06 The Deuteronomistic History - Faulkner University - Home

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
I. INTRODUCTION.
A. Scholars have focused on two major areas of text in their study of the historical
books.
1. Judges-2 Kgs, written by the “Deuteronomist,” and is designated the
“Deuteronomistic History”
2. 1 and 2 Chronicles/Ezra/Nehemiah, written by the “Chronicler,” and called
the “Chronicler’s Work.”
3. These have been discussed in terms of major themes, theologies, etc., and
furnish the historical basis for a study of Israel's history.
B. We will proceed with the “Deuteronomist History” first;;ater in this course we
will study "The Chronicler."
II. BACKGROUND.
A. Wellhausen argued:
1. The historical books could not be interpreted in light of the law, but
pointed to a late development of it
2. The Hexateuch comprised four major sources (JEDP).
3. Each age interpreted its traditions about its past in different ways
a. E.g., Israel viewed its history one way in the 9th century and
th
another way in the 4th and 5 .
b. Like the Hexateuch with its different sources reflecting different
cultic and social institutions, so the historical books reflected
material from different ages of religious development.
4. Having surveyed the historical books Wellhausen focused on 1 and 2
Chronicles and attempted to show the relationship between the two
historical works.
1

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
1
Ronald E. Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1976), 33.
2Clements,
One Hundred Years, 33.
a. He argued that Judges-2 Kings served as the basis for the
Chronicler's work, which included 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah.
b. While Judges-2 Kings was dated in the Babylonian Exile and
contained the theological views of that day, the Chronicler’s work
came after the fall of Persia and reflected those theological views.
c. This allowed Wellhausen to show:
. . . 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. 1
5. The way to get at the earlier source material was by identifying and setting
aside this later redactional material.
6. This done “it was clear that a considerable variety of documents had been
used, and this was further borne out by the fact that the books of Kings
refer explicitly to a number of sources which were evidently available in
documentary form.” 2
a. Cf. Josh 10:13: “Book of Jashar”
b. The author of Joshua is citing a source
7. The race was on to trace the sources in the historical books
(Joshua[Judges]-2 Kings) in much the same manner that had been done in
the Pentateuch/Hexateuch.
2

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
B. Karl Budde: “. . . argued that much of the source material [in the Historical
Books] has been drawn from the same J and E sources as are to be found in the
Hexateuch.” 3
1. This meant that JEDP should also be considered as major sources for the
historical books, along with other source material.
2. Budde went beyond Wellhausen, claiming “. . . that the new literary
criticism could solve the problem of the sources of the remaining books of
the Former Prophets (Judges to 2 Kings). Such a view was taken up by
other scholars, notably O. Eissfeldt in a study of the sources of the books
of Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel and from this has obtained a wide currency
in the study of the Old Testament.” 4
3. The results of such attempts to locate sources in the historical books, have
been so illusive in that scholarship has failed “. . . to reach a conclusion
that has been as generally convincing to scholarship as was the case with
the Hexateuch. It is only an assumption that the J and E documents can be
traced in these other books, since it has not been possible to establish
positive arguments in favour of such identification.” 5
C. Gressmann refined Gunkel’s methods.
1. He argued that scholars would have greater success if they would focus on
the individual narratives themselves.
2. This adaptation of Gunkel’s Gattungsgeschichtliche method in
Pentateuchal criticism, produced new questions regarding Israel's
conquest, to which Alt made a major contribution.
D. Albrecht Alt focused on the discrepancy between Joshua and Judges-1 Samuel in
regard to Israel’s settlement in Canaan.
1. The problem:
3
Clements, One Hundred Years, 34.
4Clements,
One Hundred Years, 34.
5Clements,
One Hundred Years, 35.
3

