Why 2 Kings 17 Does Not Constitute a Chapter of Reflection in the "Deuteronomistic History"

Abstract

Martin Noth, the modern father of the Deuteronomistic History, regarded the existence of the of in the books of Joshua to Kings as important proof for the unity of this history, which in his view was written by one author.1 As is well known, most modern scholars abandoned the idea of a single author for this literary work, but they still accept the existence of the Deuteronomistic History. In this respect the existence of the chapters of reflection has lost nothing of its significance. The most important chapter of reflection is 2 Kings 17, in which w. 7-23 explain the course and outcome of Israel's history in its land. The importance of this chapter for theories about the Deuteronomistic History certainly justifies a new look at this text. To start with, a word of clarification on the Deuteronomistic character of 2 Kings 17 is in order: we do not intend to demonstrate that 2 Kgs 17:7-23 shows no signs of Deuteronomistic language and ideology. The opposite is true: arguably, no text in the book of Kings displays more Deuteronomistic characteristics. Nevertheless, we observe that this chapter is exceptional in ordinary Deuteronomistic literature. If this view is correct it carries consequences for the Deuteronomistic literature in general and for the question of the existence of a Deuteronomistic History in particular. Today most scholars agree that 2 Kgs 17:7-23 is not uniform but was composed by more than one author.2 Earlier critics had already reached this conclusion;3 in modern research a short note by Nofh, in which he stresses the special character of w. 21-23, has proved influential.4 Although most scholars agree as to the different authorship of these verses, the literary unity of w. 7-20 is more disputed. Most scholars basically accept it,5 but some, including Walter Dietrich, Ernst Wurthwein, and Erik Aurelius, divide this section into two halves, attributing each to a different author. According to Dietrich, vv. 7-11, 20 belong to DtrH (DtrG), the first Deuteronomist. Verses 12-19 are ascribed to DtrN, and vv. 21-23 belong to his prophetic Deuteronomist DtrP.6 Wurthwein divides w. 7-20 in a similar manner, but he detects in these verses two nomistic Deuteronomists: DtrNl: vv. 7-12, 18, and DtrN2: vv. 13-17, 20.7 Verses 21-23aα belong, according to him, to DtrH and were later amended by DtrP, among others. In regard to vv. 7-20 Aurelius's solution8 is similar to Wurthwein's. Now we turn to several scholars who understand vv. 7-20 basically as one unit. Richard D. Nelson ascribes vv. 7-20, 23b to Dtr2 and considers vv. 21-23 even later.9 In addition, Iain W. Provan ascribes the better part of vv. 7-20 (except vv. 7a, 18a) to Dtr2, but vv. 21-23 are earlier, according to him (Dtrl).10 A similar division between a later and an earlier Deuteronomistic layer is proposed by Bob Becking.11 Mark A. O'Brien likewise ascribes vv. 7-19 to DtrN (the comments on Judah are even later) and vv. 21-23 to the first Deuteronomist, who used even earlier material.12 According to Steven L. McKenzie, vv. 7-20 are later still: he describes them as Post Deuteronomistic Additions, and vv. 21-23 belong to DtrH.13 The first impression of this listing of opinions might be confusing, but several common features do emerge: 1. Most scholars ascribe the better part of vv. 7-20 to one late author, usually DtrN or Dtr2. 2. According to the prevailing opinion vv. 21-23 belong to a different Deuteronomistic author. Most scholars assume an earlier one, but many are reluctant to assign this section to DtrH (Dtrl). Some point to DtrP; others detect here pre-Deuteronomistic traces or late Deuteronomistic appendixes; yet a third group of scholars abandons the idea of an earlier Deuteronomistic author and prefers a later Deuteronomist. Clearly, all these scholars sense the special character of this section (vv. 21-23). We concur with the prevailing view and subscribe to the existence of two main authors in 2 Kgs 17:7-23. …