JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
197
Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
Sheffield Academic Press
This page intentionally left blank
The Word of God in Transition
From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period
William M. Schniedewind
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 197
Copyright © 1995 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield, S11 9AS England
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Midsomer Norton, Somerset
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1-85075-550-7
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction
7 8 11
Chapter 1
PROPHETIC TITLES AND INSPIRATION FORMULAS Prophetic Titles Inspiration Formulas
31 32 54
Chapter 2
PROPHETIC SPEECHES Prophets and Messengers Speakers with Prophetic Titles Inspired Messengers
80 81 84 108
Chapter 3 THE 'WORD OF GOD' IN TRADITION
The Resignification of , 'the Word of YHWH' Reinterpreting Prophecies from Samuel-Kings The Dynastic Oracle Tradition, Transition and Context
130 130 138 143 161
Chapter 4
DIVINE INSPIRATION AND THE LEVITICAL SINGERS Excursus: The Redaction of 1 Chronicles 23-27 Music and Prophecy The Levitical 'Singers'
163 165 170 174
Chapter 5
PROPHECY AND KINGSHIP David, 'the Man of God'
189 193
6
The Word of God in Transition Divine Revelation to David David, Cult Founder and Temple Builder
198 207
Chapter 6 THE PROPHETS AS HISTORIANS Source References Prophets in the Chronicler's Narrative
209 211 228
Conclusion FROM PROPHETS TO INSPIRED INTERPRETERS Prophets and Inspired Messengers The History of Prophecy Prophecy in Early Judaism and Christianity The Date, Authorship and Purpose of Chronicles
231 231 238 241 249
Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors
253 260 273
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The present study is a revised version of a doctoral dissertation completed at Brandeis University in March 1992, 'Prophets, Prophecy, and Inspiration: A Study of Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles'. This study owes much to my teachers there: Michael Fishbane, Marc Brettler, Tzvi Abusch, Stephen Geller, and Krister Stendahl. I wish also to acknowledge the advice and help of Hugh Williamson, Sara Japhet and J. Edward Wright, whom I consulted at various stages on aspects of the dissertation. Although I have tried carefully to recognize their work on the pages of this monograph, their contribution goes beyond that which footnotes can acknowledge. I owe special thanks to Marc Brettler whose rigor as a scholar and dedication as a teacher I hope to emulate. My debt to Michael Fishbane cannot be expressed in words; this study is a tribute to him and a beginning in the adventure upon which he has started me. The present study was revised during 1992-93 while I was a postdoctoral fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. The Albright Institute and the Ecole Biblique et Arch6ologique Fran9aise provided me with the ideal environment in which to research, study and write. During my study at the Albright, Marvin Sweeney was kind enough to read over the manuscript and offer suggestions and encouragement. In the end, though I have profited through the work, advice and encouragement of many others I am solely responsible for the ideas expressed herein. My greatest joy through this entire work has been my lovely wife Jeanne who has given more than any in endless evenings with her husband at the computer. I can scarcely repay the debt owed. William M. Schniedewind Jerusalem, Christmas 1993
ABBREVIATIONS
AB AJSLL AnBib ANET AOAT BASOR BDB BET BHS Bib BJS BL BN BTB BZ BZAW CBQMS CTA
CTM DJD El EncJud ETL FOTL GKC HAR HAT HSM HTR HUCA IB IBS
Anchor Bible American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Alter Orient und Altes Testament Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Brown Judaic Studies H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der Hebrdischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965) Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series A. Herdner (ed.), Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabetiques découvertes a Ràs Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 a 1939 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuther, 1963) Concordia Theological Monthly Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Eretz Israel Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter's Bible Irish Biblical Studies
Abbreviations ICC IEJ Int JAOS JBL JJS JNES JQR JR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAI KB3 LCL NCB Or OTL OTS RB RTF SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSP SET SJOT SJT TDNT TDOT TynBul TZ VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ ZA W
International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (eds.), Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd edn Loeb Classical Library New Century Bible Orientalia Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Revue biblique Revue de theologie et de philosophie SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Seminar Papers Studies in Biblical Theology Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
9
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
There is no longer any prophet... (Ps. 74.9)
The phrase 'the word of God' conjures up various images, from the fiery words of the classical prophets and Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai to a modern preacher waving a large black King James Bible. These diverse images can be understood by examining the momentous change which took place in the meaning of the term 'word of God' after the exile of the people of Israel to Babylon in 586 BCE. Post-exilic biblical literature, and the book of Chronicles in particular, reflects a transition in the meaning of the 'word of God'. In the classical prophetic literature, the 'word of God' comes to the prophet. In the prophetic literature, the pathos of the prophet who receives God's word is striking. The 'word of God' in the pre-exilic literature is truly 'living and active'. It comes directly from God to the prophet who in turn speaks to the people. After the exile, the 'word of God' becomes the received traditions—Scripture—which an inspired interpreter makes alive for the people. Thus, inspired scribes like Ezra or Baruch and inspired teachers like Jesus of Nazareth or the Teacher of Righteousness reveal the mysteries of the 'word of God'. They no longer simply receive the 'word of God', rather they interpret the 'word of God'. In them a new kind of prophet emerges, the inspired text interpreter. This study examines the emergence of this new kind of prophet, the inspired messenger, in the post-exilic period, and it takes its starting point as prophecy in the book of Chronicles. The book of Chronicles is a post-exilic work which concerns the pre-exilic period. As such, it provides us with a unique opportunity to see the ideas of a post-exilic writer concerning the pre-exilic period. What interests us particularly is the Chronicler's presentation of pre-exilic prophecy and prophets. Herein emerges a picture of the inspired text interpreter set against the portrait of the classical prophets.1 1.
The book of Chronicles, although included in the Greek canon among the
12
The Word of God in Transition
1. Post-Exilic Prophecy Although prophecy has been a topic of intense interest in biblical studies, post-exilic prophecy has suffered from some neglect. This may be traced to Julius Wellhausen's influential Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels.2 Wellhausen not only viewed the monarchy as the classical period of Israel, but also saw classical prophecy as the apex of Israelite religion. Post-exilic Judaism then was 'an artificial product'3 and post-exilic prophecy only a shadowy reflection of its illustrious predecessor. Wellhausen based this harsh evaluation of post-exilic Judaism on his analysis of Chronicles. He writes in summation: 'Chronicles owes its origin, not to the arbitrary caprice of an individual, but to a general tendency of its period'.4 As a result, the post-exilic period in general and post-exilic prophecy in particular has been neglected in scholarship until quite recently.5 However, little work has been done on prophecy in 'historical books', belongs more properly with the 'Writings' as it is in the Hebrew canon. The purpose of the Chronicler was not to write a history of Israel but rather to exhort the post-exilic community to seek the LORD and to support the temple. The genre of Chronicles is more that of a 'historical sermon' than 'history writing'. See my paper, 'History or Homily: Toward Understanding the Chronicler's Purpose', in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies 1993 (1994). Also see C. Begg, '"Seeking Yahweh" and the Purpose of Chronicles', Louvain Studies 9 (1982), pp. 128-41; R. Braun, 'The Message of Chronicles: Rally 'Round the Temple', C7M42 (1971), pp. 502-14. 2. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883) was originally published as the first volume of Wellhausen's Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1878). The Prolegomena was translated as Prolegomena to the History of Israel (repr.; New York: Meridan, 1957). For a survey of Wellhausen's influence, see D. Knight (ed.), Julius Wellhausen and his Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Semeia 25 (1983), esp. pp. 75-82; R. Rendtorff, The Image of Postexilic Israel in German Bible Scholarship from Wellhausen to von Rad', in M. Fishbane, E. Tov and W. Fields (eds.), 'Sha 'arei Talmon': Studies in Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 16573. 3. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 421. 4. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 224. 5. John Barton stresses the importance of later perceptions of ancient prophecy: 'much that did pass as "prophecy" in the post-exilic age corresponded not to prophecy as it had been in earlier time, but to prophecy as it was (falsely) imagined to have been' (Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986], p. 269).
Introduction
13
Chronicles and its place in the history of prophecy. This study thus takes up aspects of continuity and distinction in post-exilic prophecy in general and prophecy in the books of Chronicles in particular. We begin this study of post-exilic prophecy with a clarification of some terms. 'Prophecy' is not a self-referential term in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, the term 'prophecy' (nwn]) itself occurs only three times in biblical literature (Neh. 6.12; 2 Chron. 9.29; 15.8). The paucity of this term in the Hebrew Bible must warn us against imposing definitions of prophecy foreign to the biblical text. Helmer Ringgren provides a definition which can illustrate the problem: 'Prophecy may tentatively be defined as the proclamation of divine messages in a state of inspiration'.6 It is easy to agree with the first part of Ringgren's definition, namely, 'prophecy is the proclamation of divine messages'. As Ringgren points out, the messenger formula ('thus says YHWH') makes a direct claim that the prophet proclaims YHWH's message. It is difficult, however, to accept the second part of this definition, namely that the messages are proclaimed 'in a state of inspiration'. Indeed, there are few places in the Hebrew Bible where we can point to prophets in a state of inspiration. Sigmund Mowinckel pointed this out decades ago in a classic study: 'the pre-exilic reforming prophets never in reality express a consciousness that their prophetic endowment and powers are due to the possession by or any action of the spirit of Yahweh, riiah yahweh'.1 The biblical authors do not associate classical prophecy (for example, that of Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos) with 'a state of inspiration' . Rather, classical biblical prophecy only makes the claim of divine authority in the proclamation of messages.8 The term 'inspiration' implies an author's perception that an activity is divinely influenced. This perception is usually indicated by the use of a term like 'spirit', although other terms like 'the hand of YHWH' also 6. H. Ringgren, 'Prophecy in the Ancient Near East', in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honor of Peter Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 1. Cf. David Aune's definition, 'intelligible messages from God in human language through inspired human mediums' (Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], p. 103). 7. ' "The Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets', JBL 53 (1934), p. 199. 8. This definition of prophecy is not concerned with the truth of the claim. Even in the Hebrew Bible, 'false' prophets prophesy (VtO3). Cf. Deut. 18.20-22; 1 Kgs 22.13-23; Jer. 23.16, 21; 27.15; Ezek. 13.2.
14
The Word of God in Transition
suggest divine influence. There are only a few prophetic figures in the Hebrew Bible who are in this sense 'inspired'. The spirit comes upon Balaam and he pronounces an oracle (Num. 24.2). The spirit comes upon Saul and he prophesies (1 Sam. 10.6-13). The hand of YHWH sometimes motivates the prophet-priest Ezekiel to prophesy (for example Ezek. 1.3; 3.22; 33.22). More importantly, inspiration also introduces a variety of non-prophetic activities. The spirit inspires Saul to go to battle (1 Sam. 11.6). The spirit possesses Gideon and inspires him to lead Israel (Judg. 6.34). The hand of YHWH was upon Ezra, making him an inspired teacher of the Law (Ezra 7.6). The spirit inspired the psalms of David (2 Sam. 23.1-2) and the music of the Levites (1 Chron. 25.1). Thus, while the term 'inspiration' may describe some prophetic episodes, this term should not be associated exclusively, or even primarily, with prophecy. Discussions of post-exilic prophecy have focused on the so-called 'decline', 'demise' or 'end' of prophecy.9 The pejorative terms of this discussion are shaped by Wellhausen's analysis of Israel's history. Just as post-exilic religion was in decline, so post-exilic prophecy was also in decline. The study of the post-exilic period must break out of the negative assumptions of the Wellhausian analysis.10 The decline of prophecy depends on a particular definition of 'prophecy'. From a sociological perspective, the theory of the demise of prophecy stands on shaky foundations. Thomas Overholt notes, 'we cannot correctly say that prophecy ended with the exile, either in the sense that it ceased or that it was transformed into something else'. Rather, Overholt suggests, 'we ought to conceive of prophecy as a continuing potentiality in a given society...'11 Those who speak about the decline of prophecy define prophecy in such a way as to exclude, for 9. Scholars use different but essentially synonymous terms. See the survey by R. Mason, The Prophets of the Restoration', in Coggins, Phillips and Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 137-54. 10. See Peter Ackroyd's survey of some of the negative attitudes about the postexilic period, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 1-4. 11. Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 161. Similar opinions are expressed by S. Reid, The End of Prophecy in Light of Contemporary Social Theory', SBLSP 24 (1985), pp. 515-23; D. Petersen, 'Israelite Prophecy: Change Versus Continuity', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (VTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 190-203.
Introduction
15
example, apocalyptic. Sociological approaches to prophecy point to an inherent continuity in prophecy throughout history. In ancient Israel this continuity is underscored by the post-exilic prophetic compositions (for example Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi). Still, the perception of a distinction between pre-exilic and post-exilic prophecy is not a scholarly invention. Rabbinic literature recognizes an end in prophecy. For instance, t. Sot. 13.2-3 expresses this idea categorically: After the first temple was destroyed, kingship ceased from the house of David, the Urim and the Thummim ceased... After Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—the latter prophets—died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel; nevertheless they were informed by the Bat Qol. When the sages gathered together at Beth-Guria in Jericho, they heard the Bat Qol saying, 'There is a man here that is worthy of the Holy Spirit, but his generation is unworthy of it'. And they set their eyes on Hillel the elder.12
With the destruction of the first temple comes the end of an era. This destruction brings the end of kingship, cultic intermediation and prophecy. These phenomena define prophecy in terms of the first temple and the monarchy, that is, in terms of the institutions which characterize the First Temple period. This perspective describes the end of classical prophecy, that is, prophecy associated with the classical period of Israel's history. Prophecy ceases when that socio-political context ends. This is in fact the approach that Shemaryahu Talmon has taken concerning the waning of prophecy. He writes, Most severely affected was the prophetic leadership and the very phenomenon of prophecy. The prophet's personal charisma lacked the staying power which the institution-character conferred upon monarchy and 12. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. Cf. m. Sot 9.12; b. Sank. 1 la; 2 Bar. 85.1-3. The end of the classical prophetic age is also implicit in 1 Maccabees: 'until there should come a prophet' (4.46), 'the prophets ceased to appear' (9.27), and 'until a prophet should arise' (14.41). This same periodization of history is also implicit in m. Ab. 1.1. See further references in F. Greenspahn, 'Why Prophecy Ceased', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 37-49; E. Urbach points out that there was an expectation of prophets and prophecy throughout the Second Temple period: 'When Does Prophecy End?', in M. Weinfeld (ed.), A Biblical Studies Reader (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979 [Hebrew]), pp. 58-68. Indeed, it is true that the Pharisees expected a prophet to arise (though not out of Galilee). However, the expectation of a prophet was to restore the prophetic office as we see in Maccabees. Of course, early Judaism was not monolithic in its view of prophecy; cf. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 104-106.
16
The Word of God in Transition priesthood. Thus, the fall of Judah and Jerusalem signaled the wane of prophecy. Although there will be a short-lived re-emergence of prophecy in the Period of the Return (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi), the need for a replacement of personal inspiration as a principle of public guidance by more rational and controllable forms of instruction had become acute. Ultimately, the transformation will crystallize in new classes of spiritual leaders—the Scribes, and then the Sages.13
Talmon correctly identifies the staying power of the priesthood and the monarchy with their institutional character. These institutions were transformed. Talmon points out that the 'idea and ideal of royalty' gain strength in the post-exilic period and become the embodiment of restoration-hope and ideology. Similarly, the destruction of the temple is survived by the vision of the future restoration of the temple and the sacrificial cult. Quite contrary to Talmon's assertion, however, a form of the prophetic voice continues after the classical prophetic age. Admittedly, the prophetic office wanes—with the exception of the latter prophets. But the scribes and sages are also inspired. Ezra, of course, is guided by the 'hand of YHWH'. Baruch is the classic example in the Second Temple literature of the inspired scribe. In the passage cited above, the Tosefta suggests that the sages continued to receive authoritative inspiration for their teaching by the Bat Qol, which is often translated as 'echo'.14 The Bat Qol is an echo in the sense that it was perceived as a diminished reflection of classical prophecy. In Qumran literature the Teacher of Righteousness is not called a prophet, nevertheless God reveals to him the mysteries of the words of the prophets (IQpHab 7.45). Although Josephus acknowledges that the 'exact succession of prophets' had ended in the Persian period (Apion 1.41), he affirms that
13. S. Talmon, The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), p. 180. 14. See, for example, J. Neusner, The Tosefta: Nashim (New York: Ktav, 1979), ad loc. This translation follows the comment of Rabbi Meir Abulafia in the Palestinian Talmud which explains the Bat Qol as a 'reverberating sound, echo C?lp man)' (see S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2nd edn, 1962], p. 194). On the Bat Qol see Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 194-99; A. Rothkoff, 'Bat Kol', EncJud, IV (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 324-25; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973), pp. 90-94.
Introduction
17
prophets could still arise and individuals could still prophesy.15 Although the succession of Mosaic prophets ended (cf. Deut. 18.15-18), the prophetic gift still was given to certain individuals.16 The New Testament texts which suggest that John the Baptist and Jesus are prophets must be seen in this light (Mt. 21.26; Mk 6.15; Lk. 7.16; Jn 1.21, 25; 7.52). John the Baptist and Jesus are thought to be the prophet who shall arise and restore the prophetic office, that is, restore the succession of Mosaic prophets. This Mosaic succession is aligned with the canonical 'Former Prophets' (Joshua-2 Kings), thus beginning with Joshua and ending with the fall of the monarchy. This implies a close connection between the end of classical prophecy and the end of the monarchy. These texts reflect both a distinction between prophecy in pre-exilic and post-exilic periods and a continuity in the prophetic voice.17 A decline in prophecy has some basis in exilic and post-exilic literature. For example, Ps. 74.9 expresses a widely held view in the Second Temple period: 'We do not see our signs, there is no longer any prophet; And, no one among us knows for how long!' This psalm, although difficult to date precisely, apparently speaks about the period of the Babylonian exile (cf. vv. 1-8). In the book of Zechariah, the term 'the former prophets' appears in relation to the prophets who foretold the end of the monarchy and the exile (Zech. 1.4; 7.7, 12). The 'former prophets' belonged to a time 'when Jerusalem and her towns were peopled and peaceful' (Zech. 7.7). It is probably significant that the last of the 'latter prophets', Malachi, is never called a 'prophet' but only a 'messenger' (cf. Mai. 2.7; 3.1). In fact, the title of the book may not be a proper name, 'Malachi', but rather may simply be translated 'my messenger' . In addition, the prophet Haggai is called 'messenger of YHWH' 15. On the exact succession of prophets see S. Lieman,' Josephus and the Canon of the Bible', in L. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), pp. 55-56. On the continuation of prophecy in Josephus, see D. Aune, 'The Use of RPOOHTHS in Josephus', JBL 101 (1982), p. 420; J. Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', JJS 25 (1974), pp. 239-62. 16. For example, the prophetic gift was given to the high priest once a year (cf. Jn 11.51). 17. Greenspahn emphasizes that the cessation of prophecy was not an empirical observation, 'but a denigration and even denial of these figures' legitimacy' ('Why Prophecy Ceased', p. 48). Greenspahn follows E. Urbach, 'The no~n as the Foundation of Halacha and the Problem of the Scribes', Tarbiz 27 (1958), pp. 16682 (Hebrew).
18
The Word of God in Transition
(Hag. 1.13). The emergence of 'messenger' as a term for 'prophet' in these post-exilic books already suggests some distinction between the preexilic and post-exilic prophets (on the term 'messenger', see Chapter 2). Several studies have attempted to explain post-exilic prophecy by the close relationship between classical prophecy and monarchy. This theory suggests that the decline of classical prophecy follows the destruction of the temple and the resultant demise of the kingship and unconsciously echoes the rabbinic tradition discussed above. The theory finds support in William F. Albright's analysis of the origins of the prophetic movement. Albright argued that the judge/seer Samuel encouraged and shaped the classical prophetic movement as a counterbalance to the incipient monarchy.18 Although Albright developed this theory to explain the origins of prophecy, the implications for the post-exilic period are clear. Just as prophecy rose with kingship, so also prophecy ended with kingship. Frank Moore Cross articulates his teacher's viewpoint: 'It is fair to say that the institution of prophecy appeared simultaneously with kingship in Israel and fell with kingship'.19 An organic relationship between kingship and prophecy thus becomes a working premise behind several studies of post-exilic prophecy. Paul Hanson develops his theory concerning the origin of the apocalyptic on the premise that kingship and classical prophecy were closely related: After 587 the picture changes. Israel's political identity as a nation comes to an end. The office of kingship ends. The prophets no longer have the events of a nation's history into which they can translate the terms of Yahweh's cosmic will.20 18. Albright expressed this theory in the 1961 Goldenson Lecture (Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati); see 'Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement', in Archaeology, Historical Analogy and Early Biblical Tradition (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1966), pp. 42-65. See the survey by J.R. Porter, The Origins of Prophecy in Israel', in Coggins, Phillips and Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 13-20. 19. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 223; also see I.L. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung (mit einem Exkurs iiber das Buch Jeremia)', in Congress Volume Gottingen 1977 (VTSup, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), p. 271; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), pp. 182-84. 20. The Dawn of the Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. edn, 1979),
Introduction
19
From this cataclysmic event, Hanson argues that two streams of thought developed in the post-exilic period: the theocratic view, which can be associated with the Chronicler and the priestly writers, and the eschatological view, which found its expression in apocalyptic literature. David Petersen's study Late Israelite Prophecy builds on approaches advanced by Albright and Cross concerning kingship and those of Hanson and Ploger concerning post-exilic Judaism. Petersen also sees an integral connection between the king and the prophet: what we call Israelite prophecy began only with the monarchy and ended about the time that Israel ceased to be a nation. This correlation between monarchy and prophecy is not accidental, but constitutes the critical clue to the locus of classical Israelite prophecy, its connection with the political institution of monarchy.21
Following Ploger, Petersen suggests that this historical event precipitated the development of two 'theological streams' in post-exilic prophecy. He argues that the theocratic circles produced Chronicles and the eschatological circles produced the deutero-prophetic literature (that is, Deutero-Isaiah, the Isaianic Apocalypse, Trito-Isaiah, Malachi, Joel, Deutero-Z^chariah) ,22 Cogent objections have been raised against the supposed organic relationship between monarchy and prophecy. Rex Mason questions 'whether monarchy had the cause-and-effect relationship that Petersen claims' ,23 Mason points out that the prophets naturally were concerned with the monarchy, but also with many other national, social and religious issues. Even Petersen admits that the prophets, at least beginning in the eighth century, turn their attention to the whole nation;24 this undermines an integral relationship between king and prophet. p. 16. Hanson's analysis, to some extent, builds on Otto Ploger's work Theocracy and Eschatology (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), although Hanson is somewhat critical of Ploger as a diachronic oversimplification. 21. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 2. 22. Cf. Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 1-8; Paul Hanson points out in a review of Petersen that post-exilic Israel was probably much more complex than Petersen allows: JBL 98 (1979), pp. 428-31; also see review by H.G.M. Williamson, Int 33 (1979), pp. 206-208. 23. The Prophets of the Restoration', p. 140. 24. Cf. J. Holladay, 'Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel', HTR 63 (1970), pp. 29-51. In Petersen's most recent study, he emphasizes more pointedly that prophecy does not end with the Babylonian exile, but is reshaped by a new socio-political context: 'Israelite Prophecy: Change Versus Continuity', pp. 193-95.
20
The Word of God in Transition
Moreover, as Robert Wilson points out, prophecy likely existed in Israel even before the rise of the monarchy.25 If prophecy existed before the monarchy, then it was interested in issues outside of monarchy and it is unlikely that the end of monarchy was accompanied by an end to prophecy. Several scholars suggest that prophecy declined because it in some way 'failed'. Aubrey Johnson argues that false prophecy and the resultant distrust of the prophetic enterprise precipitated the demise of prophecy. The 'false' prophets lulled Judah into an illusionary sense of peace, and, as a result, the people were exiled to Babylon. According to Johnson, the old cultic prophet lost prestige as a result of the Babylonian exile but still maintained a position, albeit with the reduced rank of a temple singer. Thus, there existed a continuity between the old cultic prophets and the levitical singers in Chronicles.26 James Crenshaw in Prophetic Conflict (1977) argues that prophecy declined because it was unsuccessful. He writes, 'When one looks at the Israelite response to the prophets, this decline of prophecy to its original status becomes understandable. At no time did the prophets meet with success, save in fiction (Jonah) or in matters of the cult (Haggai and Zechariah)'.27 Crenshaw emphasizes the prophets' failure to face the disparity between theology and experience. Thus, prophecy ended because it was ineffectual. Apocalyptic and wisdom replaced prophecy because they dealt more directly and successfully with daily experience. In When Prophecy Failed (1979), Robert Carroll applies the psychological theory of 'cognitive dissonance' and comes to a similar conclusion. Carroll suggests that both prophetic hermeneutics and apocalyptic arise from the dissonance between prophecy and fulfillment. Hermeneutic essentially provides explanations that reduce tension between expectation and reality. 25. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 89-90. 26. A. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2nd edn, 1962), pp. 66-75. Also see J.P. Weinberg who sees an authentic extra-canonical prophetic movement behind the activities of the levitical singers: 'Die "Ausserkanonischen Prophezeiungen" in den Chronikbiichern', Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), pp. 387-404. However, this position has not found much acceptance because of the deep skepticism about the Chronicler's historical reliability and use of sources; see for example S. de Vries, The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', HAR 10 (1986), pp. 15-16. 27. Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (BZAW, 124; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), pp. 93-94.
Introduction
21
Apocalyptic also arises as 'the resolution of the dissonance caused by the lack of fulfillment of prophecy in the early post-exilic period' ,28 Rex Mason, on the other hand, suggests that prophecy died because it succeeded. He makes the compelling observation: 'It is strange that, if earlier prophecy were regarded as having proved such a "failure", the post-exilic period should have been the time when the present prophetic collections were formed and invested with increasing authority'.29 Thus, 'prophecy began to die, or change, after the exile, not because of its failure but because of its "success". The judgment of the exile was seen as confirmation of the predictions of those prophets who had not cried "peace" when there was no peace...'30 Precisely because the prophets were right, their oracles were collected and these collections gradually increased in authority. The success of the prophets is seen in the very preservation of their words. Ironically, then, the authority of these prophets was now found in written documents which supplanted the 'living' word. For this reason, living prophecy was replaced by the study and interpretation of earlier prophetic texts.31 Joseph Blenkinsopp suggests that prophecy did not end, but was merely relocated. After the fall of the monarchy, the temple filled the vacuum left by the monarchy and consequently prophecy was absorbed into the cult. Blenkinsopp points to the 'predominance of liturgical forms and cultic concerns in Haggai, Zechariah, Third Isaiah, and Malachi' ,32 For instance, Haggai and Zechariah are particularly interested in the rebuilding of the temple. This analysis follows the lines of the rabbinic dictum that prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the sages (cf. b. B. Bat. 12a). This relocation of prophecy accounts for both 'scribal prophecy' and 'clerical prophecy' and explains why scribal teaching replaces prophecy (Sir. 24.S3).33 28. R. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979), p. 205. 29. The Prophets of the Restoration', p. 141. 30. The Prophets of the Restoration', p. 142. 31. On the prophetic reinterpretation of texts see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 443-505. 32. A History of Prophecy in Israel, p. 253. Blenkinsopp's study on prophecy and priesthood in the late Second Temple period further supports his view of the relocation of prophecy; see 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus'. 33. For these categories see J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), pp. 128-38. Another view of the relocation of prophecy is advocated by David Petersen. Petersen points out that the pre-exilic
22
The Word of God in Transition
Every theory which tries to explain the so-called decline in prophecy must contend with a catastrophic event in Israel's history—the Babylonian exile. This event heralds both the success and failure of prophecy, that is, the success of 'true' prophets, the failure of 'false' prophets. The Babylonians not only exiled the people, they also destroyed their institutions. Post-exilic prophecy then is a reflection of new realities and new priorities. And there is both an "end" and a continuation of prophecy. Clearly, post-exilic literature perceived the decline of the classical prophets, yet there is also a continuation of the prophetic voice. For instance, Blenkinsopp points to the cultic concerns in the post-exilic prophets. By most accounts, the exile precipitated the collecting and editing of earlier traditions. With the writing down of tradition comes the inevitable process of interpretation. The exilic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History is one example of the process of collecting and editing earlier traditions that went on in the exilic period. The book of Chronicles follows as an example of the reinterpretation of that tradition. Chronicles is, on the one hand, an interpretation of ancient prophecy and, on the other hand, a reflection of post-exilic prophecy itself. 2. Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles The book of Chronicles contains a great diversity in prophetic activity. For instance, Chronicles uses prophets and seers to warn kings of impending judgment. The Chronicler refers to levitical singers as 'seers' who 'prophesy' with musical instruments. Priests and Levites receive divine inspiration and prophesy. A foreign king like Pharaoh Neco acts and speaks by divine inspiration.34 The source citations of the regnal resumes cite prophets as historical sources. Even David and Solomon receive divine revelation. Although a version of Samuel-Kings was apparently the main source of the Chronicler's35 history, most of the prophetic narratives in and post-exilic prophets functioned in different socio-political contexts and this affected directly the forms of intermediation: 'Israelite Prophecy: Change Versus Continuity'. 34. Cyrus is also an inspired figure since 'YHWH roused the spirit of Cyrus' (2 Chron. 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-2). According to Isa. 55.1, YHWH spoke a special message to Cyrus, YHWH's 'anointed one' (irrtia). Still, the Cyrus decree itself does not seem to be a prophetic speech. 35. By 'the Chronicler' I refer only to the author of the books of Chronicles. Until recently, scholars followed the rabbinic tradition which held that the books of
Introduction
23
Chronicles36 have no parallel in Samuel-Kings.37 The obvious reason for this is that the prophetic narratives in Samuel-Kings mostly concern the northern kingdom. For example, from 1 Kings 12 to 2 Kings 17 (the period of the divided monarchy), every single prophetic narrative concerns a northern prophet or the northern kingdom. Since the Chronicler wrote a history of the southern kingdom, there was little for the Chronicler to borrow.38 There must have been stories of Judaean prophets, but we do not have them in the book of Kings. What then was the source of the Chronicler's prophetic narratives? Did the Chronicler freely compose or borrow from a prophetic source? There is scant Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were a unity (cf. b. B. Bat. 15a). William F. Albright even tried to defend the rabbinic attribution of authorship to Ezra ('The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', JBL 40 [1921], pp. 104-24). However, the linguistic and thematic arguments which served as the foundation of the single author theory have been seriously undermined by Sara Japhet and H.G.M. Williamson (cf. Japhet, The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VT 18 [1968], pp. 330-71; H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], pp. 5-70). The authorship of Chronicles remains a lingering question among some scholars; cf. D. Talshir, 'A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah', VT38 (1988), pp. 165-93; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 47-54. 36. The arguments for multiple redactions of the book of Chronicles have never been able to hold a scholarly consensus. The question depends on the Chronicler's compositional procedures, and as Japhet points out the Chronicler 'attempts to combine a number of divergent trends without fully harmonizing them' (The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought [ET; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989], p. 142). This being the case, it will be difficult to prove any multiple redaction theory for Chronicles. See further Chapter 4, 'Excursus: The Redaction of 1 Chronicles 23-27'. 37. The problem of the Vorlage of the books of Chronicles remains an open question. The Qumran discoveries first raised the possibility that the textual tradition of Samuel-Kings which the Chronicler used was different than the Masoretic tradition. More recent studies raise the possibility that the Chronicler's main source for his work may have been an earlier redaction of Samuel-Kings; cf. S. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) and A.G. Auld, 'Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT 27 (1983), pp. 3-23. H.G.M. Williamson has a modest proposal: "The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History', VT 32 (1982), pp. 242-47. 38. See Chapter 3 for the Chronicler's reuse of prophetic narratives from Samuel-Kings.
24
The Word of God in Transition
evidence to prove that the Chronicler used any written collection of prophetic stories for his prophetic narratives. The prophetic speeches reflect the Chronicler's own language and theology.39 In this respect, the prophetic narratives are a first-hand reflection of the Chronicler's views of prophets, prophecy and inspiration. Previous studies have usually addressed only isolated aspects of prophecy in Chronicles. The issue of historical reliability has shaped the scholarly agenda of the book of Chronicles ever since it was raised by W.H.L. de Wette and forcefully articulated by Julius Wellhausen.40 Consequently, studies on prophecy in Chronicles have been limited in their scope. They have addressed the issues of the form of prophetic narratives, levitical prophecy, royal prophecy and the prophetic source citations, but have not attempted a synthetic treatment of prophecy in Chronicles. General studies of prophecy have largely ignored the book of Chronicles. For instance, John Sawyer's Prophecy and the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible (1987) includes a discussion of prophecy in the Deuteronomistic History, but no comparable section on prophecy in Chronicles. Klaus Koch's two-volume survey Die Propheten (1978)41 makes frequent reference to the Deuteronomistic History, but the Chronicler's view of prophecy is almost completely overlooked. A more recent study by Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (1983), contains only a short section on Temple Prophecy' where the book of Chronicles is featured. Thus, much work remains to be done on the Chronicler's view of prophecy. The first significant contribution to research on prophecy in 39. See further Chapter 2. Simon de Vries shows that the Chronicler's nonsynoptic passages differ in form and function from the synoptic material and thus claims that the Chronicler invented both the prophets and the messages (The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', pp. 15-36). But de Vries proves the obvious, namely that the Chronicler did not rely on Samuel-Kings for his non-synoptic material. Since he did not use Samuel-Kings for this material we can hardly expect that the form and function will be the same. 40. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, pp. 222-23. See the surveys by S. Japhet, The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and its Place in Biblical Research', JSOT 3 (1985), pp. 83-107; R. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler (JSOTSup, 88; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 11-28; M.P. Graham, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS, 116; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 41. Translated as The Prophets (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Introduction
25
Chronicles came in an indirect form. Gerhard von Rad's classic essay, 'Die levitische Predigt in den Buchern der Chronik' (1934),42 investigates the Chronicler's speeches, which he claims form a distinctive Gattung characterized by the following elements: (1) a quotation of an ancient source, (2) the application to some past situation of a theological principle exegetically derived from the quotation, and (3) an exhortation to faith and action. Von Rad believed that the 'Levitical Sermon' reflected standard levitical homiletic practice and assimilated the style of inspired prophetic utterance. He argued that these speeches were intended primarily to support the prophetic claims of the Levites and thus were motivated by political and institutional interests.43 Adam Welch's monograph, The Work of the Chronicler (1939), appeared not long after von Rad's essay and devoted a chapter to prophecy in Chronicles. His work prefigures more recent studies which link classical prophecy and kingship. Welch writes, ...to the Chronicler prophecy had always attended the kingdom, and... one of its leading functions had been to guide the kings in the only policy which could guarantee to them the divine protection and support. The Davidic kings were not merely, like all their subjects, under the torah: they were also controlled by the authentic voice of God, uttered by the prophets.44
Welch felt that the Chronicler conceived of prophecy as a charismatic institution; thus, the spirit came upon certain individuals and they prophesied. At the same time, he thought of prophets as having a recognized position in the royal court. The prophets attended the king; they counseled and at times rebuked the king. Unfortunately, Welch too easily dismissed the tension between the charismatic and traditional functions. The apparent contradiction between a charismatic institution and an official royal institution derives from the variety of 'prophetic' activity in 42. Translated as 'The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 267-80. 43. 'The Levitical Sermon in I and n Chronicles', pp. 269-72. 44. The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and its Date (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), p. 42. T. Willi supports the connection between the king and the prophet: 'Die Zuordnung von Konig und Prophet hat also keine historischen Griinde, sondern ergibt sich einfach aus der Thematik der Chronik als einer Davididengeschichte: wie der Konig Israel vertritt, so ist der Prophet der Reprasentant Gottes in der Geschichte Israels'; Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT, 106; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), p. 223. However, Willi did not take this observation much further than Welch already had.
26
The Word of God in Transition
Chronicles. As we pay more attention to the different kinds of prophets and different types of prophecy this tension dissolves. Chapter 1 addresses the different kinds of prophets and prophecy reflected in the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas. The decades following the work of von Rad and Welch produced the commentaries of Kurt Galling (1954), Wilhelm Rudolph (1955) and Jacob Myers (1965). Surprisingly though, these commentaries did not provide a forum for an extended discussion of the Chronicler's view of prophecy and prophets. It has only been in the last two decades that studies have built on the work of von Rad in particular. Several studies have taken up von Rad's form-critical discussion of the prophetic speeches. Von Rad had claimed that the Chronicler 'actually inserted genuine sermons into his text wherever possible' and that 'these speeches are intended pre-eminently to support the prophetic claims of the Levites...'45 The studies by James Newsome and David Petersen rely on von Rad's claim that the 'Levitical Sermons' support the Levites' claims to prophetic authority. However, Rex Mason and D. Mathias have seriously challenged the existence of von Rad's Gattung. Mason objects that the formal Gattung is not present in Chronicles, but rather it is only 'elements' of a preaching style which are found here. Mason's criticism qualifies von Rad's proposal of a formal Gattung, yet still allows that the speeches in Chronicles reflect the 'method of preaching and teaching among the temple community'.46 A chorus of scholars suggests that the prophetic speeches function to warn the king. For instance, in The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (1989), Sara Japhet takes up prophecy in her discussion of the Chronicler's retribution theology. She argues that the Chronicler's prophets follow in the steps of the prophetpriest Ezekiel, 'the watchman of Israel' (Ezek. 3.16-17; 33.1-9). The 45. The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles', pp. 268, 277; also see O. Steck, Israel und das gewdltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alien Testament, Spatjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). 46. R. Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 233; also see idem, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile based on the 'Addresses' in Chronicles, the Speeches in Ezra andNehemiah and the Post-Exilic Books (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); D. Mathias, '"Levitische Predigt" und Deuteronomismus', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 23-49.
Introduction
27
prophets' role is to call to repentance because God does not punish Israel without warning. For this reason, the Chronicler inserts the prophets at crucial points in his history to warn and call to repentance. In this respect, Japhet compares Chronicles to rabbinic literature, where warning is crucial to how God deals with his people.47 Japhet's view is echoed by other scholars. G. Fohrer, in Die Propheten des Allen Testaments, writes, 'The Prophets appear in the Chronistic historical work as admonishers and warners'.48 Seeligmann agrees that the Chronicler uses prophets to warn and contrasts Chronicles with the prophets in the deuteronomic tradition.49 However, warning oversimplifies the function of the prophetic speeches. The speeches have yet to be analyzed individually, with attention to the titles of each speaker, to determine the roles of the different types of prophetic figures. This is taken up in Chapter 2. Scholars have begun to recognize the importance of prophecy in Chronicles for the study of inner-biblical exegesis. For instance, in Die Chronik als Auslegung (1972), Thomas Willi emphasizes the role of the Chronicler's prophets as interpreters. Willi suggests that the Chronicler's prophets function as exegetes and expositors who advance the Chronicler's uberlieferungsgechichtliche Konzeption.50 Rosemarie Micheel concurs: 'The words of the prophetic individuals comment upon and interpret events within the corresponding history of kings...' 51 I.L. Seeligmann, from a discussion of the use and transformation of earlier prophetic writings, comes to a similar conclusion.52 Along these lines, M. Fishbane is quite correct in pointing out the contemporary aims of the Chronicler which influenced his use of prophetic speech.53 The 47. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, pp. 176-91. 48. Die Propheten des Alten Testaments. VII. Propheten Erzahlungen (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus, 1977), pp. 36-37. 49. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', p. 283. 50. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, pp. 215-44. 51. Die Seher- und Propheteniiberlieferungen in der Chronik (BET, 18; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1983), p. 67. 52. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', p. 273. Also see Y. Amit, 'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Theology of the Books of Chronicles', Beth Mikra 93 (1983), p. 133. 53. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 386-92, and The Garments of I orah (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 11-18.
28
The Word of God in Transition
Chronicler addresses the post-exilic community via the mouth of a prophet who cites and aggadically transforms Scripture. Alongside the 'political and institutional interests' which von Rad emphasized, we must recognize, as Fishbane stresses, 'the inevitable preeminence of the divine voice in biblical culture'.54 Chapter 3 takes up the Chronicler's reinterpretation of prophecies in Samuel-Kings. Other studies have taken up the issues of levitical and royal prophecy in Chronicles. David Petersen argues that the Chronicler presents the levitical singers as prophets. He supports this position with four pieces of evidence: (1) the characterization of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun as those who prophesied (1 Chron. 25.1) and Heman as 'the king's seer' (1 Chron. 25.5); (2) the prominent place given to the Levites; (3) the use of the Levite Jahaziel to exhort Israel to a 'holy war' (2 Chron. 20.1417); and (4) the replacement of 'priests and prophets' in 2 Kgs 23.2 with 'priests and Levites' in 2 Chron. 34.30.55 However, this evidence is problematic. Williamson points out in a review of Petersen's book that the Chronicler's references to the Levites make 'no claim at any point to be identified with classical prophecy'.56 However, Peterson's study raises important questions about the Chronicler's view of inspiration and prophecy. These issues as well as Petersen's arguments are addressed in Chapter 4. James Newsome's doctoral dissertation, 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (1973), discusses levitical prophecy and royal prophecy. Newsome's analysis begins with von Rad's discussion of the 'Levitical Sermon' and makes the simple equation, 'these Levitical sermons are prophetic sermons'.57 As a result, Newsome understands the Levites to
Recently, Rodney Duke applied rhetorical analysis to the speeches. Duke also emphasizes the contemporary message: 'When David or a prophet exhorts their audience, the Chronicler's audience, too, receives the exhortation' (The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler, p. 146). 54. The Garments ofTorah, p. 17. 55. Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 55-87. 56. Williamson criticizes Petersen's conclusion here, pointing out that the Chronicler's references make 'no claim at any point to be identified with classical prophecy' (cf. Int 33 [1979], p. 206). 57. Newsome, 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1973), p. 78. Newsome's salient conclusions are summarized in his article, Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 201-17.
Introduction
29
be prophets and temple service to be 'a kind of ritualized prophecy'.58 He also suggests that the Davidic kings are prophets: 'the Davidid becomes the prophetic medium through whom Yahweh makes his will known to the kingdom and the people'.59 Yet there is no reason for the so-called 'Levitical Sermon' to be termed 'prophetic'. The genre itself is not typical of prophecy. Still, David and Solomon do have a special place in the Chronicler's work. Chapter 5 addresses the question of royal prophecy and focuses, in particular, on David's prophetic role in Chronicles. The problem of the Chronicler's historical reliability has focused some attention on the Chronicler's prophetic source citations. The Chronicler cites a variety of prophetic sources for the kings of Judah, for example, 'the prophecy of Ahijah' and 'the midrash of the prophet Iddo'. These references have been largely discounted and ignored. Rosemarie Micheel has suggested that the Chronicler used them to authorize his history.60 However, Thomas Willi emphasizes that the prophetic source references should not be ignored since they are an important piece in the Chronicler's historiographical conception as well as his view of prophets. Chapter 6 explores how these prophetic source references contribute to the Chronicler's view of prophets. Clearly, the last two decades have seen a flurry of work on prophecy and prophets in Chronicles. Although these studies have not integrated all aspects of the Chronicler's view of prophecy, they have raised critical issues: the form-critical aspects of the prophetic speeches, the Chronicler's use of earlier traditions, the 'prophetic' role of the Levites, the relationship between the prophet and the king, and the prophetic references in the source citations. These topics will be taken up in individual chapters. However, we must begin by examining the Chronicler's use of prophetic terminology, specifically prophetic titles and inspiration formulas. Previous studies have not paid adequate attention to the roles of different kinds of prophets (for example, nabi' as against hozeh and the different types of inspiration (for example, 'the word of God came to...', 'and the spirit enveloped') in Chronicles. 58. The Chronicler's View of Prophecy', p. 223. 59. Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 204; also see The Chronicler's View of Prophecy', pp. 225-26. C.T. Begg argues that Hezekiah in particular is presented as a prophet in Chronicles: The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History', 5Z 32 (1988), p. 102. 60. Die Seher- and Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, pp. 71-80.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1 PROPHETIC TITLES AND INSPIRATION FORMULAS
Glaus Westermann begins his classic study Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech by asking three questions: 'Who speaks? To whom does he speak? What takes place in this speaking?'1 These questions deal with the origin, audience, and form and content of the prophetic speeches. To these questions we will add, how does the prophet speak? This last question raises the issue of a claim of inspiration for prophetic speech. These four questions will concern us in the first two chapters. We begin this chapter by examining 'who speaks?' The English term 'prophet' is ambiguous.2 The LXX's use of the term rcpO(priTr)<; (i.e., 'prophet') perhaps lies behind the ambiguity in English. The LXX translates the Hebrew terms nabi', hozeh and ro'eh (1 Chron. 26.28; 2 Chron. 16.7, 10; 19.2; 29.25, 30; 35.15) with the Greek TrpotpriTTK, 'prophet'. In one case the term 'prophet' (TtpocprjTrit;) even translates the Hebrew term 'messenger' (~[N^Q; 2 Chron. 36.15). This study uses the term 'prophet' as a general category referring to those figures given prophetic titles (for example, nabi', hozeh, ro'eh, and 'man of God') and specifies which kind of prophet by using a transliteration of the Hebrew terms to distinguish between different kinds of prophets, for example, nabi' or hozeh. More significant than the problem of definitions is the lack of clearly articulated criteria for defining prophecy and prophets in Chronicles. Scholars seldom delineate their criteria for prophecy and prophets and sometimes employ faulty criteria in their definitions. Gerhard von Rad's study on the 'Levitical Sermon' typifies this problem. Von Rad offers no definition of a prophet, yet claims that 'there is no difference 1. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (ET; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), p. 93. 2. See further Wilson, Prophecy and Society, pp. 21-28, and the bibliography cited there for a discussion of the problem of terminology.
32
The Word of God in Transition
between the speeches made by prophets and those declaimed by kings'.3 Von Rad surely overgeneralizes here (cf. 2 Chron. 12.5-8; 13.4-12; 24.20). While some scholars have recently pointed out the inadequacy of von Rad's broad characterization of the Levitical Sermon,4 no study has carefully defined the Chronicler's notions of prophecy and prophets. We must begin with a working definition of 'prophecy'. I will define 'prophecy' as an utterance which claims to derive its authority from God. Here we can only acknowledge a claim of divine authority or inspiration. This is not the place to judge the truth of these claims. Two of the most obvious criteria for identifying prophetic speech then are inspiration formulas and prophetic titles. The inspiration formula, for example, 'Thus says the LORD', explicitly claims divine authority. The prophetic title of a speaker implicitly confers divine authority on the prophet's speech. This chapter will examine the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas which the Chronicler uses. These titles and formulas will be compared to and contrasted with their use elsewhere in biblical literature. These two formal criteria, prophetic titles and inspiration formulas, will delineate the speeches which make a claim to divine authority. Using these two criteria, we will gather texts relevant for understanding the Chronicler's conception of prophecy. The study of these two criteria will become the foundation for the analysis of prophetic speeches in Chapter 2. Prophetic Titles Five prophetic titles are considered below: nabt', hozeh, ro'eh, 'man of God', and 'servant of God/YHWH'.5 These titles have been the subject 3. Von Rad, The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles', p. 277. 4. For example, Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period?', pp. 221-35; idem, Preaching the Tradition, pp. 1-11; M. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS, 93; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). D. Mathias's dissertation, 'Die Geschichte der Chronikforschung im 19 Jahrhundert unter besonderes Beriicksichtigung der exegetischen Geschichtswerker' (Leipzig, 1977), is particularly critical of the 'Levitical Sermon'. These criticisms are reflected in his article, '"Levitische Predigt" und Deuteronomismus', pp. 23-49. Also see R.L. Braun, / Chronicles (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), pp. xxiv-xxv. 5. The study of A.G. Auld, 'Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 66-82, is flawed in its approach to prophets in Chronicles because he studies only the title nabi' (see pp. 76-77).
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
33
of many articles and monographs which focus on their meaning in preexilic literature.6 The pervasive approach has been to study the etymology of the titles.7 However, this approach has been strongly and persuasively critiqued by James Barr. In his classic essay The Semantics of Biblical Language, Barr wrote, 'Etymology is not, and does not profess to be, a guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage, and such value has to be determined from the current usage and not from derivation' .8 D.L. Petersen raises some sociological issues in relation to the etymological study of prophetic titles, or as he calls them 'role labels': (1) sometimes a role exists for which there is no role label, and (2) sometimes a role exists, but the role labels are misleading guides to the actual role.9 Petersen's study focuses on nabi', hozeh, ro'eh and 'man of God'. He prefaces his investigation by pointing out that 'linguistic labels do not turn out to be reliable indicators of social identities'.10 Thus, the meaning of the prophetic role labels can only be determined by the context in which they are employed. Petersen's study also underscores the important difference between the perception of a literary author and historical reality. The sociological model approaches literary documents as a means (that is, as a source) 6. See M. Jastrow, ''Ro'eh and Hozeh in the Old Testament', JBL 28 (1909), pp. 42-56; D.L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOTSup, 17; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 35-87; Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, pp. 136-41; R. Rendtorff, 'Prophetes: nabi' in the Old Testament', TDNT, VI, pp. 799-809. See further the bibliographies cited in these works. 7. This approach is typified by Albright's paper, 'Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement'. Also see the recent debate between H. Mueller and G. Manfred over the meaning of nabi'. H. Mueller, 'Zur Herleitung von nabi", BN 29 (1985), pp. 22-27; G. Manfred, 'Der nabi'—"Berufener" oder "Seher"?', BN 17 (1982), pp. 23-25; idem, 'Randbemerkungen zum jiingsten Lexikonartikel zu nabi", BN 26 (1985), pp. 7-16; idem, 'Addenda zur diskussion urn nabi", BN3\ (1986), pp. 30-31. 8. The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press, 1961), p. 107; also see idem, 'Limitations of Etymology as a Lexicographical Instrument in Biblical Hebrew', in Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (repr.; Winona Lake, IN: rev. edn, Eisenbrauns, 1987), pp. 412-36. 9. Roles of Israel's Prophets, p. 36; see also Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, pp. 35-38. 10. Roles of Israel's Prophets, p. 36. Petersen cites R. Keesing, 'Toward a Model of Role Analysis', in R. Naroll and R. Cohen (eds.), A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology (New York: Natural History Press, 1971), p. 425.
34
The Word of God in Transition
for understanding ancient prophecy. Here we will focus on the Chronicler's perception of prophecy. In this study, then, we begin by asking an essentially psychological question: how did the Chronicler think prophecy functioned in pre-exilic Israel? How the Chronicler thought prophecy functioned in pre-exilic Israel should also reflect how prophecy actually functioned in his own post-exilic milieu. 'Prophet'—nabi' nabi' is the most common prophetic role label used in the books of Chronicles. The term occurs 33 times, although 10 of these occurrences are in passages taken from the books of Samuel and Kings.11 nabi' occurs as a title, for example 'Jeremiah the nabi", in 15 of the 33 occurrences.12 The Chronicler's 'prophets' (nebi'im) include Nathan, Shemaiah, Iddo, Oded, Elijah, Isaiah, Samuel, Jeremiah and an anonymous prophet in 2 Chronicles 25. nabi' in the Hebrew Bible, nabi' is the most common prophetic title in the Hebrew Bible, occurring over 200 times outside of Chronicles, mostly in the Deuteronomistic History (107) and Jeremiah (87) It is difficult to uncover any specialized social role associated with the term nabi'. Indeed, the interchanges between nabi' and 'man of God' and between nabi' and ro'eh make it tenuous to argue that nabi' implies a specialized role. A redactor's linguistic note in 1 Sam. 9.9 suggests that nabi' was a classical term for the more ancient term ro 'eh: Formerly in Israel, thus a man said when he would go to seek God: 'Come and let us go to the ro'eh'. For the nabi' of today was formerly called the ro'eh}3
The redactor or glossator saw these terms as essentially synonymous. Furthermore, we may note that the title 'man of God' is also used for Samuel in this pericope (vv. 7, 10). The interchange of terminology in this story has led commentators to suggest a rather complex literary
11. Cf. 1 Chron. 16.22; 17.1; 25.1, 2, 3; 29.29; 2 Chron. 2.15; 9.29; 12.5, 15; 13.22; 15.8; 18.5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 21, 22; 20.20; 21.12; 24.19; 25.15, 16; 26.22; 28.9; 29.25; 32.20, 32; 34.22; 35.18; 36.12, 16. 12. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.1; 29.29; 2 Chron. 9.29; 12.5, 15; 13.22; 15.8; 21.12; 25.16; 26.22; 29.25; 32.20, 32; 35.18; 36.12. Also nabi'a, 'prophetess', once in 2 Chron. 34.22 following 2 Kgs 22.14. 13. The translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
35
history for the text.14 Redactional activity in this chapter probably explains the apparent linguistic note on ro'eh. In this case, the conflation of the role labels nabi', 'man of God' and ro'eh by an ancient redactor frustrates modern attempts to distinguish a special role for each prophetic label. Attempts to place the nabi' in a circumscribed role within ancient Israel are unconvincing. For instance, D.L. Petersen describes the nabi' as a 'central morality prophet'. Petersen relies on selective texts which illustrate his view to support his description (for example, Mic. 3.9-11; Isa. 3.1-3; 28.7).15 However, Petersen's limited examples hardly do justice to the breadth in the usage of nabi', which occurs over 200 times. For instance, Elijah is also called 'the prophet' (hanabi'; cf. 1 Kgs 18.36; 19.16; 2 Kgs. 3.11; 2 Chron. 21.12) and yet he certainly is a peripheral prophet and not a central morality prophet. How shall we characterize Jeremiah the prophet (hanabt'^ As a central morality prophet? As a peripheral morality prophet? What about the prophets who confront Jeremiah (for example, Jer. 28)? Undoubtedly there were central morality prophets in Israel, but it is impossible to tie the term nabi' to this role.16 Thus, nabi' should be seen as the most general term for a prophet in the Hebrew Bible.
14. See H. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 78-86; C. Hauer, 'Does 1 Samuel 9.1-11.15 Reflect the Extension of Saul's Dominions?', JBL 86 (1967), pp. 306-10; Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets, pp. 38-40. 15. The Roles of Israel's Prophets, pp. 58-69. 16. Auld challenges the conventional understanding of the use of nabi' in biblical literature. He uses Jeremiah and Kings and compares parallel texts (the LXX and Chronicles) to assess the editorial procedures of each work; see 'Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings', pp. 66-82 and also 'Prophets through the Looking Glass', pp. 3-23. However, Auld's theory that no positive or complimentary use of the title nabi' was contemporary with Jeremiah overburdens the evidence. See the critiques by T. Overholt, 'Prophecy in History: .The Social Reality of Intermediation', 7SOT48 (1990), pp. 3-29, and H.G.M. Williamson's 'A Response to A.G. Auld', JSOT 27 (1983), pp. 33-39. Auld's treatment of the books of Kings and the comparative material in Chronicles is particularly problematic. He writes, 'Addition of the title "prophet" to a proper name could never have been difficult—and indeed removal from any text never affects the interpretation of what remains'. This statement is telling of Auld's methodology; he appeals to editorial insertions to explain evidence which does not fit his schema.
36
The Word of God in Transition
nabi' in Chronicles. Generally speaking, nabi' is not interchangeable with other prophetic titles in Chronicles. However, there are a few cases where a nabi' is known by another title. Samuel is designated both nabi' and ro'eh (cf. 2 Chron. 35.18 and 1 Chron. 9.29; 29.29). Shemaiah is called both a nabi' and a 'man of God' (2 Chron. 12.5; 11.2). The figure Elijah is called a nabi' in Chronicles (2 Chron. 21.12), but is called 'man of God' in the Deuteronomistic History (cf. 1 Kgs 17.18; 2 Kgs 1.13). In the first two cases, the interchange may be explained by different sources. 2 Chron. 35.18 (nabi') is the Chronicler's own hand, but 1 Chron. 9.29 (ro'eh) derives from genealogical lists. 2 Chron. 11.2 ('man of God') follows 1 Kgs 12.22, whereas 2 Chron. 12.5 (nabi') is the Chronicler's non-synoptic composition. In the last case, the Deuteronomistic History knows Elijah by both titles, but the Chronicler chooses nabi' for Elijah's title. Thus, the use of the title nabi' where earlier sources use 'man of God' indicates that it was the Chronicler's preferred title for prophetic figures. The Chronicler uses nabi' as a general prophetic label. I have already noted the interchange of the role labels nabi', 'man of God' and ro'eh in both Chronicles and in the instructive example from 1 Samuel 9. The Chronicler apparently subsumed the title hozeh under the more general role label nabi'. This is illustrated in 2 Chron. 29.25: And [Hezekiah] stationed the levites in the house of YHWH with cymbals, harps, and lyres by the commandment of David and God the 'royal seer' (hozeh hammelek) and Nathan the nabi' for the commandment was by YHWH through his prophets (n'bi'im).
The commandment came from God through prophetic intermediaries. The phrase 'through his prophets' apparently refers to both Nathan the prophet and Gad the 'royal seer' (hozeh hammelek). Gad is considered one of the 'prophets' even though he has the title of 'royal seer'. In addition, the Chronicler employs nabi' as a broad term in the conclusion to his work (2 Chron. 36.16): And they mocked the messengers of God, disdained his words, and taunted his rfbi'im until the wrath of YHWH overflowed against his people was without remedy.
This summary employs three general terms: 'messengers of God', 'YHWH's words' and 'YHWH's nebi'im'. These are three categories of things which Israel despised. They sum up the totality of Israel's rejection of its God. The term 'messengers of God' includes the cultic
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
37
officials and others who tried to turn Israel back to its God (for example, Zechariah, Jehoiada, Jahaziel, Pharaoh). The term 'YHWH's words' refers to both the 'word of Moses' and the 'word of YHWH'. The term '(YHWH's) prophets' is a catch-all for the prophetic figures who counseled the kings in Chronicles (for example, hozeh, ro'eh, nabi' and the man of God). In sum, nabi' is a general label for the professional prophet in Chronicles. There is little to indicate that nabi' had a more specialized meaning, such as central as against peripheral prophet. It is even unlikely that the Chronicler could have conceived of classical prophecy in this manner. 'Seer'—hozeh The prophetic role label hozeh occurs ten times in Chronicles. In one instance, the Chronicler borrowed the passage from Samuel-Kings.17 Chronicles gives the label to Gad, Iddo and Jehu.18 The heads of the levitical singers, Heman, Asaph and Jeduthun, are also given this title. Additionally, the regnal resume of Manasseh mentions 'the seers who spoke to Manasseh' and refers to 'the rest of the deeds of Manasseh...recorded by Hozai (hdzay)' (2 Chron. 33.18-19). The use of hozeh in 2 Chron. 33.18 apparently replaces 'YHWH's servants the n'bi'im' in the Chronicler's source (2 Kgs 21.10).19 hozeh in the Hebrew Bible. Outside of Chronicles the title hozeh occurs only six times in the Hebrew Bible as compared to ten attestations in 17. Cf. 1 Chron. 21.9 (112 Sam. 24.11); 25.5; 29.29; 2 Chron. 9.29; 12.15; 19.2; 29.25, 30; 33.18; 35.15. It is usually spelled without the vowel letter wow, but is occasionally spelled plene, nnn. 18. The title occurs after the name of Jehu's father and thus Curtis suggests that the title 'may apply to either Hanani or Jehu' (Chronicles, p. 401; so also Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 55). However, the context indicates that Jehu is acting in a prophetic role and it is unlikely that the Chronicler intended that Hanani was a 'seer' but not his son Jehu. Moreover, titles in biblical Hebrew typically follow the person's lineage, for example, 'Zechariah, son of Barakiyah, son of Iddo, the nabi" (Zech. 1.1). Although it does not necessarily have to apply to Jehu (cf. Ezra 7.1), there is little reason to doubt that the Chronicler intended the title to be applied to Jehu. 19. See Williamson, Chronicles, p. 395. It should be noted that hahozim comes from the Chronicler's regnal resume" for Manasseh, whereas 'his servants the nebi'im' are referred to in the deuteronomist's narrative, and thus it is not a case of simple replacement.
38
The Word of God in Transition
Chronicles alone.20 Thus, the title hozeh appears disproportionately in the books of Chronicles. A. Jepsen explains the distribution by suggesting that the verb 'to see, perceive' (V-m) is an Aramaic loanword: 'if Hebrew could use ra 'ah for all kinds of sight and vision, the word chazah appearing alongside it must be considered an Aramaic loanword'.21 In classical texts like Isa. 30.10 and Mic. 3.7 the term hozeh appears in poetic contexts, further suggesting that it was not in regular use in Hebrew. Still, there is little justification for calling hozeh a loanword since it appears elsewhere only in classical texts (Isaiah, Amos, Micah, 2 Samuel, 2 Kings). While hozeh may have been a classical Hebrew term, it was used primarily in poetic texts and was not frequently employed. Similarly, the verb forms occur frequently in classical biblical texts. The frequent use of hozeh in Chronicles may reflect the increasing Aramaic influence in late biblical Hebrew, but it should not be called a loanword. Some Aramaic inscriptions may enhance our understanding of 'seer' in Hebrew. An inscription found at Deir 'Alia dating to the eighth century BCE describes Balaam son of Beor as a 'seer (hzh) of the gods'. The inscription is poorly preserved, but Jo Ann Hackett has done a thorough reconstruction of it.22 The inscription undoubtedly refers to the same Balaam son of Beor known from Numbers 22-24. The biblical tradition gives Balaam no prophetic label except 'augur' (cf. Josh. 13.22, Num. 23.23), undoubtedly reflecting a pejorative view of this nonIsraelite prophet for hire. It is worth noting that 'augur' occurs in parallelism with hozeh in Mic. 3.7 (also cf. Ezek. 13.6, 9; 22.28; Zech. 10.2) and we may assume that in some cases an 'augur' could be called a hozeh. Robert Wilson suggests that Balaam played a central role in his society; he writes, 20. Cf. 2 Sam. 24.11; 2 Kgs 17.13; Isa. 29.10; 30.10; Amos 7.12; Mic. 3.7. 21. A. Jepsen, 'nm', TDOT, IV, p. 282. See also F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, Die aramdische Sprache unter den Achaimeniden, 1/3 (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1963), p. 270; M. Wagner, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramdismen in alttestamentlischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: Topelmann, 1966), nos. 93-98. The Aramaic and Syriac forms, mrt and hz', 'perceive with the eye', may explain the association of the Hebrew hozeh with the augur. However, the use of hozeh in Chronicles compares more favorably with the Arabic (cf. BDB, p. 302). 22. J. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir 'Alia (HSM, 31; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984); also see J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alia (Leiden: Brill, 1976), and A. Caquot and A. Lemaire, 'Les textes arameens de Deir 'Alia', Syria 54 (1977), pp. 193-202.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
39
this suggestion is reinforced by the very fact that his oracles were preserved both at Deir 'Alia and in the Bible. Furthermore, the Deir 'Alia inscription was written on a stele which was originally located in what may have been a cult place or a shrine. This hints at a religious function for the oracles and for Balaam.23
The very act of commemoration in a stele suggests close connections between the hozeh and the king. The Zakir inscription (c. 800 BCE) provides further evidence for a close relationship between the hozeh and the king. In the inscription Zakir, the king of Hamath and Lu'ash, says that he was confronted by a coalition of kings who had besieged one of his cities. He calls upon his god who responds through prophetic intermediaries.24
(11) And I lifted my hands to Baal-Shamayn and Baal-Shamayn answered me and (12) Baal-Shamayn spoke to me by seers and messengers. . .
The 'seers (hzyn) and messengers' were intermediaries through whom the god spoke to the king. They confirm the king's position (11.13-14). In doing so, the seers show their close association with the king. The use of hozeh in the Hebrew Bible also indicates that the hozeh was a 'central prophet'. 2 Sam. 24.11 addresses Gad as 'Gad, the prophet, the hozeh of David', underscoring a special relationship between King David and the hozeh. Chronicles expresses this relationship in the title, 'royal hozeh' . It is worthwhile noting that the parallel title 'the royal nabi " does not occur in biblical literature. The association of the title hozeh with the royal court may explain a longstanding interpretive crux. In oft-cited confrontation between Amaziah and Amos, Amaziah accuses Amos of being a hozeh (Amos 7.12). If we take seriously the accusation that Amos was specifically a hozeh, that is, the accusation that Amos was a central prophet in Judah, then Amos' s denial becomes more intelligible. As Ziony Zevit argues, Amos' s response in v. 14a, 'I am not a prophet (nabi'} and I am not the 23. Prophecy and Society, p. 133. Petersen largely agrees with Wilson's conclusions: The Roles of Israel's Prophets, pp. 52-57. 24. I follow the reconstruction of Ross, 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', pp. 2-11. 25. Another possible restoration is ["lan'i] (see Ross, 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', p. 2) and A. Dupont-Sommer proposes ["^Q-I] (in F. Rosenthal [ed.], An Aramaic Handbook, I/I [Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967], p. 2).
40
The Word of God in Transition
son of a prophet', denies that he was associated with the Judaean court and was specifically a court prophet.26 The statement that he was a shepherd and a tender of sycamores (v. 14b) further justifies Amos's denial of the accusation that he was a court prophet (hozeh). The remaining occurrences of hozeh are little help in ascertaining his social role. In Mic. 3.7, 2 Kgs 17.13, Isa. 29.10 and Isa. 30.10, hozeh occurs in parallelism with the titles nabi', ro'eh and 'augur'.27 This suggests that all these terms belong to the same broad semantic field 'prophet, diviner, seer'. Yet these contexts are hardly suitable for deriving the precise social role of the hozeh. What we know of the social role of the hozeh connects him to the court. Although the biblical evidence is admittedly limited, the extrabiblical evidence also suggests that the hozeh was associated with the royal court. hozeh in Chronicles. Apart from the levitical singers, all three figures (Gad, Iddo, Jehu) given the title 'the seer' appear in the source citations of Chronicles.28 Iddo is given the titles hozeh (2 Chron. 9.29; 12.15) and nabi' (2 Chron. 13.22) in the Chronicler's source citations. The seer Iddo only appears in the Chronicler's source citations and does not appear in his narrative. In addition, the source citation of Manasseh refers to 'the chronicles of Hozai/my seers' (2 Chron. 33.19).29 This is especially significant since 'seer' in Manasseh's source citation apparently replaces nabi' in the deuteronomic narrative (cf. 2 Kgs 21.10). Thus, the title hozeh appears prominently in the source citations of Chronicles (see discussion of the source citations in Chapter 5). The use of the title hozeh and the root 'to perceive' (V'm) in the source citations highlights the seer's role in writing historical records. For instance, the prophet/seer Iddo records the actions of the king in his 26. See Z. Zevit, 'A Misunderstanding at Bethel: Amos VII 12-17', VT 25 (1975), pp. 783-90. In this interpretation, Amos's oracles against Judah (2.4-5) become more significant since they demonstrate that Amos was not a patron of the Judaean court. 27. Isa. 30.10 puns on the meaning of the root V'tn, 'to perceive'. It is from this etymological meaning that we derive the English translation for hozeh, 'seer'. However, as was pointed out earlier, the etymological origin of this title is of little help in determining the precise social role for the hozeh. 28. Cf. 1 Chron. 29.29; 2 Chron. 9.29; 12.15; 20.34 (his title appears in 2 Chron. 19.2). 29. The Hebrew Tin may be understood as either 'my seers' or a proper name, Hozai.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
41
'midrash' (2 Chron. 13.22): 'And the rest of the acts of Abijah, his ways, and his words are written in the midrash of the prophet Iddo'. The term midrash contrasts with 'chronicles' (-DTI —m). Thomas Willi notes, 'This is the first tradition-historical technical term in the source citations'.30 Willi argues that the term midrash highlights the historicgraphical work of the prophets in searching out meaning, since a technical aspect of the prophets' work was to write down the meaning (cf. 2 Chron. 26.22). Indeed, the term midrash from the root 'to seek, search' (Vent) must imply some sort of interpretive activity,31 although certainly not the full meaning which midrash comes to have in rabbinic literature. Likewise, the seer Jehu's words were included in the royal annals according to 2 Chron. 20.34: And the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from the beginning to the end, indeed they are written in the words of Jehu son of Hanani which was included in the scroll of the kings of Israel.
Although the Deuteronomistic Historian gives Jehu the title nabi' (1 Kgs 16.1, 7), Chronicles gives him the title hozeh (2 Chron. 19.2). This change can perhaps be explained by Jehu's role as a recorder of the deeds of the king.32 Thus, the Chronicler portrays the hozeh as a historian or at least an annalist. This observation is further supported by the use of the cognate terms 'visions' (mm) and 'vision' (pm) in other source citations: 'the visions of Iddo the ro'eh1 (2 Chron. 9.29) and 'the vision of Isaiah, son of Amoz, the nabi" (2 Chron. 32.32). To the latter reference should be added the source citation for Uzziah: 'Isaiah the prophet wrote down...the deeds of Uzziah (ima "i:n)' (2 Chron. 26.22). The Isaianic references may draw directly upon the opening to the book of Isaiah: 'The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw (run) 30. Die Chronik als Auslegung, p. 237. 31. Contra Williamson who writes, 'There is no reason to suppose that "midrash" here has any particular significance' (Chronicles, p. 255). Whether or not this midrash recalls a real literary work, the use of the term is certainly significant for the Chronicler's historiographical conception. 32. Alternatively, Micheel suggests that there was a theological notion that there could only be one nabi' at a time in Israel (Die Seher- und Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, pp. 18-19). This suggestion is not convincing because it relies on the notion that Moses was the first prophet and the beginning of a kind of 'prophetic succession' (cf. Deut. 18.18). Chronicles did not even view Moses in a strictly prophetic role, rather Moses' role in Chronicles is as founder of the cult (see de Vries, 'Moses and David as Cult Founders', pp. 619-39).
42
The Word of God in Transition
concerning Judah and Jerusalem' (1.1). These two source citations mentioning Isaiah seem to reflect a knowledge of the compositional relationship between 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 37-39. This can be seen especially in 2 Chron. 32.32: The rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his faithfulness, indeed they are recorded in the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet, which is within the scroll of the kings of Judah and Israel.
The term 'vision' also appears in the redactional introduction to Obadiah (Obad. 1.1) and Nahum (Nah. 1.1) and it may be that 'vision of Isaiah' was also meant to refer to a compiled work, perhaps even parts of the canonical book of Isaiah. In other prophetic books the verb 'to perceive' (V'rn) appears in the introduction (cf. Amos 1.1; Mic. 1.1; Hab. 1.1). The redactional activity which added the introductions to the prophetic books was likely from the exilic and post-exilic periods.33 The tradents who prefaced the canonical prophetic books with the terms like 'vision' and 'to perceive' probably influenced the Chronicler. As a result, the Chronicler has the hozeh writing 'historical' works and has prophetic works entitled 'the visions of Iddo the seer', 'the vision of Isaiah' and 'the words of Hozai/ my seers'. The Chronicler also replaces the title nabi' with hozeh. In 2 Sam. 24.11 we read,34 'the word of YHWH came to Gad the nabi', the hozeh of David'. Gad's main title is nabi' (cf. 1 Sam. 22.5) and the title 'hozeh of David' augments that title, hozeh is an infrequent title in SamuelKings, appearing only in 2 Sam. 24.11. Chronicles prefers the title hozeh. Although 1 Chron. 21.9 is closely related to its Vorlage (2 Sam. 24.11), 33. See R.P. Carroll, 'Inventing the Prophets', IBS 10 (1988), pp. 24-36; H.M.I. Gevaryahu, 'Biblical Colophons: A Source for the "Biography" of Authors, Texts, and Books', in J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 42-59; G.M. Tucker, 'Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon', in G.W. Coats and B.O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 56-70. See further Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 27-32, for a discussion of formal aspects of scribal transmission and Near Eastern parallels. 34. Alternatively, Auld has argued that the word nabi' is a later insertion in the book of Kings: 'Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings', pp. 78-79. This seems unlikely. See criticisms of Auld by Williamson, 'A Response to A.G. Auld', pp. 33-39, and Overholt, 'Prophecy in History: The Social Reality of Intermediation', pp. 3-29.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
43
the Chronicler replaces the full title 'Gad the nabi', the hozeh of David' in 2 Sam. 24.11 with 'Gad, the hozeh of David' in his version (1 Chron. 21.9). The Chronicler's Gad is no longer a nabi', but now is a hozeh. Elsewhere, the Chronicler continues to give Gad the title hozeh and not nabi'. In 2 Chron. 29.25, he calls Gad a 'royal seer' (hozeh hamelek) in an authorization formula Gad is a medium for the commandment to establish the levitical singers. In addition, David's source citation cites Gad, the hozeh, as one of the sources for David's reign (1 Chron. 29.29). It is clear then that the title hozeh in Chronicles replaces Gad's title nabi' in the Deuteronomistic History. The Chronicler's use of the title hozeh for Gad may have two explanations: (1) Gad is closely associated with the royal court, namely David, and (2) Gad is one of the Chronicler's source references. We have established that the title hozeh was associated with the royal court in biblical and extrabiblical literature. In addition, the title hozeh and the cognate terms 'visions' and 'vision' appear prominently in the source citations. Chronicles also gives the title hozeh to Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman.35 The title 'royal seer' is particularly associated with the levitical singers in Chronicles. When the Chronicler uses 'seer of David' for Gad, he follows the Deuteronomistic History. For instance, 2 Chron. 35.15 applies the title to all three heads of the levitical singers: And the singers the Asaphites were at their positions according to the commandment of David and Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, the royal seers.36 The gatekeepers were at each gate; they did not leave their positions that their levite kinsmen established for them.