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
6Clements,
One Hundred Years, 37.
a. Joshua records Israel’s “lightning like” conquest of certain major
areas, Josh 10:29-13:1
b. But Judges-1 Samuel indicate that the people had to share the land
with various other people for some time, Judg 1:27-2:5.
c. Several scholars attacked this problem, including C. F. Burney, J.
Garstang, H. H. Rowley, etc.
d. (None of these scholars ever raised the problem of definition in
regard to the terms “conquest” and “migration.” E.g., was the
“settling” of this country, which involved the displacement of the
American Indian, a conquest or a migration?)
2. Alt employed a “historico-geographical” method in which geographical
features (climate and topography) are used to “establish a given range of
possibilities for the economy and communications of a region,” with the
result that this information “can provide invaluable evidence regarding the
background of events.” 6
3. He “. . . argued that the monarchy arose in Israel as a dual institution,
binding together in the person of the one Davidic king the two kingdoms
of Israel and Judah. These had originally existed as separate tribal
associations, and reverted to this separateness under Rehoboam.”
4. In 1925, using new archaeological data, Alt refined his theory:
. . . small Canaanite city-states, under Egyptian hegemony, with other
population elements spread throughout the rural areas and partially
controlled by the rulers of the cities. These were of mixed character, and
made up largely of sheep-farming, bedouin, who moved their pastures
with the changing seasons. The evidence showed a steady and prolonged
migration of such people from further east into the settled Palestinian land.
. . . this prolonged settlement of such sheep-farming bedouin in Canaan . . .
came retrospectively to be viewed as a conquest of the land. The event of
the occupation of the land was not a concentrated and planned invasion,
4

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
7
Clements, One Hundred Years, 38.
8
An “amphictyony” may be defined as “an association of neighboring states or tribes in
ancient Greece originally established to defend a common religious center and later developing
into a league with certain legislative and judicial functions”; generally, “any association of
neighboring states banded together for their common protection and interest.”
9Clements,
One Hundred Years, 40.
which could be ascribed to one particular date, but the piecemeal taking
over of thinly inhabited territory. 7
5. Alt was comparing Israel’s early tribal organization to that of Greek and
Italian communities and arguing that just as these early groups existed in
8
amphictyonies, so early tribes of Israel were bound by the common
worship of Yhwh.
E. Research in the historical books had now formed two different areas of study.
1. Alt’s historico-geographical method (as further developed by his student,
Martin Noth) proved to be the foundation of all future discussions.
2. The form critical method of examining the individual narrative units, to
which we now return.
F. Scholars began to notice the connected nature of the various narratives.
1. Wellhausen had pointed to the interconnectedness of the narratives of
intrigue and rebellion in David’s court.
2. L. Rost (1926) designated 2 Samuel 9-20 a “"Succession Narrative,”"
since it told of Solomon's succession to the throne. He argued:
a. This narrative continued to 1 Kings 3.
b. We should recognize in the various narrative segments of this
passage “the overall redactional purpose which they had been made
to serve.” 9
5

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
3. Scholarship began arguing for an interweaving of various documentary
sources along the lines of what they had argued for the Pentateuch.
4. More and more emphasis was being placed on:
a. Individuals
10Clements,
One Hundred Years, 42.
11Clements,
One Hundred Years, 43.
b. How the various narrative units had been put together
c. The theological perspectives of each one.
5. The various historical books were being seen as religious books with
theological purposes.
6. This was the beginning of redactional criticism which set the stage for
Martin Noth and the Deuteronomistic History.
G. Noth built upon Alt’s amphictyony theory and connected it with the new
redactional/traditio-criticism.
1. He “saw a close relationship between Israel’s organization as an
amphictyony and its distinctive traditions of law.” 10
2. The central officer of the tribal union was the law-speaker “who was
responsible for ensuring that the legal and ethical demands of the worship
of...God were accepted by all the member tribes.” 11
3. Out of this tribal union grew specific traditions, all of which reflected the
tribal relationship of mutual obligation to worship the same God.
4. But in none of these traditions, or narrative segments, could be found any
evidence that they once belonged to J or E.
5. Noth was now arguing that no Pentateuchal sources could be found in
Joshua at all.
6

