1
The Theology of the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings)
1. Deuteronomistic History
Definition
The Deuteronomistic History is the historical work comprised of the books from
Deuteronomy to 2 Kings.
Origin of the Term
In 1670 Spinoza recognized distinctive connections between Deuteronomy and Joshua2 Kings. De Wette saw Joshua as “Deuteronomic” in style and theology and saw
Deuteronomy as more closely linked with Joshua than with the Tetrateuch. In the late
19th century critical scholars, recognizing this link, began to speak of the Hexateuch.
In 1943 Martin Noth coined the term Deuteronomistic History, proposing that
Deuteronomy-2 Kings was a single literary complex. He sees great historical collections
in the Hebrew Bible: the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler’s
History.
The Rationale Behind the Term
Noth argued that Deuteronomy-2 Kings was composed by an editor or writer, the
Deuteronomistic Historian (often denoted by the abbreviation Dtr), who drew upon
and moulded an extensive collection of older source material to produce a work that
had a particular theology and purpose. Noth rejected the hypothesis that each of the
books from Joshua to 2 Kings originated as individual units that were brought to their
present state by multiple Deuteronomic redactions. He maintained that the history
involved in Deuteronomy-2 Kings was so unified and the transitions so smooth that the
work as a totality had to be composed by a single editor or author.
Why had this editor/author subdivided this history into individual books? Noth believed
it was because this editor/author saw this history as made up of five eras:
1. The Review and Reiteration of the Moses era.
2. The Occupation of Canaan under Joshua.
3. The Period of the Judges.
4. The Rise of the Monarchy under Samuel.
5. The Era of the Monarchy.
Distinguishing Terms
Richter discriminates between terms that concern Deuteronomy and the proposed “Dsource” of the Pentateuch – Deuteronomic and Deuteronomist – and the term used for
the historical material influenced by Deuteronomy – Deuteronomistic.1
Approaches to the Deuteronomistic History
There are two main lines of approach:
1. Historico-critical exegesis: an approach to the text that seeks to identify
sources and redactors.
2. Literary analysis: an approach to the text that views the entirety of the
Deuteronomistic History as a literary and theological piece. Usually proponents
of this approach regard “the quest for sources and redactors as unproductive
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
2
and even deleterious to true interpretation” and sees virtually the entire
Deuteronomistic History as the work of one Deuteronomistic Historian.
Deuteronomistic History as History
Van Seters has compared the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian to the early Greek
historians Herodotus and Thucydides, along with many other historiographic writings of
the ancient Near East. Distinguishing between modern and ancient history-writing, van
Seters sees Israel as a unique civilization within the ancient Near East and,
extravagantly, regards the Deuteronomistic Historian as not merely the first Israelite
historian but indeed the first historian of Western civilization. I say “extravagantly”
because he assumes “history” must be nonpragmatic and nondidactic.2 This not only
eliminates much others would view as historical but constitutes a reductionist
approach to the Deuteronomistic History itself.
Van Seters is opposed to the mainstream historico-exegetical approach to identify
sources and layers of redaction:
A history is not merely the sum of its parts, and to analyse a history by taking it apart
in order to discern the original functions of the various elements will never yield the
meaning of the whole.3
Halpern, however, while also emphasizing the form and function of the
Deuteronomistic History as ancient history writing marries this with a fresh
endorsement of Noth’s basic approach.
The Nature and Content of the Deuteronomistic History
Joshua-2 Kings, viewed as a whole, begins and ends in a corresponding manner. That
is, Joshua is concerned with Israel’s possession of the land of Canaan and 2 Kings ends
with first the land of the Northern Kingdom being lost to the Assyrians and then the
land of the Southern Kingdom being lost to the Babylonians.
Noth pioneered the view that the Deuteronomistic History was written to explain how
Israel’s sins led to the catastrophe of exile and saw this as the ideology which gave
coherence of thought to the work. Von Rad found Noth’s portrayal of the unifying note
of retribution too unbalanced, failing to factor in the historian’s emphasis on the
Davidic covenant and along with this the equally powerful messages of hope and
grace. Indeed, the historian’s chosen conclusion to the epic work – the release of
Jehoiachin from a Babylonian prison (2 Ki 25:27-30) – aims at keeping the Davidic hope
alive. Wolff concurred, though seeing this closure not as an explicit hope but allowing
for the possibility of hope in repentance, while also noting texts in the
Deuteronomistic history which anticipate such a possibility in their concern with
Israel’s return and Yahweh’s mercy.
