Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles (Studia Semitica Neerlandica)

Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles Studia Semitica Neerlandica Editor-in-Chief Prof. dr. K.A.D. ...

28 downloads 580 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles

Studia Semitica Neerlandica Editor-in-Chief

Prof. dr. K.A.D. Smelik Editorial Board

prof. dr. p.c. beentjes – prof. dr. w.j. van bekkum dr. m.p.l.m. bernards – dr. w.c. delsman dr. m.l. folmer – prof. dr. j. hoftijzer prof. dr. j. van steenbergen – prof. dr. h.j. stroomer prof. dr. e. talstra – prof. dr. m. tanret prof. dr. k. van der toorn – prof. dr. k.r. veenhof

VOLUME 52

Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles By

Pancratius C. Beentjes

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beentjes, Pancratius Cornelis. Tradition and transformation in the book of Chronicles / By Pancratius C. Beentjes. p. cm. — (Studia Semitica Neerlandica ; v. 52) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17044-5 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Chronicles— Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1345.52.B44 2008 222’.606—dc22 2008031297

ISSN 0081-6914 ISBN 978 90 04 17044 5 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

“There was Great Joy in Jerusalem . . .” (2 Chr 30:26)

CONTENTS Preface ......................................................................................... Abbreviations ..............................................................................

ix xi

Introduction ................................................................................

1

PART ONE

STUDIES OF TEXTS Chapter One Adopting and Adapting: Some Rewritten Genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–5 .............................................

17

Chapter Two Nathan’s Oracle and David’s Prayer in 1 Chronicles 17 .......................................................................

31

Chapter Three David’s Census and Ornan’s Threshing-floor: A Close Reading of 1 Chronicles 21 ...........

45

Chapter Four Aspects of Innerbiblical Interpretation in 2 Chronicles 20 ............................................................................

61

Chapter Five The Narrative on Uzziah’s Leprosy (2 Chronicles 26) .....................................................................

79

Chapter Six

91

Isaiah and the Book of Chronicles ...................... PART TWO

STUDIES OF TOPICS Chapter Seven The Chronicler’s View of Israel’s EarlierH istory .........................................................................

101

Chapter Eight Jerusalem: The Very Centre of all the Kingdoms of the Earth ...........................................................

115

viii

contents

Chapter Nine Historical Persons or Literary Characters: Prophets in the Book of Chronicles ........................................

129

Chapter Ten ‘Give Thanks to YHWH. Truly He is Good’. Psalms and Prayers in the Book of Chronicles .......................

141

Chapter Eleven ‘We Have YHWH to Fight Our Battles’. War Narratives in the Book of Chronicles ..............................

177

Chapter Twelve The Importance of Being Registered: The Role and Meaning of the Verb ‫ יחש‬in the Book of Chronicles ...............................................................................

187

Bibliography ................................................................................ Index of Authors ......................................................................... Index of Textual References ....................................................... Index of Hebrew Words .............................................................

193 205 208 211

PREFACE The appointment in 1991 as full professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew in fact marked a temporary shift in my research of the Book of Ben Sira that started in 1976. The research programme of my Faculty made me switch over to the study of the Book of Chronicles. In the past fifteen years I occupied myself with several aspects of this document that for a long time was almost completely neglected in scholarly research. With great pleasure I have studied some historical, literary, and theological aspects of this document that originates from the late fourth or early third century BCE. In the first part of this book, attention is given to specific passages and texts from the Book of Chronicles, whereas essays on thematic topics have been put together in the second part. Nico de Groot (Faculty of Catholic Theology, Tilburg University) and Mrs Liesbeth Kanis (Brill) were of great help in the final stage of editing the manuscript. Finally I wish tot thank Prof. Dr. K.A.D. Smelik, general editor of Studia Semitica Neerlandica, for accepting the manuscript to the series. Zeist, Netherlands, Summer 2008.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AJBI AnBib ARM BBB BBET BDB BEATAJ BETL BHS Bib BIS BJ BJS BKAT BN BTB BWANT BZ BZAW CBET CBQ CONB CRINT DCH DCLY DDD DJD EHS ET ETL

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Analecta Biblica Archives royals de Mari Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie F. Brown, S.R. Driver & C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation series Bible de Jérusalem Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea Biblica Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Europäische Hochschulschriften English translation Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

xii EÜ FAT FOTL FRLANT FTS FS FzB GCS GKC GNB HAR HAT HCOT HSM HTR HUCA ICC IEJ Int JBL JQR JSNTSS JSOT JSOTSS JSS KAT KD KJV LV LXX NCBC NBG NEB NEB NIV NRSV NTT

abbreviations Die Bibel: Einheitsübersetzung Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Freiburger Theologische Studien Festschrift Forschungen zur Bibel Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 28th ed., Oxford 1910 Groot Nieuws Bijbel (Dutch translation) Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kerygma und Dogma King James Version Leidse vertaling (Dutch Bible Translation) Septuagint New Century Bible Commentary Dutch Bible Translation from 1951 Neue Echter Bibel New English Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift

abbreviations OBO ÖBS OTL OTS OTWSA PC PG RB REB RSV RTP SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBT Sem SV TDOT THAT ThB ThLZ TM TOB TU TWAT TynBul VT VTS WBC WMANT WV ZAW ZDPV

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische Biblische Studien Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Oud Testamentische Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika Petrus Canisiusvertaling (Dutch Bible Translation) Patrologia graeca, ed. J. Migne Revue Biblique Revised English Bible Revised Standard Version Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology Semitica Statenvertaling (Dutch Bible Translation 1637) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologische Bücherei Theologische Literaturzeitung Textus Masoreticus Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible Texte und Untersuchungen Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wisschenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Willibrordvertaling (Dutch Bible Translation) Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins

xiii

INTRODUCTION The past forty years or so have seen a complete transformation in the study of the Book of Chronicles. No doubt, scholars like Peter Ackroyd, Rodney Braun, Sara Japhet, and Hugh Williamson must be considered inspiring propagators for new horizons in this field.1 And subsequently, the monographs of Rudolph Mosis, Peter Welten, and Thomas Willi from the early seventies have substantially contributed to a better understanding of the Book of Chronicles and should therefore be esteemed pioneer works too.2 Present day study of the Book of Chronicles has done away with former domination by the parallel texts in the Books of Samuel and Kings. An immense avalanche of dissertations3 and articles4 on specific 1 P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age ( JSOTSS 101), Sheffield 1991; R.L. Braun, ‘Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles’, JBL 92 (1973), 502–514; id., ‘Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder’, JBL 95 (1976), 581–590; id., ‘A Reconsideration of the Chronicler’s Attitude toward the North’, JBL 96 (1977), 59–62; id., ‘Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah’, VTS 30 (1979) 52–64; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt a.M. 1979; H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, VT 26 (1976), 351–361; id., ‘Eschatology in Chronicles’, TynBul 28 (1977), 115–154; id., 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), Grand Rapids/ London 1982. 2 R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistisches Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92) Freiburg 1973; P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen 1973; Th.Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972. 3 R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler ( JSOTSS 88), Sheffield 1990; M.P. Graham, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS 116), Atlanta 1990; Tae-Soo Im, Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern (EHS XXIII/263), Frankfurt a.M. 1985; M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConB OT 28), Uppsala 1989; J.W. Kleinig, The Lord’s Song ( JSOTSS 156), Sheffield 1993; W.E. Lemke, Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler’s History, Diss. Harvard 1963; R. Mason, Preaching the Tradition, Cambridge 1990; S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta 1985; R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18), Frankfurt a.M. 1983; J.D. Newsome, The Chronicler’s View of Prophecy (Diss. Vanderbilt University) 1973; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die »genealogische Vorhalle« 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990; D.L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy (SBLMS 23), Missoula 1977; W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 160), Sheffield 1993; A. Ruffing, Jahwekrieg als Weltmetapher (SBB 24), Stuttgart 1992; J.R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work (BJS 196), Atlanta 1989; K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik (BZAW 201), Berlin 1991; M.A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93), Atlanta 1987; J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community ( JSOTSS 151), Sheffield 1993; J.W. Wright, The Origin and Function of First Chronicles 23–27 (Diss. University of Notre Dame) 1989. 4 C. Begg, ‘“Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982),

2

introduction

topics is solid proof that the Book of Chronicles can now be investigated on its own merits. The classified bibliography on Chronicles, which was published by Isaac Kalimi, is a clear indication that the study of Chronicles has grown to maturity.5 And finally, that the Book of Chronicles is in the centre of scholarly biblical research indeed can among other things be inferred from the amazing number of commentaries that have been published during the last couple of years.6 So the last two decades have seen a substantial progress in the study of the Book of Chronicles on the historical, sociological, literary, and theological level. Nowadays the Book of Chronicles is recognized more and more as being of major interest to the Second Temple Period, to aspects of the cult and cultic offices in Jerusalem during that period, to the relationship between Judah and Israel, both in historical and in ideological perspective, to the formation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible, and so on. This study wants to contribute to some aspects of this immense field of research. Attention will be paid both to specific texts and to particular topics of the Book of Chronicles. Before entering into this matter, however, some terminology and points of view that are now widely accepted will be exemplified.

128–141; R.B. Dillard, ‘The Literary Structure of the Chronicler’s Solomon Narrative’, JSOT 30 (1984), 85–93; J. Goldingay, ‘The Chronicler as Theologian’, BTB 5 (1975), 97–126; W. Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles’, in: J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season (FS W.McKane, JSOTSS 42), Sheffield 1986, 113–138; M. Newsome, ‘Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purpose’, JBL 94 (1975), 201–217; T. Sugimoto, ‘Chronicles as Independent Literature’, JSOT 55 (1992), 61–74; id., ‘The Chronicler’s Techniques in Quoting Samuel-Kings’, AJBI 6 (1990), 30–70; S.J. De Vries, ‘The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles’, HAR 10 (1986), 15–36; id., ‘Moses and David as Cult-Founders in Chronicles’, JBL 107 (1988), 619–639; J.W. Wright, ‘The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23–27’, JBL 110 (1991), 229–242. 5 I. Kalimi, The Books of Chronicles. A Classified Bibliography (Simor Bible Bibliographies 1), Tel Aviv/ Jerusalem 1990. 6 See e.g.: P.B. Dirksen, 1 Chronicles (HCOT), Louvain 2005; J. Jarick, 1 Chronicles (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), Sheffield 2000; id., 2 Chronicles (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), Sheffield 2007; G.N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12), New York 2004; id., 1 Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A), New York 2004; S.L. McKenzie, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville 2004; R.W. Klein, 1 Chronicles, A Commentary, (Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), Minneapolis 2006; S.Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation), Louisville 2001.

introduction

3

Chronistic History For almost one and a half century it was a certainty in Biblical research that the Book of Chronicles and the Book of Ezra-Nehemia came from one and the same author.7 Sara Japhet was one of the first scholars who made a fresh analysis of this question and on the basis of the available data came to the conclusion that the hypothesis of one common author should be abandoned.8 In the subsequent years, many scholars supported her point of view.9 To date, Gary Knoppers in his recent commentary recapitulates this discussion as follows: The cumulative weight of these considerations would suggest that Chronicles has some points of connection with Ezra and Nehemiah, but that it is quite unlikely that one individual is responsible for both works. It is improbable that the author(s) of the narrative portions of Ezra and Nehemiah are also responsible for Chronicles.10

In this study therefore it is taken for granted that there are two different works by two different authors. When from now on the designation ‘the Chronicler’ is used, it always refers to the author of the Book of Chronicles only. The Question of How to Define the Genre of Chronicles The question what genre is used by the Chronicler has been answered in widely divergent ways. The oldest characterization of Chronicles is the one found in the book’s title according to the Septuagint. That it is 7 See e.g. M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Darmstadt 31967, 110–180. ‘Das chronistische Werk ist für sich gesondert überliefert, und die Tatsache, daß der Abschluß dieses Werkes in den erst nachträglich davon getrennten Büchern Esr./Neh. vorliegt, liegt so klar auf der Hand und ist daher auch so allgemein anerkannt, daß über den äußeren Bestand des Werkes kein Wort weiter verloren zu werden braucht . . .’ (2). 8 S. Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968), 330–371; id., ‘The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (VTS 43), Leiden 1991, 298–313. 9 J.D. Newsome, ‘Towards a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes’, JBL 94 (1975), 201–217; H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977, 1–70; R.L. Braun, ‘Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTS 30), Leiden 1979, 52–64. 10 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 89.

4

introduction

typified as Παραλειπομένων—‘[the things] omitted / passed over / left out’—means that the translator(s) considered it as a supplement to another, well known work, most probably Genesis–2 Kings. In that case, however, the notion ‘supplement’ is completely inappropriate, since substantial parts of Samuel-Kings have been copied almost unchanged. Over the last centuries, at times the notion ‘midrash’ has been related to the Book of Chronicles. This has been done in a rather unspecified way by scholars like Leopold Zunz, Julius Wellhausen, William Emery Barnes and, in a more specific way, by Isaac Seeligmann.11 William Johnstone in his commentary on Chronicles is repeatedly suggesting that ‘the work bears some relationship to the type of Jewish literature known as midrash’.12 However, when midrash is defined as ‘a literature about a literature’,13 or literature commenting upon literature, it does not apply to the Book of Chronicles as a whole, since the Chronicler does not comment upon existing literature, but is creating a full new composition of his own.14 In this context, the observation by Simon De Vries is worth noting that ‘those who claim that Chronicles is a midrash or utilizes midrashim are thinking of the method known from rabbinic literature, which might be seen in isolated passages . . .’.15 In 1972, Thomas Willi introduced a new concept, characterizing the essence of the Book of Chronicles as interpretation (‘Auslegung’): . . . Chronicles cannot be understood apart from the books of Samuel and Kings . . . and in particular in relation to those parts which were not included; indeed one may go further and say that it was not intended to be understood without them. Its style of history-writing, exegesis in

11 L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden: Historisch entwickelt (ed. N. Brüll), Frankfurt a. M. 21892 (Reprint, Hildesheim 1966), 34–38; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin-Leipzig 61927 (Reprint, Berlin 1981), 223; W.E. Barnes, ‘The Midrashic Element in Chronicles’, The Expositor 5th Series 4 (1896), 426–439; I. Seeligmann, ‘The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles’, Tarbiz 49 (1979/1980), 14–32; id., ‘Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese’, VTS 1 (1953), 150–181. 12 W. Johnstone, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Volume 1: I Chronicles 1–2 Chronicles 9 ( JSOTSS 253), Sheffield 1997, 23. 13 A.G. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, New York 1967, 67. 14 The characterization of the Book of Chronicles as ‘midrash’ to a high degree is suggested by the fact that the word ‫ מדרש‬is found in the book itself (2 Chr 13:22; 24:27). Since in these two texts it obviously has the meaning ‘account’, and not the later meaning ‘interpretation of Scripture’, it is complicating the discussion a lot. 15 S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI), Grand Rapids MI 1989, 55.

introduction

5

the best sense of the word, aims at clarifying the understanding of the source. . . .16

Though Willi’s approach has been welcomed as a significant contribution to a better understanding of the Book of Chronicles,17 several scholars have nevertheless drawn attention to some disputable points in his presentation, such as his overestimation of the role of the parallel texts from Samuel–Kings, his comparatively scarce attention to the Chronicler’s own material (Sondergut), as well as his predisposition to consider quite a lot of passages in the book (e.g. 1 Chronicles 1–9) as secondary additions.18 To express it in Tomotoshi Sugimoto’s words: . . . the Chronicler is not dependent on the literary structure of SamuelKings, though he uses it as his source. He rather chooses the appropriate portions from his own perspective to write his own work. He does not omit parts because they are in conflict with his interpretation of the text, but because they do not contribute to his purpose. New portions are added not to suggest theological development of Samuel-Kings, but to develop his own theme. Even parallel passages are given new roles in new contexts. Thus it seems difficult to regard Chronicles as exegetical literature on Samuel-Kings, though it makes use of interpretation of these books.19

The notion of the Chronicler as an interpreter of Scripture has been revitalized by William Schniedewind. In his view, the Book of Chronicles seems intended to supplant Samuel-Kings, since the purpose of

16 Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972, 66: „ohne die Samuel- und Köningsbücher . . ., und zwar gerade auch deren nicht aufgenommene Partien, läßt sich die Chronik nicht verstehen; ja mehr noch: sie will gar nicht ohne sie verstanden sein. Ihre Art der Geschichtsschreibung, Auslegung im besten Sinne des Wortes, hat das Ziel, zum Verständnis der Quelle anzuleiten . . .“. The English translation has been quoted from: P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in His Age ( JSOTSS 101), Sheffield, 341. 17 The monograph by K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW 201, Berlin 1991) can be considered an application and specialization of Willi’s point of view. 18 Critical evaluations of Willi’s approach are given by, e.g., P.R. Ackroyd, ‘The Chronicler as Exegete’, JSOT 2 (1977), 2–32 [= id., The Chronicler in His Age, 311–343; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 21–23; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 380–382; G. Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen. Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1–2 Chronik (BBB 93), 19–26. 19 T. Sugimoto, ‘Chronicles as Independent Literature’, JSOT 55 (1992), 74.

6

introduction

Chronicles is ‘to bolster the claims of both the Davidids and the rebuilt temple among the postexilic community’.20 If the Book of Chronicles, however, was intended to supplant SamuelKings, it is hardly to understand why the Chronicler, in the first place, adopted so many texts from the corpus he wanted to reinterpret or even to replace with his own composition. And, second, why should he have created so much unparalleled material, if his intention was to interpret Scripture in order to help his community ‘to relate itself to its past through the hermeneutic process’?21 In consequence of the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, sometimes the genre of the Book of Chronicles is characterized as rewritten Bible.22 It is compared to documents such as the Temple Scroll (11QT19) and the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGenar), or to writings such as Jubilees and The Book of Biblical Antiquities that were known much earlier.23 In his impressive commentary, Gary Knoppers has devoted a full chapter to the question whether the Book of Chronicles could adequately be described as ‘rewritten Bible’.24 He reaches at the conclusion that Chronicles should not be considered that category. First, as the Chronicler in no way is presenting a rewritten or reworked Pentateuch; and second, since even his presentation of David to a high degree differs from the one as found in the Book of Samuel. The Chronicler’s Own Material Since there is conclusive evidence that the Chronicler made use of (some Hebrew text form of ) the Books of Samuel and Kings, the reader of the Book of Chronicles is in the fortunate position to draw a distinction between data that can be labelled as ‘traditional material’ adopted from 20 W.M. Schniedewind, ‘The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 163. For that reason 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 36 needs to be located in the early Persian period, i.e. in the late sixth century BCE, when ‘[f ]ervent Davidic aspirations and the need to legitimate a rebuilt temple’ were in the air; Schniedewind, ‘The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture’, 159. 21 Schniedewind, ‘The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture’, 179. 22 G.J. Brooke, ‘Rewritten Bible’, in: L.H. Schiffman & J.C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2, Oxford 2000, 777–781. 23 For a general introduction, see: W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘The Bible Rewritten and Expanded’, in: M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, Section Two, II), Assen 1984, 89–156. 24 G.N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12), New York 2003, 129–134.

introduction

7

Samuel-Kings and material that can be characterized as the Chronicler’s own creation. The latter category is often described as ‘chronistisches Sondergut’, which is a German technical term that refers to passages in the Book of Chronicles which exclusively come out the Chronicler’s pen. No doubt, especially this ‘Sondergut’ focuses on the Chronicler’s literary, theological, and ideological points of view. However, one should always make a precise study of the ‘traditional’ material too, since the Chronicler quite often introduces small changes into the well known texts from Samuel and Kings. So doing he is able to readjust the classical text to his own needs too. The Chronicler’s Line of Action This book will offer a number of detailed studies in which the Chronicler’s modus operandi is presented. The first part of this monograph is devoted to specific texts, the second one to particular topics that both make a good show of some specific features of this Biblical document originating from the late fourth or early third century BCE.25 Registers, litanies, and catalogues are not the most favourite literary genres one can imagine. When, for example, the opening lines of the Gospel of Matthew, or Luke Chapter 3, the lineage of Jesus, are read aloud, people get rather irritated than fascinated. And when in the Book of Revelation the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed are recited (Rev 7:4–8), many people will ask themselves whether the minister had no more pleasant lesson from Holy Scripture at his disposal. The Book of Chronicles, however, beats them all.26 For in the course of the first nine chapters one is only faced with names and genealogies, and many people therefore categorically skip these pages. However, what at first glance seems to be a dull and endless string of names, at a closer look reveals itself as a well-structured section, which, in addition, is indispensable for a better understanding of the book of Chronicles as a whole.27

See G.N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9, 101–117. M.D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSMS 8), Cambridge 1969, 37–82; G.A. Rendsburg, ‘The Internal Consistence and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies’, VT 40 (1990), 185–204; R.R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, New Haven 1977. 27 For instructive overviews of some aspects relating to the genealogies in the Book 25 26

8

introduction

These genealogies are no mere copies of passages from the Hebrew Bible, but have consciously been reworked by the Chronicler to make his theological point. In Chapter one, this creative method will be demonstrated in respect of 1 Chronicles 1–5. Chapter two deals with 1 Chronicles 17, one of the Chronicler’s cluetexts dealing with dynasty and temple. In a number of details, some of which have never been commented upon, this narrative indeed will prove to be a major gateway to the Chronicler’s point of view relating to these crucial theological issues. The promise addressed to David by the intermediary of Nathan as reflected in 2 Sam 7:1–16 almost exclusively deals with the Davidic dynasty. As a result of a number of textual interventions, this promise in 1 Chr 17:1–14 has been transformed into a new kind of text referring basically just to Solomon, since, after all, it is he who is predestined to build the Temple. For the Chronicler, dynasty is important as far as it has a positive bearing upon the Temple. It is also within this new concept that David’s prayer (1 Chr 17:16–27) is presented in a different way. Whereas in 2 Samuel 7, David entreats for God’s future blessing, in the Chronicler’s context, the divine blessing has already been realized. The category of time has been subordinated to the category of space. Another example of the Chronicler’s line of action is found in 1 Chronicles 21. Both from a text critical and from a theological point of view this narrative dealing with David’s census is quite different from its parent text (2 Samuel 24). It appears that the Chronicler’s text at several instances has adopted allusions to biblical material that refer to cultic sites. So doing, the Chronicler wants to emphasize that the narrative is about the future Temple site. It is argued that several features in the narrative, for example the role of the angel(s), make a reasonable case that it was the Chronicler who reworked the Samuel narrative instead of just handing down an existing Vorlage. of Chronicles, see Y. Levin, ‘From Lists to History: Chronological Aspects of the Chronicler’s Genealogies’, JBL 123 (2004), 601–636; id., ‘Who was the Chronicler’s Audience? A Hint from his Genealogies’, JBL 122 (2003), 229–245; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die »genealogische Vorhalle« 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990; W. Osborne, The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (Ph. Dissertation, The Dropsie University, 1979); E. Podechard, ‘Le premier chapître des Paralipomènes’, RB 25 (1916), 363–386; J.P. Weinberg, ‘Das Wesen und die funktionelle Bestimmung der Listen in I Chr 1–9’, ZAW 93 (1981), 91–114; H.G.M. Williamson, Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah, JBL 98 (1979), 351–359.

introduction

9

Characteristic Features The analysis of 2 Chronicles 20, which is presented in Chapter four, can serve as a masterpiece of the Chronicler’s creative writing, theology and ideology. The narrative which in its entirety belongs to the so-called ‘Sondergut’ sections holds a number of characteristic features. First, it is a war narrative which can be considered one of the book’s special vehicles, as will be demonstrated in Chapter eleven. A second characteristic of 2 Chronicles 20 is that the narrative has both a royal prayer, a royal speech and a prophetic address, all literary genres that are so typical of the Book of Chronicles. And finally it should be emphasized that this story contains a magnificent series of how biblical phrases and collocations have been reinterpreted in order to serve the Chronicler’s purpose. The narrative on Uzziah’s leprosy (2 Chronicles 26), which is studied in Chapter five, can also serve as a model for the Chronicler’s literary creativity and theological approach as well, as quite a number of the book’s favourite themes are found here, of which especially the verb ‫‘( מעל‬to trespass’) is of great importance. In addition, attention will be paid to the question of whether 2 Chr 26:16–21 can be typified as an ‘innerbiblical midrash’. Of course, the ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ of the Uzziah narrative is also taken notice of. As will be circumstantially described later on in Chapter nine, the Chronicler has a peculiar way of presenting prophets, seers, and men of God. Even the major prophets of the Hebrew Bible, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, are hardly taken notice of. In Chapter six this curious aspect is elaborated in respect of Isaiah. Whereas there is hardly any attention to this prophet as a historical figure, the more attention is paid to the famous passage in Isa 7:9 which has completely been remodelled in order to serve the Chronicler’s purpose. The Presentation of Israel’s History It is beyond any doubt that the author of the Book of Chronicles has occupied himself with Israel’s earlier history. The discussion among scholars, therefore, is not if he refers to the past, but how he does it. In Chapter seven, therefore, the Chronicler’s factual presentation of Israel’s earlier history is investigated. At a first glance it appears

10

introduction

that the Book of Chronicles presents a perfect chronological overview of it. Upon closer inspection of the material, however, a much more complicated structure will come to light. Finally, some remarks are in order relating to the persistent myth that the Chronicler should have left out—or even denied—some constitutive moments of Israel’s history. It will be argued, on the contrary, that he has reworked those ‘forgotten traditions’, resulting in a completely new concept. Anyone who reads the Book of Chronicles will be struck by a number of details, which all point to the centrality of Jerusalem. Much more than in any book of the Hebrew Bible whatsoever, in the book of Chronicles Jerusalem has become the absolute centre of all activities. One will hardly be surprised to discover that most of the time these passages relating to Jerusalem belong to the Chronicler’s own material. Chapter eight will be an attempt to map out this rather extensive material. The fact that the name of Jerusalem is found a considerable number of times within the genealogical material of 1 Chronicles 1–9 not only is rather striking, it can also be considered clear proof that those chapters do not only intend to bridge the period between Adam (1:1) and Saul (9:38). Mentioning Jerusalem’s name in a pure anachronistic way, however, the Chronicler already in an early stage of his book implants a major theological theme that is dealt with in a more elaborated fashion later on in his document. The Book of Chronicles has a strong interest in prophets, seers, men of God, and inspired messengers.28 In Chapter nine, a detailed scrutiny of the material, however, brings to light that the Chronicler has created a special framework in which these functionaries are presented. Whereas, for instance, in the Book of Kings the narratives on Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha and other prophetic characters commonly include miraculous elements and are concerned with efficacy of the prophetic pronounce28 See, for example: R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18), Frankfurt 1983; H. Van Rooy, ‘Prophet and Society in the Persian Period According to Chronicles’, in T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period ( JSOTSS 175; Sheffield 1994), 163–179; W. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period ( JSOTSS 197), Sheffield 1995; I.L. Seeligman, ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.), Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (VTS 29; Leiden 1978), 254–279; S. de Vries, ‘The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles’, HAR 10 (1986), 15–36; J.P. Weinberg, ‘Die “Ausserkanonischen Prophezeiungen” in den Chronikbüchern’, Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), 387–404.

introduction

11

ments, nowhere in the Book of Chronicles is the ministry of the prophets described in terms of ecstasy, miracles or political dimensions, such as for instance the exhortation to rebellion by Ahijah of Shiloh (1 Kgs 11:29–39) or the anointing of Jehu by one of Elisha’s disciples (2 Kings 9). It is quite striking, for example, that the entire complex of the Elijah narratives (1 Kings 17–19; 2 Kings 1–2) has completely been skipped over by the Chronicler. Instead of it only a letter by Elijah is brought to the fore (2 Chr 21:12–15). In the Book of Chronicles a total of eighteen prophetic addresses is found, of which no less than fourteen have no parallel in 1–2 Samuel or 1–2 Kings and can therefore be characterized as a creation by the Chronicler himself.29 At least ten times these prophetic addresses are put into the mouth of persons who nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible are known as prophet, seer, or man of God.30 In a number of instances they are expressly presented with the help of a special introductory formula of divine inspiration: ‘the spirit clothed . . .’ (1 Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 24:20); ‘the spirit of God came upon . . .’ (2 Chr 15:1; 20:14). The majority of the prophets and inspired messengers one comes across in the Book of Chronicles have been ‘invented’ by the Chronicler and should therefore be characterized as ‘literary personages’ rather than historical persons. Consequently, the speeches delivered by these literary personages are the most appropriate place to look for the Chronicler’s own theological accents and convictions. One will hardly wonder that it is just these prophetic addresses where fundamental theological notions of 1–2 Chronicles are to be found. It not only strikes the eye that there are so many narratives on war in the Book of Chronicles, but also that the majority of those stories have been created by the Chronicler himself. In past decades, a remarkable number of studies have been published relating to those war narratives. From the outset it is apparent that these narratives should not be considered historical reports. In Chapter eleven a fresh proposal to this question is offered, viz. that war narratives in the Book of Chronicles should also be read and explained as a reflection of the factual military impotence of Yehud

29 See R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis ( JSOTSS 88; Sheffield 1990), 175–176 (‘List 8: Prophetic Speech Material’). 30 J. Kegler, ‘Prophetengestalten im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk und in den Chronikbüchern. Ein Beitrag zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbücher’, ZAW 105 (1993), 481–497, here 487 (Table 4).

12

introduction

during the Persian Period. This military weakness has been transformed by the Chronicler into a full theological concept in which it is God who wages war in favour of the people seeking Him. Psalms and Prayers Reading the Book of Chronicles, one is struck by the huge amount of prayers and references to prayers that has been included in this document. The author has also a penchant for some particular psalms that he has incorporated in his book. In Chapter ten, first attention is paid to prayers in the Book of Chronicles and subsequently to the Chronicler’s use of those psalms. Special attention will be drawn to the proportion between the passages which the Chronicler has adopted from his parent Hebrew texts and the passages that he created himself (‘Sondergut’). Time and again it will appear that Psalms and prayers are best understood as a condensing of the Chronicler’s most important theological notions. Prayers which the Chronicler adopted from his parent texts have nowhere been reproduced verbatim, as is nevertheless suggested quite often by commentators. Time and again it appears that the text of those prayers has been changed in order to serve the Chronicler’s own theological purposes: temple and cult. Quotations from the Psalter that have been inserted into the Book of Chronicles have always in some way been adapted by the Chronicler, in order to emphasize his specific theological point of view. They are always found in highly liturgical contexts. By adding only one or two words, the Chronicler several times includes the actual generation into traditional formulae referring to the forefathers. More than fifty percent of the prayers in the Book of Chronicles have been created by the Chronicler himself. Precisely in these texts one can find out the peculiarities of his theology. The majority of prayers in the Book of Chronicles are said by only four kings: David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, who are also the leading characters of this document. It is a matter of deep significance that in the Book of Chronicles both the last verbal act of David and the first verbal act of Solomon have been made up of prayers.

introduction

13

A Semantic Topic at the End The root ‫ יחש‬which in the Hebrew Bible is only found in the Book of Ezra-Nehemia and in the Book of Chronicles is unattested in other Semitic languages. The accumulation in the Book of Chronicles appears to aim at a very special meaning, viz. that the verb does not so much refer to the process of registration as to the result of having been registered for ideological reasons. An analysis of ‫ יחש‬in 1 Chronicles 1–9 is adduced as conclusive evidence for such a special meaning.

PART ONE

STUDIES OF TEXTS In this part of the book, attention is given to specific passages and texts from the Book of Chronicles. A number of texts have been selected in order to demonstrate in what way the Chronicler has adopted and adapted existing texts from the Books of Samuel and Kings so that they could articulate his theological and ideological ideas. On the other hand some of his own texts (‘Sondergut’) are analysed, which to a large extent give vent to his specific intentions. No doubt, especially this ‘Sondergut’ focuses on the Chronicler’s literary, theological, and ideological points of view. However, one should always make a precise study of the ‘traditional’ or ‘synoptical’ material too, since the Chronicler is constantly readjusting the ‘classical’ text(s) to his own needs. As this has sometimes been done with the help of minimal changes, the reader should always be on the alert.

CHAPTER ONE

ADOPTING AND ADAPTING: SOME REWRITTEN GENEALOGIES IN 1 CHRONICLES 1–5 Introduction1 By means of genealogies, the first section of the book (1 Chr 1:1–2:2) spans the gap between Adam (1:1) and Israel (2:2). The reader of the Book of Chronicles should be aware that the name of Jacob, the son of Isaac, has consistently been altered into ‘Israel’.2 Subsequently, in 1 Chr 2:3–9:44 the Chronicler—as we henceforth will refer to the author of the Book of Chronicles—in a circumstantial way brings the sons of Israel/Jacob to the fore. The sequence of this listing in a considerable way deviates from similar lists as found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.3 The readers should keep their patience till 1 Chr 5:1–2, for just there the author offers an explanation of why he presents the sons of Israel in a sequence which is different from the usual one. When one let the genealogies of 1 Chr 2:3–9:44 sink in, it goes without saying that three ‘sons of Israel’ are dominantly presented: Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. These three ‘sons’, which represent three tribes, remained loyal to the House of David ( Judah, Benjamin) and to the Temple (Levi); they constituted the solid framework of the ‘real Israel’ in the post-exilic period, which is the time of the Chronicler himself. It is absolutely no coincidence that Judah is presented at the opening (2:3–4:23),4 Benjamin at the end (8:1–9:1), and Levi in the middle

1 Paper read at the Third International Conference on Rewritten Bible (20–23 August 2008), Karkku, Finland. 2 The only exception is found in 1 Chr 16:13.17, which is a direct quotation from Ps 105:6.10. 3 E.g. Gen 35:23–26; Ex 1:2–4; Num 26:5–51; Josh 21:4–8. 4 See Th. Willi, ‘Late Persian Judaism and Its Conception of an Integral Israel According to Chronicles: Some Observations on Form and Function of the Genealogy of Judah in 1 Chronicles 2.3–4.23’, in: T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period ( JSOTSS 175), Sheffield 1994, 146–162.

18

chapter one

(5:27–6:66)5 of this circumstantial genealogy.6 The tribe of Judah has close connections to David, whereas the tribe of Benjamin brought forth King Saul. The Chronicler ‘opens with the genealogy of Judah, since the Judean kings are at the forefront of the Book of Chronicles’, said the famous Jewish medieval commentator and philologist David Kimchi (c. 1160–c. 1235). The position of the tribe of Levi in the very middle of the section reveals the major importance the Chronicler devoted to Temple and cult. In this manner the structure of these genealogies is a blueprint of the main themes to be found in the Book of Chronicles: God’s people, the Davidic dynasty, the Temple and the cult. Between the genealogy of Judah (2:3–4:23) and that of Levi (5:27–6:66) we are told of the tribe of Simeon (4:24–43), the tribe of Reuben (5:1–10), the tribe of Gad (5:11–17) and Half-Manasseh (5:18–26). Between the genealogy of Levi (5:27–6:66) and that of Benjamin (8:1–40), the Chronicler pays attention to the tribe of Issachar (7:1–5), the tribe of Naphtali (7:13), the tribe of Manasseh (7:14–19), the tribe of Efraim (7:20–29), and the tribe of Asher (7:30–40). In the Chronicler’s own days, all those tribes inserted between Judah and Levi, on the one hand, and between Levi and Benjamin on the other, had in fact disappeared from the historical and geographical scene.7 Now some particular texts and topics of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–5 will be studied in order to investigate, on the one hand, of how the Chronicler has adopted traditional material from Genesis 12–50 and, on the other hand, in what way he has exerted his creativity to make theological and ideological point(s) of his own. Putting the Matriarchs to Silence A close observer will undoubtedly notice that amidst the vast crowd of male names, there is no mention of the ‘great women’ from Israel’s formative history. In the genealogies of 1 Chronicles, one looks in vain for the names of Sarah, Hagar, Rebecca, Rachel and Lea, Bilhah and Zilpah. Since a number of women from the dynastic lineage of David 5 See A. Laato, ‘The Levitical Genealogies in 1 Chronicles 5–6 and the Formation of Levitical Ideology in Post-Exilic Judah’, JSOT 62 (1994), 77–99. 6 The verse numbering is according to the Masoretic text as found in BHS. 7 In the so-called ‘genealogical hall’ of Chronicles 1–9, the tribes of Dan and Zebulon are not mentioned at all.

adopting and adapting

19

have been included in the Chronicler’s overview—Tamar (2:4); Zeruiah and Abigail (2:16); Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Bat-Sua (3:1–5)—, for a moment or two one might assume that this was the reason why the matriarchs of Genesis 12–50 have been skipped. However, this appears not to be the Chronicler’s criterion, since he has also included women who have nothing to do with the Davidic dynasty, such as Keturah, Abraham’s concubine (1:32), Mehetabel (1:50), Sheerah (7:24), Maacah (8:29), and a lot of other women that are quite unknown.8 I therefore do not subscribe to Manfred Oeming’s view ‘that women do play no role in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles’, since according to him the silencing of the matriarchs ‘reflects the real situation of women during the post-exilic period, especially in cultic respect’.9 The Patriarchs in the Spotlight The Chronicler not only makes frequent use of genealogies from the Book of Genesis which already circulated in his days as part of the (holy) tradition, he also does almost everywhere keep the order of the genealogies as they are found now in the Book of Genesis, as is shown by the following chart. 1 Chronicles

Genesis

1:1–4 1:5–7 1:8–16 1:17–23 1:24–27 1:28 1:29–31 1:32–33 1:34 1:35–37 1:38–42

5:1–32 10:2–4 10:6–8.13–18 10:22–29 11:10–26 — 25:13–16 25:1–4 25:19–26 36:4–5.9–14 36:20–28

See A. Labahn & E. Ben Zvi, ‘Observations on Women in the Genalogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9’, Bib 84 (2003), 457–478 [= E. Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles, London 2006, 174–194]. 9 ‘. . . ergibt sich aus der Beobachtung, daß Frauen in der “Vorhalle” keine Rolle spielen. . . . Dies dürfte der realen Stellung der Frau in nachexilischer Zeit, besonders in kultischer Hinsicht, entsprechen’; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 209. 8

20

chapter one 1:43–50 1:51–54 2:1–2

36:31–39 36:4–43 35:22–2610

There are, however, two exceptions (1:32–33 and 2:1–2), the appearance of which can hardly be a coincidence, since these two passages refer to Abraham and Jacob. These two passages will be investigated in more detail. Moreover, attention is paid to the position of Reuben in 1 Chr 5:1–3. 1. Abraham With respect of Abraham, it should be emphasized that both 1 Chr 1:28 (‘The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael’) and 1:34a (‘Abraham begot Isaac’) have a special status, since these verses are the only two lines within the entire section of 1 Chr 1:1–2:2 that have no parallel in the Hebrew Bible (‘Sondergut’).11 Moreover, it strikes the eye that the verbal form ‫‘( ויולד‬he begot’) is the very first consecutive imperfect to be found in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1. It is a strong indication that something special is at hand here. There is additional literary evidence that Abraham is undoubtedly to be considered the Chronicler’s first and foremost focus in the opening chapter of the Book of Chronicles. Two sets of asyndetical sentences (1:1–4; 1:24–27), which by the way function as an inclusion, are so to say the life line of the first genealogical list. In a fast vertical lineage two sets of genealogies go from Adam (1:1) to Abraham (1:27), after whom the horizontal lineages are elaborated at length.12 Both these asyndetical sentences hold a remarkable feature, since the tenth name in it mentions a prominent hero: Noah in the first series (1:4), ‘Abram, that is, Abraham’ in the second one (1:27). That the Chronicler wanted to pay full attention to Abraham indeed is confirmed by the fourfold mention of Abraham’s name (1:27, 28, 32, 34). So doing, ‘Abraham’ is the most mentioned name within the opening section of 1 Chronicles. It cannot be a coincidence that precisely within this pas-

See Ex 1:2–4. The total amount of lines within 1 Chr 1:1–2:2 is fifty-six. 12 A vertical or linear genealogy follows a line of descent from one ancestor to a later descendant. A horizontal lineage, which is also called a segmented or lateral genealogy, traces two or more lines of descendent from a single ancestor. See G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12), New York 2004, 245–265 (‘Excursus: the Genealogies’) for a detailed explanation of the two types of genealogies. 10 11

adopting and adapting

21

sage, and nowhere else in this first section (1:1–2:2), the notion ‫תלדות‬ (1:29) is introduced too. Abraham’s genealogy has two more striking features. Only here, the Chronicler does not follow the order as found in Genesis 25 (see Chart). In 1 Chr 1:32–33, the pericope relating to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine (Gen 25:1–4), has changed place with the genealogy of Ishmael’s sons (Gen 25:13–16). This has to do with a standard procedure the Chronicler usually follows. Subsequent to a ‘horizontal lineage’, the name last mentioned in such a series is resumed first, to the effect that the first mentioned name is kept last and therefore gets most attention.13 In 1 Chr 1:29–31, therefore, the Chronicler first pays attention to the genealogy of Ishmael, who was mentioned at the end of 1 Chr 1:28 (‘The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael’). Then the reader would expect the Chronicler bringing Isaac to the fore. This, however, is not the case, since Keturah’s sons are mentioned first (1 Chr 1:32–33). This pericope, therefore, serves as delaying tactics: the climax of Abraham’s genealogy is postponed as long as possible. Then, finally, Isaac is brought to the fore (1:34a), in a way that—as could be expected—in a twofold manner deviates from the pattern used so far. First, it can be no accident that for the first time in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1 a verbal form—‫‘( ויולד‬he begot’)—is introduced here. Consequently, Isaac’s genealogy is unfolded, starting with Esau (1:34b–42), and ending with Israel (2:1–2). Second, these final lines that refer to Gen 25:1–26, get a special emphasis, since the standard procedure—first mentioned, described last—has been abandoned here, to the effect that from 1 Chr 2:1–2 onwards, Israel is in the spotlight (1 Chr 2:3–9:44). 2. Jacob/Israel 1 Chr 2:1–2 functions, on the one hand, as the conclusion of the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1 and, on the other hand, as the opening of specific attention to the people of Israel. The importance of the lines in 1 Chr 2:1–2 (‘These are the sons of Israel’), which are unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible, is that it brings us to the essence of the first series 13 1 Chr 1:4–17 offers a good example. The mention of the names ‘Shem, Ham, and Japheth’ (1:4) is specified by their genealogies in a reversed order: ‘The descendants of Japheth’ (1:5), ‘the descendants of Ham’ (1:8), ‘the descendants of Shem’ (1:17).

22

chapter one

of genealogies. The change of the traditional biblical name of ‘Jacob’ into ‘Israel’ adduces solid evidence that all the Chronicler bothered about is that the focus is not on individuals, but on nations of which Israel is the culmination. That ‘Israel’ indeed is the climax of the first series of genealogies (1:1–2:2), can also be demonstrated with the help of how the Chronicler has arranged the geographical data of his composition. In 1 Chr 1:1–2:2, the names of the ancestors, which in fact are the designations of different nations, have very systematically been woven into a studied pattern: 1. The nations listed in 1 Chr 1:5–27 have been positioned into a circle surrounding Israel: the descendants of Japheth in the north and in the west; the descendants of Ham in the south and the south-west, and the descendants of Shem in the south-east and the east. 2. The order of the names from 1 Chr 1:28 onwards reflects a rendering from a Jerusalemite point of view: the descendants of Ishmael on the northerly Sinai peninsula; the Keturah-group in the south-east; and the descendants of Esau/Edom further to the north till the plains of Moab. In this manner, the people of Israel build up both the climax and the centre of the first genealogical section of the Book of Chronicles (1:1–2:2). I therefore fully agree with Magnar Kartveit’s view that 1 Chronicles 1 ‘ist nicht nur Genealogie, sondern auch eine mappa mundi, vielleicht sogar ein Ausdruck einer imago mundi, wo Israel in der Mitte liegt. . . . Ist aber das Kapitel nicht von der Vorstellung beherrscht, dass Israel das Volk inmitten der Völker ist und in einem Land inmitten der Länder wohnt?’.14 In the remainder of the genealogies (2:3–9:44), the Chronicler in his own theological and ideological way will pay full attention to the ‘sons of Israel’. In this respect it can be no coincidence that precisely in 1 Chr 2:3 for the first time in the book the Tetragrammaton (‘YHWH’) is found. In the second section (2:3–4:23) of this large ‘genealogical hall’,15 it catches the eye that the Chronicler will hardly use genealogical mate14 M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConB, Old Testament Series 28), Stockholm 1989, 116. 15 The notion ‘genealogical hall’ is the translation of the German collocation ‘genealogische Vorhalle’, which is commonly attributed to Julius Wellhausen, beit always without any bibliographical reference. However, maybe Wilhelm Rothstein were the originator of this expression: ‘. . . die lange Reihe von genealogischen Listen usw. . . . habe ich als “Vorhalle”. . . bezeichnet’; W. Rothstein, Das erste Buch der Chronik (KAT XVIII/2, Lieferung 1), Leipzig 1927, 2.

adopting and adapting

23

rial from the Hebrew Bible. He only adopted such material as far as David is concerned, since it is of great importance, of course, that this ‘proto-typical’ king is firmly embedded in the ideological system of the book.16 3. Reuben At last, in 1 Chr 5:1–3 the author replies to the reader’s crucial question why it was Judah, whom as from 2:3 has been allotted the most prominent position, and not Reuben, the first-born.17 This small passage (5:1–3) has the shape of a sandwich-structured composition. It opens with the phrase ‘And the sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel . . .’ (5:1a), and is concluded with exactly the same words: ‘the sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel . . .’ (5:3a). The lines between these two identical collocations are almost unanimously considered one of the finest specimens of midrash in the Book of Chronicles.18 The line of the Chronicler’s thought takes up three stages: 1. Though in the Hebrew Bible Reuben is described as ‘first-born’ (Gen 35:23; 46:8; Ex 6:14; Num 1:20; 26:5–6), he nowhere appears to function as such. The cause for that is having lost his right of primogeniture, since he slept with Bilhah his father’s concubine (Gen 35:22). As a proper midrash requires, the explanation must rest on a text which has been taken from the Hebrew Bible. With respect of 1 Chr 5:1–3, the phrase ‫‘( ובחללו יצועי אביו‬because he defiled his father’s bed’) is adapted from Gen 49:4—‫כי עלית משכבי אביך אז חללת יצועי‬ ‫‘( עלה‬because you went up on to your father’s couch; then you defiled it—you went up on to my bed’). 2. With the help of this obvious reworking of Gen 49:4, the Chronicler goes one step further, claiming that the right of primogeniture 1 Chr 2:9–15//Ruth 4:8–12; 1 Chr 3:1–9//2 Sam 3:2–5; 5:5.14–16. M. Augustin, ‘Neue territorialgeschichtliche Aspekte zu 1 Chronik 1–9 am Beispiel der Rubeniten’, in: H.M. Niemann u.a. (Hrsg), Nachdenken über Israel (FS K.D. Schunck), BEATAJ 37, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 299–309; F.M. Cross, ‘Reuben, First-Born of Jacob’, ZAW 100 (1988) Supplement, 46–65; U. Schorn, Ruben und das System der zwölf Stämme Israels: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Ertsgeborenen Jakobs (BZAW 248), Berlin 1997. 18 To characterize the entire Book of Chronicles as being a ‘midrash’, to a high degree appears to depend on the word ‫מדרש‬, which is found twice in the book itself (2 Chr 13:22; 24:27). Since in these two texts it obviously has the meaning ‘account’, and not the later meaning ‘interpretation of Scripture’, it is complicating the discussion a lot. For an overview of this discussion, see Chapter seven: ‘Israel’s Earlier History as Presented in the Book of Chronicles’. 16 17

24

chapter one

has been transferred from Reuben to Joseph’s sons (5:1b), or to Joseph himself (5:2b), which is a statement, however, that is nowhere explicitly recorded in the Hebrew Bible. A lot of commentators like to refer to Gen 48:3–5, which in their view is the answer to the question: ‘And Jacob said to Joseph . . . “Therefore your two sons, who were born to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are”’. Joseph’s sons are adopted by Jacob as if they were his own sons. Hugh Williams, however, has succeeded to expose the view that Genesis 48 has anything to do with 1 Chr 5:1–3. A close reading of this passage first and foremost emphasizes that Reuben/the tribe of Reuben is not able to lay any claim to a special position among the sons of Israel/the tribes of Israel.19 According to the Chronicler, the right of the primogeniture has been transferred to Joseph and his sons. The pure biological fact, however, that Reuben in the Hebrew Bible is recorded the first-born cannot be denied. As a consequence, Joseph and his sons cannot formally function as first-born, which is precisely the purport of the phrase ‫( ולא להתיחש לבכרה‬5:1).20 Some commentators also refer to Deut 21:7, where it is said that the first born, the first issue of a man’s virility, has the right of the first-born, even if the father dislikes him in favour of another son. According to some scholars, there might be other texts too, such as Josh 17:14–18; Jer 31:9, and Ezek 47:13, which were in the Chronicler’s mind relating to Reuben in 1 Chr 5:1–3. In order to overcome the deadlock of whom in fact has been given the right of primogeniture, the Septuagint either by choice of by mistake (metathesis)21 in 5:1 has rendered ‫‘( בכרתו‬his birthright’) as εὐλογίαν αὐτοῦ, which is the equivalent of ‫‘( ברכתו‬his blessing’),22 and in 5:2 has ἡ εὐλογία, which is the equivalent of ‫הברכה‬, whereas the Masoretic text has ‫‘( הבכרה‬the birthright’). Contrary to quite a few H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977, 89–95. Though according to Hebrew grammar these words can only have a bearing on the sons of Joseph (thus e.g. Kimchi, and most of the modern Bible translations). The Septuagint, the Vulgate and a few modern Bible translations (TOB, NIV, RSV, NRSV), however, consider Reuben to be the subject of this phrase, the Targum on Chronicles the sons of Reuben. An overview of this question is offered by P.B. Dirksen, ‘1 Chronicles 5:1–2’, JNSL 25 (1999), 17–23. As to the special meaning of the verb ‫ יחש‬in the Book of Chronicles, see Chapter twelve. 21 See L.C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles. The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text: Part II: Textual Criticism (VTS 27), Leiden 1974, 107. 22 This reading is favoured by BHS. 19 20

adopting and adapting

25

scholars, there is no reason to change the Masoretic text.23 One can fully agree with P.J. Williams that we have to do here with an variant reading which has been ‘influenced by an overall reading of Genesis 48 and 49’ in its Greek version.24 3. In order to understand the purport of 1 Chr 5:2 in a proper way, it is recommended to share Dirksen’s view that this verse is best understood, if the particle ‫ כי‬at the opening of this line has concessive force: ‘It is true that Judah became prominent . . ., but the birthright was Joseph’s’.25 Though Reuben forfeited his right of first-born, which in the Chronicler’s point of view has been transferred to (the tribe of ) Joseph, a third party—Judah—in fact has been found to be the most powerful, especially since ‘a ruler (‫ )נגיד‬came from him’. This phrase undoubtedly refers to David, whom in 1 Chr 11:2b; 17:7b; 28:4a is specifically given that title. One should be aware, however, that in all these texts it is emphasized that it is not Judah’s merit, but God’s choice. The point of view as reflected in 1 Chr 5:1–2, which most probably is the Chronicler’s own design, is found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. Of course it is found in the Targum on Chronicles, the oldest text of which is handed down in codex Vat. Ebr. Urb. 1., which according to the colophon dates from 1294 B.C.26 In a translation of my own, the text of 1 Chr 5:1–2 according to this Targum runs as: (1) The sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel. It is true that he was the first-born, but since he had defiled his holiness, as he went up on to his father’s couch, the right of primogeniture was taken away from him and was given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel, so that the sons of Reuben were not registered as first-born. (2) Moreover, because Judah had the best of his brothers, the kingship was taken away from Reuben and was given to Judah, for he is a brave one, and kingship belongs to him. As to Levi, he was a pious man and his descendants did not commit sin on the occasion of the golden calf; the sovereign priesthood was taken away from Reuben’s sons too and 23 In favour of the Septuagint are, among others, G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT IV/3), Stuttgart 1930, 72–74; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 135; M. Augustin, ‘Neue territorialgeschichtliche Aspekte zu 1 Chronik 1–9 am Beispiel der Rubeniten’, in: H.M. Niemann u.a. (Hrsg), Nachdenken über Israel (FS K.D. Schunck), BEATAJ 37, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 300–302. 24 P.J. Williams, ‘The LXX of 1 Chronicles 5:1–2 as an exposition of Genesis 48–49’, TynBul 49 (1998) 369–371 (quotation 370). 25 Dirksen, ‘1 Chronicles 5:1–2’, 20. See also Th.C. Vriezen, ‘Einige Notizen zur Übersetzung des Bindewortes kî, in: W. Albright et al. (eds.), Von Ugarit nach Qumran (FS O. Eissfeldt), BZAW 77, Berlin 1958, 266–273. 26 R. Le Déaut – J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques I–II (AnBib 51), Rome 1951.