7.
BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
6. In 1943 Noth articulated an alternative to the usual view of Joshua to 2
Kings.
12
Clements, One Hundred Years, 44.
. . . 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. 12
7. This was the culmination of scholarly research that had begun 50 years
before.
III. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS.
a. Noth's hypothesis has been so influential, that nearly all
scholarship has embraced a version of the theory.
b. We need to be even more familiar with it than the Documentary
Hypothesis.
A. General definition: The “Deuteronomist (ic History)” is the title given to the
body of literature from Deut-2 Kings by the OT scholar Martin Noth. In 1943
Noth hypothesized that Deut-2 Kings was written by a single author, living in
Israel during the Exile. This author/editor/compiler made use of earlier oral and
written traditions in order to produce his work. The history was expanded through
secondary additions by later redactors who belonged to a “Deuteronomistic
School.” Noth’s theory disputed an older view which saw the Hexateuch
(Genesis -Judges 1 as a work added to by the Deuteronomist. Further, Noth’s
theory denied any relationship between Genesis-Numbers and the DH. Noth’s
theory has been vigorously defended and rejected, with both sides making
revisions in the theory proper in order to produce a different “version” of the
classical theory. 13
13Richard
N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 2001), 46-
7

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
B. Deuteronomy is perceived as the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History
(DH).
C. The anti-monarchic polemic of Deut 17:14-20 and rise of monarchy where the
people request a king in 1 Sam 8.
D. Jerusalem only as the place of worship (Deut 12:1-14) and Josiah's reform (2 Kgs
22-23).
E. If Moses is the supreme prophet (Deut 18) then:
1. There follows a succession of prophets in his tradition, Elijah and Elisha,
etc.
2. The use of a prediction-and-fulfillment scheme seen through out the work
(2 Sam 7:12-13 and 1 Kgs 8:20; 1 Kgs 11:30-31 and 12:15-16; 1 Kgs
14:7f and 15:27-28; 1 Kgs 16:1-4 and 16:9-14) serves to indicate that
these prophets were prophets like Moses in that their words have been
fulfilled.
3. The phrase “my/his/your servants the prophets” attempts to connect the
succession of prophets as "servants" like the "servant" Moses.
IV. THE CLASSIC THEORY.
14
A. Noth’s theory may be summarized as follows.
1. He described the DH as a unity composed by a single author who had a
15
definite plan, which is evidenced by the following:
14
Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 2d ed. (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957;
3d ed. unaltered, 1967) = The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 15 (1981): 1-153.
15Noth,
The Deuteronomistic History, 6.
8

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
a. “Deut. 1-3 is not the introduction to the Deuteronomic law but the
beginning of the Deuteronomistic historical narrative" which "is
selected to supply the needs of the Dtr.'s work.” 16
b. The Dtr. showed an express interest in chronology and the relating
of events to each other, e.g., 1 Kgs 6:1 and the Exodus.
c. He introduced key speeches at key points (Jos 12; 23; 1 Sam 12; 1
Kgs 8:14ff).
d. In his selection and presentation of the material the historian
allowed the sources to “speak for themselves”:
16
Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 14.
Dtr. had no intention of fabricating the history of the Israelite
people. He wished to present it objectively and base it upon the
material to which he had access. Like and honest broker he began
by taking, in principle, a favourable view of the material in the
traditions. In describing the various historical events he spoke in
his own person only at certain exceptional points, letting the old
traditions speak for themselves. 17
e. Central theological ideas pointed to the unity of the work.
Dtr. did not write his history to provide entertainment in hours of
leisure or to satisfy a curiosity about national history, but intended
it to teach the true meaning of the history of Israel from the
occupation to the destruction of the old order. 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. Dtr., then, perceives a just divine
retribution in the history of the people, though not so much (as yet)
in the fate of the individual. He sees this as the great unifying
factor in the course of events, and speaks of it not in general terms
but in relation to the countless specific details reported in the
17Noth,
The Deuteronimistic History, 84. See also, Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The
Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 30-31.
9

