Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History 0891309683, 9780891309680

Citation preview

Gerald Eddie Gerbrandt

KINGSHIP ACCORDING TO THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

i

SBL Dissertation Series 87

lli.o 61 GC-(2-

Op

tes

t 4

a

’•ST IS Li

KINGSHIP ACCORDING TO THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

v Bib ( Colle' e

CN

i

CO

H

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

DISSERTATION SERIES J. J. M. Roberts, Old Testament Editor Charles Talbert, New Testament Editor

Number 87 KINGSHIP ACCORDING TO THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY by Gerald Eddie Gerbrandt

Gerald Eddie Gerbrandt

KINGSHIP ACCORDING TO THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Scholars Press Atlanta, Georgia

KINGSHIP ACCORDING TO THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY Gerald Eddie Gerbrandt

Advisor: W. Sibley Towner

Th.D., 1979 Union Theological Seminary Richmond, Virginia

©1986 Society of Biblical Literature

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gerbrandt, Gerald Eddie. Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic history. (Dissertation series / Society of Biblical Literature ; no. 87) Thesis (Doctor of Theology)—Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, 1979 Bibliography: p. 1. Kings and rulers—Biblical teachings. 2. Bible. O.T. Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Bible. O.T. Former Prophets—Criticism, interpre' tation, etc. 4. D Document (Biblical criticism) I. Title. II. Series: Dissertation series (Society of Biblical Literature) ; no. 87. BS1199.K5G47

1986

222706

86-6660

ISBN 0-89130-968-3 (alk. paper) ISBN 0-89130-969-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

To my Parents, Henry and Susan Gerbrandt

Contents PREFACE

.xi

ABBREVIATIONS

. .xiii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RESEARCH.1 A Review of Research on the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History.1 Martin Noth.1 Rejection of Martin Noth's Thesis.2 Confirmation of Martin Noth's Thesis.5 Modification of Martin Noth's Thesis.6 Gerhard von Rad.7 The Two-Redaction Theory.8 DtrG - DtrP - DtrN.11 A Response to the Research on the Compo¬ sition of the Deuteronomistic History.13 A Review of Research on Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History.18 The Traditional Position.18 Recent Alternative Proposals.23 A Response to the Research on Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History.36 The Purpose of This Dissertation.38

vii

2. KINGSHIP IN 2 KINGS 18-23.45 King 3osiah, 2 Kings 22-23

.45

The Deuteronomist's Evaluation of King 3osiah.46 The Basis of the Deuteronomist's Evaluation.57 The Discovery of the Lawbook, 2 Kings 22:3-20 . 59 The Covenant Renewal Ceremony, 2 Kings 23:1-3.61 The Reform of the Cult, 2 Kings 23:4-20, 24 . 64 The Passover Celebration, 2 Kings 23:21-23. 66 Conclusion.67 King Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18-20.68 The Deuteronomist's Evaluation of King Hezekiah.72 The Basis of the Deuteronomist's Evaluation.75 Introduction, 2 Kings 18:9-16.79 Yahweh's Deliverance of 3erusalem, 2 Kings 18:17-19:37.81 Hezekiah's Illness, 2 Kings 20:1-11.85 The Envoys from Babylon, 2 Kings 20:12-19.86 Conclusion.88 A Proposal: The Role of the King According to the Deuteronomistic Historian.89 The Deuteronomist's Theology.90 The Role of the King According to the Deuteronomistic Historian.96

3. KINGSHIP IN THE REMAINDER OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY.103 Deuteronomy 17:14-20—The Law of Kingship.103

viii

Preliminary Critical Considerations.103 Kingship in the Deuteronomic Law of Kingship.108 Kingship in the Deuteronomistic Addition to the Law of Kingship.113

Joshua

.116

Judges

.123

Gideon and Kingship, Judges 8:22-23 . 123 Jotham's Fable and the Story of Abimelech, Judges 9.129 Judges 17-21.134 The Deuteronomist and the Time of the Judges.138 The Rise of Kingship.140 Preliminary Critical Concerns.140 1 Samuel 8-12 and Anti-Kingship Rhetoric.143 The Function of 1 Samuel 8-12 in the Deuteronomistic History.145 1 Samuel 8-12 Warns of the Dangers of Kingship.146 1 Samuel 8-12 Integrates Kingship with Israelite Theology.149 The Rejection of Saul, 1 Samuel 13-15.154 King David in the Deuteronomistic History.158 Preliminary Critical Concerns.158 The Davidic Covenant.160 The Prophecy of Nathan, 2 Samuel 7.160 The Davidic Promise in the Remainder of the Deuteron¬ omistic History.164 King David and the Deuteronomist's View of Kingship.

