In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

151 Introduction 1. For an overview of modern research into the book of Kings, see M. Avioz,“The Book of Kings in Recent Research” (pts. 1 and 2), CBR 4, no. 1 (2005): 11–55, and CBR 5, no. 1 (2006): 11–57; H. Weippert, “Das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk .Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung,”TRu 58 (1985): 213–49; H.-D. Preuss, “Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” TRu 53 (1993): 229–64, 341– 95, esp. 368–84; T. Veijola, “Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation,” TRu 67 (2002): 273–327, 391–424; TRu 68 (2003): 1–44, esp. 1–14. More comprehensive research on the Deuteronomistic History is also found in T. C. Römer and A.de Pury,“Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Isses,” in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (ed. A. de Pury,T. C. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi; JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 24–141. 2.The anthropological and linguistic study of the Hebrew Bible over the last two decades, for example, has led to renewed fervor in some circles regarding the social growth of ancient Israel and early Judaism as enshrined in the biblical texts. For the major linguistic arguments and methods, see I. M. Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup 369; New York: T & T Clark, 2003). For social-scientific approaches, see P. Esler, ed., Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context (London: SCM, 2005). On the postcolonial approach, see U. Kim, Decolonizing Josiah:Toward a Postcolonial Reading of the Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2005). 3. M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke des Alten Testaments (1943; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1957). Earlier notes 152 nOTeS TO THe InTROduCTIOn attempts to explain the Deuteronomistic language and redactions since H. Ewald and M.L.De Wette are summed up in T.C.Römer,The So-called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (New York:T & T Clark, 2007), 13–21. 4.Scholars in more recent decades who accept the exile as the primary time of the redaction of a DH (though definitions of what constituted this DH vary) include J. B. Peckham, History and Prophecy (New York: Doubleday, 1993), n.p.; D. T. Lamb, Righteous Jehu and His Evil Heirs:The Deuteronomist’s Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). 5. D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 6. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (= “The Deuteronomistic History”), 54n3, 60, 63–64, 68–69, 124–25. 7. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1973),274–89,reproducing the discussion of an earlier article titled “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” published in 1968. 8.These pro-Davidic aspects as opposed to the general critical view especially on Israelite kings were pointed out among others by Gerhard von Rad,Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königebüchern, in: idem, Deuteronomium-Studien Teil B (FRLANT N.F.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947), 52–64; also idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Theologische Bücherei; Munich: Kaiser, 1958), 189–204. 9. See, for example, R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); idem, “The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case Is Still Compelling,” JSOT 29, no. 3 (2005): 319–37; R. E. Friedman, “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr 1 and Dtr 2,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson; Winona Lake,Ind.: Eisenbrauns,1981),167–92.On a Hezekian stratum,see among others B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhooft, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries bce,” HUCA 62 (1991): 179–44; H. Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königebücher,” Bib 53 (1972): 301–39; E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS; Leiden: Brill, 1996); I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), suggests a Hezekian edition from 1 Sam 1–2 Kgs 19*. A. Lemaire proposes an even longer process of development with earlier roots in “Vers l’histoire de la Rédaction des Livres des Rois,” ZAW 98 (1986): 221–36. 10. The division between Noth’s followers...

Share