JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

SUPPLEMENT SERIES

18

Editors
David J A Clines
Philip R Davies
David M Gunn

Department of Biblical Studies

The University of Sheffield
Sheffield S10 2TN
England
This page intentionally left blank
THE
DOUBLE
REDACTION
OF THE
DEUTERONOMISTIC
HISTORY

RICHARD D. NELSON

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series,18

Sheffield 1981
 Copyright ©1981 JSOT Press
ISSN 0309-0787
ISBN 0 905774 33 7 (hardback)
ISBN 0 905774 34 3 (paperback)

Published by
3SOT Press
Department of Biblical Studies
The University of Sheffield
Sheffield S10 2TN
England
Printed & bound in Great Britain by Redwood Burn Ltd,
Trowbridge, Wiltshire
1981

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Nelson, Richard D.
The double redaction of the Deuteronomistic
history.—(Journal for the study of the
Old Testament supplement series; 18)
1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation,
etc.
I. Title II. Series
222'.06 BS1205.5
ISBN 0-905774-33-7
ISBN 0-905774-34-3 Pbk
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 9
Abbreviations JJ
1 THE DUAL REDACTION HYPOTHESIS IN KINGS 13
History of the Hypothesis 13
The Deuteronomistic history 13
Abraham Kuenen 14
Other forms of the dual redaction hypothesis 16
Three approaches: Jepsen, Smend, Cross 19
The Classical Arguments for the Theory of a
Dual Redaction 22
Arguments with little value 23
Mention of an exile 23
"Unto this day" 23
The historical situation 25
Literary style 26
Valuable arguments 27
Structure 27
Literary criticism 27
Dynastic promise 27
Theological movement 28
2 THE REGNAL FORMULAE IN KINGS 29
Recent Study of the Regnal Formulae 29
Free Variation in the" Historian's Formulae 32
Rigidity in the Exilic Editor's Formulae 36
The CAm ha-'aTes and the Verdict Formulae 41
3 THE ADDITIONS OF THE EXILIC EDITOR AND THEIR
DISTINCTIVE LINGUISTIC FEATURES 43
Secondary Deuteronomistic Passages in Judges 43
Judg. 2:1-5 43
Judg. 6:7-10 47
Formal similarities between Judg. 2:1-5 and
6:7-10 49
Linguistic similarites 51
1. "But you have not listened" as an accusation 51
2. "The land which Yahweh swore to your
fathers" 51
3-6. Tetrateuchal language 52
5
 7. "To fear foreign gods" 52
8. "The gods of the Amorites" 52
Secondary Passages in Kings Related to Those
in Judges 53
Structural similarities 53
2 Kings 17:7-20, 23b 55
9. h6q as "Customs" 57
10. gtr used alone for sinful sacrifice 57
11. Nouns qualified by quotations in clauses 58
12. cwd (warn) with Yahweh as subject 58 58
13. "My servants the prophets" 58
14. "The hosts of heaven" 59
15. "He removed (swr Hiphil) them from
before him" 59
16. Dependence on Deut. 18:10 59
17. "Yahweh rejected (m's) Israel" 60
2 Kings 17:24-40 63
18. "Torah" in parallel with other legal terms 64
19. "Bow down and serve" 65
2 Kings 21:1-18 65
20. "I have set my name" 67
21. Identification of the election of
Jerusalem with that of the Temple 67
22. "Vex" (kcs Hiphil) used absolutely 68
23. "Jerusalem and Judah" 68
24. "To bring evil upon" 68
25. The people as Yahweh's inheritance 68
Other Secondary Passages in Kings 69
1 Kings 8:44-51 69
26. "The iron furnace" 73
1 Kings 9:6-9 73
In 2 Kings 22:15-20 76
27. "All the works of their hands" as idols 78
In 2 Kings 23:1-30 79
2 Kings 23:31-25:30 85
Sources 85
Editorial Technique 87
Appendices 89
The Exilic Editor outside Judges and Kings 90
Deut. 4:19-20 90
Josh. 24:1-28 94

4 DYNASTIC ORACLE IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC

HISTORY 99
The Conditional Promises 99
6
 The Unconditional Promises 105
The Nathan oracle 105
A Nir for David 108
1 Kings 11:29-39 109
The prophetic source 110
The historian's contribution 112
"But not forever" 115
1 Kings 15:4 and 2 Kings 8:19 116
5 TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF THE TWO
DEUTERONOMISTS 119
The Temper of Their Times 120
The age of Josiah 120
The early exile 121
The Deuteronomistic history as royal propaganda 121
The exilic edition as a doxology of judgment 123
Four Theological Themes 123
The ark 123
The land 123
Heroes and villains 125
The Northern kingdom 126
Some Conclusions 127
APPENDIX: ISAIAH'S PREDICTION OF A BABYLONIAN
DISASTER 129
Notes 133
Bibliography 151
Index of Authors 167
Index of Biblical References 171

7
This page intentionally left blank
 PREFACE

This is a substantial revision of the author's 1973 Th.D.

dissertation, presented to the Faculty of Union Theological
Seminary, Richmond, Virginia. Thanks are due to my advisor,
Professor Patrick D. Miller, Jr., to the Editors of the Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament, and to the National
Endowment for the Humanities.

September, 1981
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

9
This page intentionally left blank
 ABBREVIATIONS
ANET J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament
ATP Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BAT Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen
Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschriftfur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
EvTh Evangelische Theologie
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HK Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC The International Critical Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
3QR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
3TS Journal of Theological Studies
KEH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament
KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
OTS Oudtestamentische Studie'n
P3B Palastinajahrbuch
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
VT Vetus Testamentum
W M A N T Wissenschaft liche Monographien zum Alten und
Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZKT Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie
ZTK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche

11
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 1

THE DUAL REDACTION HYPOTHESIS IN K I N G S

I. HISTORY OF THE HYPOTHESIS

The Deuteronomistic History

Martin Noth's now classic attempt to bring order out of chaos
in the study of Joshua-Kings / I / has been widely accepted as a
working hypothesis and has given birth to an increasingly large
number of associated studies on the character, theology, and
work of his Deuteronomistic historian (Dtr). In the broadest
sense, Noth's concern was to demonstrate that the older theory
of several Deuteronomistic redactions for these books did not
explain the facts; rather one should think of a single, purposeful
author or historian, who was responsible for the literary com-
plex as a whole. The overall unity of this piece of historio-
graphy is visible in its pivotal interpretive speeches which look
backward and forward /2/, its common chronological scheme,
and its single purpose of tracing the history of disaster that led
up to the events of conquest and deportation. Unity is also
created by a prophecy-fulfillment schema, through which his-
torical periods are bridged by the announcement of a word of
Yahweh and its subsequent fulfillment /3/.
Older approaches, which tended to dissolve the overarching
unity of these books through source analysis /4/ or treatment of
the books as self-contained entities, are by no means dead,
however. Eissfeldt's The Old Testament; An Introduction and
Freedman's article, "Pentateuch," in The Interpreter's Diction-
ary of the Bible evidence the life of the source critical
approach to Joshua-Kings /5/, as do the studies of Weinf eld and
Schulte /6/. Fohrer's Introduction to the Old Testament con-
tinues to advocate the picture of individual books passing
through the hands of several Deuteronomistic redactors /?/. In
spite of this, however, the majority of scholars now accept the
hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic historian in one form or
another.
In fact, Noth's hypothesis would be well on the way to be-
coming one of those rare "assured results of critical scholar-
ship" if it were not for the historian's disturbing tendency to
fall apart in the hands of those who work with him. For
example, von Rad has wondered at the differences in the
13
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
historian's approach in Judges, where the outline is cyclical and
the judges and the people are separately accountable for their
misdeeds, from Kings, where instead of cycles there is a
constantly growing apostasy and where the kings are responsible
for the fate of all. This is especially striking because Judges
and Kings are separated by 1 and 2 Samuel, in which any
editorial activity of the Deuteronomistic historian is difficult
to trace /8/.
Doubts of the same nature have been raised on another point
by Weiser. He has pointed out that, although the attitude
toward the monarchy has traditionally been termed "anti-
monarchical" in the Deuteronomistic portions of 1 Samuel
(7:1-8:22; 10:17-27a; 12), there is no basic rejection of the
kingship in either Deuteronomy or Kings. This would seem to
indicate that there can be no single Deuteronomistic editor for
the whole complex of Deuteronomy to Kings /9/.
In my opinion, neither of these attempts to dissolve the
Deuteronomistic historian will find much following in the years
to come. The objections of von Rad have been effectively
answered by Richter's study on Judges, which indicates that the
cyclical portions of the book are not from the pen of the
Deuteronomistic historian after all. Trompf finds the same
historical patterns in Judges and Kings. Weiser's reservations
have been met by the clarification of the attitude towards king-
ship in the Deuteronomistic sections of 1 Samuel by Boecker,
McCarthy, Clements, and Mayes /10/.
Abraham Kuenen
There remains, however, one viable critique of the hypothesis
of a single Deuteronomist. It has its roots in the work of the
nineteenth century critics. Abraham Kuenen was the first to
suggest that the book of Kings originated in pre-exilic times
and then later underwent an exilic redaction. If this is true, of
course, Noth's concept of a single, exilic historian needs to be
revised.
Kuenen was led to this conclusion by his observation of
certain literary critical irregularities which to this day form
the foundation of the theory of a dual redaction for Kings /I I/.
He felt that some passages definitely presuppose the exile and
must have been written after the release of Jehoiachin from
prison in 561 B.C.: 1 Kings 5:4; 9:1-9; 11:9-13 (in its present
form); 2 Kings 17:19-20; 20:17-18; 21:11-15; 22:15-20; 23:26-27;
24:2-4, 18-25:30. Other passages, Kuenen asserted, may pre-
suppose the fall of Samaria but cannot be from after the fall of
Judah. Finally, a third class of passages are neutral and might
14
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings
be either exilic or pre-exilic. The only way to explain this
dichotomy in Kings, he felt, was to assume two editors:
Both series of passages find their explanation in the
assumption that a Deuteronomistic, but pre-exilic, book
of Kings written about 600 B.C. has been continued in the
Babylonian exile and reworked and expanded here and
there/12/.
The reasons why Kuenen distinguished these two groups of
passages are instructive. For example, 1 Kings 5:4 is exilic
because of the expression "beyond the river" meaning the
Palestinian side of the Euphrates, in contrast to 1 Kings 14:15.
The author of 1 Kings 9:1-9 had no expectation of a positive
outcome, as vv.7-9 show. 1 Kings 11:9-13 is dependent upon 1
Kings 9:1-9 and thus is exilic also. 2 Kings 17:19-20 was
intended to correct the impression left by the pre-exilic
17:7-18. The prophet narrative about the embassy of Merodach-
baladan, 2 Kings 20:17-18 especially, presupposes the end of the
dynasty. The exilic nature of 2 Kings 21:10-15; 23:26-27 and
24:2-4, 18-25:30 is too obvious to require further comment.
In isolating the supposedly pre-exilic passages, Kuenen was
intrigued by the recurring "unto this day" formula applied to
situations that would no longer be true for an exilic editor,
especially in those passages where this expression is apparently
directly tied to the structural frame of Kings: 2 Kings 8:22; 14:7;
16:6. For Kuenen, the possibility that this was pre-exilic source
material used in a careless way by an exilic editor was remote.
He was thus convinced that the structural framework of Kings
was the work of a pre-exilic editor at least as far as 2 Kings 16.
In addition, Kuenen concluded that the occurrence of this for-
mula in 1 Kings 8:8; 9:21; 10:12; 12:19; 2 Kings 10:27; 17:23,34,41,
marks them as being from this first editor as well and was one
of his compositional peculiarities.
Kuenen went on to assign the dedicatory prayer of 1 Kings
8:12-61 to this pre-exilic author because it contains no idea of
Temple destruction. Since the exiled Israelites pray in the
direction of the Temple (v.48), this prayer is thinking of a cata-
strophe, but only a partial one. The "not forever" of 1 Kings
11:29-39 points to a time when the Davidic dynasty still ruled. 2
Kings 17:7-18, 21-34a is also pre-exilic according to Kuenen.
He did not attempt to divide up the book completely because
he felt that this would be methodologically impossible: "It is
implicit in the nature of things that the activity of the pre-
exilic author cannot be distinguished from the later additions
with certainty in every place" /13/. However, even in the ab-
15
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
sence of any sure indication of date, Kuenen assigned 1 Kings
6:11-13, because of its promise, and 2 Kings 13:4-6. with its
close relationship to Judges, to the first author (RdO. On the
other hand, he attributed 1 Kings 3:3, 15; 12:32-13:34; 15:4-5;
16:7, 12-13; and 2 Kings 1:2-17 to Rd2 because he saw them as
secondary to their contexts.
The most acute problem for Kuenen, as well as for later
advocates of a double redaction in Kings, was the determination
of where the work of the first author ended. He finally con-
cluded that the second editor must have begun his work with
Zedekiah in 24:18 at the very latest, everything after this point
clearly presupposing the fall of Jerusalem. However, in light of
2 Kings 24:2-4, Kuenen allowed for the possibility that the
second editor really began with Jehoiakim and suggested that
either the source citation of 24:5 was an imitation or else the
second editor used the same source as the first.
According to Kuenen, the first editor was the architect of
the book of Kings. Rd* was responsible for both the informa-
tion on the length of the kings' reigns and the synchronisms and
closely resembled the Deuteronomistic redactor of Judges and
the pro-monarchical sections of Samuel. Rd 2 was really a
drawn-out process of expansion and change, however, rather
than a single, purposeful redactor.
Other Forms of the Dual Redaction Hypothesis
Kuenen's thesis was enthusiastically approved by Wellhausen,
who differed from him in attributing less of 2 Kings 17 to the
first editor. Wellhausen claimed that v.13 has a different and
later view of the law than does the pre-exilic v.37 and so
assigned vv.7-17 to the second editor. He was also convinced
that the synchronisms had been added to the first editor's
information on length of reign by the second editor /14/. Like
Kuenen, Wellhausen relied heavily upon the "unto this day"
formulae and the mention of exile as sure criteria of what is
pre-exilic or exilic.
From the introductions of Kuenen and Wellhausen, the theory
of a double redaction for Kings passed into general favor in the
wider scholarly world. Of course many writers had their own
individual opinions about some minor points, especially about
the date and extent of the first redaction.
Among the more influential introductions, for example,
Driver /15/ felt that this theory was highly probable, but noted
that it was really only occasionally possible to point to later,
exilic passages. Sellin (1923) believed that this theory was
acceptable if the first editor's work is permitted to extend as
16
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings
far as 2 Kings 24:5. Eissfeldt /16/ remained undecided about
details because of his emphasis upon the extension of Penta-
teuchal sources as far as Kings, but he did add his own personal
touch by assigning the prophetic legends as a whole to the sec-
ond editor rather than to the first. Weiser /17/ did not commit
himself but leaned toward the theory because of 1 Kings 8:8.
Even after the publication of Noth's thesis, the two edition
theory remained popular with the writers of introductions.
Pfeiffer /18/ provided a detailed examination of the problem in
support of a double redaction. He was of the peculiar opinion
that the first editor wrote immediately after the death of
Josiah but omitted any mention of that death because it would
have disproved his Deuteronomistic theories. This first editor
was motivated to write by the glamor of that king's reform,
which had not yet lost its influence. The second editor was also
the Deuteronomistic editor of Genesis through Samuel and the
one who provided the framework for the book of Judges.
Bentzen /19/ also concluded that the first editor was motivated
by the 3osianic reform but wrote before Josiah's death. Rowley
/20/ merely accepted the theory of dual redaction in general, as
did Delorme /21/, who based his opinion in part upon his in-
correct assumption that the second editor employed the regnal
formulae with less regularity than the first. Fohrer /22/ also
opted for the two edition theory and asserted on the basis of 2
Kings 22:20 that the first editor was unaware of Josiah's death.
A widespread acceptance of the Kuenen hypothesis has
characterized not only the introductions, but also the major
commentaries on Kings, although these also differ among them-
selves, especially concerning the date of the first editor.
Benzinger indicated a pre-exilic R* who measured the
kings by their behavior in regard to high places and worked
between 621 and 597 and an exilic (or even post-exilic) R^
who was also a purposeful redactor, and not the compiler of a
heterogeneous mixture of additions. This second editor condi-
tionalized the promises to David, altered the Huldah prophecy,
and emphasized God's long-suffering and the theme of uni-
versalism. In contrast to the first editor, R^ saw the most
decisive sin as idolatry. The synchronisms were added by this
second editor /23/.
Kittel suggested that one Deuteronomistic redactor was
common to Judges, Samuel, and Kings: Rd. To Rd's concept of
the decisive sin as non-central Yahwism, a later editor (Rd^
or just R) added the sin of following Canaanite gods. Since 2
Kings 24:5 is the last citation of his source, Rd must have
written under Jehoiakim. R, who used Rd's style and added the
17
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
synchronisms, was definitely exilic rather than post-exilic, for
he failed to mention a return from Babylon /24/.
Burney had a unique opinion. The first editor (R^) wrote
"before the glamour of Josiah's reformation had wholly faded,"
not later than 600 B.C. Burney suggested as suitable endings for
this first edition: 2 Kings 23:29, 30, or 28, in descending order of
probability. As 2 Kings 17:34b-40 indicates, R D2 was actually
post-exilic. 2 Kings 23:31-24:9 and 24:10-25:30 are really
appendices and not part of any coherent redaction /25/.
Skinner, like Kittel, found the conclusion of the first editor in
the treatment of Jehoiakim on the very eve of the final
disasters "when all hope of a favourable turn in the fortunes of
the nation must have passed away." Although this writer's
unconditional citation of the promises to David thus raises a
problem, "it is difficult to say for certain whether the writer
was living under the shadow of institutions whose ruin might yet
be averted, or whether he was looking back on great hopes
irretrievably shattered." /26/
Stade and Schwally in The Sacred Books of the Old Testament
asserted that the "epitomist" (first editor) wrote under Jehoia-
chin or Zedekiah. This work contained none of the prophet
legends. In post-exilic times this epitome was continued by a
second Deuteronomist who made extensive additions /27/.
Sanda called the main editor of Kings R. Since 2 Kings 24:5 is
the last annals citation, R's terminus a quo is the death of
Jehoiakim (598 B.C.). The lack of information about Zedekiah's
death or the fate of Jehoiachin, the last paragraph of Kings
being an addition, points to a date for the first editor just after
the fall of Jerusalem in 587. The choice of the perfect tense in
1 Kings 8:8 confirms this: the ark has just recently disappeared,
but the covenant document is still present. §anda differed from
his predecessors in assigning most of the "unto this day"
formulae to the sources, not to the hand of the first editor
himself. After this first author, who wrote just after the fall,
Rj who was really only a glossator carrying out R's ideas more
rigorously, clarified, explained, and harmonized the earlier
book. Rj's usage was much like Jeremiah's /28/.
Eissfeldt had been more definite about double redaction in his
commentary on Kings than in his later Introduction. He divided
Kings among Dt, writing up to 2 Kings 23:25a between 621 and
607, Dt2, who continued the basic book, writing after 561,
and R, a catchall for various Deuteronomistic and non-Deutero-
nomistic supplements /29/.
De Vaux traced two editions, one from Josiah's day and one
exilic, but he considered the information on Gedaliah, the
18
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings
release of Jehoiachin, and the prayer of Solomon, as post-
redactional appendices /30/.
Montgomery never really grappled with this issue. He saw the
basic compilation of Kings as contemporary to Jeremiah and
called 2 Kings 25:22-30 a post-script, leaving no room for a
coherent second editor /31/.
Snaith attributed the first edition to a time shortly before
Josiah's death because that death would have destroyed the
author's thesis. Later, the release of Jehoiachin made this dis-
credited thesis tenable again, giving occasion to the work of a
second editor who laid greater emphasis upon idolatry than the
first author had and who was more positive about the Northern
Kingdom /32/.
The commentaries of John Gray extended the theory of a
double redaction to the Deuteronomistic history as a whole,
involving a "Deuteronomic compiler" and a "Deuteronomic re-
dactor." Gray believed that the historical break between these
two came between the outbreak of Jehoiakim's revolt in 598
and the accession of his successor. First, Kings says very little
about this revolt, and the circumstances of Jehoiakim's death
are obscure. Second, according to Gray's chronology, there was
a hiatus of several months between Jehoiakim's death and
Jehoiachin's accession, but this hypothetical gap is not men-
tioned in Kings. Finally, the first dating by a foreign chronology
comes in 2 Kings 24:12. Gray also suggested that the 480-year
structural chronology (1 Kings 6:1) really belongs to neither
editor, but is post-redactional /33/.
Robinson's contribution to the Cambridge Bible Commentary
finds a first edition of Kings which had the purpose of extolling
Josiah and showing God's verdict on the northern kingdom. This
was composed 621-609 and was revised after 560 /34/.
Three Approaches; Jepsen, Smend, Cross
Thus, the hypothesis of a double redaction of Kings has a
long, respectable history, and even the popularity of Noth's
thesis of a single, exilic historian has not completely eliminated
it. Three approaches to the redactional history of this literature
require special attention, those of Jepsen, Smend and his
students, and Cross /35/.
Alfred Jepsen, working before the publication of Noth's
contribution /36/, traced two large-scale redactions in Kings,
differing in theology and slightly in style. Jepsen believed he
had found an early exilic compilation of a cultic history of
Israel and Judah by a priest (Rty. About a generation later,
this was supposedly reworked by someone with prophetic
19
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
leanings (Rn). Although Jepsen claimed that he had dis-
covered Noth's Dtr independently but felt a need to postulate
an earlier work with a different theology, his theories have not
been widely accepted. The differences he traced between Rl
and R^ i n language are really created by a difference in
content rather than style: cultic reports over against prophetic
material. Jepsen himself had to admit the language was so
similar that R^ must have copied R^'s style.1 /37/ In addi-
tion, the differences in theology between R^ and R^ listed
by Jepsen are not mutually exclusive nor particularly far apart
and would not be incompatible in a single author /38/. Jepsen
seems to have confounded tension within the outlook of the
historian himself (non-central Yahwism versus idolatry), dif-
ferences between the historian and his sources (dependence
upon versus independence from Deuteronomy), and concepts
which would not necessarily be impossible for one author to
hold together (the Temple as a place of prayer and of divine
presence). In fact one wonders if Jepsen has not been led into
postulating his "nebiistic" and priestly redactions by the com-
mon and erroneous opinion that the prophetic and cultic sides of
Israel's life were in constant, irreconcilable conflict. Jepsen's
approach has been carried forward in a series of articles by
Gustavo Baena in regard to 2 Kings 17 /39/, but beyond this it
has not found much following.
A recent essay by Rudolph Smend attempts to trace the hand
of a law-oriented Deuteronomist (DtrN) overlaying the work of
the historian (DtrG) in Joshua and Judges, not as a mere glossa-
tion, but a complete reworking of the material. Smend isolates
Josh. 1:7-9; 13:lb-6; 23; Judg. 1:1-2:5, 17, 20-21, 23 from the
main redaction of the Deuteronomistic history and assigns them
to DtrN because of their common interest in the law and their
concept of nations remaining in the land after the conquest.
While Smend is perhaps correct in seeing Josh. 1:7-9 and Judg.
2:17, 20-21, 23 as secondary to the Deuteronomistic history and
associated with Judg. 1:1-2:5 as the work of a second editor, I
cannot agree that Josh. 23 is also secondary to the history and
that Josh. 24 should be substituted in its place as the historian's
work. Smend assigns Josh. 24 to the historian because he
considers Judg. 2:6-10 dependent upon Josh. 24:28-31 and
because Josh. 23:4, 7, 12 speak of the peoples remaining in the
land in contradiction to the historian's own view (Josh. 11:23).
By considering Josh. 23 as secondary, Smend can go on to assign
Josh. 13-22 to the historian, for then Josh. 23:1 is imitating
Josh. 13:1 and not vice versa. This in turn permits Smend to
consider Josh. 13:lbb-6 (the list of the nations remaining) as
20
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings
DtrN /40/.
However, several factors weigh against Smend's hypothesis.
The language of the second editor of the Deuteronomistic
history actually shows more in common with Josh. 24 than the
language of the historian himself does (pp. 94-98 below). The
arguments advanced to determine the direction of the depend-
ence between Josh. 24:28-31 and Judg. 2:6-9 are tenuous (p.95
below). Viewed objectively, this dependence could run in either
direction. In Josh. 23:4, 7, 12, the mention of the nations re-
maining is really an addition to the context /41/ and cannot be
used to deny Josh. 23 as a whole to the historian. In fact,
Smend's inversion of what is usually considered to be the sit-
uation in Joshua-Judges creates more problems than it solves.
How are we to explain the dislocation of the historian's nar-
rative about Caleb in Josh. 14:6-15 from between Josh. 11 and
12 to its present position /42/ unless Josh. 13:22 is not the
historian? How can interest in the law function as a dis-
tinguishing characteristic aiding us in separating the historian
from the second editor if the historian himself shows this
interest Deut. 31:9-13, 24-25; 32:45-47?
Smend's failure convincingly to demonstrate the existence of
a second editor may be due, in part, to his starting with a sec-
tion of the history which is in a highly disturbed literary critical
state and suggests that the center of gravity for any such at-
tempt should be in the book of Kings, where there has been
extensive agreement in distinguishing between two redactors
and where the literary problems are of manageable proportions.
Walter Dietrich extended this approach into the rest of the
Deuteronomistic history. His thesis is that into the substratum
of the work (DtrG), written just after the fall of Judah, a sec-
ond redactor (DtrP) inserted his own prophetic speeches and
notices of fulfillment, along with other prophetic material.
After the release of Jehoiachin, a pro-Davidic, nomistic DtrN
added further material /43/.
Although he sheds valuable light on certain form and literary
critical matters, the tripartate redactional schema is not con-
vincing. DtrP's linguistic usage is heavily dependent on DtrG
/44/, and the differences in usages between the two actually
seem to be a function of the different subject matter of the re-
spective passages. The existence of the shadowy DtrN remains
unsubstantiated throughout.
The Smend and Dietrich approach has been followed by a
series of studies tracing these three Deuteronomists in 2 Kings
22, analyzing their attitudes towards the Davidic dynasty and
monarchy in general, and discussing their respective salvation
21
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
theologies /45/. The methodological problem remains the same.
Various matters such as law, prophecy, rest, kingship, all of
which could be of interest to a single theological thinker, are
(almost automatically) assigned to different redactional levels.
Tensions within the Deuteronomistic history on the place of the
Davidic dynasty, on forgiveness and punishment, on present and
future salvation, which could have been held in balance by a
single author, are consistently dissolved into evidence for mul-
tiple authorship. Alleged differences in language usage among
the three redactors seem to be mostly the result of the dif-
ferences in subject matter which caused them to be separated
in the first place.
A more fruitful line of study would start from genuinely con-
tradictory themes or tendencies and try to relate them to the
historical situation of a pre-exilic or exilic author. This is what
F. M. Cross has done.
Building upon the foundations laid by Kuenen and his suc-
cessors, Cross takes the position that the first edition of the
Deuteronomistic history was issued in the time of Josiah as
propaganda for that king's policies and that this was later
brought up to date around 560 B.C. by means of several ad-
ditions which changed the theological thrust of the original.
Cross points out that the historian never repudiates the un-
conditional promise made to David's house. This theme reaches
its climax in Josiah, the perfect Davidic king, and in his at-
tempted reunion of North and South. A second central theme is
the sin of Jeroboam, one which also comes to resolution in
Josiah's reform and profanation of Bethel /46/. Cross's thesis is
analogous to the classical division of Kings into pre-exilic and
exilic redactions, but it is also a definite advance over this
earlier view. The motivation for and the date of the pre-exilic
edition is clearly set forth. Also, less reliance is placed upon
the dubious critical position that everything that hints at de-
struction and deportation must be exilic or that any statement
reflecting pre-exilic conditions must come from a pre-exilic
editor rather than from pre-exilic source material left intact by
a later editor.
II. THE CLASSICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE
THEORY OF A DUAL REDACTION
Commonly associated with the hypothesis of a double re-
daction in Kings or the Deuteronomistic history as a whole are
certain classic arguments, a short evaluation of which can set
the stage for the present contribution to the hypothesis. Four of
22
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings
these classical arguments are so unconvincing that they cannot
support the theories that have been built upon them.
Arguments with Little Value
Mention of an exile. The first of these is that certain portions
of the book of Kings or the history presuppose the Babylonian
exile simply because they mention a final disaster in one form
or another: Deut. 4:25-28; Josh. 23:16; 1 Kings 8:33-34, 46-51;
9:6-9; 2 Kings 17:19-20; 20:17-18; 21:10-15; 22:16-17, 20; 23:26-27;
24:2-4. Certainly those passages that speak of the fall of Judah
as inevitable in spite of repentance (2 Kings 21:10-15; 22:16-17;
23:26-27; 24:2-4) must be exilic, for such an attitude on the part
of a pre-exilic historian would eliminate any possible motiva-
tion for writing. Although Jeremiah considered this disaster
inevitable as well, it was to take place because there was no
repentance (Jer. 8:4-7; 13:23), not in spite of it.
However, the mere mention of exile or disaster is not an
automatic sign of exilic composition. The prophets had sug-
gested this as a possibility at least since the time of Micah (Jer.
26:18; Micah 3:12). After the conquest and deportation of Israel,
thoughtful Judeans would certainly have realized that a similar
fate could await them. In fact, Sennacherib's inscriptions speak
of a deportation of Judeans from provincial cities after 701
B.C. (ANET, 288). Finally, threats of military disaster and exile
were part of the language of contemporary treaty curses. A
treaty violation leads to the divine witnesses of the agreement
rising up to expel the offenders from their land (ANET, 205-6).
Siege conditions and the details of invasion are described.
Passers-by are astonished by the resultant desolation, and the
disobedient vassals go into exile /47/.
Therefore, one cannot assign passages like Deut. 4:25-28;
Josh. 23:16; 1 Kings 8:33-34; 9:6-9; 2 Kings 20:17-18 to an exilic
hand solely because they speak of exile and destruction. Such
language would be possible from at least the time of Hezekiah.
"Unto this day." A second classic argument points to the use
of the formula "unto this day" in Kings for situations that would
not be true for an exilic author. If these formulae could be
assigned definitely to the hand of the Deuteronomistic historian
himself and not to the wording of the historian's sources, we
could then establish a sure core of pre-exilic redactional
material over against the exilic material presupposing an
inevitable disaster.
Brevard Childs, in attempting to delineate what role etiology
played in the genesis of Israel's traditions, has established that
this formula was, in the great majority of cases, a redactional,
23
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
literary commentary added to a tradition in order to witness
that the situation in question continued up to the time of the
redactor /48/. Since the historian used sources in written form,
however, Childs1 insight does not automatically determine
whether this commentary was added by the historian or by his
literary predecessors.
In fact, in most cases, the phrase belongs without question to
the historian's narrative sources: the Sammler of 3oshua (Josh.
4:9; 5:9; 7:26; 8:28-29; 10:27), the judges narratives (Judge. 6:24;
10:4; 15:19), the Ark Story (1 Sam. 5:5; 6:18; 2 Sam. 6:8), the Rise
of David (1 Sam. 27:6; 30:25; 2 Sam. 4:3), the Succession History
(2 Sam. 18:18), and the Elisha cycle (2 Kings 2:22) /49/. In fact,
Burke Long has demonstrated that the historian himself act-
ually had very little interest in the etiological significance of
the etiological etymologies he reproduces, with or without the
formula "unto this day" /50/.
In one case the formula clearly belongs to the historian's
annalistic source, the "Book of the Acts of Solomon": 1 Kings
9:13. However, because of the brief, terse nature of these an-
nalistic source quotations, certain attribution of the formula is
not usually possible. Passages in which the formula could belong
to either the source or to the historian are:
Josh. 14:14
Caleb's claim on Hebron
1 Kings 12:19
Separation of Israel from the house of David
2 Kings 8:22
Edom separates from Judah
2 Kings 10:27
Baal sanctuary a latrine
2 Kings 14:7
The name of a rock
2 Kings 16:6
Edom's hold on Elath
2 Kings 17:23
Exile of Israel
2 Kings 17:34,41
Religious conditions in Samaria
In spite of what earlier critics asserted, however, none of
these examples could actually prove pre-exilic redaction even if
the formulae could be shown to be from the historian's hand.
Scholars who claim that the historian was a single, exilic redac-
tor tend to believe that he live in Palestine, not Babylon /51/.
For a Palestinian exilic author every one of these situations
24
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings
could easily still have been true and even would have been of
some interest to him: the claim on Hebron, Edomite indepen-
dence and expansion, the condition of a famous Baal sanctuary,
and local geographic names. Two further passages using this
formula, however, cannot so easily be eliminated as evidence
for a pre-exilic historian.
Even Noth admitted that the phrase "unto this day" in 1
Kings 8:8b cannot belong to the historian's source; /52/ yet the
literary critical situation of 1 Kings 8:1-9 is so confused that we
cannot confidently affirm that it belongs to the historian
either. Some remove v.8b as a very late gloss because of its
omission by the Old Greek and Lucian /53/. Others transpose 8b
after 9, where it certainly fits more comfortably /54/. How-
ever, its present irregular position suggests that the phrase is
most likely a marginal gloss directed at v.9 but misplaced after
v.8 /55/. In short, while 1 Kings 8:8b might be from a pre-exilic
Deuteronomist, this conclusion is too underlain to permit the
erection of a double redaction hypothesis upon it.
Much the same thing can be said of 1 Kings 9:21. 1 Kings
9:15-23 seems to be basically the historian's source, the Book of
the Acts of Solomon /56/, but the list of the nations in v.20
shows that this has been worked over by a Deuteronomistic
hand. Therefore, the literary assignment of the "unto this day"
formula is v.21 is in doubt. The concepts of the inability of
Israel to enforce the ban and of the peoples who remained in
the land are motifs alien to the historian (3osh. 11:23) and more
suited to certain secondary Deuteronomistic additions to his
work (Josh. 23:4, 7, 12; Judg. 1:1-2:5, 20-23, etc.). Since the
"unto this day" formula here would certainly be untrue for this
secondary Deuteronomist, Childs and Noth are probably correct
in assigning the phrase in 1 Kings 9:21 to the source /57/. In any
case it cannot be the wording of the Deuteronomistic historian.
Consequently, those scholars for whom the "unto this day"
formula is a basic element in their theories of dual redaction
/58/ have put their confidence in a shaky argument, for this
expression can provide no sure criterion to divide the two hypo-
thetical redactors. In some cases the phrase must belong to the
historian's sources; in others it is incapable of providing a
distinction between a pre-exilic or exilic Palestinian editor.
Finally, in 1 Kings 8:8 and 8:21, the literary origin of the for-
mula is in serious doubt.
The historical situation. Other common arguments are based
upon the historical situation of the exile and the period im-
mediately preceding it. One is that the annalistic sources used
in the history would be unavailable to an exilic author /59/.
25
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Several factors speak against this line of reasoning.
First, sources of a similar nature did survive the deportation.
The exilic editor who added Cfer. 52 (= 2 Kings 24:18-25:21) to
that book had available a list of deportees using the Babylonian
non-accession year dating system. The Chronicler preserved
valuable information about military construction and the like
from some unknown source from the pre-exilic period. Second,
it has not been proven that the historian directly used the
official annals of Israel and Judah at all. It is possible that
these "books of the daily affairs of the kings" were not the
royal annals themselves, but literary works in which these were
collected and edited and which could have had a wide enough
circulation to prevent their loss in the final disaster /60/. Third,
the source for Israel, in whatever form, managed to survive the
events of 722 B.C. Is it so hard to believe that Judean sources
could survive as well? Finally, this argument implicitly assumes
that an exilic historian must have lived in Babylon, far from the
remnants of the old national life, but if the author were a
Palestinian, he would have had access to whatever sources
continued to be transmitted through the ongoing religious and
social institutions of Judah /61/.
A second argument of the same nature carries more weight.
The composition of such a history would be more likely in the
period of archaizing tendencies in the seventh and early sixth
centuries, just before the exile /62/. Nevertheless, an exilic
editor would have had an equally good motive to systematize
past traditions, just as the P writer did at a somewhat later
time.
Arguments from the historical situation of the exilic or im-
mediately pre-exilic periods are therefore not particularly con-
vincing.
Literary style. A fourth argument is that the Deuteronom-
istic rhetorical style has much in common with the general
literary style of the period immediately preceding the exile.
Albright points out that the historian exhibits the same complex
style as the Lachish letters, later than the more complicated
tense structure of the historian's sources, but earlier than the
Aramaisms and neologisms of Nehemiah and the Chronicler
I63/.
Unfortunately, this line of reasoning runs immediately into a
blank wall. While the Lachish letters (to say nothing of the book
of Deuteronomy itself) show us that this style is not exclusively
late, they do not and cannot demonstrate that it is exclusively
pre-exilic. What John Bright once wrote about the style of the
Jeremiah prose sermons holds true for Deuteronomistic lang-
26
 One: Dual Redaction Hypothesis in Kings

uage in general: "the writer believes that either he or the

reader could imitate it." /64/ Albright's argument is pointless
because we do have Deuteronomistic literature of a definitely
exilic date: those sections of Kings that view the fall of Jeru-
salem as inevitable and the traces of a "second hand" detected
by Wolff in Deuteronomy (Deut. 429-31; 30:1-10) /65/. Further-
more, it is hard to believe that military disaster and foreign
occupation could be so destructive to Judean intellectual life
that such a highly influential style could not be written by an
exilic historian twenty-five years later.
Valuable Arguments
Over against these four unconvincing arguments for two
editions of the Deuteronomistic history, other arguments carry
more weight.
Structure. First of all, Frank Cross has suggested that the
structure of the history changes perceptibly in the last chapters
of Kings. For one thing, there is no sermon or "end of era"
speech commenting upon the fall of Judah to parallel that on
the fall of Samaria. 2 Kings 21:10-15 and 24:2 (the prediction of
inevitable punishment for Manasseh's sins) is of a different,
more generalized nature than the prophecy-fulfillment struc-
ture of the earlier parts of the history. In contrast to the
historian's practice, the prophets are not mentioned by name
nor are any specifics given; thus a second editor seems to be at
work /67/. I have carried these structural arguments even fur-
ther by demonstrating that the regnal formulae for the last four
kings of Judah also show a change of style, becoming more
stereotyped and rigid than the historian's own formulae (Chap-
ter 2).
Literary criticism. The work of the traditional literary critics
in Kings produced evidence that certain portions of that book
were secondary to the main Deuteronomistic redaction. Among
these secondary passages, about which there was general, but
not universal, agreement, were 1 Kings 8:44-51; 9:6-9; portions
of 2 Kings 17; 21:10-15; portions of the Huldah oracle in
22:15-20, and so forth. In part, these opinions were based upon
an over-simple acceptance of the first two classical arguments
discussed above, but in part they were based upon genuine
literary critical irregularities. I have reexamined these passages
and produced a revised literary critical analysis. In addition,
some stylistic variations have been isolated that enable us to
discriminate between the work of the Deuteronomistic historian
and the second editor (Chapter 3).
Dynastic promise. The present Deuteronomistic history dis-
27
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronornistic History
plays an ambiguous attitude about the Davidic dynasty. The un-
conditional promises to the Davidic house (2 Sam. 7:13b-16; 1
Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19) and the use of David as a pro-
totype for the perfect king (1 Kings 3:3, 14; 8:17-18; 9:4; 11:4, 6,
33, 38; 14:8; 15:3, 5, 11; 2 Kings 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 21:7; 22:2) are in
jarring contrast to the final pessimism of the work /68/. This
pro-Davidic attitude would be more appropriate to a pre-exilic
author writing during the reign of Josiah, the "new David" (2
Kings 23:25), than to Noth's exilic historian. Proper recognition
of the unconditional nature of the historian's attitude towards
the Davidic dynasty, however, has been prevented by a mis-
understanding of certain conditional promises to Solomon as a
condtionalization of the Nathan Oracle (1 Kings 2:2-4; 8:25;
9:4-5) /69/. I have investigated these conditional and uncondi-
tional promises and have presented what I believe is the correct
explanation of this apparent tension (Chapter 4).
Theological movement. According to Cross's analysis of the
theological movement of the history, the cycles of judgment
and grace in Judges and the attitude towards David in Kings
indicate an author of Josiah's time, not an exilic historian. The
two central themes of the history, the sin of Jeroboam and the
promise to David, both climax in the Josianic reformation.
Nothing in the history before Manasseh gives any real hint of
inevitable disaster. However, appended to these main themes is
the contradictory sub-theme of an inevitable punishment for
Manasseh's sins, a theological motif out of tune with the rest of
the history /70/. The present writer has supported these ob-
servations with other examples of how the theologies of the
historian and of the second editor differ from each other and
how they are harmonious with their respective historical situa-
tions (Chapter 5).

28
 Chapter 2

T H E R E G N A L FORMULAE I N K I N G S

I. RECENT STUDY OF THE R E G N A L FORMULAE

Interest in the introductory and concluding regnal formulae

for the kings of Israel and Judah has been almost exclusively
centered upon the intricate question of chronology and the
fascinating complexities of accession years, co-regencies, and
synchronisms. Thus modern summary explanations of the form-
ulae, such as those of Noth /!/ or Fohrer /2/, show no per-
ceptible advance over the treatments of Wellhausen in 1878 /3/
or Burney in 1903 /4/« In fact, the regularity of these formulae
and the case this regularity makes for the activity of a single
author in Kings from at least the end of Jeroboam's reign has
been recognized since Eichhorn /5/.
These treatments traditionally emphasize the regularity of
expression in the regnal formulae and then go on to explain how
historical circumstances sometimes caused the writer to omit
or modify individual introductions and conclusions. Thus, no-
tices of kings who died violently /6/ or who were deposed by
foreign intervention entirely lack conclusions /7/. Analogously,
there is no introduction for Jehu. Athaliah lacks regnal form-
ulae completely, probably because she was not considered a
legitimate ruler.
The stereotyped character of the regnal formulae gives them
a great importance for the study of the text of Kings. They
occur in large enough numbers to make it possible to dif-
ferentiate the characteristics of the various Greek text types
and are, at the same time, the bearers of the chronological
information, the most striking difference between the Old
Greek and Lucianic text of Kings and the Masoretic tradition
/«/•
This is not to say that other aspects of the regnal formulae
have been completely ignored. E.J. Smit has attempted to
establish the relative precision of the burial formulae in the
Chronicler's work when he differs from those in Kings. Smit
traced some of the ways the burial notices of Kings vary from a
strict pattern and noted that some of these departures were
obviously historically conditioned by the actual circumstances
of burial /9/.
29
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Gunter Morawe's study of of the historical outlook and
general form of the analogous Mesopotamian chronicles has
shown them to be close to their Israelite counterpart in content
and intention. The historian's regnal formulae are more complex
than the Babylonian parallels, with nine parts instead of four,
and have a much greater narrative and historic graphic intent.
However, Morawe is able to point to one interesting Babylonian
example of a quasi-theological judgment upon a king /10/.
For our purposes, however, the contribution of Shoshana
Bin-Nun must receive more detailed attention. She has at-
tempted to understand the historian's annalistic sources by an
anaylsis of his regnal formulae. Being aware of the incon-
sistencies and variations of these formulae, which we shall
analyze in detail later in this chapter, she concluded that these
formulae could not have been the work of the historian, as is so
often assumed, but must have been derived from the sources
themselves: "It makes little sense to assume that the author
created a system in order not to use it for all his material."
Bin-Nun suggested that almost all of these variations were due
to changes in the customs of recording annalistic information
over the years and the differences among the types of sources
used by the author.
She is convinced that the formulae for the length of reigns of
the Judean and Israelite kings respectively are directly copied
from different sources because for the Israelite kings the length
always follows "over Israel" while for the Judean kings it always
precedes "in Jerusalem" /12/. Unfortunately, Bin-Nun is con-
fused at this point, for actually "over Israel" corresponds to
"over Judah" in the Judean formula (cf. 1 Kings 15:1; 22:41; 2
Kings 9:29), which does precede the length of reign, while "in
Jerusalem" correponds to the mention of Tirzah or Samaria,
which sometimes follows the length (1 Kings 16:15,23; 2 Kings
153,17).
This oversight completely vitiates her thesis, but there are
other problems as well. The random, free variations in the
formulae are not all limited to materials based upon annalistic
sources, but are also characteristic of what must be contri-
butions of the author: the synchronisms, the verdicts on the
kings, and the source citations. Bin-Nun's observation that the
"illogic" of a statement of the total years of a king's reign
preceding the details of his reign cannot reflect the usage of an
ongoing chronicle is, of course, correct. However, to conclude
from this that two sources, a king list and a chronicle, are being
quoted in turn /13/ is only possible if it is assumed that the
Deuteronomistic author has not himself constructed this out-
30
 Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings

line—an assumption which Bin-Nun completely fails to prove.

