HEZEKIAH AND THE BOOKS OF KINGS: A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEB ATE ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY. By lain W. Provan. BZAW 172. Pp. xiii + 218. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1988. Cloth. In the last few decades. the analysis of Deuteronomy and the Fonner Prophets has been more controversial in rhetoric than in reality. Martin Noth's vision of a unified exilic history, a Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). remains a centerpiece of all mainstream theories. From this basis. recent scholarship begins, discerning earlier editions, histories of redaction. and soon. Noth's theory was that an exilic historian had composed DtrH whole (using diverse, earlier written sources). Additions, mostly minor, then accrued in transmission. Today there are essentially four schools of thought on the matter. Some scholars (as J. Van Seters and H. D. Hoffmann) adhere to the thesis of a single (exilic) edition with additions but not reeditions (they also tend to deny that the historian. here H[Dtr], was restricted by written sources). Continental scholars, for the most part. follow Rudolf Smend in isolating editions (Prophetic. Nomistic) of-rather than scribal additions to-Noth's unified original (e.g., W. Dietrich, T. Veijola, T. D. M. Mellinger). Most Albrightians (such as R.
Hebrew Studies – National Association of Professors of Hebrew
Published: Oct 5, 1990