Abstract
Noth's model for the composition of the Deuteronomistic History (DH), that it was originally and fundamentally the creation of a single writer who was both author and editor, was brilliant and remains unsurpassed in its explanation of the DH. This model has important implications for various issues that have arisen in the study of the DH. This kind of history writing involved the organization of narratives by parataxis and ring composition. One of the principal causes for the disagreement over the composition of the DH is the presence of so much secondary (post-Dtr) material within it. Noth recognized that there were later additions throughout the DH, some of which were quite long. The date of the DH is perhaps the most difficult and controversial aspect of the scholarly discussion on the DH. The question of the DH's purpose has always been treated in conjunction with its date.Keywords: date; Deuteronomistic History (DH); Noth's model; secondary (post-Dtr) material
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
