Search

The Book of Jeremiah, who was the second of the three major prophets, is situated between Isaiah and Ezekiel and is an immensely complex book. Indeed, it is so complex that some informed readers have concluded that it is impossible to read the book as a coherent whole and have declared it “unreadable.” Although it is possible to see how different subsections of the book function and what they mean, it is not readily apparent how the subsections meaningfully fit together. This is but the first of several critical issues confronting any interpretation of the theology of the Book of Jeremiah. COMPLEXITY AND CONTEXT I identify two reasons for the book's complexity. First, the Book of Jeremiah consists of the swirling of several interpretive voices, each of which offers a strong reading of the historical–theological crisis that preoccupies the book. These several voices, moreover, are in some contestation with each other about the meaning and significance of the crisis of Jerusalem and about an appropriate response to that crisis. The traditioning process that produced the final form of the text, moreover, has made no noticeable efforts to adjudicate between or to bring together in a coherent manner those several contesting voices. Rather, the final form of the text has permitted the several contesting voices to stand alongside one another without noticeable harmonization.

On the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, this Festschrift celebrates A. Graeme Auld, Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Edinburgh, as one of the most innovative scholars in Old Testament Studies of his generation. The contributors of the volume, colleagues, friends and former students, have written articles that touch on various aspects of Auld's work including Old Testament, historiography, Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles, prophecy and prophets, Septuagint, and textual criticism.

This volume represents an inductive, literary/rhetorical analysis of the book of Judges in which possible rhetorical links connecting the book's three major sections are examined in detail to show that the book may have been a unified composition rather than a composite work as many assume.

This chapter first reviews some of the conclusions drawn in preceding chapters of the book about the relationships between the major sections of Judges to uncover the overall compositional strategy of Judges. So what is Judges all about? If one is to sum up the author's portrayal of this period of Israel's history with a single phrase, it would be 'progressive deterioration'. After all, this is a book that opens with a report of tribal cooperation and success but ends with a picture of Israel almost wiping out one of its own tribes in a civil war. The chapter discusses two issues of implications for the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis. By paying attention to synchronically discerned rhetorical links that subtly connect narratives in the various sections of the book, one arrives at a new understanding of how the book may have been put together in its current form.Keywords: compositional strategy of Judges; Deuteronomistic History; Israel's history; rhetorical links

This index of the book Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study presents a list of Biblical references and supplements to Vetus Testamentum. The book represents an inductive, literary/rhetorical analysis of the book of Judges to determine whether recent synchronic approaches that read the book as an integrated whole are indeed justified. After possible rhetorical links connecting Judges' prologue (1:1-2:5), epilogue (17:1-21:25), and central section (2:6-16:31) are examined in detail and the implications of such links carefully considered, the author concludes that, contrary to the consensus view that sees the central section of Judges as a part of Deuteronomistic History and the prologue and epilogue as later additions, the book in its current form may have been a unified composition of a single creative author.Keywords: book of Judges; Deuteronomistic History; rhetorical links

