Search

O artigo sistematiza cinco respostas bíblicas ao mistério do sofrimento humano. Essas respostas são associadas a quatro grandes blocos literários que correspondem a projetos teológicos, a saber: Obra Historiográfica Deuteronomista; Profetas; Sapienciais e Apocalíptica. Sem a pretensão de apresentar uma teoria original, o artigo objetiva discutir sobre o mistério do sofrimento humano, a partir das respostas apresentadas pelo próprio texto bíblico. Essa discussão realça algumas passagens bíblicas mais significativas, em diálogo com estudos e análises de outras pesquisas. Numa visão pastoral, pretende também lançar luzes sobre o momento de pandemia que se abate sobre o mundo e, particularmente, sobre o Brasil. A exposição conclui que a Bíblia oferece muitas respostas ao sentido da dor e do sofrimento, como uma farmácia que possui muitos remédios para enfermidades múltiplas.

The formation of the books Judges and Samuel is re-examined in this article. The author maintains that two main editions of the book of Samuel were created. The first was composed in Jerusalem during the reign of Solomon. The author of this edition was also the author of the second edition of the Book of Judges (“B”). The first edition of Judges, the “book of saviors,” which was composed in the north at the beginning of the age of monarchy (“A”), was also one of the four main sources which were incorporated into the first edition of Samuel. The other sources were: the “acts of Saul”; the “acts of David,” and the “book of Jashar.” The second edition of Samuel and the third of Judges were edited by a single person, the Deuteronomist, in Babylonia, ca. 560 BCE. He prepared an extensive composition describing the history of Israel from Moses to Jeremiah. In Deuteronomy the path was delineated and norms were determined. The main body (Joshua–Kings) records the ups and downs in Israel’s relationship with God; and the epilogue (the book of Jeremiah) focuses on the destruction and Exile, explaining the events and informing the exiles of the message of redemption.

This paper is an attempt to find out the canonical meaning of the insertion of the text of Deuteronomy 1: 1-8 in the overall framework of Deuteronomy. The method used in this research is canonical hermeneutics developed by Brevard S. Childs, this approach enables the interpreter to see the intent of the editor of the Scriptures in the preparation of text sequences in such a way as to the perspective of the final canon. The canonical analysis shows that Deuteronomy 1: 1-8 is the initial part of the minor form (chapters 1-4) that is deliberately inserted and placed at the front as a close link to the previous book (even the first four books of the holy book) and is both an introduction and legitimacy of authority Deuteronomy even for the whole Deuteronomic History. This text comes from the editor of the exile and gives a message of new hope for the exiled Israeli community.This paper is an attempt to find out the canonical meaning of the insertion of the text of Deuteronomy 1: 1-8 in the overall framework of Deuteronomy. The method used in this research is canonical hermeneutics developed by Brevard S. Childs, this approach enables the interpreter to see the intent of the editor of the Scriptures in the preparation of text sequences in such a way as to the perspective of the final canon. The canonical analysis shows that Deuteronomy 1: 1-8 is the initial part of the minor form (chapters 1-4) that is deliberately inserted and placed at the front as a close link to the previous book (even the first four books of the holy book) and is both an introduction and legitimacy of authority Deuteronomy even for the whole Deuteronomic History. This text comes from the editor of the exile and gives a message of new hope for the exiled Israeli community.

The story of David and Goliath has narrowly been interpreted as the dramatic victory of an underdog—David over a formidable Philistine giant—Goliath. This understanding of the story has largely dom...