Elsewhere, 1 Chron. 25.5 ascribes the title 'royal seer' to Heman and 2 Chron. 29.30 gives the title hozeh to Asaph. Given this, the Chronicler undoubtedly intended the title 'royal seer' to apply to all three heads of the levitical singers. But why did the Chronicler give this title to the heads of the levitical singers? David Petersen suggests that this is because the Chronicler wished to portray the Levites as 'prophets'. Yet, if this were the case, 35. 1 Chron. 21.9; 25.5; 2 Chron. 29.25; 35.15. 36. Some scholars emend "["ran min to «"[iPDn
44
The Word of God in Transition
why was the title 'royal seer' and why was it only given to the heads of the levitical singers? The title 'royal seer' itself suggests Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun's close association with King David. The use of 'royal seer' for the levitical singers then should be related to King David's establishing of the levitical singers (1 Chron. 25.1-6). It is here that the title 'seer' is first employed in Chronicles. David established the heads of the levitical singers and they were thus closely associated with him. The question of why these figures were considered 'seers' who were 'prophesying with musical instruments' will be discussed at length in Chapter 3. In sum, in both extrabiblical and biblical texts, hozeh is closely associated with the royal court. The term is used disproportionately in the books of Chronicles (10 of 16 times), suggesting that the Chronicler's use of this term may be influenced by Aramaic. Chronicles strengthens the association between the hozeh and the court seen in extrabiblical texts. There is also some evidence to suggest that the role of the hozeh was associated with recording of the 'deeds of the kings'. The use of the hozeh and references to their 'visions' in the source citations indicates that the Chronicler closely associated them with the interpretation of historical events. 'Seer'-ro'eh Chronicles employs the prophetic role label ro'eh five times.37 It uses ro 'eh three times in three separate contexts for Samuel and twice in one context for Hanani.38 The use of this role label for Samuel was probably influenced by texts in Samuel-Kings containing the term, though the Chronicler does not directly borrow any passages using the term ro 'eh. ro 'eh in the Hebrew Bible. The title occurs seven times outside of the books of Chronicles. The book of Isaiah employs the role label twice (Isa. 28.7; 30.10). Isaiah speaks about seers who cannot see or can see only muddled visions, punning upon the etymological meaning, 'to perceive'. The strong rhetorical play in these passages makes them unsuitable for ascertaining much about the social role of the 'seer'. 37. The claim of Auld that ro 'eh was not a prophetic title will not concern us here since he concedes that this role label came to be understood as a prophetic title: see 'Prophets through the Looking Glass', pp. 10-12. See the critique of Auld's position by Williamson, 'A Response to A.G. Auld', pp. 33-39. 38. Cf. 1 Chron. 9.22; 26.28; 29.29; 2 Chron. 16.7, 10.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
45
1 Samuel uses the role label ro'eh five times for Samuel in the story of Saul's search for the lost asses.39 An explanatory remark in 1 Sam. 9.9 equates the title ro'eh with the title 'prophet': 'Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he would say, "Come, let us go to the seer", for the prophet of today was formerly called a seer'. Given the limited evidence for the ro 'eh and the explicit equation of the ro'eh with the nabi\ it is difficult to say anything definitive about a specific role for the ro 'eh in ancient Israel. Furthermore, 1 Samuel 9 also uses the role label 'man of God' for Samuel (vv. 6, 7, 8, 10) suggesting that the redactor considered the titles to some extent interchangeable. Alternatively, David Petersen claims that the ro'eh 'appears as an urban maintenance figure'.40 However, Petersen's main evidence for this conclusion is 1 Samuel 9, which he admits is a difficult text. The pivotal text is 1 Sam. 9.6: 'there is a man of God in this city'. Here, the role label is in fact 'man of God' and not ro'eh. In any event, the role of the 'seer' was taken over by the nabi' and we should understand the Chronicler's use of 'seer' in this context. ro'eh in Chronicles. The use of the label ro'eh in Chronicles for Hanani may reflect the influence of 1 Samuel. Hanani condemns Asa for relying on Aram and rebukes him in 2 Chron. 16.9: surely YHWH'S eyes rove about all the earth to strengthen those with an undivided heart (D"?eJ ecu1?). In this thing then, you have acted foolishly (rfrDO]) and from now on you will have wars.
In 1 Samuel 13 Samuel confronts Saul after Saul had sacrificed without waiting for Samuel. Saul shows a lack of faith because the people had begun to scatter. Thus, we read in vv. 13-14, 13 Samuel answered Saul, 'You have acted foolishly (n^DOi) in not keeping the commandments that YHWH your God gave you... 14 Now your dynasty will not endure. YHWH shall seek out a man after his own heart Oaa'pD)...
The two stories have similar rebukes, 'you have acted foolishly'. In both stories God is seeking out people with a special kind of heart. The use of motifs similar to 1 Samuel 13 in the Chronicler's prophetic narrative may have influenced the use of the role label ro'eh for Hanani. In sum, there is little evidence in Chronicles for a specialized role for 39. Cf. 1 Sam. 9.9 (2 times), 11, 18, 19. 40. Roles of Israel's Prophets, p. 50.
46
The Word of God in Transition
the ro'eh. The title ro'eh seems to be associated with the prophet Samuel in Chronicles, although there are no narratives directly dealing with Samuel in Chronicles. This title also is used for Hanani, whose speech seems to be patterned after Samuel's in the Deuteronomistic History. E.L. Curtis explains the use of ro'eh as archaizing on the Chronicler's part.41 This position is not unfounded since the explanatory remark in 1 Sam. 9.9 states that ro'eh was an archaic title for a nabt'.42 The Chronicler's use of this term for Hanani probably results from literary borrowing. 'Man of God' Chronicles uses the title 'man of God' six times.43 This role label is applied to Moses, David, Shemaiah and an anonymous figure. In one case, Shemaiah, the Chronicler gets the title 'man of God' from his Vorlage (cf. 2 Chron. 11.2 with 1 Kgs 12.22). 'Man of God' in the Hebrew Bible. The role label 'man of God' occurs 65 times outside of Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs almost exclusively in the Deuteronomic History44 and within the Deuteronomic History it occurs most frequently in the prophetic legenda of the ElijahElisha narratives (32 times).45 The title 'man of God' is also applied to Moses in Deut. 33.1, Ezra 3.2, and in the superscription to Psalm 90. David is given this title in Neh. 12.24 and 36. 41. Curtis thinks that ro'eh is 'clearly an archaism'; Chronicles, p. 389. 42. Alternatively, we might see an ancient tradition behind the Chronicler's story of Hanani. M. Jastrow felt that this was an ancient title which he regarded as possibly authentic ('Ro'eh and Hozeh in the Old Testament', JBL 28 [1909], pp. 4256). It is difficult to adjudicate between these two positions. In the final analysis, the position adopted should depend on the larger question of the availability and use of sources in the composition of Chronicles. 43. Cf. 1 Chron. 23.14; 2 Chron. 8.14; 11.2; 25.7, 9; 30.16. 44. 60 of the 65 non-Chronicles occurrences are in the Deuteronomic History. Cf. Deut. 33.1; Josh. 14.6; Judg. 13.6, 8; 1 Sam. 2.27; 9.6, 7, 8, 10; 1 Kgs 12.22; 13.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 26, 29, 31; 17.18, 24; 20.28; 2 Kgs 1.9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 4.7, 9, 16, 21, 22, 25, 27, 40, 42; 5.8, 14, 15, 20; 6.6, 9, 10, 15; 7.2, 17, 18, 19; 8.2, 4, 7, 8, 11; 13.19; 23.16, 17. The use of this term in Jer. 35.4 might also be termed 'deuteronomic'. The remaining five occurrences are Ps. 90.1; Ezra 3.2; Neh. 12.24, 36. 45. The title 'man of God' sometimes refers specifically to Elijah or Elisha, but more frequently the title is used anonymously. See further A. Rofe, The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), pp. 13-26.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
47
R. Hallevy, J. Holstein and P. Jouon question whether 'man of God' is actually a prophetic title. Hallevy argues that the Hebrew title 'man of God' should be translated 'godly man' because ' 'Eldhim in the epithet is not the name of any specific deity...'46 Hallevy builds his case upon the syntax of the phrase without the definite article, which lends itself to understanding >elohim adjectivally, thus 'godly man'. However, the syntax of the phrase usually includes the definite article ('is ha'elohim\ 65 times), and not without the article ('is >elohim; 6 times).47 Holstein claims that 'man of God' is an 'honorific title'. He argues that since men like Hanan ben Yigdalyah (Jer. 35.4) and David have this title, the title need not be a 'prophetic title'. Still, he admits that aside from Hanan and David, every 'man of God' is clearly also a prophet.48 P. Jouon reflects a nuanced position, arguing that 'in ancient times the man of God was a honorific synonym of the prophet. In later times it was used to speak of Moses and David, without pointing especially to the title of a prophet.'49 His argument for the later development in the meaning of 'man of God' follows the lines of Holstein's discussion, namely that the use of the title with certain figures, in this case Moses and David, precludes the possibility that 'man of God' is a prophetic title. However, the title 'man of God' occurs with characters who elsewhere have the title 'prophet' (nabi'; for example, Elijah, Shemaiah). Thus, the title is given to prophets, although it may not be restricted to prophets. Alexander Rofe observes that the role of the 'man of God' in the Elijah-Elisha narratives 'is to perform miracles'.50 The use of this role label in these narratives suggests that 'man of God' was at one time 46. R. Hallevy, 'Man of God', JNES 17 (1958), p. 237. 47. Cf. 1 Sam. 2.27; 9.6; 1 Kgs 13.1; 17.24; 2 Kgs 1.10; 4.9 for the spelling DTi1^ CTK. These cases should probably be considered errors (for instance, cf. 1 Sam. 9.6 with 9.7-10). Thus, Petersen's transciption as 'is (ha)'eldhim is rather misleading. There is no real variation. The proper spelling of this title is DTi^n ETK. 48. J. Holstein, 'The Case of c'n^Kn ti'R Reconsidered: Philological Analysis versus Historical Reconstruction', HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 69-81. The cases of David and Hanan are ambiguous. In the case of David, some scholars claim that David was a prophet (see Newsome, Begg, de Vries) and to address the question requires a detailed examination. In the case of Hanan, the person is otherwise unknown and so nothing much can be deduced from this example. 49. 'Locutions hebrai'ques: n-n'wn <&* homme de Dieu', Bib 3 (1922), p. 55. 50. The Prophetical Stories, p. 14. Also see Petersen, Roles of Israel's Prophets, pp. 41-43.
48
The Word of God in Transition
used to designate a 'holy man' who performed miracles. Moses and the anonymous 'man of God' from Judges 13 (vv. 6, 8) could fit into this description. However, this meaning may be restricted to the dialect or idiolect of these stories.51 Moses is not regarded primarily as a 'miracle worker' in the deuteronomic tradition there, although Moses came to be regarded as a nabi' (Deut. 18.18; 34.10). Moreover, a redactor uses the label 'man of God' interchangeably with nabi' for Samuel (1 Sam. 9.610).52 Again, there is no reason to call Samuel a 'miracle worker'. Thus, any special significance of 'man of God' as a 'miracle worker' is associated predominantly with the Elijah-Elisha narratives. David Petersen further suggests that a 'man of God' in the prophetic legenda is a peripheral prophet.53 He points out that these stories resonate with distinctive social pressures. For instance, 1 Kings 17 depicts an oppressive time, especially for the lower classes. 1 Kings 22 depicts a situation of heavy taxation and government corruption. The adherence to YHWH is considered peripheral (for example, 1 Kgs 18). Elisha associates with people of low social position (for example, 2 Kgs 4.8-37). However, Petersen must admit that not all of these stories point to peripheral prophecy. For instance, Elisha is a close advisor to King Joram and King Joash (2 Kgs 6.8-23; 13.14-19). Petersen suggests that some of the confusion in the man of God's role results from the process of redaction and editing. Undoubtedly, he is correct. Nevertheless, the very fact that redactors or editors did not take care in distinguishing the peripheral role of the 'man of God' indicates that this term had lost that specialized meaning for those redactors or editors. The story of the anonymous 'man of God' from Judah demonstrates the ambiguity of the title (1 Kgs 13). On the one hand, the 'man of God' acts a 'miracle worker'. He shrivels the outstretched hand of Jeroboam and then restores it (vv. 4, 6). On the other hand, the 'man of God' brings the 'word of YHWH' to the king in a prophetic judgment speech (vv. 1-3) and thus must be considered a prophet. The story ends with the 'man of God' in the company of 'an old nabi' living in Bethel'. 51. Burney points out the many northern linguistic features in the Elijah-Elisha narratives; see C.F. Burney, Notes of the Hebrew Text of Kings (Oxford, 1903), pp. 207-15. 52. See the above discussion in this chapter under 'hozeh in the Hebrew Bible'. 53. Petersen and Wilson follow the analytical categories of I. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: An Anthropological Study of Spirit Possesion and Shamanism (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971).
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
49
After the old prophet finds 'the man of God from Judah' (v. 14), he says to him: 'I am also a prophet (nabi') like yourself (v. 18). The prophet and the 'man of God' were peers. The 'man of God' thus could be considered a nabi'. In sum, it is difficult to distinguish 'man of God' from the more general label nabi' in the Hebrew Bible. E.L. Curtis calls this title 'the most general Old Testament designation of a prophet'54 and Robert Wilson concludes that 'in the biblical traditions that have been preserved, the man of God is synonymous with the prophet (nabi'}, and in fact both titles are sometimes applied to the same individual (1 Sam. 3.20; 9.6, 7, 8)'.55 The interchange of the role labels undermines attempts to assign a social role to the 'man of God', even though some distinct characteristics are discernible in the prophetic legenda. Yet, 'man of God' is also used of figures like David and Moses who do not fit into the mold of the classical prophets. 'Man of God' in Chronicles. The Chronicler shows a preference for the title nabi' over against 'man of God'. For instance, the Chronicler relabels Shemaiah in his non-synoptic composition. The Chronicler relies upon his Vorlage when he calls Shemaiah by the title 'man of God' (cf. 2 Chron. 11.2 with 1 Kgs 12.22), but in the Chronicler's own composition Shemaiah receives the title nabi' (2 Chron. 12.5). The Chronicler did not alter 'man of God' when it was present in his Vorlage, but in his own composition he prefers to entitle Shemaiah nabi' rather than 'man of God'. Similarly, Chronicles uses the title nabi' for Elijah (cf. 2 Chron. 21.12), although the Elijah-Elisha narratives typically employ the role label 'man of God' (cf. 1 Kgs 17.18; 2 Kgs 1.9-13).56 Malachi also uses the title nabi' for Elijah (Mai. 3.23). Thus, Chronicles' preference for nabi' as opposed to 'man of God' may have been common in the post-exilic period. The Chronicler does use 'man of God' in a prophetic role. In 2 Chron. 25.7-9 an anonymous 'man of God' confronts King Amaziah about his alliance with the northern kingdom. The confrontation fits into an 'old form of prophetic speech', namely prophetic instruction, as 54. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 442. 55. Wilson, Prophecy and Society, p. 140. 56. The title nabi' is used 12 times (1 Kgs 18.22; 18.36; 19.16; 20.13, 22, 38; 22.7; 2 Kgs 3.11; 5.3, 8, 13; 6.12), whereas 'man of God' occurs 32 times in the Elijah-Elisha narratives.
50
The Word of God in Transition
discussed by Westermann.57 The 'man of God' acts as an advisor to the king and the king treats the 'man of God' with great respect. It should also be noted that, in contrast with the Elijah-Elisha narratives, the 'man of God' apparently acts in the role of a central prophet. This is especially conspicuous here because later in the chapter an anonymous nabi' is treated as a peripheral prophet and rebuked for trying to be an advisor to the king! The role of the 'man of God' in 2 Chronicles 25 compares favorably with 2 Chron. 11.2-4, which the Chronicler borrows from his Vorlage (cf. 1 Kgs 12.22-24). In 2 Chron. 11.2-4, Shemaiah the 'man of God' (but nabi' in 2 Chron. 12.5) advises Rehoboam not to wage war with the northern kingdom and Rehoboam respectfully submits to this counsel. Both 2 Chron. 11.2-4 and 25.7-9 can be categorized as 'prophetic instruction speeches'. 'Man of God' is a favorite title for Moses in Chronicles (1 Chron. 23.14; 2 Chron. 30.16). In 1 Chron. 23.14 Moses the 'man of God' is the head of the Levites. We may assume that this association added prestige to the levitical cultic officials. In 2 Chron. 30.16 the privileged position of the Levites in the Passover is ascribed to 'the torah of Moses the man of God'. Thus, Moses the 'man of God' is apparently mentioned in Chronicles to explain the privileged position of the Levites in the cult. The title 'man of God' is part of a parallel which the Chronicler draws between Moses and David. The use of this title for David is related to his role as the founder of the cult. 2 Chron. 8.13-14 juxtaposes the roles of David and Moses: 13 and [Solomon did so] according to the daily requirement to offer according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles. 14 And he stationed, according to the ordinance of David his father, the divisions of the priests over their work and the levites over their duties to praise and to serve before the priests according to the daily requirement, and the gatekeepers in their divisions at each gate, because such was the commandment of David, the man of God.
The commandment of Moses in v. 13 is set against the commandment of David the 'man of God' in v. 14 the daily requirements of the first cult which Moses founded are set against the daily requirements of the second cult which David founded. The Chronicler was fond of typology 57. Basic Forms of 'Prophetic Speech, p. 168.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
51
and, as Simon de Vries has pointed out, the Chronicler portrays David as a cult founder after the pattern of Moses.58 David the 'man of God' and founder of the cult is thus like Moses the 'man of God' and founder of the Tabernacle. In sum, the use of 'man of God' in Chronicles follows a rather unusual pattern. The Chronicler re-labels Shemaiah, replacing 'man of God' with nabi'. Elijah, who is called both a nabi' and 'man of God' in the Deuteronomistic History, is a nabi' in Chronicles. Yet the Chronicler does use the title 'man of God' for an anonymous figure who fills the typical role of giving prophetic instruction to the king (2 Chron. 25.7,9). The Chronicler also keeps the title 'man of God' from his Vorlage where Shemaiah is giving prophetic instruction (cf. 2 Chron. 11.2-4/7 1 Kgs 12.22-24). So, 'man of God' can be applied to characters who function in prophetic roles. The role label 'man of God' thus serves a variety of characters, from the lawgiver Moses to the prophet Shemaiah to the king David. The title 'man of God' could refer to a prophet in Chronicles, but it is not invariably a term for prophets. With such a variety of characters and such a limited number of occurrences of the titles, no clear pattern for a specific social role emerges for the 'man of God'. 'Servant of YHWH/Goa" Chronicles uses the titles 'servant of God' and 'servant of YHWH' four times to refer to Moses (1 Chron. 6.34; 2 Chron. 1.3; 24.6; 24.9). Although deuteronomic literature frequently ascribes the title 'servant of YHWH' to Moses, the Chronicler's use of this title does not rely directly upon Samuel-Kings.59 'Servant of YHWH' and 'Servant of God' in the Hebrew Bible.60 Excluding Chronicles, the title 'servant of YHWH' occurs 20 times in the Bible, 13 times in the book of Joshua.61 In 15 of the 20 cases the title is 58. De Vries, 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 619-39. 59. It is used 15 times: Deut. 34.5; Josh. 1.1, 13, 15; 8.31, 33; 11.12; 12.6; 13.8; 14.7; 8.7; 22.2, 4, 5; 2 Kgs 18.12. 60. Petersen recognizes the problematic status of this title (and mal'ak YHWH) and elects not to include them in his discussion: 'One could argue that more prophetic titles are present, e.g., mal'ak Yahweh and 'ebed (Yahweh). I am inclined to understand these phrases, when applied to prophetic activity, to be more the product of systematic reflection than actual role labels in Israelite society' (The Roles of Israel's Prophets, p. 107). 61. Cf. Josh. 1.1, 13, 15; 8.31, 33; 11.12; 12.6; 13.8; 14.7; 18.7; 22.2, 4, 5;
52
The Word of God in Transition
applied to Moses. The title is also applied twice to Moses' successor, Joshua (Josh. 24.29; Judg. 2.8). The superscriptions to the Psalms also use 'servant of YHWH' twice to refer to David (Ps. 18.1; 36.1). The 'Servant Songs' of Isaiah use this title once (Isa. 42.19). Post-exilic literature also uses the title 'servant of God' four times for Moses, reflecting the preference of >elohim over yhwh in late biblical Hebrew.62 The role label 'servant of YHWH' is a prophetic title in deuteronomic literature. Moses is the recipient of the title 'servant of YHWH' and he is the prophet par excellence in deuteronomic literature. The phrase 'my servants the prophets' is frequently employed in deuteronomic literature.63 In the Psalm superscriptions which call David a 'servant of YHWH', the designation relates to David's association with these authoritative liturgical traditions. According to Qumran and rabbinic traditions, David was divinely inspired to write psalms. Moreover, it is David's role as a psalmist which made him a 'prophet' in later tradition since all the writers of Scripture were 'prophets'. Still, 'servant of YHWH' is used as a title only for figures peripheral to the classical prophetic tradition, figures like Moses, Joshua, David or the anonymous servant from the Isaianic 'Servant Songs'. Certainly, the prophets were YHWH's servants (as the phrase 'my servants the prophets' illustrates) however, this title was not generally applied to prophetic figures. 'Servant ofYHWH/God' in Chronicles. Chronicles only gives these titles to Moses. The deuteronomic phrase 'my servants the prophets', and its variations, is absent in Chronicles. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the Chronicler necessarily shared the Deuteronomist's view that Moses was the prophet par excellence. From the frequent citation of Mosaic legislation in Chronicles, it is clear that the Chronicler considered Moses the legislator par excellence. It is not surprising then that all four cases of this title for Moses relate to Moses' legislative role. The titles 'servant of God' and 'servant of YHWH', in Chronicles then are 24.29; also Deut. 34.5; Judg. 2.8; 2 Kgs 18.12; Isa. 42.19; Ps. 18.1; 36.1; 2 Chron. 1.3; 24.6. 62. Cf. Dan. 9.11; Neh. 10.30; 1 Chron. 6.34; 2 Chron. 24.9. 63. Also note the variations, 'your servants the nebi'im' and 'my servants the nebi'im\ Cf. 2 Kgs 9.7; 17.13, 23; 21.10; 24.2; Jer. 7.25; 44.4; Amos 3.7; Zech. 1.6; Dan. 9.6, 10; Ezra 9.11. The use of this phrase in Zechariah, Daniel and Ezra reflects post-deuteronomic influence.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
53
restricted to Moses and it would be difficult to classify them as 'prophetic titles'. Summary The semantic relationship between the various role labels in Chronicles may be illustrated by the overlapping circles of meaning seen in the figure below.
nabi' ho&eh
ro eh
Man of God
Royal Seer
Servant of God
The label nabi' is the most common term which the Chronicler uses for prophets. It is a general label for the prophetic office. It is to this label that we may relate the other prophetic labels which are used in Chronicles. The most restricted role label which the Chronicler employs is 'royal seer' (hozeh hamelek, which the Chronicler uses especially to refer to the heads of the levitical singers. The Chronicler also follows 2 Samuel in ascribing this title to Gad. The Chronicler only gives the title 'royal seer' to people associated with David, either the heads of the levitical singers or Gad thus, hozeh hamelek is apparently interchangeable with David's hozeh. On the other hand, Chronicles applies the title hozeh to prophets who recorded the 'deeds of the king'. The Chronicler prefers the title hozeh as opposed to nabi' in the source references. A hozeh may also be called nabi' (for instance, Gad), but every nabi' is not necessarily a hozeh. There is limited evidence from which to ascertain a special meaning
54
The Word of God in Transition
for the role label ro 'eh in Chronicles. According to an editor of the Samuel traditions, the label ro'eh was an archaic term for a nabi' (for example, 1 Sam. 9.9). The evidence does not allow use to improve upon the ancient redactor's note. The label 'man of God' describes a diverse set of characters. This label designates everyone from David to Moses to prophetic figures. The Chronicler considers some characters who are labeled 'man of God' also to be nebi'im. Thus, the Chronicler gives Elijah and Shemaiah the title nabi' where the Chronicler's sources use 'man of God'. The Chronicler's preference for the title nabi' where his sources prefer 'man of God' suggests that he was uncomfortable with the use of 'man of God' as a strictly prophetic title. Thus, it is unlikely that the Chronicler would have used the term nabi' for David, although he does use the term 'man of God' for David. Likewise, it is significant that Moses is a 'man of God' in Chronicles, not a nabi'. Although the deuteronomic tradition considered Moses the prophet par excellence, Chronicles portrays Moses as a legislator rather than a prophet. The books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah prefer the more general labels 'man of God' and 'servant of YHWH' for Moses. Inspiration Formulas A prophetic title implies divine authority, even where formulas do not claim divine authority. The bearer of a prophetic title is the messenger of God. Yet there are messengers from God who do not bear prophetic titles but are still inspired by God.64 Inspiration formulas act in lieu of a prophetic title as a claim to prophetic speech. This is the mixed situation we meet in the books of Chronicles. Prophecy is not restricted to those who bear prophetic titles in Chronicles. Given this situation, to answer completely Westermann's question 'Who speaks?' we must also examine prophetic speeches by persons who do not bear prophetic titles. 64. J.R. Porter compares ancient Israel to the pre-Islamic Arabs: 'In that society which, in its social structure and historical development, is in many ways very close to ancient Israel, the pre-Islamic Arabs, we find that categories closely corresponding to those we can see in Israel are not sharply distinguished from one another and to some degree overlap. In the ancient Near East, too, we meet a wide diversity of inspired persons, whose functions cannot always be clearly separated one from another' (The Origins of Prophecy in Israel', pp. 17-18). See further idem, 'PreIslamic Arabic Historical Tradition and the Early Historical Narratives of the Old Testament', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 17-26.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
55
In these cases, it is how one speaks which indicates the claim to divine authority. The nature of this claim must begin with a careful analysis of the inspiration formulas themselves. Chronicles marks 'inspired persons' with a variety of inspiration formulas. Some formulas reflect classical prophecy, for example 'thus says YHWH' (mm ~IQK ro). Other formulas represent variations of classical formulas, for example 'thus says God' (D'n^n nn« ro). Finally, there are some phrases which are uniquely employed as prophetic formulas in Chronicles, for example 'the spirit enveloped' (ntzja1? rm). I have divided the inspiration formulas into four categories: (1) messenger formulas such as 'thus says YHWH', 'thus says God', 'God said'; (2) intermediary formulas such as 'the word of YHWH came to...' (~*?tf mrr-Qt rrn), 'and YHWH spoke to...' (-•?« mrr -n-n), 'the angel of YHWH said to...' (3) possession formulas such as 'the spirit possessed' 'the spirit of YHWH came upon him' (mrr mi r^y nrrn); and (4) an enactment formula, 'to act like a prophet' (tann). The messenger formulas report the message which the speaker claims to have received from God, for example 'Thus says YHWH'. The intermediary formulas describe the mediation process, for example 'God spoke to me'. The possession formulas describe the inspiration of the speaker, for example 'the spirit of God came upon me'. Finally, the enactment formula describes the speaker playing a prophetic role, that is, 'I acted as a prophet'. These formulas all make a claim to divine authority and thus mark prophetic speeches. Messenger Formulas The messenger formulas report God's speech. The best-known of these formulas is 'thus says YHWH'. Chronicles uses this formula twelve times, in the speeches of Nathan, Gad, Shemaiah, Jehaziel, Zedekiah son of Chenaanah, Elijah and Huldah. In nine of the twelve instances, Chronicles relies on its Vorlage, the books of Kings.65 Thus, the 65. The synoptic passages include 1 Chron. 17.4, 7 (111 Sam. 7.5, 8); 1 Chron. 21.10, 11 (112 Sam. 24.12); 2 Chron. 11.4 (III Kgs 12.24); 2 Chron. 18.10 (III Kgs 22.11); 2 Chron. 34.23, 24, 26 (112 Kgs 22.15, 16, 18). The non-synoptic passages include 2 Chron. 12.5; 20.15; 21.12. On the messenger formula see Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, pp. 90-128; J. Ross, 'The Prophet as Yahweh's Messenger', in B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 99-101; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology. II. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions (ET; New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 36-39; A. Bj0rndalen, 'Zu den Zeitstufen der Zitatformel ~IDK ro im Botenverkehr', ZAW
56
The Word of God in Transition
Chronicler employs the messenger formula independently only three times. Messenger Formulas in the Hebrew Bible. The formula 'thus says YHWH' occurs 291 times in the Hebrew Bible; 185 of these are in the major prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah.66 In Ezekiel, we often find the variation, 'thus says the LORD God', which occurs over 120 times.67 Clearly then, the messenger formula is typical of classical biblical prophecy. However, John Greene has pointed out that these occurrences are not evenly distributed in the prophetic books.68 He notes that the messenger formula never occurs in Joel, Habakkuk and Hosea, and that it occurs only once in Nahum and Micah. Greene suggests that many occurrences of this formula may have been added by later editors and redactors during the development of the prophetic corpus. Yet the messenger formula itself is used so frequently and in so many different contexts that it cannot be considered just the work of later redactors. Later redactors used the messenger formula in editing the prophetic canon because they perceived it to be a classical prophetic formula. The messenger formula derives from the established protocol of official letters in the ancient Near East. Von Rad suggests that biblical
86 (1974), pp. 393-403; Y. Hoffman, 'On the Use of Two "Introductory Formulae" in Biblical Language', Tarbiz 46 (1976-77), pp. 157-80 (Hebrew); M. Weinfeld, 'Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature', VT27 (1977), pp. 178-79; M. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTSup, 76; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 108; Holladay, 'Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel', pp. 29-51; J. Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message in the Ancient Near East (B JS, 169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 169. 66. In addition, the messenger formula is found 66 times in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua-2 Kings), but only 10 times in the Pentateuch (mostly in the plague narratives; cf. Exod. 4.22; 5.1; 7.17, 26; 8.16; 9.1, 13; 10.3; 11.4; 32.27). 67. Other variations include 'thus says YHWH, God of Israel' and 'thus says YHWH Seba'ot'; see further Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message in the Ancient Near East, pp. 185-86. 68. Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message in the Ancient Near East, pp. 183-85. Greene's argument is that 'thus says YHWH' is not necessarily typical of prophetic speech and not necessarily a messenger formula. However, the fact remains that even though the term is not evenly distributed and occasionally does not introduce prophetic speeches, 'thus says YHWH' is the most frequent and characteristic term which introduces prophetic speech. Moreover, Greene cannot deny that this formula does have parallels in secular messenger formulas.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
57
prophecy used the messenger formula because this was 'the most direct means of expressing its function' ,69 Von Rad explains, ... it was a common custom in the ancient word for a messenger with some announcement to make to discharge his errand when he came into the recipient's presence, by speaking in the first person, the form in which the message had been given to himself, that is to say, he completely submerged his own ego and spoke as if he were his master himself speaking to the other.70
This type of usage can still be found in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Jacob sends messengers to his brother Esau to speak in his name: 4 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau, his brother, to the land of Seir, the country of Edom. 5 And he commanded them saying, 'Thus you shall say, "To my lord, to Esau, thus says your servant Jacob, 7 have lived with Laban ..."" (Gen. 32.4-5).
The messenger delivers the message for the sender in the sender's voice, that is, in the first person rather than the third person. This is one of the characteristic features of the messenger formula. Messenger Formulas in Chronicles. Claus Westermann stresses the continuity between the classical formulation and the use of the messenger formula in the books of Chronicles. In his study Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, he argues, 'the unity of function and form of the JI [Judgment Speech to Individuals] has been preserved all the way down to the work of the Chronicler'.71 Yet the Chronicler's non-synoptic use of the messenger formula evinces some modification. Admittedly, in the prophecy of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12.5-8), the messenger formula appears 'correctly' in its pre-exilic style and Westermann cites this example at length.72 However, other examples show significant modification in the messenger formula. In the speech of Jehaziel (2 Chron. 20.15) and in the 'letter of Elijah' (2 Chron. 21.12), the messenger formula introduces a prophetic speech recorded in the third person. The change contrasts with the prophet Shemaiah's second 69. Von Rad, The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, p. 36. Wilson points out that 'the unity of the possessing spirit and its host is often reflected in the language used to express possession' (Prophecy and Society, p. 35). 70. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, p. 37. 71. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 166. 72. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 164. For the special features of 2 Chron. 12.2-9, see discussion below.
58
The Word of God in Transition
speech to Rehoboam, an example of the messenger formula which follows pre-exilic patterns (2 Chron. 12.5): 5 The prophet Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and the officers of Judah, who had assembled in Jerusalem because of Shishak, and he said to them, 'Thus says YHWH, "You had forsaken me, so / have forsaken you to Shishak".'
The prophet speaks in the first person, in the voice of YHWH. However, in the speech of Jehaziel, the messenger speaks in his own voice—not YHWH's (2 Chron. 20.14-15): 14 And the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mathaniah, the Levite from the sons of Asa, in the midst of the assembly, 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah, Jerusalemites, and king Jehoshaphat! Thus YHWH has said to you that you should not be afraid and should not be dismayed before this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's'.
The Levite refers to God in the third person, even though the messenger formula implies a quotation of the speech of God. Chronicles adds a prepositional phrase, 'to you', to the messenger formula in 2 Chron. 20.14-15. The prepositional phrase specifies the audience of the speech. This addition is not typical of the classical messenger formula. Almost invariably the messenger formula is followed by the message. The few exceptions to this pattern most likely reflect the process of writing down and transmission. This scribal process may be illustrated in Jer. 29.16-17:73 16 Thus said YHWH to the king who sits on the throne of David and to all the people who live in this city, your brothers who did not go with you into exile, 17 thus said YHWH of hosts, 'Behold, I am sending against them the sword, famine, and pestilence ...'
The literary nature of the prepositional clause which begins 'to the king' is indicated by the Wiederaufnahme ('thus said YHWH'). The repetition frames the prepositional clause. The specification of audience in a prepositional clause naturally fits a literary as opposed to an oral setting. It reflects a time when prophecies were written down and read. Chronicles apparently exhibits a similar modification of the classical form. The formula 'thus says God' in Chronicles is a slight variation of the 73. For other examples see Isa. 45.1; Jer. 4.3; 13.1.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
59
messenger formula. It reflects the general pattern of exchanges in the divine name, of yhwh for >elohim, in the books of Chronicles.74 The expression 'thus says God' occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, in the speech of the priest Zechariah (2 Chron. 24.20). It is similar to 2 Chron. 20.15 and 21.12, recording Zechariah's speech in the third person. This example, along with 20.15 and 21.12, further demonstrates that the Chronicler reflects modification in the classical expression of the messenger formula. Pharaoh Neco also appears in the role of a messenger from God to Josiah. Pharaoh uses the expression 'God says' (~in» D-n^wi) and gives a third-person, past-tense report of God's message to Josiah (2 Chron. 35.21). Pharaoh's speech incorporates what 'God had said' to him into a warning for Josiah. The use of the third person compares to the Chronicler's use of the messenger formula elsewhere. The divine inspiration of this message is confirmed by the statement that 'Josiah did not listen to the words of Neco which were from the mouth of God (D'rbKn "so)' (v. 22). This formula is, at best, loosely connected with the classical formulation of the messenger formula. Perhaps the Chronicler had reservations about using the classical prophetic messenger formula for the pagan king of Egypt. Later tradents found the very idea that Pharaoh had received the prophetic word a problem.75 74. There are numerous examples of these interchanges between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings. For instance, mrr rra is interchanged with n'n'psn rra (2 Chron. 34.9 111 Kgs 22.4). mrr p~i« is interchanged with crn^n ]TIK, cf. 1 Chron. 16.1 112 Sam. 6.17. And the divine name mrr is changed to DT^S, 1 Chron. 13.12 112 Sam 6.9. Von Rad had already noticed these changes and suggested that these interchanges must be explained on religious grounds. He writes: 'Der Gebrauch des Gottesnamens, der haufige Ersatz von "Jahwe" durch "Elohim" redet, das darf doch als gemeinsames Moment entnommen werden, von einer deutlichen Transzendentalisierung Jahwes' (Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, p. 5). Also see the discussion of interchange of divine names by Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 30-37. Japhet points out that 'the name "YHWH" appears in Chronicles in a variety of contexts, approximately five hundred times... It is difficult to reconcile this fact with a supposed general tendency to avoid the tetragrammaton' (36). Thus, she finds it difficult to see a theological purpose in each and every substitution. For other examples of this interchange compare 2 Chron. 3.3//1 Kgs 6.1; 2 Chron. 4.11; 1 Kgs 7.40; 2 Chron. 4.19//1 Kgs 7.48; 2 Chron. 5.1//1 Kgs 7.51; 2 Chron. 5.14//1 Kgs 8.11; 2 Chron. 7.5//1 Kgs 8.63; 2 Chron. 15.18//1 Kgs 15.15; 2 Chron. 22.12112 Kgs 11.3; 2 Chron. 23.37/2 Kgs 11.4; 2 Chron. 11.9// 2 Kgs 11.10; 2 Chron. 25.25/2 Kgs 14.14; 2 Chron. 34.9//2 Kgs 22.4. 75. Cf. 1 Esd. 1.26; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 517; H.G.M. Williamson, 'The
60
The Word of God in Transition
In sum, Chronicles modifies the classical use of the messenger formula. The only example of the classical use of the messenger formula appears in the prophet Shemaiah's speech to Rehoboam (see further discussion of this example in Chapter 2). The Chronicler develops this formula in two ways. First, he uses the third person instead of the first person voice so that the messenger speaks in his own voice rather than the voice of the sender. Secondly, he tacks a prepositional phrase onto the messenger formula, probably reflecting an increasingly literary setting for prophetic oracles. Finally, the Chronicler replaces the tetragram, YHWH, in the classical formula with >elohim. This last change is more cosmetic than substantive, yet it perhaps reflects the tendency of classical formulations to undergo modification when they are no longer in current use. Intermediary Formulas76 An intermediary formula presents a person as the bearer of a message from God to a human audience. The books of Chronicles employ four different intermediary formulas: 1. 2. 3. 4.
'the word of YHWH came to...' 'PN spoke in the name of YHWH' 'YHWH spoke to...' 'the angel of YHWH said to...'
These formulas signify that God communicates specifically through the speaker who is an intermediary, transmitting the word of God. In the fourth case, the speaker is the second intermediary, transmitting the word of God which came through an angel. Intermediary Formulas in the Hebrew Bible. The first formula follows the pattern 'the word of YHWH/God came to...' It appears almost 100 times in the classical prophets.77 Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the DeuteronomioHistory', VT 32 (1982), pp. 242-47; idem, 'Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C.T. Begg', VT 37 (1987), pp. 9-15. 76. Aune calls these 'Revelation Formulas': Prophecy in Early Christianity, p. 91. This description follows formulas like 'YHWH showed me' (for example, Amos 7.1). However, the term 'intermediary' seems to describe better the formulas in Chronicles. 77. -•?» mrr-o-r n-n occurs 20 times: cf. Gen. 15.1; Jer. 14.1; 25.3; 32.6; 46.1; 47.1; 49.34; Ezek. 1.3; 26.1; 29.1, 17; 30.20; 31.1; 32.1, 17; Hag. 2.10;
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
61
The second formula 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' appears only nine times in the Hebrew Bible.78 The key occurrence is Deut. 18.22, which is a law concerning false prophets: If a prophet shall speak in the name of YHWH and the word does not come to pass and is not fulfilled, that word was not spoken by YHWH. The prophet spoke it presumptuously; you should not fear him.
The narrative in 1 Kings 22, which concerns false prophecy, then ironically picks this up. King Ahab chides Micaiah to speak only the truth in the name of YHWH (v. 16; cf. 1 Chron. 18.15). Likewise, when the formula occurs in the book of Jeremiah it is because people are questioning whether Jeremiah is a true prophet and thus whether he should be feared (Jer. 26.16,20; 44.16). Even in Zech. 13.3, the use of this formula concerns false prophecy, namely those who 'lie in the name of YHWH'. Thus, it is apparent that the use of the formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' in the Hebrew Bible depends on the legal formulation warning against false prophets in Deut. 18.22. The formula 'and YHWH spoke to' comes from the Pentateuch. There, the formula 'and YHWH spoke to' appears almost exclusively in the divine speech to Moses (94 times).79 Outside of the Pentateuch the formula occurs only three times, once in Joshua and twice in Chronicles.80 The formula prefaces the giving of legal revelations to Moses. Even where the formula is used with Moses' successor, Joshua, it is used to deliver legal revelation. This formula is never used by the classical prophets. The last formula, 'the angel of YHWH said to', reflects a type of mediation which is well known in late biblical prophecy and apocalyptic Zech. 1.1, 7; 7.1; Dan. 9.2. *?« mrr 131 'm occurs 75 times: cf. 1 Sam. 15.10; 2 Sam. 7.4; 1 Kgs 6.11; 13.20; 16.1; 21.17, 28; Isa. 38.4; Jer. 1.4, 11, 13; 2.1; 13.3, 8; 16.1; 18.5; 24.4; 28.12; 29.30; 32.26; 33.1, 19, 23; 34.12; 35.12; 36.27; 37.6; 42.7; 43.8; Ezek. 3.16; 6.1; 7.1; 11.14; 12.1, 8, 17, 21, 26; 13.1; 14.2, 12; 15.1; 16.1; 17.1, 11; 18.1; 20.2; 21.1, 6, 13, 23; 22.1, 17, 23; 23.1; 24.1, 15; 25.1; 27.1; 28.1, 11, 20; 30.1; 33.1, 2; 34.1; 35.1; 36.16; 37.15; 38.1; Jon. 1.1; 3.1; Zech. 4.8; 6.9; 7.8. 78. Deut. 18.22; 1 Kgs 22.16; Jer. 26.16, 20; 44.16; Zech. 13.3; 1 Chron. 21.19; 2 Chron. 18.15; 33.18. 79. For example Exod. 6.10, 13, 29; 13.1; 14.1; 16.11; 25.1; Lev. 5.14, 20; 6.1, 12, 17; Num. 1.1, 48; 2.1; 3.5, 11, 14, 44; Deut. 2.17; 32.48. 80. Cf. Josh. 20.1 (usually taken as P: see S.R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 9th edn, 1913], p. 112); 1 Chron. 21.9; 2 Chron. 33.10.
62
The Word of God in Transition
literature.81 The mediation of a divine revelation by an otherworldly being to a human recipient is one of the principal characteristics of apocalypses.82 This type of mediation can also be illustrated in biblical literature. For example, an angel serves as an intermediary between Zechariah and YHWH in Zech. 1.13-14: 13 YHWH answered by the angel who was speaking with me kind, comforting words. 14 And the angel who was speaking with me said to me, 'Proclaim, saying, Thus says YHWH of Hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great zeal'.
God no longer speaks directly to the prophet, but now speaks through the angel to the prophet. It is noteworthy that in spite of the use of an angelic mediator, the prophet still is instructed to use the messenger formula, 'Thus says YHWH'. Angelic messengers are also well known in classical biblical texts. For instance, an angel speaks to Abraham (Gen. 16.9, 10, 11; 22.11). An angelic messenger confronts Balaam (Num. 22.32, 34, 35). The angel of YHWH speaks to Joshua (Judg. 2.1, 4). The angel of YHWH speaks to Gideon (Judg. 6.12, 22). Angelic messengers even speak to prophets such as Elijah (1 Kgs 19.7; 2 Kgs 1.3, 15) and the prophet from Bethel (1 Kgs 13.18). However, angels do not mediate the prophetic word in the pre-exilic prophetic books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea or Micah. They only mediate the prophetic word in the post-exilic books of Haggai (1.13) and Zechariah. In fact, the 'angel of YHWH' does not appear in the pre-exilic prophetic books.83 The use of angels to mediate the prophetic word then is characteristic of post-exilic prophecy. Intermediary Formulas in Chronicles. The intermediary formulas84 occur three times in the books of Chronicles. They fall into the same pattern: 'the divine word came to PN'. Twice this formula is used for 81. For example, Zech. 1.11; 1.12; 3.1, 5, 6; 12.8; Mai. 2.7. Many scholars would also argue that angelic mediation lies behind Isa. 40. Yet the text is opaque and no conclusive arguments should rely upon it. 82. See John Collins's definition, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1987), p. 4. 83. The only exception is in a parallel narrative between Isaiah and 2 Kings (cf. Isa. 37.36 and 2 Kgs 19.35). There, the 'angel of Yahweh' appears as a destroying angel such as we see elsewhere in classical literature. 84. The formulas and exhibit the Chronicler's tendency to replace mrr with DM'PK. In fact, we should
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
63
the prophet Shemaiah (2 Chron. 11.2; 12.7) and once for the prophet Nathan. In all these cases the Chronicler appears to rely on his deuteronomic source for the inspiration formula. In 1 Chron. 17.3, the formula used for Nathan follows 2 Sam. 7.5, except that Chronicles has 'the word of God' where Samuel reads 'the word of YHWH'. These interchanges in the divine name are not substantive for our discussion (see n. 74). According to 2 Chron. 11.2, the word of YHWH comes to Shemaiah. This closely follows 1 Kgs 12.22, except for the change in the divine name. In 2 Chron. 12.7 the formula 'the word of YHWH came to' (-^K mrp—m rrn) prefaces Shemaiah's speech. Although this passage is not taken from the Deuteronomistic History, it is patterned after 1 Kgs 12.22-24 (111 Chron. 11.2-4; see further details in Chapter 2). Both 1 Kgs 12.22-24 and 2 Chron. 12.5-8 employ an intermediary formula and the messenger formula together for the prophet Shemaiah. The use of these two formulas together is characteristic of deuteronomic literature; they appear together over 30 times there and rarely outside of deuteronomic literature.85 The use of these two formulas is typical of deuteronomic literature, but atypical for Chronicles. Therefore, we may suggest that the Chronicler used 1 Kgs 12.22-24 (112 Chron. 11.2-4) as a formal pattern for creating the prophetic speech scene in 2 Chron. 12.5-8. The deuteronomic formula 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' (mrr DEQ PN ~Q-n) occurs three times in the books of Chronicles (1 Chron. 21.19; 2 Chron. 18.15; 33.18). One occurrence, 2 Chron. 18.15, borrows from the Chronicler's source (cf. 1 Kgs 22.16). As was pointed out, this formula derives from Deut. 18.22 and concerns false prophecy. Chronicles is apparently unaware of the classical use of this formula. In 1 Chron. 21.19, the formula refers to the word of the prophet Gad which David obeyed. In 2 Chron. 33.18, Manasseh apparently heeds the 'words of the seers who were speaking to him in the name of YHWH'. Although the formula is used only infrequently perhaps emend 1 Kings from DTi^n ~m to mm ~m on the basis of Chronicles and some of the versional evidence. For instance, the Septuagint reads Xoyoq Kxipiov (3 Kgdms 12.22), most likely reflecting a Vorlage which read mm nan. 85. For example, 2 Sam. 7.4-5; 1 Kgs 13.20-21; 21.17-19; Isa. 38.4-5; Jer. 2.12; 13.8-9; 24.4-5; 29.30-31; 30.4-5; 33.1-2, 19-20; 34.12-13; 35.12-13; 36.27-29; 37.6-7; 47.1-2; 49.34-35. The only exceptions seem to be Ezek. 21.6-8; Hag. 2.1011; Zech. 7.8-9. We may assume that the references in Haggai and Zechariah are post-deuteronomic.
64
The Word of God in Transition
outside of Chronicles, the contexts all refer to false prophecy. Chronicles clearly deviates from this classical usage because false prophecy is not an important issue in the book of Chronicles.86 The Mosaic formula 'and YHWH spoke to' occurs twice in Chronicles (1 Chron. 21.9; 2 Chron. 33.10). In both instances, the Chronicler employs the formula to replace a different formula in his Vorlage. In the speech of the prophet Gad (1 Chron. 21.9), 'and YHWH spoke to...' replaces the phrase 'and the word of YHWH came to...' (in 2 Sam. 24.11). In this case, the Chronicler replaces a formula well known in classical prophecy with a formula used for divine speech to Moses in the Pentateuch. It is not surprising, given the Chronicler's familiarity with the Mosaic Torah, that he naturally slips into using language from the Pentateuch. The use of 'and YHWH spoke to' in the narrative concerning King Manasseh is considerably more complex. In the Chronicler's narrative, God apparently speaks directly to Manasseh (2 Chron. 33.10). However, we are informed in Manasseh's source citation that God spoke to Manasseh through hozim (v. 18). It seems then that YHWH spoke to Manasseh through hozim, even though they are not specifically mentioned in v. 10. On the other hand, the narrative of 2 Kgs 21.10 states that YHWH spoke 'through his servants the nebi'im\ 2 Kgs 21.11-16 is then a specific oracle against Manasseh and the nation. The Chronicler has apparently altered the formula and dropped the oracle.87 He then used the general formula 'and YHWH spoke to'. However, the source citation indicates that Manasseh did not receive direct revelation from God. Both cases of the formula 'and YHWH spoke to' may be explained by the Chronicler's inadvertent use of a formula which he knew well from the Mosaic tradition. This development must be placed in the context of the growing importance of Torah in the post-exilic period.88 The last intermediation formula mentions an angel. The use of the 86. See, for example, my discussion of 2 Chron. 18 in Chapter 3, 'Rewriting Prophecies'. 87. McKenzie argues that the Chronicler relied on the Josianic version of the Deuteronomic History; see The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. The redaction of this passage has been the subject of extended debate; see R. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981), pp. 65-69. 88. See the studies of J. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's History Work (BJS, 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 124-52; M. Fishbane, 'Torah', EM 8 (1982), pp. 469-83 (Hebrew).
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
65
'angel of YHWH' to mediate the divine word to the prophet Gad compares with post-exilic prophetic and apocalyptic literature. The Chronicler develops and expands the role of the angelic mediator in his narrative. Thus, in 2 Sam. 24.17-18 God sends the prophet Gad to David: 17 And when David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to YHWH, 'It was I who sinned and I who erred, but these are the sheep— what have they done? Let your hand be against me and my house. 18 And Gad came to David that day and he said to him, 'go and set up an altar for YHWH on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite'.
The Chronicler revises this narrative, but a version of 2 Samuel lies beneath his account.89 Chronicles describes the intermediation process in v. 18: And the angel of YHWH told Gad to say to David that David should go and set up an altar to YHWH on the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite.
The Chronicler interprets his Vorlage, apparently based on notions of mediation in his own day. Williamson suggests that this case, along with the interpreting angel of Zechariah's visions, reflects 'a general refinement of the period in the understanding of the mediation of God's word, a refinement which was continued to a much greater degree in later literature, notably the Targums'.90 We must add that this development is an isolated case in Chronicles which is only useful for showing that the Chronicler was aware of a 'general refinement in the period'. Since the angel already appears in the Chronicler's Vorlage, the Chronicler employed him as a prophetic intermediary, according to the understanding of his period. However, in other cases the Chronicler does not 89. 4QSama has shown that the Chronicler's version is not identical with 2 Samuel. Frank Cross suggests, based on his analysis of 4QSama, that 2 Sam. 24.16b-17a was lost to haplography . This analysis has been further advanced by Cross's students; see W. Lemke, 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', HTR 58 (1965), pp. 355-57; E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 156-59; McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 55-58, 67-71. Also see discussion by P. Dion, 'The Angel with the Drawn Sword (II Chron. 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context', ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 114-17. Dion notes, 'After 4QSama as well as before its discovery, the Chronicler's innovations retain all their magnitude, which a purely text-critical approach should not be allowed to obfuscate'. See further the discussion of 4QSama, MT, LXX, and Chronicles in Chapter 3. 90. Chronicles, p. 148. See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 139-49.
66
The Word of God in Transition
introduce angelic mediators where his sources did not have them. Thus, the Chronicler does not fabricate, but rather reinterprets. In sum, the Chronicler employs 'intermediary formulas' with professional prophets (for example, Nathan, Shemaiah, Gad) who have prophetic role labels (nabf, hozeh, 'man of God') and not with the Levites, priests or other messengers. In all the narratives using intermediary formulas, the Chronicler relies on sources and, in most cases, he is directly dependent on them. Yet in some cases the Chronicler either alters the formula in his source, patterns his own composition on a source, or reinterprets the mediation process in his source based on his own post-exilic perspective. The formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' is always used in the context of false prophecy in the Deuteronomistic History, but is used for true prophecy in Chronicles. Chronicles, in fact, shows little interest in false prophecy. We begin to perceive here that the Chronicler's own views of prophecy, inspiration and intermediation color his transmission of the sources. Possession Formulas The term ruah, 'spirit', characterizes the possession formulas.91 The spirit 'comes upon' (-^ nrrn) or 'possesses, clothes' (rrra^) an individual. The formulas then describe a divine spirit's influence over a person who delivers the 'inspired' message. This supposed contact touches upon the psychological state of these individuals.92 The use of the root 'to clothe' (Vcn1?) to describe the spirit's inspiration is especially suggestive of ecstatic prophecy. However, the contexts of these possession formulas in Chronicles suggest no mantic frenzy or suspension of voluntary action 91. Wilson defines possession as 'a cultural theory that explains how contact takes place between the supernatural and the natural worlds': Prophecy and Society, p. 34. On possession theory in general, see E. Bourguignon, 'The Self, the Behavioral Environment, and the Theory of Spirit Possession', in M. Spiro (ed.), Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology (New York: Free Press, 1965), pp. 40-43. P. Michaelsen has a useful summary of scholarship, 'Ecstasy and Possession in Ancient Israel: A Review of Some Recent Contributions', SJOT2 (1989), pp. 28-54. 92. Despite the meagerness of the evidence and the difficulty of the sources, the psychic state of the prophets has received considerable attention in the scholarly literature. See Michaelsen, 'Ecstasy and Possession in Ancient Israel', pp. 29-27; also Wilson, Prophecy and Society, pp. 32-41; S.B. Parker, 'Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre-Exilic Israel', VT28 (1978), pp. 271-85; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962).
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
67
which are characteristic of possession.93 Of course, we must be wary of our source. The Chronicler's descriptions should not be considered primary evidence for the practice of prophecy in pre-exilic Israel. Possession Formulas in the Hebrew Bible. The possession formulas are not typical of the classical prophets, even though some scholars have assumed them to be a 'prophetic-type phrase'.94 Outside of Chronicles the expression 'the spirit clothed' (non1? rm) occurs only once and the formula 'and the spirit was upon him' (rm rby Tim) appears five times.95 The possession formula in the Hebrew Bible usually occurs in a military context.96 In Judg. 6.34, a possession formula initiates Gideon's call to arms: 'and the spirit of YHWH clothed Gideon and he blew the ram's horn'. Similarly, the formula 'and the spirit of YHWH came upon him' marks the beginning of the ascendancy to leadership for Jephthah (11.29) and Othniel (3.10). Another formula illustrates the importance of spirit possession for military leaders. As part of Saul's ascendancy to kingship, Samuel instructs him to go up to Gibeah.97 He meets some prophets playing music and 'a divine spirit rushed upon Saul and he acted as a prophet with them' (1 Sam. 10.10).98 Although this 'divine spirit' is apparently positive, at another juncture in the Saul narratives we are informed that an 'evil divine spirit' caused Saul to act like a prophet (1 Sam. 18.10). The spirit also inspires Saul militarily when 93. See Michaelson, 'Ecstasy and Possession', pp. 29-35. 94. For example, Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 46. 95. Cf. Num. 24.2; Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 11.29; 1 Sam. 19.20, 23. 96. Some scholars have argued that a bifurcation of the office of judge resulted in two separate offices: the king and the prophet. Hanson writes: 'the spiritual responsibility of discerning Yahweh's will and translating the implications of his cosmic rule into the categories of history fell to the new office of the nabi' ("the one called"), whereas the political responsibility of carrying out the action required by this translation was invested in the office of nagid, or military leader' (The Dawn of the Apocalyptic, p. 15). Also see Albright, 'Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement', pp. 42-65. 97. The redaction of the Saul narratives was apparently a long process. However, it is unlikely that the Chronicler was aware of this process. 98. Hebrew, CDim tojrn rn^ rrn r^ n^m. Cf. 1 Sam. 19.20, 23. The parallel accounts of Saul's prophetic activity in 1 Samuel have long been a crux for redaction critics; see P.K. McCarter, / Samuel (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 183-84, 326-31. See below under 'enactment formula' for a discussion of the verb 'to act as a prophet'. In 2 Kgs 3.15, the hand of Yahweh comes on Elisha when music is played and Elisha prophesies.
68
The Word of God in Transition
Jabesh-Gilead is attacked (1 Sam. 11.6). From the narrative point of view, this victory at Jabesh-Gilead cements Saul's leadership over the tribes of Israel. Later in the narrative, we are told that 'the spirit of YHWH departed from Saul' (1 Sam. 16.14). The departure of the spirit from Saul marks the beginning of David's rise to leadership (cf. 1 Sam. 16). In the Saul narratives, the spirit's inspiration is a precursor to military leadership. In this respect, the Saul narratives are similar to Judges." However, another aspect of spirit possession in the Saul narratives leads to 'acting like a prophet', and Saul's ecstatic activity inspired the proverb: 'Is even Saul among the nebi'ini> (1 Sam. 19.24). Yet even when Saul 'acts like a prophet' this refers to his ecstatic activities and not to the delivering of oracles. The only example of the role of spirit possession in delivering oracles is illustrated by the foreign soothsayer, Balaam. One of Balaam's oracles in Num. 24.2-3 is prefaced by a possession formula: 2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw Israel encamped according to their tribes and the spirit of God came upon him. 3 And he took up his discourse and said, 'an oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of a man whose eye is opened'.
Balaam's oracle describes the inception of the oracle, Balaam 'lifts up his eyes', then a divine spirit inspires him to 'lift up his oracle'. However, Balaam is never given the title of nabi' or any traditional prophetic title by the biblical authors. He is called 'the augur' (Josh. 13.22), one who seeks out omens (Num. 24.1). Thus, Balaam was not a traditional Israelite prophet, even though we may surmise that he was inspired by YHWH (for example, Num. 22.8). The role of the spirit in Ezekiel, while not employing the exact terminology of Chronicles, offers the closest parallels to the use of the spirit in Chronicles. This is not surprising since Ezekiel of the three major prophets is closest chronologically to Chronicles. Moreover, the fact that Ezekiel is called 'the priest' (Ezek. 1.3) and the title nabi' is not 99. Another passage which illustrates the close relationship between the spirit's anointing and military leadership is the 'messianic' oracle in Isa. 11.1-2: 'But a shoot shall go forth from the stump of Jesse... a branch shall sprout from his roots. The spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding... a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and reverence for Yahweh'. We can surmise that the anointing of the spirit played an important role in claims to leadership in ancient Israel; see Brettler, God is King, pp. 125-35, for the Israelite royal enthronement ritual.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
69
employed for Ezekiel would seem to offer a parallel to the spiritinspiration of the priest Zechariah in Chronicles.100 Although none of the possession formulas in Chronicles appears in Ezekiel, the spirit is nonetheless critical to Ezekiel's ministry. The most common expression is 'the spirit [or wind] lifted me up' (for example, ']npm intw] mm; Ezek. 3.14).101 The spirit evidently takes the concrete form of a hand; for instance, in Ezek. 8.3, 'and the form of a hand reached out and took me' Oinp-'i T man rfren). The spirit seems to function as a kind of heavenly escort service for Ezekiel. Sometimes, the 'hand of YHWH' is upon the prophet and the prophet either is transported, sees a vision, or prophesies.102 This represents a more anthropomorphic description of inspiration than found in Chronicles. On one occasion, Ezekiel reports that the spirit 'fell' upon him and told him to prophesy (11.5): And the spirit of YHWH fell upon me, and he said to me, 'Say, "Thus says YHWH", this is what you shall say'.
The spirit has several functions in the book of Ezekiel. Yet there is a marked difference between the function of the spirit in Ezekiel and Chronicles. The use of the spirit in Ezekiel shows marked apocalyptic tendencies since the spirit takes Ezekiel on journeys and this is not part of spirit-inspiration in Chronicles.103 Perhaps, then, the exilic book of Ezekiel represents a transition stage in Israelite notions of spirit inspiration.104 In sum, the possession formulas are not typical of classical prophecy. They are prominent in the ad hoc inspiration of military heroes, most notably the 'judges'. A few pre-exilic texts indicate that inspiration by 100. This observation is made by Auld, 'Prophets through the Looking Glass', pp. 5-6. 101. Cf. Ezek. 3.12; 8.3; 11.1, 24; 43.5. Weinfeld suggests that the phrase im 13 K3 used in Ezek. 2.2 and 3.24 is characteristic of mantic frenzy known in other ancient Near Eastern cultures: 'Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature', VT 27 (1977), pp. 178-95. However, the context suggests that this phrase is akin to 'the spirit lifted me up', for example Ezek. 3.24, irn '3 torn '^ri *PJ> 'noam, 'the spirit came upon me and set me on my feet'. 102. In Ezek. 1.3 and 40.1, Ezekiel sees a vision. In Ezek. 3.22, Ezekiel prophecies. In Ezek. 37.1 and 40.1, this expression also involves transportation by the spirit. 103. See Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 4. 104. An important analogy may be drawn to M. Rooker's discussion of Ezekiel's language. Rooker argues that Ezekiel represents a transition stage between classical and late biblical Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel [JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990]).
70
The Word of God in Transition
the spirit was associated with prophecy, but these are not classical prophetic texts. The role of the spirit markedly increases in the book of Ezekiel. Still, the possession formulas do not generally preface prophetic utterances, but rather the spirit takes the prophet-priest on journeys and Ezekiel sees visions. Possession Formulas in Chronicles. Chronicles uses two possession formulas.105 The first formula vividly describes the spirit's possession of the person: 'the spirit clothed...' The second is less vivid: 'the spirit came upon...' The first formula appears twice in Chronicles. The spirit envelops Amasai, a soldier (1 Chron. 12.19), and Zechariah, a priest (2 Chron. 24.20). The latter formula also occurs twice (2 Chron. 15.1; 20.14), with Azariah, son of Oded, and Jehaziel, a Levite. In all these cases, the individual whom the spirit possesses does not bear a prophetic role label. Thus, the possession formulas are used with priests, Levites and soldiers as an indication of divine authority, but not with prophets. The formula 'the spirit clothed' does not evince the characteristics of ecstatic prophecy which might be suspected. In Chronicles, this formula first prefaces the short speech of Amasai, a soldier who pledges his allegiance to David. In the other occurrence, the spirit clothes Zechariah, a priest who condemns the people's abandoning of the commandments of God. In both cases, the spirit's inspiration is followed by a short but sober speech. There is no indication that the movement of the spirit was induced by the use of music, as we see, for example, in the Saul narratives. In fact, in 2 Chron. 24.20, after the spirit comes upon Zechariah, the priest begins his speech with the classical messenger formula, 'Thus says YHWH'. The formula 'the spirit came upon him' introduces the speech of Azariah, son of Oded (2 Chron. 15.1). The identity of this character is difficult to ascertain. No precise information is given and his father is unknown. A textual corruption in v. 8 further complicates the issue: And when Asa heard these words and the prophecy Oded the prophet [sic]... 105. The colophon at the end of Chronicles (2 Chron. 36.22-23) might be added to these possession formulas. There we read that 'YHWH roused the spirit of Cyrus' (enis mi n« mrr Ti?n). However, this seems to be more of a prodding to action than a specific inspiration of the words of Cyrus's proclamation. On the use of TOT, cf. Isa. 41.2, 25; 45.13; Jer. 50.9; 51.1, 11; Zech. 4.1; Dan. 11.2; 2 Chron. 21.16.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
71
The Hebrew phrase train *nr ntnan, 'and the prophecy Oded the prophet', has two problems. First, to be grammatically correct the verse should read train Tru ntrian, 'and the prophecy of Oded the prophet', with ntrai in the construct. The absolute, ntr,an, indicates that train nu, 'Oded the prophet', is a later gloss.106 A second problem concerns the context. It is Azariah and not Oded who gives the prophecy in v. 1. The versions try to harmonize this difficulty in v. 8. The LXXA reads ml tTiv TCpo(pT|T£iav A^apiocc; toft TcpocpTiToi), 'and the prophecy of Azariah the prophet'.107 The Vulgate and Peshitta read 'and the prophecy which Azariah the son of Oded the prophet'. Emendations based on these versions are unconvincing. They leave unexplained the syntax of ntrian and are obvious attempts to harmonize the text. Thus, the contextual evidence also would suggest that train ~ns is a later gloss.108 Azariah, in fact, may have been the name of the high priest during the time of Asa. According to 1 Kgs 4.2, Zadok was high priest during the time of Solomon and Azariah followed him; this would have made Azariah the name of the high priest in the time of Asa.109 Paponomy, 106. For example, Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 244. See also Curtis, Chronicles, p. 385; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 269. Micheel notes that in the other two examples of the spirit coming upon Jahaziel and Zechariah neither is given a prophetic title, and thus she concludes, 'Aufgrund dieser Beobachtung ist es sehr wahrscheinlich, daB die Nennung Asarjas ohne Titel urspriinglich ist' (Die Seher- und Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, p. 46). 107. The LXXB reads mi TTIV npoqvntEiav A8a8 iot>rcpo(pr|TO\>,following the MT. 108. Wilson gives a plausible explanation of this gloss (Prophecy and Society, pp. 130-31). He points to the Aramaic inscription of Zakir, the king of Hamath and Lu'ash (KAI202; translated in ANET, pp. 655-56). Ross points out the close similarities betweeen this inscription and biblical motifs, 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', pp. 1-28. The inscription relates that a coalition of kings besieged one of Zakir's cities. Zakir prays to his god. The god answers him 'through seers and through intermediaries' (]~ns TDi ]'tn T[3]). The seers (]'m) can be related to the hozeh in Hebrew and the parallel term 'dd also appears to be some kind of intermediary. Wilson suggests a connection with the name Iddo ( from Vila) which is a name frequently used for prophets in the Old Testament (cf. 2 Chron. 12.15; 13.22; 28.811; Zech. 1.1; Ezra 5.1; 6.14). In addition, the root 'dd occurs in Ugaritic, probably with the meaning 'to give a message' (CTA 4, 3, 10-11; CTA 4, 7, 45-47; see Ross's treatment of the Ugaritic examples: 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', pp. 5-6). 109. Josephus's chronology of the high priests would also make Azariah the name
72
The Word of God in Transition
that is, the practice of naming the son after the grandfather,110 also suggests that the name of the high priest would have been Azariah. Paponomy was practiced among the high priests and the name Azariah is closely associated with lineage of the high priest. According to the Chronicler's genealogies, there were three high priests named Azariah in the pre-exilic period (1 Chron. 5.36).111 Azariah's namesake in 2 Chron. 26.18 is a priest, probably the high priest, who confronts Uzziah when he tries to burn incense in the temple. Another high priest named Azariah who officiated during the reign of Hezekiah apparently does not correspond to any priest in the Chronicler's high priestly genealogy; however, he is two generations removed from the Azariah who confronts Uzziah (cf. 2 Chron. 31.10, 13; 1 Chron. 5.35-41). Given the reference to Azariah in 1 Kgs 4.2 and the custom of paponomy, this suggests that Azariah son of Oded may have been a priest. This suggestion must be tentative. Yet it is noteworthy that another character who also has a possession formula, Zechariah, is also the high priest (cf. 2 Chron. 24.20-22). The possession formula, 'the spirit of YHWH came upon him', also opens the speech of Jahaziel, a Levite (2 Chron. 20.14). In contrast to the enigmatic Azariah, Jahaziel has a long pedigree: 'Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mattaniah, the Levite, of the sons of Asaph'. So far as we can say, the possession formulas in Chronicles are not employed with prophets, but rather with Levites, priests and soldiers. All in all, the possession formulas in Chronicles cannot be considered typical of classical biblical prophets. In fact, the use of these formulas in Judges and 1 Samuel is related to divine anointing for leadership. Thus, the Chronicler's use of possession formulas describing the spirit's place in inspired 'prophetic' speeches is a development of the type of spirit inspiration in Ezekiel. In spite of many scholars' assumption that these possession formulas are typical of biblical prophecy, the notion of the of the high priest during Asa's reign (Ant. 10.151); however, in his-narrative Josephus follows the tradition in the LXX A which makes Azariah a prophet (Ant. 8.295). 110. On paponomy, see P.M. Cross, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975): pp. 6-7; and see R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, 1977), pp. 114-18, on the use of ancestral names in the ancient Near East. 111. 1 Chron. 5.36b is misplaced, and should be after v. 34a; cf. Rudolph, Chronikbucher, p. 52; Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 128-29.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
73
spirit coming upon the prophet is quite restricted in the Hebrew Bible. This same observation was made S. Mowinckel in his investigation of the spirit in classical prophecy: A study of the conception of the spirit of YHWH in the Old Testament has resulted in the to me surprising conclusion that the pre-exilic reforming prophets never in reality express a consciousness that their prophetic endowment and powers are due to the possession by or any action of the spirit o/YHWH, rvfh yahweh.n2
In the Old Testament, then, the notion that 'the spirit came upon me' is not a reflex of prophetic speech. The studied avoidance of the 'spirit' in classical prophecy may in part be explained by the close association between the spirit and ecstatic prophetic practices. The association is illustrated in the account of Saul's prophetic activity. This type of ecstatic prophecy was rejected, for the most part, by the classical prophets. In Chronicles, quite a different picture of the possession formulas emerges. The possession formulas do not preface the speeches of prophets, but rather the speeches of soldiers, Levites and priests. These figures are 'inspired', but not in the way of the classical prophets. The possession formulas, in contrast to the messenger formulas, appear only in non-synoptic passages. These units are all the Chronicler's nonsynoptic compositions. The use of these formulas to preface inspired speeches is a unique development in the books of Chronicles. An anthropological analogy from Mari can be useful to explain the Chronicler's description of spirit possession.113 William Moran notes that the verb namhu in Akkadian indicates fury and madness. Moran suggests two explanations for the use of namhu in the Mari letters:
112. S. Mowinckel, '"The Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets', p. 199. Mowinckel's study examines not just the possession formulas, but the use of the 'spirit of YHWH' throughout the Hebrew Bible. Coggins suggests that the idea of the spirit guiding holy men's actions was an early idea that was revived from the time of Ezekiel onwards (Chronicles, p. 203). Von Rad also notes the curious absence of the spirit in the prophet's ministry (The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, pp. 56-57). 113. For a review of the literature, see J. Craghan, 'Mari and its Prophets: The Contributions of Mari to the Understanding of Biblical Prophecy', BTB 5 (1975), pp. 32-55.
74
The Word of God in Transition it is possible that the verb came to be used conventionally of all prophetic outbursts by the laity, or that it actually had a broader meaning, either originally or secondarily, 'to become beside oneself, which like Greek ekstasis could be applied to a wide range of psychic abnormalities.114
The use of namhu to describe the prophetic activities of the laity as opposed to the professional prophets makes an interesting analogy with the possession formulas in Chronicles. In both cases, the description of possession occurs only of characters without prophetic titles. The possession formulas in Chronicles are a convention used for the prophetic speeches of non-professional prophets. In sum, although many scholars have categorized the priests and Levites in Chronicles as prophets, the possession formulas indicate that the Chronicler perceived a difference between these groups. The first group corresponds more closely to the classical prophets. The latter group should be seen more in the context of post-exilic 'prophets'. For instance, the book of Malachi identifies the inspired speaker as 'my messenger' rather than with a traditional prophetic title, for example, nabi'. It is unclear to what extent figures like Malachi, Haggai or Zechariah were 'career prophets' since their prophecies are accompanied by no 'prophetic call' narratives like those of Elisha, Hosea, Isaiah or Jeremiah. We may term these figures 'messengers' or perhaps 'temporary prophets' owning to their transient role.115 As the analogy from Mari illustrates, the 'temporary prophet' had to make a claim to divine authority whereas the career prophet had an already established claim. In Chronicles, the possession formulas represent a claim to divine authority. They are used in cases of ad hoc prophetic inspiration of nonprofessional prophets. Enactment Formulas The Chronicler also employs what may be termed an 'enactment formula' in his work. The hithpael verb torn 'to act as a prophet' occurs four times in two contexts in Chronicles. The denominative use of the hithpael conjugation with the root V»3] can be translated 'to act
114. W. Moran, 'New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy', Bib 50 (1969), p. 27. 115. Amit coined the term 'prophets of the hour' (nyon -K'a:), 'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Theology of the Books of Chronicles', pp. 113-33.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
75
as a prophet'116 or 'sich als ] gebarden'.117 This form may be compared to 'to act sick' (nbnnn), as in 2 Sam. 13.5 where Amnon feigns sickness to trick his stepsister Tamar.118 In Chronicles, three occurrences of this verb (2 Chron. 18.7, 9, 17) are dependent on 1 Kings 22 (vv. 8, 10, 18), leaving only one case where Chronicles uses 'to act as a prophet' in a non-synoptic narrative. In 2 Chron. 20.37, the Chronicler uses the verb 'to act as a prophet' in his refashioning of the account of Jehoshaphat's failed shipping alliance. The Enactment Formula in the Hebrew Bible. The verb 'to act as a prophet' occurs 24 times outside of Chronicles. Many of these cases refer to false prophets and have the sense 'to pose as a prophet'. This is illustrated in the accusation against Jeremiah in Jer. 29.24-27: 24 And [Jeremiah] shall say to Shemaiah the Nehelamite, 25 'thus says the Lord of Hosts, God of Israel, saying, "Because you sent letters in your name to all the people who are in Jerusalem and to Zephaniah son of Maaseiah and to all the priests, saying, 26 'YHWH made you a priest in place of Jehoiada the priest in order to officiate in the house of God over every madman and everyone who poses as a prophet (K33nqi). And you shall put him in stocks and the collar. 27 So now, why haven't you rebuked Jeremiah the Anathothite, who poses as a prophet (fcOjriQrO among you?""
The verb 'to act as a prophet' is placed in parallel with 'a madman'. The sense of 'to act as a prophet' is pejorative, namely 'to pose as a prophet'. The implication of false prophecy is often suggested by the context of the verb. For instance, in Ezek. 13.17 the prophet is commanded to prophesy against those who act as prophets by their own inspiration: 116. B.E. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbruns, 1990), pp. 426-32. 117. KB3, p. 623; see also GKC §54d; Wilson, 'Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination', pp. 329-36. 118. The hithpael is sometimes confused with the niphal form since the tav of the prefix -nn can be assimilated into the nun. The form taan is common in Ezekiel (26 times), and is apparently a niphal; cf. KB3, p. 622. There are at least two examples of the assimilation of the tav into the nun, which would indicate a hithpael: Jer. 26.20,1K33H, and Ezek. 37.10, Titusm. These examples suggest the possibility that the grapheme loan may be sometimes mispointed as a niphal, perhaps because of the pejorative connotations of the hithpael form; see further GKC §54c and Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, § 21.2.3c and bibliography cited in the notes on pp. 30-33.
76
The Word of God in Transition And you, mortal, set your face against the daughters of your people, those who are acting as prophets (niK^aron) from their own hearts and prophesy against them.
