebrew Bible.18

15

This identification of redaction activity in the Persian period, based on linguistic and text critical evidence, has also been noted by Rof and Person Jr. Raymond R. Person, Jr., The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature, Society of Biblical Literature #2, Atlanta, p. 23, 31-63.
16

Remarks by Nelson, Richard, In Conversation With Thomas Rmer: The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, available online at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_119.pdf.
17

This catalogue is partially derived from the remarks of Richard Nelson above regarding Rmer, online at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_119.pdf.
18

Person Jr., p. 13-16.

C. Regnal Formulae as Redactional Indicators

If the larger issues remain unresolved, one method that can be suggested to identify layers of the redaction of the text is the careful analysis of the regnal formulae that bracket the reign of each monarch. These formulae are more than simple technical listings containing details of the kings ascension, personal biographical information, description of the kings death, burial and successor, and providing additional sources used to document information about the kings reign; the formulae provide an evaluation of the kings moral character and leadership in the spiritual realm, whether positive or negative. As the DH is more than history, but an attempt to describe history within the guidelines of the Deuteronomistic theology,19 the regnal formula is one of the DHs primary tactics to evaluate the kings faithfulness and loyalty to this program. As such, the identification of variant wordings and the discovery of underlying patterns may help to identify the various levels of redaction within Kings.20 The first scholar to argue that variations within the regnal formulae demonstrated different redactional layers was Nelson.21 He built among the insights of Cross, who argued that reading the last chapters of Kings reveals a change in the structure of the history. Unlike the previous chapters, the concluding sections of Kings do not contain the sermon or narratorial comment on the significant historical events (there is a notable absence of a comment on the fall of Judah similar to the one offered for the fall of Samaria in 2 Kings 17). Building on this, Cross noted that the one prophet who appears is not mentioned by name, nor are any identifying specifics given for the

19

Noth, p. 89-99.

20

Recently, Amos Frisch has attempted to demonstrate that several of the comparisons within the formulae (specifically to David) reflect underlying literary parallels between the David narratives and the king compared to him. See Amos Frisch, Comparison with David as a Means of Evaluating Character in the Book of Kings, available online at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_154.pdf.
21

The first scholar to pay attention to the regnal formulae was Shoshana Bin-Nun, Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah, VT 18 (1968), p. 414-32. However, as she attributed the variations to their derivation from the differently styled lists of the kingdoms and regarding the synchronisms as later additions, she did not analyze the formulas. Recently, Scott Booth has analyzed the regnal formulae using Corpus Linguistics and comparisons with Assyrian and Babylonian formulae to differentiate between the formulae. However, as he does not view minor variations as significant, he only isolates the closing formulae of Solomon and Amaziah as meaningful. SOURCE.

prophecy, unlike the historians earlier practice. As such, he argued that the hand of a second editor is visible.22 Nelson developed this idea further, demonstrating that the regnal formulae for the last four kings of Judah also show a change of style, becoming more stereotyped and rigid than the historian's own formulae. After demonstrating that the formulae throughout Kings contain a fascinating diversity within an overall variety of expression, 23 and comparing the formulae of the Judean kings to snowflakes the basic structures and the constituent elements are always the same, but no two are alike,24 he notes upon turning to the final four kings of Judah (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah), the careful reader will be struck by the rigid, rubberstamp adherence to formula of the historian.25 All four kings receive the same verdict and he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh according to all his fathers had done. [The only variation is Zedekiah, where the name Jehoiakim is substituted for his fathers.] Additionally, the formulae are noticeably shorter than other Judean kings, where the historian supplemented the phrasing with examples. As such, Nelson argues that the most likely explanation for this stylistic shift is that we have here the woodenly imitative work of some supplementary editor, not the creative and free variation of the original author.26 Another and more innovative approach towards the usage of the formulae in identifying the redactional layers of Kings comes from Antony Campbell.27 He notes that in 1972, Helga Weippert was able to isolate several consistent patterns within the variations of the formulae,28 however, she did not correlate those patterns with the text. As such, she didnt notice that the first pattern
22

F. M. Cross, The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, 1973), p. 274-89.
23

Nelson, p. 32.

