The Deuteronomistic Historian and the Chronicler’s History
In the past several decades, scholars have debated the nature of Old Testament historical writing, as well as the noticeable disparity of presentation between the books of Joshua-Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles (and Ezra-Nehemiah). The discussion is ongoing, but a summary of the arguments, conclusions, and consensuses is possible in this study.
History of the debate
Scholars have long recognized the differences between the presentations of the historical events (a.k.a. historiography) in Samuel/Kings and Chronicles. The differences are many and obvious. Beyond some chronological discrepancies, the major differences are in the presentation of events, differences that certainly stem from theological differences. After a brief discussion of the history of the discussion of the Deuteronomistic Historian, these notes will return to the theologies of the two works.
In the twentieth century, the debate reached a climax with Martin Noth’s The Deuteronomistic History.[1] As E. W. Nicholson wrote in the Foreword to the English version,
This is a “classic” work in the sense that it still remains the fundamental study of the corpus of literature with which it is concerned, and still provides, as far as the majority of scholars are concerned, the basis \and framework for further investigation of the composition and nature of this corpus. … [Despite debates on some matters,] Noth’s study remains the fundamental work.[2]
Noth argued that Deuteronomy-2 Kings was the product of a single author (group?), who worked in the mid-sixth century BC.[3] This date is based upon the date of 562 BC at the end of 2 Kings. The Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr[4]) was not simply an author; rather he collected many earlier traditions into his work. The DH began with the book of Deuteronomy, although the laws of Dt. 4-30 were likely incorporated in a state close to the final form. Furthermore, a few sections of the work were likely added subsequent to the work of Dtr, although discussion of those additions and the literary history of the work is beyond the scope of this course. The historical narratives of Joshua-2 Kings were based upon the laws of Deuteronomy, and thus the historiography is influenced by the expectations of those laws, especially the call for kings to be faithful and for all legitimate worship to take place at the temple in Jerusalem.
Richard Nelson surmised that the final form of DH consisted “roughly of Joshua 1-12, 23; Judges 2-16; 1 Samuel 1 through 2 Samuel 20; and all of 1 and 2 Kings,” with the other sections of the history added later. The climax of DH is clearly the reform movement of Josiah.[5] After the short-lived reform, the nation quickly spiraled to disaster and destruction at the hands of the Babylonians. The connection of DH to Josiah also affects the debate concerning the literary history of the work. Many scholars argue that at least two editions of DH were created, one during the Josianic reform, 626-609 BC, and the other in the sixth century, after 562 BC.[6]
Before moving on to the theological themes of DH and Chronicles, the deficiencies of the DH theory should be mentioned. Howard argued that the primary deficiencies are the negative theme of the work and the creation of a Tetrateuch that is neither literarily or canonically viable.[7] Noth argued that the primary purpose of DH was to explain the overthrow of Judah by Babylon. Other scholars have suggested other, more positive themes, however, such as the ongoing promise to David as a word of hope.[8] Scholars still debate the nature of the connection between Deuteronomy and the first four books of the Pentateuch. As Howard concluded, one need not posit a sixth century origin for Deuteronomy in order to agree with Noth’s basic conclusions concerning the literary production of Joshua-2 Kings. “The (DH) author’s relationship with the earlier materials (of the tradition) is more difficult to judge, but his work certainly is of a piece with the books of Joshua, Judges, and 1 & 2 Samuel (and Deuteronomy), both in terms of style and outlook, and it is perhaps possible to speak of him as the ‘author.’”[9] The discussion of themes will now follow.
