The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (review)

Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 344 Reviews Archeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions [ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 193– 232). There follow sixty-three documents, chosen because they shed light on the nomadic way of life, their institutions, the difficult issue of sharing the grazing territories, and their role in the army. Overall, Moshe Anbar’s book is a successful and comprehensive presentation of the documents relating to his chosen themes and, as such, provides an invaluable and inviting gateway to primary sources for the non-specialist Hebrew reader. Philippe Abrahami Université Lyon 2 Lyon, France philippe.abrahami@univ-lyon2.fr THE SO-CALLED DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY: A SOCIOLOGICAL , HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. By Thomas Römer. Pp. x + 202. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Paper 29.95. Anyone interested in the Deuteronomistic History will be grateful that this book (originally published in 2005) is now available in a much less expensive paperback edition. Römer provides the reader with a survey of scholarship on the Deuteronomistic History from before Martin Noth to the present and then explores a compromise between the two major theories of the composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Römer reviews the many notions about the composition of the Deuteronomistic History and notes that “a student of the Hebrew Bible might wonder how he or she should handle these conflicting positions” (p. 41). He unfolds the main positive and negative aspects of the two main theories. The “Crossian model” (Römer’s term) postulates an edition of the Deuteronomistic History during the reign of Josiah, later updated during the exile. It explains why some texts (e.g., 2 Samuel 7) reflect optimism about the monarchy and the future of the state but does not adequately provide for the prevalence of passages concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile , which point to more than an exilic updating of a Josianic document. The Göttingen school postulates three exilic editions of the Deuteronomistic History and rightly emphasizes how the exile permeates the Deuteronomistic History, but the multiplication of redactional layers undermines the evident unity of the whole. Römer hopes to chart a compromise between these posi- Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 345 Reviews tions. He suggests a Josianic edition, significantly revised during the exile, and again during the Persian period. After reviewing the content of the Deuteronomistic History (chap. 1) and reviewing the development of various theories about its composition (chap. 2), Römer provides (chap. 3) a summary of his position through an analysis of “the foundation myth of the Deuteronomistic School” in 2 Kings 22–23 and an application of his theory to Deuteronomy 12, in which he finds evidence for the three proposed redactions. In the remaining three chapters, he articulates each of the three redactions, providing a general idea of the differences between them. He grounds his argument for the first edition of the Deuteronomistic History during the reign of Josiah in scholarship that finds significant parallels between Deuteronomy and Neo-Assyrian treaty language, between Joshua and Neo-Assyrian conquest narratives, and between the royal narratives in Kings and Neo-Assyrian royal chronicles. He argues that the Josianic Deuteronomistic History consisted of a form of Deuteronomy (mostly laws), an early version of Joshua 5–12, a story legitimizing David’s rise (parts of 1 Samuel 1; 9–11; 13–14; 16–27; 29; 31; 2 Samuel 2–5), an account of Solomon focused on the temple, and a brief narrative of the divided monarchy without the many prophetic and battle narratives added later. The conclusion of the work with the praise of Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:25a echoed the beginning of the story in Deut 6:4–5. In Römer’s view, this Josianic edition “was merely a work of literary propaganda,” without the chronological framework added later and therefore not “a unified literary work” (p. 71). During the exile, this Josianic collection of scrolls was edited into a more coherent history. This reworking of the Deuteronomistic History was associated with intellectuals and high officials attempting to make sense of the exile as the consequence of national sin. This exilic edition is “the first attempt to...