Finally, her attempt to explain variations in these supposed
quotations from the king list as due to historical changes in
record-keeping style and historical considerations presupposes
the hypothetical custom of a newly-crowned king adding his
predecessor's length of reign and his own accession to an on-
going list /14/. Such an etiology for king lists is not supported
by a comparison with other Near Eastern examples, which were
compiled all at once or by intervals unrelated to an individual
king's accession /15/.
Recently, Helga Weippert has attempted to correlate var-
iations in the judgment formulae in Kings to a series of redac-
tions. A block of verdicts from [Link] to Pekah is as-
signed to R I, a Northerner working around the time of the fall
of Samaria. Most of the rest supposedly belong to R II, whom
we may equate with a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic historian.
Weippert's thesis, however, is fatally weakened by the extensive
variations within the respective domains of the hypothetical R I
and R II, the free variations in other elements of the regnal
formulae that cut across Weippert's divisions /16/, and the need
to postulate an editor vitally interested in cultic centralization
a hundred years before the discovery of Deuteronomy. Never-
theless, it is important to note that she has grouped together
the last four Judean verdict formulae as R III because of their
slightly inappropriate use of "fathers" as a point of comparison
and their uniformly negative character. This is precisely the
same conclusion that the present writer has come to, quite
independently, using a different approach /17/.
Since the regnal formulae are decisive evidence for the unity
of authorship in Kings, any attempt to divide the Deutero-
nomistic history into first and second editions must come to
grips with them. Advocates of the two-edition theory usually
simply note that the second editor must have copied the usage
of the first when he completed the book down to the fall of
Jerusalem. If this is the case the formuale at the end of the
book might be expected to show some subtle change from those
of the main redactor, most likely becoming less varied and even
more stereotyped than their exemplar.
The regnal formulae may be divided into certain subsections:
Introduction
Synchronism (only up to Hoshea of course)
Age at accession (Judah only)
Length of reign
Capital city
Name of queen mother (Judah only)
31
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Verdict
Conclusion
Source citation
Death and burial
Notice of succession
Since these provide the skeleton for the book of Kings only
starting with Rehoboam, the analysis which follows will not
take into account the regnal formulae before him.
II. FREE VARIATION IN THE HISTORIAN'S FORMULAE
The regularity of the regnal formulae created by the hist-
orian should not be overemphasized. These introductions and
conclusions were no rubber-stamp affair. They display a fasci-
nating diversity within an overall unity of expression. Some
examples of the historian's random variants can provide a
background against which the formulae of the possible second-
ary sections of Kings may be compared.
The synchronisms for the kings of Israel and Judah are of two
types. Most commonly the synchronistic information precedes
the king's name, as for example: "In the twenty-sixth year of
Asa king of 3udah, Elah the son of Baasha began to reign" /18/.
Yet randomly mixed with this type are introductions having the
king's name first: "Nadab the son of Jeroboam began to reign
over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah" /19/.
The king's age at accession is provided only for Judah. Here
also one finds significant diversity. This information is not
presented for Abijam, Asa, or Jehoiakin, presumably because it
was not present in the sources. In five of the formulae before
Manasseh, the king's name is repeated from the synchronism
/20/; in five the name is not, the clause being verbal rather than
nominal /21/. For the six kings after Hezekiah the name is
present out of necessity because the synchronisms are lacking.
Aside from these last six, the historian used the two types
entirely at random.
The historian was also randomly inconsistent in his state-
ments about the length of reign and capital city. For Judah the
length of reign always comes first, followed by the capital city
/22/. This is also the order for a minority of Israelite kings, but
the majority have the capital city first. A further variation is
that in Israelite introductions, this information following a
"synchronism-first" statement is merely an adverbial phrase
modifying the verb of the synchronism. However, when follow-
ing a "name-first" synchronism, the formula has its own waw-
consecutive imperfect verb, because the synchronism in this
32
 Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings
case separates the length of reign statement from the first verb
by a considerable distance. Neither of these syntactical ar-
rangements is like that for Judah, where a perfect verbal clause
is used /23/.
In the notices giving the name of the queen mother for the
Judean kings before Josiah, the historian modifies her name
with a gentilic noun once (1 Kings 14:21), the place of her origin
three times (2 Kings 12:2; 14:2; 15:2), the name of her father six
times (1 Kings 152,10; 22:42; 2 Kings 826; 15:33; 182), and
leaves her name unmodified once (2 Kings 21:1) /24/. Since the
modifications by place and by father respectively are chrono-
logically clumped together, this variation is most likely due to
the changing practices of the royal annalists who stand behind
the historian's sources. Because the first annalistic note using
the place of origin as a modifier is for Joash, one wonders if
this change was not connected with the crisis of the Athaliah
interregnum. This unfortunate experience with a queen mother
from Israel, coupled with the anti-Israel repercussions of the
Jehu revolution which eventually led to war (2 Kings 14:1-14),
would naturally cause the annalists to stress the. Judean origin
of their queen mothers.
In his verdict on Israel's kings, the historian makes use of
certain stock phrases, but varies his choice of these phrases
from king to king. Thus the reader does not get the impression
of monotonous repetition, but rather the growing weight of
constantly repeated sin /25/. Every verdict begins with the
same general statement: "He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh".
Then the historian goes on to characterize more specifically
this evil from his stock of stereotypes:
1 Kings 1526,34; 1625; 22:52 "and walked in the way of
Jeroboam"
1 Kings 1526,34; 1626; 2 Kings 13:2,10; 1424;
15:8,18,24,28 "the sin of Jeroboam which he made
Israel to sin"
1 Kings 1625,30; 2 Kings 17:1 "more evil than all who
were before him"
2 Kings 13:11; 14:24; 15:18,24,28 "he did not depart from"
While these verdict formulae for Israel's kings are highly
varied at first, near the end of Israel's history, they rigidify into
a more static pattern (2 Kings 13:10; 14:24; 15:8,18,24,28). This
hammering repetition expresses the stubbornness of the dis-
obedience, especially in 2 Kings 15. Yet even in these more
rigid formulae, the historian still varies his expression to a
degree. These formulae are thus the product of an author using
his own style, not a copyist or imitator woodenly reproducing
33
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
someone else's style.
In his evaluations of the Judean kings, the historian followed
much the same policy of a variable choice of standard expres-
sions. There are two general types of verdicts upon the Judean
kings. The more common type is based on the expression "do in
the eyes of Yahweh." Used alone, this type is employed six
times positively for the kings before Jehoahaz and twice neg-
atively /26/. The second type uses the idiom "to walk in (the
way of)." By itself this expression is used once negatively /27/.
These two types are used together twice to express a positive
verdict and three times to condemn a king /28/. The historian
adds even further variety to this pattern by specifying several
variations on the ways in which the Judean kings walked:
of Asa his father
1 Kings 22:43
of the kings of Israel
2 Kings 8:18; 16:2
of the house of Ahab
2 Kings 8:27
which his father did
2 Kings 21:21
of David his father
2 Kings 22:2
Even further variety is obtained by comparisons of the king's
actions with other behavior,
like David his father
1 Kings 15:11; 2 Kings 14:3; 16:2
just as the house of Ahab did
2 Kings 8:18
like the house of Ahab
2 Kings 21:2
In fact, the verdicts upon the kings of Judah before Jehozhaz
are much like snowflakes. The basic structures and the con-
stituent materials are always the same, but no two are alike.
The citations of sources consist of three elements. Every one
starts in the same way: "and the rest of the acts of." The second
element, a characterization of what these acts consist of, is
more variable. Twelve times this phrase is merely "and all that
he did," but in other cases a host of expressions, most com-
monly "and the conspiracy which he made" (1 Kings 1650; 2
Kings 15:15) "and his might" (1 Kings 15:23; 1657; 22:45; 2 Kings
10:34; 13:8,12; 14:15,28; 20:20), are used in place or in addition to
this basic phrase. Sometimes this element expands into a
somewhat longer notice, as in 2 Kings 1458 and 2050; once it is
completely absent (2 Kings 14:18). The third element, the
34
 Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings
citation itself, is most commonly a rhetorical question, "are
they not written in the book," but it is also sometimes a state-
ment, "they are written in the book" /29/. Sometimes between
this citation formula and the following death and burial form-
ula, the editor remarks on some characteristic events of the
reign /30/.
The historian's presentation of the deaths, burials, and suc-
cessors of the kings was strongly influenced by the nature of
those events themselves. Thus in the case of a revolt in Israel,
the deposed king is not provided with any formal notice of
death, burial, and succession /31/. Joram of Israel, assassinated,
and Hoshea, deposed, receive no conclusion whatsoever. No
information on burial is presented for Jeroboam, Ahab, Jero-
boam II, Menahem, Hezekiah, or Jehoiakim. The conclusion for
Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:18) is inexplicably truncated? that for Joash
of Israel, strangely redundant (2 Kings 13:12-13 and 14:15-16).
Finally, the stereotyped death notices are sometimes replaced
by a narrative covering the same ground (2 Kings 12:21-22;
14:19-22; 23:29-30). Where the death notice does occur, how-
ever, it is quite regular: "and he slept with his fathers." In con-
trast, the burial formulae again demonstrate a characteristic
blend of stereotype and freedom. Twelve times the historian
uses the Niphal of gbr, but seven times we find the active voice
/32/. The phrase "with his fathers" is exclusively reserved for
the Judean kings. In general, the form and extent of these
burial notices seems to depend upon the sources which the
historian had before him. The succession notice, where it
occurs, is stereotyped: "and...his son reigned in his stead." The
exceptions are 2 Kings 13:13; 1421; 23:30.
This exhaustive analysis of the regnal formulae demonstrates
that one should not overemphasize the stereotyped nature of
these formulae. Sometimes the variations are the result of
changes in the historian's sources, as in the case of the name of
the queen mother or the extent of the burial notices. Some-
times the variations are purposeful, as in the reservation of the
term "buried with his fathers" to the Judean kings. Sometimes
the texture of the history itself forced a change in the formu-
lae, removing any need for an introduction or conclusion for
Jehu, for example. Yet the majority of the variations we have
noticed above, such as the two types of synchronisms, the
repetition or omission of the king's name with his age at ac-
cession for Judah, the order in which the length of reign and
capital city are mentioned for Israel, the passive and active
verbs in the burial formulae, occur quite randomly and are the
natural result of the historian writing his own prose freely,
35
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
using stock phrases from his everyday theological vocabulary,
and developing and modifying his structural arrangement as he
went along. This free and random variation is most clearly vis-
ible in the evaluation of the kings, where he juggled his stereo-
typed phrases into a score of different patterns. This principle
of variation even holds true in 2 Kings 15 where the historian,
consciously or unconsciously, rigidified his style to make a
theological point.
III. RIGIDITY IN THE EXILIC EDITOR'S FORMULAE
Let us now turn to the regnal formulae which would have
been composed or modified by a second editor supplementing a
history written during the reign of Josiah, viz. dealing with
those kings from Josiah onward. In the account of Josiah, at
least the length of reign given in the introduction and the whole
of the conclusion would have to be from this second editor.
The five age at accession notices are not different at all. The
absence of any synchronism forces them to be of the type which
mentions the kings' names. The notices for the length and place
of reign are also indistinguishable from earlier examples.
However, the present writer is a little suspicious of the
statements that Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin both reigned for three
months while Jehoiakim and Zedekiah both reigned for eleven
years. Perhaps the knotty difficulties in the chronology of the
last days of Judah have been created by an ill-informed second
editor extrapolating from what he knew about Jehoiachin and
Zedekiah to cover what he didn't know about Jehoahaz and
Jehoiakim /33f.
We observed above that in his notices about the queen
mothers the historian usually described them with either their
father's name or their place of origin. For Josiah, and the kings
who follow him, however, both pieces of information are given.
This shift in the formulae was probably caused by a change in
the practice of the historian's source, just like the other vari-
ants for the queen mother notices (see above, p. 33). Since a
historian writing in Josiah's day would still have had an intro-
duction for Josiah himself, though of course without any notice
of the length of his reign, the shift at this point would not be
due to a change in authors. Perhaps the annalistic source
continued to use this altered formula for the last four kings. We
should not overlook the possibility, however, that an exilic edi-
tor is using the Josiah queen mother formula as a model.
The really significant difference from the practice of the
historian comes in the judgment formulae upon these last four
36
 Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings
kings. The preceding pages have made clear the historian's habit
of varying the structures and expressions in these verdicts so
that no two are alike. These variations are especially striking
for the Judean kings. The positive judgment on Josiah is per-
fectly in harmony with this principle of variation (2 Kings 22:2).
It is akin to those verdicts that employ both the "eyes" expres-
sion and the "walk" expression: 1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 8:18,27;
16:2; 21:20-21. Yet is is distinctly different from all of them,
just as they are all different from each other. The natural
assumption is that the verdict upon Josiah is from the same
author as the earlier verdicts on the Judean kings.
However, turning to the judgments upon the last four kings,
the careful reader is struck by a change. Snaith, in his com-
mentary on Kings, sensed this difference. He casually suggested
that "the basis of criticism changes somewhat," now focusing
upon the kings' "fathers" or upon Jehoiakim as the bad examples
these kings followed /34/. This is true only in part. Although the
invocation of an immediate predecessor as a precedent is com-
mon to the earlier verdicts /35/, a fact which Snaith seems to
have overlooked, none of the earlier verdicts' on the Judean
kings use the extremely vague example of their ancestors in
general that we find in 2 Kings 23:32 and 37 /36/. Actually,
considering that about half of their ancestors did right in
Yahweh's eyes, this would be a remarkably inappropriate way of
speaking for the historian who made those earlier judgments.
It is as though some later editor had gotten the idea firmly
fixed in his mind that a king's father should be cited as a
forerunner in his sin, probably using as a model the last neg-
ative verdict available to him, 2 Kings 21:20, the wording of
which is approximately repeated for these last four kings. Yet
to cite Josiah, the father of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, as an
example of wickedness was patently impossible! Lacking the
freedom from pedantry which the historian enjoyed with regard
to these formulae, this editor chose regularity of formula over
historical appropriateness and compromised by comparing the
two wicked kings with their "fathers." In fact, since this exilic
editor's purpose was to show how the disaster of 587 was a
justifiable judgment of God (see below, p. 123), he probably
considered this formulation entirely appropriate.
It is this new rigidity of formula that constitutes the dif-
ference which Snaith sensed but could not adequately explain. It
is something of a shock after the baroque variety to which we
have become accustomed to read the wooden phrases which
evaluate the last four kings
Jehoahaz "and he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh
37
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
according to all his fathers had done"
Jehoiakim "and he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh
according to all his fathers had done"
Jehoiachin "and he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh
according to all his father had done"
Zedekiah "and he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh
according to all Jehoiakim had done"
Such an expression, which follows the typical "in the eyes of
Yahweh" statement, is not unknown to the earlier verdicts on
the Judean kings:
Amaziah "according to all Joash his father had done"
Jotham "according to all Uzziah his father had done"
Hezekiah "according to all David his father had done"
Am on "as Manasseh his father had done"
It is also remarkably close to one for an Israelite king:
Zechariah "as his father had done"
Thus the phrase itself is not outside the sphere of the possible
for the historian, except perhaps for the suggestion that the
Davidides were a generally sinful group. It is the rigid, rubber-
stamp adherence to formula that is unlike anything our earlier
studies would have led us to expect. In addition to being more
rigid than the previous verdict formulae, these last four are
also strikingly shorter. In every previous Judean example, the
historian has supplemented his bare formula with extra details
(as 2 Kings 18:3-6), further generalizing statements (as 1 Kings
14:21-24), or a limitation of a positive verdict (usually by "only
he did not remove the high places" as 2 Kings 12:3-4). The last
four verdicts, on the other hand, are not supplemented at all.
They are only eight dry and colorless words.
The most likely explanation for this stylistic shift is that we
have here the woodenly imitative work of some supplementary
editor, not the creative and free variation of the original author.
At first sight, the somewhat analogous rigidification of the
historian's verdicts for the Israelite kings as the history of the
North draws to a close seems to be a possible argument against
this hypothesis. Especially to be noted are those for Pekahiah (2
Kings 1554) and Pekah (2 Kings 15:28) which are exactly alike
but for one letter. However, these two are only four verses
apart, which probably accounts for their similarity. The other
Israelite verdicts, although more rigid than the historian's pre-
vious judgments, are still nowhere nearly as frozen as the last
four for Judah.
Indeed, the minor differences that do occur in these last four
were actually forced upon the exilic editor, whereas the more
extensive variations in the historian's Israelite verdicts are un-
38
 Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings

motivated by anything except the historian's own compositional

freedom. For example, we have already described how the in-
appropriate comparison with the Judean kings' "fathers" was
forced upon the exilic editor.
Yet why does he use Jehoiakim as an examplar for Zedekiah
(2 Kings 24:19)? We would expect "fathers" as for the other
children of Josiah, and hardly Zedekiah's brother, who was not
even his immediate predecessor. Is this finally an example of a
free editorial variation based upon the writer's understanding
that the rebellions of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were parallel
examples of sinfulness? Although this would not completely
invalidate a conclusion of later redaction, since the variation is
still less than our perusal of the earlier verdict formulae would
lead us to expect, it certainly seems to weaken the hypothesis.
However, another explanation seems more likely, based upon
the textual criticism of this passage, namely that the exilic
editor was forced by circumstances to cite Jehoiakim in order
to remain as close as possible to the target of comparison he
had inherited from 2 Kings 21:20.
The MT of 2 Kings 24:17 makes Zedekiah (correctly) the
"uncle" (dod) of Jehoiachin, a reading supported by the Vulgate
and the Targum. In addition the Lucianic recension and the
Greek of 2 Chr. 36:10 support the MT of Kings with the usual
Greek equivalent of "uncle": "father's brother". The "LXX"
Greek, here representing the Kaige recension, offers hion autou
(his son), however. Although some have seen this as actually
supporting the MT as an inner-Greek corruption for theion
autou, the LXX tradition nowhere uses the word theios as an
equivalent for dod or anything else /37/. Therefore, the Greek
"his son" most likely represents an accidental accommodation
to the usual succession formula. De Rossi notes one Hebrew MS
that reads "his son," probably an independent example of the
same error.
The present text of 2 Kings 24:17 is historically correct. This
is clear from the book of Kings' own notice that Zedekiah and
Jehoahaz had the same mother (2 Kings 23:31; 24:18) as well as
from 1 Chr. 3:15 /38/. Yet full consideration should be given, I
believe, to the reading of the MT of 2 Chr. 36:10, which offers
"his brother" for "his uncle" /39/. According to the principle of
lectio difficilior, this must be what the second editor actually
wrote, being under the false impression that Zedekiah was the
son of Jehoiakim, not of Josiah, and not understanding the sig-
nificance of his own information in 2 Kings 23:31 and 24:18. A
change from "brother" to "uncle" in order to correct the pass-
age to what was obviously historically true is perfectly under-
39
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
standable (MT and Lucian). A change to "his son" because of an
unconscious assimilation to the other succession formulae is
also perfectly understandable (Kaige recension). Yet there is no
way to explain the origin of the reading "brother" unless this is
what the second editor originally wrote. The Chronicler would
have had no tendentious reason to make this change, nor do the
two readings resemble each other graphically.
If it is true that the exilic editor, writing some forty years
after the event and using inadequate sources (cf. pp.85-87),
incorrectly believed Zedekiah was the son of Jehoiakim /40/, it
becomes clear why he was forced to write "Jehoiakim" instead
of "his father(s)." In agreement with what he attempts to do
throughout these four verdict formulae, he wants to use the
father of Zedekiah as the bad example which the new king
followed. But to write simply "his father" would be to invite
confusion, for the reader would not immediately understand just
who Zedekiah's father was because the succession had not been
direct. Jehoiakim must be mentioned by name. Thus, this
deviation from what the exilic editor would have liked to have
written was forced by circumstances, just as in the cases of
Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim.
Moving from the introductions to the conclusions, we find
only two that would be assigned to a post-Josianic writer: Jos-
iah's and Jehoiakim's* The other three kings were deposed and
therefore did not receive any conclusion (p.29). These conclu-
sions do not provide evidence either for or against the hypo-
thesis.
Rather strangely, several scholars are of the opinion that
there is something unusual about the position of the story of
Josiah's death after the citation formula /41/. Although this
would give added support to our theory of an exilic editor, it is
simply not true. The structure of the conclusion for Josiah is
paralleled by those for Joash of Judah (2 Kings 12:20-22) and for
Amaziah (2 Kings 14:18-22), where the death notices have been
replaced by narratives concerning the king's death as the result
of palace intrigue, followed by burial notices and infor- mation
about the succession. Since this is exactly the same out- line as
that used for the conclusion for Josiah, this conclusion provides
no evidence at all for a change in writers, even though
according to our hypothesis the exilic editor must have written
it.
Much the same argument has been applied to 2 Kings 24:7,
where what looks like an annalistic notice follows the conclu-
sion /42/. However, a glance at 2 Kings 14:22 or 15:16 refutes
any notion that this practice would be impossible for the
40
 Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings
historian.
Nevertheless, the rubber-stamp character of the last four
introductory regnal formulae is a strong indication that a
second writer was responsible for them.
[Link] CAM HA-1 ARES AND THE VERDICT FORMULAE
There is one last piece of evidence that in the last four
regnal formulae a new hand is at work. In 2 Kings 23:30b-32 we
read that the rural gentry, the cam ha-'ares, made 3ehoahaz
king. Since this class had already championed the traditional
system of succession several times /43/, this action is hist-
orically credible. However, we also read that Jehoahaz did evil,
but this is a deviation from the regular practice of the hist-
orian. No other king elevated by the rural gentry or having
positive relations with them was ever judged negatively.
J. Alberto Soggin has dealt with the intimate relationship
between the political and religious aspirations of these rural
gentry and those of the Deuteronomistic historian /M/. This
social class preserved the same traditions which the historian
himself advocated and had the political power necessary to
implement reform. It was the outgrowth of the old militia,
cherished the democratic principle of choosing the king, and put
this theoretical right into practice in times of political crisis.
All the kings for whom a positive relationship with this group
can be asserted are approved by the historian: those who were
elevated by the rural gentry or who emerged as legitimate
successors after a revolt (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Josiah), and
Jotham, who "judged the people of the land" (2 Kings 15:5) /45/.
A negative judgment on a king enthroned by the cam ha-
J
are§ is a striking reversal of the historian's policy. There are
three possible ways of explaining this irregularity: 1) Jehoahaz
disappointed his supporters; 2) The historian was so much in the
power of his theology of retribution that he was forced by the
fact of 3ehoahaz's miniscule tenure to assert he was wicked; 3)
A new editor has taken over the function of judging the kings.
As for the first possibility, it is hard to see how dehoahaz
could have created any sort of political and religious policy in
the three months allowed him, much less reversed the policies
of his father's last thirteen years. In fact, the best explanation
for Neco's interference with the Judean succession is that
Jehoahaz had been continuing Josiah's nationalistic policies /46/.
The second explanation is equally unlikely. It is a mis-
conception to see the historian as being mechanically bound to
the principle of automatic retribution in a way similar to the
41
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Chronicler. Pfeiffer is an example of such an opinion:
In passing verdict on each king, the author obviously
intended to prove that obedience to the Deuteronomic law
brought prosperity, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the
doctrine of just retribution for human conduct on this
earth, which our author accepted blindly from Deutero-
nomy, has always conflicted with actualities...reality had
to be sacrificed to theory /47/.
This opinion is a distortion. For the historian, retribution was
not the outworking of an automatic principle of fate but the act
of the offended personality of Yahweh, who is sovereign over
automatic retribution and who can modify, delay, or eliminate
it /48/. If the historian had really been interested in proving the
theory of retribution, he would have eliminated his annalistic
notices about misfortunes affecting the "good" kings, such as
Asa's foot disease (1 Kings 15:23), the wreck of Jehoshaphat's
trading ship (1 Kings 22:48), Uzziah's leprosy (2 Kings 15:5), or
war in the reign of Jotham (2 Kings 15:37). Two of the pious
kings suffer death by assassination: Joash and Amaziah. In fact
the wickedest king of all also enjoyed the longest reign, Manas-
seh. Therefore, it is hard to believe that length of reign had
anything to do with how the historian judged a king.
Thus, only the last possibility remains. A new editor has
taken over in 23:31-32, an editor for whom the political opinions
of the cam ha-'ares bore no relationship to his uniformly neg-
ative judgments upon the last four kings.
In summary, certain evidence for the work of a new writer
who took over the book of Kings after Josiah may be derived
from an examination of the regnal formulae. The historian's
formulae, especially the verdicts upon the Judean kings, reflect
a fascinating diversity, always made up of the same basic
material of Deuteronomistic cliches and always with the same
overall pattern, but never exactly alike. But the formulae of
the exilic editor are carbon copies of each other with only the
slightest differences, and even those were forced upon him by
circumstances. The historian's verdicts for Judean kings are
always supplemented by further information or at least by
further cliches, but the exilic editor's are always limited to the
bare formula itself, and even this is shorter than that of the
historian. The historian judges the kings who had a positive
relationship with the rural gentry positively. The exilic editor
condemns Jehoahaz even though he was the "favorite son" of
this party.

42
 Chapter 3

THE ADDITIONS OF THE EXILIC EDITOR

AND THEIR DISTINCTIVE LINGUISTIC FEATURES

I. S E C O N D A R Y DEUTERONOMISTIC PASSAGES IN JUDGES

There are five passages within the scope of the present form
of the Deuteronomistic history, two in Judges and three in 2
Kings, which use the phrase "they did not listen" as an ac-
cusation against God's people and as a defense of his judgment
upon them. Form critically they are of different genres, as we
shall see below, although their structures have much in com-
mon. They are connected to each other primarily by theology,
linguistic usage, and especially by the form of their accusation:
"they/you have not listened (to my voice)."
Further, in each case there are literary critical indications
that the passages are secondary to their context. Thus, they are
prime candidates for the work of the hypothetical exilic editor.
They are Judg. 2:1-5 (the angel of Yahweh at Bochim), Judg.
6:7-10 (the anonymous prophet in the Midianite crisis), 2 Kings
17:7-20 (observations on the fall of Samaria), 2 Kings 17:34b-40
(conduct of the Samaritans after 722), and 2 Kings 21:3-15
(Manasseh's sin). We shall first examine the two passages in
Judges.
Judg. 2:1-5
There has been extensive scholarly agreement on only one
point concerning this passage, namely, that it is integrally
connected neither with the following theological introduction to
the book of Judges in particular, nor to the Deuteronomistic
book of Judges in general. Nothing in the rest of the book
refers to this incident or its significance; it could drop out
without being missed. In fact, 2:1-5 is also alien to the larger
whole of the Deuteronomistic history /!/. This passage breaks
the clear previous connection of Josh. 23 and Judg. 2:6 where
the people gathered in Josh. 23 are dismissed /2/. The historian
believed that the conquest had been complete under Joshua
(Josh. 11:23) /3/, but the angel announces that it was not. In the
narrative of the historian, the people do not sin until after
Joshua's generation has passed from the scene (Judg. 2:7-11);
Judg. 2:1-5 cannot be harmonized with this in any way.
43
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
The previous chapter, Judg. 1, also falls outside the scope of
the history. It views the conquest as incomplete, considers
Joshua as already dead (in contrast to 2:6), separates the pre-
viously connected Josh. 23 and Judg. 2:6, and has been put
together without any trace of Deuteronomistic redaction /b/.
The question of the relationship of Judg. 1 to 2:1-5, on the other
hand, is not so clear-cut.
The classical position has been to extract from 2:1-5 an older
kernel, la and 5b, which narrated a sacrifice to round off the
narrative of Judg. 1 /5/ and marked the transfer of the cultic
center to the heart of the land. Source critics assigned Judg. 1
and 2:la, 5b to J or some related source /6/ because of their use
of the "angel of Yahweh" and the supposedly Yahwistic nature
of Judg. 1 /?/. Supposedly, 2:lb-5a was added by one of the
book's successive redactors to connect to the following 2:6 and
to provide an etiology for the idea of an incomplete conquest.
These verses are Deuteronomistic in language and theology.
The editor who supposedly added 2:lb-5a was often identified
as the same editor who revised Judg. 1 by changing the original
formula "they could not drive them out," the wording of the
fragmentary parallels to these verses in Joshua (15:63; 17:12), to
"they did not drive them out," as in Judg. 1:21,27 and so on in
Judg. 1, implying that this failure was deliberate /8/. Those
critics who saw 2:lb-5a as an editorial link between Judg. 1 (J)
and Judg. 2:6ff. (E) naturally assigned this to R^E. However,
those who recognized the Deuteronomistic nature of both 2:1-5
and the rest of Judges attributed the link to a Deuteronomistic
editor /9/.
Actually Judg. 2:1-5 as a whole is a unit with only a
secondary relationship to either Judg. 1 or the rest of the book
of Judges. There is no organic unity with Judg. 1 at all, as
Bertheau realized a century ago. The content of the oracle in
Judg. 2:1-5 is dependent upon Judg. 1 and that chapter's view of
the conquest, but Judg. 1 does not really point forward to 2:1-5.
Judg. 1 does not suggest that the incompleteness of the con-
quest was the result of sin, nor does it prepare us for a gath-
ering of all the people /10/. On the other hand, the rest of
Judges never refers to this incident, yet the punishment of
Judg. 2:3 points forward to the events of the following book.
Therefore, Judg. 2:1-5 is not organically one with either Judg. 1
or the following book of Judges but is, in fact, dependent on the
content of both.
However, this pericope is not completely redactional, for
there are remnants of a pre-editorial self-contained etiological
narrative giving an explanation for a place name from a former
M
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
act of weeping, perhaps originally a feature of ritual mourning,
and the theophanic authentication of a cult place and the
practice of sacrifice there. Some analogous examples of an
etiological saga for a cult and the name of a cult place are Gen.
32:23-32 (Jacob at Penuel), Gen. 28:11-19 (Jacob at Bethel), and
Judg. 6:11-24 (Gideon and the altar of Yahweh-shalom).
The weeping gave the editor who utilized this earlier story
the opportunity to speak of sin; the angel gave him the means
/II/. The editor has replaced whatever the angel of Yahweh
originally said or did with a theological editorializing speech,
constructed as a pastiche of Tetrateuchal concepts and quo-
tations and cast into the genre of what Buis calls a "requisitoire
simple" (simple indictment) /12/.
The transition from older saga to later indictment is brutal:
'acaleh is simple imperfect which must be taken as parallel in
temporal indication to the following waw-consecutive imper-
fect, wci'abt*. Many scholars fill in the beginning of this sen-
tence from Exod. 3:16b or Gen. 50:24 as though there has been
haplography /13/, but in light of the editorializing character of
the rest of the speech, it is better to see this grammatical
irregularity as the result of a careless quotation of Exod. 3:17
m/.
The debt this indictment owes to the Tetrateuch is both ver-
bal and conceptual and centers upon Exod. 23:20-33 and 34:
12-13. The verbal dependences are obvious (cf. the Hebrew):

Judg. 2;lb-3 Exod. 3:17

I brought you up I will bring you up
Oacaleh) from Cacaleh) from
Egypt the affliction of Egypt
and brought you
to the land to the land
which I swore to of the Canaanites.
your fathers. And
I said, I will
never break my
covenant with you.
And you, Exod. 34:12 Exod. 23:32
you shall not make lest you make you shall not make
a covenant with the a covenant with the a covenant with
inhabitants of inhabitants of the them.
this land. land.

45
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Exod. 34:13
You shall break You shall break
down their altars. down their altars.
Exod. 23:22
But you have not If you surely
listened to my voice. listen to his voice.
What is this you have
done?
And now I say, Exod. 34:11 Exod. 23:30
I will not drive Behold I will drive I will drive
them out from before them out from before out from before
you, but they shall you you
be sides [sic] to
you, and their gods Exod. 23:33
shall be a snare lest it be a snare It will be a snare
for you. in your midst. for you.

The conceptual dependence upon Exodus is as striking as the

verbal. In Exod. 23:20 and 33:2, Yahweh promises he will send
his angel to lead the people to the place he has prepared. The
people are to listen to him (23:21). If they do listen, then Yah-
weh will be an enemy to their enemies and exterminate the in-
habitants of the land (23:22). The people are to destroy the gods
and standing stones of these peoples and make no covenant with
them (23:32; 34:12) lest they or their gods become a "snare"
(23:33; 34:12).
The genre into which this mosaic of expressions and concepts
from Exodus has been cast is akin to the prophetic announce-
ment of judgment against Israel /15/ and midway in complexity
between the structure of this genre and the rib-pattern /16/.
Buis points out that actually this "simple indictment" is but one
member of a taxonomy of increasingly complex structures, each
of which adds a new element to the pattern. The simple indict-
ment has the accusation and the announcement of judgment of
the prophetic judgment speech, and in addition to this, its own
specifying element, the historical retrospect. This element may
recall the covenant in question, remind the listeners of past
warning, or refer to a previous royal investiture. Yet the simple
indictment does not go on to add the specifying element of the
rib-pattern, the appeal to divine witnesses.
We recognize in Judg. 2:1-5 the historical retrospect (lb-2a)
describing the covenant which has been broken, the accusation
(2b) in the form of a question, and the announcement of judg-
ment (3). Buis finds further examples of this structure in 1 Sam.

46
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
2:27-36; 2 Sam. 12:7-14; 2 Kings 14:7-12 and four times in the
prose sermons of Jeremiah /17/. Judg. 2:1-5, of course, is purely
a literary utilization of a genre belonging originally to the
milieu of oral prophetic preaching /18/.
Judg. 2:1-5 is therefore the work of an editor secondary to
the main edition of the Deuteronomistic history with a more
pessimistic view of the conquest and of the behavior of the
people before the completion of the conquest. This editor pre-
sumably added, but did not compose, Judg. 1, which forms the
background for Judg. 2:1-5. This editor may also have added to
Judg. 2:20-23 /19/, in which the same theory for the presence of
unconquered peoples is advanced.
In passing, it should be noticed that this second editor has an
intimate knowledge of the Tetrateuch in contrast to the hist-
orian himself, who does not seem to have known the JE docu-
ment at all /20/.
Judg. 2:1-5 has a close relationship to Judg. 6:7-10, with
which we shall deal before returning to 2:1-5 in greater detail.
Judg. 6:7-10
Judg. 6:7-10 is isolated from its context. While vv.2-6 and
11-24 are connected together by the movement from crisis to
salvation, they neither prepare for nor follow up on 7-10.
Literary seams are visible at both ends. V.7a picks up and
repeats 6b, while after v.10 the expected announcement of
judgment does not occur and the oracle breaks off abruptly. In
fact, the subject of foreign gods from 7-10 does not come up
again until 6:25-32. Judg. 6:7-10 could drop out and not be
missed. Richter describes its isolation as follows: "An unnamed
prophet appears, rare in the Old Testament; one never learns
who he is, whom he comes from, or even why he appears, for his
speech breaks off before it has even gotten to its subject" /21/.
Noth believed that these verses were created by the
Deuteronomistic historian himself, who here expanded his usual
introduction of Gideon by introducing a nameless prophet in
order to point out the ever-increasing sin of the people. Thus, in
a minor way, this section is similar to the other editorial
speeches in the history /22/. If Noth is correct that the basic
framework of Judges is to be attributed to the historian, how-
ever, his view of 6:7-10 is untenable, for a literary seam divides
the framing introduction of 6:1-6 from 7-10. Yet even if we
accept Richter's theory that the frames belong to the pre-Deut-
eronomistic book of Judges /23/, the abrupt transition between
7-10 and 11-24 does not seem to be the work of the Deutero-
nomic historian, whose transitions are smooth and whose over-
47
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
arching editorial purpose is clear /24/. In contrast, Judg.
10:11-16, which must be an example of the historian's editorial
composition, creates an excellent transition from what pre-
cedes to what follows and exhibits a clear purpose.
As Wellhausen correctly pointed out, the way in which this
pericope suddenly breaks off after a quotation from Judg. 2:2
only can make sense if Judg. 2:1-5 is already present in the
book, permitting the reader to complete the truncated thought
of Judg. 6:7-10 in his own mind /25/. Since Judg. 2:1-5 is sec-
ondary to the historian's narrative, Judg. 6:7-10 must be also.
Earlier scholarly opinion on this passage was not more unified
than it is today. Some authors ascribed it to E or E^ /26/,
others to some Deuteronomistic redactor /27/. However, any
search for a continuous source here is pointless, for the rep-
etition of 6b in 7a is not the sign of a new source but of edit-
orial insertion. Further, the often-cited subject connection to
vv.25-32 is only of the most general nature.
Before going further, it should be noted that whoever con-
structed Judg. 6:7-10 had the same habit of borrowing phrases
that characterized the one who put together the angel's mess-
age in Judg. 2:1-5. The angel's words were taken from scattered
places in the Tetrateuch; here the anonymous prophet quotes
the Deuteronomistic historian in 1 Sam. 10:18 (cf. the Hebrew).
Judg. 6:8-9 1 Sam. 10:18
Thus says Yahweh the God Thus says Yahweh the God
of Israel, I brought you up of Israel, I brought Israel up
from Egypt, and brought you from Egypt
out from the house of bondage
and I delivered you from the and I delivered you from the
hand of Egypt and from the hand of Egypt and from the
hand of all hand of all the kingdoms
who oppressed you. that were oppressing you.
Judg. 6:8-9 is secondary to 1 Sam. 10:18. The former adds a
phrase "house of bondage" which is not found in the historian at
all, though it is Deuteronomistic /28/, eliminates what would be
inappropriate for the time of the judges ("kingdoms") /29/, and
regularizes the third person object into a second person plural.
Two relatively detailed studies of Judg. 6:7-10 have been
published, although their conclusions do not agree. Beyerlin
theorized that the lack of any announcement of judgment
means that this passage is a fragment of an older tradition
truncated by the editorial process. He denied that the linguistic
usage is distinctively Deuteronomistic. He pointed instead to a
48
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
connection with the parenesis of Israel's cult because part of
the content of the speech is attached to just such a process at
Mizpah in 1 Sam. 10:18 and because there are further parallels
in the sacral parenesis of the Landtag at Shechem tradition in
Josh. 24, the mention of "the gods of the Amorites in whose
land you dwell" (Judg. 6:10 and Josh. 24:15), the demand to turn
from them, and the reference to the same saving acts. Thus,
this old fragment from the parenetic tradition of the pre-
monarchic cult was used by an editor to put the Gideon narra-
tives into theological focus /30/. However, these similarities
would seem to be of a literary nature (see the preceding para-
graph and pp.94-98 below) and say nothing about a cultic origin
for Judg. 6:7-10.
In contrast to Beyerlin, Richter failed to see any pre-literary
social situation for this passage /31/. The messenger formula
(v.8) stems from the prophetic tradition; the divine self-
revelation formula (v.10) is from the cultic sphere and should,
properly, be at the start of the speech, not in the middle.
Because an exodus formula stands at the beginning, one would
expect a credo to follow, but there is none. "This does not
indicate an original unity which has been revised by a later
Deuteronomist for use here, but rather a secondary
composition" [my translation] /32/. Richter quite correctly
concluded that this insertion is from the hand of a
Deuteronomist later than the Deuteronomistic historian,
perhaps the same who inserted Judg. 2:1-5 and 20-21 into the
book.
Formal Similarities between Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10
Although Richter has shown quite conclusively that no an-
cient tradition fragment is present in Judg. 6:7-10, his inability
to find a parallel structure was due to his puzzlement over
finding the exodus formula at the beginning of what could
otherwise have been a prophetic judgment speech and the pre-
sence of the divine self-relevation formula /33/. However, a
comparison with Buis1 simple indictment and Judg. 2:1 b-3 proves
enlightening. The two passages are here presented with the
present writer's own further subdivision of Buis' structural cate-
gory of the historical review.
Judg. 2;lb-3 Judg. 6;8b-10
Historical review I brought you up I brought you up
exodus from Egypt, from Egypt,
and brought you and brought you
into the land which out of the house
49
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
I swore to give of bondage; and I
to your fathers. delivered you from
the hand of the
Egyptians, and from
the hand of all who
oppressed you, and
drove them out
before you, and gave
you their land;
quoted basis for
the covenant I said, "I will and I said to you, "I
never break my am Yahweh your God;
covenant with you,
content of the and you shall make no you shall not pay
covenant covenant with the reverence to the
inhabitants of this gods of the Amorites,
land; you shall break in whose land you
down their altars. "dwell."
Accusation But you have not lis- But you have not lis-
tened to my voice. tened to my voice.
What is this you have
done?
Announcement of So now I say, I will
judgment not drive them out...
Here, as in Judg. 2:1-5, we have a literary imitation of a
simple indictment speech following the same structural outline.
Both even have the same tripartite subdivision of the historical
retrospect, a sub-division not present in the other examples of
this structure. Instead of being set into the frame of traditional
saga as Judg. 2:1-5, however, this speech is set into a literary
imitation of the introduction to a prophetic judgment speech,
one without any traditional basis whatsoever. The prophet is not
only anonymous, which is not completely unusual, but has no
notice of where he is from or his association with a master or
group, which is most unusual. He is no more than a two-
dimensional, paper-and-ink figure.
The absence of the last element of the structure, the
announcement of judgment, is merely the result of this author's
ceasing his imitation before it became inappropriate, for the
punishment is actually already in progress, and the next order
50
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
of business is salvation. The second editor is reminding his
readers why the Midianites are attacking by restating the pro-
grammatic accusation of Judg. 2:1-5. He intervened here, and
not somewhere else in the history of the judges, because only
here in the Gideon narratives did he find a concrete example of
fearing the gods of the Amorites (Judg. 6:10) upon which he
could comment: Judg. 6:25-32.
Linguistic Similarities
If we examine closely the linguistic usage of these two pass-
ages in Judges, related as they are in structure, content, and
theology, we find some expressions which are common through-
out the Old Testament and some which are Deuteronomistic in
a general way. However, we also find certain expressions which
are not used by the Deuteronomistic historian, a fact that fur-
ther undergirds our contention that these two passages are from
some later editor. Where these key expressions are found within
the bounds of the present history, this is always in sections of
the history which have been recognized on other grounds as not
being the work of the historian himself. From these two pass-
ages, we shall begin to weave a web that eventually will en-
tangle the work of a second editor for the Deuteronomistic
history in Kings as well as Judges.
1. "But you have not listened" as a generalizing accusation. In
the introduction to this chapter, we noted that both these sec-
tions from Judges find their climax in the idiomatic phrase,
"you have not listened to my voice." It would be most incorrect
to say that this cliche is limited to the work of the second
editor or Deuteronomistic literature in general /34/. Weinfeld
traces the roots of the general use of "listen" in Deutero-
nomistic style to the language of ancient treaties and to the
didactic style of wisdom teaching /35/. However, there is a
distinctive usage of this phrase in Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10, one
shared by 2 Kings 17:14,40, and 21:9. This is not the simple
occurrence of the phrase nor even its use as an accusation /36/.
Rather it is only in these five places that this generalized ac-
cusation follows the citation of some generalized command of
Yahweh designed to sum up the whole of the people's covenant
responsibilities. We shall go into this usage in greater detail
below.
2. "The land which Yaweh swore to your fathers." This
common Deuteronomistic clause comes in two forms. The fuller
expression includes the infinitive "to give" as a complement to
the main verb. In the abbreviated version found in Judg. 2:1, the
verb "give" is understood, not expressed. In Deuteronomy proper
51
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
both forms occur, the longer being more common; also in the
Tetrateuch both appear, but the shorter form is more common.
In the Deuteronomistic history, however, the expression is
always in the long form. In contrast, secondary Deuteronomistic
additions use the short form as well /37/. Thus, Judg. 2:1 shows
an affinity to the Tetrateuch not characteristic of the historian
and is actually closer to other secondary additions to the
history: Deut. 31:23 and Josh. 21:43 /38/.
3-6. Tetrateuchal language. In his reminiscences from the
Tetrateuch, the writer of these two Judges passages of course
borrows Tetrateuchal language. The significant thing is that the
historian himself never used such language, indicating that he
either did not know of or was not affected by the Tetrateuch.
Therefore Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10 could hardly be from his hand.
Four examples follow:
3. "To break (prr Hiphil) the covenant." This expression used
by Judg. 2:1 occurs nowhere in the history proper. With Yahweh
as subject, as there, it is found in Jer. 14:21 and Lev. 26:44. The
writer of Judg. 2:1 probably had the latter passage in mind. It is
used with men as the subject in Deut. 31:16,20 (tertiary addition
to the History).
4. "Expel" (grs*). This Tetrateuchal expression is found in both
Judg. 2:3 and 6:9 and is very common in JE in the context of
conquest. Within the limits of the Deuteronomistic history,
however, it is only used in secondary passages: Josh. 24:12,18;
Judg. 2:3; 6i9.
5. "Snares" (moqes) as a designation for foreign gods. This
expression from Judg. 2:3 is found in both the Tetrateuch and
Deuteronomy (Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Deut. 7:16). Its use in the
history is confined to secondary passages only: Josh. 23:13 and
Judg. 8:27b as well as here /39/.
6. "House of bondage." This expression from Judg. 6:8 is found
in Deuteronomy but not in the Deuteronomistic historian except
for the secondary Josh. 24:17 and here. Its origin is perhaps
Elohistic. It also occurs once in the prose sermons of Jeremiah
/40/.
7. "To fear foreign gods." "To fear Yahweh" is of course, a
common Deuteronomistic expression /41/. Weinfeld has pointed
out its origin in ancient treaty language and its subsequent use
in wisdom /42/. But the historian never uses this verb in ref-
erence to foreign gods. This usage is restricted to Judg. 6:10
and to four verses in 2 Kings 17:7,35,37,38. It is very significant
that 2 Kings 17 also contains two sections which make use of
expression number 1 as well.
8. "The gods of the Amorites." This expression is found only
52
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor

in Judg. 6:10 and Josh. 24:15 within the scope of the Deutero-
nomistic history, both secondary passages. The historian cha-
racterizes foreign gods as "other gods," "the Baals and the
Ashteroth," or "the gods of the peoples round about you," but
never as the "gods of the Amorites."
Thus, literary critical evidence shows that Judg. 2:1-5 and
6:7-10 are secondary to the work of the Deuteronomistic hist-
orian. These two passages demonstrate affinities in structure
and usage with each other, with other obvious additons to the
history, and also with certain material in 2 Kings. However,
their usage is alien to the assuredly primary portions of the
Deuteronomistic history.
We shall now move on to discuss in greater detail those
sections of 2 Kings which examples number 1 and 7 above have
marked off as similar to the secondary passages in Judges.
II. SECONDARY PASSAGES IN KINGS
RELATED TO THOSE IN JUDGES
Structural similarities
Under example number 1 above we noted that in only five
passages does the expression "you have not listened" or the like
serve as a generalizing accusation following some generalized
command of Yahweh intended to sum up the covenant demand:
Judg. 2:1-5; 6:7-10; 2 Kings 17:13-14,35-40; 21:8-9. In the Judges
passages a generalized citation of the demand (2:2a; 6:10a) pre-
cedes the generalized accusation "you have not listened" (2:2b;
6:10b). The similarity of 2 Kings 17:13-14,35-40 and 21:8-9 in
structure is quite evident:
17:13-14 17:35-40 21:8-9