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
18
Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 89.
19
Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 26-74.
20D.
N. Freedman, “Deuternomic History, The.” IDBSupp (1976): 226b.
21Noth,
The Deuteronomistic History, 10.
extant traditions. Thus Dtr. approached his work with a definite
theological conviction. 18
f. The DH is composed of 5 major sections. 19
(1) Section 1: the Dtr provided the original book of
Deuteronomy with an introduction (Deut 1-3 belong to DH;
4:1-40 to PHEd) and various epilogues (27, 29-34) which
deal “with the nature of Israel's relationship to Yahweh,
consistently emphasizing a program of one God, one
people, one cult.” 20
(2) Section 2: Joshua describes the conquest of Canaan, the
fulfillment of the covenantal promises and the themes of
the Exodus and the Conquest anticipated in Judg 5.
(3) Section 3: Judges-1 Sam 7 describe the problems of premonarchic
Israel and provide the most evidence of the Dtr's
theology.
(4) Section 4: 1 Sam 7-1 Kgs 8 records the rise of the
monarchy.
(5) Section 5: 1 Kgs 9-2 Kgs 23:25 records the decline of the
divided monarchy. The Dtr's hand is seen most clearly here
in the evaluation of each king.
(6) In sections other than 3 and 5 this editor incorporated older
material, either in pristine or edited form.
2. Noth’s theory presupposed two things. 21
10

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
22
Gerard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker (New
York: Harper and Row, 1962-65): 1:346ff.
23Gwelyn
H. Jones. 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 1:38.
24Jones,
Kings, 1:38-9.
a. The DH part of a larger primary history (PH) which extends from
Genesis to 2 Kings and which was completed ca. 550 BC.
b. Pentateuchal sources could not be traced beyond Genesis-
Numbers.
B. But scholars have perceived several problems with this theory.
V. SOME OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS:
22
A. Von Rad was not convinced that the same author could have authored Judges
and Kings because these two books represent different methodologies. Jones
summarizes:
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. 23
B. But scholars are divided on this issue.
. . . the cycles in Judges are not the work of the deuteronomistic historian, thus
canceling many of the differences. When a closer analysis of historical patterns is
undertaken, the ones in Judges and Kings are found to be the same (Trompf, VTS
30 [1979], pp. 219-24). Consequently, Nelson (op. cit., p. 14) has not been
impressed by von Rad's attempt to dissolve the deuteronomistic historian; he has
not been convinced either by Weiser’s suggestion (Samuel, pp. 25ff.) that since
the antimonarchical attitude of 1 Samuel is not shared by Deuteronomy or Kings
the complex cannot have originated from the same author. 24
11

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
C. Scholars are also divided relative to the literary analysis of the work.
25
G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: 1970), 194ff; cf. Jones, Kings, 1:39.
26
J. R. Porter, “Old Testament Historiography,” in Tradition and Interpretation, G. W.
Anderson, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 137.
27Jones,
Kings, 1:39-40.
1. They assert that Noth’s view is far to simple.
25
a. Fohrer has argued that the DH is collection of books composed
and produced in different ways, thus rejecting Noth's argument of a
unified historical work.
b. But Porter has argued that this can be accounted for on the basis of
the diverse nature of the material available to the historian. 26
2. Scholars have also seen supposed tensions between the book of
Deuteronomy and the DH: 27
a. “The tension felt between the amphictyonic and Mosaic traditions
of Deuteronomy and the Davidic and Jerusalemite traditions of the
Deuteronomistic History.”
b. “The tension between the deuteronomistic aim of presenting a
theological interpretation of history and the faithfulness of the
deuteronomists in transmitting the material which they had
received.”
c. “Inevitably, the acceptance of this latter principle led to the
inclusion of some material that did not always accord with the
historian’s aim and purpose.”
3. Scholars’ attempts at reconciling these tensions only raised more
problems.
Noth excised such sections and regarded them as latter additions. But it
must be asked whether the bringing out of the dominant theological
interpretation in some sections, and the inclusion of some passages that do
12