Similarly, in 1 Kings 22 (III Chron. 18), the question is who is a true prophet among those who are acting like prophets (cf. vv. 24, 28). The enactment formula is usually pejorative, but some cases suggest that the pejorative nuance may be a result of its context. For example, in the incident where Eldad and Medad are accused of 'acting as prophets in the camp' (Num. 11.27), Moses refuses to restrain them and exclaims, 'Would that all YHWH's people were prophets!' (v. 29). The accusation made against Eldad and Medad implies a pejorative attitude in 'acting as prophets', but Moses' response reverses the accusation. Moreover, Moses associates the role label nabi' with the verbal conjugation torn in the statement, 'Would that all YHWH's people were nebi'im'. Even in the case of Saul (cited above), Saul 'acts like a prophet' when the spirit induces him. Saul apparently 'acts as a prophet' both under YHWH's influence and an evil spirit's influence (1 Sam. 10.10-11; 18.10). As a consequence of Saul's prophetic 'acting', the proverb arises, 'Is even Saul among the nebi'imT (1 Sam. 10.11; 19.24). Biblical texts repeatedly associate the verb 'to act as a prophet' with the role label nabi'. The contexts often ask the question, 'Is this person a prophet?' The enactment formula assumes that a person is claiming to be a nabi', although in many cases the biblical authors would have considered the person a false prophet. The Enactment Formula in Chronicles. The implications for 'to act as a prophet' in 2 Chron. 20.37 may now be raised. In 2 Chron. 20.37 the Chronicler has a character named Eliezer son of Dodawyahu make a brief appearance to prophesy that Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahaziah, the king of Israel, incited YHWH to destroy the ships which Jehoshaphat was building (see below, Chapter 2). Eliezer has no title and his lineage gives no clue as to his identity.119 The hometown of Eliezer, Mareshah, recalls the canonical prophet Micah who was from Mareshah (cf. Mic. 1.1) and the Chronicler's story of the Ethiopian invasion and battle at Mareshah (cf. 2 Chron. 14.8). This evidence is indeed meager. Yet the 119. The name Dodawyahu (inm) is very unusual, occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible. The transcriptions in the LXX (8w8ia) and the Peshitta (rm) witness to the obscurity of this name. However, these versions provide no further evidence for the identity of Eliezer. See further Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 73.
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
77
enactment formula at least assumes that Eliezer is acting in the role of a prophet, even if he does not actually have a prophetic role label. The actions of Eliezer conform to a typical prophetic role in Chronicles, namely, explaining the nexus between actions and consequences.120 There is no question that the Chronicler considered Eliezer a 'true prophet'. The Chronicler's use of the enactment formula raises the question of 'true' and 'false' prophecy. Outside of Chronicles, the use of the verbal form 'to act as a prophet' is usually in the context of false prophecy. This can be illustrated in 2 Chronicles 18, parallel with 1 Kings 22. In 1 Kings 22, the verb 'to act as a prophet' underscores the question who is the true prophet: Ahab's prophets or Micaiah? However, in the context of the books of Chronicles, this episode concerns Jehoshaphat's alliance and not false prophecy (see the discussion in Chapter 2).121 The Chronicler seems unaware of the issue of false prophecy which hovers around the use of the enactment formula in biblical literature. This 'ignorance' is reflected in the Chronicler's employment of the verb 'to act as a prophet' to describe Eliezer's prophecy against Jehoshaphat. Eliezer is depicted as a prophet and the prophetic title is apparently implied in the enactment formula. Summary The most significant innovation in the Chronicler's inspiration formulas is the use of possession formulas. Possession formulas never preface prophetic speeches in earlier biblical literature. Chronicles uses these formulas to preface speeches of non-prophets. This suggests that the Chronicler made a conscious distinction between the role of the prophets (hozeh and nabt') and non-prophets (priests and officials). The Chronicler's use of the messenger formula also modifies the classical formulation. In Chronicles, the messenger usually delivers the message in the third person (in the messenger's voice) rather than the first person (in the sender's voice). This is a marked deviation from classical prophecy. The Chronicler also deviates from the classical formula by adding a prepositional phrase 'to you'. The Chronicler's use of the enactment formula ('to act as a prophet') 120. See 2 Chron. 12.2-9; 16.7-9 (see discussion of Eliezer in Chapter 2). See further I.L. Seeligmann, 'Hebraische Erzahlung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung', TZ 18 (1962), pp. 305-25. 121. See Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 284-85.
78
The Word of God in Transition
and the intermediary formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' deviate from classical usage. Both formulas are employed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in the context of false prophecy. 'To act as a prophet' implies a claim to divine authority. The person who 'plays the role of a prophet' claims for himself the role label nabi', although this claim is often questioned. The Chronicler's use of the expression 'to act as a prophet' is unique. The Chronicler uses the verb for Eliezer who clearly delivers a legitimate prophecy; however, implications of false prophecy usually surround 'acting like a prophet'. Similarly, the formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' elsewhere in biblical literature emphasizes speaking in YHWH's name as opposed to the names of other gods. While the emphasis on whose name one speaks in is indicative of the problem of true and false prophecy which surrounds this formula in biblical literature, Chronicles is unaware of the problem. Chronicles' use of these formulas demonstrates that false prophecy was not an issue to the post-exilic author. The influence of the Chronicler's own notions of prophecy upon his depiction of prophecy during the Israelite monarchy is most obvious in the use of an apocalyptic mediation formula, 'the angel of YHWH said to'. The angelic mediation occurs only in the late prophets (for example, Zechariah) and apocalyptic works. The Chronicler enlarges the role of the angelic mediator in 1 Chronicles 21. As 4QSama has shown us, this angelic figure was part of Chronicles' Vorlage. However, it is also clear that the Chronicler has developed the role of the angel. The contribution of 4QSama is significant here. It demonstrates that the Chronicler works from sources and that his own post-exilic understanding colors his interpretation of those sources. In this case, post-exilic conceptions of prophetic mediation find their way into pre-exilic narratives. The Chronicler also betrays his post-exilic milieu in his use of the intermediary formula 'And YHWH said to...' This formula derives from the Pentateuch and is never used in the prophetic books. The Chronicler thus uses a formula which he knew well from the Mosaic tradition as a prophetic inspiration formula. Indeed, from the use of this Mosaic formula we may infer that the Mosaic law had great importance to the Chronicler. In sum, the developments and innovations in inspiration formulas used in the book of Chronicles reflect the author's own day and thereby open a window into his thought and his circle of tradents. The Chronicler used classical prophetic formulas ('thus says YHWH' and 'the
1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas
79
word of YHWH came to') with those who have prophetic role labels. On the other hand, he used non-classical formulas (for example, 'the spirit clothed') for figures who did not have prophetic role labels. This indicates that a distinction was made between 'prophets' and other figures who 'prophesied'. We may now peer through another window, namely the prophetic speeches in Chronicles—a window which has been opened for us by this analysis of prophetic role labels and inspiration formulas.
Chapter 2 PROPHETIC SPEECHES
A variety of scholars have already undertaken analyses of the formcritical aspects of the speeches in Chronicles.1 This analysis takes a new approach to the prophetic speeches. It will group the speech scenes according to the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas discussed in Chapter 1. This will facilitate an analysis of the different roles of the speakers and the prophetic speeches. Mark Throntveit has observed that 'attempts to analyze the speeches contained in the book of Chronicles have tended to place indiscriminately all the occurrences of direct discourse together in one category, or at best, to differentiate only between speech and prayer'.2 Gerhard Von Rad, for instance, blurs differences in genre when he examines both speeches and prayers under the rubric of the 'Levitical Sermon'. He is followed in this respect by James Newsome. Otto Ploger also confuses 1. R. Rigsby, The Historiography of the Speeches and Prayers in the Books of Chronicles' (ThD dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1973); J. Newsome, 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1973); Mason, Preaching the Tradition; R. Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of I Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles', JBL 95 (1976), pp. 581-90 (which summarizes Braun's ThD dissertation, The Significance of I Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Structure and Theology of the Work of the Chronicler' [Concordia Seminary, 1971]; O. Ploger, 'Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk', in Aus der Spatzeit des Alien Testaments (repr.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975 [1957]), pp. 50-66; H. Macy, The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: An Assessment' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1975), devotes his third chapter to The Prophetic Judgement Speech in Chronicles', pp. 64-75; de Vries, 'Forms of Prophetic Address', pp. 15-36; Throntveit, When Kings Speak. 2. When Kings Speak, p. 127.
2. Prophetic Speeches
81
distinctions in speaker by treating royal and non-royal speeches together. Simon de Vries treats prophets, priests and Levites together and thereby mixes the speakers in the prophetic addresses. Braun and Throntveit's studies provide a good model. They separate royal from non-royal speech. Further distinction also needs to be made within the corpus of prophetic speech. Although all prophetic speech makes a claim to divine authority, in Chapter 1 1 showed that the Chronicler uses different inspiration formulas to distinguish between speeches by those labeled prophets (nabi', hozeh, ro'eh) and other inspired messengers. The speakers in Chronicles then can be divided into two groups: 'Speakers with Prophetic Titles' and 'Inspired Speakers without Prophetic Titles' . This division finds an internal basis in Chronicles from the reference to both the rfbi'im and 'messengers' (no^n) in 2 Chron. 36.16. Prophets and Messengers The first category of prophetic speakers, the 'prophets', are easily identifiable since they bear a label which indicates their role. The other prophetic speakers in the book of Chronicles are indicated by inspiration formulas which ascribe divine authority to the speakers. These other inspired speakers form an eclectic group. Under what rubric can we group a priest, a Levite, a soldier and an Egyptian pharaoh? Did the Chronicler have a term for this group? The range of these figures certainly is broader than temple personnel. Although many scholars have suggested that the Chronicler tries to extend prophecy to the Levites, it should be clear that this analysis does not do justice to the full range of figures who prophesy in Chronicles. The term which Chronicles itself suggests for all these figures is 'messengers' . The epilogue to the books of Chronicles records three avenues by which YHWH communicated his word: divine messengers, the Torah and the nebi'im. In 2 Chron. 36.15-16 we read, 15 And YHWH the God of their fathers sent to them his messengers continually, because he had compassion on his people and his dwelling place. 16 However, they were mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and taunting his nebi'im until the anger of YHWH built up and there was no remedy.
There is no reason to regard the three avenues in v. 16 — 'the messengers of God', 'his words' and 'his nebi'ini> — as synonymous
82
The Word of God in Transition
phrases.3 Israel rejected every avenue through which God's word came. This included the priests, the Levites, an Egyptian pharaoh and the prophets. 'His prophets' would have included all the prophets (hozeh, nabi', man of God, and ro'eh). 'His words' probably refers to both 'the word of Moses' and 'the word of YHWH'.4 The 'messengers of God' is an all-inclusive term. It could have referred to any inspired messengers, both those with prophetic titles and those without. As I shall demonstrate in this chapter, the distinctions between characters with prophetic titles and those without prophetic titles indicates otherwise. Messenger (l^n) refers either to a divine or a human envoy in the Hebrew Bible and comes to be a secondary role label for a 'prophet' in exilic and post-exilic literature. Naomi Cohen claims that 'in exilic and post-exilic prophetic works the term mal'ak comes to be used as a synonym for the word nabi', eventually virtually replacing it completely'.5 Cohen overstates the rather meager evidence, but her analysis highlights the introduction of a significant new prophetic term in exilic and postexilic literature: 'messenger'. For instance, Second Isaiah apparently uses 'messenger' as a prophetic role label. In Isa. 44.26 we find the terms 'servant' and 'messenger' in parallelism, and the context suggests that the servant messenger is a prophet: 24... I am YHWH... 25 who annuls the signs of diviners (nnn6) and makes fools of the augurs; who turns back the sages and makes foolish 3. Williamson writes that 'his words and his prophets are again presented as virtually parallel' (Chronicles, p. 417). However, most commentators simply ignore this curious trio; cf. for example Curtis, Rudolph, Coggins. 4. A reference to the 'word of Moses', that is, the Mosaic legislation known from the Pentateuch, probably lies behind the reference to 'his words' (vm). Although mrr ~m is a technical term for prophetic oracles in pre-exilic and exilic literature, in Chronicles mrr ~m becomes associated with the written word, namely the Mosaic legislation (see discussion in Chapter 3). For instance, in 2 Chron. 35.6 Hezekiah commands the priests to prepare themselves and slaughter the Passover lamb 'according to the word of Yahweh by Moses' (T3 mrr i3"O neta). Thus, the 'word of Yahweh' becomes the written Mosaic law in Chronicles. It seems unlikely that the disobedience to the Mosaic law was omitted from the list of sins in 2 Chron. 36.16. There, vm is probably a reference to the Mosaic law. 5. N. Cohen, 'From Nabi to Mal'ak to "Ancient Figure'", JJS 36 (1985), p. 16. 6. MT C'13, 'liars'; however, most likely we have a 1 and ~i interchange and should emend to «CTH3», 'diviners' (cf. Akkadian, baru). The parallelism with D'QOp, 'augurs', invites this easy emendation as does the antithetical parallelism to v. 26,
2. Prophetic Speeches
83
their knowledge, 26 but who establishes the word of his servant and who performs the counsel of his messengers.
The servant's word is fulfilled; the messenger's counsel is borne out, as opposed to the diviners and augurs whose signs and words are frustrated. In this passage, the messenger is an extension of YHWH's servant, presumably a nabi' as in the frequent deuteronomic phrase 'his servants the prophets'.7 The role of the 'messenger' is contrasted with the roles of diviners and augurs. The messenger is not equated to the prophet, but the messenger's role belongs with the broad category of prophets which would include 'true' prophets as well as 'false' prophets. The latter prophets manifest a strong notion of the messenger. For instance, the late prophet Malachi's name means simply 'my messenger' (cf. Mai. 3.1).8 The latter prophet Haggai is 'the messenger of YHWH with the message of YHWH' (Hag. 1.13). This passage explains how a prophet might become identified with a messenger who carries the 'message of God'. The terms 'messenger' and nabi' should not be simply equated. The differences between the two terms are illustrated by the following diagram of their semantic fields: •human being
•human being •transient role •either human or divine being •sent by either human or God •carries message
•human being •sent by God •carries message
•permanent role •human being •sent by God •carries message
Not every divine messenger was a nabi', or vice versa. But they share the characteristics of being envoys sent with a message. However, the term 'messenger' is not nearly as restricted as nabi', since a messenger may be either human or otherworldly and may be sent either by a human person or a god.
7. See J.L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), p. 73. Cf. also Isa. 42.19. 8. "DR^o may not even be a personal name; see the discussion by Cohen, 'From Nabi to Mal'ak to "Ancient Figure'", pp. 19-21, and the literature cited there.
84
The Word of God in Transition
The term 'messenger' aptly describes the Chronicler's use of nonprophetic 'messengers'. The role of the messenger is transitory. The inspiration of the messenger is ad hoc. The messenger always has a specific message/mission and the status as a messenger does not exist without the message. The transitory aspect of the messenger's role is indicated by the inspiration formulas used, for example 'the spirit enveloped' (see below, 'Inspired Messengers'). The messenger's speech depends on the spirit. On the other hand, a prophet is called and commissioned. The call of Jeremiah implies the special nature of the prophetic office: 'before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations' (Jer. 1.5). The difference between permanent and transitory aptly describes the use of inspiration formulas in Chronicles. The messenger of YHWH requires an inspiration formula, whereas the prophet may speak in YHWH's behalf without a inspiration formula. The different audiences of the Chronicler's inspired speakers will also bear out this distinction between 'prophets' and 'messengers'. The prophets always address the king in their speeches, but inspired speakers without prophetic labels, that is, 'messengers', address the people as a whole. Thus, although in theory there is an overlap between the terms nabi' and 'messenger', formal characteristics of the speeches demonstrate a distinction between the 'messengers' and the 'prophets'. It is not surprising then that we have in the conclusion of Chronicles a delineation of three 'messengers' of God which Israel had rejected: messengers, Torah and prophets. Messengers (his priests, Levites, soldiers and so on) are inspired to prophesy, but they are not necessarily prophets in the sense of the 'former prophets'. Yet it is also clear in 2 Chron. 36.15, 'YHWH sent his messengers to them continually', that these messengers are part of a larger category and not restricted to inspired speakers without prophetic labels. The 'messengers' could have included priests and Levites bringing the Torah, the priests and Levites inspired with a prophetic word (mrr -m), and those formally called 'prophets' (hozeh, nabi', ro'eh, man of God). Nevertheless, 'messengers' is a particularly appropriate term for inspired speakers without prophetic labels. Speakers with Prophetic Titles There are thirteen speech scenes by figures with prophetic titles (hozeh, nabi', ro'eh, man of God) in the book of Chronicles. Five speech scenes
2. Prophetic Speeches
85
are taken whole cloth from the Deuteronomic History.9 The speakers include Nathan (nabi'}, Gad (the royal hozeh), Shemaiah (nabi'), Hanani (ro'eh), Jehu (hozeh), Eliezer (nabi'), Elijah (nabi'), an anonymous man of God, an anonymous nabi', and Oded, a nabi' from the northern kingdom. The Chronicler's view of prophecy can best be ascertained from the non-synoptic compositions. Only with careful attention to the narrative framework can passages synoptic with Samuel-Kings be used to describe the Chronicler's view of prophecy. De Vries inadvertently proves the necessity of separating the synoptic (that is, parallel with Samuel-Kings) and non-synoptic (without parallel in Samuel-Kings) passages in Chronicles. In his form-critical essay on prophetic addresses in Chronicles, de Vries develops his first three forms, 'prophetic commission report', 'report of an oracular inquiry' and 'prophetic battle story', entirely from passages borrowed from Samuel-Kings.10 Therefore, they are not as helpful for understanding the Chronicler's own notions of prophecy. It is the Chronicler's non-synoptic compositions which illustrate most clearly his own views of prophecy. I shall therefore discuss below passages which are independent of SamuelKings. The Chronicler's synoptic compositions must be treated separately, and consequently the revision of prophetic speeches in 9. Synoptic speeches include 1 Chron. 17.3-15 (112 Sam. 7.3-14); 21.9-12 (112 Sam 24.11-13); 2 Chron. 11.2-4 (III Kgs 12.22-24); 18.10-22 (III Kgs 22.1123); 34.23-28 (112 Kgs 22.15-20). Non-synoptic speeches include 2 Chron. 12.5-8; 16.7-10; 19.1-3; 20.35-37; 21.12-15; 25.7-19, 15-16; 28.9-11. 10. See de Vries, 'The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', pp. 18-24.1 would further question the significance of classifying narratives according to 'forms' when only one or two examples of the so-called form exist. Moreover, the discussion of the forms in Chronicles implies a social reality or Sitz im Leben for each individual form. While it is profitable to discuss the Sitz im Leben of the book of Chronicles and perhaps the speeches in Chronicles, de Vries' work atomizes the speeches and formulas. It is inconceivable that the Chronicler consciously employed the forms which de Vries attributes to him. Samuel-Kings is the Chronicler's most obvious source. Yet the nature of this source is still not entirely clear. For instance, S. McKenzie argues that the Chronicler relied on an earlier version of the Deuteronomic History as a source; see The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 198-206. McKenzie's work highlights the problem of the Chronicler's sources. Even where the Chronicler is not relying on a Vorlage similar to the MT of Samuel-Kings, we cannot be sure the Chronicler did not have either a different or earlier version of Samuel-Kings, or another source entirely. See also the discussion of this problem in my Introduction.
86
The Word of God in Transition
Samuel-Kings will be addressed in Chapter 3. We shall examine five features of each prophetic speech: narrative context, use of inspiration formulas, audience of speech, purpose of speech, and use of prophetic motifs, language and texts. The narrative audience and purpose of the speeches directly reflect aspects of the speaker's role in the narrative. Speeches have purposes ranging from exhortation to warning to interpretation. Some speeches have more than one purpose. Finally, we must also examine the degree to which the prophetic and inspired speeches draw on prophetic motifs, language and texts.11 The purpose of this examination is to determine the prophetic speaker's purpose in the narrative and to understand how this purpose is accomplished. It will become clear in the course of this chapter that the prophets (nabi', man of God, hozeh, ro'eh) have different roles than other inspired messengers (for example, the priest) in the Chronicler's narrative. Shemaiah the nabi' to the King and the Officers (2 Chronicles 12.5-8; cf. in 1 Kings 14.25) 5 The nabi' Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and the officers of Judah, who had assembled in Jerusalem because of Shishak, and he said to them, 11. G. von Rad's study of the 'Levitical Sermon' pioneered the study of citation of Scripture in the speeches of Chronicles. However, there is need for refinement in von Rad's approach. For instance, von Rad asserts that 2 Chron. 32.7 is 'quoted from Joshua X.25' and that v. 8a 'depends unmistakably on Jer. XVII.5' (The Levitical Sermon', 274). Although the sequence in v. 7 does match exactly Josh. 10.25, the general expression 'Be strong and do not fear' is so common that it is impossible to claim a direct quote. Similarly, icn ant does not match Jer. 17.5 exactly. It is such a brief reference that is impossible to be certain that the Chronicler was aware of the Jeremian text in using this reference. Rather, the Chronicler makes use of biblical language and motifs. Studies on the use of Scripture in the Qumranic psalm composition refine the simplistic approach to quotation of Scripture. Bonnie Kittel in her study of the Hodayot suggests four categories for the use of biblical language. These include (1) quotation recalling a specific biblical passage, (2) use of biblical literary forms, (3) use of biblical imagery or metaphor, and (4) expression of thoughts 'in a manner consistent with biblical language and terminology' (The Hymns of Qumran [SBLDS, 50; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981], pp. 49-55; see also E. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms From Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], pp. 10-12). While admittedly these categories must be rather elastic, it is a helpful corrective to the simplistic division between 'quotation' and 'original material'. These divisions will also be helpful for discussing the Chronicler's use of prophetic texts, language and motifs.
2. Prophetic Speeches
87
'Thus said YHWH, "You have forsaken me, so I have forsaken you to Shishak".' 6 Then the officers of Israel and the king humbled themselves and declared, 'YHWH is righteous'. 7 When YHWH saw that they had humbled themselves, the word of YHWH came to Shemaiah, saying, 'they have humbled themselves, I shall not destroy them, but I shall give to them as a little remnant12 and my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. 8 They will become servants to him so that they know [the difference between] my service and the service of the kingdoms of the earth.'
The prophetic speech scene begins in v. 5, but the narrative scene encompasses vv. 2-9. The Chronicler uses the literary technique of Wiederaufnahme ('repetitive resumption') to frame the narrative scene (vv. 2a, 9a).13 The framing repetition, 'And Shishak, the king of Egypt, marched against Jerusalem', is borrowed verbatim from 1 Kgs 14.25 and marks the Chronicler's insertion of the narrative scene. The narrative scene has two parts, vv. 2-4 and vv. 5-8. Verses 2b-4 elaborate on the invasion of Shishak, describing his troops and the damage which they did. The narrative scene relies heavily on material borrowed from synoptic passages but uses the Chronicler's stereotypical language. In the first part, the Chronicler appends an explanation in the narrator's voice when the text states, 'Shishak marched against Jerusalem because they rebelled against YHWH'. The grounds for the narrator's interpretation are placed in the narrative voice: Rehoboam forsook the Torah of YHWH (cf. v. Ib). This will become the substance 12. The phrase rrn^sb B^QD is difficult. Curtis understands this as 'a little deliverance' (Chronicles, p. 371; also see Williamson, Chronicles, p. 248). Mason suggests that 'some respite' would fit the context of imminent judgment (Preaching the Tradition, p. 35). Yet the term ner^a elsewhere refers to a remnant which has escaped destruction. This is most dramatic in Ezra's sermon before the returning exiles, 'but now, for a short while (CB^DD an), there has been a reprieve from YHWH our God, who has saved for us a remnant (nerba) and given us a stake in this holy place' (Ezra 9.8). The use of the term no'^a invariably refers to a physical remnant, often left from war or judgment. Cf. Judg. 21.17; 2 Sam. 15.14; 2 Kgs 19.31; Isa. 37.32; Jer. 25.35; Ezra 9.13, 14, 15; Neh. 1.2; 2 Chron. 20.24; 30.6. See further my discussion in The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily', VT41 (1991), pp. 453-55. 13. On this technique, see C. Kuhl, 'Die "Wiederaufnahme"—ein literarkritisches Prinzip?', ZAW64 (1952), pp. 1-11. Burke Long emphasizes the authorial nature of repetition in historical works: 'Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography', JBL 106 (1987), pp. 385-99. Also see I.L. Seeligmann, 'Hebraische Erzahlung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung', 7Z 18 (1962), pp. 314-24.
88
The Word of God in Transition
of the nabi"s explanation of Shishak's invasion. A similar explanation is given for the fall of Saul's dynasty, where the Chronicler also appends a comment to his deuteronomic source (cf. 1 Chron. 10.12-13 with 1 Sam. 21.13). R. Braun points out that the verb 'to rebel' C»a) is part of the Chronicler's characteristic vocabulary.14 The Chronicler's reference to the fortified cities which Shishak had captured is a reflex of his list of Rehoboam's fortifications.15 The second part of the narrative scene is the prophetic speech in vv. 5-8. The Chronicler patterns the prophetic speech after 1 Kgs 12.2224 (112 Chron. 11.2-4). In both scenes we find the same nabi', Shemaiah, and the same two inspiration formulas. The Chronicler's compositional techniques must be viewed with an eye toward his source, 2 Chron. 11.2-4 (III Kgs 12.22-24): 2 And the word of YHWH came to Shemaiah, man of God, saying, 3 'Speak to Rehoboam, son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel16 which are in Judah and Benjamin, saying, 4 Thus said YHWH: "You shall not go up and you shall not wage war with your kinsmen! Return, each man to his own house because this thing is from me"'. And they obeyed the words of YHWH and they refrained from going against Jeroboam.
2 Chron. 11.2-4 and 12.5-8 employ both an intermediary formula and the messenger formula. The use of these two formulas together is characteristic of deuteronomic literature, but atypical for Chronicles (cf. 14. 'Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 53-56. See further discussion of ^a in J. Milgrom's Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 16-35, and R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburg: Herder, 1973), pp. 29-33. Also see 2 Chron. 26.18; 29.6; 30.7; 33.19; 36.14. 15. The term rrnxon "~\s, 'fortified cities', occurs only here in 12.4 and in Rehoboam's list in 11.23. 16. Commentators are quick to point out that the Chronicler has apparently replaced the phrase ]'n'J3i rrnrr rra in his Vorlage (1 Kgs 12.23) with ]!T33T mirm *?tnfir. This change would support the Chronicler's 'pan-Israel' theology (see Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, pp. 87-140). However, it should be pointed out that the Old Greek version of 2 Paraleipomena omits '3 *7tOBT. McKenzie has pointed out the difficulty of appealing to these minor variations as signs of the Chronicler's Tendenz since they often reflect differences in the textual traditions (The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 11954). See also Lemke, 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', pp. 349-63.
2. Prophetic Speeches
89
Chapter 1, 'intermediary formulas'). In Chronicles, the use of these two formulas in proximity occurs only in these two passages. We may surmise that the Chronicler used 1 Kgs 12.22-24 (111 Chron. 11.2-4) as a formal pattern for creating the prophetic speech scene in 2 Chron. 12.5-8. The audience of 2 Chron. 12.5-8 is narrowed from 1 Kgs 12.23 (112 Chron. 11.3). The audience in 1 Kgs 12.23 (112 Chron. 11.3) is 'the king and all Israel'. In 2 Chron. 12.5-8, the audience of prophetic judgement is Rehoboam and his officers and it is the king and his officers who repent. This is rather curious since the language of vv. 7-8 would suggest that all Israel was subject to judgment. This tension between the audience in vv. 5 and 7-8 addresses the two audiences of the Chronicler's narrative. In v. 5 the nabi' speaks to the king who is the proper audience of the prophet's address. However, the words of vv. 78 imply a wider audience than King Rehoboam in the tenth century BCE: they are aimed at the Chronicler's own post-exilic community. Shemaiah's speech explains the consequences of Rehoboam's past actions to the king according to his theology of retribution.17 Curtis mistakenly calls the verb ran? in 12.5 a 'prophetic perfect', that is, 'I shall forsake'.18 However, the context indicates that it refers to a past event, since Shishak has already taken the fortified towns of Judah (v. 4) and thus Rehoboam has already been forsaken. This is substantiated by the parallel verb in the verse Draw, 'you have forsaken', which also refers to a past event. Rehoboam had already forsaken God (cf. vv. 1-2) and so also God had already forsaken Rehoboam. The nabi' is not predicting the future, but rather explaining the past. Sara Japhet has argued that the prophet's 'explanation is, in reality, an implicit call to repentance' since it results in the people's repentance.19 But warning is not its explicit function in the narrative. In fact, Shemaiah's second prophetic message in vv. 7b-8 is also an explanation of the purposes of YHWH's action and certainly cannot be any kind of call to repentance. The nabi' tells Rehoboam that God has given Jerusalem a remnant (ner^a) from 17. This has been extensively discussed; see for example Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, pp. 203-10. Also see Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 31-33; Japhet, The Ideology of the Chronicler and its Place in Biblical Thought, pp. 165-76. 18. Chronicles, p. 372. 19. The Ideology of Chronicles, p. 178. See however Dan. 9.14, where the response 'YHWH our God is righteous' (irrfw mrr p"fif) is also employed in historical retrospect.
90
The Word of God in Transition
Shishak because they humbled themselves and that through this God taught Israel 'the difference between my service (Tmau) and the service of the kingdoms of the earth (rren»n rro'paa may)' (vv. 7b-8). The nabi' then serves primarily as an interpreter of past events in the narrative. The prophet's words function secondarily as a warning to Rehoboam and, more importantly, to the Chronicler's post-exilic community. The nabt"s message uses the principle of correspondence between sin and punishment, commonly called 'measure for measure'. The principle is clear in v. 5b, 'you have forsaken me (-n« Draw), so I have forsaken you (DDHK -raw)'. Patrick Miller points out that correspondence between sin and judgment is typical of the classical prophets.20 Often, the classical prophets even employ the same kind of wordplay seen in 2 Chron. 12.5. The book of Obadiah spells out the principle: 'just as you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head' (Obad. 15). The Chronicler's formulation of measure for measure punishment may be influenced by this principle in classical prophecy. The nabf's message must have sounded a chord in heart of the postexilic community. In fact, the message echoes a sermon in Ezra 9.7-8: 7 From the days of our fathers until this very day we have had great guilt. Because of our iniquities, we, our kings, and our priests were given into the hand of the kings of the earth, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder, and to open shame, as it is this day. 8 Now for a brief moment there is relief from YHWH our God to leave us a remnant (ntD'^a) and to give to us a peg in this holy place so that our God may brighten our eyes and give us a little relief in our service (UTOJO).
Ezra's sermon develops the themes of foreign service and relief found in Shemaiah's speech to Rehoboam. According to Ezra, God had given the Israelites 'into the hands of the kings of the land' (mm^n -D^Q T3; cf. 2 Chron. 12.8, rmn»n m^na rrnar), but God spared a remnant (rrcrte; cf. 2 Chron. 12.7). Ezra's address to a contemporary post-exilic audience picks up some of the same themes, even some of the same language, as the Chronicler's early 'pre-exilic' nabi'. In the Rehoboam 20. Sin and Judgement in the Prophets (SBLMS, 27; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Miller's analysis focuses on the prophetic corpus; however, his analysis should certainly be extended to the historical books. The principle of 'measure for measure' develops further in rabbinic literature; see E. Urbach, The Sages (ET; Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 436-44. For instance, the Mishnah teaches that 'with what measure a man metes, it shall be meted out to him' (m. Sot. 1.7; cf. Mt. 7.1-2).
2. Prophetic Speeches
91
narrative then, the nabi' Shemaiah apparently becomes the mouthpiece for a message to the Chronicler's contemporary community. Hanani the ro'eh to the king (2 Chronicles 16.7-10) 1 At that time Hanani, the ro 'eh, came to Asa, king of Judah, and he said to him, 'because you have depended upon the king of Aram and you did not depend upon YHWH your God, therefore the army of the king of Aram has eluded your grasp. 8 Were not the Cushites and the Libyans a vast army with many chariots and horsemen? And yet, when you depended upon YHWH, he gave them into your grasp 9 because YHWH's eyes rove about all the earth to strengthen those with an undivided heart. In this thing then, you have acted foolishly and from now on you will have wars.' 10 And Asa was angry at the seer and he put him into prison because he was upset over this and Asa also oppressed some of the people at that time.
The ro'eh's speech is framed by the inclusio 'at that time' («-nn nm) which opens and closes the scene (vv. 7a and lOb). The repeated element 'at that time' is not borrowed from the Chronicler's source, as in the Wiederaufnahme in 2 Chron. 12.2 and 9, but originates with the Chronicler and is used to indicate the edges of the insertion (cf. 1 Kgs 15.22-23).21 The ro'eh's speech is addressed to the king alone. Speaking to the king alone, as we shall see, is typical of the prophets' speeches. Although the speech lacks any inspiration formulas, we may infer that the ro'eh's message makes a claim to divine authority. The explanation 'you have depended upon the king of Aram and did not depend upon YHWH your God, therefore the army of the king of Aram has eluded your grasp' suggests that the ro'eh understands YHWH's will and this implies a claim to divine authority. The ro'eh Hanani's message echoes traditional prophetic material. First of all, the phrase 'his eyes rove about in all the earth' (mrr -D pKrrbDn mooBQ rra , v. 9) is very similar to the phrase in Zech. 4.10b (f-iNrr'wa TOQTO rran mrr -ra). The slight variation in formulation might suggest that this was a stock phrase and it would then not be a matter of direct literary borrowing from one source to another.22 The prophetic 21. The Chronicler probably picked up the technical term STtn run, 'at that time', from the book of Kings; see Tadmor and Cogan, 'Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations', Bib 60 (1979), pp. 493-99. 22. Contra von Rad, 'The Levitical Sermon', pp. 269-270.
92
The Word of God in Transition
speech also plays on the verb 'to depend on' (pew) to communicate a poetic retribution.23 This literary motif of trust in foreign rulers may allude to Isaiah's prophecies. Although there is no direct literary borrowing from Isaiah on this point, there are a number of points of comparison: (1) a similar motif, dependence on foreign rulers, (2) the figurative use of dependence, and (3) the notion of trusting in horsemen and chariots which occurs in both 2 Chron. 16.8 and Isa. 31.1 (also cf. Isa. 10.20; 30.18). There is a close relationship between the ro'eh's speech and the Chronicler's revision of his Vorlage. The ro'eh explains the relationship between Asa's foolish actions and the coming judgment: 'In this thing then (nttf"1?:?), you have acted foolishly and from now on you will have wars'. The reference to 'wars' (mnn^n) consciously picks up the Chronicler's earlier revision of his source. In 1 Kgs 15.16, the Deuteronomist reports that there was continual war between Asa and Baasha: 'Now there was war between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel all their days'. However, the Chronicler revises this report, indicating that there was no war during the first part of Asa's reign (2 Chron. 15.19): 'Now there was no war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa'. We surmise from the nabi' Hanani's speech that the war began because (nnt'^p) Asa relied upon the Arameans. The inclusio which frames the scene, 'at that time' (KTJTI run), presumably refers to the thirtyfifth year of Asa from the Chronicler's revision of the initial war report. The nexus between the Chronicler's narrative revision of the war report in 2 Chron. 15.19 (II 1 Kgs 15.16) and the addition of the prophetic scene in 2 Chron. 16.7-10 illustrates the close relationship between the Chronicler's narrative composition and the prophetic speeches. The Chronicler constructs the ro'eh's speech around a historical retrospect. The ro'eh's historical illustration recalls the attack of the Cushites in 2 Chron. 14.7-15. There, Asa defeats a much larger Cushite and Lybian army at Mareshah with the help of YHWH. 2 Chron. 14.1012 records Asa's prayer and YHWH's response: 10 Asa called upon YHWH his God and he said, 'O YHWH, there is none like you to help [in battle] between the mighty and the powerless. Help us, O YHWH our God, because we rely on you and in your name we come against this multitude. O YHWH, you are our God. May no man stop you. 11 And YHWH smote the Cushite before Asa and before Judah and the Cushites fled. 12 And Asa and the people with him pursued them as far 23. Cf. Miller, Sin and Judgement in the Prophets.
2. Prophetic Speeches
93
as Gerar and the Cushites fell until none were left alive because they were broken before YHWH and before his camp. And they took a very large amount of booty.
The verbal root 'to depend' (paft) in v. 10 becomes the key term in Hanani's speech (2 Chron. 16.7-8). The ro'eh's speech uses this term to confirm a narrative analysis of the event in 14.11, 'YHWH smote them before Asa', namely that YHWH had given victory before when Asa trusted him. The speech then uses this past event to condemn Asa's reliance upon the king of Aram instead of YHWH. History becomes a didactic lesson in the mouth of the nabi' directed on the narrative level toward King Asa. Thus Claus Westermann writes, 'in II Chron. 16.7-10 the prophetic speech is no longer an announcement but a later interpretation of two completed incidents—a victory and a defeat'.24 We may assume that the Chronicler also intended the lesson to be applied to his own contemporary audience. Thus, the depiction of the Cushite invasion serves the Chronicler on three levels: first, as an event in the historical narrative in 2 Chronicles 14; secondly, as a didactic example in the prophetic speech in 2 Chronicles 16; and thirdly, as a 'sermon' for the Chronicler's contemporary post-exilic audience. Although historical recollections are employed in other non-prophetic speeches,25 the use of a specific historical event as a didactic tool is unparalleled in other speeches. The ro 'eh in this case tries to apply the 'lesson of history' to a contemporary situation, condemning the king for not learning the lesson and, implicitly, chiding a post-exilic audience to learn the lesson of history. In this case, the prophetic speech not only confirms the narrator's interpretation of history, but it uses this interpretation to teach and chide the king. Jehu the hozeh to the King (2 Chronicles 19.1-3) 1 And Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, returned home to Jerusalem in safety. 2 And Jehu, son of Hanani, the hozeh went out to meet him and he said to the king, 'Jehoshaphat, do you delight in helping the wicked and those who hate YHWH? Because of this, wrath from YHWH came upon you. 3 However, good things are found in you because you purged the Asheroth from the land and set your heart to seek God.'
This unit depicts an encounter between a hozeh and King Jehoshaphat after Jehoshaphat has returned from an unsuccessful alliance with Ahab, 24. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 164. 25. See Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 141. See 2 Chron. 13.4-12; 15.3-6.
94
The Word of God in Transition
king of Israel. This short prophetic speech scene has no synoptic parallel but follows on the heels of the synoptic account of Jehoshaphat and Ahab's alliance (cf. 2 Chron. 18 // 1 Kgs 22). The audience of the speech is restricted to the king, Jehoshaphat. The narrative employs no inspiration formula to introduce the hozeh's speech. Again, there are no explicit sign of the hozeh's authority save the prophetic role label. We may infer that the hozeh's message is inspired since he claims knowledge of the way God shall deal with Jehoshaphat (vv. 2b-3). However, this is merely the inference that we draw from the hozeh's speech. The narrative framework does not even suggest that YHWH sent the hozeh to confront Jehoshaphat (cf. 2 Chron. 24.19; 25.15). In his short speech, the hozeh explains that Jehoshaphat has received 'wrath from YHWH' because of his alliance with Ahab. The punishment is based upon past actions, 'and because of this' (ntftn). The hozeh's message does not serve as a warning per se to Jehoshaphat since it does not ask him to do anything or stop doing anything. The hozeh informs Jehoshaphat that the consequence of his alliance with Ahab is 'wrath (fpip) from YHWH'. But where is this wrath played out in the Chronicler's narrative? Williamson points out that the statement 'there was wrath from before YHWH' is a thematic link to the following narrative. In Jehoshaphat's commissioning of the Levites as judges he enjoins them to judge fairly lest 'wrath (^xp) be upon you' (v. 10).26 This associative link ties the narrative in ch. 18 with the following narrative by the repetition of the term 'wrath'. The associative link may illustrate a compositional technique, but it does not answer the question: what 'wrath' did Jehoshaphat receive from YHWH for his alliance with Ahab? Rudolph argues that the 'wrath' in 19.2 must refer to the war in ch. 20.27 This is untenable because ch. 20 describes a great victory over a Moabite coalition. It is difficult to see how this might fulfill the hozeh's reference to 'wrath from YHWH'. Thus, the question remains: what sort of 'wrath' is the prophet referring to? The prophet's reference to 'wrath from YHWH' and the good things found in Jehoshaphat must refer to the past.28 The answer must, in fact, be sought in the preceding chapter. 2 Chronicles 18 is one of the largest blocks of material which the 26. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 279. 27. Rudolph, Chronikbucher, p. 255. 28. The verbless construction mrr 'EJ^D ^p ~\^s n«n, 'because of this there was wrath from before Yahweh', certainly allows a past rather than future event.
2. Prophetic Speeches
95
Chronicler has copied from his Vorlage (cf. 1 Kgs 22). Steven McKenzie points out that the accounts of 1 Chronicles 18 and 1 Kings 22 are 'extremely close'.29 The only significant changes which the Chronicler made to his Vorlage are in the introduction (v. 2) and in v. 31. The introduction to 1 Kings 22 is as follows: And there was a lull three years without war between Aram and Israel. 2 Then in the third year, Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, went down to the king of Israel.
The Chronicler rewrites the introduction to this episode in 2 Chron. 18.2 to read as follows: At the end of some years, [Jehoshaphat] went down to Ahab at Samaria. Ahab sacrificed many sheep and cattle for him and for the people who were with him. Then, Ahab enticed him to go up to Ramoth Gilead.
The key word in the Chronicler's rewritten introduction is the verb 'to entice' (iron). The Chronicler employs this term again in a comment he inserts within the battle narrative. The may be seen by comparing 1 Kgs 22.32-33 with 2 Chron. 18.31-32, And when the chariot officers saw Jehoshaphat, they said, 'it is the king of Israel!' And they turned against him to attack him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out and when the chariot officers saw that it was not the king of Israel, they stopped the pursuit (1 Kgs 22.32-33). And when the chariot officers saw Jehoshaphat, they said, 'it is the king of Israel!' And they wheeled around to attack him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out and YHWH helped him30 and God diverted them from him. And when the chariot officers saw that it was not the king of Israel, they stopped the pursuit (2 Chron. 18.31-32).
The Chronicler's critical addition is the phrase 'and God diverted them from him' (i3nn n^nbtf nrrcn). The use of the Hebrew verb Vmo with the preposition 'from' (p) is unique in the Hebrew Bible. This verb is usually translated 'to incite, entice'.31 How are we to understand this 29. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 101. 30. McKenzie suggests that the phrase TITJJ mm may have dropped out of the Kings version through haplography Cm...lira mrr) since the LXXL has eacooev oruTov (The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 101). The use of the name DTI^K rather than mrr convinces me that 13QD DTI^N nrrcn is the Chronicler's own addition and was not in his Vorlage since 1 Kgs 22 elsewhere uses the tetragram. 31. See BDB, p. 694.
96
The Word of God in Transition
comment which the Chronicler adds to his Vorlage! Examples of the use of the Hebrew verb Vmo from elsewhere in the Old Testament may be instructive for its use in 1 Chronicles 18. In 1 Chron. 21.1, Satan entices David into taking a census of Israel: 'And Satan stood against Israel and enticed David to number Israel'. David's numbering results in 'guilt for Israel' (v. 11) which must be expiated by one of three punishments. In another case, God says that Satan 'enticed' him against Job, harming Job without cause (Job 2.3). Elsewhere, the Israelites are commanded not to listen to deceivers who 'entice' them to serve other gods, resulting in their destruction (Deut. 13.7). In each of these cases, the act of enticing or inciting (rrorr) results in some kind of wrath, punishment or evil. We may surmise then that the Hebrew verb Vmo usually refers to enticing toward evil with the concomitant disastrous results. In the narrative introduction to Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahab, the Hebrew verb Vmo was apparently used to imply a negative moral judgment on the alliance and to portend the disastrous results. The phrase in 2 Chron. 18.31, imn DTI^N an'O'i, is linked to the Chronicler's narrative introduction by the verbal root Vmo. Ahab enticed Jehoshaphat into a fateful alliance that almost cost him his life at the hand of the chariot officers of Aram; this is the implication of the Chronicler's addition in v. 31, namely that God 'enticed them away from Jehoshaphat'. By God's diverting the chariot officers, a disastrous result was avoided. We may suggest then that this incident when the charioteers pursued Jehoshaphat lies behind the 'wrath from before YHWH' which the hozeh refers to (19.2). Furthermore, God then may be seen as 'enticing them away' or diverting the chase because, as the hozeh Jehu points out, 'there were some good things found in Jehoshaphat'. Most notably, Jehoshaphat calls upon YHWH when he is in trouble, as in 18.31-32. Thus, the prophetic speech further develops the Chronicler's interpretation of the alliance with Ahab. The Chronicler interprets the narrative of ch. 18 in the short prophetic speech in 19.2-3. Even in a case where the Chronicler borrows a story almost verbatim from his Vorlage, he still subtly alters the story to convey his own interpretation and reinforces his interpretation with a prophetic speech. In the Chronicler's hands, then, the story of the alliance between Ahab and Jehoshaphat serves primarily to repeat his sermon against foreign alliances. With only a slight changes in his Vorlage, the Chronicler radically changes the meaning of the story which in 1 Kings 22 deals with the issue of who is
2. Prophetic Speeches
97
a true prophet. The story no longer explores the problem of true and false prophecy. In Chronicles it is now a story of the futility of foreign alliances. The Chronicler also showed a similar insensitivity to the issue of false prophecy in his use of certain inspiration formulas. For example, 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' (mrr otfa PN -QTI) and 'to act as a prophet' (toann) ordinarily are employed in contexts which raise the issue of false prophecy (see Chapter 1). However, the Chronicler uses these formulas and is apparently unaware of this aspect. This is illustrated with the verb 'to act as a prophet' in the next example of Eliezer. Eliezer the nabi'*2 to the King (2 Chronicles 20.35-37; cf. 1 Kings 22.49-50) And after this, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, made an alliance33 with Ahaziah, king of Israel, thereby he acted wickedly. 36 He joined with him to construct ships to go to Tarshish and they made the ships in Eziongeber. 37 Then Eliezer, son of Dodavahu from Mareshah, prophesied against Jehoshaphat saying, 'Because you have allied yourself with Ahaziah, YHWH will break up your works'. And the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish.
Even though Eliezer is not given a prophetic role label, the expression 'to act as a prophet' (K33nn; see Chapter 1, 'enactment formulas') suggests that he was acting in the role of a nabi '. There may be some significance in the fact that the prophet's town, Mareshah, was the site of Asa's victory against the Ethiopians (cf. 2 Chron. 14.8, 9). In 2 Chron. 16.7-10 another prophet came to Asa and used the battle at Mareshah against the Ethiopians as a historical example of God's salvation without reliance on other nations. This narrative concerning a failed shipping expedition is paralleled in 1 Kings, but the Chronicler has rewritten the incident in line with his principle of 'retribution theology'. The Chronicler provides a larger context to the incident when compared to the abbreviated report in 1 Kgs 22.49-50: 49 Jehoshaphat made Tarshish-ships to sail to Ophir for gold, but they were wrecked in Ezion-geber. 50 Then Ahaziah, son of Ahab, said to Jehoshaphat, 'Let my servants sail with your servants', but Jehoshaphat was not willing. 32. See discussion in Chapter 1 under 'enactment formulas', 33. Apparently, a hithpael perfect with an -litf prefix. If this is not a scribal error, then it reflects the influence of Aramaic (see Dan. 11.6, 23); see GKC §54a; BL §49u.
98
The Word of God in Transition
Either the Chronicler has rewritten the account or he was relying on a Vorlage which had substantial differences with the Masoretic tradition of 1 Kings.34 The Deuteronomistic History provides no explanation for the destruction of the ships, but the Chronicler's version remedies this 'omission'. The Chronicler's account begins with an initial context for the incident: Jehoshaphat made an alliance with Ahaziah. The figure of Eliezer immediately follows, providing the connection between the alliance and the destruction of the ships. The prophecy is directed specifically at Jehoshaphat, so the audience is the king alone. The narrative and the speech are so brief as to allow little doubt about the purpose of the prophetic speech: it confirms the narrator's interpretation of Jehoshaphat's maritime alliance. The narrator's voice is marked by the deictic element Kin,35 which introduces the comment in v. 35b, 'thereby he acted wickedly'. The narrator morally evaluates Jehoshaphat's alliance. This moral evaluation is implicit in the prophetic judgment: YHWH will break up the maritime works because Jehoshaphat 'acted wickedly' in making the alliance. Both the narrator's comment and the prophetic speech rely upon the root V-tou, 'to do, make'. This correspondence only enhances the close association between the narrative and the prophetic speech and further illustrates a two-part explanation of the historical events. The narrator introduces the explanation and the prophet confirms the narrator's explanation. Elijah the nabt' to the King (2 Chronicles 21.12-15) 12 And a letter came to [Jehoram] from Elijah the nabi' saying, Thus YHWH, the God of David your father, says, "Since you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, nor in the ways of Asa, the king of Judah, 13 but you have walked in the way of the kings of Israel and you have led astray Judah and the Jerusalemites according to the apostasy of the house of Ahab and you also killed your brothers of your father's house who were better than you, 14 indeed YHWH shall inflict a great 34. The LXX tradition places this passage after 1 Kgs 16.28. The LXX's arrangement of the Ahab material differs substantially from the MT and suggests that a complex textual tradition underlies this material; see D. Gooding, 'Ahab according to the Septuagint', ZAW76 (1964), pp. 169-80. 35. Fishbane points out that Kin is used as a deictic element for scribal glosses and to introduce interpretations of dreams, visions and oracles (see Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 44-46, 447-505). See further Fishbane's treatment of the Chronicler's interpretation of 1 Kgs 22.49-50; Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 402-403.
2. Prophetic Speeches
99
blow on your kinsmen, your sons, your daughters, and all your possessions. 15 And, as for you, your bowels will be severely afflicted with a disease for many years until your bowels come out from the disease"'.
This passage, although not technically a 'speech', is nevertheless an important pericope for studying the Chronicler's prophetic speeches. As many commentators have noted, the delivery of a prophecy by letter is unusual.36 While this is unusual, the formal structure of the prophecy is typical of classical prophecy. Rex Mason writes, Elijah's 'letter' contains the purest form of classical prophetic threat of judgement with (1) messenger formula (v. 12); (2) ground of accusation (vv. 12f.); and (3) announcement of future, total judgement (vv. 14f.).37
The prophet Jeremiah also writes a prophetic threat of judgment on a scroll (Jer. 36). In the case of Jeremiah, the nabi' apparently dictated the prophecies to his scribe Baruch because Jeremiah could not to go into the temple and proclaim the prophecy himself (36.5-6).38 Perhaps the Chronicler uses the medium of a letter because it was implausible that Elijah should go into the royal palace in Jerusalem to proclaim the judgment in person.39 The use of a letter instead of a speech may also be indicative of the transition from oral prophecy to written prophecy in the post-exilic period.40 The Chronicler has skillfully woven this letter into his whole narrative
36. Curtis suggests that this letter is 'a pure product of the imagination, since Elijah had nothing to do with the southern kingdom, and clearly was not living at the time (2 K. 3.1 Iff.)...' (Chronicles, pp. 415-16). Coggins writes, 'The idea of a letter may suggest that by the Chronicler's day prophecy had come to be written down' (Chronicles, p. 229). See also discussions by Michaeli, Chroniques, p. 199; Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 306-307. 37. Preaching the Tradition, p. 140. 38. Similarly, Jeremiah sends a prophecy of hope by letter to the exiles in Babylon (Jer. 29). 39. Some scholars argue that in fact Elijah was already dead; cf. 2 Kgs 3.11. However, it might be inferred from 2 Kgs 1.17 that Elijah was still alive since Joram ascended the throne before the ascension of Elijah (2 Kgs 2). Moreover, the chronology of the Elijah-Elisha legenda is not reliable. B.J. Dieber points out that this problem results from reading Chronicles 'in the context of 2 Kings' ('Uberlegungen zum "Brief des Elia" [2 Chron. 21, 12-15]', Henoch 9 [1987], pp. 202-203). 40. See especially Blenkinsopp's discussion of 'scribal prophecy' and 'clerical prophecy' in Prophecy and Canon, pp. 124-38.
100
The Word of God in Transition
of Jehoram.41 The condemnation in the letter picks up from the explanation from the earlier narrative in v. 4 (non-synoptic): 'And when Jehoram had secured his father's kingdom, he killed all his brothers with the sword and also some of the officials of Israel'. The Chronicler expresses the judgment of this particular act by recalling it in Elijah's prophecy ('and you also killed your brothers', v. 13). The fulfillment of Elijah's prophecy directly follows the delivery of the letter to Jehoram in vv. 16-19. Elijah's letter is prefaced with a variation of the messenger formula, 'thus says YHWH the God of David'.42 The expression 'the God of David' emphasizes the contrast between Jehoram and his forefathers beginning with David (note v. 12b). The messenger formula is perhaps more appropriate for a letter since it was borrowed from the established protocol of official letters in the ancient Near East.43 The letter is written in the third person, 'YHWH shall afflict...', and not in the first person as we might expect. The breakdown in the messenger formula probably indicates that the letter is the Chronicler's own composition. Elijah's message is a condemnation of Jehoram for following in the ways of the northern kings and a prediction of the king's fate. The nabf's judgment speech is implicitly a condemnation of making alliances, much like the prophecies of Hanani, Jehu and Eliezer. The Chronicler's closely follows a source in v. 13a, namely, 2 Kings. In 2 Kgs 8.18a we read, 'And [Jehoram] walked in the ways of the kings of Israel just like the house of Ahab did because he had taken a daughter of Ahab as a wife'. The Deuteronomist makes it clear that Jehoram's wicked ways resulted from a royal alliance by marriage with the house of Ahab. We may assume that the Chronicler followed his source in this reasoning. The Chronicler's theology of retribution underlies Elijah's message.44 This is reflected in vv. 13b-14a, 'you also killed your brothers of your father's house..., so YHWH shall inflict a great blow on 41. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 416. 42. The same formula is used in 2 Kgs 20.5 (//Isa. 38.5). The expression X-T^N, 'the God of, is sometimes added to the messenger formula for emphasis or contrast, usually with the expression "ptofir TI^K, 'the God of Israel'; cf. Exod. 5.1; 9.1, 13; 10.3; Josh. 7.13; 24.2; Judg. 6.8; 1 Sam. 10.18; 2 Sam. 12.7; 1 Kgs 11.31; 14.7; 17.14; 2 Kgs 9.6; 19.20; 21.12; 22.15, 18; 37.21; Jer. 5.14; 11.3; 13.12; 21.4; 23.2; 24.5; 25.15; 30.2; 32.36; 33.4; 34.2; 34.13; 35.17; 37.7; 38.17; 42.9; 44.7; 45.2; Amos 5.16; Zech. 11.4. 43. See Chapter 1, 'messenger formulas'. 44. See examples discussed above including 2 Chron. 12.1-8; 16.7-12; 20.35-37.
2. Prophetic Speeches
101
your kinsmen, your sons, your daughters, and all your possessions'. Jehoram receives his punishment 'measure for measure'.45 The letter is addressed to a Judaean king. The royal audience is one of the characteristic elements of the prophetic speeches which have been discussed. Although Elijah is a northern nabi ', it is not surprising that he appears in Chronicles. The significance of the nabi' Elijah in post-exilic literature is attested in the book of Malachi where Elijah is placed alongside Moses, apparently as representatives of 'the law and the nebi'im' (cf. Mai. 3.22-24). Significantly, Elijah becomes a nabi' to the Judaean king rather than a northern king, who was illegitimate (cf. 2 Chron. 13.4-12; cf. Oded, 2 Chron. 28.9-11). An Anonymous 'Man of God' to the King (2 Chronicles 25.7-9) 1 Now a man of God came to Amaziah saying, 'O king, do not let the army of Israel come with you because YHWH is not with Israel—all of these sons of Ephraim. 8 Surely if you go into battle strong and resolute,46 God will cast you down before the enemy because God has the power to help or to cast down.' 9 And Amaziah said to the man of God, 'But what is to be done about the hundred talents of silver which I gave to the Israelite mercenaries?' The man of God said, 'YHWH is able to give you much more than this!'
The prophetic confrontation and speech are prefaced by Amaziah 's preparations for war, including his hiring of Israelite mercenaries. The Chronicler's account of the war in Edom (v. 11) draws on 2 Kgs 14.7. The preparations for war and the prophetic encounter reported in vv . 5- 1 0 45. Cf. Miller, Sin and Judgement in the Prophets. 46. The Hebrew phrase rran'ra'? pm rvos nn« ta CK 'D is difficult and has been understood in a number of ways. Curtis and Rudolph emend (without versional support), inserting *b, thus •j'reJD' vfr (Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 442-43; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 278). Yet even with this emendation the text is still difficult. The LXX probably reflects free translation of the MT, cm eav •unoX.dprn; Kcmaxuoou ev Tomoi, iced iponcbaetai ae Ktipioq evavtiov TWV ex6pa>v, 'because if you undertake to strengthen [yourself] with these, then the Lord will put you to flight before your enemies'. The phrase ev TOXITOK; may indicate a reading of «cnjJ» for the MT's niou. However, the LXX translator may have been making the best of a difficult text so it is difficult to have confidence in the LXX here. I have translated the particle '3 as emphatic, stressing the result of the conditional clause. Mason (Preaching the Tradition, p. 83) and Dillard (2 Chronicles, pp. 196-97) translate the initial clause ironically, 'Even if you go resolutely . . . '. In all these translations the sense is clear and thus the difficulty is not exegetically critical.
102
The Word of God in Transition
are the Chronicler's independent development. The man of God, like all the prophets discussed thus far, addresses the king. In this case, the figure who addresses the king is anonymous.47 Still, the unnamed man of God's speech is not prefaced by an inspiration formula and his authority is implied in his title. Yet his message is similar to that of the seer Hanani in 2 Chron. 16.7-10; he counsels reliance upon YHWH alone. It is clear from the speech that the man of God considers himself to be the mouthpiece of God. He speaks for the deity: 'YHWH is able to give you much more than this!' The anonymous man of God acts as a royal advisor, warning the king not to go to war with the mercenaries. He justifies his advice before the king's questioning (v. 9b). The role of warning has not been prominent in the prophets discussed thus far. In fact, later in this same chapter Amaziah points out to an anonymous nabi' that he is not a 'royal advisor' (2 Chron. 25.16; see below). The differences may perhaps be accounted for by the role label 'man of God' which the Chronicler gives to this anonymous person. As was pointed out in Chapter 1, 'man of God' is not a strictly prophetic title. The title is employed for characters such as Moses and David. The Chronicler avoids calling characters such as Shemaiah and Elijah 'man of God'. This title seems to have been more than simply a prophetic role label. Of course, the evidence is rather limited so our conclusions must be tentative. An Anonymous nabi' to the King (2 Chronicles 25.15-16) 15 And YHWH was angry with Amaziah and sent to him a nabi'.4* He said to [Amaziah], 'Why have you sought the gods of people, gods who could not save their own people from your hands?' 16 And while he was speaking to him, [Amaziah] said to the nabi', 'who made you to be an counselor for the king? Cease! Why should they kill you?' So the nabi' ceased, but he said, 'I know that God has counseled to destroy you because you have done this, but you have not listened to my counsel.' [17 Then Amaziah took counsel... ]
This unit plays on the Hebrew root Vp>% 'to counsel, advise'. After the nabi"s advice to Amaziah (v. 15b) the king rebukes the nabi', asking, 47. Williamson suggests, 'The fact that he is unnamed suggests, by comparison with the Chronicler's practice in this matter elsewhere, that he may be composing freely' (Chronicles, p. 328). 48. Rudolph follows the LXX, reading the plural CTK-D: (cf. 2 Chron. 24.19). However, the event requires a single prophet (-intn). There is no reason to suppose that the LXX is a better reading.
2. Prophetic Speeches
103
'Who made you advisor to the king ("j'pQ1? par)?' (v. 16). The nabi ' retorts that God has counseled (yir) to destroy the king for rejecting the nabi"s advice (nss). In spite of this, Amaziah turns around and takes counsel (f JJTI) with his human advisors (v. 17). Amaziah may be compared to Rehoboam who also accepts counsel from foolish advisors (2 Chron. 10.6, 8 // 1 Kgs 12.6, 8). But Rehoboam's advisors are foolish because of youth. In the case of Amaziah' s advisors, there is a contrast between human wisdom and divine wisdom. Amaziah takes the human counsel in lieu of the divine counsel offered by the nabi'. Yet the Chronicler's play on the root Vfy suggests that 'royal advisor' was not a typical role for a nabi'. Here, we may contrast vv. 15-16 with vv. 7-9. The man of God, although not explicitly called a 'royal advisor' , acts in the role of a royal advisor. The nabi ', on the other hand, is explicitly excluded from the role of 'royal advisor'. The nabi"s speech to the king is not prefaced by any inspiration formulas. However, the narrator tells us that YHWH sent a nabi' to Amaziah. Although classical biblical prophecy might have expected a messenger formula to follow (for example, 2 Kgs 19.20; Jer. 19.14-15), the nabi' speaks on YHWH's behalf without any formula. The nabi', speaking at God's behest, claims, 'God has counseled to destroy you... because you did not listen to my counsel' (v. 16b). 'My counsel' is not God's counsel, but instead refers to the nabi"s word which God sent him to speak to Amaziah. God will destroy the king because he did not listen to his servant, the nabi"s counsel. The authority of the nabi"s counsel here recalls the words of Jehoshaphat to the people of Judah in 2 Chron. 20.20:49 'believe in YHWH your God and you will be established, believe in his nebi'im and you shall succeed'. Jehoshaphat' s words suggest that believing in the nebi'im is the same as believing in God. Similarly, the anonymous nabi' equates following his counsel with following God's counsel. In fact, the nabi"s counsel is God's counsel. The narrator later confirms the nabi"s words. Immediately following the prophetic scene, the narrative moves to a confrontation between Joash and Amaziah (vv. 17-24). Amaziah challenges Joash, the king of Israel, to battle as a response to the looting of Judah by the shunned mercenaries of the northern kingdom (cf. v. 13). Joash warns Amaziah against this foolish engagement, but Amaziah is unwilling to listen (v.20): 49. Many scholars have noted that Jehoshaphat's words rely on Isa. 7.9; for example, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 386-87.
104
The Word of God in Transition However, Amaziah did not listen, this was because it was from God in order to give them into the hand of «[Joash]»50 because he sought the gods of Edom.
Using a causal clause, the Chronicler explains Amaziah's hardened response: 'it was from God...because they sought the gods of Edom'. This explanation in the narrator's voice echoes the nabf's words and confirms his prophecy. In this example the narrator's interpretation follows a prophetic prediction of judgment. Even in this case where the narrator's comment follows instead of precedes the prophetic speech, a close relationship between the narrator's and the nabf's voice is clear. Oded, the nabt', to the Northern Army (2 Chronicles 28.9-11) 9 There was a nabi' of YHWH there called Oded. He went out before the army who were coming to Samaria and he said to them, 'It was because of the anger of YHWH, the God of your fathers, against Judah that he gave them into your hands and you have killed them in a rage which reaches up to the heavens! 10 And now, you are planning to make the Judahites and Jerusalemites into your slaves, both men and women. Don't you already have enough offenses against YHWH your God? 11 And now, listen to me and return the captives which you have captured from your own kinsmen because the wrath of YHWH is upon you.'
The formal introduction of the nabi' in v. 9 is not typical of the prophetic speech scenes in Chronicles. Simon de Vries describes the form of the tale as an 'anecdote', a sort of 'dramatized sermon'.51 The audience of the nabi"s speech is the army. In the other prophetic speeches, we have seen that the nabi' invariably addresses the king. We may assume that since northern kingship was regarded as illegitimate by the Chronicler, the king was not an appropriate audience (cf. 2 Chron. 13.6-8).52 The prophet is called 'a nabi' of YHWH', an expression which occurs elsewhere in the Deuteronomistic History to contrast the 50. T3 needs to be supplied with an object. BHS suggests emending to ITU, apparently following the suggestion of Origen (see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 446). The LXXL adds icoaq (that is, DKV T3) and the Vulgate adds in manu hostium (that is, D'TiK T3). It is difficult to choose a reading with certainty. The suggestion of Origen requires the least emendation. The Lucianic version may be just an interpretation since Joash fits the context. 51. 'Forms of Prophetic Address', p. 31; also Chronicles, pp. 363-67. 52. Yet, as Williamson notes, Oded's speech has a reconciling effect; Chronicles, p. 346.
2. Prophetic Speeches
105
prophets of YHWH from prophets of other deities.53 The expression may be used because Oded was a northern prophet and the Chronicler might have considered it unusual that a northern prophet was a 'nabi' of YHWH' (cf. 2 Chron. 18.6 with 1 Kgs 22.7). The episode itself is part of the larger unit vv. 9-15, which includes not only the speech of the nabi' Oded but also a speech by one of the leaders of Ephraim (again, not the king). Oded's speech begins with an explanation of a past narrative event (v. 9). The nabi' says that the defeat was a result of their sins against the God of their fathers, thus restating what the narrative has already explained concerning Judah's defeat (2 Chron. 28.2-5). These explanations, of course, fit into the pattern of previous prophecies we have examined. The speech also functions as a warning. Oded warns the Israelites not to make the Judaeans slaves in Israel (vv. 10-II).54 We have also seen warning as an element in some, though not all, of the prophetic speeches thus far. Ironically enough, YHWH's authority underlies the speech of this northern nabi'. Oded sees clearly that the victory against Judah was 'because of the anger of YHWH' and now the wrath of YHWH will turn upon Israel if they keep the captives. However, no inspiration formulas preface Oded's speech. In this respect, Oded's speech is similar to most of the prophetic speeches analyzed thus far. The nabi' again plays the role of warning, only in this case a northern nabi' warns the northern army. Summary The Chronicler's non-synoptic use of prophets contrasts strikingly with his sources. The Chronicler takes five prophetic speech scenes from the Deuteronomistic History which all employ the messenger formula, 'thus says YHWH'.55 On the other hand, no inspiration formulas are used in five of the eight non-synoptic speech scenes in Chronicles.56 The three exceptions which employ inspiration formulas include the prophet Shemaiah's speech which was patterned after 1 Kgs 11.22-24, the speech of Eliezer where the verb 'to act as a prophet' serves in place of 53. Cf. 1 Sam. 3.20; 1 Kgs 18.22; 22.7 (112 Chron. 18.6); 2 Kgs 3.11. 54. See Mason, Preaching the Tradition, pp. 94-96. 55. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.3-15; 21.9-12; 2 Chron. 11.2-4; 18.10-11, 14-16, 18-22; 34.23-28. 56. Cf. 2 Chron. 12.5-8; 16.7-10; 19.1-3; 21.12-15; 25.7-10, 15-16; 28.9-11.
106
The Word of God in Transition
a title, and the 'letter' of Elijah which uses the messenger formula. Of course, the 'letter of Elijah' is not technically a 'speech' and its form may explain the use of the messenger formula. The exceptions in this case only serve to emphasize the difference between the Chronicler's Vorlage and other prophetic literature. When the Chronicler borrows from his sources, they invariably employ some type of inspiration formula (cf. 1 Chron. 17.4; 21.10; 2 Chron. 11.4; 18.10; 34.23). When the Chronicler composed independently, he tended not to use inspiration formulas for his professional prophets. The lack of inspiration formulas underscores a growing authority in the prophetic title. Often, the prophetic title alone bears the authority necessary for the prophet to speak for God. Prophets and seers claim to know the divine will and to speak for God. The knowledge of the divine will includes an insight into past events and foreknowledge of future events. Thus, the seer Hanani can explain how God had helped Asa in the battle against the Cushites and the prophet Elijah can predict that God will afflict Jehoram with a painful disease. The prophets and seers play the role of warning the king, although the role is not consistently applied to them.57 More frequently, the prophets and seers understand how YHWH has acted or will act; thus, they play the role of interpreter of the past and the future for the king. The predominance of interpretation over against warning can be seen in the chart provided below: PERSON Speaker
Title
Shemaiah Hanani Jehu Eliezer Elijah Anonymous Anonymous Oded
nabi' ro'eh hozeh nabi' nabi' man of God nabi' nabi'
FUNCTIONS Interprets
Warns
Exhorts
secondary secondary
A primary role of the prophet then is to explain and interpret the relationship between action and consequence. The Chronicler thus portrays the prophets and seers primarily as interpreters of events. Only 57. Contrast Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic', pp. 275-76; Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, pp. 176-91.
2. Prophetic Speeches
107
secondarily does the prophet serve as one who warns the king. The prophets properly speak to the king. Usually the audience is the king alone, although in one case the royal officials are included (Shemaiah) and a northern prophet (Oded) does not address the king. The restricted audience means that the prophet sometimes has a dialogue with the king. For example, the anonymous 'man of God' is questioned about his word by the king (2 Chron. 25.7-9). The king actually interrupts the nabi' in 2 Chron. 25.15-16 when he speaks to him. The hozeh Jehu goes out to 'meet' the king; the confrontation is 'face to face'. Likewise, the seer Hanani 'comes to the king' to speak to him. The prophet's primarily royal role is typical of classical prophecy.58 In this respect, the figures discussed follow a classic prophetic model. The Chronicler's prophets warn the king as part of the role of advisor to the king. The use of the prophets to advise and counsel probably reflects a post-exilic tendency. This is underscored by the increasing recognition that apocalyptic has roots not only in prophetic literature, but also in wisdom literature.59 Counsel (rrai>) characterizes the sage, just as cultic instruction (mm) characterizes the priest and the word (~Q"0, the prophet.60 In the Second Temple period, the roles of sage and prophet intertwined. This is evidenced, for example, by the increasing prominence of the scribe-sage Baruch vis-a-vis Jeremiah.61 The examples of the anonymous 'man of God' and nabi' in 2 Chronicles 25 address the role of the prophet as a royal advisor. In 2 Chron. 25.7-9 the king accepts a 'man of God' as an advisor, but in 2 Chron. 25.17-19 the king adamantly rejects a nabi' as a royal advisor. The play on the root Vf y, 58. Cf. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Literature, pp. 155, 166. 59. See G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology. II. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions (ET; New York: Harper & Row, 1960), pp. 418-59; M. Knibb, 'Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses', in Anderson and Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 155-56; Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, pp. 116-23. 60. See TDOT, III (1978), p. 109. 61. This example was first pointed out to me by J.E. Wright; see 'Baruch the Ideal Sage', in J. Coleson and V. Matthews (eds.), Festschrift for Dwight W. Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). Note the increasing importance of Baruch in the later MT version of the book of Jeremiah as compared to the earlier LXX version. In addition, Daniel can be seen as a prophet though he is a 'wise man' in Babylon; see further J.J. Collins, 'The Sage in Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature', in J. Gammie and L. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 343-54.
108
The Word of God in Transition
'to counsel, advise', is certainly self-conscious in 2 Chron. 25.17-19. The use of wisdom terminology probably reflects the increasing importance of the prophet-sage in the post-exilic period. Still, the prophet's role as advisor is deeply rooted in ancient Israel. The prophets Samuel, Nathan, Gad and Elisha all act as advisors to the crown.62 Thus, while the Chronicler's use of the term 'counsel' (usu) may be influenced by postexilic ideas, the prophet's role as advisor to the king draws on established traditions. Inspired Messengers The Chronicler has a limited corpus of 'inspired' speeches by figures not labeled as 'prophets'. We will call them here 'inspired messengers' (see discussion in section 1). In all, five speech scenes are prefaced by inspiration formulas. In the use of inspiration formulas for these inspired messengers, the non-synoptic speech scenes contrast sharply with the speech scenes borrowed from the Chronicler's sources. Samuel-Kings does not employ inspiration formulas for inspired messengers. Thus, the inspiration formulas for inspired messengers occur only in the non-synoptic passages. As noted in Chapter 1, a variety of characters are inspired by the spirit to deliver divine messages. These include a soldier, a Levite, a priest and a pharaoh. Another speech is delivered by Azariah son of Oded who was probably the high priest (2 Chron. 15.1; see discussion in Chapter 1, section 2 under 'possession formulas'). However, Azariah has no title which would place him in a social role. The inspiration formula prefacing Azariah's speech is nevertheless characteristic of nonprophets. Amasai, a Soldier, to David (1 Chronicles 12.19) And the spirit enveloped Arnasai, the chief of the thirty, «and he said»:63 To you, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse, may there be peace! 62. Saul seeks the prophet Samuel's advice even beyond the grave (1 Sam. 28). Cf. 2 Sam. 7.1-4; 24.10-19; 1 Kgs 1; 2 Kgs 5.8; 13.14-19. However, this advice would generally be termed 'the word of YHWH' (mrr nm) rather than 'counsel' (nxr). 63. D'tfi'ptfn follows the kethib, cf. 1 Chron. 12.4; the qere reads D'ti^on, 'the captains', which is not substantially different. I added
2. Prophetic Speeches
109
Peace belongs to you and peace belongs to those who help you! Indeed, your God help you!'
This short poem has been described as a 'blessing' for David and his allies, that is, 'those who help David' .M But it is more than that. Amasai is responding to David's query about the loyalty of those who had come to him (1 Chron. 12.18). This context shows that Amasai both pledges to help David and exhorts his comrades to follow David. In the broader context, the speech demonstrates the accumulating support for David's rise to kingship in 1 Chronicles 11-12.1 have not followed the Masoretic division of this poem:65 •puft m'Ttfi -p nftti cfya II 'tzrp "[Qjn TIT -ft [We are ?] yours O David, and with you, O Jesse! Peace, peace be to you and peace to those who help you!
The Masoretic syntax creates two problems: there is no subject for the first verset and there is a peculiar double repetition of m^o, 'peace', in the second verset.66 The LXX tries to solve this problem with its reading, Tcopevoi) KOCI 6 A,oco<; ooi) 5ai>l5 -uibq iooaaou, which suggests that the translator read the text as ^y\ TYI ifr. While such a reading solves the immediate problem, the newly vocalized text makes little sense and should be rejected. Alternatively, many scholars insert a subject. For instance, Rudolph suggests 'that ii'ps has dropped out and should be inserted between "p and Til.67 This emendation is inferred from the context. 'All of us are yours, O David' would be a proper response to David's question to the men of Benjamin, namely, whether they are to betray David to his foes (v. 18). However, there is no textual basis for such an emendation. A simpler solution is to divide the first and second verset after the first 'peace' (D'frto). This gives the first verset a suitable 64. The division of this short poem into an 'affinity saying', a 'blessing' and an 'assistance formula' by de Vries in his form-critical commentary seems to overburden this poor little poem (de Vries, Chronicles, pp. 129-31). 65. This theme is emphasized by H.G.M. Williamson, '"We are yours, O David": The Setting and Purpose of 1 Chronicles xii 1-23', OTS 21 (1981), pp. 16476.1 agree with Williamson (against Rudolph and Noth) that these verses are the Chronicler's own composition and not a later addition; see Williamson's discussion. 66. The Masoretic division may be influenced by the double repetition of D^o elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (for example, Isa. 26.3; 57.19; Jer. 6.14; 8.11). However, none of these contexts elucidates 1 Chron. 12.19. 67. Chronikbucher, p. 106; see also Williamson, Chronicles, p. 108.