Most scholars recognize literary problems in the two stories about the man of God found in 1 Kings 13. The older school of literary criticism has asked what redactional layers might be present, whether a prophetic source or redaction stands behind this story or a prophetic legend has been transformed by the Deuteronomist. Newer literary approaches show that the episodes involving the man of God play vital roles in the development of the larger plot of the downfall of the northern kingdom of Israel with Jeroboam and the rise of the southern kingdom with Josiah. The unnamed man of God becomes symbolic of the obedience and disobedience of the monarchy. The story of the man of God in 1 Kings 13 has been carefully crafted into a two-sided plot. One scene is positive, the other negative. Conflict in this plot between the word of Yahweh spoken through the man of God and the altar at Bethel is not resolved until 2 Kings 23. The surface conflicts between the human characters become symbolic of the deeper conflict between Yahweh and other gods. The theme of obedience or disobedience to the divine word emerges from this deeper plot.

This article proposes a brief overview of the existing points of view concerning the emergence of the Ancient Israel state. The key question is the existence of the unified monarchy with Jerusalem as its capital which controlled the territories of Judea and Samaria. The scarcity of the archaeological findings makes this question dependent on how the historicity of the Biblical accounts on Saul, David and Solomon is seen. Some researches regard them as mythological while others as historical figures. Reconstructions of ancient history are never ideologically sterile, so the most important ideology here is Yahwism, a religious movement which gradually evolved from one step to another. Deuteronomist (the author of the Samuel-Kings cycle, most likely, a collective one) obviously adhered to his own version of Yahwism.

Timo Veijola (1947-2005) is internationally well known because of his numerous studies on Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. Less known, however, are his contributions to biblical studies...

Despite the efforts of some scholars, biblical denunciations of one form of human sacrifice cannot be taken as condemnations of all types. Thus, while the writers of the Deuteronomistic History clearly regarded the slaying of children at the Jerusalem Tophet adversely, they accepted the legitimacy of sacrificing religiously errant individuals like murderers and others who went against their form of Yahwism. Such an endorsement is particularly represented by the biblical Hebrew ideas of sacrificial dedication (ḥērem) and burning up/consuming contamination (biʽēr). In the wake of Judah's fall and Jerusalem's destruction, the Deuteronomists promoted human sacrifice as a means to maintain or establish the purity of the Israelite community and the land of Canaan while delineating the limits of their version of a Yahwistic group.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book of Jeremiah, its historical background, distinctive literary character, language of trauma and resilience, dominant ideologies, and the state of twentieth- and twenty-first-century Jeremian scholarship. It concludes with an explanation of the goals and structure of the Handbook. Like the ancient book and the prophetic persona, the interpretation of Jeremiah has also been fractured and at times conflictual. Certain recent schools of Jeremiah scholarship explore new spaces for reading the ancient text that reconfigure, redeploy, and move beyond conventional interpretations, while others concentrate on historical issues, examining variant manuscripts and comparative Near Eastern texts. Until now, these divergent schools of thought have worked in relative isolation. This Handbook, the introductory chapter notes, seeks to bridge the gap between the current scholarly debate. It recognizes the importance of both post-historical and hermeneutic interpretive perspectives and ancient contextual approaches. It engages historical methodologies as well as literary and situated readings. This essay suggests that it is an opportune moment, within the frame of a single, field-encompassing volume, for a synthetic anthology that encourages the fruits of these disparate technical subfields to be gathered in order to nourish the field as a whole. Jeremiah, prose and poetry, trauma, Deuteronomistic History, methodology, SBL, Writing/Reading Jeremiah, biblical studies

Syntactic-stylistic analysis of the linguistic variation in the book of Jeremiah points to the cultural/sociohistorical context of the different text groups. The poignant, emotional style of Jeremianic poetry (Mowinckel’s A corpus) is marked by the often extremely high frequency of short clauses, and the low incidence of subordinate clauses and noun groups (similarly in most texts in Jeremiah 30–31; 46–51). These features characterize the “lean, brisk style” of spontaneous spoken discourse/oral literature. Noun groups and subordinate clauses are highly frequent in the narrative corpus (B) and parenetic prose (C), whereas short clauses are far less frequent, as characteristic of the “intricate, elaborate style” of written texts. Where these corpora reflect the scribal desk, corpus A is close to the oral arena. Detailed analysis shows, however, that all corpora are open-ended. These considerations suggest an initial oral-written symbiosis in the prophetic performance and the commission to writing of the prophetic utterances. In the scribal milieu of the Babylonian/Persian era, a new class of religious formulators took up the prophetic tradition and reformulated it in the complex style characteristic of the scribal desk.