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
28
Jones, Kings, 1:40.
not contribute to the main theme, point ultimately to the activity of
different groups or different editors. . . . 28
4. This raises the question of two or more editors, or two or more
redactions. 29
30
D. The single (Noth), double redaction (Richard Nelson), and multiple redaction
(“Deuteronomistic Circle”) theories. 31
1. A single redaction: Noth’s hypothesis and the problems scholars have
found with it have already been noted.
2. A double redaction: two theories
a. A pre-exilic and an exilic redaction:
(1) There are passages in Kings which presuppose the fall of
Jerusalem and the 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). 32
(2) Other passages are totally unaware of the Exile:
(a) The use of the formula “unto this day” would be
inappropriate in some passages if the author had
29
Cf. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longmann, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 122-23.
30
Richard D. Nelson. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 18
(1981): 1-185.
31
R. Smend. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen
Redaktionsgeschichte.” In Probleme Biblischer Theologie, Festschsrift von Rad, pp.494-509.
Edited by H. W. Wolff (Munich, 1971).
32
Many of these passages are interpreted as being post-exilic due to the presupposition that
there is no predictive prophecy. Italicized passages are legitimate. The pertinent question is,
“Why was the passage written?”
13

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
33
Jones, Kings, 1:32-3.
34
Jones, Kings, 1:31. Cf. previous passages to 2 Kgs 25:13.
35
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.
36Jones,
Kings, 1:31-2.
been writing at any time after the disaster of 587
BC.
(b) Cf. Josh 7:26; 1 Kgs 8:8; 10:12; 12:19; 2 Kgs 8:22;
10:27; 16:6; 17:23; 20:17; 21:15
(3) Again some passages take the continuing existence of the
Davidic dynasty for granted, as indeed that of the Jerusalem
Temple.
(4) Sections which Noth claimed were editorial comments
Nelson argues actually belong to an exilic editor. 33
(5) “Thus, it has been argued, a pre-exilic, deuteronomistic
work dated c. 600 BC was reworked and expanded in the
Babylonian exile (so Kuenen, Einleitung I, pp. 88-100; see
also Nelson, Double Redaction, pp. 14ff., for reference to
other forms of the double redaction hypothesis, and cf.
Radjawane, Thr 38 [1974], pp. 177-216).” 34
35
b. Cross modified the double redaction hypothesis.
The first redaction is dated in the reign of Josiah and interpreted as
a piece of propaganda for Josiah’s policies. Around 560 BC the
original work was brought up to date through the insertion of a
number of additions, which changed the theological emphasis of
the work as a whole. 36
(1) There seems to be a change in the structure of the history in
the last chapters of Kings:
14

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
37Jones
Kings, 1:34.
38 2
A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Köingsbücher, Halle, 1956 .
(a) The disappearance of sermon or comment on
significant historical event (e.g, an absence of a
comment on the fall of Judah which is similar to the
one offered for the fall of Samaria).
(b) A change in the prophecy-fulfillment scheme (e.g.,
2 Kgs 21:10-15; 24:2 predicts the punishment of
Manasseh without mentioning the prophet's name).
(2) The original history should be dated in Josiah's time
because Josiah is regarded as the new David (2 Kgs 23:25)
and such a view would be inappropriate in exilic times.
(3) Different theological perspectives evidenced in the work.
(a) The pre-exilic history, written in Josiah’s time,
exhibits two common themes: the sin of Jeroboam
and the promise to David which reached its climax
in Josiah.
(b) The 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.” 37
(c) These differences point to two different editors: preexilic
and exilic.
3. The theory of a Deuteronomic School was proposed because the double
redaction theory was deemed too simple; it did not account for all the
facts.
38
a. Jepsen proposed that the history was the result of gradual growth
worked on by several different people.
(1) There was no theological motive behind this work.
15