Summary of the covenant in a Yahweh speech;

Turn back from You shall not rever- And I shall no more
your evil ways and ence other gods, nor let the foot of Israel
keep my command- bow down to them, nor wander from the land
ments and my sacrifice to them, but which I gave to their
statutes according Yahweh who brought fathers, if only they
to the whole law you up from the land will be careful to do
which I commanded of Egypt with great all that I have com-
your fathers and might and with an out- manded them,
which I transmitted stretched arm, him according to all the
to you through my shall you reverence law which my servant
servants the and to him shall you Moses commanded
53
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
prophets. bow down and you them.
shall sacrifice. And the
statutes and ordinances and the law and the
commandments which he wrote for you, you
shall keep and do it forever, and you shaU not
reverence other gods. And the covenant which
I made with you you shall not forget, nor shall
you reverence other gods.
Generalized accusation;
But they did not But they did not But they did not
listen, but listen, but listen, and
stiffened their continued to act Manasseh led them
necks more than according to their astray,
their fathers. former manner.
This habit of theological and literary style, derived ultimately
from the prophetic genres that make up the structural taxo-
nomy that reaches from the judgment speech through the
simple indictment to the rib-pattern, is never found in those
portions of the history which have not been suspected by the
traditional literary critics as being later than the main re-
daction.
In the prose sermons of Jeremiah, on the other hand, one
finds the same pattern of "you have not listened (to my voice)"
as a generalized accusation following a generalized covenant
demand (Jer. 7:22-24; 25:5-7 and 44:4-5) or a specific law which
is representative of the whole covenant in Jer. 17:21-23 and
34:13-14. This is not the place to enter into the controversy
over the extent and nature of Deuteronomistic influence on
Jeremiah, yet this parallel of theological expression suggests
that a comparison of the prose sermons specifically with the
secondary portions of the Deuteronomistic history alone might
be fruitful. A preliminary survey suggests that the second ed-
itor has more contacts with the prose sermons than does the
historian proper /43/. In fact, the accusation that Judah has
"not listened" proves to be the keystone of both the second
editor's message and that of the Jeremiah prose sermons: Jer.
7:13,26; 9:12; 13:11; 29:19; 34:17; 36:31; 40:3 and other places;
however, this is also present in the poetic oracles as well: Jer.
3:13, 25; 22:21.
Upon close examination, then, usage example number 1 is less
a matter of linguistic usage than the others. The Judges pass-
ages are second person plural and use the full cliche, while the
54
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor

Kings verses are third person and omit "voice". Instead, this is a
characteristic basic pattern of theological discourse: Yahweh
has warned us to keep the covenant by doing or not doing such
and such, but we have not listened.
2 Kings 17:7-20, 23b
Since the two secondary Judges passages we have considered
show links in usage to vv.7,13-14 of 2 Kings 17 (examples 1 and
7), we should look at this chapter in greater detail. According
to Martin Noth, 2 Kings 17 is one of the pillars of the
Deuteronomistic history. In Josh. 1, 23, 1 Sam. 12, and 1 Kings
8, we find speeches put into the mouths of important persons.
These editorial addresses look forward and backward in time to
interpret the course of events. It is this activity of Dtr that has
earned him the title of historian, for historiography may be
defined as reviewing the broad flow of events, tracing in them
cause and effect and drawing conclusions. In addition to these
passages are units which serve essentially the same purpose but
are not speeches: Josh. 12, Judg. 2:11-19, and supposedly 2
Kings 17:7ff.
2 Kings 17 as a whole has given rise to a great deal of critical
discussion. The majority opinion about the first half of the
chapter was that vv. 18,21-23 belong to the main redactor of
Kings and 7-17, 19-20 belong to a second editor /M/, but some
scholars assigned 7-17 to the main redactor also, along with
18,21-23 /45/. Noth reversed the picture by attributing 7-20 to
the Deuteronomistic historian and recognizing in 21-23 a
secondary addition because the historian did not view the
separation of Israel from the Davidic monarchy as Israel's chief
sin /46/.
In spite of these fundamental differences, there has been a
consensus that v.18 belongs to the earlier stratum because of
its reference to the pre-exilic situation. However, this could
just as easily be an exilic author referring not to his own day,
but to the situation of 722 B.C. Another item of consensus has
been that vv.21-23 stand over against 19-20 and perhaps also
7-17.
To the present writer, certain literary critical decisions seem
quite easy to make. First, v.18 cannot be separated from 7-17.
V.7a provides the protasis for a long periodic sentence, the
apodosis of which is v.18 "And it came to pass because...that
Yahweh was angry." /47/ Dividing 18 from 7 would require us to
read way e hi ki as a retrospective causal clause referring to
the events of 17:1-6, but this would be completely anomalous. It
is in recognition of this that de Vaux remarked that 7a and 18
55
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
together are interrupted by 7b-17 /48/, although this conclusion
does not automatically follow.
This unit, 7-18, is a catalogue of accusations in chronological
order, with the exception of 8b, which is grammatically
difficult and is either a gloss or a textual corruption. It is not
clear whether the object of casu is to be understood as
"kings" or "practices." The variant readings of the versions
apparently prove only that the difficulty was already present in
their Vorlage. Vv.16-17 break this chronological order as well,
but only because they serve as summary statements.
Second, vv. 19-20 present a degree of contrast to 7-18, but
are not from a different hand. V.I9 is clearly a comment upon
18 with an unexpected reference to Judah. Although some see
this comment as being based upon a misunderstanding of 18 and
as being secondary to it /49/, this could be merely an attempt
to prevent confusion by the author of 7-18. Such would be
particularly likely if the expression "seed of Israel" of 20 was
meant to include Judah. In fact, Judah is included in every
other occurrence of this phrase, if not exclusively implied: Isa.
45:25; Jer. 31:36,37; Ps. 22:23; Neh. 9:2; 1 Chron. 16:13. Thus,
v.20 is not out of chronological order at all. Rather, 19-20 are
the work of the author of the final chapters of Kings, who is
pointing forward to what is coming. Indeed, the "spoilers" of
v.20 must refer to what will happen to Judah in 2 Kings 24:2, in
reminiscence of Judg. 2:14, since nothing of the sort is reported
for Israel.
Third, the actual literary critical break does not come until
v.21, a verse which begins a new idea not previously prepared
for, the division of the kingdom. This new subject completely
shatters the chronological arrangement because the subject of
the fall of Israel, not its genesis, is under consideration. It is
hard to see how v.21 could have started with Ju if it originally
followed v.20. This preposition has been constructed with the
introductory way e hT of v.7 as though the remainder of 7-20
was secondary /50/, attached to v.18 /51/, or modified on the
basis of the Lucianic recension /52/. However, it is just possible
that the beginning of the phrase was lost through the editorial
process. A further indication that 21-23 stand over against 7-20
is that the former verses view the sin of the North as the sin of
Jeroboam rather than as idolatry and the worship of other gods
(8-12, 16-17). Actually, the two sections are functional para-
llels, each explaining the events of 722 B.C., but from different
points of view.
These three conclusions are relatively clear, but what is not
immediately obvious is which section, 7-20 or 21-23, is second-
56
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor

ary to the other. For an answer we must turn to a comparison

of literary usage. Our examination of the two secondary pass-
ages from Judges demonstrated links to vv.7,13-14. This leads
us to ask if there are further differences in the language of
7-20 from that of the Deuteronomistic historian proper.
Much of the language of 7-20 is employed in Deuteronomistic
literature in general; /53/ other expressions are rarer but are
still shared by both the historian and the author of 7-20.
One could hardly say that this passage was uninfluenced by
the work of the historian, but we would fully expect a second
editor to have much in common with a book important enough
to him to merit updating, just as the historian himself has much
in common with Deuteronomy /54/. Yet if 7-20 is from a later
hand, we would also expect to find some differences. In fact,
closer examination shows expressions here that are never used
by the historian. Often these are characteristic instead of other
sections of Kings, but only those which earlier literary critics
recognized as secondary to the main redaction. All of these
passages will be dealt with in detail below, and in all cases
there are cogent reasons for seeing them as secondary. Our
purpose for the present, however, is to show how the linguistic
evidence indicates that these passages, including 17:7-20, stand
as a group over against the mainstream of the Deuteronomistic
history. Not all of the examples which follow are equally con-
vincing, and some are rather weak, but their cumulative
strength is impressive. We shall use the term "exilic editor" as
shorthand for these secondary passages.
9. hoq as "customs" (vv.8,19). hoq is the common Deutero-
nomistic word for the statutes of God, used in parallel with
mispat (Deut. 4:1, 5, 8, 14; 1 Kings 9:4), [Link] (1 Kings 3:14;
8:61) or both (1 Kings 8:58) by the historian. This same "sacred"
connotation is intended in 2 Kings 17:13 and 34b. However,
twice in v.8 and again in 19, the word instead denotes a firmly
established custom, here a negative one. These are the only
three times that hoq has this more secular meaning within the
confines of the present form of the Deuteronomistic history.
This supports our previous literary critical conclusion that 7-18
and 19-20 are from the same hand and that that hand is not the
historian's.
10. qjr used alone for sinful sacrifice ([Link]). Several times in
the Deuteronomistic history the verb qfr is used neutrally,
without any indication that a sin is being committed (1 Sam.
2:15,16,28; 1 Kings 9:25 [text corrupt} 2 Kings 16:13,15) or that
the usage is particularly due to Deuteronomistic style (1 Kings
12:33; 13:1,2; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:8). For the historian, the verb
57
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
seems to have had its more narrow meaning of burning incense
or causing smoke to rise; therefore, when he is making a neg-
ative judgment about sacrifices at the high places, he always
uses the verbs qtr and zbh together, for example 1 Kings 22:44.
This same sentence isTepeated at 2 Kings 12:4; 14:4; 15:4,35.
The other examples of the use of both verbs together to make a
negative judgment on sacrificing are 1 Kings 3:3; 11:8; 2 Kings
16:4.
For the exilic editor, however, the word seems to have had
the broader connotation of sacrifice in general, for he always
uses this verb alone in his negative judgments: 2 Kings 17:11;
22:17; 23:5. Here we are provided a link to the secondary over-
lay of the Huldah prophecy (see pp.76ff.) and to an addition to
the report of 3osiah's reforms (see [Link].).
11. Nouns qualified by quotations in 'aSer clauses (v.12). This
stylistic practice is not completely absent in the work of the
historian, but it is much more common with the exilic editor.
Twice it is present in the historian's sources (1 Sam. 9:17; 24:5),
and once the historian himself uses this syntactical structure in
1 Kings 8:29. Yet in the limited space allotted him in Kings,
about five chapters, the exilic editor uses it four times: 2 Kings
17:12; 21:4,7; 23:27. From this one can at least say that the
exilic editor has a tendency to use this structure far more than
the historian. This can serve as supportive evidence, along with
the stronger arguments, for a thesis of dual redaction.
12. cwd (warn) with Yahweh as subject (v. 13). This verb
never occurs with the meaning "warn" with Yahweh as subject
in the history proper. In Deut. 4:26 and 31:28 /55/, the historian
does use this verb with Yahweh as subject, but the meaning
instead is "call to witness" with heaven and earth as object. The
only cases where "warn" is meant are in 1 Kings 2:42 (from the
historian's source) and 1 Sam. 8:9 (twice) and have men as their
subject. It is only here in 2 Kings 17:13 and 15 that the verb
means "warn" when Yahweh is the subject. Although this also is
one of the weaker examples, it too can play a supportive role in
undergirding the thesis that 2 Kings 17:7-20 are not from the
historian.
13. "My servants the prophets" (v.13). Although this
expression is found once in the history proper (2 Kings 9:7)
referring to their death at the hand of Ahab's house, this is
probably from the historian's source, not his own prose /56/. In
the prose sermons of Jeremiah, however, this expression is
always linked to the idea that Yahweh has sent warning to the
people which they ignored: Jer. 725; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4.
Here in 2 Kings 17:13, the phrase is used in exactly the same
58
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
way, in contrast to the one occurrence of disputed origin in the
history itself. The same phrase in the same theological context
is also found in 2 Kings 17:23 (exilic editor, see below), 2 Kings
21:10, and 24:2. In these last two places it is part of the
prophecy-fulfillment schema linking Manasseh's sin to the fall
of Jerusalem.
14. "The hosts of heaven" (v.16). The reference to astral
bodies as the object of illicit worship is found once in
Deuteronomy proper (17:3). Within the compass of the history,
it occurs five times, all in places which have been considered
secondary to the basic compilation: Deut. 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16;
21:3,5: 23:4,5. It is also found in Her. 8:2 and 19:13 and Zeph. 1:5.
With this expression and example 13, the net of usage has been
extended to include the judgment on Manasseh in 2 Kings 21, a
sermonic judgment that must belong to a writer after the time
of Josiah and which must be the exilic editor if our thesis is
correct (see pp.65f.).
15. "He removed (swr Hiphil) them from before him" (v.18).
This expression is found here in 2 Kings 17:18 and 23, 23:27, and
24:3. These last two passages must be assigned to a post-
Josianic writer. The use of this expression and number 13 in
17:23 helps us to come to a decision about whether w.21-23 are
primary to or secondary to 7-20. We have said that these verses
cannot be from the same hand as 7-20. Yet since these verses
use expressions which are not characteristic of the Deutero-
nomistic historian himself but which are apparently borrowed
from 7-20, 21-23 must be secondary to 7-20 and to both the
historian and the exilic editor. Interestingly, this is exactly
Moth's conclusion about vv.21-23, though on different grounds
1571.
16. Dependence on Deut. 18:10 (v.17). The verb nbs (divine) is
used only twice in the present Deuteronomistic history, here
and 2 Kings 21:6. In this latter passage is also found the rare
expression '6b w e yidd ec 5nim which is repeated in the
account of Josiah's reform at 23:24, a secondary passage about
which more will be said below (p.83). This latter phrase is also
found in 1 Sam. 28:3 and 9, where it is noted that Saul expelled
diviners. V.9 is an integral part of the historian's source, the
Saul story, while v.3 is an editorial introduction dependent upon
it, probably by the historian himself /58/. Thus this expression
is not really characteristic of the historian at all, only copied
for a limited editorial purpose.
The exilic editor, on the other hand, seems to have been
deeply impressed by Deut. 18:10, perhaps because of the popu-
larity of divination among the neo-Babylonians. Upon this
59
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
passage is based both the general accusation against Israel in 2
Kings 17:17 and the more specific one against Manasseh in 21:6
(cf. the Hebrew):
2 Kings 17:17 Deut. 18:10-11 2Kings21;6b
and they caused anyone who causes he caused
their sons and his son or his son
daughter to pass daughter to pass to pass
through the fire through the fire through the fire
and practiced who practices and practiced
divination divination,
a soothsayer soothsaying
and augury or an augurer and augury
or who practices
magic or casts
spells or inquires and dealt with
of 'ob and 'oband
yidd ec 5nim. yidde ec onim.
17. "Yahweh rejected (m's) Israel" (v.20). With Yahweh as
subject, this verb is found in the history proper in 1 Sam.
15:23,26; 16:1,7, stating that he had rejected Saul from being
king, but with Israel as object it is found only in 2 Kings 17:20
and 23:27. Actually, this expression has its closest parallel in
Jeremiah (Jer. 2:37; 6:30; 729; 14:19). In Jer. 3326, part of a
prose sermon, we find this verb with Yahweh as subject and the
seed of Jacob as object, that is, an almost perfect parallel to 2
Kings 17:20. However, this is actually a sentence borrowed from
the poetic oracles of Jeremiah: Jer. 31:37.' /59/ Whatever
interpretation one may care to put upon the evidence of con-
tacts between the book of Jeremiah and the exilic editor (cf.
examples 1, 6, 10, 13, 17), it is at least clear that this highly
theological statement is not characteristic of the unquestioned
portions of the Deuteronomistic history.
Before moving on to consider those other passages in 2 Kings
which have a linguistic relationship to 2 Kings 17:7-20, we must
first return to tie up some of the loose ends of our literary
criticism.
Certain expressions used in v.22 remind us of the charac-
teristic prose of the Deuteronomistic historian (cf. 2 Kings
132). Yet at the same time, as we have mentioned, there are
parallels with the exilic editor (examples 13, 15). This is com-
pletely harmonious with our conclusion that vv.21-23 is sec-
ondary to both the first and second editions. To this there is,
however, one exception.
60
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
At the end of v.23 we find the statement, "and Israel was
exiled from their land," rounding off the narrative of the fall of
Israel. 2 Kings 25:21 rounds off the narrative of the end of
Judah with exactly the same words: "and Judah was exiled from
their land." It is unlikely that these two identical programmatic
statements are from different hands. The supplementer who
added 21-23a to 2 Kings 17 because he missed any mention of
Jeroboam's sin would hardly bother to add a deportation notice.
In fact, only the hand which included the following information
about the religious state of Samaria after the deportation and
which also had the final fate of Judah in view would have been
interested in making this statement. Therefore, we must limit
the insertion to 21-23a and attach 23b to 20, where it follows
the exilic editor's own theological parenthesis of 19-20 and
makes perfect sense as the final act in the drama.
Earlier scholars saw 17:7-20 as exilic and at odds with the
main redaction of Kings. They noticed that Judah is included in
the accusation of v.13, that such-a catalogue of sins is not
really characteristic of the first editor /60/, and that the sins
applied to Israel are really more appropriate for Manasseh, and
are not that which the first editor constantly applied to the
North, viz. the sin of Jeroboam /61/.
However, Noth's hypothesis requires that 2 Kings 17:7-20 be
assigned to the Deuteronomistic historian as one of his pivotal
editorial comments. Surely the historian must have had some-
thing to say about the fall of the Northern Kingdom, just as he
did at other turning points in the history of the people: Josh. 1;
23; Judg. 2:7-11; 1 Sam. 12; 1 Kings 8:14-43; 11-29-39. However,
if we turn to 2 Kings 18:9-12, we find a paragraph that covers
1he same ground as 17:3-24, the fall of the North and the sub-
sequent exile, complete with some explanatory accusations in
18:12. It is not immediately clear whether we can assign these
verses to the historian, however.
2 Kings 18:9-11 repeat in essentially the same words as 17:5-6
the notice of Samaria's fall and deportation. Because of internal
contradictions in 17:3-6, almost everyone agrees that 17:3-4 and
5-6 must be from different sources /62/. Since the only two
logical candidates are the annals books for Israel and Judah,
vv.3-4 may be assigned to the former and 5-6 to the latter, for
the annals of Israel would hardly have included information on
the actual fall of the city, much less about the deportation
/63/. This juxtaposition of the historian's two main sources
leaves little doubt that 17:3-6 is his own work, not that of some
secondary inserter. He must have concluded Hoshea's reign in
some way. The difficult problem is whether this information
61
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
was repeated as 18:9-11 by the historian himself /64/ or by
some later inserter who wished to synchronize this event with
Hezekiah /65/.
2 Kings 18:9-11 presents us with a chronological difficulty. If
722 was the sixth year of Hezekiah (18:10), how can 701 be his
fourteenth (18:13)? Because of this, Kittel assumed that these
synchronisms must have come from a later inserter /66/.
However, both chronological notices could be genuine annalistic
information if the sixth year of 18:10 was counted from
Hezekiah's (hypothetical) co-regency with Ahaz and 18:13 was
not. Not realizing the complications introduced by co-regency,
the historian could easily have believed on the basis of his
sources that Sennacherib's invasion was only eight years after
the fall of Samaria, for he lacked the external evidence that
gives us an accurate chronology /67/. The fact that 18:9-11
quotes only the Judean source (17:5-6) and not any of 17:3-4
suggests that 18:9-11 was taken directly from the annalistic
source and not secondarily copied from 17:3-6. Noth plausibly
explains the repetition by suggesting that 18:9-11 was quoted
for Hezekiah because it was at this point in the source that this
notice was recorded, that is from the point of view of the
Judean chronicler. Earlier in his work, the historian had already
once excerpted this notice and used it in connection with his
Israelite source /68/. In other words, it would be arbitrary to
deny 18:9-12 to the historian on the basis of incorrect chrono-
logy or the repetition of information.
However, we are still faced with the problem of the brevity
of 18:12. If 17:7-20 were the work of the Deuteronomistic hist-
orian, then 18:12 might be explained as merely a short, serm-
onic thrust which he could not resist adding; but if 17:7-20 must
be the work of some later editor, then 18:12 is certainly too
short to be one of the historian's programmatic editorials.
Yet we must remember that, while for an exilic historian the
events of 722 would have been of tremendous theological imp-
ortance as the first of the double disasters providing the moti-
vating thrust for his extended historical theodicy, for a Josianic
historian the fall of Samaria would have much less theological
significance /69/. This was not for him the decisive end of the
Israelites, but rather part of the background for the really
important event of his own day, the reunification of North and
South hinted at by Ahijah of Shiloh in 1 Kings 1159 (see
pp.H5f.). The fall of Samaria would not merit a full-scale
sermon at all, but perhaps only a brief theological judgment
such as 18:12. Therefore, the hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic
historian does not force us to assign 17:7-20 to him as a matter
62
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
of course.
In summary, the above analysis points to 17:7-20,23b as the
exilic editor's comment on Israel's fall, not an editorial of the
historian such as Josh. 23, 1 Sam. 12, or the like. Vv.21-23a
were an even later addition by someone who missed any men-
tion of Jeroboam, dependent upon both the historian and the
second editor in language. We may now take up the second
passage in 2 Kings which displays the theologically significant
accusation, "they did not listen."
2 Kings 17£4-40
Almost all critics agree that 17:24-28 is from some earlier
source rather than a composition of either the historian or the
exilic editor /69/. Although Noth saw this paragraph as a local
tradition from Bethel taken up by the historian /70/, this is
most unlikely. How could the historian so suddenly be willing to
leave uncriticized this non-central worship, worship which he so
violently attacks later in,his narrative of Josiah's reform? It is
better to assign to the second editor the credit for preserving
this fragment, especially because it is prepared for by v.23b,
which is from his hand. Gray /71/ plausibly suggested that this
section was written by a priest of the restored Bethel cult. V.41
points beyond the Yahweh worship described in 24-28 to the
subsequent situation of syncretism and is not part of the same
source /72/.
Next, vv.29-34a offer us a picture of syncretistic worship
among the new settlers with a bewildering list of corrupted or
parodied divine names (30-31). As to the literary critical origin
of these verses, opinion has been divided, although many agree
to assign them to an exilic editor /73/. Although the place
names of 30-31 are the same as those in v.24, this fact could be
interpreted in several ways. Perhaps the same person who added
29-31a also added these names to v.24 /74/. Perhaps 24 and
29-31 are both from the annals /75/. Or perhaps 30-31 is a later
expansion upon 24.
In v.29, the Israelites are called Samaritans, a hapax lego-
menon. Although this appellation is usually considered a sure
sign of exilic or later authorship, presumably such an anachron-
ism would be possible any time after the Assyrian province of
Samaria had been organized. More to the point, v.24 instead
used the correct term, "sons of Israel", which indicates that 24
is earlier than 29-34a. Thus, it is likely that 29-34a is a later
expansion upon 24-28, though, as we shall see below, it cannot
be attributed to the work of the exilic editor himself. This ex-
pansion demonstrates an antiquitarian interest (30-31) and goes
63
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
beyond 24-28 to speak of a syncretism for which that earlier
section does not prepare us.
V.34b marks the start of a new hand because it attempts to
prevent any misunderstanding of v.33: these people do not really
worship Yahweh because they are not monolatrous. Further, the
focus in 34b shifts from the foreigners who are the exclusive
subject of 24-34a to the remainder of Israel. In short, 34b-40
actually returns to the subject of 7-20,23.
Sanda is under the impression that 34a belongs with 34b-40
because 29-33 are concerned only about the past; /76/ however,
34a is still referring to the foreigners and their former
practices, not to the Israelites who escaped deportation. The
repetition of 34a as 40b is a further indication that 34b-40 has
been secondarily attached to 34a. The editor has attempted to
pick up where he left off /77/. All scholars have recognized
that this section is at least exilic, basing their opinions upon the
zeal with which 34b corrects 33 in what seems to be full
recognition of the dangers of the Samaritan heresy. Some assign
this section to the exilic editor; /78/ others to a much later
hand /79/.
V.41 is a difficulty. It can hardly attach to 29-34a because
34a decisively concludes that section. It cannot go with 34b-40
because it returns to the subject of foreigners which 34b-40
ignores. It cannot be joined with 24-28 either, even though we
have returned to the subject of v.26 because 41 goes beyond
what 24-28 prepares for into the time when those who were
taught Yahwism returned to semi-idolatry /80/. The best
explanation for v.41 is as a post-redactional insertion intended
to ease the contradiction between 33 and 34b /81/.
In summary, the earliest material in the second half of 2
Kings 17 is 24-28. These verses were expanded by 29-34a, but
not by the exilic editor. Rather the exilic editor made use of
24-34a as a whole, having derived it from some unknown source,
to enlarge upon his theme of deportation (23b) and to prepare
for a second editorial in 34b-40 dealing with the continued
apostasy of Israel even after 722. Finally, v.41 was added to
harmonize a contradiction by some even later hand.
The exilic editor's work in 34b-40 has already been linked to
his linguistic usage and theology by example 1 and 7. A more
detailed examination of the usage of this section will show links
to other passages secondary to the main redaction of the
history and will demonstrate that 34b-40 is not from the
historian.
18. "Torah" in parallel with other legal terms (vv.34,37).
Although in 2 Kings 17:13 and 15 the second editor uses the
64
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
common Deuteronomistic stylistic device of listing two or more
legal terms in a series in reference to loyalty or disloyalty to
the covenant, this should not surprise us, for the Deutero-
nomistic character of these verses, as well as of 34b-40, is too
obvious to require comment. Thus, v.13 uses "torah" in the same
way as the Deuteronomistic historian does, as a broadly in-
clusive concept that includes the more minor expressions of
divine will, the statutes, ordinances, commandments, and so on.
However, in all the various combinations of legal terms that
occur in the Deuteronomistic history proper, torah is never so
demoted as to be listed in parallel with those other expressions.
Only in 2 Kings 17:34,37, and Josh. 22:5 /82/, is torah brought
down to the level of lesser concepts like commandments,
judgments, and statutes. This usage sets 17:34b-40 apart from
the historian and points towards a possible connection with the
additions to Joshua.
Torah is also demoted in this same way in Jer. 44:10 and 23 in
one of the prose sermons. Not surprisingly, in light of other
contacts between the Tetrateuch and the exilic editor, in Exod.
24:12 it is "the Torah and the commandments" which are upon
the tablets, the same expression as is found in Josh. 22:5 and 2
Kings 17:34.
19. "Bow down and serve" (v.35). These two verbs in parallel
are always in the order "serve and bow down" in material
assuredly belonging to the Deuteronomistic historian (Josh. 23:7;
1 Kings 22:54; 2 Kings 21:21); the exilic editor always reverses
them (1 Kings 9:9, see below; 2 Kings 17:35; 21:3, see below). It
is this second order, "bow down and serve," that is found in the
prose sermons of Jeremiah (Jer. 22:9) and in the Tetrateuch
(Exod. 20:5; 23:24).
Thus, both literary critical and linguistic evidence suggest
that 2 Kings 17:34b-40 is from the hand of the exilic editor and
that he was the one who included 24-34a from some other
source. Let us now move on to the third Kings passage which
uses the theological concept "they did not listen," 2 Kings
21:1-18.
2 Kings 21:1-18
If the theory that the historian wrote during the Josianic era
is correct, large portions of 2 Kings 21:1-18 simply cannot have
come from his hand. It is here that the sin of Manasseh is
described (2-9). This sin becomes programmatic for the re-
mainder of the second book of Kings, for because of it Yahweh
decided to cast away the remnant of his inheritance (21:10-15),
a decree which not even the piety of Josiah could reverse
65
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
(23:26-27). This judgment had been announced by his "servants
the prophets" (21:10) and fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar (24:2-4).
This conclusion fits with what we have already noted about
parallels in usage with certain other passages which have also
been considered secondary to the main redaction of the
Deuteronomistic history: examples 1 (vv.8-9), 11 (4,7), 13 (10),
14(3,5), 16(6), 17(3).
Older commentators found in 2 Kings 21:1-18 a mixture of
the work of the first and second editors, although in details
they rarely agreed. Everyone assumed that at least vv.l-2a and
16-18 were the work of the pre-exilic first editor, who must
have had something to say about Manasseh, if only a basic reg-
nal formula. We know that the historian's verdict on Manasseh
was negative, and the summary notice of what remained in the
chronicles about this king, "the sins which he sinned," points to
a policy of religious innovation (v.17). Part of his sin involved
idolatry (cf. 21:21).
V.I6 has always been assigned to the first editor, for it marks
a new start. Manasseh's sin has already been dealt with in 2-9
and 16b is superfluous after lib and 15a. V.I6 begins with a
simple waw plus the perfect, which indicates that it must have
been originally attached to some list of Manasseh's activities
and not to v.15; 16a may be archival. Certainly, if only one
author's hand were involved, vv.9-15 would have come after 16,
not before /83/.
Thus far there was a good deal of agreement among scholars,
but as to how much more, if anything, belongs to the first
editor or historian and what might be late glosses after the
second editor, there was no agreement.
Certain verses (3a,4a,6a,7a) resemble the annalistic notices
in the earlier parts of the history. Their style is dry, factual,
and abrupt. The use of the simple waw with the perfect (as at
the beginning of 4 and 6), in violation of grammatical practice
for a narrative, has been shown by Montgomery to be a mark of
an annalistic notice /84/. This is in contradiction to the earlier
opinion that such grammatical lapses indicate the work of a
glossator /85/.
V.2b is usually assigned to the second editor because of its
similarity to 2 Kings 17:8 and because it is assumed that the
first writer did not see Manasseh's sin as an apostasy to local
idolatry but as a return to the worship on high places /86/.
However, if 6b is really an annalistic notice and 21:21 has not
been tampered with, this second reason loses its force. As for
the first argument, the language of 2b is perfectly harmonious
with the usage of either the historian (Josh. 23:9,13: 1 Kings
66
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
14:24; 21:26; 2 Kings 16:3) or the second editor (Josh. 23A-%
Judg. 2:21,23; 2 Kings 17:8).
V.3a refers to 2 Kings 18:4, 22 and for this reason seems to be
the work of the historian, who was interested in drawing such
parallels; v.3b makes a similar reference to 1 Kings 16:33.
Yet the exilic editor has definitely been at work here. V.4c
uses a characteristic expression of his (example 14: "the hosts
of heaven"). V.5 looks as though it were modeled upon 4a /87/,
while 6a interrupts the subject connection of 5 and 7 (the
Temple) as though the second editor has inserted it into the
midst of his own exposition. V.7 leads us into 8-9, which of
course, reflects the structure and theology of example 1, "but
you have not listened" as a generalizing accusation. Vv.10-15
make up the first half of a prophecy-fulfillment link with its
other member in 24:2-4. The link is prepared for by 7-9.
In other words, it seems most likely that the exilic editor
found before him l-3b and 16-18, with the annalistic notices 4a,
6a, and perhaps 7a, floating somewhere in between. In his re-
vision of the history, he expanded Manasseh's sins and sermon-
ized upon them in 3c-15, utilizing in the process some frag-
ments of the historian's comments upon the evil of this king,
which probably consisted of quoted annalistic notices.
A close examination of the usage of 2 Kings 21:3c-15 bears
out these literary critical conclusions.
20. "I have set my name" (vv.4,7). The book of Deuteronomy
proper uses either of two verbs to express this theological point:
sym or skn /88/; the Deuteronomistic history only uses the verb
|y_m (1 Kings 9:3; 11:36; 14-21). In both Deuteronomy and the
historian, the verb is always given as an infinitive. Yet it is only
in 2 Kings 21:4 and 7 that the verb is finite. This is a clear-cut
divergence from the practice of the historian.
21. Identification of the election of Jerusalem with that of
the Temple (vv.4,7). In 2 Kings 21:4,7, and 23:27, the election of
Jerusalem and the choice of the Temple are yoked together as
equivalent acts. This is not the practice of the rest of the
history, however. The historian never equates the choice of the
Temple and of the city as one act.
Using various expressions, the historian mentions the election
of the Temple itself without relating it to any other act of
election in Deut. 31:11; Josh. 957 (both with maqom); 2 Sam.
7:13; 1 Kings 3-2; 5:5; 8:17-20,29,43; 9:3. In 1 Kings 8:16 he
contrasts this choice with the election of David in what is
essentially a quotation from 2 Sam. 7. When speaking of the
choice of the city Jerusalem, the historian always links this to
the parallel choice of the Davidic dynasty: 1 Kings 11:13,32,36;
67
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
14:21. In contrast, the exilic editor tends to see Yahweh's
choice of Jerusalem as equivalent to his election of the Temple:
1 Kings 8:44,48 (exilic editor, see below); 2 Kings 21:4,7; 23:27.
One might say that the historian viewed the choice of the city
as part of the royal election, whereas the exilic editor saw it as
a corollary of the Deuteronomistic theology of the election of
the Temple.
22. "Vex (kcs Hiphil) used absolutely (v.6). "To vex Yahweh"
is a very common expression of the historian: Deut. 4:25; 31:29;
Judg. 2:12; 1 Kings 14:9,15; 15:30; 16:2,7,13,26,33; 22:54, where
this verb always has Yahweh or a suffix representing him as an
object. As is to be expected, the exilic editor uses exactly the
same expression: 2 Kings 17:11,17; 21:15; 22:17; 23:26. However,
only the exilic editor also uses a kind of shorthand phrase which
leaves the object of the verb understood: 21:6 and 23:19. It
seems that the cliche has become so familiar that only half of
it communicates the whole.
23. "Jerusalem and Judah" (v.12). This expression, denoting
the dual nature of the Judean political situation, is found in
reversed form in the speech of Sennacherib's envoy in 2 Kings
18:22, which is part of the historian's source. It is found no-
where in his own prose. The two other occurrences of the ex-
pression are 2 Kings 21:12 and 24:20, both the work of the exilic
editor. Both times the expression refers to the final disaster. It
is the assertion of Douglas Jones that this expression, in either
order, although especially in the opposite order from that found
in the exilic editor, is limited to exilic and post-exilic writings
as a stereotyped formula /89/. This observation would tend to
support our contention. In any case, 2 Kings 21:12 and 24:20 use
an expression not characteristic of the assured portions of the
history.
24. "To bring evil upon" (v.12). This phrase is used by the
historian to refer to the dynastic disasters suffered by the kings
of Israel (1 Kings 14:10; 21:21,29). By the exilic editor, in con-
trast, it is used technically for the final fall and exile of Judah
(1 Kings 9:9; 2 Kings 21:12; 22:16,20). The weight of this argu-
ment is lessened by the circumstance that one of the reasons
for assigning these passages to a exilic editor has been that
they mention the final disaster, the same criterion used to
separate these two uses of this phrase. However, we must note
that the historian does not use this expression to refer to the
fall and deportation of the North either, but restricts it to
dynastic problems.
25. The people as Yahweh's inheritance (v.14). This concept is
found in Deut. 9:26,29, and also in certain non-Deuteronomistic
68
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
passages from the historian's sources: 1 Sam. 10:1; 26:19; 2 Sam.
14:16; 20:19. However, this concept never occurs in the histor-
ian's own prose. It is the monopoly of the exilic editor: Deut.
4:2O (see below); 1 Kings 8:51 (see below); 2 Kings 21:14.
There is, therefore, literary critical evidence that the five
passages in Judges and 2 Kings using the theologically-charged
expression you/they have not listened are all secondary to the
main redaction of the Deuteronomistic history. This is supp-
orted by linguistic evidence, the cumulative effect of which is
to suggest that these sections are by the same author, are not
by the Deuteronomistic historian, and are related to the other
passages in Kings which the older literary critics thought be-
longed to a second editor for that book. We shall now move on
to consider these other passages in Kings.
III. OTHER SECONDARY PASSAGES IN KINGS
1 Kings 8:44-51
Solomon's dedicatory prayer is one of these passages in Kings
in which scholars have believed they could trace more than one
author at work. Opinion has ranged from one extreme to the
other. Some felt the prayer is an exilic composition, with per-
haps a few minor later additions /90/. The most cogent argu-
ment for the prayer's basic unity is its seven-fold repetition of
smc (32,34,36,39,43,45,49) and the seven-fold mention of the
Temple. The verb ht* links together the first and the seventh
petitions into what looks like an artistic whole /91/. A similar
position was taken by Burney, who considered it a pre-exilic
whole, however, because of the extensive Deuteronomistic
language, especially in vv.44-51 /92/. At the other end of the
spectrum is Jepsen's complex view of the interpenetration of
the work of two successive authors /93/. Sanda believed that he
could trace an original record of the dedication overlaid by two
successive redactors /94/. Holscher, using the source critical
approach, traced three distinct strata /95/.
However, at least since the time of Thenius /96/, the most
common opinion has been to see 1 Kings 8:44-51(53) as a sec-
ondary addition to the main prayer, but even this assumption
has led to no real unanimity of opinion. Noth saw the prayer
itself as exilic in his commentary on Kings, viewing 44-51 as a
later addition to the historian's exilic prayer and 52 and 59-60
as even later /97/. Wellhausen, Stade, and Fichtner also
believed that the basic prayer is exilic /98/, as did de Vaux, who
extended the later addition to include 41-43 /99/. Others,
however, divided the prayer into pre-exilic and exilic parts,
69
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
putting 44-51(53) with the later material since these verses are
more specific about the final defeat of the nation than the rest
of the prayer /100/. Some also included vv.41-43 in this exilic
addition because of their supposed universalism /101/.
1 Kings 8:14-43 as a whole fits perfectly well with the
historian's work and with the pre-exilic period. The similarity in
language has been pointed out in detail by Burney /102/. The
Nathan Oracle is quoted from the historian's point of view, that
is, including 2 Sam. 7:13a. V.21, concerning the ark as a con-
tainer for the tablets of the law, recalls the historian's
comment in 1 Kings 8:9 and demonstrates the Deuteronomists1
pre-exilic concern to "demythologize" the ark into a simple
container, as in Deut. 10:2-5, for. This would hardly be a
concern in exilic times when the ark no longer presented any
temptation for misuse (see pp. 123f.). V.25 cites the dynastic
promise to Solomon from 1 Kings 2:4; this promise points
specifically to the throne of Israel (not Judah) and fits perfectly
into the time of Josiah's nationalistic expansion (see pp. 120-21).
An exception to the unity of 14-29 is v.27. The reference to
God shifts from second to third person. This verse breaks in as a
parenthesis between w.26 and 28, for the waw-consecutive of
28 points back to v.26. Even Burney, who saw all else as a
pre-exilic unity, allowed this verse as an exilic insertion /103/.
However, one should beware of dating this insertion late merely
because of its theologically "advanced" ideas. Montgomery re-
minds us of Baal-shamayim and of Amos 9:6 /104/.
Turning from the introduction (14-29) to the petitions them-
selves (30-43), we again note how much more appropriate they
are to a pre-exilic than to an exilic situation. It is not par-
ticularly decisive that Solomon speaks as though the Temple is
still standing. The historian was surely sophisticated enough to
be able to approximate the historical situation of the speakers
for whom he wrote speeches. What is decisive is that these
repetitions refer to situations that would be completely without
interest for an exiled people. Only an independent people still
on their own soil could demonstrate an interest in military
defeat, drought, or famine. That Yahweh is to forgive his
"servants" (v.36), the kings along with the people as a whole,
shows a continuing interest in the fate of the kings which would
be hard to imagine for an exilic author.
Vv.33-34 present something of a problem. At first glance 34b
might be thought to refer to a return from exile for Judah.
However v.33 makes it clear that in the author's view of this
hypothetical situation the Temple is still standing. So, this must
refer to a territorial loss, but not to a complete deportation.
70
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
Indeed, 34b may very well refer to the hope of a restoration of
Northern Israelite captives to the territory newly redeemed by
3osiah.
The prayers of foreigners are referred to in w.41-43. There-
fore, some scholars are of the opinion that the so-called univer-
salism absolutely requires an exilic date for these verses and
finds its parallel in Isa. 56:6-7 and the like /105/. However, the
concept of the conversion of the nations was one of the motifs
of e the pre-exilic theology of Zion. While the introductory
w gam might look at first like a redactional joint, actually,
as Noth has pointed out, this refers to the foreigners as another
group in addition to the people mentioned in the previous peti-
tion /106/. As a pre-exilic reference, these verses would refer,
not to the later concept of the proselyte, but to foreigners on
diplomatic missions like Naaman, as traders, or as artisans.
Again, this would be a concern not for some historian writing in
a period when the state and the Temple were in ruins, but of
someone writing when the kingdom was viable enough to attract
foreigners who were not just conquerors.
These first five petitions (31-43), however, stand over against
the last two (44-51) /107/. First, the key verb changes. Whereas
w.32,34,36,39, and 43 use e the cexpression we*attcl tismac,
vv.45 and 49 shift to w sama ta. Second, the locus of
prayer shifts from prayer in the city ("in this house", 31,33;
"unto this place", 36; "unto this house", 38,42) to prayer quite
clearly in the direction of both the city and the Temple (derek
... habbayit, 44,48) on the analogy of Moslem practice. Third,
46-50 repeat the subject already taken up in 33-34, something a
single author would hardly do. Vv.46-50 are much more detailed
in their description of the exile caused by defeat than vv.33-34;
Sbh is the technical term for actual deportation. Fourth,
whereas the first five petitions use the term "Israel" to refer to
the people (30,33,34,36,41), the last twoc avoid this designation.
Fifth, v.50 is the only mention of pe§a -type sin in the entire
prayer. Finally, the hope expressed by v.50 is much more
somber than the optimistic outcome of repentance expected in
v.34. V.34 would be more appropriate to the days of Josiah;
v.50, on the other hand, fits perfectly with the mood of the
early exile and of the later portions of the book of Kings (see
p.121).
Proposed objections to this assertion can be overcome easily.
The military interest of 44-45 need not mean that war was still
possible for Judah, for holy war was a theological matter to the
Deuteronomists, not merely a practical one. Although the rare
absolute use of "heaven" is continued from the earlier petitions
71
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
by v.45, in this the new author could easily have been in-
fluenced by his model, just as he was in the matter of the gen-
eral structure of each petition. Although the expression "far or
near" might be thought to be too indefinite for the specific
exile the exilic editor had in mind, several explanations are
possible. Gray suggested a differentiation between exile in
Egypt and in Mesopotamia /108/, while Montgomery supposed
that nearby garrison duty was meant, in accordance with As-
syrian practice /109/. Finally, vv.44 and 48 might be taken to
mean that the Temple was still standing. However, the ref-
erence is clearly to the direction in which the Temple lies, not
to the building itself. The situation in v.33 is materially diff-
erent. There the author has Solomon envisioning a partial exile
through which the Temple survives, but in vv.44 and 48 the
deliberate change in expression to refer to the direction of the
Temple indicates that their author knew that the situation of
v.33 was not what finally happened, something the author of 33
did not know.
Unfortunately, before we can definitely assign the obviously
secondary 44-51 to the exilic editor, as examples 21 and 26
would suggest to us, we must deal with the complications in-
troduced by a third author.
If vv.44-51 are later than 31-43, then w.52-53 and 59-60 are
even later /HO/. Vv.52-53, beginning with liheyot, have no
connection to 44-51 in syntax. Although a connection to the
earlier v.43 would be possible syntactically, the subject matter
is too different for this to have ever been the case. V.52 goes
beyond either 29-30 or 43 in expanding the legitimate place of
prayer to Yahweh to its most general expression: "where ever
they cry to you"; the motif of the Temple has completely dis-
appeared. Vv.52 and 60 return to the use of the term "Israel"
dropped by 44-51. Moving to vv.59-60, these verses break the
previous connection of 58 and 61 /111/. Whereas foreigners
come to know Yahweh's name in v.43, in 60 it is his exclusive
claim to divinity that is in question. The previous entreaty for
Yahweh to hear (29,43,49) has changed to the wish that the
penitents' words might "draw near" to him.
Both these additions have the same purpose, to enrich the
dedicatory prayer with concepts borrowed from Deut. 4:1-40,
especially v.7; therefore, they are from the same hand /112/.
That they are later than the addition of 44-51 is shown by their
dependence upon this section. Vv.52-53 repeat the content of
v.51, adding to it the motif of the separation of Israel from the
peoples, and supplying it with an artistic conclusion after the
model of vv.29-30.
72
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
In other words, vv.44-51 are the work of the exilic editor of
the Deuteronomistic history (examples 21 and 26), but not
vv.52-53 or 59-60. The characteristic language of the second
editor found in v.53 (example 26), therefore, must be due to the
dependence of 53 upon 51. We may add another expression of
the exilic editor not used by the main redaction of the history
to our growing list.
26. "The iron furnace" (v.51). The "iron furnace" as a term for
Egypt is also found in Jer. 11:4 (from the prose sermons) and
Deut. 4:20, a passage which has already shown similarities to
the usage of the exilic editor (example 25, cf. 14). This phrase
is not found in the undisputed portions of the history.
1 Kings 9:6-9
The majority of commentators assigned this entire speech of
Yahweh to a single hand, usually exilic /113/; however, a few
preferred to divide the speech into 3-5 (pre-exilic) and 6-9
(exilic) /114/. The arguments may be stated quite briefly. Al-
though both sections are thoroughly Deuteronomistic in lang-
uage and outlook, as Burney has pointed out in detail /115/, this
does not particularly support literary unity or disunity. Nor can
the exilic date of the tableau in 7-9 be merely assumed in light
of the content of early treaty curses and the expression of
threats of exile and destruction by the pre-exilic prophets.
In favor of an over-all unity, the conditional promise of 3-5 is
stylistically balanced by the conditional threat of disaster in
6-9. Since these verses, whether pre-exilic or exilic, are as-
suredly from a time after the division of the kingdom, it is not
immediately clear how vv.1-5 could ever have stood alone, for
then v.5 would be a climax promising a possibly eternal reign of
the Davidic house upon the throne of Israel. What differences
exist between 1-5 and 6-9 could have come about through the
historian's use of earlier material and concepts in 1-5 and the
expression of his own personal views in 6-9 /116/. However,
there is also evidence for literary disunity. The address shifts
from the singular (Solomon) to the plural (he and his successors)
without warning. V.6 is asyndetically attached to 1-5. In 6-9 the
charge is polytheism, but this is not prepared for by 1-5 in any
way.
Noth firmly asserted the unity of 9:1-9, claiming that it
serves an editorial function in the historian's presentation of
Solomon. He believed that this section provides the introduction
to the negative half of the historian's double-edged treatment
of Solomon. The first part, from the dream at Gibeon to the
high point of the dedication of the Temple, is positive, but after
73
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
this second appearance and warning, the drift toward dis-
obedience and disaster begins. The loss of Cabul (9:10-14)
follows, and eventually the disaster of 1 Kings 11. Noth
explained the positive material that also follows 9:1-9 as the
result of the historian's respect for the order of his source, the
"Book of the Acts of Solomon" /117/.
However, one wonders why the historian, if he felt so
strongly about the order of his source, did not insert his
negative threat after 1 Kings 10, for it is not really until 1
Kings 11 that Solomon's troubles begin. Of all the material in
9:10-10:29, only the loss of Cabul could really be considered
negative; yet we may doubt that this event is to be connected in
any way with the final disaster of Solomon's reign, for the
historian does not indicate by a single word that this event
"clearly intends to cast a first shadow over the picture of
Solomon", as Noth would have had it (translation mine) /118/.
Indeed, the point of v.13 seems really to be that Solomon made
a good bargain: 120 gold talents for twenty worthless townsJ
1 Kings 9:1-5, with its climactic promise of Davidic hege-
mony over Israel and without the suspect 6-9, actually fits per-
fectly into the historian's editorial scheme if we are willing to
abandon the concept of a double-edged treatment of Solomon.
The first appearance of Yahweh in 3:4-14 sets his seal of ap-
proval upon the succession of Solomon to the throne and points
forward to future wisdom and riches. The second appearance
actually has much the same purpose. It expresses Yahweh's
approval of the construction of the Temple (v.3) and points
forward to a dynastic future for the Davidic house over the
throne of Israel, one temporarily eclipsed by the events of 1
Kings but restored again in Josiah's plans for unification of
North and South (see pp. 120-21).
The arguments for disunity given above receive further sup-
port from examples of the second editor's usage present in 6-9
(examples 19 and 24). This conclusion is borne out by the de-
pendence of 7-9 upon a section of Deuteronomy later than the
compilation of the Deuteronomistic history. This motif of the
astonished passers-by is found also in the prose material of
Jeremiah. Their question and the answer expressing the justice
of Yahweh's judgment is present in Jer. 22:8-9. In Jer. 16:10-11,
the judged people themselves ask the same question and receive
the same answer (cf. Jer. 9:11-12; 5:19). Another parallel to 1
Kings 9:7-9 is found in Deut. 29:21-27. The similarities are so
great that literary dependence is clearly indicated (cf. the
Hebrew).

