Abstract
The work of Martin Noth has had a significant influence on the scholarship of Deuteronomy through Kings and Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, including the relationship between these collections. One consequence of this influence has been the generally accepted conclusion that the Deuteronomic History is exilic and the work of the Chronicler is postexilic. This conclusion has further led to a model that explains the linguistic difference between the Deuteronomic History and the Chronicler's History as Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew, respectively. Recently, these conclusions have been challenged from various perspectives, requiring a thorough re-evaluation of the Deuteronomic History, the Chronicler's History, and their relationship. This chapter explores these challenges and proposes that the Deuteronomic History and Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah are historiographies from different competing, contemporary scribal groups.Keywords: Chronicler's History; Deuteronomic History; Ezra; Martin Noth; Nehemiah
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.