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) (ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formula omitted.) Zedekiah's fate has not aroused much scholarly discussion. This is surprising because Zedekiah was Judah's last king and therefore the last reigning heir to David's throne. As a son of Josiah, Zedekiah would represent the Davidic dynastic line. There has been much more attention devoted to the deposed Jehoiachin and his alleged rehabilitation in 2 Kgs 25:27-30, the main question being whether 2 Kgs 25:27-30 presents a positive view about the future of the Davidic dynasty or not (originally von Rad vs. Noth).1 Most scholars assume that 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 represents a fairly historical rendering of Zedekiah's final days and fate. His sons would have been slain in front of his eyes, and Zedekiah himself would have been blinded and taken in shackles to imprisonment in Babylon. Without much discussion or analysis, the assumption is that there is no reason to doubt the general historicity of this account.2 There are reasons, however, to question whether 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 is as unbiased and reliable as usually assumed. First, it is peculiar that the author describes Zedekiah's fate as an eyewitness. The events are presented as if the author of the passage, or the author of the source that was used, had followed the king to the Judean desert and from there to Ribla in Syria. The author claims to have known that Zedekiah personally saw the slaying of his sons (...) and was put in shackles. Such details would be expected from an eyewitness. The question is, Who could the eyewitness be? Or, where did the author of 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 receive such detailed information? It is unlikely that the author himself was the eyewitness, and it is also very doubtful that any Judean was present to witness the events.3 He would have to have followed the Babylonian army from the Judean desert, where Zedekiah was captured, to Ribla. He could have been a person captured with Zedekiah, but, according to 2 Kgs 25:5, his companions fled (...).4 Although it is possible that the king was captured with some of his personal aides and friends, there is no reference to any other person being captured. Moreover, it is doubtful that a co-prisoner, someone who was very close to the king, could have been the source that disclosed embarrassing and humiliating details about the king's fate. Another possibility is that the account that describes Zedekiah's fate was based on rumors and/or Babylonian propaganda, which were then used by the author of 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7. In principle, it is possible that the Babylonians, for political reasons, would have wanted to spread a report or rumor that Zedekiah's fate was particularly brutal because of his rebellion. This would have functioned as a warning to anyone who planned rebellion. However, since Judah, as a nation, was utterly destroyed, the purpose of such a message in the post-state context is not immediately clear. In any case, even if the Babylonians had circulated such an account, its uncritical acceptance by the author of the DtrH (= Deuteronomistic History) would be of significance. Why would the author of the DtrH accept Babylonian propaganda without question? In other words, it is very unlikely that the author of the DtrH had a reliable source for the events described in 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7. At most, he had a vague rumor or Babylonian propaganda at his disposal, which he could have used as the basis for his account. Although it is theoretically possible that Zedekiah experienced the fate described in 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 (but see below), for now our main interest is that the author of the DtrH adopted the account as conclusive and presented it as history, even though he did not have an unproblematic and reliable source for the events. That the author not only described Zedekiah's fate in general terms, as one would expect from an author who does not have a direct source, but also seemed to know curious, even humiliating, details (shackles and Zedekiah seeing the slaughter of his sons), makes the author's approach even more peculiar. …

At the dawn of the 20th Century, scholarship on Judges was largely dominated by historical criticism. Interest was mainly on discovering the sources that underlie the book, and Wellhausen's approach to the Pentateuch so widely accepted at the time was applied also to the study of Judges. Noth argues that the division of Deuteronomy to Kings into separate books in their current form actually represents a secondary development. At their inception, these books originally constituted one continuous narrative composed by an exilic historian whom Noth calls as the Deuteronomist (Dtr). Although Dtr also made extensive use of older traditional materials and incorporated them into his composition, Noth maintains that Dtr was not just another redactor in the source-critical sense. This chapter examines Judges through careful attention to literary and rhetorical features such as narrative structure, recurring themes and motifs, allusions, wordplays, points of view, plot, and characterisation.Keywords: Deuteronomist; Noth; Pentateuch; study of Judges; Wellhausen

In contrast to the Deuteronomist, the Chronicler places great value on presenting the reforms carried out by Ezechias/Hezekiah. The present study examines the reasons for this and attempts to locate the Chronicler's work historically and theologically from this perspective.

If the periodization of Israel’s past was worked out by the composer of the Deuteronomistic History already in the sixth century BCE, is it not strange that we have to wait until Ben Sira to find the earliest mention of the Joshua—Kings succession? The four-century gap between the work of DtrH and Ben Sira begs for an explanation. In the wake of the present trend of challenging the validity of the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, this article reviews the evidence offered by Ben Sira. Identifying the scope of the gloss at the end of Sira 49 leads to understand the Praise of the fathers (Sira 44—49) as a theological commentary of the books of the Nebiim, a collection recently put together when Sira wrote his Wisdom. The Nebiim constituted a rival collection to the first ever Jewish Chronography crafted barely a century earlier for the Alexandria library to provide Hellenistic historians with sources pertaining to Jewish past. On the basis of Nina Collins’ ground-breaking study of the Letter of Aristeas, the opposition between the Chronography and the Nebiim is understood as a reflection of the tensions between the Library and the Jews at the time of the translation of the Torah. The point is that the initiative for translation and canonization Hebrew literature always originated from Hellenistic scholars, and that the Jews were reacting to it. The Alexandrian Canon hypothesis thus needs to be revived, albeit in a modified form, despite the conclusions reached 40 years ago by Albert Sundberg. Even Josephus, who had a low opinion of the LXX, based his list of thirteen prophetic books on the Alexandrian Chronography, transmitted by the LXX’s Historica (Joshua—Esther). In reaction to the Chronography, Alexandrian Judaism created the Nebiim, retaining the first part of the Alexandrian Chronography (minus Ruth) while adding the Prophetic books proper. Whereas Demetrius the Chronographer or the school to which he belonged is likely to have produced the Chronography, Ben Sira, who migrated to Egypt with the Ptolemaic elite of Jerusalem after the battle of Panion could have been involved in the formation of the Nebiim. His grandson translated his grandfather’s Wisdom once the Nebiim were officially canonized by the Hasmonaeans. A three-century shift is therefore required for the organization of the Joshua—Kings succession, which means that the periodization of Israel’s past belongs to the last stage of the formation of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, and not to the onset of their growth. Alexandria is restored in its position as the leading centre for canonizing ANE literature.