26

chapter one was given to Aaron and his sons; the supervision of the holy objects was commended tot the Levites and the right of primogeniture to Joseph.27

Curiously enough, a number of topics that appears in 1 Chr 5:1–2 are present in the Targum on Gen 49:3, as a kind of predated information. With small mutual differences the translation of this line in Targum Neofiti I and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan/Jerushalmi I runs as: Because you have sinned, Reuben, my son, the right of primogeniture has been granted to Joseph, my son, the kingship to Judah, and the sovereign priesthood to the tribe of Levi.28

It is not inconceivable that the Chronicler, having his own self-willed view of (the tribe of ) Joseph, wanted to emphasize that—in spite of the actual political situation of his days in Judah—none of the tribes of his ideal Israel should claim a privileged position. Putting Joseph and his sons explicitly on the scene, the Chronicler right from the start wanted to ascribe to Ephraim and Manasseh, i.e. the former Northern Kingdom, the same position as to the other tribes. It is therefore absolutely out of the question that the Chronicler should have had an anti-Samaritan bias, as he is accused of by quite a few scholars.29 In this analysis so far, only some marked instances in 1 Chronicles 1–5 were briefly touched on, in which passages from the Book of Genesis have been rewritten in order to serve a special purpose. Of course, it is impossible to offer an exhaustive overview. Would that be the case, 1 Chr 2:3–4, for example, should have been mentioned too, being a short recapitulation of Genesis 38. As Selah is the only son who kept alive, the most obvious way, therefore, would have been that the genealogy of Selah were the start of the section, which, however, is not.30 Selah and his descendants are mentioned not until 1 Chr 4:21–23, which is the conclusion of Judah’s genealogy. What could be the reason for that? In fact, the answer is offered by the structure of 1 Chr 2:3–4:23. For what the Chronicler needed was not the genealogy of Selah, but the 27 Translation according to the Aramaic text in Le Déaut—Robert, Targum des Chroniques II, 21. 28 The italicized words are not found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. See also Targum Neofiti I and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut 33:17, where the primogeniture, kingship, glory, and splendour are attributed to Joseph. 29 As to the ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’, see B. Grossfeld, ‘Reuben’s Deed (Genesis 35:22) in Jewish Exegesis: What Happened There?’, in: I. Kalimi & P.J. Haas (eds.), Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity, New York 2006, 44–51. 30 The reader will not be surprised that there is no mention of Onan’s deed (Gen 38:8–10).

adopting and adapting

27

other lineage of Judah through Tamar that finally leads to Jesse, the father of David (2:12). In this way the author not only puts David in the centre of this section, but also in the centre of attention: 2:3–55 The genealogy of Judah (Part 1) 3:1–24 The dynasty of David 4:1–23 The genealogy of Judah (Part 2)

Since this presentation of David is far from the chronological order, it is solid proof that the Chronicler at all costs will present him as his favourite hero. Special Examples of Rewritten Texts: Genesis 22–23 It would be a fallacy, of course, to suppose that rewritten passages from the Book of Genesis could only be found in the first five chapters of the Book of Chronicles. Two small examples out of a large number might suffice to illustrate this point. It is no coincidence that in both occurrences the future Temple is involved. 1. A remarkable reference to a specific passage in the Book of Genesis is found in 1 Chr 21:22–24, when David meets Ornan at his threshing-floor.31 Let us start reading in v. 18, where a new pattern of communication shows up, since it is the angel of YHWH whom is given the task of instructing the prophet Gad, who in his part has to deliver the message to David that he should erect an altar to YHWH on the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite (v. 18). With the phrase ‘David went up following Gad’s instructions, which he had spoken in YHWH’s name’ (v. 19), the author creates the opportunity meanwhile to inform his readers what is enacting on the threshing-floor: ‘Ornan turned and saw the angel’ (v. 20a). The lapidary phrase ‘Ornan continued to thresh wheat’ (v. 20b) is not as harmless as it looks, because it calls to mind the story of Gideon in Judg. 6:11, which is part of a hieros logos too. The collocation ‘at its full price’ ( ‫ )בכסף מלא‬in 1 Chr 21:22, 24—which is found only one more time in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 23:9)—refers to a holy site too. It is the story that Abraham buys the cave of Machpela to bury his wife Sarah. There are at least two strong indications that the Chronicler alludes to this specific passage in Genesis. First, the collocation ‫‘( בכסף מלא‬at its full price’) in 1 Chr 31

For an analysis of 1 Chronicles 21, see Chapter three.

28

chapter one

21:22. 24 does not occur in the parallel narrative (2 Sam 24:22–24), which undoubtedly was at the Chronicler’s disposal, as can be shown in a synoptic overview of both narratives. Second, it strikes the eye that in 1 Chronicles 21 there is a remarkable condensation of the verb ‫‘( נתן‬to give’),32 which is also frequently used in Genesis 23 (vv. 4, 9 [2 x], 11 [2 x], 13), whereas in the Chronicler’s source text (1 Samuel 24) the verb is found only once (v. 23). It is very likely, therefore, that the Chronicler adopted this feature from Genesis 23. This should be considered not a coincidence, but a deliberate action by the Chronicler having put these two narratives in a close combination.33 It is quite striking too that the Chronicler makes David pay six hundred shekels of gold, whereas Abraham paid four hundred shekels of silver. According to the Mediaeval Jewish exegete Rashi, David had to pay more than Abraham did, since it was the site of the future Temple. In fact, so Rashi, ‘David paid fifty shekels of gold for each tribe of Israel’. 2. At the very moment the Chronicler reports that Solomon began to build the house of YHWH in Jerusalem (2 Chr 3:1), the author interweaves both a number of cultic sites and a number of persons which are crucial to Israel’s tradition. Here a cluster of the highest importance is found. The site on which Solomon began to build the house of YHWH in Jerusalem is identified with (1) ‘Mount Moriah’, which is typified as (2) the site ‘where He [YHWH] had appeared to his father David’, which is equated with (3) ‘the place that David had designated, the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite’. In the Hebrew Bible, the designation ‘Moriah’ is found only one more time, viz. in the narrative of ‘the binding of Isaac’ (Gen 22:2). Anyway, in that verse ‘Moriah’ is not accompanied by the notion ‘mount’, but is part of the collocation ‘the land of Moriah’. Since this collocation is immediately followed by the designation ‘on one of the mountains’ (Gen 22:2) and the site of Isaac’s binding is at the end of the narrative typified as ‘the mount of YHWH’ (Gen 22:14), one can understand of how the Chronicler has reassembled all these designations into a new one: ‘Mount Moriah’.

Chr 21:22a. 22b. 23b (2 x). 25a. See Y. Zakovitch, ‘Assimilation in Biblical Narratives’, in: J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia 1985, 176–196, esp. 181. 32 33

adopting and adapting

29

Within Israel’s tradition, the Chronicler is the first author who has identified the Temple Mount with the site of Moriah of Gen 22:2. And what is more, he has created a further intriguing identification, since he explicitly linked up the site of the Temple and the threshing-floor of Ornan, which not only is the site that is amply paid attention to in 1 Chr 21:15–22:1, but moreover is attached much importance, since it is said that it is the site ‘where He [YHWH] has appeared to his father David’. So doing, the Chronicler once and for ever has not only linked up the site of the Jerusalem Temple with Solomon, but likewise with David, and even with Abraham. Three crucial cultic sites have inextricably been bound up.

CHAPTER TWO

NATHAN’S ORACLE AND DAVID’S PRAYER IN 1 CHRONICLES 171 In a monograph dealing with the Book of Chronicles, Brian Kelly says: ‘Most recently, it has been argued that the Chronicler understood the Davidic kingship to be transmuted into and in some sense exercised through the temple’.2 He is explicitly referring here to the publications of Rex Mason and the late William Riley. The former suggests ‘. . . that the Chronicler’s main interest was not so much the Davidic dynasty in itself, but the temple, for the sake of which the dynasty was called into being and in which it found its fulfilment’.3 And Riley states: The Chronicler’s interest in the Davidic dynasty can therefore be seen as more concerned with the role of the dynasty in relation to the Temple than with the dynasty’s unending rule over Israel . . . For the Chronicler, the centre of the covenant with David is not formed by the dynastic promise, but by the task of temple-building, and the fulfilment of the covenant is to be sought in the completed Temple rather than in an unending Davidic rule.4

In fact, however, both Mason and Riley are elaborating upon some observations which were already published in nuce three decades ago by A. Caquot.5

1 This Chapter is a modified version of a contribution that was first published as ‘Transformations of Space and Time. Nathan’s Oracle and David’s Prayer in 1 Chronicles 17’, in: A. Houtman, M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz (eds.), Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity ( Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, Vol. I), Leiden 1998, 27–44. 2 B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 211), Sheffield 1996, 158. 3 R. Mason, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990, 32. 4 W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles. Worship and the Reinterpretation of History ( JSOTSS 160) Sheffield 1993, 75. 5 A. Caquot, ‘Peut-on parler de messianisme dans l’oevre du Chroniste?’, RTP 16 (1966), 110–120.

32

chapter two Text and Context

At first glance, one might think that the author of 1 Chronicles 17 adopted the text of his Vorlage (2 Samuel 7) without substantial alterations. Initial appearances, however, are deceptive.6 The omissions and changes which the Chronicler on several points has introduced into his composition create a complete new text with its own dynamics and meaning.7 However, before starting an analysis of 1 Chronicles 17, attention must be paid to its context, as this narative should, of course, not be studied in splendid isolation. Thus, the Chronicler appears to have repeatedly woven thematic strings, or even incorporated complete semantic networks, throughout his book. Investigating a pericope too restrictedly could unwittingly obscure or even sever such thematic or theological strings. Therefore, it is necessary now to pay some attention to the context of 1 Chronicles 17 in comparison with the structure of its parent text, 2 Samuel 5–8. 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr 1 Chr — 1 Chr 1 Chr

13 14 15:1–24 15:25–16:3 16:4–6 16:7–22 16:23–33 16:34–36 16:37–42 16:43 17 18

2 Sam 2 Sam — 2 Sam — — — — — 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam

6:1–11 5:1–25 6:2–19a

6:19b–20a 6:20b–23 7 8

6 It is rather strange that L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 ( JSOTSS 164) Sheffield 1994, 88–102 (‘Biblical Echoes of 2 Samuel 7’), does not even mention 1 Chronicles 17. 7 An almost complete survey of all textual differences between 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 is to be found in: R. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14) Waco 1986, 196–197; H. Van den Bussche, ‘Le texte de la prophétie de Nathan sur la dynastie davidique (II Sam VII–I Chr XVII)’, ETL 24 (1948) 354–394. The latter takes the rather unusual position that the Masoretic text of 2 Samuel 7 has been corrected on the principle that 1 Chronicles 17 is the more authentic Hebrew text.

nathan’s oracle and david’s prayer in 1 chronicles 17

33

In 2 Sam 6:1–11, the unsuccessful transfer of the Ark is recorded. Within the context of 2 Samuel, this episode is immediately followed by a narrative dealing with the successful transfer (2 Sam 6:12–20). The Chronicler, however, has separated these two episodes. In 1 Chr 13:1–14, he describes the unsuccessful transfer. Then, in 1 Chronicles 14, he links together a number of episodes that in 2 Samuel appear prior to the report of the unsuccessful transfer of the Ark (2 Sam 5:11–25). Strikingly, these narratives have been compressed into a period of ‘three months’ (1 Chr 13:14). This brief time frame not only limits the possibility of two campaigns against the Philistines (1 Chr 14:8–12; 14:13–16), but is also insufficient to produce the large familily which the Chronicler attribute to David. It is likely, therefore, that the insertion of 1 Chronicles 14 at this particular point was done for a specific purpose. A clue appears in the opening line of Chapter 14. Thus, it is rather intriguing that at the very start (1 Chr 14:1) of this ‘inserted’ text, the wording ‫לבנות לו בית‬ (‘to build him a house’) is used, a phrase which reappears in 1 Chr 17:25 (and 2 Chr 36:23). Every single pericope in 1 Chronicles 14 serves as proof that it is not David who is to blame for the unsuccessful transfer of the Ark. One should be aware that in the Chronicler’s composition, a number of ‘markers’ have been explicitly put into 1 Chronicles 13–15 to emphasize this point of view. Thus, in the first campaign against the Philistines (1 Chr 14:8–12), the Chronicler uses the verb ‫‘( פרץ‬to break through’; 14:11) which also played an important role in the report of the unsuccessful transfer of the Ark (13:11). The same verb will recur in 1 Chr 15:13 where it occurs in combination with the verb ‫‘( דרש‬to seek’), which is one of the Chronicler’s most favorite and crucial motifs.8 It can hardly be a coincidence that precisely this verb played such an important role in the narrative reporting David’s second campaign against the Philistines (1 Chr 14:13–16).9 Once the Chronicler with the help of 1 Chronicles 14 has stated that David in no way is to blame for the failure of bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, he begins his report of the successful transfer of the Ark (1 Chr 15:1–16:43). This is described not only in much more detail 1 Chr 10:13–14 is to be considered a key passage. See C. Begg, ‘ “Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982), 128–141. 9 R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92) Freiburg 1973, 55–84, esp. 55–61. 8

34

chapter two

than the parallel description in 2 Samuel 6, but has also included with extra material. Thus, no less than three psalms have been inserted (1 Chr 16:7–36)10 and a number of liturgical prescriptions are expressly mentioned as well (1 Chr 16:37–42). None of them are to be found in the parallel account in 2 Samuel. From 1 Chr 16:43 onwards, the narrative keeps pace with 2 Samuel 6, albeit that the negative scene between Michal and David as reported in 2 Sam 6:20–23 is completely absent in the Chronicler’s presentation. Only the positive opening of 2 Sam 6:20a ( ‫וישב דור‬ ‫‘ ;לברך את־ביתו‬And David returned to bless his house’)11 has been adopted into 1 Chr 16:43b, although with a small alteration (‫)ויםב‬. It should be stressed that (1) the theme of ‘blessing the house of David’ will again be a crucial item at the conclusion of 1 Chronicles 17, and (2) that one should pay attention to the fact that the formula ‘to bless his house’ in its new context (1 Chr 16:43) not only functions as the conclusion of the Chronicler’s Ark-narrative, but at the same time lays also the groundwork for the theme of 1 Chronicles 17. It must be considered, therefore, a crucial link between these two narratives. Whereas in the study of the Book of Chronicles it is always important to be fully cognizant of the need to consider a synoptic comparison with the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings as far as the context is concerned, it is necessary to proceed with caution when the texts themselves are discussed. For differences between the Masoretic text of 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 are not intrinsically related to the Chronicler’s intervention. Hebrew fragments of the Book of Samuel found at Qumran have made it absolutely clear that text traditions are much more complex than has been assumed for a long time.12 Thus, it is crucial to be awake of it, that the Hebrew text of Chronicles bears a great resemblance to these Hebrew fragments of Samuel from Qumran, and that both texts are also closer to the Septuagint version of Samuel

10 1 Chr 16:8–22 = Ps 105:1–15; 1 Chr 16:23–33 = Ps 96:1–13; 1 Chr 16:34–36 = Ps 106:1. 35–36. 11 Translating these words as ‘David returned to greet his household’ (NEB; REB) of course can be considered an adequate equivalent of the Hebrew words. At the same time, however, such a translation blurs the vital and crucial semantic motif ‫‘( בדך‬to bless’) which plays such an importan role within the entire context. 12 See for example A. van der Kooij, ‘De tekst van Samuel en het tekstkritisch onderzoek’, NTT 36 (1982) 177–204; W.E. Lemke, ‘The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History’, HTR 58 (1965) 349–363.

nathan’s oracle and david’s prayer in 1 chronicles 17

35

and Kings.13 One therefore should always try to determine whether a textual variant originates from a different Vorlage or could be the result of theological considerations by the Chronicler. The Introduction to Nathan’s Oracle14 Drawing up an inventory of the main theological (or ideological) differences between 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, it strikes one that they are to be found both at the opening (v. 1) and at the end (vv. 13–14) of Nathan’s Oracle, and at the conclusion of David’s prayer (vv. 24–27). What do they contribute to the message of 1 Chronicles 17? A brief discussion of these differences follows. a) ‫‘( נוח‬to rest’) Reading 1 Chr 17 in a direct synoptic connection with 2 Sam 7:1, a complete line is missing in the Chronicler’s version: ‘and YHWH had given him rest from all his enemies round about’ (‫ויהוה הניח־לו מםביב‬ ‫)מכל־איביו‬. This suppression is caused by the fact that the verb ‘to rest’ and the noun ‘rest’ are treated by the Chronicler as one of his very special motifs. This is proven beyond any doubt somewhat further in the Book of Chronicles, when the author makes David recapitulate Nathan’s Oracle in front of Solomon, whom is called to him in a private audience (1 Chr 22:6–13). It must be kept in mind that this pericope belongs to the so-called Chronistisches Sondergut. The thematic issue that ‘YHWH had given him rest . . .’, which is missing in 1 Chr 17:1, will explicitly function within 1 Chronicles 22, where it has been included in a very important context: He sent for Solomon his son and charged him with building a house for YHWH, the God of Israel. “Solomon, my son”, he said, “it was my

13 See the comment of J.M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB 12) New York 1965, 130: ‘. . . Qumran evidence renders it imperative to take into account the fact that Chronicles reflects a somewhat different Vorlage (archetype) than MT and conforms more closely to the Samuel MSS found at Qumran which are more Septuagintal in character . . . Care must be taken not to attribute variants to the deliberate purpose of the Chronicler, who may simply have been following a different text, which may be attested by LXX of Samuel or the Qumran MSS, especially 4QSama . . .’. 14 See also W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period ( JSOTSS 197) Sheffield 1995, 143–160.

36

chapter two intention to build a house for the name of YHWH my God; but YHWH forbade me and said: “You have shed much blood in my sight and waged great wars; for this reason you are not to build a house for my name. But you will have a son who will be a man of rest; I shall give him rest from all his enemies on every side; his name will be Solomon, and I shall grant peace and quiet to Israel in his days. It is he who will build a house for my name; he will be my son and I shall be a father to him, and I shall establish his royal throne over Israel for ever” (1 Chr 22:6–10).15

Here one finds the reason why the theological motif ‘to rest’ is so notably absent in 1 Chr 17:1. For throughout the Book of Chronicles, this motif is explicitly connected with Solomon. That this is a conscious strategy indeed is confirmed by another passage that has directly to do with 1 Chronicles 17. This time it is not a private audience by Solomon at his father David’s court, but an official meeting of all possible functionaries and the people of Jerusalem during which David again summarizes Nathan’s Oracle. This narrative is to be found in 1 Chronicles 28, which is Chronistisches Sondergut as well. Here the ‫נוח‬motif is given a further dimension: King David stood up and addressed them: Hear me, my kinsmen and my people. I had it in mind to build a house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH which might serve as a footstool for our God, and I made preparations to build it (1 Chr 28:2).16

That the Chronicler has taken great pains over the ‘rest’-motif ,17 and has consistently carried it through, is not only obvious by its special appearance in 1 Chronicles 22, and 28, but also by the way in which the author of the Book of Chronicles has modified the text of his Vorlage: ‫והניחתי לך מכל־איביך‬ I shall give you peace from all your enemies (2 Sam 7:11)

Translation according to REB with occasional revision. In the next line (1 Chr 28:3), these words are also followed by a mentioning of ‫‘( איש מלחמות‬a man of wars’), which is an important theme of 1 Chr 22:8. 17 In the book of Chronicles the verb ‫‘( נוח‬to rest’) is only used in Chronistisches Sondergut. An extensive analysis of the ‘rest’-motif is found in R. Braun, ‘Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles’, JBL 95 (1976) 581–590, esp. 582–586. 15 16

nathan’s oracle and david’s prayer in 1 chronicles 17

37

‫והכנﬠתי את־כל־אויביך‬ I shall subdue all your enemies (1 Chr 17:11)

It is not David, but Solomon whom has to be connected with the important theological concept of ‘rest’. In order not to complicate matters, we shall not discuss here whether or not the Chronicler developed this line of thought from 1 Kgs 5:18 (REB 5:4): ‫וﬠתה הניח יהוה אלהי לי מםביב שטן ואין פגﬠ רﬠ‬ (But now on every side the Lord my God has given me rest; there is no one to oppose me, I fear no attack).

It is remarkable, anyhow, that just this sentence has been left out in 2 Chr 2:2, the instance to be considered the parallel of 1 Kgs 5:18. By explicitely linking up the ‘rest-motif ’ with 1 Chronicles 22, and 1 Chronicles 28, being literary creations of his own, the Chronicler has marked this theological motif as a very special one: only a situation of rest which has been realized by God can provide all conditions necessary to start building the Temple.18 b) ‫בנה בית‬/‫‘( בנה הבית‬to build a/the house’) The Hebrew text of 1 Chr 17:4b is not only different from the wording of 2 Sam 7:5b, since the rhetorical question of the Vorlage has been changed into an apodictic statement, but also because the noun ‫בית‬ has a definite article. Both changes have important consequences with regard to the structure and the coherence of 1 Chronicles 17. (1) Since 1 Chr 17:4b is no longer presented as a rhetorical question, but has been remoulded into an apodictic statement: ‫לא אתה תבנה־לי‬ ‫‘( הבית‬it is not you who will build the house for me’), a more explicit link has been created between this statement and the communication of 1 Chr 17:10b: ‫‘( ובית יבנהלך יהוה‬YHWH will build a house for you’). In order to emphasize this link between 1 Chr 17:4b and 17:10b 18 Another important theological motif which places emphasis on Solomon is the verb ‫‘( בחר‬to choose’). See V. Peterca, ‘Die Verwendung des Verbs BÆR für Salomo in den Büchern der Chronik’, BZ 29 (1985) 94–96. Peterca’s view that 1 Chr 28:5b–10 should be considered a Chronistic revision of 2 Sam 7:12–13, by which the verb ‫בחר‬ brings about a ‘midraschartige Betrachtung’, in my opinion is robbing the Chronicler. For a question that in this connection is not answered by Peterca is why the verb ‫בחר‬ (‘to choose’) in that case should not occur in such a key text as 1 Chronicles 17. See also R. Braun, ‘Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder’, 588–590.

38

chapter two

the verbal form ‫יﬠשה‬, which is found in the Vorlage (2 Sam 7:11b), has been changed19 into 1) ‫ יבנה‬Chr 17:10b).20 It is important to notice that by this slight verbal alteration, not only a perfectly chiastic structure between 1 Chr 17:4b and 17:10b has been created, but at the same time a more solid coherence between 1 Chr 17:4b (‘It is not you who are to build me the house’) and 1 Chr 17:12b (‘It is he who will build me a house’) has been introduced too. (2) The other difference between 1 Chr 17:4b and 2 Sam 7:5b mentioned above refers to the definite article of ‫בית‬. The fact that the text in 2 Samuel has an indefinite noun (‘a house’), whereas in 1 Chr 17:4b it is accompanied with the definite article,21 means that for the Chronicler it is not the construction of the Temple as such that is under discussion, but only that it will not be David who is the one to realize this project. In a way, the definite article (‘the house’) in 1 Chr 17:4b could even be considered to have a proleptic function: foreshadowing 1 Chronicles 22–27, being the most extensive section of Chronistisches Sondergut within the entire Book of Chronicles. In these chapters David will undertake all possible preliminary steps for building the Temple.22 The End of Nathan’s Oracle In 1 Chr 17:13–14 the reader meets a series of very substantial alterations with regard to 2 Samuel 7. The most striking transformation is undeniably to be found in 1 Chr 17:14, which in respect of 2 Sam 7:16 is different in at least three major cases: ‫ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך ﬠד־ﬠולם לפניך כםאיך יהיה נכון ﬠד־ﬠולם‬ Your house and your kingdom will be established for ever in your sight; your throne will endure for all time (2 Sam 7:16).

This important alteration, however, has not been listed by Braun, I Chronicles, 197. The explanation by S. Japhet relating to this verbal alteration, that the wording ‫ ﬠשה בית‬is to be considered a special idiom ‘denoting the establishing of family and progeny’ is untenable in light of 1 Chr 15:1 (‫ ;)ויﬠש־לו בתים‬S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL) London 1993, 333. 21 This distinction has not been noticed by Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 333. 22 Without going further into the scholarly debate relating to the final two verses of 2 Chronicles 36, attention must be paid to the wording of the final verse of the book (2 Chr 36,23a). It refers to God’s order to Cyrus ‘to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah’. Here too, it is God who takes the initiative. 19 20

nathan’s oracle and david’s prayer in 1 chronicles 17

39

‫והﬠמדתיהו בביתי ובמלכותי ﬠד־הﬠולם וכםאו יהיה נכון ﬠד־ﬠולם‬ I shall give him a sure place in my house and kingdom for ever; and his throne will endure for all time (1 Chr 17:14).

Whereas God’s promise in 2 Samuel 7:16 in all aspects refers to David, in 1 Chr 17:14 this has been radically changed. Thus, 1 Chr 17:14b does not use the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’), which in 2 Sam 7:16a refers to the stability of the Davidic dynasty. By introducing the verb ‫ﬠמד‬ (‘to give place’) instead of ‫אמן‬, 1 Chr 17:14b has been transformed radically. The verb ‫ ﬠמד‬hiph‘il, accompanied by a preposition, indicates the appointment of an official to his new position.23 In fact Solomon is successively described by the Chronicler as a Temple official and a governor. In 1 Chr 17:14a, therefore, the issue at stake is no longer ‘your house’, the house of David as the royal dynasty, or ‘your kingdom’, the kingdom of David. By changing possessive suffixes, the Chronicler’s text is emphasizing ‘My house’, i.e. God’s house as the Temple, and ‘My kingdom’, i.e. the kingdom of God. Only the final element, ‘throne’, is applied to Solomon. Later on in his book, in 1 Chr 28:5, when the Chronicler makes David recall this final line from Nathan’s Oracle, it becomes clear beyond doubt that the author has entirely incorporated this theological concept into David’s address to Solomon in the presence of a hugh crowd of Jerusalem functionaries: ‘Out of all my sons—for YHWH gave me many sons—he has chosen Solomon to sit on the throne of YHWH’s kingdom over Israel’.24 It is beyond any doubt that this specific theological concept is the reason why the Chronicler in 1 Chr 17:1–3 has suppressed the word ‫‘( המלך‬the king’) from his Vorlage and replaced it by ‘David’. It is a small, but functional alteration which has escaped the attention of commentators so far. It cannot be coincidence, however, that in 2 Sam 7:1–3, the phrase ‘the king’ has consistently been used, whereas the text of 1 Chr 17:1ff. systematically refrains from using it. On the other hand, the Chronicler’s text has preserved the title ‫‘( הנביא‬the prophet’) for Nathan. Isaac Kalimi, who has published a very extensive monograph dealing with textual differences between the Book of Chronicles and

23 24

THAT II, 330; see BDB, 764: ‘station, set for duty’. This notion is also found in 1 Chr 29:23 (TM; not in LXX); 2 Chr 9:8; 13:8.

40

chapter two

Samuel-Kings, is of the opinion that in 1 Chr 17:1–2 the name of ‘David’ is used on purpose instead of the functional designation ‘the king’ to create an atmosphere of private conversation.25 Although this view should not immediately be rejected, I feel confident that since the ‘kingdom of YHWH’ is a dominant theological issue of 1–2 Chronicles, a more formal reason can be adduced for the alteration of ‘the king’ into ‘David’. This scenario is more likely since one can ascertain that elsewehere in his book, the Chronicler uses the formula ‘David, the King’ several times, and most of these usages are to be found in Chronistisches Sondergut.26 Since the noun ‘the king’ is not found in 1 Chr 17:1ff., this suppression should be considered, therefore, to have a special function. The same theological background makes it clear why regarding Solomon 1 Chr 17:12, reference is made to ‘his throne’, whereas 2 Sam 7:13 uses ‘the throne of his kingdom’.27 Let us now return to the conclusion of Nathan’s Oracle. The wording ‘my house’ (1 Chr 17:14) compels the reader to at least consider the possibility of whether the noun ‘house’ in 1 Chr 17:10b (‘I have declared to you that YHWH will build you a house’)28 could mean ‘temple’ instead of ‘dynasty’.29 But even in addition to this point of view, the special wording of 1 Chr 17:14 proves that within the setting of 1 Chronicles, the promise to David is almost exclusively focused on Solomon as the builder of the Temple. This could also be one of the reasons, or maybe even the reason, why only the positive elements from 2 Sam 7:14–15a have been transferred to 1 Chr 17:13. For in the Chronicler’s version, a rather remarkable phrase is missing: ‘When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men’ (2 Sam 7:14b; RSV).

25 I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographischeA bweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226) Berlin 1995, 159–160. 26 1 Chr 21:24; 26:26.32; 27:31; 28:2; 29:1.9; 2 Chr 7:6. Only in 1 Chr 18:10.11; 2 Chr 2:12; 23:9 this formula has been adopted from the Vorlage. 27 The Greek text of 2 Sam 7:13, however, reads: τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ (‘his throne’). 28 1 Chr 17:8–10 should be rendered in the perfect tense. Cfr. Mosis, Untersuchungen, 82–87; S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI) Grand Rapids 1989, 154; J. Becker, 1 Chronik (NEB, Lfg 18) Würzburg 1986, 76; O. Loretz, ‘The perfectum copulativum in 2 Sm 7:9–11’, CBQ 23 (1961) 294–296. 29 Cfr. Riley, King and Cultus, 183: ‘There is perhaps a fuller connection between Temple and security in Nathan’s oracle if the possibility is entertained that the Chronicler saw ‫ בית‬in 1 Chr 17:10 to pertain to the Temple even more than to the dynasty’.

nathan’s oracle and david’s prayer in 1 chronicles 17

41

Within the context of 2 Samuel 7 this phrase reflects an unconditional promise to the Davidic dynasty; God promises that He will call to order every king who commits iniquity. The Chronicler has dropped this negative phrase since all his narratives on David and Solomon deal with a conditional promise relating to the royal dynasty:30 Now, my son, may YHWH be with you! May you prosper and build the house of YHWH your God as he promised you would. May YHWH grant you insight and understanding, so that when he gives you authority in Israel you may keep the law of YHWH your God. You will prosper only if you are careful to observe the decrees and ordinances which YHWH enjoined upon Moses for Israel; be strong and resolute, neither faint-hearted nor dismayed. (1 Chr 22:11–13) And you, Solomon, my son, acknowledge your father’s God and serve him with whole heart and willing mind, for YHWH searches all hearts and discerns whatever plan may be devised. If you search for him, he will let you find him, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever. (1 Chr 28:9) If you, for your part, live in my sight as your father David lived, doing all I command you, and observe my statutes and my judgements, then I shall establish the throne of your kingdom, as I promised by a covenant granted to your father David when I said, “You will never want for a man to rule Israel”. (2 Chr. 7:17–18)

I fully agree with H.Williamson that the Chronicler’s focusing of Nathan’s oracle upon Solomon made the inclusion of 2 Sam 7:14b quite irrelevant: In the Samuel text, it refers to the whole future line of Davidic kings, to many of whom the saying could have applied, whereas for Solomon in the Chronicler’s scheme it could have no application whatever. Either he was going to obey, in which case the dynasty would be established, or he would fail, and his house with him; the possibility was not foreseen that he would fail personally, but the dynasty nevertheless endure.31

It is intriguing to see that during the period in which Solomon will build the Temple he, in any case, will be safe from negative influences:

The next three quotations are from REB; italics mine. H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles’, in: A. Rofé (ed.), Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, Vol. III Non-Hebrew-Section (Seeligman Anniversary Volume) Jerusalem 1983, 305–318 (quotation 318). A less detailed version of this article has been published as part of H.G.M. Williamson, ‘Eschatology in Chronicles’, TynBul 28 (1977) 115–154 (quotation 142). 30 31

42

chapter two Be steadfast and resolute and carry it out; be neither faint-hearted nor dismayed, for YHWH God, my God, will be with you; he will neither fail you nor forsake you, until you have finished all the work needed for the service of the house of YHWH (1 Chr 28:20).

It is inconceivable why commentators systematically pass this aspect. Since, on the one hand, Solomon in the Chronicler’s presentation is heavily idealized and, on the other hand, he is the choosen Templebuilder, the insertion of the negative phrase from 2 Sam 7:14b into the Chronicler’s version of Nathan’s Oracle would have run counter to the Chronicler’s general picture of Solomon and would have nullified the special aspects of the conditional dynastic promise. David’s Prayer and Blessing If the interpretation of 1 Chr 17:1–15 presented so far is plausible, that there is no question of an unconditional promise of a Davidic dynasty, but rather of a conditional promise which is almost exclusively concentrated in Solomon as the Temple builder, then the prayer of David as reflected in 1 Chr 17:16–27 needs to be carefully studied and compared with its parallel text (2 Sam 7:18–29). Such an investigation is not so much needed because of the textual differences—they have expertly been listed by Braun32—but because of the function that David’s prayer is now performing in light of the oracle in which Solomon has been designated to build the Temple. As should be clear, nowhere in David’s prayer (1 Chr 17:16–27) is there to be found a single reference to Solomon, as was the case in the first part of 1 Chronicles 17. In this way the Chronicler is able to emphasize his ‘David-programme’ in the second part of 1 Chronicles 17.33 That a ‘David-programme’ has actually been woven into the Chronicler’s version of David’s prayer is proved by the application of the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’). While this verb in 2 Sam 7:16a plays an important role with respect to the Davidic dynasty, in 1 Chr 17:14—where only Solomon is explicitly meant—this verb is absent and its place Braun, 1 Chronicles, 196–197. Therefore one will be rather surprised that Williamson, who explicitly wants to emphasize that 1 Chronicles 17 preserves God’s promise with respect of the Davidic dynasty, nowhere refers to David’s prayer as such in his important article on this subject. His only reference to it is a footnote: ‘It should be noted that David’s prayer is apparently adopted by the Chronicler without any significant or tendentious alteration’; Williamson, The Dynastic Oracle’, 310 n. 14; italics mine. 32 33

nathan’s oracle and david’s prayer in 1 chronicles 17

43

taken by the hiph‘il of ‫ﬠמד‬. It is remarkable then, and it can hardly be coincidence, that the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) suddenly appears in 1 Chr 17:23 and 17:24, resulting in wordings with a completely new theological bent with regard to the parallel texts of 2 Samuel 7: ‫הדבר אשר דברת ﬠל־ﬠבדך וﬠל־ביתו הקם ﬠד־ﬠולם‬ Perform for all time what you have promised for your servant and his house (2 Sam 7:25)

‫הדבר אשר דברת ﬠל־ﬠבדך וﬠל־ביתו יאמן ﬠד־ﬠולם‬ Let what you have promised for your servant and his house stand fast for all time (1 Chr 27:23)

‫ויגדל שמך ﬠד־ﬠולם‬ May your name be great for ever (2 Sam 7:26)

‫ויאמן ויגדל שמך ﬠד־ﬠולם‬ Let it stand fast, that you name may be great for ever (1 Chr 17:24)

The verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) has been removed by the Chronicler from its parent text (2 Sam 7:16a), in which it refers to the Davidic dynasty. The verb has been transferred to other motifs from the same parent text that exclusively deals with YHWH. In this new context, the verb ‫אמן‬ (‘to establish’) relates to God’s word and name. It is no longer David and his dynasty that are in the centre of the Chronicler’s attention, but YHWH Himself. This pattern is also seen in 2 Chr 1:9 and 6:17, where the Chronicler diverts from its parent texts with the help of the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’).34 For more than one reason, the final line of David’s prayer is particularly fascinating: ‫וﬠתה הואל וברך את־בית ﬠבדך להיות לﬠולם לפניך‬ Be pleased now to bless your servant’s house so that it may continue before you for ever (2 Sam 7:29a)

‫וﬠתה הואלת לברך את־בית ﬠבדך להיות לﬠולם לפניך‬ Now it has pleased you to bless your servant’s house so that it may continue before you for ever (1 Chr 17:27a)

34 The only text within the entire Book of Chronicles where YHWH is not the subject or agent of ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) is to be found in 2 Chr 20:20, which is a transformation of a quotation from Isa 7:9. See Chapter four.

44

chapter two ‫כי־אתה אדני יהוה דברת ומברכתך יברך בית־ﬠבדך לﬠולם‬ For you, Lord YHWH, have spoken, and may your blessing rest on your servant’s house for ever (2 Sam 7:29b)

‫כי־אתה יהוה ברכת ברכת ומברך לﬠולם‬ For you, YHWH, have blessed and will be blessed for ever (1 Chr 17:27b)

1 Chr 17:27 brings to light a much more permanent situation as is the case in 2 Sam 7:29. Whereas this latter verse has been modelled as a supplication for blessing in the future, should 1 Chr 17:27 be characterized as a panegyric establishing that God’s blessing on the House of David has already been realized. As a result, the second half of 1 Chr 17:27 is significantly different than its parent text. Whereas the final line of 2 Sam 7:29b refers to the Davidic dynasty, the wording of 1 Chr 17:27b can only bear upon YHWH Himself. Almost all authoritative Bible translations add here the object ‘it’, which refers to the Davidic dynasty.35 Such an object, however, is absent in the Hebrew text. On the basis of literary and theological grounds, such a rendering must be characterised as a misconception. For it is God who is exalted here by the Chronicler: ‘For you, YHWH, have blessed and will be blessed for ever’.

35 NEB: ‘Thou it is who has blessed it, and it shall be blessed for ever’; REB: ‘You it is who have blessed it, and it shall be blessed for ever’ (italics by me, PCB). The same kind of rendering is found in, for example, BJ; EÜ; NBG; SV.

CHAPTER THREE

DAVID’S CENSUS AND ORNAN’S THRESHING-FLOOR A CLOSE READING OF 1 CHRONICLES 211 Reading the Book of Chronicles, one is almost spontaneously inclined to take into account the parallel narratives as handed down in 2 Samuel or 1–2 Kings. In actual practice, it appears rather difficult therefore to approach the narrative of 1 Chronicles 21 with an open mind. Time and again there is a threat that the reader is distracted from the plot of the Chronicler’s narrative by snatches or reminiscences of 2 Samuel 24. In order not to miss the specific point(s) of 1 Chronicles 21, this chapter first and foremost will exclusively concentrate on the Chronicler’s text, pretending not to know the existence of its parent text (I). Just thereafter, attention will be paid to the most important differences with 2 Samuel 24 (II). Finally, the presence of angels in the Book of Chronicles will be discussed (III). Part I—1 Chronicles 21 1. The Narrative Structure of 1 Chronicles 212 The narrative in 1 Chronicles 21 has been shaped in a well-built way. With respect of the main agents it is marked by three episodes: (1) David’s initiative towards a census in Israel (21:1–6); (2) God’s reaction (21:7–14); (3) The scene at the threshing-floor of Ornan (21:15–22:1).

1 This Chapter is a modified version of a contribution that was first published as ‘Satan, God and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21’, in: F.V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, K. Schöpflin (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007, 139–154. 2 Text critical questions and notes are amply discussed in S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta 1984, 55–58; 67–71; G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A), New York, 2004, 743–750; R.W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, 2006, 414–417.

46

chapter three 1.1

David’s initiative to number Israel (1 Chr 21:1–6)

The opening words of the narrative immediately pose a problem which, according to the reader’s choice, could involve far-reaching theological consequences. The matter touches the question of in what way the Hebrew noun ‫ שטן‬in 1 Chr 21:1 should be rendered. Until recently, it went without saying to consider it a proper name (‘Satan’), a rendering that is found in almost every Bible edition and commentary. Lately, however, as a result of an increasing number of publications relating to this subject, that earlier massive view displays some cracks. In order to make a well-founded decision in this matter, a short overview of the data is in order.3 In the Hebrew Bible the noun ‫ שטן‬occurs 27 times, in eight cases of which it means ‘a (military) adversary’ (Num 22:22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kgs 5:18 [5:4]; 11:14, 23, 25). In Ps 109:6, the noun ‫ שטן‬denotes the position of what nowadays is called ‘prosecutor’ or ‘accuser’. It is of utmost importance to emphasize that in all abovementioned texts ‫ שטן‬occurs as an indefinite noun. In seventeen biblical passages which with no exception all are found in Job 1:6–2:7 and Zech 3:1–2, ‫ שטן‬is the designation of a heavenly being that in God’s court of justice in heaven functions as the prosecutor. In all these seventeen occurrences the noun ‫ שטן‬is provided with the definite article. Assuming that ‫ שטן‬in 1 Chr 21:1 should denote such a heavenly being, one would expect a definite noun here, which is not. Therefore, it has much to recommend it that ‫ שטן‬should be interpreted here neither as a position ‘prosecutor’/‘accuser’ nor as a proper name (‘Satan’). As an additional argument, one can point to the fact that in non-biblical Hebrew literature which is of considerable later date than the Book of Chronicles, ‫ שטן‬is never used as a proper name, but always in the sense of ‘adversary’ (e.g. 1QH 4:6; 45:3; 1QSb 1:8). As a proper name it is only found in documents, such as Jubilees (23:29) and Ascensio Moysis (10:1), that were written during the persecutions by Antioch IV (ca. 165 BCE). In sum, one should at least reckon with the possibility

3 See e.g. C. Breytenbach – P.L. Day, ‘Satan’, in: DDD, 1369–1380; P.L. Day, An Adversary in heaven: śā ān in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43), Atlanta 1988, 127–145; V.P. Hamilton, ‘Satan’, in: ABD V, 985–989; P. Evans, ‘Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s Theology’, Bib 85 (2004), 545–558; F. Kreutzer, ‘Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen Bibel—eine bekannte Größe?’, Bib 86 (2005), 536–544.

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

47

that 1 Chr 21:1 refers to an unknown (military) adversary, who takes a stand against David.4 The mere fact that David ordered to number Israel is in itself no unusual phenomenon in a document that is full of lists and military registers (1 Chronicles 1–9; 23–26). And moreover, it should be pointed out that later on in the Book of Chronicles several kings will carry out a census: Solomon (2 Chr 2:17–18); Joshaphat (2 Chr 17:13–19); Amaziah (2 Chr 25:5); Uzziah (2 Chr 26:11–13). As a matter of course, this brings us to the crucial question: what exactly was displeasing to God (21:7)? John Wright takes the view that it must have been Joab’s behaviour.5 Joab disobeyed David’s command, since ‘he did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab’ (21:6).6 However, if Wright’s view would be correct, David’s reaction in verse 8 is hardly to understand, since in that case the only possible way out would be that David takes the responsibility for Joab’s decision not to include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering. David’s action in v. 8, however, rather appears to refer to the numbering as such, which was the king’s decision. Now he realizes that it was a sin and a foolish act. The key to the solution what is really going on in 1 Chronicles 21 is what the narrator makes Joab say in verse 3. His response to David’s command consists of a wish and three questions which together should be considered a dam to prevent David’s plan. Joab’s wish—‘May YHWH increase the number of his people a hundredfold!’ (v. 3)—could be interpreted as an allusion to God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 15:5; 22:17; cf. Deut 1:10–11). Another possibility would be that Joab wants to make it clear to David that it is God’s people and, as a consequence, the census needs God’s approval. Or would the real reason of Joab’s answer be that the people is already countless (cf. 1 Chr 27:23)? Finally, one could take the view that David forgot to implement the instruction of Ex 30:12–16—‘When you take a census of the Israelites to register them, at registration all of them 4 In his Verdeutschung der Schrift, Martin Buber for example has rendered ‫ שטן‬as: ‘ein Hinderer’ (someone who hinders/obstructs). 5 J.W. Wright, ‘The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21’, JSOT 60 (1993), 87–105 (esp. 95–99); N. Bailey, ‘David’s Innocence: A Response to J. Wright’, JSOT 64 (1994), 83–90. 6 Unless otherwise stated, biblical quotations are from NRSV, Oxford 1995. In stead of ‘the LORD’, however, the transliteration ‘YHWH’ is preferred.

