The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT supplement)

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 Abbreviations

9 JJ

1 THE DUAL REDACTION HYPOTHESIS IN KINGS History of the Hypothesis The Deuteronomistic history Abraham Kuenen Other forms of the dual redaction hypothesis Three approaches: Jepsen, Smend, Cross The Classical Arguments for the Theory of a Dual Redaction Arguments with little value Mention of an exile "Unto this day" The historical situation Literary style Valuable arguments Structure Literary criticism Dynastic promise Theological movement

13 13 13 14 16 19 22 23 23 23 25 26 27 27 27 27 28

2 THE REGNAL FORMULAE IN KINGS Recent Study of the Regnal Formulae Free Variation in the" Historian's Formulae Rigidity in the Exilic Editor's Formulae The CAm ha-'aTes and the Verdict Formulae

29 29 32 36 41

3 THE ADDITIONS OF THE EXILIC EDITOR AND THEIR DISTINCTIVE LINGUISTIC FEATURES Secondary Deuteronomistic Passages in Judges Judg. 2:1-5 Judg. 6:7-10 Formal similarities between Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10 Linguistic similarites 1. "But you have not listened" as an accusation 2. "The land which Yahweh swore to your fathers" 3-6. Tetrateuchal language 5

43 43 43 47 49 51 51 51 52

7. "To fear foreign gods" 8. "The gods of the Amorites" Secondary Passages in Kings Related to Those in Judges Structural similarities 2 Kings 17:7-20, 23b 9. h6q as "Customs" 10. gtr used alone for sinful sacrifice 11. Nouns qualified by quotations in clauses 12. cwd (warn) with Yahweh as subject 58 13. "My servants the prophets" 14. "The hosts of heaven" 15. "He removed (swr Hiphil) them from before him" 16. Dependence on Deut. 18:10 17. "Yahweh rejected (m's) Israel" 2 Kings 17:24-40 18. "Torah" in parallel with other legal terms 19. "Bow down and serve" 2 Kings 21:1-18 20. "I have set my name" 21. Identification of the election of Jerusalem with that of the Temple 22. "Vex" (kcs Hiphil) used absolutely 23. "Jerusalem and Judah" 24. "To bring evil upon" 25. The people as Yahweh's inheritance Other Secondary Passages in Kings 1 Kings 8:44-51 26. "The iron furnace" 1 Kings 9:6-9 In 2 Kings 22:15-20 27. "All the works of their hands" as idols In 2 Kings 23:1-30 2 Kings 23:31-25:30 Sources Editorial Technique Appendices The Exilic Editor outside Judges and Kings Deut. 4:19-20 Josh. 24:1-28

52 52 53 53 55 57 57 58 58

58 59 59 59 60 63 64 65 65 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 73 73 76 78 79 85 85 87 89 90 90 94

4 DYNASTIC ORACLE IN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC

HISTORY The Conditional Promises

99 99 6

The Unconditional Promises The Nathan oracle A Nir for David 1 Kings 11:29-39 The prophetic source The historian's contribution "But not forever" 1 Kings 15:4 and 2 Kings 8:19 5 TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF THE TWO DEUTERONOMISTS The Temper of Their Times The age of Josiah The early exile The Deuteronomistic history as royal propaganda The exilic edition as a doxology of judgment Four Theological Themes The ark The land Heroes and villains The Northern kingdom Some Conclusions

105 105 108 109 110 112 115 116 119 120 120 121 121 123 123 123 123 125 126 127

APPENDIX: ISAIAH'S PREDICTION OF A BABYLONIAN DISASTER 129 Notes Bibliography Index of Authors Index of Biblical References

133 151 167 171

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 The Biblical Archaeologist BA 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 die alttestamentliche BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschriftfur 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 Jewish Quarterly Review 3QR JSS Journal of Semitic Studies 3TS Journal of Theological Studies KEH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament KHC OTS Oudtestamentische Studie'n Palastinajahrbuch P3B 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 complex as a whole. The overall unity of this piece of historiography 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 historical 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 Dictionary 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 continues 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 becoming one of those rare "assured results of critical scholarship" 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 "antimonarchical" 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 kingship 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 presuppose 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 Merodachbaladan, 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 formula 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 catastrophe, 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 preexilic author cannot be distinguished from the later additions with certainty in every place" /13/. However, even in the ab15

