Chapter I

The Impact of Exile on the Character of the Deuteronomistic History

I. That there were two editions of the Deuteronomistic his• tory, the first J osianic, the second Exilic.

The many and various scholarly conceptions of numerous redactions of numerous sources of the n ebi'fm ri'sonfm (the books of , Judges, Samuel, and Kings) came to a welcome demise with the arrival of Martin Noth's Uberlieferungsgeschicht/iche Studien. 1 Noth saw these books not as an assemblage but as a work, the task of a single person, a writer/editor with a particular perspec• tive and intention. That person selected source materials and wrote passages at all times developing this perspective, occasionally refer• ring the reader back to the sources for data which did not serve the writer/editor's interest.2 This tradent thus told, in n'vi'fm rl'sonfm, a continuing story of the people of from the era of their arrival in a new land to the time of their forced exile in Babylonia. The speeches of important figures in the story, together with judgmental remarks of the tradent, crystallized the fact that these books were not annals but rather a directed _historical account. The key to the perspective of this directed history was the old core of the together with a newly added introduction and conclu• sion3 which suited the book's new role as platform and Leitmotif of a history. The full work thus told Israel's story from to the Davidid king Jehoiachin in Exile, attributing Israel's current home• lessness to the centuries of failure of the people and its kings to fulfill that which had been demanded of them in Moses' book. Noth thus suitably spoke of the work as the Deuteronomistic his• tory. He naturally regarded the author as an exile.

1 Martin Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (original edition 1943), (hereafter cited as UGS). 2 Including the Chronicles of Solomon, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and the Chronicles of the Kings of . 3 Deut. 1-3; 31:lff.

1 2

Gerhard von Rad took special regard of a recurring theme which seemed to contradict this Deuteronomistic scheme of disaster as consequence of breach of the covenant demands of Deuteron• omy. 4 This countertheme centered in the promise of YHWH to David of eternal security for David's dynasty and for David's city, Jerusalem. Justice and grace seemed to stand in an impossible ten• sion. The resolution of this "theological dilemma," said von Rad, came when the word of judgment proved stronger than the word of grace in the day of Israel's calamity. The last four'verses of the history, nonetheless, permitted a slight flickering of hope for a rekindling of grace through the person of Jehoiachin, recently released from prison by the Babylonian king (2 Kings 25:27-30). Hans Walter Wolff emphasized another theme to which Noth had not done justice. 5 A theme of hope, albeit a small one, sur• faced in short passages at key junctures in the Deuteronomistic his• tory. This was not the hope in the Davidic dynasty, which von Rad had outlined. According to Wolff, the had regrooved the tradition of an eternal promise to David by adding conditions to the terms of the conveyance. The expression of the promise in 1 Kings 9:4f. for example was, in the Deuteronomist's full context (vv. 6-9), more a threat than a commitment. The hope which the Deuteronomist offered to the exiled Jews, said Wolff, lay not in the monarchy but in the people. The last speeches of Moses (Deut. 4:25-31; 30:1-20) and the Temple dedication prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8:46-53) offered hope of restoration .. to an exiled nation who would tum back to YHWH in repentance. While both these respective themes of von Rad and Wolff presented serious problems to Noth's understanding of the Deu• teronomistic history, neither von Rad nor Wolff challenged Noth's primary contention that the work was a single Exilic tradent's pro• duct. They rather attempted to comprehend and reconcile the thematic conflicts with the interests of that tradent in Babylonia. Frank Moore Cross has regarded the theme of the eternal promise to the house of David as far more critical to our understanding of the Deuteronomistic history and of the editorial process which

4 , Studies in Deuteronomy, pp. 74-79. See also von Rad, Old Testa• ment Theology I, pp. 334-347; "The Deuteronomic Theology of History in I and II Kings," in The Problem of the , pp. 205-221. 5 Hans Walter Wolff, "Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes," ZAW13 (1961), pp. 171-186.