Deuteronomistic History or Deuteronomic Debate? (A Thought Experiment)
This study intends to replace Martin Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis with an approach that makes better use of all available data. Three thesis statements establish a new paradigm for future research. First, to the extent that they have Deuteronomy in view, the Former Prophets represent no...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2007
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the Old Testament
Year: 2007, Volume: 31, Issue: 3, Pages: 311-345 |
| Further subjects: | B
Samuel
B Deuteronomy 12 B Former Prophets B Judges B King Josiah B Formation of Canon B Deuteronomistic History B Kings B Joshua |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This study intends to replace Martin Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis with an approach that makes better use of all available data. Three thesis statements establish a new paradigm for future research. First, to the extent that they have Deuteronomy in view, the Former Prophets represent not a deuteronomistic ideology, but a Deuteronomic debate. Second, the like-minded intellectuals who produced these scrolls did not intend to create authoritative scripture because their writings were not intended for mass consumption. Third, each book of the Former Prophets presents a distinctive pattern of response to Deuteronomy, usually negative but occasionally positive. In sum, what we have in the Former Prophets is a conversation with Deuteronomy. What we do not have, except for a few late glosses, is deuteronomism. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1476-6728 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the Old Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0309089207076357 |