Intertextuality in the Former Prophets (Joshua-Kings)

INTERTEXTUALITY IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (JOSHUA-KINGS) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 JOSHUA ......................................................................................................................................... 3 JUDGES........................................................................................................................................ 14 SAMUEL ...................................................................................................................................... 22 KINGS .......................................................................................................................................... 30 OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 35 APPENDIX I-INTERCONNECTIONS IN SAMUEL ................................................................ 36 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................... 40 ii INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive and broad analysis of intertextuality in the Former Prophets (Joshua-Kings). From the beginning of this investigation, one should note the wide and varied approach to intertextual study within this corpus and the great dependence upon the work of Martin Noth and the Deuteronomic. The following survey of literature is broken into four parts, each pertaining to a specific book. Although some have attempted to examine the entire Former Prophet corpus, the majority of current scholarship is specialized on a particular book with minute attention to the overall story. Also, much publication is and has been indebted to source criticism. As such, the present study begins each section with a brief history of critical study. The Anchor Bible Commentary was used as a common variable and was the one commentary that concentrated on a broad critical introduction. Martin Noth first published his influential on the Deuteronomistic History in 1943 and his earliest study was first translated into English in 1981.1 An understanding of his theories and conclusions is vital for a modern examination of intertextual study in the Former Prophets. Noth employed the term Deuteronomic for the anonymous author because “his language and way of thinking closely resembled those found in the Deuteronomic Kaw and in the admonitory speeches which precede and follow the Law.”2 Noth isolated “linguistic details” in Joshua-Kings and determined a common editor or author. For Noth, this editor was not “merely an editor but the author of a history which brought together material from highly varied traditions an arranged it according to a carefully conceived plan.”3 Ultimately Noth identified specific Deuteronomic passages. Although many of these passages have been challenged by current scholarship, the main thrust of Noth’s argumentation, of a central Deuteronomic hand within Joshua-Kings, is still accepted by a large portion of current scholars. One difficulty with the Noth hypothesis of a wide-scale editor in Joshua-Kings is a methodological problem, “How can we distinguish comprehensive redactional activity from restricted additions that are limited to one or two passages, or from cases of intertextuality, which do not necessarily imply redactional activities?”4 From this question comes the current 1 Martin. Noth. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. 2 Ibid., 4. 3 Ibid., 10. 4 Thomas Romer “How Many Books (Teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch.” Pages 25-42 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?: Identifying debate of the intertextuality and literary connection of a Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Enneateuch, or Deuteronomistic influence. Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Romer, and Konrad Schmid (Atlanta: Soceity of Biblical Literature, 2011), 40. 2 JOSHUA Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Sources in Joshua) One of the earliest executions of intertextuality in the book of Joshua came from the practitioners of source-critical methods.5 Critical deconstructionist thought contributed to the study of Joshua by finding older source in the book and examining other literature that used Joshua as a source. These two areas will be examined further in the following survey. Critical literary study began to look at the Hexateuch and concluded one could not separate the book of Joshua from the Pentateuch as the underlying sources found in the Books of Moses continued through Joshua.6 Most agreed that the later Deuteronomic editor shaped Joshua 1-12; 22:43-22:6; and 23; however, the bulk of chapters 2-11 derived from older sources similar to those of Genesis – Numbers.7 These earliest intertextual connections were found by Wellhausen who also understood the JE source to dominate Judges, Samuel, and Kings.8 Although many agreed upon the influence of JE in chapters 2-11, a consensus did not develop to the differentiation between the J and E source in these narratives. This void in research led to the study of Martin Noth. Noth denied the existence of a Hexateuch and grounded his sources of intertextual undercurrents to traditional memories in specific locations or about specific geographical cites.9 Although he called for Dtr redaction, Noth believed that Joshua 1-12 predated the Priestly source 5 Source criticism dominated Joshua studies following Julius Wellhausen in the late 1800’s through the 1980’s. The Anchor Bible Commentary provided one of the best overviews and history of research. Consequently, Boling and Wright will be used to summarize these methods. Robert G. Boling and G. Ernest Wright. Joshua. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1982. 6 R.G. Boling and Wright, G.E., Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. AB 6 ( New York: Doubleday, 1982), 55. 7 Ibid., 56. 8 See Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs (3 ed., 1899). 9 Boling, Joshua, 60. Noth did not use the term intertextuality in his studies. Noth also understood Joshua 1:1-18 and 21:43-22:6 as opening and summation statements identifying his two larger cycles. 3 and a proposed a “single prehistory.”10 Following this foundation, Noth suggested Joshua 13:121:42 had an independent transmission from 1-12. Modern source criticism following Noth resulted in reactionary studies based upon this foundation. Noth’s suggestion of a Dtr influence apart from the Pentateuch, especially in Joshua 13-21 was well received and most grounded their understanding of Joshua firmly within the Deuteronomistic tradition.11 The second major position was the agreement of limited P editing in Joshua 1-12. Third, many agreed that an older pre-monarchic document containing the original tribal boundaries was a source for Joshua 15-18. Fourth, modern criticism doubted the conquest as told by Joshua and the landscape presented in Judges 1 in fact represented the truest picture. Lastly, modern source criticism affirmed Joshua 13-21 contained numerous older traditions and sources rooted in the tribal lists and boundary claims.12 Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Joshua as a Source) Source critical work also aided the study of intertextuality in Joshua through the examination of Joshua as a source text for other literature. The story of Israel’s origin, deliverance, exodus, and conquest was not always recounted in full detail in every instance. Sometimes, the biblical author would simply recall one aspect of Israel’s journey, which in turn would plunge the mind of the audience into the total history. The crossing of the Jordan in Joshua 3 became one of the events that was cemented into the historical journey of Israel. Also, the subsequent conquest of the land after the crossing became a hymnic confession of Israel. For example, Psalm 105:44 recalled that the “[Lord] he gave to them lands of nations and the labor of the people they inherited.” Source critics understood this section as a hymn that “rehearsed the magnailia Dei for purposes of praise and confession of sin respectively.”13 The short reference to the conquest functioned to recall the saving events found within the total story of Joshua. In a similar fashion, Psalm 78:55 reminded that the Lord “drove from before them nations and allotted to them their inheritance by regions.” Psalm 78, through the echo of Joshua, formed a definite post-exilic reference in the poem and the previous verse of going to the mountain may recall mythological connections in Joshua to Canaan. Critical study understood references to the mountain in Joshua as allusions to Canaanite mythology where their gods dwelled on mountains between the heavens and the earth.14 Thus, the Psalm used the conquest theme in Joshua to connect the audience to both the story of Joshua and the Canaanite mythology. The Joshua source allowed a new tradition so that “what Israel celebrated in cultic 10 Boling, Joshua, 61. 11 Ibid., 66. 12 Ibid., 70. 13 Ibid., 14. 14 Ibid.,, 16. 4 tale and song was shaped by the historical experiences which were remembered and recited as the gracious acts of the God who created the new community, and even the world of the Canaanite deities.”15 Yet another connection to Joshua was found in Psalm 114:3 where “the sea looked and fled and the Jordan turned back around.” This obvious echo to Joshua 3:16-17 was also believed to personalize the Sea and “recalled the several poetic allusions elsewhere to Yahweh’s battle with the dragon of chaos, the latter under a variety of appellations.”16 Cross understood the use of the Jordan theme in Joshua to refer to Ugaritic texts where Baal defeated the Sea-dragon and instituted order upon the land.17 Later texts that refer to Joshua sources were Psalm 114:8-9, Isaiah 51:9-11, Psalm 80:8-10, and 44:1-8. Each of these later documents used the conquest and/or crossing of the Jordan to assert the faith and hope of the later Israelite community. Another theme developed from the text of Joshua and used extensively by source critical study in later literature was the Divine Warrior motif. Boling proposed “the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua preserved the flavor and even some details about the institutions of Holy War more than other Old Testament literature, especially if we except certain hymnic and prophetic poetry.”18 If one accepts this assertion then the majority of later Divine Warrior texts and theology are rooted in Joshua. For Cross Psalm 24:6-10 recalling the Lord as one who is strong and mighty in battle not only pointed the audience to God as King but the specific “crossing [of] the Jordan under the leadership of the Divine Warrior, ‘the glorious King’ who established his rule over the conquered Promised Land forever as a foretaste of the eternal kingdom.”19 Likewise the song of Deborah in Judges 5:4-5, and a contemporary hymn in Deuteronomy 33:2-3 reverberated back to the theme where “the wilderness wandering is conceived as the introduction of the Divine Warrior marching on his way to Canaan with his heavenly host.”20 Source criticism established for biblical scholarship, “the traditions of the Book of Joshua must stand in the very center of any consideration of biblical religion.”21 Much of the previous source critical study included specific source hunting endeavors from fragmented texts and minute hymn fragments. However, even if one denies the premises of the source critical 15 Boling, Joshua, 20. 16 Ibid., 21. 17 Ibid. See Cross, “The Song of the Sea.” 18 Boling, Joshua, 29. 19 Ibid.,, 33. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 34. 