48

chapter three

shall give a ransom for their lives to YHWH, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered . . .’.7 The rhetorical question which is put forward by Joab—‘Are they not, my lord the king, all of them my lord’s servants?’—accentuates that a census is needless, since David can of course depend on every one in his kingdom. Subsequent to his rhetorical question, Joab formulates two sharp and concrete questions—‘Why then should my lord require this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?’. The notion ‘guilt’ (‫)אשמה‬ is a late, post-exilic Hebrew word (Lev 4:3; 5:24, 26; 22:16; Ezra 9:6, 7, 13, 15; 10:10, 19) which in the Book of Chronicles without exception occurs only in the so-called ‘Sondergut’ passages (1 Chr 21:3; 2 Chr 24:18; 28:10, 133; 33:23).8 The notion ‫ אשמה‬refers to guilt which can only be annulled by atonement. Joab therefore is facing David with the consequences of his plan: the decision of one person, viz. King David, will bound to have repercussions on the people of Israel as a whole, as in Lev 4:3. David, however, wants to press home. So Joab departed and went throughout all Israel (1 Chr 21:4). The route description of Joab’s inspection contains the collocation ‘from Beer-Sheba to Dan’ (1 Chr 21:2) which is an inversion of the current biblical formula ‘from Dan to Beer-Sheba’ ( Judg 21:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1 Kgs 5:5). This latter collocation does go back not earlier as the exilic period and is to be considered an idealized description of Israel’s territory.9 The fact that the Chronicler has reversed the classical order will have to do with the geographical and political situation of his days. In that time only Beer-Sheba was part of the Persian province Y ehud; Dan in fact was observed as a sort of pre-historic entity. That is the reason why in 2 Chr 19:4 it is said: ‘from Beer-Sheba to the hill country of Ephraim’, since that was the factual border of Judah in the Chronicler’s time. On his return in Jerusalem, Joab gave the total count of the people to David. On the narrative level it is reported that Joab had not included Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, for the king’s command was abhorrent to him (1 Chr 21:6). Joab’s decision not to number the tribe of Levi can be elucidated from the Book of Numbers:

See Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, VII, 318. See D. Kellerman, ‫אשמה‬, in: G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren (eds.), TDOT I, Grand Rapids, 1977, 429–437. 9 A. Schoors, Berseba—De opgraving van een bijbelse stad (Palaestina Antiqua, 5), Kampen 1986, 119–129. 7 8

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

49

The Levites, however, were not numbered by their ancestral tribe along with them. YHWH had said to Moses: Only the tribe of Levi you shall not enrol, and you shall not take a census of them with the other Israelites. (Num 1:47–49) Just as YHWH had commanded Moses, the Levites were not enrolled among the other Israelites. (Num 2:33)

However, it is hard to understand why the Chronicler makes Joab not to number the tribe of Benjamin. The most obvious explanation would be that this non-numbering should be related to the holy status of Gibeon which in this narrative is still the cultic centre of Israel: The tabernacle of YHWH which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering were there at that time. (1 Chr 21:29)

Another plausible inference which in no way conflicts with the former one, would be that Joab’s non-numbering of the tribe Benjamin prevents Jerusalem, which is a city on the boundary of Benjamin and Judah, from being ‘contaminated’. For at the very end of this narrative (1 Chr 22:1) it is precisely Jerusalem that will be pushed forward as the future site of the cult. In this respect it is absolutely no coincidence that the Chronicler in his genealogy of Benjamin earlier in his book (Chronicles 8–9) has explicitly paid attention to both Gibeon (8:29; 9:35) and Jerusalem (9:3–34). 1.2

God’s reaction (1 Chr 21:7–14)

This middle section of the narrative is of a highly dramatic calibre. It starts with a negative tone: ‘God was displeased about this thing’ (v. 7). In theory, ‘this thing’ could refer to Joab’s decision not to number Levi and Benjamin (v. 6), as is favoured by some scholars.10 The sequel of the narrative, however, proves beyond any doubt that the collocation ‘this thing’ in v. 7 must refer to David’s command to number Israel, which in fact is confirmed by David’s confession: ‘I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing’ (v. 8). Whereas the reader of the Book of Chronicles meanwhile is accustomed that David attacks (‫ )נכה‬peoples and kings nearby (1 Chr 18:1–12; 20:1–7), now it is God who strikes (‫ )נכה‬Israel (1 Chr 21:7; cf. 13:10). Quite a few commentators hold the view that the phrase ‘he [God] struck Israel’ anticipates the pestilence as recorded in 21:14 and should 10

See, for example, Wright, ‘The Innocence of David’, 98–99.

50

chapter three

therefore be characterized as a ‘proleptic summary’.11 Apart from the fact that the narrative in that case would display a rather complicated flash back layer, it should furthermore be emphasized that if it would be considered a proleptic summary indeed, verse 7 is unlinked from the previous episode (21:1–6). At the same time the question can be raised what might still be the function of verse 17 as related to verse 8. The action of Gad (21:9–13) speaks against such a proleptic function too. According to the common pattern of prophetic speech, in that case Gad should first have put forward an accusation (‘Since you did this and that . . .’), followed by an announcement of judgment/ punishment (‘Therefore . . .’). In 1 Chr 21:7–13, however, there is no accusation, since this aspect has already been set in motion by David in his confession of guilt (21:8). And it is not by accident that the king’s exclamation has got a special lay-out in the Masoretic text. The verse is encompassed by a petucha, by means of which these dramatic words of David are presented as a separate paragraph and get a special status within the narrative. The seer who is sent to David by YHWH is called Gad, a name that ironically means ‘luck’. He is also met in 1 Chr 29:29 and 2 Chr 29:25, always accompanied by the title ‫‘( חזה‬seer’) which is one of the Chronicler’s favourite nouns.12 God’s order at Gad’s address is characterized by a deliberate retarding. The seer presents three options to the king, one of which he has to choose (v. 9). However, it is just in a later stage (v. 12) that David is told what those three options really are. They are submitted to him in a rather schematic form; this concerns both the temporal chain (three years—three months—three days) and the classical triplet (famine—devastation—pestilence). Whereas the first option is expressed very shortly (four words), the second one has nine words, the third even thirteen. From the perspective of the narrative 11 E.g. P.B. Dirksen, 1 Chronicles (HCOT), Louvain, 2005, 259; S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL, XI), Grand Rapids 1989, 171; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), London 1982, 145; S.L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville 2004, 173; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 422. 12 From the seventeen times the noun occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it is found ten times (= 60%) in the Book of Chronicles. This is due to the fact that in enumerations of prophetic activities the Chronicler avoids to simultaneously apply the same title to two or three persons. Therefore, in 1 Chr 29:29 Samuel is called ‫‘( ראה‬seer’), Nathan ‫‘( נביא‬prophet’), and Gad ‫‘( חזה‬seer’). In 2 Chr 9:29, Iddo is called ‫חזה‬, since he occurs in an enumeration with Nathan (‫)נביא‬, whereas the same Iddo in 2 Chr 13:22 is entitled ‫נביא‬, as he is the only one mentioned there. See W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period ( JSOTSS 197), Sheffield 1995, 31–54.

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

51

technique this is no surprise, since the third option will—be it in an indirect way—actually be chosen by David. The second and third options have been linked together with the help of the noun ‘sword’: ‘the sword of your enemies/the sword of YHWH’. Here we met the only occurrence in the entire Hebrew Bible in which pestilence is called ‘the sword of YHWH’. It is also striking that the pestilence is personified as ‘the angel of YHWH destroying throughout all the territory of Israel’ (v. 12). The verbal form ‘destroying’ (maš ît) is identical to Ex 12:13. 23 referring to the final plague of Egypt.13 David’s answer on God’s choice between ‘the sword of the enemies’ and ‘the sword of YHWH’ is articulated in a particular shape: Let me fall into the hand of YHWH, for his mercy is very great; but let me not fall into human hands.14

In this chiastic structured answer (to fall—hand/hands—to fall), David expressly asked to exclude the second option, whereas he does not make a choice between the first and the third option. Thus YHWH sent a pestilence on Israel to the effect that seventy thousand persons—no doubt a symbolic number—were killed (v. 14). In fact, the narrative thus far is structured as a kind of geographical inclusion. It started with David’s command to number Israel (v.1) and the final effect of it is that YHWH sent a pestilence on Israel (v. 14). 1.3

The scene at the threshing-floor of Ornan (1 Chr 21:15–22:1)

In v. 15, the narrative zooms in on Jerusalem, specifically on the threshing-floor of Ornan, which is the scene where the remainder of the story will take place. As soon as YHWH saw the angel starting his mission of destruction, he repented (Gen 6:6; Ex 32:14). Whereas the Chronicler immediately informs his readers that YHWH puts a stop to the angel of death (v. 15), is David still in a state of uncertainty. He sees ‘the angel of YHWH standing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem’ (v. 16).15 No doubt this is a deliberate reference to Josh. 5:13–14, which also presents a

In the Book of Chronicles the verb ‫‘( שחת‬to destroy’) occurs sixteen times, by far the most (thirteen times) in the Chronicler’s own material (Sondergut). 14 An echo of this passage is found in Sir 2:18. 15 The wording ‘with his drawn sword in his hand’ (v. 16) undoubtedly reminds of the collocation ‘the men who drew the sword’, which occurs twice in v. 5. 13

52

chapter three

hieros logos relating to the erection of a cultic site.16 Not until v. 27 the threatening angel will put his sword into its sheath and he is feared by David till the end of the narrative (v. 30). It therefore is the angel of YHWH who as an important agent—together with the geographical notion of ‘the threshing-floor of Ornan’—constitutes an inclusio in the final part of the narrative.17 That David is accompanied by the elders is an indication that the situation is tense. For in the Book of Chronicles the elders do not frequently enter on the scene. It can hardly be a coincidence, however, that they are never absent at important political (1 Chr 11:3; 2 Chr 10:6, 8, 13) and cultic moments (1 Chr 15:25; 21:16; 2 Chr 5:2, 4; 34:29). The information that David and the elders are clothed in sackcloth not only highlights the dramatic effect of the narrative, but is also emphasizing the serious nature of the situation. For the second time within the narrative David appeals to God (v. 17). Just as the first time (v. 8), it is a confession of guilt; but now it turns out to be a supplication. The rhetorical question which opens his plea, lays the emphasis exactly where it has to be: ‘Was it not I [not Joab] who gave the command to number the people?’. And in the next statement too he blames himself: ‘It is I who have sinned and done very wickedly’, using the same verb ‫‘( חטא‬to sin’) as in v. 8.18 Then attention shifts to those who, even though innocent, have tremendously been struck. This has been done with the help of a metaphor: ‘these sheep, what have they done?’. At that very moment, the narrator for the first time puts the Holy Name (‘YHWH’) into David’s mouth, which is no coincidence of course, since it occurs at a very strategic moment of the story and is also accompanied by the personal address ‘my God’. As far as Hebrew syntax is concerned, it strikes the eye that the Chronicler applies a grammatical construct hārē a harē ōtī (infinitive absolute + finite verbal form) which he usually tries to avoid in his work, even if it is found in his Vorlage. The question presents itself whether the infinitive absolute hārē a should not be considered an error in writing of hārō è (‘the shepherd’). For in that case, the Chronicler’s text not

The phrase ‘with his drawn sword in his hand’ is also found in Num 22:23. 31. The noun ‘angel’ is found in 21:15 [3 x]. 16. 18. 20. 27. 30; the noun ‘threshingfloor’ occurs in 21:15. 18. 21. 22. 28. 18 The notion of ‘David as repentant sinner’ has amply been described by G.N. Knoppers, ‘Images of David in Early Judaism: David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles’, Bib 76 (1995), 449–470. 16 17

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

53

only would present a much more balanced double parallelism, but also offer a perfect metaphor in the second half: I commanded to number the people // I have sinned, I, the shepherd, have done wickedly // but these sheep, what have they done?19

And indeed, the variant reading hārō è (‘the shepherd’) has been documented in the first Samuel Scroll from Qumran (4QSama), and has also been handed down by the Greek translation of 2 Sam 24:17, which is rather dissimilar from the Masoretic text. David’s supplication—‘Let your hand, I pray, YHWH my God, be against me and against my father’s house, but do not let your people be plagued!’ (v. 17b)—harks back to v. 13, where the motif of ‘God’s hand’ dominated David’s choice: ‘Let me fall into the hands of YHWH, for his mercy is very great’. One should also notice the rhetorical device ‘your people’, which often in the Hebrew Bible is specifically used to put God on the spot. The reaction to David’s confession of guilt and his supplication is quite remarkable. For a new pattern of communication shows up, since it is the angel of YHWH whom is given the task of instructing Gad, who in his part has to deliver the message to David that he should erect an altar to YHWH on the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite (v. 18). With the phrase ‘David went up following Gad’s instructions, which he had spoken in YHWH’s name’ (v. 19), the author creates the opportunity meanwhile to inform his readers what is enacting on the threshing-floor: ‘Ornan turned and saw the angel’ (v. 20a). The lapidary phrase ‘Ornan continued to thresh wheat’ (v. 20b) is not as harmless as it looks, because it calls to mind the story of Gideon in Judg 6:11, which—just as Josh 5:13–14—is part of a hieros logos too. And the collocation ‘at its full price’ (‫ )בכםף מלא‬in 1 Chr 21:22, 24—which is found only one more time in the Hebrew Bible

19 As to the quite complicated textual history of the Chronicler’s Vorlage in Samuel, see Klein, 1 Chronicles, 28–30; G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12), New York, 2004, 55–71; S. Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel. The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57), Fribourg 1984, 61–66; A. Rofe, ‘4QSama in the Light of Historico-Literary Criticism: 2 Sam 24–1 Chr. 21’, in: A. Vivian (ed.), Biblische und Judaistische Studien: FS für P. Sacchi ( Judentum und Umwelt 29), Frankfurt a. M. 1990, 109–119; E.C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19), Missoula 1978, 156–159.

54

chapter three

(Gen 23:9)—refers to a holy site too. It is the story that Abraham buys the cave of Machpela to bury his wife Sarah. In fact, all kind of things appear to happen simultaneously, since all agents have been situated in the neighbourhood of the threshingfloor. The angel of YHWH is there all the time, since his appearance is already mentioned in v. 15. Ornan is at work there; David who according to v. 16 must have been nearby is on his way. Finally, David built an altar to YHWH on the threshing-floor and has therefore carried out God’s order (v. 18). Then, for the very first time in 1 Chronicles 21, YHWH himself responds in a direct way: ‘He answered him [David] with fire from heaven on the altar’ (v. 26).20 Only now YHWH commands the angel to put his sword back into his sheath (v. 27). But even then David continues to be afraid of the angel’s sword (v. 30). Part II—2 Samuel 24 2.1

The context

There is a huge contrast with respect of the context of 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24. The opening of 2 Samuel 24—‘Again the anger of YHWH . . .’—has a bearing on an earlier narrative, in which God’s anger was at issue too (2 Samuel 21). As a result of this very referral, the literal and theological function of 2 Samuel 24 is completely different from the one in 1 Chronicles 21. Whereas 2 Samuel 24 in fact is a kind of an appendix, the narrative of 1 Chronicles 21 on the contrary is of outmost importance, since it is the introduction to a substantial section of the Book of Chronicles relating to various aspects of the future Temple. The narrative of 1 Chronicles 21, therefore, has an important programmatic function. For this narrative explicitly links the threshing-floor of Ornan to the site of the future Temple (21:28–22:1), a motif that is explicitly resumed in 2 Chr 3:1. In 2 Samuel 24, however, such a connection is nowhere to be found; its focus is rather constituted by the relationship between the purchase of the threshing floor, the erection of an altar, and the 20 A parallel to 2 Chr 7:1 urges itself upon the readers. See also Lev. 9:24 and 1 Kgs 18:38. It is no accident that in 2 Chr 3:1 the site of the Temple is not only identified as Mount Moriah, but also as the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

55

end of the plague (2 Sam 24:21, 25). There is no reference, not even an allusion, to the future Temple. 2.2

Textual differences

It is not only the context of 1 Chronicles 21 which considerably differs from the parallel narrative in 2 Samuel 24. The text of 1 Chronicles 21 in many details varies from the parallel narrative too.21 Ever since three collections of fragments of the Book of Samuel were discovered at Qumran, there is a scholarly discussion whether the Chronicler’s Hebrew Vorlage of Samuel was based on the Masoretic text type we know or on a Hebrew text type of a different kind.22 The lacunal fragment of 2 Sam 24:16–20 in 4QSama, for instance, has some similarities with the Hebrew text of 1 Chronicles 21, which are not handed down in the Masoretic text of 2 Sam 24:16–20. As an example the phrase in 1 Chr 21:16 (‘the angel with his drawn sword in his hand’) could be mentioned. The matter, however, is even more complicated, since the Greek translation of Samuel in many instances agrees with the Hebrew text of Chronicles against the Masoretic text of Samuel.23 On the basis of this complex set of data, one can at least reach the cautious conclusion that the Chronicler utilized a Vorlage of Samuel that was not identical to the extant Masoretic text. At the other hand, it is unprovable that the Chronicler’s Hebrew text of 1 Chronicles 21 as we have it now would be a mere copy of the Samuel text type he had in front of him. There are too many instances in his narrative where one can detect his signature. Some of these will briefly be discussed now. 1. The phrase ‘Why should he [David] bring guilt on Israel?’ (1 Chr 21:4b) can with certainty be ascribed to the Chronicler. First, since the notion ‘guilt’ (‫ )אשמה‬is a late, post-exilic Hebrew noun that in the Book

21 Most useful overviews of textual differences are offered by R. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC), Waco 1986, 213–215; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 414–417; Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29, 743–750. The synopsis of A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible (‫ )מקבילות במקרא‬, Jerusalem 1972, 63–65 is of great help too. 22 The Samuel material from Qumran has been published by F.M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4 XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD XVII), Oxford 2005. 23 W.E. Lemke, ‘The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History’, HTR 58 (1965), 349–363; Ulrich, Qumran Text; McKenzie, Chronicler’s Use, 41–81; P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel (AB 8), Garden City, 1980; id., II Samuel (AB9), Garden City, 1984; A.M. Brunet, ‘Le Choniste et ses sources’, RB 60 (1953), 481–508; RB 61 (1954), 349–386.

56

chapter three

of Samuel does not occur at all. And second, because in the Book of Chronicles it is only found in the so-called ‘Sondergut’ passages.24 2. The Chronicler’s signature can also be seen in 1 Chr 21:7—‘He [God] struck Israel’. It can hardly be coincidence that the verb ‫נכה‬ is used here in respect of God, whereas in the same episode of the Samuel narrative it has a bearing on David: ‘David was stricken to the heart’ (2 Sam 24:10). 3. Since the focus of the Chronicler’s narrative is to safeguard the future Temple site, two times the noun ‫ מקום‬is expressly used (1 Chr 21:22. 25), which does not occur in the source text (2 Samuel 24). The same noun will show up again in 2 Chr 3:1, where the Chronicler not only refers to the threshing-floor, but also to Mount Moriah as the site of the Solomonic Temple. 4. One can understand why the Chronicler makes David pay such a huge amount of money to Ornan: ‘six hundred shekels of gold’ (1 Chr 21:25), whereas in 2 Sam 24:24 the site is sold for ‘fifty shekels of silver’.25 The future Temple site is invaluable and the price for it should by any means exceed the amount of money that has been paid for other cultic sites, such as the ‘four hundred shekels of silver’ which Abraham paid for the cave of Machpela (Gen 23:15).26 5. David’s offerings and call to YHWH are answered with ‘fire from heaven on the altar’ that David had just erected (1 Chr 21:26). Here we undoubtedly come across the Chronicler’s signature, since the same concept is also found in 2 Chr 7:1, at the very moment Solomon has ended his prayer at the occasion of the Temple’s dedication. 6. It is beyond any doubt that the emphasis on Gibeon as the cultic place during David’s (and Solomon’s ) reign is a special topic of the Book of Chronicles, which by the way is constantly found in the Chronicler’s Sondergut (1 Chr 16:39–42; 21:29–30; 2 Chr 1:3–6).

1 Chr 21:3; 2 Chr 24:18; 28:10. 13 [3 x]; 33:23. The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi interpreted the difference between ‘fifty shekels’ (2 Sam 24:24) and ‘six hundred shekels’ (1 Chr 21:25), saying that David paid fifty shekels for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. 26 As noticed earlier, there is a deliberate reference to this narrative by the unique expression ‘as its full price’ (1 Chr 21:24; Gen 23:9). 24 25

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

57

Part III—Angels in the Book of Chronicles 3.1

The Chronicler’s attention to angels

In the Book of Chronicles, angels appear on the scene only twice, both times in the Chronicler’s source material (1 Chronicles 21; 2 Chronicles 32).27 Since due to text critical questions 1 Chronicles 21 in fact is the most complicated text, first attention will be paid to 2 Chr 32:21. Whereas the Book of Kings, as well as the Book of Isaiah, offer an ample report of the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian army, the illness of King Hezekiah, and the arrival of the Babylonian embassy (2 Kgs 18:9–20:19 / Isa 36:1–39:8), has the Chronicler a totally different narrative pattern. Out of a total of four chapters that he has devoted to Hezekiah, no less than three chapters deal with religious and cultic reforms this king has carried out (2 Chronicles 29–31). His confrontation with the Assyrian army, therefore, has been given much less lines (2 Chr 32:1–23) than was the case in his source. Focussing now on the role the angel plays in both narratives dealing with the siege of Jerusalem, one can observe a change which from a theological point of view is quite interesting:

2 Kgs 19:35 / Isa 37:35

2 Chr 32:21

That very night the angel of YHWH set out and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand

And YHWH sent an angel

in the camp of the Assyrians.

who cut off 28 all the mighty warriors and commanders and officers in the camp of the king of Assyria.

The Chronicler had adapted his source text in such a way that the real agent of the Assyrian defeat was not the angel, but YHWH himself. In other words, the Chronicler has adjusted his Vorlage for theological reasons: the angel indeed acts as God’s messenger. 27 ‘Und es ist keine Frage, daß der Chronist außer diesen Engeln noch manche andere gekannt hat’; J.W. Rothstein – J. Hänel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT XVIII/2), Leipzig 1927, xiv. This is a purely psychological remark without consequences. 28 In stead of the verb ‫נכה‬, which is one of his favourite verbs, the Chronicler has chosen the verb ‫כחד‬, which must be an intentional reference to Exod 23:23.

58

chapter three

This aspect also comes to light when the narrative of 2 Samuel 24 is compared with the one in Chronicles 21. There are two specific moments where one can ascertain that texts have been altered in respect of angel’s activities:

2 Sam 24:16

1 Chr 21:15

But when the angel stretched out his hands towards Jerusalem to destroy it

And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it

In 2 Sam 24:16 the angel is put on the scene all of a sudden and acts autonomously, whereas in 1 Chr 21:15 he arrives on the scene as a messenger of God acting according to God’s command. Some lines later, the same pattern can be detected. Here the Chronicler has even sacrified the vehicle of direct speech to make his theological view perfectly clear:

2 Sam 24:18

1 Chr 21:18

That day

Then the angel of YHWH commanded

Gad came to David and said to him, ‘Go up and erect an altar to YHWH . . .’

Gad to tell David

3.2

that he should go up and erect an altar to YHWH . . .

How many angels in 1 Chronicles 21?

The fact that in 1 Chronicles 21 the noun ‘angel’ occurs nine times, whereas it is found only four times in his source text, poses the question how many angels are actually acting in the Chronicler’s narrative.29 Therefore, one needs a quick outline of how they are called in the narrative. As a matter of fact, this is done in quite different ways: ‘the destroying angel’ (vv. 12. 152), ‘the angel of YHWH’ (v. 15), ‘the angel of YHWH with a drawn sword in his hand’ (v. 16), ‘the angel of

29

1 Chr 21:12. 15 [3 x]. 16. 18. 20. 27. 30; 2 Sam 24:16 [3 x]. 17.

david’s census and ornan’s threshing-floor

59

YHWH’ (v. 18), ‘the angel’ (v. 20), ‘the angel putting his sword back in its sheath’ (v. 27), ‘the sword of the angel of YHWH’ (v. 30). At a first glance, there seem to be two of them: ‘the destroying angel’, and ‘the angel of YHWH’. In my view, the key to this riddle should be found in verse 12, where the Chronicler (or his Vorlage) has substantially expanded the source text.

2 Sam 24:13

1 Chr 21:12

Or shall there be three days’

Or three days of the sword of YHWH, pestilence on the land, the angel of YHWH destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.

pestilence in your land?

In 2 Sam 24:13, the third choice offered to David consists of one single item (‘pestilence’). In 1 Chr 21:12, however, it has been expanded into a set of three coordinate items, of which ‘pestilence’ is the middle one. This literary feature is solid proof that the ‘destroying angel’ and the ‘sword of YHWH’, which further on in the narrative is personified as ‘the angel with the drawn sword’ are to be conceived as one and the same agent. The fact that starting from verse 15 onwards the Chronicler’s version gets a high degree of simultaneousness may serve as an additional argument to the view that there is only one angel doing the job.

CHAPTER FOUR

ASPECTS OF INNERBIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN 2 CHRONICLES 201 Much time and energy has been spent so far in exposing the origin and possible historical kernel of the intriguing narrative of 2 Chronicles 20. The question of the literary and traditio-historical relations between 2 Chronicles 20 and 2 Kings 3, however, distracts the reader from the text itself to a rather hypothetical discussion.2 The solution of the problem as proposed bij Martin Noth is in itself very interesting. On the basis of the geographical names in 2 Chronicles 20 Noth feels confident that the narrative must be considered a local tradition (‘Lokalüberlieferung’). The story therefore deals with an invasion of Judean villages south of Bethlehem by Nabataeans in about 300 BCE.3 Noth’s hypothesis has been disputed at length by Wilhelm Rudolph, who thinks it quite likely that the historical kernel of the narrative has been modelled upon an invasion by a group of Edomites from the time of Jehoshaphat himself.4 Peter Welten, in a rather technical monograph, makes it plausible that the hypotheses of both Noth and Rudolph regarding the historical reliability of 2 Chronicles 20 can be considered in a quite different way. The narrative forms part of a quintet of stories about successful wars,5 all of which belong to the so-called ‘chronistisches Sondergut’. All five narratives should make clear that whatever threat of war afflicting the

This Chapter is a thorougly revised version of two contributions first published as ‘Tradition and Transformation. Aspects of innerbiblical Interpretation in 2 Chronicles 20’, Bib 74 (1993), 258–268; and ‘King Jehoshaphat’s Prayer. Some Remarks on 2 Chronicles 20:6–13’, BZ 38 (1994), 264–270. 2 See K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik (BZAW 201) Berlin 1991, 129–132. The text of 2 Chronicles 20 in its present form can hardly be adopted directly from 2 Kings 3, since there are too many differences between both texts. 3 M. Noth, ‘Eine palästinische Lokalüberlieferung in 2 Chr. 20’, ZDPV 67 (1945), 45–74. 4 W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21), Tübingen 1955, 259. 5 P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellungen in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen 1973, 115–172, esp. 166–172. The five stories about successfull wars can be found in 2 Chr 13:3–20; 14:8–14; 20:1–30; 26:6–8, and 27:5–6. As to the possible function of war narratives in the Book of Chronicles, I like to refer to Chapter eleven. 1

62

chapter four

religious community of Judah comes from the four winds can only be averted with God’s help. Instead of racking our brains about the scientific controversy about the possible historical points of contact in 2 Chronicles 20, it seems more important to pay attention to the literary and theological expressiveness of the Jehoshaphat-passage.6 The author of the Book of Chronicles has allotted much space to King Jehoshaphat. Unlike the Deuteronomistic History which has devoted only one chapter (1 Kings 22:1–51) to this king, the Chronicler’s account of Jehoshaphat fills no less than four chapters, i.e. one hundred and four verses.7 Setting aside David and Solomon, who absolutely take the lead by occupying about half of the Book of Chronicles, Jehoshaphat, for example, is hardly inferior to Hezekiah—whose account fills one hundred and seventeen verses—, and is much more in the Chronicler’s spotlight than King Josiah, who has ‘only’ sixty verses. It is impossible to discuss the narrative of 2 Chronicles 20 in full detail. This Chapter will therefore pay attention to a special feature of it, to wit its threefold address. The Book of Chronicles contains a remarkable number of speeches which, in comparison with the Books of Samuel and Kings, reveals a very important fact: the Chronicler takes here his own line. Out of a number of twenty-one royal addresses presented by this author, no less than seventeen are his own creation. Fourteen prophetical addresses out of a total number of eighteen have no parallel in Samuel-Kings.8 Dealing with nine royal prayers in 1–2 Chronicles, four of them cannot be found in the parallel texts of Samuel and Kings.9 In narrative biblical texts, addresses and prayers play an important role most of the time. They offer the author a welcome opportunity

6 On Nimrud Tablet 400, which gives an account of the third campaign of Tiglathpileser III against Gaza in 734–733, one comes accross the name Mu{unaya. There is a possiblitity that this name refers to the same people which in 2 Chr 20:1 (and elsewhere) is called ‘Meunites’. See H. Tadmor, ‘The Me{unites in the Book of Chronicles in the Light of an Assyrian Document’ (Hebr.), in: Bible and Jewish History (FS J. Liver), Tel Aviv 1971, 222–231. 7 Fifty-nine of them belong to the Chronicler’s ‘Sondergut’; see Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation, 110–114. 8 The material has been collected by R. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler ( JSOTSS 88), Sheffield 1990, 128–129. 133. 171–172. 175–176. See also R. Mason, Preaching the Tradition. Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990. 9 1 Chr 29:10–19; 2 Chr 14:11; 20:6–12; 30:8–19. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal, 169 in my opinion is incorrect in mentioning 2 Chr 24:22 here, as it is a prayer of the priest Zekariah.

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

63

to create at such points condensed moments of what is near to him (or her).10 As both a royal prayer (vv. 6–13), a prophetical (vv. 14–17) and a royal address (v. 20) have been located within the same literary composition of 2 Chronicles, a further introduction to these passages seems appropriated. The royal prayer in 2 Chr 20:6–13 The preamble to King Jehoshaphat’s prayer (2 Chr 20:3–5)) is opened up by the Chronicler with the formula ‫( דרש ליהוה‬v. 3),11 which is one of the most central motifs12 of the Book of Chronicles.13 It explicitly comes to light in the story of Saul’s rejection, which is the first narrative following the so-called ‘genealogical hall’ (1 Chronicles 1–9).14 The Chronicler has rather accurately copied the version of 1 Samuel 31, but at the end has provided this first real narrative in his book with a significant commentary of his own: ‘So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD slew him . . .’ (1 Chr 10:13–14, RSV). In 1 and 2 Chronicles, the motif of ‘seeking YHWH’ will appear to be the criterion with which the Chronicler is screening and evaluating the kings theologically.15 As elsewhere in the Old Testament, in Chronicles

10 O. Plöger, ‘Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk’ in: id., Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 1977, 50–66; G. Maier, ‘Die Funktion der Gebete in den alttestamentlichen Apokryphen’, in: Theokratia (FS K.H. Rengstorff ), Jahrbuch des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum II, 1970–1972, 16–25. 11 The preposition l e in later Biblical Hebrew is used rather often to indicate the object. See P. Joüon, Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique, 2nd ed., Rome 1947, § 125k. 12 C.Begg, ‘Seeking Yahweh and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982), 128–141. I did not have at my disposal the doctoral thesis of G.E. Schafer, The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), 1972. 13 Relating to Jehoshaphat this motive is present in 2 Chr 17:2–3 and 19:3 too; it has an echo in 2 Chr 22:9. 14 For a substantial and interesting study on 1 Chronicles 1–9 see M. Oehming, Das wahre Israel. Die »genealogische Vorhalle« 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990. The expression ‘genealogische Vorhalle’ is commonly attributed to Julius Wellhausen, which probably is not true. See Chapter one, n. 15. 15 1 Chr 13:3; 15:13; 16:11; 21:30; 22:19; 28:9 (programmatic); 2 Chr 1:5; 12:14; 14:3. 6 [2x]; 15:2 (very programmatic); 15:12. 13; 16:12; 17:3.4; 18:6.7; 19:3; 20:3; 22:9; 25:15. 20; 26:5[2x]; 30:19; 31:21; 34:3. 21. 26.

64

chapter four

the formula is used in two distinct senses.16 On the one hand, one comes across ‘seeking the Lord’ as a more or less technical notion: to ask guidance or help from the Lord (e.g. 1 Chr 10:13–14; 2 Chr 1:5). On the other hand, the expression is used in a somewhat broader sense: to worship the Lord, to be devoted to the Lord with heart and soul (e.g. 2 Chr 15:2; 17:2–4; 19:3; 22:9). The context of war in which 2 Chroniccles 20 has been embedded justifies the supposition that the line ‘Jehoshaphat was afraid; he set himself to seek YHWH’ (20:3) will be dominated by the former sense. In a situation of acute distress, Jehoshaphat asks God for help. The proclamation of a fast, a feature which can be found in Chronicles in one other passage (1 Chr 10:12b), and the tenor of the royal prayer (20:6–13), strengthen this aspect. There is no doubt that the whole of 20:3–5 contains all the literary and theological ingredients needed to characterize the subsequent prayer of King Jehoshaphat as a national lament.17 From here on, the narrative has a liturgical setting which will pervade the rest of the narrative. Having determined that the king’s prayer is a national lament, this does not mean that the interpretation of this prayer does not raise important questions. Serious problems arise not only in respect of the syntax and the structure, but also with regard of the function of its various parts. Examining the translation of the Hebrew text of 20:6 in a number of current Bible editions, its rendering displays a remarkable variety. The main reason for this is constituted by the word ‫הלא‬, which in Hebrew introduces a rhetorical question.18 This particle, which in 1–2 Chronicles is found no less than eighteen times,19 in regard to 2 Chronicles 20 deserves special attention because of its threefold

16 G. Gerleman / E. Ruprecht, drš, in: THAT I, München ²1975, 460–467; S. Wagner, dāraš, in: TWAT II, Stuttgart 1977, 313–329; Cl. Westermann, ‘Die Begriffe für Fragen und Suchen im Alten Testament’, KD 6 (1960), 2–30 (= Cl. Westermann, Forschung am Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien Band II, ThB 55, München 1974, 162–190). 17 A detailed analysis of this ‘Gattung’ is given by H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1975 (3rd ed.), 117–139. A concise summary in: H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 1–63 (BKAT XV, 1) Neukirchen 1972 (4th ed.) li–lii. S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI) Grand Rapids 1989, 325 is opposing the opinio communis that 2 Chr 20:6–12 is a national lament: ‘. . . this is wrong because its genre is PRAYER with a number of subordinate elements . . .’. Describing those elements, however, he in fact is enumerating all characteristics of the national lament (326). 18 Joüon, Grammaire, §161c; §164d. 19 1 Chr 19:3; 21:3.17; 22:18; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:5.9; 16:8; 18:17; 20:6.7.12; 25:26; 28:10; 32:11.12.13.

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

65

occurence within the context of the national lament (20:6.7.12). This triple presence of ‫הלא‬, together with ‫( ועתה‬v. 10), to a high degree modifies the structure of the entire prayer: v. 6 / vv. 7–9 / vv. 10–11 / vv. 12f. In spite of this very plain structure, the reader is confronted with a number of rather significant questions. Does ‫ הלא‬only determine the words ‫אתה־הוא אלהים בשמים‬, or does the rhetorical particle have a longer range? And if so, where can we find the end of its influence? The answers to this question, as reflected by the Bible translations of 2 Chr 20:6, are widely divergent. In addition to Bible editions in which one rhetorical question is found, one comes across translations in which the opening of the royal prayer includes no less than four such questions; while some other biblical translations render two or none.20 The entire problem is complicated by another question. Two middle cola of verse 6 are almost identical to a couple of lines from David’s blessing in 2 Chronicles 29. ‫ואתה מושל בכל ממלכות הגוים‬ ‫ובידך כח וגבורה‬

(2 Chron. 20:6)

‫ואתה מושל בכל‬ ‫ובידך כח וגבורה‬

(1 Chr 29:12)

Does this striking parallel to 1 Chr 29:12 force us to keep together these two hymnic lines in 2 Chr 20:6 too, or is there good reason to consider their setting in 2 Chr 20:6 differently? When we compare both pericopes with each other, however, it immediately strikes the eye that the wording of 2 Chr 20:6 has undergone a slight extension; the words ‫ ממלכות הגוים‬have been added here. In this way, within Jehoshaphat’s prayer, a parallelismus mebrorum has been created in which the formula ‘the kingdoms of the nations’ functions as an antonym of the preceding notion ‘heaven’. This, however, is certainly not the only function of the extension. The two words ‫ ממלכות הגוים‬are very essential at another level. It has everything to do with the setting of the narrative itself.

20 One rhetorical question: Septuaginta (?); REB; SV. Two rhetorical questions: Luther’s Bible; RSV; BJ; TOB; NBG, and WV. Four rhetorical questions: King James Version. No rhetorical question: Vulgata; GNB.

66

chapter four

The collocation ‘kingdoms of the nations’ is closely tied up with the actual story; for precisely the threat of advancing armies is the immediate cause of the royal prayer. Here we find the reason why in 2 Chr 20:6 the author did not use the expression ‫‘( ממלכות הארצות‬kingdoms of the world’), which can be considered a typical feature of the Book of Chronicles.21 The Chronicler needs the word ‫ הגוים‬in order to create the maximum opposition to the community on behalf of which King Jehoshaphat is addressing to God: ‘your people Israel’. And, within that framework, the rhetorical function of ‫הלא‬, joined with a twofold ‫‘( אתה‬You’), is a matter of great importance. The author, personified by the praying king, with the help of those two rhetorical questions, is manoevering God into a position which is as favourable as possible towards the Chronicler’s case. It seems no accident me that the masoretic atnach is found precisely underneath ‫הגוים‬.22 This atnach is not only the guide-line for the parallelism of the first verse half, it also marks the end of the range of the particle ‫הלא‬. I therefore differ from Petersen that, with his utterances concerning God’s power, it would be the Chronicler’s intention to hurry his audience through verse 6 as soon as possible, in order to concentrate all attention of his readers towards the rhetorical question of verse 7.23 Apart from the epithet ‫יהוה אלהי אבתינו‬, 2 Chr 20:6 is made up of two couplets with two parallel statements each, the first in synonymous, the second in antithetic parallelism.24 The elements which have been adopted from David’s prayer (1 Chr 29:12), or at least allude to it, for the use of the current narrative are transformed into a new configuration. They not only belong no longer to the same parallelism; they are also found in a new setting. The first one now forms part of a rhetorical question; the second one has been put up in a hymn-like address centred on the notion ‫כח‬, by which a literary frame is constructed with v. 12: an inclusio (‘in your hand is strength . . .’ / ‘we do not have strenghth . . .’) which actually embodies the entire essence of the prayer.

1 Chr 29:30; 2 Chr 12:8; 17:10; 20:29. One Hebrew manuscript (New York, Library of Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2118, fol. 39) renders ‫ הארץ‬instead of ‫הגוים‬. See P. Kahle, ‘Die hebräische Bibelhandschriften aus Babylonien’, ZAW 46 (1928), 113–137, esp. 132. 23 D.L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy. Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23), Missoula 1977, 73. 24 ‘The epithet “God of the Fathers” in a variety of forms appears twenty-seven times in Chronicles. None of these instances is taken from the parallel source in Samuel-Kings . . .’; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ, 9) Frankfurt a.M. 1989, 14. 21 22

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

67

The second time the particle ‫ הלא‬is used in Jehoshaphat’s prayer (20:7) also poses a problem. It concerns the syntactical function of ‫אלהינו‬. In a number of Bible translations this noun is obviously considered to be the predicate to ‫אתה‬: ‘Are You not our God, who . . .?’ (or in a positive form: ‘For You are our God, who . . .’).25 A translation of this kind, however, requires ‫אתה־הוא‬, as was the case in the preceding verse 6.26 The rhetorical question of v. 7, however, does not deal with the problem of whether God is the God of the praying community; this is presupposed, for in what way should one pray to Him anyhow? The opening words of v. 7, on the contrary, function unmistakably to remind God of the mighty deeds He performed in the past in favour of his people Israel. ‫ אלהינו‬in v. 7 therefore obviously functions as a vocative: ‘Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants . . .?’.27 Having determined the precise syntactical function of ‫אלהינו‬, its role within the prayer must be faced. Considering the structure of the entire royal prayer, the vocative ‫ אלהינו‬is on a par with both the opening address of v. 6 (‫ )יהוה אלהי אבתינו‬and the final vocative ‫אלהינו‬ of v. 12. The difference between the vocatives of v. 6 and v. 7 at the same time exposes an important aspect. Although v. 7 obviously opens with a reference to God’s acts of liberation to Israel in the past —and therefore in fact is still a manifestation of ‘the God of our fathers’—, it is a contemporary address (‘our God’) which precedes that description. In that way, past and present in and through Him are linked together. In the second half of v. 7, this intertwinement very subtely takes shape in the formula ‫לזרע אברהם אהבך‬.28 Precisely the wording ‘the descendants of your friend Abraham’ lodges the point of identification. For in that formula both the generation of the Conquest and the Septuagint, BJ, and a number of Dutch Bible translations (NBG; PC; WV; GNB). See Ps 44:5 (with a vocative); Neh 9:6.7; 1 Chr 17:26; Isa 37:16 (= 2 Kgs 19:15); Jer 14:22. 27 A rendering like this is found in: Vulgate; EÜ; TOB; REB; SV; LV. In NEB this vocative has rather circumstantially been translated as: ‘O God our God’. In the analysis of 2 Chr 20:6–12 by M.A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak. Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93), Atlanta 1987, 67–71, one becomes aware of a striking discrepancy between his translation of v. 7 (‘Surely you are our God. You drove out . . .’) and the subsequent analysis of this verse, which makes reference to a ‘vocative’, which undoubtedly alludes to ‫אלהינו‬. Throntveit’s doctoral thesis, which was defended in 1982, with regard to 2 Chronicles 20 sometimes is rather inaccurate. Apart from orthographic imperfections (e.g. ‫ תטפט‬in line z [= 20:12] must be read as ‫ )תשפט‬a clear case of homoioteleuton between 20:10 and 20:11 can be established. In the Hebrew text of line u (69) the final word is not ‫( הורשתנו‬as is the case in line x), but should be read ‫השמידום‬. 28 Cfr. Isa. 41:8. 25 26

68

chapter four

present community of 2 Chronicles 20 feels itself typified. The temporal description ‫ לעולם‬is strengthening that process of identification. The descendants of Abraham take over the position of the inhabitants of the land. At the text’s level, this happens very literally with the help of an identical root: ‫( ישבי‬v. 7) / ‫( וישב‬v. 8). The way in which v. 8 has given concrete form to that ‫ וישבו‬to a significant degree creates the impression that relating to the offspring of Abraham dwelling in the land has merely consisted of building the sanctuary.29 Precisely that kind of presentation is typical chronistic theology; for the purpose of the conquest is the Temple.30 Note here also that the Chronicler is stating very emphatically that the descendants of Abraham, viz. the people of Israel, built the Temple; whereas everwhere else in the Hebrew Bible it is described as an activity exclusively attributed to King Solomon. Petersen is surprised that v. 8 has been worded in the third person: ‘It implies that the present generation had not and was not saying these sorts of things, that is, saying them on their own’.31 I do not share his view that there is something unusual here. It must be considered, on the contrary, as a literary change by the author to direct Jehoshaphat’s prayer towards a clearly recognizable moment. And it is not strange at all that the generation which built the Temple in v. 9 is presented with the help of a quotation which—although it cannot be found in exactly the same wording elsewehere32—undeniably refers to Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chr 6:24–39 (especially v. 28).33 This reference to that ‘proto-liturgical’ Solomonic event functions as a necessary preamble to Jehoshaphat’s pleading at God’s address to listen in order to get Israel out of this untenable situation. The king is doing no less than

The position of the atnach underneath ‫ וישבו־בה‬strengthens that impression. P. Welten, ‘Lade – Tempel – Jerusalem. Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher’, in: A.H.J. Gunneweg und O. Kaiser (Hrsg.), Textgemäss. Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments (FS E. Würthwein), Göttingen 1979, 169–183; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), London 1982, 28–31. 31 Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 72. 32 With regard to the textcritical problem of ‫ שפוט‬a few remarks must be given. Many exegetes have rearranged the Hebrew consonants and do read ‫ושטף‬. For two reasons this conjecture should not be followed. Firstly, because the root ‫ שפט‬plays an important role within the Jehoshaphat-story (esp. 2 Chr 19:4–11 and 20:12). Secondly, because the word ‫ שפוט‬is used in Ez. 23:10 too, where it also functions in a kind of parallelism with ‘sword’. 33 The comment by Petersen relating to 2 Chron 20:9 is rather odd: ‘Perhaps we have . . . in this Chronicler’s piece—the use of an earlier prayer’; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 72. 29 30

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

69

applying Solomon’s conditional sayings to the present situation of the community which has gathered in the Temple in prayer. Subsequent to the Solomon reference, the reader of v. 10 would expect an urgent cry for help. Strangely enough, this will not be put into words until we read the root ‫ שפט‬in v. 12. In vv. 10–11 Jehoshaphat, or if you would prefer: the author is manipulating God into a theological situation of a very accusatory kind. God, he states, has explicitly forbidden Israel during its exodus from Egypt to attack the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, and Seir. YHWH himself, therefore, has created our present situation of distress. The biblical texts on which the Chronicler seems to have based his argument, however, present a completely different course of things. The Chronicler, in fact, has manipulated two existing traditions in such a way that his new concept brings about a very aggravating effect at God’s address. For, in Deut 2:1–22, Israel is given permission by God to cross the territories of Seir, Moab and Ammon, with an explicit interdiction to provoke these peoples to combat. In Num 20:14–21 and Judg 11:14–18, however, Edom and Moab categorically refuse right of passage, which forced Israel to an enveloping movement. The Chronicler, out of these two divergent traditions, has created one completely new textual complex in which God’s order to spare these three peoples has been linked with the motif to avoid their territories.34 The order in which the names of the attacking armies appear in 2 Chr 20:10 is exactly inverted to the series of names as reflected in Deuteronomy 2. In itself, one would not have noticed it, would not 2 Chr 20:11 have used the notion ‫—ירשה‬not without reason provided with the possesive ‫ ך‬at God’s address—to describe the situation of acute danger. The word ‫ ירשה‬must be noted, because it uncovers an aspect of the Chronicler’s text which, as far as I am aware, has never been discussed so far. In the Hebrew Bible, the word ‫ ירשה‬is found fourteen times; this in itself is certainly not a spectacular communication. Ascertaining however that ‫ ירשה‬is used six times in one and the same context, viz. Deuteronomy 2, makes a difference. Of course, one might call it an accident; but these six occurences also refer precisely to those verses in Cfr. G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes (BWANT IV, 3), Stuttgart 1930, 77–78; S. Japhet, ‘Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles’, JBL 98 (1979), 205–218 strikingly enough has 2 Chr 20:10–11 left out of consideration. 34

70

chapter four

which God is explicitly alloting a territory to these three peoples. And, as the Chronicler in other texts of his book is copying ‫ נחלה‬from his source,35 the appearance of ‫ ירשה‬in 2 Chr 20:11 is strong evidence that the author is performing here as the ‘executor of the Deuteronomist’s will’;36 although from time to time he does not hesitate to accentuate favourite items of his own. Starting from Old Testament traditions, the Chronicler has created his own perspective which—reinforced by its retrospective character— functions as a direct accusation against God: You are to blame for our present situation of distress. Subsequent to that, the stronger can be the appeal at God’s address to take action in favour of his people.37 In the appeal to God for help (v. 12), which both in its opening ( ‫ )אלהינו‬and in its literary form (rhetorical question) immediately reminds of the opening lines of the prayer (v. 6, v. 7), King Jehoshaphat makes his final supplication to God. On the one hand, this is done with the help of the verb ‫שפט‬,38 a subtle pun to his own name, while on the other hand with the help of a contrasting inclusio on ‫( כח‬v. 6b) the people’s impotence is emphasized. In that way the royal prayer is also continued with a characteristic theological feature of the Chronicler: the awareness of man’s inability as opposed to faith in God’s power.39 If Bible translations and commentaries could prevail, King Jehoshaphat’s third rhetorical question (v. 12) would have concluded the prayer. V. 13 is therefore generally considered the opening of the subsequent scene and is attributed the status of an introductory (or circumstantial) sentence: ‘As all the men of Judah stood before the LORD . . ., the spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel . . .’ (REB).40 In my opinion, v. 13, however, is absolutely needed to set the preceding prayer in its proper context. I therefore not only appeal to the masoretic delimitation by the petucha after v. 13, but also, primarily, to the literary

1 Chr 16:18; 2 Chr 6:27; 10:16. ‘Testamentsvollstrecker der Deuteronomisten’; Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972, 224. 37 One should, therefore absolutely disagree with Plöger, who contends that the particular aspect of the Chronicler’s prayers is not to be shown from their content in the first place, but rather by their presence; contra Plöger, ‘Reden und Gebete’, 63. 38 Here one comes across the only example of a construction in which the object of ‫ שפט‬is preceded by ‫ב‬. 39 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 297; Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 71. 40 An exception must be made in respect of Luther’s Bible translation, King James Version, and the commentaries by Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 260, and E.L. Curtis-A.A. Madson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910, 407. 35

36

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

71

urgency of v. 13 in the process of making clear who are the ‘we’ and ‘us’ so dominantly present in the prayer of vv. 6–12. The community, whose presence so far was reported only indirectly, viz. through Jehoshaphat (v. 5), in v. 13 steps from behind the king and shows its full dimension: ‘all men of Judah . . . with their dependants, their wives, and their children . . .’). The narrative arch which in v. 5 opens with the statement: ‘Jehoshaphat stood . . . in the house of the LORD . . .’, in the phrase ‘all the men of Judah stood before the LORD’ (v. 13) gets its necessary climax. Apart from that, the rather marked syntactical structure of v. 14 makes it very plausible that from here on a new paragraph in the narrative commences.41 The prophetic address in 2 Chr 20:14–1742 In an unusually extensive genealogy which traces him back to King David’s time,43 in v. 14 the next speaker, Jahaziel, is introduced. With the help of the apposition ‘a Levite of the line of Asaph’, liturgical-cultic aspects are brought to the fore. Because of some classical formulae his appearance, nevertheless, must be characterized as a prophetical activity: ‘The spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel . . .’ (v. 14);44 ‘Thus says the LORD to you . . .’ (v. 15). One therefore should disagree with the description ‘Levitical sermon’ which was introduced in 1934 by Gerhard von Rad and to this day is still used by many scholars.45 One would expect 2 Chr 20:14–17 to play an important role as a witness to such a theory on the ‘Levitical sermon’ as a genre of its own. For

41 Schmitt points moreover to the fact that, as a rule, nominal circumstantial clauses by the way of waw copulativum follow after the verbal sentence belonging to them; he enumerates nine examples. A. Schmitt, ‘Das prophetische Sondergut in 2 Chr 20,14–17’, in: L. Ruppert – P. Weimar – E. Zenger (Hrsg.), Künder des Wortes (FS J. Schreiner), Würzburg 1982, 273–285 (274). 42 R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET, Band 18), Frankfurt a.M. 1983, 50–53; R. Kasher, ‘The Saving of Jehosaphat; extent, parallels, significance’ (Hebr.), in: Beth Mikra 31 (1985), 242–251. Strübind does not analyse 2 Chr 20:14–17, as he is occupying himself with material exclusively dealing with Jehoshaphat (‘das Josaphatrelevante Material’); Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation, 179. 43 See H. Gese, ‘Zur Geschichte der Kultsänger am zweiten Tempel’, in: Abraham unser Vater (FS O. Michel), Leiden 1963, 230 n. 2. 44 Cfr. 1 Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20. 45 G. von Rad, ‚Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik‘, in: FS O. Procksch, Leipzig 1934, 113–124 [Reprinted in: G. von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 8), München 1965, 248–261.

