Reconsidering the Book of the Four

The Shaping of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah as an Early Prophetic Collection

Nicholas R. Werse

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783110649949
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Estudios bíblicos

Although many scholars recognize literary similarities between Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, defining the compositional relationship between these texts remains a matter of debate. Following the scholarly trajectory of exploring the compositional relationship between the Twelve prophets, several scholars argue that these four prophetic texts formed a precursory collection to the Book of the Twelve. Yet even among advocates for this 'Book of the Four' there remain differences in defining the form and function of the collection. By reexamining the literary parallels between these texts, Werse shows how different methodological convictions have led to the diverse composition models in the field today. Through careful consideration of emerging insights in the study of deuteronomism and scribalism, Werse provides an innovative composition model explaining how these four texts came to function as a collection in the wake of the traumatic destruction of Jerusalem. This volume explores a historic function of these prophetic voices by examining the editorial process that drew them together.

1 Reconsidering the Book of the Four

1.1 Introduction

The Book of the Four hypothesis emerged from the modern study of the Book of the Twelve.1 Over the last thirty years, Book of the Twelve scholarship turned to investigating the ways in which these twelve prophetic writings function as a single book.2 This scholarly interest, sparked by the recognition of a late Second Temple Jewish tradition counting the Twelve as a single book, explored literary links across these twelve prophets binding them together under collection-wide editorial intentions.3 Thus, Book of the Twelve scholarship came to reflect, as did many other disciplines in biblical studies, a move away from the quest for the ipsissima verba of the earliest prophet to appreciate later editing that created the current forms of the biblical books.4 The investigation of linking features across these twelve texts, of course, developed along synchronic and diachronic lines of inquiry. Synchronic investigations primarily trace key themes across the collection.5 Diachronic investigations explore the composition process by which the Twelve (or parts of it) developed.6

Most diachronic composition models postulate a precursory collection of multiple writings that preceded the formation of the Book of the Twelve. Among such proposals, James Nogalski’s suggestion that editors shaped Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah into an exilic, Deuteronomistic “Book of the Four Prophets” has gained significant attention.7 The Book of the Four hypothesis rests upon two central claims concerning the composition history of these prophetic texts. First, the hypothesis suggests that these four texts underwent shared editing linking them into a single collection. Book of the Four advocates claim that this redaction in each individual text reveals a literary horizon extending to the entire collection. Second, the Book of the Four hypothesis suggests that this redaction reflects some ideological proximity to Deuteronomism.8

Despite the hypothesis’s positive reception by a segment of redaction critics, this proposal unsurprisingly provokes polarized responses from others in the scholarly guild. Whereas some scholars treat the hypothesis as a near consensus,9 others dutifully supply the exegetical obituary to yet another failed composition model.10 In addition to the objections from skeptics, the Book of the Four hypothesis faces challenges from internal inconsistencies among its advocates. The redaction-critical investigations following Nogalski’s initial proposal assign different literary units to the Book of the Four editor(s), thereby arriving at different conceptions of the ideological agenda driving the compilation of the corpus.11 Should one find the evidence of linking editorial activity among an alleged assemblage of Deuteronomistic redactions, intertextual parallels, or some combination of the two?12 These differences naturally lead to variant articulations of the proximity of the Book of the Four redaction to Deuteronomistic thought.

The changing scholarly sentiments in Deuteronomistic studies speak to the heart of the internal inconsistencies among Book of the Four advocates.13 The emerging concerns over pan-Deuteronomism in recent studies point to the ways in which the use of inconsistent terms and criteria for identifying Deuteronomistic redaction result in the attribution of a broad assemblage of texts, themes, and editorial agendas to allegedly Deuteronomistic editors. Such scholars object that the wide array of terms and criteria currently used in Deuteronomistic studies inconsistently allow too much breadth for the label “Deuteronomism.” This inconsistent use of terms and criteria to identify Book of the Four editing contributes not only to the polarized nature of the discussion but also to the varying exegetical results championed by the hypothesis’s advocates.

The internal inconsistencies among Book of the Four advocates and objections from critics reveal that many aspects of the Book of the Four hypothesis remain far from settled. The present study, therefore, returns to the literary evidence for the Book of the Four, considering the wide variance of logical assumptions often at work in arguments identifying Book of the Four editing in Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. The following assessment proposes a more limited assemblage of editorial supplements linking these four prophetic texts together. While these updates reflect ideological similarities with select Deuteronomistic themes, the language register prohibits attributing these passages to Deuteronomistic composers as known from Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. Not only do these updates lack consistently identifiable Deuteronomistic language, but they often employ identifiably non-Deuteronomistic language and phrases. These themes often occur widely across Hebrew prophetic literature suggesting that their occurrence in Book of the Four editorial supplements fits within the prophetic tradition. These editorially constructed links between Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah indicate not only that these texts were transmitted in shared editorial circles but also that the editors of these texts saw these four respective prophetic messages as informing one another in light of the Babylonian exile.

This study, therefore, contributes to Book of the Twelve scholarship in two ways. First, this study serves to “exegete the exegetes,” parsing out the ways in which arguments for Book of the Four redaction build upon select scholarly trajectories in the study of each of these prophetic texts.14 This process reflects upon the methodological concerns over pan-Deuteronomism, while taking seriously the literary observations of past Book of the Four advocates. Second, this study supplies a new two-stage composition model for the Book of the Four, arguing for two periods of redaction in which scribes brought the message of these four prophetic writings to bear on one another in light of the exile.

The present chapter introduces this study of the Book of the Four by way of three preliminary discussions. First, this chapter briefly surveys the rise of the Book of the Four hypothesis, noting how the different methodological approaches to two key issues result in the variances among the models’ advocates: the identification of Deuteronomistic editing, and drawing compositional conclusions from intertextual parallels. Second, this chapter surveys critics’ objections to the Book of the Four hypothesis and considers how their concerns correlate to the internal inconsistencies between the current models. Finally, this chapter concludes by defining the intentions and methodological approach of the ensuing exegetical assessment.

1.2 The Rise of the Book of the Four: Hypothesis or Hypotheses

1.2.1 Four Models for the Book of the Four

The Book of the Four hypothesis first appeared as part of James Nogalski’s composition model for the formation of the Book of the Twelve based upon his study of catchwords linking many of the individual prophetic writings within the corpus.15 Nogalski’s thesis continued a scholarly trajectory of identifying the formation of early prophetic collections. These studies relied upon superscriptional similarities and literary parallels among select writings to identify prophetic collections. Such investigations primarily concerned themselves with determining the order in which the previously composed prophetic writings entered the Book of the Twelve.16 Additionally, several scholars argue that some combination of preexilic prophetic texts formed an early (possibly Deuteronomistic) collection during the late monarchic or exilic eras.17

James Nogalski’s Book of the Four hypothesis differs from previously proposed precursory collections of preexilic prophetic texts. Nogalski proposes that these four texts underwent two series of redactional updates suggesting that they circulated as a collection prior to their inclusion in the Twelve. Nogalski observes several intertextual links among these four texts, which he suggests serve the Deuteronomistic function of applying northern judgment pronouncements (from Hosea and Amos) to the Southern Kingdom of Judah (in Micah and Zephaniah).18 Micah 1:2–9 serves as the hinge text transitioning from the Northern to the Southern Kingdom. Each of these texts receives subsequent late exilic or early postexilic redactions supplying a message of hope for the remnant (portions of Hos 2:18–25[16–23]; Amos 9:7–15; Mic 2:12–13; 4:1–5:14[15]; 7:8–20; Zeph 3:9–19).19 Nogalski recognizes that his defined focus on the seams of the Twelve does not allow him to fully explore all of the evidence for shared editing across Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. He identifies the “Deuteronomistic corpus” as a “working hypothesis” that “needs further investigation and documentation.”20 Each of the following studies affirms and develops Nogalski’s original hypothesis.21

Aaron Schart supplies the second significant Book of the Four composition model. Schart identifies two limitations of Nogalski’s study: the limited focus on the literary seams in the Twelve, and the limited exploration of the Deuteronomistic corpus.22 Identifying Amos as one of the oldest texts in the Twelve, Schart examines the composition history of Amos for evidence of the development of the Book of the Twelve around it.23 He identifies six editorial layers, five of which contain links with other texts in the Twelve suggesting an awareness of the gradual growth of the corpus.24 Schart’s composition model relies heavily upon intertextual parallels across the Twelve (especially with Amos), thus moving away from the focus on catchwords that characterized Nogalski’s study.

Although Schart identifies the Book of the Four as one of the composition stages in the development of the Twelve, his understanding of this collection differs from Nogalski’s “Deuteronomistic corpus” in two important respects. First, Schart observes that not all of the prophetic texts in this collection are equally linked to the others. Unlike Nogalski, Schart provides a complete list of proposed editorial supplements linking these four writings. He observes that Hosea and Amos share more numerous intertextual parallels. Micah shares a similar summons to “hear” (cf. Hos 4:1; 5:1; Amos 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; Mic 1:2; 6:2) and some intertextual links with Hosea and Amos, but not with the same frequency as those uniting Hosea and Amos. Zephaniah preserves the fewest links to the other three writings. Schart, therefore, proposes a model for the gradual growth of the Book of the Four. Building upon the earlier work of Jörg Jeremias, Schart proposes that editors first combined Hosea and Amos into a Zweiprophetenbuch.25 Editors then gradually expanded this Zweiprophetenbuch first to include Micah, and then Zephaniah.26

Second, Schart disagrees with Nogalski’s designation “Deuteronomistic.” Whereas Nogalski applies the label “Deuteronomistic” to identify the general theological agenda of the collection, Schart argues that although the redactional material spanning this collection presupposes select Deuteronomistic themes, it lacks distinctive Deuteronomistic language. He favors identifying the collection as the D-Korpus, in order to distinguish the Book of the Four from the sort of Deuteronomistic redaction commonly associated with the Deuteronomistic History.27

Schart’s reliance on intertextual parallels leads him to describe the intentions of the Book of the Four according to the linking themes across these writings. He reads these themes through Hosea on account of its inaugural position in the collection. Schart thus argues that the D-Korpus critiques the people for forsaking YHWH and his Torah. The prophets bring a formal dispute (ריב; cf. Hos 4:1; 12:3; Mic 6:...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Abbreviations
• 1 Reconsidering the Book of the Four
• 2 Hosea and the Book of the Four
• 3 Amos and the Book of the Four
• 4 Micah and the Book of the Four
• 5 Zephaniah and the Book of the Four
• 6 Conclusion: Reconsidering the Book of the Four
• Bibliography
• Scripture Index
• Author Index
• Subject Index