Abstract
This study intends to replace Martin Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis with an approach that makes better use of all available data. Three thesis statements establish a new paradigm for future research. First, to the extent that they have Deuteronomy in view, the Former Prophets represent not a deuteronomistic ideology, but a Deuteronomic debate. Second, the like-minded intellectuals who produced these scrolls did not intend to create authoritative scripture because their writings were not intended for mass consumption. Third, each book of the Former Prophets presents a distinctive pattern of response to Deuteronomy, usually negative but occasionally positive. In sum, what we have in the Former Prophets is a conversation with Deuteronomy. What we do not have, except for a few late glosses, is deuteronomism.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