110
The Word of God in Transition
subject and avoids the awkward repetition of 'peace' in the second verset. Moreover, the phrase 'peace to you' (~p ni^tf) is good biblical Hebrew. For example, in the 'priestly blessing' from Num. 6.26 we read, 'May YHWH set his face upon you and give peace to you'.68 Perhaps Amasai' s blessing finds a parallel in the tripartite blessing of peace which David sends to Nabal in 1 Sam. 25.6: Peace to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have.
This blessing shows that a tripartite structure was a standard formula and strengthens my proposal for the division of 1 Chron. 12.19. The blessing is prefaced by a 'possession formula', stating that the spirit enveloped Amasai. As was pointed out above, this possession formula is not typical of the classical biblical prophets. This instance may best be described as ad hoc prophetic inspiration and the possession formula compared to the 'possession formulas' used for Othniel, Gideon and Jephthah (Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 1 1.29). In each of these cases, an essen tially military hero has the spirit come upon him which 'inspires' an act of bravery resulting in the hero's ascendancy to leadership. Similarly, Amasai is a military hero who is pledging his loyalty to fight for David. However, the resemblance ends there. It is not Amasai, but David who ascends to leadership. The spirit comes upon Amasai and he delivers an inspired poetic blessing for David and David's kingship. In Judges, the spirit coming upon a person never precedes the delivering of any oracle. In this case, the juxtaposing of the inspiration formula and the speech indicates that the spirit rushing upon Amasai inspired the speech. The audience of Amasai' s speech is apparently both David and all the people. No particular audience is explicitly mentioned by the narrator. Nevertheless, in its narrative context Amasai's speech serves to encourage the people to help David become king. 1 Chronicles 11-12 legitimates David's rule through both prophetic oracle and popular support. Accordingly, in the beginning of the narrative unit 'all Israel was gathered to David' (11.1) and at the end of the unit, all the people come 'to turn over the kingdom of Saul to him by the mouth of YHWH' (12.24). Contextually, Amasai's speech is not only an acclamation of David but 68. Hebrew, DI'PD y? ofen y^R VJB mrr RBT. Cf. also Judg. 6.23; 19.20; 1 Sam. 20.21. The Masoretic division was perhaps influenced by the oft-quoted phrase Dibcz? j'Ri ni'ro ubti, 'peace, peace, but there is no peace' (Jer. 6.14; 8.11), where ci'ro DI^O is taken as a single phrase.
2. Prophetic Speeches
111
also an exhortation to the people to help David become king. The Chronicler carefully crafts the immediate context of the speech using the verb 'to help' OV/ITU) as a leitmotif.69 In v. 18 David asks, 'Have you come to help me?' The speech of Amasai then says that blessed are 'those who help David', affirming his intentions to David and exhorting the others to help David as well. Amasai's speech has immediate results (vv. 22-23): 'They helped David against raiding bands and...day after day they came to help David until he had a large army like the camp of God'. The strong affirmation of David in 1 Chron. 12.19 contrasts with the rejection of David voiced during the rebellion of Jeroboam in 2 Chron. 10.16.70 What portion have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. Each of you to your tents, O Israel! Now look to your own house, David.
Both passages employ the parallelism of David and 'the son of Jesse'. The statement 'To your tents, O Israel! Now look to your own house, 0 David' is an expression of hostility towards David which may be contrasted to 'Peace is with those who help you; indeed, your God helps you'. Just as 2 Chron. 10.16 exhorts all Israel to go to their own tents, 1 Chron. 12.19 exhorts Israel to follow David. The strong affirmation expressed by Amasai contrasts with the twice-repeated rejection of David in the Deuteronomistic History. The second rejection at the time of the division of the kingdom has a direct parallel in Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron. 10.16 with 1 Kgs 12.16). However, Chronicles omits the first rejection which comes at the time of Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 20.1). Amasai's prophetically inspired affirmation of David then contrasts with the derisive words of those whose chose not 'to help David'. In sum, Amasai is inspired by the spirit, but the purpose of his speech differs markedly from the speeches discussed thus far. This speech is an 69. Williamson has shown that the narrative is composed of units which illustrate accumulating support for David's elevation to the throne: Chronicles, pp. 104-106; '"We are yours, O David'", pp. 164-76. Williamson and A. Zeron (The Helpers of David in 1 Chron. 12.1-22', Tarbiz 46 [1976-77], pp. 8-16 [Hebrew]) emphasize the importance of the verbal root Vita in the Chronicler's composition. 70. See Williamson, '"We are Yours, O David'", pp. 172-73; Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 55. Williamson also suggests comparisons with 2 Sam. 20.1.
112
The Word of God in Transition
acclamation of the prophetic word to the house of David and an exhortation to the people to help make David king. Azariah (the High Priest?), Son of Oded, to All Judah (2 Chronicles 15.1-7) 1 Then the spirit of God came upon Azariah, son of Oded, 2 and he went out before Asa and he said to him, 'Listen to me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! YHWH is with you while you are with him. And if you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he shall forsake you. 3 Now for a long time Israel was without a true God, without a teaching priest, and without Torah. 4 But in distress, [Israel] returned to YHWH, God of Israel, and sought him, and he was found by them. 5 In those times, there was no peace for the wayfarer because there was great tumult among all the inhabitants of the earth. 6 Nation was crushed by nation, city by city, because God threw them into confusion with every kind of trouble. 7 Now, be strong! Do not be disheartened, because there is a reward for your labor.' 8 And when Asa heard these words and the prophecy Oded the prophet,71 he was encouraged...
Azariah's speech has been described as a 'sermon' by Simon de Vries.72 The closing verse of the speech in particular confirms this analysis since it uses subjunctive verbs as an exhortation to action. The notion of exhortation is usually associated with sermons and gives the speech its 'sermonic' quality.73 71. The phrase «'33n TTJ> mraDm, 'and the prophecy Oded the prophet [sic]', is problematic since in v. 1 Azariah is named as the speaker. The syntax of the verse should properly be K'33n TIB nKDJi, 'and the prophecy of Oded the prophet', with n«i33 in the construct (cf. 2 Chron. 9.29). Thus, it is clear that at least 'Oded the prophet' is a latter gloss. In fact, the entire phrase might be regarded as a secondary addition since the noun rwiajn, 'prophecy', occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Neh. 6.12 and thus seems suspicious in this context. See the discussion of the identity of Azariah in Chapter 1, 'possession formulas'. 72. Chronicles, pp. 300-301. 73. This description of the speeches in Chronicles as 'sermons' was advanced by von Rad, 'The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles'. Mason agrees that the speech has a 'sermonic' quality but does not support von Rad's isolation of the 'Levitical Sermon' as a Gattung: Preaching the Tradition, pp. 45-46. In fact, most of von Rad's examples have only small parts of his full sermon form so it is difficult to justify a full-blown Gattung as von Rad has done; see critique by Mathias, '"Levitische Predigt" und Deuteronomismus', pp. 23-49. Yet, as Mason points out, von Rad was correct in seeing aspects of sermons in these speeches, even if there is not enough evidence to construct a full Gattung; see 'Some Echoes of the Preaching
2. Prophetic Speeches
113
The tenses of Azariah's speech may be contrasted to those of the prophet Shemaiah's speech. Although both the prophet Shemaiah and Azariah use the term 'to forsake' to express the retributive principle 'measure for measure', Shemaiah's speech expresses the principle using the simple past tense, 'you have forsaken me, now I have forsaken you into the hand of Shishak' (2 Chron. 12.5); on the other hand, the speech of Azariah is expressed in the imperfect used as a timeless subjunctive, 'if you forsake him, he shall forsake you'. The prophet Shemaiah's speech is recorded as description of a past event, whereas Azariah's speech is warning and exhortation. The speech employs historical reminiscence to exhort the people. Azariah makes a vague reference to the past—'a long time' (trm D-Q-)— which is used to exhort the people. Azariah's reference to a past situation in which there was 'no true God, no teaching priest, and no Torah' was undoubtedly meant to contrast with what Azariah hopes the present will be. Indeed, Azariah implicitly suggests that his speech serves the function of the teaching priest who is instructing the people in Torah so that they acknowledge the 'true God'. A connection between the past and the present is made at the end of the speech using a casus pendens which opens v. 7: 'Now, as for you, be strong!' Azariah's use of historical illustration may be contrasted with the seer Hanani's (2 Chron. 16.79, see above). Hanani does not exhort Asa. Rather, he uses a historical illustration (the battle with the Cushites) to condemn the king's foolish lack of trust in YHWH. Historical reminiscence is in fact characteristic of the Chronicler's speeches, although the purpose of historical illustrations can vary. Azariah speaks to all the people. His speech is introduced by a formal naming of those whom he is addressing: 'Asa and all Judah and Benjamin' (v. 2). Furthermore, the injunctions are all given the plural, for example 'hear me Cnynso)' (v. 2), 'do not be disheartened (DD-T isi-"^)' (v. 7). Although Azariah 'goes out before Asa', his address is to all the people. The king is only a representative of all the people. We may contrast the seer Hanani who comes to King Asa and addresses the king alone or the seer Jehu who goes out to meet Jehoshaphat 'face to face (virtu ten)'. Rex Mason calls the possession formula which prefaces Azariah's speech 'a prophetic-type phrase'.74 However, as was pointed out in in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', pp. 221-35. 74. Preaching the Tradition, p. 46.
114
The Word of God in Transition
Chapter 1, the possession formulas which describe the spirit coming upon an individual are not characteristic of classical biblical prophecy. Rather, the possession formulas either inspire military actions of tribal leaders such as the 'judges' or the irregular prophetic activities of false prophets and foreign prophets. In this case, ad hoc prophetic inspiration moves Azariah to go out and meet Asa and to exhort all the people to be steadfast in their cultic reforms. Azariah's exhortation calls for cultic reform. The speech precipitates the cultic reform which immediately follows, 'When Asa heard these words...he took courage and removed the abominations from all the land of Judah' (v. 8). The reform was not limited to the king either, since 'all the people...entered into a covenant to worship YHWH' (vv. 9, 12). There are rich allusions to prophetic language within Azariah's speech. As Michael Fishbane observes, 'the piece opens and closes (vv. 2, 7) with echoes of exhortations known from earlier sources'.75 Fishbane cites allusions in the speech to Amos 3.17 (cf. v. 5b) and Hos. 3.4 (cf. v. 3) and he compares 2 Chron. 15.2-4 with Deut. 4.29-30: A striking parallel occurs in Deut. 4.29-30, a passage also of post-exilic origin, where the Israelites are told that if they beseech (ubiqkashtem) and seek (tidreshenii) YHWH and repent (veshabta, 'turn') in distress (batzar), He will be present to them (umetza'ukha).76
Although this is not a simple citation, the Chronicler 'verbalizes older language for the sake of the reappropriation of the tradition'.77 Other prophetic language also rings out in Azariah's speech. As Rex Mason has emphasized, vv. 4-7 can be closely associated with a prophecy in Zech. 8.9-11:78 9 Thus says YHWH of Hosts, "Let your hands be strong, you who hear in these days these words from the mouth of the prophets who had founded the house of YHWH of Hosts, the temple which was to be built. 10 Indeed, before those days there was a reward for neither man nor beast. And for him who went out and came in there was no peace from 75. The Garments of Torah, p. 15. Also see idem, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 388-92. 76. The Garments of Torah, p. 15. The significance of Deut. 4 to the Chronicler is underscored by use of motifs from Deut. 4.30 and 39 in the Manasseh narrative (2 Chron. 33.12-13); see my discussion, The Source Citations of Manasseh', pp. 452-53. 77. The Garments of Torah, p. 16. 78. Mason, Preaching the Tradition, pp. 49-51.
2. Prophetic Speeches
115
distress, and / set each man against his neighbor. 11 And now I shall not be to this people as I was in the former days'—declares YHWH of Hosts.
Although there are sufficient differences to suggest that the Chronicler was not directly borrowing, the similarities in language (indicated by italics) portend a strong influence. In particular, we may note the terms and phrases 'there is no peace', 'reward', 'distress' and 'for him who went and and came in'. In addition, the notions of 'in those days' and 'enmity man against his neighbor' in Zechariah are similar to 'in those times' and 'enmity of nation against nation' in Chronicles, although the exact expressions differ. The expression 'let your hands be strong [that is, take courage]' (to'T rnpinn) in Zechariah directly contrasts with the expression 'do not let your hands droop [that is, be disheartened]' (DD'T IDT-^K) in 2 Chron. 15.7. It is clear then that the Chronicler was heavily influenced by the language and motifs known from Zechariah. Chronicles' similarity to Zechariah is especially significant here since Zechariah evidences a periodization of history. It uses 'former days' to refer to the period of the first temple and the time of the 'former prophets' (cf. Zech. 1.4; 7.7), the period described in the books of Chronicles (1 Chron. 10-2 Chron. 36). We might then assume that the Chronicler held similar notions of the 'former days' and the 'former prophets', or at the very least that he was well aware of these notions. Again, this speech differs markedly from the prophetic speeches discussed in the previous section. The speech of Azariah is scripturally oriented. The inspiration formula authorizes both the exhortation of the people and the reappropriation of prophetic language and motifs from Deuteronomy, Amos, Hosea and Zechariah.79 Jahaziel, the Levite, to AUJudah (2 Chronicles 20.14-17) 14 And the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mathaniah, the Levite from the sons of Asa, in the midst of the assembly, 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah, Jerusalemites, and king Jehoshaphat! Thus YHWH has said to you that you should not be afraid and should not be dismayed before this great
79. Here we should hear the cautions of Michael Fishbane. He writes: 'The strategic subordination of the human exegetical voice to divine revelation in the Hebrew Bible should not, however, be regarded as a case of pious fraud or political manipulation of old sources. Rather we should recognize the inevitable preeminence of the divine voice in biblical culture . . . ' (The Garments ofTorah, p. 17).
116
The Word of God in Transition multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's. 16 Fall upon them tomorrow. They will be coming up the Ascent of Ziz and you shall find them at the end of the wadi towards80 the Jeruel steppeland. 17 It is not for you to fight in this, stand by, wait, and see the salvation of YHWH in your behalf! O Judah and Jerusalem, do not fear and do not be dismayed; tomorrow, go forth against them and YHWH will be with you.'
The occasion for this speech is a report of an attack on Judah's eastern flank by the Ammonites, Edomites and Moabites (20.1-2). Jehoshaphat first prays to God before the people for help in the battle (vv. 5-13), then Jahaziel exhorts the people to 'stand and see the salvation of YHWH' and finally, Jehoshaphat gives a short speech of encouragement just preceding the battle and he sets up singers before the army (vv. 2022). The audience of the speech is 'all Judah, the Jerusalemites and the king'. This tripartite phrase was a stereotypical way of saying 'everyone'.81 The speech has a very public audience since the inspiration comes upon Jahaziel 'in the midst of the whole assembly'. The purpose of the Levite's message is to encourage the people to stand firm in their faith, as suggested in the phrase 'do not be afraid'.82 As has been pointed out in Chapter 1, the inspiration formula 'the spirit of YHWH came upon ...' is not typical of classical biblical prophecy. Thus, exception must be taken to D.L. Peterson's statement: the 'spirit of YHWH' descends upon Jahaziel. This is, as Mowinckel has argued, a paradigmatic way of denoting prophetic authority in pre- and post-classical descriptions of prophetic activity. Jahaziel is a prophet because he has received YHWH's spirit.83
As I pointed out in Chapter 1, the spirit is not a paradigmatic way of denoting prophetic authority for the classical prophets. Mowinckel actually writes that the canonical prophets 'regard possession by the spirit as something undesirable, and attribute their own consciousness of a vocation to a different cause'.84 Thus, Petersen's conclusion that 80. Cf. A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebrdischen Bibel, VII (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914), p. 367. 81. Cf. 2 Kgs 23.2; Jer. 17.20. 82. On this phrase in the salvation oracles, see A. Schoors, I am God your Saviour (Leiden: Brill, 1973). 83. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 73. Petersen is apparently referring to Mowinckel's article, The "Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets'. 84. The "Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets', p. 200.
2. Prophetic Speeches
117
Jahaziel is a prophet in the tradition of the classical prophets is incorrect. The Chronicler provides a long pedigree for Jahaziel, apparently to make the point that he is a levitical singer. Divine inspiration characterized the leaders of the levitical singers (Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun) according to the Chronicler (1 Chron. 25.1-6; see further discussion in Chapter 4). This need not imply that Jahaziel was considered a prophet. The Chronicler's intent in tracing Jahaziel's lineage back to Asaph is to legitimate his claim to divine inspiration, not to make Jahaziel a prophet. Jahaziel's speech is a patchwork of quotations from and allusions to traditional sources. Williamson compares the speech, an oracle of salvation, with Isa. 41.8-13.85 The Chronicler's language also echoes the claim 'the battle belongs to YHWH' in 1 Sam. 17.47 and Exod. 14.13. Exod. 14.13 seems to provide the paradigm for the war against Moab. Just as YHWH fights for Israel at the Red Sea against the Egyptians, so also YHWH fights for Israel at the Dead Sea against the Moabite coalition. The command of Jahaziel echoes the command of Moses in Exod. 14.13-14: 13 And Moses said to the people, 'Do not fear! Stand and see the salvation of YHWH which he shall perform for you today. For the Egyptians which you see today you shall no longer see ever again. 14 YHWH shall fight for you and you shall be silent.'
Italics indicate the correspondences between Moses' and Jahaziel's speeches. Both speeches also promise that YHWH will fight for Israel (cf. 2 Chron. 20.15b with Exod. 14.14). But the closest correspondence is in the command 'Stand and see the salvation of YHWH' which recalls Jahaziel's command, 'stand by, wait, and see the salvation of YHWH' (mrr ninar-fiN iim noi? •njrnn). The close verbal similarity suggests that Exodus 14 may have served as the primary model for Jahaziel's speech. The phrases 'do not fear and do not be dismayed' and 'the Lord is with you' are also reminiscent of Joshua 1 and are typical of the salvation oracles.86 The form of this passage presents an immediate problem for the exegete. As Rex Mason notes, the Levite Jahaziel's speech begins with a call to attention which characterizes the royal proclamations and this is Mowinckel writes that it was a surprising conclusion to him that the classical prophets were not inspired by the 'spirit of Yahweh'. This is the whole point of his essay. 85. Chronicles, p. 298. 86. See Schoors, / am God your Saviour.
118
The Word of God in Transition
followed by the introduction of a prophetic word with the messenger formula.87 However, the use of the messenger formula is peculiar (as was pointed out in Chapter 1). In classical Hebrew, the messenger formula employs first-person speech since it is used for direct reporting of YHWH's speech. However, Jahaziel's speech is in the third person.88 Although a messenger formula prefaces Jahaziel's speech, the human voice is not subordinated to the divine voice. Yet Jahaziel's message draws upon the 'divine word', namely, traditional sources. Jahaziel's speech is essentially a human exegetical voice empowered and authorized by God by the use of inspiration formulas. Jahaziel's speech may be compared to Azariah's speech in 2 Chronicles 15. Both speeches use the possession formulas which claim divine authority for their messages. Both speeches depend heavily upon 'canonical' texts for an exhortation of the people. Both speeches are essentially exegesis and the inspiration formulas apparently authorize the exegetical reuse of earlier traditions. These texts do not interpret events, they encourage and exhort.89 Zechariah, the Priest, to the People (2 Chronicles 24.17-22) 17 After the death of Jehoiada, the officers of Judah came, bowing down to the king, then he listened to them. 18 And they forsook the house of YHWH, the God of their fathers, and they served the sacred poles and the idols and there was wrath upon Judah and Jerusalem because of this guilt. 19 And [God] sent prophets to make them turn back to YHWH and they 87. Preaching the Tradition, p. 64. Also see de Vries, 'Prophetic Address in Chronicles', pp. 27-28. 88. See further discussion of 'Messenger Formulas' in Chapter 1. The normal formula is simply mrr ~IDK ro (for example, 2 Chron. 12.5), but the formula here reads CD"? mrr "in« ro. The addition of the phrase 'to you', CD1?, is an anomaly in the formula. The identification of the audience is unwarranted in the messenger formula because the audience is always those whom the speaker is addressing. The LXX was also aware of the problem and translated the phrase emphatically: 'And thus the Lord says to you yourselves'. However, this attempt to solve the problem does not redress the unusual prepositional phrase following the messenger formula. 89. Contra de Vries who suggests that the 'aphoristic statement, "the battle is not yours but God's" (v. 15), followed by the instruction, "see the victory of Yahweh on your behalf, and the assistance formula, "YHWH will be with you" (v. 17), summarizes and interprets the entire artificial holy-war narrative' (The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', p. 33, emphasis added). Yet all these statements encourage and exhort. They do not summarize and interpret.
2. Prophetic Speeches
119
testified against them, but they did not hear. 20 Then the spirit of God enveloped Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, the priest, and he stood up above the people and said to them, 'Thus God has said, Why do you transgress the commandments of YHWH? You shall not prosper, because you have forsaken YHWH, he has forsaken you.' 21 Then they conspired against [Zechariah] and they stoned him at the command of the king in the court of the house of YHWH. 22 King Joash did not remember the loyalty which Jehoiada his father had shown him and he killed his son, but when [Zechariah] died he said, 'may YHWH see and exact justice!'
The unit begins by marking the death of Jehoiada, an event which becomes a focal point of the drama which ensues. Zechariah is the son of Jehoiada and Joash forgot not only the commandments of God, but also his loyalty to Jehoiada. The structure of the unit may be divided into two parts. The first part (vv. 17-19) is a narrative which explains when and why Judah forsook God and then God's response, that is, 'he sent nebi'im to make them repent'.90 The second part (vv. 20-22) is the encounter between Zechariah and the people. The verb 'to forsake' ties Zechariah's speech to the narrative introduction (v. 18). The people are the specific audience of Zechariah's speech, just as we have seen in the previous two speeches. The king remains in the background. The people stone Zechariah, although it is the king who gives the order to stone him (v. 21b). Zechariah's speech goads the king who allows the people to stone the priest. The audience may be compared with Jahaziel's speech where he is 'in the midst of the whole assembly' (bnpn -pm, 2 Chron. 20.14). Zechariah stands up 'above the people' (uv^ *7j;D, v. 20). This seems to emphasize that both Jahaziel and Zechariah were speaking to all the people. This contrasts sharply with figures who are given prophetic titles and speak to the king alone. Zechariah is inspired by the spirit and prefaces his speech with a messenger formula. As has been pointed out already, the possession formula is not typical of classical biblical prophecy. In addition, the use of the third person voice—instead of the first person—following the messenger formula is also unexpected: 'Why do you transgress the commandments of YHWHT and 'You have forsaken YHWH...' instead of 'my commandments' and 'You have forsaken me' (cf. 2 Chron. 12.5). Although the messenger formula itself is typical of classical prophecy, its use is 90. Mason argues that this does not indicate a sudden burst in prophetic activity during Joash's reign but rather is intended as a general comment on the entire history of Israel (Preaching the Tradition, p. 81).
120
The Word of God in Transition
atypical. Thus, in the same speech we see elements of both continuity and discontinuity with classical prophetic models. The message repeats the retribution dogma of the Chronicler expressed frequently elsewhere. The measure for measure doctrine— Israel forsakes YHWH and YHWH forsakes Israel—is typical prophetic language, as seen above.91 Zechariah's speech is first an appeal to the 'commandments of YHWH', that is, Torah.92 The specific accusation is cultic infidelity: 'Why do you transgress the commandments of YHWH?' This is appropriate for a priestly message since the priest was a teacher of the law (cf. 2 Chron. 15.3). Throughout the books of Chronicles we see the importance of Torah and the 'commandments' (see discussion of the 'word of YHWH' in Chapter 3). Zechariah's appeal to Torah is 'inspired' by the spirit of God and authorized by the claim 'thus says YHWH'. Although no specific canonical texts are explicitly cited, Zechariah's appeal to 'the commandments of YHWH' is implicitly a reference to traditional sources, and most likely the Mosaic Law. In this respect then, Zechariah may be compared with Azariah and Jahaziel. Zechariah is inspired by the spirit and recalls traditional sources in his exhortation to the people. Pharaoh Neco to Josiah (2 Chronicles 35.20-22; cf. 2 Kings 23.29-30) 20 After all this which Josiah did establishing the temple, Neco the king of Egypt came up to wage war at Carchemish on the Euphrates and Josiah went out to meet him. 21 [Neco] sent messengers to Josiah saying, 'What do we have to do with each other, O king of Judah? I am not going against you93 today but against the kingdom which is fighting me.94 91. Cf. 1 Chron. 22.11, 13; 2 Chron. 7.11; 13.12; 20.20; 26.5; 31.21; 32.30 on 'prospering' and 2 Chron. 15.2 on 'forsaking'. The measure for measure punishment is typical of prophetic literature; see Miller, Sin and Judgement in the Prophets. 92. For the term mrr msn refering to Torah, see Lev. 4.2, 13, 22, 27; 5.17; Num. 15.39; Deut. 4.2; 6.17; 8.6; 10.13; 11.27, 28; 28.9, 13; Josh. 22.3; Judg. 2.17; 3.4; 1 Sam. 13.13; 1 Kgs 18.18; 2 Kgs 17.16, 19; Ps. 19.9; Ezra 7.11; Neh. 10.30; 1 Chron. 28.8. 93. The LXX apparently also reads nn« as a verb, Most scholars revocalize nn«, 'you', as nri« from VTIK, 'to come' (see Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 330; Michaeli, Chroniques, p. 241; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 518; Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 117). 94. The phrase 'nqn'pD rra ^ '? is awkward. I agree with Rudolph that rra must refer to the 'house of the king of Babylon', but there is no textual support for his
2. Prophetic Speeches
121
Moreover, God has told me to hurry. Stop resisting God who is with me so that he will not destroy you.' 22 But Josiah did not turn his face from him. Indeed, he arrayed himself to wage war against him and did not listen to the words of Neco which were from the mouth of God. And he fought him in the plain of Megiddo.
The quagmire surrounding Josiah's death begins in the book of Kings. The death of the pious king is sudden and unexplained in Kings. Moreover, the ill-fated king's death is in apparent contradiction with Huldah's prophecy in 2 Kgs 22.20: 'Therefore, I will gather you to your fathers and you will be laid in your tomb in peace...' The Chronicler, while he does not reconcile Huldah's prophecy with Josiah's violent death, does attempt to explain Josiah's death in 2 Chron. 35.21-22. Pharaoh's speech to Josiah suggests that God is with Pharaoh and resisting Pharaoh is, by implication, resisting God. The narrator underscores the divine authority of Pharaoh's message to Josiah: '[Josiah] did not listen to the words of Neco which were from the mouth of God' .95 The Chronicler gives Pharaoh the role of a prophetic messenger, a role which became an enigma for later interpreters. A slight revision of this passage is reflected in 1 Esd. 1.26. There, Josiah does not disobey 'the words of Neco from the mouth of God', but rather 'the word of the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord' (pTjuaoiv lepeuio-u 7cpo(pf|Toi) EK aTOnaTO<; icupioD). The Targum tradition explains Josiah's death in another way, claiming that Josiah died 'because he did not seek instruction from the Lord' (2 Chron. 3S.23).96 These differences reflect the sensitivities of later interpreters. It need not be assumed that the Chronicler implicitly conferred the prophetic office on the Egyptian pharaoh merely because Pharaoh assumption that ^33 f^n, 'the king of Babylon', has dropped out (Chronikbiicher, p. 330). 95. Cf. 2 Chron. 36.12. Note that 1 Esd. 1.28 reads, 'Josiah disregarded what the Lord had said through the prophet Jeremiah and joined battle with Pharaoh in the plain of Megiddo'. Josephus follows 1 Esdras in this tradition. On the death of Josiah see H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History', VT 32 (1982), pp. 242-47; C. Begg, 'The Death of Josiah in Chronicles: Another View', VT 37 (1987), pp. 1-8; and Williamson's reply, 'Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C.T. Begg', VT 37 (1987), pp. 9-15. See the comments by M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 284, 300-302; S.B. Frost, 'A Conspiracy of Silence', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 369-82. 96. Aramaic,
122
The Word of God in Transition
claimed that God spoke to him. The Chronicler apparently felt that Pharaoh could receive the word of God. Although some later interpreters were anxious that Pharaoh not be construed as a prophet, this was not the belief of the Chronicler. The audience of the speech is Josiah. The communication is from peer to peer, from a pharaoh to a king. Pharaoh serves in the role of warning and exhortation. It is easy to see that Pharaoh warns Josiah, but he also exhorts Josiah. Pharaoh says, 'Stop resisting God!' The use of the imperative is in the mood of an exhortation though it also functions as a warning. Notably, the use of the imperative mood here compares with the other messenger speeches by Amasai, Azariah and Jahaziel. The exhortation to stop resisting God is the negative counterpart to the other inspired messengers' exhortations to trust in God. Summary The most obvious formal difference between the speeches of the prophets and other inspired messengers is the audience which is addressed. The inspired messengers address the people. The prophets address themselves to the king. The Levite Jahaziel and the priest Zechariah specifically direct their speeches to all the people. The speech of Amasai is both a blessing for David (before he became king) and an exhortation for the soldiers to follow David. The speech of Azariah in 2 Chron. 15.1-7 is directed to all Judah. Although Azariah's title is not specified, following genealogical evidence I have suggested that Azariah was a high priest.97 Form-critical similarities between Azariah's speech and those of Jahaziel and Zechariah only serve to support this suggestion. The speech of Pharaoh is naturally addressed to his peer, King Josiah. On the other hand, the prophets uniformly address the king with the exception of Oded, a northern prophet who had no legitimate king to address (2 Chron. 13.4-12). The differences between the prophets and the messengers are illustrated in the following chart:
97. See Chapter 1 section 2, 'Possession Formulas'.
123
2. Prophetic Speeches PROPHETS Audience
Name
Reference
Shemaiah
2 Chron. 12.5, 7 nabi'
king, officers
Hanani Jehu Eliezer
2 Chron. 16.7 2 Chron. 19.1 2 Chron. 20.37
king king king
Elijah Anonymous Anonymous Oded
2 Chron. 21.12 2 Chron. 25.7 2 Chron. 25.15 2 Chron. 28.9
Title
Inspiration Formulas
thus says YHWH; the word of YHWH came to none ro'eh hozeh none nabi' he acted as a prophet thus says YHWH nabi' man of God none nabi' none none nabi'
king king king northern army
INSPIRED MESSENGERS Amasai Azariah Jahaziel
Zechariah
Neco
1 Chron. 12.19 officer 2 Chron. 15.1 none
spirit enveloped the spirit of God was upon him 2 Chron. 20.14 Levite the spirit of YHWH was upon him; spirit enveloped the spirit of God 2 Chron. 24.20 priest enveloped; thus says God 2 Chron. 35.21 pharaohof and God said
David allJudah all Judah
people
king
Egypt Although the chart does not evidence a systematic reflection upon the roles of the prophet and the inspired messenger, it nevertheless demonstrates a great degree of coherence. Speakers with prophetic titles usually address themselves to the king and do not have inspiration formulas prefacing their speeches. Speakers without prophetic titles generally address themselves to the people and have possession formulas prefacing their speeches. The deviations from this pattern can be understood within their narrative context and by the Chronicler's compositional techniques. The results of this study of prophetic speeches necessitate a reevaluation of Claus Westermann's conclusions concerning the form of the prophetic speeches in Chronicles: The astonishing thing now is that all of these speeches, with one exception (ch. 24.20), are actually prophetic speeches directed to the king! This
124
The Word of God in Transition shows that the unity of function and form of the JI [Judgment Speech to Individuals] has been preserved all the way down to the work of the Chronicler.98
Westermann is correct in noticing that the prophetic speeches are directed at the king, but the speeches by other inspired messengers (the second group in the above chart) only include the king as a part of 'all Judah', whereas the speeches by prophets (the first group) are directed at the king alone. Moreover, from the context of 2 Chron. 15.1 and 20.14, it is apparent that the king is only included as the most prominent member of 'all Judah'. The high priest Azariah's speech to the king Uzziah is relevant to the discussion of audience, even though Azariah's speech is not prefaced by an inspiration formula. Azariah along with 80 priests confront Uzziah when the king tries to usurp the priestly office by offering incense in the temple (2 Chron. 26.18): It is not for you, Uzziah, to offer incense to YHWH, but for the Aaronite priests, who have been consecrated to offer incense. Get out of the sanctuary because you have transgressed and you will receive no glory from YHWH God.
The king's attempt to usurp the priestly duties prompts a confrontation between priest and king, rather than prophet and king. From the content of the message it is easy to see why no inspiration formula was deemed necessary. The priests express the view of priestly legislation known from Num. 18.1-4 and Exod. 30.7-10. Thus, the authority of their appeal is implicitly from Mosaic regulations. This appeal to Mosaic law explains why no inspiration formula prefaces the speech of Azariah, the high priest. The inspiration formulas represent a claim to the divine inspiration for the inspired messengers' speeches. However, the use of an inspiration formula does not imply that the speaker is a prophet. This is underscored by the fact that the Chronicler's most frequent inspiration formulas for speakers without prophetic titles are the possession 98. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 166. For Westermann, 'prophetic speeches' included the speeches which I have discussed under the rubric 'other inspired messengers'. Micheel also notes that 'Sie wenden sich mit ihrer Botschaft primar an den Konig' and she notes the exceptions of Zechariah (which Westermann also notes) and Oded (2 Chron. 28.9-11); Die Seher- und ProphetenUberlieferungen in der Chronik, p. 67. However, it is clear in the above chart and from a close analysis of the contexts that all the non-prophetic speakers address themselves primarily to the people as a whole and not to the king.
2. Prophetic Speeches
125
formulas. As we observed, in pre-exilic texts, the possession formulas are not used in classical biblical prophecy (see discussion of 'possession formulas' in Chapter 1). The use of inspiration formulas for non-prophets has a parallel at Mari." Robert Wilson notes that some of the oracular speakers at Mari had no particular title related to their revelatory activities. Wilson writes, The emphasis which the letters place on the means of divine-human communication suggests that nonprofessionals felt compelled to demonstrate the authority of their utterances so that they would be taken seriously by the society.100
We may assume that the use of inspiration formulas for speakers without prophetic titles served a similar function in Chronicles. What is interesting in the case of Chronicles is that the priestly or levitical title, in contrast to the prophetic title, was not deemed sufficient to prophesy. Thus, the priests' or Levites' words are prefaced by an inspiration formula emphasizing the divine-human interaction and thereby, we may assume, lending prophetic authority to the speech. On the other hand, the lack of inspiration formulas for most of the Chronicler's prophets indicates that the prophetic title conferred the authority necessary to speak on God's behalf. The inspired messengers serve in the roles of exhorting and warning the people. For instance, the speeches of Azariah and Jahaziel do not serve the function of interpreting and explaining, but rather exhorting and encouraging. Their messages are exhortations and marked by the use of imperative, jussive and subjunctive verbs. In the cases of Azariah and Jahaziel, they exhort the people. Ahaziah urges the people 'be strong and do not lose courage' (2 Chron. 15.7). Jahaziel encourages the assembly 'do not fear or be dismayed' (2 Chron. 20.15). Amasai's inspired pledge serves both as a blessing on David and an exhortation to follow David: 'peace to those who help David!' (1 Chron. 12.19). The chart given below juxtaposes the roles of the inspired messengers with those of the prophets (see above):
99. See Moran, 'New Evidence on the History of Prophecy', Bib 50 (1969), pp. 15-56. 100. Prophecy and Society, p. 108.
The Word of God in Transition
126
FUNCTIONS
PROPHETS Speaker
Title
Shemaiah Hanani Jehu Eliezer Elijah Anonymous Anonymous Oded
nabi' ro'eh hozeh nabi' nabi' man of God nabi' nabi'
INSPIRED MESSENGERS Amasai Azariah Jahaziel Zechariah Neco
soldier none Levite priest pharaoh
Interprets
Warns
Exhorts
secondary secondary
FUNCTIONS
secondary
By juxtaposing the inspired messengers (the second group) with the prophets (the first group) we can see that their roles differ markedly. Chronicles restricts the role of interpreting events to persons with prophetic titles and gives the role of encouraging and exhorting to persons without prophetic titles. The distinctions noted here are further supported by our observations (discussed above) concerning the audience of the speakers. The role of warning is shared by all speakers, prophetic and nonprophetic, native and foreign. Warning was not a strictly 'prophetic' role according to the books of Chronicles. Sara Japhet has overemphasized warning as a particularly 'prophetic role' in Chronicles.101 Japhet stresses the connection between Chronicles and rabbinic literature in this notion. The principle that 'a man cannot be punished unless he has been warned'102 is certainly operative in Chronicles; however, the role of 101. Most notably, Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, pp. 176-91. We have the doctrine of warning articulated in early Second Temple literature such as the book of Jubilees (1.12) where it is 'witnesses' (D'TJJ, cf. 4QJuba 1.2.12). It is also featured in Qumran literature; see L.H. Shiffman, 'Reproof as a Requisite for Punishment in the Law of the Qumran Literature (CD 9.2-8, 16-22; 1QS 5.25-6.1)', in B.S. Jackson (ed.), Jewish Law Association Studies II (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 59-74. 102. Cited by Japhet from Sifre to the portion Shofetim § 173. Cf. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 186.
2. Prophetic Speeches
127
warning was not limited to the prophets in rabbinic literature. Anyone could perform the role of warning according to the rabbis, and this was inevitably the case since the rabbis generally believed that the prophetic office had come to an end with the destruction of the first temple. In Chronicles, prophets are prominent in the narratives and thus the task of warning often falls upon the prophets (for example, 2 Chron. 24.19). However, the task of warning cannot be considered a characteristically prophetic role in Chronicles since many non-prophets function in this role (Pharaoh for Josiah, the high priest Azariah for Uzziah, and the priest Zechariah for the people). Speakers with and without prophetic titles not only address different audiences, but also serve different narrative functions. Prophets often give explanations for past or future events, functioning as interpreters of events. On the other hand, the non-prophet speakers serve primarily in the role of exhorting and encouraging. The prophets frequently give straightforward explanations of events. For instance, the nabi' Shemaiah explains to Rehoboam: 'because you forsook God, God forsook you into the hand of Shishak' (2 Chron. 12.5). Rosemarie Micheel in her study of the prophetic traditions writes, 'the words of the respective prophetic men explain and interpret events within the corresponding history of kings...'103 Prophets are called upon to answer questions of causality which the Deuteronomistic History left open. Thus, Shemaiah, Hanani and Eliezer answer the following questions: Why did Shishak attack Jerusalem? Why did Asa have wars even though he was apparently faithful to YHWH? Why did the shipping expedition of Jehoshaphat fail? To be sure, these questions could be answered without resort to the prophet's voice. For instance, the question of why the faithful king Uzziah got leprosy is answered by a story in which he usurps the authority of the priesthood by offering incense in the temple. The priest Azariah's condemnation of Uzziah does not rely upon any divine inspiration, but rather on an appeal to the Mosaic tradition (2 Chron. 26.18a). H.G.M. Williamson writes, The clear statement of the law functions with the same immediate authority as the word of the inspired
103. Die Seher- und Prophetischenuberlieferungen, p. 67. Micheel's analysis echoes Claus Westermann's classic study. Westermann writes, 'the real interest of the Chronicler in including the prophetic speeches was to give divine authority to his interpretation of history' (Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 166).
128
The Word of God in Transition
prophets elsewhere'.104 The inspired speech of the priest Zechariah also relies on an appeal to the law (2 Chron. 24.20): Then the spirit of God enveloped Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, the priest, and he stood up above the people and said to them, Thus God has said, Why do you transgress the commandments of YHWH? You shall not prosper, because you have forsaken YHWH, he has forsaken you.'
The 'commandments of YHWH' implicitly refer to the commandments of Moses. The priest's generic appeal to the Mosaic law is inspired by the 'spirit of God'. Thus, the priest implicitly claims dual authority: divine inspiration and the law. This dual authority of prophetic inspiration and law expresses itself in early Judaism as the oral and written law. There the oral law stands in a prophetic tradition alongside the written law (cf. m. Ab. 1.1). Another type of example in early Judaism is the 'Teacher of Righteousness' who is both the inspired interpreter of the law and the righteous priest. His adversary is both a false prophet and a wicked priest.105 We may surmise that the role of the prophet, closely associated with the king as it was, would not have been critical in the Chronicler's postexilic society. The role of the prophet depends, to a great extent, on the position of the king. In fact, Adam Welch suggests that 'prophecy, which made the kingdom possible and condemned it in the end, accompanied the institution throughout its course', and thus he concludes that the Chronicler 'belonged to a time when prophecy was on its death-bed, as an active force in the life of the nation'.106 However, Welch's conclusion is only partially accurate. There was indeed no role for the prophet in a society that had no king, that is, post-exilic Israel. Yet there was still a role for prophecy and ultimately for a 'prophetic' voice. Prophecy in Chronicles is not intrinsically associated with kingship. The Chronicler's other inspired speakers—whether priests, Levites or soldiers—address the people. The sharp distinction in the audiences of prophets and messengers leaves open the door to prophecy, if not prophets, in post-exilic Israel. In postbiblical literature 'prophecy' came to mean the inspired interpretation of texts.107 Jeffrey Tigay has suggested that 'contemporizing, 104. Chronicles, pp. 339-340. 105. For example, IQpHab 7.4-8 and 8.8-13. See Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', pp. 239-62. See further my concluding chapter. 106. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, pp. 43, 50. 107. Blenkinsopp discusses this under the rubrics of 'Scribal Prophecy' and
2. Prophetic Speeches
129
predictive or oracular use of the Bible constitutes one of the earliest significant types of Biblical exegesis. Evidence for this use begins to appear in the second century BCE.'108 Tigay points specifically to Daniel in his dating of the rise of biblical exegesis. However, Fishbane has shown quite conclusively (especially in his Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, but also in a series of earlier articles) that this kind of biblical exegesis in Daniel is only an extension of inner-biblical exegesis. In the speech of Jahaziel, for instance, we see the contemporizing of the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 14-15) so that under the inspiration of the spirit it becomes an oracular exhortation. The speeches of Amasai, Azariah, Jahaziel and Zechariah—the 'inspired messengers'—indicate that there was developing a new kind of prophetic voice in early post-exilic Judaism. This new voice was the inspired interpretation of authoritative texts which revitalized the word of God anew for the post-exilic community. Thus, the spirit of God envelops the priest Zechariah and inspires him to proclaim that the people have transgressed the 'commandments of YHWH'. The Levite Jahaziel delivers an inspired exhortation which relies on a florilegium of biblical texts. Azariah exhorts the people with an elaboration of Deuteronomy 4.109 In these cases, the human exegetical voice is inspired by the spirit of God. The speeches reappropriate tradition not only for the narrative, but also for the Chronicler's contemporary community. This reappropriation is authorized by the spirit of God which moves the human exegete (who is not called a 'prophet') to speak to the people. This type of transformation from classical prophetic forms into inspired interpretation is also indicated by the images of Ezekiel's swallowing the scroll, Zechariah's flying scroll, and Daniel's interpretation of the handwriting on the wall (cf. Ezek. 2.8-9; Zech. 5.1-4; Dan. 5.13-28). In this we begin to see a new kind of prophecy, namely, inspired interpretation of traditional texts. 'Clerical Prophecy' (Prophecy and Canon, pp. 128-38). 108. 'An Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis', in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), p. 174. 109. Michael Fishbane writes, 'tradition is often presented or represented as revelation. And so, from the viewpoint of how a new teaching is authorized, the intriguing issue is not just the interdependence of the two (i.e., how a new teaching uses the tradition) but the strategic subordination of the one to the other ...' (The Garments ofTorah, p. 17).
Chapter 3
THE 'WORD OF GOD' IN TRADITION
Chronicles transforms both the meaning and the form of the prophetic word. First of all, Chronicles resignifies the very term which classical prophecy uses for the prophetic word, that is the 'word of YHWH' (mrr -QT). No longer is the 'word of YHWH' simply the prophetic oracle; Chronicles now also uses the 'word of YHWH' to refer to 'the law of Moses' (man rnin). Chronicles not only expands the meaning of the term for the prophetic word, it also revises the words of prophecy themselves. The Chronicler actually alters and recontextualizes prophecies from Samuel-Kings. By reinterpreting the word of God, the Chronicler gives it new meaning in the context of his rewritten history of Israel. This reinterpretation and recontextualization of the word of God undoubtedly reflects the transition which took place in the sixth century BCE, a transition from a kingdom to a people. The Resignification of the 'Word of YHWH' A broadening conception of the word of YHWH accompanies the reuse and reinterpretation of prophecy in Chronicles. The word of YHWH is no longer just the spoken word of the prophets but also the written word of the scribes. Although the word of YHWH uniformly referred to the prophetic word in the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles brings new meaning to the term. The Use of the 'Word of YHWH' as the Prophetic Word The 'word of YHWH' is invariably a technical term for the prophetic word in classical Hebrew. The term occurs about 240 times in the Hebrew Bible.1 It is most frequently employed in stereotypical formulas 1. See O. Grether, Name and Wort Gottes im Alien Testament (BZAW, 64; Giessen: Topelmann, 1934), pp. 63-67, for the distribution of this phrase in the Old
3. The'Word of God'in Tradition
131
referring to the prophetic word. For instance, the formula 'and the word of YHWH came to [the prophet]' (...'TK mrr ~m TPI) occurs 112 times in the Hebrew Bible.2 Frequently, the 'word of YHWH' appears as part of a prophetic fulfillment formula, 'according to the word of YHWH (mrr -Q-O)'. YHWH's word could also be described as 'the word of his servant' (TDU -QT) or 'the word of the prophet' («-3]n -m).3 The words of the prophets were in fact the words of YHWH. In light of this, Oskar Grether correctly concluded, 'Debar jahwe is almost everywhere a technical term for the prophetic revelation'.4 Subsequent studies have agreed with his assessment and Gerhard von Rad writes, 'There can be, therefore, no doubt but that this collocation was used as a technical term for an oral prophetic revelation' .5 The 'Word of YHWH' Not Used as a Legal Term Biblical literature does not ordinarily use the 'word of YHWH' as a legal term. Not surprisingly, the phrase occurs only six times in the Pentateuch (Gen. 15.1, 4; Exod. 9.20, 21; Num. 15.31; Deut. 5.5). In some of these cases, the 'word of YHWH' refers unambiguously to the prophetic word. Genesis 15 employs the 'word of YHWH' in the classical intermediation formula, 'the word of YHWH came to...' (see Chapter 1). Exodus 9 employs the 'word of YHWH' in terms of obedience and disobedience to the prophetic word. On the other hand, in Num. 15.31 the 'word of YHWH' parallels the term 'commandment' (mxa) and it is clear that the 'word of YHWH' is used as a legal term. However, this case is exceptional. Testament; for example, 1 Sam. 15.10; 2 Sam. 7.4; 1 Kgs 6.11; 22.19; Isa. 28.13; 66.5; Jer. 1.2; Ezek. 12.1. The phrase D-n'pKmsi occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible. In 2 Sam. 16.23, it means 'the word of a god'; in 1 Kgs 12.22 it is synonymous with mmai (cf. 2 Chron. 11.2); in 1 Chron. 26.32 it means 'a divine matter' (//"[^on "at, 'a royal matter'). The phrase D'ifwai, without the definite article, occurs three times and refers to a divine revelation, perhaps through a dream (cf. 1 Chron. 17.3; also Judg. 3.20 and 1 Sam. 9.27). 2. See Grether, Name und Wort Gottes, pp. 67-68, for a complete listing of the occurrences and variations of this formula; for example, Gen. 15.1; 1 Sam. 15.10; 2 Sam. 7.4; 1 Kgs 6.11; Jer. 1.4; 2.1; 13.3; 14.1 ; Ezek. 1.3; 3.16; 6.1; 12.17; Jonah 1.1; 3.1; Hag. 2.10; Zech. 1.1; 4.8; 6.9; 7.1; Dan. 9.2; 2 Chron. 11.2; 12.7. 3. Isa. 44.26; Jer. 28.9. Also the plural, n-R'iun "m, Jer. 23.16; 1 Kgs 22.13. 4. Grether, Name und Wort Gottes, p. 76. 5. Von Rad, The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, p. 87; see also TDOT, III, pp. 111-16.
132
The Word of God in Transition
The 'word of YHWH' is conspicuous by its absence in wisdom literature. For instance, it does not appear in the Torah psalms. In fact, the 'word of YHWH' is omitted from the list of terms for the law in Ps. 19.8-10 which includes 'the torah of YHWH', 'the decrees of YHWH' (mrr mis), 'the precepts of YHWH' (mrr nips), 'the commandments of YHWH', 'the speech of YHWH' (mrr mn«),6 and 'the ordinances of YHWH' (mrr 'ostzto). The 'word of YHWH' is also wanting in Psalm 119, which is otherwise effuse in its use of terms for the law. If the 'word of YHWH' were a legal phrase, we would have expected it to be used in wisdom literature. This silence, when coupled with the frequent use of the 'word of YHWH' in the prophetic books, proves that the 'word of YHWH' was not ordinarily a legal phrase in biblical literature. The possibility that the 'word of YHWH' could be a legal phrase arises particularly from Deut. 5.5, the preface to the so-called 'Ten Commandments'. 7 The deuteronomic preface describes the 'commandments' as the 'word of YHWH'. This might imply that the 'word of YHWH' is a legal term in Deut. 5.5. Yet there is debate concerning the integrity, antiquity and import of this reading. The Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX and Peshitta suggest the reading 'words of YHWH'. Exod. 20.1, the preface to the 'Ten Commandments' in Exodus, supports these versions, reading, 'And God spoke all these words' (rfTKn ona-in-to). The MT reading in Deut. 5.5 probably resulted from haplography; in other words, an original 'words of YHWH' (mrr mn) became the 'word of YHWH' (mrr -m).8 Thus, it seems that 'the words of YHWH' is the better reading. In any case, the MT's reading the 'word of YHWH' highlights the role of Moses as prophet which Deuteronomy develops. It should be recalled that the Deuteronomic school considered Moses the prophet par excellence (Deut. 18.15; 34.10). In particular, Deut. 34.10 indicates the special role of Moses' Sinai revelation: 'And no other prophet like Moses arose in Israel who YHWH knew face to face'. The emphasis here on Moses' 'face to face' intimacy with YHWH recalls the Sinai revelation. This 'face to face' knowing of God was a terrible encounter which the Israelites 6. Reading mrr rnn« for mrr nto- following Ps. 119.38. 7. See the discussion in WOT, III, pp. 116-17 and the literature cited there. 8. Alternatively, the versions' readings may have arisen through dittography, especially since mrr ~ai would have appeared as a difficult reading. Yet mrr ~I3T does not appear elsewhere in Deuteronomy and in biblical literature it generally refers to the prophetic word.
3. The 'Word of God' in Tradition
133
shunned on the foot of the mountain and chose Moses as their representative.9 Deuteronomy associates Moses' 'face to face' intimacy with the receiving of the so-called 'Ten Commandments'. In Deut. 5.4-5 we read, 4 YHWH spoke with you face to face on the mountain from the fire. 5 I was standing between YHWH and you at that time to tell you the word of YHWH because you were afraid of the fire and did not ascend the mountain ...
Moses' recapitulation of that encounter (cf. Exod. 19; 20.19-20) prefaces the 'commandments'. The people refuse to ascend the mountain and Moses buffers the people, meeting with YHWH face to face. Verse 22 (ET 19) concludes the 'commandments', saying, These words YHWH spoke to your whole congregation at the mountain, a great voice from the midst of the smoking fire and cloud, and he wrote them on two stone tablets and he gave them to me.
The reference to 'these words' (n^sn nnann) in the conclusion here supports the versions reading in v. 5. The MT reading in Deut. 5.5 then probably resulted from haplography, but should not be seen as a purely mechanical error. The Deuteronomistic portrait of Moses as the prophet par excellence would have influenced this scribal error. The 'Word of YHWH' as the Mosaic Law in Chronicles It should be clear now that biblical literature employs the 'word of YHWH' almost universally as the prophetic word. Within this context, Chronicles' use of the 'word of YHWH' is striking. In Chronicles, the 'word of YHWH' comes to refer to the entire Mosaic legislation. The term occurs fifteen times in the books of Chronicles. Three of the fifteen cases are directly dependent on the book of Kings and refer to the prophetic word.10 In six of the remaining twelve cases, the 'word of YHWH' refers to the prophetic word. But in the other six cases, the 'word of YHWH' refers to the Mosaic law.11 9. According to Exod. 19 and Deut. 5.4-5 (contrast Exod. 24.9-11). In Exod. 33.11, Moses meets Yahweh 'face to face' in the tent of meeting. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible this 'face to face' encounter always evokes horror in the human participant (Gen. 32.31; Judg. 6.22; Isa. 6.2-5). 10. 1 Chron. 10.13; 11.3, 10; 15.15; 22.8; 2 Chron. 11.2 (//I Kgs 12.22, D'n^man); 12.7; 18.4, 18 (//I Kgs 22.5, 19); 19.11; 30.12; 34.21 (cf. 2 Kgs 22.13); 35.6; 36.21, 22. 11. A detailed discussion of what the Chronicler's Torah was is beyond the scope
134
The Word of God in Transition
In some cases, the reference to Mosaic legislation is explicit. For example, in 1 Chron. 15.15 and 2 Chron. 35.6 a Mosaic reference qualifies the technical term the 'word of YHWH': And the Levites carried the ark of God just as Moses commanded according to the word of Y H W H , on their shoulders with poles (1 Chron. 15.15). Slaughter the Passover sacrifice and sanctify yourselves and prepare for your brothers to perform it according to the word of YHWH through Moses (2 Chron. 35.6).
The Chronicler here uses the term the 'word of YHWH' for the Mosaic law rather than for a prophetic word. The identification is made explicit by the phrases 'just as Moses commanded' and 'through Moses'. In both these cases the term the 'word of YHWH' goes beyond the socalled Ten Commandments'. In 1 Chron. 15.15, the 'word of YHWH' refers to the functions of the cultic personnel described in Numbers 4. In 2 Chron. 35.6, the 'word of YHWH' refers to prescriptions for the Passover sacrifice.12 The Chronicler's identification of the 'word of YHWH' as a term for the law is most explicit when the Chronicler replaces 'the words of the of this work. However, Judson Shaver's assertion that the Chronicler's law book was not the Pentateuch is dubious. Shaver is obviously correct that 'there can no longer be any doubt that the legal material in the Chronicler's History Work assumes a wide range of pentateuchal legislation'. Yet Shaver notes that the Chronicler harmonizes legal traditions from D and P, relies mostly on later legislative strata, and cites otherwise unknown legal traditions. From this Shaver asserts that 'the exact content of the Torah canon was not yet fixed' (Torah and the Chronicler's History Work, p. 128). Shaver's reasoning is faulty. By a similar approach, we might assume from an analysis of the Mishnah that the rabbis' Torah was also not yet fixed, or by an examination of the Temple Scroll (HQTemple) that the Qumran community's Torah was not fixed. Rather, the very act of harmonization assumes canonization because the exegete is forced to explain the text and conform it with practice. Although there is no way of ascertaining with surety when the Pentateuch became fixed, there is nothing in Chronicles which would lead us to believe it was not. In fact, the Chronicler's frequent use of 'as it is written' (mnzo) in phrases like 'as it is written in the Torah, in the book of Moses' 2 Chron. 24.4) suggests a written Torah book. There is no evidence from Chronicles which indicates that there was more than one written collection of Mosaic teachings. 12. See Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's History Work, pp. 109-110, pp. 114-16, 118. For discussions of the Levites' unique role in Josiah's Passover, see Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 329; Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 405-406.
3. The'Word of God'in Tradition
135
scroll' in his Vorlage with the 'word of YHWH'. This is illustrated by the differences between 2 Kgs 22.13, Come, inquire of YHWH on my behalf and on behalf of the people and all Judah concerning the words of the book which was found; for great is the wrath of YHWH which has been poured out on us because our father did not listen to the words of this book and perform everything which was written concerning us.
and2Chron. 34.21, Come, inquire of YHWH on my behalf and on behalf of those who remain in Israel and Judah concerning the words of the book which was found; for great is the wrath of YHWH which has been poured out on us because our father did not obey the word of YHWH and perform everything which was written in this book.
The Chronicler replaces the phrase 'listen to the words of this book' with 'obey the word of YHWH'. There are two significant parts to this alteration. First, the term 'to obey' (intf) replaces 'to listen' (flatf). The root V"iatz5, 'to obey, keep', is a legal term often used to enjoin people to 'keep or observe' legal instructions.13 This term gives the 'word of YHWH' an explicit legal context in the Chronicler's version. The legal term 'to obey' is never used with the oracular term the 'word of YHWH' in the Hebrew Bible, except in the books of Chronicles. Secondly, the phrase 'the words of this book' is replaced by 'the word of YHWH'. The 'words of this book' refers to the legal stipulations of the covenant. Thus, the 'word of YHWH' is explicitly equated with the Mosaic law written in the book. It is only in the books of Chronicles that the 'word of YHWH' becomes a reference to legal stipulations.14 In the ambiguous context of 1 Chron. 10.13, the confluence of the 'word of YHWH' and the term 'to obey' (Vino) indicates a legal rather than prophetic background. In that verse, the Chronicler adds a postscript to the account of Saul's last battle (cf. 1 Sam. 31.1-13) which explains why Saul died and David replaced him: And Saul died for his transgression that he committed against YHWH. He did not keep the word of YHWH, even consulting a medium to seek advice (1 Chron. 10.13). 13. For example, mrr nran, 1 Sam. 13.13; npn, 1 Kgs 11.11; ma, Gen. 17.19; an, Exod. 23.15; rato, Deut. 5.12. 14. In 2 Chron. 30.12 the general context indicates that nin' ~an refers to the Mosaic law. In 2 Chron. 19.11, mn' "an means 'the affair of YHWH' paralleling (cf. 1 Chron. 26.32,parallels
136
The Word of God in Transition
Commentators have most often pointed to 1 Samuel 13, 15 and 28 to explain the reference 'he did not keep the word of YHWH'.15 Chapters 13 and 15 point to Saul's disobedience to the prophet Samuel and thereby the prophetic word (the 'word of YHWH'). Rudolph Mosis regards the reference as a general evaluation of Saul's reign with no specific referent.16 However, the terms 'to obey' (V~iao) and 'to rebel' (V*7i»a) specifically indicate a legal, cultic context. As I pointed out above, 'to obey' is only used in legal contexts. The term 'to rebel', as Jacob Milgrom points out, is a legal term which denotes cultic infidelity.17 Indeed, the Chronicler explicitly refers to the incident of the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28.7-19). In consulting a medium, Saul breaks a legal injunction (cf. Deut. 18.11). The incident of the witch of Endor epitomizes Saul's failure to seek YHWH. The specific incident of cultic infidelity is introduced by the conjunction 'and also' (n:i). As T. Muraoka notes, 'gam is frequently employed when giving an exaggerated, aggravated or extreme case'.18 In this case, consulting a medium (3i»3 ^IKC?1?), which is a legal infraction and cultic infidelity (•oaf vb, 'PUD), is the most extreme case of Saul's failure to seek YHWH. And it is this failure which finally results in Saul's death. We may surmise that the Chronicler found significance in the narrative juxtaposition of Saul's consulting a medium with his death on Mt. Gilboa (cf. 1 Sam. 29-31). This interpretive technique resembles the later rabbinic principle known as 'conjunctions' (pinp). This technique assumes that the narrative sequence of texts is important to their interpretation. It is employed elsewhere in Chronicles and was utilized by later Jewish exegetes.19 15. See Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 182-83; Rudolph, Chronikbucher, pp. 96-97; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 95. 16. See Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 28-41. 17. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 16-35; also see Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 29-33. 18. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), p. 143. Also see C.J. Labuschagne, "The Emphasizing Particle GAM and its Connotations', in Festschrift fur Th. Ch. Vriezen (Studia Biblica et Semitica, 1966), pp. 193-203. Labuschagne suggests that in Ugaritic gm should be rendered 'emphatically, explicitly' (p. 198). 19. Fishbane discusses examples of this hermeneutic technique in Chronicles (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 399-407).
3. The 'Word of God'in Tradition
137
In the other six cases, the 'word of YHWH' follows the classical use of this phrase for the prophetic word. For instance, 2 Chron. 36.21-22 twice states that 'the word of YHWH spoken by Jeremiah' was fulfilled. 1 Chron. 11.3 and 10 state that the people enthroned David as king 'according to the word of YHWH' by the agency of the prophet Samuel. 2 Chron. 12.7 employs the classical mediation formula, 'the word of YHWH came to Shemaiah' (see Chapter 2). In 1 Chron. 22.8, David recalls the 'word of YHWH' which came to him via the prophet Nathan (cf. 1 Chron. 17.3 with 2 Sam. 7.4). In these cases, the Chronicler follows stereotyped formulas. They follow the classical use of the 'word of YHWH' as the prophetic word, as against the innovative use of the 'word of YHWH' as the written law. Chronicles' use of the 'word of YHWH' represents a step in an ongoing process which resulted in the ascendancy of Torah. The 'word of YHWH' in Chronicles as both the prophetic word and the written word, that is, the law, subsumes both prophetic oracles and the Mosaic law under the broader category of the 'word of YHWH'. Biblical literature usually employs the 'word of YHWH' as the prophetic word, but the deuteronomistic depiction of Moses as both prophet and lawgiver portends the merging of prophecy and law as 'the word of YHWH'. Chronicles then comes to apply the 'word of YHWH' to the Mosaic law and thereby the 'word of YHWH' and 'the Torah of Moses' both become the prophetic word. The book of Daniel actually uses the term Torah for prophetic literature—'his Torah given through the prophets'—and places the Torah of the prophets alongside 'the Torah of Moses' (Dan. 9.10-11). Rabbinic Judaism would attempt to restrict prophecy and Torah to a single revelation; for example, Exodus Rabbah teaches, 'The prophets received from Sinai the messages they were to prophesy to subsequent generations... Not only did all the prophets receive their prophecy from Sinai, but also each of the sages that arose in every generation received his wisdom from Sinai' (Exod. R. 28.6).20 The new meaning for the 'word of YHWH', the prophetic word, in Chronicles reflects a change in the conception of prophecy and the prophetic office in the post-exilic period. Torah replaced prophecy and the prophetic office became unnecessary. This was first by virtue of the disappearance of kingship with which it was specially connected. But the deuteronomic movement also paved the way for the word of God to be associated with the law since Moses was regarded as the first and 20. See Urbach, The Sages, pp. 304-14.
138
The Word of God in Transition
greatest prophet. In relation to this, Gerhard von Rad noted correctly that the books of Chronicles stand in the deuteronomic tradition.21 Undoubtedly, though, the Chronicler has moved far beyond the deuteronomic tradition with the inclusion of the 'word of Moses' as part and parcel of the 'word of YHWH'. It is easy to see then how the prophets could become the transmitters of the law in rabbinic literature (for example, m. Ab. 1.1). Once the 'word of YHWH' becomes the Torah, then the prophet naturally becomes the bearer of the law. Re-Interpreting Prophecies from Samuel-Kings Chronicles rewrites the history of Israel. In doing so, it is a precursor to the great wealth of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period which rewrites the Scriptures. These works include, among others, the book of Jubilees and Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. In rewriting history, the Chronicler often recontextualizes and reinterprets events and thereby offers a radically different view of history. The Chronicler's reinterpretation of prophecies in Samuel-Kings plays a pivotal role in the Chronicler's overall interpretation of Jewish history. The Chronicler borrows four major prophetic narratives from Samuel-Kings. These include the dynastic oracle (2 Sam. 7//1 Chron. 17), the census narrative (2 Sam. 24//1 Chron. 21), the Ahab and Jehoshaphat alliance (1 Kgs 22//2 Chron. 18), and Huldah's prophecy of the exile (2 Kgs 22.14-20//2 Chron. S4.22-28).22 Changes in the meaning of prophecy are accomplished both by revising the words of the prophet and by recontextualizing the prophetic narrative. Rewriting Prophecy The Chronicler's revisions to the words of Huldah's prophecy suggest post-exilic reflection on the prophetess's words. The first change the Chronicler makes identifies 'the book found in the temple' more explicitly with Deuteronomy. The Chronicler replaces the phrase 'all the words of the book' (2 Kgs 22.16) with 'all the curses written in the book' (2 Chron. 34.24). The term 'curses' (m^«) recalls Deuteronomy 27-29 and, in particular, Deut. 29.20: 21. See Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes; also 'The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles'. 22. The Chronicler also borrows a short prophecy justifying the division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12.22-24/72 Chron. 11.2-4). However, this prophecy follows its Vorlage almost verbatim.
3. The 'Word of God' in Tradition
139
YHWH will set him apart for evil from all the tribes of Israel according to all the curses (rrbN) of the covenant which are written in the book of this teaching.
Although the Chronicler more directly recalls the curses in the book of Deuteronomy, the import of the prophetess's oracle remains unchanged. By way of addition, 2 Chron. 34.27 repeats the phrase 'and you were humbled' (j»Dm) twice, when it only appears once in his Vorlage (cf. 2 Kgs 22.19). The Chronicler's repetition emphasizes one of his favorite messages to his post-exilic audience: repentance (cf. 2 Chron. 7.14). Since the phrase was already present in his Vorlage, the Chronicler merely accentuates the theme. Another alteration is much more significant. 2 Kgs 22.19b reads, ... I said concerning this place and concerning its inhabitants that they are to be a desolation and a curse.
Chronicles omits the phrase 'to be a desolation and a curse' (cf. 2 Chron. 34.27). The Chronicler could not tolerate calling Jerusalem cursed. Even more to the point, the Chronicler probably understood the 'place' (oipn) to refer to the temple. For instance, in 2 Chron. 3.1 we are told that Solomon 'built the house of YHWH in Jerusalem on mount Moriah where [God] appeared to David his father, at the place (oipn) which David established' (cf. 1 Chron. 22.1).23 The idea that the temple was cursed would have been intolerable to the Chronicler since it was the dwelling place of God.24 It is not surprising, then, that Chronicles omits the phrase 'to be a desolation and a curse' and emphasizes the humility of Josiah. Perhaps the Chronicler assumed that because of the people's humility, this part of the prophecy was undone. In any event, by omitting this phrase the Chronicler softens the tone of the prophecy for his post-exilic audience and, perhaps more importantly, avoids any 23. Note the phrase 'the place which YHWH shall choose' ("irn' ID« apart) in Deuteronomic literature; for example, Deut. 12.5, 11; 14.24; 18.6; Josh. 9.27; 1 Kgs 8.29. On the later use of tnpn for the temple, see 4QFlorilegium; see transcriptions, translations and discussions by J. Allegro, 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature', JBL 15 (1956), pp. 174-87; idem, "Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of EschatologicalMjWras/iim', JBL 77 (1958), pp. 350-54; Y. Yadin, 'A Midrash on 2 Sam 7 and Ps 1-2 (4Q Florilegium)', IEJ9 (1959), pp. 95-98; most recently, G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). 24. Cf. 2 Chron. 6.41; 36.15, 23. One of the main purposes of Chronicles is to support the temple; cf. Braun, 'The Message of Chronicles', pp. 502-14.
140
The Word of God in Transition
implication that Jerusalem or the temple itself could be cursed. There are substantial differences between the Deuteronomist's and the Chronicler's accounts of the census narrative (2 Sam. 24//lChron. 21).25 These differences might suggest that the Chronicler revised the text of the prophetic narrative. However, Cross, Ulrich and McKenzie have contended that many of these differences result from a pre-Masoretic Vorlage which Chronicles used. Thus, McKenzie argues that 4QSama 'disproves the notion that Chr introduces an advanced form of angelology into the passage'.26 Their conclusions depend on the 4QSama fragment (7.327) for 2 Sam. 24.16-17. Yet, as Paul Dion points out, 25. This passage has been extensively studied by textual and literary critics. Frank Cross first suggested that 2 Sam. 24.16b-17a was lost to haplography based on his analysis of 4QSama. This analysis has been further advanced by Cross's students; see Lemke, 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', pp. 35557; E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 156-59; McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 55-58, 67-71. Also see discussions by Micheel, Die Seher- und Propheteniiberlieferungen in der Chronik, pp. 20-23; P. Dion, The Angel with the Drawn Sword (I Chr. 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context', ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 114-17; E. Nicole, 'Un cas de relecture: 2 Samuel 24 et 1 Chroniques 21', Hokhma 26 (1983), pp. 4755; S. Romerowski, 'A propos de la relecture de 2 Samuel 24 par 1 Chroniques 21', Hokhma 28 (1985), pp. 54-60; H.G.M. Williamson, The Temple in the Books of Chronicles', in W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel (JSNTSup, 48; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991), pp. 20-25. 4QSama for 2 Sam. 24.15-19 may be reconstructed as follows (PAM 400.21),
McKenzie argues that the Samuel text is corrupt, on the basis of the 4QSama fragments and the Greek versions. The 4QSama 24.16-20 fragments, if McKenzie is correct, indicate that the angel was not introduced by the Chronicler, but was already in the Chronicler's Vorlage. However, the text-critical pattern (MT = G) * (4QSam = Chron.) is not entirely convincing. D. Barthe'lemy points this out, arguing that there is no explanation for the omission of vv. 16b-17a in the LXX; Critique Textuelle de I'Ancien Testament (Fribourg, 1982), adloc. 26. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 56.
3. The 'Word of God' in Tradition
141
'After 4QSamaas well as before its discovery, the Chronicler's innovations retain all their magnitude, which a purely text-critical approach should not be allowed to obfuscate'.27 The Chronicler has developed the role of the angel even further than 4QSama. Dion has pointed out that the Chronicler expands the role of the angel in 1 Chron. 21.20 and 27 to resolve theological issues concerning the high place at Gibeon. Moreover, the Chronicler has rewritten the introduction of this story. No longer is YHWH's wrath responsible for David's decision to number the people (2 Sam. 24.1). The Chronicler ascribes the evil to an angelic adversary, Satan, who provoked David to take the census (1 Chron. 21.1). Thus, the Chronicler introduces a angelic being, known best in Second Temple apocalyptic literature, into the narrative.28 The Chronicler also elaborates on the angelic mediation between YHWH, Gad and David. Again, the text-critical approach should not obscure this issue. According to Steven McKenzie's reconstruction, 4QSamafor24.18reads,
And Gad came to David on that day and he said, 'Go up and establish
The 4QSama reading agrees with the MT and the LXX, but disagrees with Chronicles.29 In 1 Chron. 21.18, the Chronicler gives a role to an angel mediator: And the angel of YHWH commanded Gad to tell David that he should go up to establish . . .
The angel acts as a mediator between YHWH and the prophet. This description of prophetic mediation is unusual in Chronicles. We may suspect that apocalyptic patterns of angelic mediation current in the Chronicler's own times influenced the description in 1 Chron. 21.18. Thus, it seems clear (contra McKenzie) that the Chronicler has introduced more advanced notions of angelology into the narrative. Although the Chronicler has not introduced the angel into the narrative, he has developed the role of the angel in the narrative. Moreover, as Dion 27. 'The Angel with the Drawn Sword', p. 1 17. 28. Cf. Zech. 3.1-2; Job 1-2. 29. Space does not permit a reading which significantly differs from the MT and the LXX.
142
The Word of God in Transition
points out, the expanded role of the angel does serve the Chronicler's theological interests, even if angelology itself was not one of the Chronicler's interests. Recontextualizing Prophecy The Chronicler also recontextualizes prophecies in Samuel-Kings. For instance, the narrative of David's census no longer serves to illustrate some of David's weaknesses as a ruler.30 David's culpability diminishes since it is Satan who now provokes the census (cf. 1 Chron. 21.1 with 2 Sam. 24.1). The Chronicler adds a new conclusion to the story which sets it firmly within the Chronicler's temple focus. 1 Chron. 21.27-22.1 gives an entirely new meaning to the story: 27 And YHWH spoke to the angel and [the angel] returned his sword to its sheath. 28 At that time, when David saw that YHWH answered him at the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite, [David] made a sacrifice there. 29 Now the tabernacle of YHWH which Moses made in the desert and the altar of the burnt offering were at that time in the shrine at Gibeon. 30 David was not able to go before it to seek God because he was terrified by the sword of the angel of YHWH. 22.1 So David said, This shall be the house of the LORD God and this shall be the altar for burnt offering for Israel.'
With this new conclusion, the narrative can no longer be titled 'David's census', but now must be called 'God's choosing of the temple site'. The Chronicler's rewritten conclusion changes the focus of the narrative. The new conclusion explains the significance of David's altar and his sacrifice. The narrative now paves the way for David's preparations to build the temple (1 Chron. 22-29). The prophetic narrative concerning Ahab and Jehoshaphat's alliance in 2 Chronicles 18 also recontextualizes prophecy (cf. 1 Kgs 22; see Chapter 2). The Chronicler takes the narrative almost verbatim from 1 Kings, but he writes a new introduction focusing attention on Jehoshaphat's marriage alliance with Ahab (2 Chron. 18.1). Then, the Chronicler concludes the narrative with a stinging rebuke for making an alliance with the enemies of YHWH by Jehu, a hozeh (2 Chron. 19.1-3). Thus, without changing a word of the narrative itself, the Chronicler radically alters the significance of the prophet's word. The issue is no longer 'true' and 'false' prophecy, but the sin of making alliances with 30. Note that 2 Sam. 24 seems to be an appendix after the 'last words of David' (cf. 2 Sam. 23.1). Thus, the Chronicler's recontextualization may be appropriate.