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
39
Smend, "Das Gesetz," 494-509.
40Jones,
Kings, 1:43.
41Jones,
Kings, 1:44.
(2) Its only purpose was to contrast the Davidic dynasty with
the northern kingdom.
(3) The basis for this document was the chronicle of 1 Kgs
2:10-2 Kgs 18:8.
(4) Most of this theory has been rejected due to perceived
problems in the supposed “chronicle.”
39
b. Smend refined Jepsen’s theory by proposing three layers of
deuteronomistic tradition:
First of all came the basic historical work (DtrH), then followed a
redaction which introduced prophetical texts (DtrP), and finally,
law-oriented additions were included (DtrN). It is argued that the
three layers were deuteronomistic and that the designation of the
final redaction as nomistic does not preclude DtrH and DtrP from
being called deuteronomistic. 40
c. This theory “succeeds in reconciling the two main methods
adopted by previous researchers, the one represented by Noth and
the other by Jepsen.” 41
(1) Noth’s contention, that the Deuteronomistic History is a
unified work, is preserved in the argument that all three
versions were basically deuteronomistic.
(2) Full recognition is given to the unified ideological outlook
and to the working presuppositions of the deuteronomic
school.
(3) By maintaining that the work is the result of continuous
activity by that school, which worked at the basic material
16

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
and brought out more explicitly certain emphases, we
recognize that different redactions were made, without
falling into the pitfalls of Jepsen's analysis of those
redactions.
(4) The concept of continuing activity by a deuteronomic
school gives an adequate account of the unity and the
diversity of the body of literature.
(5) Keep in mind however this is only a synthesis of two
theories in an attempt to use the “best” of differing theories;
can truth obtained this way?
E. Rendtorff believes that the influence of the “Deuteronomistic Circle,” or “School”
“lies in a wider context.” 42
1. This would include “many other areas of the Old Testament literature,”
including the “Pentateuch . . . the prophetic books, psalms and so on.”
2. The “circle,” or “school,” i.e., the editors “were influential at various
points and in different ways,” even prior to the reign of Josiah.
3. “If the report of the discovery of the book of the law and Josiah’s reform
(II Kings 22f.) in its present form is the work of the Deuteronomist, there
is no objection to the assumption that Deuteronomy was known and was
influential earlier.”
4. “. . . the Deuteronomistic writers are to be thought of as having worked in
such a way as to shape the individual complexes of tradition and connect
them together.”
5. Therefore, “. . . the beginning of the book of Joshua marks the beginning
of the historical account. A completely new period of the history of Israel
begins with the conclusion of the Torah and the death of Moses. To this
degree there are good reasons for the separation of the Pentateuch from the
following books, which is what happened later.”
42Rolf
Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 185; cf.
185ff.
17

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
F. Three proposals relative to who the author/editor might have been include:
1. Levitical singers (von Rad) or the Jerusalem priesthood who had some
connection with the cult and would be interested in the centralization of
that cult.
2. Prophets who would emphasize the connections with Moses and fulfilled
prophecy.
3. The wisdom school in Jerusalem who would have access to the material
necessary to write such a history.
VI. CENTRAL THEOLOGICAL IDEAS.
43
A. Noth outlined the basic theological ideas found in the DH, which are mostly
accepted by scholars.
1. The Dtr describes the relationship between God and his people by the term
“covenant” (Deut 7:9, 12; 1 Kgs 8:23).
2. Acceptable worship was in accordance with the Deuteronomic law.
3. Because the author was writing from the perspective of the exile, the
temple, the place of the divine presence, is important only for prayers and
as a center of judgment. Sacrifices are of little importance.
4. The temple, “the place where God’s name dwells,” was the only
acceptable place of worship.
5. Prior to the erection of the temple God allowed worship at such places as
“the high places,” provided the messenger of God, or God himself was
there.
6. The catastrophe of the exile, which the prophets prophesied had come to
pass, and clearly therefore there was nothing better to look for in the
future.
43Noth,
Deuteronomistic History, 89-99.
18

