Social Engineering and the Deuteronomistic Historian

The Deuteronomist (D) was either an individual or a group of Yahwists believed to have been writing and editing during the time of the Babylonian exile in the mid-sixth century B.C.E., and possibly working in two stages known as Dtr1 and Dtr2.

In some ways it does not matter whether D was Baruch ben Neriah or his boss, Jeremiah, or a group of scholars. What is important is that they had a coherent goal of making sense out of the exile by bringing order to a collection of scattered and sometimes contradictory stories.

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., who wrote Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries: The Deuteronomistic Historian and the Creation of Israelite National Identity[1], contends D was trying to make sense of the exile crisis. Mullen calls D’s work part of a “social drama” in which theological concerns are being linked to events on the ground. In keeping with the unifying theory of D, Mullen states, “Judah could and would support only the offspring of David—a political situation created and sustained to perfection within the deuteronomistic narrative propaganda.” D is crafting a "social manifesto of Israelite ethnic identity."

Relevant to our current studies, Mullen dedicates a lengthy discussion to the “necessity” of kingship. He includes discussion on what some called the “golden age” under the Davidic dynasty, which appears to have been important to D. What is ironic to me is that David was not a perfect ruler, yet he was not treated as badly as Saul (I’m thinking of consulting the medium in 1 Samuel 28 and other spots). David, considered a model for kings to come, had a saucy affair with Bathsheba, looked on while discontent ravaged his family and followers, and did not built the Temple to Yahweh as promised (even though God said he could let it go). These are not the markings of the perfect king and yet he was blessed by God with a never-ending dynasty.

As an aside, in 1 Samuel 1:28 there is reference to sha'ul, which is the same as Saul's name in Hebrew. Coogan and others say it is possible the start of 1 Samuel originally was about Saul, not Samuel, but was rewritten because D needed Saul to be a bad buy to build up David.

As Coogan states, "Deuteronomistic Historians are not writing a social history but are presenting a theological perspective on the establishment of the monarchy through the vehicle of narrative of the principal characters."

One is left to wonder about today’s revisionist historians and spin doctors who choose to put their agenda – even if as laudable as promoting social cohesion – ahead of the facts. As we think about the role D played in redacting the books of Samuel and Kings, we might want to consider the following quote from Coogan: "As is the case with David, we find no independent corroboration for Solomon's reign, and, apart from Hiram, the king of Tyre, no individual or event mentioned in the biblical sources is attested in contemporaneous nonbiblical sources."

---

[1] Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries: The Deuteronomistic Historian and the Creation of Israelite National Identity, by E. Theodore Mullen, Jr. SBLSS. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993