6:40 PM ona An Introduction to the Old Testament | v Qa Chapter 12 Chronicles In the Hebrew canon the two books of Chronicles are counted as one; they stand at the end of the Writings and are the last books in the Hebrew Bible. Their division into two and placement af- ter the books of Kings in the English Bible are due to the influence of the LXX. The Hebrew name of the books is “events of the days” (dibré yamim). This same phrase is often used in the Bible to designate what appear to be official histories cited by the biblical historians (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27). Chronicles is one of two books in the Bible to cover all of human history from creation to the author's day; both Matthew and Chronicles use genealogies to accomplish this. In the introduction to his translation of Samuel and Kings, Jerome said the books contained “the chronicle of the whole of sacred history’; the practice of calling the books Chronicles derives from that statement. In the LXX the Chronicles were called “the things omitted, left over" (Paralipomenon). This title was symptomatic. The Chronicles have long been among the most neglected books in the He- brew Bible for a variety of reasons: (1) Already in antiquity they were relegated to being merely a supplement to the information in Samuel and Kings. (2) Modern readers also find it difficult to get past the first nine chapters of what one writer called “Scriptural Sominex,” the genealogies of the tribes. (3) Because the books are among the latest books in the Old Testament and the author- compiler lived at a time some distance from the events he narrated, critical scholarship has been quite skeptical about their historical worth. In recent decades there has been a renewed interest in these books. Chronicles has a fascinat- ing literary program and theological agenda in its own right. Historical Background The author-compiler of Chronicles did not choose to identify himself, so we are left to drawing in- ferences about him from what he wrote. He clearly lived in the postexilic period since he reports the decree of Cyrus (2 Chron. 36:22 — 23). Two other passages help to establish the earliest date at which he could have written. Although there are some difficulties surrounding the passage, the genealogy of the Davidic royal family after the return runs at least two generations beyond Zerub- babel, who was active in the last quarter of the sixth century (1 Chron. 3:17— 24). In 1 Chronicles 29:7 part of the people's giving for the construction of the temple is reported in darics. The daric is a Persian coin named after Darius: it was not minted before 515 BC, and sufficient time must be allowed for it to gain wide circulation as a monetary standard also in Judah (though of course it could represent a late editorial updating). These two passages, then, suggest that the final form of Chronicles could not have been written before the mid-fifth century. It is more difficult to establish the latest date by which the Chronicler would have written, though it is improbable that he wrote later than the beginning of the fourth century. Although not all would agree with this assessment,6:40 PM ena An Introduction to the Old Testament | v Qa the book appears most naturally to be the product of a single author; nevertheless, there is also the possibility of a further slight redaction or elaboration by a later reviser. Whether early or late in the period, it is certain that Chronicles was written sometime during the Persian, or Second Tem- ple period (539 - 333 BC). As Duke reminds us, this is a “time in which the ancient Yahwistic reli- gious core of the community of Israel! was reconstituted in the form that became the foundation for modern Judaism and Christianity” (2005, 162). While the book does show the imprint of a single author's vocabulary and theological perspec- tive, the writer directs his readers to a wide variety of other sources; we know that he frequently quoted from Samuel-Kings at length and that he makes use of a number of other biblical books. Scholars are not agreed on the amount of his individual contribution versus the degree to which he simply quoted from other sources or the degree to which his own work was supplemented by later revisers. The book of Chronicles shows so much interest in the temple and particularly its Levitical personnel (1 Chron. 6; 9:2 — 34; 15:2 — 27; 23:2 — 6, 26 — 32; 24:30 — 31; 26:17 — 20; 28:13 — 21; 2 Chron. 5:4 — 12; 11:13 — 16; 13:9 — 10; 17:8; 19:8 — 11; 20:14, 19; 23:2 — 8, 18; 24:5 — 6, 11; 29:4 — 34; 30:15 — 27; 31:2 — 19; 34:9 — 13, 20; 35:3 — 18) that many have suggested that the author was himself a Levite, possibly a Levitical musician. Since the mid-nineteenth century there has been a strong scholarly consensus that the books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah originally formed a single work. There were four major reasons for associating Chronicles with Ezra-Nehemiah: (1) Chronicles ends with the decree of Cyrus, and Ezra begins with it (2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:1 — 4); this overlap was commonly viewed as evidence that the two histories were originally joined and that the text of Cyrus's decree was repeated to show that connection at a time that the books were divided, perhaps to fit within the confines of different scrolls. (2) The apocryphal book 1 Esdras quotes from 2 Chronicles 35 through much of Ezra-Nehemiah; the fact that this book joined Chronicles with Ezra-Nehemiah is understood as evidence of the original situation