History deuteronomist

The history deuteronomist , also called the historiography deuteronomist , is the name of the hypothetical work from which the Deutéronome would be originally extracted, fifth book of the Pentateuque, and the passages of the historical Livres, second part of the Old Testament making immediately following Deutéronome, which present with this last a stylistic or theological similarity. They are the books Josué, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings. In Interpretation, the abbreviation HD is sometimes used.

The study of the history deuteronomist took place in parallel with the documentary Hypothèse, which affirms that the Pentateuque is the assembly various texts corresponding to the various literary styles of the final work. The last quarter of the 20th century saw the abandonment of the documentary assumption in a strict sense, but the existence of a style deuteronomist remains consensual among the exégète S, although various theories are in competition to explain its presence in the Tanak.

History of the assumption

Existence of texts deuteronomists out of Deutéronome

Ambiguous position of Deutéronome

Deutéronome is a book which has a double place:

it is regarded as the conclusion of the Pentateuque;
it is the introduction to the historical books, and in particular to the Livre of Josué.

This double position involved many debates. Certain researchers, privileging his position like book of Pentateuque, proposed to also include the book of Josué there (thus forming a hexateuque ), even the whole of the historical books (and then speaking about ennéateuque ).

Other researchers privileged his position like introduction to Josué, excluding it from tétrateuque Pentateuque and then speaking about .

Reciprocal echoes

As of Spinoza, it appeared that certain texts of Deutéronome announcing the possibility of the destruction of Jerusalem echoed the divine ire in the posterior books. At the 19th century, the existence of common topics was recognized and Heinrich Ewald, while defending the idea of hexateuque, decided for a double drafting deuteronomist in the historical books.

Thesis of Martin Noth

Martin Noth the first will try to give a coherent explanation to these similarities. It rejects as of 1938 the idea of hexateuque and affirms that the documents used in Pentateuque are not present in the book of Josué. It exposes its theory in 1942, into full Second world war. The late commentators estimate that the events of the time strongly influenced Noth.

In the theory nothienne, the similarities between Deutéronome and the books historical are explained by the existence of a history deuteronomist written by a single author, the Deutéronomiste (often shortened by Dtr ). In addition to his editorial activity, this author integrated various old traditions, sometimes even in contradiction with his own theses.

Noth establishes the limits of the history deuteronomist in the current Bible between Dt 1-3 which was a prolog in original Deutéronome (Noth being a partisan of the documentary Hypothèse) and 2 R 25 which describes the rehabilitation of Yoyakîm in exile. For Noth, this last point was the known last of the writer and the history deuteromist would thus have been written shortly after -562.

The explanation of the drafting of the History deuteronomist would be the will of the author to explain the fall of Israel and the deportation by a disobedience to YHWH and thus a divine sanction.

Finally, Noth places Deutéronomiste in Palestine and depicts it like a solitary personality out of any official circuit. This portrait very quickly was called into question and allotted to the context of the time. That did not give basically causes of them the arguments developed by Noth and its theory was an important success as of 1957.

Evolution of the theory nothienne

Many modifications with the theory of Martin Noth were proposed. Nevertheless two principal, and concurrent schools, transfer the day: the Model of the two blocks which had, and still has in its modern versions, the favor of the Anglo-Saxon exégètes and the position of the school of Göttingen which with the favor of the German and French exégètes. In addition to these two major developments, it is also advisable to underline the arguments of the exégètes rejecting the existence even history deuteronomist.

The theory of Martin Noth has weaknesses, insofar as it leaves certain elements without answers. First of all, she did not explain the two opposite visions of the royalty presented in the texts deuteronomists: a blazing vision of monarchy first of all, a negative vision making him take the responsibility for the exile then. Moreover, additions were made with the history original deuteronomist and it was possible that these additions were not independent from/to each other but result from a single intention.

Model of the two blocks

Frank Moore Cross-country race, followed by the Anglo-Saxon exegetic school, proposed a new model explaining the History current deuteronomist by a drafting in two blocks.

First of all a drafting of the events under the reign of Josias and presenting this last like a model having restored the worship in its pure form, worship deteriorated primarily by the king Jeroboam. Then a second author (indicated under the abbreviation Dtr ² ) supplements the history during the exile by explaining this last by the divine revenge in front of the failure on the successors of Josias.