72

chapter four

within the Book of Chronicles this passage is the only text in which a Levite is actually speaking. Curiously enough, 2 Chr 20:14–17 in Von Rad’s argumentation hardly acts a part; all in all only eleven lines have been devoted to this passage by him.46 The over-inflated criticism of the hypothesis regarding the Levitical sermon47 has culminated in an extensive monograph by Rex Mason.48 He claims that von Rad and others have failed to develop sufficiently objective criteria to identify in a strictly literary way the ‘Levitical sermon’ as a genre of its own. In the Second Temple Period undoubtedly sermons will have been delivered, especially in the Temple of Jerusalem itself. There is no information, however, about whether preaching was the exclusive preserve of the Levites. Neither do we know whether the sermons from that period bore resemblance to the literary form in which a great number of post-exilic speeches (from the Book of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemia, and from prophetical books such as Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, and Maleachi) have been handed down in the Old Testament. The remarkable phenomenon that within these addresses traditional material is reassumed, but hardly ever quoted literally, by way of more or less fixed pattern and themes49 is an important indication to Mason that such old(er) traditions in a similar way will be used in the sermons to the Judean community from the Persian and Greek period.50 Broadly speaking, it seems that Mason and Von Rad in fact only by the term ‘levitical’ are separated by each other. This enveloping movement—to stay with war terminology—has taken enough time. For a prophetical address exposing a splendid literary and theological composition still awaits further analysis. It is not only the fine structure of 2 Chr 20:14–17, however, which requires attention. In these lines, as was the case in the preceding prayer of Jehoshaphat, the question is raised again to what extent the author is using older traditions; and in what way he is dealing with them. For it makes a difference whether such traditions are just adopted, or are attributed new, even different, accents and senses. One can fully agree with Schmitt’s conclusion that the Chronicler in 20:14–17 has imitated the general pattern of the ‘Gottesbescheid’,

Von Rad, Gesammelte Studien, 254. See the extensive note in Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, 218; D. Mathias, ‘ “Levitische Predigt” und Deuteronomismus’, ZAW 96 (1984), 23–49. 48 See n. 7. 49 An outline is offered by Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 123–144. 50 Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 147–256. 46 47

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

73

which is found in extra-biblical texts and biblical texts as well.51 The form critical provenance Schmitt has offered with respect to 2 Chr 20:14–17, however, should have been accompanied with a more specific ‘traditionsgeschichtliche’ analysis of this passage. In the remainder of this chapter, therefore some comments in that direction will be made. If one reads 2 Chr 20:14–17 aloud, one will encounter two highly alliterative phrases in which—no wonder—the essence of this episode has been exactly concentrated: ‫( לא לכם המלחמה כי לאלהים‬v. 15b); ‫( לא לכם להלחם‬v. 17a). Each of these two utterances plays an important part within this passage. The first one (v. 15b) functions as the motivation of the prophet’s summons not to be dismayed: Israel will be out of harm’s way. The second one (v. 17a) not by chance is found in the heart of the lines which hold the instructions, a section which takes clear shape with the help of a striking inclusio: Tomorrow . . . go down (v. 16a) Tomorrow . . . go out (v. 17b).

Whether the phrase ‫ לא לכם המלחמה כי לאלהים‬of 2 Chr 20:15b is indeed such a plain parallel to 1 Sam 17:47 (‫ )כי ליהוה המלחמה‬as an impressive crowd of authors is repeating in chorus must seriously be doubted.52 The wording of 2 Chr 20:15b—just as that of v. 17a—is set in a negative structure which is very rare; it is found nowhere else in the entire Old Testament. Their striking alliterative form helpes to accentuate the unique character of both statements. By them we come across an entire variation of the Chronicler on a theme which is occupying him (or her?) constantly.53

Judg 4:1–9; 2 Kgs 19:1–7 = Isa 37:1–7. Letters from Mari ARM 26 213 and ARM 26 237; see M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Writings from the Ancient World 12), Atlanta 2003, 47–48. 67–69. It is interesting that Schmitt is rather reticent to trace back the formula ‫ אל־תיראו‬to the priestly oracle of salvation. For this see M. Weippert, ‘Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals’, in: F.M. Fales (Ed.), Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in literary, ideological, and historical analysis (Orientis Antiqui Collectio XVII), Rome 1981, 71–115. 52 E.g. Von Rad, Gesammelte Studien, 254; Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, 108 (n. 129); Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 298; Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen, 52; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 74; De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 325; Curtis-Madson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 408. Schmitt is more careful: ‘Möglicherweise liegt hier eine Anlehnung an 1 Sam 17,47b vor’; Schmitt, ‘Das prophetische Sondergut’, 283 n. 24. 53 In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ מלחמה‬is found 319 times. Much the largest number of them, 51

74

chapter four

In a very special way this aspect is shown by the instructions of v. 17. With the exception of the word ‫—עמדו‬which must surely have been added by the Chronicler in order to fill up v. 21 surprisingly with a rather massive liturgical content—the entire wording of v. 17 corresponds literally with phrases uttered by Moses in Ex 14:13–14: ‫אל־תיראו התיצבו וראו את־ישועת יהוה‬

....

‫יהוה ילחם לכם‬

This verbal parallel, right up to its conjugations, is too striking to be merely a coincidence. Whereas every commentator lists this reference, the reader’s attention is seldom drawn to stipulate that the resemblance is far beyond the quotation alone. Both 2 Chronicles 20 and Exodus 14 display a similar narrative structure. In both texts, a situation of distress is found caused by a hostile attack. This brings about a lament by the people, which is answered by an encouraging speech and clear instructions about how to react. From a distance, Israel is therefore a witness of the enemy’s defeat by the hand of God. From this parallel structure, one can reach no other interference than that the frame of 2 Chronicles 20 is determined to a high degree by Exodus 14.54 The close textual and structural relationship between 2 Chr 20:14–17 and Ex 14:13–14 should therefore also be connected with the interpretation of the final address of the narrative. Jehoshaphat’s Address in 2 Chr 20:20 Although the description ‘address’ seems rather exaggerated, because of the all in all eleven Hebrew words of which it has been constructed, both wording and content nevertheless are evidence to the contrary. There is a striking opinio communis that the word combination ‫ ותאמנו‬. . . ‫ האמינו‬in the first half of v. 20 is a direct allusion to Isa 7:9b, a line which—as is shown by all Bible translations—can hardly

viz. 64 times, is found in 1–2 Chronicles; A.S. van der Woude, ābā / Heer, THAT II, München 1967, 502. 54 It seems rather striking that Schmitt in his analysis of Jahaziel’s address is actually describing the parallel to Ex. 14:13–14, but in his conclusion has completely left aside this aspect; Schmitt, ‘Das prophetische Sondergut’, 278–279.

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

75

be translated adequately.55 The Chronicler is ascribing to King Jehoshaphat words which he, historically speaking, had not at his disposal at all. The prophet Isaiah is supposed to speak this line more than a hunderd years after Jehoshaphat’s death, in a similar situation, however, of hostile armies threatening Jerusalem. The anachronistic presentation by the Chronicler makes it very plausible that the author of the Book of Chronicles had interests other than pure historical facts. It strikes the eye, for example, that the Chronicler on the one hand has transformed the negative form of Isa 7:9 (‫ )אם לא תאמינו כי לא תאמנו‬into a positive summons; and that on the other hand the hiph il conjugation which in the Isaian text is used in an absolute form—a cause of permanent discussion56—in the context of 2 Chr 20:20 has been given an unequivocal sense: ‫האמינו ביהוה אלהיכם ותאמנו האמינו‬ Whereas it is obvious that the first part of 2 Chr 20:20 can be considered a remodelling of the famous Isaian word, in respect of the second half of this verse such a point of view is untenable. For the phrase ‫ האמינו בנביאיו והצליחו‬has no other point of reference to the Isaiah text than the opening verbal form.57 The most plausible inference therefore would be that the second half of 2 Chr 20:20 is to be considered the interpretation which the Chronicler himself wants to apply to the remodelled Isaian text from the first part of his statement.58 That 2 Chr 20:20b must indeed be understood in this way is certainly proved by the appearance of two elements which can be said to be typically chronistic.

55 RSV: ‘If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established’; NEB: ‘Have firm faith, or you will not stand firm’; REB: ‘Have firm faith, or you will fail to stand firm’; NRSV: If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all’. 56 E.g. R. Smend, ‘Zur Geschichte von he amin’, in: Hebräische Wortforschung (FS W. Baumgartner; VTS 16), Leiden 1967, 284–290; H. Wildberger, ‘Glauben’, in: Hebräische Wortforschung, 372–386; A. Jepsen, aman, TWAT I, Stuttgart 1974, 313–348; H. Wildberger, mn / fest, sicher, THAT I, München 1971, 177–209; Nic.H. Ridderbos, ‘Enkele beschouwingen naar aanleiding van ta aminu in Jes. 7:9’, in: Schrift en Uitleg (FS W.H.Gispen), Kampen 1970, 167–178. 57 Nowhere in the literature on 2 Chr 20:20 a comment can be found relating to the fact that the Septuagint version renders a singular : ἐν προφήτῃ αὐτοῦ, by which the range of this statement has explicitly been narrowed to Jahaziel alone. 58 See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 386–388.

76

chapter four

(1) The statement ‫ האמינו בנביאיו‬is exposing and emphasizing the prominent and pointed place which in the Book of Chronicles has been alloted to the prophets.59 Their linkung up with and parallel to the summons ‫ האמינו ביהוה‬is undisputable proof for that. (2) Using the verb ‫ צלח‬hiph. (‘to succeed’) the Chronicler brings into prominence a theme which is near to his heart. For, whereas in the hiph il conjugation the verb ‫ צלח‬is found thirty times in the Old Testament, 1 and 2 Chronicles have no less than thirteen occurences: eleven of which occur in the so-called ‘chronistisches Sondergut’.60 To the Chronicler, ‫ צלח‬symbolizes the outcome of ‘seeking guidance from the LORD’ (e.g. 2 Chr 26:5) and ‘observing carefully the decrees and ordinances of the LORD’ (e.g. 1 Chr 22:13). The seven Hebrew words which constitute Jehoshaphat’s factual address build up together the most concise summary of the Book of Chronicles’ message. One should not go as far as Throntveit who considers 2 Chr 20:20 to be the exact centre of a number of concentric circles exposing a chiastic structure relating to speeches from the period of the ‘Divided Monarchy’.61 Nor should one, as the opposite extreme, agree with Von Rad’s view that 2 Chr 20:20b is a slap in the face of the Isaian statement.62 Does Von Rad not pass over too easily that precisely in the Book of Chronicles the prophets have been given a crucial role as a sign of God’s manifest mercy (2 Chr 36:15–16)? And, in addition, the synonymous parallelism of 2 Chr 20:20 should have mitigated Von Rad’s view in determining the specific meaning of the famous Isaian quotation and its interpretation. It is the literary make-up of parallelism which can bring the reader a step further, say the following hypothesis is convincing. As was observed above, both the sequence and the wording of 2 Chr 20:20 to a high degree have been influenced by and modelled on Exodus 14. Precisely in the final line of that narrative (Ex 14:31b) one comes across the

59 See I.L. Seeligmann, ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in den deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS 29), Leiden 1978, 254–284, esp. 270–279; Y. Amit, ‘The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Book of Chronicles’ (Hebr.), in: Beth Mikra 28 (1982), 113–133; Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 127–129; see also the literature mentioned in n. 8 above. 60 See M. Saebø, l , THAT II, 551–556. 61 Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 115–120. 62 ‘Das Nebeneinander des Mahnens zum Glauben an Jahwe und an seine Propheten schlägt dem wahren Sinn des Jesajawortes ins Gesicht’; Von Rad, Gesammelte Studien, 254–255.

aspects of innerbiblical interpretation

77

phrase ‫ויאמינו ביהוה ובמשה עבדו‬. It is hardly possible to avoid the impression that both the structure and the content of this verse are constitutive for the attachment of the famous Isaian word within the theological concept of the Chronicler, on the one hand, and its peculiar interpretation, on the other.63 The author of 2 Chronicles 20 has exploited the (written) traditions of Exodus 14 relating to Israel’s fundamental experience at the Read Sea in order to encourage and activate the community of his own time. One should, therefore, absolutely disagree with Eissfeldt’s statement that YHWH is put upon the scene as a deus ex machina, a situation in which the people has nothing to do but to pray and sing.64 Did he forget that praying and singing, in a word liturgy, is always preceded by a fundamental act, viz. faith to Him and to those sent by Him?

63 For this hypothesis only Kasher is on my side. He however says not a single word about a relation between 2 Chr 20:20 and Isa 7:9b. 64 O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen ²1956, 663.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE NARRATIVE ON UZZIAH’S LEPROSY (2 CHRONICLES 26)1 The narrative on Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26) is a very interesting text, since it contains material unparalleled in the Deuteronomistic History. Whereas 2 Kgs 14:1–22; 15:1–7 devotes only nine verses to Azariah’s reign of fifty-two years, 2 Chronicles 26 has a circumstantial report of twenty-three verses on the same king, who is now called Uzziah.2 The Chronicler adopted 2 Kgs 14:21–22; 15:1–7 as the core of his narrative, but enlarged it with two major additions. He omitted the reference to the people’s worship in the high places (2 Kgs 15:4), and inserted at that particular point in his narrative an extensive report of [1] Uzziah’s successful reign (2 Chr 26:5–15) and [2] his being struck by leprosy (2 Chr 26:16–20). In so doing, the Chronicler created a two-part structure which he had also employed in the previous chapters: King Joas Amaziah Uzziah

Positive section 2 Chr 24:2–14 2 Chr 25:2–13 2 Chr 26:5–15

Negative section 2 Chr 24:15–27 2 Chr 25:14–27 2 Chr 26:16–20

2 Chr 26:5–15 The positive section on Uzziah must be considered the Chronicler’s own explanation for the exceptionally long reign of this king, viz. fifty-two years. It opens with a clear statement:

1 This Chapter is a revised version of a contribution first published as ‘ “They saw that his forehead was leprous” (2 Chr 26:20). The Chronicler’s Narrative on Uzziah’s Leprosy’, in: M.J.H.M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus ( Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, Vol. II), Leiden 2000, 61–72. 2 The name ‘Uzziah’ is used in 2 Chronicles 26; Isa 1:1; Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; Zech 14:5; 2 Kgs 15:13.30.32.34, whereas ‘Azariah’ is found in 1 Chr 3:12; 2 Kgs 15:1.6.7.8.17.23.27. A.M. Honeyman, ‘The Evidence for Regnal Names among the Hebrews’, JBL 67 (1948), 13–25 argues that one should distinguish between a king’s regnal or throne name and his personal name; cf. Shallum/Jehoahaz ( Jer 22:11); Eliakim/Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34); Mattaniah/Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:17).

80

chapter five He set himself to seek God in the days of Zecharaiah, who instructed him on seeing God;3 as long as he sought the LORD, God caused him to prosper. (2 Chr 26:5)4

The Chronicler, beyond any doubt, has woven his own idiom and theological approach into this statement, as it is both introduced and concluded by the verb ‫‘( דרש‬to seek God/YHWH’), which is one of the Chronicler’s central themes.5 Uzziah’s success in foreign affairs is illustrated in vv. 6–8, whereas his prosperity in internal affairs is dealt with in vv. 9–15. Both accounts are given a strong coherence by the Chronicler with the help of two of his favourite verbs, viz. ‫‘( עזר‬to help’) and ‫‘( חזק‬to be strong’): (26:7) ‘God aided him’ (26:13) ‘to help the king’ (26:15) ‘he was marvellously helped’ (26:8) ‘he had become very strong’ (26:9) ‘he fortified’ (26:15) ‘till he was strong’

Two times, viz. at the end of the pericope dealing with Uzziah’s foreign affairs (vv. 6–8) and at the end of the passage dealing with his internal affairs (vv. 9–15), there is a statement regarding his fame (‫)שם‬: ‘His fame spread to the borders of Egypt’ (26:8); ‘his fame spread far and wide’ (26:15).6 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to investigate whether, and to what extent, all data referred to in vv. 6–15 are reliable from the historical point of view. In fact everyone might agree with Sara Japhet that

3 Some Hebrew MSS: ‘in the fear of God’. This reading, however, seems to arise from Rabbinic literature. Cf. D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 50/1: Josué . . .), Göttingen, 1982, 506–508. 4 The verb ‫ צלח‬hiph il (‘to prosper’) should be considered one of the Chronicler’s favourite motifs: 1 Chr 22:11.13; 29:13; 2 Chr 7:11; 13:12; 14:6; 18:11.14; 20:20; 26:5; 31:21; 32:30. 5 See C. Begg, ‘ “Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982), 128–141; B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 211), Sheffield 1996, 46–53. The dissertation of G.E. Schaefer, The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972) was not available to me. 6 The expression ‫‘( יצא שמו‬his fame spread wide’) as used in 2 Chr 26:15 reminds of 1 Chr 14:17, where it is said of King David.

the narrative on uzziah’s leprosy

81

‘viewed on their own merits, the data themselves are neither unrealistic nor imaginary” and should be considered as “basically authentic” ’.7 2 Chr 26:16–21 The negative section on Uzziah (vv. 16–21) is dovetailed with the previous positive section (vv. 5–15) by the root ‫חזק‬: ‘But when he grew powerful his pride became great’. It can hardly be a coincidence that the Chronicler has used here exactely the same morphology (‫)ובחזקתו‬ as he did to describe Rehoboam’s forsaking the Torah (2 Chr 12:1).8 With the exception of 2 Chr 26:20b–21, which more or less has been adopted from 2 Kgs 15:5, the entire negative section on Uzziah is only to be found in Chronicles. Its special character is accentuated by the root ‫ מעל‬in the opening line (2 Chr 26:16) which is repeated in v. 18b. The root ‫ מעל‬is found 17 times in the Book of Chronicles, as opposed to 47 times in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, and is a major motif of the book’s theology, whereby it ‘is singled out as the significant factor leading to the Exile’.9 Already in the genealogies the root occurs three times (1 Chr 2:7; 5:25; 9:1). Within the narrative section of Chronicles, it is found for the first time in the negative evaluation of Saul’s reign (1 Chr 10:13–14), and is also resumed in a negative sense in respect of Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:2), Uzziah (2 Chr 26:16.18), Ahaz (2 Chr 28:19–22; 29:19), Manasseh (2 Chr 33:19), and Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:14).10 ‘The common denominator in all the occurrences is that maal [‫מעל‬, PCB] constitutes a sin against God’11, or in other words: ‘‫ מעל‬is failure to accord God

7 S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL), London, 1993, 877. See also H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), Grand Rapids MI 1982, 334; R.B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC), Waco Texas 1987, 206; P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 24–27.87–90.153–163; G. Rinaldi, ‘Quelques remarques sur la politique d’Azarias (Ozias) de Juda en Philistie (2 Chr 26,6ss.), in: Congress Volume Bonn 1982 (VTS 9) Leiden 1963, 225–235. 8 Dan 11:2 is the only further occurrence of the identical Hebrew form. 9 W. Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement: The theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles’, in: J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season (FS W. McKane; JSOTSS 42), Sheffield 1986, 113–138, esp. 116–126; W. Johnstone, ‘The Use of Leviticus in Chronicles’, in: J.F.A. Sawyer (ed), Reading Leviticus. A Conversation with Mary Douglas ( JSOTSS 227), Sheffield 1996, 243–255. The quotation is from Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement’, 117. 10 See also the (negative) retrospections by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:6; 30:7). 11 J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, Leiden 1976, 16–17.

82

chapter five

what is his due’.12 Only a number of times in the Book of Chronicles does the root ‫ מעל‬have a special meaning, viz. to trespass in the Temple (2 Chr 26:16–18; 28:19–25; 29:19; 36:14), ‘an act which may cause the destruction of the community as well as the offender’.13 In addition to the roots ‫ מעל‬and ‫חזק‬, the verb ‫‘( שחת‬to destroy’, always infinitive hiph il ) is also to be considered one of the Chronicler’s typical motifs (1 Chr 21:15; 2 Chr 12:12; 21:7; 25:16; 26:16; 36:19). Thus, the first half of 2 Chr 26:16, being the opening line of the negative section, has been given a theologically marked heading by the presence of all three roots.14 Uzziah’s sin leading to his leprosy is also described with the help of the root ‫‘( קטר‬to burn incense’), which is found precisely seven times in this section (vv. 16 [2 x].18 [2 x].19 [3 x]). It can hardly be coincidence that this root is also present in 2 Kgs 15:4—a verse which was left out by the Chronicler in his own account—regarding the hill-shrines: But the hill-shrines were not abolished; the people still continued to sacrifice and burn incense on the hill-shrines.

Copying such a statement from the Deuteronomistic History would, of course, be blasphemy to the Chronicler and his audience. Instead, the Chronicler composed a completely new narrative of his own, in which he replaced the people’s role mentioned in 2 Kgs 15:4 by a remarkable act of King Uzziah, and situated this narrative not on the ‘hill-shrines’ of the Deuteronomistic author but in ‘the Temple of YHWH’. In so doing, he creates in 2 Chr 26:16b a kind of parallel with 1 Kgs 12:33, where it is told that Jeroboam ‘went up to the altar to burn the sacrifice’. Such behaviour is in violent contrast with Num 17:5 [ET 16:40], and Num 18:7, where burning incense before the LORD is the exclusive priviledge of the sons of Aaron.15 This point in particular will be the substance of the rebuke to King Uzziah by the eighty priests.16

Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement’, 118. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 35. 14 The expression ‫‘( גבה לבו‬to grow proud’) is found in a negative sense in both 2 Chr 26:16a (Uzziah) and 32:25–26 (Hezekiah), whereas it occurred in a positive sense relating to King Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 17:6. 15 Cf. 1 Chr 6:34 [ET 6:49]; 23:13. 16 Some commentators tend to ascribe the address of 2 Chr 26:18 as being uttered by Azariah only; Japhet, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 886; S.J. de Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI), Grand Rapids MI, 1989, 357. 12 13

the narrative on uzziah’s leprosy

83

Not only the sevenfold usage of the root ‫ קטר‬in 2 Chr 26:16–20, but also the name of the chief priest strikes the eye. The reader may wonder whether the Chronicler used the name of Azariah merely by coincidence. In the Hebrew Bible, twenty nine individuals bear this name.17 No less than eightteen of them are mentioned in the Book of Chronicles and at least six of them are priests.18 We have no information whatsoever about the chief priest Azariah in 2 Chr 26:17–20.19 The fact however that none other than a Temple official with the name Azariah is introduced by the Chronicler as the opponent of a king whose name in the Deuteronomistic History is called Azariah, can hardly be a coincidence. The appearance of a chief priest called Azariah would help interpret the function of the root ‫ עזר‬in the positive section of this Uzziah narrative (2 Chr 26:7.13.15). When from 2 Chr 26:16 onwards, the king displays sinful behaviour, the verb ‫עזר‬ with its heavily theological connotations is transferred to the one who acts according to the Torah, viz. the chief priest Azariah. The group of eighty priests accompanying Azariah is not by chance typified as ‫בני־חיל‬, litt. ‘Sons of valour’, for a confrontation with Uzziah is at hand. It is appropriate, therefore, to render the opening words of v. 18 in a hostile sense: ‘they took a stand against King Uzziah’.20 This is confirmed by the tenor of their speech addressed at the king: It is not for you (‫ )לא־לך‬Uzziah, to burn incense to YHWH (‫)להקטיר ליהוה‬ but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who have been consecrated (‫)המקדשים‬ to burn incense (‫)להקטיר‬. Leave the sanctuary (‫)המקדש‬, for you have trespassed (‫)כי מעלת‬. It is not for you (‫)לא־לך‬ to have honour from YHWH God (‫)לכבוד מיהוה‬.

See ABD I, 533–535. 1 Chr 5:35 [ET 6:9]; 5:36–37 [ET 6:10–11]; 5:39–40 [ET 6:13–14]; 6:21 [ET 6:36]; 2 Chr 26:17–20; 31:10.13. 19 That Azariah in 2 Chr 26:16–20 and 2 Chr 31:10 should refer to one and the same priest is claimed by W. Johnstone, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Vol. 2 ( JSOTSS 254), Sheffield 1997, 168. The opposite view, however, is held among others by Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 375 and Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 966. 20 BDB, 963 explicitly mentions this meaning of ‫ עמד‬+ ‫ על‬for 2 Chr 26:18. 17 18

84

chapter five

Everybody will agree with Sara Japhet that ‘the verse’s structure is framed by a double repetition of ‫’לא־לך‬.21 However her view that the twofold ‫כי‬, the first of which introduces a restrictive clause, the second introducing a causative clause, should be put on the same level— enclosing in a chiastic format22 the central imperative ‘Get out of the sanctuary’—is rather laboured. One should also question Japhet’s statement, saying that ‘although in the present context the priestly address of v. 18 is represented as if spoken by a chorus (‘eighty priests’ headed by the high priest), it in fact should be understood as a rebuke of Azariah alone’.23 It should be considered rather essential that all eighty-one priests involved are confronting the king with their rebuke. In the analysis of 2 Chr 26:18, there is one aspect which seems to have slipped everybody’s notice, viz. the verbal form of ‫מעל‬. It has already been noted that the root ‫ מעל‬is one of the Chronicler’s favourite theological motifs. However, everywhere in 1–2 Chronicles it is used in indirect speech. Only in the passage under discussion, 2 Chr 26:18, and nowhere else in the entire Book of Chronicles, is the verb ‫מעל‬ used in direct speech: ‘you have trespassed’. No wonder, for this is a very special occasion. Not only has King Uzziah trespassed on the most holy place, but he has also burned incense, an act which is exclusively reserved for the sons of Aaron. Therefore, the special status of both the Temple of YHWH and its personnel (referred to by the root ‫)קדש‬ is at stake. Uzziah is confronted by the priestly command (‘Get out of the sanctuary’), which is followed by a censure (‘you have trespassed and it will bring you no honor from YHWH God’) functioning as an indictment and a prospect of divine recompense. In verse 19 the confrontation between Uzziah and the priests has also been shaped in literary fashion. Instead of behaving according to the priestly command, Uzziah, on the contrary, loses his temper. The circumstantial clause (‘while the incense was in his hand’) not only emphasizes his infringement, it also accentuates that he officiates as if he were a priest. Once again, the narrative lays stress on the confrontation between the two parties. First, by repeating the verb ‫זעף‬, that was already used at the very opening of this verse but is now followed by

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 886. The order of the elements (ki . . . ki . . . lo lekha . . . lo lekha . . .) as given by Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 886 is not correct. The twofold ki is to be found in the middle between the twofold lo lekha. 23 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 886. 21 22

the narrative on uzziah’s leprosy

85

an explicit mention of the priests (‘while he was raging at the priests’). And second, by the skillful choice of vocabulary and word order in the remainder of verse 19. Whereas in Classical Hebrew the verb ‫‘( זרח‬to shine’) is usually, and almost exclusively, coupled with such nouns as ‘sun’, ‘light’, ‘glory’, ‘deity’,24 in 2 Chr 26:19 it is said of the skin disease which shone upon Uzziah’s forehead. Because of the noun ‫‘( מצח‬forehead’), scholars like Japhet and Johnstone quite rightly presume a cross-reference to Ex 28:36–38, where a medallion of pure gold engraved ‘Holy to YHWH’ is to be fastened on Aaron’s forehead.25 He has to bear the blame for defects in the rites with which the Israelites offer their sacred gifts. And it is also not by chance that the king’s skin disease sets in ‘in front of the priests in the House of YHWH next to the altar of incense’,26 for according to Leviticus 13–14, it is the priest who is endowed with the authority to declare a person clean or unclean. Indeed, both the chief priest and all the priests declare Uzziah unclean in what can be considered a kind of standard formula: ‘and, behold, his forehead was leprous’. It hardly can be coincidence that precisely at this point in the narrative their declaration is preceded by the verb ‫ פנה‬+ ‫‘( אל‬to turn towards’),27 whereby they are described rather circumstantially as ‘the chief priest and all the priests’ (v. 20). This is hardly surprising, for this is the seventh and final occurrence of the noun ‫ כהן‬in this pericope.28 Subsequent to the communication ‘behold, he was leprous on his forehead’, the Chronicler reports an immediate reaction of both parties. The priestly faction ‘hurried him out of there’ and Uzziah too ‘hastened himself to leave, because YHWH had struck him’. With that causal clause in 2 Chr 26:20b, the Chronicler for the first time since 2 Chr 26:4 is at one with his source (2 Kgs 15:5). In 2 Chr 26:21, information is offered by the Chronicler which has not been supplied by his source: ‫‘( כי נגזר מבית יהוה‬for he was cut off from the House of YHWH’).

Cf. DCH III, Sheffield 1996, 138. Cf. Stephen Langton, Commentary on the Book of Chronicles, edited with an Introduction by Avrom Saltman, Ramat Gan 1978, 185. 26 Within this pericope, here the seventh, and final, occurrence of the root ‫ קטר‬is found. 27 Cf. Num 12:10b: ‫ויפן אהרן אל־מרים והנה מצרעת‬. 28 Vv. 17. 20 (singular); vv. 17. 18. 19. 20 [2 x] (plural). 24 25

86

chapter five

With respect to the verb ‫ גזר‬used here, it must be stressed that it fits into a striking semantic pattern; almost every occurrence of ‫( גזר‬I niph al ) in the Hebrew Bible means ‘to be doomed to death’ (Isa 53:8; Ezek 37:11; Ps 31:23; 88:6; Lam 3:54). Moreover, is is to be stressed that neither this verb nor the context of 2 Chr 26:21 has ever been related to Lev 16:22, where Aaron sends the scape-goat, bearing all the iniquities of Israel, into some barren waste (‫)אל־ארץ גזרה‬.29 The verb ‫( גזר‬I niph al ) can also shed some light upon the meaning of the much disputed designation ‫( בית החפשות‬Qere: ‫בית החפשית‬, as is the Ketiv in 2 Kgs 15:5).30 Since the text of 2 Chr 26:20–21 is entirely negative, inclusing the place where Uzziah is buried (v. 23), the expression ‫ בית החפשות‬should most likely be understood as a negative designation, viz. a euphemism for ‘house of constraint’.31 An Inner-Biblical Midrash? In scholarly research of the Book of Chronicles, the notion ‘midrash’ is often brought to the fore in those instances where the Chronicler deviates from his source material as found in Samuel-Kings. William Johnstone, for example, characterizes the Book of Chronicles as ‘a work of theology’ which ‘bears some relationship to the type of literature known as midrash’32 which he goes on to define as the reinterpretation of a given biblical text, that is a text which has received some kind of status as canonical Scripture. The task of midrash is not to incorporate new historical data; it is to reinterpret the given data in such a way that new insights for the edification of the community are achieved.33

As far as 2 Chr 26:5–15 is concerned, however, Johnstone’s definition of midrash does not apply in view of the fact that this section consists

29 I like to thank Prof. Jacob Milgrom, Jerusalem, for his comment on this specific point. 30 For an overview of the scholarly debate see I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten. Literar-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralletexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226), Berlin 1995, 104–105. 31 See W. Rudolph, ‘Uzzias »Haus der Freiheit«, ZAW 89 (1977), 418. 32 Johnstone, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Vol. I, 23. 33 Johnstone next refers to the definition of midrash as given by J. Neusner, Between Time and Eternity, Dickenson 1975, 52. See also I.L. Seeligmann, ‘The Beginning of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles’ (Hebr.), Tarbiz 49 (1979–1980), 14–32.

the narrative on uzziah’s leprosy

87

of a complete set of new historical data. Nothwithstanding the attempts made at defining the concept ‘midrash’ over the last forty years,34 a consensus of opinion, so desperately needed, has never been achieved.35 Johann Maier is right in saying that a lot of what is labelled as ‘midrash’ could be typified as ‘aggadah’ as well.36 As for 2 Chr 26:16–21, perhaps this latter notion would be more appropriate: Zugrunde liegt die Tatsache, daß jeder Text irgendwelche Fragen offen läßt, der Leser oder Hörer also zusätzliche Informationen wünscht. Die »haggadische« Deutung versucht, diesen Mangel zu beheben, sie füllt die Textaussagen schöpferisch auf, erklärt die Herkunft oder Entstehung von namen und Sachverhalten, bietet also ätiologische Erklärungen, benützt aber auch Personifizierungen zur Verdeutlichung, was dramatische (dialogische) Strukturen ergeben kann.37

Edward L. Greenstein has explained the narrative on Uzziah in 2 Chr 26:16–21 as an inner-biblical midrash of the Nadab and Abihu episode in Leviticus 10.38 His arguments, however, are open to criticism. Just a look at the synoptic table, in which he has inventorized all the

See e.g. R. Bloch, ‘Midrash’, in: W.S. Green and J. Neusner (eds.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism, Vol. I: Theory and Practice (BJS), Missoula 1978, 29–50; B.S. Childs, ‘Midrash and the Old Testament’, in: J. Reumann (ed.), Understanding the Sacred Text (FS M.S. Enslin), Valley Forge, 1972, 47–59; A.G. Wright, ‘The Literary Genre Midrash’, CBQ 28 (1966), 105–138. 417–457 (= id., The Literary Genre Midrash, State Island, 1967); A. Zeitlin, ‘Midrash. A Historical Study’, JQR 44 (1953), 21–36; R. Le Déaut, ‘À propos d’une définition du Midrash’, Biblica 50 (1969), 395–413; id., ‘Apropos a Definition of Midrash’, Int 25 (1971), 259–283. 35 For an instructive overview with respect to the term ‘midrash’ as applied to the Book of Chronicles, see Georg Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen (BBB, 93), Weinheim 1995, 30–39. 36 Johann Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten (NEB, Ergänzungsband 3 zum Alten Testament), Würzburg 1990, 132–134. 37 Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten, 130–131. 38 Edward L. Greenstein, ‘An Inner-Biblical Midrash of the Nadab and Abihu Episode’ (Hebr.), in: D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A, Jerusalem 1994, 71–78. Zeron, who also hints at the interrelationship of those two biblical narratives, is more reserved: ‘Es scheint also, als hätten wir in 2. Chr. 26:16–22 eine eklektische Erzählung, in der im wesentlichen Elemente aus verschiedenen biblischen Geschichten in einer dem Verfasser passenden Form zusammengestellt sind’; Cf. A. Zeron, ‘Die Anmassung des Königs Usia im Lichte von Jesajas Berufung. Zu 2 Chr. 26:16–22 und Jes. 6:1ff’, ThLZ 33 (1967), 65–68 (quotation on 68). Earlier, Morgenstern also pointed to the parallels between 2 Chronicles 26 and Leviticus 9: ‘The incident [of 2 Chr 26:16ff., PCB] thus parallels almost exactly the account in Lev. 9:22–10:3 . . . of the death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, . . . and also the story of Korah and his followers in the Pg stratum of Num 16 . . .’; Cf. J. Morgenstern, ‘Amos Studies II. The Sin of Uzziah, The Festival of Jerobeam and the Date of Amos’, HUCA 12–13 (1938), 1–53 (quotation on 17, n. 32). 34

88

chapter five

words and expressions that these two texts have in common, will suffice to point out the weakness of Greenstein’s thesis. Greenstein lists the two occurrences of the phrase ‫לפני יהוה‬, found in Lev. 10:2—ignoring the case of Lev. 10,1—and puts them on a par with the phrase ‫ לפני הכהנים בבית יהוה‬as found in 2 Chr 26:19. 39 In the latter text, however, the words ‫ לפני‬and ‫ יהוה‬are so far away from one another that the expression ‫ לפני יהוה‬is not really found here anyway. On the other hand, however, one wonders why ‫קטרת‬, which is one of the major points of contact between Lev 10:1–3 and 2 Chr 26:16–21, is not underlined by Greenstein at all. If the Chronicler’s narrative on Uzziah’s leprosy is to be considered an inner-biblical midrash on the Nadab and Abihu episode, then it should at least be mentioned that echoes of the Jeroboam narrative (1 Kgs 12:32–13,5) and perhaps some other Old Testament passages, e.g. Numbers 12, as well, may be percieved in the Chronicler’s account.40 There is, however, too little evidence of the Chronicler’s purposely referring to or varying on these specific texts from his ‘Hebrew Bible’. Wirkungsgeschichte The Chronicler’s narrative attributes the origin of Uzziah’s sin, consisting of his assuming the prerogatives of the Aaronite priests and performing the rite specifically reserved for the High Priest, to his pride: ‘But when he grew powerful his pride became great and led to his own undoing . . .’ (2 Chr 26:16a). It is striking that when Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (IX, 222–223) provides an expanded version of 2 Chronicles 26, it is precisely these opening words of 26:16a that are emphasized and give birth to a circumstantial report:41 But, after he had made these arrangements and preparations, he was corrupted in mind through pride and, being filled with vanity on account of his mortal prosperity, he became contemptuous of the power that is immortal and endures for all time, that is, piety toward God and observance of the laws. And so, because of his successes, he slipped and

39

Lev 10:1b: ‫ ;ויקריבו לפני יהוה‬Lev 10:2a: ‫ ;ותצא אש מלפני יהוה‬Lev 10:2b: ‫וימתו‬

‫לפני יהוה‬.

See e.g. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 338–340; Zeron, ‘Die Anmassung . . .’, 68. See the detailed and stimulating study of L.H. Feldman, ‘Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra (CRINT, Section 2, Vol. 1), Assen 1988, 455–518. 40

41

the narrative on uzziah’s leprosy

89

became involved in the same sins as those of his father, who had also been led into them by his brilliant good fortune and the greatness of his power, which he had not been able to direct rightly. Thus, on the occasion of notable day which was a public festival, he put on the priestly garment and entered the sacred precinct to offer sacrifice to God on the golden altar.42

The handful of hapax legomena and phrases used only in this section43 are solid evidence that Josephus borrowed these terms from a source, maybe a Hellenistic one, which was familiar to him. 44 For if these hapax legomena and rare word combinations were his own invention, he undoubtedly would have used them elsewhere in his works, as he does with a number of expressions occurring in this passage.45 That leprosy is indeed connected with pride or arrogance is attested not only in Josephus’ report, but in contemporary Rabbinic texts as well. Several works link the discussion of what God did to Miriam in Deut 24:9 to Uzzah’s leprosy in 2 Chr 26:16 ff. In Sifra Mesora Parasha 5:7–9 it has been handed down as follows: [‘Take heed, in an attack of leprosy to be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests shall direct you . . .] Remember what God did to Miriam’. What has one thing to do with the other? But it teaches that she was punished only on account of gossip. And is it not an argument a fortiori? If this happened to Miriam, who did not speak in such a way in Moses’ presence, one who speaks of his fellow in his very presence, how much the more so! R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: ‘Also leprosy comes on account of arrogance, for so we find concerning Uzziah, about whom Scripture says: “But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was false to the Lord his God and entered the Temple of the Lord to burne incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valour . . .” ’.46

This (moralizing?) approach has to do with radical changes in Israel’s socio-historical life. After the catastrophe of 70 CE, it was impossible

42 Translation by Ralph Marcus, in: H.St.J. Thackeray – R. Marcus – A. Wikgren – L.H. Feldman, Josephus VI (Loeb edition), London ³1966, 117.119 43 See Begg, ‘Uzziah of Judah . . .’, 14–15, nn. 25–27; 29–30; 34–36. 44 I would like to thank Prof. Chaim Milikowsky, Bar Ilan University, for his comment upon this particular point. 45 See Begg, ‘Uzziah of Judah . . .’, 15, esp. nn. 31–33. 46 Translation according to J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism with a Critique and a Commentary by Mary Douglas (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity from the First to the Seventh Century), Leiden 1973, 83. See also Tos Neg 6.7; Sifre Deut 275.

90

chapter five

to enter the Temple. Therefore leprosy no longer was given a cultic interpretation, but a social one, related to the moral life within the community.47 Origenes, in his homilies on Isaiah, more than once refers to the Uzziah episode in 2 Chr 26:16ff. in a moralizing fashion similar to hat found in Rabbinic works. The following passage may be considered typical: Therefore he became leprous because of his neglect of the Law. Every one is under the rule, either of sin, or of justice. If sin bears sway over me, I am one of the kings of Israel who have violently entered the Temple.48

See Neusner, The Idea of Purity, passim. ‘Igitur leprosus factus est propter praevaricationem legis. Unusquisque sub regno est, sive peccati, sive justitiae. Si peccatum mihi regnat, unus sum de regibus Israel, qui templum violenter ingressi sunt’; Origenes, In Isaiam Homilia V, 3 (ed. Migne, PG XIII, 237). The thirty-two homilies of Origin on Isaiah have come down to us only fragmentarily from Latin quotations by Jerome. See W.A. Baehrens, Origenes Werke. VIII. Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten, Kommentar zum Hohelied in Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzungen (GCS 33), Leipzig 1925, 242–289; id., Überlieferung und Textgeschichte der lateinisch erhaltenen Origeneshomilien zum Alten Testament (TU 42, 1), Leipzig 1916, 159–199; V. Peri, ‘Intorno alla tradizione manoscritta delle omelie origeniane su Isaia nella traduzione latina di S. Girolamo’, Aevum 31 (1957), 205–229. 47 48

CHAPTER SIX

ISAIAH AND THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES Before answering the question in what way the Chronicler presents Isaiah and his book, one need a broad outline of the context in which this prophet is presented in the Book of Kings (which is the Chronicler’s source). Therefore, first a general overview of 2 Kings 18–20 is in order here. After that, it will be compared with the characteristics of 2 Chronicles 29–32. By far the biggest part of 2 Kings 18–20 is devoted to the story dealing with the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian army (2 Kgs 18:9–19:37), followed by the narrative relating to King Hezekiah’s illness (2 Kgs 20:1–11) and the report dealing with the arrival of the Babylonian delegation (2 Kgs 20:12–19). Little attention is paid to Hezekiah’s efforts with respect to the reform of the cult (2 Kgs 18:3–7). Within the narrative cycle of 2 Kings 18–20, the prophet Isaiah plays a prominent role. Three times it is reported that King Hezekiah and the prophet in some way get in touch with each other. In the first case (2 Kgs 19:1–7), we are told that Hezekiah—under the threat of a siege by the Assyrian army—in great distress sent messengers to the prophet, who in his turn put the king’s heart at rest saying that YHWH himself will sap the morale of the king of Assyria, so that he shall return to his own land. The second report (2 Kgs 19:20–34) is a circumstantial prophecy sent by Isaiah to Hezekiah containing God’s answer to the king’s prayer for deliverance. God will defend his city to save it; the king of Assyria shall not come into Jerusalem, or cast up a siege-ramp against it.1 The third narrative (2 Kgs 20:1–11) reports the prophet’s encounter with King Hezekiah, who has fallen seriously ill and is cured by Isaiah’s intervention.2

1 See A. van der Kooij, ‘Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr.’, ZDPV 102 (1986), 93–109; B. Becking, ‘Sennacherib and Jerusalem: New Perspectives’, Journal for Semitics/Tydskrif vir Semitistiek 16 (2007), 267–288. 2 The often disputed question of the interrelationship between 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39 has deliberately been left out of consideration here. See, for example: B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT II/3), London 1967; B.S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL),

92

chapter six

The Chronicler’s presentation of King Hezekiah’s reign, and of the role of Isaiah, however, is completely different. The author of the Book of Chronicles has devoted no less than three chapters (2 Chronicles 29–31) to the religious and cultic reforms King Hezekiah has brought into force. Apart from the opening lines (2 Chr 29:1–2), which are more or less identical to 2 Kgs 18:1–3, the remainder of 2 Chronicles 29–31 is completely the Chronicler’s own creation (‘Sondergut’). The confrontation with the Assyrian army (2 Chr 32:1–23) is much less marked here than in the detailed report offered in 2 Kgs 18:9–19:37. Hezekiah’s illness has got only three verses (2 Chr 32:24–26), whereas the delegation from Babylon is given no more than one single verse (2 Chr 32:31). Whereas the Book of Kings draws substantial attention to the prophet Isaiah, in the Book of Chronicles, on the contrary, the prophet is given only marginal notice. As a character within a narrative, he is mentioned only once: ‘Then King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz prayed because of this and cried to heaven’ (2 Chr 32:20). Here the Chronicler has combined two separate reports from his source—the king’s request to Isaiah to pray for him (2 Kgs 19:4b) and the prayer of Hezekiah himself (2 Kgs 19:14–19)—and compressed them into one brief sentence. Nowhere else in the Book of Chronicles is Isaiah presented as a person who appears on the scene. On the contrary, he has been reduced to the book bearing his name: The other events of Uzziah’s reign, from first to last, are recorded by the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz. (2 Chr 26:22) The other events of Hezekiah’s reign, and his works of piety, are recorded in the vision of the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz and in the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chr 32:32)

It can hardly be a coincidence that the first part of this latter sentence— ‘the vision of [. . .] Isaiah son of Amoz’—is found only one more time in the Hebrew Bible, namely, as the opening words of the Book of Isaiah (Isa 1:1). This is solid evidence that the Chronicler is more

Louisville 2001, 258–266; C.R. Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39, Minneapolis 1991; J. Vermeylen, ‘Hypothèses sur l’origine d’Isaïe 36–39’, in J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah (BETL 132), Louvain 1997, 95–118; K.A.D. Smelik, Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (OTS 28), Leiden 1992, 93–128.

isaiah and the book of chronicles

93

interested in the (text of the) Book of Isaiah than in the prophet Isaiah as a historical person or even as a literary figure.3 The Chronicler’s Intention If there is such a marked difference between the Chronicler’s account of Hezekiah’s reign and the role of Isaiah, on the one hand, and the impression as given in the Book of Kings, on the other, in the reader’s mind the question might arise whether the author of the Book of Chronicles at this point did use the Book of Kings as his source at all? However, it is beyond any doubt that the Chronicler not only knew the Book of Kings in some Hebrew version, but that he frequently took advantage of it too. Isaac Kalimi, who is a well known expert in the study of the Book of Chronicles, is categorical in his view: Chronicles is the only comprehensive book of the Bible whose sources are, for the most part, available to us. A comparison of Chronicles with other books of the Bible reveals that almost half the text of Chronicles has parallels in the books of Samuel and Kings.4

Gary Knoppers, who at present is one of the leading scholars in this field too, is quite resolute about the Chronicler’s source: [T]he dependence upon Kings is unmistakable in the narration of Solomon and the kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 1–36). In each case, the book quotes extensively from earlier materials.5

That the Chronicler did indeed know the section on Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18–20 is confirmed, first, by the opening lines of 2 Chr 29:1–2, which are almost identical to 2 Kgs 18:2–3:

Attention will be paid to this feature in the next section. I. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, Winona Lake IN 2005), 1. 5 G.N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12), New York 2004, 66. For detailed information, see, for example: M. Augustin, ‘Beobachtungen zur chronistischen Umgestaltung der deuteronomistischen Königschronik nach der Reichsteilung’, in M. Augustin & J. Kegler, Das Alte Testament als geistige Heimat. FS H.W. Wolff (EHS XXIII/17), Frankfurt 1982, 11–50; M.Z. Brettler, ‘From the Deuteronomist(s) to the Chronicler: Continuities and Innovations’, in D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A, Jerusalem 1995, 83–90; S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta GA 1984, 83–188. 3 4

94

chapter six [T]wenty-five years old; he reigned for twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah. He did what was right in the sight of YHWH, just as his ancestor David had done.