74
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
I Kings 9;8-9 Deut. 29:24-25 Jer. 22:8-9
Ail passing by... All the nations
will say will say
Why has Yahweh Why has Yahweh Why has Yahweh
done thus to this done thus to this done thus to this
land and to this land? great city?
house? What means the
heat of this great
anger?
And they will say, And they will say, And they will say,
Because they Because they Because they
forsook Yahweh forsook the forsook the
their god covenant of Yahweh covenant of Yahweh
the god of their their god
fathers
who (las>er) which CaSer) he
made with them
when he
brought their brought them out
fathers out from from the land of
the land of Egypt Egypt and they
and they laid hold went and served
on other gods other gods and worshipped
and worshipped and worshipped other gods and
them. them. served them.
3er. 22:8-9 and 1 Kings 9:7-9 are clearly closer to Deut.
29:23-25 than they are to each other. The 3eremiah passage and
Deuteronomy share "covenant of Yahweh11 and "serve" over
against the Kings passage; Kings and Deuteronomy share "to
this land" and mention of the exodus over against 3eremiah.
Weinfeld has demonstrated that Deut. 29:23-25 must be the
primary text because it is formally closer to its Assyrian treaty
parallels /119/. It should also be noted that the mention of "this
land" fits much better in Deut. 29 than in 1 Kings 9:8, where the
subject is properly the Temple; the editor had to add the words
"and this house" to make the reference harmonious to its new
context.
The complex question of the literary criticism of Deut. 29
goes far beyond our limits, but there can be little doubt that
the addition of this chapter was subsequent to the work of the
Deuteronomistic historian /120/.
Nicholson casually suggested that Deut. 29 was actually the
work of the historian, an opinion based upon the most in-
adequate foundation that the chapter is in the second person
75
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
plural and is apparently exilic /121/. However, the historian
begins so decisively at Deut. 31, where the narrative thread of
Deut. 1-3 is picked up again (Joshua's appointment, the order
for Moses not to cross the Jordan, and the like), that no real
reason exists for seeing his new beginning at ch.29 instead
/122/. However, Noth's theory that these verses are an earlier
fragment used by the historian is wrong also /123/. Deut. 29:4-7
combines the tradition of the people's clothes not wearing out
from the singular stratum of Deuteronomy (Deut. 8:4) with the
historian's own traditions of the victory over Og and Sihon and
the trans-Jordanian settlement. Thus, Deut. 29 cannot be
earlier than the historian.
The point of all this is that, if we are correct about the
direction of literary dependence, 1 Kings 9:7-9 must be from
some editor later than the historian, for the historian could not
have been dependent upon a section of Deuteronomy that was
not added until after his time.
In conclusion, it can be stated with relative certainty from
the literary critical and linguistic evidence that 1 Kings 9:6-9 is
from the exilic editor of the Deuteronomistic history.
2 Kings 22; 15-20
Before dealing directly with the oracle of Huldah, a crucial
passage for any theory of dual redaction, we must briefly look
at its context. From 2 Kings 22:3 to 23:3 we have what appears
to be an independent report of the finding of the book of the
law, perhaps an official memorandum, perhaps from the Temple
archives themselves /124/.
Certain irregularities in this narrative, as well as its simi-
larity to an analogous report in 2 Kings 12:5-17, led some ambi-
tious literary critics to attempt a separation of the original
source from the work of the Deuteronomistic historian here
/125/. These older attempts^ need not trouble us, except as they
concern those verses which Sanda assigned to a second Deutero-
nomistic editor: 5b-7. V.5b supposedly starts this secondary
addition because it is a doublet of 5a, shifting from the singular
to the plural and changing the meaning of the expression "doers
of the work". Sanda claimed that 5a and 9 are based upon 2
Kings 12 and must therefore be from the hand of the first
editor. Thus, the superfluous and secondary 5b-7 must be from
the second editor. Against this view, however, it may be
pointed out that 5b-7 has just as many parallels to 2 Kings 12 as
does 3-5a,9. Furthermore, if the reports of the Temple repairs
of both Joash and Josiah come from an archival source, certain
similarities are actually to be expected.
76
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
Two more recent studies, coming from opposite methodo-
logical poles, have investigated chs. 22-23. N. Lohfink treats
the section as a unified short story, constructed with care to
explain the period between 601 and 587 /126/. W. Dietrich has
applied his three part redactional schema to ch. 22 and found
all three at work. Dtr. G was interested in cult reform. Dtr. P
wished to explain the catastrophe that happened to Josiah. Dtr.
N wished to stress the importance of the law /127/.
For our purposes, the really important matter is the problem
of the relationship of vv.15-20 to the whole narrative and the
internal disunity of these verses. The oracle falls into two
parts, 15-17 and 18-20, each with its own introduction (15,18a)
and messenger formula (16a,18b). The first is a judgment oracle
against the nation, with the accusation (17a) sandwiched be-
tween two halves of the announcement (16,17b). The announced
doom is directed against the city and its inhabitants.
In contrast, the second part is a weal oracle to an individual.
The reason or "indication of present situation" /128/ starts with
"because" (19). The promise begins with "therefore, behold" (20)
and is divided from the reason by "oracle of Yahweh". This sec-
ond oracle promises salvation to 3osiah himself: he will die in
peace.
There are plenty of literary critical complications. The end
of v.18 seems to have been broken off, indicating a literary
seam, although possibly these words are to be construed with
v.19 as a sort of extended nomen pendens; "concerning the
words you have heard". The oracle in its present form is
incompatible with the zeal for reform shown in the resta of the
narrative, for the disaster is inevitable (16-17,20b ), and
could provide no incentive for what follows the king's reception
of the answer. The prophecy of Josiah's death "in peace" is just
as incompatible with his subsequent premature and violent
death, for the parallel occurrences of this phrase show that
such a death should be at a ripe old age (Gen. 15:15) and not by
the sword (Jer. 34:5). The explanation of this phrase in 20b
points beyond the events of 609 to 587. The reason given for the
weal oracle is much like that of Elijah's oracle to Ahab,
including the rare Niphal reflexive of knc, by which the hist-
orian explained a delay in judgment (1 Kings 21:29). Although
this suggests that the weal oracle half of 15-20 comes from the
Deuteronomistic historian, the content of the judgment against
the nation is thoroughly Deuteronomistic as well.
Most commentators, perhaps wisely, make no attempt to
disentangle the various threads but merely point out that the
final redactor, whoever he might be, has thoroughly re-written
77
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

a prophecy from his source. However, we must try to be more

specific.
There are two broad possible solutions. If the oracle were
originally a positive one to Josiah himself, then 18-20a,
including the disaster threatened in the book of the law, could
be considered the earlier layer, with some of its content left
out in the lacuna between 18 and 19. Secondary to this would be
16-17 and 20b, written from the point of view of the exile. One
could consider the first stratum to be the source plus the hist-
orian and the second stratum the exilic editor. However, de-
pending upon one's previous notions on the question of dual edit-
orship, one could equally easily consider this a division between
the source and the historian only /129/.
Precisely the opposite view has also been suggested, that the
oracle was originally a judgment upon the nation (16-18, with
the rest of 18 lost, and 20b). Then the positive oracle to Josiah
(19-20a) would have been added later to explain the delay in the
execution of this judgment in a manner analogous to the way
the historian explained the delay of judgment upon Ahab in 1
Kings 21:20 /130/. Obviously, this view of things supports the
idea of a single exilic historian who found a negative judgment
oracle in his source and modified it to fit the subsequent flow
of history. However, this second theory completely disregards
the usual meaning of the expression "to die in peace" and
ignores the fact that the break between the two oracles comes
after v.17, not after 18. Nor does it explain what a pessimistic
oracle is doing in the historian's source as a motivation for
Josiah's reform, a role for which it would be totally unsuited
/131/. Thus, the first explanation, that the corporate judgment
theme is secondary to the personal weal oracle in 2 Kings
22:15-20, is more likely.
Yet a key question remains. Is this corporate judgment theme
(16-17,20b) the contribution of an exilic Deuteronomistic hist-
orian or of an exilic editor revising a history written before
609? Our examination of the usage of the second editor permits
us to affirm the second alternative, as examples 10 and 24
show. To these we may further add another indication that
16-17,20b are not from the historian.
27. "All the works of their hands" as idols (v.17). The
expression macaseh can mean simply "deeds" in Deutero-
nomistic literature, as it does in Deut. 1459; 16:15; 24:19; 28:12;
30i9. The historian uses this phrase only with this connotation:
Deut. 2:7; 3159; 1 Kings 16:7. In these verses there is not the
slightest hint that idolatry is meant.
However, in the Shechemite dodecalogue the expression
78
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
clearly connotes "idols" (Deut. 27:15). Further examples of this
meaning may be found in both the prose sermons (Jer. 25:6-7
and 44:8) and the poetic oracles (Jer. 1:16) of Jeremiah. Yet the
historian himself does not seem to have ever intended this
meaning. It is so used once in his sources (2 Kings 19:18) and in
Deut. 4:28, which has such a clear threat of exile that it would
have to be denied to a pre-exilic historian. Yet it is this
meaning, "idols", that is clearly implied in the Huldah oracle, as
shown by the parallel expression "sacrifice to other gods" (17).
There is indeed a certain weakness in this argument, in that
it is circular, since in denying Deut. 4:28 to the historian we are
already assuming double redaction. That "idols" is meant by 2
Kings 22:17 is not absolutely assured since it is only an as-
sumption from context. Nevertheless, this argument may serve
at least a supportive role in assigning 16-17 to the second editor
because the expression is not characteristic of the historian
himself.
Thus vv.!6-17,20b, have been added to an original individual
weal oracle to transform it into a prediction of national judg-
ment with no possibility of escape. What else in vv. 15-20 may
be from this exilic editor cannot be precisely determined. Vv.16
and 19 have an entire phrase in common: "against this place and
against its inhabitants" (correcting v.16 with the versions and
the Chronicler). Indeed, vv. 16,17,19, and 20 are all connected
by the Leitmotif of "this place". In other words, all these verses
received some of their present form from the exilic editor.
2 Kings 23:1-30
The attempt to separate the original source materials from
the historian and the exilic editor from both of these is more
difficult in 2 Kings 23 than anywhere else in the history.
The first difficulty concerns the extent of the narrative
source from 2 Kings 22 (see p.76) /132/. This source continues
as far as v.3 at least. In addition, the Passover celebration of
vv.21-23 presupposes the assembly of 23:1-3 and mentions the
book of the covenant, the subject of 22:1-23:3. Furthermore,
since many of the individual acts of reform have to do with the
Temple, it is possible that the historian used only this single
Temple source to construct 2 Kings 23. For our purposes,
however, the question of exactly which source the historian
used is of minor importance as long as we can determine which
verses belong to it /133/.
We may assert that those verses which give specific details
about the reform, as opposed to generalizing or theologizing
statements, are likely to be from the historian's source, es-
79
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
pecially if those verses exhibit the "annalistic waw perfect".
Verses which, according to these criteria, are from the hist-
orian's source are 6,7, 8b (waw with the perfect), 10 (waw with
the perfect), 11,12 (waw with the perfect), and 13.
Rudolf Meyer has provided an alternative explanation to
Montgomery's for the existence of this concentration of per-
fects with the simple waw. The syntax of this section, with the
simple waw and perfect used as a preterite and with the same
tense indication as the normal waw-consecutive imperfect
consecution, was not an exclusively late development but
reaches back into Israel's earliest literature (cf. Judg. 5:26b). It
is paralleled by the Ugaritic qatala...waqatala consecution.
Although submerged by the classical sequence of tenses,
Aramaic influence brought this older usage to the fore again.
Thus, these verses need not be considered as merely fragments
of an annalistic source (as Montgomery) but as a connected nar-
rative source. Following Oestreicher, Meyer used his gramma-
tical observation to include all of 4-7,8b,10-15 as one source
/134/, but in so doing he ignored some of the literary critical
evidence which has been taken into account in the present study
in order to delineate the content of that source more narrowly.
Turning to those verses of 23:4-14 which should not be at-
tributed automatically to this source, we notice that 4a serves
as a narrative link between 23:3 and the details of the reform to
follow. Logically, this could belong either to the Temple source
if that source included the reforms or to the historian, who
might thus have linked together two sources.
Between this narrative link and v.6, to which it points, comes
an interruption. V.5 intrudes the subject of provincial reform
into a context concerned with Jerusalem and the mention of
cultic officials into a discussion of cultic apparatus. It also uses
the derogatory term k e marim for the priests of the Judean
high places in contradiction to 8a and 9. Sanda explained the
inappropriate location of v.5 by suggesting that the original
order of the source notices was disturbed by the historian and
that v.5 belongs somewhere after v.13 /135/. Unfortunately,
Sanda failed to explain why the compiler should so arbitrarily
disorder his source. For this reason, most commentators have
considered v.5 an insertion into 4a and 6 /136/. As far as this
individual verse is concerned, the older opinion about the simple
waw and the perfect as an inserter's slip or an example of late
usage seems to be correct, unless the first part of 5 has been
inserted from some source other than that which formed the
logical order of vv.6-7,8b,10-13, all of which deal only with the
reformation in Jerusalem.
80
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
V.4bk anticipates the reformation at Bethel which does not
come until 15-20. It begins with a simple waw and the perfect,
but is hardly an annalistic notice, for there is no conceivable
reason why Josiah would have this done.
Yet how far back into v.4 does this interruption, which in-
cludes 4bb-5 at least, extend? V.4ba goes beyond the func-
tion of a narrative link (cf. 4a) because it actually anticipates
the actions of v.6 rather than just preparing for them. Closer
examination shows that the connection of 4b to 4a is imperfect.
Who is the subject of wayyisrepem, Josiah or Hilkiah? It has
been for these reasons that 4b as a whole has generally been
seen as part of the interruption caused by v.5 /137/.
However, I would argue that this insertion also includes the
phrase "For all the host of heaven" from the last part of 4a.
Admittedly one reason for this view is that this expression is
among those already attributed to the exilic editor (example
14), but it must also be noted that the "for Asherah" of v.4a
attaches perfectly to vv.6-7, where this goddess is the subject
under consideration. "For all the host of heaven" would be a
perfectly natural thing for the exilic editor to add after "for
Baal and Asherah". This would have provided the occasion for
adding the anticipatory summary of the reformation in 4b-5 as
well.
The question as to whether this interruption is the work of
the Deuteronomistic historian himself or of the exilic editor
remains to be faced, but first we must turn to vv.8a,9. V.5
anticipates these verses but uses a different term for the
priests. Unless their order has been totally disarranged, as
Sanda claimed /138/, these two verses cannot be from the same
source as vv.6-7,8b,10-13. They interrupt the reform at Jeru-
salem with information about the provinces and the discussion
of idolatry with the subject of non-central Yahwism. [Link] and
9 are in turn interrupted, however, by 8b, which we have
already designated as annalistic. Although this is a rather odd
editorial procedure, it nonetheless proves that 8a and 9 are
from an editorial hand in direct contact with the source, for
instead of merely interrupting the flow of the source, they are
interleaved with it. [Link] and 9 must be from none other than
the Deuteronomistic historian himself, who is perhaps imparting
some of his own personal knowledge about the Josianic clerical
situation.
Since 4b-5, however, anticipates both the annalistic notices
of 6-7,8b,10-13 and these remarks by the historian in 8a and 9,
4b-5 must be from the hand of the exilic editor, as indeed the
double usage of example 14 would have led us to expect.
81
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
V.I4 is a generalizing summary statement repeating what
precedes and in turn anticipating v.16. It begins with a simple
waw and the perfect, but gives no specific information as an
actual annalistic notice would. This verse is probably part of
the historian's editorial work /139/.
Vv.15-20 as a whole deal with the reform outside of Judah.
The reminiscences of the story of the institution of the
Northern cult in 1 Kings 12:31-13:32 are obvious. In fact these
verses represent another of the historian's prophecy-fulfillment
linkages. Yet most commentators have considered 16-20 as
secondary to v.15, /140/. These verses repeat the information
of v.l5 and the altar which is destroyed in v.15 is still available
for sacrifice in v.16. In fact, classically, 16-20 were considered
secondary not only to v.J5, but to the entire main redaction of
Kings, because they depend upon the Bethel story of 1 Kings 13
which was generally assumed to be later than the first editor of
Kings /141/. However, today it is generally recognized that 1
Kings 12:32-13:32 is an integral part of the Deuteronomistic
history /142/, and that reasoning loses its force. Vv.16-18 may
actually be a continuation of the pre-Deuteronomistic narrative
from 1 Kings 13 /143/. The beginning of v.16, "and Josiah
turned", would then refer to some lost incident. Alternatively,
perhaps these verses are the historian's own addition based upon
a local Bethel tradition by which he intended to make clear the
connection of the events of v.15 to the prophetic activity in 1
Kings 13. In either case, these verses must belong to the
historian, not the exilic editor.
However, we still have not yet dealt with the discontinuity
between v.15 and what follows it. V.15 is ill-constructed and
apparently conflate. Josiah is suddenly transported to Bethel
from Jerusalem without any narrative transition. The con-
secution of tenses is irregular. In addition, the destruction of
the high place itself (rather than the altar) is hard to imagine,
the burning of the high place is stranger yet, and the reference
to Asherah without the article is awkward. Nevertheless, v.15
must have been part of the Deuteronomistic history from the
beginning, for it provides the absolutely necessary background
for 16-18. With the exception of the remarks on Jeroboam's sin
which are characteristic of the historian, v.15 may be under-
stood as the basic annalistic information on Bethel to which the
historian attached his further comments in 16-18. The irregu-
larities of the verse give the impression that several shorter
notices from the annals were strung together into v.15.
While 15-18 is the historian, 19-20 definitely is not. These
verses are more generalized than 16-18 and serve the sole
82
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
function of picking up from the narrative of 1 Kings 12:32-1332
what 15-18 missed: the minor high places in the towns of
Samaria (1 Kings 13:32) and the immolation of the illegitimate
priests (1 Kings 13:2). Therefore, several commentators have
considered 19-20 as an addition to 16-18 attached by the re-
dactional joint wegam. Someone missed these details from 1
Kings and wanted to point out that the prophecy was fulfilled in
exact detail /144/. Since we know the exilic editor was at work
in this chapter, these additions probably derive from him,
although we cannot be certain.
We have already noted how well vv.21-23 fit with the source
in 22:2-23:3. The mention of the time of the judges indicates the
historical interests of the historian himself, however, and sug-
gests that he has had a hand in shaping these verses from his
source.
V.24 is a summary account of various purges, sounding like an
afterthought attached by wegam. Snaith saw this as the
original conclusion for the first edition of Kings, and others
have assigned it to the historian or first editor also /145/. Its
generalizing nature characterizes it as the work of an editor or
compiler rather than a historical source. Since the rites and
objects in question are not those mentioned in the larger source
for 2 Kings 23 (4a,6-7,8b,10-J3,15,21-23) nor are they among
the special interests of the Deuteronomistic historian (8a,9,
14,16-18), one is tempted to assign them to the exilic editor. In
fact these subjects are reminiscent of the exilic editor's por-
trayal of the sins of Manasseh in 21:6. Of course, part of our
reason for assigning 21:6 to the exilic editor was the usage of
*6b w e yidd ec onrm in 23:24, so our reasoning is in apparent
danger of becoming circular. However, really this matter of
usage was only a minor argument among several stronger ones
for attributing all of 21:3b-15 to the second editor (pp.67-69, cf.
p.51). Thus, 23:24 is probably the supplementary work of the
exilic editor. Further support for this assertion is provided by
the circumstance that v.25 fits much better after v.23 than it
does after v.24. The antecedent of kamohu in the present form
of the text is not immediately clear because of the inter-
position of Hilkiah's name. A comparison of Josiah with the
kings of the past forms the content of both 23 and 25, but not
of 24.
In contrast to v.24, the language and interests of v.25 are in
perfect harmony with the Deuteronomistic historian, and to it
we may compare Deut. 34:10 and 2 Kings 18:5. Although 18:5
"and after him there was none like him" and 23:25 "and before
him there was none like him" are technically in contradiction, it
83
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
seems likely that here we are dealing with an element in
courtly praise which, like "let the king live forever" (Neh.2:3),
or the more enthusiastic utterances in the royal psalms (Ps. 2:9;
45:2-7; 61:1-7; 72:5,9-10), need have only an oblique relationship
to reality. Indeed, the historian's statement that no king before
Hezekiah was as pious as he also contradicts that author's view
of David's virtue (2 Kings 18:3). The possibility that 18:5 is
textually corrupt or has been interfered with in some way
should not be overlooked as well. The chronological order of the
statement is reversed, and the last part of the verse is awk-
ward. The common Deuteronomistic expression "to walk after
Yahweh" (1 Kings 14:8; 2 Kings 23:3) suggests that perhaps this
verse originally read something like "In Yahweh the God of
Israel he trusted and after him he walked. There was no one like
him among all the kings of Judah". If the verb "walk" were lost
from this by some error, the last words of the present verse,
"nor those who were before him", could have been added to
complete the expression which the now incomplete text would
incorrectly suggest. While the evidence is not strong enough to
emend the text, it is surely sufficient to cast suspicion upon any
attempt to deny 2 Kings 23:25 to the historian because of its
supposed contradiction to 18:5.
To return to 23:25, some scholars have assumed that such
unrestricted praise for Josiah could never have been written
after his tragic death /146/; but similar praise was given to the
already dead Hezekiah. Yet even if 25a is possible for either a
Josianic or exilic writer, 25b can only have been written after
Josiah's death. Strangely, no literary seam is visible between
25a and 25b; perhaps the exilic editor so thoroughly reworked
this verse that this break has been disguised /147/.
In any case, there is a definite change in authors between 25a
and 26-27. The attitude changes suddenly from the completely
positive evaluation of the semi-Messianic Josiah to one ada-
mantly negative towards the nation as a whole. If a second
editor ever existed, 2 Kings 23:26-27 is as clearly his as any
passage could be /148/.
If our theory of a Josianic date for the historian is correct,
vv.29-30, the report of the death of Josiah, must be denied to
him for the sake of the hypothesis as a whole. Yet most scho-
lars have not seen the death of 3osiah as the point of division
between the two editions. Instead they have assigned 29-30 to
the first editor because the information is supposedly derived
from the annalistic source /149/. However, since there is no
way to distinguish this narrative from the other specific
historical information presented by the exilic editor (23:33-35;
84
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
24:l-2a,7,10-17; etc.), this argument is not convincing.
On the other hand, it should be noted that 29-30 really
contain very little specific information after all, only the place
of the event, the name of the Pharaoh, and the method of the
transport of the king's body back to Jerusalem. We are not pro-
vided with any of the detailed circumstances. Did Josiah go out
to fight, to parley, or to submit as a vassal? Was he killed in
battle or executed before the negotiations could begin /150/? In
contrast to 22:3 or 23:23, the event is not dated, a circumstance
of extreme importance to annalists. The description of Josiah's
death, therefore, sounds more like the work of an editor writing
some years after the event than a relatively contemporary
annalistic source replete with dates and details.
Since v.28 has already been assigned to the exilic editor as
one of his rigid concluding formulae (pp.40-41), although mostly
because of the requirements of the hypothesis of a Josianic
historian in the absence of any definite literary critical evi-
dence, we may summarize by assigning to the Deuteronom-
istic historian and his sources J-4a,6-18,21-23,25 (in part), and
to the exilic editor 4b-5,19-20,24(7), and 26-30. This division is
supported by the presence of characteristic expressions of the
exilic editor in these latter verses (examples 11,14,15,16,17,21,
and 22).
2 Kings 23:31-25:30
If our theory of a Josianic date for the historian is correct,
then the account of the last four kings of Judah must be solely
the work of the exilic editor. The results of our investigation in
Chapter 2 have confirmed this, but we must now look at 2 Kings
23:31-25:30 in greater detail.
Sources. In over-all structure, the last two chapters of 2
Kings resemble the Deuteronomistic history in Kings. Source
materials are used either verbatim or with slight changes and
are set into the framework provided by the reigns of the last
four kings.
Up to 2 Kings 24:8 there are indications that an annalistic
source or sources were used in much the same fashion as in the
other parts of Kings. The slightly awkward substitution of
Yahweh for Nebuchadnezzar as subject in 24:2 speaks for the
use of some written source; however, the rest of vv.2-4 is a
theologizing, editorializing expansion upon this. 2 Kings 23:
33-35 gives specific facts and figures and thus also seems to be
from some source. Two verses even show typical annalistic
style: 24:1 and 7.
2 Kings 24:5 is the last time the Book of the Chronicles of the
85
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

Kings of Judah is cited. Many scholars therefore presume that

the main redaction of Kings must have extended at least this
far /151/, but this argument is not convincing because we know
that the exilic editor had an understanding of the historian's
regnal formulae and a willingness to imitate them (pp.36-41).
Here he may easily be doing the same thing with respect to the
citation formula. 2 Kings 24:5 was the last time this was done
simply because Jehoiakim was the last king to die non-violently
upon the throne and thus, according to the pattern already set
up by the historian, the last to receive a concluding formula of
any kind (pp.29 and 40). Thus, 24:5 cannot be used as evidence
to extend the main redaction of Kings beyond the time of
Josiah.
Whether or not the written source or sources used by the
exilic editor were identical to those used by the Deuteronom-
istic historian cannot be determined. The exilic editor's sources
provided information on military movements, successions to the
throne, and tribute payments; and this is similar to what the
historian found in his source.
The lack of any specific information about Jehoiakim's burial
might be taken as evidence that the second editor did not have
access to the same source as the historian, but the information
about Jehoiakim's burial should be restored into 24:6 from the
Lucianic recension. This phrase could have been lost through
haplography due to homoioteleuton, or perhaps it was simply
struck out because of the influence of the picture of Jehoia-
kim's burial in Jer. 22:19. In any case, it is difficult to see how
this plus could have been a secondary addition in light of the
emphasis in later times upon this king's death at the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar in Chronicles and Josephus /152/. Besides
these fragments of some written annalistic source before 24:8,
we also know that the exilic editor used parts of the book of
Jeremiah as a source. 2 Kings 25:22-26 (the death of Gedaliah)
is an abridgment of Jer. 40:7-41:18, or more specifically 40:
7a,8-9; 41:1-3,17-18. Jer. 39-43 is a continuous whole without
any breaks to indicate that 2 Kings 2522-26 might have been
used to construct it. 2 Kings 25:22 is clearly a redactional
summary of Jer. 40:5 and of the general context of the episode
as found in Jeremiah. The Kings account, for the sake of
brevity, omits some of the narrative details which are firmly
anchored in the text of Jeremiah: the commission of Gedaliah
(Jer. 40:7b), the harvest (40:10-12), the warning about Ishmael's
perfidy (40:13-16), and so on. Thus, the direction of literary
dependence is obvious /153/.
After 2 Kings 24:7, however, it becomes impossible to
86
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
recognize any annalistic statements like those which can be
isolated before that point. The exilic editor probably wrote the
rest of his work without any written resources except the
Gedaliah narrative, using only his own memory and that of his
contemporaries. John Gray felt that 2 Kings after 24:8 has a
spontaneous and continuous narrative style which precludes the
use of sources /154/. In any case, if written sources were used,
they cannot be traced.
Unfortunately, our recognition of the written sources for the
last chapters of Kings is of little help in deciding the problem
of dual authorship. There is no way of telling whether the hist-
orian's annalistic source for Judah merely ran out at 2 Kings
24:7, forcing him to other sources of information, whether a
new editor without access to the annalistic source took over
after Jehoiakim, or whether a second editor has been at work
since Josiah, had access to some written source up to 24:7, and
constructed the source citation of 24:5 after the model of the
historian. In short, we cannot answer the question of dual re-
daction on the basis of the evidence of sources in 2 Kings
23:31-25:30.
Editorial technique. At first glance the manner in which the
Gedaliah narrative was summarized looks like proof that an
exilic editor performed this redactional task, for this technique
is not familiar to us from the earlier portions of the Deutero-
nomistic history. In fact, the use of summarizing resumes is
really more characteristic of the Chronicler (cf. 2 Chron. 2-5).
In contrast, the historian's respect for his sources sometimes
caused him to retain material which he must have found theo-
logically offensive /155/. However, since we do not have the
original of any of the other sources for Kings, we really cannot
say that this process of condensation through the omission of
non-essentials is completely alien to the historian. He selected
only parts of his annalistic sources, omitting what he did not
find directly applicable /156/. In addition, it is quite clear that
the Deuteronomistic historian did have available prophetic
sources of a biographical nature, for example, the Isaiah nar-
ratives and the Elijah-Elisha cycle. Therefore, the nature of the
editorial use of the Gedaliah narrative cannot be used to help us
decide whether its editor was the same as that for the main
redaction of Kings and the rest of the history.
Much the same thing must be said about the shift from
Judean chronology after 2 Kings 24:12 to the dating of events
by the Babylonian kings. This does not mean that a new author
started writing at this point, for the termination of the Judean
sources would have forced any writer to rely upon other sources
87
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
or his own memory for the dating of events.
There is one passage which might seem to prove the redac-
tional unity of 2 Kings 23:31-25:30 with the earlier work of the
historian. 2 Kings 24:13 seems to be the second half of a
prophecy-fulfillment link to 2 Kings 20:17. In the narrative
about Isaiah's reaction to the arrival of a Babylonian embassy,
the prophet announced to the foolish Hezekiah that someday
"all that is in your house and that which your fathers have
stored up" would be transported to Babylon. In 24:13, the re-
moval of the Temple treasure, the royal treasure, and the
Temple cult apparatus is said to have taken place just as
Yahweh had foretold ("as Yahweh had spoken"), a relatively
clear reference to Isaiah's words.
However, almost all commentators agree that v.13 and per-
haps 14 are really a post-redactional insertion into 2 Kings 24
/157/. First, vv.12 and 15 fit together as a narrative about the
royal imprisonment and exile. Second, missam in 13 has a
remote antecedent; the city has not been mentioned since 11.
Third, these verses are redundant, for 15-16 deal with the same
subject. Fourth, the figures given in 14 are hard to harmonize
with those given in 16. Finally, the concept that all the treasure
was plundered and all the important men of Jerusalem exiled
would be unlikely for an editor whose horizon of thought in-
cluded the plundering and deportation of 587. Therefore, this
prophecy-fulfillment link to 2 Kings 20:17 does not prove that 2
Kings 20 and 24 are the work of a single redactor. For a further
examination of this problem and of the date of the Isaiah nar-
rative in 2 Kings 20:12-19, see the Appendix (pp.129-32).
Before leaving the subject of editorial technique, we should
remember another bit of evidence suggesting an exilic editor
for the last chapter of Kings. In contrast to the false prophecy-
fulfillment schema discussed above, a genuine one is repre-
sented by 21:10-15, the prophecy that Manasseh's sins will lead
to the fall of the nation, and 24:2-4, the explicit fulfillment of
this. Frank Cross has noticed the difference of this prophetic
link, both halves of which are in material assigned to the exilic
editor, from those which the historian used to tie together his
editorial work:
No specific prophet is named by name. Moreover, no
prophecies concerning Manasseh's great sin and with it
inevitable rejection are to be found in the earlier parts of
the Deuteronomic history. Not one /158/.
Thus, we have here an editorial technique of the historian imi-
tated by the exilic editor, but more vaguely by means of
88
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
unnamed, non-specific prophets (see pp.47 and 66).
Another example of an editorial technique used to link to-
gether the work of the exilic editor is 25:2 lb, a formula which
ties up the events of the 3udean disaster with those of 2 Kings
17 (see p.61).
A similar use of a repeated, unifying formula may be traced
in 24:3 and 20. The editor makes his theological point quite
clear by repeating:
(v.3) Certainly because of the anger /159/ of
Yahweh it came to pass in Judah that he removed
them out of his presence.
(v.20) For because of the anger of Yahweh it came to
pass in Jerusalem and Judah that he cast them out
of his presence.
This formula introduces the events that lead up to each of the
sieges of Jerusalem. This unifies the presentation of the last
chapters of 2 Kings more effectively than does the editors imi-
tation of the regnal formulae. Although "the anger of Yahweh"
is a common Deuteronomistic theological expression (Deut.
6:15; 7:4; 11:17; 29:19,26; Josh. 7:1; 23:16; Judg. 2:14,20; 3:8; 10:7;
2 Kings 13:3), this longer formula itself is never found in the
history, nor is the expression "because of the anger of Yahweh".
Appendices. According to some commentators, 25:21 is actu-
ally the conclusion and summary of Kings and thus the stories
of Gedaliah (22-26) and of the release of Jehoiachin (27-30)
must be post-redactional appendices, not part of the work of
either the historian or the exilic editor /160/. Since 2 Kings
25:22-26 is dependent upon Jer. 40:7-41:18, while Jer. 39:1-10 is
dependent upon 2 Kings 25:1-12, and since Jer. 39-43 is sup-
posedly a continuous whole without breaks, Jer. 39-43 must be
later than 2 Kings 25:1-12 and, in turn 2 Kings 25:22-26 must be
later than Jer. 39-43. Therefore, 2 Kings 25:22-26 must likewise
be later than 25:1-12 and would thus be an appendix. However,
Jer. 39-43 is not a seamless whole, for Jer. 39:1-2 and 4-10 can
be separated from their context by literary criticism. Because
the release of Jehoiachin from prison makes a very believable
motivation for the exilic editor's activity and since modern
canons of taste do not apply to the endings of ancient books, it
is best to include all of 2 Kings 25 in the work of the exilic
editor.
In summary, what evidence can be derived from these last
chapters of Kings for the existence of an exilic editor? There is
the vague prophecy-fulfillment schema of 24:2-4 linking to
21:10-15, the editorial link to 2 Kings 17 provided by 25:2lb, and
89
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
the unifying formula of 24:3 and 20 which is not found in the
Deuteronomistic history and supersedes the regnal formulae as
the real pattern of organization for 2 Kings 24. We must not
overlook the rigidification of the introductory regnal formulae
in 2 Kings 23:31-32,36-37; 24:8-9,18-19. Finally, although the
exilic editor had the opportunity to make only a few of his own
editorial comments in these chapters, his distinctive usage is
present in 2 Kings 24:2,3, and 20 (examples 13,15, and 23) /162/.
IV. THE EXILIC EDITOR OUTSIDE
JUDGES AND KINGS
Expressions characteristic of the work of the exilic editor are
not limited to the books of Judges and Kings but are found else-
where in passages secondary to the basic compilation of the
historian. Two of these places deserve some consideration of
their literary critical situation and relationship to the exilic
editor: Deut. 4:19-20 and Josh. 24.
Deuteronomy 4:19-20
The literary criticism of Deut. 4 has been the focal point of
much discussion. It is certainly beyond the scope of a study pri-
marily interested in the book of Kings to dig too deeply into the
details and history of this subject. Three main approaches to
this chapter have received notice in recent years.
Henri Gazelles has attempted to link together the second
person singular material of Deut. 1-3 with that in 4 to form an
original discourse dealing with holy war; in this he follows a
large number of scholars who have used the singular-plural
differentiation in Deuteronomy as the key for tracing its earlier
sources /163/. Whatever the merits of this general approach,
Gazelles failed to recognize that the wording of the key second
person singular holy war verses for his hypothesis, Deut. 2:24
and 3:2, in which Yahweh delivers the oracle "I have given N
into your hand", is actually required by the tradition of the
genre to be in the singular.
When this oracle is presented as a direct address of Yahweh
in the Old Testament, it takes the singular form eighteen times
(sixteen without doublets) and the plural only three times /164/.
All three of these exceptions are set within long Jahwereden
far removed from the simple oracle setting. This insistence
upon the singular is perfectly understandable when one realizes
that the procedure of giving an oracle would require the sing-
ular address to the one who requested it, although the
information itself might concern the whole people. Thus, when
90
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
Phinehas receives this oracle in Judg. 20:28, we have the same
situation as in Deut. 2:24, a plural imperative, but a singular
second person suffix:
Deut. 2:24 "Cross over (pi.) the Arnon valley. See I
have given Sihon into your (sing.) hand".
Judg. 20:28 "Go up (pi.) because tomorrow I will give
them into your (sing.) hand".
This further demonstrates the tenacity of the singular suffix in
the citation of the holy war oracle. There is no justification for
combining the holy war material of Deut. 1-3 and the singular
material of Deut. 1-4 to reconstruct an earlier source.
A second approach that is growing in popularity is that of
Norbert Lohfink, who sees Deut. 4:1-40 as a basic unity from
which no verse can be removed without destroying the pattern
of the chapter's argument. He claims that this overall struc-
tural unity is shown by the presence of a miniature covenant
form, with 1-24 as the historical retrospect and announcement
of the principal stipulation, the constantly growing horizon of
the future with 15-22 as a whole concentrating the admonition
of 5-8 upon the idolatry commandment, just as 9-11 does upon
the Decalogue in general, and a growing horizon of retro-
spection, from 3-4 (Baal-Peor) through lOff. (Sinai) to 20
(exodus) /165/.
Lohfink's approach obviates any possibility of isolating
4:19-20 from its context. Indeed, Lohfink conceives of Deut. 4
in its entirety as an insertion into the work of the Deuteronom-
istic historian. If this were so, the advanced optimism about the
return from exile in 4:29-31 would make it impossible for 19-20
to be the work of the exilic editor, whose more restrained hope
is stated in 1 Kings 8:46-51. Lohfink has, however, failed to deal
with certain items of literary critical evidence.
First, it is hardly likely that the historian would have moved
from his narrative directly into Deuteronomy proper without
any transition like that provided by Deut. 4. Second, 29-31 is a
self-contained unit concerning God's grace and the call to
"return" and is from the same author as Deut. 30:1-10, Wolff's
"second hand" /166/, but the earlier parts of Deut. 4 do not
have this same relationship. Finally, 14 and 22 show a clear
previous literary connection which has been interrupted by the
later insertion of 15-21. V.22 expresses the contrast of Moses'
situation with that of the whole people in 14, introduced by the
adversitive emphatic expression ki *anokT.
The more flexible and orthodox literary critical approach, as
represented by Noth, and more recently by Seitz and Mittmann,
91
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
comes closer to the truth than the more rigid approaches of
Gazelles, Lohfink, or Braulik, who emphasize one literary criti-
cal tool at the expense of the others. Basically, Noth saw Deut.
4 as the work of the Deuteronomistic historian, designed to
provide a transition between his own historical narrative (Deut.
1-3) and the law (Deut. 5-29:20). This chapter later underwent
multiple successive amplifications: vv.29-40 as a singular,
self-contained unit, 41-43 as a combination of other verses
dealing with Levitical cities, the material of 15-21 forced into
a fissure made between 14 and 22, and so on /167/.
Falling between 14 and 22, Deut. 4:19-20 must be later than
the Deuteronomistic historian, but how do these verses relate
to the rest of the insertion 15-21 of which they are a part?
Here again, Noth provides the clearest explanation. He notes
that the break between 14 and 22 took place because 12, which
properly leads on to the subject of 13-14, reminded a later
writer of the subject of idolatry. The concept of the absence of
any revelatory shape is unstressed in 12, but it is taken up in an
excursus in 15-18, where this absence is applied to the pro-
hibition of the "carved image". At this point in his analysis,
Noth brings in the criterion of second person singular and plural
address. Since 15-18 are plural and 19 is singular, the latter
must be an expansion upon the former according to Noth, but
20 is again plural, so it must be an even later expansion of 19.
This last opinion is at least as old as Steuernagel, who saw 19 as
an addition because of its number and 20 as an even later
objection to the concept of the nations being assigned the astral
bodies/168/.
In Deut. 4, however, reliance upon the distinction of singular
and plural address is probably out of place. Whatever position
one takes in the controversy over the causes and significance of
this phenomenon in the central portions of Deuteronomy, when
dealing with later additions to the book itself the situation is
different, because there is a strong possibility that these later
Deuteronomists were imitating the variation they found in the
document before them. Thus, Gottfried Seitz has concluded
that already in the second redactional stage of the book
singular and plural differences no longer indicate any change in
authorship, for chiastic patterns and other marks of unity cut
across these /169/.
Yet even ignoring this distinction between singular and plu-
ral, Deut. 4:19 still takes an approach to the subject of idol-
atry different from 15-18,23-24,25b. Whereas the discussion of
the "carved image" in 15-18 was motivated by the "image" not
seen by Israel in 12, the injection of astral bodies into the
92
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
paranesis in 19 was by someone who no longer saw "images" as
the pivotal concept in the argument, as the writer of 15-18 did,
but instead conceived of illicit worship in general as the
subject, completely overlooking 12 and the notion of "image".
Furthermore, since 19 was written as a conscious parallel to 16,
a "lest"-clause indicating the danger of which the people should
be careful, the change in grammatical number between 16 and
19 is even more harsh than usual because of this syntactical
connection, making it unlikely that they could originally have
been written together as one continuous passage.
If 19 is a secondary to 15-18, it is equally true that 20 is
required to complete the thought of 19, which by itself leaves
the reason why the people should avoid star worship unstated. In
other words, there can be no parenetic intent for the statement
that Yahweh assigned the stars "to all the peoples under the
whole heaven" in 19 unless Israel is specifically excluded from
this group. Although he failed to recognize this point, it is
interesting that Hem pel, for whom the distinction between
singular and plural address was the most important criterion for
separating the literary layers within Deuteronomy, found 19 and
20 so close together in subject-matter that he was forced to
consider them as connected in spite of the change in address
/170/.
Thus, Deut. 4:19-20 must be taken together as one of the suc-
cessive additions which Deut. 4 attracted after the work of the
Deuteronomistic historian had been completed. Because they
demonstrate an interest in astral worship, which seems to have
been a concern of the exilic editor, and because they also
reflect the concept of the people as Yahweh's inheritance, as
found in 1 Kings 8:51 and 2 Kings 21:14, I have assigned them to
the exilic editor. Of course, the confused state of the chapter
as a whole makes the exact relationship of this insertion by the
exilic editor to the other supplements difficult to establish,
except that 15-18 is earlier than either 19-20 and 29-31. These
latter verses, Wolff's "second hand", go beyond the limited op-
timism of the exilic editor concerning relief from the exile and
thus must be typologically later than 19-20 /171/.
Before leaving the subject of Deut. 4, I should like to take
issue with Noth's assignment of 25-28 to the historian /172/.
Because of his view that the Deuteronomistic historian wrote in
the exile, this was a natural assumption to make. However, as
we have already mentioned, the mere mention of exile can be a
treacherous guide for dating. Noth gave no reason for isolating
25b from the rest of 25-28 except that he considered the
repetition of the verb smc stylistically unacceptable. Yet if
93
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

we retain this half-verse, 25-28 has exactly the same interests

as 15-18 and 23-24. This is all a paranesis about man-made
images, united by the concept of "image" (v.12) and "carved
image" (vv. 15,16,23,25), and the same idea occurs in 28 as well,
where the punishment fits the crime. Thus, 25-28 are not the
work of the historian at all, for these verses are really part of a
larger addition to the original history.
In summary, Deut. 4:1-14 and 21-22 are for the most part
from the hand of the historian, who thus provided a transition
from historical narrative to law; 15-18,23-28 are a somewhat
later addition on the subject of image worship; 19-20 are from
the exilic editor of the Deuteronomistic history (examples 14,
26); and 29-31(40) are an even later and more optimistic ad-
dition by the author of 30:1-10, Wolff's second hand.