Jeremiah scholars are generally cautious in drawing assumptions about the historical reliability of the material found in the book of Jeremiah. Yet the sources within the book possess literary patterns that provide oblique information to create a broad-stroke outline of what was known and remembered about the prophet himself. Approached with an eye to cultural memory, three features of the Book of Jeremiah provide ways to recover some dimensions of the historical prophet: the rhetorical shape of chapters 1–25 (in both the MT and LXX traditions), the book’s points of contact between the Levites and the Deuteronomistic tradition, and the unique characterization of scribes and scribalism within the book in relation to oracles ascribed to Jeremiah. These avenues of inquiry enable us to cautiously arrive at a tentative understanding of the Jeremiah of history.

This article explores how the motif of Uzziah’s צרעת‎ in 2 Kgs. 15:1-7 has inspired the Chronicler, Josephus, and rabbinic commentators. In the Book of Kings, Uzziah’s disorder is used to explain an abnormal political arrangement in which the crown prince served as co-regent. The Chronicler, by contrast, takes Uzziah’s disorder as an opportunity to expound on the king’s sacrilegious behavior. The Chronistic tradition is further developed by Josephus and the rabbis who reinterpret Uzziah’s צרעת‎ as sign of an abnormal emotional life. Consequently, each source displays its own understanding of צרעת‎ and its implications concerning the king’s conduct and character. These differences in the depiction of Uzziah’s disease point to dissimilar frameworks of interpretation which are motivated by different attitudes toward the temple and the Davidic Dynasty.

Examination of Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 shows that preciousness and aesthetic considerations were not the main precipitants of the use of gold in the tabernacle. Rather, the distribution of this metal in both the tabernacle and the priestly garments reveals a theological criterion for its use and distribution. It is suggested here that this criterion is rooted in pre-Israelite Yahwism, and that it emanates from the parallel of gold, approached as the metal produced by YHWH, and copper, its human-made counterpart. Accordingly, YHWH’s residence within the tabernacle is associated with pure gold, whereas the function of communion with the Israelites in this facility is attached to a gold-copper alloy (ordinary gold). It is shown that the theological significance of gold related in Exodus contrasts with the considerations of prestige and magnificence associated in Kings with the use of gold in the Jerusalem temple. These observations reveal a divergence between the Priestly and the Deuteronomistic sources in regard to the status of gold and, by extension, of the pre-Israelite background of Yahwism. It is concluded that the description of the tabernacle in Exodus challenges the abandonment of the theological dimension of gold and metallurgy in the Jerusalem temple in the late monarchic period or, alternately, serves as fundament for a theodicy that justifies the fall of the city.