3. The 'Word of God'in Tradition
143
foreign nations. Thus, the Chronicler imbues new meaning not only by rewriting the prophetic narrative, but also by recontextualizing the prophetic narrative. In another case, the Chronicler recontextualizes an anonymous narrative statement and makes it into the prophetic word of Samuel which introduces the narrative framing David's rise to the throne. 2 Chronicles 11 begins by following very closely the text of 2 Samuel 5. In v. 2b, the Chronicler (with only minor adjustment) records an anonymous prophetic word: 'And YHWH your God said to you: "You shall shepherd my people Israel and you shall be ruler over my people Israel"'. In v. 3, the Chronicler adds to his Vorlage the italicized words: 'And they anointed David to be king over Israel according to the word of YHWH through SamueV. The unusual syntax here suggests that 'according to the word of YHWH' refers to v. 2, 'YHWH your God said to you', and that the Chronicler imagines that this prophecy came through the prophet Samuel. Indeed, in the book of Samuel we have prophecies by Samuel which could warrant such an interpretation (cf. 1 Sam. 13.13-14; 16.11-13).31 This prophetic word attributed to Samuel becomes the cornerstone of the Chronicler's composition of chs. 11-12, the establishment of David as king. This is indicated by his reference to the prophetic word again in 11.10 and then in 12.24. An anonymous oracle thus becomes in Chronicles the word of Samuel and the prophetic word then becomes the frame around which the Chronicler describes David's rise to kingship. The Dynastic Oracle (2 Samuel 7.1-16//1 Chronicles 17.1-14) Both rewriting and recontextualizing prophecy are at work in the Chronicler's use of the dynastic oracle. The Chronicler rewrites and recontextualizes the dynastic oracle so that it justifies the building of the temple and introduces his comprehensive description of the temple and its institutions. This description includes the promise of a temple 31. Williamson argues that the oracle is much closer to Nathan's oracle (2 Sam. 7.7-8) than to Samuel (Chronicles, p. 97). Indeed, this may be true, but it is also easy to see how the oracle might be attributed to Samuel. Moreover, the very syntax of the expression, *7Ria0'T3 nirr "DID, suggests that it refers to the unattributed oracle in the previous sentence. These types of ambiguities—in this case, an apparently anonymous prophecy—is the sort of thing which the Chronicler was eager to clarify throughout his work.
144
The Word of God in Transition
(1 Chron. 17), the military preparations for the temple (1 Chron. 18-20), the site (1 Chron. 21), the plans and materials (1 Chron. 22, 28-29), the cultic personnel (1 Chron. 23-27), the construction (2 Chron. 2-4), and the dedication (2 Chron. 5-7). The Chronicler then reappropriates the dynastic oracle within the process of temple building by recalling the dynastic oracle in speeches and narratives. The Rewriting of the Dynastic Oracle 2 Samuel 7
1 Chronicles 17
3. The 'Word of God' in Tradition 2 Samuel 7
1 Chronicles 17
2 Samuel 7
1 Chronicles 17
1 And when the king was settled in his house and YHWH had given rest to him from all his enemies, 2 The king said to Nathan the prophet, 'Look now, I am living in a cedar house, but the ark of God resides in the midst of a tent'. 3 And Nathan said to the king, 'all that is in your heart, go and do, for YHWH is with you'.
\ And when David was settled in his house, The king said to Nathan the prophet, 'Here, I am living in a cedar house, but the ark of the covenant of YHWH resides under a tent'. 2 And Nathan said to the king, 'all that is in your heart, do for God is with you'.
32. MT, "P331?, results from dittography (repeating the kaf).
145
146
The Word of God in Transition 2 Samuel 7
1 Chronicles 17
4 And it happened that night that the word of YHWH came to Nathan saying, 5 'Go and say to my servant David, "Thus says YHWH: Shall you build for me a house for my dwelling? 6 For I have not dwelled in a house from the time I brought up the Israelites from Egypt until this day, but I have roamed about in a tent and tabernacle. 7 In every place I roamed with all the Israelites, did I ever say a word to any of the tribal leaders, who I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built me a cedar house?'" 8 And now, thus you shall say to my servant David, "Thus says YHWH of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the flock, to be a ruler over my people, over Israel. 9 And I shall be with you everywhere you go and I shall cut off all your enemies before you and I shall give you greater fame than anyone in the land. 10 And I shall make a place for my people Israel and I shall plant them and they shall abide there and no longer roam. Evil men shall no longer oppress them as before, 11 from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel. And / shall give rest to you from all your enemies and YHWH promises you that YHWH shall make a house for you. 12 When your days are done and you rest with your fathers, then I shall establish your seed after you, one from your loins, and I shall secure his kingdom.
3 And it happened that night that the word of God came to Nathan saying, 4 'Go and say to my servant David, "Thus says YHWH: You are not the one to build the house for me. 5 For I have not dwelled in a house from the time I brought up Israel until this day, but I have roamed from tent to tent and from one tabernacle [to another]. 6 In every place I roamed with all Israel, did I ever say a word to any of the tribal leaders, who I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, 'Why have you not built me a cedar house?'" 7 And now, thus you shall say to my servant David, "Thus says YHWH of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the flock, to be a ruler over my people, Israel. 8 And I shall be with you everywhere you go and I shall cut off all your enemies before you and I shall give you greater fame than anyone in the land. 9 And I shall make a place for my people Israel and I shall plant them and they shall abide there and no longer roam. Evil men shall no longer wear them down as before, 10 from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel. And / humbled all your enemies and I promise you and YHWH shall build a house for you. 11 When the time has come to rest with your fathers, then I shall establish your seed after you, one of your sons, and I shall secure his kingdom.
3. The'Word of God'in Tradition 2 Samuel 7
147
1 Chronicles 17
13 He shall build a house for my 12 He shall build a house for me name and I shall establish his royal and I shall establish his throne throne forever. forever. And I shall not remove my favor from him as I removed it from the one who was before you. 14 I shall be for him as a father and 131 shall be for him as a father and he shall be for me as a son. When he he shall be for me as a son. commits iniquity, I will punish him with the rod of men and with the blows of mortals. 15 And my favor shall not depart 14 And I shall set him in my house from him as I removed it from Saul and in my kingdom forever and his whom I removed before you. throne shall be firm forever."' 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be secure forever before me, your throne shall be firm forever."'
As can be readily observed from the parallel texts, the Chronicler generally follows 2 Samuel quite closely. Still, the Chronicler makes a few changes to the dynastic oracle which support his interpretation of Israelite history and the temple. Some scholars argue, however, that a different Vorlage accounts for the differences between the Samuel and Chronicles texts. This argument takes two directions. H. Gese and H. van den Bussche argue that Chronicles uses a proto-Samuel source.33 They regard 2 Samuel 7 as secondary. However, most commentators have not followed this approach since, as Williamson notes, 'such a view runs counter to the dependence of Chr. on Sam. elsewhere'.34 Steven McKenzie takes another approach. He argues that differences between the MT of 2 Samuel 7 and the Chronicler's Vorlage account for most of the discrepancies between the two texts.35 This approach seriously challenges those scholars who attribute the differences between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings to the Chronicler's Tendenz. Werner 33. H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974), pp. 12425. This argument was first made by H. van den Bussche, 'Le Texte de la prophetic de Nathan sur la dynastie davidique', ETL 24 (1948), pp. 254-94. 34. Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 132-33. 35. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 63-64.
148
The Word of God in Transition
Lemke's study of the synoptic problem in Chronicles, which relies on the Qumran evidence, bolsters this approach. However, the Qumran fragments of 2 Samuel 7 do not include the dynastic oracle, and McKenzie's text-critical analysis therefore relies on the Greek version. However, in a theologically loaded text like the dynastic oracle, we must be careful in evaluating the LXX's variations with the Masoretic text. The realization that the LXX is a translation, and de facto an interpretation, tempers the use of the LXX versions in textual criticism. Textual critics must consider the possibility that variants reflect the translator's interpretation of the Hebrew text rather than a different Hebrew Vorlage. Seeligmann writes that one of the features of the LXX is 'the creative power of the theology of the translators'. He further notes, 'the origin of the LXX was in the synagogue, and its uses in synagogal homilies and sermons allows us to qualify it as a Targum; its exegesis is that of the midrash and the very essence of true midrash is actualization' ,36 The existence of a temple in Jerusalem undoubtedly influenced the Greek translators' understanding of the Hebrew text. Obviously, a theologically loaded text like 2 Samuel 7 encourages the inclination towards imposing interpretations on texts for both ancient and modern translators. Three variants in the LXX of 2 Samuel 7 have an ideological undercurrent emphasizing the command to build the temple. In this respect, the ideology of 2 Kingdoms 7 agrees with Chronicles, even though the text of 2 Kingdoms 7 shows only minimal agreement with 1 Chronicles 17. This strongly suggests that a Greek translator's ideologically motivated interpretation rather than a different Hebrew Vorlage accounts for the variations between the MT and the LXX.37 This can be illustrated by the three variations discussed below.
36. I.L. Seeligmann, 'Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research', Textus 15 (1990), pp. 226, 232. S. Pisano comes to similar conclusions: Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). See the balanced review of Pisano's work by H.G.M. Williamson (JTS n.s. 37 [1986], pp. 458-61). 37. The LXX is the Rahlfs edition. The LXX versions A, B, and L are virtually identical for the passages I cite. I note one variant for some manuscripts of the LXXL of v. 11; see below n. 43.
3. The 'WordofGod' in Tradition
149
1) 2 Sam. 7.4 = 2 Kgdms 7.5 * 1 Chron. 17.4 2 Sam. Taf> rro '"rman nn«n Shall you build for me a house for me to dwell in? 1 Chron. nncft mn '"rman rmt* «6 It is not you who shall build for me the house to dwell in. LXX oí) ai) oiKo5ouT|aei<; (¿oí OIKOV toíi KatoiKfjaaí \is. It is not you who shall build me a house for me to dwell in. Chronicles is an interpretation and clarification of Samuel. nn« vb is an interpretation of the rhetorical question in Samuel. Chronicles adds the deñnite article, rran, 'the house', which probably was intended to underscore the Jerusalem temple.38 The Chronicler's use of me?1? is a simplificatíon of -natí'p in Samuel.39 Thus, Chronicles generally follows the MT of Samuel, yet interprets and clarines the language of his Vorlage. The LXX's translation of the rhetorical question is similar to Chronicles' interpretation of the rhetorical question; however, it is not unusual to transíate rhetorical questions in Hebrew as statements in Greek.40 In the second clause, the LXX literally follows Samuel against Chronicles. Thus the LXX agrees with the MT of Samuel. Both Chronicles and the LXX represent a liberal interpretation of the rhetorical question in Samuel, 'Shall you build me a house for me to dwell in?' This interpretation alters the intent of the MT, which question the whole enterprise of temple building (see especially vv. 6-7 in the MT).41 Chronicles and the LXX point to Solomon as the chosen temple builder. Chronicles reflects its theology of Solomon as the chosen temple builder in this interpretation.42 There is no reason to suspect that the LXX and Chronicles reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage since mere 38. Cf. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 134. 39. The Chronicler makes some changes simply to clarify a difficult or ambiguous text. For example, in 1 Chron. 17.13 the Chronicler replaces the difficult and ambiguous •ps'jo -mon neto 'nena esa 'rnorr with "pe1? rrn -itStw TTrrort. In this case, the Chronicler's change simplifies the apparent meaning of the MT of 2 Sam 7.15. Similarly, the Chronicler clarifies the oblique phrase jíOQ Kf in 2 Sam. 7.12 with -pan rrn" in 1 Chron. 17.11. 40. Gen. 16.13; 18.17; 27.36; 50.19; 1 Kgs 16.31; 21.19 (cf. 3 Kgdms 20.19). The interrogative particle -n is usually translated as a statement in Greek when 'it is used in questions which, by seeming to make doubtful what cannot be denied, have the forcé of an impassioned or indignan! affirmation' (BDB, p. 210). 41. Note the following verses. Cf. Isa. 66.1-2. 42. The Chronicler also adds the definite article, rrn, apparently to indicate the one temple and not just 'a temple'. See Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder', pp. 581-90; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 134.
150
The Word of God in Transition
is no trigger for a scribal error from nn«n to nrw vb. On the other hand, it is easily to understand this change as an interpretation. Verses 11 and 16 further develop the LXX's reading in 2 Sam. 7.4. 2) 2 Sam. 7.11 * 1 Chron. 17.10 * 2 Kgdms 7.11 2 Sam. mrr -rrní»r rra-s mrr -p Tim And YHWH promises to you that YHWH shall make a dynasty for you. 1 Chron. mrr -rV-rcy mi 7; i:«i And I make a promise to you, and I, YHWH, shall build a house for you. LXX iccd ctTtayyeXEi coi icúpioi; OTI OÍKOV oÍKoSour|aEi<; aviñ And the Lord promises to you that you shall build a temple for him. Chronicles changes the person of the speaker so that it is consisten! with the other verbs in the sentence (Tris, Timn). Chronicles also changes the verb from 'to make' (V'to) to 'to build' (V-n). In doing so, Chronicles makes the reference to 'building a house' more ambiguous. In Samuel, it is clear that YHWH promises to give David a dynasty. The verb 'to make' (V'feJJ) is only used with the noun 'house' in a figurative sense, that is, 'building a man's lineage'. For instance, in Abgail's blessing of David, she says that God will 'build' (rrtojr) David's house.43 This is the same sense of the phrase as in the MT of 2 Sam. 7.11. The verb 'to build' (V'n) is usually employed with the noun rra for literally building a structure.44 The following verse (v. 12) contextually supports the literal reading. It states that God will raise up David's seed after him. Chronicles' variations do not change the substance of the verse: YHWH is still promising to build a dynasty for David. The LXX translation, on the other hand, suggests an entirely different reading. Whereas in Samuel and Chronicles m means 'dynasty', in the LXX OIKOV means 'temple'. The LXX changes the subject, omitting mrr of the MT.45 It 43. 1 Sam. 25.28; also note 1 Kgs 7.8; 2 Kgs 2.24; 12.14. It is noteworthy that at least one other time otKo8oui(o transíales the Hebrew verb nto; cf. 2 Chron. 32.29. 44. The verb nías- in 2 Samuel has sometimes been emended on the basis of the LXX to «rmn» or « nn % », since the Greek verb otKoBouexv usually transíales the Hebrew verb rm. See most recently P.K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB; Carden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 193-94. McCarter's reconstruction relies upon the LXXL, where many manuscripts read oÍKooour\aei (= nn'). 45. McCarter suggests that mrv in the MT of Samuel is a corruption of mm. However, this emendation is based on the LXX, which is itself tendentious. The text
3. The 'WordofGod' in Tradition
151
alters the person of the verb from third to second (MT, nto»'; LXX, oÍKo8o|j.T|aei<; = nósn or nnn). And it changes the prepositional suffix from second to third. These changes can be retroverted into Hebrew as follows: I"P nnn n-3i 'and you [David] shall buüd a temple for him [YHWH]'. It is difficult to justify these changes as resulting from scribal errors. The LXX simply reinterprets the text against the MT and Chronicles. It states that David would build a temple for YHWH instead of YHWH building a dynasty for David. The post-exilic setting of the LXX translators probably influenced this interpretation. The fact that there was a temple standing in Jerusalem in the post-exilic period, but no king reigning in Jerusalem, would naturally have inclined some to believe that 2 Sam. 7.11 was a promise for temple and not a royal dynasty. 3) 2 Sam. 7.16 * 1 Chron. 17.14 * 2 Kgdms 7.16
2 Sam.
tfTuns po: rrrr IKOD «':is% c'Tun» •jro'pnQi ~|TO ]o«:i And your house and your kingdom will be secure forever «before me» and your throne shall be firm forever. 1 Chron. c'Tunj) TO; mr i«ooi n"7iBm» '¡rotoi 'irán irrmaam And I shall set him in my house and in my kingdom forever and his throne shall be firm forever. LXX mi. mctü)6í|OETai ó OÍKOC, otv>TO\> mí f| pacriXeía OCUTOXI eco<; aia>vo<; évcóiciov éuoí>, KOCÍ ó Gpóvog a-útoíi ecruai ávajp6a>névo<; ei<; tov aiñva. And his house and his kingdom will be secure forever before me and his throne shall be firm forever. Chronicles is a radically different versión from Samuel. In Samuel, God promises David that David's dynasty and kingdom will be established after him (in contrast to Saul's kingdom, v. 15). In Chronicles, God promises David that he will establish Solomon in 'my house and my kingdom'. In this reference to 'my house and my kingdom', Chronicles makes a tendentious theological change.46 The language and theology are closely aligned with the Chronicler's ideology. The Chronicler of Chronicles would suggest the reading « rrm mrr»; however, Chronicles is not a reliable source for textual criticism. 46. Contra McKenzie, who argües that 'the textual evidence is simply too diverse to allow the variant suffixes in this verse to be explained as the result of theological bias'; The Chronicler's Use ofthe Deuteronomistic History, p. 64. The Chronicler's differences are too closely aligned with his other compositions to make it plausible that these changes are not intentional (esp. 2 Chron. 1.18; 2.11). Cf. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 135; A.-M. Brunet, 'Le Chroniste et ses sources', RB 60 (195354), p. 505.
152
The Word of God in Transition
echoes this language in non-synoptic additions to the description of the temple's construction. 2 Chron. 1.18 and 2.11 state that Solomon built 'the house of the kingdom and the house of YHWH' together (see further discussion below). Thus, the Chronicles' text in 1 Chron. 17.16 apparently results from deliberate reinterpretations. The LXX's variants also result from interpretation rather than a variant textual tradition. The LXX follows closely the word order of Samuel against Chronicles, but changes its pronominal suffixes.47 In the MT the pronominal suffixes refer to David, the recipient of the divine promise. This is clearly the earliest and best reading. In the LXX, the suffixes refer to Solomon (CCUTOU =v). The LXX's pronominal suffixes are orchestrated in order to focus on Solomon. This orchestration is influenced by v. 13, where the chosen temple builder is implicitly Solomon. The third-person suffixes in the LXX suggest that God promises to establish Solomon's house and Solomon's kingdom. The phrase 'his house' becomes ambiguous in the LXX. It may be taken as an oblique reference to the temple (cp. the LXX reading in v. 11), since Solomon built the temple. The LXX facilitates its interpretation by another change in v. 15. The MT of 2 Sam. 7.15 reads 'I rejected Saul, who I rejected before you Ops^a)'. That is, YHWH turned his hesed away from Saul whom YHWH turned away before David. The secondperson suffix in •pa'jn refers to David. In this case, Chronicles agrees with the MT.48 However, the LXX reads EK Tupoaomou \iov>, 'from before me' (= 'DS^a), that is, Saul was turned away from YHWH's presence. The focus is taken off David in the LXX and thus remains on Solomon. This is similar to vv. 4 and 11, where the focus is also on Solomon. A consistent theological slant underlies the variations in the LXX. It seems unlikely that the LXX faithfully represents an ideologically changed Hebrew Vorlage since there is no Hebrew Vorlage which corresponds to all the changes in the LXX. The changes in the LXX reflect a theology of the temple's centrality and legitimacy.49 The subtle negative 47. In one case, we should follow the LXX reading, evcbniov euovi, and emend ~\l'sh in Samuel to «''3S'p». This textual error can be explained as a simple case of dittography which was undoubtedly conditioned by the use of the suffix ~\- elsewhere in the verse. See already Ehrlich, Randglossen, HI, p. 289. 48. The differences between 2 Sam. 7.15 and 1 Chron. 17.13 only clarify the difficult syntax of 2 Sam. 7.15. 49. Underlying the LXX translation is the interpretation of the 'place' (dps) in v. 10 as the temple; the interpretation of mpo as the temple is typical of later Jewish interpretation (for example, m. Ab. 3.4). In the MT this 'place' is the land of rest
3. The'Word of God'in Tradition
153
attitude towards the temple in the MT of 2 Samuel 7 is thus undone by the LXX translator. Solomon rather than David becomes the focus of the oracle. Whether this 'revisionism' in the LXX here is intentional or subconscious is difficult to ascertain.50 In any event, this case shows that the LXX should be employed with great care in textual emendation, especially in a theologically loaded text such as 2 Samuel 7. In sum, the LXX's textual variants are independent of Chronicles and do not undermine the originality of the Chronicler's rewriting of 2 Samuel 7. Still, the LXX interprets 2 Samuel 7 in much the same manner as Chronicles. The LXX translation focuses attention away from David and the Davidic Dynasty and toward Solomon and the Solomonic temple.51 Differences between Samuel and Chronicles underscore the Chronicler's temple ideology. In 1 Chron. 17.4, the interpretation of Samuel's rhetorical question, 'Shall you?', as a negative statement, 'It is not you', emphasizes that Solomon will be the temple builder. The subtle addition of the definite article to the noun, 'the house', reinforces the centrality and exclusivity of the temple. The Chronicler picks up this motif again in speeches which David makes to Solomon and the people (cf. 1 Chron. 22.7-10; 28.2-4). The message Solomon sends to Hiram echoes the very language in the dynastic oracle. In 2 Chron. 2.2 Solomon says that he wants 'to build for him [YHWH] a house for him to dwell in'. This is a paraphrase of 2 Sam. 7.5b and 1 Chron. 17.4b. which David has forged with God's help (cf. vv. 1, 11). See A. Cowley, 'The Meaning of tfipij in Hebrew', JTS 17 (1916), pp. 174-76; cf. 1 Chron. 21.22, 25. See the interpretation of 2 Sam. 7, and in particular, the mpo of v. 10 in 4QFlor (11. 1-3; also see comments of J. Allegro, 'Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrdshim', JBL 11 [1958], p. 351). Note that in Chronicles' interpretation of this passage which focuses even more strongly on Solomon as the chosen temple builder, the references to the rest of the land in 2 Sam. 7.1, 11 are omitted and revised. This is undoubtedly because the notion of 'rest' in Chronicles is associated with the temple and not the land; cf. 1 Chron. 22.9; 23.25-27; 28.2. 50. Michael Fishbane emphasizes the difficulty of determining whether exegetical manuevers are 'aggressive or naive'. He writes, 'an interpreter may well have often believed that his interpretation was the explicit articulation of the received content of the tradition and that individual talent was marked by its very ability to perform this feat' (The Garments ofTorah, p. 17). 51. For a more detailed analysis of the LXX's pro-temple Tendenz, see my article, 'Textual Criticism and Theological Interpretation: The Pro-Temple Tendenz in the Greek Text of Samuel-Kings', HTR 87 (1994), pp. 107-16.
154
The Word of God in Transition
2 Chron. 2.2 uses the same vocabulary and follows the same word order. Thus, there can be little doubt that the Chronicler wished to recall the dynastic oracle. Ironically, the Chronicler recalls a text which emphasized the building a house for David and not a temple for YHWH. The Chronicler uses both omission and rewriting to convey an ideology of rest for the temple. The Chronicler omits 'and YHWH gave rest to him [David] from all his surrounding enemies' from 2 Sam. 7.1b (cf. 1 Chron. 17.1). Next, the Chronicler rewrites the phrase 'and I gave rest to you [from all your enemies]' in 2 Sam. 7.11, changing it to 'and I humbled [all your enemies]' in 1 Chron. 17.10. Chronicles dissociates the notion of rest from the land and from David. According to the Chronicler's ideology, rest is associated with the actual building of the temple by Solomon. The essential feature of the Chronicler's theology, as Gerhard von Rad notes, 'is not that the nation finds rest, but that God finds rest among his people!' (cf. 2 Chron. 6.41).52 Thus, the temple is 'the house of rest' (nrriM rra) and Solomon is 'the man of rest' (nrraa BTK; see 1 Chron. 22.9; 28.2). While Chronicles refrains from saying that YHWH gave rest to David, it attributes this to Solomon. David reports YHWH's promise in 1 Chron. 22.9, 'and I shall give him [Solomon] rest from all his enemies'. The Chronicler uses the exact language from 2 Sam. 7.11. Roddy Braun concludes, 'With these two alterations he [the Chronicler] has transferred the 'rest' essential for the construction of the temple from the reign of David to the reign of Solomon'.53 The omission of rest for David also serves the Chronicler's placement of chs. 18-20. These chapters tell of David's military victories. David, the man of war, gets the land ready for Solomon, the man of peace, to build the temple. Other changes in the dynastic oracle also reflect the Chronicler's ideology. For instance, the Chronicler omits 2 Sam. 7.14b, which describes disciplining the Davidic kings. As Williamson notes, in the Samuel text, it refers to the whole future line of Davidic kings, to many of whom the saying could have applied, but in the Chronicler's text it would have to refer to Solomon, for whom it could have no application whatever.54 52. There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (ET; London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 98. 53. Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder', p. 585. 54. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 136.
3. The'Word of God'in Tradition
155
Scholars have also pointed out the omission of 'from Egypt' (2 Sam. 7.6) in 1 Chron. 17.5. This coincides with other omissions of the exodus motif from the Chronicler's work.55 Sara Japhet suggests that Chronicles omits slavery, exodus and conquest because the people and its God 'cannot be associated with a particular moment in history, for [they have] existed since the beginning of time'.56 These omissions illustrate the Chronicler's willingness to rewrite prophecy so as to fit his historical schema. Recontextualizing the Dynastic Oracle within Chronicles The rewriting of the dynastic oracle continues when it is recontextualized in later speeches of David. The books of Chronicles refer to the dynastic oracle at several junctures in the process of temple building. First, David recalls the dynastic oracle in his charge to Solomon to build the temple. When David has finished making preparations for the temple, he recalls the dynastic oracle in a charge to the people to help Solomon build the temple. As Solomon begins to build the temple, he recalls the dynastic oracle. Finally, after the temple is completed, Solomon recalls the dynastic oracle in a speech before the whole assembly. 1 Chronicles 22 and 28 address two questions which could legitimately be asked based on the dynastic oracle in 2 Samuel 7: did YHWH really want a temple and why was Solomon chosen to build the temple? David's charge to Solomon in 1 Chron. 22.6-10 recalls and elaborates the dynastic oracle: 6 And [David] summoned Solomon and enjoined him to build a temple for YHWH, the God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, 'My son, I wanted to build a temple for the name of YHWH my God, 8 but the word of YHWH came to me saying, "You have shed much blood and have fought great wars; you shall not build a temple for my name since you have shed much blood before me on the ground. 9 Yet, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace and I shall give him rest from his enemies on all sides. For Solomon shall be his name and peace and 55. These include 1 Kgs 6.1, cf. 2 Chron. 3.1-2; 1 Kgs 8.21, cf. 2 Chron. 6.11. Von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, p. 65; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. ix; Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 379-86; idem, 'Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 205-18; Brunet, 'Le Chroniste et ses Sources', pp. 361-62. 56. The Ideology of Chronicles, p. 386.
156
The Word of God in Transition tranquillity I shall give to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build me a temple for my name and he shall be as a son to me and I shall be as a father to him. I shall establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever".'
David's speech borrows heavily from the dynastic oracle. David's desire to build a temple hearkens back to 1 Chron. 17.1-2; the prohibition by YHWH closely paraphrases 1 Chron. 17.4; and the promise of a son follows the wording of 1 Chron. 17.12, 13. The Chronicler also makes significant additions to the dynastic oracle which develop themes from Nathan's prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. David adds new justification for the prohibition: David fought many battles and this excluded him from the task of temple building (cf. 1 Chron. 18-20). In 2 Sam. 7.6-7 and 1 Chron. 17.5-6, YHWH justifies his refusal to David by explaining that he never asked for a temple or desired a temple. The dynastic oracle promises that one of David's sons will follow him, but it does not identify the person. David's charge specifically names Solomon. It reinforces this choice by the pun between Solomon's name (na'pcj) and peace (m^). Finally, Chronicles adds a promise for peace in the days of Solomon. The Deuteronomist explicitly states, in his version of the dynastic oracle, that God granted peace to David from his enemies (2 Sam. 7.1,11). The Chronicler moves these references to peace from David's era from his version to Solomon's era. In David's charge to the people, he again recalls and elaborates the dynastic oracle. In 1 Chron. 28.2-5, we read, 2 And King David stood on his feet and he said, 'Listen to me, my brothers and my people, I wanted to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of YHWH and as a footstool of the feet of our God and I prepared to build. 3 But God said to me, "You shall not build a temple for my name because you are a man of war and you have shed blood". 4 Yet, YHWH still chose me from my father's whole house to be king over Israel forever. Indeed, he chose Judah to be ruler and from the house of Judah, my father's house and from my father's house, he desired me to rule over all Israel. 5 And from all my sons, for YHWH has given me many sons, he chose Solomon, my son, to sit on the throne of the kingdom of YHWH over Israel.'
David indicates that he is recalling the dynastic oracle, saying that he 'wanted to build a house', but God said to him, 'you shall not build a temple' (cf. 1 Chron. 17.4). David's speech actually develops the dynastic oracle as it is presented
3. The 'Word of God'in Tradition
157
in his charge to Solomon (1 Chron. 22.6-10). For instance, the Chronicler omitted the notion of rest in his versión of the dynastic oracle. It reappears in David's charge to Solomon, who is called a 'man of rest' and to whom YHWH promises 'peace in his time'. The Chronicler develops this notion further in David's charge to the people. David calis the temple 'a house of rest' (nrrao ira). Apparently, only the 'man of rest' could build the 'house of rest'. David also says that God debarred him from temple building because he was a 'man of war' (marfTG ttí'«). This, of course, directly contrasts David with Solomon, who is called a 'man of rest' (nmm eh»; 1 Chron. 22.9). David then feels the need to justify his election since God has debarred him from temple building. The need for justificador! arises particularly since David is called a man of war and bloodshed. The Chronicler also develops the notion of the 'kingdom of God' in David's charge to the people. The notion of the 'kingdom of God' is implicit in the Chronicler's reference to 'my kingdom' in the dynastic oracle. However, the suffixes of the term 'kingdom' in 2 Sam. 7.16 (nrftnn) and 1 Chron. 17.14 (nchti) vary in the versions: 2 Samuel, MT
•jro'raBí
2 Kingdoms, LXX
paoiXeía aíiTOÜ = iro^QQi
1 Chronicles, MT 1 Paraleipomena, LXX
Troto! év paaiXeía aÚTOú = T!i3'?Q3i
From this, Steven McKenzie concludes, 'the textual evidence is simply too diverse to allow the variant suffixes in this verse to be explained as the result of theological bias' ,57 However, it is very difficult to trust the LXX as a versión with respect to suffixes. Moreover, the LXX translator's own theological conceptions of the temple come into play in this theologically loaded text. Elsewhere, the LXX actively interprets the text in translating. And Stephen Pisano points out that the LXX has added some insertions 'to complete what in MT was left up to the reader's imagination, or else show the fulfillment of what has been predicted, or the logical sequence to a particular action or situation'.58 In this 57. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 64. Contra W. Lemke, 'Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History' (ThD thesis, Harvard University, 1963), pp. 43-46; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 135; Brunet, 'Le Chroniste et ses Sources', p. 505; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 136. 58. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel, p. 67. See H.G.M. Williamson for a balanced review of Pisano's work (JTS n.s. 37 [1986], pp. 45861). Pisano is a little too devoted to the MT; however, his study demónstrales the
158
The Word of God in Transition
particular case, the MT of Samuel emphasizes David's kingdom with a second-person suffix. The LXX refocuses attention on David's son, Solomon, with the third-person pronoun conou (= v). The MT of Chronicles places a special divine sanction on Solomon's kingdom by using a first-person suffix. 1 Chron. 28.5 develops the concept of the kingdom of God with the phrase 'the throne of the kingdom of YHWH' (also see 2 Chron. 13.8).59 To be sure, the term 'my kingdom' in 1 Chron. 17.14 implies the concept. In 1 Chron. 22.10, David quotes YHWH saying that he will establish the throne of Solomon's kingdom forever, picking up on part of the dynastic promise to the sons of David (1 Chron. 17.14b).60 The interpretation combines the throne and the kingdom, which are separate items in the dynastic oracle, by using the construct phrase 'the throne of his kingdom'. According to 1 Chronicles 17, the kingdom was YHWH's and the throne was Solomon's. In 1 Chron. 28.5, David paraphrases the dynastic oracle, asserting that Solomon was chosen to sit on 'the throne of YHWH's kingdom'. Again, the throne and the kingdom are placed together; however, now it is 'the throne of YHWH's kingdom'. The idea that the earthly kingdom of the Davidic ruler belongs to God is implicit in the Chronicler's version of the dynastic oracle. The Chronicler also enhances the meaning of the dynastic oracle with allusions to the temple traditions in Psalm 132. The images of 'house of rest' and 'footstool for the feet of our God' describe the temple which David wanted to build in 1 Chron. 28.2. Psalm 132 uses these same images in describing the temple which YHWH promised to build for LXX's own biases and shows the need for an eclectic approach to the text of Samuel. 59. See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 395-411. 60. Note that 1 Chron. 22.10 uses the same verbal root as 1 Chron. 17.14b (p). The dynastic promise is reiterated elsewhere in Chronicles. For example, we read in 2 Chron. 23.3,
And the whole assembly made a covenant in the house of God with the king and [Jehoiada] said to them, 'Indeed, the son of the king shall rule, just as Yahweh promised concerning the sons of David'. The Chronicler justifies the restoration of Joash to the throne with an appeal to Yahweh's promise concerning the royal house (cf. 2 Kgs 11.4). This somewhat cryptic reference is certainly to the promise in the dynastic oracle (1 Chron. 17.14). SeeH.G.M. Williamson, 'Eschatology in Chronicles', TynBul28 (1977), pp. 145-46.
3. The'Word of God'in Tradition
159
David (vv. 7, 8, 13-14). Psalm 132 might properly be called 'the Dynastic Psalm' because it recalls David's desire to find 'a place for YHWH' (v. 5; cf. 2 Sam. 7.2,10), that is, a resting place for the ark. The phrase 'a house of rest for the ark of YHWH's covenant' in 1 Chron. 28.2 seems to be influenced by Ps. 132.7-8, 'Advance, O YHWH, to your resting place, you and the ark of your power'. Chronicles' account of the dedication of Solomon's temple even cites these verses (2 Chron. 6.41-42), even though scholars usually associate Psalm 132 with the ark narratives.61 Psalm 132 also promises that David's sons will sit on his throne forever (vv. 11-12, 17). Psalm 132 assures us that YHWH has chosen Zion for his eternal dwelling (vv. 13-14). By recalling some images from Psalm 132, the Chronicler opens up the whole world of images which that tradition represents. The Chronicler's treatment of the dynastic oracle thereby involves a larger circles of traditions. The Chronicler draws on the dynastic oracle to make Solomon's palace a physical manifestation of the promise to the sons of David. Just as the temple becomes a physical manifestation of the kingdom of God in Chronicles, so also Solomon's palace becomes a physical manifestation of the kingdom of David. This is accomplished through a deft allusion to the Chronicler's dynastic oracle. In 2 Chron. 1.18 (Eng. 2.1), the Chronicler introduces the narratives concerning the construction of the temple with the following statement: 'And Solomon commanded the building 62 of a house for the name of YHWH and a house for his kingdom'. In this verse, the Chronicler rewrites the history of Solomon.63 The language recalls the dynastic oracle in Chronicles where YHWH promises to establish Solomon 'in my house and in my kingdom forever' (1 Chron. 17.14; cf. 2 Sam. 7.16). In the Samuel version of the 61. See H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150 (ET; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), pp. 472-83. 62. The construction ~om plus the infinitive conveys a command rather than a decision; thus, 'Solomon commanded the building of a temple' rather than 'Solomon decided to build the temple'. The Chronicler wished to avoid the inference that Solomon (and not David) decided to build the temple. The Chronicler even changes n-3 rim1? -IQK '33m in 1 Kgs 5.19 to rra mia '3« '33m in 2 Chron. 2.3. 63. Williamson argues that the Chronicler borrows from 1 Kgs 5.19 (5.5) in this verse: Chronicles, p. 197. We may perhaps see influence from 1 Kgs 5.19 in 2 Chron. 1.18, but the Chronicler has entirely recast it. In fact, the critical exegetical move is the marriage of the temple and the palace which does not occur in the Kings text. Thus, Curtis is right in concluding, 'This verse is entirely from the Chronicler' (Chronicles, p. 320).
160
The Word of God in Transition
dynastic oracle, 'house and kingdom' refer to David's lineage and his kingship. In the Chronicles version, 'house and kingdom' refer to YHWH's 'house' and YHWH's 'kingdom'. These notions are concretized in 2 Chron. 1.18. The 'house of YHWH' is the temple and the 'house of the kingdom' is evidently Solomon's palace. This interpretation is further buttressed by the repetition of the 'house and kingdom' ideology in 2 Chron. 2.11: And Huram said, 'Blessed is YHWH, God of Israel, who made the heavens and the earth, who gave to David, the king, a wise son endowed with discretion and understanding, who shall build a house for YHWH and a house for his kingdom.
The parallelism here between 'a temple and a palace' again plays on the parallelism in 1 Chron. 17.14, 'my house and my kingdom'. The language of 1.18 and 2.11 further develops the notion of the kingdom of YHWH. In 1 Chron. 28.5, David says that YHWH choose Solomon 'to sit on the throne of the kingdom of YHWH'. The Chronicler apparently understood this image quite literally. As we see in 2 Chron. 1.18 and 2.11, Solomon's palace is actually the seat of the kingdom of YHWH. In sum, the Chronicler rearranged his source so that Solomon's construction of his own palace is an implicit part of the dynastic promise! The dynastic oracle, which started as a promise for a Davidic dynasty, ends up as a promise for a temple and a royal palace, both of which are in some sense divine. The Chronicler also changes the conditions of the dynastic oracle. The Deuteronomistic History makes the eternal promise to David conditional upon his sons 'walking before YHWH' (cf. 1 Kgs 8.25). In Solomon's speech dedicating the temple, the Chronicler makes the dynastic promise dependent upon keeping of law. This maneuver is accomplished by altering the phrase 'to walk before me' in 1 Kgs 8.25 to read 'to walk in my Tor ah' in 2 Chron. 6.16. Thomas Willi suggests that the Chronicler introduces 'a theology of the Holy Scriptures'.64 The Chronicler certainly does make fulfillment of the dynastic promise dependent on the obedience to written provisions. The command 'to walk before YHWH' was essentially a warning against serving other gods. Yet the injunction 'to walk in my laws' implies a broader set of commandments. 64. Die Chronik als Auglegung, p. 125. Also see I.L. Seeligmann, The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles', Tarbiz 49 (1979-80), pp. 14-32 (Hebrew).
3. The 'Word of God'in Tradition
161
Tradition, Transition and Context The Chronicler boldly rewrites the word of God. This rewriting has evoked some harsh criticism from modern scholars. For instance, R.H. Pfeiffer expresses a critical evaluation of the Chronicler's conduct: 'In accordance with his premises, he deals with Samuel and Kings arbitrarily, rewriting whatever suits his purpose with complete freedom and no scruples about historical accuracy or verisimilitude'.65 So it has seemed to many who have compared the Chronicler's work with his sources. But the Chronicler's exegetical and theological rewriting and recontextualizing should not be considered a case of 'pious fraud' ,66 Michael Fishbane points out, One of the features that emerges prominently is the fact that for innerbiblical exegesis there is no merely literary or theological playfulness. Exegesis arises out of a practical crisis of some sort—the incomprehensibility of a word or a rule, or the failure of the conventional tradition to engage its audience.
This is indeed the case when Chronicles resignifies the 'word of YHWH' and rewrites the prophecies of Samuel-Kings. The Chronicler is not merely manipulating sources for political reasons. The Chronicler revitalizes the traditions of Samuel-Kings for a new generation. The new terms and prophecies speak to a new generation of Israel, the post-exilic community. The Babylonian exile precipitated a religious crisis for the people of Israel. One of the results of this crisis was the gathering and codifying of the traditions of Israel. As a consequence, the written word of the Torah and the prophets became increasingly important in post-exilic Israel. In Ezra-Nehemiah we begin to see the emerging importance of the written word and the priest-scribe. The written word would gradually replace the oral words of the prophets. This written word included first of all the Torah. And, as Deuteronomy had suggested, this law was given by prophetic revelation to the prophet par excellence, Moses. It is not 65. Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 3rd edn, 1941), pp. 802-803. 66. Such was the evaluation of C.C. Torrey, The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator', AJSLL 25 (1909), pp. 157-73, 188-217. 67. The Garments of Torah, p. 16.
162
The Word of God in Transition
unnatural then that the books of Chronicles considered the Mosaic law to be the 'word of YHWH'. It was also natural for the priests, Levites and scribes to be given the task of interpreting and applying this law for a new generation of Israelites. The Chronicler's post-exilic setting also influences his rewriting of prophecies from Samuel-Kings. The Babylonian exile threatened the existence of the Jewish people. From this threat comes the harsh reactions to interreligious marriages which we see in Ezra-Nehemiah (for example, Ezra 9-10),68 reflecting a general tendency toward exclusivity and isolationism in the post-exilic Jewish community. These attitudes are also reflected in the Chronicler's recontextualization of the Micaiah narrative. The Chronicler rewrites the introduction so that the prophetic narrative no longer addresses the issue of true and false prophecy, as in the Deuteronomic History, but the issue of foreign marriages (Ahab to Jezebel) and alliances (Jehoshaphat with Ahab). The Chronicler's rewriting and recontextualization of the dynastic oracle was influenced by the increasing importance of the temple and declining influence of the Davidic dynasty in post-exilic Israel. The LXX reflects similar attitudes in its translation of the dynastic oracle. But this reinterpretation should not be construed as malicious. Even now, the contemporary situation of the modern authors constrains their interpretation no less than the Chronicler's situation colored his writing of the history of Israel.
68. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 173-79; T.C. Eskenazi, 'Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era', JSOT54 (1992), pp. 25-43.
Chapter 4 DIVINE INSPIRATION AND THE LEVUICAL SINGERS
Many scholars have noted the key role which the Levites play in the books of Chronicles. This preeminent role of the Levites in Chronicles probably reflects their role in post-exilic Israel. Gerhard von Rad, for instance, writes, 'The place of the Levites in the organism of post-exilic Israel is the central concern of the Chronicler'.1 According to the Chronicler, the north rejected the Levites, but Judah gave them a prominent position (2 Chron. 11.13-14; 13.9-11). The Levites' position was now alongside the priests and in service of the priests.2 Their role also included instructing the people in the Torah (2 Chron. 17.8; 19.8-9), a role perhaps parallel to the 'teaching priest' (cf. 2 Chron. 15.3). In addition, some Levites became the tax collectors for the temple (2 Chron. 24.5-11; 34.8-12), gatekeepers outside the temple (2 Chron. 5.4, 11-13; 7.6; 8.13-15; 23.2-8, 19), and singers in the temple (cf. 1 Chron. 25.1-6). The prominence of the Levites in Chronicles has led some to believe that the Chronicler was himself a Levite and perhaps a levitical singer.3 Understandably then, the levitical singers have been a focus for research on cultic prophecy and late biblical prophecy.4 1. Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, p. 119. 2. Cf. 1 Chron. 23; 2 Chron. 5.4-13; 7.6; 8.13-15; 23.18; 29.3-36; 30.15-17. 3. For example, S. de Vries suggests that the Chronicler was a Levite (perhaps a member of the singers), 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 619-39. Morton Smith also argues that the Chronicler's 'work is dominated by the political and theological interest of the Judaean levitical party to which he belonged' (Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament [London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1987], p. 3). Although the technical term 'levitical singers' is customarily used in the scholarly literature, this is to some extent a misnomer. The duties of the levitical singers involved both the playing of musical instruments and singing (cf. 1 Chron. 25.1-3; 2 Chron. 29.30). 4. The consensus of scholarly opinion has supported H. Gese's division of the history of the levitical guilds into four stages:
164
The Word of God in Transition
1 Chronicles 25 is the pivotal text which describes the levitical singers in a prophetic role. According to 1 Chronicles 25, David installed Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun as the leaders of the temple musical guilds. Verse 1 describes them as prophesying («3]n) with musical instruments and v. 6 gives them the title of 'royal hozeh1, 1 Chronicles 25 itself is part of the broader unit including chs. 23-27 which is often assigned to a secondary redactor. Thus, the place of these chapters in the redaction of the books of Chronicles is critical to any discussion of the levitical singers and warrants a closer investigation.
L n.
niA. IJJB.
At the return from the Exile, the singers were simply called 'sons of Asaph', and are not yet reckoned as levites (Ezra 2.41; Neh 7.44); In Nehemiah's time, the levitical singers were reckoned as levites, and are in two groups, the sons of Asaph and the sons of Jeduthun (Neh. 11.3-19 and 1 Chron. 9.118); In 1 Chron. 16.4-12; 2 Chron. 5.12; 29.13-14; 35.15, the levitical singers are now in three groups, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. In 1 Chron. 6.31-48 and 15.16-22, Jeduthun is replaced by Ethan, and Heman is now more prominent than Asaph.
('Zur Geschichte der Kultsanger am zweiten TempeF, in Vom Sinai zum Zion, pp. 147-58). A significant problem with Gese's chronology is his dating of texts. For instance, Gese assumes, without adequate evidence, that Chronicles' genealogies in ch. 9 are earlier than ch. 6. He does not address the dating of some critical texts, for example, 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The dating of these texts is extremely tenuous and hardly makes for a reliable basis for diachronic reconstruction. A rather different view of the history of the levitical guilds is proposed by Nahum Sarna. Sarna argues that 'Psalms and Chronicles must both represent genuine preexilic, if irreconcilable traditions' (The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds', in S. Stein and R. Loewe (eds.), Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History Presented to Alexander Altmann [University of Alabama Press, 1979], p. 283). Although Chronicles repeatedly emphasizes the Davidic origin of the levitical singers (2 Chron. 8.14; 23.18; 29.20, 25; 35.15), the association of David and the Psalms is limited, for the most part, to the first two books of the Psalter. This suggests that the Davidic superscriptions crystallized early, at least earlier than the books of Chronicles. Sarna argues that the Kohathites and the Hemanites who are accorded such prominence in the Psalter and Chronicles did not even exist as guilds beside the Asaphites in the post-exilic period. The antiquity of the cultic guilds is also supported by Baruch Levine and W. Watson; see B. Levine, The Netinim', JBL 82 (1963), pp. 207-12, and W. Watson, 'Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53 (1972), pp.195, 204-205.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
165
Excursus: The Redaction of 1 Chronicles 23-27 Many scholars have argued that 1 Chronicles 23-27 is 'secondary' to the Chronicler's work.5 Several scholars have observed the narrative repetition in 1 Chron. 23.1-2 and 1 Chron. 28.1. They have suggested that this repetition marks an editorial insertion. Thus, these chapters could not be used in assessing the Chronicler's own thought and purposes. W. Rudolph states the position succinctly: 'it is commonly acknowledged that 23.2 is taken up again in 28.1 so that 23.3-27.34 represent an extensive insertion'.6 These scholars then posit a series of related editorial additions concerning the cultic organization of the temple elsewhere in Chronicles. H.G.M. Williamson, Sara Japhet and most recently John Wright have argued against this approach to chs. 23-27. Williamson has presented a sophisticated analysis of chs. 23-27 which suggests there are two redactional layers within the material.7 He attributes the shorter first layer to the Chronicler and a second layer to a 'pro-priestly reviser'. Williamson's analysis thus avoids making a complex series of deletions elsewhere in Chronicles. Japhet argues for the essential unity of Chronicles as a work by an author or editor who writes material and also integrates earlier texts.8 She notes that Chronicles 'attempts to combine a number of divergent trends without fully harmonizing them'.9 By so understanding the Chronicler's compositional procedures, Japhet eliminates the need for many source-critical solutions. Wright points out a close connection between 1 Chronicles 23-26 and the order of temple personnel elsewhere in Chronicles.10 This suggests the inadequacy of the approaches which treat chs. 23-27 as a secondary intrusion. 5. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, pp. 81-96; J. Rothstein and J. Hanel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (Leipzig: Deichert, 1927), ad loc.; M. Noth, The Chronicler's History (ET; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, pp. 152-53; Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, pp. 194-204. 6. Chronikbiicher, p. 152. 7. H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 251-68. 8. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 9, esp. n. 26. 9. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 142. Japhet is referring in this particular instance to 1 Chron. 21.28-30. 10. J.W. Wright, The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 229-42.
166
The Word of God in Transition
Initially, it was the narrative repetition between 1 Chron. 23.1-2 and 28.1 which led scholars to attribute the intervening material to a secondary redactor. These verses both state that David gathered all Israel together. Source criticism employs repetition of this type to distinguish different traditions. However, repetition may also be used redactionally and authorially.11 Authorial use of repetition in Chronicles usually involves the Chronicler's reworking of sources, for example 2 Chron. 12.2, 9 (// 1 Kgs 14.25) and 2 Chron. 16.7, 10 (cf. 1 Kgs 15.22ff.).12 Thus, the repetition in 1 Chron. 23.1-2 and 28.1 is typical of the Chronicler's compositional procedures. The Chronicler uses repetition as a literary technique in compiling and editing his divergent sources. Moreover, the verbs for assembling used in 23.2 and 28.1, 'to gather' (V^ON) and 'to assemble' (Vbnp), have different narrative functions in Chronicles. John Wright points out that bnp connotes 'a formal assembly that culminates in a cultic ceremony'. On the other hand, the term *]OK 'has the more general connotation of the gathering of goods or persons into a specific location'.13 Thus, the variation in terms underscores the fact that the Chronicler has a literary purpose for the repetition in 23.1-2 and 28.1. Repetition does not mark ipso facto different sources; it can also be compositional feature. This is its most likely function in 1 Chron. 23.2 and 28.1. Scholars also see secondary editing in chs. 23-27 as a result of apparent tensions within these chapters. However, as Sara Japhet has pointed out, the Chronicler's attempt to combine divergent traditions may explain these tensions. The viability of Japhet's methodological approach to the tensions within chs. 23-27 can be illustrated in 1 Chronicles 23. Adam Welch aptly poses the problem in 1 Chronicles 23: The want of unity in authorship appears in the opening chapter [ch. 23], for the same writer cannot be held responsible for the statement in v. 3 that the Levites entered on office at 30 years of age, and for that in vv. 24 and 27 which gave the age as 20.14
11. See B.O. Long, 'Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography', JBL 106 (1987), pp. 385-99. 12. See discussions of 2 Chron. 12.2-9 and 16.7-10 in Chapter 2. 13. 'The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27', p. 230. 14. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, p. 81.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
167
This opinion has found acceptance among most commentators,15 but this approach is not entirely satisfactory. Verses 24 and 27 are in fact integral to the Chronicler's treatment of the Levites both in this chapter and throughout Chronicles. The solution to this problem rather lies in an approach suggested by inner-biblical exegesis.16 1 Chron. 23.3 follows the lines of Numbers 4. There, the Levites who begin their service in the house of God are counted beginning at age 30: 'And the Levites were counted from age thirty and above, and their number according to their enrollment of males was 38,000'. 1 Chron. 23.6-23 list the various heads of the levitical clans, while vv. 24-27 modify this age requirement to 20 years following the standard practice from the post-exilic period (cf. 2 Chron. 31.17; Ezra 3.8):17 24 These are the Levites according to their clan, the chiefs of the clans according to their divisions, in the list of names according to their enrollment, those who did the work for the service of the house of YHWH from twenty years old and above. 25 For David said, 'YHWH the God of Israel has given rest to his people and he shall dwell in Jerusalem forever. 26 And also, the Levites no longer must carry the sanctuary and all the vessels for its service.' 27 Thus, by the last words of David the Levites were counted from twenty years old and above.
Verses 24-27 express a theology of rest beginning in the time of David as the reason for the changing of the levitical age. Elsewhere in Chronicles, this theology of rest explains why Solomon will be able to build the sanctuary (1 Chron. 22.9; 28.2). In this respect, the change in levitical age fits with the Chronicler's theology of rest about building of the temple. The Chronicler is saying that although in earlier times the Israelite census numbered the people from 20 years of age, the Levites had an exemption since they had to carry the tabernacle (cf. Num. 1). According to Numbers 4, the Levites are given the task of portage (»ton) and are to be counted only when they become 30 years old because of their duties of temple service (cf. Num. 4.2-3, 21-22, 29-30; cf. Num. 1.47-53; Deut. 10.8). 'David's last words' reinterpret this legislation. They reason that since the Levites no longer had to carry 15. See Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 266-68; Rudolph, Chronikbucher, pp. 156-58; Michaeli, Chroniques, pp. 120-21; Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 160-62; Coggins, Chronicles, pp. 118-20. 16. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, for the most comprehensive treatment of the subject. 1 7 . Curtis surmises that the numbering was changed from 30 to 20 because of the scarcity of the Levites (cf. Ezra 2.40; 8.15): Chronicles, pp. 266-67.
168
The Word of God in Transition
the ark, they no longer had to be counted from 20 years old. Josiah's account of the Passover in 2 Chron. 35.3 reflects this explanation: And [Josiah] said to the Levites, who were teaching18 all Israel, who were consecrated to YHWH, 'Put the ark of holiness in the house which Solomon son of David king of Israel built; you no longer must carry it upon your shoulders, now serve YHWH your God and his people Israel.'
The language here echoes 1 Chron. 23.26. The Chronicler appeals to the Levites who 'no longer must carry the ark on their shoulders'. This is an implicit reference to the revision of the levitical function in 1 Chronicles 23 (see esp. v. 26); the reference to the levitical function is closely tied with the change in the levitical age. 2 Chron. 31.17 also mentions the revised levitical age of 20: and the enrollment of the priests was by their clans, and of the Levites it was from twenty years and above, each in their watches by their divisions.
2 Chron. 31.17, 35.3 and 1 Chron. 23.24-27 must derive from the same hand. Rather than suggesting that these texts were composed or inserted by a later editor, it is more likely that the Chronicler was aware that in earlier times the levitical age for service was 30; thus, the Chronicler incorporated an exegetical revision into the source which he was using in 1 Chronicles 23. This explanation accounts for the references in 2 Chron. 31.17 and 35.3. Furthermore, it accords with the way the Chronicler treats divergent cultic traditions elsewhere in Chronicles.19 The revision in levitical age reflects a theology of rest for temple building. This theology of rest contrasts with the Deuteronomic theology of rest for the land and the people. Williamson has argued that these verses reflect 'a different outlook from that of the Chronicler himself since 1 Chron. 17.1 omits the notion of rest in its Vorlage (cf. 2 Sam 7.1) and 1 Chron. 22.9 associates the notion of rest with Solomon.20 However, these references are entirely consistent when we realize that the notion of rest was associated with the building of the temple (see discussion of the dynastic oracle in Chapter 3). The temple was 'the house of rest' (1 Chron. 28.2) according to the Chronicler. Thus, in
18. Kethib, 19. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 134-38, 154-59. 20. Chronicles, p. 162.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
169
1 Chron. 17.1 (and v. 11, cf. 2 Sam. 7.10) the Chronicler omits the notion that David gave rest to the land since the Chronicler associated rest with the construction of the temple, not the conquest of the land.21 Then, 1 Chron. 22.9 (which Williamson agrees is from the Chronicler) associates the notion of rest with Solomon, 'the man of rest'. This association undoubtedly arises because Solomon was the temple builder, as the following verse makes clear (22.10). Thus, we see that the theology of rest in 1 Chron. 23.24-27 is entirely consistent with what we find elsewhere in Chronicles. Scholars also point to the tensions between 1 Chron. 23.1-6 and 28-32 when attributing vv. 28-32 to a later editor. Welch reasons that 'the writer entirely departed from the subject, which was stated in v. 6a. Instead of dealing with the levitical courses, he turned his attention to a careful definition of the relation between priest and Levite.'22 However, Chronicles devotes special attention to the relationship between the priest and the Levites throughout its narratives. For example, in the Chronicler's description of the Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah, the priests and Levites work closely together in the sacrifice (cf. 2 Chron. 30.15-16; 35.3-6, 10-12).23 This coordination is according to the prescription in 1 Chron. 23.2S-32.24 Thus, 1 Chron. 23.24-32, while in tension with the opening of the chapter, is entirely consistent with themes and motifs elsewhere in Chronicles. Verses 24-32 thus appear to be the result of the Chronicler's revision and expansion of a source and not the result of secondary editing. There were two major arguments for assigning chs. 23-27 to a later editor. First, the repetition in 23.2 and 28.1 was thought to be a sourcecritical marker. However, it is clear that the use of repetition is characteristic of the Chronicler's compositional procedures and thus the repetition should be seen as a literary feature rather than a source-critical marker. Secondly, the tension between chs. 23-27 and the other material in Chronicles has suggested that these chapters are secondary. 21. Micheel comes to a similar conclusion, arguing that the Chronicler considered David a 'man of war' (1 Chron. 22.8; 28.3) and Solomon was the 'man of peace'. This explanation would also account for the editing of 2 Sam. 7 without suggesting that there were two redactors; see Die Seher- und Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, p. 15. 22. The Work of the Chronicler, p. 85. 23. Also see Wright, 'The Legacy of David in Chronicles', pp. 233-37. 24. See also 2 Chron. 5.4-13; 7.6; 8.13-15; 23.18; 29.3-24, 31-36.
170
The Word of God in Transition
However, at best this shows that there are two redactional layers within chs. 23-27, as Williamson argues. Moreover, Japhet points out that the Chronicler's compositional procedures elsewhere suggest that the Chronicler was combining divergent sources. Chapter 23 illustrates this type of compositional procedure. Therefore, chs. 23-27 are most likely the work of the Chronicler rather than that of a later redactor or editor. In these chapters, the Chronicler was using sources which are currently no longer extant. No doubt he employed these sources with the same exegetical creativity which he demonstrates elsewhere with his extant sources. Music and Prophecy A growing consensus of scholars recognizes some relationship between prophecy and psalmody.25 The form-critical approach of Hermann Gunkel already recognized the similarities between psalms and prophetic oracles. Gunkel assumed that the liturgical literature was mostly postexilic and concluded that the prophetic oracles must have strongly influenced the psalms. The psalmists borrowed from the prophets.26 Sigmund Mowinckel adopted Gunkel's form-critical approach, but not his chronological assumptions. Mowinckel dismissed the late dating of the psalms and sought the origin and use of the 'prophetic' psalms within the cult. He hypothesized the existence of cult prophets associated with cult music. The musical background of the cult eventually subsumed these cult prophets.27 Aubrey Johnson extends Mowinckel's analysis, arguing that the cultic prophet played a role equal to the priest. Johnson, like Mowinckel, associates the role of the cultic prophet with the later levitical singers.28 Both Mowinckel and Johnson carefully distinguish between the cult prophets and the so-called canonical prophets. The cult prophets 25. See the summary of research by W.H. Bellinger, Jr, Psalmody and Prophecy (JSOTSup, 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 9-21. 26. H. Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction (trans. T. Horner, with an introduction by J. Muilenburg; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967); H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1966). 27. S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien. III. Kultprophetie und Prophetische Psalmen (Amsterdam: Schippers, 1966), pp. 1-29. 28. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, pp. 69-74; The Cultic Prophet and Israel's Psalmody, pp. 130-31.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
171
participated in the life of the temple, in intercession and in worship. Johnson regards the entire book of Psalms as the work of cult prophets. The broad role which Johnson assigns to the cult prophets reflects the range of Gattungen in the psalms. Thus, the cult prophets would have had roles in the life of the individual (for example, Individual Lament Psalms, Thanksgiving Psalms), the temple (Torah Songs, Entrance Liturgies, Hymns), and the state (Community Laments, Royal Psalms). Johnson argues that the canonical prophets' polemic against false prophets focuses on the cult prophets. Johnson envisions the levitical singers mentioned in Chronicles as a direct continuity with the cult prophets of pre-exilic Israel. Cult prophecy implies a certain fluidity between the prophet and the temple singer. Steven Geller illustrates this fluidity with a Greek analogy: The tension [between prophets and poets] was perceptible to the Greeks. To be sure, they ascribed divine inspiration to both prophets and poets. The muse inspired the latter as Apollo did his Pythian oracle.29
The analogy is instructive. Both the prophet and the poet were inspired, that is, both claimed a divine origin for their words. Yet their inspiration came from different gods. Not only were the gods different, but also the quality of inspiration was different. In Israel, Geller argues, the Jews absorbed poetry into prophecy. Thus, the Psalms were divinely inspired, just like the oracles of the former prophets. Once the psalms begin to be revered as Scripture, their authors, and David in particular, would certainly be considered as divinely inspired.30 In spite of this, there was probably a distinction between musical inspiration and prophetic inspiration. This distinction can be explored with reference to the levitical singers. Tradition credits the levitical singers with writing temple music. The psalm superscriptions, for instance, ascribe some of the canonical psalms to the pens of Heman, Asaph and Jeduthun (Pss. 39, 50, 62, 73-83, 88). The book of Chronicles attributes written psalms to both David and Asaph. According to the Chronicler, during Hezekiah's reform the Levites celebrate by singing psalms written by David and Asaph:
29. S. Geller, 'Were the Prophets Poets?', Prooftexts 3 (1983), p. 211. 30. See J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scrolls ofQumrdn Cave 11 (4QPS0) (DJD, 4; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 91-93.
172
The Word of God in Transition Hezekiah the king and the officials enjoined the Levites to praise YHWH with the psalms of David and Asaph the seer and they sung joyful praises and bowed down and worshipped (2 Chron. 29.30).
No special inspiration is attributed here to 'the psalms of David and Asaph'. Yet these psalms seem to be legitimated by virtue of their association with David and Asaph. The legitimating of music by association with David, 'the psalmist of Israel' (2 Sam. 23.1), compares with the legitimating of the Jerusalem cult via its association with David, 'the man of God' (2 Chron. 8.13-15).31 According to the Qumran Psalms Scroll, David wrote psalms through prophetic inspiration: And [David] wrote psalms... and the total was 4,050. All these he spoke prophetically which was given to him from before the Most High (1 lQPsa 27.4, 10-11).
The scroll explicitly associates David's prophetic gift with his writing of hymns.32 The Psalms scroll suggests that David wrote psalms for every temple occasion including the Sabbath, daily offerings, new moons, the Day of Atonement and even personal lamentations (cf. 1 IQPs3 27.5-10). While Chronicles does not explicitly associate a prophetic gift with David and Asaph's psalms, it does suggest that the psalms were considered part of the regular temple liturgy. The prophetic title hozeh given to Asaph in 2 Chron. 29.30 relates to his position making music in the temple. All the contexts which employ the title hozeh for the levitical singers are intimately tied with the making of music. 2 Chron. 29.25 places the Levites in the temple with musical instruments 'by the command of David'; v. 26 states that the Levites had 'instruments of David'; in v. 27 the Levites begin to sing 'the song 31. J.W. Kleinig's recent study agrees, and he adds, 'The Chronicler aims to prove the legitimacy of choral music by showing that it was commanded by the LORD and was wholly consistent with the ancient pattern of worship which the LORD had ordained through Moses' (The LORD'S Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles [JSOTSup, 156; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1973], p. 186). As de Vries pointed out, David is patterned after Moses ('Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 619-39). 32. Sanders has argued rather convincingly that the implicit claim of the scroll is that David was the author of the scroll. On similar grounds, one may argue that the canonical form of the Greek Psalter which ends with Psalm 151 (cf. 1 IQPs3 28) also suggests Davidic authorship. Contrast the apocryphal work The Martyrdom and Acension of Isaiah which was composed in about the same period but assumes a composite authorship of the book of Psalms (4.21-22).
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
173
of YHWH'. Just as in 2 Chron. 29.25, 2 Chron. 35.15 places the singers in their positions according to the 'command of David'. Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman are titled 'royal hozeh'.^ The 'command of David' in both these cases must refer to 1 Chron. 25.1-6 where David installs Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman as the heads of the levitical singers. Given this, it seems that the LXX in 1 Chron. 25.5 is correct in translating i^ian nm as TO) ocvaKpo'uo|j,evq> TO> paaiXei, 'royal musician', rather than 'royal seer'. The contexts in which the title hozeh is applied to Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun indicate that they were the royal musicians. Their music, as indicated by the use of the verb 'to prophesy' (V«D3), was probably considered as inspired by the Chronicler and his contemporaries. We might call them 'inspired royal musicians'. The Chronicler's ascription of inspiration to the levitical singers is by no means unusual. A close association between music and prophecy may be inferred from many biblical texts. Sigmund Mowinckel has argued that the psalms are prophetically inspired within the cultic context.34 Similarly, Roland de Vaux suggests that 'the Chronicler considered them [levitical singers] as "inspired" and he may have done so merely because the writing and singing of psalms required a kind of inspiration ,..'.35 This opinion is substantiated by 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The production of psalms was apparently considered an inspired act. The close association between ecstatic prophecy and music links divine inspiration and the production of songs. Perhaps the best-known association of prophecy with music is in the account of Saul's prophetic inspiration. The prophet Samuel tells Saul that he is to go to Gibeah where he will meet a group of prophets and will be caught up in their prophetic activity (1 Sam. 10.5-6): 5 After this you will come to the hill of God where there are Philistine prefects and when you come to the city there you shall encounter a band of prophets going down from the shrine preceded by lyres, timbrels, flutes, and harps and they will be prophesying. 6 Then the spirit of YHWH will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them and you will become another man. 33. Most scholars emend to the plural form "[ban 'tn. This emendation is supported by most of the versions, including 1 Esd. 1.15. Whether or not the emendation is accepted, it is clear that the Chronicler is refering to all three heads of the levitical singers. 34. Psalmenstudien, III, p. 3. 35. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (ET; New York and Toronto: MacGraw Hill, 1961), p. 385.
174
The Word of God in Transition
The hithpael form of the verb 'to prophesy' («33nn) indicates that the band of prophets and Saul were 'acting as prophets', that is, doing things characteristic of prophets. In this case, the characteristic prophetic act is often assumed to be 'speaking in ecstasy'. Music may accompany or be used to induce this ecstatic prophecy. An account in the Elisha narratives is undoubtedly the clearest biblical illustration of the role of music in prophecy. In 2 Kings 3, Jehoshaphat is about to go to war with the king of Israel. He asks to inquire from a nabi' associated with YHWH. They bring the prophet Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Elisha calls for music to be played to induce his prophetic oracle (v. 15): 15 'Now then, get a musician for me.' And when the musician began to play, the hand of YHWH came upon him 16 and he said, 'Thus says YHWH
The music apparently induces an ecstatic state in which Elisha prophesies. The prophet actively calls for the music to induce the ecstatic state. While it must be admitted that this northern prophetic narrative is rather remote from the book of Chronicles, it nevertheless illustrates the close association between music and prophetic speech. The Levitical 'Singers' Cult prophecy is ultimately associated with the levitical singers. Among the cultic personnel, only the levitical singers are called 'seers' and 'prophesy'. Sigmund Mowinckel, for instance, considered the levitical singers responsible for the 'prophetischen Psalmen'. He justified a prophetic label for some psalms by reference to 1 Chronicles 25: And so we understand it also in the case where the Chronicler uses the termnibba (IChron. 25,1, 2, 3) for the functions of the singers or the termnebi'im (so, kethib) for the singers directly: the singers are prophetically endowed and a prophetic inspiration strengthens their skill.36
Mowinckel's reading overlooks the problematic use of the root »2] in 1 Chron. 25.1-3. As will be pointed out below, the use of the term 82] in 1 Chron. 25.1-3 is rather peculiar and belies the special nature of the levitical singers' 'inspiration'.37 36. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, III, p. 22. 37. Von Rad also connected cult prophecy with the levitical singers. In contrast with Mowinckel, who dated the institution to the monarchical period, von Rad
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
175
The discussion which links prophecy and the levitical singers has focused on three texts: 1 Chron. 25.1-6, 2 Chron. 20.14-17 and 2 Chron. 34.30. For example, D.L. Petersen argues from these texts that the Chronicler has tried to portray the levitical singers as prophets: ... the Chronicler and his redactors have gone to great trouble to argue that the Levitical singers of Israel's past were really prophets ... He once changed one word so that the Levites would appear to be prophets (2 Chron. 34.20 [sic; he means 34.30]). On one occasion he subtly worked with genealogies so that it would appear that David had appointed levitical singers as prophets (1 Chron. 25). He also reconceptualized Israel's holy war so that Levitical prophets were understood to be crucial for Israel's success against her foes (2 Chron. 20). And on another occasion, Levites and Levitical prophets were portrayed as better than priests and given special priestly prerogatives (2 Chron. 29).38
We will examine below Petersen's understanding of 1 Chron. 25.1-6, 2 Chron. 20.14-17 and 2 Chron. 34.30. 2 Chronicles 29 is less critical to the argument than Petersen imagines. While the text does give a special role to the Levites, this does not imply any prophetic status for the Levites as a group. The special role relates to the establishment of the Levites in 1 Chron. 23.28-32, 25.1-6 and 26.1-28. The offhand reference to Asaph as a 'royal seer' (2 Chron. 29.30) hardly supports labeling the Levites as a group 'prophets'. The critical texts for this discussion are 1 Chron. 25.1-6, 2 Chron. 20.14-17, and 2 Chron. 34.30. 1 Chronicles 25.1-6: The Commissioning of the Levitical Singers 25.1 David and the officers of the army set apart for service the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, who prophesied to the accompaniment of lyres, harps, and cymbals. The list of men who performed this work, assigned it to post-exilic Israel. He writes, 'Von jeher stand in Israel die Verbindung mit der Gottheit auf zwei Faktoren: auf dem sakrifiziellen Vollzug des Kultes und auf dem prophetischen Gottesspruch. Das Opferwesen war in Handen der Priester; so blieb die inspirierte Rede, um von den leviten in Beschlag genommen zu werden, und dafi sie weithin ihre Anspriiche realisiern konnten, zeigt der tatsachlich Wirkungskreis, der ihnen als Psalmendichtern oder als Verkiindern, sie es von agendarisch festgelegten oder von freieren Orakeln innerhalb der Tempelliturgie, zustand' (Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, pp. 114-15). The differences between their positions reflect different views on the dating of the Pentateuchal sources. 38. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 87. 39. Reading with the qere, LTKgan; kethib,
176
The Word of God in Transition according to their service, included: 2 Sons of Asaph: Zaccur, Joseph, Nethaniah, and Asarelah—sons of Asaph under the charge of Asaph, who prophesied by order of the king. 3 Jeduthun—the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, Zeri, Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, Mattithiah—six. [These were] under their father Jeduthun, who accompanied on the harp, prophesied, praising and extolling YHWH. 4 Heman—the sons of Heman: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuil, Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti, Ramamti-ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, and Mahazioth; 5 all these were the sons of Heman, the royal seer in the affairs of God to exalt him.40 God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. 6 Each of these was under their father for singing in the house of YHWH to the accompaniment of cymbals, harps, and lyres, for the service of the house of God by the commissioning of the king41—Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman.
Comments. The composition of 1 Chron. 25.1-6 and ch. 25 as a whole relates to the composition of chs. 23-27 discussed earlier. Chapters 2327 are from the Chronicler's hand, but these chapters incorporate earlier sources. This compositional technique is also evident in 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The most obvious indication of an earlier source is in v. 4, the list of Neman's sons. Scholars early recognized that the list of names was unusual. The consensus of opinion now holds that the list was mistakenly understood to be personal names although it was likely either a psalm or incipits to psalms, as will be discussed below.42 The Chronicler erroneously exploits this source in reconstructing the divisions of the levitical singers. The awkward nature of the list proves that the Chronicler was composing from sources and not entirely independently. Verses 1-6 have solicited a wide variety of interpretations by commentators. Here, perhaps more than any other place in Chronicles, we find a high concentration of difficult terms and phrases, including n*$an (v. 1), 40. The phrase pp D'^n1? in v. 5 has spawned a great variety of interpretations. Elsewhere the phrase is employed to heighten the authority and power of a person (for example, 1 Sam. 2.10; Pss. 89.18; 92.11). Most commentators ignore the masoretic punctuation (the athnah) and suggest that God exalted Heman; see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 278; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 166; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 168. 41. This is freely translated. See Rudolph's translation, 'nach Unweisung des konigs . . . ' (Chronikbiicher, p. 166). 42. Curtis notes that the unusual nature of these names was already observed by Ewald, Wellhausen and Koberle (Chronicles, p. 278). See further Williamson, Chronicles, p. 167; Myers, / Chronicles, p. 173; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, pp. 16768.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
111
K33H (v. 2), K33H ~n3?3 (v. 3), the list of awkward names in v. 4b, and the phrase D'H^Nii "•QID (v. 5). At the outset, the very concentration of obscure readings in these verses suggests that the Chronicler was working with a source or sources. The interpretive problems in vv. 1, 2 and 3 are mutually enlightening. The lexeme n'K33n in v. 1 can be read either D'N33n, 'those who prophesy' with the qere, or D't^an/the prophets', with the kethib. The LXX, aTtocpGeyyouivoix;, 'those who uttered sounds', and the Targum, 1K3]nm, 'those who were prophesying', reflect the qere. In v. 2, the phrase N33H rptf is vocalized as N33n ^ot* 'Asaph, who was prophesying', by the MT. The Targum agrees with this reading, translating Ktznip m~i3 '33nfcn, 'who was prophesying by the holy spirit'. However, the LXX reflects a different reading, Aacccp TO\> TipocpriTO'u. This indicates that the LXX has vocalized Nnan, thus giving Asaph the title 'the prophet' rather than calling him 'one who was prophesying'. In vv. 1 and 2 the textual traditions reflect different vocalizations of the root 3. Only in v. 3 is the reading unambiguous. In v. 3, the phrase n Ti3'33 describes a peculiar kind of prophetic activity, namely prophecy connected with music. The LXX translates this phrase ev KWTjpoc dvaKpoDOfievoi, 'with the harp making a loud noise'. The phrase, K33H -11333 must be understood as a verbal clause (not a noun clause) because «3D.n does not follow a proper name as in vv. 1 and 2. This reading naturally influences the readings for vv. 1 and 2. Since the lexeme N33H must be read as a verb in v. 3, it is likely that both trtO]n and K33H should be read as verbs in vv. 1 and 2. In fact, the description in v. 3, N33H 11333, 'who prophesied on the lyre', recalls the qere in v. 1, 'those who were prophesying with lyres, harps, and cymbals'. The association of music with prophecy in vv. 1 and 3 supports the MT and Targum reading in v. 2, 'Asaph who was prophesying' (833n ^ON), over against the LXX reading, 'Asaph the prophet' (Aacccp tot) Tipocpriiot)). The MT and Targum readings are further substantiated by the fact that the title hozeh (Greek, opcovcof;), and not nabi', is the title applied to the heads of the levitical singers elsewhere in Chronicles (cf. 1 Chron. 25.5; 2 Chron. 29.30; 35.15).43 In sum, vv. 1-3 indicate that the heads of the levitical singers were gifted so that they could prophesy through music. 43. It is possible that the Chronicler used a source which referred to the Levites with the title N'Djn, reflecting the role of a cult prophet. However, outside of the heads of the levitical singers the Chronicler evinces no knowledge or understanding of the institution of cult prophecy.