These books comprise a theological history, being concerned to explain the
development and ultimate failure of Israel as an independent political entity in the
land of Canaan as tied up with Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh:
The history’s overarching agenda is to explain Israel’s covenant relationship with God,
and how the failure of this relationship eventually leads to the nation’s demise at the
hands of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE (Richter, 220).
Cross pointed out that it was Noth’s negative view of the purpose of the
Deuteronomistic History that caused him to assume that such positive components as
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
3
Nathan’s prophecy (2 Sam 7:1-7) and David’s speech (2 Sam 7:18-29) were not
Deuteronomistic. Clearly Cross is quite right, following McCarthy against Noth, to insist
that 2 Samuel 7 be treated not only as a legitimate part of the core materials of the
Deuteronomistic History, but, indeed, as essential to it as the transitional speeches of
Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 23. As Cross contended the texts concerning the Davidic
covenant emphasise God’s promise of a never-ending kingdom and thereby bring a
theme of grace to the Deuteronomistic History.
Cross argues that the two great themes of the Deuteronomistic History are:
1. The sin of Jeroboam I and its consequences.
2. The faithfulness of David and its consequences.
According to Cross, it is this underlying agenda that explains why the bulls of Bethel
and Dan are juxtaposed with the ark and the Jerusalem temple and why the summary
speech concerning the removal of Samaria, the Northern Kingdom (2 Ki 17) contrasts
with the reform of Josiah (2 Ki 22).
Sources for and Redactions of the Deuteronomistic History
According to Noth this source material was made up of the following sources:
1. The Deuteronomic Law. Richter (228) strongly supports Noth here.4
2. Joshua 1-12.
3. Two collections of stories, one regarding various tribal heroes, the other
regarding “minor” judges.
4. An extensive collection of Saul-David traditions.
5. The historiographic texts cited throughout the books of Kings:
a. “The Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.”
b. “The Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.”
c. “The Books of the Acts of Solomon.”
Since Noth other scholars have argued that the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian
was itself was subjected to further redactions to produce the final form of
Deuteronomy-2 Kings. There are two main schools of thought here:
1. The Harvard School hypothesis (initiated by Cross). This proposes a pre- and a
postexilic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. The pre-exilic redaction
dates to the days of Josiah and the remainder is adjudged to be an early exilic
redaction, updating the main body of the Deuteronomistic History to make it
more applicable to an exilic audience.
2. The Göttingen School hypothesis (initiated by Smend Jr.). This proposes three
postexilic redactions to the Deuteronomistic History.
The Harvard School
Cross believed that the first composer of the Deuteronomistic History, Dtr1, had no
inkling of the catastrophe that was to befall the Davidic kingdom and so presented
Josiah’s reforms as the climax to the initial history. So Dtr1 was designed as a
propaganda document for the Josianic reform somewhere between 621 and 609 BCE.5
Favourable to this reading is the disproportionate stress placed on the righteousness of
Josiah. Cross next argued that following the exile (c. 550 BCE), another redactor, Dtr2,
updated the work and reshaped the history, with minimal reworking, to make it
“relevant to exiles for whom the bright expectations of the Josianic era were
hopelessly past.”6 In particular, this updated version now attributed the fall of
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
4
Jerusalem to Manasseh’s wickedness which had canceled out the virtues displayed by
Josiah in his reforms.7 Cross maintained that Dtr2 was responsible for the subtheme of
inevitable rejection interspersed throughout the final form of the Deuteronomistic
History.
Cross’ demarcation between Dtr1 and Dtr2 presupposes that these redactors had
differing assessments of the Davidic covenant: Dtr1 treating it as unconditional and
Dtr2 as now conditional. But Nelson and Halpern have rightly pointed out that the preexilic Davidic covenant was itself both conditional and unconditional.
The Göttingen School
Smend adopts Noth’s Deuteronomistic Historian whom he calls DtrG and later DtrH.
DtrH is responsible for the core history which was compiled in the early exilic period.