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 concluded 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 information 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 Pentateuchal sources as far as Kings, but he did add his own personal touch by assigning the prophetic legends as a whole to the second 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 incorrect 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 themselves, 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 conditionalized the promises to David, altered the Huldah prophecy, and emphasized God's long-suffering and the theme of universalism. 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 Jehoiachin 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-Deuteronomistic 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 postredactional 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 discredited 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 redactor." 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 mentioned 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 discovered 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 addition, 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), differences 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 common 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 glossation, 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 dependence 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 remaining 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 situation in Joshua-Judges creates more problems than it solves. How are we to explain the dislocation of the historian's narrative 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 distinguishing 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 section of the history which is in a highly disturbed literary critical state and suggests that the center of gravity for any such attempt 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 second 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 convincing. 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 respective 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 multiple authorship. Alleged differences in language usage among the three redactors seem to be mostly the result of the differences in subject matter which caused them to be separated in the first place. A more fruitful line of study would start from genuinely contradictory 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 successors, 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 additions which changed the theological thrust of the original. Cross points out that the historian never repudiates the unconditional promise made to David's house. This theme reaches its climax in Josiah, the perfect Davidic king, and in his attempted 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 destruction 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 redaction 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 motivation 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 suggested 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 actually 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 annalistic 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 redactor 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 independence 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/. However, 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 hypothetical 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 formula is in serious doubt. The historical situation. Other common arguments are based upon the historical situation of the exile and the period immediately 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 immediately pre-exilic periods are therefore not particularly convincing. Literary style. A fourth argument is that the Deuteronomistic 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 lang26

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 Jerusalem as inevitable and the traces of a "second hand" detected by Wolff in Deuteronomy (Deut. 429-31; 30:1-10) /65/. Furthermore, 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 structure 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 further 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 (Chapter 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 dis27

Double Redaction of the Deuteronornistic History plays an ambiguous attitude about the Davidic dynasty. The unconditional 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 prototype 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 misunderstanding 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 unconditional 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 observations 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 situations (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 formulae, such as those of Noth /!/ or Fohrer /2/, show no perceptible 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, notices 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 formulae 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 differentiate 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 attempted to understand the historian's annalistic sources by an anaylsis of his regnal formulae. Being aware of the inconsistencies 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 confused 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 contributions 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 out30

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 ongoing 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 variations in the judgment formulae in Kings to a series of redactions. A block of verdicts from J.ehoshaphat to Pekah is assigned 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. Nevertheless, 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 Deuteronomistic 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 historian should not be overemphasized. These introductions and conclusions were no rubber-stamp affair. They display a fascinating 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 secondary 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 statements 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 following a "name-first" synchronism, the formula has its own wawconsecutive 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 arrangements 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 chronologically 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 disobedience, 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 expressions. 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 negatively /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 constituent 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 commonly "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 statement, "they are written in the book" /29/. Sometimes between this citation formula and the following death and burial formula, the editor remarks on some characteristic events of the reign /30/. The historian's presentation of the deaths, burials, and successors 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, Jeroboam 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, however, it is quite regular: "and he slept with his fathers." In contrast, 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. Sometimes 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 formulae, 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 accession 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 visible in the evaluation of the kings, where he juggled his stereotyped 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 variants for the queen mother notices (see above, p. 33). Since a historian writing in Josiah's day would still have had an introduction 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 editor 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 perfectly in harmony with this principle of variation (2 Kings 22:2). It is akin to those verdicts that employ both the "eyes" expression 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 commentary 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 common 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 negative 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 difference 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, rubberstamp 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 previous 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 un38

Two: Regnal Formulae in Kings motivated by anything except the historian's own compositional freedom. For example, we have already described how the inappropriate 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 significance of his own information in 2 Kings 23:31 and 24:18. A change from "brother" to "uncle" in order to correct the passage to what was obviously historically true is perfectly under39