В статье рассматривается проблема происхождения Пятикнижия. Согласно традиционному церковному взгляду, Пятикнижие всегда считалось произведением пророка Моисея. Однако уже в XVII веке - первой половине XVIII века появились исследователи (Бенедикт Спиноза, Ришар Симон, Жан Астрюк), утверждавшие, что весь текст Пятикнижия или отдельные его части не принадлежат пророку Моисею. Эти предположения получили дальнейшее развитие в трудах протестантских ученых Вильгельма Де Ветте, Э. Рейсса, Карла Графа, Г. Гупфельда и Ю. Велльгаузена. В результате Ю. Велльгаузен сформулировал гипотезу, согласно которой текст Пятикнижия состоит из четырех источников (документов): Ягвиста (J), Элогиста (E), Девтерономиста (D) и Жреческого Кодекса (P). Эта гипотеза получила название Документальной. Важно отметить, что самый ранний из этих источников, Ягвист, датируется Ю. Велльгаузеном IX в. до Р. Х. Таким образом, налицо очевидное противоречие между традиционным и критическим взглядами на происхождение книг Закона. Автор статьи излагает основные аргументы адептов Документальной гипотезы, отстаивающих компилятивный характер Пятикнижия, и пытается проследить отношение к ней в отечественной дореволюционной библеистике, католицизме и традиционном иудаизме. In the article the problem of Pentateuch’s origin is researched. According to the traditional Church position, the Pentateuch was always considered a work of the prophet Moses. But already in XVII century - first half of XVIII century they were scholars (Benedictus Spinoza, Richard Simon, Jean Astruc), who argued, that the entire text of Pentateuch or some of its parts do not belong to Moses. These assumptions received a development in the works of protestant scholars Wilhelm De Wette, E. Reuss, Karl Graf, G. Hupfeld and J. Wellhausen. As a result, J. Wellhausen formulated a hypothesis, that the Pentateuch’s text consists of four sources (documents) - Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D) and Priesterkodex (P). This hypothesiswas called the Documentary hypothesis. It is important to notice, that the earliest of these sources was dated by Wellhausen to the IX century BC. So there is an obvious contradiction between the traditional and critical views on the Torah’s origin. The A. sets forth the main arguments of the followers of the documentary hypothesis, who argue a composite character of the Pentateuch, and tries to understand the attitude towards it in pre-revolotionary Russian biblical studies, in Catholicism and traditional Judaism.

Of all the characters of the book of Judges none has more in common with the David of the so-called ‘History of David’s Rise’ than Samson. A careful comparison of Judg. 13.1–16.3 with 1 Sam. 16–23 reveals numerous similarities between the two figures, including the way their slaying of lions presages their most striking acts, and the way in which Yahweh and Saul, respectively, use the prospect of marriage to manipulate them to attack Philistines. We also find parallels in their calls, relationship to the rûaḥ YHWH, relationship to family, and use of wisdom. These extensive similarities naturally lead us to consider the differences which may explain Samson’s failure and David’s success. David is a leader, while Samson acts solo; David is beloved while not loving anyone, while Samson loves without being loved himself. These observations support deuteronomistic ideology highlighting leaders and leadership, and devaluing human love for other humans.

This article explores, from a perspective informed by Social Memory studies, memories of kings of Judah (/Israel) in three different corpora (the Deuteronomistic Historical Collection, the Prophetic Book Collection and Chronicles). It draws attention to the interdependence between memories of kings and other characters populating the world of memory evoked by each of these corpora and explores the ways in which the worlds of memory evoked by each of them interacted, informed and balanced each other within what we may call the “comprehensive mnemonic system” of the literati. The article sheds light on generative grammars governing systems of preferences and dis-preferences for certain types of memories of kings in each of the corpora and across them, and at times, even across cultures, and highlights that the world of memory of the Yehudite literati of the late Persian/early Hellenistic period was shaped by a consistency of inconsistency, and an overall coherence manifested through a seeming lack t...

Esta narracion utiliza una intuicion proveniente de planteamientos que hoy se hacen foraneamente al relato biblico sobre el tejido social de historias truncadas en muchas partes del globo, que, aplicado a la lectura del final de un proceso historico narrado en la historia Deuteronomista, nos lleva a una interpretacion de la historia de los pueblos, marcada por la historia de sus instituciones. En la Biblia este declive se ve reflejado en algunos pasajes clave del final del corpus textual referido. Transversalmente se trata de un acercamiento hermeneuticoexistencial que permita el ejercicio academico. La renovacion de las instituciones desde nuevas coordenadas axiologicas termina siendo la propuesta en uno y otro planteamiento: el secular y el biblico. La propuesta consta de tres partes y una serie de conclusiones posibles, reflejando un interes permanente del autor, la posibilidad de leer desde coordenadas politicas comparadas a los textos biblicos.