178
The Word of God in Transition
The LXX treatment of vv. 1-3 is unusual and merits further discussion. The LXX implies a unique meaning for the root V«3] 'to prophesy' when it is applied to the levitical singers. In 1 Chron. 25.1 the LXX translates those who uttered sounds', and in 1 Chron. 25.3 it translates 'with the harp making a loud noise'. In these two instances, the LXX translation strips from the root VKH] any nuance of divine inspiration, even though elsewhere the LXX translates V«33 with .44 However, in this one case the LXX treats V«3] as if it were related to the Akkadian nabu, 'to call (out)'. What are we to make of the LXX's translation of V«3] in these two instances? It may be an attempt to separate music from prophecy. In v. 5 the LXX translates the title 'royal hozeh1 as iq> ocvccKpo-uouevo) TO> P<xoriA,ei, 'the royal musician', since the job of the 'royal musician' was to give praise 'with the words of God' ( D-rfwn "Q-n). In v. 2 the phrase *ajn *p« is not related to the making of music, but it is interpreted as a title, that is, Acacp TO\) 7ipo<pr|TO'D, 'Asaph the prophet'. The LXX understands Asaph to be a 'prophet' (rcpocpriToq, v. 2) but does not describe his music (vv. 1, 3) as 'prophecy'. It has long been recognized that the names in v. 4b are 'somewhat outside the normal gamut of Hebrew onomastic formations' and that with only slight redivision and repointing they can be read as poetry.45 A tentative reconstruction of the poetry is offered below:
Be gracious to me, YHWH, be gracious to me; You are my God, whom I highly exalt, My help when in trouble, I say. Increase my vision and sign [?].
This reconstruction mostly follows what Williamson has termed 'the consensus of moderate opinion' ,46 The precise reconstruction, if it were 44. See 2 Para. 18.7-12, 17; 20.37. 45. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 65. 46. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 167; see P. Haupt, 'Die psalmenverse in 1 Chronik 25.4', ZAW 34 (1914), pp. 142-45; J. Bohmer, 'Sind einige Personennamen in 1 Chron. 25.4 "kunstlich geschaffen"?', BZ 22 (1934), pp. 93-100; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 64-66; Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 277-80; Myers, / Chronicles, p. 173. For a more bold reading of these names, see H. Torczyner, 'A Psalm by the Sons of Heman', JBL 68 (1949), pp. 247-49. For additional bibliography, see Williamson and Petersen.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
179
attainable, is not germane to this study. What is interesting, however, is that the Chronicler apparently considered the 'names' to be a genuine genealogical list. Myers has suggested that these 'names' were not actually a short lament, but a series of five incipits, that is, the first lines of five psalms which served as titles.47 Either of these two suggestions is more plausible than suggesting that the Chronicler fabricated this unlikely list of names. Whether this was a short lament or a series of incipits, it demonstrates the type of compositional process at work in Chronicles; namely, the author was working with sources which he did not always properly apprehend.48 Scholars have variously understood the phrase D'n^Nn -"ma in v. 5 in various ways. Williamson follows NEB, translating D'n'pNn "ma as 'according to the promise of God'.49 Curtis suggests either 'with the words of God' or 'by the commands of God' or perhaps 'in divine affairs'.50 The LXX has understood this phrase in a very straightforward manner, translating ev Xoyon; Geou, 'with the words of God'. The Targum translates -" mp p n«i3] 'anaa, 'for Heman, a prophet of the king, with the words of prophecy from God'. Thus, the Targum interprets D-nb^n nm as prophetic revelation received from YHWH. However, in biblical Hebrew the prophetic word is always in the singular, thus D'nb«n ~m and not D'n^Nn nin.51 The most obvious 47. Myers, / Chronicles, p. 173. Compare line la with Pss. 51.3; 56.2; 57.2; cf. line Ib with Ps. 53.2; cf. line 2a with Pss. 34.4; 115.9-11. Similarly, W.F. Albright has argued that Psalm 68 should also be read as a series of incipits that later was mistakenly understood as a psalm; see 'A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalms 68)', HUCA 23.1 (1950-51), pp. 1-39. For a discussion of these kind of incipits in Mesopotamian literature, see S.N. Kramer, 'The Oldest Literary Catalogue: A Sumerian List of Literary Compositions Compiled about 2000 BC', BASOR 88 (1942), pp. 10-19. 48. Elsewhere, I have suggested that the same compositional procedures are involved in the Chronicler's account of Manasseh's reign; that is, the Chronicler utilized an older source which mentioned the prayer of Manasseh and the Chronicler mistakenly understood this prayer to be a prayer of repentance; see my article The Source Citations of Manasseh', pp. 450-61. Similarly, B. Halpern argues for 'misapprehensions' by the ancient biblical historian; see 'The Resourceful Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography', HTR 76 (1983), pp. 379-401. This article is incorporated into Halpern's book, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 76-103. 49. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 168. 50. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 278. 51. The phrase C'n^Kn —m occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible
180
The Word of God in Transition
translation then would be 'the affairs of God' as in 1 Chron. 26.32: and David the king appointed them over the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh for every affair of God and every affair of the king
The parallelism between 'the affair of the king' and 'the affair of God' clarifies the meaning of DTT^Kn ~Q"r in that context. This example is instructive for 1 Chron. 25.5. There, Heman is described as 'a royal hozeh with the words of God' ("1212 -pon nrn D'nb^n). Heman' s position as the royal seer is associated with his responsibilities in 'the affairs of God'. Thus, both 25.5 and 26.32 connect the divine affairs and royal affairs. It would seem then that the best understanding of the phrase nvfTKn "~n-n is 'in divine affairs'. What now are we to make of ch. 25? Myers contends that it 'is an attempt to authenticate the position of the levitical singers by referring the origin of their position to David' ,52 The association of the levitical singers to David occurs throughout Chronicles. For instance, the opening genealogies ascribe the organization of the levitical singers to David (1 Chron. 6.16): And these [the sons of Levi, cf. vv. 1-15] David appointed to be in charge of song in the house of YHWH, from the time the ark came to rest.
Myers' analysis, namely that the Chronicler tries to authenticate the levitical singers' position, implies that temple singers originated in the post-exilic period and perhaps even that the Chronicler fabricated their position in the temple. However, this position is difficult to sustain. 1 Chron. 25.1-6 obviously draws on a source or sources and is not the Chronicler's independent composition. Moreover, v. 1 states that 'David and the army officers' set up the guild of levitical singers. If this were a late invention, the Chronicler would not have included the army officers in an attempt to authenticate the levitical singers' position in the temple. It is easy to see how the prophets Gad or Nathan might be used by a post-exilic author to further substantiate David's establishment of the levitical singers, as they are in 2 Chron. 29.25. Yet it is difficult to see occurs three times; 2 Sam. 16.23; 1 Kgs 12.22; 1 Chron. 26.32). The phrase mrr nan occurs only 17 times (mrr nai occurs 313 times); some of these occurrences may result from dittography and others should be translated 'the affairs of YHWH'; see Exod. 4.28; 24.3, 4; Num. 11.24; Josh. 3.9; 1 Sam. 8.10; 15.1; Jer. 36.4, 6, 8, 11; 37.2; 43.1; Ezek. 11.25; Amos 8. 11; 2 Chron. 11.4; 29.15. 52. I Chronicles, p. 111.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
181
why the army officers would be included in post-exilic explanation of the establishment of the levitical singers. The conclusion seems unavoidable that the Chronicler is relying on an earlier source in this reference. Where, then, are the origins of the levitical singers? We may assume that the same questions which surrounded the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood in the post-exilic period also surrounded the temple singers.53 H. Gese has argued that the post-exilic references to the levitical singers are not monolithic.54 Consequently, Gese sees a diachronic development towards associating the temple singers with the Levites. The association of the temple singers with the Levites, and in particular with Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, undoubtedly lent antiquity and authenticity to the levitical guild. On the other hand, Nahum Sarna has argued that these references go back to authentic, albeit different, pre-exilic traditions.55 The difficulties in 1 Chron. 25.1-6 would support Sarna's argument. Yet it is difficult to know the exact extent of the Chronicler's sources. There obviously were traditions which connected the levitical singers with the pre-exilic cult and with David in particular. The antiquity and reliability of these sources and the Chronicler's use of them is a debate which is beyond the scope of this study. There is also a tendency in Chronicles to distance the levitical singers from David. For instance, ch. 25 also attributes the division of the priestly courses to 'the casting of lots' (v. 8). Williamson suggests that there are two principles for organization: (1) division by David and (2) choosing by lots. The latter Williamson ascribes to the work of a 'pro-priestly revisor'. However, it is difficult to see the hand of this revisor elsewhere in Chronicles. For instance, 2 Chron. 29.25 jointly ascribes the origin of the levitical singers to David, Gad and Nathan. This belies a tension between prophetic and Davidic authority for the institution. On the one hand, scholars who consider 1 Chronicles 23-27 a secondary insertion often assign the verse to an editor. Yet the correspondence between 1 Chron. 25.1-6 and 2 Chron. 29.25 is far from exact. Consider 2 Chron. 29.25, 53. On the Zadokite priesthood, see A. Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib, 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), pp. 88-93; H.H. Rowley, 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), pp. 113-41. Cf. M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service (repr.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 7183. 54. 'Geschichte der Kultsanger am zweiten Tempel', pp. 147-58. 55. Sarna, 'The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds', p. 283.
182
The Word of God in Transition And [Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the house of YHWH with cymbals, harps, and lyres by the commandment of David and Gad the royal hozeh and Nathan the nabi' because the commandment was by YHWH through his nebi'im.
While the association of the temple singers with David is characteristic of 1 Chron. 25.1-6, including Gad and Nathan as co-authorities has no precedent. What is the purpose of mentioning Gad and Nathan here when they are conspicuously absent in 1 Chronicles 25? The mention of Nathan and Gad presumably adds more authority to David's organization of the levitical singers. Thus, the authority of the institution is not only from David the king, but also comes through YHWH's prophets.56 The authority of the prophets and priests supplements David's installation of the levitical singers. Although Myers claims that 1 Chronicles 25 attempts to authenticate the levitical singers' positions by appeal to their Davidic origin, in 2 Chron. 29.25 an appeal to Davidic origin was not deemed sufficient. Thus, 2 Chron. 29.25 appeals to David's authority which he received through the prophets. 1 Chron. 25.8 supplements the appeal to Davidic authority with priestly authority implied by the casting of lots. In both cases, the appeal to Davidic authority alone was not deemed sufficient. 2 Chronicles 20.14-17: The Inspiration of a Levitical Singer The Levite JahazieFs speech prefaces the war between Jehoshaphat and the Edomites in 2 Chronicles 20 which is often discussed under the rubric of the 'holy war'.57 The narrative begins with a report to Jehoshaphat that Moab and its allies were attacking Judah from across the Dead Sea. JahazieFs speech is preceded by a prayer of Jehoshaphat (vv. 3-12). As 'all Judah stood before YHWH' (v. 13), the spirit of YHWH inspired the levitical singer Jahaziel (2 Chron. 20.14-17): 14 And the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mathaniah, the Levite from the sons of Asa, in the midst of the assembly, 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah, Jerusalemites, and king Jehoshaphat! Thus YHWH has said to you that 56. See Williamson, Chronicles, p. 358. 57. For example, Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 68-77. Petersen aptly summarizes the positions of Wellhausen, Noth, Rudolph, Myers and Welten concerning the historicity of the battle recorded in this chapter; see pp. 70-71. However, the historicity of battle is not of particular interest to this study since we are concerned with the Chronicler's perceptions of the Levites' role.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
183
you should not be afraid and should not be dismayed before this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's. 16 Fall upon them tomorrow. They will be coming up the Ascent of Ziz and you shall find them at the end of the wadi towards the Jeruel steppeland. 17 It is not for you to fight in this, stand by, wait, and see the salvation of YHWH in your behalf! O Judah and Jerusalem, do not fear and do not be dismayed; tomorrow, go forth against them and YHWH will be with you.'
The speech is usually discussed under the rubric of prophecy because of the possession formula, 'the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel', which prefaces Jahaziel's speech (v. 14). In addition, the speech of Jahaziel includes a form of the messenger formula (see discussion in Chapter 2). These elements certainly prove that Jahaziel's speech was inspired and even 'prophetic'. On the other hand, it was pointed out in Chapter 1 that the possession formula is not typical of prophecy. The possession and messenger formulas only serve to show that the speech was inspired, not that the speaker was a 'prophet'. Jehoshaphat's response to Jahaziel's speech might advance the argument that Jahaziel was a prophet. Jehoshaphat and the Judahites humbly receive the speech of Jahaziel and Jehoshaphat briefly exhorts the people to faithfulness (v. 20). But Jehoshaphat's speech in v. 20b is only loosely associated with its context: Believe in YHWH your God, and you will be established, Believe in his nebi'im, and you will succeed.
The exhortation draws on a different context of impending war, that is, the Syro-Ephraimite alliance against Judah (cf. Isa. 7; 2 Kgs 16.5-6).58 The first verset is usually understood as a direct borrowing from Isa. 7.9b: 'If you do not believe, then you will not be established OnnKD t6 "3 iD'ngin ^ at*)'. Both passages play on the root Vps, 'to believe, establish'. In Isaiah, the prophet is asking Ahaz to believe the prophecy concerning the attack of Aram and Ephraim, namely that YHWH would deliver Judah from their attack. Similarly, Jehoshaphat is asking the people to trust that YHWH will deliver them from the attack of the Moabite coalition. Yet Jehoshaphat does not appeal for the people to believe a prophecy, but rather to believe in YHWH and his prophets. On the narrative level, Jehoshaphat might seem to be asking the people to 58. See M. Fishbane, 'The "Sign" in the Hebrew Bible', Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 1 (1975), pp. 213-14 (Hebrew).
184
The Word of God in Transition
believe in the prophecy of the levitical singer Jahaziel. Yet Jehoshaphat's appeal here is to his nebi'im—that is, plural and not singular. Thus, we must assume that Jahaziel is not the only referent, if he is a referent at all. On another level, the significance for the Chronicler's contemporary audience must have been 'trust in the former prophets'—that is, the writings of the former prophets. As Williamson writes, 'By his day, knowledge of God is increasingly through the written, perhaps even canonical, word. Prophecy is now primarily a matter for reinterpretation and application'.59 This is in fact just what Jahaziel's speech was, a reinterpretation of authoritative texts (see discussion in Chapter 2). The Chronicler's reuse of Isa. 7.9 hints that the Chronicler held the writings of the former prophets in great authority. M. Fishbane writes, 'the Chronicler was concerned to emphasize trust in oracles of confidence; but he does so by strongly emphasizing the central role of the prophets, by whose divinely inspired words Israel will find success'. 60 It is a mistake to emphasize too strongly the narrative significance of the phrase 'Believe in his prophets', and thereby assume that the Chronicler purposed to portray Jahaziel and the levitical singers as prophets. In this case we can learn from the reader-response school of literary criticism.61 The meaning of the phrase cannot be understood apart from the readers. The Chronicler has contemporary and homiletic aims in his use of the injunction, 'believe in his prophets'. The Chronicler repeatedly shows himself to be more concerned with his contemporary audience than the past event. History is only the medium of the Chronicler's message. 2 Chronicles 34.30—Prophets Become Levites? The Chronicler has made a significant change in his Vorlage in 2 Chron. 34.30, substituting 'Levites' for 'prophets'. In 2 Kgs 23.2 we read, And the king went up to the house of YHWH along with every person in Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the nebi'im, and every 59. Chronicles, p. 299. 60. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 387; see his general discussion, pp. 386-88. A similar view is outlined in Zech. 1.6's reference to the 'former prophets'; cf. Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', pp. 226-29. 61. See W. Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978); E. McKnight, The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
185
person among the people whether great or small. And [the king] read aloud all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH.
In 2 Chron. 34.30 we read: And the king went up to the house of YHWH along with every person in Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the Levites, and every person among the people whether great or small. And [the king] read aloud all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH.
The texts are identical except that the Chronicler has substituted 'priests and Levites' for 'priests and prophets'.62 Many commentators note this change, 63 yet it has often been misunderstood and overstated. For instance, von Rad deduces from the difference between 2 Kgs 23.2 and 2 Chron. 34.30 that the Chronicler wished to give the levitical singers 'a prophetic function' ,64 Similarly, Petersen believes that 'this one verse is an instance in which the Chronicler chose to identify the Levites of his own time with the prophets of Israel's past'.65 Von Rad, Petersen and others put an inordinate amount of weight on this alteration. Julius Wellhausen, on the other hand, saw the proper significance of the change when he suggested that Chronicles amplifies 'Levites as leading personalities'.66 Wellhausen also noted in this context that the Targum to 2 Kgs 23.1-2 translates 'priests and prophets' as 'priests and scribes'. This change echoes the frequent expression 'chief priests and scribes' in the New Testament (cf. Mt. 2.4; 16.21; 20.18; 21.15; 27.41; Mk 8.31; 10.33; 11.18, 27; 14.1, 43, 53; 15.1, 31). It is unlikely that the Targum intended to equate 'scribes' with 'prophets'. Rather, the priests and scribes were the leading personalities. The context of 2 Chron. 34.30 supports Wellhausen's explanation. The phrase 'priests and prophets' 62. It is always possible that the Chronicler's Vorlage, which as Lemke ('Synoptic Studies') and others have shown was not the same as the MT of SamuelKings, read 'priests and Levites' rather than 'priests and prophets'. However, since the alteration is clearly in line with the Chronicler's interests in the Levites elsewhere, it seems more likely that this alteration is from the Chronicler's own hand. 63. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 511; Michaeli, Chroniques, p. 245; Galling, Die Biicher der Chronik, p. 176; Johnson, The Cultic Prophet, p. 72; Myers, II Chronicles, p. 208. 64. Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, p. 114. 65. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 85. See also Myers, / Chronicles, p. 171. 66. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 192.
186
The Word of God in Transition
occurs within a long list of all the inhabitants of the land: 'the king, along with every person in Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the prophets, and every person among the people whether great or small'. Given this context, the question becomes whether the Chronicler replaced 'prophets' with 'Levites' in order to identify the two groups or, more likely, because the Chronicler felt 'Levites' were more appropriate in a list of all the inhabitants of the land and thus should be included in the list. Furthermore, to suggest that the Chronicler replaced 'prophets' with 'Levites' in order to identify the two groups implies that the author of Chronicles assumed an intimate knowledge of the books of Kings on the part of his readers. It is hardly likely that the Chronicler's replacement of 'prophets' with 'Levites' would have been observed except by the most careful synoptic reading of the two works. The Chronicler's replacement of 'prophets' with 'Levites' conforms to his own social reality. That is, prophets were not as significant in the Chronicler's social reality as Levites. For instance, in the books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah we find the phrase 'priests and Levites' 31 times, but we never find the phrase 'priests and prophets'.67 The Chronicler's replacement of 'prophets' with 'Levites' in a list of all the inhabitants of the land probably reflects the Chronicler's notion of who were the more important players in the social organization of post-exilic Israel. The change is a reflex of the post-exilic situation rather than a carefully conceived alteration loaded with theological import. Summary Considering our examination of these texts, the general characterization of Levites as prophets is unwarranted. Prophecy itself is attributed only to the heads of the levitical singers and not to the Levites as a group. Moreover, the primary focus of the Chronicler is the heads of the levitical singers—Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. Petersen's discussion of the levitical prophecy indiscriminately includes passages concerning all the Levites with those concerning the levitical singers. The Chronicler does 67. Cf. 1 Chron. 13.2; 15.14; 23.2; 28.13, 21; 2 Chron. 8.15; 11.13; 24.5; 30.15, 25; 31.2, 4, 9; 34.30; 35.18; Ezra 1.5; 2.70; 3.8, 12; 6.20; 7.7, 29, 30; 9.1; Neh. 7.72; 8.13; 11.3; 12.1, 30. Moreover, the term 'Levites' is employed at least 139 times in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. We may assume that the social reality which lies behind the frequent reference to the Levites in Chronicles and EzraNehemiah reflects the Chronicler's own experience—even if the two works were not written by the same author.
4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers
187
not give any prophetic title to Levites who do not belong to the levitical singers. The Chronicler only portrays the heads of clans in the role of the hozeh because of their role as temple musicians and singers (1 Chron. 25.1-6). Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that music only came to have prophetic nuances in the postbiblical period. In fact, singing was associated with prophecy long before the book of Chronicles was written. The levitical singers' 'prophetic' activity involved composing and performing music in the temple. As Joseph Blenkinsopp writes, 'For the Chronicler, then, the composition and rendition of liturgical music was a form of prophecy. In the act of worship prophetic and poetic inspiration came together.'68 The LXX translation of 1 Chron. 25.1-6, which understands VtO2 as 'making musical sounds', emphasizes the distinction between musical activity and more traditional 'prophecy'. In line with this understanding, the LXX interprets the title given to Heman, 'royal hozeh', as a musical office, namely the 'royal musician'. The LXX underscores the unusual nature of levitical 'prophesying in music'. Thus, the Chronicler apparently did not wish to portray the levitical singers as 'prophets', although their music was apparently divinely inspired. Two questions arise from the study of 1 Chron. 25.1-6: (1) why did the Chronicler employ the verb V«3] in 1 Chron. 25.1-6?, and (2) why is the verb VfcQ] not used in the numerous other discussions of the levitical singers in Chronicles? The second question militates against an easy answer to the first question. These questions are clarified by the compositional procedures in chs. 23-27. As I have argued above, the Chronicler relies on sources in 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The use of V«33 in 1 Chron. 25.1-3 is probably a vestige from one of the Chronicler's sources. This explains why the Chronicler uses the verb in 1 Chron. 25.1-3, but not in any other description of the levitical singers' activities. 1 Chron. 25.1-3 provides further evidence for the pre-exilic institution of cult prophecy envisioned by Sigmund Mowinckel and Aubrey Johnson. Yet the post-exilic institution likely influences the Chronicler's representation of the levitical singers. The Chronicler considered levitical music to be inspired. First of all, the heads of the levitical singers, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, are given the title 'royal hozeh'; the LXX suggests understanding this title as 'royal musician'. While not equivalent with nabi', the title 'royal hozeh' has strong prophetic overtones and highlights the authority of their office. 68. A History of Prophecy in Israel, p. 254.
188
The Word of God in Transition
The levitical singers as a group were not prophets, yet levitical music had the authority conferred by David, the psalmist of Israel. Several factors indicate the special authority of levitical music. First, David, 'the man of God', established the levitical singers (1 Chron. 25.1-6; 2 Chron. 8.14; 29.25-30) and the prestige of a Davidic origin adds legitimacy to the levitical singers.69 Furthermore, the close association of the musical instruments and songs with David endows levitical music with special authority. The levitical singers play golden musical instruments called 'the instruments of David' (1 Chron. 18.8-10; 2 Chron. 29.26-27; Neh. 12.36). By divine inspiration, they 'prophesied' in music.
69. The authority of the psalms was expressed in early Judaism by associating the corpus with David, the psalmist of Israel (for example, 1 IQPs3 DavComp). Other devices were also used. For instance, Asaph's psalms were considered Tor ah (cf. Tanhuma Re'e §1).
Chapter 5 PROPHECY AND KINGSHIP: DAVID 'THE MAN OF GOD' AND DAVID THE KING
The title 'royal hozeh1 given to Gad belies the close relationship between the prophet and the king (cf. 2 Sam. 24.11). Kingship itself comes through the prophets. The anointing of David as king of Israel comes through the word of the prophet Samuel (1 Chron. 11.3; 12.24), and the promise of an eternal dynasty for the sons of David comes through the prophet Nathan (1 Chron. 17.7-15).! The prophet also checks and balances the authority of the king. He appears as an advisor to the king, often to rebuke or correct him (for example, 1 Sam. 12; 2 Chron. 25.79). Frank Moore Cross represents a consensus of opinion concerning prophecy in ancient Israel when he writes, 'It is fair to say that the institution of prophecy appeared simultaneously with kingship in Israel and fell with kingship'.2 Welch expresses a similar evaluation of prophecy in Chronicles: '[Pjrophecy, which made the kingdom possible and condemned it in the end, accompanied the institution throughout its course'.3 In one respect, the role of the king parallels that of the prophet. Both the king's and prophet's authority emanate from God. The king represents the people before God in secular matters (cf. 1 Chron. 28.5) 1. nabi'Contra Amit who suggests that in the Deuteronomistic History the prophet controls and establishes history and events while in Chronicles the king is the controlling actor, the king is jmpi ^isn while the prophet is JTDDI Ehso. Thus, she argues that the king in Chronicles 'is not in need of the prophet' and that the role of the prophets to cause the king to rule is absent in Chronicles; see 'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Books of Chronicles', pp. 123-24. However, Amit overstates the observation, since the prophetic hand in the kingship of David is undeniable. In the Deuteronomistic History, the prophetic hand is involved in northern kingship and not Judaean kingship after David and Solomon. 2. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 223. 3. The Work of the Chronicler, p. 43.
190
The Word of God in Transition
and the prophet represents the people in religious matters. Thus, Solomon prays for the people at the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8.11-9.9//2 Chron. 6.1-7.22). Likewise, Jeremiah recognizes the importance of prophetic intercession for the people (for example, Jer. 15.1). God also specially chooses both prophet and king. God ordains Jeremiah to be a prophet before his birth (Jer. 1.5) and also elects David for an eternal kingship (1 Chron. 28.4). The spirit (mi) also rests upon the chosen king in a unique way. This spirit was given to Saul when he was chosen for kingship and taken away from him after he 'disobeyed' and the spirit then came to reside upon the son of Jesse (cf. 1 Sam. 10.6, 10; 11.6; 16.13-16, 23; 18.10). The spirit's inspiration also catapults the heroes of the book of Judges into leadership (Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 11.29; 14.6, 19). The spirit's role in leadership is prominent in the Deuteronomic History. Surprisingly, the biblical description of classical prophecy does not attribute the prophetic endowment to the spirit. Yet in early Judaism and Christianity the prophetic endowment became closely tied with the 'holy spirit'.4 However, these similarities between the royal and prophetic roles have perhaps contributed to the false characterization of the Davidic kings as 'prophets'. Joseph Blenkinsopp describes similarities between prophecy and monarchy as 'parallel endowments' deriving from the Mosaic office. It will be useful to cite Blenkinsopp's argument at length: the term 'servant of YHWH' ('ebed YHWH) was used in Deuteronomic circles for a specially designated intermediary, the model for which was the ministry of Moses himself... Since the prophets also were seen to perpetuate the work of Moses throughout the subsequent history, it was natural that individual holders of the prophetic office and the prophetic succession as a whole should be described in terms of servanthood or mediatorial service. With equal frequency, however, the Davidic ruler is also described as YHWH's servant, the reason being that the monarchy was also charged with the task of mediation, prophecy and monarchy being parallel embodiments of the mediatorial function and charismatic office of Moses.5
Blenkinsopp claims that deuteronomic literature employs the term 'servant of YHWH' both for the Davidic kings and prophets. However, his claim that the term is used 'with equal frequency' for Davidic kings 4. See Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World; cf. also Cant. R. 8; b. Yom. 21b; Num. R. 15.10. 5. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, p. 215.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
191
and prophets is far from accurate. Blenkinsopp cites 2 Sam. 3.18, 1 Kgs 8.24-26 and 1 Kgs 11.13 in support of this claim; in each of these passages, God calls David 'my servant'.6 First, the term 'my servant' cannot automatically be equated with 'servant of YHWH' (see Chapter 1). Moreover, the frequent use of the term 'servant' to refer to David is surely a special case. The Davidic kings as a whole were not known by the title 'servant of YHWH'. Moreover, the term 'charismatic' does not aptly describe the dynastic succession of the sons of David, although it may be a useful term for the leadership in Judges and perhaps even for Saul and David. Still, the Davidic kings as a whole did not rule a 'charismatic office'. Like Blenkinsopp, studies by James Newsome and Christopher Begg assert that the Chronicler's Davidic kings play a 'prophetic' role. Newsome, for instance, writes: 'under the Chronicler's pen, the Davidic king himself received the divine word and, on several occasions, passed it on to others, thus assuming a prophetic role'.7 However, Newsome's evidence does not bear up under scrutiny. For instance, Newsome claims that Abijah's speech in 2 Chron. 13.4-12 is a levitical sermon 'and thus possesses all the prophetic overtones implicit in that Gattung'.* However, the speech bears no marks of divine inspiration and the 'prophetic overtones' of the 'levitical sermon' are far from established.9 Similarly, Newsome's claim that Hezekiah and Isaiah were 'on an equal footing in presenting their petitions to YHWH' is hardly convincing evidence that Hezekiah should be considered a prophet (2 Chron. 32.20).10 Newsome also notes that in the Chronicler's account, he 'erases Solomon's dreams' (2 Chron. 1.7-13; 7.11-22; cf. 1 Kgs 3.5-15; 9.2) and Newsome thinks this heightens Solomon's 'proximity to God and his revealed will'. However, this is an extraordinary conclusion from the omission of the words 'in a dream'. It 6. Other occurrences of the term 'servant' with the king always refer to David (cf. 1 Kgs 11.32, 34; 14.8; 2 Kgs 8.19; 19.34; 20.6; Jer. 33.21, 21, 26; Ezek. 34.24; 37.25; Ps. 18.1; 36.1; 78.70; 89.4, 21; 132.10; 144.10). 7. 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', pp. 203204. 8. Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 203. 9. The 'Levitical Sermon' as a genre has come under a great deal of recent criticism; see Mathias, '"Levitische Predigt" und Deuteronomismus', pp. 23-49; Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', pp. 221-35. See further critique in Chapter 2, n. 73. 10. 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 204.
192
The Word of God in Transition
seems more likely that the Chronicler was uncomfortable with dreams as the means of revelation. The fact remains that the Chronicler borrows these texts from his sources so that his omission of 'in a dream' hardly warrants calling Solomon a 'prophet'. Newsome's only compelling examples of prophetic activity relate to David. Christopher Begg's work tries to explain Prophetenschweigen in Chronicles.11 By Prophetenschweigen Begg means 'the absence of prophets' and thus he takes up the precarious work of explaining the absence of the classical prophets in Chronicles. What concerns us here is Begg's treatment of Hezekiah and Isaiah. He asserts that the prophet Isaiah is minimized so Hezekiah may occupy 'center-stage'. Many have noted the prominent position of Hezekiah in Chronicles,12 but Begg takes this observation one step further. He claims that the Chronicler portrays Hezekiah himself as a 'prophetic figure'. He offers the following evidence: (1) Hezekiah pronounces a series of discourses reminiscent of those spoken by prophets elsewhere in Chronicles (2 Chron. 29.5-11; 30.6-9; 32.8-9); (2) he engages in the 'characteristic prophetic activity of intercession' (2 Chron. 30.18-19; 32.20); and (3) YHWH deals directly with him (2 Chron. 32.24-26).13 Thus, Begg essentially claims that Hezekiah becomes a prophet in place of Isaiah. Yet his evidence is unconvincing. Begg's first piece of evidence relies von Rad's analysis of the Levitical Sermon. However, he does not specify what exactly is 'reminiscent' of prophetic speech or which prophetic speeches recall Hezekiah's. A vague similarity between prophets' speeches and Hezekiah's speeches hardly proves that the Chronicler was portraying Hezekiah as a prophet. In his second point Begg argues that Hezekiah is a prophet because he engages in intercessory activity. However, Hezekiah is interceding for the security of the state which is surely a royal responsibility. Moreover, intercession is not confined to prophets;14 11. See Begg's other articles on the topic, 'A Bible Mystery: The Absence of Jeremiah in the Deuteronomistic History', 755 7 (1985), pp. 139-64; 'The NonMention of Amos, Hosea and Micah in the Deuteronomistic History', BN 32 (1986), pp. 41-53, The Non-Mention of Ezekiel in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Chronicles', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), pp. 340-43. 12. See Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, pp. 119-25; M. Throntveit, 'Hezekiah in the Book of Chronicles', in D. Lull (ed.), SBL 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 302-11. 13. Begg, 'The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History', p. 102. 14. S. Balentine calls into question the prophet's role as intercessor: 'The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment', JBL 103 (1984), pp. 161-73. While the prophet's
5. Prophecy and Kingship
193
for example, intercession was certainly part of the priestly duties. Moreover, intercession was a role particularly characteristic of kings, not only in Israel but throughout the ancient Near East. Finally, although God deals directly with Hezekiah, there is no claim to special inspiration or divine revelation. God also deals directly with Manasseh, but surely he is not a prophet (cf. 2 Chron. 33.10-13). Thus, we must reject Begg's assertion that Chronicles portrays Hezekiah as a 'prophetic figure'. Although these studies fail to prove that the Davidic kings were prophets, they do underscore the special role of David. David is YHWH's servant in the Deuteronomistic History. YHWH preserves Judah 'for the sake of his servant David'. YHWH is unwilling to extinguish his lamp in Judah because of the promise to David (cf. 1 Kgs 15.35; 2 Kgs 8.19). In Chronicles, David receives divine revelations which direct him to organize, prepare and build the temple (for example, 1 Chron. 21.26-30; 22.6, 8; 28.19). However, this role apparently comes to David because of his unique position as founder of the cult. As Simon de Vries points out, the Chronicler portrays David as a type of Moses in the role of 'cult founder'.15 Thus, David receives a special role in the books of Chronicles which does not extend to all Davidic kings. The case for David as a 'prophet' requires a close examination. To begin, we must examine the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas which are applied to David. David, the 'Man of God' In two instances it may be alleged that the Chronicler gives David a prophetic title. 2 Chron. 8.14 employs the title 'man of God'. In 2 Chron. 29.25, some scholars suggest that David is 'among the prophets'. However, the prophetic implications in these texts are debatable and require a closer investigation.
role as intercessor should not be overstated, it should neither be discounted, see Y. Muffs, 'Studies in Prophetic Prayer in the Bible', El 14 (1978), pp. 48-54 (Hebrew); English summary, p. 124*. 15. See de Vries, 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 61939. Also see Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder', pp. 581-90; H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles', VT 26 (1976), pp. 351-61; and R. Dillard, 'The Chronicler's Solomon', WTJ 43 (1980), pp. 289300. See discussions of the dynastic oracle in Chapter 3 and the levical singers in Chapter 4.
194
The Word of God in Transition
2 Chronicles 8.12-15 12 Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to YHWH upon the altar of YHWH which he built before the porch, 13 in the daily requirement, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the festivals three times in a year—the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of weeks and the feast of booths.16 14 He set up, according to the ordinance of David his father, the divisions of priests for their duties and the levites for their watches, to praise and to serve before the priests according to the daily requirement, and the gatekeepers in their divisions at each gate, because this was the command of David, the man of God. 15 Now they did not deviate from the command of the king concerning the priests and the levites for every matter and for the treasuries.
This text (v. 14) represents the only time Chronicles gives the title 'man of God' to David. Nehemiah also applies this title twice to David (Neh. 12.24, 36). If we assume that the same author is not responsible for both works, this shows that 'man of God' was a title accorded to David in the post-exilic period, especially by levitical or priestly circles. Why was King David given the title 'man of God'? The question comes into clearer focus when we examine the occurrences of this title in Nehemiah. Both citations relate to the establishment of the levitical 16. The Chronicler is apparently influenced by Lev. 23.37, Num. 28-29 and Deut. 16.1-16 where these offerings are commanded. However, Shaver (Torah and the Chronicler's History Work, pp. 94-96) argues that although the details which the Chronicler adds to 1 Kgs 9.25 indicate a knowledge of Num. 28-29, 'the Chronicler has not adhered strictly to Num. 28-29, which requires five annual feasts, but has rather followed the Deuteronomic calendar (Deut. 16.1-6), which is limited to the three feasts identified at 2 Chron. 8.13'. Thus, Shaver notes the 'ease with which the Chronicler can combine late priestly and Deuteronomic legislation...' However, it is unclear that the Chronicler 'claimed to conform exactly to the torah of Yahweh' as Shaver claims (p. 96). It is also unclear why Shaver insists that the Chronicler must draw on one text or why drawing on several texts indicates fluidity in the Chronicler's 'Pentateuch'. If we compare the rabbinic use of various legal legislations, then we would assume that the rabbis' Torah was also fluid. In fact, the Mosaic authority of the three pilgrim feasts was unquestioned by the Chronicler and his contemporaries. The Chronicler's reference to noa niXD should be regarded as a more general reference to Mosaic legislation. Fishbane suggests, 'Perhaps such formulations as "according to the Torah of Moses" or "according to the law"... were simply meant to convey the elliptical assertion that these ritual acts were performed according to the divine law as exegetically interpreted' (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 534).
5. Prophecy and Kingship
195
singers. In fact, Neh. 12.23-24 apparently cites the book of Chronicles as a reference for this institution: 23 The levites, who were the heads of their ancestral clans, were recorded in the 'book' of chronicles down to the time of Johanan son of Eliashib. 24 The heads of the levites were: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, with their kinsmen opposite them, were occupied praising and giving thanks by the command of David the man of God, watch by watch.
Although the reference to 'the book of chronicles' appears to cite the canonical book of Chronicles, this is an unlikely identification. It would require an early dating for the canonical book of Chronicles which most scholars are unwilling to concede.17 At the very least it recalls the genealogical lists in 1 Chronicles 25 which implies that these lists in 1 Chronicles 23-28 were based on earlier documents.18 The 'command of David the man of God' refers to the establishment of the levitical singers (1 Chron. 25). The second text, Neh. 12.36, names David the man of God as an authority for cultic instruments. Nehemiah says that he appointed 'two large thanksgiving choirs and processions' (v. 31) whose members included 'some young priests with trumpets' (v. 35). According to v. 36, some of the sons of Asaph were in the procession and they played 'with the musical instruments of David, the man of God'. In Nehemiah, then, the title 'man of God' is associated specifically with David's role as the founder of the levitical singers. 2 Chron. 8.14 associates the title 'man of God' with David's establishment of the cultic personnel. This includes the divisions of the priests, the levitical watches, the levitical singers and the gatekeepers, all of whom are established 'according to the ordinance of David' (v. 14aoc). Verse 14 actually corresponds with 1 Chronicles 23-26 (see discussion of these chapters in Chapter 4). The 'divisions of the priests and watches of the levites' are laid out in 1 Chronicles 23-24, the 'singing before the priests' reflects the role of the levitical singers in 1 Chronicles 25, and the 'divisions of the gatekeepers' are listed in 1 Chronicles 26. The phrase 'because such was the command of David the man of God' in v. 14bp refers to the command which David gave to Solomon concerning the building of the temple and the organization of the temple personnel (cf. 1 Chron. 28.20-21). And 2 Chron. 8.15 adds 'they did not 17. See the survey by Williamson, 'Eschatology in Chronicles', pp. 120-33. 18. See the comparison by Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 333-41.
196
The Word of God in Transition
deviate from the king's command concerning' these matters.19 Thus, David is called the 'man of God' in relation to his role as cult founder. Verse 13-14 cite both Moses and David as authorities. Von Rad suggests that 'David's law' competes with 'Moses' law',20 while Sara Japhet claims that 'David's authority does not conflict with or supersede that of Moses. Each has his own authority, and David's actions complement and supplement Moses' commandments'.21 In fact, the Mosaic legislation referred to here specifies the appropriate religious 'holidays' (v. 13) for which the various levitical and priestly divisions served according to the ordinance of David (v. 14). In that sense it does not compete with the Davidic ordinances. Yet von Rad correctly perceives that the Davidic ordinances are for a temple which will supersede the Mosaic tabernacle. The Davidic ordinances then both supplement and supersede Mosaic legislation. It seems appropriate then that Chronicles gives David the title 'the man of God', which is often used for Moses in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.22 Some scholars have argued that since David receives the title 'man of God', it cannot be a prophetic title.23 Indeed, there is some merit to the contention that 'man of God' is not a prophetic title for David. The Chronicler generally avoids this title for his prophets, as I observed in Chapter 1. The title is only used for David in his role as cult founder. On the other hand, the deuteronomic tradition did consider Moses, 'the man of God', also to be a prophet. Chronicles does use this title for prophets such as Shemaiah (2 Chron. 11.2). Moreover, Chronicles ascribes each aspect of David's preparation for the Jerusalem temple to divine revelation. The title 'man of God', even if it is not strictly prophetic, is often used for prophets and resonates with prophetic overtones, especially when it is used for David.
19. De Vries distinguishes between a Mosaic 'authorization formula' and a royal 'regulation formula' partially on the basis of distinctions in vocabulary; see 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 620-31. 20. Die Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, p. 136. 21. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 238. 22. Cf. Neh. 12.24, 36; Ezra 3.2; 1 Chron. 23.14; 2 Chron. 30.16; also see Deut. 33.1; Josh. 14.6; Ps. 90.1. 23. See the discussion in Chapter 1, section 1, 'Prophetic Titles', under 'Man of God'.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
197
2 Chronicles 29.25 And he [Hezekiah] stationed the levites in the house of YHWH with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the command of David, and Gad the royal seer and Nathan the prophet, because the command was from YHWH through his n'bi'im.
Comments. Verse 25 is difficult. The difficulty stems from the peculiar claim that Gad and Nathan along with David established the levitical singers. Elsewhere, Chronicles repeatedly ascribes the establishment of the levitical singers to David (for example, 2 Chron. 8.14; 35.15). This is understandable since David organizes the levitical singers according to 1 Chronicles 25. How then can we account for 2 Chron. 29.25? The easiest solution is emendation. Rudolph, for instance, suggests that v. 25b should be emended as follows, rn-arTa mxan «rrn i-n^Ta *D. However, Rudolph can cite no versional support for this emendation. Moreover, Rudolph's emended text suggests that 'his nebt'im' refers to David's prophets; this is difficult because 'his tfbi'irrf seems to refer to YHWH's prophets. For these reasons Rudolph's emendation should be rejected. James Newsome's approach avoids emending the text. He argues, 'The description of the musical service of praise...in 2 Chr 29.25 seems intended to rank David with the same prophetic status which Gad and Nathan enjoy'.24 Thus, he assumes that the clause 'through his nebi'im' refers not only to Nathan and Gad but also to David. This leaves the question of who the command was given to if it came through Nathan, Gad and David. The natural reading is that the command came through Nathan and Gad and to David. Moreover, Newsome does not address at all the perplexing problem in v. 25: why is the authority for the levitical singers suddenly attributed to Gad and Nathan as well as David? A better solution argues that 'the commandment' (mxnn) in v. 25b is elliptical for 'the commandment of the king'. Chronicles regularly refers to royal commandments, as is illustrated earlier in ch. 29; consider v. 15: And [the Levites] gathered their kinsmen and sanctified themselves and they came, according to the commandment of the king [Hezekiah] by the words of YHWH, to purify the house of YHWH.
24. Newsome, 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 204.
198
The Word of God in Transition
The phrase 'according to the commandment of the king' occurs seven times in Chronicles, reflecting a royal order.25 Additionally, the phrase 'according to the commandment of David' occurs five times in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah and refers to David's command to establish the levitical singers.26 Thus, the clause in v. 25b, explains the phrase 'the commandment of David and Gad the royal hozeh and Nathan the nabi"'. The statement elaborates on the mediation process and may be summarized as follows: the commandment to establish the levitical singers came from YHWH through his prophets Gad and Nathan to David the king who issued the order to Solomon. Thus, 2 Chron. 29.25 probably does not include David among the prophets. The role of Gad and Nathan in 2 Chron. 29.25, then, is to clarify the mediation process whereby David commanded Solomon to establish the levitical singers. Divine Revelation to David The Chronicler attributes some special revelation to David from God. This revelation is invariably associated with David's role in the founding of the temple. Some divine inspiration undergirds every aspect of the temple including the mandate for its construction, the choice of site, the revelations of the temple's plan, and the organization of the temple personnel. The Mandate to Build In David's two recountings (1 Chron. 22.8; 28.6) of the dynastic oracle (1 Chron. 17//2 Sam. 7), the role of the prophet Nathan recedes into the background and David claims to have received instruction directly from God to build the temple. In 1 Chronicles 22, David begins preparations for the temple and delivers a charge to his son Solomon concerning its construction (vv. 610): 6 And [David] summoned Solomon his son and commanded him to build a house for YHWH, God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, 'My son, I wanted to build a house for the name of YHWH my God, 8 but the word of YHWH came to me, saying, "you have shed much blood and fought great wars; you shall not build a house for my name because you 25. 2 Chron. 8.15; 24.21; 29.15; 30.6, 12; 35.10, 16. 26. Neh. 12.24, 45; 2 Chron. 8.14; 29.25; 35.15.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
199
have shed much blood on the earth before me. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, he shall be a peaceful man and I shall give him rest from all his enemies about, for 'Solomon' shall be his name and 'peace' and quiet 1 will give Israel in his times. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be as a son to me and I shall be as a father to him and I shall establish his royal throne over Israel forever"'.
David tells Solomon that 'the word of YHWH came to me, saying ...' This statement is paralleled by 1 Chron. 28.3 where David tells the people 'but God said to me'. The phrase 'and the word of YHWH came to me' in 1 Chron. 22.8 is apparently an intermediary formula. However, the use of the preposition ^ rather than -^ is not typical since the intermediary formula 'the word of YHWH came to' uses the preposition *?R. The preposition
200
The Word of God in Transition favored me to rule over all Israel. 5 And from my sons—because YHWH gave me many sons—he chose Solomon, my son, to sit upon the throne of YHWH's kingdom over Israel. 6 And [God] said to me, "Solomon, your son, he is the one who shall build my house and my courts because I have chosen him to be for me as a son, and I shall be to him as a father"'.
David twice claims in this recounting that YHWH spoke directly to him. In v. 3 David claims that God told him that he could not build the temple because 'he shed blood'; God considered David ritually unclean and therefore debarred from the task of temple building. Verses 4-5 digress from retelling the dynastic oracle and David makes a short apologetic for the legitimacy of his rule and the succession, in spite of being debarred from temple building. David argues that God specially chose David and his son Solomon. Verse 6 then picks up David's recollection of God's word. The opening phrase '[God] said to me' ("^ inm) is a repetition of 'and God said to me' C1? ION D-rf^m) in v. 3, thereby resuming David's recounting of the dynastic oracle. Part of David's apologetic for himself and the temple is his claim 'God told me'. The Choice of the Temple Site In the Chronicler's account of David's census (1 Chron. 21//2 Sam. 24), God reveals the site of the temple to David. The Chronicler attaches this revelation of the temple site to the end of his account of David's census.29 In the largely parallel account in 2 Samuel 24, the narrative concludes with David building an altar and offering a sacrifice on the threshing floor of Oman (v. 25): And David built an altar to YHWH there and he sacrificed peace offerings and YHWH responded to the [plea for the] land and the plague against Israel was stopped.
With this conclusion, the Samuel account of David's census focuses on David's sin, the plague on the land and YHWH's mercy in responding to David's plea. The Chronicler offers a quite different narrative framework. The purpose of this story within the Chronicler's narrative framework is clear in the conclusion (21.26-22.1): 26 And David built an altar to YHWH there and sacrificed burnt offerings and peace offerings and he called to YHWH and [YHWH] answered him 29. The source for the Chronicler's account is obviously closely related to the Vorlage of 2 Sam. 24; however, the Chronicler has apparently made substantial revisions. See the commentaries and discussion in Chapter 3.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
201
with fire from the heavens upon the altar of the burnt offering. 27 And YHWH said to the angel, 'Let your sword be returned to its sheath'. 28 At the time, when David saw that YHWH answered him at the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite, he sacrificed there. 29 Now the tabernacle of YHWH which Moses made in the wilderness and the altar of the burnt offering was at that time at the shrine in Gibeon. 30 However, David was not able to go before it to seek God because he was terrified by the sword of angel of YHWH. 22.1 Then David said, 'This is the house of YHWH, God, and this is the altar for burnt offering for Israel'.
This conclusion focuses on the site of this altar as the site of the temple. We may call this the Chronicler's 'place theology'. David's declaration that this site (nipo) was the 'house of YHWH' and the 'altar for burnt offering for Israel' is set against the site of the Mosaic altar and tabernacle of YHWH in Gibeon (v. 29). Another addition which the Chronicler makes to his Vorlage in ch. 21 illustrates this theology.30 While David's declaration appears to be rather arbitrary, it is accompanied by a significant sign: fire from heaven consumes the sacrifice (v. 26). As Williamson points out, this sign 'establishes continuity with the worship at the altar of the Mosaic tabernacle (cf. Lev. 9.24)'.31 At the dedication of the Mosaic tabernacle in Leviticus 9, God indicates the acceptance of the sacrifice and the tabernacle by fire which came from heaven consuming the sacrifices. The Chronicler juxtaposes the description of 'fire from heaven' with a reference to the Mosaic tabernacle to emphasize the divine authority for David's 'new tabernacle'. James Newsome argues that David's offering at the threshing floor of Oman parallels Elijah's offering on Mt Carmel. The use of the verbs 'to call' (V»~ip) and 'to answer' (V^tf) in 1 Kgs 18.24, 37 finds some resonance in 1 Chron. 21.26, lending support to Newsome's suggestion. However, the explicit reference to the Mosaic tabernacle in v. 29 shows that the Chronicler wished to recall the dedication of the Mosaic tabernacle. Moreover, it is difficult to find any thematic parallel to Elijah's sacrifice on Mt Carmel. Thus, we must consider Newsome's claim that Chronicles portrays David 'as a kind of proto-Elijah' rather farfetched.32
30. It is important to note that the Chronicler's Vorlage was not identical with the MT of 2 Sam. 24, as it indicated by 4QSama (see discussion in Chapter 3). 31. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 150. 32. See Newsome, 'Towards a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 203.
202
The Word of God in Transition
David's sacrifice on the threshing floor of Oman is recalled by the narrative when Solomon begins to build the temple in 2 Chron. 3.1: And Solomon began to build the house of YHWH in Jerusalem on Mt Moriah, where [YHWH] had appeared to David his father, at the place which David had designated, at the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite.
The critical phrase here, Til1? n&O] im —usually translated 'where [YHWH] had appeared to David' —is ambiguous. Who appeared to David? 'YHWH' must be supplied, it is not in the context. Rudolph argues that this translation does not stem from 1 Chronicles 21 since David chooses the site and God never actually appears to David.33 But the Chronicler apparently believed that YHWH had 'appeared' to David at the temple site, revealing to him the chosen site for the temple (cf. 1 Chron. 21.26-22.1). While David did not actually see God, 'when he saw (m»-Q) that YHWH answered him at the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite, he made sacrifices there' (1 Chron. 21.28). Even if YHWH does not technically appear to David in 1 Chronicles 21, the statement 'where [YHWH] appeared to David' in 2 Chron. 3.1 does not exaggerate the occasion. The Plans for the Temple The Chronicler also says that God revealed the plans for the temple to David. In 1 Chron. 28.11-12, David gives Solomon the plans for the temple: 1 1 And David gave to Solomon his son the plan of the porch and its rooms, and the storerooms and its inner chambers, and of the room of expiation— 12 the plan of everything, which was by the spirit with him, for the courts of the house of YHWH and for all its surrounding chambers and for treasuries of the temple and for the treasuries of the holy things.
The key phrase is in v. 12, 'which was by the spirit with him' Many scholars have understood m~n as 'in mind' rather than 33. See Rudolph, Chronikbucher, p. 200. Rudolph follows the observation of Ehrlich, Randglossen, VII, pp. 355-56. Williamson, on the other hand, thinks the verb ntm subtly introduces an important link to Gen. 22.14, the story of the binding of Isaac. Williamson points out that 2 Chron. 3.1 picks up and makes explicit key themes from Gen. 22. These themes include the identification of Moriah with the temple site, the notion of "in, 'the mount', and the verbal term 'where he appeared' (nt03); Williamson, Chronicles, p. 204. We may add that in 1 Chron. 21.26-22.1 David builds an altar and makes sacrifices; these themes naturally fit Gen. 22.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
203
'by the spirit'.34 However, Rudolph rightly objects to this translation: 'the usual transliteration "that which he had in mind" errs because rrn with the Chronicler never means the human spirit'.35 It is unthinkable that the Chronicler would have the temple built according to David's rather than God's plan. The Targum resolves the ambiguity by translating 'by the spirit of prophecy'. Verse 19 further supports the understanding 'by the spirit' in v. 12, although the text is admittedly difficult. The MT of v. 19 reads, All that YHWH caused [me] to understand from the hand of YHWH upon me, [I give you] in writing—all the works of the plan.
David is speaking to Solomon. The section actually begins in v. 11, 'David gave Solomon the plans ...', and vv. 13-18 describe in detail all the plans which David gave Solomon. Verse 19 then functions as a summary statement. The meaning of v. 19 is especially clear in the LXX translation:
David gave Solomon everything in a writing from the hand of the Lord according to the knowledge revealed to him of the work of the plan.
The LXX repeats the phrase 'David gave Solomon' EaA,cfljj,cov) from v. 1 1, thereby alleviating some of the awkwardness of v. 19. The LXX understands vv. 11-19 as a unit in the narrative voice. The term KCCICX (= ^) reflects a difficult term '^D. The MT might be emended to «bi?» following the LXX reading. The LXX translator
34. This is reflected in the RSV and NEB translations. See Williamson, Chronicles, p. 182; Coggins, Chronicles, p. 136; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 298. The LXX, TO napdSeiyua o ei%ev ev TtveuuaTi a.\>io\>, is ambiguous, since Twexjuxm can be either 'mind' or 'spirit'. 35. Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 86. 36. Watson thinks the enigmatic *^v can be traced to the Phoenician pronominal suffix -y for the 3ms (see 'Archaic Elements', §9.1; he also explains 2 Chron. 33.19, 'Tin, this way). This kind of archaic remnant in Chronicles seems unlikely. De Vries, on the other hand, takes "^y as a later 'interpretive gloss' based on its 'omission' by the LXX (Chronicles, p. 220). However, it does not seem as though is omitted by the LXX. It is represented by
204
The Word of God in Transition
separates the clause between «"?J)» and mrr T, as opposed to the Masoretic punctuation, The LXX translation 'in a writing from the hand of the Lord' is a possibility which emphasizes the written nature of the document. The implication is that everything was written via the hand of God upon David, namely by 'inspiration'. However, the manner of the writing is unclear. It recalls the commandments which are written down by 'the finger of God' according to Exod. 31.18: And [YHWH] gave to Moses, when he was finished speaking with him on Mt Sinai, two stone tablets of the testimony written by the finger of God.
It may be that the LXX envisioned the plans for the temple being written down by God and given to David.37 1 Chron. 28.19 also serves as a summary for 1 Chronicles 22-28, that is, for all the instructions concerning the temple and its organization. This is underscored in Josiah's restoration of the temple, where the Chronicler refers to a 'writing' which David gave to Solomon in a command in 2 Chron. 35.4: [Josiah said... ] 4 'And be stationed38 by your clans according to your divisions as prescribed in the writing of David, king of Israel, and in the document of Solomon, his son.'
The reference is apparently to the divisions of the Levites in 1 Chronicles 23. The only writing which David gave Solomon is referred to in 1 Chron. 28.19. This suggests that 1 Chron. 28.19 was a writing that included all the plans for the temple which are discussed in 1 Chronicles 22-28. Thus, the writing extends beyond the blueprints for the temple building to the blueprints for the cult. The 'hand of YHWH' reveals all the plans for the temple to David, according to 1 Chron. 28.19. The 'hand of YHWH' in biblical literature usually expresses divine wrath.39 JJ. Roberts notes that Akkadian parallels connect the 'hand of the deity' with catastrophes; however, in Egyptian the expression 'a man in the hand of the god' denotes the insanity often associated with the ecstatic experiences of prophets..40 The 37. Also compare Exod. 32.15-16, where the tablets are described as 'a document written by God' (D'rf?« nroa arson); also cf. Exod. 34.1 with 34.27. 38. Qere, iron] Reading as a niphal imperative with the kethib and following the LXX. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 515. 39. 1 Kgs 18.46; 2 Kgs 3.15; Ezek. 1.3; 3.14, 22; 33.22; 37.1; 40.1. 40. See J.J. Roberts, 'The Hand of Yahweh', W21 (1971), pp. 244-51.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
205
type of divine revelation which the 'hand of YHWH' expresses in 1 Chron. 21.19 depends largely on whether we accept the MT or the LXX reading. The MT suggests that God caused David to understand all the plans for the temple 'from the hand of YHWH upon him' and he gave to Solomon a written document with all the plans. The LXX reflects an interpretive model: God helped David to understand 'the writing of the hand of the Lord'. Thus, David becomes an inspired interpreter of a document from the hand of God containing the plans for the temple. However, the reference to 'a writing of David' by Josiah in 2 Chron. 35.4 makes the LXX's interpretation unlikely.41 The 'hand of YHWH' then is an anthropomorphic description of divine inspiration in v. 19. Verses 12 and 19 indicate that God revealed the plans for the temple to David. However, the inspiration of the classical pre-exilic prophets is not typically described with the terms 'by the spirit' and the 'hand of YHWH'. We begin to see references to inspiration by the spirit and the 'hand of YHWH' in the exilic prophet Ezekiel.42 In Chronicles, the spirit comes upon the soldier Amasai, the Levite Jahaziel and the priest Zechariah (see discussions in Chapter 2). Although these characters are not prophets, their speeches are in some sense 'prophetic'. Zechariah's speech even uses the messenger formula that is so typical of pre-exilic prophecy. Still, there is a sharp distinction between the latter figures and David. These figures are inspired to speak the word of God; David is inspired with the plans for the temple (see below, section 3, 'David, Cult Founder and Temple Builder'). David is given special divine inspiration, but this inspiration should not necessarily be characterized as 'prophetic' nor should David be called a 'prophet'. The Organization of the Temple Personnel David's organization of the temple personnel, described in 1 Chronicles 23-28, also derives from divine authority. Above, I pointed out that the record of the temple plans which David gave Solomon included both the building plans and the organization of the cultic personnel (cf. 1 Chron. 28.19; 2 Chron. 35.4). These plans were given to 41. The LXX's model seems to reflect the milieu of later Judaism, in which the prophet is replaced by the sage and prophecy becomes the inspired interpretation of texts; see M. Fishbane, 'Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran', in Compendia Rerum ludicarum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 339-77. 42. See further discussion under 'possession formulas' in Chapter 1.
206
The Word of God in Transition
David from 'the hand of YHWH'. Chronicles also mentions other authorities who add legitimacy to David's organization of the cult. For instance, 1 Chron. 24.19 claims Aaronic authority for the priests' duties. 2 Chron. 29.25 introduces prophetic mediation for the Levites. H.G.M. Williamson has argued for a tension between priestly authority and Davidic authority in 1 Chronicles 23-28.1 tried to show in Chapter 3 that this tension results from a blending of sources. 1 Chron. 24.19 summarizes the priestly divisions and makes an appeal to Aaronic authority: 'These were their appointments for their work, to enter into the house of YHWH according to their ordinance through Aaron their father, just as YHWH the God of Israel commanded him'. The phrases 'according to their ordinance' (DQSODD) and 'just as YHWH commanded him' mark an appeal to Aaron's authority in this passage. These phrases ascribe the duties of the priests to a commandment of YHWH given to Aaron. As such, 1 Chron. 24.19 supplements 24.3-6 which ascribes the divisions of the priests to David, the chief priests, and the authority of casting lots. One gets the impression that the Chronicler is accumulating authorities so there is no doubt about the legitimacy of any aspect of the institution. Davidic authority was apparently considered insufficient basis for the institution of the levitical singers. In 2 Chron. 29.25, prophetic mediation supports David's appointing of Levites as musicians. The introduction of the prophets as authorities alongside David is rather perplexing. 1 Chronicles 23, 25 and 26—in which the organization of the Levites is described—do not mention Nathan and Gad. Why then are they mentioned here? Was Davidic authority insufficient for establishing the levitical order? Williamson reasons, The Chronicler was anxious to stress that these arrangements followed a word of commandment.. .from the Lord, and for his readers this would be accepted as most authoritative if it was understood as having been mediated through his prophets.43
Williamson is undoubtedly correct in this analysis. Even 1 Chronicles 25 does not ascribe the institution of the levitical singers to David alone. 1 Chron. 25.1 states that 'David and the commanders of the army installed the levitical singers. In 25.8, the author adds that the divisions of the levitical singers were established by the casting of lots. Thus, the casting of lots confers another type of authority, namely that of the priests, to the levitical singers. Thus, the Chronicler appears to be 43. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 358.
5. Prophecy and Kingship
207
heaping up authorities which testify to the legitimacy of the temple and its cult. David, Cult Founder and Temple Builder The frequent claim that Chronicles represents the Davidic kings as prophets is overstated. However, it is clear that David himself has a special position in the books of Chronicles. The evidence for the Davidic kings' prophetic characteristics is primarily David's prophetic characteristics. Scholars extend these prophetic characteristics to all the Davidic kings while in reality they pertain only to David. The 'prophetic' label is also applied too loosely. For instance, von Rad's 'Levitical Sermon' was considered 'prophetic' and therefore the speakers were 'prophets'. Intercession is labeled a 'prophetic activity'. However, these criteria are not strictly characteristic of prophecy or prophets. We must be much more circumspect in defining 'prophecy' and handing out the label 'prophet'. Chronicles does attribute prophetic characteristics to King David. David receives the title 'man of God' in both Chronicles and Nehemiah. This label is specifically connected with David's role as founder of the cult. The label strengthens the typology between David and Moses, who is also called 'the man of God'. Although none of the traditional inspiration formulas is applied to David, a number of texts make it clear that David received revelation. However, David was not inspired to speak— this would be the task of a prophet. David was inspired to build—this is the task of kings. The special position Chronicles gives to David relates to the building of the temple and the founding of the cult. Temple building is uniquely the task of kings in the ancient Near East.44 Arvid Kapelrud argues for a common Near Eastern framework for temple building. He compares Enuma Elish, Gudea, Ugaritic texts and biblical texts (Exod. 25-40; 1 Kgs 6ff.; 2 Chron. 2ff.; Ezek. 40ff.). He isolates the following elements in the temple-building traditions from Israel and Gudea: (1) a temple has to be built; (2) the king visits a temple overnight; (3) the god 44. See A. Kapelrud, 'Temple Building, a Task for God and Kings', Or 32 (1963), pp. 56-62; V. Hurowitz, The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle', JAOS 105 (1985), pp. 21-30; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (ET; New York: Seabury, 1978), pp. 269-80.
208
The Word of God in Transition
communicates the temple plans; (4) the king announces the intention to build a temple; (5) a master builder is engaged, cedars and materials procured; (6) the temple is finished; (7) there are offerings at the temple's dedication; (8) there is an assembly of the people; (9) the god visits a temple; (10) the king is blessed.45 The temple building of David and Solomon is couched within this ancient Near East pattern. The Chronicler's David then appears not so much as a prophet, but as a temple builder and cult founder. It is in this role as temple builder and cult founder that David receives divine revelation and is entitled 'man of God'.
45. Hurowitz compares the structure of the extant Tabernacle account with other accounts of temples found in the Bible (1 Kgs 5.15-9.25) as well as Mesopotamian and Ugaritic sources. The Tabernacle story is patterned identically with these other accounts (especially the Samsuiluna B inscription). Hurowitz concludes that 'the analysis of the Tabernacle story and comparison with other ancient accounts of building temples both from the Bible and from writings of Israel's neighbors demonstrate that the Tabernacle account may be considered a rather typical and striking example of a common, often used story pattern' (The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle', p. 29).
Chapter 6 THE PROPHETS AS HISTORIANS: THE SOURCE CITATIONS OF CHRONICLES
Chronicles' source citations state that prophets recorded 'the deeds of the kings of Judah'; that is to say, the prophets allegedly wrote 'history'. This statement immediately raises the specter of a debate over whether the so-called historical books of the Old Testament are in fact 'history'. Much of this debate turns on the definition of 'history' and 'historiography'. Baruch Halpern has recently suggested that 'history writing' has an 'antiquarian' intent.1 Despite Halpern's erudite volume, the extent to which this definition actually describes the Deuteronomistic History will be a continuing discussion. Certainly, few would describe the books of Chronicles as 'history writing' by Halpern's definition. Chronicles has been characterized as 'midrash', 'exegesis' and 'sermon'.2 The problem with Halpern's definition is that it narrowly restricts the scope of 'history writing'. I prefer the definition given by the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga: 'History is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past' .3 Huizinga intended by this definition to include a broad range of writing about 1. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 13. As Marc Brettler points out in a review, Halpern's definition is 'relatively novel within biblical scholarship' and 'represents a rejection of several views that dominate contemporary thinking about biblical history'; JR 70 (1990), p. 83. 2. Cf. W.E. Barnes, 'The Midrashic Element in Chronicles', The Expositor 5th Series 4 (1896), pp. 426-39; Seeligmann, 'The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles'; Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung; von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes. 3. 'A Definition of the Concept of History', in R. Klibansky and H.J. Paton (eds.), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernest Cassirer (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 9. This definition is adopted by J. van Seters in his work In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 1, although van Seters does not really follow this definition.
210
The Word of God in Transition
history. He argued that history 'comprises every form of historical record; that of the annalist, the writer of memoirs, the historical philosopher, and the scholarly researcher'.4 By this definition, the prophets in the source citations would be 'historians' since they allegedly recorded the 'deeds of the kings of Judah'. Scholars are divided about the reliability of the Chronicler's source citations. Some feel that the source citations reflect ancient traditions which characterize prophets as historians while others think that the Chronicler simply uses the prophets to 'authorize' his interpretation of history.5 This debate will not concern us here. As Thomas Willi emphasizes, these source citations are an important aspect of the Chronicler's uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Konzeption, that is, the 'historiographical conception'.6 The question in this study is how the source citations reflect the Chronicler's view of prophecy and prophetic 4. 'A Definition of the Concept of History', p. 10. 5. For example, Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, pp. 128-32; Barton, Oracles of God, pp. 16-21; cf. Micheel, Die Seher- und Propheteniiberlieferungen in der Chronik, pp. 70-80. The historical value of these references for reconstructing the Chronicler's extrabiblical sources has been a major focus in most of the scholarly treatments. Macy ('The Source Citations of Chronicles', pp. 6-10) divides the scholarly opinion on the availability of sources into four camps: (1) no non-canonical sources were available to the Chronicler (Wellhausen, Torrey); (2) primarily Old Testament sources with some other (Curtis, Noth, Myers, Welten); (3) extensive non-canonical sources (Rudolph, Kittel, Brunei, Albright); and (4) Chronicles and Samuel-Kings derive from common sources (Macy, McKenzie). For a more general discussion of the Chronicler's historical reliability, see Japhet, The Historical Reliability of Chronicles', pp. 83-107; also Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler, pp. 11-29. A thorough discussion of the early history of research can be found in Graham, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of the Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century. Wellhausen considered the possibility of non-canonical sources for Chronicles to be 'manifestly out of the question' (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, p. 222). On the other hand, Curtis and Madsen take the Chronicler's alleged sources very seriously (Chronicles, pp. 17-26). However, this approach did not prevail. Torrey expressed a harsh assessment of the sources, calling them 'a mere show' (The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator', p. 173). Martin Noth expresses the conventional opinion when he calls the source citations 'a literary convention' and thus of no value for reconstructing the Chronicler's sources (The Chronicler's History, p. 53). Even Williamson, who takes a relatively conservative approach to the Chronicler's historical reliability, suggests that the source citations 'cannot assist us in a search for the Chronicler's extra-biblical sources' (Chronicles, p. 18). 6. See Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, p. 233.
6. The Prophets as Historians
211
roles. The ultimate goal is to see how the prophets in the source citations fit into the Chronicler's overall view of prophecy. Source References The Chronicler's source references exhibit a great degree of diversity and creativity. In addition to the 'book of the deeds of the kings of Judah', the Chronicler cites twelve different 'prophetic' works.7 The diversity in the Chronicler's source references contrasts sharply with the uniformity in the books of Kings. Aside from 'the book of the deeds of Solomon' (1 Kgs 11.41), the Deuteronomistic historian cites only two basic sources in all the source citations of the books of Kings.8 The citations follow the general pattern of 'The rest of the deeds of PN and all he did, surely they are written in the scroll of the chronicles for the kings of Israel/Judah'. The main variation between the Deuteronomistic Historian's two sources is the alternation between 'Israel' and 'Judah' in the reference to the 'the scroll of the chronicles of the kings...' The rigidity in the source references of Kings would suggest that they are a literary convention. However, the diversity in the Chronicler's source citations must reflect something of his iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Konzeption. There is considerable debate as to how much Chronicles relies upon its Vorlage for its source citations. On the one hand, Williamson argues that in all cases the Chronicler was dependent on Kings for his source citations. Williamson's analysis focuses upon the larger formula, the regnal resume, and its placement within the narrative. Williamson writes, with the apparent exception of 2 Chron. 35.26-27.. .and, of course, 1 Chron. 29.29 (where the Chronicler is composing freely by analogy with the formulae found at the close of the reigns of other kings), he always refers to his 'sources' at precisely the same point in the text as did the Deuteronomic historian before him.9
7. See Rudolph, Chronikbucher, pp. x-xi; Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, pp. 21-22. 8. Van Seters points out the variation in style for the kings from Saul to Solomon, as well as for Jeroboam and Jehu (In Search of History, pp. 297-98). These are relatively minor discrepancies from the overall pattern which emerges; see S. Bin-Nun, 'Formulas from the Royal Records of Israel and Judah', VT 18 (1968), pp. 414-32; cf. 1 Kgs 14.19, 29; 15.7, 23, 31; 16.5, 14, 20, 27. 9. Chronicles, p. 18.
212
The Word of God in Transition
However, this argument is not convincing since the regnal resume's are the structuring frame for the reign of each king. This framework leaves little room for variation. Moreover, it is still debated whether the Deuteronomistic Historian invented this structural framework or whether it derives from an annalistic source.10 The Chronicler often includes reliable information in these regnal resumes which is not in the books of Kings.11 A different view of the source citations is taken by Howard Macy in his doctoral dissertation. Macy focuses on compositional aspects of the source citations themselves as opposed to their placement within the narrative. He points to the differences between the source citations of Kings and Chronicles and argues that Chronicles does not style its source citations after the pattern of Kings. The compositional differences between Kings and Chronicles can be illustrated as follows: Kings
Chronicles
1. the rest of the deeds of PN 2. and all he did12 3. surely (om'pn) 4. they are written in 5. scroll of the kings of Israel/Judah
the rest of the deeds of PN from beginning to end13 surely (can)14 they are written in a wide variety of sources
Elements 2, 3 and 5 in the chart illustrate the differences between the source citations of Kings and Chronicles. In the use of source citations, Chronicles follows the example of Kings; however, in the compositional elements of those source citations, Chronicles is independent.15 Since the 10. See Bin-Nun, 'The Royal Records of Israel and Judah', and the critique by van Seters, In Search of History, pp. 297-98. 11. For example, see the discussion of E. Smit, 'Death and Burial Formulas in Kings and Chronicles Relating to the Kings of Judah', in Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of 'Die Ou-Testamentliese Werkgemeenskapk in 5MjW-A/nfci'(Potchefstroom, 1966), pp. 173-77. 12. This is the most common expression in Kings' source citations (for example, 1 Kgs 11.14; 14.29; 15.7, 23, 31; 16.5, 14, 27; 22.39, 46; 2 Kgs 1.18; 8.23; 10.34; 12.20; 13.8). Often this expression is coupled with other notes (cf. 1 Kgs 11.41; 15.23; 16.5, 27; 22.46; 2 Kgs 14.28; 21.17). 13. This is the most common phrase in Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron. 12.15; 16.11; 20.34; 25.26; 26.22; 35.27) and we do not find rroj; nete •»; however, there are a number of other expressions (cf. 2 Chron. 13.22; 27.7; 32.32; 33.18; 35.26; 36.8). 14. Kings employs «V7n (N'pn) in 29 of 34 cases, and can 5 times. Chronicles employs on in 11 of 16 cases; twice Kbn is used, and three times there are other variations. 15. Macy, 'The Sources of the Books of Chronicles', p. 158. Other parts of the
6. The Prophets as Historians
213
composition of the source citations is independent from Kings, they should be included in the discussion of the Chronicler's view of prophecy. All the people mentioned in the Chronicler's source citations bear prophetic role labels.16 The Chronicler's main prophetic role labels— nabi', hozeh and ro'eh —appear in the source references (see chart below). Conspicuously absent is the label 'man of God'. This fits with my earlier observation that 'man of God' is not exclusively a prophetic title, even though it is sometimes employed for prophets. There are no priests or Levites who record the deeds of the kings of Judah. This itself is a telling fact. It underscores a sharp distinction between cultic personnel and prophet and suggests that the Chronicler considered the writing of 'histories' as part of the job description for the prophets and seers. Thus, the authors of royal history, so far as the Chronicler names characters, are those with prophetic role labels. The Chronicler's Source References (prophetic works are underlined) King
Reference
Source(s) Cited
David
1 Chron. 29.29
Solomon
2 Chron. 9.29
Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat
2 Chron. 2 Chron. 2 Chron. 2 Chron.
12.15 13.22 16.11 20.34
regnal resumes (for example, death and burial formulas) show more similarity between Kings and Chronicles. However, Smit has argued that in the majority of these cases the Chronicler's deviations from Kings in the death and burial formulas of regnal resume's suggest that the Chronicler had information not available to Kings or is more specific and precise in his wording; 'Death and Burial Formulas in Kings and Chronicles relating to the Kings of Judah', pp. 173-77. 16. In one case, Jehu ben Hanani has no role label in the source citation, but has the prophetic label mnn in the Chronicler's narrative (2 Chron. 20.24; cf. 19.2). In another case, Manasseh's source citation refers to 'the words of Hozai ('tin)', but this is evidently a reference to 'the seers' (2 Chron. 33.18-19). 17. Kethib, -TJP.
214
The Word of God in Transition King Jehoram Ahaziah Athaliah Joash Amaziah Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah
Reference missing missing missing 2 Chron. 24.27 2 Chron. 25.26 2 Chron. 26.22 2 Chron. 27.7 2 Chron 28.26 2 Chron. 32.32
Manasseh
2 Chron. 33.18-19
Amon Josiah Jehoahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin Zedekiah
missing 2 Chron. 35.27 missing 2 Chron. 36.8 missing missing
Source(s) Cited
The Composition of the Source References Closer study of the compositional features of the source references can lend insight into the Chronicler's view of prophets. Through an examination of the source references we can suggest what exactly the prophets allegedly wrote. 1. 'The Book of the Kings'. There are at least four different variations of 'the book of the kings'.18 1. 2. 3. 4.
The book of the kings of Judah and Israel' (2 Chron. 25.26; 28.26; 32.32) The book of the kings of Israel and Judah' (2 Chron. 27.7; 35.27; 36.8) The book of the kings belonging to Israel and Judah' (2 Chron. 16.11) The book of the kings of Israel' (2 Chron. 20.34)
18. Some scholars would also include the bfcofcr '3ba iso OTTO (2 Chron. 24.27) among these references. However, it is unclear how to understand the phrase "iso tzhtn, 'midrash of the book'. O. Eissfeldt understands the word nso as a gloss on D~no (The Old Testament: An Introduction [ET; New York: Harper & Row, 1965], p. 533n.). Given the ambiguous nature of the term ema, it seems best to leave this reference out of the discussion.