Josh. 24:1-28
Expressions which are characteristic of the second editor are
found in Josh. 24:12,15,17, and 18. How can this be explained?
Josh. 24 has been one of the most closely studied chapters of
the Old Testament in recent years because of its relationship to
covenant forms and ideas and the insight it promises to provide
into such controversial questions as the relationship between
the exodus and Sinai traditions and the religious basis of the
amphictyony.
The widespread acceptance of the hypothesis of the Deutero-
nomistic historian has created an almost equally widespread
agreement that Josh. 24 is not part of the original work of this
historian. First, the historian's work has been broken off at
some point before Judg. 2:6 (p. 43). Second, it is hard to believe
that the historian would have provided the narrative of Joshua
with two conclusions. Third, Josh. 24 is not a farewell speech in
the sense of Josh. 23 or 1 Sam. 12, and it thus falls outside the
outline and structure of the history.
One of the more popular older theories about Josh. 24 was
that it was the original conclusion to the pre-Deuteronomistic
book of Joshua which the later Deuteronomistic editor excised
in order to replace it with Josh. 23, which he modelled after the
chapter he eliminated. Then later Josh. 24 was reinserted /173/.
Noth has, however, demonstrated that this position is unten-
able. Josh. 24 is not from the same collector as the rest of the
book and thus cannot have been its original conclusion. For
example, the one instance of conquest that Josh. 24 reports,
that of Jericho in [Link], cannot be made to correspond with the
account given in Josh. 6 /174/. In fact, Josh. 23 is not modelled
upon Josh. 24 at all. The parallels are limited: Joshua calls the
94
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
people together, speaks to them, and refers to the past and the
future. The other parenetic and historiographic speeches of the
historian are really much closer to Josh. 23 than is Josh. 24 and
demonstrate that the historian would have needed no model to
create Josh. 23.
A major exception to the general consensus that Josh. 24 is a
later insertion into the Deuteronomistic history is Wolfgang
Richter, who is followed in this by Rudolph Smend (see p.20).
They conclude that Josh. 24 was original to the history and that
Josh. 23 was later inserted into it /175/. Richter bases this
claim upon his conclusion that Judg. 2:7-9 is dependent upon
Josh. 24:29-31 and that Judg. 1:6 fits better with Josh. 24:31
than it does with Josh. 23:16. However, Richter's evidence for
the direction of this literary dependence is tortuous and cir-
cular in places, and his assertion of a relationship between Josh.
23 and later additions to Judg. 2 ignores the presence of later
additions in Josh. 23 itself. Furthermore, Richter offers no
counter arguments against those which have already been ad-
vanced to demonstrate the secondary nature of Josh. 24 in its
present context.
While Josh. 24 is not the work of the Deuteronomistic hist-
orian, it is presented to us in Deuteronomistic dress. Although
Auerbach went so far as to credit the Deuteronomists with the
complete authorship of the chapter as "a typically Deutero-
nomistic construct of exilic origin" because of what he con-
sidered to be its historical impossibility /176/, the vast major-
ity of commentators have recognized a pre-Deuteronomistic
core in Josh. 24:1-27 overlaid by some Deuteronomistic addi-
tions/177/.
Among more recent commentators, neither Hertzberg, Gray,
nor Soggin have been willing to be specific, but each recognizes
the existence of a Deuteronomistic redaction /178/.
The origin and purpose of the pre-Deuteronomistic kernel
need not concern us; it is in those phrases which show a rela-
tionship to the language of Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10 that we are
interested. In any case, the traditional kernel was not substan-
tially deformed by the Deuteronomistic additions: "Thus the
Deuteronomistic revision inserted a few expansions and details,
but did not alter the content of the whole in any essential way"
/179/.
Moth considered v.!2a a Deuteronomistic addition repeating
the idea of the previous verse. Its direct object *otam hung in
the air, he claimed, until the even later addition of the two
kings of the Amorites, who are totally out of place here. This
half-verse shares with our exilic editor the use of the verb grs
95
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
(example 4) for the conquest, which is what has called it to our
attention. However, v.!2a is not just a repetition of 11 but
actually an advance over it. [Link] deals only with the first stage
of the conquest, Jericho, in contrast to v.12 which deals with
the conquest as a whole. Thus, Moth's assignment of 12a to a
Deuteronomistic editor must remain in doubt. It is even less
likely that 15 (using example 8, "the gods of the Amorites") or
18 (grjO represent the work of an editor, supplementer, or glos-
sator. No scholar has ever suggested this, so far as I know.
Indeed, it is only v.17 of all those verses related by linguistic
usage to the exilic editor in Judges that has any likelihood of
being from the hand of the Deuteronomistic editor of Josh. 24.
More specifically, it is the phrase "from the house of bondage"
and what follows that has come under suspicion, exactly the
phrase used by the exilic editor in Judg. 6:8 (example 6). Several
arguments have been advanced to assign this to the Deutero-
nomistic editor, but none is convincing /ISO/. Although "house
of bondage" may be a Deuteronomistic expression (Deut. 5:6;
6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6,11), Exod. 13:3,14; 20:2 suggest that the
origin of the phrase is really Elohistic. The following relative
clause also sounds Deuteronomistic, but the word ^ot^ is securely
anchored in the tradition of the plagues (Exod. 10:1,2; Num.
14:11,22) and is no automatic indication of Deuteronomistic
activity. However, it is possible that 17b is secondary, because
the reference to the plagues comes too late in the sequence of
ideas, being mentioned after the exodus of 17a. Yet it is not
this half of the verse that contains the phrase under con-
sideration. Although the Greek omits much of the verse, the
translators presumably did not have access to a Hebrew text
that had not been redacted by a Deuteronomist! This omission
only proves that the translators found the out of place ref-
erence to the plagues in 17 as awkward as we do.
In short, none of the verses in Josh. 24 which resemble the
usage of the exilic editor can be considered his work. How then
are we to explain the linguistic relationship indicated by ex-
amples 4,6, and 8?
If the exilic editor was not the actual author of these verses,
the only other option is that he was the editor who inserted
Josh. 24:1-27 into the Deuteronomistic history and was deeply
influenced by its language, so that when he later wrote Judg.
2:1-5 and 6:7-10, he recalled and used these expressions. This
influence was apparently rather temporary, for there are no
comparable contacts to Josh. 24 in his work in 1 and 2 Kings,
although there, of course, the subject matter has moved away
from the problems of exodus and conquest which were the
96
 Three: Additions of the Exilic Editor
common ground between Josh. 24:1-27 and the two secondary
Judges passages. If the exilic editor had just finished inserting
Josh. 24:1-27 into the Deuteronomistic history, providing it in
the process with a Deuteronomistic framework and some
Deuteronomistic additions, it would be only natural that his
thoughts about the exodus and conquest should have been
colored by this narrative and its language.
That it was the exilic editor of the Deuteronomistic history
who inserted this covenant renewal ceremony into his pre-
decessor's work has already been suggested by John Gray, who
assigned this unit to his "Deuteronomic redactor", in Kings,
generally equivalent to the author designated the "exilic editor"
in the present study. According to Gray, this redactor noticed
the covenant ceremony in Josh. 23 in his Vorlage, the
"Deuteronomic compiler" (that is, the Deuteronomistic hist-
orian), and repeated this in a more formal manner. However,
Gray failed to advance any arguments for his assumption other
than his evaluation of what sounded pre-exilic or exilic /181/.
Gray's view was correct despite his lack of arguments. To
begin with, we know that the exilic editor was active in the gap
in the history between Josh. 23:16 and Judg. 2:6, composing
Judg. 2:1-5 and inserting Judg. 1 to prepare for it (see pp.44f.
and 47f.). Secondly, the redactional additions to Josh. 24
demon- strate an interest in and a knowledge of the Tetrateuch.
For example, vv.9-10 recall Num. 22-24. This same connection
to the Tetrateuch is displayed in other sections of the exilic
editor (see pp.45f.,52f.), but is not at all characteristic of the
historian, who apparently did not even use the Tetrateuch for
his wan- dering and conquest narrative in Deut. 1-3.
A third and somewhat more subtle bit of evidence is offered
by vv. 19-21, in which Joshua is made to remark upon the im-
possibility of what he has been demanding of the people. This,
though, is quite a shock after what has gone before, especially
v.l 4. Thus, Noth assigned these verses to the Deuteronomistic
redactor of Josh. 24, as did Rudolph, who went on to point out
that they make the following act of covenant making in v.25
difficult to comprehend /182/. Of course, this is not to say that
explanations have not been advanced to deal with this
inconsistency /183/. However, even Klaus Baltzer, who retained
the entire covenant formulary of the original, the announce-
ment of blessings and curses and the invocation of a witness,
for form critical reasons, had to admit that v.19 had been
interfered with /184/. The most likely candidate for the
pessimism of 19-20 would be someone who stood at the end of
the people's history of apostasy and punishment and who was
97
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
convinced that the pivotal sin of Israel had been the worship of
foreign gods - the exilic editor (cf. 1 Kings 9:6,9; 2 Kings 17:7,
12,16; 21:3,5-7; 24:17). Although a threat of disastrous punish-
ment for disobedience to the covenant demands is obviously no
guarantee of an exilic date, this most inappropriately placed
pessimistic denial of the very possibility of obedience is hard to
imagine as coming from any period prior to the early exile. In
fact, this attitude has much in common with the theological
pessimism and rigidity caused by hindsight that characterized
the exilic editor's approach to the unforgivable sin of Manasseh
(2 Kings 23:26-27).
Therefore, the covenant ceremony of Josh. 24:1-27 was prob-
ably inserted into the Deuteronomistic history by the exilic
editor, along with Judg. 1 and 2:1-5. He also added certain
Deuteronomistic phrases and a pessimistic outlook to the chap-
ter. Josh. 24:29-33 are probably post-redactional appendices to
round off the book of Joshua.

98
 Chapter k

DYNASTIC ORACLE IN THE

DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

A major problem in understanding the attitude of the

Deuteronomistic historian towards the Davidic dynasty is the
apparent contradiction between his citation of conditional and
unconditional oracles dealing with the future of the Davidic
line. How could one author express two seemingly opposite
opinions about the nature of the promise to David?
But Yahweh did not wish to destroy Judah on account of
David his servant, just as he had promised him to give a
nir to him and to his sons forever (2 Kings 8:19).
There shall not be cut off from my presence a man for
you who will sit upon the throne of Israel, if only your
sons keep their way to walk before me as you have walked
before me (1 Kings 8:25).
The promise of an eternal dynasty in the work of an author
writing after the exile would require a great deal of explan-
ation, but, by the same token, an emphasis upon the conditional,
contingent nature of the promise to the Davidic house would be
unexpected in a work designed to bolster confidence in the new
3osianic religious, military, and diplomatic reforms. Of course,
neither of these situations would be completely impossible, for
an exilic author might be making some theological point about
the gracious release of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27-30), upon
whom dynastic hopes had centered (3er. 28:3-9,11), while a
Josianic author could have looked upon the conditional promise
as something of a guarantee and not a threat, in light of the
perfect obedience of the present occupant of the throne (2
Kings 23:25).
In any event, a close examination of these oracles is in order
so that we may determine what importance they had and what
function they were intended to perform for the Deuteronomis-
tic historian.
I. THE CONDITIONAL PROMISES
We shall first deal with the conditional promises of 1 Kings

99
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
2:4; 8:25; and 9:4-5. These passages are generally considered to
represent part of the motivation for the Deuteronomistic hist-
orian's task of historiography and his real opinion of the mon-
archy. Supposedly, he was attempting to prove that Yahweh's
judgment against the nation and its king was justified because
of a constantly worsening history of apostasy by both. Indeed,
the kings themselves were responsible for the fate of all the
people and in a sense concentrated upon themselves the
conditional nature of Yahweh's covenant promises, determining
the fate of the whole nation by their obedience or disobedience
/!/•
The theology of retribution as the guiding principle of history
was very much a part of the Deuteronomistic history, just as it
was of Deuteronomy itself. Thus, in the case of Solomon, the
disorders in his kingdom, the trouble in Edom, and the revolt of
Jeroboam, were seen as retribution for his violation of the
prohibition of foreign worship. For the historian, sin and its
retribution have the power to transcend generations. Jero-
boam's sin with the golden bulls becomes the besetting sin of
the Northern Kingdom, one in which each of his successors
participates. The ensuing retribution was the result not of some
automatic principle of fate but of the offended personality of
Yahweh. God is sovereign over the process of retribution and
can modify (1 Kings 11:13), delay (1 Kings 11:12), or eliminate (2
Kings 8:19) punishment. Nor was this punishment arbitrary or
unfair. In the book of Judges each generation is confronted with
the demand for obedience and the threat of destruction. In the
books of kings, each king of both kingdoms is judged as if he
were responsible for his own sins and, in the case of Judah, his
good works. Thus, it comes as a tremendous shock to the reader
to discover in 2 Kings 23:26-27 that suddenly Yahweh appears
anxious to punish the people for the sins committed years ago in
the time of Manasseh and that no amount of good works on the
part of king or people is going to turn him from the path of
vengeance!
In any case, the theory of collective retribution was very
much a part of the main redaction of the Deuteronomistic hist-
ory. Yet did the historian intend this retributive punishment to
go so far as to include the termination of the Davidic dynasty?
At first sight, 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; and 9:5 would lead us to answer
in the affirmative.
It was Noth's opinion, following Rost, that the unconditional
promise of the Nathan Oracle had been conditionalized by the
historian because of his exilic viewpoint on the history of the
kings /2/. What was seen as the normal condition by 2 Sam.
100
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
7:J4b-16,
"namely the wandering of future kings from the right
path, is marked out by Dtr as an exceptional case,
because he already has the picture of the more extensive
course of the monarchy in view" /3/,
On the other hand, Matitiahu Tsevat has attempted to re-
verse the general opinion that the history was conditionalizing
an older, unconditional promise /4/« Tsevat saw 2 Sam. 7:llb-16
as a gloss, alien in its concept of unconditionality to the orig-
inal oracle, which was concerned with the problem of dynasty
but not with its duration. The oracle was originally conditional.
While a careful literary critic must take exception to this
conclusion, especially to the idea that lib-16 is a gloss to the
basic text of 2 Sam. 7, Tsevat's auxiliary point is of great
importance: the concept of conditionality is as old as or older
than that of unconditionality. We need only point to Ps. 132:
11-12.
Even so, the opinion that the historian has introduced some-
thing new in regard to the contingent nature of the Davidic
dynasty is still a possible one. Moshe Weinfeld, after pointing
out that in some treaties the dynastic continuance of the vassal
was seen as a gracious gift of the overlord, granted in spite of
that vassal's sins, argued that the historian has picked up the
old theology of conditionality and given it a new twist:
What is peculiar to the deuteronomic work is the trans-
formation of the concept of conditionality into the domi-
nant factor in the history of the monarchy /5/.
Other scholars who have applied the conditionality of 1 Kings
2:4,8:25, and 9:4-5 to the continuance of the Davidic dynasty
and considered it one of the historian's main theological points
are H.W. Wolff, Enno Janssen, E.W. Nicholson, M. de Tillesse,
and S. Amsler /6/.
However, a closer look at these three passages shows that in
fact the historian did not intend that this condition of obe-
dience be applied to the subsequent continuity of the Judean
dynasty.
In 1 Kings 2:4 the conditional oracle has been inserted with
vv.2 and 3 into David's admonition to Solomon at the start of
his reign. Since the historian had to break into a continuous
source, the Succession History, in order to place this oracle in
precisely this spot, although a reluctance to interfere with his
traditional sources is one of the characteristics of his redac-
tional technique /7/, its exact location at the very start of
101
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

Solomon's reign rather than a few years into it after 2:46, where
the Succession History ends, must have been of great import-
ance to him. A further indication that only this location would
do is that the oracle was put into the mouth of David as one
communicated to him by Yahweh and here merely repeated to
Solomon. Yet the communication of this oracle to David had
not been described in the presentation of David's history. If the
historian had wanted to report this promise in David's own time,
he could easily have done so while inserting 2 Sam. 7:13a or in
the prayer in 2 Sam. 7:18-29. It is difficult to see how the
historian could have been referring to the Nathan Oracle in 1
Kings 2:4, as is so often assumed /8/, for none of the words of 2
Sam. 7:13b-16 are quoted nor any of its circumstances recalled;
moreover, the Nathan Oracle is definitely unconditional and
thus of a completely different nature. Therefore, the historian
seems to have used the opportunity afforded by David's speech
to work in this promise at the very beginning of Solomon's
reign, having David quote this promise as an oracle given to him
at some indefinite past date. This precise position was of im-
portance to him.
One immediately wonders why, if the conditional oracles
were intended to be programmatic for the entire history of the
kings, they were all deliberately concentrated in the reign of
one king only.
In 1 Kings 8:25 Solomon quotes the oracle given his father in
his dedicatory prayer and calls upon God to keep his promise.
Again the reference to the promise occurs in a rather strange
place, in the midst of a prayer about the Temple (cf. vv.24,
28-29). It seems that the historian has purposefully reminded his
readers of this oracle at the very apex of Solomon's obedience
to its conditions, just as he was careful to mention it first, at
the very beginning of Solomon's rule.
The oracle is repeated for the third time in 1 Kings 9:4-5.
This time Yahweh himself speaks with specific reference to the
dedicatory prayer. Here the obedience required in a general
way of David's "sons" in 1 Kings 2:4 and 8:25 is specifically
required of Solomon, and of Solomon only, for the eternal
security of the "royal throne over Israel". The subject of the
obedience of Solomon's descendants does not appear until w.
6-9, but these verses must be assigned to the exilic editor, not
the historian (see pp.73-76).
However, if it was the historian's point that it was specifi-
cally Solomon's obedience that was vital, and not that of
David's descendants in general as 1 Kings 9:4-5 makes clear,
why is the misleading term "sons" used in 2:4 and 8:25? The
102
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History

application of the oracle to the obedience of David's sons was

forced upon the Deuteronomistic historian by the flow of events
in his source, the Succession History. In turn, each of David's
children had been removed from the succession, Amnon,
Absolom, and Adonijah, until finally Solomon was consecrated
king. The historian was aware that it would be ludicrous for him
to insert a promise supposedly given sometime in David's past
which specifically anticipated Solomon's successful bid for the
throne, when the outcome of the dynastic struggle would be
unclear up to the last moment. Instead, the historian offered his
own reflection upon the theological meaning of those events,
that the reverses suffered by David's sons were due to their
refusal to behave according to Yahweh's will, and at the same
time directed the thrust of this conditional promise fully upon
Solomon by the admonitions of 1 Kings 2:2-3. Again, 1 Kings
8:25 referred to the wording of the first communication of the
promise to David in the unspecified past and thus was bound by
the same strictures as 1 Kings 2:4.
It was not until 1 Kings 9:4-5, where Yahweh communicates
the promise a second time, not to David, but to Solomon him-
self, that the historian was able to apply the conditional
promise exclusively to the last of David's sons. We need not
doubt that the historian was willing to pin long-term dynastic
continuance on the temporally limited actions of one man as he
did in 1 Kings 9:4-5, for much the same promise was made to
Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:38).
These observations suggest three conclusions. First, the con-
ditional oracles were carefully restricted by the historian to the
reign of Solomon because they were intended to apply only to
him /9/. Second, the repetition of the wording of the promise
indicates that the historian was trying to make a theological
point and to tie together the history of Solomon, just as the
formulaic oracles of doom for the three Northern kings, Jero-
boam, Baasha, and Ahab (1 Kings 14:10-11; 16:4,11; 21:21,24),
unite the history of the North up to Jehu. Third, the clari-
fication of 9:4-5 that it is exclusively Solomon's obedience that
is under consideration (and not the piety of his successors) indi-
cates that the crisis of the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of this
promise must be worked out within the confines of 1 Kings
2-11, the reign of Solomon. The later obedience and disobe-
dience of the Judean kings is not at issue here at all.
Yet what exactly is the content of this promise? It is that a
Davidide would always sit on the "throne of Israel". In 9:4-5 this
is interpreted further: Yahweh will establish "your royal throne
over Israel forever".
103
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
It has generally been assumed that these promises refer to
the Davidic rule over Judah. If this were really the case, how-
ever, the historian could easily have used a less misleading ex-
pression to make his point, as he did in other places: the nir for
David (1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19), the "house of David" (1
Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 17:21), or "the throne of the kingdom of
David" (2 Sam. 7:13).
This phrase "the throne of Israel" is used four other times in
the Deuteronomistic history, twice clearly referring to the
throne of the state of Israel, that is dominion over the Northern
tribes (2 Kings 10:30; 15:12). The two other occurrences, 1 Kings
8:20 and 10:9, are entirely neutral, but refer undoubtedly to the
united throne. Certainly this phrase never refers to the throne
of Judah. Significantly, when the historian announces the divi-
sion of the united kingdom because of Solomon's sin, Jero-
boam's portion is clearly called "Israel" (1 Kings 11:37-38).
The simplest explanation of the three oracles conditionally
promising the Davidic dynasty the throne of Israel may be found
by taking them at face value. They must refer to the loss of
this throne through the disobedience of Solomon, upon whose
behavior they are contingent. This insight explains several
puzzling facts: the concentration of these oracles exclusively
upon Solomon's reign, the conditionalization of their fulfillment
specifically upon Solomon's piety, and the use of the term
"throne of Israel".
As far as the present writer is aware, the only previous
recognition of this possibility was by Martin Moth, who raised
the question of whether the phrase "throne of Israel" might
have been used in the general sense of the Davidic-Solomonic
dominion. However, he rejected this possibility because that
phrase was used by the historian to refer to the throne of the
Northern Kingdom, not to dominion over the whole country
/10/. However, Noth was prevented from drawing the natural
conclusion from this fact by his conviction that the following
verses (9:6-9) were a direct continuation of 9:1-5 by the hist-
orian himself. Since these verses clearly refer to the moral
responsibility of Solomon's successors and to the downfall of
Judah, they obscure the fact that in 9:1-5 alone, as in the
earlier promises, the "throne of Israel" refers specifically and
restrictively to rule over the Israelite half of the Davidic per-
sonal union.
By accepting this hypothesis, we no longer need to harmonize
the conditional promises of 1 Kings 2:4,8:25, and 9:4-5 with the
unconditional promises of 1 Kings 11:36,15:4, and 2 Kings 8:19.
The promises of an eternal possession of the throne of the
104
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
North by Davidides contingent upon Solomon's obedience must
not be confused with the unconditional dynastic oracles con-
cerning the dominion over Judah and Jerusalem which are
dependent only upon the faithfulness of Yahweh. The condi-
tional promises cannot be used as evidence that the historian
writing them worked during the exile, after the fall of the
dynasty; rather, the existence of unconditionalized oracles
about the eternal endurance of that house suggests a pre-exilic
date for the historian.
II. THE UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES
The Nathan Oracle
The Nathan Oracle has been one of the most closely studied
chapters in the Old Testament, so that anything but the most
superficial reference to the problems involved would be im-
possible here /I I/. It seems clear that the oracle has an over-
arching unity, connecting together both the monarchy and the
older amphictyonic traditions through the subject of the ark.
The similarity of 2 Sam. 7 to the Egyptian Konigsnovelle shows
that this form critical unit was propaganda for the transfer of
the ark and the election of the dynasty /12/. However, we are
more concerned here with the use made of this chapter by the
Deuteronomistic historian than with its ultimate origins.
Dennis McCarthy has pointed out that 2 Sam. 7:1-17 actually
performs the same function as the transitional speeches in the
history. In its present position it is closely integrated with its
context and has been made the central element of the trans-
ition from Saul to David. 1 Sam. 12 concludes the era of the
judges, but the era of the monarchy as a positive institution
does not properly begin until 2 Sam. 7. McCarthy noticed that
the transitional speeches of the history point forward to double
events in the future. The speech of Moses commands both
conquest and distribution; Josh. 23 points to both the breaking
of the covenant in Judg. 2 and the rejection of Yahweh's
kingship in 1 Sam. 8. Likewise the Nathan Oracle foreshadows
two events: the erection of the Temple (1 Kings 6-7) and, in
McCarthy's opinion, the ultimate failure of the kingship /13/.
McCarthy is wrong about this last matter. Absolutely nothing
in the oracle or in the following prayer refers to the end of the
monarchy. Instead, the second event that 2 Sam. 7 points to is
clearly set forth in w. 14-15:
When he (David's seed) commits iniquities I will punish
him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the

105
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
children of men; but my covenant love will not depart
from him as I made it depart from Saul whom I made to
depart from before you.
Although these words are not from the historian's own hand, of
course /14/> their most natural application in the structure of
the history is to the limited punishment meted out to Solomon
for his sin (1 Kings 11:9-13,31-39). They can hardly refer to the
final fall of the monarchy. We may conclude, first, that the
Nathan Oracle does not force us to consider the final chapters
of 2 Kings as part of the original structure of the history, and
second, that the loss of the Northern Kingdom to the Davidic
house was a more vital matter in the structure of the history
than has previously been realized.
McCarthy's realization that a section of the history that was
not directly created by the historian may still function as a
deliberate editorial signpost is an important advance over
Noth's more limited approach, which traced the historian's
structure, theology, and editorial purpose only in those sections
actually written by him. Another example of the historian's
structural use of a borrowed passage can be seen in his place-
ment of the Ark Story as a transitional link between the judges
and the kings /15/.
The historian showed his vital interest in the Nathan Oracle,
not just by its structural importance, but by his references to
it. Although 1 Kings 2:4,8:25; and 9:4-5 are not reminiscences of
this eternally valid dynastic oracle, as is generally assumed, the
historian did refer retrospectively to the subject of Temple
building. Solomon refers to this promise in his message to
Hiram (1 Kings 5:19) and again in his dedicatory prayer (1 Kings
8:19). Both times the key words "he will build a house for my
name" are quoted directly from 2 Sam. 7:13.
In fact, it was concerning this subject of Temple building that
the historian went so far as to add material to the Nathan
Oracle, in spite of his usual reluctance to interfere with his
sources /16/. Although [Link], which fits badly in its context and
refers to the days of the judges /17/, and 22-24, which turn
from the figure of the king to the people (cf. lla) in language
like that of the Deuteronomistic historian /18/, have been
considered as additions by this historian, the clearest and most
unambiguous example of such interference is v.!3a, which has
been considered as a Deuteronomistic addition by the majority
of commentators /19/.
The expression "for my name" is characteristically Deutero-
nomistic and contrasts with the untheological language of v.5b.

106
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
A positive answer to the question of whether a Temple should
be built is clearly outside the horizon of the oracle, even if 5-7
do not categorically forbid any Temple whatsoever. The follow-
ing prayer, which reflects the content of the rest of the oracle,
does not mention 13a. [Link]-16 are exclusively concerned with
the problem of dynasty and the grace to be shown to David's
house, but 13a breaks into this with the subject of Temple
construction, something that has already been taken care of by
1-7. The oracle as a whole is concerned with David's successors
in a collective sense and with Yahweh's relationship with all of
them, but 13a speaks only of Solomon. Finally, as we have
noted, it was to this "construction permit" for Solomon from
13a that the historian referred in 1 Kings 5:19 and 8:19.
There have been two major exceptions to this general con-
sensus. Mowinckel reversed this view by suggesting that 13 is
actually the key to and core of the whole oracle, which was an
etiology for the construction of the Temple /20/. To come to
this conclusion, however, Mowinckel had to set aside the
procedures of literary criticism and rely upon the Scandinavian
school's understanding of tradition history.
A more traditional type of objection has been raised by
Hartmut Gese /21/, who contends that the Deuteronomistic "for
my name" of 13 was not part of the original text and that we
should instead read with 1 Chron. 17:12 and the Greek, "he will
build a house for me", an expression which clearly parallels 2
Sam. 7:5b. In Gese's view this would remove any need for us to
assign 13a to a Deuteronomist. However, Gese is guilty of not
considering all the evidence and of oversimplifying what he
does consider; in fact, one gets the impression that he derived
all his information from the rather misleading note in BH3.
The Greek does not simply support the Chronicler's reading,
as Gese implies, but offers a conflation of both possible read-
ings. What is more, the Chronicler quotes 2 Sam. 7:13 a second
time (1 Chron. 22:10) at a point where Temple construction is
under discussion, and this time 2 Sam. 7:13a is reproduced
exactly as in the MT. In other words, 1 Chron. 17:12 does not
represent a different text used by the Chronicler but is rather
only a free variation on his part.
To sum up the last several paragraphs, the historian did not
merely passively copy the Nathan Oracle but used it as a
structural element in his work, recalled it in later chapters, and
even added his own insertion so that it might better serve his
purpose. Yet he let stand unaltered the strongly unconditional
dynastic promise (llb-16), making no attempt to conditionalize
it. In other words, he must have been in basic agreement with
107
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
what it said, that Yahweh's promise of grace to David was un-
conditional.
Where the historian did not agree with his traditional sources,
he was quite willing to speak for himself. The introduction of
the kingship in 1 Sam. 7-10 is a transitional section just as is 2
Sam. 7. The historian had enough respect for tradition to
reproduce 1 Sam. 9:1-10:16; 11:1-15, and 13:lff. These sections
were already linked together prior to the time of the historian.
The command in 10:8 to go to Gilgal points forward to the
events of 1 Sam. 13, and the tension created by 10:16 is not
resolved until Saul's kingship is revealed in 1 Sam. 11. However,
the historian disagreed with the excessively positive attitudes
toward the monarchy in this source; therefore, he did not
hesitate to insert his own opinions in 1 Sam. 8; 10:17-27; and 12
/22/. Here the historian warned that kingship brings with it the
danger of economic and social subjugation and of the arrogation
by the king of Yahweh's place in the holy war (8:7-18). Even-
tually, the tension was resolved by making the institution of the
monarchy a command of Yahweh (8:22) and laying down the
program for the new order of things (12:14-15) /23/.
We would, therefore, expect a similar state of affairs in 2
Sam. 7, a passage as important to the historian as the transition
from judges to kings in 1 Sam. 7-10, if the historian disagreed
with the concept of an eternally valid promise to the Davidic
house. On the contrary, he was in fact enthusiastically on the
side of an unconditional promise to David, as his citation of the
oracles promising him an eternal n i r show.
A N fr for David
In 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; and 2 Kings 8:19, the historian went
beyond the point of merely allowing a traditional unconditional
promise to stand in his work; he inserted some promises of this
nature himself. These oracles, in contrast to the conditional
promises concerning Solomon and the future of the throne of
Israel, were not confined to any one reign and refer unambigu-
ously to an eternal reign over Judah and Jerusalem.
They promise a nir for David's descendants, a puzzling word.
The earliest explanations for it were offered by the translators
of the Old Greek, who interpreted nir as thesis (earnest money,
adoption, position) in 1 Kings 11:36 and as kataleimma (rem-
nant) at 15:4 /24/. Usually nir has been taken as being equi-
valent to the more common ner (lamp) from the root nwr,
although it is significant that the Old Greek translators refused
to draw such an obvious conclusion. Several explanations of the
meaning of nir connected it to ner in one way or another /25/.
108
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
Although the use of the word ner in several metaphorical
senses in the Old Testament, especially in connection with the
life of the king /26/, makes these explanations attractive, they
have one fatal flaw. The orthographic tradition, apparently
even as early as the time of the Old Greek translators' con-
fusion, is clearly nir and not ner. Therefore, Noth suggested
that n i r is a noun from the root nyr, "to plow new farmland" (as
in Prov. 13:23; Jer. 4:3; Hos. 10:12), meaning metaphorically "to
begin anew". Although a "new beginning" may be applicable to 1
Kings 11:36, where the dynasty actually does get a "new break"
and a new set of circumstances, n i r would make little sense as
an eternal new beginning for each of David's descendants (1
Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Noth implied that the historian has
therefore misused the expression in these last two passages,
having taken it over from his source in 1 Kings 11:36 /27/.
However, as we shall see below, the expression in 11:36 is not
from any source at all but from the historian's own hand, and
Noth's explanation for nir is excluded (see pp.112-15).
The most likely explanation for the word is one suggested by
Paul Hanson. J.W. Wevers had pointed to an Akkadian cognate
nlru(m), meaning "royal prerogative" in Assyrian inscriptions
/28/. Hanson, although apparently unaware of Wevers' sug-
gestion, used the Akkadian evidence to develop a convincing
explanation for the word nir. He pointed out that the roots nwr
(lamp) and nyr (yoke) were always carefully distinguished in
those languages which preserved them both; and he suggested
that the latter is present in the difficult Num. 21:30 with the
metaphorical meaning of "dominion", finding support for this in
the Amarna letters and the Targum and Vulgate of this passage.
He went on to apply this same meaning to 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4,
and 2 Kings 8:19, where it gives far better sense than "lamp". A
final intriguing suggestion was that, in the fifth century de-
velopment of the medial vowel letters, the yodh was not insert-
ed in the nr_ of Ps. 132:17 and 2 Sam. 21:17 because of growing
confusion between the two roots /29/.
1 Kings 11-29-39
We shall now return to look at 1 Kings 11:36 and its context
in greater detail. 1 Kings 11:1-13 are entirely Deuteronomistic;
11:14-28,40 are in a different, more annalistic style and seem to
be from a source dealing with the enemies of Solomon through-
out his reign (v.21) and not just in his old age as the Deutero-
nomistic context suggests. The absence of the formula of 14a
and 23a for Jeroboam could mean that 26-28,40 have a dif-
ferent origin from that of 14-25 or that 27-28 were added to
109
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
the annalistic 26,40 by some later hand /30/. In any case, how-
ever, it is indisputable that 29 marks a new beginning, that
29-39 interrupts the clear previous connection of 26-28 and 40,
and that 29-39 has the same stylistic character and subject
matter as 1-13.
In order to understand what the historian has to say we must
answer three questions. Did he use a prophetic source here? If
so, did that source provide the idea of an eternal dominion for
David or did the historian? Should the hint of a return of a full
hegemony to David in 39 be eliminated as a gloss?
The prophetic source. Martin Moth, in his commentary on
Kings, attempted to demonstrate that vv.29-39, except for
later glosses, was entirely the work of the Deuteronomistic
historian, finding in these verses a basic unity of purpose and
outlook. According to Noth, the historian could have picked up
the figure of Ahijah of Shiloh and his influence upon Jeroboam
from 1 Kings 14:1-18 and the motif of the tearing of the
kingdom from 1 Sam. 1527b-28 /31/. On the other hand, many
scholars have insisted that tine historian must have used a
written source here because the number twelve is not con-
sistently carried through the passage. The cloak is divided into
twelve sections (30). Ten go to Jeroboam (31,34); one is left to
Solomon (32,36). Although at least three possible explanations
for this irregularity require us to postulate an earlier source,
several others do not. Let us briefly review the possible solu-
tions.
1. The one tribe referred to in 32 is Benjamin, which re-
mained in part with the Davidic dynasty. That the Davidides
would retain Judah as well was tacitly assumed by the source.
However, the one tribe referred to in 37 by the historian is,
instead, the kingdom of Judah understood as a whole /32/.
2. The source was thinking of Simeon as the one tribe in 32,
tacitly assuming Judah, but the historian interpreted the one
tribe as the nation of Judah in 37 /33/.
3. The original source spoke only of twelve and ten. The
concept of one tribe was the contribution of the historian, who
was so much interested in the Judean state that this mathe-
matical irregularity did not bother him /34/. Thus, 29-31 is the
source and 32-39 the historian, while the last few words of 35
are a gloss.
4. There has been textual corruption and the Greek is correct
in reading "two tribes" in 32, even though the Old Greek is
notorious for harmonizing difficulties. An alternate view would
be to read "eleven" for "ten" in 31 /35/, a suggestion lacking
even the slightest textual support.
110
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
5. V.32 must be an interpolation since the "because" of 33
attaches to 31 and the plural of 33 finds its natural subject in
31 /36/. Therefore, there must have been two Deuteronomists.
The first assigned two tribes to Rehoboam, but the second, only
one. Their divergent views were linked together by the later
v.32; however, it seems obvious that this harmonizer could have
created a less clumsy final product by simply changing the
"one" of 36 to "two".
6. The tribe of Levi is silently understood throughout the
whole narrative, but not mentioned because elements of this
tribe remained in both kingdoms /37/.
7. The traditional but inexact reckoning of 2 Sam. 19:44 was
employed throughout the narrative. The same traditional ratio
lies behind 1 Sam. 11:8 /38/.
In view of this multitude of possible explanations, one must in
the end agree with Noth: "The problem of the calculation set
forth in 30ff cannot be clarified definitively" /39/. Because
there are plausible explanations which require the presence of a
source in 1 Kings 11:29-39 and others which do not, it would be
methodologically unsound to decide from one's own solution of
this mathematical problem whether a source was used or not.
There are, however, certain elements of the narrative that
indicate that the historian did use a written source. First, the
parenthetic circumstantial notice of Jeroboam's departure from
Jerusalem in v.29 seems to be a rather awkward insertion into a
sentence with an already established consecution, intended to
link the beginning of a new source to the information provided
by the historian's annalistic source in v.27.
Second, the concern of this narrative to place the interview
in the open country away from prying eyes or ears, the only
rational place for such sedition, would be uncharacteristic of
the historian himself, for his insertions of oracles where none
were provided by his source kept circumstantial detail to an
absolute minimum. Sometimes he had Yahweh speaking without
any intermediary or any background (1 Kings 6:11-13; 11:11-13; 2
Kings 10:30-31), sometimes he offered the prophet's name, but
only that (1 Kings 12:21-24; 16:1-4). In contrast, here we have
the prophet's name, the location of the oracle, and even the
accompanying symbolic action.
Third, a new cloak was used, just as one would expect for
such a quasi-magical action /40/. This sort of interest in the
technical details of prophetic action would be alien to the
Deuteronomistic historian.
Fourth, there are indications of a Northerner's viewpoint in
the narrative. The absolute use of "the kingdom" in 31 to refer
111
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
to the ten tribes is one such, for a Judean would certainly say
"part of the kingdom" or "Israel" (cf. 1 Kings 2:4; 8:9; 9:5;
11:37,38; 12:19). Up to 32 the narrative is rather sympathetic to
Jeroboam; in contrast, the historian's own opinions about him
were violently antipathetic (1 Kings 1226-33; 2 Kings 23:15).
Also, whatever explanation of the mathematical puzzle one ac-
cepts, the term "ten tribes" surely must include either Levi or
Benjamin. Yet the historian was of the opinion that Benjamin
remained with David (1 Kings 12:21,23), and one can hardly im-
agine he believed Yahweh assigned Levi to the apostate North.
Finally, there are several literary critical indications of an
older source in v.34a. Although the historian's point was clearly
to contrast 34 and 35 (Yahweh will not take the kingdom from
Solomon's hand, but from the hand of his son), the presence of
the word "all" in 34a disturbs this contrast. In addition, 34a,
taken alone, indicates that Yahweh will not tear the entire
kingdom from Solomon because Yahweh will make him a nasT',
apparently a demotion from his former office as king. Yet the
historian converts this demotion into an element of Yahweh's
election of David (34b) /41/ and distorts the point of 34a, the
partiality of Solomon's punishment, into the concept that the
punishment was delayed a generation, by the addition of 35. A
further indication of this is the abrupt shift from the use of
"kingdom" in 31 and 34a to "kingship" in 35.
Thus, there can be little doubt that the historian has used a
Northern prophetic source here /42/. This narrative exhibits
good prophetic form in its oracle: a participial clause relating
Yahweh's action following the messenger formula, followed by a
sentence relating how this action will affect the individual in
question. The "indication of the present situation" precedes the
messenger formula as is sometimes the case /43/. This nar-
rative about the commissioning of Jeroboam has much in
common with the anointing of Jehu (2 Kings 9:1-6,10) from the
Elisha cycle. In both these units the location of the event in
private, the action of the prophet, and the accompanying word
of Yahweh play a prominent part. Such narratives would have
been preserved among the prophetic brotherhood, we may as-
sume, with the intent of demonstrating how even the legitimacy
of a king was subservient to Yahweh's use of the prophetic
office.
The historian's contribution
It is possible, I believe, to separate this older source from the
editorial work of the historian and to hold that the historian's
contribution to 1 Kings 11:29-39 demonstrates without a doubt
112
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
that he firmly advocated the unconditionally and eternal na-
ture of Yahweh's promise to the Davidic dynasty. Traces of the
prophetic narrative source remain in 29-31 and 34a. In con-
trast, the historian's own purposes and interests are clearly set
forth in 1 Kings 11:1-13. The division of the kingdom as
punishment for Solomon's sins will take place after his death
(12) and the loss will be limited in extent (13). Because these
opinions would hardly be appropriate for the original source, at
least 33 (foreign worship) and 35 (postponement) are from the
historian. In addition, the Deuteronomistic phrases in 32a^,
34b,36bk and 38a deny them to the prophetic source and re-
quire us to assign them either to the historian or to some later
Deuteronomist.
A further indication that this division is correct is the plural
of 33, which fits poorly with the grammatical antecedent of its
subject, Solomon, in 32aa. In v.34a, the source continues the
singular of 32aa. Whether these verses originally were con-
nected or whether something has dropped out cannot be deter-
mined, but they do make sense together: "But one tribe shall be
his and I shall not take the whole kingdom from his hand, for I
shall make him a nasT' as long as he lives". By his use of the
plural, the historian clearly meant to extend the sin to the
whole people, carelessly assimilating the grammatical number
of the subject of 33 to the last words of 32 and overlooking or
ignoring the singular of his source. The historian returned to the
singular with his habitual "David his father" /W/.
The historian, imposing his own double line of thought, post-
ponement and limitation of punishment, upon his source, does so
in an oddly repetitive way because the idea of a limitation of
the loss to the Davidic house was already present in his source
in 32,34a. This shared concept may have been what led the
historian to use this oracle in the first place. His procedure may
be outlined as follows, the underlined words being from the
source (cf. the Hebrew):
Limitation Delay
(31) Behold, I am going to (35) But I will take the king-
tear the kingdom from the hand ship from the hand of his
of Solomon and will give you son and will give it to you,
ten tribes, (32) but he will ten tribes, (36) but to his
have one tribe for the sake son I will give one tribe
of (lemacan) my servant so (lemacan) there might
David and for the sake of be a nfr for David in
Jerusalem, the city which I Jerusalem, the city which I
have chosen from all the have chosen to put my name
113
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
tribes of Israel, (33) because there.
they have forsaken me ... (34) And I will not take the whole
kingdom from his hand, for I will make him a naST1 all the days
of his life for the sake of David my servant whom I chose, who
kept my commandments and my statutes.
The words of 32aa from the source gave an opportunity to
the historian to expound upon his theme of the limitation of the
punishment with 32at>b. In 33 he went into greater detail
about the nature of the people's sin. He then continued with 3*a
from his source, appending some Deuteronomistic motivation in
34b and misusing 3*a to lead into his second theme, the delay of
the punishment. For this part of his exposition, the historian
used vv.31-32 from the source, which had already served to
express the motif of limitation, as a model for 35-36, dealing
with delay. While engaged in this rather unusual redactional
procedure, the historian replaced the key verb of his source
("tear" 30,31) with the less colorful "take" and the "kingdom" of
the source with its oblique parallel "kingship".
Evidence that this explanation for 31-36 is correct is pro-
vided by the expression "ten tribes" in 35, a superfluous phrase
which does not fit with the feminine singular object suffix of
the preceding verb. Although this is commonly removed as a
later addition /45/, a more satisfactory explanation is that this
loosely attached phrase is a result of the historian's own imi-
tation of 31. Further evidence is the return of 36 to the theme
of the limitation of punishment, a subject already covered in
31-32. This can only be explained by the literary dependence of
36 upon 32.
According to this literary analysis, the nir promise of 36 is
from the historian's own hand, and thus part of his own theo-
logy. Just as the historian supplied the motivation for the
limitation of the punishment upon Solomon in v.32, for the sake
of David and Jerusalem, he also supplied the motivation for the
restraint shown to Rehoboam in 36: for the sake of David's nir.
Indeed, the nir promises would hardly have been present in a
Northern prophetic narrative, the object of which was to dem-
onstrate the ascendancy of prophetic revelation over royal
succession.
Although Noth was of the same opinion, that 36 was from the
hand of the historian, he managed to make this dynastic pro-
mise possible for his exilic, pessimistic historian by asserting
that kol-hayyamim here does not mean "forever", but only a
very long time /46/. One wonders why the historian, if his
purpose was to destroy any hope of a future for the Da,vidic
11*
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
house /47/, would use an ambiguous phrase so open to just the
misunderstanding he was supposedly trying to prevent. If this
were mere carelessness, why is it compounded by a repetition
of the dangerous expression in 2 Kings 8:19?
Moving beyond 31-36, in 37 and 38 a conditional dynastic
promise couched in Deuteronomistic terms is extended to
3eroboam. If Jeroboam is as pious as David was then Yahweh
will give hinY a dynasty like David's. A "sure house" was also
promised to the Zadokites by the historian (1 Sam. 2:35), where
it clearly denotes an eternal continuance. This promise cannot
be construed to mean that Jeroboam's promised dynasty is like
David's in that they are both conditional; rather, if Jeroboam
meets the same conditions David has already met, he too will
receive the promise of an enduring dynasty. Of course, Jero-
boam immediately flunked the test, as the historian soon points
out.
"But not forever". V.39 indicates that the loss of the North-
ern tribes to the seed of David would not last forever. As Cross
has pointed out, this verse is the clearest indication of a
Josianic origin for the Deuteronomistic history that can be
found anywhere in the work, for at no other time in Judean
history did it look so much as though this promise was likely to
be fulfilled /48/. Yet scholars have been almost unanimous in
declaring 38b^-39 as a secondary gloss /49/.
These scholars have pointed to the change in subject matter
from David, his son, and grandson to the more extended "seed",
but this is not so much a change of subject a* a natural
broadening of the author's horizon into the future.
Although these commentators also have asserted that the
sentiments expressed in 38b^-39 are really those of post-
exilic messianism, the more mundane and nationalistic hope of
a new ascendancy for the Davidic dynasty over the North was a
recurring feature of pre-exilic Judean political life. We need
only think of the wars of Rehoboam and Asa (1 Kings 14:3;
15:16-22), Amaziah's trial of strength (2 Kings 14:8-14), Heze-
kiah's reform and revolt, Josiah's expansionistic policy, or even
that last flicker of hope centered upon Jehoiachin (Jer. 28:1-4).
An optimistic statement about the reunion of the nation could
easily be pre-exilic.
It has also been suggested that the imperfect with the weak
waw for the future wa^anneh must be the mark of a later
hand /50/. Of course, this could be repointed as a waw-
consecutive imperfect, but this would leave us with an alter-
nation from the future aspect to the past aspect that makes
nonsense out of the sentence. As it stands, 39 is surely a final
115
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
clause dependent to the main sentence 38b'D; however, it must
be admitted that this particular consecution does not seem to
occur elsewhere in such a construction /51/.
The absence of 38b^-39 in the Old Greek has been cited
against its originality. However, the Greek translator of 3
Reigns 2:12-21:43 often let his theology control his accuracy,
omitting tautology and repetition as in 11:18 and 20. He was
motivated by pedantic logic and by attempts to safeguard God's
majesty /52/. Since 38b^ is apparently tautological, repeating
information already given earlier, and since it would have been
considered both incorrect and destructive to God's reputation
by the translator in that the Davidic house never did regain
Israel, this omission is only to be expected.
Finally, it has been asserted that 38b^-39 must be second-
ary because it is tautological and upsets the historian's cause
and effect relationship between Solomon's sin and Jeroboam's
take-over by expressing the idea that Yahweh had already
humbled David's line for the sake of his gift to Jeroboam /53/.
However, to interpret 39 in this way we must re-point the verb
as a waw-consecutive imperfect. Left with the Masoretic
pointing, the sentence is in perfect harmony with the historian's
views in 11:1-13 and 32-38: "I am going to give you Israel, that I
might humble the seed of David". Neither is it correct to assert
that 38b>k is tautological. It does repeat the substance of 37,
but the historian had to do so after his excursus concerning the
possibility of a lasting dynasty for Jeroboam in 38aba in order
to prepare for the explanation of the purpose of the power
transfer in 39.
Although the unusual tense consecution of the main sentence
and final clause remains unexplained, we must conclude that
38bb-39 is from the Deuteronomistic historian, for the con-
trary arguments are too weak to bear any weight.
In constructing 11:29-39, therefore, the historian took over an
old prophetic source, fragments of which remain as 29-32a, 34a.
Part of his own contribution to this was the promise of an
eternal dominion to the Davidic house and the hint that the loss
of the North was only a temporary punishment. He went on to
repeat this nir promise twice more in his history.
1 Kings 154 and 2 Kings 8:19
1 Kings 15:4 applies this promise to Abijam in order to
explain Yahweh's tolerance of his sins. The treatment of Abijam
contains several literary problems. V.6 seems to be an erro-
neous repetition of 14:30. The mention of Uriah the Hittite
after the praise of David's piety is usually considered a gloss
116
 Four: Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic History
since other such praise of David in the history is never so
qualified /54/. Finally, some scholars consider the citation of
the dynastic oracle in 4 an insertion as well.
Montgomery called ^-5a "an evident Deuteronomic intrusion"
but failed to explain why this is so evident /55/. Martin Noth
had first argued that 4 must be an addition because 3 and 5a
(without David) fit together, effectively eliminating the oracle:
"as was the heart of David his father / who did right in the eyes
of Yahweh" /56/. However, Noth abandoned this line of
reasoning in his commentary, pointing instead to the odd use of
kf at the beginning of 4. The context seems to require "how-
ever" or "nevertheless", but Noth insisted that the J<£ "can only
be understood as causal" /57/ and that thus 4 was added to sub-
stantiate the idea, taken from 3bk, that Abijam ought to have
followed David's example because of Yahweh's gracious favor
towards David: "as the heart of David his father, because for
David's sake ... If Noth's interpretation of the grammar of 3-5
is correct, this syntax is so complex that only the later
insertion of 4 into 3 and 5 could have created it.
However, nothing forces us to take this jo as causal, for the
range of tine functions of this conjunction encompasses an
adversative use when it follows a negative as here; we should
translate "however" or "nevertheless" with most versions /58/,
Certainly the circumstance that 3 and 5 could fit together does
not automatically mean they ever did.
Thus, the historian used the eternal nir promise to explain
why Yahweh did not punish Abijam for his apostasy. The sing-
ular "his son" should not disturb us, as it did the Old Greek, for
here the promise is seen from David's viewpoint still.
The third occurrence of the oracle is 2 Kings 8:19 in the
historian's presentation of Jehoram of 3udah. Here again the
oracle is an explanation for Yahweh's not wishing to destroy
3udah, and this time the promise is explicitly extended into the
indefinite future. No serious effort has ever been made to deny
this use of the oracle to the historian /59/.
One wonders why explicit mention of this dynastic promise is
made only for Abijam and Jehoram. There does not seem to be
anything special about these two kings or their reigns. They are
the first two kings after Rehoboam whom the historian judged
negatively, however, and perhaps the historian considered that
his point had been made by the time he got to the negative
verdicts on Ahaziah, Ahaz, and Manasseh. But what point was
he making?
It is clear that Noth was not saying nearly enough when he
offered his explanation of why the historian cited this promise
117
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