5 methods, the grounding of Israelite religion upon the textual tradition in Joshua should not go unnoticed. Narrative Study William Koopmans furthered the field of intertextuality with his 1990 thesis of Joshua 24 a Poetic Narrative.22 Although the study only examined one chapter, his approach can be implemented to broader passages and through literary analysis the author found a plethora of intertextual connections in Joshua. First, Koopmans noticed that a large quantity of Pentateuchal passages are echoed or alluded to in Joshua 24. The location of Shechem served as a major linking mechanism between Joshua and the Patriarchal narratives. Abraham traveled to Shechem upon entering the Land in Gen. 12:6-8 and Jacob built an altar here in Gen. 33:20. Connecting this theme, Joshua 24 opened with the leader and the tribes of Israel gathered at Shechem. Next, Gen. 35:2-5, Judg. 10:16, 1 Sam. 7:3 and Josh. 24:14 have a similar relationship. Koopmans noted that Genesis and Joshua used the same imperative of the root swr with Elohim as the direct object.23 Likewise the two passages exhibited similar structure when broken into colons. Next, in Genesis the Patriarchs buried the false gods and built an altar to the true Elohim. Joshua echoed this at Shecham as the people were urged to serve the true God and the leader erected a large stone before the sanctuary. Koopsman understood the similar narrative progression as a built-in allusion.24 Lastly, the author understood Gen. 48:21 as a literary anticipation of Joshua 24:32. The bones of Joseph are finally returned to the land reinforced with the caveat “with my sword and bow” in Genesis echoed “not by your word or your bow” in Joshua 24:12. This literary analysis portrayed Joshua 24 as a narrative necessity for the completion of these themes in Genesis. Shechem was not the only intertextual link based on geography within the pericope. Here the author found connection between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerazim near Shechem. Deut. 11:29 mentioned a blessing for Gerazim, a curse for Ebal, and referred to the trees of Moreh, which is a clear reference to Gen. 12:6.25 Koopsman recognized the Deuteronomy reference as “the realized attainment of the land anticipated proleptically in the Abram and Jacob cycles.”26 Further, the author of Deuteronomy used the ceremony in Joshua 24 as fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. 22 William T Koopmans. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. 23 Ibid., 350. 24 Ibid., 351. 25 Ibid., 353. 26 Ibid., 354. 6 Josh. 8:30-35 substantiated the fulfillment of Deut. 11:29 and 27 so that Joshua 24:25 was the forming of new laws for Israel.27 Joshua 24 also echoes the Sinaitic covenant found in Exodus. First the formula “~ lEa∂rVcˆy y∞EhølTa hÎwh◊y r∞AmDa_háO;k” in Joshua 24:2 parallels Ex. 5:21; 32:27 and does not occur elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Also the phrase in Joshua 24:25 f™DÚpVvIm…w qñOj wöøl MRc¶D¥yÅw is found in Ex. 15:25 and in both instances the nouns occur in the singular.28 Other verbal allusions between Joshua 24 and Ex. 23:20-33 may be the listing of nations, sending of the hornet, protection along the way, not forgiving sin, and the verbs used in the expulsion of the Canaanites.29 Echoes between Exodus and Joshua are not restricted to verbal parallels. Koopsman understood the first commandment found in Ex. 20:2 to be the central theme of Joshua 24:1-28 with the call of the community to worship/serve Yahweh alone.30 Koopsman found other parallels between Joshua and Exodus. However, despite the vast amount of allusions, the lack of any specific mention to the Sinaitic covenant in Joshua. Although this silence has generated much debate, the emphasis on the allotment of the land may explain the lack of specific covenant mention. This lengthy volume was packed with intertextual connections in Joshua 24. Koopsman approach intertextuality with a literary analytical method. Joshua as Myth An intriguing development in the intertextual tradition of Joshua was a newer publication by Douglas Earl.31 The author lamented that source criticism has shown Scripture to be untrustworthy and the 20th century challenged the story of Joshua through a new “ethical consciousness.”32 These challenges brought and continue to bring struggles for the Christian community. To answer these challenges, Earl situated Joshua in what he called “cultural memory” that stretched far past individual impressions and “exists not because there is an interest in the past as such, but because the remembering enables a group to understand itself in the present and to generate hopes for the future.”33 Thus, Joshua became one text in a continued strand of texts that formed and continues to generate cultural memory and identity. While 27 Ibid., 356. 28 Koopsman, 358. 29 Ibid., 360. This list was first compiled by Schmitt. 30 Ibid., 359. 31 Douglas S. Earl. Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2010). 32 Ibid., 2. 33 Ibid., 5. 7 pinpointing cultural memory and the importance of the Joshua story, the author cautioned not to separate the symbolic resources in Joshua from the tradition of the church, it provided roots for “God-talk”, and Joshua did not necessarily have to be part of Christian cultural memory (6). To aid in his analysis, Earl found the best presentation of the text was to read the Joshua stories as myth. This did not denote the text of Joshua was pure fiction. Rather, for the author, myth was simply a category that shaped the lives of the individual and helped the individual relate to the community.34 This designation as myth allowed the text to have significance for the community beyond the literal, historical, or first-order sense and to become part of a web of myths in the cultural memory.35 Next, Earl advocated that the community must read the text “well” and see Joshua as an “act of discourse that is embedded in a tradition that reflects various public ‘codes of production’” including general characteristics of the text, genre, and mrh as a major theme.36 First, the author suggested reading Joshua within the Dtr and Priestly tradition helps situation the reader within these contexts.37 Although all of these source elements will not be rehashed here, he proposed that Joshua 13:1-21:41 had more in common with Numbers than the Deuteronomy or Exodus traditions. Ultimately, this allowed the community to gain a Deuteronomistic understanding of Joshua’s entrance into the land and a Priestly account of Israel’s settlement.38 In regards to genre, the author suggested some similarities between Joshua and Ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts especially the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.39 Despite some similarity, the differences in these ANE conquest accounts were too great and Earl concluded “whilst Joshua shares a number of motifs from accounts that narrate conquest in the ANE that accentuate its mythical character, there are too many important differences to conclude that Joshua’s genre 34 See Earl, 17. The author categorized Joshua as myth based on the study of William Doty in 2000. The author found that “Joshua is clearly culturally important and part of a network of myths that are culturally important by virtue of their inclusion in Scripture. Secondly Joshua is a story that involves symbol, such as the symbolic nature of crossing the Jordan, of Jericho, and of the characters of Rahab and Achan, that invites emotional conviction and participation. Thirdly, Joshua is a foundational account for Israel that establishes statuses, values, and norms for society, such as through the stories of Rahab, and Achan, the law, and the distribution of the land. Fourthly, Joshua narrates suprahuman intervention, such as in the parting of the waters of the Jordan and in the battle narrated in Josh 10. Finally, it provides material for further elaboration, such as one finds in the Psalms, the New Testament, and the Christian tradition.” 35 Earl, 47. 36 Ibid., 71. 37 See Earl, 85. The author included an excellent chart that separated each chapter in Joshua into Deuteronomistic and Priestly elements. 38 Ibid., 87. 8 is accounted for in terms of being a ‘conquest account.’”40 The final element of “reading Joshua well” is the dominating theme of mrh. Earl saw this as important to Joshua and the root exists frequently in Deuteronomy, occurs in Samuel in relation to Saul, and found in some prophetic material yet is rare in other OT texts.41 He deduced that Joshua expanded the Deuteronomy understanding of mrh as “shaping attitude towards idols” and that this allows the text of Joshua to form Israel’s identity, “there is no mediation possible between the covenantal relationship with YHWH and attachment to idols.”42 For Earl, Joshua redefined Deuteronomy 7:1-5 and does not reinforce xenophobia or condone violence for the Christian community.43 Earl contributed to the study of intertextuality in Joshua through his assertion of cultural memory and cultural identity. He grounded key narratives in Joshua to the Christian formative tradition. For example, the author proposed the crossing of the Jordan was a key narrative in the collection of Christian myths when “filtered through the Christian tradition, indicates the kinds of characteristics that are central to the identity of the community, and how the community is to relate to those perceived to be outside it, in the pursuit of rest.”44 The volume failed to examine the history of the Jewish community from Joshua forward or the Christian community of faith before the present time. If Joshua was an integral part of the larger “meta-narrative” or web of myths, then more extensive research should be conducted on these intermediary moments. In conclusion, for Earl, Joshua squarely sits in the past as part of the Priestly and Deuteronomistic tradition and continues to be part of the dialogue for the current Christian communal memory through interpretation and application. Thematic Study The majority of commentaries reviewed only contained passing interest in intertextual study. Those that examined this field focused on source critical methods. By far the best survey of source criticism was the Anchor Bible Commentary already discussed. The remainder of commentaries presented a thematic approach to intertextual connections, allusions, and echoes. The highlights of each commentary will follow. Soggin’s work in 1972 was heavily influenced by Martin Noth who demonstrated Dtr influence in Joshua and Samuel where entire chapters were constructed.45 The commentator 40 Ibid., 93. 41 Ibid., 94. 42 Earl, 197. 43 Ibid., 200. 44 Ibid., 205. 45 J. Alberto Soggin. Joshua: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972). 9 noted the work of the “Deuteronomic history recalled the ancient traditions to their audience to prove or illustrate.”46 In tracing the Deuteronomic tradition, Soggin acknowledged many traditions running through the Joshua text. First, he suggested Numbers 13-14, Joshua 14-15, and Judges 1:9 represented three literary stages of a similar text. Next, Joshua 19:47 and Judges 1718 both describe, one schematic and one laconic, the conquest of Dan.47 These are a few of the source critical examples proposed by the author. These examples the close relationship between source critical work and the deconstructionist nature of intertextual examination found in Joshua as presented in the OTL commentary. Two decades later, Hess wrote for the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. In his volume the author did not specifically designate a section for intertextual study in the book of Joshua. However, in his introduction the writer suggested literary themes that recalled the story and history of past texts. In Joshua 3:7-13 the leader is directed by and obeys the statutes of the Lord as a “response to earlier instructions of Moses and to God’s plan for his people.”48 Hess did not give the specific historical texts mentioned although his passing reference pointed to Deuteronomy 3 and 18. Hess’ contribution to the field of intertextuality is found in his discussion of the theology of Joshua. Part of his thematic theological study was the reoccurrence of Holy War and mrh. Holy war and the ban is a significant issue in Joshua. Hess noted the verb “to put to the ban” was used emphatically in Deuteronomy and also found in external military sources, particularly at Mari.49 This concept of a “ban” on the spoils of war was also evidenced in ninth century Moab, Assyria, and twelfth century Egypt.50 Likewise, the theme of holy “ban” and “divine warrior” is displayed in numerous places throughout the OT and NT. This short description of theme is the majority of the author’s interaction with intertextual elements in Joshua. Howard, writing in 1998 for the New American Commentary addressed briefly the issue of intertextuality. In examining the place of Joshua within the cannon, Howard noted several intertextual connections. First, “Joshua builds upon the Pentateuch, most notably with respect to the fulfillment of the land promises but also with respect to the continued story line involving 46 Ibid., 4. 