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: Josiah's and Jehoiakim's* The other three kings were deposed and therefore did not receive any conclusion (p.29). These conclusions do not provide evidence either for or against the hypothesis. 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 conclusion /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. IV.THE 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 historically credible. However, we also read that Jehoahaz did evil, but this is a deviation from the regular practice of the historian. 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 haJ 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 misconception 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 Deuteronomy, 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, Manasseh. 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 negative 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 accusation 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 common. 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 previously 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 conquest was the result of sin, nor does it prepare us for a gathering 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 quotations 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 imperfect, wci'abt*. Many scholars fill in the beginning of this sentence 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 verbal 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 I brought you up Oacaleh) from Egypt and brought you to the land which I swore to your fathers. And I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And you, you shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land.

Exod. 3:17 I will bring you up Cacaleh) from the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites.

Exod. 34:12 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land.

45

Exod. 23:32 you shall not make a covenant with them.

Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History You shall break down their altars. But you have not listened to my voice. What is this you have done? And now I say, I will not drive them out from before you, but they shall be sides [sic] to you, and their gods shall be a snare for you.

Exod. 34:13 You shall break down their altars. Exod. 23:22 If you surely listen to his voice. Exod. 34:11 Exod. 23:30 Behold I will drive I will drive them out from before out from before you you lest it be a snare in your midst.

Exod. 23:33 It will be a snare 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 Yahweh will be an enemy to their enemies and exterminate the inhabitants 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 announcement 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 indictment 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 judgment (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 presumably 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 historian himself, who does not seem to have known the JE document 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, however, 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-Deuteronomistic book of Judges /23/, the abrupt transition between 7-10 and 11-24 does not seem to be the work of the Deuteronomic historian, whose transitions are smooth and whose over47

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 precedes 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 secondary 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 repetition of 6b in 7a is not the sign of a new source but of editorial 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 constructed Judg. 6:7-10 had the same habit of borrowing phrases that characterized the one who put together the angel's message 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 Thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you out from the house of bondage and I delivered you from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of all who oppressed you.

1 Sam. 10:18 Thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, I brought Israel up from Egypt and I delivered you from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of all the kingdoms 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 premonarchic cult was used by an editor to put the Gideon narratives into theological focus /30/. However, these similarities would seem to be of a literary nature (see the preceding paragraph 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 selfrevelation 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 ancient 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 presence 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 category of the historical review. Historical review exodus

Judg. 2;lb-3 I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you into the land which 49

Judg. 6;8b-10 I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you out of the house

Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History

quoted basis for the covenant

content of the covenant

I swore to give to your fathers.

of bondage; and I 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;

I said, "I will never break my covenant with you,

and I said to you, "I am Yahweh your God;

and you shall make no you shall not pay reverence to the covenant with the gods of the Amorites, inhabitants of this in whose land you land; you shall break "dwell." down their altars.

Accusation

But you have not listened to my voice. What is this you have done?

Announcement of judgment

So now I say, I will not drive them out...

But you have not listened to my voice.

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 twodimensional, 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 programmatic 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 passages in Judges, related as they are in structure, content, and theology, we find some expressions which are common throughout 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 further 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 passages, we shall begin to weave a web that eventually will entangle 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 sections 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 Deuteronomistic 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 accusation 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 reference 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 Deuteronomistic history, both secondary passages. The historian characterizes 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 historian. 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) precedes 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 your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes according to the whole law which I commanded your fathers and which I transmitted to you through my servants the

You shall not reverence other gods, nor bow down to them, nor sacrifice to them, but Yahweh who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great might and with an outstretched arm, him shall you reverence and to him shall you 53

And I shall no more let the foot of Israel wander from the land which I gave to their fathers, if only they will be careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to all the law which my servant Moses commanded

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 listen, but stiffened their necks more than their fathers.

But they did not listen, but continued to act according to their former manner.

But they did not listen, and Manasseh led them astray,

This habit of theological and literary style, derived ultimately from the prophetic genres that make up the structural taxonomy 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 redaction. 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 editor 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 passages 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 parallels, 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 second56

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 passages 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 convincing, 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 Deuteronomistic word for the statutes of God, used in parallel with mispat (Deut. 4:1, 5, 8, 14; 1 Kings 9:4), mis.wot (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 (v.ll). 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 negative 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 overlay of the Huldah prophecy (see pp.76ff.) and to an addition to the report of 3osiah's reforms (see pp.SOf.). 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 postJosianic 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 Deuteronomistic 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 popularity 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 and they caused their sons and daughter to pass through the fire and practiced divination and augury

Deut. 18:10-11 anyone who causes his son or daughter to pass through the fire who practices divination, a soothsayer or an augurer or who practices magic or casts spells or inquires of 'ob and yidd ec 5nim.

2Kings21;6b he caused his son to pass through the fire and practiced soothsaying and augury and dealt with 'oband 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 contacts 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 characteristic 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 completely harmonious with our conclusion that vv.21-23 is secondary 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 something 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 subsequent 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 chronology 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 historian, then 18:12 might be explained as merely a short, sermonic 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 importance as the first of the double disasters providing the motivating 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 mention 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 legomenon. Although this appellation is usually considered a sure sign of exilic or later authorship, presumably such an anachronism 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 expansion 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 Deuteronomistic 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 inclusive 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 remainder 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 regnal 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 revision of the history, he expanded Manasseh's sins and sermonized upon them in 3c-15, utilizing in the process some fragments 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 nowhere in his own prose. The two other occurrences of the expression 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 contrast, 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 argument 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 historian'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 supported 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 belonged 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 perhaps a few minor later additions /90/. The most cogent argument 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 secondary 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 container 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 reminds us of Baal-shamayim and of Amos 9:6 /104/. Turning from the introduction (14-29) to the petitions themselves (30-43), we again note how much more appropriate they are to a pre-exilic than to an exilic situation. It is not particularly 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. Therefore, some scholars are of the opinion that the so-called universalism 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 petition /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 influenced by his model, just as he was in the matter of the general 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 Assyrian practice /109/. Finally, vv.44 and 48 might be taken to mean that the Temple was still standing. However, the reference is clearly to the direction in which the Temple lies, not to the building itself. The situation in v.33 is materially different. 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 introduced 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 disappeared. 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. Although both sections are thoroughly Deuteronomistic in language 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 assuredly 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 disobedience 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 hegemony over Israel and without the suspect 6-9, actually fits perfectly 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 approval 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 support from examples of the second editor's usage present in 6-9 (examples 19 and 24). This conclusion is borne out by the dependence 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 Ail passing by... will say Why has Yahweh done thus to this land and to this house? And they will say, Because they forsook Yahweh their god who (las>er) brought their fathers out from the land of Egypt and they laid hold on other gods and worshipped them.

Deut. 29:24-25 All the nations will say Why has Yahweh done thus to this land? What means the heat of this great anger? And they will say, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the god of their fathers which CaSer) he made with them when he brought them out from the land of Egypt and they went and served other gods and worshipped them.

Jer. 22:8-9 Why has Yahweh done thus to this great city?

And they will say, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh their god

and worshipped other gods and 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 inadequate 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 similarity to an analogous report in 2 Kings 12:5-17, led some ambitious 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 Deuteronomistic 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 methodological 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 between 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 second 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 historian 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 historian and the second stratum the exilic editor. However, depending upon one's previous notions on the question of dual editorship, 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 historian 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 Deuteronomistic 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 assumption 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 judgment 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, es79

Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History pecially if those verses exhibit the "annalistic waw perfect". Verses which, according to these criteria, are from the historian'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 perfects 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 narrative source. Following Oestreicher, Meyer used his grammatical 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 attributed 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 includes 4bb-5 at least, extend? V.4ba goes beyond the function 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 Jerusalem with information about the provinces and the discussion of idolatry with the subject of non-central Yahwism. Vv.Sa 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. Vv.Sa 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 consecution 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 understood as the basic annalistic information on Bethel to which the historian attached his further comments in 16-18. The irregularities 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 redactional 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 suggests 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 portrayal 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 interposition 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 awkward. 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 adamantly 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 scholars 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 provided 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 evidence, we may summarize by assigning to the Deuteronomistic 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 Deuteronomistic 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 Jehoiakim'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 historian'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 redaction 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 Deuteronomistic 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 theologically 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 narratives 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 redactional 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 removal 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 perhaps 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 included 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 narrative 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 prophecyfulfillment schema discussed above, a genuine one is represented 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 imitated 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 together 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 imitation 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 actually 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 supposedly 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 elsewhere 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 primarily 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 singular 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 structural 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 retrospection, 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 Deuteronomistic 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 critical 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 prohibition 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 plural, Deut. 4:19 still takes an approach to the subject of idolatry 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 successive 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 optimism 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 addition 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 Deuteronomistic 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 untenable. 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 v.ll, 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 circular 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 advanced to demonstrate the secondary nature of Josh. 24 in its present context. While Josh. 24 is not the work of the Deuteronomistic historian, 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 Deuteronomistic construct of exilic origin" because of what he considered to be its historical impossibility /176/, the vast majority of commentators have recognized a pre-Deuteronomistic core in Josh. 24:1-27 overlaid by some Deuteronomistic additions/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 relationship to the language of Judg. 2:1-5 and 6:7-10 that we are interested. In any case, the traditional kernel was not substantially 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. V.ll 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 glossator. 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 Deuteronomistic 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 consideration. 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 reference 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 examples 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 predecessor'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 historian), 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 impossibility 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 announcement 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 punishment 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 probably 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 chapter. 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 explanation, 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 Deuteronomistic 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 historian's task of historiography and his real opinion of the monarchy. 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. Jeroboam'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 history. 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 reverse 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 original 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 something 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 transformation of the concept of conditionality into the dominant 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 obedience 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 redactional 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 importance 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 importance 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 specifically 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 himself, 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 conditional 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, Jeroboam, 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 clarification of 9:4-5 that it is exclusively Solomon's obedience that is under consideration (and not the piety of his successors) indicates 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 disobedience 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, however, the historian could easily have used a less misleading expression 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 division of the united kingdom because of Solomon's sin, Jeroboam'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 historian 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 personal 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 concerning the dominion over Judah and Jerusalem which are dependent only upon the faithfulness of Yahweh. The conditional 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 impossible here /I I/. It seems clear that the oracle has an overarching 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 transition 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 placement 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 v.lla, 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 Deuteronomistic 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 following prayer, which reflects the content of the rest of the oracle, does not mention 13a. Vv.lib-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 consensus. 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 readings. 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 unconditional. 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). Eventually, 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 unambiguously 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 (remnant) at 15:4 /24/. Usually nir has been taken as being equivalent 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' confusion, 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' suggestion, 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 development of the medial vowel letters, the yodh was not inserted 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 throughout his reign (v.21) and not just in his old age as the Deuteronomistic context suggests. The absence of the formula of 14a and 23a for Jeroboam could mean that 26-28,40 have a different 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, however, 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 consistently 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 solutions. 1. The one tribe referred to in 32 is Benjamin, which remained 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 mathematical 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 accepts, 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 imagine 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 narrative 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 assume, 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 nature of Yahweh's promise to the Davidic dynasty. Traces of the prophetic narrative source remain in 29-31 and 34a. In contrast, 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 require 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 connected or whether something has dropped out cannot be determined, 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, postponement 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 (31) Behold, I am going to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes, (32) but he will have one tribe for the sake of (lemacan) my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen from all the 113

Delay (35) But I will take the kingship from the hand of his son and will give it to you, ten tribes, (36) but to his son I will give one tribe so (lemacan) there might be a nfr for David in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen to put my name

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 provided 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 imitation 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 theology. 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 demonstrate 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 promise 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, Jeroboam immediately flunked the test, as the historian soon points out. "But not forever". V.39 indicates that the loss of the Northern 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 postexilic 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), Hezekiah'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 wawconsecutive imperfect, but this would leave us with an alternation 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 secondary 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 contrary 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 erroneous 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 "however" or "nevertheless", but Noth insisted that the J