for Jehoram: "Dtr's echo in v.19 arises from the historical fact
of Judah's continued existence" /60/. If this were all the
historian had in mind, he was using a theological cannon to kill
a fly. Why should he call into play the concept of an eternal
Davidic dynasty, one with which Moth's exilic and pessimistic
historian would have been in violent disagreement, merely to
explain the continuance of Judah for another two and a half
centuries? There would be no need for him to resort to such a
radical procedure when he already had at hand the theological
tools with which he explained the continuation of Israel in the
face of deserved punishment. In the days of Joash of Israel the
nation was threatened by Arameans, but Yahweh did not des-
troy it at this time because of the king's prayers and because of
the covenant Yahweh had made with the fathers (2 Kings 13:22,
4-7,23-25) /61/. Again in the reign of Jeroboam ben Joash, Yah-
weh had compassion on Israel's condition in spite of her sins, for
the sake of Israel's name (2 Kings 14:26-27). With these possible
explanations at hand, why would the historian have felt forced
to use a concept supposedly so alien and repugnant to him to
deal with the temporary continuance of Judah in spite of sin?
In summary, the triple invocation of the eternal and uncondi-
tional covenant with David cannot be construed to mean any-
thing less than that the Deuteronomistic historian was fully in
sympathy with that promise and considered it still in force. He
used this concept once to explain the retention of one tribe by
David (1 Kings 11:36) and twice to clarify why Yahweh failed to
wipe out Judah (1 Kings 15A; 2 Kings 8:19). In addition, he left
the explicitly eternal and unconditional promise of Nathan (2
Sam. 7:llb-16) unrevised, even though this was of great
structural importance to him and though he did interrupt it to
insert permission for Solomon's Temple construction. On the
other hand, the three conditional promises to Solomon cannot
be used as a correction to or conditionalization of this eternal
promise, for they are clearly limited to Solomon alone and refer
explicitly to the loss of the throne of Israel by his descendants.
Such unquestioning acceptance of the unconditional and
eternal nature of the place of the Davidic house in Yahweh's
scheme of history would be most understandable in a pre-exilic
rather than an exilic historian, and the hint of a return of
Davidic hegemony over the North in 1 Kings 11:39 pinpoints this
pre-exilic historian to the time of Josiah. Thus, the conclusions
drawn from our study of the conditional and unconditional
promises are in perfect agreement with those from our previous
study of the Judean regnal formulae and the literary criticism
and usage of certain secondary passages in Judges and Kings.
118
 Chapter 5

TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF THE TWO

DEUTERONOMISTS

In response to Noth's thesis that the Deuteronomistic history

was a pessimistic work by an author who saw no real salvation
in Israel's future, and one who merely attempted to justify
Yahweh's judgment upon the nation, several scholars have
objected that positive elements are indeed present in the hist-
ory and that a description of the historian's theology must take
these into account. Von Rad pointed to the work's enthusiasm
for David, the prototype of the perfect king and the ground of
Yahweh's favor to 3udah. He believed that the promise of the
Nathan Oracle runs throughout the work and suggested that the
historian was speaking messianically, for the final paragraph of
the history (2 Kings 25:27-30) was intended to point forward to
a new future /!/.
In contrast, Hans Walter Wolff rejected any messianism in
the history because the work's dynastic promises were suppos-
edly dependent upon an obedience which the author knew had
not been forthcoming (1 Kings 2:2-4; 8:25; 9:4-5). Wolff focused
his attention upon Judges and 1 Samuel, where the people re-
belled against Yahweh but in the end were saved after repent-
ance and given a new order of things to replace their broken
former institutions. When the people turned (Sub) to Yahweh,
they received mercy. This same possibility of a new start was
open for the historian's contemporaries as well, and he was
calling upon them to repent /2/.
Much the same positive note was struck by Walter Bruegge-
mann, who raised a "counter-theme" to Wolff's return motif in
the concept of the "good (|ob) as the motivation for this re-
pentance. Yahweh's grace, or "good", in the gift of the land, the
prophetic word, and the Davidic house provided the impetus for
the desired "return" /3/.
The search for unifying themes was carried forward by
McCarthy, who saw in Yahweh's wrath a structural motif which
created the foreboding atmosphere of the history from its
beginning by pointing forward to the final catastrophe. Every
change in leadership takes place in the context of a threat, but
as the threat is deflected, a new era begins /4/. Van Zyl saw in
the history a four-part schema, each division being marked off
119
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
by a structural element. The last division of the work concerned
the loss of the land under the kings and started at 2 Kings 1:1
/5/. Mejia attempted to reconstruct the historian's theology as
follows. Taking a guardedly positive stance in regard to the
messianic promise, the historian seeks to understand and ex-
plain the present disaster in light of the past. He sees the
present punishment as corrective rather than final, but does not
really intend to call the people to repentance. The continuity of
the dynasty into the exile gives him grounds for a limited hope.
Yet the historian remains ambiguous and confused:
The dtr. historian is faced with two apparently contradictory
data: the messianic promise and the justice of the punishment
of Israel, and does not know how to combine them.
He tries to do so by conditionalizing the dynastic promise, yet
finds himself at the end of the work basing his slight hopes on
the continuation of this dynasty /6/. Several other summaries of
the historian's theology have been produced from the perspec-
tive of unified authorship /7/.
These attempts to elucidate the historian's theology are real-
ly attempts to deal with the inner tensions of the work in its
present form. How can a single work offer hope of consistent
grace in Judges but no hope of forgiveness for Manasseh's sins,
even after Josiah's exemplary repentance? Or how can it en-
compass unconditional promises for a Davidic dynasty, yet drive
the final nail into the coffin of that dynasty with 2 Kings
25:27-30 /8/? All attempts to harmonize these tensions have
proved unsatisfactory because they never took into account the
dual nature of the present form of the Deuteronomistic history
as the work of two theologians working in two quite different
periods of history.
I. THE TEMPER OF THEIR TIMES
The main redaction was produced in the age of Josiah; an
exilic editor made the following supplementations to the work
to fit the spirit of his own exilic situation: Deut. 4:19-20; addi-
tions to Josh. 23:4,7,12-13; 24:1-24; Judg. 1:1-2:5; 6:7-10; 1 Kings
8:44-51; 9:6-9; 2 Kings 17:7-20,23b-40; 21:3bt>-15; 22:16-17,20b;
23:4b-5,19-20,24,25b-25:30. Perhaps no periods in Biblical hist-
ory are as far apart in spirit and circumstance as these two,
separated by only half a century.
The Age of Josiah
Judah under Josiah was expanding geographically to fill the
120
 Five: Towards a Theology of the Two Deuteronomists
vacuum left by the decay of Assyrian power: westward to the
sea at Yabneh-yam, northward into the former Assyrian pro-
vinces of Samaria (2 Kings 23:15) and Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29). If
we are willing to place the lists of Josh. 15,18, and 19 in Josiah's
time, we may also affirm expansion into Gilead and determine
Josiah's new administrative districts /9/. The citizen militia of
earlier days was restored and reorganized to meet the military
demands of Judah's new situation /10/; even Greek mercenaries
seem to have been employed /I I/. In conjunction with this
policy of national expansion came a radical religious and eco-
nomic /12/ centralization and a consequent secularization of
ordinary life. To complete the mood of the period, an inter-
nationally pervasive sense of retrospection and nostalgia for the
past permeated the literary and intellectual life of the nation
/13/. In general, it was a period marked by nationalism, re-
unification, centralization, a flourishing of the prophets (Jere-
miah, Zephaniah), dynastic pride, and a desire to return to the
sources of the national life.
The Early Exile
The mood of the early exile was quite different and has been
outlined in detail in the studies of Janssen and Ackroyd /14/. I*
was a period of doubt in Yahweh and in his power (Lam.
3:34-36), of return to non-Yahwistic cults (Jer. 44:15-19) or the
gods of the victors (Ezek. 8), and of outright despair and bitter
anger (Lam. 2:14; 5:7; Ps. 137; Ezek. 18:2). Yet this negativism
was tempered by a growing realization that Yahweh's judgment
upon his people had been just and should be humbly accepted
(Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 18) and that the people should be repenting, not
complaining (Lam. 3:40-42). Eventually this blossomed into a
full-scale hope of return (Deut. 4:29-31; 30:1-10).
Frank Cross has already demonstrated how well the theologi-
cal movement of the Deuteronomistic history proper fits with
the Josianic period. The themes of dynastic stability for David's
house and of the sin of Jeroboam both climax in the reign of
Josiah; at the same time the hint of reunification (1 Kings
11:39) is beginning to be fulfilled by Judah's expansion to the
north /15/.
The Deuteronomistic History as Royal Propaganda
Cross's contention that the history was propaganda for
Josiah's policies is a perfectly reasonable one. Other portions of
the Old Testament originally had a similar purpose: the Succes-
sion History, the Ark Story, and the Konigsnovellen of 2 Sam. 7
and 1 Kings 3.
121
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
It is likely that such propaganda would have been needed.
Opposition to Josiah's policies could have come from many
quarters: (i) the newly unemployed provincial clergy (2 Kings
23:9), who presumably would still have had an influence upon
their former parishioners, (ii) the average peasant, whose religi-
ous orientation and comfortable local rituals were being over-
turned, (iii) municipal officials who saw the prestige of their
localities being destroyed along with their sanctuaries, (iv) the
more extreme reformers who felt that Josiah had not gone far
enough, among them perhaps Jeremiah (Jer. 5:20-31; 6:16-21),
(v) pro-Assyrian elements who had supported Manasseh and
Amon, loyalists to the old pagan cults, and perhaps even paid
Egyptian agents, and (vi) possibly also die-hard Northern natio-
nalists who refused to accept a Davidic king /16/.
The original Deuteronomistic history was intended to meet
just this sort of opposition. It emphasized that the Deutero-
nomic law was of great antiquity and authority, that central-
ization was a feature of the earliest worship (Josh. 8:30-35), and
that Jerusalem was the place chosen by Yahweh for that
centralization (1 Kings 8:14-43). Josiah's religious policy was
the only hope for the nation, for Jeroboam's sin of non-central
worship had fated the Northern Kingdom for a history of
constant turmoil and eventual destruction. Yet in contrast, the
Davidic house had received an unconditional promise of
continued power (1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Although
individual members of this dynasty might not have lived up to
the standards set by David (1 Kings 14:22-24; etc.), the present
king, Josiah, was pictured as a paragon of virtue and thus
deserved the support of all.
The historian's prevailing mood is optimism. In the past Yah-
weh consistently saved his people when they repented of their
sins (Judg. 2:7,10-12,14-16,18-19; 10:6-16; 1 Sam. 7:3-4; 12:8-11;
1 Kings 8:33-34), and now the divine promises are being fulfilled
in Josiah's person and policies. Yet this does not mean that
vigilance in obeying the law is to be relaxed, for idolatry,
apostasy, and disobedience have been the downfall of the nation
in the past (Deut. 1:41-46; Judg. 2:11-14,19; 10:6-10; 1 Sam. 12:9;
1 Kings 1422-24). Even the Davidic monarch can be punished,
though only with the rod such as men use (2 Sam. 7:14), as
happened in the days of Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-13,29-39). In
spite of Josiah's reforms, further apostasy will certainly lead to
further punishment (1 Sam. 12:15,25), perhaps even including a
loss of the land (Josh. 23:15-16) as has already happened to
Israel (2 Kings 18:12). However, even should this happen, the
Davidic covenant would still remain secure (2 Sam. 7:15-16) and
122
 Five: Towards a Theology of the Two Deuteronomists
repentance would lead again to salvation (Judg. 10:15-16; 1 Sam.
12:10-11,21-22; 1 Kings 8:33-34).
In other words, the theology and intentions of the history fit
perfectly with the age of 3osiah.
The Exilic Editorial Edition as a Doxology of Judgment
In like manner the contributions of the exilic editor are
harmonious with the spirit of his time. He transformed the
history into a "great doxology of judgment transferred from the
cultic to the literary sphere" /17/, into a recognition that
Yahweh's judgment upon Judah was just. The history of the
people was fatally flawed, in the view of the exilic editor, by
their repeated refusal to listen to the warnings of Yahweh's
messengers (Judg. 2:2; 6:10; 2 Kings 17:14,40; 21:9). This flaw
marred even the age of conquest, causing the gift of the land to
be incomplete and conditional (additions to Josh. 23:4,7,12-13;
Judg. 1:1-36; 2:3). This disobedience consisted of worshipping
and serving foreign gods (Deut. 4:19-20; Josh. 24:14-15,19-20;
Judg. 2:2; 6:10; 1 Kings 9:9; 2 Kings 17:8,11-12,16-17,19); non-
central Yahwism is not at issue here at all. The North was
eventually punished for its disobedience (2 Kings 17:7-20,23b).
For Judah the crisis came to a head under Manasseh, whose
idolatry was so notorious (2 Kings 21:3b-9) that Yahweh irre-
vocably decided to punish the nation (2 Kings 21:10-15; 22:16-17;
24:2-4), so that not even Josiah's piety could reverse this
sentence (2 Kings 23:26-27).
Salvation, in the theology of this exilic editor, does not rest
in false hopes of a Davidic restoration (2 Kings 25:27-30) but in
an acceptance of the justice of Yahweh's punishment and in
repentance (1 Kings 8:46-51).
II. FOUR THEOLOGICAL THEMES
A more detailed look at four theological themes further sup-
ports our conclusions about the respective dates of these two
authors.
The Ark
The Deuteronomistic historian was very much interested in
the ark. Some of the material about the ark in Josh. 3 and 6 was
added by him /18/, and he included the Ark Story (1 Sam. 4-6; 2
Sam. 6) along with his other source materials in Samuel /19/. It
is hardly surprising, therefore, that de Tillesse assigned the ark
material of the plural stratum of Deuteronomy to the historian
/20/, for Deut. 10:1-5, with its emphasis upon the ark as a
123
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
container for the law tablets, expresses exactly the same view
as the historian in Deut. 31:24-26 /21/ and 1 Kings 8:9,21. As von
Rad has pointed out, these statements are really a Deutero-
nomistic "demythologization" of the ark into a mere box, an
attempt to minimize any temptation to localize Yahweh upon it
or accord it worship /22/.
I.E. Fretheim, dealing with the ark in Deuteronomy, asked an
important question about Deut. 10:1-5: why would there be any
need to demythologize the ark after its destruction /23/? This
same question may be applied to the Deuteronomistic history as
well. Noth's exilic historian would have had no need whatsoever
to write Deut. 31:24-26 and 1 Kings 8:9,21. The ark had dis-
appeared by his time and could have offered no temptation to
anyone. A Josianic historian, on the other hand, would still have
found the ark a potent religious object against which of a
watchful warning would not go amiss. 2 Chron. 35:3 indicates
that the ark was still in existence at that time.
On the other hand, the exilic editor apparently had absolutely
no interest in the ark at all. He is completely silent about its
fate in his description of the plundering of the Temple, leaving
us with quite a historical problem.
In other words, the two authors' respective attitudes about
the ark fully support our theory of their dates of composition.
The Land
The view of the promised land in the history proper indicates
a Josianic date. The concept of a total conquest (Josh. 11:23)
meshes with the nationalistic optimism of that time. The
boundaries given in Deut. 1:7 and Josh. 1:4 are decidedly
imperialistic, looking towards a return of the old Davidic hege-
mony in Syria. On the other hand, Edom, Moab, and Ammon
were clearly excluded from the land of promise by the historian
(Deut. 2:5,9,11), areas into which Josiah apparently made no
attempt to penetrate. The historian's preoccupation was instead
with the former trans-Jordanian tribal lands (Deut. 2:26-3:8,
12-13; Josh. 1:10-18; 12:1-6; cf. 2 Kings 10-32-33), probably the
targets of Josiah's territorial ambition (see p.121). Certainly
such an interest in the trans-Jordan would be hard to under-
stand in an exilic historian.
For the exilic editor, on the contrary, the gift of the land
already contained the seeds of Israel's eventual destruction.
Certain elements of the previous population remained in the
land (Judg. 1) because the people had refused to uproot them
(Judg. 2:2); therefore, Yahweh refused to drive them out. These
became a danger to the people, who were tempted to worship
124
 Five: Towards a Theology of the Two Deuteronomists

their gods (Judg. 2:3; 6:10; 2 Kings 17:8,10-12,16-17). Their apos-

tasy burst into full poisonous flower in Manasseh's day (2 Kings
21:3-9). Thus, the land, for the exilic editor, was an ambiguous
gift, one which became the cause of disaster because of the
unwillingness of the people to "listen" (2 Kings 21:9). It is not
surprising that a return to this land formed no part of his future
hope (1 Kings 8:50) /24/.
Heroes and Villains
The spiritual heroes of the Deuteronomistic history were in
part modeled upon the author's own contemporary hero, 3osiah.
For example, Moses was evaluated by the measure of Josiah; he
received the same accolade in his own field of prophecy (Deut.
34:10) as Josiah did in the field of kingship (2 Kings 23:25; on the
evaluation of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18:5, see p.84). Both Moses and
Samuel are pictured as holy war leaders (Deut. 2:33-36; 1 Sam.
7:7-11) with a strong interest in covenant renewal (Deut.
31:9-13; 1 Sam. 7:3-6); the depiction is unmistakably reminiscent
of Josiah's activity.
But it is in the figure of Joshua that the similarity to Josiah
is clearest. Both are loyal to the law, not deviating "right or
left" from Yahweh's will (Josh. 1:7; 2 Kings 22:2). Both are
military leaders of the tribal levies striving for the acquisition
of the promised land. Both celebrate a precedent-setting Pass-
over (Josh. 5:10; 2 Kings 23:21-23). Both are scrupulous about
cultic matters (Josh. 8:30-31; 2 Kings 23:4-20). Both engage the
people in covenant renewal (Josh. 8:32-35; 2 Kings 23:1-3).
Indeed, the pre-Deuteronomistic Joshua tradition contained
only the element of military leadership among all these listed;
the rest were added to his character by the historian himself. In
other words, much of our present picture of Joshua is nothing
but a retrojection of the figure of Josiah into the classical past.
The heroes and villains of the historian's book of Kings are
the kings themselves. Although those of Judah were ostensibly
judged by the example of David, the perfect king (1 Kings 3:3;
11:4,6; 14:8; 15-3,5,11; 2 Kings 14:3; 162; 18-3), David's piety was
not in fact the decisive criterion. Josiah's was. What really
mattered was only the requirement of cult centralization, so
that even kings who attained David's level of faithfulness
received only partial approval (1 Kings 15:14; 22:44; 2 Kings 12:4;
14:4; 15:4,35) unless they met Josiah's standards as well (2 Kings
18:4-5). The David who was the prototype of the perfect king
was not really the David whom the historian met in his sources,
but, as in the case of Joshua, an image of Josiah projected back
into history. In a similar manner, the historian played down the
125
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
reform of Hezekiah in order to augment Josiah's glory /25/.
For the exilic editor there were no heroes, only the charac-
terless, cardboard villains Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and
Zedekiah and the arch-villain Manasseh. This king became the
focal point for the flaw of apostasy and unwillingness to "listen"
that had marred history since the very conquest. His sins,
involving practices especially repugnant to the exilic editor (2
Kings 21:3-6; cf. Deut. 4:19-20; 2 Kings 17:6; 23:4b-5; also 2
Kings 17:17 and 23:24), reached such satanic proportions that
the whole "game plan" of history which the exilic editor had
inherited from the Deuteronomistic historian had to be set
aside. No repentance, even Josiah's, could avert the inevitable
punishment (2 Kings 21:10-15; 22:16-17; 23:26-27; 24:4).
The Northern Kingdom
For the Deuteronomistic historian, Northern Israel had a
positive theological value. Lost to the Davidic dynasty because
of Solomon's apostasy (1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:4-5; 11:1-13,29-39), its
separate existence was a punishment for that house (1 Kings
11:39). Although completely sinful in that Jeroboam's cultic
policies were carried on by each of his successors, Yahweh's
grace to Israel remained firm. Yahweh attempted to provide
Israel with pious kings (1 Kings 11:37-3$ 1528-30; 16:7,19; 2
Kings 9:1-10; etc.) and sent her timely deliverance (2 Kings
13:22,4-7,23-25; 14:26-27). Eventually, however, the cumulative
sin of Jeroboam and the other kings led to punishment for Israel
(2 Kings 18:12). Yet Josiah reversed all this in the historian's
own day by destroying Jeroboam's cultic arrangements at
Bethel (2 Kings 23:15-18) and beginning the process of reuniting
North and South under Davidic rule. His eventual success is
hinted by 1 Kings 11:39.
In contrast, the exilic editor was essentially negative in his
view of the North. Samaria served merely as a preliminary
example of the fate that overtook Judah (2 Kings 17:7-20,
especially 19). Manasseh's sins finally brought Judah down to
Israel's level (2 Kings 21:13; 23:27). Although disaster did not
teach Israel her lesson, so that the people "listened" no better
afterwards than before (2 Kings 17:34b-40), the exilic editor
hoped for a more tractable response from his own people (1
Kings 8:46-51).
In summary, the Deuteronomistic history was an optimistic
and nationalistic defense of the Davidic dynasty and the poli-
cies of Josiah. This was effected by a review of Israel's past, of
Yahweh's history of grace to a sinful people, and of his promises
to the house of David. The exilic editor, on the other hand,
126
 Five: Towards a Theology of the Two Deuteronomists
wished to justify Yahweh's punishment of the people by a por-
trayal of how disobedience and deafness to the warnings of his
messengers, culminating in Manasseh's apostasy, enraged Yah-
weh to the point of destroying 3udah as he had first destroyed
Israel. However, acceptance of the justice of the punishment by
the people and proper repentance may motivate him to forgive
and permit the captives to reach a modus vivendi with their
conquerors.
III. SOME CONCLUSIONS
Where do we now stand in the history of the study of this
work? The eclipse of the classical theory of a double redaction
of Kings was caused in part by the weakness of many of its
supportive arguments, and in part by Noth's convincing analysis
of a unified theology and redactional structure for the larger
complex of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. Although Noth's theory of
a single exilic historian was attractive, the literary critical
irregularities noticed by the older critics remained, preventing
a unanimous adoption of his views.
It was only natural that syntheses of these two approaches
should have been attempted, as in the work of Jepsen and of
Gray, but it was not until Cross's study analyzing the theo-
logical structure and movement of the two stages of the history
that a really convincing harmonization was made. Yet problems
remained. The Cross essay was too short to provide any con-
vincing literary critical basis for his thesis. More seriously,
there appeared to be Deuteronomistic conditionalization of the
dynastic promise in the history, one which would undercut the
historian's supposed enthusiasm for the claims of the Davidic
house.
The present writer believes that his own contribution to the
discussion has cleared up these difficulties. Criteria for sepa-
rating the two redactional levels have been provided (Chapter
3), along with evidence that the historian's work concluded with
Josiah (Chapter 2) and an explanation of the relationship be-
tween the conditional and unconditional promises (Chapter 4).
Several questions remain unanswered. Should other verses be
attributed to the exilic editor besides those dealt with in this
study? What is the relationship of these two redactional levels
to the plural stratum of Deuteronomy (de Tillesse), the frame-
works of Judges (Richter), the "second hand" of Deuteronomy's
frame (Wolff), and the prose sermons of Jeremiah (Nicholson)?
Can the respective theologies of the two Deuteronomists be de-
lineated more precisely than in the general overview offered in
127
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Chapter 5?
Whatever course future study of the Deuteronomistic history
takes, the concept of a double redaction of the work will even-
tually be accepted by most scholars because it is the best ex-
planation for all the data.

128
 Appendix

ISAIAH'S PREDICTION OF A BABYLONIAN

DISASTER

Oddly, 2 Kings 20:12-19 has received minimal attention in

regard to the problem of a double redaction of the Deutero-
nomistic history. The reference of 2 Kings 24:13 to this nar-
rative seemingly provides a solid structural connection between
sections which the present study has assigned to different
authors. What is more, this story shows no indication of being
secondary to its context of similar prophet narratives (18:17-
20:11) or to the framework provided for these by the historian
(18:1-16; 20:20-21); yet it apparently presupposes the Babylonian
conquest and the exile of the royal family.
Scholars almost unanimously agree that the parallel to this
unit in Isa. 34-39 is dependent upon the Deuteronomistic hist-
ory. The one major modern exception was Jepsen, who rested
his case upon his assertion that the text of Isa. 34-39 exhibits a
longer history of transmission than that of 2 Kings /!/. How-
ever, both care in textual transmission and length of trans-
mission interplay to affect the purity of a text, so that the
number of errors in a given transmission is no absolute measure
of the number of years over which that transmission has taken
place. Jepsen's argument carries no weight over against the
many cogent reasons for asserting the priority of 2 Kings 18:13-
20:19 /2/.
The existence of this prophetic narrative destroys the hypo-
thesis of a 3osianic date for the historian unless one of two
possibilities can be proven: either that the exilic editor has
retouched this oracle or that the prediction is not really a
vaticinium ex eventu of the conquest after all.
Those who support a theory of dual redaction invariably
assert the first of these possibilities, suggesting that the oracle
was retouched during the time of 3eremiah /3/ or between 597
and 586 /4/, during the exile /5/, or at some indefinite but later
time /6/. Yet no literary critical evidence for this hypothetical
revision has ever been adduced because none exists.1
Actually the narrative can only exist with the oracle in
roughly the same form as we have it today, for every element
of the story points to this oracle and to no other: the origin of
the envoy from Babylon, Hezekiah's naive pride in his posses-
129
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
sions, Isaiah's accusing question, even the king's "apres moi, le
deluge" attitude. The principle of the correspondence between a
fault and its outcome is at work in this narrative; thus, only this
result could have followed Hezekiah's foolish action. Further-
more, the unit exhibits several of the genre elements of a later
prophetic legend /?/, so that any substantial redactional
alteration of its structure would have dissolved the cohesion of
the whole:
1. Notice of time (12; cf. Jer. 28:1)
2. Details of the scene (13; cf. Jer. 28:1)
3. Accusation in question form (14-15; cf. 1 Sam.
13:11)/8/
4. Appeal for attention (16;cf. Jer. 34#)
5. Announcement of judgment (17-18)
In other words, if the oracle itself is exilic, then the whole
pericope is exilic. Yet there is no evidence that the whole unit
is an insertion. The literary connection between 20:12-19 and
the rest of the Isaiah narratives is not particularly Deutero-
nomistic (v.!2b). This last legend is not different in character
from the others in the group (19:10-37; 20:1-11). One could
hardly say that the exilic editor added this entire group. In fact,
it would be ridiculous to assert that the exilic editor, who was
trying to show that the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the
Davidic house were justified punishments, would go out of his
way to insert a series of narratives about the inviolability of
Zion and the Davidic covenant. Although this last legend does
mention some sort of coming disaster, it does not reflect any of
the exilic editor's conviction that this was the result of the
apostasy of the king and people. Therefore, suggestions that the
exilic editor retouched this narrative turn out to be nothing
more substantial than wishful thinking.
It is the second possibility mentioned above that is actually
the case. This is not a prophecy of the Babylonian conquest at
all. Although Dillmann suggested that the oracle refers to the
captivity of Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11) /9/, that incident is most
likely an example of the Chronicler's practice of bending
history to provide support for his rigid theology of retribution,
explaining the enigma of Manasseh's long reign /10/. Karl Marti
thought that the narrative originally referred to the Assyrian
threat but was later interpreted in light of the Babylonian
conquest /II/. However, this would require us to believe that
the circle who preserved the Isaiah legends preserved a narra-
tive predicting an Assyrian victory, one which would have been
completely at odds with the intention of the other narratives in
this collection as well as with the prophet's own convictions. In
130
 Appendix: Isaiah's Prediction

addition, we would have to postulate a very knowledgeable later

reviser who not only knew that a Merodachbaladan was once
rebel king of Babylon but that he was a contemporary of Heze-
kiah.
To the present writer's knowledge, the simplest solution to
this dilemma has never been suggested. If we ask what the
intention of this unit was and why it was preserved, the truth
becomes clear. It was clearly not intended to make Hezekiah
look good, for he comes off as something of a fool. It was not
intended to show that the prophetic word always comes true,
for no mention of the fulfillment of the prophecy is made with-
in the unit (cf. 2 Kings 1:17 or 3er. 28:17). It was not intended to
demonstrate the correct way to receive a prophetic oracle (cf.
1 Kings 13:11-32 or 2 Kings 5:1-14), for nothing is made one way
or the other of Hezekiah's insouciance in w.18-19.
Neither was it intended to provide an etiology for the Baby-
lonian conquest. There is only a rather general mention of a
transfer of the national treasures and of the selection of mem-
bers of the royal family as courtiers in Babylon. Actual military
defeat is neither mentioned nor implied (cf. 2 Kings 21:12-14),
nor is there any indication of a change in relationship between
Yahweh and his people (cf. 2 Kings 22:16-17; 23:26-27).
Rather the unit's only obvious point is to show the dangers
involved in an alliance with Babylon. The oracle does not con-
tain enough detail to be a vaticinium ex eventu of the events of
597 and 586. Instead it is a shrewd warning about the tightrope
of international diplomacy. An alliance with Babylon would
mean merely trading one suzerain for another. Judah would
soon find herself being bled white by tribute or forcible exac-
tions, and the sons of the king would have to live in Babylon as
hostages for the good conduct of their vassal father /12/.
The subject of "entangling foreign alliances" was of great
interest both to Isaiah himself and to those who preserved his
words and legends (cf. Isa. 7; 13; 20; 30:1-7; 31). Moreover, the
specific danger of an involvement with Babylon was threatened
not only during the revolt of Marduk-apaliddina in Hezekiah's
time when the narrative may have originated, but also during
the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin in 651-648 and especially in
Josiah's reign after Babylonian resurgence under Nabopolassar
in 626. Since the subject continued to be relevant, both the
origin and the preservation of such an oracle is understandable.
Indeed, the inclusion of just such a narrative along with the
rest of the unit 18:17-20:19, which deals as a whole with Zion's
inviolability and the promise to David, would be perfectly in
character for the nationalistic, dosianic Deuteronomistic hist-
131
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
orian. That Josiah did not take this good advice may be inferred
from his attempt to intercept Neco in 609.
Eventually, of course, this oracle was fulfilled by events far
more sweeping and disastrous than the narrative itself en-
visioned. The exilic editor, who understood the structural tech-
nique of prophecy and fulfillment (cf. 2 Kings 21:10-15 and
24:2-^), may have found an opportunity to refer to this fulfill-
ment when he wrote about the final disaster and deportation.
However, as we have already pointed out (p.88), it is more
likely that some post-redactional glossator noted this corres-
pondence and remarked upon it.
In short, the narrative and oracle of 2 Kings 20:12-19 offer no
obstacle to the acceptance of a theory of dual redaction.

132
 Notes to Chapter 1
THE DUAL REDACTION HYPOTHESIS IN K I N G S

1 Noth (1967). For the recent history of critical studies in

this area, see Jenni (1-32,97-146), Snaith (1961:84-114), Kraus
(411-16), Radjawane (177-216).
2 Josh. 1; 23; 1 Sam. 12; 1 Kings 8. 2 Kings 17 is an editorial
rather than a speech.
3 Von Rad (1953:78-82).
4 For the studies of Eissfeidt, Holscher, and Simpson, see
Jenni (104-6).
5 Eissfeidt (1965:241-301), Freedman (711-27).
6 Weinfeld (1967:93-113), Schulte (203-24).
7 Fohrer (192-95).
8 Von Rad (1962:346-47).
9 Weiser (1962:25-2f).
10 Richter, Schauri, Trompf (214-15), Boecker, McCarthy
(1973), Clements (1974), Ma yes.
11 Kuenen (I, 88-100).
12 Kuenen (I, 90).
13 Kuenen (I, 93).
14 Wellhausen (298-99).
15 Driver (1914:198-99).
16 Eissfeidt (1965598-301).
17 Weiser (1961:172-73).
18 Pfeiffer (377-412).
19 Bentzen (I, 99-100).
20 Rowley (73).
21 Delorme (239-40).
22 Fohrer (236).
23 Benzinger (xiii-xv).
24 Kittel (vii-vi-i).
25 Burney (1903:xvi-xviii).
26 Skinner (18-22).
27 Stade and Schwally (passim).
28 Sanda (I, xxxvi-xl).
29 Eissfeidt (1922:493-94).
30 DeVaux (15-17).
31 Montgomery and Gehman (45).
32 Snaith (1955:7,10-11).
33 Gray (1967:1-8; 1970:7-9,753,755).
34 1 Robinson (6-11).
133
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
35 We must forgo discussion of the theory that the Deutero-
nomistic history was a sort of group project, Carlson (29-31). If
in ancient times it were possible for a group to compose a
history with as much unity of outlook and tightness of structure
as the Deuteronomistic work, then this group was functioning
essentially as though it were a single author and may be dealt
with as such. Our problem is one of two different redactions at
two different times from two different perspectives; whether
these were by groups or individuals is immaterial.
36 Jepsen's book was written in 1938, but not published until
1953.
37 For a sharp attack on Jepsen's distinctions in usage, see
Debus (112-13).
38 Jepsen (68-71,80,88-89).
39 Baena (1973; 1974a; 1974b).
40 Smend (494-509).
41 Noth (1938:101-3).
42 Noth (1938:56-58; 1967:44).
43 Dietrich (1972).
44 Dietrich (1972:88-95)
45 Dietrich (1977), Veijola (1975; 1977), Schultz.
46 Cross (274-89). Levenson (222-33) further refines this ap-
proach by pointing out the non-Deuteronomistic nature of much
of the historian's theology and suggesting that Deuteronomy
proper was first added by the exilic editor.
47 Weinfeld (1972:126-28), Millers (33-34,76-78).
48 Childs.
49 Von Rad (1966:42,44).
50 Long.
51 Noth (196737,100 n.2), Janssen (16-18). For the opposite
opinion, Nicholson (1970:120-22), Soggin (1975:3-8).
52 Noth (1957:566; 1968:180).
53 Wellhausen (233), Eissfeldt (1922:315), Gray (1970:205).
54 Sanda (II, 243), de Vaux (55).
55 Stade and Schwally (100), Noth (1968:180), cf. Childs (282-
84).
56 Noth (1967:71).
57 Noth (1968:216-17), Childs (292),
58 Especially Nowack (239) Wellhausen (298) Pfeiffer (378).
59 Albright (1963:62 n.108), Bright (1972:350 n.20).
60 Noth (1967:72-73; 1968:327).
61 Janssen (94-104), Ackroyd (25-29), but Soggin (1967; 1975)
and Greenwood (197-99).
62 Albright (1948:241-45).
63 Albright (1963:45-46).
134
 Notes to Chapter 2
64 Bright (1951:22).
65 Wolff (171-85).
66 Cross (288). For these speeches, Noth (1967:5-6).
67 Cross (285-86). For the importance of prophecy in the
history's structure, see Wyatt.
68 Cross (283-85), von Rad (1953:84-88; 1962:338-45), Brueg-
gemann (397-400).
69 Rost (89), Noth (1967:65), Wolff (174).
70 Cross (278-87).
Notes to Chapter 2
THE REGNAL FORMULAE IN KINGS
1 Noth (1968:325-27).
2 Fohrer (229-31).
3 Wellhausen (274-76).
4 Burney (1903:ix-xii).
5 Eichhorn (11,518-19).
6 Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, but cf. Zimri and
Shallum.
7 Hoshea, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah.
8 Shenkel (48,59-60).
9 Smit (173-75).
10 Morawe (308-20).
11 Bin-Nun (418).
12 Bin-Nun (419-22).
13 Bin-Nun (423-24).
14 Bin-Nun (426-30).
15 The Sumerian King List was compiled at one time for pro-
paganda purposes (ANET, 265-66). Both Babylonian lists A and
B contain dynastic summaries, pointing to later composition and
not to an ongoing registration by each king (ANET, 271-72). See
Rollig (269-76). On the Synchronistic History, see Grayson (51-
56).
16 Cortese (37-52) agrees that these formulae show only a
single editor until Josiah.
17 Weippert (1972:301-39).
18 In addition for Israel: 1 Kings 15:33; 16:8,15,23; 2 Kings
13:1,10; 14:23; 15:8,17,23,27; 17:1; for Judah: 1 Kings 15:1,9; 2
Kings 8:16,25; 9:26; 14:1; 15:1,32; 16:1; 18:1. Minor irregularities
include the early insertion of a usually later segment of the
formula into the synchronism (1 Kings 16:15; 2 Kings 17:1).
Synchronisms for Judah do not close with "over Judah", which
would parallel the practice for Israel. Rather the historian usu-
ally concludes by designating the new king's father as "king of
135
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Judah". In this, Abijam (1 Kings 15:1) and Asa (15:9) are of the
Israel type, while Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:23) follows the Judah
type. A final minor irregularity is that about half the Judah
synchronisms are preceded by a simple waw, while all the Israel
formulae are asyndetic. It is difficult to find any explanation
for this difference.
19 In addition for Israel: 1 Kings 16:29; 22:52; 2 Kings 3:1;
15:13; for Judah: 1 Kings 22:41. The city of the king's reign is
mentioned prematurely in 1 Kings 22:52 and 2 Kings 3:1.
20 1 Kings 14:21; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26; 12:1 (before the syn-
chronism); 16:2.
21 2 Kings 8:17; 14:2; 15:2,33; 18:2.
22 The sole irregularity is the lack of a simple waw before
the number for Abijam (1 Kings 15:2).
23 Following the "name first" synchronism: a) length of reign
first, 1 Kings 16:15,23; 2 Kings 15:27; b) capital city first, 1
Kings 15:33; 16:8; 2 Kings 13:1,10; 14:23; 15:8,23,27; 17:1. Follow-
ing the "date first" synchronism: a) capital city prematurely
mentioned, 1 Kings 22:51; 2 Kings 3:1; b) no mention of capital
city, 1 Kings 15:25; c) capital city first, 1 Kings 16:30; d) length
of reign first, 2 Kings 15:13.
24 This information is lacking for Joram and Ahaz.
25 The verdicts upon Elah and Zimri fall outside the usual
system (1 Kings 16:13,15), for they are not part of the intro-
ductions at all, but instead come after the mention of their
respective disasters in order to explain them. Jehu has no pro-
per introduction because of the circumstances of his accession.
Shallum lacks a verdict, while that for Hoshea (2 Kings 17:1) is
truncated and surprizingly positive.
26 Positively: 1 Kings 15:11; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:13; 15:3,34; 18:3;
negatively: 1 Kings 14:22; 2 Kings 21:2.
27 1 Kings 15:3.
28 Positively with "walk in every way of" first, 1 Kings 22:43;
with "do in the eyes of" first, 2 Kings 22:2; negatively with the
"walk" type first, 2 Kings 8:18,27; with the "eyes" type first, 2
Kings 16:2, where the clause is actually the positive formula
made negative.
29 Question: 1 Kings 14:29; 15:7,23,31; 16:5,14,20,27; 22:39,45;
2 Kings 1:18,- 8:23; 10:34; 12:20; 13:8,12 (also 14:15); 14:18,28;
15:6,21,36; 16:19; 20-20; 21:17,25; 23:28; 24:5. Statement- 1 Kings
14:19; 2 Kings 15:11,15,26,31.
30 1 Kings 14:30; 15:7,23,30 (text doubtful); 22:47-50; 2 Kings
15:37.
31 Nadab, Elah, Zimri, Ahaziah, Zechariah, Shallum, Pekiah,
Pekah.
136
 Notes to Chapter 2
32 The verb has dropped out in 2 Kings 14:28. Lucian supplies
a passive.
33 The central difficulty is how to extend the eleven years of
Jehoiakim to fill the gap between the deposition of Jehoahaz in
July/August or August/September of 609 and accession of
Jehoiachin three months before the first fall of Jerusalem in
March, 597. Tishri, 609 would presumably be the end of Jehoia-
kim's accession year (a very short one) and the start of his year
1. Thus, year 11 would end in Tishri, 598, and his death would
come about a month later in year 12, not year 11. Of course,
there is no problem if a Nisan to Nisan year system was in
effect, since in that case Jehoiakim's first year would be
counted from Nisan, 608 rather than Tishri, 609, cf. Tadmor
(226-30).
34 Snaith (1955:9).
35 1 Kings 15:3; 22:44; 2 Kings 15:3,34; 21:20.
36 This expression was used once for Zechariah, but for the
kings of Israel it was totally applicable.
37 However, it is found in the margin of M and in dgnpt at
Lev. 20:20.
38 The textual problems of Jer. 27:1 make it ineligible as
evidence; Bright (1965:199).
39 1 Esdras cuts the knot by eliminating the word altogether,
further evidence that the text of Chronicles was thought diffi-
cult.
40 If 1 Chron. 3:16 is correct that there were two Zedekiahs
in the royal family, the second one being apparently the son of
Jehoiakim, the confusion of the exilic editor is understandable.
41 Montgonery and Gehman (537), Kittel (304).
42 Kittel (307), Benzinger (196).
43 Joash (2 Kings 11:1,18,20) and Josiah (2 Kings 21:24).
Uzziah was chosen by the "people of Judah" after a political
regicide (2 Kings 14:21). In Amaziah's case, the intervention of
the rural gentry is a strong conjecture (2 Kings 12:21-22).
Jehoahaz, according to 1 Chron. 3:15 (cf. 2 Kings 23:31,36), was
the youngest son of Josiah. If this is true, the rural gentry must
have chosen him over his brothers because of his political lean-
ings.
44 Soggin (1963:187-95). For further bibliography and a dis-
cussion of the identity of this group, see Conner (452,457-58).
45 Only for Hezekiah is there no evidence for a positive rela-
tionship with this group.
46 Noth (1965:279).
47 Pfeiffer (381-82).
48 For the modification of deserved punishment, see 1 Kings
137
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

11:13, for its delay, 1 Kings 11:12; 21:27-29. Yahweh eliminates

retribution in 1 Sam. 8:7-9; 1 Kings 15:3-4; 2 Kings 8:19.
Notes to Chapter 3
THE ADDITIONS OF THE EXILIC EDITOR

1 Noth (1967:7-9). Boling (33-48) has recognized the con-

nection between Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10 (and 10:11-14) and the
function of these sections in altering the earlier thrust of the
book of Judges.
2 The repetition of the death and burial of Joshua from
Judg. 2:7-9 in Josh. 24:29-31 is further evidence of this con-
nection. Judg. 2:7 is more appropriate in its context than Josh.
24:31; Moore (1895:4), Noth (1967:8 n.3), O'Doherty (5), but cf.
Richter (44-49).
3 Bright has suggested that the historian did allow for some
unconquered territory (Josh. 23:4-5,7,12) and listed this in Josh.
13:2-6 with an introduction similar to that for his lists at Josh.
12:1 and 7; Bright (1955:543). Noth (1938:47,101-3) has shown,
however, how a misunderstanding of 13:1 caused the subsequent
addition of vv.2-6. The remarks about the "land remaining" in
Josh. 23:4,7,12 are from a hand later than the historian, ap-
parently trie exilic editor.
4 Noth (1967:9 n.2).
5 Wellhausen (210), Moore (1895:56), Budde (17), Burney
(1920:49), Thatcher (39-41), Eissfeldt (1925:10,112).
6 Moore (1900:2), Budde (xxii), Burney (1920:49), Eissfeldt
(1925:4), Fohrer (198), Mowinckel (1964:32).
7 E. Meyer (133-38), Mowinckel (1964:17-33).
8 O'Doherty (2-3).
9 Budde (xxii) opts for R^E, who is also the reviser of
Judg. 1. Wellhausen (210) and Moore (1985:57) prefer RD.
Eissfeldt (1925:106,112) could not make up his mind. Burney
(1920:2) settled upon a post-exilic redactor of the P-school.
Related to these views is the "subtraction and addition theory"
which holds that Judg. 1 was the original introduction to the
pre-Deuteronomistic book of Judges, was eliminated by R^E
or R D , and then later re-inserted; cf. Snaith (1901:91-92).
10 Bertheau (50). On the theological function of Judges 1,
see Auld.
11 Hertzberg (155-56), Gray (1967:254).
12 Buis.
13 For bibliography, see Burney (1920:38).
14 Budde (17).
15 Westermann (169-88).