The theology of the Deuteronomistic History
Noth argued that Dtr discovered the meaning of the history of Israel to be “that God was reconisably (sic) at work in this history, continuously meeting the accelerating moral decline with warnings and punishments and, finally, when these proved fruitless, with total annihilation.”[10] He supported this negative assessment of the theology of DH in several ways. First, the history demonstrates that the people were committed to an “unbroken loyalty to God,” and that the history shows a continual disloyalty. Second, the emphasis on worship in DH is primarily concerned with “various possible forms of deviation” from the proper worship of God. Furthermore, Deuteronomy promised destruction for disobedience, a reality for Dtr. Noth argued that the reader should not interpret the final verses of 2 Kings as predicting a positive future for Jehoiachin and Judah.[11]
Other scholars have questioned this completely negative assessment of the theology of DH. Frank Moore Cross argued that the pre-exilic Josianic editions of DH contained two contrasting themes. The first was the sin of Jeroboam and its resulting punishment. The second was the ongoing promise to David and his heirs. Josiah cleansed the Jerusalem temple and destroyed the shrine founded by Jeroboam. Threat existed, as it always had, but the promise to David endured. However, Cross posited that the exilic edition of DH (550 BC) emphasizes the sins of Manasseh as a cause for final judgment for Judah, only delayed by the faithfulness of Josiah.[12] Nelson agreed with Cross, further emphasizing that “time after time the nation’s repentance leads to forgiveness from the Lord and restoration,” exhibited especially in the Book of Judges and Solomon’s dedicatory prayer in 1 Kings 8.[13] The themes of threat and promise are both present in DH, with threat overshadowing promise because of the continuing failure of Israel and Judah to obey God. One might suggest that the Jehoiachin narrative that closes DH gives the document an overall positive feel.
Gerhard von Rad wrote extensively about the theology of DH.[14] His first extensive mention of DH in Old Testament Theology, he stated, “the sum-total of this Deuteronomistic historical work is that Israel, possessed as she already was of all the good gifts of salvation, chose death.”[15] Yet, von Rad tempers this negative assessment of DH when he states that in the narratives the “word of Jahweh (sic)” functioned in history as law, which operated destructively, and gospel, which operated as salvation.[16] God’s word was delivered by Joshua, by judges, by Samuel, by David and Solomon, and by many prophets. Nelson also emphasized the role of the spoken word, in prophecy and fulfillment pairs and in speeches at important points in the history, such as Josh. 1, Josh. 23, 1 Sam. 12, and 1 Kings 8.[17] For von Rad, the final word of Dtr is that even the events of 587 BC do not represent an end for God’s people. Hope always exists in repentance and return to God.
Nelson argued that the main theological theme of DH is the doctrine of divine punishment and reward derived from Deuteronomy. The primary sins were apostasy and disloyalty, although even these could be forgiven if the people were repentant and returned to fidelity. Apostasy and disloyalty are emphasized by two themes in DH, worship of other gods and worship at any site other than the temple in Jerusalem. Of course, Manasseh’s sin became intolerable to God and resulted in the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, especially after the failure of Josiah’s reform.[18]
Coming to conclusions concerning the composition of DH will always be tenuous, and the options of both Noth, Cross, and others are equally plausible. In fact, as Richter pointed out, scholarly opinion is divided on the matter now.[19] Equally difficult is determining the exact relationship of the history recorded in Chronicles with DH, and to that topic the study will now turn briefly.
The Theology of the Chronicler’s History
“The Chronicler’s History” is a phrase used to describe the biblical books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, usually combined with Ezra and Nehemiah. The Chronicler is the presumed author of this work. Scholars debate whether Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah existed separately or were created as a single work. However, since Ezra-Nehemiah is beyond the chronological framework of DH, the debate is beyond the scope of this study.