Second, a more or less literal resemblance can be established between 2 Chr 32:10 and 2 Kgs 18:19 (‘Thus says King Sennacherib of Assyria: On what are you relying . . .?’). Third, one can point to the common ground between 2 Chr 32:12 and 2 Kgs 18:22 (‘Was it not this same Hezekiah who took away his high places and his altars and commanded Judah and Jerusalem . . .’), and finally between 2 Chr 32:15a and 2 Kgs 18:29a (‘. . . do not let Hezekiah deceive you . . .’). In fact, the Chronicler has preserved from his source only the narrative frame, simplified it and filled it up in such a way as to present King Hezekiah as an ideal monarch.6 It is not by accident, of course, that the Chronicler has given Hezekiah such an extensive section, the majority of it (2 Chr 29:3–32:8) being his own creation (‘Sondergut’). Only David and Solomon got more space in his book.7 Christopher Begg is right saying that the Chronicler has an urgent need to present King Hezekiah as religious as possible.8 One can also fully agree with him that ‘[t]he Hezekiah of Chronicles—particularly in the Sondergut—is portrayed as himself a prophetic figure’.9 Paying attention to Isaiah ‘would have the effect of obscuring Hezekiah’s status as the prophet of his time, and accordingly the Chronicler passes over (or rewrites) just these portions’ (relating to Isaiah, PCB).10 However, Begg’s view is only a partial solution to the question why Isaiah has so noticeably been put aside by the Chronicler. For it is not only Isaiah who to a high degree has been put to silence by the Chronicler, all classical prophets are.11 Prophets like Samuel (1 Chron

6 ‘Right from the start it is clear that the Chronicler is concerned to fashion his sources in such a way that Hezekiah appears in the most favourable light’; Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, 110. 7 See M.A. Throntveit, ‘The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, in M.P. Graham, S.L. McKenzie & G. Knoppers (eds.), The Chronicler as Theologian ( JSOTSS 371), New York 2003, 105–121. 8 C. Begg, ‘The Classical prophets in the Chronistic History’, BZ 32 (1988), 100–107. 9 Begg, ‘Classical prophets’, 102. 10 Begg, ‘Classical prophets’, 102. 11 ‘. . . the literary prophets play no part in the Chronicler’s narrative’; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt a.M. 1989, 181.

isaiah and the book of chronicles

95

11:3; 29:29) and Jeremiah (2 Chron 35:25; 36:12, 21, 22), for instance, are marginalized too. And the prophet Ezekiel is not even mentioned at all by the Chronicler.12 This means that there must be a theological, maybe even an ideological, reason why the author of the Book of Chronicles paid so little attention to the classical prophets as factual characters. William Schniedewind has convincingly demonstrated that, as far as the Book of Chronicles is concerned, one has to differentiate between speeches by speakers with prophetic titles (‘prophet’, ‘seer’, ‘man of God’) and speeches by speakers without prophetic titles, but introduced by ‘possession formulas’ (‘the spirit of God was upon . . .’, ‘the spirit enveloped . . .’). Speakers with prophetic titles usually address themselves only to the king, whereas so-called ‘inspired messengers’ generally address themselves to the people.13 After a careful investigation Schniedewind reaches the conclusion that persons with prophetic titles ‘often give explanations for past or future events, functioning as interpreters of events’.14 In the speeches of the ‘inspired messengers’, on the contrary, emphasis is put on another aspect, viz. ‘the inspired interpretation of authoritative texts which revitalized the word of God anew for the post-exilic community’.15 Therefore, it can hardly be an accident that precisely in the final chapter of the Book of Chronicles a clear cut distinction has been made between ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ (2 Chr 36:16). Schniedewind’s thesis can be substantiated with the help of a famous text from the Book of Isaiah, which has been adopted by the Chronicler to emphasize his point of view. Therefore a closer look at a specific verse in 2 Chronicles 20 is in order now. The Chronicler’s Rephrasing of a Particular Isaianic Passage There is a remarkable opinio communis that the word combination ‫ ותאמנו‬. . . ‫ האמינו‬in the first half of 2 Chr 20:20 is a direct allusion to Isa 7:9b, a line which—as is shown by all Bible translations—can hardly

See Kegler, ‘Prophetengestalten’, 487 (Table 5). There are five ‘inspired messengers’: Amasai (1 Chr 12:19), Azariah (2 Chr 15:1), Jahaziel (2 Chr 20:14), Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20), and Neco (2 Chr 35:21). As to Jahaziel, see Chapter four. 14 Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 127 [Italics by me, PCB]. 15 Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 127 [Italics by me, PCB]. 12

13

96

chapter six

be translated adequately.16 The Chronicler is ascribing to King Jehoshaphat words which, historically speaking, he had not at his disposal at all. The prophet Isaiah is supposed to speak this line more than a hundred years after Jehoshaphat’s death, but in a similar situation of hostile armies threatening Jerusalem. The anachronistic presentation by the Chronicler makes it very plausible that the author of the Book of Chronicles had interests other than pure historical facts. It strikes the eye, for example, that the Chronicler, on the one hand, has transformed the negative form of Isa 7:9 (‫אם לא‬ ‫ )תאמינו כי לא תאמנו‬into a positive summons; and that, on the other hand, the hiph‘il conjugation which in the Isaian text is used in an absolute form—a cause of permanent discussion17—in the context of 2 Chr 20:20 has been given an unequivocal sense: ‫( האמינו ביהוה אלהיכם ותאמנו‬a) ‫( האמינו בנביאיו והצליחו‬b) Whereas it is obvious that the first part of 2 Chr 20:20 can be considered a remodelling of the famous Isaian saying, in respect of the second half of this verse such a point of view is untenable. For the phrase ‫ האמינו בנביאיו והצליחו‬has no other point of reference to the Isaiah text than the opening verbal form.18 The most plausible inference therefore would be that the second half of 2 Chr 20:20 is to be considered as the interpretation which the Chronicler himself wants to apply to the remodelled Isaian text from the first part of his statement.19 That 2 Chr 20:20b must indeed be understood in this way is certainly proved by the appearance of two elements which can be said to be typically Chronistic:

16 RSV: ‘If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established’; NEB: ‘Have firm faith, or you will not stand firm’; REB: ‘Have firm faith, or you will fail to stand firm’. 17 See, for example: R. Smend, ‘Zur Geschichte von he’amin’, in Hebräische Wortforschung. FS W. Baumgartner (VTS 16), Leiden 1967, 284–290; H. Wildberger, ‘Glauben’, in Hebräische Wortforschung, 372–386; A. Jepsen, ’aman, TWAT I, Stuttgart 1974, 313–348; H. Wildberger, ’mn/fest, sicher, THAT I, Munich, 1971, 177–209; N.H. Ridderbos, ‘Enkele beschouwingen naar aanleiding van ta’aminu in Jes. 7:9’, in: Schrift en Uitleg. FS W.H. Gispen, Kampen 1970, 167–178. 18 Nowhere in the literature on 2 Chr 20:20 a comment is to be found relating to the fact that the Septuagint version renders a singular: ἐν προφήτῃ αὐτοῦ, by which the range of this statement has explicitly been narrowed to Jahaziel alone. 19 See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 386–388.

isaiah and the book of chronicles

97

(1) The statement ‫ האמינו בנביאיו‬is exposing and emphasizing the prominent and pointed place which in the Book of Chronicles has been allotted to the prophets.20 Their linking up with (and parallelling to) the summons ‫ האמינו ביהוה‬is indisputable proof for that. (2) Using the verb ‫ צלח‬hiph. (‘to succeed’), the Chronicler brings into prominence a theme which is near to his heart. For, whereas in the hiph‘il conjugation the verb ‫ צלח‬is found thirty times in the Old Testament, 1 and 2 Chronicles have no less than thirteen occurrences, eleven of which appear in the so-called ‘chronistisches Sondergut’. 21 To the Chronicler, ‫ צלח‬symbolizes the outcome of ‘seeking guidance from the LORD’ (for example 2 Chr 26:5) and ‘observing carefully the decrees and ordinances of the LORD’ (for example 1 Chr 22:13). The seven words which constitute Jehoshaphat’s factual address together build up the most concise summary of the Book of Chronicles’ message. Maybe Mark Throntveit goes over the top considering 2 Chr 20:20 to be the exact centre of a number of concentric circles exposing a chiastic structure relating to speeches from the period of the ‘Divided Monarchy’.22 As the opposite extreme, one should not agree with Gerhard von Rad’s view that 2 Chr 20:20b is a slap in the face of the Isaian statement.23 Does he not pass over too easily the way that precisely in the Book of Chronicles the prophets have been given a crucial role as a sign of God’s manifest mercy (2 Chr 36:15–16)? And, in addition, in determining the specific meaning of the famous Isaian quotation and its interpretation in 2 Chr 20:20, the synonymous parallelism of this line should have mitigated von Rad’s view. For it is the literary make up of this parallelism that can bring us a step further. The present writer wants to submit it to the reader as a hypothesis.

20 See, for example, I.L Seeligmann, ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in den deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS 29), Leiden 1978, 254–284, esp. 270–279; Y. Amit, ‘The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Book of Chronicles’ (Hebr.), in Beth Mikra 28 (1982), 113–133; M.A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak. Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93), Atlanta, 1987, 127–129; R. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler ( JSOTSS 88), Sheffield 1990, 128–133; 171–176; R. Mason, Preaching the Tradition. Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990. 21 See M. Saebø, Él, THAT II, Munich 1976, 551–556. 22 Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 115–120. 23 ‘Das Nebeneinander des Mahnens zum Glaubem an Jahwe und an seine Propheten schlägt dem wahren Sinn des Jesajawortes ins Gesicht’; G. von Rad, ‘Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik’, in id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 8), Munich 1965, 248–261, here 254–255.

98

chapter six

Both the sequence and the wording of 2 Chr 20:20 to a high degree have been influenced by and modelled on Exodus 14.24 Precisely in the final line of that narrative do we come across the phrase ‫ויאמינו ביהוה‬ ‫( ובמשה ﬠבדו‬Ex 14:31b). It is hardly possible to avoid the impression that both the structure and the content of this verse are constitutive for the attachment of the famous Isaian saying within the theological concept of the Chronicler, on the one hand, and its particular interpretation, on the other.25 The author of 2 Chronicles 20 has exploited the (written) traditions of Exodus 14 relating to Israel’s fundamental experience at the Reed Sea in order to encourage and activate the community of his own time. Everyone therefore is incited to absolutely disagree with Otto Eissfeldt’s statement that YHWH is put upon the scene as a deus ex machina, a situation in which the people has nothing to do but to pray and sing.26 Did Eissfeldt forget that praying and singing (in a word, liturgy) is always preceded by a fundamental act, that is to say: faith in Him and those sent by Him?

See Chapter four. This hypothesis is only supported by R. Kasher, ‘The Saving of Jehoshaphat: Extent, parallels, significance’ (Hebr.), Beth Mikra 31 (1985), 242–251. He however says not a single word about a relation between 2 Chr 20:20 and Isa 7:9b. 26 ‘Es ist also wirklich an dem, daß Jahwe als ein deus ex machina in Szene gesetzt wird und die Menschen nichts zu tun haben, als zu beten und zu singen.’; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2nd ed.), Tübingen 1956, 663. 24

25

PART TWO

STUDIES OF TOPICS In the first part of this study attention has been paid to well-defined texts or textual units in the Book of Chronicles that in a special way display the Chronicler’s theological and ideological intentions. There are, however, quite a lot of important topics and themes which have deliberately been spread throughout the book and thereby build up major literary and theological threads. As an example, in the Book of Chronicles the role and function of Jerusalem is of great importance to the overall message of the Chronicler. It therefore is a matter of surprise that up to now hardly any attention has been given to the role and function of Jerusalem in the Book of Chronicles. One will also be surprised to see what kind of prophetic activities the Chronicler has ‘invented’ in order to put his meaning across to the reader. For it is quite surprising that the majority of prophets and inspired messengers presented by the Chronicler are unknown to the Hebrew Bible. It is important, therefore, to investigate what specific role the Chronicler has allotted them. Attention must also be paid to the widespread and pertinent misconception in scholarly circles about the Chronicler’s view on the exodus and the Conquest. Since the Book of Chronicles presents quite a few psalms and prayers, an analysis of their content and function is imperative. And finally, the great amount of narratives on war in the Book of Chronicles calls for some attention too. Time and again one will be surprised of how the author of the Book of Chronicles gives shape to his points of view.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE CHRONICLER’S VIEW OF ISRAEL’S EARLIER HISTORY1 It is beyond any doubt that the author of the Book of Chronicles has occupied himself with Israel’s earlier history. The discussion among scholars, therefore, is not if he refers to the past, but how he does it. This Chapter offers a sketch of the Chronicler’s factual presentation of Israel’s earlier history in which prophets and inspired messengers have a key role. Finally, some remarks are in order relating to the book’s ‘forgotten traditions’. The Chronicler’s Point of View: Fact or Fiction? Within the corpus of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Chronicles undoubtedly is a remarkable phenomenon, as on the one hand a substantial part of it is also found in 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, whereas on the other hand it has been processed in a special way. Let us suppose for a moment that by an ironic freak of date only the Book of Chronicles would be part of the Hebrew Bible, whereas Samuel-Kings were unknown. In that case nobody indeed might have been able to reconstruct from the Book of Chronicles a version that should bear any resemblance to the current Hebrew text of Samuel-Kings. What made the Chronicler to present his own, rather exceptional, vision on Israel’s earlier history, while at the same time at large using extant (canonical?) texts in a rather selective way?2

1 This Chapter is a modified version of a contribution first published as ‘Israel’s Earlier History as presented in the Book of Chronicles’, in: N. Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen (eds.), History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History (DCLY 2006), Berlin 2006, 57–75. 2 There are scholars who have serious doubts whether the Chronicler considered Samuel-Kings as canonical. ‘. . . the books of Samuel and Kings were by no means canonical for Chr. He did not treat them as immutable . . . On the contrary, these books served him as raw materials for manipulation as he saw fit . . .’; I. Kalimi, ‘Was the Chronicler a Historian?’, in: M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSS 238), Sheffield 1997, 79.

102

chapter seven

The book’s architecture will be the starting point. The present-day bipartite lay-out of Chronicles is not original. Its division into two books is owing to the Septuagint and has been introduced into the Hebrew manuscripts, as well as into the printed Hebrew text editions, not before the fifteenth century CE. As a matter of fact, the composition of the Book of Chronicles is made up of three larger sections: 1 Chronicles 1–9:34 (Genealogies); 1 Chronicles 9:35–2 Chronicles 9 (Saul–David–Solomon); 2 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 36 (Rehoboam up to Cyrus).

At first blush, the book seems to display, therefore, a perfect chronological sequence: (1) From Adam up to Saul and David; (2) The era of the united monarchy under David and Solomon; (3) The period of the divided kingdom, viz. from Rehoboam till the Babylonian Exile and the Decree of Cyrus.

The opinion that the Chronicler presents a perfect chronological overview of Israel’s earlier history, however, is deceptive. The genealogies which at first glance seem to be a dull and endless string of names, at a closer look reveals itself as a well-structured section which, in addition, is indispensable for a better understanding of the book of Chronicles as a whole.3 The climax of the genealogical section (1 Chr 9:1b–34) is an overview of those who after the Babylonian Exile settled down: the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, and the rest of the temple personnel. No doubt Jerusalem and the Temple in post-exilic time are the main focus of the genealogical section. To summarize the first section of the book (1 Chr 1:1–9:34), therefore, under the heading ‘All Israel united under King David’ as Steven McKenzie has done in his commentary4 or to typify it in John Wright’s words as a passage ‘Stretching from Adam to Saul and his kin . . ., the time before the Davidic kingship’ is inaccurate and misjudges the climax of the genealogical composition.5

3 A detailed analysis of 1 Chronicles 1–9 is given by M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel. Die »genealogische Vorhalle« 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990. The dissertation of W. Osborne, The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (Dropsie University, 1979) was not available to me. 4 S.L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville TN 2004, 59. 5 J.W. Wright, ‘The Fight for Peace: Narrative and History in the Battle Accounts

the chronicler’s view of israel’s earlier history

103

In this respect, it should be emphasized that the climax of the third section of the book (2 Chr 36:22–24) covers exactly the same moment in history as the climax of the genealogical section: Cyrus’ summons to the Judean exiles in Babylon to return and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.6 And as a matter of fact, it can hardly be a coincidence that the middle part of the book (1 Chr 9:35–2 Chr 9:30) has a climax that is rather similar: the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. It Is All About the Temple In the book of Chronicles it is all about Jerusalem and the Temple. This point of view must be amplified. Notwithstanding the fact that the Chronicler has devoted almost half of his book to David and Solomon, on closer investigation it appears that it is not these two kings who are in the centre of attention, but the institutions which they called into being: the temple and the cult. Within the Chronicler’s theological concept it is even so that David’s dynasty only matters as long and in as far as it guarantees optimal conditions for the construction of the temple and the preservation of the cultic institutions. In other words: the function of the Davidic dynasty in Chronicles is to establish and to keep up the temple and its cult. The most obvious passage to proof this point of view is found in Nathan’s oracle (1 Chronicles 17). There is no doubt whatsoever that 1 Chronicles 17 has been adopted from 2 Samuel 7. By introducing a number of modifications and alterations, however, the Chronicler has consciously, well-considerately and excessively changed the message of his parent text. One example will suffice to show in what way the Chronicler introduced his own accents, themes and changes to make his point.7 As compared to its parent text, the verse that concludes Nathan’s oracle (1 Chr 17:14) holds a number of radical changes. Whereas in 2 Sam 7:16 God’s promise in all its aspects refers to David (his dynasty, his kingship, his throne), a in Chronicles’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 153. 6 One hardly can understand why S. Japhet holds the view that the Babylonian exile is ‘played down and almost ignored’; S. Japhet, ‘Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?’, in: A. de Pury, Th. Römer & J.D. Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research ( JSOTSS 306), Sheffield 2000, 162. Her point of view will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. 7 For a more extensive comparison between 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, see Chapter two.

104

chapter seven

radical change is found in 1 Chr 17:14. Here we do not find the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) that in 2 Sam 7:16 refers to the stability of the Davidic dynasty. In 1 Chr 17:14, however, the verb ‫‘( ﬠמד‬to appoint’) is used instead. So doing, the Chronicler has changed his parent text and introduced a completely different semantic field. Solomon is now described as a temple official and a governor. And for that reason the Chronicler has also altered the possessive suffixes. Whereas in 2 Sam 7:16 it is said to David: ‘Your house and your kingdom will be established for ever in your sight . . .’, in 1 Chr 17:16 there is a different wording: ‘I shall appoint him in my house and in my kingdom for ever . . .’. The crux of the whole question is that it is David who makes preparations for the construction of the temple and that it is Solomon who will realize his father’s plans.8 The Book of Chronicles in fact is not so much interested in the Davidic monarchy as in the dominant position of the temple.9 No doubt the most astonishing aspect of the Book of Chronicles, however, is that it is concluded at a much unexpected moment: the summons to rebuild the temple.10 The book just ends where one might have expected to find a report on the construction of the Second Temple. This means that it is not the rebuilding of the Temple in itself that the Chronicler wanted to bring to the fore, neither the existence of the Second Temple as such. What did the Chronicler intend to achieve with his circumstantial document? Maybe an answer to this intriguing question could be found in a publication by Steven Schweitzer. In an impressive study he argues that the Book of Chronicles should be read as utopian literature, as Roland Boer had already advocated for a small section of the book.11 Schweitzer states: [ U ]topian literature . . . challenges current conditions by articulating a better alternative reality than what exists in the present. The utopia may be

8 When the Chronicler in 1 Chr 28:5 makes David recall this final line from Nathan’s Oracle, it says: ‘YHWH . . . has chosen Solomon to sit on the throne of YHWH’s kingdom over Israel’; see also 1 Chr 29:23; 2 Chr 9:8; 13:8. 9 See e.g. the stimulating study by J.E. Dyck, The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler (BIS 33), Leiden 1998. 10 And is it not some sort of irony that YHWH appointed just a foreign king—Cyrus of Persia—to build him a temple at Jerusalem in Judah (2 Chr 36:23)? 11 S.J. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (Dissertation University of Notre Dame IN) 2005; R.T. Boer, ‘Utopian Politics in 2 Chronicles 10–13’, in: Graham & McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author, 360–94.

the chronicler’s view of israel’s earlier history

105

located temporally in the past, present, or future . . . . the content of the utopia always stands in contrast to the author’s present. Thus, historical reconstruction of the author’s society on the basis of a utopian text is extremely problematic.12

The Book of Chronicles is interpreted by Schweitzer [A]s a utopian work that critiques present society and its status quo by presenting a better alternative reality. Thus, in contrast to many recent scholarly assessments, this analysis contends that Chronicles does not reflect the historical situation of a particular time during the Second Temple period in its portrayal of the past, but rather conveys hope for a different future.13

Schweitzer is absolutely right that there is no solid proof to argue with certainty that the book of Chronicles indeed does reflect the historical situation during the Second Temple period. On the other hand, however, there is also no possibility to falsify that statement. Would it be impossible indeed that some aspects of the Chronicler’s historical situation became part of a new—utopian—concept? This especially applies to the overwhelming attention the Chronicler paid to the Levites. Is there any necessity to label this remarkable attention as pure utopian, i.e. that it only exists in the author’s mind and does not, or can not, reflect some historical situation, which in its turn is transposed into the utopian past? The Persistent Myth of ‘Forgotten Traditions’ The Book of Chronicles displays a chronology that ranges from Adam (1 Chr 1:1) to Cyrus’ proclamation that the Temple be rebuilt and the exiles return to Jerusalem (2 Chr 36:22–23). The narrative part of the book, however, starts with Saul (1 Chronicles 10) and David (1 Chronicles 11). Does this imply that the Chronicler has simply left

Schweitzer, Reading Utopia, 415. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia, 423. There is one more paragraph to quote: ‘It is suggested that Chronicles shares much with the perspective of such texts as Ezekiel 40–48 and the Temple Scroll, which both present a future utopian society centered around a new temple. Chronicles also creates a utopian society centered around a temple, but presents it as a past reality that should be the basis for comparison to the present. Chronicles does not call for a new temple to replace the present one. Instead, the practices of the current temple need to be brought into line with those of the utopian past . . .’; Schweitzer, Reading Utopia, 416. 12

13

106

chapter seven

out—or even denied—some major constitutive moments of Israel’s history, such as the period of the Patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, the function of Sinai, the Conquest and Settlement? It was a particular statement by Sara Japhet which to a high degree has affected the scholarly view on the Chronicler’s presentation of Israel’s earlier history. Chronicles presents a different view of history: the dimensions of the Babylonian conquest and exile are reduced considerably, the people’s settlement in the land is portrayed as an uninterrupted continuum, and, in the same way, the constitutive force of the exodus from Egypt is eliminated. Chronicles simply omits the entire historical context—slavery, exodus, and conquest. The bond between the people and the land, like the bond between the people and its god, is described as something continuous and abiding. This bond cannot be associated with a particular moment in history, for it has existed since the beginning of time.14

Some years later this view is repeated by her: [T]he historical portrayal of Chronicles skips over the sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the wanderings in the wilderness, the conquest of Canaan, the settlement, and the periods of Joshua, the Judges and Saul. History moves directly from the genealogies of the sons of Jacob to the reign of David.15

It is especially the omission of the exodus in the Book of Chronicles that led to a substantial scholarly literature. All authors alike found a similar way out, viz. that it is the Chronicler’s enormous emphasis on the temple that distracted attention from such a central biblical topic as the exodus.16 Would this have been the case, one can hardly explain why the Chronicler, on the one hand, omitted references to the exodus as found in some of his source texts,17 whereas, on the other hand, he adopted similar references to the exodus from his parent texts.18

Japhet, Ideology, 386. Japhet, ‘Postexilic Historiography’, 160. 16 E.g. J. Kegler, ‘Das Zurücktreten der Exodus-Tradition in den Chronikbüchern’, in: Schöpfung und Befreiung (FS Cl. Westermann), Stuttgart 1989, 54–66; Ph. Abadie, ‘Quelle place occupe l’Exode dans le livre des Chroniques?’, Cahiers de l’Atelier 482 (1998), 90–100; Y. Amit, ‘The Position of the Egypt Exodus Tradition in the Book of Chronicles’ (Hebr.), Te‘uda 2 (1982), 139–155. 17 2 Chr 3:1–2/1 Kgs 6:1; 2 Chr 6:11/1 Kgs 8:21; 2 Chr 6:39–40/1 Kgs 8:50–53. 18 1 Chr 17:2, 5/2 Sam 7:2–3, 6; 2 Chr 5:10/1 Kgs 8:9; 2 Chr 6:5/1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Chr 7:22/1 Kgs 9:9. 14 15

the chronicler’s view of israel’s earlier history

107

It is my conviction, however, that the Chronicler did never suppress or neglect major traditions, but reworked Israel’s earlier history in a specific way and integrated it into his own work. So doing, references to the exodus and the wanderings in the wilderness, for example, were processed in a more subtle way. This view will be demonstrated with the help of a particular passage from 2 Chronicles 20, viz. King Jehoshaphat’s prayer. The opening words of v. 7 (‘Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants . . .?’) unmistakably function to remind God of the mighty deeds He performed in the past in favour of his people Israel.19 Although v. 7 obviously opens with a reference to God’s acts of liberation to Israel in the past, it is a contemporary address (‘our God’) which precedes that description. In that way, past and present are linked together. In the second half of v. 7, this intertwinement is very delicately substantiated in the formula ‘the descendants of your friend Abraham’.20 And it is precisely this formula that holds the point of identification. For in that formula both the generation of the Conquest and the present community of 2 Chronicles 20 feels itself typified. The temporal description ‘for ever’ is strengthening that process of identification. The descendants of Abraham take over the position of the inhabitants of the land. At the text’s level, this happens very literally with the help of an identical root: ‫( ישבי‬v. 7)/‫( וישבו‬v. 8). The way in which v. 8 has given concrete form to that verbal form ‫ וישבו‬creates to a significant degree the impression that relating to the offspring of Abraham dwelling in the land has mainly consisted of building the sanctuary.21 Precisely that kind of presentation is typical chronistic theology; for the purpose of the Conquest is the Temple.22 Note here also that the Chronicler is stating very emphatically that the descendants of Abraham, viz. the people of Israel, built the Temple; whereas everywhere else it is described as an activity exclusively attributed to one person, viz. king Solomon.

19 In Chapter four, it is explained that the opening of v. 7 has often been mistranslated. 20 See Isa 41:8. 21 The position of the atnach underneath ‫ ישבו‬strengthens that impression. 22 P. Welten, ‘Lade—Tempel—Jerusalem. Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher’, in: A.H.J. Gunneweg und Otto Kaiser (Hrsg.), Textgemäss. Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments (FS E. Würthwein), Göttingen 1979, 169–83; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), Grand Rapids MI 1982, 28–31.

108

chapter seven

In v. 10 the reader would expect an urgent cry for help. Strangely enough, this will not be put into words until v. 12. In vv. 10–11 Jehoshaphat—or if you would prefer: the author—is manipulating God into a theological situation of a very accusatory kind. God, he states, has explicitly forbidden Israel during its exodus from Egypt to attack the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, and Seir. YHWH himself, therefore, has created our present situation of distress. The biblical texts on which the Chronicler seems to have based his argument, however, present a completely different course of things. The Chronicler, in fact, has manipulated two existing traditions in such a way that his new concept brings about a very aggravating effect at God’s address. For, in Deut 2:1–22, Israel is given permission by God to cross the territories of Seir, Moab and Ammon, with an explicit interdiction to provoke these peoples to combat. In Num 20:14–21 and Judg 11:14–18, however, Edom and Moab categorically refuse right of passage, which forced Israel to an enveloping movement. Out of these two divergent traditions, the Chronicler has created a completely new textual complex in which God’s order to spare these three peoples has been linked with the motif to avoid their territories.23 The order in which the names of the attacking armies appear in 2 Chr 20:10 is exactly inverted to the series of names as reflected in Deuteronomy 2. In itself, one might not have noticed it, would not 2 Chr 20:11 have used the notion ‫—ירשה‬not without reason provided with the possessive “your” at God’s address—to describe the situation of acute danger. The word ‫ ירשה‬must be noted, because it uncovers an aspect of the Chronicler’s text which has never been discussed so far. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word ‫ ירשה‬is found fourteen times, which in itself is certainly not a spectacular communication. Ascertaining however that ‫ ירשה‬is used six times in one and the same context, viz. Deuteronomy 2, makes a difference. Of course, one might call it an accident; but these six occurrences also refer precisely to those verses in which God is explicitly allotting a territory to these three peoples. And, since the Chronicler in other texts of his book is copying ‫ נחלה‬from his source,24 the appearance of ‫ ירשה‬in 2 Chr 20:11 is strong evidence that the author is performing Cfr. G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT IV, 3), Stuttgart 1930, 77–78; S. Japhet, ‘Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles’, JBL 98 (1979), 205–218 has strikingly enough left 2 Chr 20:10–11 out of consideration. 24 1 Chr 16:18; 2 Chr 6:27; 10:16. 23

the chronicler’s view of israel’s earlier history

109

here as the ‘executor of the Deuteronomist’s will’,25 although from time to time he does not hesitate to accentuate favourite items of his own. Starting from Old Testament traditions, the Chronicler has created his own perspective which—reinforced by its retrospective character— functions as a direct accusation against God: You are to blame for our present situation of distress. Subsequent to that, the stronger can be the appeal at God’s address to take action in favour of his people. One should therefore absolutely disagree with Plöger, who contends that the particular aspect of the Chronicler’s prayers is not to be shown from their content in the first place, but rather by their presence.26 Specific References to Israel’s Earlier History In the following, some more examples are presented of how the Chronicler refers to Israel’s earlier history and traditions. His presentation of Abraham, for instance, is quite characteristic. The Patriarch is only presented with the help of biblical quotations. The phrase ‘Abraham begat Isaac’ (1:34)—the first consecutive imperfect of the genealogical list— refers to Gen 25:19. The reference to God’s covenant with Abraham in 1 Chr 16:16 is a literal quotation from Ps 105:9. Some lines earlier (1 Chr 16:13), the Chronicler quoting Ps 105:6 does not even shrink away from replacing the name of Abraham with the name of Israel. Maybe the author of 1 Chronicles 16 has skipped the greater part of the psalm (Ps 105:16–45), since such a circumstantial summary of Israel’s history might divert attention from the factual liturgical setting he wants to emphasize. In 1 Chr 29:18 and 2 Chr 30:6 the mention of Abraham is part of a stereotyped formula (‘YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel’). And the final words of 2 Chr 20:7 (‘the descendants of Abraham, your friend’) have been adopted from Isa 41:8. More interesting, however, might be the observation that some themes and motives which are traditionally linked with Abraham have been reworked by the Chronicler resulting in a completely new concept. In 1 Chr 27:23 that belongs to a section in which the principal officers in charge of the tribes of Israel are listed (27:16–24), the author links 25 Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972, 224 (‘Testamentsvollstrecker der Deuteronomisten’). 26 O. Plöger, ‘Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, in: id., Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 1977, 50–66.

110

chapter seven

David’s non taking census of the under twenty’s with God’s promise to Abraham to make the Israelites ‘as many as the stars in the sky’ (Gen 22:17; 26:4). So doing, the Chronicler not only emphasizes that God’s promise to Abraham has been realized in David’s time, but is also bringing David into prominence at the cost of Abraham. A similar case is found in 2 Chr 3:1, where the geographical notion ‘Moriah’ no longer refers to the story of Abraham in Genesis 22, but is explicitly related to David and the Temple on the one hand, and to the story of the threshing-floor of Ornan on the other hand (1 Chr 21:15–22:1).27 Whereas 1 Chronicles 21 explicitly relates the threshingfloor of Ornan to the place of the future temple, the parent text of 2 Samuel 24 does not.28 That it is all about the Temple indeed can be demonstrated with the help of a small example. In the story referring to David buying the threshing-floor of Ornan, both 2 Sam 24:25 and 1 Chr 21:26a have the phrase ‘he [David] built an altar to YHWH there, and offered wholeofferings and shared-offerings’. In the Chronicler’s version, however, there is a plus: ‘He called to YHWH, who answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of whole-offering’ (21:26b). In the entire book of Chronicles there is only one more mention of fire from heaven. It is just at the moment Solomon has finished his prayer at the dedication of the Temple: ‘As Solomon finished his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the whole-offering and the sacrifices, while the glory of YHWH filled the house’ (2 Chr 7:1). The offerings are not lighted by priests or other functionaries, but they are consumed by fire from heaven, i.e. by God Himself. This spectacular phenomenon marks God’s final approval with the Temple and the cult. It is God Himself who performs the first official act relating to the new Temple. A pattern similar to the reworking of traditions about Abraham can be discerned in respect of the exodus. The passages about the exodus that the Chronicler adopted from his parent texts (1 Chr 17:2, 5/ 2 Sam 7:2–3, 6; 2 Chr 5:10/1 Kgs 8:9; 2 Chr 6:5/1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Chr 7:22/1 Kgs 9:9) all alike are in some way related to the Temple. In the passages dealing with the exodus that he omitted from his sources (2 Chr 3:1–2/1 Kgs 6:1; 2 Chr 6:11/1 Kgs 8:21; 2 Chr 6:39–40/ See I. Kalimi, ‘The Land/Mount Moriah, and the Site of the Jerusalem Temple in Biblical Historical Writing’, in: id., Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy ( Jewish and Christian Heritage 2), Assen 2002, 9–32. 28 See Chapter three. 27

the chronicler’s view of israel’s earlier history

111

1 Kgs 8:50–53), one can advance plausible reasons why mentioning of the exodus has been suppressed. In 2 Chr 3:1–2 the author has transferred the emphasis on the chronological aspect (‘in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt’) to the geographical and cultic level (‘Mount Moriah’ and ‘the threshing-floor of Ornan’) in which the prefiguration of the new Temple is presented. As compared to 1 Kgs 8:21, in 2 Chr 6:11 some remarkable changes can be observed. The Chronicler who reformulates the phrase ‘the covenant of YHWH, which he made with our forefathers’ (1 Kgs 8:21) into ‘the covenant of YHWH, which he made with Israel’ (2 Chr 6:11), achieves that his text gets a more possible appeal to his actual audience. And that is precisely the reason why the Chronicler dropped the reference to the exodus from 1 Kgs 8:21 (‘the covenant which He made with our forefathers, when he brought them out of Egypt’). It is not to minimalize the Exodus tradition, let alone to sweep it away, but to emphasize that the covenant with YHWH is a matter that affects every Israelite. A Creative View of Israel’s History Along with these passages from tradition, there are some references to the exodus and wilderness that undoubtedly are the Chronicler’s own creation: The Tabernacle of YHWH and the altar of the whole-offering which Moses had made in the wilderness were then at the shrine in Gibeon. (1 Chr 21:29) He [Solomon] . . . went to the shrine at Gibeon, for the Tent of Meeting, which Moses the servant of YHWH had made in the wilderness, was there. (2 Chr 1:3) The people should bring to YHWH the tax imposed on Israel in the wilderness by Moses the servant of God. (2 Chr 24:9)

It is no surprise, of course, that these references to cultic institutions during the wilderness period have been put into operation by the Chronicler as foreshadowing the later Temple and its institutions.29 29 As to the role of Moses in the book of Chronicles, see E.M. Dörfuss, Mose in den Chronikbüchern. Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung (BZAW 219), Berlin, 1994; S.J. De Vries, ‘Moses and David as Cult-Founders in Chronicles’, JBL 107 (1988), 619–639; H. Rechenmacher, ‘Das Mosebild im chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, RB 109 (2002), 57–65.

112

chapter seven

We have seen how the Chronicler in a highly selective way has reworked traditions dealing with Abraham, the exodus, and the wilderness. The same applies to his attitude of the conquest which both in passages that have been adopted from his parent texts and in sections which have been created by him is described in a stereotyped way. In the Chronicler’s presentation the conquest most of the time functions in a specific context and it will be no surprise at all that it is a cultic one: the people forsaking YHWH, worshiping foreign gods or performing abominable practices. First, some examples will be presented which are solid proof that the Chronicler adopted elements relating to the conquest tradition(s) from his parent texts: He [Ahaz] also burnt sacrifices in the valley of Ben-Hinnom; he even burnt his sons in the fire according to the abominable practice of the nations whom YHWH had dispossessed (‫ )ירש‬in favour of the Israelites. (2 Chr 28:3/2 Kgs 16:3).30 But Manasseh led Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem astray into wickedness far worse than that of the nations which YHWH had exterminated (‫ )שמד‬in favour of the Israelites (2 Chr 33:9/2 Kgs 21:9).

References to the conquest are also found in passages that undoubtedly are the Chronicler’s own creation: They sinned (‫ )מﬠל‬against the God of their fathers, and turned wantonly (‫ )זנה‬to worship the gods of the peoples whom God had destroyed (‫)שמד‬ before them. (1 Chr 5:25) You, our God, dispossessed (‫ )ירש‬the inhabitants of this land in favour of your people Israel, and gave it for ever to the descendants of your friend Abraham. (2 Chr 20:7) You did not allow the Israelites, when they came out of Egypt, to enter the land of the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the people of the hill-country of Seir, so they turned aside and left them alone and did not destroy (‫)שמד‬ them. Now see how these peoples repay us: they are coming to drive us out of your possession which you gave to us (‫)ירש‬. (2 Chr 20:10–11)

To sum up: it is a misconception that the Chronicler in his work should neglect or deny some traditions that are constitutive to Israel’s history as presented in the Torah and the Prophets. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the author of Chronicles presents history to convey a

30

See also 2 Chr 33:2/2 Kgs 21:2.

the chronicler’s view of israel’s earlier history

113

certain interpretation of the events.31 Reading the book of Chronicles, no doubt the most striking experience would be that post-exilic history appears not to exist. However, when reading the book over and over again, one arrives at the conclusion that post-exilic history in a subtle way has been interwoven with a glorious presentation of pre-exilic history. Therefore, a conscious and continuous re-reading of the Book of Chronicles is required. To end with a quotation by Sara Japhet: As yet, the question of the Chronicler’s historical reliability cannot be considered a ‘closed case’. We are still looking forward to a broadening of our knowledge, a deepening of our understanding, a clarification of our terms and definitions, an improvement of our evaluation, all of which may enlighten our use of the book of Chronicles as a source for the history of Israel.32

31 An instructive article on this matter: E. Ben Zvi, ‘Shifting the Gaze: Historiographic Constraints in Chronicles and Their Implications’, in: J. Andrew Dearman & M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller ( JSOTSS 343), Sheffield 2001, 38–60 [= id., History, Literature and theology in the Book of Chronicles (Bible World), London 2006, 78–99]. 32 S. Japhet, ‘The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research’, in: J. Cheryl Exum (ed.), The Historical Books (The Biblical Seminar 40), Sheffield 1997, 258–281 [= id., JSOT 33 (1985), 83–107].

CHAPTER EIGHT

JERUSALEM: THE VERY CENTRE OF ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE EARTH1 In 1968 M. Gill published an article in Hebrew dealing with ‘Israel in the Book of Chronicles’, and in 1977 H.G.M. Williamson devoted a lengthy monograph to the same subject.2 For a long time, however, one looked in vain for an overall view of in what way the author of Chronicles deals with the notion of ‘Jerusalem’, which appears to be a central topic in his work, as will be demonstrated in this chapter.3 Statistical Data Biblical scholars even disagree on the exact number of times the name of Jerusalem appears in the Hebrew Bible and its Aramaic parts. M. Tsevat and Georg Fohrer have listed six hundred and sixty occurrences.4 A. Even-Shoshan has catalogued a total of six hundred and sixty-seven, whereas Fritz Stolz has counted no less than six hundred and sixty-nine.5 The most obvious way to unravel such problems nowadays is to call in the computer’s assistance. With the help of a special computer programme, developed at VU University of Amsterdam, it appears that the figure as proposed by Stolz can be considered most accurate. 1 This Chapter has earlier been published as ‘Jerusalem in the Book of Chronicles’, in: M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem. Historical Perspectives, Kampen 1996, 15–28. 2 M. Gill, ‘Israel in the Books of Chronicles’, Beth Miqra 13 (1968), 105–115; H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977. 3 It took ten years until another publication was devoted to this topic: I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian. Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46), Assen 2005, 83–141. The publication of D. Flusser, ‘Jerusalem in the Literature of the Second Temple Period’, V’Im Bigvuroth (FS Reuben Mass), Jerusalem 1974, 263–294 [Summary in: Immanuel 6 (1976), 43–45)] does not discuss the Book of Chronicles in a detailed way. 4 M. Tsevat, yerûsalem/yerûsalayim, in: G.J. Botterweck-H. Ringgren (eds.), TDOT VI, 347–355 (348); G. Fohrer, Σιών, in: G. Kittel – G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNT VII, 292–338 (295). 5 A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible I–IV, Jerusalem 1977–1980; F. Stolz, ijjōn, in: E. Jenni – Cl. Westermann (eds.), THAT II, 544–551 (544).

116

chapter eight

In the Book of Chronicles the noun ‫ ירושלם‬shows up no less than one hundred and fifty-one times.6 Since the text of the Book of Chronicles takes up only eight per cent of the entire Hebrew Bible,7 it means that twenty-two and a half per cent, i.e. almost a quarter, of all biblical references to Jerusalem is to be found here. Apart from this high number it must be stressed that eighty-six of all the Jerusalempassages in Chronicles, i.e. seventy-five per cent, must be attributed to the Chronicler’s own material, the so-called chronistisches Sondergut.8 One can discern a marked concentration of the noun in the narratives on Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:1–21:1),9 on Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29–32),10 and on Josiah (2 Chronicles 34–35),11 whereas in relation to both David and Solomon the name of the city is mentioned rather sparingly.12 1 Chronicles 1–9 As far as the First Book of Chronicles is concerned, one would expect to hear Jerusalem’s name for the first time at the moment the Chronicler makes David capture Jebus (1 Chr 11:4). In fact, however, the city’s name is already mentioned ten times before this event13 in the so-called ‘genealogical hall’ (1 Chronicles 1–9), to which Manfred Oeming has devoted a solid and inspiring dissertation.14

6 Twenty-four occurrences in 1 Chronicles; one hundred and twenty-seven in 2 Chronicles. 7 See ‘Statistischer Anhang’, in: Jenni-Westermann, THAT II, 539–540. 8 In 1 Chronicles, ‘Jerusalem’ occurs eleven times in the Chronicler’s own material, in 2 Chronicles even seventy-five times. 9 A total number of fourteen occurrences. With the exception of 2 Chr 20:31, all references belong to the Chronicler’s Sondergut. 10 Within this section ‘Jerusalem’ is mentioned twenty-five times, nineteen of which are chronistisches Sondergut. 11 Here the name ‘Jerusalem’ shows up fourteen times, nine of which belong to the Chronicler’s own material. 12 In the narratives on David (1 Chronicles 10–29), Jerusalem is mentioned fourteen times; only two of them belong to the Chronicler’s own material. In the Solomonnarrative (2 Chronicles 1–9), Jerusalem is mentioned fourteen times too; six of them can be ascribed to the chronistisches Sondergut. 13 1 Chr 3:4–5; 5:36 [ET 6:10]; 5:41 [ET 6:15]; 6:17 [ET 6:32]; 8:28.32; 9:3.34.38. 14 M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die « genealogische Vorhalle » 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990. The notion ‘genealogische Vorhalle’ is commonly attributed to Julius Wellhausen, beit always without bibliographical reference. It is possible, however, that Wilhelm Rothstein were the originator of this expression: ‘. . . die lange Reihe von genealogischen Listen usw. . . . habe ich als „Vorhalle“ . . . bezeichnet’; W. Rothstein, Das erste Buch der Chronik (KAT XVIII/2, Lieferung 1), Leipzig 1927, 2.

jerusalem

117

The Jerusalem references in 1 Chronicles 1–9 cannot be put aside as pure anachronisms. The fact that the name of Jerusalem is found a considerable number of times within the genealogical material can be considered clear proof that those chapters do not only intend to bridge the period between Adam (1:1) and Saul (9:38). Especially the mention of Jerusalem’s name during this genealogical section of the book should make the reader aware of another important thread in 1 Chronicles 1–9, which has been intertwined with it. In many places genealogical data from before Saul’s time have been connected with events and activities which have taken place after Sauls’ time; they undoubtedly refer to elements of Judah’s later history. In doing so the Chronicler, already at those early genealogical moments, was able to implant all major theological themes which are dealt with in a more elaborated fashion later on in his book.15 It is imperative then to take a closer look at all these passages in which Jerusalem’s name is used by the Chronicler. The first reference to Jerusalem is found in 1 Chr 3:4–5, where the reader arrives at the very centre of the genealogy of Judah. There a statement is given with respect to David’s sons: ‘These six were born at Hebron, where David reigned for seven years and six months. In Jerusalem he reigned for thirty-three years, and there the following sons were born to him . . .’.16 Prior to the narrative contexts in which they play a part, 1 Chr 3:4 can be considered a proleptic reference to 1 Chr 29:27, the passage in which Solomon succeeds David as king, whereas 1 Chr 3:5 has an identical function operating as an advanced base of 1 Chr 14:3. The text of 1 Chr 3:4–5, that for the first time in the Book of Chronicles mentions Jerusalem’s name, immediately poses a specific methodological problem. In almost every commentary one can read that 1 Chr 3:4b refers to 2 Sam 3:5b, and that 1 Chr 3:5 has been adopted from 2 Sam 5:14. Whereas 1 Chr 3:1–3 is identical to 2 Sam 3:2–5a, in 1 Chr 3:4 however the matter is more complex. The wording ‘These six were born at Hebron’ (3:4a) is the Chronicler’s own creation, while the second half of this line seems to have been adopted from 2 Sam 5:5, which, however, is not true. In 1 Chr 3:4 the Chronicler has pushed into the background the fact that there ever was a period in which King David did not rule over

15 16

See Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 215–216. Unless otherwise stated biblical quotations are taken from the REB 1989.