Deut 22:5 marks the single instance of a prohibition of transvestitism in the Bible, and in its whole cultural milieu. The context in which it is situated suggests that it may have been inserted there as an addition, after the Babylonian captivity. That helps to narrow down the range of speculations as to the original Sitz im Leben of the law, and enables us to read it most of all within the canonical framework of the entirety of the Pentateuch. Hence, the precept pertains mainly to the principle of division of the human nature into the two sexes (Gen 1–2), the principle of retaining the order of creation (by not mixing kinds; Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9–11), and of keeping the procreational power, referred to here predominantly to masculinity (Gen 5:1–3; cf. Gen 1:28; 9:1.7).

Artykuł porusza problematykę pojęcia „wyżyna” (בָּמָה) jako istotnego elementu teologicznej nomenklatury Starego Testamentu. Wychodząc od faktu, że znaczenie badanego terminu nie zostało dotychczasowo jednoznacznie ustalone, autorka stara się przybliżyć aktualny stan wiedzy oraz możliwe rozwiązania. Artykuł prezentuje dwutorową analizę badanego problemu.W pierwszej części porusza zagadnienie etymologii pojęcia „wyżyna” (בָּמָה). Badając termin hebrajski, autorka odwołuje się również do piśmiennictwa starożytnego Bliskiego Wschodu, wykazując istotną zależność między terminem בָּמָה a terminami pokrewnymi w językach: ugaryckim, akadyjskim i moabickim. Opierając się na tych pokrewieństwach, autorka próbuje znaleźć odpowiedź na pytanie o tożsamość „wyżyn”. Część pierwsza wykazuje, że analiza etymologiczna daje podstawy do uznania określenia „wyżyna” za pojęcie wieloznaczne i proponuje możliwe znaczenia, tłumaczenia.Druga część artykułu skupia się na analizie tekstu biblijnego. Jest to próbą charakterystyki pojęcia „wyżyny” jako terminu kultycznego. Analizując wersety biblijne, autorka poszukuje danych o konstrukcji, lokalizacji czy innych charakterystycznych cechach wspominanych w Starym Testamencie „wyżyn”. Wobec danych biblijnych artykuł prezentuje popularne hipotezy dotyczące tego zagadnienia. Ostatecznie zaproponowany zostaje nowy, teologiczny klucz interpretacyjny, który autorka stara się przedstawić jako warty uwagi w poszukiwaniach odpowiedzi na pytanie o tożsamość i charakterystykę pojęcia „wyżyna” (בָּמָה)

This thesis ultimately seeks to present a coherent reading of 1 Kings 13 that is attentive to literary, historical and theological concerns. I begin by summarising and evaluating the overtly theological exposition of the chapter by Karl Barth, as set out in his Church Dogmatics, and then considering how this was received and critiqued by his academic peers (Martin Klopfenstein in particular), whose questions, priorities and methods were very different to those of Barth. In this way, as well as exposing substantive material in the text for further investigation, a range of hermeneutical issues that sometimes undergird exegetical work unseen are brought into the foreground. I then bring a wider scope of opinion into the conversation by reviewing the work of other scholars as well, whose methods and priorities also diverge from those of Barth or Klopfenstein. At the same time, I categorise these studies so as to simultaneously assess different views on what 1 Kings 13 is about, and divergent views on how it is deemed best to approach this subject matter. After considering four additional readings of 1 Kings 13 in some depth, I present a more theoretical discussion about some perceived dichotomies in biblical studies that tend to surface regularly in methodological debates. I then return to Barth’s exposition via the work of David Bosworth, who aims to advocate and develop elements of Barth’s proposal for wider acceptance. After evaluating his work, I conclude with my own reading of 1 Kings 13, drawing on many of the exegetical and methodological insights presented by scholars whose lines of inquiry are not always those I would myself have chosen. Ultimately, my proffered reading, which sees Josiah as a central figure in the narrative, leans on insights from Barth and one of his harshest critics, Martin Noth.

