Abstract
Trauma, Real Or Implied?
The tensions within the so-called ‘Deuteronomistic History’ (Deuteronomy-Kings) are regularly put down to source-material less than completely integrated into the master narrative or to redactional layers within that narrative. This very clearly written study appeals instead to trauma, and draws on post-holocaust literary theory. The trauma [of the destruction of Jerusalem and exile to Babylon] ‘by its very nature cannot be integrated into explanatory narratives that make sense to sufferers, even if they might attempt to place it in an ethical or social context with which they are familiar.’ Book by book, Janzen argues that the main – and expected – narrative line is disrupted by stories and evaluations in tension with it. What emerges is a fresh and thought-provoking reading of each of the books, with many a striking observation. ‘Rahab stays alive because she did not spoil the mission God did not command’ (p. 94). David is ‘truly a man after God’s own subversive heart’ (p. 184). ‘By comparing Elijah and Elisha to Moses and Joshua, the narrative suggests that the two prophets have far greater leadership flaws than the first two leaders of Israel’ (p. 210). ‘It is simply not clear in 2 Kgs 18-19 or in 2 Kgs 21-25, the story it uncannily foreshadows, that God cares about or is willing to recognise repentance … Trauma resists and subverts the narrative’s explanatory claims for trauma, and so sees no future at all’ (p. 235). There are a few debatable renderings of Hebrew expressions; and the striking title rests on an emended line of the Agamemnon of Aeschylus. Beyond such quibbles, Janzen offers an engaging strategy for a synchronic reading of the ‘Former Prophets’ of the Hebrew Bible; but this reader is not yet persuaded he has explained the writing of these books.