But later on, DtrN (the “N” stands for “nomistic”), being more law-oriented, edited
the work to introduce two themes important to him, namely the law and foreign
peoples remaining in the land.8 According to Smend, DtrN believed “obedience to the
law was crucial to the successful conquest of the land, and… the ongoing presence of
foreign peoples within the land demonstrated that the law had not been observed”.9
Later Smend speculated that DtrN may also have been responsible for the insertion of
Deuteronomy 4-30 into the Deuteronomistic History.
Smend’s student Dietrich, believing DtrN was the last of three redactors, proposed
that a second redactor, DtrP (the “P” stands for “prophecy”) augmented the core
history with a significant number of prophetic narratives and oracles. Dietrich
maintained that the prophecy/fulfillment schema within the Deuteronomistic History
was due to DtrP’s hand.10 But the argumentation here is highly dubious especially
given that the theology, language and ideology of the supposed DtrH and DtrP
contributions are extremely similar.
Serving to reinforce the Göttingen School hypothesis Smend’s student Veijola
understands the differences between the three redactors as follows:
1. DtrH: pro-David and promonarchy.
2. DtrP: generally antimonarchy.
3. DtrN: pro-David but generally anti-monarchy.
McConville (84) dismisses Veijola’s theory as fanciful, and illustrative of an approach
that “produces improbabilities at the level of detailed interpretation” and involving a
“tendency to produce false distinctions”. He finds both Cross and Smend to have “an
inadequate understanding of the subtle ironies of the literature” so that “ideas that
seem to be in tension with each other are parcelled out to different propagandists”
(84-85).
The notion that numerous redactions were involved in producing the Deuteronomistic
History has also been argued by scholars such as Weinfeld and Nicholson who speak of
a “school” or “circle” of Deuteronomists responsible for such editorial work during the
period from Hezekiah to the early exile. They take the view that this Deuteronomistic
school was committed to propaganda, promoting the centralization of the cult in
Jerusalem.
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
5
Depending on what view of redaction is taken then there will be accompanying
hypotheses concerning the place or places of composition. Most still prefer Palestine
as the main place of composition, though Nicholson and Soggin argue for Babylonia
(Klein, xxix).
Of course, all arguments that involve identifying different redactions necessarily must
seek their justification in an appeal to textual features. So, for example, Halpern and
Vanderhooft make much of the so-called “skeletal formulary” around which the books
of Kings have been constructed, namely formulae involving the evaluation of the king,
his death and burial, the naming of the queen mother, and so on. They see this as
indicating that a shift in the authorship of the Deuteronomistic History took place
during Hezekiah’s reign – a Hezekian redaction (first proposed by Weippert).
Person comments on the fundamental problem that faces all who seek to discriminate
different redactions:
The problem lies in the inability of redaction criticism to distinguish one Deuteronomic
redactor from another Deuteronomic redactor, since all Deuteronomic redactors use
similar Deuteronomic language and themes!11
There has been a growing tendency in recent times, as illustrated by Westermann and
McConville12, to treat the Deuteronomistic History as a somewhat loosely edited corpus
and to emphasise the distinct books within this corpus as independent works.
Since the entire attempt to identify redactions is highly speculative there is seemingly
no end to the speculative theories advanced concerning redactional processes. Some
recent examples include13:
1. Minimalists: Van Seters contends there were no earlier sources prior to the
Deuteronomist and that he invented all his materials.14
2. Knauf: the independent books within the so-called Deuteronomistic History are
themselves the result of “fundamentally unrelated exilic and postexilic
redactions” (Knoppers).
3. Auld: a Q-type source was shared by both Kings and Chronicles and this
influenced the theology of Deuteronomy, not vice versa.
4. The “block model”: larger segments of the so-called Deuteronomistic History,
incorporating separately authored books, were redacted late in the editorial
process.
5. There is no such thing as a Deuteronomistic History and no editorial coherence
to the work.
6. The “pan-Deuteronomic” trend: “the concept of Deuteronomism has become so
amorphous that it no longer has any analytical precision and ought to be
abandoned” (R. Wilson).
Richter (227) concludes that Deuteronomistic studies are currently characterized by
confusion and he attributes this to
an overly optimistic opinion of who much redactional activity might be isolated within
a finished piece, augmented by the atomistic tendencies that seem to be inherent to
the critical methodologies of OT exegesis.