В настоящей статье рассматривается история изучения вопроса об авторстве Пятикнижия и описывается взгляд современного канадского ученого-библеиста Джона ван Сетерса на формирование Пятикнижия и развитие источников, из которых оно состоит. Основной вклад ван Сетерса в библейскую науку — создание теории происхождения Пятикнижия, названной им Новой гипотезой дополнений. Этот подход выделяет работу нескольких авторов, которые создали произведение из имеющихся преданий, причем каждый последующий автор расширял существовавший до него материал Пятикнижия своими дополнениями. В отличие от классической документальной гипотезы в изложении Ю. Велльгаузена, согласно которой текст Пятикнижия состоит из 4-х источников (документов), Дж. ван Сетерс полагает, что существуют только 3 основных источника: Девтерономист (D), Жреческий Кодекс (P) и Ягвист (J), — следовательно, только 3 главных автора. Также среди кардинально новых положений теории Дж. ван Сетерса автор выделяет совершенно иную датировку источника Ягвист и мнение о Жреческом Кодексе не как о самостоятельном источнике, а лишь как о серии редакторских дополнений к Ягвисту. Ученый предлагает следующую модель формирования Пятикнижия. Первым его источником в VII в. до Р. Х. стало Второзаконие (D), которое затем, в начале вавилонского плена, использовалось в качестве введения к более крупному историческому произведению, Девтерономической истории (DrtH), включавшей Книги от Иисуса Навина до 4 Царств. Ближе к концу вавилонского плена это повествование было расширено историей происхождения человечества и еврейского народа от сотворения мира до смерти Моисея (J). Этот сводный труд (DrtH+J) в послепленный период священнический автор дополнил собственным особым материалом (Р) согласно своим идеологическим интересам. Автор статьи излагает основные аргументы и положения теории ван Сетерса, приводит мнения о ней библеистов — современников ученого, а также в заключении статьи пытается дать оценку гипотезе Джона ван Сетерса с православной точки зрения., The article views into the history of studying the question of the Pentateuch authorship and describes the concept of the Pentateuch formation and the development of sources from which it consists by John van Seters, the modern Canadian biblical scholar. Van Seters’s main contribution to biblical science is the creation of a Pentateuch origin theory, which he named the New Supplementary Hypothesis. This approach highlights the work of several authors who created a work from existing traditions, and each subsequent author expanded the existing material of the Pentateuch with their own additions. In contrast to the J. Wellhausen’s classical Documentary hypothesis, according to which the text of the Pentateuch consists of four sources (documents), van Seters believes that there are only three main sources: the Deuteronomist (D), the Priestly code (P), and the Yahwist (J) — hence, there are only three main authors of the Pentateuch. The author of the article highlights a completely different Yahwist dating and the opinion of the Priestly Code as not an independent source, but only a series of editorial additions to the Yahwist source, among the revolutionary provisions of van Seters’s theory. The scholar proposes the following scheme for the formation of the Pentateuch. The first Pentateuchal source was Deuteronomy (7th century B. C.), which was then used as an introduction to a larger historical work, DrtH (early exilic period), extending from Joshua to 2 Kings. This was expanded in the late exilic period by a history of the people’s origins (J) from creation to the death of Moses. This combined work (DrtH+J) was then supplemented in the post-exilic period by a Priestly writer with his own distinctive traditional material and his own ideological interests. The author of the article sets out the main arguments and provisions of van Seters’s theory and presents the opinions of his contemporary biblical scholars about it, and also tries to assess the New Supplementary Hypothesis from the Orthodox point of view in the conclusion of the article.