The book of Kings contains many passages of Deuteronomistic provenance, ranging from theological verdicts on individual kings to lengthy orations and reflections. These texts are generally held to represent a later stage in the compositional history of the book. For that reason they are of special significance for assessing the text-historical relationship between the oldest witnesses to the text of Kings, i.e., MT and the LXX. The majority of Deuteronomistic texts are represented in 1 Kings and 3 Regum alike. Conversely, 3 Regum contains no Deuteronomistic materials that do not appear in 1 Kings. Small-scale differences (mostly word differences) are scattered about the materials shared by both witnesses. The textual stage reflected by 3 Regum does not predate any comprehensive Deuteronomistic redactional stratum present in 1 Kings. Differences in the representation of Deuteronomistic material are mainly due to later editorial intervention with the text of 3 Regum.Keywords: Deuteronomistic provenance; Hebrew; Regum; text-historical relationship

Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zur Erzahlung von Konig David in II Sam 1-5, by Alexander Achilles Fischer. BZAW 335. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Pp. viii + 386. euro98.00 (Hardcover). ISBN 3110178990. All historical and literary disciplines experience times when old reconstructions come under close scrutiny as new methods emerge or problems in the regnant interpretation reach a high enough level. Certainly the study of the Deuteronomistic History furnishes a parade example of such a line of inquiry under fire. The date, provenance, purpose, and in some cases even the existence of the underlying sources of this work, as well as of the work as a whole, all are provoking extensive reexamination, particularly in English-language scholarship. Proving that the notorious insularity of German scholarship can be breached, Fischer has written a volume (his Jena Habilitationsschrift) reexamining the literary history of 2 Samuel 1-5, a section often ignored in redaction-critical discussions. Fischer identifies within these chapters five layers: early source material, a seventh-century pro-Davidic redaction, an early Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr[Sam]), a later Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr[S]), and postredactional accretions. Apart from this reconstruction, his work provides useful commentary on the chapters (indeed, the basic structure of the book is a pericope-by-pericope analysis) as well as excursuses on Ishbosheth's realm, the archaeology and history of Mahanaim, the location of Geshur, the relationship between Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth, and the hermeneutic of suspicion [especially regarding the charges against David]). A comprehensive bibliography ends the book. Again, numerous comments on particular passages (for example on connections between 1 Samuel 4 and 2 Samuel 1 [pp. 18-19]) shed light on difficult problems. However convincing Fischer's redaction-critical analysis may be, his volume does help us understand the extraordinary tales of David more clearly. It may be instructive to compare Fischer's reconstruction with another recent one, that of Anthony F. Campbell and Mark A. O'Brien's Unfolding the Deutemnomistic History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). Campbell and O'Brien retain the older idea of a pre-Deuteronomistic Prophetic Record, which they find in most of 2 Samuel 1-5 (except 2:10-11; 3:2-5; 4:2b-4; 5:2bβ, 4-5, and 13-16, most of these verses being glosses of the Josianic redactor). In contrast to this rather simple analysis, Fischer finds his five layers woven intricately throughout chs. 1-5, though chs. 1-2 (except 2:10b-11, which are Dtr[S]) consist entirely of the Davidic redaction and its sources, thus agreeing in essence with the position of Campbell and O'Brien. For chs. 3-5, on the other hand, Fischer's analysis is almost bewilderingly complex, imagining significant reshaping of stories and finding in every shift of perspective a new source. Of course, simplicity does not guarantee accuracy, but arguably complexity may indicate a tendency, which many Americans find in older German redaction criticism, toward arbitrary overreading. Still, generalizations about the merits or otherwise of redaction criticism cannot substitute for close arguments. We still lack clear criteria for deciding whether a retouching of a text occurred five minutes or five centuries after its composer put down the pen. Perhaps such decisions will always be ad hoc and controvertible, dependent on cumulative evidence differently evaluated by different scholars. …

1 Kings 8: Different perspectives on God’s presence 1 Kings 8 is one of the most important chapters in Deuteronomic History. It originated over a long period of time and different authors/redactors were involved in the composition of this chapter. The text of 1 Kings 8 depicts several theological themes and this article focuses on the understanding of divine presence. Different perspectives on God’s presence are portrayed: The ark, temple and cloud as symbols of divine presence; God dwells in heaven; God’s Name is in the temple; God is omnipresent. The greater part of 1 Kings 8 comprises the temple dedication prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8:22-53). Prayer is the act of worship by which the temple on earth (or the worshipper in the temple) and heaven meet each other.

