Book Reviews / Biblical Interpretation 21 (2013) 130-152 141

Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Edited by Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010. Pp. ix + 219.

The present volume grows out of discussion between the two editors andother scholars during various meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature in the United States and abroad. They are concerned that the widely employed Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) hypothesis, first articulated by Martin Noth in 1943 to explain the compositional history and theological perspectives of the Former (viz. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), is in danger of becoming obsolete. Specifically, Leuchter and Adam maintain that the model has become quite fragmented as North American and European scholars frequently employ different understandings of what the DtrH model means. Among the issues discussed in the “Introduction” (1-11) are the representation of history in the DtrH, the divergent models for the compositional history of the DtrH respectively employed in North American and European circles, and the textual character of the work. Kings holds a special place because past scholarship assumed that it was a relatively reliable record of historical events whereas more recent scholarship demonstrates that Kings has its own literary character and theological agenda in the presentation of history. Discussion between American and European scholars of the form, function, origins, and transmission of the work is necessary to address the problems of the DtrH hypothesis and to develop new methods for addressing the literary character and theological perspectives of Kings. “Text and Literary History: The Case of 1 Kings 19 (MT and LXX)” (15-34), by Philippe Hugo, addresses the relationship between text- and redaction-criticism in the interpretation of the account of Elijah’s encounter with YHWH on Mt. Horeb in 1 Kings 19. Hugo observes that studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (LXX), and other versions indicate that the Masoretic text (MT) is very problematic insofar as it contains many scribal corruptions. His close reading of the text argues that the MT is a revision of an earlier Hebrew Vorlage now represented in the LXX. But this is a very problematic argument. Text-critical specialists at large and Hugo in particular have not sufficiently taken into account the advances in redaction-critical methodology over the past decades. Current redaction criticism posits redactors not as careless editors who corrupt a text because they do not understand it, but as theologically informed and literarily trained authors who rewrite texts according to their own agendas and attempt to resolve problems in the interpretation and aesthetical presentation of the text. The text-critical principle of lectio difficilior potior (“the more difficult reading is the stronger”) needs to be reconsidered when text- and redaction-criticism come into conversation, as it indicates that the more difficult text is often the more original whereas the more literarily and theologically coherent (and shorter!) text is the product of redaction or translation. “Warfare and Treaty Formulas in the Background of Kings” (35-68), by Klaus- Peter Adam, examines a number of Mesopotamian historical sources in an attempt to explain elements of the formulation of the regnal reports of the Israelite and Judean

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15685152-1015B0010 142 Book Reviews / Biblical Interpretation 21 (2013) 130-152 kings from (1 Kings 2-11) to (-20). He is able to demonstrate considerable influence in the regnal evaluations of the kings, including typical formulas, such as “he did what was right/wrong in the eyes of YHWH,” “and there was war/peace between …,” and other elements in the regnal accounts. Although his work presupposes the current European models for the composition of the DtrH, he returns to an older work by A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1956), to posit an earlier edition of Kings that he identifies as an “synchronistic” chronicle. His work would benefit from a more extended discussion of the relationship between his hypothesis and the various American-inspired models in the field that posit similar textual boundaries. “Prophetess of Doom: Hermeneutical Reflections on the Huldah Oracle ()” (71-80), by Michael Pietsch, examines the Huldah oracle concerning the upcoming death of in an effort to demonstrate that it is the product of exilic redaction of the DtrH. Given the now-widely accepted view, first argued in American circles, that an original Josianic edition of the DtrH was updated after Josiah’s death by an exilic redactor, this should come as no surprise, although many scholars have defended an earlier Josianic edition of the oracle. “Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Dynastic or Transgenerational Punishment” (81-105), by Jeremy Schipper, notes the role that King Manasseh of Judah plays in the DtrH as a scapegoat for the destruction of and the Babylonian Exile, but posits who might have been blamed for the debacle had the account of Manasseh’s reign been absent. Tensions between Kings and in their parallel portrayals of Hezekiah point to Hezekiah as a potential earlier culprit insofar as 2 Kings 18-20 presents a critical portrayal of the monarch, whereas Isaiah 36-39 presents a much more favorable account. Consideration of other texts, such as 26, points to a debate on the matter within biblical literature. Schipper’s view that Chronicles portrays the exile as a cumulative process of ignoring YHWH’s prophets is puzzling when 2 Chron. 36:14 points to the pollution of the Temple as the cause. “The Redaction of Kings and Priestly Authority in Jerusalem” (109-118), by Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, revisits the formula “until this day” in Kings in an effort to point to the Levitical interests articulated throughout Kings, particularly in contexts where this formula appears. His attempts to posit a northern Levitical movement through connections with the book of Deuteronomy, however, suffers from a failure to account adequately for Deuteronomy’s interest in cultic centralization and thus its character as a Judean work. “The Sociolinguistic and Rhetorical Implications of the Source Citations in Kings” (119-134), by Mark Leuchter, examines the socio-linguistic background of Kings’ citations of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, the Chronicles of the , and the Book of the Events of Solomon, in an effort to discern the reading audience of the work. He posits that such works would be unknown to an illiterate peasantry, and their critical remarks about the monarchy would exclude readers from the Jerusalem court. Instead, the audience is to be found in the literate elite of the Judean countryside