For Cross-country race, the second deuteronomist had almost not modified the first block, but its successors found various mentions in connection with the exile in the initial block. They naturally allot it to modifications made by the second author.

This assumption, called model of the two blocks or theory crossienne , was very popular in the Anglo-Saxon mediums, and counts today still many followers.

Theory of the successive layers

This modification of the theory of Noth was initially presented in 1971 by Rudolf Smend. He explains the presence of many passages apparently added to the History deuteronomist by one second drafting directed with an aim of stressing obedience at the law.

Thus Smend proposes two writers: Deutéronomiste historian, noted DtrH , corresponding more or less to the author of Noth which would have carried out a first version of the history; and Deutéronomiste nomist, noted DtrN , which would have worked over again the work at the end of the exile or in the years which followed.

Walter Dietrich modified this theory by adding to it a third writer, prophetic Deutéronomiste, noted DtrP , modifying the text by adding in the History deuteronomist various texts stressing the prophets, such Élie and Elisee.

Different other versions from this theory appeared, modifying the range of the various authors.

This theory of the successive layers , also called model of Göttingen because of its broad acceptance by German interpretation, reproduced the editorial structure that the documentary Hypothèse allotted to the Pentateuque: a historical drafting, followed by a prophetic drafting and finishing with a drafting legalist.

Non-existence of the history deuteronomist

Various authors also called into question the existence even of a History deuteronomist, i.e. the existence of a coherent work. Several arguments are advanced:

the introduction to the history deuteronomist is not adequate. Noth the place in Dt 1-3, but according to certain researchers, it would have been more logical begin with the Exodus. (S. Mittman, K. Schmid)
For certain researchers, Josué, Judges, Samuel and Kings have each one a clean and independent literary profile. These books would not have been written by a single author, or even by an small group of authors. (Westermann, Knauf)
At any time in the Torah, it is not mentioned a single book which could be identified with the History deuteronomist and would include the various books. (Knauf)
the textual alternatives in these books are larger than those of Pentateuque (Variation between the versions of the Seventy), which would indicate that it was never a coherent work. (Knauf)

The majority of these authors choose a radical position: they note the existence of draftings deuteronomists, but estimate that they are not the sign of a coherent drafting.

Modern evolutions

Theory néo-nothienne

The assumption of the writing of the history deuteronomist by only one author is always defended by several researchers, who put nevertheless ahead his quality of original author. For them, the sources used by Dtr are not discernible any more and, major difference with the theory nothienne, the texts which contradict the position deuteronomist are not explained by Dtr which would have retransmis accurately its sources, but well like later additions with work deuteronomist.

Theory crossienne

Many Anglo-Saxon researchers always lean for the model of the two blocks. Various alternatives were developed with regard to the extent of these two blocks. Some add third Deutéronomiste to it, approaching, but with a different terminology, position of the school of Göttingen.

Model of the exilic draftings

The recent evolutions of the model of the successive draftings during the exile distinguish more and more from different authors, according to each researcher.

Negation of the history deuteronomist

Some exégètes estimate that the texts deuteronomists present in the historical books do not result from a coherent leading will, but are independent from/to each other.

Consensual points

In spite of the absence of consensus on a theory supplements among the exégètes, several points are admitted by the great majority of them.

First of all all recognize the existence of texts deuteronomists in the former Prophets.
the writers deuteronomists were informed of néo-Assyrian texts. There is, for example, of great similarities between the curses of the Traité of Asarhaddon (-672) and those of Dt 28. That does not mean however necessarily that these texts go back to this time, those seeming to presuppose the fall of the Royaume of Juda.
the purpose of the main part of the texts deuteronomists are the explanation and the justification of the exile, at the time of the Babylonian period.
At the time Persian, several texts deuteronomists were revisited from a point of view plus legalist.
Lastly, editorial work perduré during the hellenistic time. In particular, the Greek text of the Seventy seems to be pressed on a Hebraic text older than the Texte massoretic. Some Manuscrits of Qumrân seem to retranscribe such versions.

See too

Random links: