Deuteronomy and the Books of Kings – a Complex Relationship?

Programme

The analysis of the books of Kings has been focusing these texts through the lens of the deuteronomic categories of monolatry and centralization of the cult. The workshop is meant to challenge this common perspective. Instead of merely going on a quest for deuteronomisms in the books of Kings, the complex relations between Deut and Kgs shall be reevaluated on a case by case basis. Therefore, the text of 1- 2 Kings itself shall be the starting point for the analysis of the books‘ theologies. In addition to the traditional view, according to which concepts of Deuteronomy served as a blueprint for the theological interpretation of history in the books of Kings, it shall be explored whether it is possible that some of Deuteronomy’s main concepts were extrapolated from the books of Kings, or, in other words, whether the books of Kings had developed their interpretation of history to some extent without the knowledge of Deuteronomy. Either way, the question is where and how these concepts originated.

Keywords:

Chairs

Wuppertal 2021 Call for Papers

The workshop’s main focus is on the development of theological concepts in the inner biblical dialogue between Deut and Kgs. This includes, but is not limited to, core concepts like cultic centralization (Deut 12 / 1 Kgs 12), monolatry (Deut 5 and 6 / 1 Kgs 16 and 2 Kgs 18) and regulations for ideal kingship (Deut 17 / 1 Kgs 11). The overarching question will be how Deuteronomism became the master narrative for (parts of) the Hebrew Bible. 

Thus, it will be asked

• how the relationship between Deut and Kgs can be defined on the basis of case studies on the relevant texts

• if (or how) the theology of Deut and the interpretation of history in Kgs might have shaped each other

• if theological concepts in Kgs differ from those in Deut

• what the origin of the core concepts of Deuteronomic theology are (e.g., centralization of the cult, monolatry).

All papers relating to one of these questions from the perspective of literary history, tradition history, religious history, archaeology, or cultural studies are welcome.