24

ibid., p. 34. Afterwards I found that Mark OBrien located the identification of these four kings as a distinct and separate unit in Weippert, p. 333-34. O Brien, The Deuteronomistic History as a Story of Israels Leaders, Australian Biblical review, 37: 1989, p. 33, footnote 44.
25

Ibid., p. 38. Ibid.

26

27

Originally presented in his monograph Of Prophets and Kings, and then jointly with Mark OBrien in their work Unfolding the Deueteronomistic History.
28

Helga Weippert, Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbucher, Bib 53 (1972), 301-39.

occurred in the middle of a series, from Jehu to the end of the kings of Israel. With the kings of Israel from Jereboam to the final members of the house of Ahab, the primary phrase for evildoing is
to walk in the way of X . However, from Jehu onwards, the phrase for evildoing

changes to did not depart from . Similarly, the phrases in his sin - and that he angered \do not appear in the list from Jehu onwards.29 From this, Campbell postulated that the narratives of Jehu and the subsequent kings reflected an earlier text, a Prophetic Record (PR), which was later added to the book of Kings. He noted parallels between the Jehu narrative and the earlier prophetic appointments of Saul and David, as well as Jereboam. These are the only kings who are appointed by prophets (hence the designation as the PR), and the literary parallels between the accounts (both in their anointing and, in the case of Jereboam and Saul, their dismissals) suggest to Campbell an earlier kernel of text around which Kings is based. 30 This explains why the Jehu dynasty (and the kings that followed it) received notably milder verdicts and judgments within the formulae. In summary, the varying regnal formulae provide not only Kings evaluation on the effect of the particulars monarchs rule, but clearly organized them into larger groups (as demonstrated by the tables in the appendix), demonstrating internal literary links that allude to earlier texts and have been edited and redacted into a larger whole. Clearly, the final kings of Judah demonstrate a separate, later redaction, and the variations between the Jehu dynasty in Israel and the kings that came before him suggest that the Jehu texts come from a separate, possibly earlier source. What needs to be ascertained and studied further is the correlation, should it exist, between these groups, and whether they can provide enough data to demonstrate the redactional history of Kings throughout its phases.

29

Campbell provides a much expanded analysis of these phrases and their parallels within the DH that is beyond the scope of this summary. Of Prophets and Kings, p. 152-202.
30

Campbell, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History, p. 25-32.

D. Appendix The Regnal Formulae in Kings

THE TABLE OF FORMULAE FOR THE KINGS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH (excluding the final four kings): 9 8
X X X X X X

7
X X X X X X

4
X X X X X X

2
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

XC XC XA XA

X X X X X X X X

XA

XB X X X XA X X X XB XB XA XA XA XA XA

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

:TABLE KEY
11 8 8 8 6 7 9 1 " 26 71 11 1. \ ... 2. - 3. A B C ( ...) 4. ... 5. 6. 7. 8. \ 9.

8 5 1 2 8

2 2 1 7 2

11 11 11 7 2 2

:LISTING OF FORMULAE BY KING

- - - - : - - - - : - - : : - : - - - : - : : - - - : - - : : - - ( ) [ ] - - : - : - - - - : : - - : - - : - - - : " : - : - - - - : : - - - - : - - - : - - - - : - : : - - - - : - - - - : - - - - : : - - - : : - - : - - - - - : - - : - - - : :


: : - - - : : - - - - : - -- : - - - : - - - - : : - - : - : " : - - : - : : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - - : : - - - : - : : - : - - - - - - - - : - - : : : - - : - : - - : - : : - - - : - : : - - : : - - - - - - - - : - : - : : - : - :

E. Bibliography Campbell, Antony F. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 17. Campbell, A. and OBrien, Mark. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text, Fortress Press: Minneapolis. Clements, Ronald E. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). Cross, F. M. The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History, (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, 1973). Linville, James R. Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity, JSOT Supplement 272 Nelson, Richard. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic Theory, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991). Nelson, R. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling, JSOT (2005) 29:319. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.; JSOT Supplement 41; Shefeld: JSOT Press, 1981). OBrien, Mark. The Deuteronomistic History as a Story of Israels Leaders, Australian Biblical Review, 37: 1989. Person, Raymond R., Jr. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature, Society of Biblical Literature #2, Atlanta