47 Ibid., 17. 48 Richard S. Hess. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentarie (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 24. 49 See Hess, 42. Hess noted the specific verb used in Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6. The Mari term was asakkum and used in reference to the characteristic of their deity. See A. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1984 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 70-79. 50 Hess, 43. 10 people such as Joshua himself.”51 Next, the author reminded Joshua is placed at the head of the prophetic books. This position was used to introduce the Promised Land that served as the location for the plots of following prophetic books. Also, “we may notice that Joshua is the first in the line of leadership that received its full expression in the kings of Israel and Judah.”52 Although Joshua was not a king, his leadership served as a model for future monarchies. Lastly, Howard proposed several themes that were deeply indebted to the Pentateuch: land, God’s promises, covenant, obedience, holiness, and godly leadership.53 In each of these sections the author included numerous biblical intertextual citations; however, his intertextual analysis only included surface level thematic inquiry. George Coats also examined a common issue in intertextual analysis of the Pentateuch and Former prophet using a thematic approach.54 First, Coats acknowledged that few have defined a working designation of theme. The author suggested that one should think in terms of plot and motif rather thane theme. This would allow for a more structural definition of theme/motif where a word or pattern of thought reoccurs and to evoke similarity between passages in a larger unit.55 After defining his terminology the author then examined Numbers 2021 and found that this pericope falls within the wilderness theme and not conquest narrative. Later the author examined parts of Exodus and Joshua and their relation to thematic structure. Coats contributed to the field of thematic intertextuality, as he was one of the few to define his terminology and method. After this introduction, the author then worked out his methodology in a key OT passage. For studies in Joshua, Coates found that the “conquest proper” began after the crossing of the Jordan.56 The author’s examination has limited study in Joshua (Josh 1 and 22) as his focus was the book of Numbers, yet his methodology can be applied to the former prophets. Broad studies using a thematic approach to intertextuality in the Former Prophets would be wise to employ Coates working definition of them and concrete methodology. Specialized Study After a survey of broader commentaries and thematic approaches, all other Joshua intertextual studies can be grouped into what this reviewer calls “specialized studies.” These 51 David M. Howard Jr. Joshua. The New American Commentary 5 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998), 55. 52 Ibid., 55. 53 Ibid., 56-64. 54 Coats, George W. “Conquest Traditions in the Wilderness Theme.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 177-190. 55 Ibid., 178. 56 Ibid., 190. 11 publications limit their scope to one specific passage in Joshua, theme, or reading of the text. Older works were heavily influenced with source critical methods and newer publications exhibited a wide array of post-modern techniques. The following survey attempts to show the progression of specialized research in Joshua. While this is not an exhaustive survey, the following volumes were chosen as a good representation of the field. Fewell and Gunn examined Rahab’s speech in Joshua 2:9-11.57 Here this foreign woman is seen as the “hero” and has three strikes against her: woman, foreign, and a prostitute.58 Her speech seems as if she was reading Deuteronomy. The author pondered, “when foreigners can quote Deuteronomy with more facility than Israelites can, what does that say about the grand theological ideas of choosiness and exclusivity?”59 Rahab was both dispossessed and repossessed, and her role as both outsider and insider confused the self-identification of Israel. In the narrative of Joshua, Fewell and Gunn were only concerned with female character analysis. However, they presented a thorough approach to gender study in Joshua and attempted to examine who characterization of women in Joshua related to the greater story in the Old Testament. Avraham Dafna presented a linguistic and word study approach to intertextual work. The author argued and concluded that the walls of Jericho did not physically fall as the verb lpn could be interpreted “surrender.”60 Within his argument Dafna presented a word study and comparison of Numbers 16:31-32 and 13:18-25. This comparison revealed a military orientated account in Numbers and a more vague synopsis of the event in Joshua. To bolster his argument the author pulls other verses throughout the Old Testament to prove his correct interpretation of lpn. Dafna provided independent literary analysis and word studies and then attempted to offer quick conclusions. Intertextual usage in the work is limited to word study yet is one example of a specific intertextual approach to Joshua and Numbers. Hayyim Angel brought a fresh Jewish perspective on the relationship between Joshua and Moses with his midrashic reading.61 The author focused on texts that dealt with transition of leadership and provided rabbinic Midrash in his interpretation of these passages. Ultimately, Hayyim gives little methodology yet the study displayed a rabbinic literary and character analysis of Joshua and Moses. The author interacted with several Jewish sources and concluded, 57 Danna Fewell and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, & Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abigdon Press, 1993). 58 Ibid., 119. 59 Fewell, 120. 60 Avraham Lorberbaum Dafna. “Did the Wall of Jericho Collapse or Did the City Surrender?” Jewish Bible Quarterly 38 (2010): 36-40. 61 Angel, Hayyim . “Moonlit Leadership: A Midrashic Reading of Joshua’s Success.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 37 (2009): 144-152. 12 “unlike the sun [Moses] which dominates the sky, the moon [Joshua] allows others, that is starts, to shine.”62 For the Israelite community, their early fears of the struggles that might accompany the succession of Moses were quelled with the by the faith of the leader who accomplished victories Moses could not. 62 Ibid., 150. 13 JUDGES Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Sources in Judges) In regards to other Old Testament books, the structure of Judges is considered primitive evidencing the oldest of Israel’s nuclei surrounded on the periphery by editorial shaping.63 Boling suggested the stages in the construction of Judges were first a “composition of individual narrative units and the formation of early Israelite epic, (2) a didactic collection of such stories (pragmatic edition) completed by the eighth century, (3) incorporation of the collection in a seventh century Deuteronomic historical work (the bulk of Deuteronomy through II Kings), and (4) a sixth century updating to produce the final or Deuteronomistic edition of the same books.”64 The building blocks of Judges, or the pure narratives were first and most likely “fixed and inviolable in all essentials” when used by the narrators.65 Although little information exists as to the formation of these early narrative streams, Boling suggested that they may have roots in the earliest of literary communities: the priesthood, prophetic guilds, or teachers.66 These “wise men” communities would have been master storytellers and would have been used to shape the community, teach moral truths, and entertain the congregation. As these early stories interacted with one another and the community, they might have changed to meet the needs of the congregation. This process of text/story, communal interaction, reformation also explains some of the historical differences and similarities between narratives in Judges. Source-critical scholars have long attempted to trace the J and E source through the books of Joshua and Judges. However, little consensus has been given for the continuity of these sources in the books. Boling proposed that the “old distinctions drawn between J and E in Judges are vastly oversimplified, especially where they cannot account for the alteration of divine names.”67 63 Robert G. Boling Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 6. (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 29. 64 Boling, Judges, 29-31. Also Boling included an excellent chart showing the literary development of Judges with accompanying phases and specific passages. 65 Ibid., 31. 66 Ibid., 32. 67 Ibid., 34. 14 For intertextuality, the most fruitful contribution of early source-criticism was the connection made between Deuteronomy and Judges. First, the establishment of key themes linked the Deuteronomistic History and the Joshua-Kings text. These themes, “the reality of ancient covenantal curses as accounting for the recent demise of the old northern kingdom and . . .Yahweh’s promises to David” lie at the core of the Deuteronomistic current.68 The earliest of sources suggested in Judges stemmed from the formula “the Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh”.69 This formula was then followed by the recognition of Israel’s foe.70 These enemies ultimately led to the rise of the charismatic judges who delivered the community, which was followed by the statement “the land was calm.”71 While unintentional by the editor, the finding of these sources established clear intertextual links to the ideology of a particular community (late preexilic or exilic) and to an expected ideal. For Boling the main “Deuteronomistic contribution was to revive during the exile some previously neglected traditionary units, which now provide the entire book with a tragicomic framework: chs. 1 and 19-22.”72 Another source critical issue in Judges is the similarity between Joshua 24:38-31 and Judges 2:6-9. In response to this perceived issue, Frolov provided a detailed literary study of the similarities between Joshua 24:28-31 and Judges 2:6-9.73 The article included a thorough grammatical and linguistic analysis of the two passages. Frolov’s main concern was a perceived “doublet” in the two books. He noted the syntactical properties of Judges “disqualified” the second narrative from being labeled a flashback. Rather, the author concluded that second death account of Joshua served as part of a larger retrospective in Judges and was utilized to meet the literary objective of the narrator. This work is a very good source when working with parallel or doublet passages within the Old Testament. His use of grammatical elements and literary features provided an excellent rubric for further intertextual research. In contrast to source critical study that suggested the priority of Judges 2:6-9, Koopsman suggested that Joshua literarily preceded Judges 2. In his considerations he proposed that the structure and theme of Judges depended on Joshua 24. Also, the scare wording almost necessitates the literary connection.74 68 Boling, Judges, 35. 69 Ibid., 35. See Judges 3:7, 12a; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1. 70 Judges 3:8, 12; 4:2; 6:16; 10:7; 13:1. 71 Boling, Judges, 35. 72 Ibid., 37. 73 Frolov, Serge. “Joshua's Double Demise (Josh. Xxiv 28-31; Judg. ii 6-9): Making Sense of a Repetition.” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 315-323. 74 William T. Koopsmans. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 93 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 374. 