6. The Prophets as Historians
215
Most scholars assume that the Chronicler meant the same work in all four references.19 They also agree that this work cannot be the Deuteronomistic History. However, this latter conclusion is unfounded. The case against equating 'the book of the kings' with the Deuteronomistic History is based on one major argument. Scholars argue that there is no direct relationship between the citations of 'the book of the kings' and the material in the narratives. Curtis and Madsen, for example, write: This work...was clearly a comprehensive one, but not the canonical Books of Kings, because it is cited for matters not in those books—i.e., genealogies (1 Ch. 9 1), the wars of Jotham (2 Ch. 27 7) and the prayer of Manasseh (2 Ch. 33 18) and the abomination of Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 36 8).20
However, this position is rather difficult to uphold. Curtis himself admits that Samuel-Kings 'constitute a main source of his [the Chronicler's] work'. 21 In fact, most scholars believe that Samuel-Kings was the Chronicler's major source.22 Thus, scholars are in the difficult position of asserting that Chronicles cites one major comprehensive work and that Chronicles used Samuel-Kings as its main source—but that the major work which Chronicles cites is not Samuel-Kings. The scholarly consensus is based on the incorrect assumption that the Chronicler's source citations refer to the sources of the Chronicler's narrative. In actuality, there is no evidence to suggest that the source citations indicate the sources of the Chronicler's narrative material. On the contrary, the phrase 'the rest of the acts' implies that the source citations refer to other information about the king.23 19. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, pp. 225-26; Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, p. 22; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. xi; Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, pp. 531-35. 20. Chronicles, p. 22. 21. Chronicles, p. 17. 22. Allowing, of course, that the Chronicler's Vorlage of Samuel-Kings was not identical to the MT version. 23. This point was already made by Torrey, 'The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator', p. 173; also B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 288. Noth has objected to this interpretation of the phrase 'the rest of the acts'. Noth points to the source citation of David (1 Chron. 29.29) where the term IIT is omitted (also note 2 Chron. 12.15; The Chronicler's History, pp. 53-54). However, the purpose of the citations must be deduced by the general formulation which includes ~irr. In 2 Chron. 9.29, the term
216
The Word of God in Transition
The source citation for Hezekiah further supports the identification of 'the book of the kings' with a version of the Deuteronomistic History. Hezekiah's source citation shows that the Deuteronomistic History included a prophetic tradition: Indeed, they are written in the vision of Isaiah, son of Amoz, the prophet, which is in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron. 32.32).
This source reference implies an awareness of the relationship between the book of Isaiah and the Deuteronomistic History.24 Chapters 36-39 of the book of Isaiah are almost identical with 2 Kings 18-21. The Chronicler's title for the Isaianic work, 'the vision of Isaiah', is identical to the title given in the editorial superscription to the canonical book of Isaiah (1.1). The coincidence between the Chronicler's compositional note in the source citation and the actual relationship between 2 Kings and Isaiah cannot be fortuitous. The references to 'the book of the kings of Judah and Israel' must be identified with the Chronicler's version of Samuel-Kings. The source citation of Hezekiah also suggests that prophetic writings were part of 'the book of the kings of Judah'. In sum, there is every reason to believe that the Chronicler's citation of 'the book of the kings' is a reference to a version of the canonical books of Samuel and Kings. 2. Compositional Notes within Source References. There are indications that the Chronicler's 'prophetic sources' were actually part of larger compositions. A few of the source citations themselves make explicit the relationship between the prophetic writings and larger compositions. a) A tradition included within a larger work. The book of Chronicles has two source references which directly state that a prophetic tradition was part of the 'book of the kings'. The Chronicler writes that the 'words of Jehu... were included in C«> nbtfn ~m) the book of the kings of Israel' (2 Chron. 20.34). Jehu is a seer known from the Chronicler's narrative (cf. 19.1-3). In the Deuteronomistic History, Jehu is a prophet who condemns the northern king Baasha (1 Kgs 16.1-4, 7). What is the exact relationship between Jehu's 'words' and the 'book' in which they were included? One possibility is that the 'words of Jehu' refer to his "1KB? replaces Tr, indicating that in spite of some variation in the source citation formulas, the formula proper began 'the rest of...' 24. Cf. Isa. 36-39 with 2 Kgs 18-21. See the treatment of B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SET, 3; Naperville: Allenson, 1967), pp. 69-111.
6. The Prophets as Historians
217
prophecy against Baasha (not included in Chronicles) and the 'book of the kings of Israel' is a version of the Deuteronomistic History.25 If this proposal is correct, then the Chronicler's reference to the 'words of Jehu' is not to an independent prophetic work at all, but merely to a prophetic tradition within the Deuteronomistic History. The source reference for Hezekiah also shows that a larger composition included a prophetic tradition. Although the source reference for Hezekiah elides the phrase 'were included in', it is clear that the 'vision of Isaiah' is part of the larger work entitled 'the book of the kings of Judah and Israel' (2 Chron. S2.32).26 In the earlier discussion, it was pointed out that 'the vision of Isaiah' relies upon the editorial superscriptions to the book of Isaiah. This source reference refers to the prophetic traditions concerning Isaiah, some of which were included in the book of Kings. b) The prophet recorded. For the source citation of Uzziah, the Chronicler notes that the prophet Isaiah wrote down or recorded (3ro) the rest of the deeds of King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26.22). The only hints that the prophet Isaiah was active during the reign of King Uzziah come from the book of Isaiah. According to the editorial superscription, Isaiah prophesied during the reign of King Uzziah. The vision of Isaiah describes the prophet's encounter with God 'in the year that King Uzziah died' (Isa. 6.1). Yet the Chronicler's narrative account of Uzziah does not draw upon the canonical book of Isaiah. In fact, the book of Isaiah assigns no prophecies (apart from Isa. 6) to the time of King Uzziah. The Chronicler's reference to Isaiah in Uzziah's source citation is obviously not a footnote to traditions known from the book of Isaiah. Yet the Chronicler asserts that 'the rest of the deeds of Uzziah... Isaiah recorded' (26.22). Simply put, the Chronicler makes the prophet Isaiah an annalist for the deeds of the king. This is the most direct statement which makes a prophet into a royal chronicler. 25. Jehu is a northern prophet in the Deuteronomistic History (cf. 1 Kgs 16.1-4, 7) and this may explain why the Chronicler uncharacteristically omits 'Judah' in this reference. More characteristically, however, the term 'Israel' is reserved for all Judah and Israel and not just the northern kingdom; see Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, pp. 87-140. 26. The emendation suggested by Curtis and Madsen (Chronicles, p. 494) of "?# to «^y\» following the LXX and Vulgate is not to be accepted. The versions represent an interpretation of the MT, probably resulting from the difficult syntax which resulted from the elision of ^y rftan ~io« to *?y. Note that the Targum (according to le D6aut and Robert) supports the MT (contra Curtis and Madsen and BHS).
218
The Word of God in Transition
3. Source Citations and Superscriptions to Prophetic Books. The source citations of Chronicles use the phrase 'the words of PN'. This phrase occurs in 5 source citations in Chronicles and in all cases denotes a prophetic composition (1 Chron. 29.29; 2 Chron. 9.29; 12.15; 20.34; 33.19). This phrase contrasts with the phrase 'chronicles' (n-Q-n nai) used in Kings. The book of Chronicles gets its title from the Hebrew D-n-n "Q-i, but the canonical book never uses the term in any of its source references. The phrase 'the words of PN' finds its closest parallels in the superscriptions to prophetic books. The editorial superscriptions of the canonical books of Jeremiah (irroT -im; Jer. 1.1) and Amos (oiau —131; Amos 1.1) use the phrase PN'nm, 'words of PN', to introduce the books. This evidence, while not conclusive, suggests that Chronicles draws upon a stylistic feature of the editorial superscriptions to the canonical prophets in its source references. The Chronicler's use of various forms of V'm, 'to see', also parallels the editorial superscriptions to the prophetic canon. Chronicles refers to the 'vision of Isaiah (irrysr jim)' (2 Chron. 32.32) and the 'visions (mm) of Iddo the seer (nmn)' (2 Chron. 9.29). These terms correspond to pm and the verb nm in the superscriptions of the prophetic books. For example, the phrase 'the vision of Isaiah' (in-utB- ]im) opens the book of Isaiah (1.1). The phrase 'the book of the vision of Nahum' (mm ]im nso) introduces the book of Nahum (1.1). The verb V'm, 'to see', describes the revelations of Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Habakkuk in the editorial superscriptions of those books.27 The use of the terms ]im and mm in the source citations is another indication that the book of Chronicles depends on the editorial superscriptions to the canonical prophets for the compositional style of the source citations. 4. The Term Midrash (arno). The term midrash (tzrnn) occurs twice in the Bible. Both occurrences are in source references from 2 Chronicles (13.22; 24.27). The term midrash may be described grammatically as an Aramaic infinitive of the qal from the root Vtzrn, 'to seek'. It can be translated 'exposition' or 'study'.28 However, the LXX translates the phrase szrna:i nobn: ~iso as erci rnv ypacpriv TGOV (3aoiXecov, 'in the
27. Ezekiel uses the root V'«n, a synonym of rim, in its description of Ezekiel's revelations; see Ezek. Lib, 'I saw divine visions' 28. See TDOT, III, p. 305; KB3, p. 522; BDB, p. 205.
6. The Prophets as Historians
219
writing of the kings' (2 Chron. 24.27).29 In 2 Chron. 13.22, the LXX translates the Hebrew A88o), 'in the book of the prophet Iddo'.30 The LXX translators are unaware of the nuance given to the term midrash by later Jewish interpreters. Many commentators dismiss the Chronicler's use of the term midrash. This dismissal is rooted in a deep skepticism about the Chronicler's alleged sources. Williamson writes: 'There is no reason to suppose that "midrash" here has any particular significance; it need be no more than a stylistic variant on the Chronicler's other source citation formulae'.31 Williamson believes that the source citations do not have any particular significance for determining what the Chronicler's sources were. Yet the source citations are critical to the Chronicler's tiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Konzeption. As Thomas Willi argues, The concept 'Midrash' should not be separated from its root 'to seek, ask, investigate' in Chronicles with God as the object. Thereby the word can in some way be rendered with 'historical study.. .recording', and in this sense...to the recording of the revelation of God's ways in the Chronicler's prophetic speeches.32
There must be some significance to the term midrash in the source citations. For instance, the syntax of 'the midrash of the book of kings' 29. Eissfeldt argues that 'Since n?p is not rendered in ©, and in H[Chron] xiii, 22 tzrnn stands alone, nsp is probably a gloss on EniD, and the title in II xxiv, 27 would then originally have read: Midrash of the Kings' (The Old Testament: An Introduction, p. 533n.). However, the Greek translation ypctcptl in 2 Para. 24.27, as opposed to simply pipAiov for tzma in 13.22, suggests that the translator's Vorlage was not simply 30. The reference TU> K'3]n to-noa, 'in the midrash of the prophet Iddo', is rather awkward syntactically (2 Chron. 13.22). The syntax T-PN, that is the title (T) before the personal name (PN), is not found with persons with non-royal titles. The syntax T-PN is an archaic pattern for the king; compare Tn -pan (T-PN) in SamuelKings (2 Sam. 3.31; 5.3; 6.16; 7.18; 8.8, 10, 11; 9.5; 13.21; 16.5, 6; 19.12, 17; 1 Kgs 1.1, 13, 28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43, 47) with -pan Tin (PN-T) in Chronicles (1 Chron. 24.31; 26.26, 32; 28.2; 29.1, 9, 29; 2 Chron. 2.11; 7.6). The unusual syntax suggests that the name Tddo' was added secondarily to the source citation which originally read simply wan ernoa, 'in the midrash of the prophet'. 31. Chronicles, p. 255; also see pp. 17-21. The discussion of the term o~na in the commentaries is cursory: see Rudolph, Chronikbucher, pp. 238, 276; Dillard, 2 Chronicles, pp. 109-10; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 23. 32. Die Chronik als Auslegung, pp. 236-37.
220
The Word of God in Transition
necessitates that midrash mean something like 'exposition' or 'interpretation'. We cannot translate midrash simply as 'book'. It is no coincidence that the source citations for the kings of Judah have works entitled 'the midrash of the book of the kings' and 'the midrash of the prophet Iddo' because the term midrash aptly describes the role of the prophets in the narratives discussed in Chapter 2 in which the prophets interpret and explain the significance of historical events. Prophets in the Source References There are nine references to prophetic sources mentioned in the source citations: Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Iddo, Jehu, Isaiah and Hozai. Source citations for eight of the twenty-two monarchs mention prophets. Seven monarchs have no source citations (Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah). Most of the prophets or seers are mentioned in only one citation, but Iddo, Gad and Isaiah are mentioned for more than one king. In this section, I will address the questions: who are the prophets cited? How do they figure in the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic narratives? Is there any pattern to the Chronicler's use of the prophets in source citations and the Deuteronomistic or Chronistic narratives? 1. Samuel. Samuel the seer is a source reference for David, even though the narratives concerning Samuel have been omitted by the Chronicler. Chronicles mentions Samuel six times, but preserves no stories concerning him (cf. 1 Chron. 6.12; 9.22; 11.3; 26.28; 29.29; 2 Chron. 35.18). There is no tendentious reason for omitting all the Samuel stories since among these stories is the anointing of David for kingship. However, the stories apparently did not fit the Chronicler's narrative schema since most of them deal with Saul and not David. The Chronicler relegates Samuel's place in his work to lists, prophetic fulfillment formulas and one source reference. 2. Nathan. Chronicles cites 'the words of Nathan the prophet' as a source for David. Nathan only appears in one narrative in Chronicles, that is when he delivers the dynastic oracle to David (1 Chron. Ill I 2 Sam. 7).33 The Chronicler omits Nathan's condemnation of David after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah from his 33. See further discussion of the dynastic oracle in Chapter 3; also see Williamson, 'The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles', pp. 305-18.
6. The Prophets as Historians
221
narrative for obvious reasons (cf. 2 Sam. 11-12). Similarly, Nathan's role in Solomon's rise to the throne did not fit with the Chronicler's depiction of the Israelite history and was also made (cf. 1 Kgs 1-2). While these omissions have been described as tendentious, they also were made because they do not relate to the theme of the temple which dominates the David and Solomon narratives in Chronicles. The one Nathan narrative which the Chronicler includes is his rewritten version of the dynastic oracle. In the Chronicler's narrative, the dynastic oracle justifies and legitimates the building of the temple. 3. Gad. 'The words of Gad the seer' is the third source cited for David. The only narrative mentioning Gad in Chronicles concerns David's census, a narrative coming from the Chronicler's Vorlage (2 Sam. 24// 1 Chron. 21; see Chapter 3). The census narrative gives a generally negative portrait of David, in spite of his humility which averts a disaster. Why then did the Chronicler include this story? The answer becomes clear in the story's conclusion. In the Chronicler's conclusion the census and the resulting punishment give rise to the selection of the site for the Davidic-Solomonic temple (1 Chron. 21.26-22.1). The narrative explains the sacredness of the site of the Jerusalem temple, an idea reasserted later in Chronicles by connection with Mt Moriah (cf. 2 Chron. 3.1). The description of the prophets Samuel, Nathan and Gad in David's source citation relies on the traditions preserved in the Deuteronomistic History. The stories concerning Nathan and Gad were obviously included because they pertain to the temple. The prophetic fulfillment formulas of the prophet Samuel legitimate David as the divinely chosen ruler. The Chronicler's references in the source citations to 'the words of Samuel', 'the words of Nathan' and 'the words of Gad' highlight the prophetic authority of the Chronicler's account. The 'words of the prophets' underscore the prophetic role in recording and interpreting the events of David's reign, but also the preparation and building of the temple. 4. Ahijah. The Chronicler cites 'the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilohite' in the source citation for Solomon. As with Samuel, narratives concerning the prophet Ahijah are known only from the Deuteronomistic History. Chronicles cites Ahijah as a source reference for Solomon, even though the narratives concerning Ahijah in 1 Kings (cf. 11.28-40; 14.1-18), which concern the northern kingdom, were not included in the
222
The Word of God in Transition
Chronicler's account of the kingdom of Judah. Still, the prophecy of Ahijah does have a bearing upon the kingdom of Judah since Ahijah predicted the breakup of Solomon's kingdom. Chronicles probably reflects Ahijah's prophecy in Shemaiah's statement to Rehoboam that the division of the kingdom was from YHWH (cf. 2 Chron. 11.4). Thomas Willi has emphasized that the books of Chronicles frequently presuppose knowledge of the traditions of the Deuteronomistic History not included in Chronicles.34 Although Chronicles excludes the prophecy of Ahijah from its narrative, it is likely that the reference to 'the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilohite' in Solomon's source reference is an allusion to the prophecy given in the Deuteronomistic History. 5. Shemaiah. The Chronicler refers to 'the words of Shemaiah the prophet' in the source citation for Rehoboam. Shemaiah is known both from an account in the Deuteronomistic History included in 2 Chronicles (cf. 1 Kgs 12.22-24 with 2 Chron. 11.2-4) and from a non-synoptic narrative in Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron. 12.5-8). 6. Iddo. The Chronicler refers to an otherwise unknown prophet named Iddo in the source citations of Solomon, Rehoboam and Abijah. Iddo's name is spelled TTJJ in the references for Rehoboam and Abijah and Twin the source reference for Solomon. This might lead us to think that Chronicles is referring to two different persons. As for the prophetic role labels, Iddo is entitled 'seer' (nmn) in the source citations of Solomon and Rehoboam and given the title 'prophet' (tfojn) in the source citation of Abijah. The picture which emerges can be illustrated in the chart below: King Solomon Rehoboam Abijah
Title hozeh hozeh nabi'
Spelling of 'Iddo'
hozeh hozeh
hozeh
There is no correlation between the variant spellings of the name 'Iddo' and the prophetic role labels. Since the references come in the successive reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam and Abijah, TW is apparently just a scribal variant for nu. An interchange in the role labels nabi' and hozeh also happens with Gad. Apparently, then, all three references are to the same character. 34. See Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung.
6. The Prophets as Historians
223
Rabbinic tradition and Ravius Josephus identify the anonymous 'man of God' in 1 Kings 13 with a certain Jaddon (ux88ov), most likely Iddo.35 The seer's name suggests an identification with the anonymous prophet in 1 Kings 13. The name 'Iddo' comes from the root VTIJJ, 'to testify'. Several prophets' names in the Old Testament use this root including nat vns, nir, «n» and TID (cf. 2 Chron. 12.15; 13.22; 28.8-11; Zech. 1.1; Ezra 5.1; 6.14). The term TIB occurs in Northwest Semitic. The Aramaic inscription of Zakir, the king of Hamath, relates that when a coalition of kings besieged one of Hamath's cities, Zakir prayed to his god. The god answered him 'through seers and through intermediaries' (]TU) T3i I'm T[a]).36 The root 'dd also occurs in Ugaritic, probably with the meaning 'to give a message' .37 The Aramaic and Ugaritic evidence might suggest that the Chronicler or an earlier tradent invented the name. In any case, the Chronicler's Iddo should probably be identified with the anonymous prophet in 1 Kings 13. The anonymous 'man of God' in 1 Kings 13 presents a message much in accord with the Chronicler's own theology. The prophet condemns the breakaway northern kingdom, predicting its eventual demise, and condemns especially their religion (cf. vv. 1-3). This ideology is echoed in Chronicles by Abijah's 'sermon on the mount' in 2 Chron. 13.4-12. In particular Abijah condemns the 'calves of gold' (cf. 1 Kgs 12.25-30 and 2 Chron. 13.8) and the illegitimate priesthood (cf. 1 Kgs 12.31 with 2 Chron. 13.9). It is perhaps no coincidence then that Abijah's source citation refers to the 'midrash of the prophet Iddo'. The prophet implicitly provides the interpretation not only for the Judaean king, but also the division of the kingdom. 7. Jehu. Jehu is known as a 'prophet' in the Deuteronomistic History from a judgment oracle which he delivers to Baasha (1 Kgs 16.1-4, 7). Jehu's oracle concerns the fall of the house of Baasha and the eventual rise of the house of Omri (and Ahab). The oracle is couched in the 35. See Josephus, Ant. 8.231-41, 408. Micheel argues that the Chronicler has identified Iddo with this anonymous 'man of God': Die Seher- und Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, pp. 77-78. 36. KAI 202; translated in ANET, pp. 655-56. J. Ross points out the close similarities between this inscription and biblical motifs, 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel andMari', pp. 1-28. 37. For Ugaritic examples, see CTA 4.3.10-11; CTA 4.7.45-47; also see Ross' treatment of the Ugaritic examples, 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel and Mari', pp. 5-6.
224
The Word of God in Transition
stereotypical language of the Deuteronomist (cf. 1 Kgs 14.10-11; 21.2124). From Jehu's oracle we may infer that he was a northern prophet. His place in Chronicles' narrative likely results from Jehoshaphat's geographical location. Jehoshaphat was in northern Israel participating with Ahab in an attack on Ramoth-Gilead and the 'seer' (rim) meets Jehoshaphat returning to Jerusalem from the north (2 Chron. 18.1-19.3). Why is a northern prophet cited as a source reference in Chronicles? Chronicles mentions three other northern prophets: Micaiah, Elijah and Oded. However, these northern prophets do not figure in the source citations. We may offer a tentative explanation for Jehu's place in the source citation of a southern king. The Jehu prophecy is critical to the Chronicler's interpretation of the alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab. Moreover, the alliance between northern Israel and Judah was apparently quite close during Jehoshaphat's reign since two separate ventures are mentioned (the joint campaign to Ramoth-Gilead and the unsuccessful shipping venture). 8. Isaiah. The source citations of Uzziah and Hezekiah both refer to the prophet Isaiah (2 Chron. 26.22; 32.32). In the source citation of Uzziah, the Chronicler states that Isaiah recorded the 'rest of the deeds of Uzziah': 'And the rest of the deeds of Uzziah from beginning to end, Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet recorded'. This citation is highly irregular; most notably, it omits the phrase 'surely they are written' from the formula. For Hezekiah, the Chronicler gives a lengthy source reference which suggests that the 'vision of Isaiah' was included in the 'book of kings': And the rest of the deeds of Hezekiah and his faithful acts, surely they are written in the vision of Isaiah, son of Amoz, the prophet, which is in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.
The source citation of Hezekiah, which cites 'the vision of Isaiah', recalls the opening of the book of Isaiah (1.1): The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah.
The Chronicler may have drawn upon this for his source citations for both Hezekiah and Uzziah. The Chronicler probably borrows the reference to the 'vision of Isaiah' for his source citation for Hezekiah. He perhaps draws upon this reference to Isaiah's activity in the time of
6. The Prophets as Historians
225
Uzziah when he records that Isaiah wrote down the deeds of Uzziah. The Chronicler, though citing the 'vision of Isaiah', has drastically reduced the role of the prophet Isaiah in his work. The Chronicler is aware of the canonical book of Isaiah and its relationship to 2 Kings as shown by the source reference, but the Chronicler's narrative does not closely follow the wording of its Vorlagen. Why is the role of Isaiah minimized in the Chronicler's narrative? Christopher Begg argues that 'to reproduce those portions of the "Isaiah Legends" highlighting Isaiah's prophetic activity would have the effect of obscuring Hezekiah's status as the prophet of his time...'38 However, the Chronicler was not as concerned to portray Hezekiah as a prophet as he was to portray him as a second Solomon. Thus, the Chronicler molds his narrative in order to portray Hezekiah typologically as a second Solomon.39 In doing so, the prophet Isaiah's role naturally becomes less important to the Chronicler's literary objectives. 9. Hozai. The reference to 'Hozai' (2 Chron. 32.19) in the source citation of Kihg Manasseh is most likely a scribal error. The waw of the following was lost by haplography and thus we should probably emend to «vnn», 'his hoztm\ Alternatively, the name 'Hozai' (Tin) could be understood as a clever pun on 'seers' (hozim) in the first half of the source citation (v. 18). This source reference must be read together with the previous verse to see its unusual construction: 18 And the rest of the deeds of Manasseh and his prayer to his gods and the words 0~m) of the hozim who spoke to him the the name of YHWH the god of Israel, indeed they are in the records of the kings of Israel. 19 And his prayer and how he prayed and all his sin and his unfaithfulness and the places where he built shrines and established Asherim and carved images before he was humbled, indeed they are written within the records C~Q~0 of Hozai [or, «his hozim»].
The phrase 'the words of the seers' (DTTF —m) in v. 18 so closely parallels 'the records of his seers' (mn -121) in v. 19 that it can hardly be coincidental. The meaning of the term ~ai changes in the Chronicler's interpretation; the 'words' 0~a~i) of the seers becomes the 'records' C~a-j) of his seers. This implicitly suggests that the seers mentioned in 38. 'The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History', p. 102. I have already rebutted Begg's arguments in Chapter 5. 39. See Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, pp. 119-25; Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 186-92.
226
The Word of God in Transition
v. 18 were the annalists of the king mentioned in v. 19. A two-part redactional structure in this source citation explains the parallel. Separate source references ('the records of the kings' and 'the records of Hozai') and the repetition of the phrase 'and his prayer' in vv. 18 and 19 mark the two-part structure of this source citation. This structure suggests that in v. 19 the Chronicler extrapolates based on the source which underlies v. 18. The vocabulary in v. 19 (inr, ^SQ, DID) points to the Chronicler's own hand in the composition of v. 19 and ties v. 19 with the Chronicler's narrative (vv. 12-13).40 Verse 18 (the Chronicler's underlying source) states that the words of the seers who spoke to Manasseh were recorded in the book of kings. In v. 19 the Chronicler rewrites the older source in v. 18. He interprets 'the words of the seers who spoke to Manasseh recorded in the book of the kings' as a prophetic source which he entitles 'the words of Hozai'. Summary The prophets in Chronicler's source references largely correspond to prophets known from the Deuteronomistic History. The apparent exceptions are Iddo and Hozai. However, we have seen that these exceptions are only apparent. The Chronicler probably identified Iddo with the anonymous prophet from Judah in 1 Kings 13. The reference to Hozai is probably derived from the reference to 'the seers who spoke to Manasseh'. Thus, all the prophets among the Chronicler's source references are either known from the Deuteronomistic History or derived from some source material. Many of the prophets cited appear in the narratives of the Deuteronomistic History, but are excluded from the narratives in Chronicles. The Chronicler does not include any prophetic narratives involving Samuel, Ahijah, Iddo, Hozai (or 'the seers'), Isaiah or Jeremiah. In addition, the Chronicler omits prophetic narratives from the Deuteronomistic History for Nathan and Jehu. To be sure, the Chronicler excluded some of these for ideological reasons. Thus, the Chronicler's omits the whole incident of David's adultery with Bathsheba and the confrontation of Nathan (2 Sam. 11-12). Similarly, the Chronicler's narrative focuses on Judah and thus omits Jehu's prophecy against Baasha (1 Kgs 16.1-4). In sum, the citation of a 40. See further my article, The Source Citations of Manasseh'. For a discussion of the Chronicler's distinct terminology, see Braun, 'Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah', pp. 53-56.
6. The Prophets as Historians
221
prophet as a source reference does not necessarily translate into the use of that prophet in the Chronicler's narrative. What does this say about the Chronicler's iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Konzeption, and more particularly, his view of prophets? The citations of prophetic sources are not references to independent written compositions, but references to prophetic traditions. There is little or no evidence that the Chronicler's references to prophetic sources point to independent prophetic compositions. This conclusion might be inferred from the source citations of David and Solomon. Each citation refers to three separate prophetic 'works'. However, it is highly unlikely that independent compositions from this period survived until the Chronicler's time. Moreover, the Chronicler's narratives evince no material concerning these prophets that was not derived from SamuelKings. Other citations repeatedly confirm the inference made from the source citations of David and Solomon. Most notably, the source citations of Hezekiah and Jehoshaphat clearly show that prophetic traditions were incorporated into larger works. We can infer from the source citations of Uzziah and Abijah that the compilations were also the products of the prophets and seers. The references to prophetic sources show a literary dependence upon the editorial superscriptions of the canonical prophets. The superscriptions to the prophetic books employ the root V'm, 'to see, have vision' (the terms run, 'he saw', and pm, 'vision'). The Chronicler's source citations employ the terms concerning 'vision' and they frequently cite prophetic figures who are given the title hozeh (also from the root V-m) as sources. While this does not prove a direct literary dependence between the superscriptions and Chronicles' source citations, it suggests that the hozeh kept the royal records and that their 'visions' (nm and pm) were often the subject of written traditions. The Chronicler and the editors of the superscriptions to the prophetic books reflect a similar scribal tradition. The Chronicler's source citations probably resulted from the creative extrapolation upon sources. This is especially clear in the source citations of Abijah, Hezekiah and Manasseh. The source citation for Abijah refers to 'the midrash of the prophet Iddo'. This Iddo was apparently the anonymous prophet of 1 Kings 13 whose oracle against the religion of Jeroboam was a source for the Chronicler in the composition of Abijah's address to the north in 2 Chron. 13.4-12. In referring to 'the records of Hozai' for the source citation of Manasseh, the Chronicler creatively
228
The Word of God in Transition
rewrites an older source citation. From these examples, we can probably assume that the other citations—most notably the source references for David, Solomon and Rehoboam—arose from the interpretation of the Chronicler. These citations indicate that the Chronicler considered history writing as one of the roles of the prophet, and in particular, a role of the hozeh. The Chronicler's use of prophets in his source citations is the precursor to later Judaism, which held that history writing was a role of the prophets. It is no coincidence that the historical books of Joshua through Kings were assigned to the 'Former Prophets'. Josephus reflects the position of Jewish tradition. In Against Apion, the Jewish historian emphasizes the prophets' authorship of 'remote and ancient history'.41 Joseph Blenkinsopp observes, That prophecy and the writing of history were thought to belong in some way together is already apparent from the inclusion of the historical books in the prophetic canon. The traditional explanation is that they were composed by prophets; hence the writing of history was considered to be one form of prophetic activity.42
The rabbis even felt that the 'Writings', the third part of the Jewish canon, were composed by prophets. Thus, Psalms was composed by David, Job by Moses, Proverbs by Solomon, Lamentations by Jeremiah, Ruth by Samuel, and so on.43 Prophets in the Chronicler's Narrative The prophets in the Chronicler's narrative will complete the picture of the prophet as 'historian'. By calling the prophets 'historians', I mean to say that the Chronicler thought that prophets had the role of interpreting past events and giving these events contemporary relevance. This description begins with Huizinga's definition of history writing as 41. Following H. Thackeray's translation of the phrase TCC dvcoaTco KCU nataxtoTocta; see Josephus, Against Apion (LCL, 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 37. Josephus states elsewhere that the task of record keeping was assigned by the ancient Jews to 'the chief priests and the prophets' (lotq otpxiepevai KOU lolq 7Cpo(pr|Tai<;; Apion 1.29). See S. Cohen, 'History and Historiography in the Against Apion of Josephus', in A. Rapoport-Albert (ed.), Essays in Jewish Historiography (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). 42. Prophecy and Canon, p. 131. 43. See Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, p. 128.
6. The Prophets as Historians
229
'rendering account of the past'. It is clear in the source references that the prophets and seers are responsible for recording and interpreting the history of Israel. Since, according to Huizinga's definition, 'history comprises every form of historical record',44 it is fair to say that the Chronicler portrays the prophets as historians. To what extent does this portrait of the prophet in the source references represent the Chronicler's view of the prophet's role? This question can be answered by examining the Chronicler's narrative portraits of the prophets and seers. The most striking example of a seer 'rendering account of the past' is in the speech of the seer Hanani (2 Chron. 16.7-10). Hanani's speech recalls a particular historical event, the battle against the Cushites (2 Chron. 14.8-14). Although other non-prophetic speeches use historical reminiscence as a device, this is the only speech which recalls a specific event. Rex Mason has pointed out that the other speeches also use illustrations from history.45 In fact, Mason points out the general similarities between the speeches of prophets, priests, kings and other figures. There are similarities in the speeches' formal characteristics such as use of vocative, call to attention, citation of Scripture and historical reminiscence. There are also similarities in rhetorical devices such as puns, inversions and rhetorical questions. These similarities are not surprising since all the speeches belong to the same larger genre of speech. Moreover, the speakers are all, in one capacity or another, mouthpieces for the Chronicler himself. As was pointed out in Chapter 2, the prophets' speeches are most clearly distinguished by their audience and the lack of inspiration formulas. Still, Hanani's speech distinguishes itself because it uses the interpretation of a concrete historical event to explain another historical event. Thus, history becomes a tutor in the prophet's speech. Prophets' speeches reinforce the narrative interpretations of events. They are often preceded by an interpretation in the narrator's voice. For instance, the narrative statement 'Shishak invaded Jerusalem because they rebelled against YHWH' (2 Chron. 12.2, emphasis added) comes before Shemaiah's interpretation of Shishak's invasion (vv. 5-8). Likewise, the statement 'he thereby acted wickedly' prefaces Eliezer's prophetic condemnation of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20.35-37). 44. See Huizinga, 'A Definition of the Concept of History', p. 10. 45. Preaching the Tradition, p. 141. However, Mason's analyses must be employed with caution since Mason includes the Levites among his 'prophets'.
230
The Word of God in Transition
The Chronicler also uses the confrontation between a seer and the king to reinterpret a narrative. 1 Kings 22 tells the story of Micaiah the true prophet and the false prophets of Ahab. The story begins with Ahab's proposed foray to Ramoth-Gilead. Jehoshaphat wants 'a word of YHWH' whether the campaign will be successful. Ahab consults his prophets who unanimously give YHWH's approval to the venture. However, Jehoshaphat is not satisfied that these prophets are speaking 'the word of YHWH' and asks for 'a prophet of YHWH'. The story climaxes in the confrontation of that 'false' prophet Zedekiah and the 'prophet of YHWH' Micaiah (cf. vv. 10-11, 22-24). In the end, the prophet of YHWH is vindicated against Zedekiah and Ahab's prophets when Ahab is killed in battle. As commentators have recognized, this story in Kings is a classic expression of the deuteronomic confrontation between 'true' and 'false' prophecy. However, the Chronicler recontextualizes the story (see discussion in Chapter 3). The Chronicler rewrites the beginning of the story so that it no longer concerns true and false prophecy, but now deals with foreign alliances (cf. 1 Kgs 22.1-3 with 2 Chron. 18.1-2). The body of the narrative is then left virtually unchanged. The Chronicler's interpretation of the story only becomes clear in the encounter with the seer. In the prophetic encounter which immediately follows, the seer Jehu condemns the king Jehoshaphat for 'helping the wicked' (2 Chron. 19.2), namely, participating in an alliance with Ahab. The rewriting of the story's introduction clues the reader into the Chronicler's reinterpretation. The voice of the seer explicitly articulates the new meaning of the story. In this way, the Chronicler uses the seer to interpret the meaning of a past event and thereby the seer becomes the Chronicler's mouthpiece for his reinterpretation of the Micaiah narrative. Does this necessarily prove that the prophets and seers in the narrative are historians? Not exactly. However, prophets and seers in the Chronicler's narratives complement the picture in the source citations. The Chronicler's prophets and seers appear as interpreters of past events, reinforcing narrative interpretations of events. It is exactly these type of activities which would seem to underlie the reference to the 'midrash of the prophet Iddo' and 'the midrash of the book of kings' in the Chronicler's source citations (2 Chron. 13.22; 24.27).
Conclusion
FROM PROPHETS TO INSPIRED INTERPRETERS
This study justifies its odd title, 'The Word of God in Transition'. How could the word of God be in transition? And yet it was. In the Second Temple period the very meaning of 'the word of God' underwent a radical transformation that had a profound impact on the development of Judaism and Christianity. This study illustrates this transformation, first of all, by an analysis of the presentation of prophets and prophecy in the book of Chronicles. Chronicles is the ideal book by which to illustrate this transformation because ideologically speaking it belongs with Second Temple period literature (when it was written) and at the same time its subject is pre-exilic Israel. It remains to summarize the conclusions of this study and develop their implications. I have shown that the Chronicler distinguished between 'prophets' and 'inspired messengers', and between the prophetic office and that of divine inspiration. This distinction was accompanied by the transition from oral prophecy to 'scribal' prophecy, that is, the inspired interpretation of texts. This transformation is consistent with a decline in the prophetic office and the rise in alternative prophetic activities (inspired interpreters, apocalyptic) in the Second Temple period. It also highlights aspects of continuity between post-exilic Israel and early Judaism and Christianity. These observations have important implications for the date, authorship and purpose of the books of Chronicles. Prophets and Inspired Messengers The distinction between 'prophets' and 'inspired messengers' is crucial to understanding the Chronicler's view of prophets, prophecy and inspiration. The term 'messenger' itself appears in the conclusion of the Chronicler's history work; in particular, 2 Chron. 36.16 refers to both 'prophets' and 'messengers':
232
The Word of God in Transition And they were mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and taunting his prophets until the anger of YHWH built up and there was no remedy.
The Chronicler indicates that God reproved his people through prophets, his words and messengers. The phrases 'his prophets' and 'his words' are clear enough: 'his prophets' refers to the traditional prophetic figures and 'his words' refers to the Mosaic law (cf. 2 Chron. 34.19, 'words of the Torah'; 2 Chron. 35.6, 'the word of YHWH through Moses'). However, 'the messengers of God' in this passage has not been adequately explained by commentators. The term 'messenger' ("[K'PD) emerges as a prophetic term in the exilic and post-exilic prophetic canon (Isa. 40-66, Haggai, Malachi). The emergence of the term 'messenger' to refer to the exilic and post-exilic prophetic figures underscores a distinction between pre-exilic and post-exilic prophecy in the Second Temple period. In this study, therefore, I used the term 'messenger' to refer to inspired speakers who are not given prophetic titles such as nabi' or ro'eh. In Chapter 1, we found that inspiration formulas such as 'the spirit of God clothed' preface the speeches by non-prophets and mark them as divinely inspired. I called these non-prophets, for example, the soldier Amasai, Pharaoh Neco and the priest Zechariah, 'inspired messengers'. The Chronicler refers to prophets by using prophetic titles (nabi', hozeh, ro'eh and 'man of God'). In Chapter 1 we found that the title nabi' is a general title that the Chronicler used for prophets. The prophetic titles 'man of God' and hozeh, have special nuances in the Chronicler's history work. 'Man of God' is a broad title which is used for both prophetic and non-prophetic figures and should not be considered a strictly prophetic title. For instance, the Chronicler changed the title for Shemaiah, which was 'man of God' in the Deuteronomistic History, to nabt'. Likewise, although Elijah is called both nabi' and 'man of God' in the Deuteronomistic History, the Chronicler only uses nabi' as Elijah's title. He also uses title 'man of God' for Moses and David. On the other hand, the Chronicler uses 'man of God' as the title for two prophets (cf. 2 Chron. 11.2//1 Kgs 12.22; 2 Chron. 25.7). It is clear then that the title 'man of God' was applied to 'godly men' who were sometimes, but not necessarily, prophets. We also found that the term hozeh has special connotations in the Chronicler's work. The term is especially employed in the Chronicler's source citations for the prophets who recorded 'the deeds of the king'. Cognates of hozeh,
Conclusion
233
including the terms 'to see, have vision' (nm), 'vision' (pm) and 'visions' (mm), are prominent in both the Chronicler's prophetic source citations and the superscriptions to the prophetic canon. The composition of the source citations in general, and the source citation of Hezekiah in particular (2 Chron. 32.32), indicated that the Chronicler was influenced by the scribal school which edited the prophetic canon. The hozeh should be understood as a prophet who was closely associated with the court and had a special role in recording the deeds of the king. The different titles are accompanied by formal and functional differences in the speeches of inspired messengers and prophets in Chronicles. The use of inspiration formulas is different in the prophets' and the messengers' speeches. Inspiration formulas are not usually employed for prophets' speeches, appearing in only three of the eight non-synoptic speeches given by prophets. Divine authority is implicit in the prophetic title and consequently inspiration formulas are unnecessary for figures with prophetic titles. In a sense, the inspiration formula, which is essentially a claim to divine authority, is implicit in the prophetic title. Not surprisingly, the three prophets' speeches which do use inspiration formulas use formulas that correspond to classical prophetic models. We find the messenger formula ('thus says YHWH') and the intermediary formula ('and the word of YHWH came to PN'). In contrast, the Chronicler's inspired messengers use inspiration formulas which are not typical of classical prophecy. Most prominent in this respect are possession formulas which suggest that a divine spirit inspires the messenger's speech (for example, 'the spirit enveloped'; 2 Chron. 24.20). In Chapter 1 I showed that outside of Chronicles inspiration by the spirit is most characteristic of military activities and not typical of classical prophecy. For instance, the spirit inspires the judges Othniel, Gideon and Jephthah to military victories (Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 11.29). The inspiration formulas, therefore, indicate a substantive difference between prophets and inspired messengers. Another formal distinguishing factor between prophets and messengers is the audience they address. Prophets speak to the king, in contrast to the inspired messengers who speak with the people. The chart below summarizes the formal differences detailed in Chapter 2:
INSPIRATION FORMULAS
'PROPHETS' AND 'MESSENGERS'
Name
Reference
Title
Shemaiah
2 Chron. 12.5-8
nabi'
Hanani
2 Chron. 16.7-10
ro'eh
Jehu
2 Chron. 19.1-3
hozeh
Eliezer
2 Chron. 20.35-37
nabi'
Elijah
2 Chron. 21.12-19
nabi'
Anonymous
2 Chron. 25.7-9
man of God
Anonymous
2 Chron. 25.15-16
nabi'
Oded
2 Chron. 28.9-11
nabi'
Amasai
1 Chron. 12.19
officer
Azariah
2 Chron. 15.1-7
none
Jahaziel
2 Chron. 20.14-17
Levite
Zechariah
2 Chron. 24.17-22
priest
Neco
2 Chron. 35.20-22
pharaoh
None
Intermediary
Messenger
AUDIENCE Possession
King
People
Conclusion
235
Several clear patterns emerge from this chart. The prophet almost invariably speaks to the king and the inspired messenger addresses the people. The two exceptions are easily explicable. Pharaoh, an inspired messenger, speaks to King Josiah because they are peers. The northern prophet Oded does not speak to the king because in the Chronicler's view there was no legitimate northern king to address (cf. 2 Chron. 13.4-12). In spite of these exceptions the evidence is clear. The Chronicler gives distinct roles to the prophets and inspired messengers. The prophet had a special relationship with the royal institution. The prophet counseled the king and a critical role of the prophet was to check the power of the monarchy.1 On the other hand, the inspired messenger was a divine emissary to the people. The inspired messengers' audience recalls the paradigm of the 'Levitical Sermon' whose Sitz im Leben, according to von Rad, was preaching to the people. The use of inspiration formulas confirms the pattern which emerges from the different audiences. Almost all the inspired messengers' speeches are prefaced by possession formulas, whereas possession formulas are never used for the Chronicler's prophets. In fact, most of the prophets' speeches use no inspiration formula at all. The distinction between speeches by prophets and those by messengers is further underscored by their different functions in the narratives of the book of Chronicles. In Chapter 2 we found that the prophets' speeches explain and interpret narrative events. Thus, the prophet Shemaiah interprets Shishak's invasion as a consequence of Rehoboam's disobedience (2 Chron. 12.1-9). The seer Hanani explains that Asa's fate results from his foreign alliance and he punctuates this explanation with a historical example (2 Chron. 16.7-10). The prophets and seers explain to the king how God has acted, is acting, or shall act in history. On the other hand, the inspired messengers serve a different function appropriate for their particular audience. They do not explain how God acts, but rather exhort the people, telling them how they should act. It is in the context of these exhortations to the people—and not in the prophets' speeches—that we see the extensive citation and interpretation of Scripture. For example, the spirit comes upon the levitical singer Jahaziel and he enjoins all Israel to 'stand and see the 1. Krister Stendahl (personal communication) pointed out me to an interesting expression of the special relationship between prophecy and kingship in the New Testament. When one speaks before kings and governors, the Holy Spirit directs the speech of the individual (cf. Mt. 10.18-20; Lk. 12.11).
236
The Word of God in Transition
salvation of God' (2 Chron. 20.17). Jahaziel's exhortation is an inspired recontextualization of Moses' injunction to the children of Israel at the Red Sea (cf. Exod. 14.13). The messenger Jahaziel is inspired to appropriate and reapply Scripture in order to exhort the people, whereas the prophet Shemaiah is given insight into narrative events in order to explain them to the king. Given the prophets' role as interpreters of historical events, it is not surprising that the Chronicler names prophets and seers in his source citations. On the other hand, given the messengers' role in exhorting the people, it is not surprising that no messengers are mentioned in the source citations. This omission of priests and Levites should be considered significant especially since later Jewish historians specifically mention priests as history writers. For example, 1 Maccabees ends by citing 'the rest of the acts of John...behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high priesthood' (1 Mace. 16.23-24). Josephus also refers to the priests as writers of history (Apion 1.29). In Chapter 6, I suggested that the term midrash in the Chronicler's source citations reflects the prophet's role in the narratives as interpreter of historical events (2 Chron. 13.22; 24.27). The term midrash, although it does not have the full import which it came to have in rabbinic literature, must be translated as 'exposition' or 'interpretation'. As such, it fits into the Chronicler's historiographical conception which viewed prophets as both interpreters and recorders of the 'acts of the kings'. This study found no evidence to substantiate the scholarly characterization of Levites and Davidic kings as 'prophets'.2 Such characterizations are based on loose definitions of the term 'prophet'. The Chronicler himself does not call the Levites or the Davidic kings 'prophets'. In the case of the Levites, it is only the heads of the levitical singers, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, who are given a prophetic title, 'royal hozeh\ Like David, the levitical singers Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun were psalmists and musicians. The LXX captures the real significance of the title 'royal hozeh' for the levitical singers, translating it as 'royal musician' (TCQ dvccKpovoijivcQ TCQ pccoiAei). Their title relates to their role as royal musicians and psalmists whose music became authoritative for the post-exilic temple community which sang 'songs of David and Asaph' (cf. 2 Chron. 29.30). Asaph, Heman and 2. See above Chapters 4 and 5, and the work of Petersen (Late Israelite Prophecy), Begg (The Classical Prophets') and Newsome (The Chronicler's View of Prophecy'.
Conclusion
237
Jeduthun were the authors of the inspired music of the temple cult and for this reason are given the prophetic title 'royal hozeh'. On the other hand, the fact that the Levite Jahaziel was divinely inspired ('the spirit came upon him'; 2 Chron. 20.14) does not imply that he was a prophet. The spirit also came upon Amasai, a soldier, and few would claim that he was a prophet (cf. 1 Chron. 12.19). As I showed in Chapter 1, the possession by the spirit in this way is not characteristic of classical biblical prophecy, but is characteristic of military actions. Even in the book of Chronicles, this description of the spirit coming upon someone is not characteristic of prophets. This kind of ad hoc prophecy was not particular to the Levites or the levitical singers; rather, we see the same kind of ad hoc prophetic inspiration with Amasai, a soldier, and Zechariah, a priest. In sum, while Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun were prophetically gifted to write the music for the temple cult, there is little reason to think that the Levites as a whole claimed to be prophets in the post-exilic period. Nor is there reason to conclude that the Davidic kings were prophets. The scholarly case depends partially on the thesis that the 'Levitical Sermons' are prophetic. Thus, for example, Abijah is a prophet because his speech is 'prophetic' (2 Chron. 13.4-12).3 Yet there is no objective evidence (such as an inspiration formula) for calling his speech 'prophetic' or Abijah a 'prophet'. The case depends on the shaky characterization of all 'Levitical Sermons' as prophetic. Other scholars characterize the Davidic kings as 'prophets' because of the divine revelations to David and Solomon. These revelations, however, relate solely to the organization and construction of the temple. In this respect, David and Solomon are similar to other Near Eastern kings whose temples are divinely sanctioned (see Chapter 5). As elsewhere in the ancient Near East, one role of a king is temple building. It is not surprising then that God revealed to David the plans for the temple. The divine revelation justifies the construction of the first temple and, we may suppose, the second temple as well. The Chronicler portrays David, 'the man of God' and the establisher of the temple, as a type of Moses, 'the man of God' and establisher of the tabernacle. This characterization legitimates David as the builder of the temple and justifies his role in the organization of the temple and its worship. 3. Cf. Newsome, 'New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 203.
238
The Word of God in Transition The History of Prophecy
The ad hoc inspiration of messengers is a type of prophetic inspiration. The inspired exhortation by Azariah to the people is actually called 'prophecy' (n»n], 2 Chron. 15.8).4 In four of the five messenger speeches, the spirit inspires the messenger to speak for God. In one instance, the spirit inspires the priest Zechariah and a messenger formula ('thus says God to you') prefaces the priest's speech. Admittedly, the inspiration by the spirit is not typical of classical prophecy (see Chapter 1, 'possession formulas'). Nevertheless, these messengers make a claim to divine authority for their utterances and thus their speeches can be termed 'prophetic', even if the various figures who are inspired (a soldier, a Levite, a priest, a pharaoh) do not hold the prophetic office, that is, they are not 'prophets'. In Chapter 2 I detailed how in two instances this ad hoc inspiration resulted in extended speeches which rely heavily on written tradition—in a sense becoming extended explications of Scripture. Azariah's speech (2 Chron. 15.1-7) reuses phrases from Deut. 4.29-30 and Zech. 8.9-10 and thereby 'verbalizes older language for the sake of the reappropriation of the tradition'.5 Jahaziel's speech (2 Chron. 20.14-17) appropriates and recontextualizes Moses' speech before the people at the Red Sea (Exod. 14.13-14). These messengers then, moved by the spirit, become prophetically inspired exegetes. Inspiration for the cult may take different forms. David is divinely inspired to understand YHWH's plan for the temple and its cult. This revelation came to David 'by the spirit' and 'by the hand of YHWH upon him', so that David was 'made to understand all the plans of the temple' (cf. 1 Chron. 28.12, 19). Thus, the temple is founded by prophetic inspiration. The temple music is also prophetically inspired. To begin with, Chronicles emphasizes David's musical abilities, so that the psalms of David are sung in the temple and the instruments of David are used in the temple (cf. 2 Chron. 29.26-30). We may assume that this was the music used for worship in the second temple. The inspiration of David the psalmist can be seen in 'the last words of David', a tradition which makes David a psalmist gifted by the spirit of YHWH (2 Sam. 23.1-2). 4. 5.
See discussion of the textual problems in Chapter 2. Fishbane, The Garments ofTorah, p. 16.
Conclusion
239
According to Chronicles, David's gift in music was passed on to the heads of the levitical singers, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. It is probably no coincidence that Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun are mentioned in the superscriptions to the book of Psalms alongside David. King David established the levitical singers in the temple cult and the Chronicler says that Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun prophesied (V»33) with musical instruments (1 Chron. 25.1, 3). Thus, Davidic authority and prophetic inspiration were ascribed to the music which was undoubtedly used for worship in the second temple. The model of transition between prophet and inspired messenger may be applied to other prophetic books. The most obvious example is the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah is the holder of the prophetic office and Baruch is his personal secretary. In the historical preface, Jeremiah is the preeminent figure whom God chose before he was born and appointed as a prophet to the nations (cf. Jer. 1.4-10). However, Baruch becomes an increasingly important figure in the later redaction and interpretation of Jeremiah's oracles. In apocalyptic literature, the inspired scribe Baruch actually supplants the prophet Jeremiah.6 Along these lines, Christopher Seitz has pointed to the importance of the figure of Moses in the final redacting of the book of Jeremiah.7 This exalting of the prophetic figure of Moses in the final redaction again underscores the redactor's role as a subordinate to the prophet, and nevertheless divinely authorized to reframe the prophet and his words. A similar analysis may be applied to the book of Isaiah. According to the historical preface, the book purports to be the oracles of the eighthcentury prophet Isaiah. Following the analysis of Bernhard Duhm, most of critical scholarship has rejected this view. More recent studies have returned to reading the book as a unity, although they still see the hand of an exilic redactor shaping the work.8 Many scholars have seen the 6. See I.E. Wright, 'Baruch', in M. Stone and T. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside of the Bible (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, forthcoming). 7. C. Seitz, The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah', ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 3-27. 8. See recently R. Rendtorff, The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity. Synchronic and Diachronic Reading', in SBL Seminar Papers 1991 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991); R.E. Clements, The Unity of the Book of Isaiah', in J.L. Mays and P.J. Achtemeier (eds.), Interpreting the Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 50-61; J.J.M. Roberts, 'Isaiah in Old Testament Theology', in Mays and Achtemeier (eds.), Interpreting the Prophets, pp. 62-74. See summary and critique by C. Seitz, Zion 's Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A
240
The Word of God in Transition
personified voice in Isaiah 40 as that of so-called 'Second Isaiah', who added to and shaped the oracles of 'First Isaiah'.9 I believe that this model is incorrect since it gives 'Second Isaiah' the same prophetic status as 'First Isaiah'. In fact, the inspired voice of Isaiah 40 never claims prophetic status. The voice is only that of God's messenger (Isa. 44.26), a herald of good tidings (-IBM, 40.9; 52.7), or Yahweh's servant. The role of this inspired voice is to exhort a new generation of Israel by recontextualizing the prophecies of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah. For example, Isaiah 40 must be read on two levels. The first level is historical sermon. The voice in v. 3 is integrally related to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem described in Isaiah 36-37.10 This voice which bears good tidings brings a message relevant both to the historical situation described in Isaiah 36-39 and to the people in exile. Indeed, the tidings of comfort (vv. 1-2, 9-11) are an appropriate response to the Assyrian destruction of Judah and the miraculous preservation of Jerusalem. The second level is the historical sermon. The historical circumstance described in Isaiah 36-38 is reapplied to the exilic community. Isaiah 39 prophesies the later Babylonian destruction and foreshadows the situation of the exilic (and post-exilic) audience of the inspired voice. Important to this reading is the motif of the 'former' and 'latter' things in so-called Second Isaiah. Brevard Childs has suggested, I believe correctly, that the 'former things' are to be understood as the prophecies of First Isaiah.11 Christopher Seitz points out that in Second Isaiah 'the "prophet" becomes a figure depicted in the literature (49.1-6; 50.3-9) alongside Zion and Jacob/Israel the servant. In this manner the single identifiable prophetic voice in the wider book—the prophet Isaiah—is respected and allowed to stand alone.'12 This picture corresponds with the references to the 'former prophets' in Zechariah, Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 1-35. 9. For example, see R.E. Clements, The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC', VT 30 (1980), pp. 421-36, and 'Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah's Themes', JSOT31 (1985), pp. 95113. 10. P.R. Ackroyd has correctly stressed the important transitional nature of these chapters: 'An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile', SJT27 (1974), pp. 328-52. Also see now Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny. 11. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, pp. 329-33. Childs is followed in this interpretation by most recent commentators including Clements, Brueggemann, Rendtorff, Seitz and Sweeney. 12. Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny, p. 206.
Conclusion
241
in which we certainly have an implicit contrast with the post-exilic figures. This, I would suggest, is how the entire book of Isaiah is to be read. In the final analysis, it is through the inspired voice (or inspired messenger) who collects and edits that we hear the voice of the historical Isaiah. The enduring power of the historical Isaiah's words are ultimately in their continuing recontextualization. The enduring voice of the inspired herald reemerges in Qumran literature. The Qumran community identified this 'bearer of good tidings' mentioned in Isaiah with 'the one anointed of the spirit about whom Daniel spoke' and expected this figure to reemerge in the eschaton (cf. 1 IQMelch).13 Even the post-exilic scribe Ezra stands in the line of these inspired messengers. Certainly the books of Ezra and Nehemiah never ascribe to Ezra the title 'prophet'. He is only a 'scribe'. But he is the scribe upon whom the 'hand of God' rests and who interprets the Scriptures before the people (Ezra 7.6). He is indeed an inspired interpreter. Comparison may be made between these various inspired messengers (Baruch, 'Second Isaiah', Ezra) and the Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran literature. It is not coincidental that in the commentary on the prophetic book Habakkuk the writer claims that 'all the mysteries of the prophets' were revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness (IQpHab 7.3-5). Indeed, the Teacher of Righteousness is not a prophet, but rather a 'ready scribe' (THO ~IDIO) to whom God gives 'an eloquent tongue' (4QpPsa 110 4.25-27). The Teacher follows directly in the line of Ezra, who is also described as a 'ready scribe' (Ezra 7.6). Ezra thus becomes the prototype of the inspired text interpreter, a man with the hand of God upon him so that he understands the mysteries of the word of God. Prophecy in Early Judaism and Christianity The description of prophecy in Chronicles reflects aspects of both continuity with and distinction from other pre-exilic and post-exilic descriptions. We have already touched upon aspects of continuity between Chronicles and later Jewish writings. This fruitful area of inquiry is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but a few observations will highlight possible avenues of further research. Chronicles reflects a trend in later tradition which made the writers of Scripture into prophets. In rabbinic literature the authors of Scripture 13. See P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek andMelchiresa' (CBQMS, 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), p. 21.
242
The Word of God in Transition
were 'prophets' and thus David became a prophet by virtue of his authorship of the book of Psalms.14 The Davidic superscriptions in the book of Psalms also suggest an early tradition of David as a psalmist.15 The levitical singers, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, are also mentioned in the Psalms superscriptions and Asaph is mentioned alongside David by the Chronicler as a psalmist (2 Chron. 29.30). These levitical singers also 'prophesied' with music (1 Chron. 25.1-3). Their music, as well as the 'psalms of David', had a special authority in the liturgy of the post-exilic community (cf. 2 Chron. 29.30). The Greek Psalter, which ends with a poetic midrash on 1 Samuel 16 (Psalm 151), reflects the developing importance of David as the author of the Psalter. Both 'inspired music' and 'inspired interpretation' have reflexes in the Qumranic literature. At Qumran, David's music, which extended beyond the canonical psalms, was considered 'prophecy' (rwa:). The colophon to the 11Q Psalms scroll says, And [David] wrote psalms... and the total was 4,050. All these he spoke by prophecy (n«Uj3) which was given to him from before the Most High (llQPs 3 27.4.10-11).
This implies that even some non-canonical Davidic psalms were inspired by 'the Most High'. The Qumran scrolls also speak of the 'Teacher of Righteousness' to whom God gives understanding to interpret the prophetic word (cf. IQpHab 2.8-9).16 This kind of inspired interpretation is never called 'prophecy' at Qumran, and the Teacher is never called a 'prophet'. The role and the writings of the prophets were in a sense set in stone. Now the task was interpretation. This dynamic is illustrated in HQMelchizedek: This is the day of Peace concerning which [God] spoke [through] Isaiah the prophet, who said, '[How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, Your God reigns (Isa. 52.7)'. Its 14. See Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, pp. 128-29. 15. See further Sarna, The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds', pp. 281-300. 16. Generally, the presence of the Holy Spirit is only ascribed to the classical prophets; however, occasionally the Holy Spirit is also seen to be present in the Teacher's ministry (for example, 1QH 11.3-4). It is clear that on the one hand the Teacher does not claim to be a prophet and yet that on the other hand the Teacher claims that God 'has opened my ears to wonderful mysteries' so that he could be 'a fountain of knowledge to all men of insight' (cf. 1QH column i).
Conclusion
243
interpretation: 'the mountains' are the prophets... and 'the messenger' is the anointed one (rnon) of the spirit (1 IQISMelch 2.18).
In this revealing metaphor, the messenger stands upon the prophets and is moved by the spirit. It is God who reveals to the Teacher the mysteries of the prophets, though the Teacher is not a prophet. For instance, IQpHab 7.3-5 comments, And when it says, 'So that He can run who reads it', its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets.17
The claim that the instruction of the 'Teacher of Righteousness' comes from God is essentially a claim to prophecy as we have defined it in Chronicles—even if it is not a claim that the 'Teacher of Righteousness' was a prophet.18 The Teacher becomes an 'inspired instructor' for the Qumran community whose interpretation of Scripture has the special status resulting from divine illumination. At this point it is worthwhile to recall Josephus's description of the prophetic abilities of the Essenes (that is, the Qumran community): There are some among them who, trained as they are in the study of the holy books and the <sacred> writings, and the sayings of the prophets, become expert in foreseeing the future: they are rarely deceived in their predictions (War 12.259).
Their prophetic gift, according to Josephus, began with the study of Scriptures, and we may assume that it was also dependent on the study of the 'sayings of the prophets'. Prophecy was thus no longer an enterprise which could be done independently of the Scriptures, but was an interpretation and elaboration of Scripture. According to tradition, divine illumination also plays a role in the translation of the LXX. Many traditions recount that seventy translators were shut into separate cells and by divine inspiration made their versions identical. This tradition became especially important to the early Christian church, which regarded the Greek version as the 'word of 17. Cf. Testament of Levi (c. 200 BCE), which states, 'And then the Lord will raise up a new priest to whom all the words of the Lord will be revealed' (18.2). The dating and translation follow H.C. Kee, in J. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), II. 18. David Aune writes: 'For the Qumran community charismatic exegesis played a functionally equivalent role to prophecy...' (Prophecy in Early Christianity, p. 342).
244
The Word of God in Transition
God'. It is important to recall Seeligmann's observation here: 'the origin of the LXX was in the synagogue, and its uses in synagogal homilies and sermons allows us to qualify it as a Targum; it exegesis is that of the midrash and the very essence of true midrash is actualization'.19 The LXX was not a midrash intended for use in homily, but an inspired midrash which lent authority to the synagogal homily. The inspired translation of the LXX is certainly akin to the notion of inspired interpre tation which we find at Qumran and in early Christianity. The early Christian community regarded Jesus as 'a prophet powerful in word and deed' who could explain the prophetic mysteries in Moses and all the Prophets (for example, Lk. 24.19-27; cf. IQpHab 7.3-5 cited above). On the other hand, John the Baptist shuns the title 'prophet' and Jesus and the Gospel writers identify him as 'the messenger' from Mai. 3.1 and 'a voice of one calling in the wilderness' from Isaiah 40 (Mk 1.2-3; cf. Mt. 3.3; 11.10). The unwillingness to call John the Baptist 'a prophet' is certainly because the title 'prophet' was associated with the eschatological role of the 'prophet like Moses' (cf. Deut. 18.15); on the other hand, the title 'prophet' is applied to Jesus precisely because of this association. John the Baptist is not a 'prophet' because the prophetic office had ended with the last of the prophets and would not be restored until 'the prophet like Moses' arose. Thus, for the early Christian church, Jesus is the key figure in the restoration of the prophetic office.20 After him and because of him, the early Christian community could have prophetic figures (see for example Acts 11.27-28). Jesus is also the inspired interpreter of the Scripture for the early Christian community. In fact, charismatic exegesis of the Old Testament is prevalent in the New Testament. Early Christianity takes over a form of biblical interpretation already known in the book of Chronicles. It is significant here to recall a debate among New Testament scholars. E.E. Ellis has suggested that charismatic Old Testament exegesis was carried out by early Christian prophets.21 However, David Aune observes that although the evidence suggests that charismatic exegesis was practiced in early Christianity, there is almost no evidence 'that this 19. 'Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research', p. 232. 20. Note in particular that Peter's speech ties together the pouring out of the spirit of prophecy (i.e. the Holy Spirit) with Jesus' ministry (Acts 2.14-33). 21. See E.E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 147-72, and Paul and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 107113.
Conclusion
245
activity was carried out by those who were labeled "prophets" in early Christianity' ,22 From the perspective of the book of Chronicles as well as the Qumranic literature, I would be surprised if inspired interpretation was called 'prophecy' or inspired exegetes were labeled 'prophets'. Pre-rabbinic texts ordinarily reserve the designation 'prophet' for the canonical prophets (such as, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah). Although God revealed mysteries to the 'Teacher of Righteousness' and although the rabbis' teachings were authorized by a line of tradition coming from Moses and the prophets (m. Ab. 1.1), they were not 'prophets'.23 The book of Chronicles implies a similar understanding. The Chronicler distinguishes between the prophets, who are associated with the king, and inspired messengers, who speak to the people. This distinction implies that the role of the prophet would end with the monarchy. The later rabbinic use of the term 'prophet', then, is already implicit in the Chronicler's presentation of prophets and inspired messengers. On the other hand, the inspired messengers in Chronicles (especially Azariah and Jahaziel), who are inspired by the spirit to reinterpret Scripture for their exhortations, become the forerunners of the inspired text interpreter at Qumran. The Chronicler himself becomes an interpreter of the 'mysteries of the prophets'. In Chapter 3 we examined the Chronicler's reuse of the dynastic oracle from 2 Samuel 7. In 1 Chronicles 17, he reinterprets the meaning of the dynastic oracle. Then, the Chronicler recontextualizes the dynastic oracle in the speeches of David (1 Chron. 22; 28) so that it is no longer simply a promise for a dynasty, but also a promise for an eternal temple. In the Chronicler's reinterpretation the temple and the kingdom are placed side by side; God would build himself both a kingdom and a temple (1 Chron. 17.14; 2 Chron. 1.18). It would be ingenuous to regard the Chronicler's reinterpretation as pious fraud. As Michael Fishbane 22. Prophecy in Early Christianity, p. 345. 23. According to rabbinic tradition, Jonathon ben Uzziel received instruction from the latter prophets before composing his Aramaic targum. Therefore, Jonathon's interpretation/translation required prophetic instruction (cf. b. Meg. 3a). The postbiblical generations were thought 'unworthy' of the prophetic spirit (t. Sot. 13.3; y. Sot. 24b; b. Sot. 48b). Even in Ab. 1.1, 'Moses received (^np) Torah from Sinai and delivered (iiom) it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets delivered (1100) it to the Men of the Great Synagogue', the rabbis receive their mantle from the prophets. However, it is noteworthy that the verb *P3p is used only in the transfer from Moses to Joshua; from that point on the tradition is passed down (noa) to the rabbis.
246
The Word of God in Transition
notes, 'an interpreter may well have often believed that his interpretation was the explicit articulation of the received content of the tradition'.24 The Chronicler interprets the received tradition in order to exhort the post-exilic community to seek the LORD. The Chronicler's work is then not so much historical as a historical sermon.25 An analogy can be made with the historical psalms, which use history to instruct and exhort the community. Not only does the Chronicler reinterpret the prophetic word, but the meaning of the prophetic word itself changes. In Chapter 3 I pointed out that 'the word of YHWH' is used as a technical term in the Hebrew Bible referring to the prophetic word, as in the formula 'and the word of YHWH came to PN'. Yet, in Chronicles, 'the word of YHWH' comes to refer to the Mosaic law, as in the formula 'according to the word of YHWH through Moses' (2 Chron. 35.6). In six of twelve occurrences, 'the word of YHWH' refers to the Mosaic law. This resignification of 'the word of YHWH' as law in Chronicles presages the shift in the role of prophets in rabbinic literature and at Qumran and reflects the increasing importance of Torah in the post-exilic period.26 When 'the word of YHWH' becomes a synonym for Torah, it is not surprising that the prophets become transmitters and interpreters of Torah (for example, m.Ab. 1.1; 1QS 1.3; 8.15-16). The dual meaning of 'the word of YHWH' in Chronicles implies both a continuation of and an end to prophecy. There is little to suggest that the Chronicler saw an end to prophecy per se in the post-exilic period; yet an end to classical prophets is implicit in the Chronicler's presentation of prophets, messengers and inspiration formulas. First of all, the Chronicler closely associates his prophets with the king. The prophet speaks to the king whereas the other inspired figures speak to the people. It follows that the role of the prophet would be obsolete if there were no king. We might even say that the relationship of prophets to kings creates an end to prophecy. A close relationship between 24. The Garments of Torah, p. 17. 25. See further my paper, 'History or Homily? Toward Understanding the Chronicler's Purpose'. 26. On the increasing importance of Torah, see in general Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 525-43, and in particular Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's History Work. Shaver's conclusions must be used with caution however; cf. E. Ben Zvi, 'Review: Torah and the Chronicler's History Work by Judson Shaver', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 718-20.
Conclusion
247
prophecy and kingship is also underscored by the book of 1 Maccabees. It refers to the end of prophets and their future restoration and implies that the fortunes of the prophetic institution closely follow the fall of the monarchy and its anticipated restoration (cf. 1 Mace. 4.46; 9.27; 14.41). On the other hand, the Chronicler's presentation allows for a continuation of the prophetic gift. Various figures in the Chronicler's history are inspired by the spirit. This ad hoc inspiration was specially directed at the people and its fortunes would be unrelated to the rise and fall of the monarchy. The Chronicler's presentation of prophecy differs substantially from the deuteronomic view. Chronicles is not concerned with 'false' prophets or predictive prophecy. A most unusual feature of prophets in the book of Chronicles is that they are not occupied with the most visible aspect of the prophetic office, namely, predictive prophecy. This places Chronicles in direct contrast to the prophecy-fulfillment scheme which pervades its main source, the Deuteronomistic History.27 To be sure, there are a few examples of predictive prophecy in Chronicles. For example, the prophet Elijah predicts the demise of Jehoram (cf. 2 Chron. 21.12-19). However, even in this case the Chronicler is not concerned with a prophecy-fulfillment scheme, but rather with retribution theology. As a result, the Chronicler does not use a formula such as 'according to the word of the prophet' indicating the fulfillment of the prophetic word against Jehoram. Predictive prophecy, then, is not critical in the Chronicler's presentation of prophecy. Likewise, Chronicles is not concerned about 'false' prophets. As a result, the only place in Chronicles where we see prophetic conflict is in the Micaiah narrative borrowed from the Deuteronomistic History (cf. 1 Kgs 22//2 Chron. 18). I showed in Chapter 3 that the Chronicler has rewritten the introduction to the narrative so that it no longer focuses on the issue of 'true' and 'false' prophecy, but now focuses on one of the Chronicler's favorite themes: foreign alliances. Thus, the enactment formula 'to act as a prophet' does not assume the connotations of false prophecy in the Chronicler's independent compositions, even though such issues clearly underlie its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Likewise, the Chronicler can use a deuteronomic formula such as 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' without the polemic against false prophecy which always accompanies 27. See G. von Rad's classic essay, 'The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Books of Kings', in Studies in Deuteronomy (ET; Chicago: Regnery, 1953), pp. 74-92.
248
The Word of God in Transition
this formula in the deuteronomic literature (see Chapter 2, 'intermediary formulas' and 'enactment formulas'). In contrast, 'false' prophets and predictive prophecy are critical to the later Jewish views of prophecy. For example, Joseph Blenkinsopp notes that 'for Josephus prophecy consists principally in prediction'.28 Blenkinsopp illustrates this with examples from the Jewish historian's work. Moses, the prophet par excellence, 'foretold future events in accordance with all that has come and is coming to pass' (Ant. 4.303, 313-14). David becomes a prophet 'most apt in perceiving and understanding the course of future events' and Josephus puts a prediction of the end of both prophecy and the priesthood into the mouth of Azariah (Ant. 8.294-96; cf. 2 Chron. 15.1-7).29 Josephus also shows an equal concern about 'false' prophets (xi/eDSorcpotpriTTic;) who act as 'pretended messengers of the Deity' (Ant. 6.288).30 Josephus's presentation of prophecy is similar to that of the New Testament as well. The New Testament authors usually cite prophecy to show its fulfillment in Jesus (for example, Mt. 1.22-23; 2.5-6; Acts 2.16-21) and warn about false prophets (cf. Mt. 7.15; Acts 13.6; 1 Jn 4.1).31 The focus on 'false' prophets and predictive prophecy in these texts hearkens back to the deuteronomic view of prophecy (cf. Deut. 18.15-22). The book of Chronicles' lack of interest in 'false' prophets and predictive prophecy distinguishes it from both the Deuteronomic History and later Jewish views of prophecy. The absence of the prophetic conflict in Chronicles, a conflict which is particularly intense in the deuteronomic literature, strongly supports a cessation of the prophetic office. The Chronicler assumes that those figures who have prophetic titles are 'true' prophets (cf. Deut. 13.2-6). Actually, the terms 'true prophet' and 'false prophet' are dictated by the deuteronomic view of prophecy (cf. Deut. 18.15-22), but find no place in the book of Chronicles.32 It is only in a living prophetic 28. 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', p. 242. 29. For further examples of predictive prophecy in Josephus's work see Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', pp. 242-46, and the references cited there. 30. See further Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', pp. 246-47. 31. The Qumran writings speak of 'the One who Spouts the Lie' (3TDH 700; for example, IQpHab 10.9) and 'the Man of the Lie' (3TDH BTK; for example, 4QpPsa 1-10 1.26). We may assume that these terms refer to false interpreters, in contrast to the Teacher of Righteousness' who was the true and inspired interpreter. 32. The term 'false prophet' (~ipstf N'33) does not occur in the Hebrew Bible but
Conclusion
249
institution that the question of 'true' and 'false' prophecy arises. However, a distinction must be drawn between the cessation of the prophetic office and the cessation of prophecy. We may infer from Chronicles that prophecy (divine inspiration for speaking/writing) continued in the post-exilic period, but the prophets themselves (prophetic office) did not. The Chronicler apparently relegates the prophetic office to the classical period of Israel's history. According to Chronicles, the prophets were intrinsically related to the king and the monarchy, but prophecy is not. Prophetic inspiration comes to a variety of non-professional figures who prophesied to the people. Thus, ad hoc prophetic inspiration most likely follows the people into exile and returns with the people from exile. In each generation God inspires messengers for his people. The message of the post-exilic messengers draws heavily on the authoritative traditions which were thought to derive from the classical period. These inspired messengers would become inspired interpreters of Scripture in the Qumran community, in Christianity and in Judaism. The Date, Authorship and Purpose of Chronicles Up to now, I have steered clear of the difficult questions concerning the date, authorship and purpose of the books of Chronicles. However, it seems appropriate at this point to make suggestions concerning these knotty problems in light of the present study. Dates ranging from the late sixth century down to the time of the Maccabees have been proposed for the composition of Chronicles, although an extremely late date has more recently fallen into disfavor. It seems that the preeminent role of the temple in Chronicles best fits into the early Persian period. The voice of the Chronicler echoes that of the early post-exilic prophets Zechariah and Haggai who call for the rebuilding of the temple. If the Chronicler's work is placed late in the Persian period then it is difficult to understand the purpose of Chronicles. The relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah has been hotly debated ever since the seminal studies of Sara Japhet and H.G.M. Williamson. It is no longer possible to hold a simple view of a single author for Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, in spite of the eloquent is dictated by the deuteronomic description of 'true' and 'false' prophecy. The LXX, as a result, uses the term \|fei>8o7ipo(pT|TTi<;, 'false prophet' (cf. Zech. 13.2; Jer. 6.13; 33.8).