This is coupled with a lack of respect for the ancient historian, assuming he “would be
incapable of maintaining a complex perspective on the subject matter, or unable to
hold conflicting views in tension” (Richter, 227-228). Similarly, McConville observes in
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
6
responding to Smend: “the explanation of the theological poles of the discourse as
rival points of view enshrined in successive redactions precludes the recognition of
theological profundity” (83).
As noted above, the books of Kings explicitly record the use of sources. In principle
there can be no objection to the idea that sources were used in the composition of the
Deuteronomistic History (cf. Luke 1:1-4), though some like van Seters, have adopted a
minimalist view. However, even if we acknowledge the use of such sources it remains
a matter of debate whether it is possible to identify retrospectively any of those
sources and, if it is possible, whether it is possible to discriminate clearly between
them. Such uncertainties have not deterred critical scholars.
Take the matter of discriminating between pre-exilic and postexilic material. For
example, McConville argues that the stories of Elijah and Elisha (1 Ki 17-2 Ki 9) “do not
fit immediately into an exilic purpose to explain theologically the fall of Jerusalem”
(68). He believes they fit best with a Sitz im Leben in a period “when prophecy was
young in Israel and when the pressing issue was the survival of Yahwish in the face of
strong competition from the religion of Baal”. But this attempt to identify this
material as pre-exilic relies on questionable and highly subjective assumptions. Do we
not also see in the Elijah-Elisha narratives the outworking of the truth that there is
“an Israel within Israel”; that God keeps a remnant for himself even with the nation as
a whole is apostate? To the extent this is so does this not in fact fit very well with an
exilic perspective, sounding a note of hope for the future? Further, even if we can
agree that particular textual material is pre-exilic does this necessarily mean that it
involves a pre-exilic perspective?
The highly subjective nature of assumptions underlying identification of different
sources is well illustrated by one of Cross’ major reasons for discriminating between
two editions of the Deuteronomistic History. That is, because of his blindness to the
use of irony in 2 Kings 23:25-27 Cross drew the conclusion that verse 25, which hails
Josiah as the greatest of the Davidic kings, is incompatible with verses 26-27, which
justifies God’s removal of Judah and rejection of Jerusalem and the temple as due to
the sins of Josiah’s predecessor, Manasseh.15 As Hoffmann has shown, the Manasseh
account is of major importance, forming a link backwards with an allusion to Ahab (2
Ki 21:3) and forwards to Josiah, for whom Hezekiah has already served as a prototype,
including the ominous visit of the Babylonian emissaries (2 Ki 20). There is throughout
the work an “increasing momentum of the ‘pendulum-swings’ from” positive to
negative cult reform, signaling that the finale is near, so as to demonstrate that “the
‘success’ of Josiah is part of a story that is ultimately one of failure”.16
Another illustration of the subjectivity involved in source-identification is provided by
Provan’s dubious analysis of the treatment of “high places” in the Deuteronomistic
History. This leads him to discriminate between texts before Hezekiah, which he
thinks are concerned only with the need for centralization, and texts after Hezekiah in
which hostility to idolatry is prominent. As McConville (81-82) observes, Provan’s
interpretation of individual texts is open to challenge and his attempt to drive a
wedge between Hezekiah and Josiah is unconvincing.
The Unity of the Deuteronomistic History
Noth identified the following features as pointing to Joshua-2 Kings as a unified work:
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
7
1. The repetition of similar phraseology.
2. The prophecy/fulfillment schema of the history.
3. The strategic appearance and function of unifying speeches and narratives by
the leading characters.
4. The integrated and stylized chronology.
5. The overarching Deuteronomic ideology.
6. The singularity of thesis is “the great unifying factor in the course of events”,
namely the historian’s perception of “a just divine retribution in the history of
the people”:
The meaning which he discovered was that God was recognizably at work in
this history, continuously meeting the accelerating moral decline with warnings
and punishments and, finally, when these proved fruitless, with total
annihilation (Noth, cited by Richter, 222).
The unity of the Deuteronomistic History is also obviously indicated by the way Joshua2 Kings reads as a connected story.
The Continuing Storyline
McConville sees this expressed “at the ‘joints’ between the books” (73):
1. Deuteronomy prepares for the post-Mosaic era by introducing Joshua as the
new leader (Deut 31:1-8; 34) and this is recalled at the very commencement of
the book of Joshua (1:1-9), including reference to the foundational importance
for Joshua of the “Book of the Law”, presumably Deuteronomy (Josh 1:8).