15 Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Judges as a Source) Sources dating to or informative to the historical period of the Judges are scarce. Block suggested that even critical scholars who date Judges to late period acknowledge at least some early historical value, as Judges is one of the few sources in this historical era.75 In addition to lack of historical data, few books allude to the narrative in Judges. From the prophetic writings, Isaiah and Hosea refer to the historical period. The reference to “as in the day of Midian” in Isaiah 9:4 might call attention to Gideon’s’ defeat of this group.76 Also, Block found that Hosea used Judges as point of reference when the prophet spoke of the Benjamites of Gibeah and Ephraimite Shechem.77 The Psalter provides an indirect correspondence to Judges. First, Psalm 68:7-14’s acknowledge of the presence of the Lord and to sheepfolds use imagery and language found in the Song of Deborah.78 Another similarity is Psalm 68:14 where “kings were as snow in Zalmon” that calls attention to Judges 9:48 when Abimilech went up to Mt. Zalmon.79 In addition to Judges, Psalm 83 may give the most historical data in the judges’ period when the Psalmist lists the enemies of Israel. Other OT links are found in the opening of the Book of Ruth that recalls the days when judges ruled and a probably echo in Nehemiah 9:5-38.80 The NT also contains a few possible allusions and citations to Judges. First, Hebrews 11:32 calls Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah by name. Luke portrayed John the Baptist as a “Samson-like Nazirite” and angelic vision of Mary is similar to the vision of Samson’s mother.81 Outside of this one citation and allusions in Luke, intertextual connections to the book of Judges in the NT and OT are rare. Thematic Study 75 Daniel I. Block. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 26. 76 Ibid., 27. According to Block the Isaiah passage refers to Judges 7. 77 See Block, 27. The author suggested Hos 9:9; 10:9 refered to Judges 18-19 and Hos 6:7-9 to his anti-Gilead and pro-Ephraimite stance. 78 Ibid. See Judges 5:16 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid., 68. 81 Ibid., 70. See Luke 1:15/Judges 13:4 and Luke 1:31/Judges 13:3. 16 A development in the study of Judges and the Biblical narrative is the characterization of women and their role in biblical theology. In their examination of the role of women and the Old Testament Danna Fewell and David Gunn advocated the uniform nature of Israel found in Joshua is fractured in Judges as “we find that every success and sometimes even survival itself, is riddled with sacrifice, the scapegoating of women and children, usually daughters.”82 Not to be ignored, many women participated in the divine promise as Achsah followed in the line of Tamar and Rachel. In Deborah the narrative characterized a woman who had both self-autonomy and power and like “Moses’ mother, she is both mother and nurse to a fledgling and, like Moses’ mother, she is willing to risk her child in order to save it.”83 The authors’ also found other female intertextual connections: Jael reminded the community of Leah interjecting to Jacob, Jephthah’s daughter recalled the story of Isaac, the wife of Manoah follows in the shadow of Rebecca and the story of the Levite in Judges 19-21 and his concubine echoes the beginning of the narrative in Judges, “Judah leading the fight (1:1-2), a story of dismemberment (1:5-7), and a woman on a donkey (1:11-15).”84 Susan Ackerman also contributed to gender roles and intertextuality with her 1998 publication.85 Ackerman identified six “types” of women characters within Judges. For each character she wrote a chapter and within each section compared the Judges “type” with other women of the same characterization in the OT. For the purposes of this survey, only chapter one will be developed in detail as it presented a good understanding of Ackerman’s method and intertextual approach. Ackerman’s first chapter examined Deborah and other women of war in the Hebrew Bible. First, Deborah is portrayed as a prophet, judge, intermediary, and had primacy over the leadership (or lack thereof) of Barak.86 The author develops this characterization fully through narrative analysis and worked with the Hebrew text in intricate fashion. The woman Jael also joined the scene and helped Deborah in the war with Sisera. Ultimately, what Deborah started, Jael finished and “the female and human assassin Jael brings to a close the holy war initiated by the male divine warrior Yahweh.”87 Next, Ackerman analyzed the story of Judith in the apocrypha. In the first portion of the book the town Bethulia is besieged by the Assyrian general Holofoernes. The town is distraught and the leader Uzziah has promised to surrender. However, Judith the widow, who has fasted and prayed for three years hatches a plan and ultimately 82 Fewell,121. 83 Ibid., 123. 84 Ibid., 135. 85 Susan Ackerman. Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998). 86 Ibid., 29. 87 Ibid., 47. 17 seduces the foreign general with her beauty, gets him drunk and beheads him.88 The last woman of war compared was Anat who had rare mention in the Bible except in place names. Anat is a female Canaanite god who rescues Baal. Using Isaiah 42:13-14 Ackerman concluded that the divine warrior was rooted in the male Yahweh “yet the battle cry sounded by this male God is that of a woman gasping and panting as she struggles to give birth.”89 For the author, Isaiah makes sense only in the fact that these women warriors have assimilated into Israel’s understanding. Like Ackerman, Mary Ann Beavis examined the role of women in Judges.90 Mary Beavis explored an intertextual relationship between the daughter narratives found in Judges and Mark. This relationship has been given little attention in previous scholarship. First, and much appreciated, Beavis affords the reader several pages of methodology including a brief history of intertextuality. Among the scholars reviewed were Porter, Brodie, Watts, and Gershon Hepner who focused on Hebrew resonance. Next the author applied her method to Judges and divided her article into categories: linguistic parallels, similar plot/order, other criteria, and differences. Beavis’ work represented a solid working methodology that can be applied to other OT and NT passages. The author evidenced a renewed approach to gender study and narrative criticism. Narrative Study One issue with the larger conquest story found in Judges that relates to Joshua is the seemingly contradictory accounts of the conquest. In Joshua, Israel is presented as a united collection of tribes that totally conquered the land while Judges presents the individual tribes with as a unified front. As they relate to one another, Arthur Cundall proposed several considerations when reading these books as interlocking narratives. First, he understood Judges to provide a southern description of the Conquest with special focus on the individual tribes from this region.91 Next, compared to the longer narratives in Joshua, these accounts in Judges 1:1-3:6 are incomplete and should be read as such. Third, Joshua does not assert a definite complete conquest as pockets of rebellion existed in the land. This becomes more evidence when read with Judges. Judges and Joshua, being the first books in the Former Prophets, are interconnected and Cundall reminds the reader not to over accentuate smaller differences within the text as the larger narrative work to compliment the two units.92 88 Ibid., 50-51. 89 Ibid., 73. 90 Beavis, Mary Ann. "The Resurrection of Jephthah's Daughter: Judges 11:34-40 and Mark 5:21-24, 35-43." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (January 2010): 46-62. 91 Aurthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris. Judges & Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968), 20. 92 Ibid., 20. 18 Specialized Study One approach to reading Judges is through a social-scientific lens. Naomi Steinberg attempted to “identify some of the general presuppositions of a social-scientific study of the Hebrew Bible and to demonstrate the usefulness of this approach through an in-depth study of Judges 9.”93 Steinberg argued that understanding the Hebrew social practices of kinship is crucial to understanding Judges 9. First, kinship in Israel was first rooted in the paternal order of the clan; Next, the family unit and economy influenced the social kinship practice. In Judges 9 Abimilech sought power over the city and when denied by his close of kin he killed his halfbrothers to win the favor of the Shechemites. Ultimately this favor waned and Abimelech was killed when a millstone was dropped on his head. Many scholars suggested that Abimelech’s demise was due his initiative and not God’s. However, Steinberg maintained, “that the central problem plaguing Abimelech lies less in the realm of divine versus human leadership and more in his attempt to undermine the legitimate ancient Israelite societal norms of patrilineal kinship.”94 Abimelech’s error was rooted in his attempt to trace leadership through the lineage of his mother and not father. Steinberg offered a new approach to reading the text of Judges and a better understanding of social-practices helps identify information “embedded in the narrative.”95 Another specialized approach to intertextual analysis is structural criticism. Jobling defined structuralism as “a philosophical view according to which the reality of the objects of the human or social sciences is relational rather than substantial.”96 So for structuralism, one does not “come to terms with the world of experience as a set of isolated items, but as a set of relationships among items”97 the author then preceded to examine three influential theorists Vladimir Propp, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and A.J. Greimas and showcase how their views shaped one’s understanding of Judges. 93 Naoimi. Steinberg. “Judges 9 and Issues of Kingship.” in Judges and Method: New Approaches inBiblical Studies 2nd ed. Edited by Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 47. 94 Ibid., 58. 95 Ibid., 63. 96 David Jobling. “The Text’s World of Meaning.” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies 2nd ed. Edited by Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 90. 97 Ibid. 19 Vladimir Propp analyzed Russian fairy tales and found commonalities with plot and character. Thus, for Propp the different fairy tales all told the “same story.”98 This “same story” cycle was found in Judges beginning with Othniel (Judges 3:7-11) and terminating in Judges 16. Robert Cully furthered this cyclical pattern and discovered that these narratives had two functions or action sequences: wrong -› punished and difficulty -› rescued.99 From the foundation of Propp, the examination of significance of pattern developed. Lévi-Strauss advanced the study of interdisciplinary structuralism. Strauss acknowledged the previous work of Propp that society produced what he called “sets.” Yet instead of focusing on similarities between reoccurring story sets, he concentrated on differences. The scholar who had the greatest impact on biblical narrative within the structuralist movement was A.J. Greimas. Greimas set out to develop rules and structures for the biblical text. His first model, the actantial model suggested that every narrative could be mapped out on using his model. Sender --› Object --› Receiver Helper --› Subject--› Opponent For Greimas the “sender is the one who initiates the action, with the purpose of transferring some object to a receiver. The action is to be carried out by the subject, who is aided and/or opposed by helpers and opponents.”100 Gremias later rejected his anctantial model for his more developed semiotic square.101 A ------- B Non-B ------- Non-A For the author, A and B were opposites and Non-A contrary to A and likewise Non-B contrary to B.102 Greimas’ theories were later applied to biblical narrative by NT scholar Daniel Patte. Jobling applied these theories to Judges 3:27-29; 7:24-8:3; and 12:1-6 where three times a group 98 Ibid., 94. 