Old Testament and Higher Criticism: Deuteronomistic History

* This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch. 

REVIEW OF “DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY” IN ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY

2014

 

Steven McKenzie has written the entry “Deuteronomistic History” for the Anchor Bible Dictionary.[1]  McKenzies traces out the origins and development of the concept of Deuteronomistic History (DH) which is the name used to denote the section of the Old Testament consisting of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings.  

The theory of DH finds its genesis in the 1943 work of Martin Noth.  Noth argued that the DH was the composition of a single author who lived in the middle 6^thcentury B.C.  The DH is to be dated to around shortly 562 B.C. and, although it uses some sources, there is no evidence of a history of redaction in the DH.  The purpose for which the DH was written is found in the needs of the exiled community.  “The Dtr [the author of the DH] addressed his contemporaries in Babylonian exile, his purpose being entirely negative: to show them that their sufferings were fully deserved consequences of centuries of decline in Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh.”[2]  The author of the DH selected various traditions appropriate to his purposes and structured his writing in such a manner so as to suit his theological purposes.  Noth’s view of the DH accepted the prevailing regarding the non-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy and its attendant belief that Deuteronomy was composed sometime around the reign of Josiah in the 7^thcentury.  As will be noted below, some of Noth’s theses regarding the DH have been modified but his main thesis regarding the literary unity of Deuteronomy—Kings has achieved “almost canonical status” in Old Testament studies.[3]

Subsequent scholars have modified Noth’s views on the DH.  Whereas Noth saw the author of the DH’s purpose as exclusively negative others themes of grace (von Rad) or a more sophisticated pattern of apostasy, punishment, repentance, and deliverance (H. W. Wolff).  Other scholars have challenged Noth’s views on the composition and date of the DH.  Noth attributed the DH to a single author but others have seen a larger number involved in what is called the “Deuteronomistic School” encompassing various stages of development in the DH over the course of about a century. Another variation is to posit various editors (redactors).  One proponent of this redactional viewpoint, W. Dietrich, alleged three redactors all dated in the 6^thcentury B.C.  

Some more recent scholars have gone back to Noth’s view regarding a single author of the DH.  Both B. Peckham and J. Van Seters argue for this perspective but they also reduced the vast amount of the DH to “essentially a fictional history of Israel’s cult by an exilic or postexilic author.”[4]  Although this is the most radical view in terms of failing to recognize a historical reality behind the narrative all the views building on Noth in support of the DH render the writing of the book of Deuteronomy a 6-7^thcentury creation rather than a 15^thcentury document from the time of the events it purports to narrate.

Some of the scholars holding to the idea of the DH as a distinct literary unit have done valuable work in pointing out the common themes across this wide array of books.  There are intra-canonical themes and echoes that are readily apparent.  Whether this justifies denying an earlier dating of the book of Deuteronomy is another matter. A number of indicators demonstrate that the dating of the book of Deuteronomy fits an earlier date than that posited by the defenders of the DH.  Only a few such indicators will be broached here.

First, the book of Deuteronomy has greater affinities with Hittite treaty structure stemming from the 14^thcentury B.C. than is does the Assyrian treaty of Esarhaddon which is dated around 700 B.C.  As Gordon Wenham writes,

It is again striking how the arrangement of material in Deuteronomy resembles early collections of law rather than the later Middle Assyrian laws or neo-Babylonian laws, both admittedly incomplete.  However, this would again appear to point to the antiquity of Deuteronomy rather than its lateness.[5]

 

            Second, Bruce Waltke has shown that ANE cultures preserved their cultural heritage through written texts and not through oral traditions subject to alteration.[6]  This by itself does not prove an early date for Deuteronomy but it does provide a historical context which makes such a date reasonable.

            Third, some of the specific legislation in Deuteronomy fits an early date better than a later date.  Gordon Wenham specifically mentions various marriage laws:

However the large group of laws on sex and marriage in Deuteronomy 22 do seem closer to second-millennium legal requirements than to what we know of Jewish practice in the late fifth century BC.  This is strange if Deuteronomy were only written a century or two earlier.[7]

 

            Fourth, Deuteronomy omits key details that would have been timely and important to mention if the book is written during the time of Josiah.  Eugene Merrill mentions the crucial issue of Jerusalem as the central sanctuary in this connection:

Deuteronomy is striking by not only what is says, but also what it omits or covers over.  A notable example is the lack of any reference at all to Jerusalem, to say nothing of its being the location of the central sanctuary… A scribe writing in the seventh century B.C.E. could hardly resist the temptation to mention Jerusalem as the Mosaic cult center if he was trying to fabricate a “Mosaic” document.”[8]

 

            For these and other reasons the case for the DH and its attendant corollary of a late date for Deuteronomy is not sustained.  The DH as a scholarly construct ought to be looked upon with suspicion and handled with critical care lest some of its unjustified assumptions be too easily ingested. 

---

     [1]Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD2:160-168.

     [2]McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” 161.

     [3]McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” 161.

     [4]McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” 165.

     [5]Gordon Wenham, “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism,”Themelios 10 (1985), 19.

     [6]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer(ed. Walter C. Kaiser and Ronald F. Youngblood; Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [7]Gordon Wenham, “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism [part two]”, Themelios11 (1985), 17.

     [8]Eugene H. Merrill, “Deuteronomy and de Wette: A Fresh Look at a Fallacious Premise,” JESOT1 (2012), 35-36.