118

chapter eight

all Israel. 1 Chr 3:5, at first sight, seems to have been directly adopted from 2 Sam 5:14. The wording, however, is not identical in the first place. Secondly, some chapters further down, viz. in 1 Chr 14:4, this line shows up in a larger passage (1 Chr 14:1–6) which is an exact copy of 2 Sam 5:11–16.17 Now it appears that 1 Chr 3:5 is not a synoptic parallel to 2 Sam 5:14. It becomes clear that the verse line was isolated by the Chronicler from its original narrative context and was then modified by him in order to strengthen in a specific way the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23) towards David and his offspring.18 This small example is sufficient evidence to emphasize the fact that even so-called ‘synoptic parallels’ in 1 and 2 Chronicles must be carefully investigated on their own merits too.19 The distinction usually drawn between the chronistisches Sondergut and the material that was adopted by the Chronicler from his Vorlage seldom appears to be adequate, since on closer scrutiny the matter is much more complex. Although those Jerusalem passages of 1 and 2 Chronicles which can be defined as synoptic parallels surely can express their own dynamics, this Chapter will particularly bring into prominence a number of texts relating to Jerusalem which with certainty can be considered to be the Chronicler’s own creation. The next three passages in which, subsequent to 1 Chr 3:4–5, the name of Jerusalem is mentioned, are to be found in the genealogy of Levi.20 This is absolutely no coincidence, because this section in fact is the architectonic centre of 1 Chronicles 1–9.21 In 1 Chr 5:28–41 [ET 6:2–15], the Chronicler has listed twentythree High Priests in the lineage of Aaron. Whether one should or should not reconstruct a symmetrical structure of two sets of twelve 17 The context, however, is different because the Chronicler has ‘reposited it after the first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem’; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), London 1982, 116. 18 H.G.M. Williamson, ‘Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah’, JBL 98 (1979), 351–359 (358); Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 98–107; T.S. Im, Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern (EHS XXIII, 263), Frankfurt a.M. 1985, 28–31. 19 In 1 Kgs 14:21, for example, the regnal information regarding Rehoboam is the opening of a paragraph (14:21–31), whereas the identical Hebrew formula of 2 Chr 12:13 functions as a concluding paragraph concerning the reign of Rehoboam (12:13–16). According to some commentators, 2 Chr 12:13ff. should be considered a later addition. That, however, would erase the Chronicler’s creativity, which is unmistakeably proved by his theological notion ‫( דרש את־יהוה‬2 Chr 12:14). 20 1 Chr 5:27–6:66 [ET 6:1–81]. 21 See especially: Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 99. 149; S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI), Grand Rapids 1989, 24–25.

jerusalem

119

High Priests—one set of twelve before, and one set of twelve after the construction of the Temple—, as is Klaus Koch’s intention,22 it must be emphasized there is no doubt that the mention of Jerusalem in any case gives structure to this list of High Priests. There are two points one should note in this list that are both connected with the Holy City. The first part of the list is concluded with a reference to Jerusalem: ‘. . . Azariah, the priest who officiated in the LORD’s house which Solomon built at Jerusalem’ (5:36 [ET 6:10]).23 At the end of the second part of the list Jerusalem is mentioned again: ‘Jehozadak was deported when the LORD sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile under Nebuchadnezzar’ (5:41 [ET 6:15]). The third mention of Jerusalem within Levi’s genealogy refers to the Levites whose function as liturgical singers is traced back to King David himself: These are the men whom David appointed to take charge of the music in the house of the LORD when the Ark should be deposited there. They performed their musical duties at the front of the Tent of Meeting before Solomon built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem; they took their turns of duty as was laid down for them. (1 Chr 6:16–17 [ET 6:31–32])

Here for the first time in the Book of Chronicles we come across ‘the regulation formula’ (‫)כמשפטם‬,24 which refers to a command of David with regard to ad hoc regulations for administering the cult.25 The function of using such formulae is obviously to strengthen the actual cultic situation of the post-exilic community. After being used in the genealogy of Levi, Jerusalem’s name is not mentioned until the genealogy of Benjamin. In 1 Chr 8:28, which is the conclusion of the first part of this genealogy, the Chronicler makes

22 K. Koch, ‘Die mysteriosen Zahlen des judäischen Könige und die apokalyptischen Jahrwochen’, VT 28 (1978), 433–441 (especially 438–439). See also Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 70–71. 23 The combination of the verb ‫ בנה‬with the name of ‫שלמה‬, the noun ‫בית‬, and ‫ בירשלם‬is also found in 1 Chr 6:17 and 2 Chr 3:1. For the combination of ‫בית יהוה‬ with ‫ בירשלם‬see 2 Chr 30:1; 36:14. All these occurrences are the Chronicler’s own material. 24 The expression was introduced by S.J. De Vries, ‘Moses and David as Cult Founders’, JBL 107 (1988), 619–639. Strangely enough, however, De Vries in this article has overlooked 1 Chr 6:17, since it has not been included in the synopsis on p. 627. De Vries mentions 1 Chr 6:17 once just in passing (p. 633, n. 43). 25 Cfr. J.W. Kleinig, ‘The Divine Institution of the Lord’s Song in Chronicles’, JSOT 55 (1992), 75–83.

120

chapter eight

his point. With this final statement he explicitely wants to emphasize the relation between the tribe of Benjamin and Jerusalem. He does so by making their heads of families live in Jerusalem. There can be no doubt that this very remarkable comment is a direct reflection of the actual situation of the Chronicler’s own day; the author is re-writing the post-exilic state of things into the pre-exilic period.26 It is rather striking that, apart from the word ‫ללוים‬, the text of 8:28 is identical to 1 Chr 9:34, which is the conclusion of a larger paragraph dealing with the Levites.27 As 1 Chr 9:34 in fact contradicts several statements which are made earlier in that chapter, viz. vv. 16, 22, and 25, it looks rather obvious that 1 Chr 9:34 must be considered to have been adopted from 8:28.28 Indications such as these confirm that in 1 Chronicles 1–9 a specific pattern has been constructed with regard to the mention of Jerusalem. In 1 Chr 8:32 with the help of the marked repetition ‫נגד אחיהם‬/ ‫ אם־אחיהם‬enclosing the words ‫ישבו ירושלם‬, the close relationship between the Benjaminites and Jerusalem is emphasized in another way; in 9:38 this statement is repeated in exactely the same wording. [The question why 1 Chr 9:35–43 repeats 8:29–38, which is a real crux interpretum, has received a new and fascinating approach by Oeming. The function of this marked repetition would be to exculpate David being a murderer of the house of Saul. It is the Chronicler’s own invention to make Saul’s pedigree continue for twelve generations after him. The twofold emphasis on Saul’s genealogy therefore, is part of the Chronicler’s idealization of David].29 It is no coincidence that within the genealogical sections of 1 Chronicles 1–9 Jerusalem’s name is constantly connected with three specific tribes only: Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. It has everything to do with the Chronicler’s view that it is these very tribes which, remaining faithful to the Davidic king and the Temple in the pre-exilic period, constitute the framework of the post-exilic community of his own day.30

26 See among others E.L. Curtis – A.A. Madson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910, 163; G. Dalman, ‘Die Stammeszugehörigkeit der Stadt Jerusalem und des Tempels’, in: W. Frankenberg & F. Küchler (Hrsg.), Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft (FS W.W. Graf Baudissin; BZAW 33), Giessen 1918, 107–120 (109). 27 1 Chr 9:14–34. 28 See e.g. J. Becker, 1 Chronik (NEB), Würzburg 1986, 50; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 91. 29 Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 178–179. 30 Cfr. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 47.

jerusalem

121

That must also be the reason why exactly in 1 Chr 9:3—being the one and only time in the entire Book of Chronicles—the author explicitly refers to the Jerusalem of the post-exilic period. Putting aside a number of important questions—such as the meaning of 1 Chr 9:2, its relation to Neh 11:2ff., and the precise place of the caesura31—one will ascertain that all previous Jerusalem references culminate in 1 Chr 9:3. Starting from this verse, which by its context has explicitly been set in the post-exilic period, it becomes evident that Jerusalem is presented by the Chronicler as the centre of the genealogical atrium. The structure of the passage is clear evidence that the Chronicler, after having mentioned Jerusalem and its inhabitants (vv. 3–9), is much more interested in the city’s very centre, the Temple and its functionaries (vv. 10–34). The mention of the ‫ בני יהודה‬and the ‫ בני בנימן‬as inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:3) is rather obvious. Coming across the ‫בני אפרים‬ ‫ ומנשה‬in the second half of this line, however, strikes one as strange. De Vries for example claims Efraim and Manasse ‘may represent little more than a symbolic presence’.32 This, however, should rather be considered in another way. One should stress a marked theological thread which can be detected throughout the rest of the Book of Chronicles. It can hardly be a coincidence that on several occasions dealing with cult reforms, i.e. when attention is focussed on Jerusalem and the Temple, the Chronicler explicitly mentions Efraim and Manasse.33 In doing so, he is indicating that the members of the Northern Kingdom of old are not intrinsically excluded from the Judean community. The only criterion which could really accomplish their reunification would be a unified cult, in other words being exclusively focussed on (the Temple of ) Jerusalem. An analysis of the Jerusalem references in 1 Chronicles 1–9 has shown that the Chronicler refers to a number of particular themes in his genealogical atrium—to wit Judah, the Davidic monarchy, and the Jerusalem temple cultus—which later on in his book are treated at length. That the Chronicler attributes a very significant position to Jerusalem indeed becomes evident in the so-called narrative part of his work.

31 32 33

See Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 180–200. S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI), Grand Rapids 1989, 90. 2 Chr 15:9–10; 30:1. 9–10; 31:1; 34:9.

122

chapter eight 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 36

In order not to dismantle the data, the chapters about David and Solomon (1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9) and those relating to the Davidic kings (2 Chronicles 10–36) should not be separated from each other, but be conceived as a whole. It is impossible, of course, to comment exhaustively upon all remaining 141 Jerusalem passages in 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 36; they have to be clustered therefore in some way and, indeed, some categories are self-evident.34 Reading the ‘narrative part’ of the Book of Chronicles the eye is caught, for example, by the fact that its author relatively often uses the wording ‫ישבי ירושלם‬. Out of a total of thirty-nine passages in the Hebrew Bible in which the formulation ‘the inhabitants of Jerusalem’ is found,35 the Book of Chronicles accounts for one third of this number.36 All these passages do not only belong to the Chronicler’s own material; no less than ten of them also deal with kings who are highly esteemed by the Chronicler: Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Especially at cultic events the inhabitants of Jerusalem function as the close surroundings to those kings. A similar function can be seen when the Chronicler uses Jerusalem’s name in the wording ‫יהודה וירושלם‬,37 which in fact most of the time does not refer to a geographic location, but to the religious community living there. In the Book of Chronicles a lot of activities are recorded which are directly connected with Jerusalem. If we put aside those occurrences which have in any way parallels in the Books of the ‘Former Prophets’, such as e.g. the ‘regnal resumé’ (‘X reigned for . . . years in Jerusalem’), some texts deserve further attention.38

All kinds of building activities relating to Jerusalem are omitted in this article, because they are amply documented in the first chapter of P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 9–78, esp. 52–78. 35 Sixteen times in the Book of Jeremiah. 36 2 Chr 20:15. 18. 20; 21:11. 13; 22:1; 31:4; 32:22. 26. 33; 34:9. 32; 35:18; and maybe 2 Chr 19:8 (if one accepts the emendation); see J. Becker, 2 Chronik (NEB), Würzburg 1988, 63; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 290–291. 37 1 Chr 5:41; 2 Chr 2:6; 20:5. 17; 24:6. 9. 18; 29:8; 32: 25. 38 2 Chr 12:13; 13:2; 20:31; 21:5. 20; 22:2; 24:1; 25:1; 26:3; 27:1. 8; 28:1; 29:1. 27; 33:1. 21; 34:1; 36:2. 5. 9. 11. A definition of this ‘genre’ has been given by De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 434. 34

jerusalem

123

The first ‘unparalleled’ reference to Jerusalem within the narrative section is found in 1 Chr 15:3: ‘David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem to bring up the Ark of the LORD to the place he had prepared for it’. The opening words of this line (‫ )ויקהל דויד‬undeniably refer to 13:5. There is no need here to unfold in detail the Chronicler’s tactics in dividing the narrative of 2 Samuel 6 into two parts and in his extending the Ark’s three months delay with building works and no less than two campaigns, which have been adopted from 2 Sam 5:17–25. By repositioning these campaigns, the Chronicler is preparing the main reason why David will not be allowed to build the Temple (1 Chr 28:3). Could it then be a coincidence that precisely in 28:1 the reader again comes across the wording ‫ אל־ירושלם‬. . . ‫ ?ויקהל דויד‬Both texts create a kind of inclusio of the Chronicler’s own material dealing with David’s cultic activities at Jerusalem.39 This structure is strengthened by the fact that about halfway through these texts, in the section on David, viz. in 1 Chr 23:25, the Chronicler has included the third and final Jerusalem reference of his own: ‘For David said: “The LORD the God of Israel has given his people peace and has made his dwelling40 in Jerusalem for ever” ’. With regard to Jerusalem the division of the monarchy is exploited by the Chronicler in a very special way. Whereas 1 Kgs 12:26–32 gives a circumstantial description of Jeroboam’s apostatical measures, the Chronicler mentions all that just in passing; in 2 Chr 11:15 he has only adopted, reworked and expanded the items of 1 Kgs 12:32. With the help of the expression ‫בקש את־יהוה‬, being one of his central theological features, the biblical author on the contrary emphasizes the other side of the picture: that both priests and Levites, and true Israelites from the north as well, came to Jerusalem—the only legitimate place of worship—to sacrifice to the LORD (2 Chr 12:14–16). The Chronicler’s account of King Asa’s Reform (2 Chronicles 15), being a genuine chronistic creation, in fact is a very successful application and elaboration of that central issue.41

39 It is very significant that the next ‫ יקהל‬is found in 2 Chr 5:2 in an identical context: ‘Solomon assembled . . . in Jerusalem in order to bring up the Ark . . .’. There is only one further ‫( ויקהל‬2 Chr 11:1), which however has been adopted from 1 Kgs 12:21. 40 ‫וישכן בירושלם‬. 41 For an analysis of 2 Chr 15:1–17 see especially: R. Mason, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990, 45–51.

124

chapter eight

Very often, viz. ten times, Jerusalem’s name is used in 2 Chronicles 30, referring to Hezekiah’s celebration of the Passover, a story that is unparalleled in the account of 2 Kings 18–20. The marked role of Jerusalem here is no coincidence; it has two objectives which are closely related to each other. First, the Chronicler portrays King Hezekiah as a ‘second Solomon’ who has restored the glory of old.42 There can be no doubt that this was one of the author’s intentions. First, he explicitly refers to Solomon at the end of this narrative: ‘There was great rejoicing in Jerusalem, the like of which had not been known there since the days of Solomon son of David king of Israel’ (2 Chr 30:26). Second, the expression ‘another seven days’ (30:23) obviously harkens back to an identical situation dealing with Solomon in 2 Chr 7:8–9. The second main reason in mentioning Jerusalem’s name so often here is offered by a political fact that has been elaborated by the Chronicler in a theological way. Hezekiah in fact is the first Judean king following the fall of the northern monarchy. Describing him as a ‘second Solomon’, the Chronicler makes Hezekiah act like a king of the (re-) unified monarchy. From the very beginning Hezekiah therefore endeavours to invite all Israel, from ‘Beersheba to Dan’, to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover of the LORD, the God of Israel.43 About the same scenario as the Chronicler drew up in 2 Chronicles 29–30 in respect of the cultic measures of Hezekiah—viz. the cleansing of the Temple; the celebration of the Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread by all Israel—, is unfolded in 2 Chr 34,8–35,10 referring to Josiah. There, however, an interesting addition is made. Whereas the narrative on Hezekiah starts with the king’s orders to purify (‫)טהר‬44 the house of the LORD, in Josiah’s case the Chronicler has preceded it by making this king first purge Judah and Jerusalem of ‘the shrines and the sacred poles, and the carved idols and the metal images . . .’ (34:3–5), and subsequently doing the same in the rest of Israel. In 2 Chr 34:3–7 the Chronicler has, to a high degree, thoroughly

42 See H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977, 119–125; M.A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak. Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93), Atlanta 1987, 121–124. 43 References to the northern tribes are to be found in 2 Chr 30:5. 6. 10. 18. 25. 31. 44 The verb ‫ ( טהר‬pi.) is only to be found in 2 Chr 29:15. 16. 18 and 34:3. 5. 8. [‫( טהר‬hitp.) in 2 Chr 30:18]; its noun ‫ טהרה‬in 1 Chr 23:28 and 2 Chr 30:19; the adjective ‫ טהור‬in 1 Chr 28:17; 2 Chr 3:4; 9:17; 13:11; 30:17.

jerusalem

125

reworked and rearranged the elements of 2 Kgs 23:4–20 in order to emphasize that (1) The entire nation has been involved in this holy operation; (2) The purification of the Temple cannot be effectuated without cleansing the whole land of the cultic idols. Only in this way can the Temple really function as the religious and cultic centre of the people. This view is maintained up to and including the very last verse of the Book of Chronicles, in which the Temple of Jerusalem is suggested to be the very centre of all the kingdoms of the earth (2 Chr 36:23). In the Chronicler’s presentation the return from the Babylonian exile seems to serve only one particular purpose: to build a house to the LORD in Jerusalem.45 2 Chronicles 32:19 At the end of this survey, attention must be paid to a rather marked wording in 2 Chr 32:19. King Sennacherib of Assyria has invaded Judah and has besieged the fortified towns. Hezekiah anticipates a future siege of Jerusalem in taking measures to fortify the city and secure its water supply. Sennacherib, who himself is at Lachish, sends envoys to Hezekiah and to all Judaeans in Jerusalem to persuade them to surrender. Although the Chronicler is dependent on the narrative(s) of 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37, the story of 2 Chronicles 32 has been reworked in such a way as to emphasize Hezekiah’s faith exclusively. In order to attain this purpose the Chronicler, for example, has skipped over 2 Kgs 18:14–16 (the account of Hezekiah paying a penalty of silver and gold to Sennacherib) as well as 2 Kings 21 (Hezekiah relying on Egypt for support against Assyria).46 He has also created a ‘blasphemy tradition’47 which goes far beyond its parallel in 2 Kings 18–19 and has worked towards

45 King Manasseh, having been brought back by God from Babel (!) to Jerusalem (2 Chr 33:13), should be explained as a reference to the return of the Judaean community from the Babylonian exile rather than as arising out of a rigid doctrine of ‘individual retribution’. For an excellent treatment of this aspect: Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 388–394. 46 See B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 27), London 1967, 104–111. 47 Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, 110.

126

chapter eight

that objective even more by adding three comments of his own to his source text of 2 Kings 18–19.48 In the second comment (32:19), the Chronicler uses the wording ‫ אלהי ירושלם‬as opposed to ‘the gods of the other peoples of the earth’. The formulation ‘the God of Jerusalem’, being heard from the Chronicler himself, can be defined as a remarkable phenomenon. In the first place, within the context of the Chronicler’s narrative, one would sooner expect to hear such a description made by the Assyrian envoys than in a comment which the author himself added to his source-text. Secondly, in view of the Chronicler’s concept of the book and its theology, one will be a little surprised not to find the expression ‘the God of Israel’ here as opposed to ‘the gods of the other peoples of the earth’. This means that the Chronicler used the wording ‘the God of Jerusalem’ on purpose. The most obvious reason to do so would be that he saw his chance to introduce a formulation here which in his view would perfectly fit into this particular context. Although archeological evidence has been adduced for the existence of the formulation ‘the God of Jerusalem’, one would however prefer a literary or theological explanation for the occurrence of these words in 2 Chr 32:19. In 1961 some old Hebrew inscriptions were discovered in a burial cave in Khirbet Beit Lei, 8 km. east of Lachish.49 The text of inscription A, which has been published by J. Naveh and others50 and is dated no later than the sixth century BC, runs: ‫יהוה אלהי כל הארץ הרי יהד לו אלהי ירשלם‬ The LORD is the God of the whole earth; the mountains of Judah belong to him, to the God of Jerusalem.51

Whether the inscription can directly be related to Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BC or not will always be a matter of pure speculation. It would be better therefore to provide the intriguing formulation ‘the

2 Chr 32:16–17; 32:19, and 32:22–23. For its parallel in Biblical Aramaic, see Ezra 7:19. 50 J. Naveh, ‘Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave’, IEJ 13 (1963), 74–92; G.I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Cambridge 1991, 89; K.A.D. Smelik, Historische Dokumente aus dem alten Israel, Göttingen, 1989, 148–150. 172. An overview of transcriptions which have been proposed by J. Naveh, J.C.L. Gibson, M. Weippert, F.M. Cross, and S. Mittmann has been published by Johannes Renz & Wolfgang Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, Darmstadt 1995, Band I, 242–246; Band III, 19 and Taf. XXV. 51 Naveh, ‘Old Hebrew Inscriptions’, 84. 48 49

jerusalem

127

God of Jerusalem’ with an explanation from the Chronicler’s text itself. Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Chronicler explicitly used the wording ‘the God of Jerusalem’ in his account of Sennacherib’s campaign because of theological reasons. It is not by chance that the Chronicler especially omitted from his source-text the series of local foreign gods (‘the god of x’)52 as mentioned by the messengers of the Assyrian king. In a comment of his own he substituted them by a nameless group (‘the gods of the people of the earth—things made by the hands of men’) and created the formulation ‘the God of Jerusalem’, who will subsequently act in a completely opposite way to them: He saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from king Sennacherib of Assyria and from all their enemies; he gave them respite on every side. Many people brougt to Jerusalem offerings for the LORD and costly gifts for king Hezekiah of Judah. From then on he was held in honour by all the nations. (2 Chr 32:22–23)

52 ‘Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Where are the gods of Samaria?’ (2 Kgs 18:34).

CHAPTER NINE

HISTORICAL PERSONS OR LITERARY CHARACTERS: PROPHETS IN THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES1 In the Book of Chronicles the noun ‫‘( נביא‬prophet’) is found twenty-nine times in total, with a remarkable concentration of seven occurrences in 2 Chronicles 18.2 With respect of the verb ‫‘( נבא‬to prophecy’) a similar feature appears.3 These statistical data could create the impression 2 Chronicles 18 were the most obvious passage in the Chronicler’s book to find out what is his own understanding of prophet and prophecy. That, however, is absolutely not the case, since 2 Chronicles 18 with some small changes is identical to 1 Kings 22.4 In fact, 2 Chronicles 18 is the only narrative resembling the prophetic ‘biographies’ of the Deuteronomistic History, in which the prophet himself is the central figure in the story. Whereas in the Book of Kings the narratives on Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha and others commonly included miraculous elements and were concerned with efficacy of the prophetic pronouncements, is in the Book of Chronicles the ministry of the prophets nowhere described in terms of ecstasy, miracles or political dimensions, such as e.g. the exhortation to rebellion by Ahija of Silo (1 Kgs 11:29–39) or the anointing of Jehu by one of Elisha’s disciples (2 Kings 9).5 The entire complex of the Elijah narratives has skipped over by the Chronicler; in stead of it

1 This Chapter is a revised version of ‘Prophets in the Book of Chronicles’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet. The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS 45), Leiden 2001, 45–53. 2 1 Chr 16:22; 17:1; 29:29; 2 Chr 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 [2 x]; 32:20, 32; 35:18; 36:12, 16. 3 1 Chr 25:1, 2, 3; 2 Chr 18:7, 9, 11, 17; 20:37. 4 R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET, 18), Frankfurt 1983, 23–29; K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW, 201), Berlin/New York 1991, 155–164. 5 R.B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15), Waco 1987, 92–93; J. Kegler, ‘Prophetengestalten im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk und in den Chronikbüchern. Ein Beitrag zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbücher, ZAW 105 (1993), 491.

130

chapter nine

only a letter by Elijah is brought to the fore (2 Chr 21:12–15). Similar interventions take place with respect of Isaiah and Jeremiah; they no longer are persons who make their appearance in narratives.6 They more or less coincide with or have been reduced to the books bearing their names (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32; 35:25).7 On the other hand, in the Book of Chronicles a total of eighteen prophetic addresses is found, of which no less than fourteen have no parallel in 1–2 Samuel or 1–2 Kings and can therefore be characterized as a creation by the Chronicler himself.8 At least ten times these prophetic addresses are put into the mouth of persons who nowhere else in the Bible are known as prophet, seer, or man of God.9 In a number of instances they are expressly presented with the help of a special introductory formula of divine inspiration.10 One will hardly wonder that it is just these prophetic addresses where fundamental theological notions of 1–2 Chronicles are to be found. William Schniedewind has convincingly demonstrated that, as far as the Book of Chronicles is concerned, one has to differentiate between speeches by speakers with prophetic titles (‫נביא‬, ‫ראה‬, ‫הזה‬, ‫)איש־האלהים‬ and speeches by speakers without prophetic titles, but being introduced by ‘possession formulas’ (‘the spirit of God was upon . . .’; ‘the spirit enveloped . . .’). Speakers with prophetic titles usually address themselves only to the king, whereas so-called ‘inspired messengers’ generally address themselves to the people.11 After a careful investigation Schniedewind reaches at the conclusion that persons with prophetic titles ‘often give explanations for past or future events, functioning as interpreters of events’.12 In the speeches of the ‘inspired messengers’, emphasis is put on another aspect, viz. ‘the inspired interpretation of authoritative texts which revitalized the word of God anew for the post-exilic community’.13 It

6 ‘. . . the literary prophets play no part in the Chronicler’s narrative’; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ, 9), Frankfurt a.M. 1989, 181. 7 See Kegler, ‘Prophetengestalten’, 487 (Table 5). 8 See R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis ( JSOTSS, 88), Sheffield 1990, 175–176 (‘List 8: Prophetic Speech Material’). 9 Kegler, ‘Prophetengestalten’, 487 (Table 4). 10 1 Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20. 11 There are five ‘inspired messengers’: Amasai (1 Chr 12:19), Azariah (2 Chr 15:1), Jahaziel (2 Chr 20:14), Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20), and Neco (2 Chr 35:21). As to Jahaziel, see Chapter four. 12 W. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period ( JSOTSS 197), Sheffield 1995, 127 [Italics by me, PCB]. 13 Schniedewind, The Word of God, 127 [Italics by me, PCB].

historical persons or literary characters

131

therefore can hardly be a coincidence that precisely in the final chapter of the Book of Chronicles a clear cut distinction has been made between ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ (2 Chr 36:16). The majority of the prophets and inspired messengers that are met in the Book of Chronicles have been ‘invented’ by the Chonicler and should therefore be characterized as ‘literary personage’ rather than historical persons. Consequently, the speeches delivered by these literary personages are the most appropriate place to look for the Chronicler’s own theological convictions and accents. With respect to prophets, another remarkable feature in the book of Chronicles should be mentioned. In the so-called ‘regnal resumé’s’—the formulaic summary of a king’s reign—eight times the Chronicler refers to ‘the words of prophet X’, ‘the words of seer Y’. The first time this formula appears is in the necrology of David: The acts of King David, former and latter, are written in the records of Samuel the seer, in the records of Nathan the prophet, and in the records of Gad the visionary. . . . (1 Chr 29:29)

An investigation into the features of these eight regnal resumé’s reveals a consistent and intriguing pattern.14 1. All texts, none excepted, are the Chronicler’s own conception. 2. Such references to prophetical records are only found in summaries of a king’s reign and do only occur in respect of those kings who contributed in a positive way to temple and cult. 3. All prophets, seers, and visionaries that occur in the abovementioned regnal resumé’s figure in 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. This strengthens the presumption that the Chronicler created fictitious sources, each of which in fact serves as a summary of a particular section in 1 Samuel—2 Kings in which the prophet, seer or visionary at issue is present.15 In this way it is suggested that each period in Israel’s history has its prophet who documented the events.16

1 Chr 29:29; 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 26:12; 32:32; 33:19. The only exception is Jedo (2 Chr 9:29)/Iddo (2 Chr 12:5) who is mentioned nowhere in 1 Samuel—2 Kings. It is rather striking, however, that this prophet not only by Josephus (Antiquitates VIII 231), but also in Sifre Deut. 177 and in T.B. Sanhedrin 89b is identified with the anonymous prophet from 1 Kings 13. 16 R.G. Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT 42), Tübingen 2004, 139–40. 14

15

132

chapter nine

4. In regnal resumé’s which mention more than one prophet (1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9;29; 12:15), only one person is called ‘prophet’, viz. the one who in the Chronicler’s opinion has the most authority. From all these observations, it can be deduced that in the Chronicler’s view recording and interpreting Israel’s history is a matter of prophets, seers and visionaries. The Latter Prophets During the last thirty years or so, Biblical scholars have investigated a lot of aspects dealing with the Chronicler’s view of prophet and prophecy.17 There is one particular aspect, however, which appears to be neglected. Looking at this impressive list of publications one could get the impression that the Chronicler did not make use of what we term ‘the Latter Prophets’. In this chapter, therefore, some more attention is paid to this specific topic. The first point to be emphasized will be that the Chronicler never

17 Y. Amit, ‘The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Theology of the Book of Chronicles’, Beth Mikra 93 (1983), 3–23 [Hebrew]; C. Begg, ‘The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History’, BZ 32 (1988), 100–107; E. Hernando, ‘El Profetismo en los libros de las Crónicas’, Scriptorium Victoriense 34 (1987), 45–66; J. Kegler, ‘Prophetengestalten’; R. Kuntzmann, ‘La fonction prophétique en 1–2 Chroniques: Du ministère de la parole au Service de l’institution communautaire’ in: F. Diedrich – B. Willmes (Hrsg.), Ich bewirke das Heil und erschaffe das Unheil ( Jesaja 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten (FS L. Ruppert) (FzB 88), Würzburg 1998, 245–258; R. Mason, ‘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 1982, 137–154; id., Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990; Micheel, Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen; J. Newsome, The Chronicler’s View of Prophecy (PhD Vanderbilt University), Ann Arbor (UMI), 1973; D. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS, 23), Missoula, MT 1977; H. Van Rooy, ‘Prophet and Society in the Persian Period According to Chronicles’, in: T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period ( JSOTSS 175), Sheffield 1994, 163–79; W. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period ( JSOTSS 197), Sheffield 1995; I.L. Seeligman, ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in: J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.), Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (VTS 29), Leiden 1978, 254–279; Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation, esp. 155–164; R. Then, »Gibt es denn keinen mehr unter den Propheten?«: Zum Fortgang der alttestamentlichen Prophetie in frühjüdischer Zeit (BEATAJ 22), Frankfurt a.M. 1990; S.J. de Vries, ‘The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles’, HAR 10 (1986), 15–36; J.P. Weinberg, ‘Die “Ausserkanonischen Prophezeiungen” in den Chronikbüchern’, Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), 387–404; T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972.

historical persons or literary characters

133

uses marked formulae to introduce quotations. However, even in those occurrences as 2 Chr 36:21–22, where he seems to use introductory formulae

‫( לכלות דבר־יהוה בפי ירמיהו‬36:21) ‫( למלאות דבר־יהוה בפי ירמיהו‬36:32) the subsequent wording cannot be coined as a straight quotation, being adopted from one specific text. Here the Chronicler has constructed a mixture of Jer 25:11–12 and 29:10–14 with Lev 26:34–35. 43. The most likely place to find out if, and in what matter, the Chronicler makes use of classical prophetic texts is to take a closer look at one of the fourteen prophetical speeches which are his own creation (‘Sondergut’). 2 Chronicles 15:1–718 The Chronicler used the narrative of 1 Kgs 15:9–24 as the framework for a completely new composition dealing with Asa, king of Judah. Whereas 1 Kgs 15:9–24 includes sixteen verses, the Chronicler’s narrative on Asa covers no less than forty-seven verses, so that the majority of it (esp. 2 Chr 14:2–15:15; 16:7–10) is peculiar to the Book of Chronicles.19 After the victory over the Cushites, which according to the Chronicler’s theology has entirely described as a divine act (2 Chr 14:11–12), Asa and his men returned to Jerusalem (14:15). Then with the help of the ‘possession formula’ ‫—היתה ﬠליו רוח אלהים‬which in the Hebrew Bible is never used with respect of classical prophets—, in 15:1 a literary character called ‘Azarjahu son of Oded’ is introduced.20 Schniedewind who offers a fine analysis of the two possession formulas being used

18 R. Dillard, ‘The Reign of Asa (2 Chronicles 14–16): An Example of the Chronicler’s Theological Method’, JETS 23 (1980), 207–218; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 388–392; Id., The Garments of Torah, Bloomington 1988, 14–16; W. Rudolph, ‘Der Aufbau der Asa-Geschichte’, VT 2 (1952), 367–71; G. Snyman, ‘ ’Tis a Vice to Know Him’. Reader’s Response-Ability and Responsibility in 2 Chronicles 14–16’, Semeia 77 (1997) 91–113. 19 For a detailed synoptic overview, see: A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible, Jerusalem 1972, 100–102. 20 The same ‘possession formula’ is used once more (2 Chr 20:14) to introduce Jahaziel, a Levite of the line of Asaph, addressing a prophetic speech to ‘all Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat’. See Chapter four.

134

chapter nine

in the Hebrew Bible,21 on the one hand ‫[ ﬠל‬. . .] ‫התהי רוח‬/‫ ותהי‬22 and ‫[ לבשה את‬. . .] ‫ ורוח‬at the other hand,23 reaches at the conclusion: ‘In Chronicles, the possession formulas represent a claim to divine authority. They are used in cases of ad hoc prophetic inspiration of non-professional prophets’.24 The Chronicler, not being hampered by an existing canonical text referring to Azariah, feels free to compose a prophetic address of his own. By creating the literary character of Azariah who with the help of a possession formula speaks with divine authority, the Chronicler puts himself into a position to select and transform canonical prophetic texts for his own purpose. Azarah is used as a vehicle to present ‘a mosaic of longer or shorter citations from existing prophetic texts, slightly altered and sophistically interwoven, to serve the new context and form a coherent statement of the Chronicler’s view’.25 Here in 2 Chronicles the first of three occurrences is met in which it is stated that a prophet goes out to meet a king (15:2; 19:2) or an army (28:9) after a victory. The phrase in 2 Chr 15:2 looks like a modified echo of 2 Chr 14:9. A military denotation of the phrase ‘to go out’ (‫ )יצא לפני‬as used for instance in Judg 4:14; 1 Sam 8:20; 2 Sam 5:24; Ps 68:8; 1 Chr 14:15 should therefore not in advance be denied for 2 Chr 15:2.26 Though it is said that Azariah ‘went out to meet Asa’ (15:2a), it is not by chance that Azariah’s address from the very beginning is in the plural (‫)שמﬠוני‬. His exhortation—being an excellent summary of the Chronicler’s theology—is not only meant for Asa’s ears, but for ‘Asa and all Judah and Benjamin’. It is the basic attitude all people need in their relationship with God. Azariah’s address which opens with a call to attention ( ‫שמﬠוני‬, v. 2) and is concluded with a strong exhortation ‫אתם חזקו ואל־ירפו ידיכם‬, v. 7) consists of two blocks. The first one (v. 2b) has been formulated as ‘an axiom, which for the Chronicler is the underlying principle of

Schniedewind, The Word of God, 66–74. See Num 24:2b (Balaam); Judg 3:10 (Othniel); 11:29 ( Jephthah); 1 Sam 19:20b (the messengers of Saul); 19:23b (Saul). 23 Judg 6:34 (Gideon); 1 Chr 12:19 (Amasai); 2 Chr 24:20 (Zechariah). 24 Schniedewind, The Word of God, 74. 25 S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL) London 1993, 716. 26 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 717–718. In DCH IV, 259–60 all instances of the phrase ‫ יצא לפני‬have been listed. 21 22

historical persons or literary characters

135

all history’.27 The second, major part of Azariah’s address (vv. 3–6) is a sort of historical review. Azariah’s Axiomatical Statement (2 Chr 15:2) The text of this line runs as: (1) YHWH is with you when you are with him; (2) if you seek him, he will let himself be found, (3) but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.

Needless to say that in the opening lines of Azariah’s statement a strong echo of Deuteronomistic theology, in particular from Deut 4:29–30 and Jer 29:13–14, is heard.28 Almost every single element of this poetic29 and prophetic statement can be considered as repeating and recalling other passages in Chronicles. The first part of line (1) is found only twice in the Book of Chronicles. The first time, in 1 Chr 22:18, it is phrased as a rhetorical question (‫ )הלא יהוה ﬠמכם‬in David’s address to his son Solomon to seek YHWH, in order to set about building his sanctuary.30 The second time the phrase ‫ יהוה צמבם‬shows up is in the prophetic address by Jahaziel to ‘all Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat’ (2 Chr 20:17). It hardly can be an accident that this prophetic address is introduced in 2 Chr 20:14 with the help of exactly the same possession formula as in 2 Chr 15:1 and is found in the Book of Chronicles in these two texts only. The closest parallel to line (2) is found in 1 Chr 28:9, where italso being phrased conditionally (‫—)אם‬is part of the conclusion in King David’s personal address to Solomon. Both addresses hold the

Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 718. This is confirmed by the repetition of specific vocabulary, e.g. ‫ בצר ל‬in 2 Chr 15:4 (cf. Deut 4:30), ‫ קבץ‬in 2 Chr 15:9 (cf. Jer 29:14), and ‘to seek YHWH . . . with all their heart and soul’ in 2 Chr 15:12. 29 E.g. the fourfold ending ‫םב‬-, the twofold opening ‫ואם‬, and the twofold rhyme ‫והו‬-. 30 The phrase ‘Is not the LORD your God with you?’ (1 Chr 22:18) is immediately followed by another rhetorical question: ‘Will he not give you peace on every side?’. The notion of God giving peace on every side is a theological notion governing the overall structure of 2 Chronicles 14–15. 27 28

136

chapter nine

key phrase ‘to seek YHWH’,31 which is one of the most important theological notions of the Book of Chronicles.32 ‘ “Seeking Yahweh” is frequently used to typify commitment to Yahweh and his worship according to legitimate norms’.33 It hardly can be a coincidence, of course, that this important theological notion of ‘seeking YHWH’ has already been incorporated in the preceding chapter (2 Chr 14:3. 6). In fact, it is this notion of ‘seeking YHWH’ together with the phrase ‘the YHWH had given . . . security on every side’ (2 Chr 14:5, 6; 15:15) that creates a kind of an envelope structure for the first part of the Chronicler’s narrative on King Asa. Whereas the key notion ‘seeking YHWH’ of 2 Chr 15:2 forms part of an overall structure to the Asa narrative as a whole, it is the verb ‫ מצא‬niph. (2 Chr 15:2. 4. 15) which appears to be the leading principle structuring Azariah’s address. The conditionally phrased opening statement of the prophet (‘If you seek him, he will let himself be found’, v. 2) and its realization in v. 15 (‘they had sought the LORD earnestly; he had let himself be found by them’) are linked with the help of an appeal to history: ‘But when, in their distress, they turned to the LORD the God of Israel and sought him, he let himself be found by them’ (v. 4). Before paying further attention to this appeal to history in 2 Chr 15:3–6, let us quickly dwell on line (3) of Azariah’s opening statement: ‘But if you forsake him, he will forsake you’. Two times in the Book of Chronicles a similar phrase is uttered by a prophet. In 2 Chr 12:5 Shemaiah addresses these words to Rehoboam and the leading men of Judah on the occasion of Shisak’s attack on Jerusalem. And in 2 Chr 24:20 the spirit of God takes possession of Zechariah who reproaches the people with their forsakening the LORD. It is, however, again 1 Chr 28:9—the conclusion of King David’s personal address to Solomon—where we find a conditionally (‫ )אם‬phrased parallel to line

Expressed with either ‫( דרש‬2 Chr 15:2, 12, 13) or ‫( בקש‬2 Chr 15:4, 15). Without dispute, the verb ‫ מעל‬is another major theological motif in the Book of Chronicles. See e.g.: W. Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles’, in: J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season (FS W. McKane; JSOTSS 42), Sheffield 1986, 113–138. 33 B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 211), Sheffield 1996, 46–53 (52); see also: C. Begg, “ ‘Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982), 128–141. The dissertation of G.E. Schaeffer, The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972) was not available to me. 31 32

historical persons or literary characters

137

(3) of Azariah’s address. This is in line with a characteristic feature of the Book of Chronicles noticed by James Newsome: ‘. . . that, under the Chronicler’s pen, the Davidic king himself received the divine word and, on several occasions, passed it on to others, thus assuming the prophetic role’.34 Azariah’s Appeal to History (2 Chr 15:3–6) In vv. 3–6 Azariah impresses upon his audience that the principle as brought out in v. 2 is crucial for Israel’s welfare. In other words: vv. 3–6 serve as documentary evidence to the axiomatical statement of v. 2. Since v. 3, however, contains no verb, the phrase may just as well refer to the past as to the future.35 Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate have taken Azariah’s words as a prophecy of the future. Though modern scholarship almost unanimously assumes that the pericope refers to the past, more specifically to the time of the Judges, some authors presume that the Chronicler is referring either to the (end of the) exile36 or to his own days.37 The Chronicler, as Azariah’s ghostwriter, presents a speech which undeniably is Scripture oriented. There are a lot of references to passages in the Hebrew Bible, especially from the ‘Latter Prophets’. An inventory of these instances reveals an intriguing pattern; the Chronicler appears to design his own manner of using authoritative words from tradition: ‫ וללא‬. . . ‫ וללא‬. . . ‫ ללא‬. . . ‫וימים רבים‬ ‫ ואין‬. . . ‫ ואין‬. . . ‫ ואין‬. . . ‫ ואין‬. . . ‫ אין‬. . . ‫ימים רבים‬ ‫אין שלום ליוצא ולבא‬ ‫וליוצא ולבא אין שלום‬ ‫מהומת רבות‬

2 Chr 15:3 Hos 3:4 2 Chr 15:5 Zech 8:10 2 Chr 15:5

34 J.D. Newsome, ‘Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes’, JBL 94 (1975), 201–217. In his synopsis (pp. 203–204), however, Newsome does not mention 2 Chr 8:14, where David is called ‘man of God’ (‫)איש־האלהים‬. See also Seeligmann, ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie’, 271: ‘. . . daß bei unserem Autor die Könige und ihre Reden nicht selten prophetische Züge tragen’. 35 An extensive list of various interpretations is given by E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910, 384. 36 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 389. 37 H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), Grand Rapids MI 1987, 268; P.R. Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible), London 1973, 138.

138

chapter nine ‫מהומת רבות‬ ‫אל־ירפו ידיכם‬ ‫אל־ירפו ידיך‬ ‫כי יש שכר לפצלתכם‬ ‫כי יש שכר לפﬠלתך‬

Amos 3:9 2 Chr 15:7 Zeph 3:16 2 Chr 15:7 Jer 31:1638

With the exception of the idiomatic expression ‫מהומת רבות‬, Azariah’s historical review contains not a single verbal quotation from the Hebrew Bible. Words from tradition are handled on different levels. In 2 Chr 15:3 it is mainly the pattern that is unmistakably adopted from Hos 3:4. Hosea’s prophecy, however, refers to a situation in the future, whereas the Chronicler’s focus is on some event(s) in the past.39 With respect to 2 Chr 15:5/Zech 8:10 a special comment is appropriate. W. Beuken in his excellent doctoral thesis has circumstantially argued that, in spite of striking similarities, a direct literary dependence on Zech 8:10 cannot be assumed for 2 Chr 15:5.40 It is hard to resist one’s ‘Doktorvater’ at this particular point, since there is no doubt that the Chronicler uses a literary device, which the present author has coined inverted quotation.41 Within an existing formulation from tradition (a sentence, a colon, a set phrase, a rare or unique combination of words) an author sometimes reverses the sequence. By such a deviating model he attains a moment of extra attention in the listener or the reader, because they hear or read something else than the traditional words: the reversed order is a sign that there is something special going on. Since Zech 8:10 and 2 Chr 15:5 are the only two instances within the entire Hebrew Bible where the participles ‫ יוצא‬and ‫ כא‬have been constructed with a preposition, and, moreover, we have here the only occurrence within the Book of Chronicles where the noun ‫ שלום‬is found in a negative context, a direct link is obvious. And because 2 Chr 15:3–7 as a whole holds so many resemblances to Biblical texts, the most plausible inference must be that Zech 8:10 is the parent text. With respect to the last two couples of texts (2 Chr 15:7a/Zeph 3:16; 2 Chr 15:7b/Jer 31:16), the Chronicler makes only one small alteration Not Jer. 31:6 as indicated by Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 721. Maybe the Chonicler in 2 Chr 15:4 has deliberately used the verbs ‫ בקש‬and ‫ שוב‬as to create an echo to Hos 3:5. 40 W.A.M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10), Assen 1967, 162–3. 41 P.C. Beentjes, ‘Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics’, in: L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard and J.P. Fokkelman (eds.), Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, Assen 1996, 31–50. 38 39

historical persons or literary characters

139

in each of the two prophetic texts, changing the suffix of the second person singular (‫ך‬-) into a plural one (‫כם‬-). This is done in order to emphasize again that Azariah is not just addressing King Asa, but ‘all Judah and Benjamin’ (v. 2). So we reach at the conclusion that the majority of the prophets and inspired messengers in the Book of Chronicles have been ‘invented’ by the Chonicler and should therefore be characterized as ‘literary personage’ rather than historical persons. Consequently, the speeches delivered by these literary personages are the most appropriate place to look for the Chronicler’s own theological convictions and accents.

CHAPTER TEN

‘GIVE THANKS TO YHWH. TRULY HE IS GOOD’ PSALMS AND PRAYERS IN THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES1 Prayers—Some Statistics Twenty one times the Book of Chronicles reports that people are praying. In respect of prayers in the Book of Chronicles, one should distinguish between the mere mention of a prayer, i.e. without its wording being recorded, and prayers of which the content is handed down.2 Nine times the Chronicler has adopted the text of the prayers from his parent text(s) in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings. In all cases, however, in one way or another he has adapted these parallel texts for his own purpose(s). The majority of the adopted texts is found in the sections on David (1 Chronicles 11–29) and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29–32). In the following chart all references to prayers in the Book of Chronicles have been put together.3 Out of a total amount of twenty one references to prayers in the Book of Chronicles, no less than twelve (57%) have been created by the Chronicler himself (‘Sondergut’). A as consequence, the reader of the Book of Chronicles should be aware that precisely in those occurrences which are the author’s own invention specific features of his theology are to be found. A remarkable feature undoubtedly is that no less than sixteen occurrences (76%) have been related to only four kings: David (nrs 3–8), Solomon (nrs 9–11), Jehoshaphat (nrs 14–16), and Hezekiah (nrs 17–20).