99 Ibid., 95. Jobling, 99. 100 101 Ibid.,100. 102 Ibid., 20 crosses the Jordan and is victorious upon an enemy encampment. Using the methods of LéviStrauss, one notices that Ephraim is summoned in the first account yet the last presented Ephraim as antagonistic. Jobling also introduced geography as a co-variable and found that Ehud belonged to Benjamin on the west of the Jordan and Jephthah to Gilead, which lies east of the Jordan. This structural analysis concluded that the message of these narrative “sets” is extremely pro-Ephraimite and characterized Ephraim as having the proper perspective.103 In contrast to structuralism, Post-modern thought has pushed intertextual study to new realms. One of newer approaches is reader-response analysis. In his wave, Patrick Cheng presented an unorthodox approach to the reading and hermeneutic of Judges 19.104 In the Judges episode a concubine was raped, abused, dismembered, and her body was dispersed in twelve pieces and sent throughout the land. Cheng explored four dimensions of the text: multiple naming, multiple silencing, multiple oppression, and multiple fragmentation (123). The author illustrated that the concubine was named using four difference nouns, never spoke in the narrative, was oppressed in many ways and ultimately fragmented and dismembered. Chen then illustrated the hostility and disenfranchisement of the queer Asian community in the above four areas. Although the author’s agenda and personal involvement permeates his hermeneutic, his insight into the text may provide another fresh perspective to the intertextual picture. Another new approach to intertextual thought is the use of biblical text and film. Eric Christianson explored the intertextual relationship between modern visual art and ancient text.105 Specifically, Christianson examined the use of ambiguity and gaps in the film genre noir and the book of Judges. Noir films are more known for the crime dramas of the 1940’s and 50’s mostly in black and white. These films use gaping techniques and also reflect dark themes that mirrored social anxiety. One example of parallels within film and Judges was the use of gender uncertainty. In noir films men and women were often lost as to their place. Likewise the author noted Deborah dressed in men’s clothing and Barak was summoned by a woman. Although the article was highly subjective in method and application, Christianson drew upon a unique relationship between film and bible text and challenged the traditional view of intertextuality. This approach is limitless, as the field of film understood as text and the relationship to biblical narrative has been largely ignored by the scholarly community. 103 Ibid., 109. The author also used the semiotic square to analyze the same set of stories and concluded the sets of narrative exhibit a strong tension between outsiders/insiders. The Gileadites are political insiders but unfortunately lie outside of the land. 104 Cheng, Patrick S. "Multiplicity and Judges 19: Constructing a Queer Asian Pacific American Biblical Hermeneutic." Semeia 90/91 (March 2002): 119. 105 Christianson, Eric S. "The Big Sleep: Strategic Ambiguity in Judges 4-5 and in Classic film noir." Biblical Interpretation 15 (August 2007): 519-548. 21 SAMUEL Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Sources in I Samuel) The earliest of scholarship in Samuel focused on extensive textual criticism and largely ignored higher criticism.106 Despite this preoccupation, source criticism acknowledged two large traditions in Samuel. The first and earliest strand, Sam. 9:1-10:16; 11; 13-14 had a romantic flair and “was believed to preserve a generally favorable view of the institution of monarch.”107 This tradition connected the narratives with other stratum in the OT that held up the monarchy in a positive light. The second strand in Samuel 7-8; 10:17-27; 12; and 15 “was assumed to derive from a time so far removed from the events it describes as to be generally devoid of historical value and which views the institution of monarchy with grave suspicion, in keeping, it was supposed with theocratic ideal of the post-Exilic community.”108 This later current reflected the theology of the Deuteronomistic history and community. What sets Samuel apart from Judges and Kings is the lack of heavy Deuteronomistic structure and influence. McCarter argued that this sparseness was reflected in the lengthy early narratives that were the original sources for the editors. However, this does not signify lack of Dtr influence or connection within I Samuel. First, the stories against the house of Eli (2:27-36 and 3:11-14) was to exalt the priesthood of Zadok in contrast to Abiathar than in turn recalled the Deuteronomistic “polemic against the non-Jerusalemite priesthood—the priests of the ‘high places.’”109 Next, additions to the narrative cycles of Eli and Samuel (4:18; 7:2, 4, 6, 13-14, 1517) connected these stories with the Dtr theology of history in Judges.110 Additions to the accounts of David and Jonathan (20:11-17, 23, 40-42) connected the narrative forward to the great succession cycle in II Samuel chapter nine.111 Yet another intertextual find is the speech of Abigail (25:28-31) “that explicitly anticipates the Josianic rhetoric of the oracle of Nathan” in II 106 See Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Smuelis untersuch (1871), H.P Smith, Budde, Dhornme and S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890). 107 P. Kyle McCarter Jr. 1 Samuel: A New Translation, with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980),13. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 16. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 22 Samuel 7.112 These additions and editing marks by the Deuteronomist allow Samuel to become an intertext that connected the community to Judges and anticipated the theology found in Kings. A middle stage in the development of I Samuel proposed by source critical scholars was defined as the Prophetic History including the stories of Samuel (1-7), Saul (8-15), and the rise of David (16). The purpose of the Prophetic History was to paint a seemingly negative picture of the kingship as a conceded demand from the congregation and cast a vision for the essentials in the new Israel (post-kingship).113 A pioneering scholar, Leonhard Rost, identified the “ark narrative” (4:1-7:1; 2 Sam 6) as one of the crucial stories used by the prophetic historian.114 Others followed Rost and also identified parallels between the “ark narrative” and Babylonian accounts that emphasized the power of the their god even in defeat.115 Another commonly proposed source within Samuel is the History of David’s Rise or HDR.116 Although scholarship is divided on the exact beginning and ending of the HDR tradition, the source starts in 1 Sam. 15 and runs through 2 Sam 7 and purposed to “legitimize King David that is, to show that David’s succession to Saul’s throne was lawful.”117 The last major source, identified by Rost, was the Succession Narratives (SN) in 2 Sam. 9-20 and extending into 1 Kings 1-2.118 Although not a source-critical scholar in the traditional sense, Robert Bergen found many influences of the Torah in the Samuel corpus.119 Bergen argued that the primary purpose of Samuel in both Judaism and Christianity was to play the role of Holy Scripture, which “was to reiterate and clarify the message of the Torah, not to nuance, extend, or contest it.”120 So, to emphasize his view, the author documented historical and legal connections between Samuel and the Torah. Although this amounted to source hunting, Bergen would not consider his work source-criticism. 112 McCarter, I Samuel 17. 113 Ibid., 21. 114 Ibid., 23. 115 Ibid., 25. 116 David Toshio Tsumura. The First Book of Samuel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 13. 117 Ibid., 13. 118 Ibid., 14. 119 See Appendix I. 120 Robert D. Bergen. 1, 2 Samuel. The New American Commentary 7 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996), 46. 23 An emerging and refreshing trend in the critical study of Samuel is evidenced in the work of Robert Polzin who traced the hand of the Deuteronomist through 1 and 2 Samuel yet attempted to provide constructive conclusions to previous deconstructive source critical scholarship. Bridging the gap between narrative and higher critical methods, Polzin presumed “the text of 1 Samuel makes sense, however worked-over the text is scribally and hermeneutically, and however deficient it is text-critically.”121 An example of Polzin’s approach is found in his conclusion of the Deuteronomist’s voice in the Ark Narrative of 1 Sam 4:1b-7:17 where “typical of this voice, which speaks indirectly of kingship, is the perceptive and provocative asking of questions that ostensibly are directed to the narrative’s characters but at the same time allow those readers to whom they are also directed to mediate upon the complex matter of kingship without having to struggle with the seductive trappings of royalty.”122 The author’s work is a major contribution to the field of intertextuality and eloquently marks the trend from deconstructive analysis to narrative study as seen through the eyes and hand of the Deuteronomist. Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Sources in II Samuel) The compositional theories of II Samuel are similar and part of the I Samuel source critical study. Most study in II Samuel was built upon the hypothesis of Martin Noth who proposed Deuteronomy- II Kings was composed by a single editor in the exilic period.123 Von Rad modified this premise slightly and asserted the Deuteronomistic “historian viewed the dynasty of David as a concrete historical power as real as the Mosaic law.”124 This placed the Davidic throne in light of Mosaic Law and pointed forward to a new Messianic hope. The fundamental idea of the Deuteronomistic historian theology naturally drew attention of the audience upon 2 Samuel 7 as one of the crucial texts in the Deuteronomy-II Kings collection.125 Source Criticism (Samuel as Source) Samuel is often cited or alluded to in other biblical writings. A.A. Anderson in his commentary on 2 Samuel proposed three interrelationship divisions within the biblical text and 121 Robert Polzin. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Two: 1 Samuel (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1993), 17. 122 Ibid., 71. 123 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. II Samuel: A New Translation, with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 4. 124 Ibid., 6. 125 Ibid. 24 Samuel: direct quotations, allusions, and earlier works that served as inspiration.126 The most extensive use of 2 Samuel in the OT is the Chroniclers history where Samuel is recaptured either “verbatim or quasi-verbatim” in 1 Chr. 10-22.127 Here the Chronicler used Samuel as a source and selected passages to shape the later narrative. Anderson found common themes in 2 Samuel and the prophets including Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel where the prophets allude to the Davidic dynasty and messianic tradition.128 The two strongest themes alluded to in 2 Samuel were the royal line of David and the father-son relationship exhibited between David and Yahweh.129 The Psalter also provides a wealth of intertextual connections to Samuel. Particularly, the psalm titles allude to numerous episodes in Samuel even if most of these historical headings are not deemed original.130 For the NT, Samuel concepts of the “Son of David” were picked up by the authors and Matthew might have used 2 Sam 5:6-8 as the background for Matt 21:1-14.131 Other approaches In the 1970’s, the study of the OT and Samuel turned from the traditional historical critical analysis and scholars began tracing themes and relationships within the text from based in its final form.132 Ironically the work of F. de Saussure’s structuralist examination moved the field away from historical study and aided new literary criticism and post-structuralism examination.133 P.D. Miscall was one of the founding fathers of post-structuralism in Samuel. For Miscall, the text had a “multivocal and polysemous quality” that does not provide any one 126 A.A. Anderson. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary 11 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), xxxvii. 127 Andersen, xxvii. 128 Anderson, xxxviii. See Isa 4:2; 9:2-7; 11:1-5, 10; 16:5; Jer 17:25; 23:5-6; 30:9; Ezek 34:2324; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5; Mic 5:1-4. Anderson noted the lack of direct quotation makes specific reference to 2 Samuel difficult. 129 A.A. Andersen, xxxviii. 130 Ibid., xxxix. See Psalms 3;7; 18; 30; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; and 142. 131 Ibid., xl. 132 David Toshio Tsumura. The First Book of Samuel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.), 19. 133 Ibid., 20. 25 correct interpretation.134 Following this lead Derrida “emphasize the ‘intertextual’ associations among the elements of the text and the literary traditions in the society where it was produced, with the post-modern claims for relativity, multivalency, and indeterminacy.”135 Thematic Study John Gray used the suggestion of theme and theology to provide a literary unity in the Former Prophets with Deuteronomy serving as the introduction to this section. Particularly, the covenant renewal in Josh. 24 and 1 Sam. 7:3-9 and the deliverance by the hand of the Judges (3:7-11) reminded the community of Yahweh’s sustaining promise.136 Further “this central theme of the covenant is sustained in the divine covenant with the king of the house of David as representative of the people” in both 2 Sam. 7:8-16 and 1 Kings 2:2-4. Gray also established overlapping subject matter and similar chronology as an undercurrent running through the Former Prophets. Although Gray’s works is outdated (1970), he represented a thematic approach to intertextual coherence in the Former Prophets. Specialized Study One aspect of intertextual analysis is the study of metaphor. Andrea Weiss examined the use of metaphor in Samuel and its effect and role within interpretation.137 Weiss’s research originated with her study under Adele Berlin and Asif Agha at the University of Pennsylvania and the present volume was based on her earlier dissertation. The author’s goal was to investigate metaphors in their particular and surrounding narrative context with special attention to 1 Sam 25; 2 Sam 16:16-17:14 and dead metaphors within 1 Sam 24. On a larger scale, Weiss purposed to apply “current linguistic research on metaphor to the biblical text in an attempt to advance our understanding of the ways metaphor functions in the Tanakh.”138 Weiss first offered a “means of identifying metaphor by establishing the presence of a semantic anomaly and unpacking its underlying analogy.”139 Although metaphors are difficult to define and identify within narrative, these phrases were employed because they “paint a graphic, memorable image 134 Ibid., 22. 135 Ibid. 136 John Gray. I & II Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1970), 2. 137 Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel. Boston: Brill, 2006. 138 Ibid., 32. 139 Ibid.,120. 26 that engages the audience’s imagination and attention.”140 In Samuel, the intentional ambiguity draws the community into the story and brings the text to life. The interpretation of metaphor becomes more difficult when the audience encounters a “dead metaphor,” one that is unknown or rare. As an example Weiss probed the use of “dead metaphors” in 1 Samuel with the first metaphor being “and Saul went to cover his feet.”141 The phrase is seen as an idiom yet requires understanding and exegetical steps for interpretation. Weiss suggested, “Saul enters the cave in order to urinate, an act preceded by the ‘uncovering of the penis.’”142 However, “according to this analysis, the expression would be considered a ‘noncompositional’ or ‘nondecomposable’ idom, meaning that it is difficult to decipher the utterance based solely on the decontextualized definitions of the individual words and the grammatical structure of the sentence.”143 Weiss’ work is technical and grounded in intertextual and linguistic analysis. This volume is an essential study on metaphor in biblical narrative, with example texts from the Samuel corpus. Moving from singular metaphors to larger narrative, one attempt at the study of story and episodes in Samuel is the categorization of novellas. Bernhard Luther distinguished between novellas and narrative in that the former “all the motifs have to be interconnected so that the whole narrative coheres internally.”144 The account of David and Bathsheba, Sisera’s murder (Judg. 4:17-22), David and Abner (2 Sam. 2:8-3:1), and Absalom (2 Sam. 13-19) can all be classified as novella. Luther then gave a detailed analysis of the Judah and Tamar novellas in Gen. 38:12-30. Although little conclusions were offered throughout the essay, Luther provided the audience with a different approach to certain narratives within Samuel. The novella is highly stylized and more dramatic than the typical narrative sequence in the OT. Another approach to intertextuality in the OT is through character study. Joseph Lozovyy provided a highly technical and immensely thorough examination of Saul, Doeg, Nabal, and David in 1 Samuel 16-25 with the understanding that the wisdom of the biblical text “cuts through the mysterious darkness of time and history that causes modern readers to grow in appreciation of the talents of the biblical narrative-wisdom writers who were being led by one Shepherd.”145 The author from the beginning gave his method as a synchronic analysis of the characters. His investigation into the Nabal story revealed a closer Nabal-Saul affiliation than the 140 141 Ibid., 131. 1 Samuel 24:4 142 Weiss, 195. 143 Ibid. 144 Bernhard. Luther. “The Novella of Judah and Tamar and Other Israelite Novella” in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923. David M. Gunn ed. (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1991), 101. 145 Joseph Lozovyy Saul, Doeg, Nabal, and the “Son of Jesse”: Readings in 1 Samuel 1625. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (New York: t&t Clark, 2009), 2. 27 surface text revealed which may give greater insight into the David-Nabal clash.146 Lozovyy also proposed the term “son of Jesse” as used in the Hebrew Bible was a technical unit and “when Saul, Doeg, and Nabal used the phrase pejoratively, however, their verbal attack is ultimately turned against Yahweh, who put His seal of approval on David.”147 The author presented a very good intertextual approach to character study in Samuel and in the OT. His method and conclusions provide future avenues for research, especially within the Saul-Nabal-Doeg relationship. A study focusing on the specific pericope of 1 Samuel 17 shows how to approach a narrow text with through an intertextual lense. Frolov founded his study on the premise of Kristeva that all texts are an “absorption and transformation” of earlier texts (451).148 With this foundation, the author used MacDonald’s six criteria for determining whether a text is related to another. One should note that Macdonald developed his method in relation to the NT and Acts. Here, Frolov used the method with no written consideration of this NT criteria applied to the OT and ANE texts. The thesis of the article was that the epic of Gilgamesh and the Egyptian Sinuhe were hypotexts to the David and Goliath battle scene. Frolov concluded that these ANE texts satisfied the density, order, and distinctive features criteria while reasonably satisfying the availability and analogy portions. The author displayed a solid methodology and adhered to the six criteria. Frolov’s research is a necessary read for those interested in determining if a text relates to another text. Another good analysis of allusion within the book of Samuel was an essay by Yitzhak Berger. Berger began his work with the premise that biblical allusion is fundamental to reading and understanding the book of Ruth. Previously he argued for parallels between David/Bathsheba and Ruth and here proposed new parallels to David/Abigail.149 The author was keenly aware of methodology and proposed that any allusion must include distinctiveness and frequency. After this short method intro he applied his approach through verbal parallels and characterizations found in 1 Samuel. Berger provided in his text a detailed linguistic intertextual analysis. This work is more structured in approach than most articles concerning allusion and provided a very analytical literary analysis of 1 Samuel 25. Berger concluded, “the author of Ruth seeks to offset a morally problematic portrait of the king that emerges from the text of Samuel.150 146 Ibid., 83. 147 Ibid., 159. 148 Serge, Frolov and Allen Wright. "Homeric and Ancient Near Eastern Intertextuality in 1 Samuel 17." Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 451. 149 Berger, Yitzhak. "Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25." Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 253-272. 150 Ibid., 254. 28 Yet another approach to intertextuality and 1 Samuel 25 is the study of characterization and ancestral motifs. Biddle examined three historical scholarly perspectives concerning 1 Samuel 25: (1) is this passage self-contained, (2) is the passage dependant on the ancestral narratives in Genesis, and (3) is the passage an apologetic for the Davidic character?151 The author commenced and defined his purpose. The article would only examine intended and expected intertextualities. Biddle noted that 1 Samuel 25 had a parallel and chiastic structure. Next, the bulk of his work focused on literary and verbal intertextualities. Biddle attributed to the field of intertextuality with his methodical linguistic approach to intended and expected intertextualities. The article also focused on structural qualities rather than thematic analysis of Samuel. Another good study on allusion and Samuel is again from Yitzhak Berger.152 Here, the author attempts to draw parallels from the book of Esther and Samuel that were not previously discovered by scholarship. Berger contended that queen Esther is paralleled to Saul through verbal introductions in the book, physical appearance (both were good looking) and personal traits (both were humble and reserved from the start). The intertextual links are evidenced through a serious of grammatical elements established by Berger. He provided excellent charts that displayed the verbal and thematic parallels of the book. Ultimately the article concluded that Esther’s initiatives counteracted the failed events in Saul’s life and that the queen brought balance back to the Benjamite clan, which “emerged from the shadow of Davidic superiority.” Berger did not lay out his methodology however; his approach was mechanical and specific. This article is a model of a methodical verbal approach to parallels and intertextuality within the books of Samuel. 151 Mark E. Biddle "Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 617-638. 152 Berger, Yitzhak. "Esther and Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion." Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 625-644. 29 KINGS Early Intertextuality-Source Criticism (Sources in Kings) The source texts for I and II Kings can be broken into four categories: History of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Book of the Deeds of Solomon, Prophetic narratives, and Temple records.153 The history of the kings is noted by the phrase l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo or há∂d…wh◊y y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo.154 These histories have different functions depending on the perceived audience. If the history was to be read to the general congregation then the author “was inviting them to visit the palace or Temple library/archives.155 However, if the author intended his history to be read by the scribes then they would function as recommended reading. Either way the historical base texts were “commonly known and were held to be authoritative, since they were likely based on firsthand source material: records of wars, tribute payments, royal projects, and so forth.”156 The second group of material, Book of the Deeds of Solomon, is characterized by háOmølVv yñérVbî;d rRp™Es_lAo ( I Kings 11:41).157 This grouping included the wealth and wisdom of the king, inventories, royal lists, administrative documents, and poems. Most likely, these sources originated with the wise men in the Solomonic court and functioned to “project the image of their king as ‘wiser than all men.’”158 153 Mordechai Cogan. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 89. 154 For Israel all the kings but Joram and Hoshea are represented by this formula. See I Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39; II Kings 1:18; 10:34; 13:8, 12; 14:!5, 28; 15:11, 15, 21, 26, and 15:31. For the kings of Judah all but Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah are represented. See I Kings 14:29; 15:7; 15:23; 22:46; II Kings 8:23; 12:20; 14:18; 15:6, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28 and 24:5. 155 Cogan, 90. 156 Ibid 157 Among the proposed documents include the general overview of I Kgs 3-11; 3:5-14; 5:9-14; 10:14-25; 4:2-6, 7-9: 7:41-45; 11:14-25 and 10:1-13. 158 Cogan, 92. 30 The third source within the Kings is Prophetic narrative. These narratives take up a large portion of the Kings and focus on the lives of Elijah and Elisha.159 The stories of Elijah and Elisha had a long history of development and probably generated in oral form from the same community or at least identical tradition. The final source within Kings is the use of temple records. What makes this source intriguing is the vast amount of administration and documentation produced by Solomon. Among the texts that point to ancient temple records include the construction and dedication of the temple (I Kings 6-8), using funds to appease foreign threats (I Kings 14:25; 15:18), and renovations of the building (II Kings 12:5-17). All of the above source were pulled together by the editor who at times did not attempt to hide merging of his sources and may have preserved these demarcations out of “respect for tradition.”160 A. Graeme Auld attempted a new and fresh approach concerning source critical issues in Kings. For Auld, the reoccurring narratives of David, Solomon, and Moses in both Kings and Chronicles might provide the link for a common source. Instead of the Chronicler wholesaling the book of Kings, the author posited a base “reduced text” behind Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.161 In chapter three of his volume, the writer expanded upon his perceived “base text” that encompassed the majority of Davidic and Solomonic material. He concluded that a base shared text exhibited “clear signs of structure and coherence” and “most of the language of the extensive pluses in Kings and Chronicles is already to be found within the Shared Text.”162 This underlying text led Auld to reject the traditional Deuteronomist hand of Noth as he summed “it seems equally clear to me that their [Dtr] hand is not to be detected in our basic stratum (a), or indeed (b): the extensive material about David, Solomon, and Juday shared by Kings and Chronicles.”163 Narrative Study Thomas Broadie supplied an example of narrative study in Kings. The author proposed that the Elijah-Elisha narratives served as an interpretive synthesis or literary mirror for GenesisKings.164 First, he argued for the unity of Elijah and Elisha through an eight-fold structure of 159 Cogan identified the prophetic narratives as I Kgs 11:29-38; 14:1-18; 16:1-4; 17-19; 21; II Kgs 1:1-2:18; 2:19-25; 3:3-9:13; 13:14-21 among other smaller strands. 160 Cogan, 95. 161 A. Graeme Auld. Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 40. 162 Ibid., 148-9. 163 Ibid., 151. 164 Thomas L. Brodie. The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis- Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2000). 31 two-sets of four acts called diptychs.165 Next, Brodie suggested main themes in each of the leading episodes: Genesis (flood), Exodus-Deuteronomy (Sinai/Horeb), Joshua (siege), Judges (Deborah takes over), 1 Samuel (Saul, prophets, war), and 2 Samuel (David on roof).166 He then related these themes to parallel introductory themes in the Elijah/Elisha cycles. Although the use of these introductory themes was highly subjective, Brodie’s examination of literary mirrors within Kings may provide more fruitful intertextual analysis in other narrative cycles. Specialized Study One specialized type of study is the reading of the Kings material was propaganda. Eric Seibert defined propaganda as “a form of persuasion consciously deployed with the intention of convincing others to see things from the point of view of the propagator, regardless of whether that perspective resonates with the particular desires, concerns, and/or ideological affinities of a audience.”167 In relation to propaganda is the idea of subversion, “defined as that which subtly undermines, criticizes, or ‘destroys’ an ideology, institution, or individual that is often, though not always, connected with or representative of a dominant power structure.”168 Through an analysis of 1 Kings 1-11, the author suggested a subversive attempt by the scribes against the Solomonic dynasty. The idea of subversion is not isolated to Kings and Jonathan Magonet studied subtle subversion in the Abrahamic narratives, Exodus tradition, Jonah, and the phrase “chosen people.”169 Seibert concluded subversion techniques in 1 Kings 1-11 make the text more complex and reject the simple two-part division of this early Kings cycle. He ultimately proposed the propaganda in the Kings material was nothing more than a smokescreen for subversive scribal activity, although no standard framework existed within the Solomonic episodes.170 Patricia Dutcher-Walls examined the stories of Athaliah and Joash in 2 Kings 11 and 12. Her research included separate narrative, rhetorical, ideological, and sociological analysis. She proposed that the reader should approach the text with a willingness to shift perspectives and that “a story is basically a communication between an author, and an audience in a particularcontext.” 165 See Brodie, 6. Drama One Elijah: 1 Kgs 16:29-18:28; 19-20; 21-22; and 2 Kgs 1-2. Drama Two Elisha: 2 Kgs 3-4; 5-8; 9-10; and 11-13. 166 Brodie, 32. 167 Eric A. Seibert. Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11 (New York: t&t Clark, 2006), 13. 168 Ibid. 19. 169 See Jonathan Magonet, The Subversive Bible (London: SCM Press, 1997). 170 Seibert, 185. 32 171 The author’s volume was unique in its use of four distinct methodologies upon the same passage. This approach allowed for a clear understanding of different analysis and their respective usefulness. The volume also drew upon larger Deuteronomistic concepts, particularly the covenant making and covenant keeping. Although not explicitly stated, intertextuality for the author would be the interplay of the reader with the text and the new perspectives taken from this communication. Avioz presented a thematic study of Beauty in the Samuel and Kings corpus.172 This study relied more upon intertextual motif rather than specific verse or verbal usage. The author suggested that the idea of beauty in Samuel was a building concept first with Saul, Eliab and continued in the narrative with David. Ultimately, the article concluded that beauty helped the narrative: look to the future, shatter positive characterizations, create contrast, helps character building. Although Avioz offered a good analysis of beauty, his method is lacking. Yet, the author follows many who provide intertextual study through thematic analysis. Avioz found that Samuel was the only book in the Former Prophets that dealt with beauty and suggested, “it is possible that this comprises an additional reason for regarding the books of Joshua-Kings as independent books, and not as a consolidated Deuteronomistic division.”173 Sometimes connections between two texts are unclear. This is illustrated by the succession narratives and Exodus 21 as some scholars affirm citation and some propose no connection at all. Between these two positions sits Burnside who proposed that “Exod 21:12-14 is both normative and operative in the stories of Adonijah and Joab”.174 He suggested a normative and not semantic reading of the law in Exodus, which created a new relationship between 1 Kings 1-2 and the passage in question. Also, the article included a two-page chart listing the common narrative links within each narrative. He finished with the summation, “the stories of Adonijah’s and Joab’s flights to the altar provide us with valuable practical examples of how an adjudicator might assess the legitimacy of claims to asylum and help us to think more carefully about the relationship between biblical law and biblical narrative.”175 171 Patricia Dutcher-Walls. Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 209 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 180. 172 Michael Avioz "The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings." Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 341-359. 173 Ibid., 359. 174 Jonathan. Burnside. "Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12-14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1-2)." Journal Of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 420. 175 Ibid., 431. 33 Dwyer started with his thesis that “interplay of texts and voices within the Bible resembles midrash in its reworking and retelling of set pieces” (23).176 The author used as his test the narratives of Elijah and Elisha and their respective women (1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 4). Here one notices several similarities and many differences. Source criticism understood the later Elisha text as a secondary rewrite of Elijah. However, Dwyer posited a midrashic expansion. In conclusion, the author proposed, “playful revisers can be read as having fun with prior texts with midrashic narrative expansions” (27). This article brought a new view of intertextuality despite a lower view of the text. Dwyer’s greatest contribution is his assertion that through intertextuality the Bible struggles within itself. 176 Timothy Dwyer. "Prominent Women, Widows, and Prophets: A Case for Midrashic Intertextuality." Essays In Literature 20 (1993): 23-30. 34 OBSERVATIONS In summation, several observations arise from the survey of intertextuality in the Former Prophets. First, the influence of Noth still permeates intertextual study. The battle over the inclusion of Joshua with the Pentateuch or with Judges-Kings may lessen the current impact of the Deuteronomistic Historian. Second, present scholarship is fractured and vast amount of intertextual new publications have little concern for macro-analysis. Next, although earlier scholars were entrenched in source-critical study, the new trend is toward post-structural and post-modern thought. Earl may give a glimpse into the future of intertextual study in Joshua with his theory of “cultural memory” and the text within the modern Christian community. In Judges, gender studies have driven the current debate with excellent analysis by Fewell , Ackerman and Mary Beavis among others. In Samuel character analysis and character study has become the dominating trend. These major characters (Saul, David, and Solomon) were then compared and contrasted through the biblical text. Lastly, for Kings, the trend is toward specialization. One possible explanation for the lack of unity in scholarship is the length of time covered by the Former Prophets. Approximately 700 years of history and story is presented in the biblical text leaving the door open to a wide variety of intertextual approach to these narratives. 35 APPENDIX I-INTERCONNECTIONS IN SAMUEL177 177 Charts taken from Robert D. Bergen, NAC, 47-50. 36 37 38 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Susan. Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Adam, Klaus-Peter. “Warfare and Treaty Formulas in the Background of Kings.” Pages 35- 68 in Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Edited by Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Anderson, A.A. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary 11. Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Andersson, Greger. Untamable Texts: Literary Studies and Narrative Theory in the Books of Samuel. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. New York: t&t Clark, 2009. Angel, Hayyim . “Moonlit Leadership: A Midrashic Reading of Joshua’s Success.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 37 (2009): 144-152. Auld, A. Graeme. “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?” Pages 116-126 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by L.S. Schearing and S.L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Auld, A. Graeme. Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Auld, Graeme. "Narrative Books in the Hebrew Scriptures." Expository Times 119, no. 3 (2007): 105-110. Auld, A. Graeme. "What if the Chronicler did use the Deuteronomistic History?" Biblical Interpretation 8, no. 1/2 (2000): 137-150. Avioz, Michael. "The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings." Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 341-359. Beavis, Mary Ann. "The Resurrection of Jephthah's Daughter: Judges 11:34-40 and Mark 5:2124, 35-43." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (January 2010): 46-62. Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. The New American Commentary 7. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996. Bergen, Wesley, J. Elisha and the End of Prophetism. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 286. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. 40 Berger, Yitzhak. "Esther and Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion." Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 625-644. Berger, Yitzhak. "Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25." Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 253-272. Biddle, Mark E. "Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 617-638. Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999. Boling, Robert G. Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 6. New York: Doubleday, 1975. Boling, R.G. and Wright, G.E., Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. AB 6. New York: Doubleday, 1982. Burnside, Jonathan. "Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12-14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1-2)." Journal Of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 418-431. Brodie, Thomas L. The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis- Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2000. Carroll, Robert P. “The Book of J: Intertextuality and Ideological Criticism.” Pages 220-243 in Troubling Jeremiah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Cheng, Patrick S. "Multiplicity and Judges 19: Constructing a Queer Asian Pacific American Biblical Hermeneutic." Semeia 90/91 (March 2002): 119. Christianson, Eric S. "The Big Sleep: Strategic Ambiguity in Judges 4-5 and in Classic film noir." Biblical Interpretation 15 (August 2007): 519-548. Coats, George W. “Conquest Traditions in the Wilderness Theme.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 177-190. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History (1968).” Pages 274-289 in idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. 41 Cundall, Aurthur E. and Leon Morris. Judges & Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968. Dafna, Avraham Lorberbaum. “Did the Wall of Jericho Collapse or Did the City Surrender?” Jewish Bible Quarterly 38 (2010): 36-40. De Pury, Albert; Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Dutcher-Walls, Patricia. Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 209. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Dwyer, Timothy. "Prominent Women, Widows, and Prophets: A Case for Midrashic Intertextuality." Essays In Literature 20 (1993): 23-30. Evans, Paul S. "The Function of the Chronicler's Temple Despoliation Notices in Light of Imperial Realities in Yehud." Journal Of Biblical Literature 129, no. 1 (2010): 31-47. Earl, Douglas S. Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture. Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplement 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Fewell, Dana Nolan and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Frolov, Serge. "Man of God and the Deuteronomist: Anti-Deuteronomistic Polemics in 1 Sam 2,27-36." SJOT: Scandinavian Journal Of The Old Testament 20, no. 1 (2006): 58-76. Frolov, Serge. “Evil-Merodach and the Deuteronomists: The Sociohistorical Setting of Dtr in the Light of 2 Kgs 25,27-20.” Bib 88 (2007): 174-90. Frolov, Serge. “Joshua's Double Demise (Josh. Xxiv 28-31; Judg. ii 6-9): Making Sense of a Repetition.” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 315-323. Frolov, Serge, and Allen Wright. "Homeric and Ancient Near Eastern Intertextuality in 1 Samuel 17." Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 451-471. Frolov, Serge. "Certain Men" in Judges and Samuel: A Rejoinder to Mark Leuchter." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73, no. 2 (2011): 251-264. Gillmayr-Bucher, Susanne. 'She Came to Test Him with Hard Questions': Foreign Women and their View on Israel.” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 135-150. Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1970. 42 Heller, Roy L. Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteornomistic Evaluation of Prophecy. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 404. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Hess, Richard S. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. Hobbs, T.R. A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier Press, 1989. Hobbs, T.R. 2 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 13. Waco: Word Books, 1985. House, Paul R. 1,2 Kings. The New American Commentary 8. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995. Howard, David M. Jr. Joshua. The New American Commentary 5. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998. Hundley, Michael. "To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History." Vetus Testamentum 59, no. 4 ( 2009): 533-555. Hutzli, Jüürg. "The Literary Relationship between I--II Samuel and I--II Kings. Considerations Concerning the Formation of the Two Books." Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122, no. 4 (2010): 505-519. Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “Allegorical Interpretation of Geography in Origen's Homilies on the Book of Joshua.” Religion & Theology 17 (2010): 289-301. Jobling, David. “The Text’s World of Meaning.” Pages 90- 114 in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies 2nd ed. Edited by Gale A. Yee. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Kah-Jin Jeffrey Kuan. “Biblical Interpretation and the Rhetoric of Violence and War.” Asia Journal of Theology 23 (2009): 189-203. Klaus, Nathan. Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 247. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Koopsmans, William T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 93. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Leder, Arie C. "Paradise Lost: Reading the Former Prophets by the Rivers of Babylon." Calvin Theological Journal 37, no. 1 (2002): 9-27. Leonard, Jeffery M. "Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a test case." Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 241-265. 43 Leuchter, Mark. “The Sociolinguistic and Rhetorical Implications of the Source Citations in Kings.” Pages 119- 134 in Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Edited by Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Linville, James Richard. Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 272. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Noort, Edward. "Balaam the villain: the history of reception of the Balaam narrative in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets." Pages 3-12 in Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, early Christianity and Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Long, Burke O. 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature IX. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1984. Lozovyy, Joseph. Saul, Doeg, Nabal, and the “Son of Jesse”: Readings in 1 Samuel 16-25. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. New York: t&t Clark, 2009. Luther, Bernhard. “The Novella of Judah and Tamar and Other Israelite Novella.” Pages 89-118 in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923. David M. Gunn ed. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1991. Marais, Jacaobus. Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts. Boston: Brill, 1998. Martin, Lee Roy. "Where are all his wonders?" The Exodus Motif in the Book of Judges." Journal of Biblical & Pneumatological Research 2 (2010): 87-109. Masalha, Nur . “Reading the Bible with the Eyes of the Canaanites: Neo-Zionism, Political Theology and the Land Traditions of the Bible (1967 to Gaza 2009).” Holy Land Studies: A Multidisciplinary Journal 8 (2009): 55-108. McCarter, P. Kyle Jr. 1 Samuel: A New Translation, with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. McCarter, P. Kyle Jr. II Samuel: A New Translation, with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984. McKenzie, Steven L. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. New York: E.J. Brill, 1991. 44 Mulder, Martin J. Volume 1: 1 Kings 1-11. Translated by John Friend. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1998. Nelson, Richard D. “Josiah in the Book of Joshua.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 531-540. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Noth, Martin. The Chronicler’s History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 50. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Polzin, Robert. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Three: 2 Samuel. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1993. Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Two: 1 Samuel. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1993. Rezetko, Robert. Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text, Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15-16. New York: t&t Clark, 2007. Romer, Thomas. “How Many Books (Teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch.” Pages 25-42 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Romer, and Konrad Schmid. Atlanta: Soceity of Biblical Literature, 2011. Rost, Leonarhard. The Succession to the Throne of David. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982. Schipper, Jeremy. "Deuteronomy 24:5 and King Asa's Foot Disease in 1 Kings 15:23b." Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 643-648. Seibert, Eric A. Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11. New York: t&t Clark, 2006. Shulz, Alfons. “Narrative Art in the Books of Samuel.” Pages 119- 170 in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923. David M. Gunn ed. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1991. Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1981. 45 Soggin, J. Alberto. Joshua: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Steinberg, Naoimi. “Judges 9 and Issues of Kingship.” Pages 46-64 in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies 2nd ed. Edited by Gale A. Yee. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Sweeney, Marvin, A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 2007. Thelle, Rannfrid I. “The Biblical Conquest Account and Its Modern Hermeneutical Challenges.” Studia Theologica 61 (2007): 61-81. Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007. Way, Kenneth C. "Animals in the Prophetic World: Literary Reflections on Numbers 22 and 1 Kings 13." Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament 34 (2009): 47-62. Weiss, Andrea L. Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Boston: Brill, 2006. Wiseman, Donald J. 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993. Witvliet, John D. "The former prophets and the practice of Christian worship." Calvin Theological Journal 37, no. 1 (2002): 82-94. Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981. 46