170

1 and 2 Kings.173

IX

The Deuteronomist and King Solomon.174 The Sin of Jeroboam and the End of the North.177 Prophets, Kings, and the Battles of Israel.180 The Coronation of Joash, 1 Kings 11.182

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.189

APPENDIX: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON 2 KINGS 22-23 . 195

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.201

INDEX

227

x

Preface This study was presented to Union Theoiogical Seminary in Virginia in August,

1979 as a doctoral dissertation. The seven years since have

resulted in numerous monographs and articles bearing on the topic. Ideally the dissertation should have been revised and refined in light of more recent research. Such a revision could also have ameliorated the awkward dissertation style of the work. In keeping with the nature of the SBL Dissertation Series, however, I am submitting the original study virtually unchanged. Many people have made a significant contribution to the ultimate production of this book. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to them. The dissertation was directed by Professor W. Sibley Towner who devoted many hours of consultation to me. His continuous support and encourage¬ ment aided the task immeasurably. My committee members, Professor dames L. Mays and Professor Patrick D. Miller, Jr., influenced the work at many points with their helpful questions and insightful comments. These were always appreciated. I owe a special debt to Dr. Waldemar Janzen, formerly my teacher, and now colleague and friend. He first whetted my appetite for the academic study of Old Testament in an undergraduate course on the history of Old Testament criticism. His support and guidance in the past 20 years can not be repaid. The contribution of

my

family

in this project was immense.

The

patience and love of Esther, my wife, made doctoral studies a relative pleasure. It was she who pushed that we remain at school, away from home and family, until the dissertation was completely finished. For this I am thankful. My three children, Nathan, Bradley and Virginia regularly drew me from my study for times of play. Finally, I want to express thanks to my parents, Henry and Susan Gerbrandt. They instilled in me a love for the scriptures, and they gave me the opportunity and desire to

xi

pursue formal study beyond what was possible for their generation. It is this combination which made this book possible, and thus I dedicate it to them.

Gerald E. Gerbrandt Winnipeg, Manitoba May, 1986

Abbreviations AB

The Anchor Bible

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

AOAT

Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ATANT

ATD

BASOR

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BAT

Die Botschaft des Altes Testaments

BBB

Bonner Bibiische Beitrage

BFCT

Beitrage zur christlicher Theologie

BHT

Beitrage zur historischen Theologie

Bib BJRL

BKAT

BR BWANT

Biblica Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

Biblical Research Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BWAT

Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament

BZ BZAW

Biblische Zeitschrift Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft CB

The Century Bible

CBC

The Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

HAT

Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA IB ICC

Int JBL JNES JSOTSup

Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter's Bible The International Critical Commentary

Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplements

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

KAT

Kommentar zum Aiten Testament

KHCAT

Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

NICOT

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament

OTL

Old Testament Library

SBLDS

SBL Dissertation Series

SBLMS

SBL Monograph Series

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

XIV

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

TLZ

Theologische Literaturzeitung

TRu

Theologische Rundschau

TS

Theological Studies

TZ

Theologische Zeitschrift

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup WMANT

Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

ZAW

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK

Zeitschrift filr Theologie und Kirche

Biblical quotations have been taken from the Revised Standard Version.

xv

1 Introduction and Review of Research A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY1 Martin Noth 1943 marks a turning point in the study of the composition of Deuter¬ onomy and the Former Prophets. In that year Martin Noth published his ground-breaking

Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien,

a volume which

has become the starting point for research in this area ever since. Prior to Noth, research within the Former Prophets had been domi¬ nated

by

literary-critical

methods

and

the

attempt

to

trace

the

^or a more detailed history of critical studies on the composition of the Deuteronomistic History see especially Arnold Nicolaas Radjawane, "Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Ein Forschungsbericht," TRu 38 (1974)

177-216;

and Ernst Jenni, "Zwei Uahrzehnte Forschung an den

Buchern Oosua bis Konige,"

TRu 27 (1961) 1-32, 97-146. Other helpful

sources on this history are Norman Snaith, "The Historical Books," in The

Old Testament and Modem Study (ed. H. H. Rowley; London: Oxford, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart

1961) 84-114; Hans-3oachim Kraus,

(Neukirchen Kries Moers: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1956) 41116; Ronald E. Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpreta¬

tion (Philadelphia: Westminster,

1976)

31-50,

as well as various OT

introductions. 2Martin Noth, Uberlief erungsgeschichtliche Studien I. Die sammelnden

und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1943).

Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic History

2

Pentateuchal sources into these OT books. Julius Wellhausen^ and others^ saw the Former Prophets bound together by a Deuteronomic redaction, but the role attributed to this redactor in the final composition was really quite minimal. Noth's most significant contribution at this point was his thesis that the books Deuteronomy to 2 Kings were part of a unified work of history produced by a single author living in Palestine during the exile. He argued that these individual books then need to be treated as part of this Deuteronomistic History and not as separate books. Naturally the author of this history used many smaller and larger old sources, but these were not to be equated with the Pentateuchal sources. The author gave this history his own distinctive stamp by the way in which he adopted or rejected his sources, by the order he gave to them through the composi¬ tion of linking passages, and most importantly, by the composition and insertion of speeches and summary-like passages at key points within the history. Noth briefly summarized his thesis as follows: The goal of the foregoing investigation was to show that we should

not

speak of a "deuteronomistic

redaction" of an

already more or less completed, older, historical account, but that Dtr was the author of a comprehensive history (Tradi-

tionswerkes). To be sure, Dtr conscientiously took up the extant tradition and had it speak for itself, but still, he himself organized and arranged the whole, and through retro¬ spective and forward-looking synopses he systematized and interpreted it.'* (Translation mine).

Rejection of Martin Noth's Thesis A number of OT scholars who were used to literary criticism and source analysis when studying Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets

3

Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963); and Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: Meridian, 1957) 228-93. ^For two examples of this, notice the Old Testament introduction, Carl Cornill, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1907); and the commentaries by Karl Budde, Das Buch der Richter, KHCAT, Abt. 7 (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1897); and Budde, Die Bucher Samuel, KHCAT, Abt. 8 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1902). ^Noth, UgS, p. 89.

Introduction and Review of Research

3

were simply not convinced by Noth's new proposal based on his traditiohistorical approach. Like Wellhausen, Cornill, Budde and others of the pre-Noth period they admitted the existence of a Deuteronomic redactor working during the time of the exile or later, but this redactor was cer¬ tainly not the purposeful historian envisioned by Noth. For these scholars true history writing in Israel arose during the period of enlightenment which blossomed at the time of David and Solomon, and not during the oppressive years of the exile. The redactor of the exile then merely combined the major histories of Israel available to him (3 and E, or some variation thereof), and brought them up to date. Three scholars who could be characterized in this way are Gustav Holscher, Otto Eissfeldt and Cuthbert Simpson. All three began their OT research before 1943, and after studying Noth remained convinced that the older methods and results were more valid and accurate. Holscher had already written on the sources and redaction of Kings,^ and on the origins of history writing in Israel'7 before Noth published his important study. Yet he felt little need to change his basic views when in 1952 he wrote another work on history writing in Israel, tracing the work of 3 and E from Genesis to Kings.^ In this study of 3 and E Holscher accepted neither a Pentateuch nor a Deuteronomistic History, but argued that Genesis to 2 Kings "form, as their contents reveal, in reality a single coherent work Q

which only later was divided into nine individual books."7 (Translation mine). The true historians of the OT were 3 and E and not some Deuteronomist. Eissfeldt first published his OT introduction in 1934.^ Here he pre¬ sented the classic picture of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Like Holscher, Eissfeldt was not persuaded to change his basic approach

^Gustav

Holscher, "Das Buch der Konige, seine Quellen und seine

Redaktion," in Eucharisteriorx, Fs. Hermann Gunkel, FRLANT, hft. 36, T. 1 (ed. Hans Schmidt; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923) 158-213. ^Gustav Holscher, Die Anfange der hebraischen Geschichtsschreibung, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 3ahrgang 1941/42, 3 Abh. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1942). ^Gustav Holscher, Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum

Jahwisten

und

Elohisten.