Compare also Joshua 8:30-35 with the ceremonies commanded in Deuteronomy
27. Deuteronomy promises and commands Israel to possess the land and Joshua
relates how this was realized.
2. Judges opens with an allusion to the death of Joshua and develops further the
story of the conquest. The refrain “In those days Israel had no king; everyone
did as he saw fit” prepares for the story of the origin of kingship in 1 Samuel.
3. David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan at the beginning of 2 Samuel (1:7-27)
forges close links with 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel advances the theme of kingship
still further, especially with the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7.
4. The book of 1 Kings flows naturally on, culminating the story of David and his
sons, with now Solomon placed securely on the throne.
5. The Babylonian exile is anticipated in 1 & 2 Kings (Hoffmann & Hobbs).17
Other Points of Connection Illustrating the Unity of the Work18
This includes the following:
1. The promise-fulfillment schema:
a. Deuteronomy’s promise of land fulfilled in Joshua.
b. The promise of “rest from enemies” associated with finding the place
Yahweh would choose for his worship (Deut 12:5-11) and fulfilled when
David completely subdued the land (2 Sam 7:1), when Jerusalem was
established as the proper place of worship due to the ark being located
there (2 Sam 6) and when Solomon was free to build the temple because
of the prosperity and peace granted to him (2 Ki 5-8).
2. Joshua’s covenant with the Gibeonites (Josh 9) is recalled in 2 Samuel 21:1-6,
an implicit violation of Deuteronomy 7:2.
3. The covenantal language of the major speeches, identifiably Deuteronomic.
4. Various theological ideas:
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
8
a. Israel’s possession of the land and the conditions on which this can be
realized and maintained.
i. In Judges “the land is held intermittently and in varying degrees
according to the faithfulness of Israel to Yahweh” (McConville,
76).
ii. In 2 Kings the land is lost due to idolatry, the most heinous sin
(Deut 7:1-5; 13; cf. 1 Ki 11:1-10).
b. Leadership.
i. The understanding of God as Israel’s king (Deut 33:5) requires
that any human king in Israel be subject to God’s law and act as
a “brother” (Deut 17:14-20).
ii. In Judges Gideon refuses to accept the title of king (Judg 8:2223).
iii. The demand for a king in 2 Samuel 8 is met with Samuel’s anger,
with warnings about the danger of the kind of royal tyranny
spoken against in Deuteronomy.
c. Covenant. Kingship becomes incorporated into the covenantal theology
of Israel, with 1 Kings 2:2-4 making it clear that the David covenant (2
Samuel 7) is to be understood along Deuteronomic lines.
The Deuteronomic History and the Influence of Deuteronomy
Noth identified the Deuteronomic Law as the “first large-scale complex of tradition”
employed by the Deuteronomistic Historian, namely Deuteronomy 4:44-30:20 (minus
additions) and Deuteronomy 1-3, with possibly some parts of Deuteronomy 4.
He also saw Deuteronomy 31-34 as an original composition used by the historian to
enable the transition to Joshua.
Noth believed that it was the theology of Deuteronomy that dictated the historian’s
entire treatment of Israel’s history. Noth saw key speeches, at important historical
junctions in the Deuteronomistic History, as following the pattern set by Moses’
opening speech in Deuteronomy19:
1. Joshua’s monologues (Josh1:11-15; 23:2-30) initiating and concluding the era of
the settlement.
2. Samuel’s speech (1 Sam 12:1-24) effecting the movement from the era of the
judges to the monarchy.
3. Solomon’s prayer (1 Ki 8:12-51) summarizing the era of the united monarchy,
introducing the temple era and foreshadowing the divided monarchy.
Cross made much of the absence of Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam 7:1-17) and David’s speech
(2 Sam 7:18-29). Noth attributed these particular speeches to sources other than the
Deuteronomistic Historian. For example, he found it inconceivable to think of Nathan’s
speech as Deuteronomistic because of the way it prohibited temple-building and
stressed so strongly the value of the monarchy.
