Historical Books: Joshua–2 Kings
- Historical BooksJoshua–2 Kings
Some 80 years after its initial articulation in 1943, Martin Noth's hypothesis concerning the "Deuteronomistic History" (Dtr) as the work of a single redactor encompassing the books Deuteronomy–Kings and as a literary entity that is to be sharply delimited from the Tetrateuch that currently precedes it continues to enjoy considerable scholarly acceptance, notwithstanding the many modifications on various points that have been proposed in the meantime. In this essay, K., for his part, raises questions about both of the above key tenets of Noth's Dtr thesis. In particular, he makes the case that there was no unitary Deuteronomistic redaction of the books Deuteronomy–Kings prior to a late, secondary stage which introduced the theme of Kultreinheit into the complex; rather, each of its component books underwent a stage of redaction—whether (early) Deuteronomistic or non-Deuteronomistic—that constituted it as a "book," but was independent of the redactions that gave rise to the other books. As for Noth's position that Deuteronomy 1–3 evidences no literary continuity with what precedes it in (Genesis) Exodus–Numbers, but instead represents the start of a entirely new composition. K. argues that, on the contrary, these chapters do feature clear linkages with the preceding materials in (Genesis) Exodus–Numbers, these indicating that the three chapters were written as a continuation of those preceding "books."—C.T.B. [End Page 485]
Google Scholar
The conquest of Canaan as presented in the Book of Joshua has long been the subject of debate. Negative archaeological evidence poses serious challenges to the historicity of the book's portrayal of a military conquest. The story of the fall of Jericho in Joshua 6 has generated a variety of theories and conjectures that alternately support, dismiss, or reconcile the historicity of that biblical account. Among the possibilities is reading the story in the context of earthquake mythology. This perspective considers the theological, military, and ceremonial roles of the shofar in Israelite culture, as well as the belief that shofar blasts could signal or channel divine power, sometimes with ground-shaking results. Like other earthquake myths, which incorporate indigenous environmental and cultural elements, the Joshua account uses a familiar Jewish artifact to explain a seismic event. The biblical account of Jericho's fall includes various aspects of the Israelites' multilayered relationship with the shofar. Proponents of reading Joshua 6 as an earthquake myth contend that the story began as a distant folk memory of a major earthquake, and was progressively theologized, ceremonialized, and politicized as it was passed down through the generations. At the core of the story is the belief that the shofar can harness divine energy and cause the earth to tremble.—F.W.G.
Google Scholar
An intertextual analysis of Josh 24:2-13 and Ps 81:6-13 reveals literary, lexical, and thematic similarities shared by their respective recitals of Israel's sacred story despite sharply contrasting depictions of Israel. The first is an embedded narrative that closes the Book of Joshua with a covenant renewal ceremony as the Israelites take up Joshua's challenge and pledge to serve Yhwh faithfully in the Promised Land. The second is a historical recital embedded in an Asaphite psalm that begins with a call to worship and ends with Israel's censure for its unfaithfulness and a call to repentance. In each, Yhwh addresses Israel through the prophetic speech of a worship leader. The recital in Joshua 24 mentions more events than that in Psalm 81 but is shorter in scope; its time span stretches from the call...
