Deuteronomy and the History Books

Martin Noth developed an extraordinarily influential hypothesis regarding the shape and function of Deuteornomy and the books of Joshua-Kings.  His view (or at least versions of it) has received a grand reception, so much so there is a general consensus among biblical scholars – a feat many would consider practically impossible.

Noth built upon the work of J. Wellhausen and G. von Rad.  Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis divided the Pentateuch into four sources: JED and P.  Deuteronomy was the “D” source.  Von Rad attempted to trad this source’s connections beyond the Pentateuch into the history books.  Noth advanced the work of these scholars as he presented a hypothesis that a single author-redactor used existing sources to compile and shape a Deuteornomistic History (DH).  The specific purpose of this activity was to berate or chastise exilic Israelites by explaining to them their failures and subsequent need of exile.  The exilic author-redactor shaped the DH to this end.

This figure is known as the Deuteronomist (Dtr).  He takes themes from the book of Deuteronomy and weaves them throughout the books of Joshua-Kings thereby forming a collected and coherent work in service of his tendenz or purpose.  This work is then known as the Deuteronomistic History (DH).

To create the DH, the Dtr compiled several sources and “stitched” them together by composing new sections.  The Dtr took an early form of Deuteronomy Noth called Deuteronomium (a name that sounds like it comes from the period table of elements) and filled in the gaps with his own work.  These “seams” constructed by the Dtr to bring together his sources are often called the programmatic speeches.  Noth finds them in Deut 1-4; Josh 1; Josh 23; 1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7; and 1 Kgs 8:22-53.  According to Noth, these texts stick out since they are very simple Hebrew, use a small vocabulary, and share several rhetorical similarities.  Because they connect his sources and are particular constructions of the Dtr, they provide a key to interpreting the DH.

Noth’s hypothesis has not gone unchallenged and untouched.  Cross approached Noth’s hypothesis and modified it with the addition of a second redactor.  According to Cross, the first edition of the DH was compiled and shaped by Dtr¹ who worked during the time of Josiah’s reforms.  This edition takes on a character aimed at facilitating the reformed and providing lasting change.  The second redactor, Dtr², completed a second edition of the DH during the exile.  In effect, Cross parsed and front-loaded some of the work of Noth’s Dtr on to an earlier Josianic Dtr¹.

Cross wasn’t the only scholar to tweak Noth’s hypothesis.  Smend modified the hypothesis even further to incorporate a third redactor.  Smend’s three editors were DtrH, DtrP, and DtrN.  DtrH compiled the initial material, composing primarily a history work.  DtrP added, among others, the material on the prophets Elijah and Elisha.  DtrN was the redactor concerned with the law material.  Smend’s hypothesis is too dependent upon form and content.  It is perhaps too wooden to think there must be different Dtrs for prophetic history and law material.  Perhaps there is opportunity for someone to gain some notoriety by incrementing the number of redactors by one.  I anticipate a new anachronistic Dtr hypothesis based on the technological insights afforded by Wikipedia.  We might call this DtrWiki, or even Smend++.

But Noth hasn’t won over every scholar.  Iain Provan rejects Noth’s and related hypotheses, and submits that each book is an independent unit that functions on its own.  The similarities between books simply reflect the shared historical, cultural, and religious context.  The presence of a Dtr is simply unnecessary for Provan – at least as a means of explaining the shared themes in the so-called DH.

I sympathize with Provan’s concern, though I lean more toward some version of Noth’s proposal.  Deuteronomy presents its own theology and themes (Deuteornomic theology).  But you can conceivably say the same thing for the books of Judges, Joshua, etc.  All of Scripture is God-breathed.  This is not only true of the whole, but also each individual book.

We must read each passage in light of its ordered context.  That means we read from sentence to paragraph, to pericope, to book, to section of the canon, on to the canon available at the book’s writing, and finally to the entire canon.  Each layer of relation will present its own theological insights.  This is true for any two biblical books we might compare because the phenomena is a function ultimately of God’s inspiring and revelational activity.  We are necessarily going to find shared themes and emphases because God is revealing his one plan of redemption in Jesus Christ through each of these books.

That being said, features within the text suggest the work of a redactor.  An initial clue is that Deuteronomy seems to point to a narrator.  Furthermore, it is most plausible someone compiled these texts together.  They did not simply appear.  Moreover, they were compiled for a specific purpose: the edification of God’s people.  In my understanding, it is likely someone like Noth’s Dtr compiled sources under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – perhaps even adding material for historiographical and interpretive reasons.  This would account fo the heavy emphasis on centralized worship, rejection of idolatry, covenant theology, and retributive theology that appear to be deliberate and particularly strong in the DH.

Joshua stresses YHWH’s provision and presents testimony to YHWH’s greatness and faithfulness.  It works within the covenant theology framework (see particularly the covenant renewal in Josh 23-24).  It also stresses right/centralized worship and rejects idolatry (e.g. the account of Achan).  Judges, though without a programmatic speech, brings into view the covenant (2:1-5) and the failure of the people to drive out the nations (Ex 23; Jdg 2).  Therefore, they live with their mistake and are punished accordingly (the theme of retributive justice).  Furthermore, Samuel and Kings measure and evaluate the kings based on their adherence to the Deuteronomistic themes.  Covenant is key (1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 8:22ff), and the kings are repeatedly told to tear down the asherah (right worship).

All of the books in the proposed DH share common characteristics beyond shared cultural and religious contexts.  It is clear that ultimately a divine mind is behind each of these texts, but it also appears he inspired a servant to compile and shape this particular section of his Word.

Camden Bucey is the president of Reformed Forum. He graduated with an MDiv in 2011 and is currently a PhD student at Westminster Theological Seminary. Camden is a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a licentiate of the presbytery of Philadelphia. You can follow Camden on Twitter at @camdenbucey. This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 at 7:00 am and is filed under Old Testament. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.