1 This Chapter is a revised version of ‘Psalms and Prayers in the Book of Chronicles’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking & H.G. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 9–44. 2 Non-recorded prayers are found nine times (43%) as against twelve times (57%) for recorded prayers. 3 S.E. Balentine, ‘ “You Can’t Pray a Lie”: Truth and Fiction in the Prayers of Chronicles’, in: M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSS 238), Sheffield 1997, 246–267 has only charted the distribution of the recorded prayers (252). Moreover, unfortunately some data in his essay are incorrect; he refers to 1 Chr 17:17–29 in stead of 1 Chr 17:16–27 and to 29:10–29 in stead of 29:10–19 (251). The reference to Ps 138:8 (254, n. 22) makes no sense.

142

chapter ten

Nr. Text 1. I 4:10 2. I 5:20 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

I 14:10 I 17:16–27 I 21:8 I 21:17 I 21:26 I 29:10–20 II 1:8–10 II 6:3–11 II 6:14–42 II 13:14 II 14:10 II 18:31 II 20:6–13 II 20:26 II 30:18–9 II 31:8 II 32:20

20. II 32:24 21. II 33:12–3

Agent of prayer

Category4

Source

Jabez Reuben, Gad and half Manasse David David David David David David Solomon Solomon Solomon Judeans Asa Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat and his people Hezekiah Hezekiah and his officers Hezekiah/Isaiah the prophet Hezekiah Manasseh

PT PWT

Sondergut Sondergut

PT PT PT PT PWT PT PT PT PT PWT PT PWT PT PWT PT PWT PWT

2 Sam 5:19* 2 Sam 7:18–29* 2 Sam 24:10* 2 Sam 24:17* 2 Sam 24:25* Sondergut 1 Kgs 3:6–9* 1 Kgs 8:14–21* 1 Kgs 8:22–53* Sondergut Sondergut 1 Kgs 22:32* Sondergut Sondergut Sondergut Sondergut Sondergut

PWT PWT

Sondergut Sondergut

And it is not by chance, of course, that precisely these four are the kings that play a prominent role in the Chronicler’s composition. 4 Psalms—Some Statistics Seven times the Chronicler notices that a psalm or part of it is sung. One should notice that, with the exception of 2 Chr 6:40–42—which in fact serves as the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer (2 Chr 6:14–42)—, psalm texts in the Book of Chronicles have nowhere been assigned to a king, but are always performed by cultic personnel or by ‘all Israel’ in a cultic situation.

‘PT’ = Prayer of which the text is recorded. ‘PWT’ = Prayer without text; the Chronicler mentions only the fact that people are praying; the wording of the prayer, however, is not given. * = The source text has in some way been adapted by the Chronicler. 4

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

143

Nr.

Text

Agent of psalm singing

Category

Source

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I 16:8–36 I 16:41 II 5:13 II 6:40–42 II 7:3 II 7:6 II 20:21

Asaph and his kinsmen Heman, Jeduthun, a.o. All the levitical singers Solomon All the Israelites The Levites Men appointed to sing

PS5 PS# PS# PS PS# PS# PS#

Ps 96; 105–6* Sondergut Sondergut Ps 132:8–10* Sondergut Sondergut Sondergut

All these data justify a further investigation into the way the Chronicler is handling psalms and prayers in his book. With respect of the latter category, only prayers of which the text is recorded will be given further consideration. 5 Prayers in the Genealogical Section One should regard it a significant feature that the Chronicler even in the genealogical section of his book has incorporated two passages in which prayers occur, viz. 1 Chr 4:9–10 and 5:20. These texts are met in what most people consider one of the most boring parts of the entire Hebrew Bible: the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9.6 A close reading of these nine chapters, however, brings to light that they in fact contain the blueprint of all the Chronicler’s concepts and conceptions. Relating to Jabez’s prayer (1 Chr 4:9–10), there are several points that catch the eye. The prayer is found in a narrative context amidst mere genealogical listings. Upon closer look, however, it appears that such short narrative passages are found more often in the genealogical section of the Book of Chronicles: 1 Chr 4:38–43 (Simeon); 1 Chr 5:18–22, 25–26 (Reuben); 1 Chr 6:33–34 (Levi); 1 Chr 7:22–23 (Ephraim); 1 Chr 8:6–8 (Benjamin). It can be no accident that all these occurrences relate to the most important tribes of Israel.

5 PS = Psalm (or part of a psalm). PS# refers to the phrase ‘Give thanks to YHWH, for He is good, for his loyalty endures forever’, (Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1. 29; 136:1), or a variant of it. * = The source text has in some way been adapted by the Chronicler. 6 For some specific features of 1 Chronicles 1–5, see Chapter one. The most extensive study dealing with 1 Chronicles 1–9 is: M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die »genealogische Vorhalle« 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990.

144

chapter ten

Such ‘narrative islands’ within the genealogical section of the book more than once hint at specific points the Chronicler wants to emphasize. In respect of Jabez’s prayer, it is of great importance that it is for the first time in the Book of Chronicles we have to do with prayer. Already in this very first passage dealing with prayer the author likes to make his theological point. This has been done with the help of some sort of pun. The meaning of the name ‫ ( יעבץ‬Jabez) is uncertain. By transposing two consonants the Chronicler etymologically connects this name to the noun ‫‘( ׂע ֶצב‬hardship’, ‘pain’, ‘distress’). Quite a few prominent scholars assert that the words of Jabez’s mother are to be considered an allusion to Gen 3:16.7 In that case we would even have an ‘inverted quotation’.8 The fact that the ‘explanation’ of Jabez’s name does not fit—see for instance Gen 11:9 (‫ בלל‬and ‫—)בבל‬is of minor importance. The Chronicler aims at a theological-didactical message. A man whose name has a negative impact nevertheless prospered: ‘Jabez ranked higher than his brothers . . . Jabez called to the God of Israel . . . and God granted his petition’.9 More than a person’s name, it is a person’s attitude towards God that counts. At first glance, the opening of Jabez’s prayer (‫ )אם־ברך תברכני‬suggests we have to do with a vow. Since there is no apodosis, however, ‫אם‬ functions as the introduction to a supplication: ‘I pray you, bless me and grant me wide territories’.10 The fourth element of Jabez’s prayer (‫ )ועשית מרעה‬presents Hebrew idiom that is difficult, if not impossible. Quite a few scholars hold the view that as a result of haplography ָ ְ‫ י‬has been omitted. It is advisable, the practically identical noun ‫שוּﬠ ִתי‬ however, to take in consideration the Septuagint’s rendering—γνῶσις (‘knowledge’)—that would match ‫מדעה‬, probably being a resh/daleth transposition. The Septuagint’s rendering is the more interesting, since in 1 Chr 2:55 Jabez is the town where the families of the scribes live.

7 E.g. S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993, 109; T. Willi, Chronik (BKAT 24/2), Neukirchen 1999, 126; S.L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville 2004, 81. 8 See P.C. Beentjes, ‘Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern’, Bib 63 (1982) 506–523; id, ‘Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics’, in: L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard, J.P. Fokkelman (eds.), Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, Assen 1996, 34–49. 9 Unless otherwise stated, biblical quotations are from the Revised English Bible with Apocrypha, Oxford/Cambridge 1989. 10 Similar use is found in Pss 81:9; 139:19; Prov 24:11; see GKC § 151e.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

145

That there may be some link indeed seems to be confirmed by the Targum of 1 Chr 4:10, in which Jabez is said to be ‘more versed in the Torah than his brothers’ and where his prayer is related to his wish that the number of disciples be increased.11 With respect of Jabez’s prayer, there are some specific features to be mentioned. For the first time in the Book of Chronicles the noun ‘God’ occurs12 and in a special collocation too: ‘the God of Israel’, which is found in the book only two more times (1 Chr 5:26; 2 Chr 29:7).13 Maybe in 1 Chr 4:10 the expression ‘the God of Israel’ is also used as a reaction to the homonymous noun ‫עצב‬, which not only means ‘pain’ (Isa 14:3), but also ‘idol’ (Isa 48:5). Moreover, the infinitive + suffix ‫עצבי‬ (1 Chr 4:10a) has exactly the same morphology as the noun + suffix ‫( עצבי‬Isa 48:5). And one should notice that in the latter context the collocation ‘the God of Israel’ is used indeed (Isa 48:1, 2).14 With respect of the conclusion of Jabez’s prayer, no doubt the verb ‫‘( שאל‬to ask’) sets the tone. For it can hardly be a coincidence that the Chronicler further on in his book will use this verb at very specific moments and in respect of specific persons in their relation to God. Each time it applies to highly explosive theological passages: on Saul (1 Chr 10:13), on David (1 Chr 14:10, 14), and on Solomon (2 Chr 1:7, 11).15 It is absolutely not far-fetched to claim that the passage on Jabez’s prayer sets the tone for the rest of the prayers in the Book of Chronicles. It always is a person’s attitude towards God that is the major criterion.

11 ‘Yaabès—c’est Othniël—était plus honoré et plus versé dans la Loi que ses frères. Sa mère l’avait appelé du nom de Yaabès, en disant: « Certes je l’ai enfanté dans l’affliction ». Yaabès adressa cette prière au Dieu d’Israël, en disant: « Si vraiment tu me bénis par des fils et si tu accroîs mon territoire par des disciples, si ta main est avec moi dans le négoce, si tu me donnes des compagnons qui soient tels que moi pour que le mauvais penchant ne me mette point en colère . . . ». R. Le Déaut – J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques (AnBib 51/I), Rome 1971, 48. Jabez’s prayer is also commented in Mek. Ex 18:27, and Tem. 16a. 12 The first occurrence of ‘YHWH’ is found in 1 Chr 2:3. 13 The collocation ‘YHWH, the God of Israel’ is found thirty times in the Book of Chronicles; see S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt a. M. 1989, 19–20. 14 The motif of ‘God’s hand’ that occurs in the third sentence of Jabez’s prayer (‘May your hand be with me’) will be used two more times in the book: 1 Chr 21:17; 2 Chr 30:12. 15 When related to human beings, the verb ‫ שאל‬is used in 1 Chr 18:10; 2 Chr 9:12; 11:23.

146

chapter ten David’s Prayers

On six occasions during David’s reign, the Book of Chronicles refers to prayers which are related to this king. Five passages have been adopted by the Chronicler from 2 Samuel, being reworked and adapted for his own purpose(s). The last one (1 Chr 29:10–20), however, is completely a creation of his own. With respect of the six passages in question, special attention will be paid to 1 Chr 17:16–27 and 1 Chr 29:10–20, being both the most extensive and the most theological ones; the former as a reworked text, the latter as a creation by the Chronicler. 1 Chr 17:16–27 The promise addressed to David by the intermediary of Nathan as reflected in 2 Sam 7:1–16 almost exclusively deals with the Davidic dynasty. As a result of a number of textual interventions, this promise in 1 Chr 17:1–14 has been transformed into a new kind of text referring basically just to Solomon, since, after all, it is he who is predestined to build the Temple.16 For the Chronicler, the Davidic dynasty is important in as far as it has a positive bearing upon the Temple. It is also within this new concept that David’s prayer (1 Chr 17:16–27) is presented in a different way. As opposed to 2 Sam 7:1–16, in 1 Chr 17:1–15 there is no question of an unconditional promise of a Davidic dynasty, but rather of a conditional promise which is almost exclusively concentrated in Solomon as the Temple builder.17 The prayer of David as reflected in 1 Chr 17:16–27 therefore needs to be carefully studied and compared with its parallel text (2 Sam 7:18–29). Such an investigation is not so much needed because of the textual differences—they have expertly been listed by Braun18—but because of the function that David’s prayer is now performing in light of the oracle in which Solomon has been designated to build the Temple.

This view has been discussed at some length in Chapter two. The most recent comparison between 2 Samuel 7:1–16 and 1 Chronicles 17:1–15 has been published by A. Schenker, ‘Die Verheissung Natans in 2 Sam 7 in der Septuaginta’, in: M.A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195), Louvain 2006, 177–192. 18 R. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC), Waco 1986, 196–197. 16 17

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

147

As should be clear, nowhere in David’s prayer (1 Chr 17:16–27) is there to be found a single reference to Solomon, as was the case in the first part of 1 Chronicles 17. In this way the Chronicler is able to emphasize his ‘David-programme’ in the second part of 1 Chronicles 17.19 That a ‘David-programme’ has actually been woven into the Chronicler’s version of David’s prayer is proved by the application of the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’). Whereas this verb in 2 Sam 7:16a plays an important role with respect to the Davidic dynasty, in 1 Chr 17:14—where only Solomon is explicitly meant—this verb is absent and its place taken by the hiph il of ‫עמד‬. It is remarkable then, and it can hardly be coincidence, that the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) suddenly appears in 1 Chr 17:23 and 17:24, resulting in wordings with a completely new theological bent with regard to the parallel texts of 2 Samuel 7: ‫הדבר אשר דברת על־עבדך ועל־ביתו הקם עד־עולם‬ Perform for all time what you have promised for your servant and his house (2 Sam 7:25)

‫הדבר אשר דברת על־עבדך ועל־ביתו יאמן עד־עולם‬ Let what you have promised for your servant and his house stand fast for all time (1 Chr 17:23)

‫ויגדל שמך עד־עולם‬ May your name be great for ever (2 Sam 7:26)

‫ויאמן ויגדל שמך עד־עולם‬ Let it stand fast, that you name may be great for ever (1 Chr 17:24)

The verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) has been removed by the Chronicler from its parent text (2 Sam 7:16a), in which it refers to the Davidic dynasty. The verb has been transferred to other motifs from the same parent text that exclusively deals with YHWH. In this new context, the verb ‫אמן‬ (‘to establish’) relates to God’s word and name. It is no longer David and his dynasty which are in the centre of the Chronicler’s attention, 19 Therefore the reader will be very surprised that Williamson, who explicitly wants to emphasize that 1 Chronicles 17 preserves God’s promise with respect of the Davidic dynasty, nowhere refers to David’s prayer as such in his important article on this subject. His only reference to this is a footnote: ‘It should be noted that David’s prayer is apparently adopted by the Chronicler without any significant or tendentious alteration’. H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles’, in: A. Rofé (ed.), Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, Vol. III: Non-Hebrew Section, Jerusalem 1983, 305–318 (quotation on 310, n. 14; italics mine, PCB).

148

chapter ten

but YHWH Himself. This pattern is also seen in 2 Chr 1:9 and 6:17, where the Chronicler diverts from its parent texts with the help of the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’).20 For more than one reason, the final line of David’s prayer is particularly fascinating: ‫ועתה הואל וברך את־בית עבדך להיות לעולם לפניך‬ Be pleased now to bless your servant’s house so that it may continue before you for ever (2 Sam 7:29a)

‫ועתה הואלת לברך את־בית עבדך להיות לעולם לפניך‬ Now it has pleased you to bless your servant’s house so that it may continue before you for ever (1 Chr 17:27a)

‫כי־אתה אדני יהוה דברת ומברכתך יברך בית־עבדך לעולם‬ For you, Lord YHWH, have spoken, and may your blessing rest on your servant’s house for ever (2 Sam 7:29b)

‫כי־אתה יהוה ברכת ומברך לעולם‬ For you, YHWH, have blessed and will be blessed for ever (1 Chr 17:27b)

1 Chr 17:27 brings to light a much more permanent situation than is the case in 2 Sam 7:29. While the latter has been modelled as a supplication for blessing in the future, 1 Chr 17:27 should be characterized as a panegyric establishing that God’s blessing on the House of David has already been realized. As a result, the second half of 1 Chr 17:27 is significantly different than its parent text. Whereas the final line of 2 Sam 7:29b refers to the Davidic dynasty, the wording of 1 Chr 17:27b can only bear upon YHWH Himself. Almost all authoritative Bible translations have added here an object: ‘it’, viz. the Davidic dynasty. 21 Such an object, however, is completely absent in the Hebrew text. Such a rendering, however, is a misconception for theological reasons. For it is God who is exalted

20 The only text within the entire Book of Chronicles where YHWH is not the subject or agent of ‫‘( אמן‬to establish’) is to be found in 2 Chr 20:20, which is a transformation of a quotation from Isa 7:9. See Chapter four. 21 NEB: ‘Thou it is who has blessed it, and it shall be blessed for ever’; REB: ‘You it is who have blessed it, and it shall be blessed for ever’ (italics by me, PCB). The same kind of rendering is found in, for example, BJ; EÜ; NBG (1951); SV (1637).

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

149

here by the Chronicler: ‘For you, YHWH, have blessed and will be blessed for ever’. 1 Chr 29:10–20 For several reasons, special attention should be paid to David’s prayer in 1 Chr 29:10–20. First and foremost, this prayer is the Chronicler’s own creation (‘Sondergut’) which offers him ample opportunity to emphasize particular themes.22 Second, within the Chronicler’s composition the prayer in fact is the last direct speech by David. Third, the delimitation of the prayer deserves some further attention. According to Plöger, the Chronicler has deliberately chosen to shape David’s final speech as a prayer in order to create an overall inclusio with the prayer in 1 Chr 17:16–27. So doing, David’s activities relating to the construction of the Temple should begin and end with a prayer.23 Plöger’s most decisive argument is that the wording ‘But who am I, and who are my people, that . . .’ (1 Chr 29:14) immediately reminds of 1 Chr 17:16 (‘Who am I, . . . and what is my family, that . . .’). Since, however, there is hardly any other parallel to be found between these two prayers, Plöger’s view can not be substantiated anyhow.24 Both in form and content David’s final speech deviates quite a bit from other parting addresses or last words by great leaders to be found in the Hebrew Bible, such as the valedictory speeches by Jacob (Genesis 49), Moses (Deuteronomy 33), Joshua ( Joshua 23–24), and Samuel (1 Samuel 12). First, the addressees of 1 Chronicles 29:10–20 are not the leader’s sons or the people of Israel, but the one addressed is YHWH. Second, the very fact that a parting address has nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible been shaped as a prayer not only underlines the importance of this passage, but also the Chronicler’s creativity.

22 A text must be studied as it has been handed down. Therefore one should disagree with Mosis, who holds the entire complex of 1 Chr 29:1–19 to be secondary, and with Throntveit as well, who considers 1 Chr 29:14b. 16–17. 19 as secondary material; R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92), Freiburg 1973, 105–107; M. Throntveit, When Kings Speak. Royal Speech and Royal prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93), Atlanta 1987, 72–73. 94. 23 O. Plöger, ‘Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, in: id., Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 1977, 50–66 (57). 24 One could only mention the noun ‫‘( גדלה‬greatness’) which is found in 1 Chr 17:19 [2 x], 17:21 and 29:11 (and nowhere else in the Book of Chronicles).

150

chapter ten

In respect of the pericope’s delimitation, it is beyond doubt that the prayer should also include verse 20.25 First, this verse contains an explicit summons by David which can only be understood well, if it is firmly linked with the preceding lines. And indeed, there is an undeniable inclusio, in a twofold way, between v. 20 and v. 10: – the verb ‫‘( ברך‬to bless’), two times each in v. 10 and v. 20; – the collocation ‫‘( כל־הקהל‬the whole assembly’), once in v. 10, twice in v. 20. In this way, David’s prayer not only at the beginning, but also at the end has been given a marked narrative framework. A second argument for the inclusion of v. 20 is adduced by the way God is addressed: ‘YHWH, your God’ (v. 20a); ‘YHWH, the God of their forefathers’ (v. 20b). These collocations form part of a series of seven divine names and epithets which are accompanied by a possessive suffix: ‘You, YHWH, God of our father Israel’ (v. 10b); ‘Our God’ (v. 13a); ‘YHWH, our God’ (v. 16a); ‘My God’ (v. 17a); ‘YHWH, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, our forefathers’ (v. 18a); ‘YHWH, your God’ (v. 20a); ‘YHWH, the God of their forefathers’ (v. 20b).26 After v. 20, the Tetragrammaton is not any more accompanied by an epithet or a possessive suffix. A final argument to link v. 20 with the preceding lines (vv. 10–19) is the time adjunct in v. 21 (‘the next day’) which introduces a caesura in the narrative and is reinforced in v. 22 (‘that day’). So the overall structure of the pericope would be: A) 1 Chr 29:10a X) 1 Chr 29:10b–19 A’) 1 Chr 29:20

Narrative frame David’s prayer Narrative frame

Within David’s prayer, three different parts or genres can be distinguished: vv. 10b–12 vv. 13–17 vv. 18–19

Hymne of praise Thanksgiving/Confession Supplication

(‘you’) (‘we’/‘I’) (‘you’)

25 There are only a few commentators who indeed consider 1 Chr 29:10–20 as a unit, but do not explain, however, their choice more fully in respect of v. 20: McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles, 220; J.M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB 12) New York 1965, 195–197; J. Becker, 1 Chronik (NEB Lfg. 18), Würzburg 1986, 113–114; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 503–505. 26 Moreover, in 1 Chr 29:11, two times the wording ‘Yours, YHWH, is . . .’ is found.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

151

Some scholars, however, consider verse 13 to be part of the hymn of praise too.27 There are, however, at least two arguments against this view. First, vv. 13–17 is marked by a consistent use of ‘we’ and ‘I’ as against the sections ‘You’ (vv. 10b–12; 18–19). Second, ‫( וכי‬v. 14) can hardly be understood as an exclamation, but should be given an adversative sense, which requires that it must depend on v. 13 that therefore must be the opening of the second part of David’s prayer. Each part of David’s prayer has its own characteristics.28 The hymn of praise (vv. 10b–12) underlines God’s greatness and power, his glory, splendour, and majesty. The thanksgiving (vv. 13–17), at the same time being a confession, emphasizes that all benefactions come from God, whereas in the supplication (vv. 18–19) God is asked to direct both the heart of the people and the heart of Solomon towards Him. At the same time, however, the different parts of David’s prayer are joined together by all kinds of repetitions, of which a tenfold ‫ כל‬and a sevenfold ‫ לך‬immediately strike the eye. Other important links to be listed are: Hymn of praise (vv. 10b–12

‫כח‬ ‫בידך‬ ‫תפארת‬

v. 12 v. 12b v. 11a

Thanksgiving (vv. 13–17)

‫כח‬ ‫מידך‬ ‫תפארת‬

Thanksgiving (vv. 13–17)

‫לבב‬ ‫כון‬ ‫בנה‬ ‫עם‬

vv. 17a. 17b v. 16a v. 16a vv. 14a. 17b

v. 14a vv. 14b. 16b v. 13b

Supplication (vv. 18–19)

‫לבב‬ ‫כון‬ ‫בנה‬ ‫עם‬

vv. 18a. 18b. 19a vv. 18b. 19b v. 19b v. 18a

27 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 504; S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI), Grand Rapids MI 1989, 221–222. 28 They have been described in detail in: P.C. Beentjes, 1 Kronieken (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2002, 267–269. Especially the vocabulary of the middle part of David’s prayer (vv. 13–17) has strong links to 29:1–9, for instance ‫נדב‬, ‫ כון‬hiph., ‫רצה‬, ‫שמחה‬.

152

chapter ten

There are some details in David’s prayer which deserve particular notice. 1. A hymn of praise is usually phrased in the third person singular: ‘Blessed be God Most High who . . .’ (Gen 14:20); ‘Blessed be YHWH your God who . . .’ (2 Sam 18:28); ‘Blessed is God who . . .’ (Ps 66:20); ‘Blessed be YHWH the God of Israel’ (2 Chr 2:11); ‘Blessed be YHWH, for He . . .’ (Pss 28:6; 31:22). The speaker addresses himself to an audience and lists the benefactions God has conferred. The phrasing ‘Blessed are you, YHWH . . .’ (1 Chr 29:10), being found in the second person singular, occurs only one more time in the Hebrew Bible (Ps 119:12),29 but circulates quite often in deuterocanonical literature (Tob 3:11; 8:5. 15–17; 11:14; Dan 3:26 (Gr.); 3:52 (Gr.) and in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well (1 QS 11:15; 1QH 5:20; 10:14; 11:27–33; 16:8).30 2. Subsequent to David’s praise (vv. 10b-12) and thanksgiving (v. 13), the prayer has two salient verse lines (vv. 14–15) which are introduced by a rhetorical question that will appear to be a structural feature of royal prayers in the Book of Chronicles. 1 Chr 29:14–15 which are mostly typified as ‘lament’ or ‘complaint’ function as emphasizing ‘the contrast between the power and might of YHWH and the weakness and dependence of his people’.31 The first part of v. 15 (‫ותושבים ככל־אבתינו‬/‫)כי־גרים אנחנו לפניך‬ is a straight echo of Ps. 39:13, being only adjusted to the plural now: ‫תושב ככל־אבותי‬/‫כי גר אנכי עמך‬. That it is a deliberate quotation indeed is highly probable, as Psalm 39 is unmistakably to be typified as a lament. Since David not only is praying as an individual (‘I’), but also as the representative of his people, the Chronicler has reworked the quotation from Ps. 39:13 to a nation wide application (‘we’). 3. The final verse line of David’s prayer (v. 19) is solid proof that the Chronicler’s focus first and foremost is on the Temple. God is asked to prepare Solomon’s religious attitude in such an optimal way that he

29 Some scholars favour a reconstruction of the Masoretic text of Neh 9:5 to the extent that an identical phrase occurs; see BHS, and J.H. Newman, Praying by the Book. The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature, 14), Atlanta GE 1999, 59–63. 30 By the way, the text of 1 Chr 29:10b–13 is an integral part of the Shemone Esre that is daily recited a number of times. This passage has also been included in the Breviarium Romanum, being read during the Lauds. In a number of young Greek manuscripts, a text similar to 1 Chr 29:11 is found as a doxology following Our Father (Matt 6:9–13). 31 Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 75.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

153

might construct the ‫( בירה‬v. 19b), which already in 29:1 has explicitly been introduced as ‘the habitation for YHWH’. 4. David’s summons to bless YHWH (v. 20) is taken up by the whole assembly. The content of their blessing, however, is not recorded, only their pose is mentioned: ‘bowing low and prostrating themselves . . .’. The Chronicler uses a fixed pair of verbs (‫ קדד‬+ ‫ שחה‬hitp.), which in the Hebrew Bible is used both in the presence of YHWH (Gen 24:26. 48; Neh. 8:6) and before the king (1 Kgs 1:16. 31). The special nature of 1 Chr 29:20, however, is that the assembly bows low and prostrates themselves before YHWH and the king at once, which is a unique image in the Hebrew Bible.32 Solomon’s Prayers Three times the Book of Chronicles reports a prayer by King Solomon (2 Chr 1:8–10; 6:3–11; 6:12–42), and all three are found at strategic moments in the Chronicler’s narrative. 2 Chr 1:8–10 As to 2 Chr 1:1–13, which is the context of Solomon’s first prayer, the Chronicler explicitly wants to emphasize that Gibeon in the days of Solomon is the legitimate sanctuary. As compared to the parallel account of 1 Kgs 3:4, the Chronicler has added quite a few elements to the narrative’s introduction (2 Chr 1:2–5). First, the king is accompanied by ‘the whole assembly’ (‫כל קהל‬, v. 3), a collocation that in the Book of Chronicles almost exclusively points at an important cultic event. Second, the formulation ‘the Tent of Meeting’ (v. 3) has been expanded by the words ‘of God’ and has explicitly been connected to ‘Moses, the servant of YHWH’ in order to safeguard that Gibeon is indeed the only legitimate cultic place. Third, the mention of the ‘bronze altar which Bezalel . . . had made’ (v. 5)—a direct reference to Ex 27:1–2; 38:1–2—is needed to make absolutely clear that the offerings

32 There is difference of opinion which king is meant here. With respect of v. 22, the most obvious inference would be that in v. 20 the author has King David in mind. Whereas by far the most commentators cloak themselves in silence, only two of them are explicit. Becker (1 Chronik, 114) identifies ‘the king’ of v. 20 being ‘King David’; Braun (1 Chronicles, 288), on the other hand, explicitly refers to ‘King Solomon’.

154

chapter ten

by King Solomon were conform the regulations. Fourth, Gibeon is the legitimate sanctuary, since in Jerusalem at the time there was only a tent for the ark (v. 4). It is a matter of major concern that the Chronicler wants to present the very first activity of King Solomon as a cultic one. It sets the tone for the entire narrative about this king (2 Chronicles 1–9). On the holy site of Gibeon which is presented by the Chronicler as the central sanctuary of the kingdom, ‘Solomon and the assembly sought/ consulted Him’.33 As a result of both this action and the offering of a thousand whole-offerings, ‘YHWH appeared to Solomon that night’. One should notice that the Chronicler has left out the adverbial adjunct ‘in a dream’ as is reported two times in the parent text (1 Kgs 3:5, 15). In the Chronicler’s presentation, a direct contact between YHWH and King Solomon is needed. Skipping a good few differences between both narratives, let us concentrate on Solomon’s answer to God’s question ‘What shall I give to you? Tell me’ (2 Chr 1:7). As compared to its source, the Chronicler has not only shortened the king’s answer, but has for a greater part also altered it from the third to the first person. The king’s answer (vv. 8–10) has been styled as a prayer. It opens (v. 8) with giving thanks to God for two different favours. First, that God has shown great and constant love to David. Second, that God has made Solomon king in David’s place. Then, subsequent to the characteristic opening ‫‘( עתה‬Now’, v. 9), Solomon addresses a plea to God which, just as in v. 8, has two beneficiaries: David, and Solomon. (1) Compared to 1 Kgs 3:7, the Chronicler has added a phrase: ‘And now, YHWH God, let thy word to David, my father, be confirmed’. Using the verb ‫‘( אמן‬to confirm’, ‘to establish’), the author explicitly refers back to 1 Chr 17:23–24, where the same verb played such a prominent role in David’s prayer, as we have seen earlier. And it can hardly be a coincidence that the same phrase will reappear in 2 Chr 6:17, which belongs to the other prayer by King Solomon. 33 The translation ‘resorted to it’ (NEB; REB) not only pushes aside the central notion of the verb ‫‘( דרש‬to seek’, ‘to consult’) that from 1 Chr 10:13–14 onwards is dominating the Book of Chronicles, it also relates the verbal suffix to ‘the Tabernacle’ in stead of referring to ‘YHWH’. As to the collocation ‘to seek YHWH’, see C. Begg, “ ‘Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982), 128–141. The dissertation of G.E. Schaeffer, The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972) was not available to me.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

155

(2) King Solomon repeats a phrase from v. 8 (‘You have made me king over a people’) that is followed by the expression ‘as numerous as the dust on the earth’. This collocation has been adopted from those particular biblical passages in which God’s covenant with the Patriarchs is reported (Gen 13:16; 28:14). This reference functions as an introduction to a much more specific request at God’s address, which opens with ‫ עתה‬too: ‘Now, grant me wisdom and knowledge, that I may lead this people’. When Solomon expounds this request in the second part of this verse, it is not devoid of importance that (1) the term ‘this people’ is given a highly specific characterization: ‘this great people of yours’; and (2) that this second half of v. 10 has been shaped as a rhetorical question, which is to be considered a literary feature of royal prayer in the Book of Chronicles. In God’s answer to Solomon, the Chronicler by rhetorical means makes suspense increase, since the outcome of Solomon’s request is postponed as long as possible: v. 11—Because you have not asked for A, B, and C, but have asked for D, and E, v. 12—D and E are granted to you; I shall also give you A, B, and C.34

In the second half of God’s answer (v. 11), the crucial elements from Solomon’s request (‘wisdom and knowledge / to govern my people’; v. 10) are explicitly repeated, whereas at the same time the formulation ‘the people over whom I have made you king’ (v. 11) is a direct and literal echo from v. 8 (‘you have made me king’) and v. 9 (‘you have made me king over a people . . .’). A remarkable aspect of God’s answer to Solomon, moreover, is that God mentions two elements—‘the life of your enemies/even long life for yourself ’; v. 11—which have no counterpart in God’s final promise (v. 12). That the enemies play no part in the final promise might be explained from the Chronicler’s presentation of King Salomon earlier in his book as ‘a man of peace’ (1 Chr 22:9). The omission of promising a long life to Solomon strengthens my conviction that the Chronicler’s emphasis on ‘wealth, possession and glory’ (v. 12) is intended to focus on Solomon’s most important activities to come: constructing the Temple. 34 The collocation ‘wealth and glory’ (v. 11a) is also found in 1 Chr 29:28 as part of David’s description at the moment of his death.

156

chapter ten 2 Chr 6:3–11

The second prayer by King Solomon should be considered an autonomous literary unit, set apart from the prayer of 6:12–42, as both the location and the position of the King in 6:3 are explicitly different from the position and location as reported in 6:12. Both passages should also be distinguished from each other with respect to their focus. Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chr 6:3–11 is about God, whereas in 2 Chr 6:12–42 the King addresses himself directly to God. Solomon’s second prayer will not be discussed in detail here, as the text of 2 Chr 6:3–11 to a high degree coincides with the text of 1 Kgs 8:14–21. The only exception regards the end of the prayer, since the Chronicler to some extent has changed his parent text. Whereas in 1 Kgs 8:21 Solomon reports that he has assigned a place for the Ark in the Temple, 2 Chr 6:11a makes him say that he has installed the Ark there. So doing, the King’s presentation shifts from merely offering the infrastructure into being a kind of official liturgical act. In respect of 2 Chr 6:11b, two aspects should be mentioned. First, the Chronicler has changed the wording of 1 Kgs 8:21 (‘. . . the covenant of YHWH, which he made with our forefathers . . .’) into: ‘. . . the covenant of YHWH, which he made with Israel’. This change might serve as a piece of evidence that the Chronicler is seriously engaged with the concept of ‘Israel’ as a united people.35 Second, the Chronicler left out the passage dealing with the historical setting as reported in 1 Kgs 8:21b (‘when He brought them out of Egypt’). It must be emphasized that he is not doing this in order to minimize the Exodus tradition, let alone to ignore it; would that be the case, he should never have adopted from his source the text as found in 2 Chr 5:10.36 That the Exodus tradition is not mentioned in 2 Chr 6:11 is aimed at emphasizing as much as possible that the covenant with YHWH is still very much alive and is everyone’s concern.

The important study by H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977, however, does not discuss this passage. 36 It is a widespread misconception that the Chronicler in his work should have skipped the Exodus tradition. See Chapter seven. 35

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

157

2 Chr 6:12–42 The third prayer by King Solomon is by far the most extensive prayer of the entire book. It is no wonder that it is found precisely here, since it is part of the book’s climax: the dedication of the Jerusalem Temple.37 Quite a few commentators take the view that Solomon’s prayer here is almost identical to the one in 1 Kgs 8:22–53. On further consideration, this assertion is hardly tenable. The Chronicler has left out passages from his source (e.g. 1 Kgs 8:50b–53), has altered his parent text more than a dozen times and inserted texts of his own (e.g. 2 Chr 6:13; 6:40–42) to the effect that he has created a new text. In this prayer, the same topics that were in the centre of attention in Solomon’s previous prayer (6:3–11)—viz. David and the Temple—play a prominent part too. In a classic posture of prayer—kneeling down (Gen 24:26; Ex 34:8) and spreading out his hands towards heaven (Ex 9:29; Ps 28:2; Job 11:3)—Solomon addresses God.38 His prayer consists of a praise (vv. 14–15), a supplication that the Davidic dynasty may not fail (vv. 16–17), and a substantial passage (vv. 18–39) that describes seven sorts of disaster in which people may pray to God and ask for deliverance. Because of time and space, just a few comments upon this extensive prayer as recorded by the Chronicler are in order now.39 At a glance the reader will notice that the Chronicler has created a special introduction to Solomon’s prayer. Whereas 1 Kgs 8:22 says that ‘he spread out his hands towards heaven’, the Chronicler in 2 Chr 6:12 has dropped the words ‘towards heaven’, as he wants to use this phrase at the end of v. 13, which is a creation of his own.40 The Chronicler has created a marked location for Solomon too, since he stands on ‘a bronze ‫’כיור‬. The noun ‫ כיור‬usually means ‘basin’ (Ex 30:18. 28; 31:9; Lev 8:11; 2 Chr 4:6. 14) or ‘kettle’ (2 Sam 2:14;

37 See E. Talstra, ‘The Discourse of Praying: Reading Nehemiah 1’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking & H.G. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 219–236. 38 The collocation ‫‘( ברך על־ברכיו‬to kneel down on his knees’) is unique to the Hebrew Bible, whereas the verb ‫‘( ברך‬to kneel down’) is used only two more times: Gen 24:11 (hiph.), Ps. 95:6 (qal). 39 An analysis of its parent text is offered by E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8:14–61 (CBET 3), Kampen 1993. 40 The hypothesis that this verse was originally found in the version of 1 Kgs 8:22 too has definitely been refuted by R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistisches Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92), Freiburg 1973, 144–146.

158

chapter ten

Zech 12:6), but in view of the size mentioned here, it must refer to a sort of platform—just as in 2 Chr 6:13—unless one assumes Solomon is situated upon a bronze basin turned upside down.41 The position of the bronze platform—‘in the centre of the precinct’—suggests the Chronicler intends to create more distance between Solomon and the altar. This seems also to be confirmed by the noun ‫‘( עזרה‬precinct’) which in 2 Chr 4:9 is the designation of ‘the great precinct’ as distinguished from ‘the court of the priests’.42 That in 2 Chr 6:13 the great precinct is meant indeed might also be inferred from ‘the presence of the whole assembly of Israel’ (v. 12). In v. 16, Solomon calls on God to continue his promises to David. For that purpose the King quotes words that God has spoken to David and which will be repeated in 2 Chr 7:18. However, nowhere in the previous chapters of the Book of Chronicles there is a passage to be found in which God has actually addressed these words to David. And what’s more, the scene in which David on his dying day quotes these words (1 Kgs 2:4) has been skipped by the Chronicler. So doing, the ‘heavenly quotation’ of 2 Chr 6:16 has even got a more explosive impact than in its original context, since the quotation is now brought up for the first time in Chronicles, and, moreover, is uttered on a very special moment, as well as on a special place—the dedication of the Temple. A marked detail in the Chronicler’s text is the formulation ‘to walk in my ‫( ’תורה‬v. 16), whereas 1 Kgs 8:25 reads: ‘to walk before me’. The Chronicler has deliberately changed the identical parallelism of his parent text—a twofold ‘to walk before me’—into a synonymous parallelism (‘to walk in my ‫’תורה‬/‘to walk before me’). There is a difference of opinion as to the exact tenor of the noun ‫ תורה‬here. Does the Chronicler refer to the codified Law, the Books of Moses, or to designate a way of life oriented towards God? An analysis of the Chronicler’s use of the noun ‫ תורה‬brings to light that the latter meaning should be considered the most obvious one.43

41 As regards the size of the bronze platform, it is quite remarkable that its measure completely coincides with that of the bronze altar as described in Ex 27:1–2; 38:1–2 and mentioned in 2 Chr 1:5. 42 In biblical literature, the noun ‫‘( עזרה‬precinct’) is found only once more, viz. in Sir 50:11d. 43 See U. Kellermann, ‘Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen Schriften’, BN 42 (1988), 49–92; Th. Willi, ‘Thora in den biblischen Chronikbüchern’, Judaica 36 (1980), 102–105; 148–51; P.C. Beentjes, 2 Kronieken, Kampen 2006, 102–103 (‘Excurs: Het begrip tōrā in het boek Kronieken’).

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

159

A striking alteration to the parent text is found in 2 Chr 6:20. Whereas 1 Kgs 8:29 reads ‘. . . this place of which you said, “My name will be there”’, the Chronicler’s version runs as ‘. . . this place where you said to put your name’. The Chronicler has not only replaced a direct quotation of God’s words by reported speech, he has also conspicuously altered the wording itself from ‫ ויהי שמי שם‬into ‫לשם שםך שם‬. So doing he introduced an explicit reference to Deut 12:5, 21, the chapter that is unanimously observed as the locus classicus referring to the Jerusalem Temple as the place of sacrifice. In the Chronicler’s presentation, however, this reference has been used for quite another purpose, viz. to lay stress upon the Jerusalem Temple being the place of prayer.44 In Solomon’s prayer, there is another passage to be mentioned, since it exposes a particular aspect of the Chronicler’s theology. A comparison between 1 Kgs 8:34 and 2 Chr 6:25 might elucidate this point. The source text reads: ‘. . . forgive the sin of your people Israel and restore them to the land which you gave to their forefathers’. Adding one single word to it, the Chronicler can make his point: ‘. . . and restore them to the land which you gave to them and to their forefathers’. This small addition reflects the author’s view ‘that the giving of the land is not considered one specific act that occurred in the past, but a process that constantly renews itself: the land is being given in the present “to them”, to the people who now inhabit it’.45 By far the most drastic changes in the Chronicler’s version of Solomon’s prayer are found at the end (2 Chr 6:39–42). Whereas 2 Chr 6:39 is identical to the opening of 1 Kgs 8:50, the remainder of the Chronicler’s text (6:40–42) has only two words in common with his parent text: ‘your eyes opened’, thus forming an inclusion with 6:20. The author skipped the text of 1 Kgs 8:51–53 and in stead adopted the text of Ps. 132:8–10, which he for his part, however, has changed on several points.46 From now on, all prayers in the Book of Chronicles and mention of prayers as well, are the Chronicler’s own creation. The only exception is 2 Chr 18:3, which on the one hand echoes 1 Kgs 22:32, but on the other hand has substantially been expanded by the Chronicler.

See Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 593–594. Japhet, Ideology, 388. 46 For a comment on this quotation from Ps. 132:8–10, see later on in the section ‘Psalms in the Book of Chronicles’. 44 45

160

chapter ten Jehoshaphat’s Prayers

Three times the Chronicler reports King Jehoshaphat praying: 2 Chr 18:31; 20:6–13; 20:26. The most important passage is the one found in 2 Chr 20:6–12, since the other two are prayers without text. In a situation of acute distress, Jehoshaphat asks God for help. The proclamation of a fast, a feature which can be found in Chronicles in one more passage (1 Chr 10:12b), and the tenor of this royal prayer (20:6–13), strengthen this aspect. There is no doubt that the whole of 20:3–5 contains all the literary and theological ingredients needed to characterize the subsequent prayer of King Jehoshaphat as a national lament.47 Frome here on, the narrative has a liturgical setting which will pervade the rest of the narrative. Having determined that the king’s prayer is a national lament, this does not mean that the interpretation of this prayer does not raise important questions. Serious problems arise with both the syntax as well as the structure; and also with the function of its various parts as well. Examining the translation of the Hebrew text of 20:6 in a number of current Bible editions, its rendering displays a remarkable variety. The main reason for this is constituted by the word ‫הלא‬, which in Hebrew introduces a rhetorical question.48 This particle, which is found no less than eighteen times in 1–2 Chronicles,49 in regard to 2 Chronicles 20 deserves special attention because of its threefold occurrence within the context of the national lament (20:6, 7, 12). This triple presence of ‫הלא‬, together with ‫( ועתה‬v. 10), to a high degree modifies the structure of the entire prayer: v. 6/vv. 7–9/vv. 10–11/vv. 12–13. In spite of this very plain structure, the reader is confronted with a number of rather significant questions. Does ‫ הלא‬only determine the words ‫אתה־הוא אלהים בשמים‬, or does the rhetorical particle have a longer range? And if so, where can we find the end of its influence? The answers to this question, as reflected by the Bible translations of

47 A detailed analysis of this ‘Gattung’ is given by H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1975 (3rd ed.), 117–139. A concise summary in H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 1–63 (BKAT XV, 1) Neukirchen 1972 (4th ed.), li–lii. S.J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles, is opposing the opinio communis that 2 Chr 20:6–12 is a national lament: ‘. . . this is wrong because its genre is PRAYER with a number of subordinate elements . . .’ (325). Describing those elements, however, he in fact is enumerating all characteristics of the national lament (326). 48 P. Joüon, P., Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique (2nd ed.), Rome 1947, §161c; §164d. 49 1 Chr 19:3; 21:3, 17; 22:18; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:5. 9; 16:8; 18:17; 20:6. 7. 12; 25:26; 28:10; 32:11. 12. 13.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

161

2 Chr 20:6, are widely divergent. In addition to Bible editions in which one rhetorical question is found, one comes across translations in which the opening of the royal prayer includes no less than four such questions; while some other biblical translations render two or none.50 The whole problem is complicated by another question. Two middle cola of v. 6 are almost identical to a couple of lines from David’s blessing in 1 Chronicles 29: ‫ואתה מושל בכל ממלכות הגוים ובידך כח וגבורה‬ You do rule over all the kingdoms of the nations; in your hand are power and might (2 Chr 20:6)

‫ואתה מושל בכל ובידך כח וגבורה‬ You rule over all; in your hand are power and might (1 Chr 29:12)

Does this striking parallel to 1 Chr 29:12 force the reader to keep together these two hymnic lines in 2 Chr 20:6 too, or is there good reason to consider their setting in 2 Chr 20:6 differently? When both pericopes are compared with each other, however, it immediately strikes the eye that the wording of 2 Chr 20:6 has undergone a slight extension; the words ‫ ממלכות הגוים‬have been added here. In this way, within Jehoshaphat’s prayer, a parallelismus mebrorum has been created in which the formula ‘the kingdoms of the nations’ functions as a antonym of the preceding notion ‘heaven’. This, however, is certainly not the only function of the extension. The two words ‫ ממלכות הגוים‬are very essential at another level. It has everything to do with the setting of the narrative itself. The wording ‘kingdoms of the nations’ is closely tied up with the actual story; for precisely the threat of advancing armies is the immediate cause of the royal prayer. Here we find the reason why in 2 Chr 20:6 the author did not use the expression ‫‘( ממלכות הארצות‬kingdoms of the world’), which can be considered a typical feature of the Book of Chronicles.51 The Chronicler needs the word ‫ הגוים‬in order to create the maximum opposition to the community on behalf of which King Jehoshaphat is addressing God: ‘your people Israel’. And, within that framework, One rhetoricical question: Septuaginta (?), REB, SV. Two rhetorical questions: Luther’s Bible, RSV, BJ, TOB, NBG 1951 and WV. Four rhetorical questions: KJV. No rhetorical question: Vulgata, GNB. 51 1 Chr 29:30; 2 Chr 12:8; 17:10; 20:29. 50

162

chapter ten

the rhetorical function of ‫הלא‬, joined with a twofold ‫‘( אתה‬You’), is a matter of great importance. The author, personified by the praying king, with the help of those two rhetorical questions, is manoeuvering God into a position which is as favourable as possible towards the Chronicler’s case. It seems no accident me that the Masoretic atnach is found precisely underneath ‫הגוים‬.52 This atnach is not only the guideline for the parallelism of the first verse half, it also marks the end of the range of the particle ‫הלא‬. Therefore one should differ from Petersen that, with his utterances concerning God’s power, it would be the Chronicler's intention to hurry his audience through v. 6 as soon as possible, in order to concentrate all attention of his readers towards the rhetorical question of verse 7.53 Apart from the epithet ‫יהוה אלהי אבתינו‬, 2 Chr 20:6 is made up of two couplets with two parallel statements each, the first in synonymous, the second in antithetic parallelism.54 The elements which have been adopted from David’s prayer, or at least allude to it, for the use of the current narrative are transformed into a new configuration. They not only belong no longer to the same parallelism; they are also found in a new setting. The first one now forms part of a rhetorical question; the second one has been put up in a hymn-like address centred on the notion ‫כח‬, by which a literary frame is constructed with v. 12: an inclusio (‘in your hand is strength . . .’/‘we do not have strength . . .’) which actually embodies the entire essence of the prayer. The second time the particle ‫ הלא‬is used in Jehoshaphat’s prayer (20:7) poses a problem too. It concerns the syntactical function of ‫אלה‬ ‫ינו‬. In a number of Bible translations this noun is obviously considered to be the predicate to ‫אתה‬: ‘Are You not our God, who. . .?’ (or in a positive form: ‘For You are our God, who . . .’).55 A translation of this kind, however, requires ‫אתה־הוא‬, as was the case in the preceding

52 One Hebrew manuscript (New York, Library of Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2118, fol. 39) renders ‫ האריץ‬instead of ‫הגוים‬. See P. Kahle, ‘Die hebräische Bibelhandschriften aus Babylonien’, ZAW 46 (1928), 113–137, esp. 132. 53 D.L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy. Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23) Missoula 1977, 73. 54 ‘The epithet “God of the Fathers” in a variety of forms appears twenty-seven times in Chronicles. None of these instances is taken from the parallel source in Samuel-Kings . . .’; Japhet, Ideology, 14. 55 Septuagint, BJ, and a number of Dutch Bible translations (NBG 1951, PC, WV, GNB).