138
 Notes to Chapter 3
16 Harvey.
17 There, significantly, the accusation is that the people
have not listened: Jer. 25:3-11; 34:13-22; 35:13-27; 44:2-14.
18 Buis (200).
19 Richter (35-38).
20 Even Deut. 1-3 is not based upon JE. Num. 21:33-34 is a
later expansion from Deut. 3:1-2; Noth (1967:217). Deut. 1:9-18
could not have been created from Tetrateuchal sources without
joining the truncated halves of two separate narratives Exod. 18
and Num.11). In fact, Deut. 2:2-7 shows that the historian was
not aware that the passage through Edom was refused, and he
gives a completely different reason for Moses' punishment from
that offered by JE; von Rad (1966:37-45).
21 Richter (98).
22 Noth (1967:51); Gray (1967:223).
23 Richter (63-67).
24 Beyerlin (10).
25 Wellhausen(214).
26 Moore (1895:181), Budde (52), Burney (1920:177), Eissfeldt
(1925:36).
27 Wellhausen (214), Bertheau (132-33), Fohrer (213), Myers
(1955:730).
28 Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6,11; Jer. 34:13; also Exod.
13:3,14; 20:2 and Micah 6:4.
29 The modification of a feminine plural noun by a masculine
plural participle can be adequately explained; Brockelmann (art.
59c).
30 Beyer lin (1-25).
31 Richter (97-109).
32 Richter (105-6).
33 Richter (99-100).
34 A partial listing: a) negatively. Num. 14:22; Deut. 8:20;
9:23; 21:20; 28:15,45,62; Josh. 5:6; Judg. 2:2,20; 1 Sam. 12:15;
15:19; 28:18; 1 Kings 20:36; 2 Kings 18:12; b) positively. Gen.
3:8,10; 22:18; 26:5; Exod. 15:26; 19:5; Deut. 4:30,36; 5:22,24,26;
13:5,19; 15:5; 26:14,17; 27:10; 28:1,2; 30:2,8,10,20; Josh. 24:24; 1
Sam. 12:14; 15:20,22. In Jeremiah we find it some 24 times.
35 Weinfeld (1972:84,97,245-46).
36 The historian himself uses this accusation against Israel in
Judg. 2:17 and 2 Kings 18:12. It follows the citation of a specific
command of Yahweh as an accusation in Deut. 1:43 and 1 Sam.
1520 as well as Deut. 9:23 (second person plural).
37 a) Deuteronomy: long: 6:10; 7:13; 10:11; 11:9,21; 26:3; 28:11;
3020; short: 6:18; 8:1; 623 deviates from the pattern; b)
Tetrateuch: long: Exod. 13:5; short: Gen. 50:24; Exod. 33:1; Num.
139
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

11:12; 14:16,23; 32:11; c) the historian: long only: Deut. 1:8,35;

Josh. 1:6; 5:6 (twice); d) secondary to the historian: long: Josh.
21:43; short: Deut. 31:20,21,23; Judg. 2:1.
38 Deut. 31:14-15,23 is a doublet of 31:7-8 showing JE
characteristics. Deut. 31:16-22 breaks the connection of 15 and
23 (the subject of 23 is in 15) and thus is tertiary to the
Deuteronomistic history.
39 On Josh. 23:13, Moth (1938:104-5); on Judg. 8:27b, Richter
(109).
40 Deuteronomy: 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6,11; Tetrateuch: Exod.
13:3; 14:20; also Jer. 34:13; Micah 6:4.
41 Deuteronomy: 5:26; 6:2,13,24; 8:6; 10:12,20; 13:5; 14:23;
17:19; 28:58. The historian: Deut. 4:10; 31:12-13; Josh. 4:24; 1
Sam. 12:14,24; 1 Kings 8:40,43. The exilic editor: 2 Kings 17:32,
33,34,39. The latter are the only times this expression em-
phasizes sole worship as opposed to more general loyal service
and piety; Weinfeld (1972:332).
42 Weinfeld (1972:86 n.6,274-75).
43 A comparison of the distinctive usages of this study with
those of Weippert (1973:107-227) is instructive.
44 Klostermann (453), Kittel (274-78), Skinner (375-82). Gray
(1970:645-56). With v.18 also as the second editor: Benzinger
(174), Sanda (11,235), Eissfeldt (1922:569-71). Other variant
hypotheses may be found in Jepsen (8-9), Stade (1885:163-70),
Dietrich (1972:45-46) who assigns vv.7-11,20 to DtrG, 12-19 to
DtrN, and 21-23 to DtrP.
45 Wellhausen (298), Burney (1903:330), Snaith (1955:280),
Baena (1973; 1974a; 1974b).
46 Noth (1967:85 n.4).
47 Sanda (11, 220), Montgomery and Gehman (488).
48 DeVaux(188).
49 Skinner (375), Gray (1970:649).
50 SandaUl, 224).
51 Burney (1903:330).
52 Stade (1885:166-67).
53 For details, Burney (1903:330).
54 The historian is much closer in usage to the plural section
of Deuteronomy than to the singular; cf. de Tillesse.
55 Noth (1967:40).
56 Noth (1967:84), Gray (1970:541).
57 Noth (1967:85n.4).
58 V.3 is also dependent upon or from the same hand as 1
Sam. 25:1, which in turn derived its information from 1 Sam.
1:1,11, outside the limits of the narrative of the rise of David (1
Sam. 16:14 - 2 Sam. 5:12). Since it was the historian who put

140
 Notes to Chapter 3

these two sources together, Moth (1967:62-63), he is the most

likely candidate for the authorship of 1 Sam. 25:1 and thus of
28:3.
59 Bright (1965:298; 1951:26).
60 Sanda (II, 235).
61 Stade (1885:163-6*).
62 Kittel (273-7*), Burney (1903:329), Eissfeldt (1922:569),
Gray (1970:6*2).
63 Skinner (37*-75,385) most illogically assigns 17:3-6 to the
annals of Israel and 18:9^11 to the annals of Judah.
6* Stade and Schwally (*9), Burney (1903:337), Skinner (385),
Eissfeldt (1922:571), Snaith (1955291), Gray (1970:671-72).
65 Montgomery and Gehman (*82). Cf. Albright (196*:66-67).
66 Kittel (279-80).
67 For details, Gray (1970:60-62).
68 Noth (1967:78).
69 Stade (1885:163-70), Benzinger (175), Kittel (27*-78),
Burney (1903:333), Skinner (379), Snaith (1955-280), Gray
(1970:650). The following include v.*l as well: Sanda (II, 235),
Eissfeldt (1922:569-71), de Vaux (190). 3epsen (8-9) assigned
2*-33,*l to his levitical redactor, RIII. Paul (73-7*) suggests
these verses may be a verbatim reflection of Sargon's actual
order. Although Cogan (*0-**) has pointed out that vv.7-23,
3*-*0 could be understood as a 3osianic polemic to justify
3osiah's occupation of the north, McDonald considered all of
vv.25-*l as late and post-exilic on the basis of what he con-
siders unclassical linguistic features in regard to the use of
verbs and participles.
70 Noth (1967:85), who sees v.2* as an annals note.
71 Gray (1970:605).
72 Kittel (278).
73 Benzinger (175), Kittel (27*-78), Burney (1903:330), Sanda
(n 235) Skinner (379) Eissfeldt (1922:569-71). According to Noth
(1967: 85), vv.29-31 are annalistic notices, while 32-3*a is Dtr's
own comment combining the outlook of these notices with that
of the local Bethel tradition.
7* Sanda, (II, 229).
75 Noth (1967:85).
76 Sanda (II, 233).
77 Stade (1885:168), Burney (1903:333). For similar situations,
cf. 3osh. 12:23b with l*:15b and 23:la with 13:la.
78 Stade (1885:169-70), Benzinger (175), Burney (1903:330),
Jepsen (8-9).
79 Wellhausen (298), Kittel (277-78), Skinner (380-82), Sanda
(II, 235), Eissfeldt (1922:569-71), Noth (1967:85), Snaith (1955:

1*1
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistlc History

280), Gray (1970:655-56).

80 Kittel (278).
81 Gray (1970:656).
82 Noth (1967:45-47).
83 Stade (1885:186-87), cf. Dietrich (1972:31-34).
84 Montgomery (50-51).
85 Benzinger (188), Gray (1970:706).
86 Benzinger (188), Stade (1885:186), Sanda (II, 324).
87 The palace enclosure is meant as one of the two courts of
the Temple, Montgomery and Gehman (519). Perhaps the exilic
editor derived this information from 2 Kings 23:12.
88 sym; 12:14,21; 14:24; jkn: 12:5,11; 14:23; 16:2,6,11; 26:2. Cf.
Weinfeld (1972:193-95).
89 Jones (239-40,240 n.61). His figures for 2 Kings are in-
correct.
90 Noth (1967:70 n.6), Camper (55-61).
91 Keil (123-32).
92 Burney (1903:114).
93 depsen (15-17).
94 Sanda (I, 243-45).
95 Holscher (166-69). Dietrich's analysis is similar: DtrN 12-
13 (older material), 14-26,28-30a,53-61; first expansion 27,30b-
43; second expansion 44-51 (1972:74 n.39).
96 Thenius (138-40).
97 Noth (1968:188-90), Braulik (1971:24).
98 Wellhausen (268), Stade and Schwally (10-11), Fichtner
(128).
99 De Vaux (59-60).
100 Kittel (74-79) sees w.!4-43,52ff as pre-exilic and 44-51
exilic. Snaith (1955:75) essentially agrees, but Skinner (144-53)
extends the addition to include 44-61 because v.54 is at odds
with the basic text over Solomon's posture in prayer. Montgom-
ery and Gehman (194) see 44-51 as post-exilic. Gray (1970:212-
30) assigns 14-43 to the pre-exilic period, 44-51 to the first
deportation, and 52-53 to the exile.
101 Benzinger (59-63): 14-40, pre-exilic; 27,30,41-51, exilic;
52-53 even later. Eissfeldt (1922:514-15): 14-23a, 27-40,52ff,
pre-exilic; 41-51, exilic.
102 Burney (1903:115-20).
103 Burney (1903:115).
104 Montgomery and Gehman (193-94).
105 Benzinger (62).
106 Noth (1968:188).
107 Cf. Sanda (I: 233-34) for arguments.
108 Gray (1970:227).

142
 Notes to Chapter 3
109 Montgomery and Gehman (198).
110 Braulik (1971:24-28), Noth (1968:188).
111 Sanda (II, 237). Both 58 and 61 have "hearts" as subject
matter.
112 Braulik (1971:26-28).
113 Wellhausen (168), Benzinger (65), Stade and Schwally (11),
Eissfeldt (1922:516), Fichtner (153-54), Kittel (81-82), Jepsen
(20), Gray (1970:235-36), Noth (1968:196), Dietrich (1972:72
n.35). Montgomery and Gehman (204) saw the section as a
pre-exilic whole. Burney (1903:129-33) could not decide.
114 Skinner (157-58), Snaith (1955:91-92). Gorg (120-25) traces
a much more complex history.
115 Burney (1903:130-33).
116 Noth (1968:196).
117 Noth (1967:70-71; 1968:196).
118 Noth (1967:70).
119 Weinfeld (1972:115 n.l).
120 On the problems of Deut. 29 see Lohfink (1962:36-45).
121 Nicholson (1967:35).
122 Noth (1967:39).
123 Noth (1967:15-17).
124 Noth (1967:86).
125 §anda (II, 329-31), Jepsen (29). For the relevant literature,
see Nicholson (1967:14-15).
126 Lohfink (1978).
127 Dietrich (1977:33-35).
128 Koch (213).
129 Dietrich (1972:13-14,20-21,55-58; 1977:26-32) attempts to
trace the remains of the pre-deuteronomistic oracle and three
successive redactions in detail. Wiirthwein (402-6) essentially
agrees. Both conceive of the general direction or redaction
being from positive (DtrG) to negative (DtrP).
130 Weinfeld (1972:25-26), Jepsen (26-29).
131 For an explanation, however, of how this tension could be
tolerated no matter which direction the redaction has moved in,
see Rose (54-59).
132 Noth (1967:86) and Jepsen (29) traced this source only up
to 23:3, but there may be fragments of it up to 23:25.
133 Opinions have been varied on this. For details see Stade
and Schwally (54-56), Kittel (300-4), Burney (1903: 355-56),
Skinner (416-27). Jepsen (6-29), Montgomery and Gehman (534),
Noth (1967:97), Sanda (II, 362).
134 Oestreicher (13-14), R. Meyer (1959:119-23; 1972:art. 100,
3e).
135 Sanda (II, 362).
143
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
136 Stade and Schwally (56), Benzinger (189), Kittel (300),
Eissfeldt (1922:579), Montgomery and Gehman (529), Gray (1970:
732).
137 Benzinger (189), Kittel (300), Eissfeldt (1922:579), de Vaux
(215).
138 Sanda (II, 362).
139 Most commentators feel this is a gloss because of its ir-
regular consecution: Benzinger (194), Kittel (303), Montgomery
and Gehman (534).
140 Gray (1970:738) and Kittel (300-4) assign these verses to
the second editor, as does Ogden (31-33), who points to their
dependence on the actions of Jehu. Skinner (422-23) and
Eissfeldt (1922:579) consider them a gloss. Jepsen (table) assigns
them to RIII.
141 For arguments, see Kittel (303) and Eissfeldt (1922:579).
142 Noth (1967:81), Lemke.
143 Sanda (II, 361), Noth (1967:81).
144 Kittel (303), Benzinger (194), Eissfeldt (1922:579).
145 Snaith (195525), Stade and Schwally (54-56), Kittel (304),
Burney (1903:355-56), Gray (1970:739).
146 Montgomery and Gehman (539).
147 Stade and Schwally (56), Sanda (II, 361), Kittel (300).
Burney (1903:355) and Jepsen (27) do not divide this verse.
Benzinger (189) and Eissfeldt (1922:579) do.
148 Every major commentator who accepted the two-edition
theory concurred: Wellhausen (298), Benzinger (189), Stade and
Schwally (56), Kittel (304), Burney (1903:356), Skinner (426-27),
Eissfeldt (1922:579), Sanda (II, 361), Jepsen (27-29), Gray (1970:
746-47), Dietrich (1972:142) as DtrN.
149 Stade and Schwally (56), Kittel (304), Burney (1903: 356),
Skinner (426-27), Sanda (II, 363), Jepsen (26-29), Gray (1970:
746-47).
150 It is doubtful that the Chronicler offers further trust-
worthy information. It is from him we first hear of a battle, but
he may have merely read this into his source. The Chronicler's
details are constructed from the narrative of the battle death
of Ahab in 1 Kings 22:29-38 and his theological need to provide
a motive for Josiah's death.
151 Stade and Schwally (57), Kittel (306), Skinner (428), Sanda
(II, 395), Jepsen (25-26), Dietrich (1972:139-43).
152 Antiquities 10.82; 2 Chron. 36:8. The Greek of 2 Chron.
36:8 is a further witness to a text in Kings containing the burial
notice. Agreeing to such a restoration are: Wellhausen (359),
Benzinger (197), Stade and Schwally (395), Eissfeldt (1922:583).
153 In the two other places where Kings and Jeremiah are
144
 Notes to Chapter 3
parallel, the dependence runs the other way. For details, Sanda
(II, 396-97).
15* Gray (1970:752).
155 Noth (1967:95).
156 Noth (1967:96).
157 As an erroneous addition: Stade (188*571-77), Benzinger
(197), Kittel (307), Burney (1903:366), Skinner (*30), Eissfeldt
(1922:583), de Vaux (22*), Snaith (1955:*30), Gray (1970:760).
Jepsen (25-26) saw it as R" in an R! context.
158 Cross (286).
159 Restoring^ap for the JM of the MT.
160 Sanda (II, 397), Montgomery and Gehman (56*), Gray
(1970:768-69).
161 Bright (1965:2**-*5).
162 These chapters have attracted an extraordinary number of
glosses and additions: 23:25; 2*:*,11; 25:3b,9b, 10,11,16-17.
163 Gazelles.
16* Singular suffix: Deut. 2:2*; 3:2 (= Num. 21:3*); Josh. 6:2;
8:1,18; 10:8; Judg. *:7; 7:7,9; 2028; 1 Sam. 23:*; 2*:5; 2 Sam. 5:19
= 1 Chron. 1*:10); 1 Kings 20:13,28. Plural suffix: Exod. 23:3;
Josh. 2*:8,11.
165 Lohfink (1965:90-96). Braulik (1978) has carried this ap-
proach forward specifically in Deut. *:1-*0, again without find-
ing any important literary critical problems. Levenson (203-12)
also sees Deut. *:1-*0 as a unity. In his view, these verses
served as a bridge between Deut. 1-3 (Dtrl) and the book of
Deuteronomy proper inserted by Dtr2 (i.e. the exilic editor).
This is a reasonable alternative explanation for the lexical
contacts between Deut. *: 19-20 and the exilic editor.
166 Wolff (181-83).
167 According to Noth (1967:38-39), the core of the historian's
work is *:l-2,5-8,10-l*,22-23a,25-28. This partially corresponds
to Mittmann's (183-8*) PI1 and PI2.
168 Steuernagel (17).
169 Seitz (309).
170 Hempel (71).
171 Mittmann (119-22,177-78,183-8*), for whom the singular-
plural differences are still of great importance and in whose
complex literary analysis the Deuteronomistic history plays no
part, basically agrees. He too sees both 19-20 and 29-31 as later
than 15-18 and 23-28 (his Pi1 and PI2).
172 Noth (1967-39).
173 Pfeiffer, p.312. A variation of this is the theory that the
book underwent two separate and unrelated Deuteronomistic
redactions, one of which substituted Josh. 23 for Josh. 2*,
1*5
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
which were later combined; Eissfeldt (1922:255). This at least
has the advantage of avoiding the dubious picture of Josh. 24
floating in limbo for years until it was reinserted in its proper
place.
174 Noth (1938:107).
175 Richter (46-49, especially p.49 n.147), Smend (501-4).
176 Auerbach (3).
177 Steuernagel (242-44) found traces of what he called Rd in
vv.l,2b,7ba,JOa, the list of nations in 11, and 12b-13. He also
recognized v.17 (from "house of bondage" on) as an addition, but
not necessarily Deuteronomistic. Holzinger (95) found similar
Deuteronomistic traces, though of a somewhat more limited
nature because of his conviction that source strata were
present: parts of vv.l,4,8b,13,26a. H.W. Robinson (379) was
likewise conservative in his estimate of Deuteronomistic
interference: the middle of 1, the list in 11, and 13. Rudolph
(244-49) considered [Link],2ad,5aa,6aa,6b,7a,10a, and 26a as
glosses. Noth separated the non-Deuteronomistic glosses (Ib,
the list in ll,12b,22b) from traces of a Deuteronomistic
redaction: "to possess it" in 4,8b,9b-10aba,12a,13abb,17,19-
24 (1938:105-6).
178 Hertzberg (132), Gray (1967:7-8), Soggin (1972:227-29).
179 Noth (1938:105).
180 Rudolph (247), Noth (1938:105), Steuernagel (244).
Notes to Chapter 4
DYNASTIC ORACLE IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY
1 Noth (1967:93-94,100).
2 Noth (1968:30), Rost (89-90).
3 Noth (1967:66).
4 Tsevat (1963; 1965).
5 Weinfeld (197229 n.4).
6 Wolff (174), Janssen (13-14), Nicholson (1967:109-12), de
Tillesse (70), Amsler (62-63).
7 Noth (1967:95).
8 Noth (1967:66).
9 In contrast, the unconditional nir oracles are well dis-
tributed: one each for Solomon, Abijam, and Joram.
10 Noth (1968:198).
11 For reviews of the literature, see Jenni (140-41),
Schreiner (75-98), Clements (1965:55-59).
12 Noth (1966b), Gorg (178-268).
13 McCarthy (1965:131-38).
14 Rost (61), Weinfeld (1972:81), Calderone (50-57).
146
 Notes to Chapter 4
15 Timm.
16 He reproduced the Rise of David (1 Sam. 16:14-2 Sam.
5:12) with the most minimal interference: 2 Sam. 2:10,11; 5:4-5.
17 Rost (58-59), Gese (15), de Vaux (161 n.c), Kutsch (144-45).
18 Rost (49,53-54), Noth (1967:64).
19 Wellhausen (257), Rost (56), Noth (19665:251), Clements
(1965:56), Schreiner (76), Kutsch (140).
20 Mowinckel (1947:204-13).
21 Gese (22-23).
22 Noth (1967:54-59).
23 Boecker (89-90).
24 The Kaige recension and Aquila translated the word more
prosaically as "lamp".
25 Ehrlich (VII, 243), Kittel (100-1), Eissfeldt (1922: 522),
Oesterley (142-44), Smith (21).
26 Job 18:6; Prov.l3t9; 20:20; Jer. 25:10. With reference to the
king: 2 Sam. 21:17; Ps. 132:17.
27 Noth (1966a:137-38,138 n.l).
28 Wevers (316 n.l); von Soden (11,7, pp.793-94, especially
section 5).
29 Hanson (304-16,318 n.29). Van der Kooij (51-54) continues
to support the meaning "light" with his own citations from
Assyrian sources. Each king in the Davidic line is the light of
Israel.
30 Debus (4-5).
31 Noth (1968:246-47).
32 Noth (1965:234 n.l; 1967:72 n.7).
33 Plein (19).
34 Gray (1970291), Debus (14-15).
35 Kittel (100), Sanda (I, 319), Eissfeldt (1922:521), Gress-
mann (219).
36 Stade and Schwally (126).
37 Gordon (90).
38 Noth (1968:260).
39 Noth (1968:260).
40 Gressmann (220).
41 Plein (18-19).
42 Snaith (1955:109), Benzinger (83), Eissfeldt (1922:521),
Gray (1970288), Noth (1967:72), Fichtner (187), Jepsen (table),
Skinner (182), Plein (18-20), Kittel (100), Debus (11). Seebass
(363-76) assigns 30-31, 36ba to one early source, 26-29, 37 to
another.
43 Koch (205-6,213).
44 This expression may be a gloss along with "and my stat-
utes and my commandments", which is awkward and missing
147
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
from the Greek; Noth (1968:261).
45 Stade and Schwally (126), Eissfeldt (1922:522), Noth
(1967:72 n.8; 1968:261), Gray (1970291), Debus (11).
46 Noth (1968:261-62).
47 Noth (1967:108-9; 1957:561-63).
48 Cross (279).
49 Benzinger (84), Stade and Schwally (16), Kittel (101),
Burney (1903:171), Skinner (183), Sanda (I, 320-21), Eissfeldt
(1922:522), Jepsen (table), Noth (1967:72 n.9; 1968:262), Debus
(19).
50 Burney (1903:171). For the Masoretic form, see Gesenius
and Kautzsch (art.23d).
51 Gesenius and Kautzsch (art. 165a).
52 Thackeray, Wevers, Gooding (1964,1967a,1967b).
53 Noth (1968:262).
54 Benzinger (99), Stade and Schwally (22), Kittel (123-4),
Burney (1903:196), Skinner (208), de Vaux (88), Montgomery and
Gehman (274), Snaith (1955:133), Fichtner (227), Gray (1970:348
n.3), Noth (1968:334).
55 Montgomery and Gehman (274).
56 Noth (1967:82 n.l).
57 Noth (1968:334).
58 Gesenius and Kautzsch (art.!63a).
59 In its Masoretic form, 2 Kings 8:19 indicates that the ntr
was promised to both Davide and to his sons, but the expression
is awkward: latet 16 ntr l banayw. Since earlier explanations
for the word ntr had always assumed that the nir of David
consisted of his sons, that is that David's "lamp" or "new
chance" consisted of the presence of his sons on the throne of
Judah, the promise of a ntr to one of these sons made no sense
to earlier commentators. However, Hanson's solution to the
puzzle of the ntr removes the problem. David's "dominion" may
be promised to his descendants without difficulty. Indeed this
extension was already implied by the "forever" of 1 Kings 11:36.
60 Noth (1967:84 n.l).
61 This was the original order of these verses. The present
MT order and the Lucianic-Josephus order (1-7,23,8-11,14-
22,24-25,12-13) can both be explained as "corrections" of this
original order after the early corruption of "Joash" into
"Jehoahaz" in v.4, which originally immediately followed v.22.
The MT lost the original Lucianic "pluses" in its transposition
process. This unscrambles the confusion of 2 Kings 13:4-25 into
a coherent narrative.

148
 Notes to Chapter 5

Notes to Chapter 5
TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF THE TWO DEUTERONOMISTS

1 Von Rad (1953:84-90).

2 Wolff (174-79,183-85), Timm (519-25).
3 Brueggemann.
4 McCarthy (1974).
5 Van Zyl.
6 Mejia (297-98).
7 March, Watts (330-35), Cf. also Schmidt.
8 There has been much controversy over whether 2 Kings
25:27-30, the release of 3ehoiachin, was intended positively,
pointing to a possible restoration of the Davidic line, or nega-
tively, expressing the final end of that dynasty. Noth (1967:108;
1957) remained convinced that the paragraph was entirely
negative. Wolff (174) also denied that his had anything to do
with a Davidic restoration. The opposite position has been ad-
vocated by von Rad (1953:90; 1962:343), Brueggemann (400),
Gray (1970:773-75) and Zenger.
9 Noth (1944:49-57), Alt. For a discussion of Josiah's
boundaries see Donner (463-66). The Imlk jar handle stamps can
no longer be used to deny any substantive Josianic expansion to
the north; cf. Na'aman.
10 dunge (28-93), Sekine.
11 Aharoni.
12 Clayburn.
13 Albright (1948:241-45).
14 Janssen (57-80), Ackroyd (39-49).
15 Cross (278-85).
16 Cf. 2 Chron. 30:10.
17 Von Rad (1962:343).
18 Noth (1967:41-42).
19 Noth (1967:55,64), Timm. For the central position of this
ark narrative in the theology of Samuel, see Schickelberger
(176-211), Campbell, and Miller and Roberts.
20 De Tillesse(61-62).
21 Noth (1967:39-40).
22 Von Rad (1962:238).
23 Fretheim (4-5).
24 There are also two separate theologies of rest in the land
found in the Deuteronomistic history; cf. Roth.
25 Rosenbaum.

149
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Notes to Appendix
ISAIAH'S PREDICTION OF A BABYLONIAN DISASTER

1 Jepsen (77).
2 Driver (1914:658-59), Meinhold, Sperber, Orlinsky, Kaiser.
3 SandadI, 314).
4 Montgomery and Gehman (510).
5 Burney (1903:352), Eissfeldt (1922:577), Gray (1970:669).
6 Skinner (405), Snaith (1955:308-10).
7 Koch (200-4).
8 Wester mann (144).
9 Dillmann (345-45).
10 Although the Chronicler does provide us with reliable
information about matters of military construction and re-
organization (2 Chron. ll:5b-10a; 26:6-8a,9,15a; 27:5; 28:18; 32:
30; 33:14a; 35:20,24; etc.), this must not cause us to overlook the
highly tendentious and theological nature of the work. Although
2 Chron. 13:11 is historically possible, we should hesitate to
trust the Chronicler when history and his own theology are at
odds.
11 Marti (253).
12 For examples of such hostages, see ANET, 275,295.

150
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackroyd, Peter R.
1968 Exile and Restoration. OIL. Philadelphia: West-
minster.
Aharoni, Yohanan
1963 "Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple." BA 31:9-19.
Albright, W.F.
1948 From the Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. Bal-
timore: Johns Hopkins Press.
1963 The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New
York: Harper.
1964 "The Original Account of the Fall of Samaria in II
Kings." BASOR 174:66-67.
Alt, Albrecht
1925 "Judas Gaue unter Josia." PJB 21:100-16.
Amsler, Samuel
1963 David, Rpi et Messie. Cahiers theologiques de
1'actualite protestante 49. Neuchatel: Editions
Delachaux & Niestle.
Auerbach, Elias
1953 "Die grosse (Jberarbeitung der biblischer BCicher."
Pp. 1-10 in Congress Volume; Copenhagen, 1953.
Supplements to VT, 1. Leiden: Brill.
Auld, A.G.
1975 "Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration." VT
25:261-85.
Baena, Gustavo
1973 "Caracter literario de 2 Reyes 17, 7-23." Estudios
Biblicos 32:357-84.
1974a "Caracter literario de 2 Reyes 17, 7-23." Estudios
Biblicos 33:5-29.
1974b "Caracter literario de 2 Reyes 17, 13. 35-39."
Estudios Biblicos 33:157-79.
Baltzer, Klaus
1971 The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jew-
ish, and Early Christian Writings. Trans, by David
E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Bentzen, Aage
1952 Introduction to the Old Testment. 2 vols. 2nd ed.
Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad.
Benzinger, Immanuel
151
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
1899 Die Bucher der Konige. KHC 9. Freiburg: J.C.B.
Mohr.
Bertheau, Ernst
1883 Das Buch der Richter und Ruth. KEH 6. 2nd ed.
Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
Beyerlin, Walter
1963 "Geschichte und heilsgeschichtliche Traditions-
bildung im Alten Testament (Richter vi-viii)." VT
13:1-25.
Bin-Nun, S.R.
1969 "Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of
Judah." VT 18:414-32.
Boecker, Hans J.
1969 Die Beurteilung der Anfange des Ko'nigtums in den
deuteronomischen Abschnitten des 1. Samuel-
buches. WMANT 31. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-
ener Verlag.
Boling, Robert G.
1974 "In Those Days There Was No King in Israel."
Pp.33-48 in A Light Unto My Path; Old Testament
Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Braulik, Georg
1971 "Spuren einer Neuarbeitung des deuteronomis-
tischen Geschichtswerkes in 1 Kon. 8:52-53, 59-
60." Biblica 52:20-33.
1978 Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik. Analecta
Biblica 68. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Bright, John
1951 "The Date of the Prose Sermons of Jeremiah."
JBL 70:15-35.
1955 "Introduction to and Exegesis of the Book of
Joshua." Pp.541-673 in The Interpreter's Bible,
vol. 2. Ed. by George A. Buttrick. New York:
Abingdon.
1965 Jeremiah. The Anchor Bible. 21. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday.
1972 A History of Israel. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: West-
minster.
Brock elm ann, Carl
1956 Hebraische Syntax. Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Ver-
lag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins.
Bruggemann, Walter
1968 "The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian."
Interpretation 22:387-402.
152
 Bibliography

Budde, Karl
1897 Das Buch der Richter. KHC 7. Freiburg: J.C.B.
Mohr.
Buis, Pierre
1967 "Notification de jugement et confession nation-
ale." BZ 11:193-205.
Burney, C.F.
1903 The Book of Judges. 2nd. ed. London: Rivingtons.
1920 Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Calderone, P.J.
1966 Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty. Logos 1.
Manila: Ateneo de Manila University.
Campbell, A.F.
1979 "Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative."
JBL 98:31-43.
Carlson, R.A.
1964 David, the Chosen King. Trans, by E.J. Sharp and
S. Rudman. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Gazelles, Henri
1967 "Passages in the Singular within Discourse in the
Plural." CBQ 29:207-19.
Childs, Brevard S.
1963 "A Study of the Formula 'Until This Day.1" JBL
82:279-92.
Clayburn, W.E.
1973 "The Fiscal Basis of Josiah's Reform." JBL
92:11-22.
Clements, R.E.
1965 God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1974 "The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the
Founding of the Monarchy in I Sam. VIII." VT
24:378-410.
Cogan, Mordechai
1978 "Israel in Exile — the View of a Josianic Hist-
orian," JBL 97:40-44.
Cortese, Enzo
1975 "Lo Schema Deuteronomistico per I Re di Guida e
d'Israele." Biblica 56:37-52.
Cross, P.M.
1973 "The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Struc-
ture of the Deuteronomistic History." Pp.274-89
in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Debus, Jorg
153
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
1967 Die Sunde Jeroboams. FRLANT 93. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Delorme, Jean
1968 "The First Prophetical Books." Pp. 148-268 in
Introduction to the Old Testament. Ed. by A.
Robert and A. Feuillet. Trans, by P. Skehan. New
York: Desclee.
Dietrich, Walter
1972 Prophetie und Geschichte. FRLANT 108. Gott-
ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1977 "Josia und das Gesetzbuch (2 Reg. XXII)." VT
27:13-35.
Dillmann, August
1890 Das Prophet Jesaia. KEH 5. 5th ed. Leipzig: S.
Hirzel.
Donner, Herbert
1977 "The Separate States of Israel and Judah." Pp.381-
434 in Israelite and Judean History. Ed. by J.H.
Hayes and J.M. Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Driver, S.R.
1895 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Deuteronomy. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
1914 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Test-
ament. New ed. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons.
Ehrlich, A.B.
1908-14 Randglossen zur hebraischen Bibel. 7 vols. Leip-
zig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.
Eichhorn, J.G.
1787 Einleitung ins Alte Testmanent. 3 vols. 2nd ed.
Leipzig: Weidmanns, Erben und Reich.
Eissfeldt, Otto
1922 "Die Bucher der Konige." Pp.492-585 in Die Heil-
ige Schrift des Alten Testaments, vol. 2. 4th ed.
Ed. by E. Kautzsch. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
1925 Die Quellen des Richterbuches. Leipzig: J.C. Hin-
richs'sche Buchhandlung.
1965 The Old Testament; An Introduction. Trans, by
P.R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper & Row.
Fichtner, Johannes
1964 Das erste Buch von den Konigen. BAT 12/1. Stutt-
gart: Calwer.
Fohrer, Georg
1968 Introduction to the Old Testament. Trans, by D.E.
Green. Nashville: Abingdon.
154
 Bibliography
Freedman, D.N.
1962 "Pentateuch." Pp.711-27 in Interpreter's Diction-
ary of the Bible, vol. 3. Ed. by G.A. Buttrick. New
York: Abingdon.
Fretheim, T.E.
1968 "The Ark in Deuteronomy." CBQ 30:1-14.
Camper, Arnold
1963 "Die heilsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Salomon-
ischen Tern pel weihgebets." ZKT 85:55-61.
Gese, Harmut
1964 "Der Davidbund und die Zionserwahlung." ZTK
61:10-26.
Gesenius, W. and E. Kautzsch
1898 Hebrew Grammar. Trans, by A.E. Cowley. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Gorg, Manfred.
1975 Gott-Konig-Reden in Israel und Agypten. BWANT
105. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Gooding, D.W.
1964 "Ahab According to the Septuagint." ZAW
76:269-79.
1977a "The Septuagint's Rival Versions of Jeroboam's
Rise to Power." VT 17:173-89.
1967b. "Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical
Arrangement between the MT and the LXX." VT
17:143-72.
Gordon, Cyrus
1963 Review of The History of Israel by Martin Noth.
3SS 8:88-95.
Gray, John
1967 Joshua, Judges and Ruth. The Century Bible.
London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
1970 I & II Kings. OTL. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: West-
minster.
Gray son, A.K.
1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from
Cuneiform Souces 5. Locust Valley, New York:
Augustin.
Greenwood, David
1977 "The Origins of Deuteronomistic Literature."
Pp. 191-99 in Proceedings of the Sixth World Con-
gress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1. Jerusalem: World
Union of Jewish Studies.
Gressmann, Hugo
1921 Die alteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic
155
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Israels. 2nd ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht.
Hanson, Paul
1968 "The Song of Heshbon and David's Nir." HTR
61:297-320.
Harvey, Julien
1967 Le plaidoyer prophetique contre Israel apres la
rupture de 1'Alliance. Studia 22. Montreal: Les
Editions Bellarmin.
Hempel, Johannes.
1914 Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums. Beitrage zu
Kultur- und Universalgeschichte 33. Leipzig:
Voightlanders Verlag.
Hertzberg, H.W.
1953 Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth. ATD 9. Gott-
ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Millers, D.R.
1965 Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets.
Biblica et Orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
Holscher, Gustav
1923 "Das Buch der Konige, seine Quellen und seine
Redaktion." Pp. 158-213 in Eucharisterion; Studien
zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testments, Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag.
Ed. by H. Schmidt. FRLANT 36. Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Holzinger, Heinrich
1901 Das Buch Josua. KHC 6. Tubingen and Leipzig:
J.C.B. Mohr.
Janssen, Enno
1956 Juda in der Exilszeit. FRLANT 69. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Jenni, Ernst
1961 "Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an der Buchern Josua
bis Konige." Theologische Rundschau 27:1-32, 97-
146.
Jepsen, Alfred
Die Quellen des Konigsbuches. Halle: Max
Niemeyer.
Jones, Douglas R.
1955 "The Traditio of the Oracles of Isaiah of Jeru-
salem." ZAW 81:304-15.
Junge, Ehrard
1937 Der Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches
156
 Bibliography

3uda unter Josia. BWANT 23. Stuttgart: W.

Kohlhammer.
Kaiser, Otto
1969 "Die Verkiindigung des Propheten Jesaja im Jahre
701." ZAW 81:304-15.
Keil, C.F.
1877 The Books of the Kings. Trans, by 3. Martin. 2nd
ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Kittel, Rudolph
1900 Die Bucher der Konige. HK 1/5. Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Klostermann, A.
1887 Die Bucher Samuelis und der Konige. Kurz-
gefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften
Alten und Neuen Testaments, 3. Nordlingen: C.H.
Beck'schen Buchhandlung.
Koch, Klaus
1969 The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. Trans, by
S.M. Cupitt. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Kooij, A. van der
1974 "David, 'Het licht van Israel.1" Pp.49-57 in
Vruchten van de Uithof, Studies ... H.A. Brongers.
Utrecht: Theologisch Institut.
Kraus, H.-J.
1956 Geschichte der historische-kritischen Erforschung
des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur
Gegenwart. Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Verlag der
Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins.
Kuenen, Abraham
1887-92 Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in die Bucher des
Alten Testaments. Trans, by Th. Weber. Leipzig:
Otto Schulze.
Kutsch, Ernst
1961 "Die Dynastie von Gottes Gnaden: Probleme der
Nathanweissagung in 2 Sam. 7." ZTK 58:137-53.
Lemke, Werner
1976 "The Way of Obedience: I Kings 13 and the
Structure of the Deuteronomistic Historian."
Pp.301-26 in Magnalia Dei. Ed. by F. M. Cross et
aL Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co.
Levenson, J.D.
1975 "Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?" HTR
68:203-33.
Lohfink, N.
1965 "Hore, Israeli Auslegung von Texten aus dem Buch
157
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

Deuteronomium." Welt der Bibel 18;7-123.

1978 "Die Gattung der 'Historischen Kurzgeschichte1 in
den letzten Jahren von 3uda und in die Zeit des
Babylonischen Exils." ZAW 90:319-47.
Long, B.O.
1969 "Etymological Etiology and the Dt. Historian."
CBQ 31:35-41.
McCarthy, D.3.
1965 "II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deutero-
nomistic History." 3BL 84:131-8.
1973 "The Inauguration of Monarchy in Israel." Inter-
pretation 27:401-12.
1974 "The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of
the Deuteronomistic History." Pp.97-110 in Essays
in Old Testament Ethics. Ed. by 3.L. Crenshaw
and 3.T. Willis. New York: KTAV.
McDonald, 3.
1969 "The Structure of 2 Kings 17." Glasgow University
Oriental Society Transactions 23:29-41.
Ma'rch, W.E.
1977 "Elected to Remember: Reflections on the
Deuteronomistic History." Austin Seminary
Bulletin 93:5-13.
Marti, K.
Das Buch 3esaja. KHC. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Mayes, A.D.H.
1978 "The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy." ZAW
90:1-19.
Meinhold, 3.
1898 Die 3esajaerza'hlungen 3esaja 36-39. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Mejia, 3orge
1977 "The Aim of the Deuteronomistic Historian: A
Reappraisal." Pp.291-98 in Proceedings of the
Sixth World Congress of 3ewish Studies, vol. 1.
Ed. by A. Shinan. 3erusalem: World Union of
3ewish Studies.
Meyer, Eduard
1881 "Kritik der Berichte uber die Eroberung Palaes-
tinas." ZAW 1:117-46.
Meyer, Rudolf
1959 "Auffahlenden Erzahlungsstil in einem angeblich-
en Auszug aus der "Chronik der Konige von 3uda.'"
Pp. 124-23 in Festschrift Friedrich Baumgartel
zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. by L. Rost. Erlanger

158
 Bibliography

Forschungen, Reihe A, Geisteswissenschaften, 10.