before the books were divided. (3) Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemi- ah share numerous features of vocabulary and syntax. (4) The books share a common ideology and theology, especially their concerns with the cult and the use of extensive lists. Yet on closer scrutiny, these arguments are not compelling for several reasons. (1) The overlap due to the repetition of the decree of Cyrus could equally well represent an effort to join two works that were originally separate. (2) Scholars are not agreed that 1 Esdras represents the state of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah before they were subsequently further developed and divided in the Hebrew Bible; many consider 1 Esdras to represent a secondary development rather than evi- dence for the unity of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. (3) It is not sufficient to show simply that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah share much in linguistic data. These commonalities may show no more than the common linguistic substratum of fourth-century Jews living in Judah. Japhet (1968, 330 — 71) has argued that there are a number of differences between Chronicles and Ezra-Ne- hemiah in terms of their distinctive choices of vocabulary and syntax for items that would other- wise ordinarily be considered synonymous. (4) There are also some important perspectival differ- ences between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. For example, the weekly Sabbath, which is so im- portant in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh. 9:14; 10:31; 13:15 — 22) plays no role in Chronicles. Conversely, the Chronicler shows great interest in the prophets and reports many instances of their preaching,6:40 PM ena An Introduction to the Old Testament | v Qa whereas Ezra-Nehemiah does not show a similar interest. The Davidic succession, an important theme in Chronicles, plays virtually no role in Ezra-Nehemiah. Whereas Ezra-Nehemiah shows some hostility toward those occupying the regions of the former northern kingdom Israel (Ezra 4 — 6; Neh. 2:19 — 20; 4:1 — 15; 6:1 — 14; 13:4 — 29), the Chronicler is much concerned to secure their participation in the life of the nation (1 Chron. 11:1 — 3; 12:23 — 40; 2 Chron. 19:4; 30:1 — 54:6 — 7). “All Israel” acting together in concert is a prominent theme in Chronicles (see The Genealogies below). The Chronicler does not report Solomon's sins involving his many wives, whereas Solomon is used as an example about the evil of mixed marriage in Nehemiah 13:26. In recent decades in the study of Chronicles the tide has been running against treating Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as a unity: Williamson, Japhet, and Braun are prominent voices in the effort to sever that relationship. The ideology and theology of Chronicles emerge in a different light when it is read on its own rather than as a part of Ezra-Nehemiah. The Chronicler made use of a wide range of sources both biblical and extrabiblical. He quotes at length from Samuel and Kings and uses material from a number of other biblical books. The form in which the Chronicler cites these other books is occasionally at variance with the Masoretic Text, particularly in the case of Samuel, where the Chronicler appears to have used a text similar to that used by translators and revisers of the LXX (Lemke 1965, 345 — 63). Whereas in Kings the sources to which the writer refers the reader appear to be primarily official records or histories (e.g., “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” or “the book of the annals of the kings of Is- rael’), the Chronicler sends his readers largely to a variety of prophetic writings (e.g., “the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer” [1 Chron. 29:20], “the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer that deal with genealogies” [2 Chron. 12:15], “the annotations of the prophet Iddo” [13:22). Two passages suggest that these were not independent works but were already integrated into a larger corpus (20:34 32:32 and that the Chronicler may have cited this other source under the name of a prophet who ministered dur- ing the king's reign. Since the Chronicler’s source citations (with the exception of Josiah, 2 Chron 35:27) always occur in the same position as the source citation in the parallel account in Samuel- Kings, some consider the Chronicler to be directing his readers to Samuel-Kings itself. As a Historical Source Ever since the time of de Wette (1806), Chronicles has been viewed with suspicion as a source of true history. Comparison of the account in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles certainly does show a different perspective on that history, even though it is clear that the latter incorporates much of the former. A modernist view of history allowed for only one true presentation of that history, but as Provan, Long, and Longman (2003, 3 — 104) point out, such a view is extremely naive, assuming the possibility of brute fact history. In actual fact, through his use of genealogies and sources, the Chronicler shows interest in presenting the past in a way that answers modern questions (Japhet 1993, 14 — 23; Peltonen 1996). Rather than demeaning Chronicles as a source for history, it is bet- ter to recognize it as a highly interpretive presentation of the events of the past. Thus, modern readers have two biblical presentations of the history of Israel, a synoptic history analogous to the three Synoptic Gospels. In the words of Duke (2005, 162), “there has grown an increasing appreci-6:40 PM ena An Introduction to the Old Testament | v Qa ation of the process of history telling through which different people, or even the same person at different times, can look back at the same historical field of the past and draw out different but equally valid story lines. An analogy to this process would be how two skilled painters could paint two different but ‘accurate’ portraits of the same person.” Literary Structure and Theological Message The biblical historians were not only writing an account of their national history as it actually oc- curred, but they were also writing to address the theological issues of their contemporary audi- ence. There is considerable interplay between the needs of the author's generation and his selec- tion and presentation of data. The author of Kings lived during the exile or very early in the postex- ilic period. His readers had in recent times experienced the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic succession. For them the burning theological issues that had to be addressed if faith was to survive were “Has God failed?” “How could this have happened to us?” and “Is Marduk of Babylon really more powerful than Yahweh?” The writer of Kings sets himself to address these questions by showing that God has not failed but has fulfilled his warnings to the nation by bring- ing upon them the consequences of failing to obey the covenant. The exile confirms the power of Yahweh rather than calling it into question. The Chronicler lives at a later time than the writer of Kings. The needs of his audience are differ- ent. The restoration community is not asking, “How could this have happened?” Rather, it is asking questions about its relationship to its past: “In the judgment of the exile, had God ended his covenant with Israel?” “Are we still the people of God?” “Is God still interested in us?” “What do God's promises to Israel, Jerusalem, and David before the exile have to do with us who live after?” So the Chronicler prepares yet another history of the nation, one that addresses a different set of questions than those that influenced Kings. The book of Chronicles naturally divides into three larger sections: the genealogies (1 Chron. 1 — 9), the united monarchy under David and Solomon (1 Chron. 10 — 2 Chron. 9), and the post- schism kingdom (2 Chron. 10 — 36). In each of these sections the Chronicler varies his composi- tional technique; though there is, of course, a unitary theological thrust to the book, these larger nits also reflect different theological emphases. The Genealogies (1 Chron. 1 - 9) Today's Western readers are quite often discouraged from studying or even reading Chronicles because of what we consider its rather inauspicious beginning; the Chronicler and his audience would have looked at these nine chapters of genealogies through quite different eyes. For a gen- eration asking about its relationship to Israel in the past, the genealogies directly address the question of the continuity of the restoration community with Israel of old. Using genealogies, the Chronicler relates his own generation to Adam (1 Chron. 1:1); for those wondering “Is God still in- terested in us?” the Chronicler gives a resounding “Yes! He always has been.” The genealogies speak of Israel's continuity and her election as God’s people. One of the most prominent themes in Chronicles is the writer’s concern with “all Israel” (e. Chron. 9:1; 11:1, 10; 12:38; 14:8; 15:3, 28; 18:14; 2 Chron. 1:2; 7:8; 9:30; 10:3, 16; 12:1; 13:4, 15; 18:16;6:41 PM. ena An Introduction to the Old Testament | v Qa 24:5). Ata time when the northern tribes had long been in exile, the Chronicler provides a ge- nealogical listing for all the tribes (except Zebulun and Dan); in giving such a list, the Chronicler is (1) expressing his awareness of continuity with the larger number, (2) showing his concern to in- clude the northern tribes rather than to exclude them, (3) suggesting that he regarded the schism as neither permanent nor desirable, and (4) possibly giving some expression to an eschatological hope for a revival of the nation in its largest extent. The genealogies also had some very practical functions for the restoration community. They not only address the question of continuity with the past but also the question of legitimacy and legali- ty in the present. Who was eligible for kingship or priesthood (Neh. 7:61 — 65)? Issues of social sta- tus, military obligation, land distribution, and hereditary rights are also in part addressed by ge- nealogies. Although these ancient genealogies may be somewhat of a “turn-off” to modern readers, the ge- nealogies of the individual tribes contain many interesting features that repay the effort invested in studying them. The United Monarchy (1 Chron. 10 ~ 2 Chron. 9) When comparing the Chronicler's account of David and Solomon with that in Samuel-Kings, perhaps the most striking difference is the material that the Chronicler has chosen to omit. With the exception of the account of David's census (1 Chron. 