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
7. Similarly, there was nothing to look for any better than their present
situation, a pessimistic approach.
8. His focus was on the past and the events which led to the present situation
only.
9. The history of disobedience which brought on the punishment of the exile
will force all peoples to listen to God.
10. The history was the work of an independent author who, writing at the end
of history, used the historical traditions to try and answer the "why" of the
exile.
B. Though scholars have accepted these with modifications, they have also denied
that the author of the DH was the pessimist that Noth made him out to be.
44
1. Von Rad argues that the destruction of 587 involved a just divine
judgment.
a. But this did not mean the DH pictured the end of Israel.
b. The exile was to bring about Israel's repentance.
c. Jehoiachin's release from prison (2 Kgs 25:27-30) points to the fact
of a new hope.
d. God can begin anew with the house of David and Israel.
45
2. Other scholars have carried the thought even further and see a built in
tension between judgment and salvation throughout the entire work;
though God punishes he also saves.
VII. EVALUATION OF THE DH.
A. And so the debate continues, new terminology and refinements being added, with
no end or agreement in sight.
44von
Rad, Theology, 2:320-336; idem., Studies in Deuteronomy, SBTh 9 (1953): 90ff.
45Cf.
Jones, Kings, 1:79ff. for discussion.
19

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
B. Kaiser summarizes the present state of affairs using, while at the same time
making use of these new terminologies and refinements:
As far as DtrG is concerned, a combination of the stage and strata models
[technical descriptive terms attached to the various redaction theories discussed
above, rcb] emerges, which requires giving up the idea of a single work extending
from Deuteronomy 1 to 2 Kings 25 in favour of a more complicated stage and
strata model which needs further working out. Whoever complains that the
picture of origin of the work in the end extends from Genesis 1 to 2 Kings 25 is
more complicated than was suspected in mid-century should remember that a
more nuanced picture also furnishes deeper insight into the history of Israelite
faith. Knowledge lives and advances through controversy. It is an astonishing
sign of the appropriateness of current vigorous discussion that out of manifold
theoretical possibilities of interpreting the textual evidence there are in the end
only three or four explanatory models with a serious claim to attention. 46
C. So, the DH theory has proven itself very popular.
1. It offers (at least in its less radical forms) a refreshing alternative to all the
source theories usually propounded by critics.
2. It explains convincingly some of the theological concepts expressed in the
Old Testament.
3. It provides insights into the Sitz im Leben.
4. It requires only slight modifications to be very acceptable even to the most
conservative theologians: What if the lawbook found by Hilkiah (2 Kgs
22:8) was really the Book of Deuteronomy and this find had such an effect
on the nation that the writing of its history of disobedience (Joshua-2
Kings) was the result?
D. But more seems to be wrong with it than right with it.
1. It is very subjective.
46O.
Kaiser, “The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Text in Context, A. D. H.
Mayes, ed. (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 314-15.
20

BI 4320 Critical Introduction to the Old Testament; "The Deuteronomistic History";
Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Spring 2012
a. The theory is a very detailed hypothesis that is built around one
single event in Israel's history–the finding of the law in the time of
Josiah.
b. Conclusions are made which are based on a priori presuppositions
such as the identification of different sources for the work.
2. Scholars cannot agree among themselves about certain primary tenets in
the theory: number of redactors, who was the author, etc.
3. Amusingly, scholars moved from Noth's rather conservative position, to
that of more radical theories, to some that are nearly vis a vis to the older
conservative positions, e.g., various prophets and/or Jeremiah. 47
47
Cf. Leslie C. Allen, “The Former Prophets,” in Old Testament Survey, William Sanford
LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, eds., 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 136.
21