It remains doubtful to postulate the existence of a penultimate stage in the redaction of Joshua solely on the basis of data from Septuagint (LXX). The Qumran scrolls have not presented a definitive answer to these questions by offering a Hebrew text aligning with LXX: Joshua. For one thing, the fragments of 4QJoshua, 4QJoshua, and XJoshua are very scanty. This chapter highlights that the redaction of the book of Joshua consisted of basically three stages: a Deuteronomistic reformulation of older pre-Deuteronomistic narratives, a nomistic redaction of the Deuteronomistic sections, and a Priestly redaction. Apart from the problem of the relation between the Joshua narratives and the themes of the Tetrateuch, a special problem in Noth's original draft of his Deuteronomistic (DtrH)-account of the Joshua narratives was posed by Joshua 23.Keywords: Hebrew text; Joshua; Masoretic Text (MT); Qumran scrolls; Septuagint (LXX)

Textual and literary criticism should be juxtaposed, not subordinated to one another. Since the textual data in Joshua are no less problematic and ambiguous than the literary-critical information provided by literary tensions and distinctive sets of ideas and phraseology, the oldest textual witnesses of the book, Septuagint (LXX) and 4QJoshua, cannot simply be regarded as starting point for redaction-critical operations in the Masoretic Text (MT). Modern literary-critical scholars perhaps puzzled by the confusing amount of data and theories coming up from the field of textual criticism, tend to ignore the new text-critical insights. Recent German commentaries to Joshua by Gorg and Fritz simply disregard the data from LXX and Qumran. On the other hand, scholars like Tov, Rofe and Mazor make use of redaction-critical terms like 'Deuteronomistic', 'Priesdy', and 'nomistic', without taking into account modern developments in redaction-critical research.Keywords: Joshua; literary-critical information; Masoretic Text (MT); Qumran; redaction-critical research; Septuagint (LXX); textual criticism

In at least three fields Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion surpasses all existing general reference works on religion in English: (1) Christian theology, (2) biblical studies, and (3) Christian history. In category (1) belong the long, multi-authored articles on: church, church polity, confession of faith, creation, demythologization. Category (2) is well represented by contributions on: Colossians, Corinthian epistles, covenant, cross/crucifixion, Daniel, Decalogue, David; Deutero-Isaiah, Deuteronomic History, Deuteronomy. Category (3) includes: church architecture, church history/church historiography, Church of England, conversion, Cromwell, crusades, cultural Catholicism, Dante. Existentialism is an umbrella term for related, or semi-related twentieth-century philosophical thinking to which mainly German and French authors contributed.Keywords: encyclopedia; existentialism; religions; theology

Recently scholarly discourse has offered two different readings of 1 Sam. 2:27-36. One perspective is that the passage is primarily a late Deuteronomistic composition geared to account for the rise of Davidic and Zadokite circles, while the other perspective argues for its early and distinctively northern linguistic features, pointing to an origin at Shiloh independent of any Jerusalemite considerations. A third understanding of the passage, though, is possible: the text originated in an early Ephraimite setting and was later redacted to incorporate a more historically comprehensive concern. The crux of this understanding is based on the presence of distinctively Mosaic language and ideas which pertain to Shilonite circles and traditions. The original form of the passage therefore points to the replacement of the corrupt Elide line at Shiloh with a more suitable Mosaic tradent, and likely relates to the rise of Samuel as the central bearer of the Shiloh tradition in the ensuing narratives.

Starting from Two Kings 17-18, this study investigates the original size of the "Deuteronomic History" and the redaction of the Enneatech. It examines the various assumptions that the "Books of Kings" at one time concluded before the present ending and rejects them. It identifies a redaction in Exodus and Two Kings which prophesies a future for the people after the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Using further redactional reflexion texts, it shows how redaction of the Enneateuch was gradually completed and developed its visions of the future.