Skrifter

Utgivna

av

Kungl.

Humanistiska

Vetenskapssamfundet I Lund, Nr. 50 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1952). ^Ibid., p. 8. 10Otto Eissfeldt,

Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Neue theologische

Grundrisse (Tubingen: 3. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1934).

Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic History

4

by Noth's work, and the third edition of his introduction still left little

J

1

room for a creative historian like the Deuteronomist.

1

His clearest

rejection of Noth is expressed in his review of Noth's book.^ Here he focussed upon Joshua 1 and 1 Samuel 7-12 and argued that both passages are better explained by positing two parallel strands rather than as the product of an author who carefully picked his sources and then added his own comments to them. Again it is evident that for Eissfeldt 3 and E, together with L, are the important Old Testament historians, and the role of the Deuteronomist is that of a compiler and redactor. Although Simpson wrote two books on the early traditions and history of Israel, both after 1943, neither makes any significant use of Noth's study.13 In his introduction to the Simpson

suggested

that

the

Composition of the Book of Judges

literary structure of the Hexateuch (for

Simpson there existed three strands, J1, J^ which was a later revision of J1, and E) continued not only through Judges, but also through 1 and 2 Samuel up to 1 Kings 13. He is then also part of this approach to the Former Prophets. The views of Holscher, Eissfeldt and Simpson on the Former Prophets have found very few followers in recent years. One exception to this is Hannelis Schulte, a student of Holscher's. In a recent work she argues that the Yahwist, writing shortly after the division of the kingdom, was the first real historian in Israel. It was he who compiled the old traditions, recorded oral history, and added his own contributions thus producing a history extending from the beginning of time till the death of Solomon.1^ Such a picture does not allow for the kind of Deuteronomistic historian proposed by Noth. Noth's thesis is not only rejected by those who continue to work in the source analysis tradition, but also by some who are not satisfied by it for

JOtto Eissfeldt, The Harper & Row, 1965).

Old Testament. An Introduction (New York:

^Otto Eissfeldt, "Die Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament," TLZ 72 (1947)71-76. 13Cuthbert Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel. A Critical Analysis

of the

Pre-deuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch (Oxford: Basil Composition of the Book of Judges

Blackwell, 1948); and Simpson, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957).

^Hannelis Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel, BZAW, Nr. 128 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972).

Introduction and Review of Research

5

other reasons. Artur Weiser^ and Georg Fohrer^ are two who represent this approach. Both see the Pentateuchal strands as continuing into Joshua at least, and argue for an original Hexateuch. Both deny a literary unity for all the books placed into the Deuteronomistic History by Noth. Each emphasizes that the books of Judges to Kings need to be studied and analyzed individually since each had its own history. In this way both decidedly downplay the significance of the Deuteronomist in the final form of the history and so see no common Deuteronomistic theology uniting the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. As Fohrer stated, "There never was a Deuteronomistic History as a unified literary entity; instead, we have a series of books Deuteronomy-Kings, each composed or edited in a different way."^'7

Confirmation of Martin Noth's Thesis Two scholars who did their research at approximately the same time as Noth, and who arrived at conclusions which tended to support or confirm Noth's thesis of a Deuteronomistic History were Alfred Jepsen and Ivan Engnell. During the 1930's Jepsen analyzed the sources and composition of 1 and 2 Kings. By 1939 his work was finished and accepted for publication, 18 but because of the Second World War it was not published until 1953. Jepsen made virtually no changes in the manuscript in these intervening years, so that a significant value of his conclusions is that they were arrived at completely independently from Noth. In contrast to many scholars of his time Jepsen denied that J and E could be found in Kings. He saw Kings as based primarily upon two sources, a synchronistic chron¬ icle of the kings of Israel and Judah, and the annals of the kings. These two major sources were combined by a priestly redactor working in Jeru¬ salem early during the exile, and then incorporated into a story beginning at least with the rise of David. This story then received a second, more major redaction or revision based on the book of Deuteronomy and biased toward the prophetic movement. The whole history was reinterpreted on the basis of a prophetic theology, various prophetic traditions were added

^Artur Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Associ¬ ation, 1961). ^Georg Fohrer,

Introduction

to

the

Old

Testament (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1968). ^ Ibid., p. 195. 18Alfred Jepsen, Die Quellen des Konigsbuches (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1953).

Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic History

6

(the stories of Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah are a few examples), and the history was extended backward to the time of Moses (traditions of the conquest, of the judges and of Samuel, as well as the book of Deuteron¬ omy were incorporated). A deuteronomistic History had been produced extending from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings by a prophetically inclined indi¬ vidual working in Palestine during the exile. This Deuteronomistic History then received a final minor redaction by a levitical editor. Jepsen thus independently supported Noth's thesis of a Deuteronomistic History even though he differed considerably from Noth on his analysis of the pre¬ history of 1 and 2 Kings. It is questionable whether Jepsen's work has i o

received the attention and consideration it deserves. In 1945 the Swedish scholar Engnell published an introduction to the OT based on his own traditio-historical methods of research.

In this work he

argued that the OT contains three major literary complexes: the P-work (Genesis to Numbers), the D-work (Deuteronomy to 2 Kings), and the Kwork (Ezra to 2 Chronicles). The author of each of these independent complexes had adopted and reworked the various traditions available to him (these traditions were seen as being primarily oral) to produce a unified literary composition. The individual behind the Deuteronomistic History was clearly an author and historian in his own right, and not just a redactor. The important aspect to note here is that Engnell came to conclusions similar to those of Noth regarding the unity and literary independence

of

the

Deuteronomistic

History

despite

the

fact

that

Engnell's methods of research were radically different from Noth's.

Modification of Martin Noth's Thesis During the 35 years since the publication of Noth's Uberlieferungs-

geschichtliche

Studien

the

phrase

"Deuteronomistic

History"^

has

19It sometimes appears as if Jepsen is simply categorized as confirm¬ ing Noth's thesis, and then ignored. One exception to this is the recent commentary by Klaus Dietrich Fricke, Das zweite Buch von den Konigen, Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, Bd.

12, T. 2 (Stuttgart: Calwer,

1972), which makes considerable use of Jepsen's conclusions. 2®Ivan Engnell, Gamla Testementet. En Traditionshistorisk Inledning (Stockholm: Svensk Krykans Diakonistyrelses Bokfoflag, 1945). Note also Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament (Nash¬ ville: Vanderbilt, 1969). 21 Some scholars speak of a "Deuteronomic History" instead of a "Deuteronomistic History." Since this is a question of style rather than of

Introduction and Review of Research

7

become a commonplace in OT studies. An examination of popular intro¬ ductions to the OT reveals that virtually all speak of such a history, and consider at least Judges to 2 Kings to be a literary unity of some sort.22 The arguments of scholars such as Holscher and Eissfeldt against Noth have not received general support, and it is possible today to speak of a near-consensus on at least the existence of a Deuteronomistic History.^ Despite this high degree of agreement, few scholars have accepted Noth's views exactly as he presented them. Most would probably consider Noth's thesis to be too simple and in need of considerable modification and/or further expansion. The following are some of the major ways in which Noth's thesis has been adapted or modified. Gerhard von Rad. Gerhard von Rad's response to Noth's study was decidedly mixed. On the one hand von Rad recognized the outstanding contribution that Noth had made to an area of OT studies which had been in dire need of some new work. On the other hand von Rad disagreed with Noth's thesis at a number of rather important places. Von Rad had earlier already argued for the literary (the Pentateuchal strands begin in Genesis and continue through Joshua) and theological (the promise of land in Genesis is fulfilled in the account of the settlement in Joshua) unity of the Hexateuch,2/f and he was not persuaded by Noth to change his mind on

meaning this difference has no real significance and does not affect the statement made. In time a more uniform vocabulary will hopefully be adopted. 2^A few representative introductions which speak of a Deuteronomistic History are: Henry Jackson Flanders, Jr., Robert Wilson Crapps, and David Anthony Smith, People of the Covenant: An Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Ronald, 1963) 165-66; Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1966) 77; J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 161-64; Otto Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975) 169-75. 23It should be noted that some of conservative scholarship does not accept the existence of a continuous Deuteronomistic History, but deals with each book independently. Two examples of this are: Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970); Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testa¬ ment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977). 2^Gerhard von Rad, "The Form-critical Problem of the Hexateuch," first published as "Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch" in 1938, in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver