Deuteronomistic History
The Deuteronomistic History, also known as the is the name of the hypothetical implementation of which would be the extracted originally Deuteronomy , fifth book of the Pentateuch , and the passages of historical books , part of the Old Testament immediately following the Deuteronomy, which have a similarity with the latter stylistic or theological. These are the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings. In exegesis , the abbreviation HD is sometimes used.
The study of the Deuteronomistic History was held in conjunction with the documentary hypothesis , which asserts that the Pentateuch is the assembly of individual pieces corresponding to the different literary styles of the final work. The last quarter of the twentieth century saw the abandonment of the documentary hypothesis in the strict sense, but the existence of a Deuteronomistic style is consensus among scholars , although various theories are competing to explain his presence in the Tanak.
Summary |
Existence of texts outside the Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy
Position ambiguous Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy is a book that has a double place:
- He is considered the conclusion of the Pentateuch ;
- it is the introduction to historical books, especially the book of Joshua.
This dual position has caused many debates. Some scholars, emphasizing its position as a book of the Pentateuch, proposed to include also the book of Joshua (forming a Hexateuch) or all of the historical books (and when speaking of ennateuque).
Other researchers gave preference to its position as an introduction to Joshua, excluding it from the Pentateuch and then speaking Tetrateuch.
Echoes reciprocal
From Spinoza , it appeared that some texts of Deuteronomy announcing the possibility of the destruction of Jerusalem, echoing the divine wrath in the later books. In the nineteenth century , the existence of common themes was recognized and Heinrich Ewald , while defending the idea of a Hexateuch, spoke for a double Deuteronomistic writing in the historical books.
Thesis of Martin North
Martin North is the first attempt to give a coherent explanation for these similarities. He rejects as 1938 the idea of a Hexateuch and asserts that the documents used in the Pentateuch are not present in the book of Joshua. He explains his theory in 1942 , in full World War II. Commentators believe that the late events of the time were strongly influenced Noth.
In theory nothienne, the similarities between Deuteronomy and the historical books are explained by the existence of a Deuteronomistic history written by a single author, Deuteronomy (often abbreviated as DTR). Besides his editorial work, this author has incorporated various ancient traditions, sometimes at odds with his own theses.
Noth establishes the limits of the Deuteronomistic History in the Bible between current Dt 1-3 which was a prequel to the original Deuteronomy (Noth being a supporter of the documentary hypothesis ) and 2 R 25, which describes the rehabilitation of Yoyakm in exile. For North, the latter was the last known writer and history deutromiste have been written shortly after -562.
The explanation for the drafting of the Deuteronomistic History is the will of the author to explain the fall of Israel and deported by disobedience to YHWH and therefore a divine sanction.
Finally, the Deuteronomistic Noth place in Palestine , and portrays him as a personality beyond a solitary official circuit. This portrait was soon challenged and attributed to the context of the time. This does not fundamentally question the arguments developed by Noth and his theory enjoyed a major success since 1957.
Evolution theory nothienne
Many modifications to the theory of Martin North have been proposed. Nevertheless, two main schools, and competing, were created: the model of two blocks that were, and still has in its modern versions, for the Anglo-Saxon scholars and the position of the school of Gttingen who has the benefit of scholars German and French. Besides these two major developments, it is also worth noting the arguments of scholars reject the very existence of a Deuteronomistic History.
Martin Noth's theory has weaknesses, since it leaves some unanswered items. First, it did not explain the two opposing visions of royalty provided in the Deuteronomistic texts: a flaming vision of the monarchy first, a negative blaming him into exile then. Furthermore, additions were made to the original Deuteronomistic history and it was possible that these additions were not independent of each other but the result of a unique purpose.
Model of the two blocks
Frank Moore Cross , followed by exegetical school Anglo-Saxon, proposed a new model explaining the current Deuteronomistic History by writing into two blocks.
First a Drafting happened during the reign of Josiah and presenting it as a model who restored the worship in its pure form, substantially altered worship by King Jeroboam. Then a second author (designated by the abbreviation Dtr ) complete history in exile, explaining it by the divine vengeance at the failure of the successors of Josiah.
For Cross, the second Deuteronomistic had hardly changed the first block, but his successors have found several mentions in exile with the initial block. They attribute it naturally changes made by the second author.
