NOTES TO Nelson's
Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History
1. Noth (1967). For
the recent history of critical studies in this area, see Jenni (1-32,97-146),
Snaith (1961:84-114), Kraus (411-16), Radjawane (177-216).
2. Josh. 1; 23; 1 Sam.
12; 1 Kings 8. 2 Kings 17 is an editorial rather than a speech.
3. Von Rad (1953:78-82).
4. For the studies
of Eissfeldt, Holscher, and Simpson, see Jenni (104-6).
5. Eissfeldt (1965:241-301),
Freedman (711-27).
6. Weinfeld (1967:93-113),
Schulte (203-24).
7. Fohrer (192-95).
8. Von Rad (1962:346-47).
9. Weiser (1962:25-2f).
10. Richter, Schauri,
Trompf (214-15), Boecker, McCarthy (1973), Clements (1974), Mayes.
11. Kuenen (I, 88-100).
12. Kuenen (I, 90).
13. Kuenen (I, 93).
14. Wellhausen (298-99).
15. Driver (1914:198-99).
16. Eissfeldt (1965:298-301).
17. Weiser (1961:172-73).
18. Pfeiffer (377-412).
19. Bentzen (I, 99-100).
20. Rowley (73).
21. Delorme (239-40).
22. Fohrer (236).
23. Benzinger (xiii-xv).
24. Kittel (vii-vi-i).
25. Burney (1903:xvi-xviii).
26. Skinner (18-22).
27. Stade and Schwally
(p assim_.
28. Sanda (I, xxxvi-xl).
29. Eissfeldt (1922:493-94).
30. De Vaux (15-17).
31. Montgomery and
Gehman (45).
32. Snaith (1955:7,10-11).
33. Gray (1967:1-8;
1970:7-9,753,755).
34. J. Robinson (6-11).
35. We must forgo discussion
of the theory that the Deuteronomistic history was a sort of group project,
Carlson (29-31). If in ancient times it were possible for a group to compose
a history with as much unity of outlook and tightness of structure as the
Deuteronomistic work, then this group was functioning essentially as though
it were a single author and may be dealt with as such. Our problem is one
of two different redactions at two different times from two different perspectives;
whether these were by groups or individuals is immaterial.
36. Jepsen's book was
written in 1938, but not published until
1953.
37. For a sharp attack
on Jepsen's distinctions in usage, see Debus (112-13).
38. Jepsen (68-71,80,88-89).
39. Baena (1973; 1974x;
1974b).
40. Smend (494-509).
41. Noth (1938:101-3).
42. Noth (1938:56-58;
1967:44).
43. Dietrich (1972).
44. Dietrich (1972:88-95)
45. Dietrich (1977),
Veijola (1975; 1977), Schultz.
46. Cross (274-89).
Levenson (222-33) further refines this approach by pointing out the non-Deuteronomistic
nature of much of the historian's theology and suggesting that Deuteronomy
proper was first added by the exilic editor.
47. Weinfeld (1972:126-28),
Hillers (33-34,76-78).
48. Childs.
49. Von Rad (1966:42,44).
50. Long.
51. Noth (1967:97,100
n.2), Janssen (16-18). For the opposite opinion, Nicholson (1970:120-22),
Soggin (1975:3-8).
52. Noth (1957:566;
1968:180).
53. Wellhausen (233),
Eissfeldt (1922:315), Gray (1970:205).
54. Sanda (II, 243),
de Vaux (55).
55. Stade and Schwally
(100), Noth (1968:180), cf. Childs (282-84).
56. Noth (1967:71).
57. Noth (1968:216-17),
Childs (292),
58. Especially Nowack
(239) Wellhausen (298) Pfeiffer (378).
59. Albright (1963:62
n.108), Bright (1972:350 n.20).
60. Noth (1967:72-73;
1968:327).
61. Janssen (94-104),
Ackroyd (25-29), but Soggin (1967; 1975) and Greenwood (197-99).
62. Albright (1948:241-45).
63. Albright (1963:45-46).
64. Bright (1951:22).
65. Wolff (171-85).
66. Cross (288). For
these speeches, Noth (1967:5-6).
67. Cross (285-86).
For the importance of prophecy in the history's structure, see Wyatt.
68. Cross (283-85),
von Rad (1953:84-88; 1962:338-45), Brueggemann (397-400).
69. Rost (89), Noth
(1967:65), Wolff (174).
70. Cross (278-87).