21; ef. 2 Sam. 24), the Chronicler has not recorded incidents that would in any way tarnish the image of David or Solomon. The Chronicler does not report the rival kingdom in the hands of a descendant of Saul during David's seven years at Hebron or David's negotiations for rule over the northern tribes. He omits any account of the re- bellion of Absalom and Adonijah and the actions of Amnon and Shimei; he makes no mention of David's sins in connection with Bathsheba and Uriah. The Chronicler deletes the narrative of Solomon's taking vengeance on David's enemies (1 Kings 2) and does not report the sins of Solomon, which according to Kings were ultimately the reason for the breakup of the kingdom (1 Kings 11). Even the blame for the schism is shifted from Solomon to Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13:6 ~7). In Chronicles, David and Solomon are portrayed as glorious, obedient, all-conquering figures who enjoy not only divine blessing but also the support of all the nation. Instead of an aged, bedridden David, who only saves the kingdom for Solomon at the last minute due to the prompt- ings of Bathsheba and Nathan (1 Kings 1), the Chronicler shows a smooth transition of power without a ripple of dissent. David himselt publicly announces Solomon's appointment as his suc- cessor, an announcement greeted with enthusiastic and total support on the part of the people (1 Chron, 28:1 — 29:25), including the other sons of David, the officers of the army, and others who had supported Adonijah’s attempted coup (1 Chron. 29:24; ef. 1 Kings 1:7 — 10). Whereas in Kings, Solomon's sins are a reason for the schism and Solomon is contrasted to his father David (1 Kings ll; ef. 11:11 — 13, 32 — 36), in Chronicles Rehoboam is commended for “following the ways of David and Solomon” (2 Chron. 11:17). This idealization of the reigns of David and Solomon could be dismissed as a kind of glorifica- tion of the “good old days.” Yet when coupled with the Chronicler’s emphasis on God's promise to David of an enduring dynasty (1 Chron. 17:11 ~ 14; 2 Chron. 13:5, 8; 21:7; 23:3), the Chronicler’s6:41 PM. ena An Introduction to the Old Testament | v Qa treatment of David and Solomon reflects a “messianic historiography.” David and Solomon in Chronicles are not just the David and Solomon who were, but the David and Solomon of the Chronicler’s eschatological hope. At a time when Israel was subject to the Persians, the Chroni- cler still cherished hopes of a restoration of Davidic rule, and he describes the glorious rule of David and Solomon in the past in terms of his hope for the future. Another feature of the Chronicler's account of David and Solomon is that their reigns are pre- sented primarily in terms of their involvement in the building of the temple. As soon as he was in- augurated, David was immediately concerned to move the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 13 — 16). The Chronicler adds an extensive section concerning David's preparations for the work he would leave to Solomon (chaps. 22 — 27); even the public ceremonies surrounding the transfer of royal power concern primarily the construction of the temple (chaps. 28 — 29). Whereas in Kings Solomon's wisdom is wisdom for ruling (1 Kings 3:7 — 15; ef. 3:16 — 4:34), in Chronicles it is wisdom for building (cf. 2 Chron. 2:12 and its parallel at 1 Kings 5:7). Solomon receives wisdom at the altar built by Bezalel (2 Chron. 1:5), who had earlier built the tabernacle. Another of the Chronicler’s most characteristic compositional techniques could be described as “recapitulative historiography.” The Chronicler seems to delight in taking an earlier incident from Israel's history or from his own writings and using it as a paradigm or model to describe a subse- quent situation. The Chronicler takes the relationship between Moses and Joshua as a model for his presentation of the succession of David and Solomon (Williamson 1976, 351 — 61). He also presents Solomon and the Tyrian craftsman Huram-Abi as a second Bezalel and Oholiab. Bezalel is mentioned in only two books of the Bible: Chronicles and Exodus. Just as Bezalel was endowed with the spirit of wisdom for building the tabernacle, so also Solomon was endowed with the same spirit at the altar built by Bezalel (1 Chron. 2:20; 2 Chron. 1:5; ef. Ex. 35:30 ~ 31). Both Bezalel and Solomon were from the tribe of Judah (Ex. 35:30). The Chronicler modifies the account in Kings in order to draw parallels between Huram-Abi and Oholiab in four ways: (1) Arrival time. In the account in Kings, Huram appears in the narrative at a point when the construction of the temple itself has already been completed (1 Kings 7:13); the Chronicler brings him on the scene from the beginning, just as Oholiab was associated with Beza- lel from the outset (2 Chron. 2:7, 13). (2) Skill list. In Kings Huram is a specialist in bronze (1 Kings 7:14) and he appears to make a large number of bronze castings (wv. 15 — 47). In Chronicles Hu- ram-Abi's skill ist is much longer, all but identical to the skill list of Bezalel and Oholiab (2 Chron 7, 14s ef. Ex. 35:31 — 36:1). (3) Name. In Kings this Tyrian craftsman is called Hiram or Huram, but in Chronicles his name is given as Huram-Abi. This additional element on the end of his name makes his name end the same way as did the name of Oholiab. (4) Ancestry. Where Kings reports that Huram was the child of a widow from Naphtali (1 Kings 7:14), the Chronicler identifies her as a widow of Dan; this gives Huram-Abi the same ancestry as Oholiab (2 Chron. 2:14; cf. Ex. 35:34). While all of these differences can be reconciled fairly easily, it is important to see what the Chroni- cler is doing: by drawing parallels between the building of the tabernacle and the building of Solomon's temple, he is enhancing the continuity between Israel of old and the generations that witnessed the building of the second temple. Similar examples of patterned narratives can be found in the Chronicler’s treatment of the last four kings of Judah, his likening Hezekiah to a sec-