Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. By Gary N. Knoppers. Vol. 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993, xv + 302 pp., $39.95; Vol. 2: The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994, xvii + 349 pp., $39.95.
This is a major work by a brilliant young scholar well-immersed in studies of the Deuteronomistic History (DH). Knoppers's concern is to show that the bulk of the DH stems from the time of Josiah and that in 1-2 Kings, it intends to legitimate Josiah's kingship and reforms.
Knoppers believes, following his teacher Frank Cross, that there were two editions of the DH: the first edition was produced close to Josiah's time by the "first Deuteronomist[s]" (Dtr1), whose agenda was to glorify Josiah's reforms and defend the Davidic monarchy. Dtr1 was responsible for compiling most of Deuteronomy - 2 Kgs. 23:23 (using many available sources); an "exilic supplement" was later added by Dtr2 (mainly 2 Kgs. 23:24-25:30), and other scattered additions were made.
Knoppers's argument is at once simple and complex. It is simple in that he argues that the DH in 1-2 Kings glorifies the Davidic monarchy and the promises to David, and that it points from the beginning to the great reforming king, Josiah. Thus, the DH's purpose is to legitimate Josiah as the best and most legitimate successor to David. Beyond this, Josiah was a symbol who brought together the two great figures of Moses and David, since he returned with diligence to Torah obedience (recalling Moses) at the temple in Jerusalem (recalling David). True success for God's people lay in a monarchy that encouraged correct worship as described in the Torah, but which was carried out under the exemplary leadership and sponsorship of a faithful Davidic king in the temple at Jerusalem.
In this way, Knoppers differs from Noth, who argued that the DH's purpose was essentially negative, and he differs from many scholars who argue that the Deuteronomist was anti-kingship. "Within the spectrum of anti-monarchical, moderating, and pro-monarchical positions, the Deuteronomist advocates a decidedly pro-monarchical stance" (vol. 2, p. 248). Yet, kings did not have free rein: they were subject themselves to the Torah and to correct religious observances. Knoppers states, "the Deuteronomist expects kings to support the (Jerusalem temple) cultus....The author posits the need for a strong relationship between king and temple if the kingdom is to flourish" (vol. 2, p. 249).
Knoppers approaches the difficult problem of the intent of 1-2 Kings by starting at the beginning: he shows how the Deuteronomist is concerned to show from the outset that Solomon is the legitimate and highly successful heir to David's throne (1 Kings 1-10). A key to Solomon's success is in his temple building and his clear support for true cultic worship, but this is not the only one: Solomon's early reign was a "utopia of rest, unity, worship, prosperity, and peace" (vol. 1, p. 54).
Solomon's sins in 1 Kings 11 mark a sharp reversal in his life, and lead to his "fall and the inauguration of the dual monarchies" (chap. 4 in vol. 1). Here we find one of Knoppers's major contributions: he argues that many scholars have downplayed or missed the importance of 1 Kings 11 (actually, 1 Kings 11-14) in the formation of 1-2 Kings, and that 1 Kings 11, at least, should be added to the catalogue of programmatic Deuteronomistic compositions. 1 Kings 11-14 are carefully crafted to anticipate themes that are resolved with great specificity in the account of Josiah (2 Kings 22-23).
The seeds for the creation of the northern kingdom are sown in Solomon's fall. YHWH's promise of a "sure house" to Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 11:38) echoes the vocabulary of the Davidic Covenant at 2 Sam. 7:16, and this is the basis for Knoppers's title: "Two Nations Under God." He states that "For the Deuteronomist, the story of the kingdoms is a story of two nations under one God" (vol. 1, p. 55).
(This assertion is initially somewhat confusing, since the southern kingdom was the recipient of most of God's blessings. Knoppers means by his title that the northern kingdom was nevertheless a legitimate one (1 Kgs. 11:38); however, Jeroboam quickly forfeited his right to a legitimate kingly line, and thus, the "two-nations-under-God" motif is to be understood to refer to the religious unity of God's people. This becomes clear at the end of Volume 2: when Josiah undertook to correct cultic violations in the (already defunct) northern kingdom (2 Kgs. 23:15-20), this shows that, even at this late date, the northern kingdom was still understood to be part of God's people [in a way similar to how the Chronicler keeps alive the idea of "all Israel" throughout his work, or how many of the prophets anticipate a restoration of the entire nation, not just of Judah]).
In the Deuteronomist's extreme criticisms of Solomon for cultic violations, and in his initial positive treatment of Jeroboam, followed by his even more scathing condemnations of Jeroboam for the same sins, we see the contours of his agenda: kings were to be pure in their following after YHWH, as David was, and especially as Josiah was. That is, writing for a late pre-exilic audience, the Deuteronomist shows that Josiah was the reforming king who most clearly and completely erased the sins of the kings of both north and south, most especially in his obliterating the high places and the asherahs (chap. 6 in vol. 2 is revealingly entitled "Josiah's Reforms: Recovering the Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom"). Josiah's reforms redress, in a step-by-step manner, the failings of Solomon, Jeroboam, and succeeding kings.
How are we to evaluate this work? Space does not permit a host of observations begging to be made. On the positive side, I, for one, applaud Knoppers's emphasis upon the pro-monarchical stance in the DH, and I am impressed by his arguments that 1 Kings 11-14 are written with 2 Kings 22-23 in mind. He shows in convincing detail how points raised in the former chapters are resolved in the latter. Furthermore, Knoppers well shows the Deuteronomist's unrelenting focus upon true worship, which was required even of the kings.
However, caveat lector: this work is extremely complex and difficult to read (especially vol. 1). Part of this is because studies of 1-2 Kings and the Deuteronomistic History themselves are myriad, varied, and complex. In this work, page after interminable page is devoted to detailed text-critical (sometimes helpfully) and source-critical reconstructions (usually not helpfully). Not only does Knoppers review almost everything that has been written on each pericope he deals with, he also dissects each text for himself, usually detecting a number of different authorial or editorial hands. For the uninitiated, we should note that he distinguishes between "Deuteronomic" writers (those northerners who wrote Deuteronomy some time during the monarchy) and "Deuteronomistic" writers (those southerners who rewrote Deuteronomy and added the rest of the DH during or shortly after Josiah's time); these do not necessarily agree with each other, in Knoppers's estimation (see, e.g., vol. 1, pp. 86, 121, 125; vol. 2, pp. 53, 227, 251).
Most evangelicals will reject his late dating of Deuteronomy, his seemingly endless concern with layers of Deuteronomistic editing, his resort to conflicting sources to resolve many conundrums, and his view of the historical (un)reliability of the text (on this last point, see, e.g., vol. 1, pp. 130-31). Furthermore, Knoppers does not deal adequately with the final shape of 1-2 Kings; because of his two-edition theory of the DH, he writes as though 2 Kgs. 23:23-25:30 do not exist (although he promises a treatment of "Dtr2's" work in the near future).
Nevertheless, this is an important work that will take its place among the plethora of works wrestling with the complex purpose(s) of 1-2 Kings (and the Deuteronomistic History as a whole). How it will stand among many other proposals is more difficult to predict. Given its exhaustive attention to detail, and its persuasive argumentation of its main points, it deserves serious attention.
David M. Howard, Jr.
(This article originally appeared in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39.3 (Sept 1996): 471-73.)