Since Noth wrote the definitive work on DH, his companion volume, The Chronicler’s History,[20] warrants discussion at this point. Like Dtr, the Chronicler also saw the history in terms of his times. Contemporary issues drove the creation of the history. Noth argued that the primary interest of the Chronicler’s history was “to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty and of the Jerusalem temple as Yahweh’s valid cult centre (sic).”[21] Von Rad echoed this opinion when he asked, “What does [the Chronicler’s history] contain apart from David?”[22] He also wrote, “The Chronicler wrote in order to legitimate cultic offices founded by David, and in so doing he showed himself to be a representative of the messianic tradition as such.”[23] In Noth’s view, the role of temple and cult was secondary to the importance of David. He argued that the conflict between Jewish Jerusalem and the Samaritans during the post-exilic period was the background of this historical narrative.[24]
A list of the differences between DH and the Chronicler’s history would be lengthy. For the purposes of this study, a summary of four major differences given by Peter Enns will suffice.[25] First, Chronicles greatly diminishes the sins of David. The author of Chronicles does not David’s sin with Bathsheba. David and Solomon are “glorified figures.” As such, they have become “‘messianic’ figures, models of ideal kingship who embodied the hopes of the returnees.” Von Rad echoed this sentiment when he wrote, “The David of Chronicles is a spotless holy king who delivers solemn oration. He and his sons do not rule in Israel, but in the ‘kingdom of Jahweh’ (1 Chr. 23:5)—according to 1 Chr. 29:23 Solomon occupies “the throne of Jahweh.’”[26]
The second difference, according to Enns, is that Chronicles emphasizes the unity of God’s people. All the people supported Solomon’s succession to power. The need for unity in the post-exilic period was paramount to avoid dividing into factions. Third, Chronicles emphasizes the temple and Solomon’s role in building it. The pre-exilic kings failed to live up to their responsibilities to maintain proper worship—a failure that the post-exilic community needed to avoid. Fourth, the Chronicler emphasizes “immediate retribution.” Further, this history stresses individual, rather than corporate, responsibility for sin. Von Rad argued that the Chronicler wanted to “hammer home to his readers … that each generation stands immediately before Jahweh, and stands or falls with its anointed.”[27] Enns posited that the post-exilic community needed to recognize that they were responsible for their own sins, not the sins of their ancestors.[28] The present theological study will return to these and other differences between DH and the Chronicler’s History, but these will suffice for this introductory presentation.
[1] Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). Originally published as Schriften der Knonigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, in 1943. The English version is a translation of Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957).
[2] E. W. Nicholson, foreword to Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, ix.
[3] The discussion of this paragraph is a summary of Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 1-25.
[4] Dtr = Deuteronomistic Historian; DH = Deuteronomistic History; Dt = Deuteronomy.
[5] Richard D. Nelson, The Historical Books, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 68.
[6] See The Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), s.v. “Deuteronomistic History,” by S. L. Richter, for a brief but thorough discussion of these issues, as well as bibliography.
[7] David M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), 78, 179-182.
[8] See, for example, see F. M. Cross, “The Themes of the Books of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 274-289 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 277 and passim.
[9] Howard, 182.
[10] Noth, 89.
[11] Ibid., 89-99. Noth concluded that the lack of promise for the future of Judah placed Dtr outside of the official circles of Judah. Thus, DH “was probably the independent project of a man whom the historical catastrophes he witnessed had inspired with curiosity about the meaning of what had happened, and who tried to answer this question in a comprehensive and self-contained historical account, using those traditions concerning the history of his people to which he had access (99).
[12] Cross, 278-289.
[13] Nelson, 69.
[14] Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, trans. D. M. G Stalker (New York: Harper and Row, 1962, 306-347.
[15] Ibid., 126.
[16] Ibid., 344.
[17] Nelson, 71-72.
[18] Ibid., 73-74.
[19] Dictionary of Historical Books, s.v. “Deuteronomistic History.”
[20] Originally published in 1943, along with The Deuteronomistic History, the English translation appeared in 1987. Martin Noth, The Chronicler’s History, trans. H. G. M Williamson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987, 2001).
[21] Ibid., 100.
[22] Von Rad, 350.
[23] Ibid., 352.
[24] Ibid., 100-101.
[25] Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 84-85.
[26] Von Rad, 350.
[27] Ibid., 349.
[28] As a brief rejoinder, however, one should note the emphasis in both Jeremiah an Ezekiel on individual responsibility, suggesting that this was a concern much earlier than the Chronicler. Perhaps the author of Chronicles was a product of his time, reflecting the newfound emphasis upon the individual’s role before God.