Erlangen: Universita'tsbibliothek Erlangen.
1972 Hebraische Grammatik. Vol. 3: Satzlehre. 3rd ed.
Sammlung Goschen, 5765. Berlin: Walter Gruyter.
Miller, P.O. and 3. J.M. Roberts
1977 The Hand of the Lord; A Reassessment of the Ark
Narrative of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Mittmann, Siegfried
1975 Deuteronomium 1:1-6:3 literarkritisch und tradi-
tionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BZAW 139. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Montgomery, J.A.
1934 "Archival Data in the Book of Kings." JBL
53:46-52.
Montgomery, J.A. and H.S. Gehman
1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Moore, G.F.
1895 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Book of Judges. ICC. Edinburgh; T. & T. Clark.
1900 The Book of Judges. The Sacred Books of the Old
Testament, 7. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buch-
handlung.
Morawe, Giinter
1966 "Studien zum Aufbau der Neubabylonischen
Chroniken in ihrer Beziehung zu den chrono-
logischen Notizen der Konigsbucher." EvTh
26:308-20.
Mowinckel, Sigmund
1947 "Natanforjettelsen 2 Sam., kep. 7." Svensk Exe-
getisk Arsbok, 12:204-13.
1964 Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch. BZAW 90.
Berlin: Alfred Topelmann.
Myers, J.M.
1955 "Introduction to and exegesis of the Book of
Judges." Pp.677-826 in The Interpreter's Bible,
vol. 2. Ed. by George A. Buttrick. New York:
Abingdon.
1961 "The Requisites of Response." Interpretation
15:14-31.
Na'aman, N.
1979 "Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah and the Date of
the LMLK Stamps." VT 29: 61-86.
Nicholson, E.W.
159
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

1967 Deuteronony and Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress.

1970 Preaching to the Exiles. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Noth, Martin
1938 Das Buch Josua. HAT 1/7. Tubingen: 3.C.B. Mohr.
1944 "Israelitische Stamme zwischen Ammon und
Moab." ZAW 60:11-57.
1957 "Zur Geschichtsauffassung des Deuteronomisten."
Pp.558-565 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second
Congress of Orientalists, vol. 2. Ed. by Z.V.
Togan. Leiden: Brill.
1965 The History of Israel. Trans, by S. Goodman and
revised by P.R. Ackroyd. 2nd ed. New York:
Harper & Row.
1966a 'Jerusalem and the Israelite Tradition." Pp. 132-44
in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays.
Trans, by D.R. Ap-Thomas. Edinburgh: Oliver &
Boyd.
1966 "David and Israel in II Samuel VII." Pp.250-59 in
The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays.
Trans, by D.R. Ap-Thomas. Edinburgh: Oliver &
Boyd.
1967 Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien; Die sam-
melnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im
Alten Testament. 3d ed. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer.
1968 Konige. BKAT 9/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-
ener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins.
Nowack, Wilhelm
1925 "Deuteronomium und Regum." Pp.221-31 in Vom
Alten Testament Karl Marti zum siebzigsten
Geburtstag gewidmet. Ed. by K. Budde. BZAW 41.
Giesen: Alfred Topelmann.
O'Doherty, E.
1956 "The Literary Problem of Judges 1,1-3,6." CBQ
18:1-7.
Oesterley, W.O.E.
1933 "Early Hebrew Festival Rituals." Pp. 111-46 in
Myth and Ritual. Ed. by S.H. Hooke. London: Ox-
ford University Press.
Oestreicher, T.
1923 Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz. Beitrage zur
Forderung christlischer Theologie, 27/4. Gu'ters-
loh: C. Bertelsmann.
Ogden, Graham
1978 "The Northern Extent of 3osiah's Reform." Aus-
tralian Biblical Review 26:26-34.

160
 Bibliography
Orlinsky, H.M.
1939 "The Kings-Isaiah Recensions of the Isaiah Story."
JQR 30:33-49.
Paul, S.M.
1969 "Sargon's Administrative Diction in II Kings
17:27." JBL 88:73-74.
Pfeiffer, R.H.
1948 Introduction to the Old Testament. Revised ed.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
Plein, Ina
1966 "Erwagungen zur Uberlieferung von I Reg.
11:26-14:20." ZAW 78:8-24.
Ploger, J.G.
1967 Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche, und stil-
kritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium.
Bonner Biblische Beitrage, 26. Bonn: Peter
Hanstein.
Ploger, Otto
1957 "Reden und Gebete im deuteronomischen und
chronistischen Geschichtswerk.'" Pp.35-49 in Fest-
chrift fur Giinter Dehm zum 75. Geburgstag. Ed.
by W. Schneemelcher. Neukirchen Kries Moers:
Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins.
Pritchard, 3.P.
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press. (=ANET)
Rad, Gerhard von
1953 Studies in Deuteronomy. SBT 9. Trans, by D.
Stalker. London: SCM Press.
1962 Old Testament Theology, vol. 1. Trans, by D.
Stalker. New York: Harper & Row.
1966 Deuteronomy. OTL. Trans, by D. Barton. Phila-
delphia: Westminster.
Radjawane, A.N.
1974 "Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk; ein For-
schungbericht." Theologische Rundschau 38:177-
216.
Richter, Wolfgang
1964 Die Bearbeitungen des 'Retterbuches' in der
deuteronomischen Epoche. Bonner Biblischer Bei-
trage, 21. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.
Robinson, H.W.
1907 Deuteronomy and Joshua. The Century Bible. Rev.
ed. New York: Henry Frowde.
161
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
Robinson, 3.
1976 The Second Book of Kings. Cambridge Bible Com-
mentary. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rollig, Wolfgang
1969 "Zur Typologie und Entstehung der babylonischen
und assyrischen Konigslisten." Pp.265-77 in lisan
mithurti; Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden.
Alten Orient und Altes Testament 1. Ed. W.
Rollig. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker
Kevelaer.
Rose, Martin
1977 "Bermerkungen zum historischen Fundament des
Josia-Bildes in II Reg 22f." ZAW 89:5-62.
Rosenbaum, Jonathan
1979 "Hezekiah's Reform and Deuteronomistic Tradi-
tion." HTR 72:23-H.
Rost, Leonhard
1926 Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids.
BWANT 3/6. Stuttgart W. Kohlhammer.
Roth, Wolfgang
1976 "Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction-
Critical Study." Biblical Research 21;5-lfr.
Rowley, H.H.
1950 The Growth of the Old Testament. London:
Hutchinson's University Library.
Rudolph, Wilhelm
1938 Der "Elohist" von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68.
Berlin: Alfred Topelmann.
San da, Albert
1911-12 Die Bucher der Konige. Exegetisches Handbuch
zum Alten Testament, 9. Munster: Aschen-
dorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Sauer, Georg
1968 Die Chronologischen Angaben in den Buchern
Deut. bis 2 Kon." TZ 24:1-14.
Schauri, Ignaz
1973 "Wolfgang Richters Beitrag zur Redaktions-
geschichte des Richterbuches." Biblica 54:367-403.
Schicklberger, Franz
1973 Die Ladeerzahlungen des ersten Samuel-Buches.
Forschung zur Bibel 7. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag.
Schmidt, 3.M.
1970 "Vergegenwartigung und Uberlieferung." EvTh
30:169-200.
Schreiner, Josef
162
 Bibliography

1963 Sion-Jerusalem Jahwehs Konigsitz; Theologie der

Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament. Studien zum
Alten und Neuen Testament, 7. Munich: Kosel-
Verlag.
Schulte, Hannelis
1972 Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im
Alten Israel. BZAW 128. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schultz, Waltraut
1977 "Stilkritische Untersuchungen zur deuteronomis-
tischen Literatur." [dissertation abstract] Theo-
logische Literaturzeitung 102:853-55.
Seebass, Horst
1976 "Zur Teilung der Herrschaft Salomos nach 1 Reg.
11, 29-39." ZAW 88:363-76.
Seitz, Gottfried
1971 Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deutero-
nomium. BWANT93. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Sekine, Masao
1972 "Beobachtungen zu der josianischen Reform." VT
22:361-68.
Sellin, Ernst
1923 Introduction to the Old Testament. Trans, by W.
Montgomery. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Shenkel, 3.D.
1968 Chronology and Recensional Development in the
Greek Text of Kings. Harvard Semitic Mono-
graphs, 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Skinner, John
1904 I and II Kings. The Century Bible. Edinburgh: T.C.
<5c E.G. Jack.
Smend, Rudolf
1971 "Das Gesetz und die Volker: Ein Beitrag zur
deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte." Pp.
494-509 in Probleme Biblischer Theologie;
Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. by H.W.
Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag.
Smit, E.J.
1966 "Death and Burial Formulas in Kings and
Chronicles Relating to the Kings of Judah."
Pp. 173-77 in Biblical Essays; Proceedings of the
Ninth Meeting of Die Ou Testamentiese Werk-
gemeenskap in Suid-Afrika. Potchefstroom: Pro
Rege Pers Beperk.
Smith, R.H.
1964 "The Household Lamps of Palestine in Old Testa-
163
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
ment Times." BA 27:2-31.
Snaith, Norman H.
1955 "Introduction to and Exegesis of the First and
Second Books of Kings." Pp. 3-338 in The
Interpreter's Bible, vol. 3. Ed. by George A.
Buttrick. New York: Abingdon.
1961 "The Historical Books." Pp.84-114 in The Old
Testament in Modern Study. Ed. by H.H. Rowley.
London: Oxford University Press.
Soden, Wolfram von
1965 Akkadisches Handworterbuch. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Soggin, J.A.
1963 "Der Judaische cam ha-Wes und das Konigtum
inJudah."VT 13:187-95.
1967 "Deuteronomistische Geschichtsauslegung wahr-
end des babylonischen Exils." Pp. 11-17 in Oiko-
nomia; Oscar Cullmann zum 65. Geburtstag
gewidmet. Ed. by F. Christ. Hamburg-Bergstedb
Reich.
1972 Joshua. OTL. Trans, by R.A. Wilson. Philadelphia:
Westminster.
1975 "Der Entstehungsort des deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerkes." Theologische Literaturzeitung
100:3-8.
Sperber, Alexander
1939 "Hebrew Based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel
Transmission." HUCA 14: 153-249.
Stade, Bernhard
1885 "Anmerkungen zu 2 K6. 10-14." ZAW 5:275-97.
1886 "Anmerkungen zu 2 K6. 15-21." ZAW 6:156-89.
Stade, B. and F. Schwally
1904 The Book of Kings. The Sacred Books of the Old
Testament, 9. Trans, by R. Brunnow and P. Hope.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.
Steuernagel, Carl
1900 Deuteronomium und Josua. HAT 1/3. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tadmor, Hayim
1956 "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah." 3NES
15:226-30.
Tate, M.E.
1964 "The Deuteronomic Philosophy of History."
Review and Expositer 61:311-19.
Thackeray, [Link].J.
164
 Bibliography

1907 "The Greek Translators of the Four Books of

Kings." 3TS 8:262-78.
Thatcher, G.W.
1904 Judges and Ruth. The Century Bible. Edinburgh:
T.C. <5c E.G. Jack.
Thenius, Otto
1873 Die Bucher der Konige. KEH 9. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S.
Hirzel.
Tillesse, G.M. de
1962 "Sections 'tu1 et sections "vous1 dans le Deutero-
nome." VT 12:29-87.
Timm, Hermann
1966 "Die Ladeerzahlung und das Kerygma des deutero-
nomistischen Geschichtswerkes." EvTh 26:509-26.
Trompf, G.W.
1979 "Notions of Historical Recurrence in Classic
Hebrew Historiography." Pp.219-24 in Studies in
the Historical Books of the Old Testament. VT
Supplements 30. Ed. by J.A. Emerton. Leiden:
Brill.
Tsevat, Matitiahu
1963 "The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised
in II Sam. 7:llb-16?" HUCA 34:71-82.
1965 "The House of David in Nathan's Prophecy."
Biblica 46:353-56.
Vaux, Roland de
1948-55 Les livres de Rois. Vol. 2, fasc. 5 of La Sainte
Bible. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Veijola, Timo
1975 Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung
seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen
Darstellung. Annalae Academiae Scientiarum
Fennicae, Ser. B, Tom 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia.
1977 Das Ko'nigtum in der Beurteilung der deutero-
nomistischen Historiographie. Annalae Academiae
Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B, Tom 198. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Watts, 3.D.W.
1977 "The Deuteronomic Theology." Review and Ex-
positor 74:321-36.
Weinfeld, Moshe
1967 "The Period of the Conquest and of the Oudges as
Seen by the Earlier and Later Sources." VT
17:93-113.
165
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
1972 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Weippert, Helga
1972 "Die 'deuteronomistischen1 Beurteilungen der
Konige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der
Redaktion der Konigsbucher." Biblica 53:301-39.
1973 Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches. BZAW 132.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Weiser, Artur
1961 Introduction to the Old Testament. Trans, by D.
Barton. London: Darton, Longman <5c Todd.
1962 Samuel; Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und reli-
giose Bedeutung. FRLANT 81. Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Wellhausen, Julius
1963 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der hist-
orischen Biicher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Westermann, Claus
1967 Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Trans, by H.
White. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Wevers, J.W.
1950 "Exegetical Principles Underlying the Septuagint
Text of I Kings ii 12-xxi 43." OTS 8:300-22.
Wolff, H.W.
1961 "Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Ge-
schichtswerkes." ZAW 73:171-85 = "The Kerygma
of the Deuteronomic Historical Work." Pp.83-100
in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. Ed.
W. Brueggemann and H.W. Wolff. Atlanta: John
Knox, 1975.
Wurthwein, Ernst
1976 "Die josianische Reform und das Deuteronomium."
ZTK 73:395-423.
Wyatt, Nicolas
1979 "The Old Testament Historiography of the Exilic
Period." Studia Theologica 33:45-61.
Zenger, Erich
1968 "Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Re-
hab ilitierung Jojachins." BZ 12:16-30.
Zyl, A.H. van
1971 "Chronological Deuteronomic History." Pp. 12-26
in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of
Jewish Studies, vol. 1. Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies.
166
 I N D E X OF AUTHORS

Ackroyd, P.R. 134,149 Gazelles, H. 90,92,145

Aharoni, Y. 149 Childs, B.S. 23,25,134
Albright, W.F. 26,27,134,141, Clayburn, W.E. 149
149 Clements, R.E. 14,133,146,147
Alt, A. 149 Cogan, M. 141
Amsler, S. 101,146 Cortese, E. 135
Auerbach, E. 95,146 Cross, P.M. 19,22,27,28,
Auld, A.G. 138 88,115,127,
134,135,145,
Baena, G. 20,134,140 148,149
Baltzer, K. 97
Bentzen, A. 17,133 Debus, 3. 147,148
Benzinger, I. 17,137,140, Delorme, 3. 17,133
141,142,143, Dietrich, W. 21,77,134,140,
144,145,147, 142,143,144
148 Dillmann, A. 130,150
Bertheau, E. 44,138,139 Donner, H. 137, 149
Beyerlin, W. 48,49,139 Driver, S.R. 16,133,150
Bin-Nun, S.R. 30,135
Boecker, H.3. 14,133,147 Ehrlich, A.B. 147
Boling, R.G. 138 Eichhorn, 3.G. 29,135
Braulik, G. 92,142,143,1455Eissfeldt, O. 13,17,18,133,
Bright, 3. 26,134,135, 134,138,139,
137,138,141, 140,141,142,
145 143,144,145,
Brockelmann, C. 139 146,147,148,
Brueggemann, W. 119,135,149 150
Budde, K. 138,139
Buis, P. 45,46,49,138, Fichtner, 3. 69,142,143,
139 147,148
Burney, C.F. 18,29,69,70, Fohrer, G. 13,17,29,133,
73,133,135, 135,138,139
138,139,140, Freedman, D.N. 13,133
141,142,143, Fretheim, T.E. 124,149
144,145,148,
150 Camper, A. 142
Gese, H. 107,147
Calderone, P.3. 146 Gorg, M. 143,146
Campbell, A.F. 149 Gooding, D.W. 148
Carlson, R.A. 134 Gordon, C. 147

167
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

Gray, 3. 19,63,72,87, Levenson, J.D. 133,145

95,97,127,133, Lohfink, N. 77,91,92,143,
134,138,139, 145
140,141,142, Long, B.O. 24,134
143,144,145,
146,147,148, McCarthy, D.J.14,105,119,
149,150 133,146,149
Grayson, A.K. 135 McDonald, J. 141
Greenwood, D. 134 March, W.E. 149
Gressmann, H. 147 Marti, K. 130,150
Mayes, A.D.H. 14,133
Hanson, P. 109,147,148 Meinhold, 3. 150
Harvey, J. 139 Mejia, J. 120,149
Hem pel, J. 93,145 Meyer, E. 138
Hertzberg, H.W. 95,138,146 Meyer, R. 143
Hillers, D.R. 134 Miller, P.O. 149
Holscher, G. 69,133,142 Mittmann, S. 91,145
Holzinger, H. 146 Montgomery, J.A. 19,70,72,80,
117,133,137,
Janssen, E. 101,134,146, 140,141,142,
149 143,144,145,
Jenni, E. 133,146 148,150
Jepsen, A. 19,20,69,127, Moore, G.F. 138,139
129,133,140, Morawe, G. 30,135
141,142,143, Mowinckel, S. 107,138,147
144,145,147, Myers, J.M. 139
148,150
Jones, D.R. 68,142 Na'aman, N. 149
Junge, E. 149 Nicholson, E.W. 75,101,134,
143,146
Kaiser, O. 150 Noth, M. 13,17,19,20,
Keil, C.F. 142 25,29,47,55,
Kittel, R. 17,18,133,137, 59,61,62,63,
140,141,142, 69,71,73,74,
143,144,145, 76,91,93,94,
147,148 95,96,97,100,
Klostermann, A. 140 104,106,109,
Koch, K. 143,147,150 110,114,117,
Kooij, A. van der 147 118,119,124,
Kraus, H.-J. 133 127,133,134,
Kuenen, A. 14,15,16,1.7, 135,137,138,
22, 133 139,140,141,
Kutsch, E. 147 142,143,144,
145,146,147,
Lemke, W. 144 148,149
168
 Index of Authors

Nowack, W. 134 Sekine, M. 149

Sellin, E. 16
O'Doherty, E. 138 Shenkel, 3.D. 135
Oesterley, W.O.E. 147 Skinner, J. 18,133,140,
Oestreicher, T. 80,143 141,142,143,
Ogden, G. 144 144,145,147,
Orlinsky, H.M. 150 148,150
Smend, R. 19,20,21,95,
Paul, S.M. 141 134,145
Pfeiffer, R.H. 17,42,133,134, Smit, E.3. 29,135
137,145 Smith, R.H. 147
Plein, I. 147 Snaith, N.H. 19,37,83,133,
137,140,141,
Rad, G. von 13,14,119,133, 142,143,144,
134,135,139, 145,147,148,
149 150
Radjawane, A.N. 133 Soden, W. von 147
Richter, W. 14,47,49,95, Soggin, 3.A. 41,95,134,137,
133,138,139, 146
140,146 Sperber, A. 150
Roberts, 3.M.M. 149 Stade, B. 18,69,133,134,
Robinson, H.W. 146 140,141,142,
Robinson, 3. 19,133 143,144,145,
Rollig, W. 135 147,148
Rose, M. 143 Steuernagel, C. 92,145,146
Rosenbaum, 3. 149
Rost, L. 100,135,146, Tadmor, H. 137
147 Thackeray, [Link].3. 148
Roth, W. 149 Thatcher, G.W. 138
Rowley, H.H. 17,133 Thenius, O. 69,142
Rudolph, W. 97,146 Tillesse, G.M. de 101,140,146,
149
Sanda, A. 18,64,69,76, Timm, H. 147,149
80,81,133,134, Trompf, G.W. 14,133
138,140,141, Tsevat, M. 101,146
142,143,144,
145,147,148, Vaux, R. de 18,55,69,133,
150 134,140,141,
Schauri, I. 133 142,144,145,
Schickelberger, F. 149 147,148
Schmidt, 3.M. 149 Veijola, T. 134
Schreiner, 3. 146,147
Schulte, H. 13,133 Watts, 3.D.W. 149
Seebass, H. 147 Weinfeld, M. 13,51,52,75,
Seitz, G. 91,92,145 101,133,134,

169
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

139,140,142,
143,146
Weippert, H. 31,135,140
Weiser, A. 14, 17, 133
Wellhausen, J. 26, 29, 48, 69,
133, 134,135,
138,139,140,
141,142,143,
144,147
Westermann, C. 138, 150
Wevers, 3.W. 109,147,148
Wolff, H.W. 27,93,101,119,
135,145,146,
149
Wurthwein, E. 143

Zenger, E. 149
Zyl, A.M. van 119,149

170
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Genesis Leviticus
3:8 139 20:20 137
3:10 139 26:44 52
15:15 77
22:18 139 Numbers
26:5 139 11 139
28:11-19 45 11:12 140
32:23-32 45 14:11 96
50:24 45 14:16 140
14:22 96,139
Exodus 14:23 140
3:16 45 21:30 109
3:17 45 21:33-34 139
10:1 96 21:34 145
10:2 96 22-24 97
13:3 96,140 32:11 140
13:5 139
13:14 96 Deuteronomy
14:20 140 1-4 91
15:26 139 1-3 76,90,91,92,97,
18 139 139,145
19:5 139 1:7 124
20:2 96 1:8 140
20:5 65 1:35 140
23:3 145 1:41-46 122
23:20-33 45 1:43 139
23:20 46 2:2-7 139
23:21 46 2:5 124
23:22 46 2:7 78
23:24 65 2:9 124
23:32 45,46 2:11 124
23:33 46,52 2:24 90,91,145
24:12 65 2:26-3:8 124
33:1 139 2:33-36 125
33:2 46 3:1-2 139
34:11 46 3:2 90,145
34:12-13 45 3:12-13 124
34:12 45,46,52 4 90,91,92
34:13 46 4:1-40 72,91,145
4:1-24 91

171
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
4:1-14 94 6:2 140
4:1-2 145 6:10 139
4:1 57 6:12 96,139,140
4:3-4 91 6:13 140
4:5-8 91,145 6:15 89
4:5 57 6:18 139
4:7 72 6:23 139
4:8 57 6:24 140
4:9-11 91 7:4 89
4:10-14 145 7:8 96,139,140
4:10 91,140 7:13 140
4:12 92,93,94 7:16 52
4:13-14 92 8:1 139
4:14 57,91,92 8:4 76
4:15-22 91 8:6 140
4:15-21 91,92 8:14 96,139,140
4:15-18 92,93,94,145 8:20 139
4:15 94 9:23 139
4:16 93,94 9:26 68
4:19-20 90,91,93,94,120, 9:29 68
123,126,145 10:1-5 123,124
4:19 59,92,93 10:2-5 70
4:20 69,73,91,92,93 10:11 139
4:21-22 94 10:12 140
4:22-23 145 10:20 140
4:22 91,92 11:9 139
4:23-28 94,145 11:17 89
4:23-24 92,94 11:21 139
4:23 94 12:5 142
4:25-28 23,93,94,145 12:11 142
4:25 68,92,93,94 12:14 142
4:26 58 12:21 142
4:28 79,94 13:5 139,140
4:29-40 92 13:6 96,139,140
4:29-31 27,91,93,94,121, 13:11 96,139,140
145 13:19 139
4:30 139 14:23 140,142
4:36 139 14:24 142
4:40 94 14:29 78
4:41-43 92 15:5 139
5:1-29:20 92 16:2 142
5:6 96,139,140 16:6 142
5:22 139 16:11 142
5:24 139 16:15 78
5:26 139,140 17:3 59
172
 Index of Biblical References
17:19 140 31:24-25 21
18:10-11 60 31:28 58
18:10 59 31:29 68,78
21:20 139 32:45-47 21
24:19 78 34:10 83,125
26:2 142
26:3 139 Joshua
26:14 139 1 55,61,133
26:17 139 1:4 124
27:10 139 1:6 140
27:15 79 1:7-9 20
28:1 139 1:7 125
28:2 139 1:10-18 124
28:11 139 3 123
28:12 78 4:9 24
28:15 139 4:24 140
28:45 139 5:6 139-140
28:58 140 5:9 24
28:62 139 5:10 125
29 75,76 6 94,123
29:4-7 76 6:2 145
29:19 89 7:1 89
29:21-27 74 7:26 24
29:23-25 75 8:1 145
29:24-25 75 8:18 145
29:26 89 8:28-29 24
30:1-10 27,91,94,121 8:30-35 122
30:2 139 8:30-31 125
30:8 139 8:32-35 125
30:9 78 9:27 67
30:10 139 10:8 145
30:20 139 10:27 24
31 76 11 21
31:7-8 140 11:23 20,25,43,124
31:9-13 21,125 12 21,55
31:11 67 12:1-6 124
31:12-13 140 12:1 138
31:14-15 140 12:7 138
31:15 140 12:23 141
31:16-22 140 13-22 20
31:16 52 13:1-6 20
31:20 52,140 13:1 138,141
31:21 140 13:2-6 138
31:23 52,140 13:22 21
31:24-26 124 14:6-15 21
173
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
14:14 24 24:19-20 97,123
14:15 141 24:19 97
15:63 44 24:22 146
17:12 44 24:24 139
21:43 52,140 24:25 97
22:5 65 24:26 146
23 20,21,43,44,55,61, 24:28-31 20,21
63,94,95,97,105, 24:29-33 98
133,145 24:29-31 95,138
23:1 20,141 24:31 95,138
23:4-5 67,138
23:4 20,21,25,120,123 Judges
23:7 20,21,25,65,120, 1 44,47,97,98,123,
123,138 124
23:9 66 1:1-2:5 20,25,120
23:12-13 120,123 1:6 95
23:12 20,21,25,138 1:21 44
23:13 52,66,140 1:27 44
23:15 49,122 2 95,105
23:16 23,89,95,97,122 2:1-5 43,44,46,47,48,49,
24 20,21,49,94,95,96, 50,51,52,53,95,96,
97,145,146 97,98,138
24:1-28 94 2:1-3 45,49
24:1-27 95,96,97,98 2:1-2 46
24:1-24 120 2:1 44,51,52,140
24:1 146 2:2 46,48,53,123,124,
24:2 146 139
24:4 146 2:3 44,46,52,123,125
24:5 146 2:5 44
24:6 146 2:6-10 20
24:7 146 2:6-9 21
24:8 145,146 2:6 43,44,94,97
24:9-10 97,146 2:7-11 43,61
24:10 146 2:7-9 95,138
24:11 94,96,145,146 2:7 122,138
24:12-13 146 2:10-12 122
24:12 52,94,95,96,146 2:11-19 55
24:13 146 2:11-14 122
24:14-15 123 2:12 68
24:14 97 2:14-16 122
24:15 53,94,96 2:14 56,58
24:17 52,94,96,146 2:17 20,139
24:18 52,94,96 2:18-19 122
24:19-24 146 2:19 122
24:19-21 97 2:20-23 25,47
174
 Index of Biblical References
2:20-21 20,49 2:35 115
2:20 89,139 4-6 123
2:21 67 5:5 24
2:23 20,67 6:8 24
3:8 89 7-10 108
4:7 145 7:1-8:22 14
5:26 80 7:3-6 125
6:1-6 47 7:3-4 122
6:2-6 47 7:7-11 125
6:2 47,48 8 105,108
6:7-10 43,47,48,49,51,52, 8:7-18 108
53,95,96,120,138 8:7-9 138
6:7 47,48 8:9 58
6:8-10 49,50 8:22 108
6:8-9 48 9:1-10:16 108
6:8 49,52,96 9:17 58
6:9 52 10:1 69
6:10 47,49,51,52,53, 10:8 108
123,125 10:16 108
6:11-24 45,47 10:17-27 14,108
6:24 24 10:18 48,49
6:25-32 47,48,51 11 108
7:7 145 11:1-15 108
7:9 145 11:8 111
8:27 52,140 12 14,55,61,63,94,
10:4 24 105,108,133
10:6-16 122 12:8-11 122
10:6-10 122 12:9 122
10:7 89 12:10-11 123
10:11-16 48 12:14 139,140
10:11-14 138 12:15 122,139
10:15-16 123 12:21-22 123
15 121 12:24 140
15:19 24 12:25 122
18 121 13 108
19 121 13:11 130
20:28 91,145 15:19 139
15:20 139
1 Samuel 15:22 139
1:1 140 15:23 60
1:11 140 15:26 60
2:15 57 15:27-28 110
2:16 57 16:1 60
2:27-36 47 16:7 60
2:28 57
175
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
16:14- 2:2-3 103
2 Sam. 5:12 140,147 2:2 101
23:4 145 2:3 101
24:5 58,145 2:4 70,100,101,103,
25:1 140,141 104,106,112,126
26:19 69 2:12-21:43 116
27:6 24 2:42 58
28:3 59,140,141 2:46 102
28:9 59 3 121
28:18 139 3:2 67
30:25 24 3:3 16,28,58,125
3:4-14 74
2 Samuel 3:14 28,57
2:10-11 147 3:15 16
4:3 24 5:4 14,15
5:4-5 147 5:5 67
5:19 145 5:19 106,107
6 123 6-7 105
7 67,101,105,108, 6:1 19
121 6:11-13 16,111
7:1-17 105 8 55,133
7:1-7 107 8:1-9 25
7:5-7 107 8:8 15,17,18,25
7:5 106,107 8:9 25,112,123
7:11-16 101,107,118 8:12-61 15
7:11 106 8:12-13 142
7:13-16 28,102 8:14-43 61,70,121,142
7:13 67,70,102,104,106, 8:14-40 142
107 8:14-29 70
7:14-16 101 8:14-26 142
7:14-15 105 8:14-23 142
7:14 122 8:16 67
7:15-16 122 8:17-20 67
7:18-29 102 8:17-18 28
7:22-24 106 8:19 106,107
12:7-14 47 8:20 104
14:16 69 8:21 70,124
18:18 24 8:24 102
19:44 111 8:25 28,70,99,100,102,
20:19 69 103,104,106,119,
21:17 109,147 126
8:26 70
1 Kings 8:27-40 142
2-11 103 8:27 40,142
2:2-4 28,119 8:28-29 102
176
 Index of Biblical References
8:28 70 9:4-5 28,100,101,102,
8:29-30 72 103,104,106,119,
8:29 58,67,72 126
8:30-43 70,72 9:4 28,57
8:30 71,142 9:5 100,112
8:31-43 71,72 9:6-9 23,27,73,74,102,
8:31 71 104,120
8:32 69,71 9:6 73,98
8:33-34 23,70,71,122,123 9:7-9 15,73,74,75,76
8:33 70,71,72 9:8-9 75
8:34 69,70,71 9:8 75
8:36 69,70,71 9:9 65,68,98,123
8:38 71 9:10-10:29 74
8:39 69,71 9:10-14 74
8:40 140 9:13 24,74
8:41-51 142 9:15-23 25
8:41-43 69,70,71 9:20 25
8:41 71 9:21 15,25
8:42 71 9:25 57
8:43 67,69,71,72,140 10 74
8:44-61 142 10:9 104
8:44-51 23,69,70,71,72, 10:12 15
120,142 11 74
8:44-45 71 11:1-13 109,110,113,122,
8:44 68,71,72 126
8:45 69,71,72 11:4 28,125
8:46-51 91,123,126 11:6 28,125
8:46-50 70 11:7-11 140
8:48 15,68,71,72 11:8 58
8:49 69,71,72 11:9-13 14,15,106
8:50 71,125 11:11-13 111,116
8:51 69,72,73,93 11:12 106,113,138
8:52-53 72,73,142 11:13 67,100,113,138
8:52 69,72,142 11:14-28 109
8:53-61 142 11:14-25 106
8:53 73 11:14 106
8:54 142 11:18 116
8:58 57,72,143 11:20 116
8:59-60 69,72,73 11:21 109
8:60 72 11:23 106
8:61 57,72,143 11:26-29 147
9:1-9 14,15 11:26 110
9:1-5 73,74,104 11:27-28 106,110
9:3-5 73 11:27 111
9:3 67,74 11:29-39 15,61,109,110,111,
177
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
112,116,122,126 14:1-18 110
11:29-32 116 14:3 115
11:29-31 110,113 14:8 28,84, 125
11:29 110,111 1*:9 68
11:30-31 1*7 14:10-11 103
11:30 110,111,11* 14:10 68
11:31-39 106 14:15 15,68
11:31-36 114,115 14:19 136
11:31-32 11* 14:21-24 38
11:31 110,111,113,11* 14:21 33,67,68,136
11:32-39 110 l*:22-2* 122
11:32-38 116 1*:22 136
11:32 67,110,112,113, 14:24 67
11* 14:29 136
11:33 28,111,113,11* 14:30 116,136
11:3* 110,112,113,114, 15:1 30,135,136
116 15:2 33,136
J 1:35-36 11* 15:3-5 117
11:35 110,111,112,113, 15:3- 4 138
11* 15:3 28,117,125,136,
11:36 28, 67,104, 108,109, 137
110,111,113,114, 15:4-5 16,117
118,122,1*7,1*8 15:4 28,104, 108,109,
11:37-38 104, 126 116,117,118,122
11:37 110,112,115,116, 15:5 28,117,125
1*7 15:6 116
11:38-39 115,116 15:7 136
11:38 28,103,112,113, 15:9 135,136
115,116 15:10 33
11:39 62,110,115,116, 15:11 28,34, 125,136
118,121,126 15:1* 125
11:40 109,110 15:16-22 115
12:19 15, 24,112 15:23 32,42, 136
12:21-24 111 15:25 136
12:21 112 15:26 33
12:23 112 15:28-30 126
12:26-33 112 15:30 68
12:31-13:32 82 15:31 136
12:32-13:32 83 15:33 135,136
12:33 57 15:3* 33
13 82 16:1-4 111
13:1-2 57 16:2 68
13:2 84, 104 16:4 103
13:11-32 131 16:5 136
13:32 83 16:7 16,68,78,126
178
 Index of Biblical References

16:8 135,136 8:17 136

16:11 103 8:18 34,37,136
16:12-13 16 8:19 28,99,100,104,108,
16:13 68,136 109,115,116,117,
16:14 136 118,122,148
16:15 30,135,136 8:22 15,24
16:19 126 8:23 136
16:20 34,136 8:25 135
16:23 30,135,136 8:26 33,136
16:25 33 8:27 34,37,136
16:26 33,68 9:1-10 126
16:27 34,136 9:1-6 112
16:29 136 9:7 58
16:30 33,136 9:10 112
16:33 67,68 9:26 135
20:13 145 9:29 30
20:28 145 10:30-31 111
20:36 139 10:30 104
21:20 78 10:32-33 124
21:26 67 10:34 34,136
21:27-29 138 11:1 137
21:29 68,77 11:18 137
21:44 125 11:20 137
22:29-38 144 12 76
22:39 136 12:1 136
22:41 30,136 12:2 33
22:42 33,136 12:3 136
22:43 34,37, 136 12:3-4 38
22:44 58,125, 137 12:4 58,125
22:45 34,136 12:5-17 76
22:47-50 136 12:20-22 40
22:48 42 12:20 136
22:51 136 12:21-22 35,137
22:52 33:136 13:1-7 148
22:54 65,68 13:1 135,136
13:2 33,60
2 Kings 13:3 89
1:1 120 13:4-25 148
1:2-17 16 13:4-7 118,126
1:17 131 13:4-6 16
1:18 35,136 13:4 148
2:22 24 13:8-11 148
3:1 136 13:8 34,136
5:1-14 131 13:10 33,135,136
8:16 135 13:11 33

179
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

13:12-13 35,148 15:24 33,38

13:12 34,136 15:26 136
13:13 35 15:27 135,136
13:14-22 148 15:28 33,38
13:22 118,126,148 15:31 136
13:23-25 118,126 15:32 135
13:23 148 15:33 33,136
13:24-25 148 15:34 136,137
14:1-14 33 15:35 58,125
14:1 135 15:36 136
14:2 33,136 15:37 42,136
14:3 28,34,125 16 15
14:4 58,125 16:1 135
14:7-12 47 16:2 28,34,37,125,136
14:7 15,24 16:3 67
14:8-14 115 16:4 58
14:13 136 16:6 15,24
14:15 34,136 16:13 57
14:18-22 40 16:15 57
14:18 34,136 16:19 136
14:19-22 35 17 16,20,27,52,55,89,
14:21 35,137 133
14:22-24 122 17:1-6 55
14:22 40 17:1 33,135,136
14:23 135,136 17:3-24 61
14:24 33 17:3-6 61,62,141
14:26-27 118,126 17:3-4 61,62
14:28 34,136,137 17:5-6 61,62
15 33,36 17:6 126
15:1 135 17:7-23 141
15:2 33,136 17:7-20 43,55,56,58,60,61,
15:3 136,137 62,63,64,120,123,
15:4 58,125 126
15:5 41,42 17:7-18 15,56
15:6 136 17:7-17 16,55,56
15:8 30,33,135,136 17:7-11 140
15:11 136 17:7 52,55,56,98
15:12 104 17:8-12 56
15:13 136 17:8 56,57,66,67,123,
15:15 34,136 125
15:16 40 17:10-12 125
15:17 30,135 17:11-12 123
15:18 33 17:11 57,58,68
15:21 136 17:12-19 140
15:23 135, 136 17:12 58,98

180
 Index of Biblical References

17:13-14 53,55,56 18:2 33,136

17:13 16,57,58,61,64,65 18:3-6 38
17:14 51,123 18:3 28,84,125,136
17:15 58,64 18:4-5 125
17:16-17 56,123,125 18:4 57,67
17:16 59,98 18:5 83,84,125
17:17 59,60,68,126 18:9-12 61,62
17:18 55,56,59,140 18:9- 11 61,62,141
17:19-20 14,15,23,55,56,61 18:10 62
17:19 57,123,126 18:12 61,62,122,126,139
17:20 56,60,61,140 18:13-20:19 129,131
17:21-34 15 18:13 61
17:21-23 55,56,59,61,63,140 18:17-20:11 129
17:21 56,104 18:22 67,68
17:22 60 19:10-37 130
17:23-40 120 19:18 79
17:23 15,24,55,59,61,63, 20 88
64,123 20:1-11 130
17:24-40 63 20:12-19 88,129,130,132
17:24-34 64,65 20:12 130
17:24-33 141 20:13 130
17:24-28 63,64 20:14-15 130
17:24 63,141 20:16 130
17:25-41 141 20:17-18 14,15,23,130
17:26 64 20:17 88
17:29-34 63,64 20:18-19 131
17:29-33 64 20:20-21 129
17:29-31 63,141 20:20 43,136
17:29 63 21:1-18 65,66
17:30-31 63 21:1-3 67
17:32-34 141 21:1-2 66
17:32 140 21:1 33
17:33 140 21:2-9 65,66
17:34-40 18,43,64,65,126, 21:2 34,66,136
141 21:3-15 43,67,83,120
17:34 15,24,57,64,65,140 21:3-9 123
17:35-40 53 21:3-6 126
17:35 52,65 21:3 59,65,66,67,98
17:37 16,52,64,65 21:4 58,66,67,68
17:38 52 21:5-9 125
17:39 140 21:5-7 98
17:40 51,123 21:5 59,66,67
17:41 15,24,63,64,141 21:6 59,60,66,67,68,83
18:1-16 129 21:7-9 67
18:1 135 21:7 28,58,66,67,68
181
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

21:8-9 53,66,67 20 17,23,68,77,

21:9-15 66 78,79,120
21:9 51,123,125 23 79
21:10-15 15,23,27,65,67,88, 23:1-30 79
89,123,126,132 23:1-4 85
21:10 59,66 23:1-3 79,125
21:11-15 14 23:3 76,79,80,84,
21:11 66 143
21:12-14 131 23:4-20 125
21:12 68 23:4-14 80
21:13 126 23:4-7 80
21:14 68,69,93 23:4-5 81,85,120,126,23:4
21:15 66,68 59,80,81,83
21:16-18 66,67 23:5 58,59,80,81
21:16 66 23:6-18 85
21:17 66,136 23:6-7 80,81,83
21:20-21 37 23:6 80,81
21:20 37,39,136 23:7 80
21:21 34,65,66 23:8 57,80,81,83
21:24 137 23:9 80,81,83,122
21:25 136 23:10-15 80
22-23 77 23:10-13 80,81,83
22 21,77,79 23:10 80
22:1-23:3 79 23:11 80
22:2-23:3 83 23:12 80,141
22:2 28,34,37,125, 23:13 80
136 23:14 80,83
22:3-5 76 23:15-20 81,82
22:3 76,85 23:15-18 82,83,126
22:5-7 76 23:15 82,83, 112,121
22:5 76 23:16-20 82
22:9 76 23:16-18 82,83
22:15-20 14,27,76,77, 23:16 82
78,79 23:19-20 82,83,85,120
22:15-17 77 23:19 68
22:15 77 23:21-23 79,82,83,85,125
22:16-18 78 23:23 83,85
22:16-17 23,77,78,79, 23:24 59,83,85,120,126
120,123,126, 23:25-25:30 120
131 23:25 18,28,83,84,85,99,
22:16 68,77,79 125,143,145
22:17 58,68,77,78, 23:26-30 85
79 23:26-27 14,15,23,66,84,98,
22:18-20 77,78 100,123,131
22:19 77,78,79 23:26 68
182
 Index of Biblical References
23:27 58,59,60,67,68,126 25:1-12 89
23:28 18,85,136 25:3 145
23:29-30 35,84,85 25:9 145
23:29 18,121 25:10 145
23:30-32 41 25:11 145
23:30 18,35 25:16-17 145
23:31-25:30 85,87,88 25:21 61,89
23:31-24:9 18 25:22-30 19
23:31-32 42,90 25:22-26 86,89
23:31 39,137 25:22 86
23:32 37 25:27-30 89,99,119,120,123,
23:33-35 84,85 149
23:36-37 90
23:36 137 1 Chronicles
23:37 37 3:15 39,137
24 88,90 3:16 137
24:1-2 85 14:10 145
24:1 85 16:13 56
24:2-4 14,15,16,23,66,67, 17:12 107
85,88,89,123,132 22:10 107
24:2 27,56,59,85,90
24:3 59,89,90 2 Chronicles
24:4 126,145 2-5 87
24:5 16,17,18,85,86,87, 11:5-10 150
136 13:11 150
24:6 86 26:6-8 150
24:7 40,85,86,87 26:9 150
24:8-9 90 26:15 150
24:8 85,86,87 27:5 150
24:10-25:30 18 28:18 150
24:10-17 85 30:10 149
24:11 88,145 32:30 150
24:12 19,87,88 33:11 130
24:13 88,129 33:14 150
24:14 88 35:3 124
24:15-16 88 35:20 150
24:15 88 35:24 150
24:16 88 36:8 144
24:17 39,98 36:10 39
24:18-25:30 14,15
24:18-25:21 26 Nehemiah
24:18-19 90 2:3 84
24:18 16,39 9:2 56
24:19 39
24:20 68,89,90

183
 Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

3ob 9:11-12 74
18:6 147 9:12 54
11:4 73
Psalms 13:11 54
22:23 56 13:23 23
45:2-7 84 14:19 60
61:1-7 84 14:21 52
72:5 84 16:10-11 74
72:9-10 84 17:21-23 54
132:11-12 101 19:13 59
132:17 109,147 22:8-9 74,75
137 121 22:9 65
22:19 86
Proverbs 22:21 54
13:9 147 25:3-11 139
13:22 109 25:4 58
20:20 147 25:5-7 54
25:6-7 79
Isaiah 25:10 147
7 131 26:5 58
13 131 26:18 23
20 131 27:1 137
30:1-7 131 28:1-4 115
31 131 28:1 130
34-39 129 28:3-9 99
45:25 56 28:11 99
56:6-7 71 28:17 131
29:19 54,58
3eremiah 31:36-37 56
1:16 79 31:37 60
2:37 60 33:26 60
3:13 54 34:4 130
3:25 54 34:5 77
4:3 109 34:13-22 139
5:19 74 34:13- 14 54
5:20-31 122 34:13 139,140
6:16-21 122 34:17 54
6:30 60 35:13-27 139
7:13 54 35:15 58
7:22-24 54 36:31 54
7:25 58 39-43 86,89
7:26 54 39:1-10 89
7:29 60 39:1-2 89
8:2 59 39:4-10 89
8:4-7 23 40:3 54
184
 Index of Biblical References

40:5 86
40:7-41:18 86,89
40:7 86
40:8-9 86
40:10-12 86
40:13-16 86
41:1-3 86
41:17-18 86
44:2-14 139
44:4-5 54
44:4 58
44:8 79
44:10 65
44:15-19 121
44:23 65
52 26
Lamentations
2:14 121
3:34-36 121
3:40-42 121
4:6 121
5:7 121

Ezekiel
8 121
18 121
18:2 121

Hosea
10:12 109

Amos
9:6 70

Micah
3:12 23
6:4 139,140

Zephaniah
1:5 59

185