The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (review)

114 SHOFAR Spring 1993 Vol. 11, No.3 modern thought and for a history of such thinkers which does not isolate them from their cosmopolitan context. The complexity of Mendes-Flohr's argument makes for a difficult text, accessible essentially to advanced students with a strong background in modern European intellectual history and contemporary Jewish thought. Regrettably, readers will also have to discern the author's intentions as best they can through a fog of typographical errors that sometimes make one wonder whether the Wayne State University Press is located in an Englishspeaking country. An author who puts such stress on significant details and a publishing house that has made such extensive contributions to Jewish studies owe readers a more carefully presented book. Jeremy D. Popkin Professor of History University of Kentucky The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, by Steven L. McKenzie. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. 183 pp. n.p.1. In this work, McKenzie treats the question of how the books of Kings came together. He argues for a position close to that of Noth, namely, that these books-as well as the larger "Deuteronomistic History" to which they are assigned-were the work of a single author/editor. Like Noth, he sees that the author used pre-existing sources, but believes that they were so re-worked as to render their recovery almost impossible, except in a very few cases (e.g., 2 Kings 9-10, portions of 1 Kings 21). In making this point, McKenzie maintains a running dialogue with those who see a long, preexistent work, probably prophetic, underlying the Deuteronomistic History, and he steadfastly maintains that no such document existed. He also sees numerous additions to the original edition of the Deuteronomistic work (conveniently listed on p. 152), but his emphasis is upon the coherence of the original work. Thus, he disagrees with those who see any systematic re-working of the Deuteronomistic History by any one later author, editor, or school. McKenzie diverges from Noth's construct at two significant points, points where Noth has been most severely criticized. First, he takes issue (as do most scholars) with Noth's view that the purpose ofthe Deuteronomistic history was essentially negative, to show the causes of Israel's and Book Reviews 115 Judah's downfall. Rather, McKenzie accepts Van Seters' argument that the purpose of this history was essentially a historiographical one, and no more: it was these nations' attempt to render an account to themselves of their own history. (His work appeared too late to take into account Younger's criticisms of Van Seters, in]SOTSup 98, 1990, however.) Second, McKenzie disagrees with Noth's exilic dating of the work, and sides with Cross instead, assigning the work to the time of Josiah. He assigns the post-Josianic materials to an exilic editor, but he disagrees with Cross that this editor in any significant way reworked the earlier materials. Thus, McKenzie's view is that the Deuteronomistic History is substantially the work of one author/editor from the time ofJosiah, who used (not edited!) earlier materials in creating his own work, which was then updated in minor ways, and whose purpose was to present an account of Israel's national traditions. McKenzie's work is erudite and thorough. Within the confines of his self-imposed method and focus ("The objectives and hence the methods of this monograph are strictly historical-critical" [po 19, n. 23J), he presents a strong case. He interacts meaningfully and skillfully with all the major works on the Deuteronomistic History, including, helpfully, works in Spanish that are often overloo~ed. He deals in turn (and in depth) with the "Jeroboam cycle," oracles against the dy'"!asties, "clear" prophetic additions, and the accounts of Hezekiah and Josiah; a distinctive of his book is the first chapter, on the "condensed" account ofJeroboam's reign found in several Old Greek versions (3 Reigns 12:24a-z). In almost all of these he finds some few pre-Deuteronomistic traces, some more postDeuteronomistic traces, but, most consistently, he sees the Deuteronomist 's hand at work. The major problem with the book lies in the method...