The study of trauma in early twentieth-century psychoanalysis concluded that trauma survivors have been overwhelmed by traumatic events and so are unable to experience them and form memories of them, and thus unable to know the trauma. Trauma is thus relived rather than remembered, repetitively and uncontrollably forcing itself into victims’ lives through literal dreams of the events, flashbacks, and so on, appearing to the survivor as a foreign body that stands outside of the self. The study of trauma within the field of literary criticism developed out of psychoanalytical conclusions about it, and points out that literature of trauma reflects these psychological effects. In such literature, then, we find trauma continually repeating and, since it cannot be known, refusing to be controlled by narrative explanation. Trauma, in short, is anti-narrative. The study of trauma within sociology, however, is based on an understanding of trauma as something created by a society in order to explain past events and solidify social bonds. A sociological reading of trauma in the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) focuses on the ways in which Dtr’s narrative makes the exiles’ traumatic experience of defeat and exile understandable and meaningful. This kind of explanation, however, has no real interest in healing the exiles’ psychological wounds. A literary reading of trauma in Dtr reveals trauma to be present in absences of explanation, deconstructing Dtr’s narrative certainty. It appears as intrusions into Dtr’s totalizing narrative, intrusions that put the writing’s explanatory certainties of divine justice on trial while refusing to provide a verdict.

This article examines the distinctive roles of the prophets in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings) and the Chronicler’s History (Chronicles). It posits that the prophets are especially associated with leadership in the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), beginning with prophetic figures such as Joshua, Deborah, and Samuel, who functioned as leaders in Israel, and continuing with the prophetic figures who played major roles in establishing and critiquing the various dynasties that came to power and ruled both Israel and Judah. It further posits that prophets play a key role in establishing and critiquing the house of David in the Chronicler’s History (ChrH). But the prophets function primarily in the ChrH to explain the significance of their subjects and the reasons why they so frequently suffered either blessing or judgment for their conduct in relation to YHWH and the Jerusalem temple.

This article offers a comparative theological analysis of the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles. It highlights the absence of theologically attentive comparison of these works in biblical scholarship, in spite of the work begun by Sara Japhet in the late 1970s (in Hebrew; 1989 in English). As a theological probe, I examine how each work conceptualizes monotheism, a topic that Japhet largely ignored in her study. My concern is to understand how each work configures Yhwh’s sole divinity in relation to the people, the temple, and the particular geography of the nation. I suggest points of comparison and departure that stem from the particular theological perspectives of each work.

The tendency of biblical scholarship to focus on details and short passages has obscured ways in which the Historical Books are cast into interesting relationship with the Pentateuch when considered as part of one over-arching “primary history.” Following the work of David Noel Freedman and others, this article explores the hermeneutical impact of a “primary history” reading, which has similarities and differences with seeing the books as part of a Deuteronomistic history. Two case studies of intertextual readings in the primary history are offered to illustrate the implications of such a framing: one concerning kingship and the links between Deut. 17:14–20 and Solomon; the other exploring the vastly differing profiles of priesthood in the Pentateuch and the Historical Books. A concluding discussion of themes in the primary history, following David Clines, considers matters such as earth/land; “original sin”; and promise/obedience.

The study presents the state of the matter of Deuteronomist history in its relation to the sin of Jeroboam. The aim is to highlight the ideological character of the texts from a Jewish perspective. The method is analytical and part of the suspicion of the texts that were written with an anti-political and anti-samaritan perspective and therefore unable to assimilate the way of producing knowledge of the religion itself and the northern kingdom. Thus, fidelity to the one God and his place of worship are the epistemological criteria of the Deuteronomist historiography. A negative view of the kings of Israel prevails. They did evil in the sight of the Lord as did Jeroboam. The confrontation of the evaluations of Judah kingdom with those of Israel kingdom reveals small but significant contradictions. There is a clear tendency to antagonize Jeroboam as the one who made Israel sin, while only David is cited as a positive example.

The Chronicler used two types of sources in writing history: In general, the chronistic narration is based on the „Deuteronomistic history“ as it is called today. Nonetheless, the Pentateuch in its priestly components is another key to its concept. In his historical outline, the Chronicler is aware of differences of time: There is, first of all, the epoch of Moses and of the Mosaic institutions given to a wandering Israel. A new age, second, started with David gathering a scattered people toward the new center in Jerusalem. These epochs are characterized by both continuity in the worship of Yhwh and discontinuity of theperformance of that worship. The ark, the mobile sanctuary in the tent of the desert, was now to find its definite place and house, to be built and inhabited by Yhwh, prepared by David and finally realized by Solomon. According to the Chronicler, God’s word had been present in both epochs, but in different forms. Originally, it was given orally to Moses. Yet, the history of Israel as described by Chronicles refers to written documents (kakkātûb). In light of their attribution in Chronicles we should not call them „priestly“ – as it has been customary since the 19th century (de Wette, Wellhausen) –but more adequately „Mosaic“ tradition. For the Chronicler, such Mosaic tradition was applied and performed by David’s Israel. Of prime importance is the new position of Levi, Moses’ own tribe. According to the P-sources in the Pentateuch, the Levites had to do physical labour for the holy tent. But, in the era of the temple, they gained a new responsibility by interpreting, instructing and applying Tora in its broadest sense. The Priests's duties for their part are presupposed rather than itemized. Since the time of the Exodus – which is deliberately not a topic in Chronicles – they have remained the same. Decisive for the Chronicler is the new presence of Moses’ revelation in the ongoing history of Israel and its kings, accompanied and guided by Moses’ tribe, the Levites.

In the Old Testament Yahweh is frequently called El. The question is raised whether Yahweh was a form of the god El from the beginning or whether they were separate deities who only became equated later. They whom uphold theory Yahweh and El were conceived as separate deities holds that Yahweh was a southern storm god from Seir and so on, which was brought by the Israelites and conflated with the Jerusalem patriarchal deity.On the other side there are scholars who hold and conceived Yahweh and El as one single deity. These scholars defend this position most commonly on the grounds that no distinction between the two can be clearly found in the Hebrew Bible. The methodology used in this paper is literary – historical and social interpretations, with the main method being the "diachronic and dialectical theology of Hegel". The simple Hegelian method is: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis). The author analyzes (thesis) by collecting instruments related to ancient Semitic religions; it includes data on El and Yahweh assembly obtained from Hebrew text sources and extra-biblical manuscripts which are then processed in depth. The antithesis is to analyze El's assembly development in Israel – especially in Psalm 82. While the synthesis appears in the nuances of the El’s assembly believe in ancient Israel. The focus of this paper's research is to prove 2 things: first, is Psalm 82: 1, is an Israeli Psalm that uses the patterns and forms of the Canaanite Psalms; especially regarding religious systems that use the terminology of the divine council. Second, to prove that El and Yahweh in the context of this Psalm are two different gods, of which this view contradicts several ANET experts such as Michael S, Heisser who sets El and Yahweh in this text as identical gods. The results of this study attempt to prove that Israel and the Canaan contextually share the same religious system, and are seen to be separated in the Deuteronomist era with their Yahwistic reforms.

The Deuteronomists sought, and found, in Jezebel, the foreign woman, and her devotion to her foreign gods, the reason why their nations had been overrun by the heathen armies. King Ahab, the husband, committed all his evil acts at the instigation of Jezebel. The Jezebel narrative is part of the Deuteronomistic answer to the challenge posed by the exile. According to the Deuteronomists, the crime that led to the catastrophe was apostasy. They found the culprit in Jezebel, the Baal-worshipping foreign woman who introduced the worship of false gods in the kingdom of Israel. Jezebel had the disadvantage of being a (powerful) woman, a foreigner, an adherent of a foreign religion and of being “close at hand.” She is clearly the “Other” in these critical respects. These made her a prime target of scapegoating. Jezebel is ethnically and religiously the “Other,” a powerful queen who transgresses proper gender roles.