Portrait of the Kings

The Davidic Prototype in Deuteronomistic Poetics

Alison L. Joseph

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN:
  9781451465662
• eBook ISBN:
  9781451469585
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Much of the scholarship on the book of Kings has focused on questions of the historicity of the events described. Alison L. Joseph turns her attention instead to the literary characterization of Israel's kings. By examining the narrative techniques used in the Deuteronomistic History to portray Israel's kings, Joseph shows that the Deuteronomist in the days of the Josianic Reform constructed David as a model of adherence to the covenant, and Jeroboam, conversely, as the ideal opposite of David. The redactor further characterized other kings along one or the other of these two models. The resulting narrative functions didactically, as if instructing kings and the people of Judah regarding the consequences of disobedience. Attention to characterization through prototype also allows Joseph to identify differences between pre-exilic and exilic redactions in the Deuteronomistic History, bolstering and also revising the view advanced by Frank Moore Cross. The result is a deepened understanding of the worldview and theology of the Deuteronomistic historians.

2

The Historiographical Poetics of the Preexilic Deuteronomist

Since the work of Benedict Spinoza in the late seventeenth century,^[1] biblical critics have discussed the connection between the book of Deuteronomy and the historical books of the Former Prophets. For almost four centuries, scholars have considered the issues relating to the Deuteronomistic History along the lines of three topics: the identity and dating of the author(s), the process and date of the formation of the books, and the coherence of the books to each other and their connection with Deuteronomy.^[2] Depending where scholars fall on the first two sets of issues usually determines how they view the unity of the books. More recently, there have been scholars who suggest an ultimate lack of consistency among the books and have disavowed the existence of a Deuteronomistic History. These issues come together in understanding the role of Dtr in the compilation of the history and are essential to consider in the discussion of Dtr’s historiographical poetics.

W. M. L. de Wette, at the turn of the nineteenth century, is the first to use the term “deuteronomic” to describe the historical books. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings reveal, more or less, an ideology that values and alludes to (explicitly and implicitly) the law of Deuteronomy. The debate over the (dis)unity of these books has a long historical precedent, focused on theological connections. In this work, I will provide a historiographical assessment of the book of Kings. Before diving into this conversation, it is necessary to clarify when the historian is situated, addressing two major concerns: the dating and extent of redactional levels and Dtr’s historiographical process. Over the past two centuries since de Wette, several redaction theories have developed.

While scholars certainly dealt with these issues during the intervening century since de Wette, the contemporary history of the scholarship on the Deuteronomistic History primarily takes as its starting point the work of Martin Noth.^[3] Although scholars may agree, disagree, or tweak Noth’s theses, they all contend with him. Building on the established work of de Wette, Heinrich Ewald, Abraham Kuenen, Julius Wellhausen, and others, Noth looks beyond the layers of redaction and attempts to derive a description of the historiography of the Deuteronomistic History.^[4] He addresses the questions about the coherence and consistency of the history, laying out an organizational literary plan for the work of Dtr. Noth includes authorial artistry and narrative intentions in the conversation about the concept of “deuteronomism,” and identifies the use of vocabulary and phrases uncommon to the Tetrateuch. Noth sees Dtr as an author, with a singular perspective and characteristic linguistic usage.

Noth derives a structure that focuses on the literary unity of the history, the framework that Dtr used to organize and bring together the disparate traditions.^[5] He presents a Dtr who is involved with compilation and composition, creating an intentional unity within the history. In no uncertain terms, Noth declares that “Dtr. was not merely an editor but the author of a history which brought together material from highly varied traditions and arranged it according to a carefully conceived plan.”^[6] This also leads to the integration of the ideology of Deuteronomy and the question of the consistency of the books. In this way, Noth’s Dtr incorporated deuteronomic law and then added other sources, organizing and shaping them, and including his own evaluations (often through speeches by major characters) at important points in the history. Noth appeals to Dtr as author and redactor, asserting a unity of composition. Yet he acknowledges that inconsistencies in perspective exist within the history, which he attributes to Dtr’s original source document. But he also contends that unity exists for Dtr as author in shaping and composing the history according to his own design.

I accept several of Noth’s arguments. I view Dtr as an intentional author and redactor, one who seriously considered the use of his sources and the older traditions they reflected, while also (re)interpreting them within his unique theological perspective.^[7] Where I differ from Noth, most specifically, is in the dating of his Dtr. Noth describes the work of a single historian, writing and redacting following the fall of Judah. This historical situation influences a history of Israel that is thoroughly negative. Instead, I see a two-stage redaction (similar to Frank Moore Cross’s theory) in which these redactors worked. And while I do not deny Noth’s emphasis on the use of speeches as Dtr’s mode of interpreting history,^[8] I derive a historiographical method that is more complex in substance and form. This chapter will describe the historiographical process of the preexilic Deuteronomist in Kings. Following that description, I will apply the method to a case study in 1 Kings 11. This analysis provides important insight into the questions of composition and selection, highlighting the theological and literary priorities of the historian. The historiographical poetics integrates many of the ideas of the vast and long scholarship on DtrH and presents it in a systematic and prescriptive way.