This hypothesis, called the two model blocks or crossienne theory was very popular in Anglo-Saxon, and today still many followers.
Theory of successive layers
This modification of Noth's theory was first presented in 1971 by Rudolf Smend. He explained the presence of many passages apparently added to the Deuteronomistic History by a second goal in writing directed to focus on obedience to law.
Thus Smend offers two editors: the Deuteronomistic historian, noted DtrH, corresponding roughly to the author would have realized that Noth's a first version of the story, and the Deuteronomistic economist, noted DTR, which would have reworked the book to the end of exile or in the years that followed.
Walter Dietrich modified this theory by adding a third editor, Deuteronomy prophetically noted DtrP amending the text by adding in the Deuteronomistic History various pieces focusing on the prophets, like Elijah and Elisha.
Various other versions of this theory have emerged, changing the scope of the various authors.
This theory of successive layers, also called model Gttingen because of its wide acceptance by the German exegesis, the editorial structure that reproduces the documentary hypothesis attributed the Pentateuch : A Historical Writing, followed by a prophetic writing and ending with Writing a legalistic.
Non-existence of the Deuteronomic History
Various authors have also questioned the very existence of a Deuteronomistic History, in other words the existence of a coherent body of work. Several arguments are advanced:
- The introduction to the Deuteronomistic History is not adequate. Noth's place in Deuteronomy 1-3, but according to some researchers, it would have been more logical to start with Exodus. (S. Mittman, K. Schmid)
- For some researchers, Joshua , Judges , Samuel and Kings each have a clean and independent literary profile. These books were not written by a single author, or even by a small group of authors. (Westermann, Knauf)
- At no time in the Torah , there is no mention of a single book that could be identified with the Deuteronomistic History and covering the different books. (Knauf)
- The textual variants in these books are larger than those of the Pentateuch (change between versions of the Septuagint ), suggesting that this was never a coherent body of work. (Knauf)
Most of these authors opt for a radical position: they note the existence of Deuteronomistic editors, but feel they are not a sign of a coherent writing.
Modern developments
New Theory nothienne
The hypothesis of the writing of the Deuteronomistic History by a single author is still advocated by several researchers, who nonetheless highlight the quality of the original author. For them, the sources used by Dtr are no longer discernible and important difference with the theory nothienne, texts that contradict the position Deuteronomistic are not explained by Dtr who have faithfully relayed his sources, but as later additions to the 'Deuteronomistic work.
Theory crossienne
Many Anglo-Saxon researchers always look for the model of two blocks. Various alternatives have been developed regarding the extent of these two blocks. Some add a third Deuteronomist came close, but with different terminology, the position of the school of Gttingen.
Model essays exilic
Recent developments of the model of successive drafts during the exile of more distinguished by different authors, depending on each researcher.
Negation of the Deuteronomistic History
Some commentators believe that the texts present in the Deuteronomistic history books are not the result of a coherent editorial control, but are independent of each other.
Points consensual
Despite the lack of consensus on a comprehensive theory among scholars, several points are accepted by the vast majority of them.
- First of all recognize the existence of texts in the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic.
- Deuteronomistic editors had knowledge of neo-Assyrian texts. There is, for example, large similarities between the curses of the Treaty of Esarhaddon ( -672 ) and those of Dt 28. This does not mean necessarily that these texts date from this era, they seem to presuppose the collapse of the Kingdom of Judah.
- Most texts are intended Deuteronomistic explanation and justification of exile during the Babylonian period.
- In the Persian period, several Deuteronomistic texts were revisited in a more legalistic.
- Finally, the editorial work has continued during the Hellenistic period. In particular, the Greek text of the Septuagint seems to rely on a text older than the Hebrew Masoretic text. Some manuscripts of Qumran seem to transcribe such versions.
References
See also
Bibliography
- Thomas Rmer "Deuteronomistic History" in Introduction to the Old Testament, Rmer Th, JD Macchi, Christophe Nihan (ed.), Labor et Fides, 2004, ISBN 2-8309-1112-1
- Thomas Rmer , "The Exegesis and the times" in Theolib 16; text available online [1]
- "Deuteronomistic history" in Anchor Bible Dictionary, English
- Koulagna John Solomon in the Deuteronomistic History Flavius Josephus Publibook University Publishing, 2009, ISBN 9782748345834 , extracts Google-books
Loading ...