Noth saw the three speeches he had singled out as all concerned with looking forward
and backward in an effort to interpret the course of events and to draw relevant
practical conclusions about what the people should do. He saw instances of the
narrator’s own reflections as accomplishing the same purpose:
1. The summary of the conquest battles (Josh 12).
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
9
2. The discussion of Israel’s sin and its consequences in the era of the judges
(Judg 2:11-23).
3. The explanation of the Northern Kingdom’s demise (2 Ki 17:7-18, 20-23).
Noth found this historian’s use of such retrospective and anticipatory insertions as
unparalleled in the ancient Near East. Later van Seters has found this exact method
also used by Herodotus and Thucydides.
Richter (226-227) challenges the view that the Deuteronomistic History involves a
“near-material presence of the deity”, which serves as the “deuteronomistic
correction” to the perspective of the JE source(s), namely of “the anthropomorphic
and immanent presence of the deity”. The so-called “Name Theology” that underlies
this contested approach posits a three-stage immanence to transcendence evolution
concerning the mode of divine presence at the cult site: (1) the JE immanence
perspective; (2) the near-material perspective of the Deuteronomistic History; and (3)
“the abstract, demythologized, and transcendent presence in the P source”. Richter
demonstrates that at the heart of such Name Theology lies a fundamental misreading
of the key Deuteronomic phrase lĕšakkēn šĕmô šām which is synonymous with the
following expression in the Deuteronomistic History: lāśûm šĕmô šām (1 Ki 9:3; 11:36;
14:21: 2 Ki 21:4, 7). The Deuteronomic phrase is usually rendered “[the place where
Yahweh] will cause his name to dwell”. But Richter has demonstrated that this phrase
is a loan-adaptation of a cognate Akkadian phrase Akk šuma šakānu, which means to
place one’s inscription on a monument or to install an inscribed monument.
Consequently, lĕšakkēn šĕmô šām should actually be rendered “[the place where
Yahweh] will place his name”, with Yahweh’s “name” being here associated with an
inscribed monument, not a semi-hypostatic presence.
1
S.L. Richter, “Deuteronomistic History” in Dictionary of Old Testament Historical Books (eds. Bill T.
Arnold & H.G.M. Williamson; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity
Press, 2005) 220.
2
Yamauchi observes that van Seters bases much on his definition of history taken from Huizinga: “History
is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.” As Yamauchi notes,
van Seters applies this definition in an arbitrary and narrow way to designate national history, with the
assumptions I’ve noted in the main body of the text. See Edwin Yamauchi, “The Current State of Old
Testament Historiography” in Faith, Tradition, and History. Old Testament Historiography in Its Near
Eastern Context (eds. A.R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier & David W. Baker; Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1994) 2.
3
Cited by Richter, 226.
4
However, he questionably follows Mendenhall in seeing the literary form of the book of Deuteronomy as
reflective of ancient vassal treaties.
5
See Klein, xxix.
6
Cited by Richter, 223.
7
See Klein, xxix. Klein dissents, seeing the critique of Manasseh as not “different in kind from the
historian’s use of Jeroboam as a whipping boy in the North.” Klein refers to his Israel in Exile in which he
“argued that Rehoboam and Manasseh were singled out for theological critique in the South just as
Jeroboam and Ahab were for the North.”
8
Veijola identified DtrN in 1 Samuel 7:2ab; 3-4; 8:6-22a; 10:18abg-19a; 12:1-25; and 13:13-14.
9
As summarized by Richter, 224.
10
Veijola identified DtrP in 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 15:1-35; and 28:17-19a.
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008
10
11
Cited by Richter, 227.
However, McConville recognizes that the original fragments from which Joshua-2 Kings was presumably
composed “cannot easily be equated with the books into which the material has been divided since
ancient times, for while Joshua and 1, 2 Samuel relate to relatively short periods, Judges and 1, 2
Kingsclearly do not”. See J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End. A Study in Deuteronomic Theology
(Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology; eds. Willem VanGemeren & Tremper Longman III; Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998) 67.
13
Most of these are presented by Richter, 227.
14
See Yamauchi, 5.
15
See McConville, 80.
16
McConville, 86-87.
17
McConville, 85.
18
See especially McConville, 74ff.
19
Richter (228) sees transitional speeches as a major literary device serving to structure the
Deuteronomistic History.
12
Michael K. Wilson
www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au
July 2008