The problem of how Deuteronomy relates to the Pentateuch and to the book of Joshua came to the fore with Noth’s thesis of a Deuteronomistic History, which was in conflict with the earlier support for a Hexateuch in the Documentary Hypothesis. With the current decline of the Documentary Hypothesis, one approach is to give greater emphasis to Pentateuchal and Hexateuchal redactors, often in place of the J and P sources, which either use Deuteronomy to conclude the Pentateuch or to build a bridge to the Deuteronomistic History. An alternative view, expressed in this paper, rejects the notion of such redactors and sees J and P as later than, and supplementary to, the Deuteronomistic History. To support this view, the article will examine Eckart Otto’s Pentateuchal redactor in Deuteronomy 4, at parallel texts in Numbers and Deuteronomy, and at Pentateuchal and Hexateuchal redactors in Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua 24.

Deuteronomy 13 is a foreign body, because it is not a centralized law. Deuteronomy 13 is a latecomer in the deuteron-ronomium. The salutation in the plural to the collective is commonly a feature of later, usually Deuteronomic revision. The integration of Deuteronomy 13 by means of the frame of Deut 12 has been questioned rather critical of PE Dion. The emergence of the Deuteronomistic frame piece of ch. 12 is in question, as well as outlining the framing of Deuteronomy 12 as such. The fact that Deut 13 a casuistic law is formally not be construed as a contract stipulation. Such would consist of a number of Protaseis containing the contract terms which follow as Apodoseis the contract curses. The original context of the chapter is in French. Keywords: Apodoseis; casuistic law; Deuteronomy 13; Protaseis

The story of Rahab is reported in the first part of Joshua as the key to theological interpretation of the whole book. In its present context, this narrative is embedded in the account of the Israelite conquest of Jericho. Rahab is presented as a harlot, who hides and rescues two spies of Joshua from the king of Jericho. She acknowledges the power of the Lord and extracts from the spies the promise that she and her family will be saved when the Israelites overwhelm her city. The story contains no indication of what motivated Rahab to risk her life on behalf of spies. His action must be connected with her confession and affirmation of Yahweh’s power and fidelity. Rahab’s confession in Josh 2,9b–11 is overflowing with Deuteronomistic language and theology, and is regarded as a late element in pre-Deuteronomistic material.

The books of Joshua −2 Kings represent the ‘Deuteronomic history’, beginning with Joshua’s call from God to continue the work of the now dead Moses, and leading Israel into battle to claim the promised land of Canaan. In the Hebrew Canon, Joshua Judges, Samuel and Kings are the Former Prophets, rather than Histories, and this has important implications for our reading of those texts.

This is the first of six chapters on the Old Testament and its authors. It looks at the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history, starting with a brief account of the model proposed by Martin Noth in the middle of the twentieth century in which he sought to establish a connection between the documentary approach and that of tradition‐history. However, since the end of the 1970s, Noth's explanation of the origin of the Pentateuch has, because it connected the history of traditions and documentary approaches, been criticized as methodologically wrong, and in its place a pure tradition‐historical solution has been proposed; various other criticisms of Noth's explanation have also been advanced. This account gives most attention to the new proposals on the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history, which strongly question the traditional view (although the documentary hypothesis still has its supporters). The sections are: The state of the question: the plurality of models; Pentateuchal problems; Fundamental questions concerning the Deuteronomistic history; and Retrospect and prospect.

Old Testament literature from the Northern Kingdom (Israel): The presence of northern traditions in the Old Testament The literature originating from the Northern Kingdom of Israel conveys an important message in terms of the theological themes in the Old Testament. Several of the earliest prophetic characters, such as Elijah, Elisha, Amos and Hosea, were all active in the Northern Kingdom. The political and religious situation of the Northern Kingdom created the context for these prophets, and other authors who shaped the thinking about God in old Israel. There writings can be found in the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, as well as in the books of Amos, Hosea and Deutero-Micha.

This chapter discusses "Deuteronomistic" theories between history and theology. Ernst Wurthwein starts with the substratum of Kings as the oldest block in the whole so-called history. It was supplemented by prophetic and nomistic Deuteronomists, before receiving a new preface composed by Deuteronomists from substantial older materials relating to Saul and David. There were separate chronicles from the kingdoms of Judah and of Israel, possibly an account of Solomon's reign separate from both, and a collection of prophetic stories. The part of that text concerning Solomon decisively influenced the story of Joshua and his people. Samuel, Saul, and the early David bear the imprint of Judah, Israel, and prophets in that primary text. Yet the contrast between Solomon and Joshua as successors is all the more effectively achieved because their activities share so many features. "Theology" is no less contested a term than "history". Keywords: David; Deuteronomists; Ernst Wurthwein; history; Israel; Judah; Solomon; theology