Search

In recent years an increasing scepticism has arisen concerning the Deuteronomistic character of the Book of the Four (Hos, Amos, Mic, Zeph). Many themes and motifs have been regarded as “inspired” by or “oriented” towards the Deut and DtrH, but not exclusively Dtr. redaction. Hosea 1*, the beginning of the composition, however, has been neglected in this respect. Unlike 2 Kgs 9–10, which reflects a positive view of Jehu’s fulfilment of Yhwh’s command at Jezreel, Hos 1 condemns him for the bloodguilt at the same place. The discrepancy is often explained through different theological backgrounds. In contrast, this article shows that both thematically (the end of the Jehuites) and in terms of phraseology (“harlotry,” idioms with the noun “blood,” “bow,” symbolic use of the verb “lift up,” nouns belonging to the semantic field of riding), there is a close literary connection between Hos 1* and 2 Kgs 9–10. Thus, for good reasons Hos 1* can be considered Dtr.

Some biblical scholars understand Deuteronomy to be the end of the Pentateuch. Before the nation of Israel became a confederate system, the socio-political reality could usually be seen in the composition, interaction, and behavior of relationships in society, which were assumed to be political elements. The Israeli confederation which is like the ambition centered on Yahweh is what the author refers to as Israel's "Qahal". Martin Noth explains Qahal Israel in Deuteronomist Historical Works, which began with a period of wandering under the leadership of Musa, then became an immigrant in the Land of Canaan, followed by Saul's leadership where Israel asked the king to directly lead the Israelites. In the leadership of David and Solomon, which originally had 12 tribes, eventually split into two nations. With this monarchical system, God hates, because he does not reject God as the government in their life. The purpose of this study was to find the location of the Deuteronomy and Eating Qahal books in the book of laws. The research method uses critical research with a study of literature and ideological sources using Martin Noth's theory which is an early thesis in Deuteronomic History Works. The novelty of this research is the existence of a new meaning where the main message of Deuteronomic history works, namely Israel is forced to turn to God, confess His sins, and return to submit and obey His word because they have been chosen to be God's people (2 Ki 17:13).

In Re-Imagining Abraham Megan Warner challenges traditional views concerning (semi-)Deuteronomistic editing in Genesis, arguing on the basis of close readings that the presence of D-like elements points not to sympathy with the theology of D, but rather revision of it.

Although there is general agreement among biblical scholars that Chronicles developed an own historiography in contradistinction to the Deuteronomistic History, some scholars have started emphasizing the commonalities between these histories. The present contribution is an attempt to contribute to this investigation in Chronicles studies. The investigation particularly focuses on a disputed example from Chronicles, namely the legal reforms of King Jehoshaphat, in order to establish what the relationship is between Chronicles and the Deuteronomic legal traditions.

In Hollow Men, Robin Baker provides a reappraisal of the Book of Judges account of Israel's Settlement of Canaan. Written under Assyrian suzerainty in Manasseh’s reign, Judges is a theological commentary on the Settlement and an esoteric work of prophecy.

The article argues that the prophecy of an anonymous man of God in 1 Sam 2,27-36, often viewed as a product of Deuteronomistic writing and/or redaction, is in fact an anti-Deuteronomic and anti-Deuteronomistic text. It uses the verbal cliches, generic templates, and concepts found in Deuteronomy and the balance of Joshua-Kings to subvert the Deuteronomic principles of cultic organization and the Deuteronomistic notion of eternal Davidic dynasty. The fragment qualifies therefore as a possible post-Deuteronomistic addition to the Former Prophets.

In response to Thomas Römer’s assertion that the story of Jephthah’s sacrifice is a Hellenistic insertion into the Deuteronomistic History, this articleargues that the presence of the story is best explained as an original part of the history. The portrayal of the sacrifice fits the pattern of moral decline in the book of Judges, and it forms an integral and interconnected part of thestory of Jephthah as a whole. Moreover, as part of this whole it reflects animportant theme stressed elsewhere by the history: when Israel sacrificeslike foreigners do, it will act like foreigners, as well. This is why the story of Jephthah’s sacrifice is followed immediately by the story of the tribe of Ephraim, which acts just like the Ammonites, the foreign nation in thisaccount, by invading Gilead.

This article is a literary study of Eliab’s characterization and his function within the broader narrative of David. The two scenes where Eliab appears (1 Sam. 16 and 17) need to be read together, since Eliab’s character zone contains a pair of ‘double-voiced’ utterances as defined by Bakhtin: in the first scene of 1 Samuel 16, he is an instrument of correction for the prophet Samuel; in the second scene of 1 Samuel 17, Eliab is used as an instrument of correction for the young David. His words to David in 17.28 are scathing: ‘I know about your pride and the evil of your heart’. A brief survey of secondary literature reveals that most scholars take the words of Eliab at face value, and feel that Eliab must be wrong in his assessment of David’s ‘evil heart’. This study takes a different approach. It is argued here that Eliab’s words are used to sound a warning about the heart of David, a highly complex literary figure. Moreover, since Eliab is used at a very early point in the narrative to inject a note of caution and a foreshadowing of potential flaws surrounding the heart of David, it is surely not coincidental that Eliab’s speech accents reverberate later in the story of David and Bathsheba.