The Historiographical Poetics of the Deuteronomist

The work of the preexilic Deuteronomist in Kings functions on two different axes. The first is the axis of selection, which includes the methodological priorities that guide Dtr in his choice and redaction of sources. These priorities are threefold: Dtr attempts to find balance among (1) reporting the historical events that occurred and staying true to the sources that he possesses describing those events, likely those from the royal archives (this is a commitment to a source tradition); (2) loyalty to the prophetic tradition; and (3) the organizational strategies used for incorporating these sources, through the ordering of episodes.

The second axis is one of composition, rhetoric, and formation. The following compositional strategies are used: (1) promoting the deuteronomistic programmatic agenda, (2) attribution of historico-political events to theological causes, and (3) the use of a Davidic prototype strategy. The subsequent chapters will consider the narrative accounts of a few specific kings, and these priorities will be explored in each narrative. Those texts will be mined for understanding how Dtr as author and redactor worked in constructing these narratives.

The Axis of Selection

Scholarly Commitment to His Sources

Dtr has a “scholarly” approach to his sources or, as Baruch Halpern describes it, an “antiquarian” interest.^[9] Similarly, Noth calls Dtr an “honest broker,” one who “had no intention of fabricating the history of the Israelite people. He wished to . . . base it upon the material to which he had access.”^[10] Dtr consults his sources and reports what he finds in them, even adopting them wholesale and integrating them into his larger account. He will include accounts and events even when they are in conflict, because he is committed to preserving them.

In Halpern’s discussions of the ways in which Dtr uses his sources, he suggests that while they were likely influenced by ideological, theological, and political views, the ancient authors had “authentic intentions. They meant to furnish fair and accurate representations of Israelite antiquity.”^[11] It was with this in mind that the historians attempted to give an account of a coherent sequence of past events. Halpern offers the example of the relationship between Judges 4 and 5 to demonstrate this “antiquarian interest” and how Dtr uses his sources.^[12] Halpern illustrates that in his attempt to be as precise and accurate as possible in his interpretation of his source, Dtr misreads the poetic parallelism in Judges 5 and instead of seeing two parallel images interprets them as two disparate objects (e.g., Judg. 5:26, “She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet” is misinterpreted in the prose version in 4:21 as two separate items).^[13] This misinterpretation of biblical figurative language is demonstrative of the great pains to which the Deuteronomistic Historian (the author/redactor of the Judges 4 and 5 pericope) went in order to accurately render the information in his sources.

Dtr attempts to compose a history based on sources, whether those are the ones that he cites, for example, the annals of the kings, or others. Halpern describes this process as “imagination based on evidence.”^[14] I agree with Halpern, who contends that the history writer’s intention is to “lead the reader to believe that the work is a valid representation of the past.”^[15] This does not necessarily mean that the past represented in any given account is an accurate historical portrayal, but that the author intends to present the information as true and that the reader believes that it is legitimate. This strategy is essential to the success of the history and its goal of religious inculcation; in order to promote his deuteronomistic agenda, the historian must make his reader believe the accuracy of the historical account. This is true for the writing and function of all history. Historian Johan Huizinga, in an essay on the philosophy of history, states that “history gives no more than a particular representation of a particular past, an intelligible picture of a portion of the past.”^[16] Historiography, as an intellectual activity, is the attempt to impose form and interpret what happens in the world. Similarly, in a helpful and rarely addressed way, John Van Seters deals with the issue of the quest for historical writing in In Search of History.^[17]

In Kings, the imperative to represent the history of Israel accurately is often at odds with the other priorities of Dtr’s historiographical goals, but he does not omit events or characters that complicate those aims.^[18] For example, had Dtr not possessed texts depicting a positive picture of Jeroboam would he have included an initially positive view? It is particularly interesting to consider this historiographical priority in contrast to those of the Chronicler. For example, in Chronicles, the David account is wholly positive and the northern kingdom is never acknowledged as legitimate. The Chronicler is not beholden to his historical sources to the same degree as the Deuteronomist and omits narratives or pieces of information that are not helpful or that are even detrimental to his overall goals in writing his narrative.

Despite this commitment to his sources, reflecting the thoroughness of a historian, there are countervailing forces at work in the process of selection. On the one hand, it seems, in some instances, as if Dtr does not quite have a choice in selection—everything must be included, therefore this is not really a process of selection at all. On the other hand, we do know that Dtr does not include in his narrative everything he possesses of the historical record. A common refrain is the deuteronomistic formulaic closing to the reigns of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table Of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• The Davidic Prototype in Deuteronomistic Poetics
• The Historiographical Poetics of the Preexilic Deuteronomist
• David, “Who Observed My Commandments and Who Followed Me with All His Heart, Doing Only What Was Right in My Eyes”
• Jeroboam “Who Caused Israel to Sin”
• Josiah: “No One Arose Like Him”
• Manasseh, “Who Did More Evil than All . . . Who Were Before Him”: A Counterexample
• Conclusion: “There Shall Be a King over Us”
• Bibliography
• Index of Authors and Subjects
• Index of Scriptural References