250
The Word of God in Transition
defense by Joseph Blenkinsopp. On the question of prophecy, it has been rightly argued that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah represent vastly different approaches. In Chronicles prophecy plays an important role whereas in Ezra-Nehemiah prophecy is marginalized. However, the situation is not so simple. When we consider that Chronicles deals with pre-exilic history and Ezra-Nehemiah with post-exilic 'current events', it is easy to understand why there might be different treatments of prophecy. Moreover, as I have emphasized, the Chronicler's treatment of prophets and inspired messengers implies an end to the role of the prophet with the end of monarchy. Therefore, any significant role for 'prophets' among the post-exilic returnees would be inappropriate from the Chronicler's viewpoint. On the other hand, the scribe Ezra functions in the role of the inspired messenger of Chronicles. He is an inspired text interpreter who, 'with the hand of YHWH' upon him, exhorts the people to seek God and rebuild the temple. However, the language which is used concerning Ezra (for example, 'the hand of YHWH was upon him') is not characteristic of the Chronicler's inspired messengers (who have the 'spirit' fall upon them). In the final analysis, Klaus Koch's assessment perhaps is still the best summation of the situation: 'Whoever the author of the Ezra source was, he belonged to the same historical and social environment as the Chronicler himself...'33 Although the books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were probably not written by the same author, they share many commonalities which grow from their roots in the post-exilic community. It remains to ask, what was the Chronicler's purpose? I believe that the Chronicler saw himself in a role similar to that of his inspired messengers.34 The Chronicler speaks primarily to the people—that is, to the post-exilic community. The various aspects of the Chronicles composition—speeches, narrative style and theology—all serve a homiletic function. As a corpus, the speeches in Chronicles cannot be understood simply by the context of their First Temple period referents; they are primarily speeches to the post-exilic community. We may take, as an example, the prophet Shemaiah's speech: They have humbled themselves so I will not destroy them, but I will grant them a remnant and my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by
33. K. Koch, 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', JSS 19 (1974), p. 176. 34. See my paper 'History or Homily: Toward Understanding the Chronicler's Purpose'.
Conclusion
251
Shishak. Nevertheless, they shall be his servants so that they may know the difference between serving me and serving the kingdoms of the world (2 Chron. 12.7-8).
The language of Shemaiah's speech is remarkably similar to a sermon that Ezra delivers to the post-exilic returnees (Ezra 9.6-9) and its references to a 'remnant' and 'serving the kingdoms of the world' have more relevance to the post-exilic community than to the historical context of Shishak's invasion. In another example, Jehoshaphat enjoins the people, drawing on the words of Isa. 7.9, 'Believe in the LORD and you will be established; believe his prophets' (2 Chron. 20.20).35 Jehoshaphat's speech obviously has two audiences, the narrative audience and the Chronicler's post-exilic community. The homiletic character of the Chronicler's work is not just in the speeches; the narratives also serve as a sermon to the post-exilic community. It has been observed, for example, that the Chronicler's narratives are arranged around the theme of retribution theology. This theme is not just a theological abstraction, but speaks to the heart of the situation of the post-exilic returnees. The case of Manasseh is perhaps the best example (2 Chron. 33.1-19). There, the Chronicler rewrites his Vorlage, a version of the book of Kings (cf. 2 Kgs 21.1-18), so that Manasseh is warned by seers about his apostasy (v. 18), but refuses to repent. Consequently, he is taken in chains to Babylon and finally in slavery he seeks the LORD, repents, and is returned to Eretz-Israel. It does not take any imagination to see that Manasseh is a type of the postexilic community.36 The Chronicler's retribution theology thus is used as an explanation to the post-exilic community of the exile and return to Zion. Likewise, the Chronicler's emphasis on the temple is not primarily concerned with the first temple, but rather justifies and legitimates the building of the second temple and the restoration of its cultic service. For example, David's parting words to Solomon to keep the commandments and build the temple are ultimately intended for the post-exilic community (cf. 1 Chron. 28.1-10). It is no coincidence then that the first temple began construction on the second day of the second month just as the second temple also began construction on the second day of the second month (cf. Ezra 3.8 and 2 Chron. 3.2).37 The building and 35. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 386-87. 36. See further Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 192-94, also pp. 41-43, 186-88. 37. See Brunet, 'Le Chroniste et ses Sources', pp. 349-86.
252
The Word of God in Transition
maintenance of the temple is just part and parcel of the commandments and what it means to seek the LORD. The Chronicler's narratives thus explain what is required to seek the LORD and what happens when one does seek the LORD, as King David did (cf. 2 Chron. 34.3), and when one does not seek the LORD, as in the case of Saul (1 Chron. 10.13-14). In both the narratives and speeches, then, the Chronicler's voice speaks to his post-exilic audience. The Chronicler's purpose is exhortation. In style, the books of Chronicles approximate the function of the Chronicler's spirit-inspired messengers, indicating that the Chronicler viewed his own work as exhortation to the people, not as interpretation of the deeds of the kings. It was the role of the prophet to interpret historical events and write midrash (or 'history'), but the prophets belonged to the former generation. The Chronicler was a messenger exhorting a new generation using the history of Israel for examples in his extended historical sermon.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abramsky, S., 'The Chronicler's View of King Solomon', El 16 (1982), pp. 3-14 (Hebrew). Ackroyd, P.R., 'History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler', CTM 38 (1967), pp. 501-15. —Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought in the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968). —'The Theology of the Chronicler', Lexington Theological Quarterly 8 (1973), pp. 101-16. —'The Chronicler as Exegete', JSOT 2 (1977), pp. 2-32. —'Continuity and Discontinuity: Rehabilitation and Authentication', in G. Knight (ed,), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 215-34. —'Israel in the Exilic and Post-exilic Periods', in G.W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), pp. 32-50. —The Chronicler in his Age (repr.; JSOTSup 101; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Albright, W.F., 'The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', JBL 40 (1921), pp. 10424. —'The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat', in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1950), pp. 61-82. —'Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement', in Archaeology, Historical Analogy and Early Biblical Tradition (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University), pp. 42-65. Allen, L.C., The Greek Chronicles. The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text (VTSup, 25, 27; Leiden: Brill, 1974). Amit,Y.,'A New Outlook on the Book of Chronicles', Immanuel 13 (1981), pp. 20-29. —'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Theology of the Book of Chronicles', Beth Mikra 93 (1983), pp. 113-33 (Hebrew). Auld, G., 'Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT'21 (1983), pp. 3-23. —'Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 66-82. Aune, D,, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Bar-Han, M., 'The Date of the Words of Gad the Seer', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 475-92. Barnes, W.E., 'The Religious Standpoint of the Chronicler', AJSLL 13 (1897), pp. 1420. Barton, J., Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
254
The Word of God in Transition
Begg, C., 'Seeking Yahweh and the Purpose of Chronicles', Louvain Studies 9 (1982), pp. 128-41. —'The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History', BZ 32 (1988), pp. 100-107. —'The Death of Josiah in Chronicles: Another View', VT 37 (1987), pp. 1-8. Ben-David, A., Parallels in the Bible (Jerusalem: Carta, 1972) [Hebrew]. Benzinger, I., Die Biicher der Chronik (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament; Tubingen and Leipzig: Paul Siebeck, 1901). Bickerman, E., From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York: Schocken Books, 1962). Bin-Nun, S., 'Formulas from the Royal Records of Israel and Judah', VT 18 (1968), pp. 414-32. Blenkinsopp, J., 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', JJS 25 (1974), pp. 239-62. —Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977). —A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983). Braun, R., 'The Message of Chronicles: Rally 'round the Temple', CTM 42 (1971), pp. 502-14. —'Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 503-16. —'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of I Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles', JBL 95 (1976), pp. 581-90. —'A Reconsideration of the Chronicler's Attitude toward the North', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 59-62. —'Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 52-64. —1 Chronicles (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986). Brunei, A., 'Le ChronisteetsesSources', RB 60(1953-54), pp. 481-508; 61,pp. 349-86. —'La Theologie du Chroniste: Th6ocratie et Messianisme', in J. Coppens et al. (eds.), Sacra Pagina: Miscellenea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica (Paris: Duculot), pp. 384-97. Burrows, M., 'Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumran', in B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 223-32. Butler, T., 'A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (I Chron. xvi 8-36)', VT 28.1 (1978), pp. 42-50. Caquot, A., 'Peut-on parler de messianisme dans 1'oeuvre du Chroniste?', RTP 16 (1966), pp. 110-20. Carroll, R., When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979). Childs, B.S., 'The Canonical Shape of Prophetic Literature', Int 32 (1978), pp. 46-55. Cogan, M., 'The Chronicler's Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions', in J. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Study (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), pp. 197-209. Coggins, R., The First and Second Books of Chronicles (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Crenshaw, J.L., Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (BZAW, 124; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971). Cross, P.M., and D. Freedman, 'Josiah's Revolt against Assyria', JNES 12 (1953), pp. 56-58.
Selected Bibliography
255
Curtis, E., and A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909). D6aut, R. le, and J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques (2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971). Dillard, R., The Chronicler's Solomon', WTJ 43 (1980), pp. 289-300. —2 Chronicles (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987). Driver, S.R., 'The Speeches in Chronicles', The Expositor, 5th Series (1895), 1, pp. 241-56; 2, pp. 286-308. Duke, R., The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis (JSOTSup 88; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990). Elmsie, W., The Books of Chronicles (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1916). —The First and Second Books of Chronicles, in IB, III (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1916), pp. 341-548. Eskenazi, T., 'The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras', CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 39-61. Fishbane, M., 'The Qumran Pesher and Traits of Ancient Hermeneutics', in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, I (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1979). —'Torah', EM 8 (1982), pp. 469-83 [Hebrew]. —Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). —'Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran', in Compendia Rerum ludicarum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 339-77. Fitzmyer, J, 'The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and the New Testament', in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (SBLSBS, 5; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 3-58. Freedman, D., 'The Chronicler's Purpose', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 436-42. Galling, K., Die Biicher der Chronik, Esra, Nehmia (ATD; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954). Gese, H., 'Zur Geschichte der Kultsanger am zweiten Tempel', in Vom Sinai zum Zion (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963), pp. 147-58. Goldingay, J., 'The Chionicler as a Theologian', BTB 5 (1975), pp. 99-126. Hagg, H., 'Das Mazzenfest des Hiskia', in Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift fur Karl Elliger (AOAT, 18; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973), pp. 87-94. Hallevy, R, 'Man of God', JNES 17 (1958), pp. 237-44. Halpern, B., 'Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles' Thematic Structure— Indications of an Earlier Source', in The Creation of Sacred Literature (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 22; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 3554. Haran, M., Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, repr. 1985). Holladay, J., 'Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel', HTR 63 (1970), pp. 2951. Holstein, J, 'The Case of c'n^Kn ETK Reconsidered: Philological Analysis versus Historical Reconstruction', HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 69-81. Im, T.-S., Das Davidbild in den Chronikbiichem (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985). Japhet, S., 'The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VT 18 (1968), pp. 330-71.
256
The Word of God in Transition
—'Chronicles, Book of, EncJud, V (1971), cols. 517-34. —'Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 205-18. —'The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and its Place in Biblical Research', JSOT 33 (1985), pp. 83-107. — The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (ET; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989). —I & II Chronicles (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1993). Johnson, A.R., The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2nd edn, 1962). —The Cultic Prophet and Israel's Psalmody (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979). Jouon, P., 'Locutions hSbrai'ques: DTfrRn SZTK homme de Dieu', Bib 3 (1922), pp. 53-55. Kapelrud, A., Temple Building, Task for God and Kings', Or 32 (1963), pp. 56-62 Kegler, J., and M. Augustin, M., Synopse zum Chronistischen Geschichtswerk (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984). Kleinig, J.W., 'The Divine Institution of the Lord's Song in Chronicles', JSOT 55 (1992), pp. 75-83. — The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles (JSOTSup, 156; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Koch, K., 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', JSS 19 (1974), pp. 173-97. Kropat, A., Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (BZAW, 16; Giessen: Topelmann, 1909). Kugel, J., 'The Rise of Scripture', in J. Kugel and R. Greer (eds.), Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 13-27. —'David the Prophet,' in idem (ed.), Poetry and Prophecy: The Beginning of a Literary Tradition (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 4555. Lemke, W., 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', HTR 58 (1965), pp. 349-63. Liver, J., 'History and Historiography in the Books of Chronicles', in Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1971 [Hebrew]), pp. 221-33. Macy, H., 'The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: An Assessment' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1975). Mason, R., "The Prophets of the Restoration', in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honor of Peter Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 137-54. —'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 221-35. —Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). McCarthy, D., 'Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 25-44. McKenzie, S., The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Metzger, B., 'The Formulas Introducing Quotation of Scripture in the MT and the Mishnah', JBL 70 (1951), pp. 297-307. Michaeli, F., Les Livres des Chroniques, d'Esdras et de Nehemie (NeuchStel: Delachaux & Niestl6, 1967). Micheel, R., Die Seher- und Propheteniiberlieferungen in der Chronik (BET, 18; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1983).
Selected Bibliography
257
Milgrom, J., 'Hezekiah's Sacrifices at the Dedication Services of the Purified Temple (2Chr. 29.21-24)', in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel /wry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 159-61. Montgomery, J., 'A Study in the Comparison of the Texts of Kings and Chronicles', JBL 50(1931), pp. 115-16. Moriarty, F., 'The Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah's Reform', CBQ 27 (1965), pp. 399-406. Mosis, R., Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburg: Herder, 1973). Mowinckel, S., "The Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets', JBL 53 (1934), pp. 199-227. — Psalmenstudien. III. Kultprophetie und Prophetische Psalmen (Amsterdam: Schippers, 1961). Myers, J., / and II Chronicles (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965). Newsome, J., 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1973). —'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 201-17. Noordtzij, A., 'Les intentions du Chroniste', RB 49 (1940), pp. 161-68. North, R., 'Theology of the Chronicler', JBL 82 (1963), pp. 369-81. —'Does Archaeology Prove Chronicles' Sources?', in H. Bream, R. Heim and C. Moore (eds.), A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob Meyers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 375-401. Noth, M., The Chronicler's History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Overholt, T., Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Petersen, D., Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). —The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOTSup, 17; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). Peterson, D. (ed.), Prophecy in Israel (Issues in Religion and Theology, 10; London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Ploger, O., Theocracy and Eschatology (ET; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1968). —'Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk', in Aus der Spdtzeit des Alten Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, repr., 1975 [1957]). Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). Rad, G. von, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930). —'The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E.W. Trueman; London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 267-80. Rendtorff, R., 'Prophetes: nabi' in the Old Testament', TDNT, VI, pp. 796-807. Rigsby, R., 'The Historiography of Speeches and Prayers in the Books of Chronicles' (ThD dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1973). Rudolph, W., Chronikbucher (HAT; Tubingen: Paul Siebeck, 1955).
258
The Word of God in Transition
Sarna, N., 'The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds', in S. Stein and R. Loewe (eds.), Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History Presented to Alexander Altmann (University of Alabama Press, 1979), pp. 281-300. Schniedewind, W., 'The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily', VT 41 (1991), pp. 450-61. —'Prophecy, Prophets, and Inspiration: A Study of Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles' (PhD dissertation, Brandeis University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1992). —'History or Homily: Toward Understanding the Chronicler's Purpose', in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (1993) (Jerusalem, 1994). —'King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism', JJS 94 (1994), pp. 71-78. —'The Dynastic Oracle and the Chronicler's Apologetic for the Second Temple' (forthcoming). Seeligmann, I.L., 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', in Congress Volume Gottingen 1977 fVTSup, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 254-79. Seitz, C.R., 'The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah', ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 3-27. —Zion 's Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Shaver, J., Torah and the Chronicler's History Work (BJS, 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Striibind, K., Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: Konig Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW, 201; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1991). Talshir, D., 'A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah', VT 38 (1988), pp. 165-93. Tigay, J., 'An Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis', in H. Tamor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography, and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), pp. 169-89. Throntveit, M., 'Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah', VT 32 (1982), pp. 201-16. — When Kings Speak. Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS, 93; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Torrey, C.C., 'The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator', AJSLL 25 (1909), pp. 157-73; 188-217. Vries, S. de, 'The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', HAR 10 (1986), pp. 1536. —'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 619-39. —1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989). Watson, W., 'Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53 (1972), pp. 191-207. Weinberg, J.P., 'Die "Aussercanonischen Prophezeiungen" in den Chronikbuchern', Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), pp. 387-404. Welch, A., The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and its Date (London: Oxford University Press, 1939).
Selected Bibliography
259
Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885). Welten, P., Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbuchern (Tiibingen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973). Wette, W.M.L. de, Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (New York: Hildesheim, repr., 1971 [1806]). Willi, T., Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT, 106; Gottingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). Williamson, H.G.M., Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). —'The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles', VT 26 (1976), pp. 351-61. —'Eschatology in Chronicles', TynBul 28 (1977), pp. 115-54. —'Sources and Redaction of the Chronicler's Genealogy of Judah', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 351-59. —'The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 251-68. —'"We are yours, O David": the Setting and Purpose of I Chronicles xii 1-23', OTS 21 (1981), pp. 164-76. —'The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles', in A. Rof6 (ed.), Leo Isaac Seeligmann Anniversary Volume, III (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 305-18 . —'A Response to A.G. Auld', JSOT 27 (1983), pp. 33-39. Williamson, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Wilson, R.R., Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Wright, J.W., 'The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 229-42. Zimmermann, F., 'Chronicles as a Partly Translated Book', JQR 42 (1951-52), pp. 265-82; 387-412. Zippor, M., 'The Greek Chronicles', Bib 61 (1980), pp. 561-71.
INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 15 15.1 15.4 16.9 16.10 16.11 16.13 17.19 18.17 22.11 22.14 27.36 32.4-5 32.31 50.19
131 60, 131 131 62 62 62 149 135 149 62 202 149 57 133 149
Exodus 4 4.22 4.28 5.1 6.10 6.13 6.29 7.17 7.26 8.16 9 9.1 9.13 9.20 9.21 10.3 11.4
180 56 180 56, 100 61 61 61 56 56 56 131 56, 100 56, 100 131 131 100 56
13.1 14-15 14 14.1 14.13-14 14.13 14.14 16.11 19 20.1 20.19 20.19-20 20.22 23.15 24.3 24.9-11 25-40 25.1 30.7-10 31.18 32.15-16 32.27 33.11 34.1 34.27
61 129 117 61 238 117, 236 117 61 133 132 133 133 133 135 180 133 207 61 124 204 204 56 133 204 204
Leviticus 4.2 4.13 4.22 4.27 5.14 5.17 5.20 6.1
120 120 120 120 61 120 61 61
6.12 6.17 9 9.24 23.27
61 61 201 201 194
Numbers 1 1.1 1.47-53 1.48 2.1 3.5 3.11 3.14 3.44 4.2-3 4.21-22 4.29-30 6.26 11.24 11.27 11.29 15.31 15.39 17.1-4 22-24 22.8 22.32 22.34 22.35 23.23 24.2-3 24.2 28-29
167 61 167 61 61 61 61 61 61 167 167 167 110 180 76 76 131 120 124 38 68 62 62 62 38 68 14, 67 194
261
Index of References Deuteronomy 2.17 4 4.2 4.29-30 4.30 4.39 5.4-5 5.5 5.12 6.17 8.6 10.8 10.13 11.27 11.28 12.5 12.11 13.2-6 13.7 14.24 16.1-16 18.6 18.8 18.11 18.15-22 18.15-18 18.15 18.18 18.20-22 18.22 27-29 28.9 28.13 29.20 32.48 33.1 34.5 34.10 Joshua 1.1 1.13 1.15 3.9 7.13 8.7 8.31
61 114, 129 120 114, 238 114 114 133 131, 132 135 120 120 167 120 120 120 139 139 248 96 139 194 139 48 136 248 17 132, 244 41 13 61 138 120 120 138 61 46, 196 51,52 48, 132
51 51 51 180 100 51 51
8.33 9.27 10.25 11.12 12.6 13.8 13.22 14.6 14.7 18.7 20.1 22.2 22.4 22.5 24.2 24.29 Judges 2.8 3.10
51 139 86 51 51 51 38,68 46, 196 51 51 61 51 51 51 100 52
13 13.6 13.8 14.6 14.19 19.20 21.17
52 67, 110, 190, 233 131 100 62 62, 133 110 14,67, 110, 190, 233 67, 110, 190, 233 48 46,48 46,48 190 190 110 87
1 Samuel 2.10 2.27 3.20 7.1-16 7.7-8 8.10 9 9.6-10 9.6
176 46,47 49, 105 143 143 180 36,45 48 45-47, 49
3.20 6.8 6.12 6.22 6.23 6.34 11.29
9.7-10 9.7
9.8 9.9
9.10 9.11 9.18 9.19 9.27 10.5-6 10.6-13 10.6 10.10-11 10.10 10.11 10.18 11.6 13 13.13-14 13.13 15 15.1 15.10 16 16.11-13 16.13-16 16.14 16.23 17.47 18.10 19.20 19.21 19.23 19.24 20.21 21.13 24 24.25 25.6 25.28 28 28.7-19 29-31 31.1-13
47 34, 45, 46, 49 45, 46, 49 34, 45, 46, 54 34, 45, 46 45 45 45 131 173 14 190 76 67, 190 76 100 14, 68, 190 45, 136 45, 143 135 136 180 61, 131 68, 242 143 190 68 190 117 67, 76, 190 67 68 67 68,76 110 88 201 200 110 150 108, 136 136 136 135
262
The Word of God in Transition
2 Samuel
3.18 3.31 5 5.3 6.9 6.16 6.17 7
7 (LXX) 7.1 7.1 7.1-4 7.2 7.3-14 7.4-5 7.4
7.5 7.5 (LXX) 7.6-7 7.6 7.8 7.10
7.11 7.11 (LXX) 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.15 (LXX) 7.16 7.16 (LXX) 7.18 8.8 8.10 8.11 9.5 11-12 12
191 219 143 219 59 219 59 138, 14548, 155, 156, 220, 245 148 154, 156, 168 153 108 159 85 63 61, 131, 137, 149, 150, 152 55, 153 149 156 155 55 152, 159, 169 150, 15254, 156 150, 152 149, 150 152 154 149, 152 152 151, 157, 159 151 219 219 219 219 219 221, 226 189
24.12 24.15-19 24.16-17 24.17-18 24.18
100 55 75 219 87 219 219 131, 180 219 219 111 42 14, 238 142, 172 138, 140, 142, 221 141 108 85 37-39, 42, 43, 64, 189 55 140 65, 140 65 65, 141
1 Kings 1-2 1.1 1.13 1.28 1.31 1.32 1.37 1.38 3.5-15 4.2 5.8 5.15-9.25 5.19 6 6.1 6.8-23 6.11 7.8 7.40 7.48
221 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 191 71, 72 108 208 159 207 59, 155 48 61, 131 150 59 59
12.7 12.24 13.5 13.21 15.14 16.5 16.6 16.23 19.12 19.17 20.1 22.5 23.1-2 23.1 24 24.1 24.10-19 24.11-13 24.11
59 7.51 190 8.11-9.9 59 8.11 155 8.21 191 8.24-26 160 8.25 139 8.29 59 8.63 191 9.2 194 9.25 135 11.11 191 11.13 212 11.14 105 11.22-24 221 11.28-40 100 11.31 191 11.32 191 11.34 211, 212 11.41 12-2 Kgs 17 23 103 12.6 103 12.8 111 12.16 12.22-24 50, 51, 63, 85, 88, 89, 138, 222 12.22 36, 46, 49, 63, 131, 133, 180, 232 12.22 (LXX) 63 89 12.23 12.24 55 223 12.25-30 12.31 223 13 48, 226, 227 13.1-3 48, 223 13.1 46, 47 13.4 46,48 13.5 46 13.6 46,48 13.7 46 13.8 46 13.11 46 13.12 46 13.14-19 48, 108 13.14 46, 49 13.18 49, 62
Index of References 13.20 13.21 13.26 13.29 13.31 14.1-18 14.7 14.8 14.10-11 14.19 14.25 14.29 15.3-5 15.7 15.15 15.16 15.22-23 15.22 15.23 15.26 15.31 16.1-4
16.1 16.5 16.7 16.14 16.20 16.27 16.28 16.31 17
17.4 17.8 17.18 17.24 18
18.22 18.24 18.36 18.37 18.46 19.7 19.16 20.13 20.19 (LXX) 20.22
61 46 46 46 46 221 100 191 224 211
86, 87, 166 211, 212 193
211, 212 59 92 91 166
211, 212 212
211, 212 216, 217, 223, 226 41,61 211, 212 41, 216, 217, 223 211, 212 211
211, 212 98 149 48 100 36 46,49 46,47 48
49, 105 201 35,49 201 204 62 49 49 149 49
20.28 20.38 21.17-19 21.17 21.19 21.21-24 21.28 22
22.1-3 22.5 22.7 22.8 22.10-11 22.10 22.11-23 22.11 22.13-23 22.13 22.16 22.18 22.19 22.22-24 22.24 22.28 22.32-33 22.39 22.46 22.49-50 23.20-21 28.2 29.1 29.9 29.29 2 Kings 1.3 1.9-13 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.18
263
46 49 63 61 149 224 61
2
48, 61, 76, 77, 94-96, 142, 230,
4.7 4.9
247 230 133
49, 105 75 230 75 85 55 13 131 61 75
131, 133 230 76 76 95 212 212 97,98 63 219 219 219 219
62 49 46 46 46 46 36,46 62 99 212
3
99 150 174
3.11
35, 49, 99,
2.24
3.13 3.15
4.16 4.21 4.22 4.25 4.27 4.40 4.42 5.3 5.8
5.13 5.14 5.15 5.20 6.6 6.9
6.10 6.12 6.15 7.2
7.17 7.18 7.19 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.8
8.11 8.18 8.19 8.23 9.6 9.7
10.34 11.3 11.4 11.10 12.14 12.20 13.8
105 174
67, 204 46 46,47 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 49 46,49 49 46 46 46 46 46 46 49 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 100
191, 193 212 100 52 212 59
59, 158 59 150 212 212
264
The Word of God in Transition 6.1-15 6.12 6.16 6.34 9 9.1-18 9.1 9.22 9.29 10.12-13 10.13-14 10.13 11-12 11.1 11.3
23.16 23.17 23.29-30 24.2 37.21
46 101 59 212 183 38, 40, 52 52 216 42 52 51 100, 103 87 191 100 191 251 37, 40, 52, 64 64 100 212 138 59 133, 135 138 34 85 55, 100 55, 138 55, 100 139 121 185 28, 116, 184, 185 46 46 120 52 100
1 Chronicles 3.1-2 5.34 5.35-41 5.36 6
155 72 72 72 164
17.4 17.5-6 17.5 17.7-15 17.7
13.19 14.7 14.14 14.28 16.5-6 17.13 17.23 18-21 18-20 18.2 18.12 19.20 19.31 19.34 20.5 20.6 21.1-18 21.10 21.11-16 21.12 21.17 22 22.4 22.13 22.14-20 22.14 22.15-20 22.15 22.16 22.18 22.19 22.20 23.1-2 23.2
11.10 12.4 12.8 12.18 12.19 12.22-23 12.24 13.2 13.12 15.1 15.14 15.15 16.1 16.4-12 16.22 17
17.1-2 17.1 17.3-15 17.3 17.4
180 220 180 51,52 164 164 215 44, 220 36 88 252 133, 135 109, 110 110 133, 137, 189, 220 133, 137 108 109 109, 111 70, 108-11, 123, 237 111 110, 189 185 59 124 185 133, 134 59 164 34 138, 14449, 158, 198, 220, 245 156 34, 154, 168, 169 105 63, 131, 137 55, 106, 149, 156 153 156 155 189 55
17.10 17.11 17.12 17.13 17.14 17.15 17.16 18-20 18 18.8-10 18.15 21
21.1 21.9-12 21.9
21.10 21.11 21.16-30 21.18 21.19 21.20 21.22 21.25 21.26-22.1 21.26 21.27-22.1 21.27 21.28-30 21.28 21.29 22-29 22-28 22 22.1 22.6-10 22.6 22.7-10 22.8
150, 154 149, 169 156 156 151, 15760, 245 151 152 144, 154, 156 76,96 187 61 138, 140, 144, 185, 202, 221 96, 141, 142 105 37, 42, 43, 61,64 55, 106 55,96 193 141 61, 63, 205 141 153 153 200-202, 221 201 142 141 165 202 201 142 204 144, 155, 19& 245 139 155, 157, 198, 199 193 153 133, 137, 169, 193, 198, 199
Index of References 22.9 22.9 22.10 22.11 22.13 23-28 23-27
23-26 23-24 23
23.1-6 23.1-2 23.2 23.3-27.34 23.3 23.6-23 23.14 23.24-32 23.24-27 23.24 23.25-27 23.26 23.27 23.28-32 24.3-6 24.19 25
25.1-6
25.1-3
25.1
154, 157, 167-69 153 158, 169 120 120 195 144, 16466, 169, 170, 176, 181, 186 165 195 163, 166, 168, 170, 204, 206 169 165, 166 165, 166, 169, 185 165 167 167 46, 50, 196 169 167-69 167 153 169 167 169, 175 206 206 164, 174, 176, 180, 182, 195, 197, 206 44, 117, 163, 164, 173, 17577, 180-82, 186, 187 163, 174, 177, 178, 186, 242 14, 28, 34, 176-78, 206, 239
25.2 25.3
34, 177, 178 34, 177, 178, 239 176, 178 25.4 25.5 28, 37, 43, 2 Chronicles 173, 176-80 15.1 164 25.6 15.8 181, 182, 25.8 1.3 206 1.7-13 26 195, 206 1.18 26.1-28 175 26.18 124 1.18 (MT) 26.28 31, 44, 220 2-4 26.32 2 131, 135, 2.1 180 144 28-29 2.2 28 2.2 155, 199, 2.3 245 28.1-10 251 2.11 28.1 165, 166, 2.15 169 28.2 3.1-2 154, 158, 167, 168 3.1 28.2 153 3.2 28.2-6 199, 200 28.2-5 156 3.3 28.2-4 4.11 153 28.3 4.19 169, 199, 200 5-7 28.4-5 200 5.1 28.4 190 5.4-13 5.4 28.5 158, 160, 189 5.11-13 28.6 198, 200 5.12 120 28.8 5.14 124 6.1-7.22 28.9-11 28.11-19 203 6.7-12 28.11-12 202, 203 6.11 203 28.11 6.16 6.41-42 28.12 202, 203, 6.41 238 28.13-18 203 7.5 185 7.6 28.13 28.19 193, 203, 204, 238 7.11-22 28.19 (LXX) 203 7.11 28.20-21 195 7.14 29.29 34, 36, 37, 8.12-15
265 40, 43, 44, 213, 215, 218, 220
71 71 51, 52 191 151, 152, 160, 245 159 144 207 159 154 153 159 151, 152, 160, 219 34 155 139, 202, 221 251 59 59 59 144 59 163, 169 163 163 164 59 190 100 155 160 159 139, 154 59,63 163, 169, 219 191 120 139 194
The Word of God in Transition
266 8.13-15
50, 55, 58, 87, 89, 90, 113, 118, 119, 123,
163, 169, 172
8.13-14 8.13 8.14
8.15 9.25 9.29
10.6 10.8 10.16 11-12 11
11.2-4
50, 196 50, 194, 196 46, 50, 164, 187, 193-98 185, 195, 198 173
13, 34, 37, 40,41, 112, 213, 215, 218 103 103 111 143 143
50,51,63, 85, 88, 89, 105, 138,
127
12.7-8
11.3 11.4 11.5 11.9 11.10 11.13-14 11.13 11.23 12.1-9 12.1-8 12.1-2 12.1 12.2-9 12.2-4 12.2
36, 46, 49, 63, 131, 133, 143, 196, 232 89, 143 55, 106, 222 143 59 143 163 185 88 235 100 89 87
12.8 12.9 12.15
12.19 12.24 13.4-12
13.6-8 13.8 13.9-11 13.9 13.12 13.22
14
57, 77, 87,
14.7-15 14.8-14 14.8 14.9 14.10-12 14.11
166 87
15.1-7
15
87, 91, 166, 229
12.5-8
32, 57, 63, 85-89, 105, 222, 229,
15.1 15.2-4 15.2
234
12.5
34, 36, 49,
89, 90, 250, 251
12.7
222
11.2
15.3 15.4-7 15.7 15.8
15.3-6
63, 90, 123, 131, 133, 137 90
87, 91, 166 34, 37, 40, 71, 212, 213, 215, 218, 223 125, 234
15.9 15.12 15.15 15.17-19 15.17 15.18 15.19 15.20-22 15.20 16
16.7-10
143
32, 93, 101, 122, 191, 223, 227, 235, 237 104
120, 163 114
113-15, 125 13, 34, 70, 238 114 114 118 119 118
59, 119 92 119 119 93
85, 91-93, 97, 102, 105, 166, 229, 234, 235
16.7-9 16.7-8 16.7
158, 223
77, 113 93
31,44,91, 123, 166
163 223 120
16.8 16.9 16.10
34, 40, 41, 71, 212, 213, 218, 219, 223, 230, 236
16.11 17.3-15 17.8
212-14
18
64, 77, 94, 96, 138, 142, 247
93 92 229
92
45, 102 44, 91, 93, 166 85 163
18.1-19.3 224 18.1-2 230 97 18.1 142 92 18.2 95 93 18.4 133 118 18.5 34 112, 122, 18.6 34, 105 234, 238, 18.7-12 (LXX) 178 248 18.7 75 70, 108, 123 18.9 34, 75 114 18.10-22 85 113, 114, 18.10-11 105 120 18.10 55, 106 93 18.11 34 76, 97
Index of References 18.12 18.14-16 18.15 18.17 18.17 (LXX) 18.18-22 18.18 18.21 18.22 18.31-32 18.31 19.1-3
19.1 19.2-3 19.2
19.8-9 19.10 19.11 20 20.1-2 20.3-12 20.5-13 20.13 20.14-17
20.14-15 20.14
20.15 20.17 20.20-22 20.20
20.24 20.34 20.35-37 20.37
34 105 61,63 75 178 105 133 34 34 95, 96 95, 96 85, 93, 105, 142, 216, 234 123 96 31,37,41, 94, 96, 213, 230 163 94 133, 135 94, 182 116 182 116 182 28, 115, 175, 182, 183, 234, 238 58 70, 119, 123, 124, 183, 237 55, 57, 59, 117, 125 236 116 34, 103, 120, 183, 251 87, 213 40, 41, 21214, 216, 218 85, 97, 100, 229, 234 75, 76, 123
20.37 (LXX) 21 21.4 21.9-12 21.12-19 21.12-15 21.12
21.13-14 21.13 21.14-15 21.15-16 21.16-19 21.16 21.29 22.8 22.12 23.2-8 23.3 23.18
23.19 24.4 24.5-11 24.5 24.6 24.9 24.17-22 24.19 24.20-22 24.20
24.21 24.27
24.40 25 25.5-10 25.7-10 25.7-9
25.7 25.9
178 78 100 85 234, 247 85, 98, 105 34-36, 49, 55, 57, 59, 99, 100, 123 99, 100 100 99 85 100 70 150 198 59 163 59 163, 164, 169 163 134 163 185 51, 52 51, 52 118, 234 34, 94, 102, 127 72 59, 70, 123, 128, 233 198 214, 218, 219, 230, 236 32 33, 50, 107 101 105 49, 50, 101, 103, 107, 189, 234 46, 51, 123, 232 46, 51, 102
267 25.13 25.15-16
25.15 25.16 25.17-24 25.17-19 25.17 25.20-22 25.20 25.21-22 25.25 25.26 26.5 26.18 26.22
27.7 28.2-5 28.6 28.8-11 28.9-15 28.9-11
28.9 28.10-11 28.26 29 29.3-36 29.3-24 29.5-11 29.6 29.13-14 29.15 29.20 29.25-30 29.25
103 102, 103, 105, 107, 234 34, 94, 102, 123 34, 37, 102, 103 103 107, 108 103 120 103 121 59 212, 214 120 72, 88, 127 34, 41, 212, 214, 217, 224 212, 214 105 198 71, 223 105 85, 101, 104, 105, 234 34, 104, 105, 123 105 214 175 163 169 192 88 164 197, 198 164 187 31, 34, 36, 37, 43, 164, 172, 18082, 193, 197, 198, 206
268 29.26-30 29.26-27 29.26 29.27 29.29 29.30
29.31-36 30.6-9 30.6 30.7 30.12 30.15-17 30.15-16 30.15 30.16 30.18-19 30.25 31.2 31.4 31.9 31.10 31.13 31.17 31.21 32.7 32.8-9 32.12-13 32.18 32.19 32.20 32.24-26 32.30 32.32
33.1-19 33.10-13 33.10 33.12-13 33.18-19 33.18
The Word of God in Transition 238 33.19 187 172 34.3 34.8-12 172 34.9 211 34.19 31, 37, 43, 34.21 163, 172, 175, 177, 34.22-28 236, 242 34.22 34.23-28 169 34.23 192 34.24 87, 198 34.26 88 34.27 133, 135, 198 34.30 163 35.3-6 169 35.3 185 46, 50, 196 35.4 192 35.6 185 35.10-12 185 35.10 185 35.15 185 72 72 168 35.16 120 35.18 86 192 35.20-22 35.21 226 225, 226 35.22 225, 226 35.23 34, 191, 192 35.26-27 192 35.26 120 35.27 35.6 34, 41, 42, 36.8 212, 214, 216-18, 224, 233 36.12 36.14 251 193 36.15-16 61,64 36.15 114 36.16 37, 213, 214 37, 61, 63, 36.21-22 64, 212, 36.21 215, 251 36.22-23
40, 88, 203, 218 252 163 59 232 133, 135 138 34 85, 105 55, 106 55, 138 55 139 28, 175, 184, 185 169 168 204, 205 82, 133, 232, 246 169 198 31,43, 164, 173, 177, 197, 198 198 34, 36, 185, 220 234 59, 123 59 121 211 212 212, 214 134 212, 214, 215 34, 121 88 81 31, 84, 139 34, 36, 81, 231 137 133 22, 70
36.22 Ezra 1.1-2 1.5 2.40 2.41 2.70 3.2 3.8
3.12 5.1 6.14 6.20 7.1 7.6 7.7 7.11 7.29 7.30 8.15 9-10 9.1 9.6-9 9.7-8 9.8 9.11 9.13 9.14 9.15 Nehemiah 1.1 1.2 6.12 7.44 7.72 8.13 10.30 11.3-19 11.3 12.1 12.23-24 12.24
12.30 12.31
133
22 185 167 164 185 46, 196 167, 185, 251 185 71, 223 71, 223 185 37 14, 241 185 120 185 185 167 162 185 251 90 87 52 87 87 87
87 87 13, 112 164 185 185 52, 120 164 185 185 195 46, 194, 196, 198 185 195
Index of References 12.35 12.36 12.45
195 46, 187, 194-96 198
Job 1-2 2.3
Psalms 18.1 19.8-10 19.9 34.4 36.1 39 50 51.3 53.2 56.2 57.2 62 73-83 74.1-8 74.9 78.70 88 89.4 89.18 89.21 90.1 92.11 115.9-11 119 119.38 132 132.5 132.7-8 132.7 132.8 132.10 132.11-12 132.13-14 132.17 144.10 151 (LXX)
141 96
52, 191 132 120 179 52, 191 171 171 179 179 179 179 171 171 17 11, 17 191 171 191 176 191 46, 196 176 179 132 132 158, 159 159 159 159 159 191 159 159 159 191 172
Isaiah 1.1 3.1-3 6.1 6.2-5 7 7.9
45.1 45.13 49.1-6 50.3-9 52.7 55.1 57.19 66.1-2 66.5
42, 216, 224 35 217 133 183 103, 183, 184, 251 92 68 109 63 35,44 131 38,40 38, 40, 44 92 92 216, 240 240 240 240 42 87 61 100 240 232 240, 244 240 70 117 70 52,83 82, 83, 131, 240 58 70 240 240 240, 242 22 109 149 131
Jeremiah 1.1
218
10.20 11.1-2 26.3 28.4-5 28.7 28.13 29.10 30.10 30.18 31.1 36-39 36-37 36.1-2 36.9-11 37-39 37.32 38.4 38.5 39 40-66 40 40.9 41.2 41.8-13 41.25 42.19 44.26
269 1.2 1.4-10 1.4 1.5 1.11 1.13 2.1-2 2.1 4.3 4.8 5.14 6.9 6.13 (LXX) 6.14 7.1 7.25 8.11 11.3 13.1 13.3 13.8-9 13.8 13.12 14.1 16.1 17.5 17.20 18.5 19.14-15 21.4 23.2 23.16 23.21 24.4-5 24.4 24.5 25.3 25.15 25.35 26 26.16 26.20 27.15 28.9 28.12 29 29.16-17 29.24-27
131 239 61, 131 84, 190 61 61 63 61, 131 58 131 100 131 249 109, 110 131 52 109, 110 100 58 61, 131 63 61 100 60, 131 61 86 116 61 103 100 100 13, 131 13 63 61 100 60 100 87 191 61 61, 75 13 131 61 99 58 75
270 29.30-31 29.30 30.2 30.4-5 32.6 32.26 33.1-2 33.1 33.4 33.8 (LXX) 33.18 33.19-20 33.21 33.23 34.2 34.12-13 34.12 34.13 35.4 35.12-13 35.12 35.17 36 36.4 36.5-6 36.6 36.8 36.11 36.27-29 36.27 37.2 37.6-7 37.6 37.7 38.17 42.7 42.9 43.1 43.8 44.4 44.7 44.16 45.2 46.1 47.1-2 47.1 49.34-35 49.34
The Word of God in Transition 63 61 100 63 60 61, 100 63 61 100 249 61 63 191 61 100 63 61 100 46, 47 63 61 100 99 180 99 180 180 180 63 61 180 63 61 100 100 61 100 180 61 52 100 61 100 60 63 60 63 60
50.9 51.1 51.11 Ezekiel 1.1 1.3 2.2 2.8-9 3.12 3.14 3.16-17 3.16 3.22 3.24 6.1 7.1 8.3 11.1 11.5 11.14 11.24 11.25 12.1 12.8 12.17 12.21 12.26 13.1 13.2 13.6 13.9 13.17 14.2 14.12 15.1 16.1 17.1 17.11 18.1 20.2 21.1 21.6-8 21.6 21.13 21.23 22.1
22.17 22.23 22.28 23.1 24.1 24.15 218 25.1 14, 60, 68, 69, 131, 204 26.1 69 27.1 28.1 129 69 28.11 28.20 69, 204 29.1 26 29.17 61, 131 30.1 14, 204 30.20 69 31.1 61, 131 61 32.1 33.1 69 33.2-9 69 69 33.2 61 33.22 34.1 69 34.24 180 61, 131 35.1 36.16 61 61, 131 37.1 37.10 61 61 37.15 61 37.25 13 38.1 38 40 38 40.1 75 43.5 61 61 Daniel 61 5.13-28 61 9.2 61 9.10-11 61 9.10 61 9.11 61 9.14 61 11.2 63 11.6 61 11.23 61 61 Hosea 61 3.4
70 70 70
61 61 38 61 61 61 61 60 61 61 61 61 60 60 61 60 60 60 61 26 61 14, 204 61 191 61 61 69, 204 75 61 191 61 207 69, 204 69
129 61, 131 137 52 52 89 70 97 97
114
271
Index of References Amos 1.1 2.4-5 3.7 3.17 5.16 7.12 7.14 8.11 Obadiah 1.1 15 Jonah 1.1 3.1 Micah 1.1 3.7 3.9-11 Nahum 1.1
42 40 52 114 100
38, 39 39,40 180
42 90
61, 131 61, 131
42, 76 38,40 35
Habakkuk 1.1 Haggai 1.13 2.1-10 2.10 Zechariah 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.13-14
3.1-2 4.1 4.8
4.10 5.1-4 6.9 7.1 7.7
7.8-9 42, 218
7.8
7.12
42
18, 62, 83 63
8.9-11 8.9-10 10.2 11.4 13.2 (LXX) 13.3
114 238 38 100 249 61
60, 131
37,61,71, 131, 223 17, 115 52, 184 61 62 141 70 61, 131 91 129 61, 131 61, 131 17, 115 63 61 17
Malachi 2.7 3.1 3.22-24 3.23 1 Esdras 1.15 1.26 1.28
17
17, 83, 244 101 49
43, 173 59, 121 121
Ecclesiasticus 21 24.33 1 Maccabees 4.46 9.27 14.41 16.23-24
236
15, 247 15, 247 15, 247
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew 1.22-23 2.4 2.5-6 3.3 7.1-2 7.15 10.18-20 11.10 16.21 20.18 21.15 21.26 27.41 Mark 1.2-3 6.15 8.31
248 185 248 244 90 248 235 244 185 185 185 17 185
244 17 185
10.33 11.18 11.27 14.1 14.43 14.53 15.1 15.31
185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185
John 1.21 1.25 7.52
17 17 17
Acts 2.16-21 11.27-28 13.6
248 244 248
Luke 7.16 12.11 24.19-27
17 235 244
1 John 4.1
248
Jude 23.16 28.9
131 131
The Word of God in Transition
272
OTHER ANCIENT LITERATURE
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 2 Baruch 85.1-3 15 Jubilees 1.12
4QSama 7.327
13.3 y. Sot
llQISMelch 242, 243 2.18 126
llQPs" Martyrdom of Isaiah 4.21-22 172 Testament ofLevi 18.2 243
245
140
27.4.10-11 27.4 27.5-10 27.10-11 28
242 172 172 172 172
24b
245
Midrash Cant. R. 8
190
Exod. R. 28.6
137
Num. R. QUMRAN CD 9.2-8 9.16-22
1QH 11.3-4
RABBINIC TEXTS
126 126
242
IQpHab 2.8-9 7.3-5 7.4-8 7.4-5 8.8-13 10.9
4QFlor 1-3 4QJuba 1.2.12
3.4
15, 128, 138, 245, 246 152
Sot
1QS 1.3 5.25-6.1 8.15-16
Mishnah Ab. 1.1
246 126 246
242 241, 243, 244 128 16 128 248
153
126
4QpPsa 1-10 1.26 248 4.25-27 241
15.10
190
JOSEPHUS Ant. 4.303 4.313-14 6.288 8.231-41 8.294-96 8.295 8.408 10.151
248 248 248 223 248 72 223 72
1.7 9.12
90 15
Talmuds b. B. Bat. 12a 15a
21 23
Apion 1.29 1.41
228, 236 16
b. Meg. 3a
245
War 12.259
243
b. Sank. lla
15
TABLETS CTA 4.3.10-11 4.7.45-47
223 223
b. Sot. 48a
245
b. Yarn. 21b
190
t. Sot 13.2-3
15
INSCRIPTIONS Zakir Inscription 11-12 39 13-14 39
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ackroyd, P. I l l , 240 Albright, W.F. 18, 19, 23, 33, 67, 179, 210 Allegro, J. 139, 153 Amit, Y. 27, 74, 189 Auld, A.G. 23, 32, 35, 42, 44, 69 Aune, D. 13, 15, 17, 60, 190, 243, 244 Balentine, S. 192 Barnes, W.E. 209 Barr, J. 33 Barth61emy, D. 140 Barton, J. 12, 210 Begg, C. 12, 29, 47, 121, 191, 192, 225, 236 Begrich, J. 170 Bellinger, W.H. 170 Ben Zvi, E. 246 Bin-Nun, S. 211, 212 Bj0rndalen, A. 55 Blenkinsopp, J. 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 33, 64, 99, 128, 162, 187, 190, 191, 195, 228, 248, 250 Bohmer, J. 178 Bourguignon, E. 66 Braun, R. 12, 32, 80, 81, 88, 139, 149, 154, 193, 226 Brettler, M. 56, 68, 209 Brooke, G. 139 Brunei, A.-M. 151, 155, 210, 251 Burney, C.F. 48 Bussche, H. van den 147 Caquot, A. 38 Carroll, R. 20, 21, 42, 248 Childs, B.S. 215, 216, 240 Clements, R.E. 239, 240 Cody, A. 181 Cogan, M. 91, 121
Coggins, R. 82, 99, 167, 199, 203 Cohen, N. 82, 83 Cohen, S. 228 Collins, J.J. 62, 69, 107 Cowley, A. 153 Craghan, J. 73 Crenshaw, J. 20, 107 Cross, F.M. 18, 19, 65, 72, 140, 189 Curtis, E. 37, 46, 49, 59, 72, 82, 87, 89, 100, 101, 104, 120, 136, 159, 167, 176, 179, 185, 203, 204, 210, 211,215,217,219 Dieber, B.J. 99 Dillard, R. 43, 101, 193, 219 Dion, P. 65, 140, 141 Driver, S.R. 61 Duhm, B. 239 Duke, R. 24, 28, 210 Dupont-Sommer, A. 39 Ehrlich, A.B. 116, 202 Eissfeldt, O. 214, 215, 219 Ellis, E.E. 244 Eskenazi, T.C. 162 Fishbane, M. 21, 27, 28, 42, 64, 98, 103, 114, 115, 129, 136, 153, 161, 167, 168, 183, 184, 194, 205, 238, 245, 246, 251 Fohrer, G. 27 Frost, S.B. 121 Galling, K. 26, 185 Geller, S. 171 Gese, H. 147, 163, 164, 181 Gevaryahu, H.M.I. 42 Gooding, D. 98 Graham, M.P. 24, 210
274
The Word of God in Transition
Greene, J. 56 Greenspahn, F. 15, 17 Grether, O. 130 Gunkel, H. 170 Hackett, J. 38 Hallevy, R. 47 Halpern, B. 179, 209 Hanson, P.O. 18, 19, 67 Haran, M. 181 Haupt, P. 178 Hoffman, Y. 56 Hoftijzer, J. 38 Holladay, J. 19, 56 Holstein, J. 47 Huizinga, J. 209, 210, 228, 229 Hurowitz, V. 207, 208 Iser, W. 184 Japhet, S. 23, 24, 26, 27, 59, 65, 89, 106, 126, 155, 158, 165, 170, 249 Jastrow, M. 33, 46 Jepsen, A. 38 Johnson, A. 20, 170, 185, 187 Joiion, P. 47 Kapelrud, A. 207 Kee, H.C. 243 Keel, O. 207 Keesing, R. 33 Kittel, B. 86,210 Kleinig, J.W. 172 Knibb, M. 107 Kobelski, P.J. 241 Koch, K. 24, 250 Kooij, G. van der 38 Kramer, S.N. 179 Kraus, H.-J. 159 Kuhl, C. 87 Labuschagne, C.J. 136 Lemaire, A. 38 Lemke, W. 65, 88, 148, 157 Levine, B. 164 Lewis, I. 48 Lieman, S. 17 Lindblom, J. 66
Long, B. 87, 166 Macy, H. 80, 210, 212 Madsen, A. 210,211,215, 217 Manfred, G. 33 Mason, R. 14, 19, 21, 26, 32, 37, 67, 76,80,93,99, 101, 105, 112-14, 117, 119, 120, 184, 191, 229 Mathias, D. 26,32, 112, 191 McCarter, P.K. 67, 150 McKenzie, S. 23, 64, 65, 83, 85, 88, 95, 140, 141, 147, 148, 151, 157, 210 McKnight, E. 184 Michaeli, F. 99, 120, 167, 185 Michaelson, P. 66, 67 Micheel, R. 27, 29, 41, 71, 124, 127, 140, 169, 210, 223 Milgrom, J. 88, 136 Miller, P. 90, 92, 101, 120 Moran, W. 73, 74, 125 Mosis, R. 88, 136, 225, 251 Mowinckel, S. 73, 116, 170, 173, 174, 187 Muffs, Y. 193 Muraoka, T. 136 Myers, J. 26, 178-80, 182, 185, 210 Nelson, R. 64 Neusner, J. 16 Newsome, J. 26, 28, 47, 80, 191, 197, 201, 236, 237 Nicole, E. 140 Noth, M. 109, 210 O'Connor, M. 75 Overholt, T. 14, 35, 42 Parker, S.B. 66 Petersen, D. 19, 21, 26, 28, 33, 35, 39, 45,47,48,51, 116, 175, 178, 182, 185, 236 Pfeiffer, R.H. 161 Pisano, S. 148, 157 Ploger, O. 19, 80 Porter, J.R. 18,54
Rad, G. von 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 55, 57, 59,73,86,91, 107, 112, 131, 138,
Index of Authors 154, 155, 157, 163, 174, 175, 185, 192, 196, 209, 247 Reid,S. 14 Rendtorff, R. 12, 33, 239, 240 Rigsby, R. 80 Ringgren, H. 13 Roberts, J.J. 204, 239 Rof6, A. 46 Rooker, M. 69 Ross, J. 55,71,223 Rothkoff, A. 16 Rowley, H.H. 181 Rudolph, W. 26, 43, 71, 72, 82, 94, 101, 102, 109, 120, 134, 136, 151, 165, 167, 176, 182, 197, 199, 202, 203, 210, 211, 215, 219 Sanders, J.A. 171, 172 Sarna, N. 164, 181, 242 Sawyer, J. 24 Schiffman, L.H. 126 Schniedewind, W. 226, 246, 250 Schoors, A. 116 Schuller, E. 86 Seeligmann, I.L. 19, 27, 77, 87, 106, 148, 160, 209, 244 Seitz, C. 239, 240 Shaver, J. 64, 134, 194, 246 Smit, E. 212, 213 Smith, M. 163 Sperber, A. 199 Stendahl, K. 235 Tadmor, C. 91, 121 Talmon, S. 15, 16 Talshir, D. 23 Thackeray, H. 228 Throntveit, M. 32, 80, 81, 192 Tigay, J. 129 Torczyner, H. 178 Torrey, C.C. 161, 210, 215 Tucker, G.M. 42
275
Ulrich, E. 65, 140 Urbach, E. 15, 17, 90, 137 VanSeters, J. 209,211, 212 Vaux, R. de 173 Verities, G. 16 Vries, S. de 20, 24, 41, 47, 51, 80, 81, 85, 104, 109, 118, 163, 172, 193, 196, 203 Wagner, M. 38 Waltke, B.E. 75 Watson, W. 164,203 Weinfeld, M. 56,69 Welch, A. 25, 128, 166, 169, 189 Wellhausen, J. 12, 14, 24, 176, 182, 185, 210, 215 Welten, P. 182,210 Westermann, C. 31, 50, 57, 93, 107, 123, 124, 127 Wette, W.H.L. de 24 Willi, T. 25, 27, 29, 41, 125, 160, 209, 210, 219, 222 Williamson, H.G.M. 23, 28, 35, 37, 41, 42, 44, 59, 60, 65, 71, 77, 82, 8789,94,99, 102, 104, 109, 111, 121, 127, 134, 136, 140, 143, 147-49, 154, 157-59, 165, 16770, 176, 178, 179, 181, 182, 192, 193, 195, 201-203, 206, 210, 211, 217, 219, 220, 225, 249 Wilson, R. 20, 31, 48, 49, 66, 71, 72, 75, 125 Wright, J.E. 107,239 Wright, J.W. 165, 166, 169 Yadin, Y. 139 Zeron, A. I l l Zevit, Z. 39,40
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Supplement Series 1 I, HE, WE AND THEY: A LITERARY APPROACH TO ISAIAH 53 D.J.A. Clines 4 THANKSGIVING FOR A LIBERATED PROPHET: AN INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH CHAPTER 53 R.N. Whybray 10 THE THEME OF THE PENTATEUCH David J.A. Clines
14 THE FATE OF KING SAUL: AN INTERPRETATION OF A BIBLICAL STORY D.M. Gunn 15 THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY Martin Noth 16 PROPHECY AND ETHICS: ISAIAH AND THE ETHICAL TRADITION OF ISRAEL Eryl W. Davies 17 THE ROLES OF ISRAEL'S PROPHETS David L. Petersen
18 THE DOUBLE REDACTION OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY Richard D. Nelson 19 ART AND MEANING: RHETORIC IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE Edited by David J.A. Clines, David M. Gunn & Alan J. Hauser
20 THE PSALMS OF THE SONS OF KORAH Michael D. Goulder 21 COLOUR TERMS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Athalya Brenner 22 AT THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD: STORY AND THEOLOGY IN EXODUS 32-34 R.W.L. Moberly 2 3 THE GLORY OF ISRAEL: THE THEOLOGY AND PROVENIENCE OF THE ISAIAH TARGUM Bruce D. Chilton
24 MIDIAN.MOABANDEDOM: THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE JORDAN AND NORTH-WEST ARABIA Edited by John F.A. Sawyer & David J.A. Clines
2 5 THE DAMASCUS COVENANT: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE 'DAMASCUS DOCUMENT' Philip R. Davies 26 CLASSICAL HEBREW POETRY: A GUIDE TO ITS TECHNIQUES Wilfred G.E. Watson 28 HOSEA:
AN ISRAELITE PROPHET IN JUDEAN PERSPECTIVE Grace I. Emmerson
2 9 EXEGESIS AT QUMRAN: 4QFLORILEGIUM IN ITS JEWISH CONTEXT George J. Brooke 30 THE ESTHER SCROLL: THE STORY OF THE STORY David J.A. Clines 31 IN THE SHELTER OF ELYON: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF G.w. AHLSTROM Edited by W. Boyd Barrick & John R. Spencer 3 2 THE PROPHETIC PERSONA:
JEREMIAH AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SELF Timothy Polk 3 3 LAW AND THEOLOGY IN DEUTERONOMY J.G. McConville 34 THE TEMPLE SCROLL: AN INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION & COMMENTARY Johann Maier 3 5 SAGA, LEGEND, TALE, NOVELLA, FABLE: NARRATIVE FORMS IN OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE Edited by George W. Coats 3 6 THE SONG OF FOURTEEN SONGS Michael D. Goulder 3 7 UNDERSTANDING THE WORD: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF BERNHARD W. ANDERSON Edited by James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad & Ben C. Ollenburger
3 8 SLEEP, DIVINE AND HUMAN, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Thomas H. McAlpine 3 9 THE SENSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE II: STRUCTURAL ANALYSES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE David Jobling 4 0 DIRECTIONS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY Edited by Elaine R. Follis 41 ZION, THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING:
42
43
44 45
46
50
51 52
53
54
A THEOLOGICAL SYMBOL OF THE JERUSALEM CULT Ben C. Ollenburger A WORD IN SEASON: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF WILLIAM MCKANE Edited by James D. Martin & Philip R. Davies THE CULT OF MOLEK: A REASSESSMENT G.C. Heider THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PSALMS Steven J.L. Croft THE CONFESSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN CONTEXT: SCENES OF PROPHETIC DRAMA A.R. Diamond THE BOOK OF JUDGES: AN INTEGRATED READING Barry G. Webb THE CHRONICLER' s HISTORY Martin Noth Translated by H.G.M. Williamson with an Introduction DIVINE INITIATIVE AND HUMAN RESPONSE IN EZEKIEL Paul Joyce THE CONFLICT OF FAITH AND EXPERIENCE IN THE PSALMS : A FORM-CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDY Craig C. Broyles THE MAKING OF THE PENTATEUCH: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY R.N. Whybray FROM REPENTANCE TO REDEMPTION: JEREMIAH'S THOUGHT IN TRANSITION Jeremiah Unterman
55 THE ORIGIN TRADITION OF ANCffiNT ISRAEL: 1. THE LITERARY FORMATION OF GENESIS AND EXODUS 1-23 T.L. Thompson 5 6 THE PURIFICATION OFFERING IN THE PRIESTLY LITERATURE: ITS MEANING AND FUNCTION N. Kiuchi 57 MOSES: HEROIC MAN, MAN OF GOD George W. Coats 59 CREATIVE BIBLICAL EXEGESIS: CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH HERMENEUTICS THROUGH THE CENTURIES Edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer & Henning Graf Reventlow 60 HER PRICE is BEYOND RUBIES: THE JEWISH WOMAN IN GRAECO-ROMAN PALESTINE Leonie J. Archer 61 FROM CHAOS TO RESTORATION: AN INTEGRATIVE READING OF ISAIAH 24-27 Dan G. Johnson 6 2 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND FOLKLORE STUDY Patricia G. Kirkpatrick
63 SHILOH: A BIBLICAL CITY IN TRADITION AND HISTORY Donald G. Schley 64 To SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE: ISAIAH 6.9-10 IN EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION Craig A. Evans 6 5 THERE is HOPE FOR A TREE: THE TREE AS METAPHOR IN ISAIAH Kirsten Nielsen 6 6 SECRETS OF THE TIMES : MYTH AND HISTORY IN BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY Jeremy Hughes 6 8 THE TRIUMPH OF IRONY IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES Lillian R. Klein
6 9 ZEPHANIAH, A PROPHETIC DRAMA Paul R. House
7 0 NARRATIVE ART IN THE BIBLE Shimon Bar-Efrat
7 3 DAVID'S SOCIAL DRAMA: A HOLOGRAM OF THE EARLY IRON AGE James W. Flanagan 7 4 THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL AND CANAANITE POETRY Edited by Willem van der Meer & Johannes C. de Moor 7 5 DAVID IN LOVE AND WAR: THE PURSUIT OF POWER IN 2 SAMUEL 10-12 Randall C. Bailey 76 GOD is KING: UNDERSTANDING AN ISRAELITE METAPHOR Marc Zvi Brettler 7 8 SWALLOWING THE SCROLL: TEXTUALITY AND THE DYNAMICS OF DISCOURSE IN EZEKIEL'S PROPHECY Ellen F. Davies 79 GIBEAH: THE SEARCH FOR A BIBLICAL CITY Patrick M. Arnold, S.J. 8 0 THE NATHAN NARRATIVES Gwilym H. Jones 8 2 RHETORIC AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION Dale Patrick & Allen Scult 83 THE EARTH AND THE WATERS IN GENESIS 1 AND 2: A LINGUISTIC INVESTIGATION David Toshio Tsumura 8 4 INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD Lyle Eslinger
8 5 FROM CARMEL TO HOREB: ELIJAH IN CRISIS Alan J. Hauser & Russell Gregory 8 6 THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN CLASSICAL HEBREW PROSE Alviero Niccacci
Translated by W.G.E. Watson 87 THE BIBLE IN THREE DIMENSIONS: ESSAYS IN CELEBRATION OF FORTY YEARS OF BIBLICAL STUDIES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD Edited by David J.A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl & Stanley E. Porter
90 BIBLICAL HEBREW IN TRANSITION: THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL Mark F. Rooker 91 THE IDEOLOGY OF RITUAL: SPACE, TIME AND STATUS IN THE PRIESTLY THEOLOGY Frank H. Gorman, Jr 92 ON HUMOUR AND THE COMIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Edited by Yehuda T. Radday & Athalya Brenner 9 3 JOSHUA 24 AS POETIC NARRATIVE William T. Koopmans 94 WHAT DOES EVE Do TO HELP? AND OTHER READERLY QUESTIONS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT David J.A. Clines 95 GOD SAVES: LESSONS FROM THE ELISHA STORIES Rick Dale Moore 9 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PLOT IN GENESIS Laurence A. Turner 97 THE UNITY OF THE TWELVE Paul R. House
9 8 ANCIENT CONQUEST ACCOUNTS: A STUDY IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN AND BIBLICAL HISTORY WRITING K. Lawson Younger, Jr
99 WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS R.N. Whybray 100 A TRIBUTE TO GEZA VERMES-. ESSAYS ON JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND HISTORY Edited by Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White
101 THE CHRONICLER IN HIS AGE Peter R. Ackroyd 102 THE PRAYERS OF DAVID (PSALMS 51-72): STUDIES IN THE PSALTER, II Michael Goulder
10 3 THE SOCIOLOGY OF POTTERY IN ANCIENT PALESTINE: THE CERAMIC INDUSTRY AND THE DIFFUSION OF CERAMIC STYLE IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES Bryant G. Wood
104 PSALM STRUCTURES:
105 106
107 108
109
110
111
112
113 114
115
A STUDY OF PSALMS WITH REFRAINS Paul R. Raabe RE-ESTABLISHING JUSTICE Pietro Bovati GRADED HOLINESS: A KEY TO THE PRIESTLY CONCEPTION OF THE WORLD Philip Jenson THE ALIEN IN ISRAELITE LAW Christiana van Houten THE FORGING OF ISRAEL: IRON TECHNOLOGY, SYMBOLISM AND TRADITION IN ANCIENT SOCIETY Paula M. McNutt SCRIBES AND SCHOOLS IN MONARCHIC JUDAH: A Socio-ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH David Jamieson-Drake THE CANAANITES AND THEIR LAND: THE TRADITION OF THE CANAANITES Niels Peter Lemche YAHWEH AND THE SUN: THE BIBLICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE J. Glen Taylor WISDOM IN REVOLT: METAPHORICAL THEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF JOB Leo G. Perdue PROPERTY AND THE FAMILY IN BIBLICAL LAW Raymond Westbrook A TRADITIONAL QUEST: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF Louis JACOBS Edited by Dan Cohn-Sherbok I HAVE BUILT You AN EXALTED HOUSE: TEMPLE BUILDING IN THE BIBLE IN LIGHT OF MESOPOTAMIAN AND NORTHWEST SEMITIC WRITINGS Victor Hurowitz
116 NARRATIVE AND NOVELLA IN SAMUEL: STUDIES BY HUGO GRESSMANN AND OTHER SCHOLARS 1906-1923 Translated by David E. Orton Edited by David M. Gunn
117 SECOND TEMPLE STUDIES: I.PERSIAN PERIOD Edited by Philip R. Davies 118 SEEING AND HEARING GOD WITH THE PSALMS : THE PROPHETIC LITURGY FROM THE SECOND TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM Raymond Jacques Tournay Translated by J. Edward Crowley 119 TELLING QUEEN MICHAL' s STORY: AN EXPERIMENT IN COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATION Edited by David J.A. Clines & Tamara C. Eskenazi 120 THE REFORMING KINGS: CULT AND SOCIETY IN FIRST TEMPLE JUDAH Richard H. Lowery 121 KING SAUL IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF JUDAH Diana Vikander Edelman 122 IMAGES OF EMPIRE Edited by Loveday Alexander 123 JUDAHITE BURIAL PRACTICES AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE DEAD Elizabeth Bloch-Smith 124 LAW AND IDEOLOGY IN MONARCHIC ISRAEL Edited by Baruch Halpern & Deborah W. Hobson 125 PRIESTHOOD AND CULT IN ANCIENT ISRAEL Edited by Gary A. Anderson & Saul M. Olyan
126 W.M.L. DE WETTE, FOUNDER OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM: AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY John W. Rogerson
127 THE FABRIC OF HISTORY: TEXT, ARTIFACT AND ISRAEL'S PAST Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman 128 BIBLICAL SOUND AND SENSE: POETIC SOUND PATTERNS IN PROVERBS 10-29 Thomas P. McCreesh 129 THE ARAMAIC OF DANIEL IN THE LIGHT OF OLD ARAMAIC Zdravko Stefanovic 130 STRUCTURE AND THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH Michael Butterworth
131 FORMS OF DEFORMITY: A MOTIF-INDEX OF ABNORMALITIES, DEFORMITIES AND DISABILITIES IN TRADITIONAL JEWISH LITERATURE Lynn Holden 132 CONTEXTS FOR AMOS: PROPHETIC POETICS IN LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE Mark Daniel Carroll R. 133 THE FORSAKEN FIRSTBORN: A STUDY OF A RECURRENT MOTIF IN THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES Roger Syre"n 134 TOGETHER IN THE LAND: A READING OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA Gordon Mitchell 135 ISRAEL IN EGYPT:
136 137 138 139 140 141 142
A READING OF EXODUS 1-2 G.F. Davies A WALK IN THE GARDEN: BIBLICAL, ICONOGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY IMAGES OF EDEN Edited by P. Morris & D. Sawyer JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS: BIBLICAL THEMES AND THEIR INFLUENCE Edited by H. Graf Reventlow & Y. Hoffman TEXT AS PRETEXT: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT DAVIDSON Edited by R.P. Carroll PSALM AND STORY: INSET HYMNS nsr HEBREW NARRATIVE J.W. Watts PURITY AND MONOTHEISM: CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS nsr BIBLICAL LAW Walter Houston DEBT SLAVERY IN ISRAEL AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Gregory C. Chirichigno DIVINATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND ITS NEAR EASTERN ENVIRONMENT: A SOCIO-HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION Frederick H. Cryer
143 THE NEW LITERARY CRITICISM AND THE HEBREW BIBLE Edited by David J.A. Clines & J. Cheryl Exum
144 LANGUAGE, IMAGERY AND STRUCTURE IN THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS Edited by Philip R. Davies & David J.A. Clines 145 THE SPEECHES OF MICAH: A RHETORICAL-HISTORICAL ANALYSIS Charles S. Shaw 146 THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE FROM THE PALAEOLITHIC PERIOD TO ALEXANDER'S CONQUEST Gosta W. Ahlstrom
147 Vows IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Tony W. Cartledge 148 IN SEARCH OF 'ANCIENT ISRAEL' Philip R. Davies 149 PRIESTS, PROPHETS AND SCRIBES: ESSAYS ON THE FORMATION AND HERITAGE OF SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM IN HONOUR OF JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP Edited by Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll & Philip R. Davies 150 TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 1-8 Janet A. Tollington 151 THE CITIZEN-TEMPLE COMMUNITY J.P. Weinberg
152 UNDERSTANDING POETS AND PROPHETS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF GEORGE WISHART ANDERSON Edited by A.G. Auld 153 THE PSALMS AND THEIR READERS: INTERPRETIVE STRATEGIES FOR PSALM 18 O.K. Berry
154 MiNHAH LE-NAHUM: BIBLICAL AND OTHER STUDIES PRESENTED TO NAHUM M. SARNA IN HONOUR OF HIS 70TH BIRTHDAY Edited by M. Brettler and M. Fishbane 155 LAND TENURE AND THE BIBLICAL JUBILEE: DISCOVERING A MORAL WORLD-VIEW THROUGH THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE Jeffrey A. Fager
156 THE LORD'S SONG: THE BASIS, FUNCTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CHORAL Music IN CHRONICLES J.E. Kleinig
157 THE WORD HESED nsr THE HEBREW BIBLE G.R. Clark 158 IN THE WILDERNESS: THE DOCTRINE OF DEFILEMENT IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS Mary Douglas 159 THE SHAPE AND SHAPING OF THE PSALTER J. Clinton McCann 160
KING AND CULTUS IN CHRONICLES: WORSHIP AND THE REINTERPRETATION OF HISTORY William Riley
161 THE MOSES TRADITION George W. Coats 162 OF PROPHET' s VISIONS AND THE WISDOM OF SAGES : ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF R. NORMAN WHYBRAY ON HIS SEVENTIETH BIRTHDAY Edited by Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines
163 FRAGMENTED WOMEN: FEMINIST (SUB)VERSIONS OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVES J. Cheryl Exum 164 HOUSE OF GOD OR HOUSE OF DAVID: THE RHETORIC OF 2 SAMUEL? Lyle Eslinger 166 THE ARAMAIC BIBLE: TARGUMS IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT Edited by D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara
167 SECOND ZECHARIAH AND THE DEUTERONOMIC SCHOOL Raymond F. Person 168 THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS R.N. Whybray 169 EDOM, ISRAEL' s BROTHER AND ANTAGONIST: THE ROLE OF EDOM IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY AND STORY Bert Dicou 170 TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES IN CLASSICAL HEBREW VERSE Wilfred G.E. Watson 171 POLITICS AND THEOPOLITICS IN THE BIBLE AND POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE Edited by Y. Hoffman & H. Graf Reventlow
172 AN INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY Volkmar Fritz
173 HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF JOHN H. HAYES Edited by M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown & Jeffrey K. Kuan 174 'THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT':
A LITERARY APPROACH Joe M. Sprinkle
175 SECOND TEMPLE STUDIES: 2. TEMPLE AND COMMUNITY IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi & Kent H. Richards
176 STUDIES IN BIBLICAL LAW: FROM THE HEBREW BIBLE TO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Gershon Brin 177 TEXT-LINGUISTICS AND BIBLICAL HEBREW David Allan Dawson 178 BETWEEN SHEOL AND TEMPLE: MOTIF STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN THE I-PSALMS Martin R. Hauge 179 TIME AND PLACE IN DEUTERONOMY James G. McConville and John G. Millar 180 THE SEARCH FOR QUOTATION: VERBAL PARALLELS IN THE PROPHETS Richard Schultz 181 THEORY AND METHOD IN BIBLICAL AND CUNEIFORM LAW Edited by Bernard M. Levinson
182 THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL's TRADITIONS: THE HERITAGE OF MARTIN NOTH Edited by Steven L. McKenzie & M. Patrick Graham
183 THE RELIGION OF THE SEMITES: LECTURES ON THE RELIGION OF THE SEMITES (SECOND AND THIRD SERIES) BY WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH Edited by John Day 184 PURSUING THE TEXT: STUDIES IN HONOUR OF BEN ZION WACHOLDER ON THE OCCASION OF HIS SEVENTIETH BIRTHDAY Edited by John C. Reeves & John Kampen
185 THE LOGIC OF INCEST: A STRUCTURALIST ANALYSIS OF HEBREW MYTHOLOGY Seth Daniel Kunin
186 THREE FACES OF A QUEEN: CHARACTERIZATION IN THE BOOKS OF ESTHER Linda M. Day 187 THE BOOKS OF ESTHER: STRUCTURE, GENRE AND TEXTUAL INTEGRITY Charles V. Dorothy 188 CONCENTRICITY AND CONTINUITY: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF ISAIAH Robert H. O'Connell 189 WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH: ESSAYS IN REASSESSMENT Edited by William Johnstone 190 THE PITCHER is BROKEN: MEMORIAL ESSAYS FOR GOSTA W. AHLSTROM Edited by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy
192 BIBLICAL STUDIES AND THE SHIFTING OF THE PARADIGMS, 1850-1914 Edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer
193 THE OPPONENTS OF THIRD ISAIAH: RECONSTRUCTING THE CULTIC HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION Brooks Schramm 194 PROPHESYING THE PAST: THE USE OF ISRAEL'S HISTORY IN THE BOOK OF HOSEA Else Kragelund Holt
195 WORDS REMEMBERED, TEXTS RENEWED: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF JOHN F.A. SAWYER Edited by Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred Watson
196 CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Joel S. Kaminsky