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

163

v. 6.56 The rhetorical question of v. 7, however, does not deal with the problem of whether God is the God of the praying community: this is presupposed, for in what way should one pray to Him anyhow? The opening words of v. 7, on the contrary, function unmistakably to remind God of the mighty deeds He performed in the past in favour of his people Israel. Therefore, ‫ אלהינו‬in v. 7 obviously functions as a vocative: ‘Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants . . .?’.57 Having determined the precise syntactical function of ‫אלהינו‬, its role within the prayer must be faced. Considering the structure of the entire royal prayer, the vocative ‫ אלהינו‬is on a par with both the opening address of v. 6 (‫ )יהוה אלהי אבתינו‬and the final vocative ‫ אלהינו‬of v. 12. The difference between the vocatives of v. 6 and v. 7 at the same time exposes an important aspect. Although v. 7 obviously opens with a reference to God’s acts of liberation to Israel in the past—and therefore in fact is still a manifestation of ‘the God of our fathers’—, it is a contemporary address (‘our God’) which precedes that description. In that way, past and present in and through Him are linked together. In the second half of v. 7, this intertwinement takes shape very subtly in the formula ‫לזרע אברהם אהבך‬.58 Precisely the wording ‘the descendants of your friend Abraham’ holds the point of identification. For in that formula both the generation of the Conquest and the present community of 2 Chronicles 20 feels itself typified. The temporal description ‫ לעולם‬is strengthening that process of identification. The descendants of Abraham take over the position of the inhabitants of the land. At the text’s level, this happens very literally with the help of an identical root: ‫( ישבי‬v. 7)/‫( וישבו‬v. 8). The way in which v. 8 has given concrete form to that ‫ וישׁבו‬to a significant degree creates the impression that relating to the offspring of Abraham dwelling in the land has merely consisted of building the sanctuary.59 Precisely that kind of presentation is typical chronistic theology; for the purpose

56 See Ps 44:5 (with a vocative!); Neh 9:6, 7; 1 Chr 17:26; Isa 37:16 (= 2 Kgs 19:15); Jer 14:22. 57 A rendering like this is found in: Vulgate; EÜ; TOB; REB; SV, LV. In NEB this vocative has rather circumstantially been translated as: ‘O God our God’. In Throntveit’s analysis of 2 Chr 20:6–12, one becomes aware of a striking discrepancy between his translation of v. 7 (‘Surely you are our God. You drove out . . .’) and the subsequent analysis of this verse, which makes reference to a ‘vocative’, which undoubtedly alludes to ‫ ;אלהינו‬Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 67–71. 58 See Isa 41:8. 59 The position of the atnach underneath ‫ וישבו־בה‬strengthens that impression.

164

chapter ten

of the Conquest is the Temple.60 Note here also that the Chronicler is stating very emphatically that the descendants of Abraham, viz. the people of Israel, built the Temple; whereas everywhere else it is described as an activity exclusively attributed to King Solomon. Petersen is surprised that v. 8 has been worded in the third person. ‘It implies that the present generation had not and was not saying these sorts of things, that is, saying them on their own’.61 I do not share his view that there is something unusual here. It must be considered, on the contrary, as a literary change by the author to direct Jehoshaphat’s prayer towards a clearly recognizable moment. And it is not strange at all that the generation which built the Temple, in v. 9 is presented with the help of a quotation which—although it cannot be found in exactly the same wording elsewhere—undeniably refers to Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chr 6:24–39 (especially v. 28).62 This reference to that ‘proto-liturgical’ Solomonic event functions as a necessary preamble to Jehoshaphat’s pleading at God’s address to listen in order to get Israel out of this untenable situation. King Jehoshaphat is doing no less than applying Solomon’s conditional sayings to the present situation of the community that has gathered in the Temple in prayer. Subsequent to the Solomon reference, the reader of v. 10 would expect an urgent cry for help. Strangely enough, this will not be put into words until we read the root ‫ שׁפט‬in v. 12. In vv. 10–11 Jehoshaphat, or if you would prefer: the author is manipulating God into a theological situation of a very accusatory kind. God, he states, has explicitly forbidden Israel during its exodus from Egypt to attack the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, and Seir. YHWH himself, therefore, has created our present situation of distress. The Biblical texts on which the Chronicler seems to have based his argument, however, present a completely different course of things. The Chronicler, in fact, has manipulated two existing traditions in such a way that his new concept brings about a very aggravating effect at God’s address. For in Deut 2:1–22, Israel is given permission by God to cross 60 P. Welten, ‘Lade—Tempel—Jerusalem: Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher’, in: A.H.J. Gunneweg und O. Kaiser (Hrsg.), Textgemäss: AufSätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments (FS E. Würthwein), Göttingen 1979, 169–183; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC) London 1982, 28–31. 61 Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 72. 62 The comment by Petersen relating to 2 Chr 20:9 is rather odd: ‘Perhaps we have . . . in this Chronicler’s piece—the use of an earlier prayer, vs. 9’; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 72.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

165

the territories of Seir, Moab and Ammon, with an explicit interdiction to provoke these peoples to combat. In Num 20:14–21 and Judg 11:14–18, however, Edom and Moab categorically refuse right of passage, which forced Israel to an enveloping movement. The Chronicler, out of these two divergent traditions, has created one completely new textual complex in which God’s order to spare these three peoples has been linked with the motif to avoid their territories.63 The order in which the names of the attacking armies appear in 2 Chr 20:10 is exactly inverted to the series of names as reflected in Deuteronomy 2. In itself, one would not notice it, would not 2 Chr 20:11 have used the notion ‫—ירשה‬not without reason provided with the possessive ‘your’ at God’s address—to describe the situation of acute danger. The word ‫ ירשה‬must be noted, because it uncovers an aspect of the Chronicler’s text which, as far as the present author is aware, has never been discussed so far. In the Old Testament, the word ‫ ירשה‬is found fourteen times; which in itself is certainly not a spectacular communication. Ascertaining, however, that ‫ ירשה‬is used six times in one and the same context, viz. Deuteronomy 2, makes a difference. Of course, one might call it an accident; but these six occurrences also refer precisely to those verses in which God is explicitly allotting a territory to these three peoples. And, as the Chronicler in other passages of his book is copying ‫נחלה‬ from his source64, the appearance of ‫ ירשה‬in 2 Chr 20:11 is strong evidence that the author is performing here as the ‘executor of the Deuteronomist’s will’, although from time to time he does not hesitate to accentuate favourite items of his own.65 Starting from Old Testament traditions, the Chronicler has created his own perspective which—reinforced by its retrospective character— functions as a direct accusation against God: You are to blame for our present situation of distress. Subsequent to that, the stronger can be the appeal at God’s address to take action in favour of his people.66

63 Cf. G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes (BWANT IV, 3) Stuttgart 1930, 77–78. S. Japhet, ‘Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles’, JBL 98 (1979), 205–218 has strikingly enough not commented upon 2 Chr 20:10–11. 64 1 Chr 16:18; 2 Chr 6:27; 10:16. 65 ‘Testamentsvollstrecker der Deuteronomisten’; Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106) Göttingen 1972, 224. 66 One should therefore absolutely disagree with Plöger, who contends that the particular aspect of the Chronicler’s prayers is not to be shown from their content in the first place, but rather by their presence; contra Plöger, ‘Reden und Gebete’, 63.

166

chapter ten

In the appeal to God for help (v. 12), which both in its opening ( ‫ )אלהינו‬and in its literary form (rhetorical question) immediately reminds of the opening lines of the prayer (v. 6, v. 7), King Jehoshaphat makes his final supplication to God. On the one hand, this is done with the help of the verb ‫שפט‬,67 a subtle pun to his own name, while on the other hand with the help of a contrasting inclusio on ‫( כח‬v. 6b) the people’s impotence is emphasized. In that way the royal prayer is also continued with a characteristic theological feature of the Chronicler: the awareness of man’s inability as opposed to faith in God’s power.68 If Bible translations and commentaries could prevail, King Jehoshaphat’s third rhetorical question (v. 12) would have concluded the prayer. V. 13 is therefore generally considered the opening of the subsequent scene and is attributed the status of an introductory (or circumstantial) sentence: ‘As all the men of Judah stood before the LORD . . ., the spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel . . .’ (REB).69 Verse 13, however, is absolutely needed to set the preceding prayer in its proper context. One should therefore not only appeal to the masoretic delimitation by the petucha after v. 13, but also, primarily, to the literary urgency of v. 13 in the process of making clear who are the ‘we’ and ‘us’ so dominantly present in the prayer of vv. 6–12. The community, whose presence so far was only reported indirectly, viz. through Jehoshaphat (v. 5), in v. 13 steps from behind the king and shows its full dimension: ‘all men of Judah . . . with their dependants, their wives, and their children . . .’ (REB). The narrative arch which in v. 5 opens with the statement: ‘Jehoshaphat stood . . . in the house of the LORD . . .’, gets its necessary climax in the phrase ‘all the men of Judah stood before the LORD’ (v. 13). Apart from that, the rather marked syntactical structure of v. 14 makes it very plausible that here a new paragraph in the narrative commences.70

67

Here we probably have the only example of a construction in which the object of

‫ שפט‬is preceded by ‫ב‬.

Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 297; Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 71. An exception must be made for Luther’s Bible translation, and KJV. See also W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21), Tübingen 1955, 260; E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Chronicles (ICC) Edinburgh 1910, 407. 70 Schmitt points moreover to the fact that, as a rule, nominal circumstantial clauses by the way of waw copulativum follow after the verbal sentence belonging to them; he enumerates nine examples. A. Schmitt, ‘Das prophetische Sondergut in 2 Chr 20:14–17’, in: L. Ruppert – P. Weimar – E. Zenger (Hrsg.), Künder des Wortes (FS J. Schreiner) Würzburg 1982, 273–285 (274). 68

69

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

167

Hezekiah’s Prayer In the Book of Kings, very little attention is paid to the religious reforms King Hezekiah has implemented. All the reader’s eyes are on the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian army (2 Kgs 18:9–19:37), Hezekiah’s illness (2 Kgs 20:1–11), and the Babylonian embassy (2 Kgs 20:12–19). The Chronicler presents quite another pattern. No less than three out of four chapters that he has devoted to Hezekiah deal with the religious and cultic reforms of this king (2 Chronicles 29–31). Just the two opening lines of the Chronicler’s narrative on Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:1–2) are more or less identical to its parent text (2 Kgs 18:1b–3), whereas the remainder of 2 Chronicles 29–31 are completely his own creation. These data are solid proof that the author of the Book of Chronicles had special plans with his narrative on King Hezekiah. This view is strengthened by the observation that only the sections dealing with David and Solomon are more extensive than the one on Hezekiah. In respect of Hezekiah, the Chronicler reports the King praying four times (2 Chr 30:18–19; 31:8; 32:20, 24), only the first of which is a prayer with text. Leaving a lot of difficult questions aside, a brief sketch of the context is in order here. Subsequent to the cleansing and rededication of the Temple (2 Chronicles 29), King Hezekiah invited all the people of Israel to gather in Jerusalem in order to keep the pilgrimfeast of Unleavened Bread (2 Chr 30:13). The large assembly began by removing the altars and incense-altars from Jerusalem.71 As there is no change of subject between v. 13 and v. 15, one may assume that ‘killing the Passover lamb’ (v. 15) is executed by the people.72 The verbal forms in the second half of v. 15 should be interpreted as plusquamperfecta, viz. being an answer to v. 3. In case one assumes that the priests and the Levites had already performed the three actions mentioned in v. 15b (‘to be ashamed’, ‘to hallow oneself ’, to bring offerings’), they are available from the very moment the people start to kill the Passover lamb and is everything ‘according to the Law of Moses’ (v. 16). V. 17, then, explains why the Levites are killing the animals: they take the place of all who were unclean to perform this ritual act. No wonder This action refers directly to the raising of these altars by King Ahaz in 2 Chr 28:24. 72 The collocation ‫ שׁחט הפסח‬is remarkable. Apart from Ex 12:21 and Ezra 6:20, it is only found in the Book of Chronicles (2 Chr 30:15. 17; 35:1. 6. 11). 71

168

chapter ten

that these lines are dominated by the specific roots ‫( קדש‬vv. 15b, 17a, 17b, 19b), and ‫( טהר‬vv. 17b, 18a, 19b). A striking detail in this passage is the statement that a lot of people who were not allowed to kill the Passover lamb themselves, because of being not ritually clean, nevertheless ate the lamb ‘contrary to what was written’ (v. 18a). To my view, this anomaly can only meaningfully be explained, if the entire unit of vv. 18b–20 is considered the underlying principle of why people nevertheless ate the Passover lamb. To that end a number of verbal forms need to be rendered as plusquamperfecta: ‘For Hezekiah had offered prayers for them . . . and YHWH had answered and had cured the people’ (v. 20). Let us now concentrate on the content of Hezekiah’s prayer itself, since there are some striking details to be mentioned. First, the formulation ‫( יהוה הטוב‬v. 18b) is unique to the Hebrew Bible. Exactly the same combination occurs in the Book of Ben Sira (45:25e):—‫ועתה ברכו נא‬ ‫‘— את ייי הטוב‬And now, bless the LORD, the Good one’.73 A formulation of a similar kind is found in the penultimate supplication of the Shemone Esre: ‘Blessed be you, YHWH, the Good one is your name’ (‫)ברוך אתה יי הטוב שמך‬. Second, the Chronicler makes Hezekiah utter a very special plea. The King advocates that God should attach more importance to the religious intention of the pilgrims than to their ritual requirements. It can absolutely be no coincidence that such a religious attitude is characterized with the help of the collocation ‫‘( דרש יהוה‬to seek YHWH’), being one of the most central themes of the entire Book of Chronicles. Third, ritual purity is designated here (v. 19b) with the help of the collocation ‫ טהרת הקדש‬, a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. It literally means: ‘the purity of what is holy’, but is frequently rendered as ‘the purity of the sanctuary’, a translation, however, that is open to discussion. For the collocation ‫ טהרת הקדש‬is found a number of times in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in view of its context it must be translated ‘holy food’.74 Since in 2 Chr 30:18 just the dimension of eating is under discussion, the meaning ‘holy food’ would fit very well. Not the purity of the sanctuary, but the purity of the food is a matter of concern here.

73 One should fully disagree with Di Lella, who contends that ‫ חטוב‬is ‘an expansion that destroys the balance of the poetic line’; P.W. Skehan & A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39), New York 1987, 510. 74 It is found in 4QOrdb [4Q513] 2.2.1 and three times in the Halakhic Letter (MMT B 23, 65, 68).

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

169

In that case, there would be a complete antithesis between the obligation of ritual pure food and the religious attitude which in the Book of Chronicles is frequently typified as ‘to seek the LORD’. It is just this vital religious attitude that Hezekiah on a crucial moment is bringing forward in order to affect God to grant pardon to every pilgrim who in this specific situation did not keep the regulations. In theory, the phrase ‘YHWH heard Hezekiah’ would have been enough to report the outcome of the King’s prayer. Therefore at first sight the sequel phrase ‘and He cured the people’ (v. 20b) looks rather strange. No doubt the verb ‫ רפא‬is used here in a metaphorical sense: ‘pardoning their disobedience and cultic uncleanness’.75 God’s relation with his people has been restored. And it can hardly be a coincidence that precisely this meaning of the verb ‫ רפא‬has also been used in 2 Chr 7:14, which is part of a prayer too, namely Solomon’s prayer. The Chronicler’s use of the verb ‫ רפא‬in these two passages is one element in his effort to present Hezekiah as a second Solomon. The most explicit piece of evidence, of course, is 2 Chr 30:26—‘There was a great rejoicing in Jerusalem, the like of which had not been known there since the days of Solomon son of David king of Israel’.76 Psalms in the Book of Chronicles77 To some extent, Psalms can be understood as fixed prayers. At the other hand, when a psalm is incorporated into a new context, one should investigate whether the original meaning of that psalm is still valid in its new scene. It is beyond any doubt that at least two times the Chronicler with the help of Psalms has created a totally new context of his own. The first time is in 1 Chr 16:8–36, a text that concludes the report about

M.L. Brown, ‫רפא‬, in: TDOT XIII, 598. One can also refer to the duration of the feast (seven days, plus seven days) in 2 Chr 30:21 and 2 Chr 7:8–10, and to the huge amount of cattle set aside by the king (2 Chr 30:24; 2 Chr 7:4–5). Detailed catalogues of parallels between Hezekiah and Solomon have been listed by Williamson, Israel, 119–125; Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 121–125; M. Patrick Graham, ‘Setting the Heart to Seek God: Worship in 2 Chronicles 30:1–31:1’, in: id. (ed.), Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of John T. Willis ( JSOTSS 284), Sheffield 1999, 124–141, esp. 132–133. 77 See the extensive essay by H.N. Wallace, ‘What Chronicles Has To Say About Psalms’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 267–291. 75 76

170

chapter ten

the successful transport of the Ark by King David; the second time is in 2 Chr 6:40–42, being the final lines of Solomon’s prayer of Dedication. 1 Chr 16:8–36 The text of 1 Chr 16:8–36 has been made up of three different canonical psalms (Pss. 105:1–15; 96:1–13; 106:1, 47–48) out of which the Chronicler has created a new literary unit and has integrated it into a new literary and theological context. Since there is a huge amount of publications on this specific text, it will not be discussed in detail in this paragraph detail again.78 A few comments, however, are in order here. Quite a few commentators on the Book of Chronicles confine themselves just to refer to commentaries on the Book of Psalms. This point of view, however, in fact does wrong to the Chronicler. First, by adopting three poems into a prose narrative, he has created a completely new text and context as well, to the effect that the poetic composition will illuminate the prose narrative or push it into a specific direction. Moreover, one should not lose sight of 1 Chr 16:8–36 being the only extensive poetic passage in the Book of Chronicles. Other poetic texts in the Book of Chronicles cover only one or two single lines (1 Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 6:40–42; 10:16; 20:21). At first glance, 1 Chr 16:8–36 seems to summon David’s contemporaries to give thanks to YHWH. At the same time, however, we should not forget that these in fact are the Chronicler’s readers and, moreover, ‘it should be emphasized that the poetry can make us, the

78 See e.g. T.C. Butler, ‘A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. XVI 8–36), VT 28 (1978), 142–150; J. Hausmann, ‘Gottesdienst als Gottes Lob: Erwägungen zu 1 Chr 16:8–36’, in: H. Wagner (Hrsg.), Spiritualität: Theologische Beiträge, Stuttgart 1987, 83–92; A.E. Hill, ‘Patchwork Poetry or Reasoned Verse? Connective Structure in 1 Chronicles XVI’, VT 33 (1983), 97–101; J.W. Kleinig, The LORD’s Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 156), Sheffield 1993, 133–148; J.A. Loader, ‘Redaction and Function of the Chronistic “Psalm of David”’, in: W.C. van Wyk (ed.), Studies in the Chronicler (OTWSA 19), Pretoria 1976, 69–75; K. Nielsen, ‘Whose Song of Praise? Reflections on the Purpose of the Psalm in 1 Chronicles 16’, in: M.P. Graham & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 327–336; R.M. Shipp, ‘“Remember His Covenant Forever”: A Study of the Chronicler’s Use of the Psalms’, Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993), 29–39; Wallace, ‘What Chronicles Has To Say’, 267–291; J.W. Watt, Psalm and Story. Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative ( JSOTSS 139), Sheffield 1992, 155–168.

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

171

readers, contemporary with the text. This happens through the direct requests to praise and thank Yahweh’.79 With its thirty imperatives and jussives this poetic text appeals to the present reader too, so that he or she actually witnesses the arrival of the Ark in the City of David. It is incomprehensible, therefore, that a lot of Bible translations have completely pushed away this fundamental and current event by not meticulously translating the Hebrew text of 1 Chr 16:19 (‘When you were few in number’), but instead offer a translation of the Hebrew text of Ps 105:12 (‘When they were a few in number). A striking difference to the parent text is to be found in 1 Chr 16:15. Whereas Ps 105:8 runs as: ‘He is ever mindful of his covenant . . .’—thus referring to God—, the Chronicler’s text has an imperative mood: ‘Be ever mindful of his covenant . . .’, to the effect that the readers are summoned to fulfil their commitments to the Covenant. Here, a lot of Bible translations, too, have rendered the Hebrew text according to Ps 105:8. Finally, a comment is in order here upon Williamson’s view that 1 Chr 16:8–36 has much in common with 1 Chr 29:10–19, ‘and appropriately provide a framework to the whole section of chs 17–29, which has been totally dominated by David’s preparation for building the temple’.80 If this would be the case indeed, the Chronicler undoubtedly would have incorporated much more concordance between these two passages, both relating to their vocabulary, their collocations, and their motifs. It is quite curious that Williamson failed to mention the most striking parallel: ‘Blessed be (you) YHWH, the God of Israel (our father) from of old and for ever’ (1 Chr 16:36; 29:10). 2 Chr 6:40–42 Whereas Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chr 6:12–42 has comparatively much in common with its parent text (1 Kgs 8:22–53), the final lines of his prayer (6:40–42) have only two words that are also found in his source: ‘Let your eyes be opened’ (2 Chr 6:40a; 1 Kgs 8:52a), thus forming an inclusion to 2 Chr 6:20/1 Kgs 8:29. The remainder of 2 Chr 6:40–42 has been adopted from Ps 132:8–10, be it that the Chronicler has introduced some remarkable changes in it. 79 80

Nielsen, ‘Whose Song of Praise?’, 334. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 186.

172

chapter ten

Just as the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem under David’s command was accompanied by a psalm (1 Chr 16:8–36) which is to be considered an own composition by the Chronicler, at the very moment the Ark is given its definite resting-place the author again makes use of a psalm, viz. some lines of Psalm 132.81 At the same time, however, the Chronicler makes some changes to his parent text as outlined in the following chart. 82 2 Chr 6:40–42

Ps. 132:8–10

Arise now, YHWH God, and come to your resting82 you and your powerful Ark. Let your priests, YHWH God, be clothed with salvation and your loyal servants rejoice in prosperity. YHWH God, do not reject your anointed ones; remember the loyal service of David your servant.

Arise, YHWH, and come to your resting-place, you and your powerful Ark. Let your priests be clothed in righteousness and your loyal servants shout for joy. Do not reject your anointed one for your servant David’s sake.

Whereas Ps 132:8–10 addresses God only once (‘YHWH’), the Chronicler’s text not only has a threefold address, but has also a different title (‘YHWH God’), which occurs no less than twelve times in the Book of Chronicles and might therefore be considered a favourite feature of this document.83 At first glance, this modified address seems to be the only difference from Ps 132:8. Upon a closer look, however, another change, a very subtle one, can be observed. For the Chronicler did not adopt the noun ‫‘( מנוחה‬resting-place’)—which, by the way, is one of his favourite words 81 See J. Day, ‘The Ark and the Cherubim in the Psalms’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking & H.G. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 65–77. 82 Most probably an infinitive, though the rare noun (‫ )נוח‬is possible too (cf. Esth 9:17–19). 83 1 Chr 17:16. 17; 22:1. 19; 28:20; 29:1; 2 Chr 1:9; 6:41 [2 x]; 6:42; 26:18; 32:16. Apart from Gen 2:4–3:24, in which ‘YHWH God’is found twenty times, in the remainder of the Hebrew Bible this title occurs only nine times (Exod 9:30; 2 Sam 7:25; Jonah 4:6; Pss 59:6; 72:18; 80:5. 20; 84:9. 12).

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

173

(1 Chr 6:16; 22:9; 28:2)—but instead has in 2 Chr 6:41 the form ‫לנוחך‬ (‘your resting’). This change requires a word of explanation. The clue to it is the poetic passage of Num 10:35–36. Each time the people of Israel broke camp, the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH kept ahead to find them a place to rest. Whenever the Ark set out, Moses said: ‘Arise YHWH’, which is exactly the same phrase as is found in 2 Chr 6:41, but occurs in several other passages of the Hebrew Bible too (Pss 3:8; 7:7; 9:20; 10:12; 17:13; 132:8). Why should one believe that Num 10:35–36 was in the Chronicler’s mind here? Because of the form ‫‘( לנוחך‬to your resting’) that undoubtedly reminds of ‫‘( בנוחך‬in his resting’) in Num 10:36. To that effect, the Chronicler has ‘sacrificed’ one of his favourite notions (‫מנוחה‬, ‘resting-place’) in order to realise an unambiguous reference to this old poetic passage, in which the Ark ‘is the visible form in or by which YHWH manifests His presence, and may therefore . . . be addressed as YHWH’.84 The change from ‫‘( וחסידיך ירננו‬and your loyal servants shout’; Ps 132:9) to ‫‘( וחסידיך ישמחו בטוב‬and your loyal servants rejoice in prosperity’; 2 Chr 6:41) fully suits the thematic thread of ‘joy’ and ‘to rejoice’ which is so typical to the Book of Chronicles. It must be emphasized that this theme is almost exclusively found in so-called ‘Sondergut’ passages when specific cultic events are reported.85 The final line of Solomon’s prayer (2 Chr 6:42) requires some further explanation. First, compared to Ps 132:10, the two cola of this line have changed place. So doing the Chronicler makes Solomon end his prayer mentioning David, who earlier in this section (2 Chr 6:4–11), and certainly at the opening of the prayer (2 Chr 6:15–17) has so prominently been pushed forward. Second, a marked contrast between both lines has been generated by Solomon’s statement of ‘David’s loyal actions’. At any rate that is the most probable way in which the final words of 2 Chr 6:42 should be interpreted—as a subjective genitive. There is a vivid scholarly debate whether the collocation ‫—חסדי דויד‬which is only to be found in Isa 55:3 and is there considered an objective genitive (‘my steadfast love for

G. Gray, Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh 1912, 96. It is rather curious that he mentions only Ps 132:8 as a parallel and does not refer to 2 Chr 6:41. 85 E.g. 1 Chr 12:40; 29:9 [3 x]; 29: 22; 2 Chr 7:8–10; 20:27–28; 23:16–18; 30:21–26. 84

174

chapter ten

David’)—should have this meaning in 2 Chr 6:42 too.86 In itself, such a translation would be possible, but for some reasons does not fit here. For the noun ‫ חסדי‬is also found in 2 Chr 32:32 and 35:26, where the Chronicler refers to the ‘loyal actions’ of King Hezekiah and King Josiah. The fact that in respect of these two kings exactly the same notion has been used is solid proof enough that in 2 Chr 6:42 it should be interpreted in the same manner. For precisely these three kings (David, Hezekiah, Josiah) are evaluated in a remarkable positive way in the Book of Chronicles. And it is not by chance, of course, that these three kings have made supreme efforts relating to the Temple. It hardly can be coincidence that Psalm 132 put emphasis on David’s efforts to find a sanctuary for the LORD. Finally, there is a difference between ‘your anointed one’ (Ps 132:10) and ‘your anointed ones’ (2 Chr 6:42). Quite a few Bible translations and commentators—feeling supported by a lot of Hebrew manuscripts, the Septuagint and the Vulgate—opt for a singular in 2 Chr 6:42 too. That being the case, we have to do with a synonymous parallelism in which ‘the anointed one’ is put on a par with ‘David’. However, there are goods arguments to uphold the plural ‘anointed ones’. The context would be the most important argument. First, one should make a great deal of the fact that the Chronicler has reversed the order of the cola from Ps 132:10. Since he has added the invocation ‘YHWH God’, the phrase explicitly functions as the conclusion of his extensive prayer. Second, the plural ‘anointed ones’ makes good sense. Solomon, being an anointed one himself, urges on God not to reject his prayer. And in order to strengthen his petition, he refers to what David, being an anointed one too, has accomplished. The mention of David’s loyal actions has a double duty. In the first place it serves as an additional argument to hear Solomon’s prayer. On the other hand it harks back to the opening of his address (2 Chr 6:15–17), in which he so prominently refers to his father David.

H. Williamson, ‘The Sure Mercies of David: Subjective or Objective Genitive?’, JSS 23 (1978), 31–49. See also W. Beuken, ‘Isa. 55.3–5: The Reinterpretation of David’, Bijdragen 35 (1974), 49–64; A. Caquot, ‘Les “grâces de David”: à propos d’Isaïe 55:3b’, Sem 15 (1965), 45–59. 86

‘give

thanks to yhwh. truly he is good’

175

A Psalm Verse with Variations Within the Book of Chronicles a specific refrain from the Psalter is found six times. The first occurrence is found in 1 Chr 16:34 which is part of a poetic passage composed of three different psalms (Pss 95; 105; 106). Its text runs as: ‫‘( הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬Give thanks to YHWH. Truly he is good! Truly his loyalty is forever!’.87 It is direct a quotation from Ps 106:1, be it that the opening word of this verse (‫ )הללויה‬has been skipped by the Chronicler.88 With some variations this phrase has been used by the Chronicler five more times, all of which belong to the so-called ‘Sondergut’: 1 2 2 2 2

Chr Chr Chr Chr Chr

16:41 5:13 7:3 7:6 20:21

‫חסדו‬ ‫חסדו‬ ‫חסדו‬ ‫חסדו‬ ‫חסדו‬

‫לעולם‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫לעולם‬

‫כי‬ ‫כי טוב כי‬ ‫כי טוב כי‬ ‫כי‬ ‫כי‬

‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬

‫להודות‬ ‫ובהלל‬ ‫וישתחוו והודות‬ ‫להודות‬ ‫הודו‬

Examining these five passages, one finds that only 2 Chr 20:21 in its entirety is used as an exclamation. In the other occurrences, however, the exclamation just starts with the ‫כי‬-clauses. For the words preceding the ‫כי‬-clauses have been adapted by the Chronicler in order to serve as a narrative introduction to the stereotyped refrain. Special attention should be paid to the occurrences in 2 Chr 5:13 and 7:3, since they are part of a beautiful inclusion between 2 Chr 5:13–14 and 7:1–3 which creates a special pattern between these two texts.89 Unfortunately one cannot establish with certainty which Psalm is to be considered the parent text of the Chronicler’s favourite refrain. Since there is no doubt whatsoever that the first occurrence (1 Chr 16:34) has been adopted from Ps 106:1, the most obvious inference would be that the other five reach back to the same passage too. Since the refrain, however, is also found in some more passages of the Hebrew Bible (Pss 107:1; 118:1. 29), this question will be unsolved.

87 ‫ כי‬is considered here ‘as an emphatic deictic particle’; see Kleinig, The LORD’s Song, 117, n. 3. 88 Most probably since this will be the conclusion of the entire passage some lines later (1 Chr 16:36b), which is a quotation from Ps 106:48. 89 A detailed analysis is offered in: P.C. Beentjes, 2 Kronieken, Kampen 2006, 64–73.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

‘WE HAVE YHWH TO FIGHT OUR BATTLES’ WAR NARRATIVES IN THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES1 At first sight, the Book of Chronicles appears to be a rather unattractive document. This is especially true in respect of its setting within the Christian Bible, where the Book of Chronicles is preceded by 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. Having read those latter writings, the Book of Chronicles seems to be nothing else than a mere repetition of them. However, if one takes some time to plunge into the Book of Chronicles, which was written between 400–300 BCE during the Persian Period,2 it has a tremendous appeal to its reader, even in such a way that one becomes fond of it and decides to write a commentary on this religious document.3 In past decades, quite a number of studies on the Book of Chronicles have been published in which ‘war’ is explicitly dealt with. In 1973, Peter Welten devoted a chapter on ‘war reports’ (Kriegsberichte) in his revised ‘Habilitationsschrift’ of 1971.4 Since his analysis confined itself to 2 Chronicles 10–36, quite a lot of passages about war were not discussed at all.5 Ingeborg Gabriel who in her 1990 Vienna dissertation analyzes the concept of ‘peace’ in the Book of Chronicles, of course touches on the theme of war in it.6 However, since in 1 Chronicles 1–9 the notion ‘peace’ does not occur, these chapters have not been treated by her at all and as a consequence the notion ‘war’ is therefore kept out of sight here. 1 This Chapter is a revised version of ‘War Narratives in the Book of Chronicles: A New Proposal in Respect of their Function’, Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 59 (2003), 587–596. 2 For detailed information about the Persian Period, see e.g. L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, London 1994, 27–145. 3 P.C. Beentjes, 1 Kronieken (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2002; id., 2 Kronieken (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2006. 4 P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 115–175. 5 Welten offers an analysis of five pericopes: 2 Chr 13:3–20; 14:8–14; 20:1–30; 26:3–8, and 27:5–6. 6 I. Gabriel, Friede über Israel: Eine Untersuchung zur Friedenstheologie in Chronik I 10–II 36 (ÖBS 10), Klosterneuburg 1990.

178

chapter eleven

In respect of her study, at least one further comment should be made. At the end of her doctoral thesis, Gabriel states that the war narratives in the First Book of Chronicles ‘have almost unchanged been adopted from 2 Samuel’.7 This statement, however, is not true, as can be shown by category C in Table 1 below. In 1992, Andreas Ruffing published a revised edition of his doctoral thesis on wars in the Book of Chronicles waged by God.8 In this monograph he restricted himself, however, to three major narratives on war that all three belong to the Chronicler’s own material (Sondergut).9 And five years later, John J. Wright published an article in which, at last, the whole Book of Chronicles is in the centre of attention.10 However, since his contribution has focused upon the topic of the Chronicler as historian, now attention is paid to another aspect of war in the Book of Chronicles, which most certainly has not been dealt with earlier in that way. Some Data and Statistics Since there is a lot of conflicts in the Book of Chronicles, the Chronicler uses a wide range of terminology to describe such situations, e.g. ‘to strike’ (‫ נגף‬q.), ‘to be beaten’ (‫ נגף‬niph.), ‘to be subdued’ (‫ כנע‬niph.), ‘to humble someone’ (‫ כנע‬hiph.), ‘to march out’ (‫ יצא‬q.), ‘army/warriors’ (‫)צבא‬, ‘power/force’ ( ‫)חיל‬.11 The present chapter, however, will confine itself strictly to the topic of ‘war’ (‫)מלחמה‬.12 As far as statistics are concerned, it should be noticed that the noun ‫‘( מלחמה‬war’) is used quite often in the Book of Chronicles. Out of a total number of 318 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ מלחמה‬is found no less than 63 times in 1–2 Chronicles, i.e.

‘Die Kriege in I Chr übernimmt die Chr fast unverändert aus der Vorlage in 2 Sam’; Gabriel, Friede, 192 n. 55. 8 A. Ruffing, Jahwekrieg als Weltmetapher. Studien zu Jahwekriegstexten des chronistischen Sondergutes (SBB 24), Stuttgart 1992. 9 His analysis relates to 2 Chr 13:2c–18; 14:7–14; 20:1–30. 10 J.W. Wright, ‘The Fight for Peace: Narrative and History in the Battle Accounts in Chronicles’, in: M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSS 238), Sheffield 1997, 150–177. 11 See especially J.P. Weinberg, ‘Krieg und Frieden im Weltbild des Chronisten’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), 114–122. 12 Cfr. H.D. Preuss, ‫ מלחמה‬milchāmâ, TDOT VIII, Grand Rapids MI 1997, 334–345. 7

‘we

have yhwh to fight our battles’

179

19.8% of that total. Since the text of the Book of Chronicles, however, covers only 8–8.5% of the Hebrew Bible,13 the real percentage of 19.8 is high to such an extent that it asks for an explanation. In order to be able to provide such one, the evidence is reviewed now. In Table 1 the occurrences of the noun ‫ מלחמה‬have been grouped under three headings. The first group (A) consists of ‫מלחמה‬-passages, which have just been copied by the Chronicler from their parent texts in 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. The second category (B) refers to those passages which on the one hand have been adopted by the Chronicler from their parent texts in 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, but on the other hand have been changed and/or extended by him. The third group (C), which is far and away the most extensive one, shows all those passages that are the Chronicler’s own material (‘Sondergut’). It is especially within this latter category that one has to find an answer to the question why the author of the Book of Chronicles has used the concept of war so often. In Table 2, the same procedure has been pursued relating to the verb lācham (nif.), which is used 164 times in the Hebrew Bible, of which eighteen occurrences are found in 1–2 Chronicles (11%). Table 1. The occurrence of the noun ‫‘( מלחמה‬war’/‘fight’) in the Book of Chronicles according to different categories. Category A

Category B

Category C

[16 x] (25.4%)

[8 x] (12.7%)

[39 x] (61.9%) I 5:10 I 5:18.19.20.22 I 7: 4.11.40

I 10:3 I 11:13 I 19:9.10.14 I 20:6

II 6:34

13

THAT II, 540.

I 19:7.17 I 20:4

I 12:1.9.20.34.36.37.38.39 I 14:15 I I I I

20:5 22:8 26:27 28:3

180

chapter eleven

Table 1 (cont.) Category A II 8:9 II 11:1

II 18:5.14.29.34

Category B

II 12:15 II 13:2

II 18:3

II 22:5 II 27:7

Category C

II II II II

13:33. 14 14:5.9 16:9 17:13

II 20:1.15 II 25:8.13 II 26:11.13 II 32:2.6.8 II 35:21

Table 2. The occurrence of the verb ‫( לחם‬niph.), ‘do battle with’/‘to fight’, in the Book of Chronicles according to different categories. Category A

Category B

Category C

[7 x] (38.9%)

[2 x] (11.1%)

[9 x] (50%)

I 18:10 I 19:7 II 11:1.4

I 10:1

II 13:12 II 17:10

II 18:30.31

II 20:17.29

II 22:6

II 35:20 (??)

II 26:6 II 27:5 II 32:8 II 35:222

Looking at these charts, it strikes the eye that the concept of war is completely absent from the Book of Chronicles during the reign of King Solomon (2 Chronicles 1–9). This presentation has deliberately been

‘we

have yhwh to fight our battles’

181

created by the Chronicler. This is shown by two passages that occurred earlier in the book (1 Chr 22:3; 28:3). These two texts are solid proof that the author of Chronicles wrestled with a huge problem: why was David, his favourite king, not allowed to build the Jerusalem Temple? The first reason, of course, is that there was a solid tradition that it had been Solomon who erected the House of God in Jerusalem. Already in early tradition, an historical explanation had been offered for this, which is put into Solomon’s mouth: ‘You know that my father David could not built a house for the name of the Lord his God, because of the armed nations surrounding him . . .’ (1 Kgs 5:17[ ET 5:3]).14 The Chronicler, however, has radically changed this traditional explanation, putting forward a theological argument. In his presentation, it is God who explicitly forbade David to build the temple, ‘since he waged great wars’ (1 Chr 22:8). Here at last one comes across the reason why the Chronicler in 1 Chr 17:1 has skipped a full line from 2 Sam 7:1 (‘Once . . . the Lord had given him [David] rest from his enemies on all sides, . . .’). For to the Chronicler, the notion of ‘rest’ is explicitly connected to Solomon, who in 1 Chr 22:9 is therefore described as ‘man of rest’ (‫)איש מנוחה‬. The theological argument about God’s prohibition at David’s address is first brought to the fore in a private meeting between David and Solomon (1 Chr 22:6–13) and is repeated later during a public audience (1 Chr 28:2–10) in which the Chronicler makes David state that he is ‘a man of wars’ (‫)איש מלחמות‬. Here a solid piece of evidence is adduced that the concept of war might have a special function within the Book of Chronicles. The first passage in the Book of Chronicles that goes about war is found in 1 Chr 5:18–22. This text is met in what most people consider one of the most boring parts of the entire Hebrew Bible: the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9.15 A close reading of these nine chapters, however, brings to light that they in fact contain the blueprint of all the Chronicler’s concepts and conceptions. With regard to 1 Chr 5:18–22, it can hardly be coincidence that this passage, which belongs to the Chronicler’s own material, is explicitly concerned with theological aspects of war.

Translation according to REB. The most extensive study dealing with 1 Chronicles 1–9 is: M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel. Die »genealogische Vorhalle« 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990. 14 15

182

chapter eleven

The particular feature of this pericope dealing with the tribes of Transjordan is not so much about information relating to their adversaries—Hagarites, Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab—as to get inculcated that ‘the war was of God’s making’ (5:22).16 That this war was indeed God’s concern is indicated twice with the help of a passivum divinum: ‘they were given help’ and ‘they were given in their hand’ (5:20). The subsequent causal sentence is of eminent importance, for here we find the key to the Chronicler’s theological point of view: ‘for they cried to their God for help in the war, and He was supplicated (‫ )עתר‬by them, because they trusted him (‫’)בטח‬. It is quite remarkable that the verb ‘to trust’ (‫ )בטח‬will be used only one more time, viz. within the very explosive context of 2 Chr 32:10, when Jerusalem is under Assyrian siege. Elsewhere in his book the Chronicler will continually use his favourite set phrase ‘to seek guidance of the Lord’ (‫)דרש את יהוה‬.17 It is not only the remarkable theological content of 1 Chr 5:18–22 that strikes the eye. It is also the placing of 1 Chr 5:18–23 that points to its particular function. After the pericope dealing with the tribe of Gad (5:11–17), one would rather expect another topic, viz. the presentation of the half-tribe of Manasseh that is now to be found in 5:23–24. As a matter of fact, the report about their common war, which is now presented in between (5:18–23), should have been the conclusion. Suppose the Chronicler had chosen that sequence indeed, he would have caused a huge theological problem, since in that case God’s explicit help in this war (5:20–22) would have been immediately followed by the abduction into Babylonian Exile which has also been effected by him (5:25–26).18 The Chronicler managed to prevent this problem by moving the passage relating to the half-tribe of Manasseh backwards. In doing so, the logical structure of the chapter (Gad—HalfManasseh—their common war) is subordinated to the theological concept of the Chronicler, which requires another sequence (Gad—their common war—Half-Manasseh). In the Book of Chronicles, waging a war will always be God’s concern. The opinion that warfare by human beings could work out 16 Hagarites (1 Chr 5:10); Jetur and Nephish (Gen 25:15; 1 Chr 1:31); Nodab is mentioned only here in the Hebrew Bible. 17 C. Begg, ‘ “Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 91 (1982), 128–141. 18 S. Japhet, ‘Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles’, in: B. Becking & M.C.A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Traditions in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS 42), Leiden 1999, 33–43.

‘we

have yhwh to fight our battles’

183

salvation to the people of Israel is refuted over and over again. Merely God himself is able to save, and only under the strict condition that people evince their faithful attitude towards Him. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the formula ‘to seek guidance of the Lord’19—together with its counterpart (‘to abandon the Lord’)20—is found with particular frequency in the narratives related to the divided monarchy (2 Chronicles 10–36). That one has to do with theological narratives rather than with historical reports is shown, for example, by a kind of mathematical feature. In those cases where Judah gains the victory over their opponent(s), the size of the Judean army is half as large as the one of their enemies. In 2 Chr 13:3, Abijah’s troops number four hundred thousand, whereas Jeroboam formed up against him with eight hundred thousand picked troops. With God’s help five hundred thousand men of Israel fell in the battle (2 Chr 13:7). The same pattern is found in 2 Chr 14:8–9. King Asa has five hundred and eighty thousand men, whereas Zerah the Cushite marched out against him with an army a million strong. The Lord, however, gave Asa and Judah victory over the Cushites (2 Chr 14:12).21 That one has to do with a theological pattern indeed is proven by a battle-report with an opposite outcome: At the turn of the year a force of Aramaeans advanced against Joash; they invaded Judah and Jerusalem . . . Although the Aramaeans had invaded with a small force, the Lord delivered a very great army in their power, because the people [of Judah] had forsaken the Lord the God of their forefathers. . . . (2 Chr 24:23–24)

Time and again, the author of the Book of Chronicles brings out that war is God’s concern. In a very fine way this is emphasized in 2 Chr 20:15 which belongs to a prophetic address by Jahaziel (2 Chr 20:14–17). Vs. 15b functions as the motivation in the prophet’s summons not to

19 2 Chr 14:3.6.7; 15:2.4.12.13.15; 16:12; 17:4; 18:4.7; 19:3; 20:3; 22:9; 26:5 [2 x]; 30:19; 31:21 34:3.21.26. 20 2 Chr 12:1.5; 13:10.11; 15:2; 21:10; 24:18.20.24; 28:6; 29:6; 34:25. 21 One cannot understand why G. Knoppers in this connection refers to 2 Chr 32:8; G. Knoppers, ‘Treasures Won and Lost: Royal (Mis)Appropriations in Kings and Chronicles’, in: M.P. Graham & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 180–208 (200, n. 59). This verse will be discussed later on, however, for quite another reason.

184

chapter eleven

be dismayed; Israel will be out of harm’s way: ‘For it is not your war, but the Lord’s one’. Whether the phrase of 2 Chr 20:15b (‫)לא לכם המלחמה כי לאלהים‬ is indeed such a plain parallel to ‫ כי ליהוה המלחמה‬in 1 Sam 17:47, as is the conviction of so many authors, must seriously be doubted. For the wording of it is set on a negative structure, which is very rare; it is found nowhere else in the entire Old Testament. In Chapter 4 some arguments were adduced in favour of the view that 2 Chr 20:14–17 is much better to be considered as a perfect parallel of Ex. 14:13–14. 2 Chr 32:8 is also a fine example in order to show that war in the Book of Chronicles is exclusively related to God. Within 2 Chr 32:2–9, which no doubt is a passage of his own (‘Sondergut’), the Chronicler makes Hezekiah, one of his most favourite kings, address the people of Jerusalem: Be strong; be brave. Do not let the king of Assyria or the rabble he has brought with him strike error or panic into your hearts, for we have more on our side than he has. He has human strength; but we have the LORD our God to help us and to fight our battles (2 Chr 32:7–8).

This again is a solid piece of evidence that the Chronicler has created a consistent theological paradigm relating to war. Is it possible to provide an answer to the question why the Chronicler is so tenacious in attributing war to God’s sphere? After the Babylonian Exile, the former Kingdom of Judah had been reduced to Yehud, an insignificant province of the Persian Empire. There was no Davidic dynasty, no king ruling the country, nor any Judean army. The only power left to rely on was YHWH, and the only institution left was the House of God that had been rebuilt with permission of the Persian authorities. As a matter of fact, temple and cult became the centre of the postexilic Judean community.22 No wonder that warfare in the Book of Chronicles is sometimes described more being a liturgical event than a clash of warriors (2 Chr 13:12–15; 20:5–21), for the only power to protect the Judean people from inside were their God. John Wright therefore is completely right saying that the battle accounts have a programmatic function within the Chronicler’s own situation and reveal much more about the Chronicler’s aspirations than

22

Cfr. J. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community ( JSOTSS 151), Sheffield 1992.

‘we

have yhwh to fight our battles’

185

about the historical events they are supposed to refer to.23 ‘The Chronicler, like other ancient Near Eastern historians, constructs history not merely out of an antiquarian interest, but to affect the present’.24 Though being presented as historical battle reports, quite a lot of narratives on war in the Book of Chronicles should in fact be considered as concealed claims towards God to protect his people, since there is no force of their own in Yehud. It is no accident therefore that in so many chronistic war reports God’s presence and power is articulated to such a high degree (1 Chr 14:11.15; 2 Chr 14:10; 20:6.15.17; 32:8.11.14.18). The war narratives in the Book of Chronicles can therefore be considered as a reflection of the factual military impotence of Yehud during the Persian Period, which has been transformed by the Chronicler into a full theological concept of God’s rather violent interventions. The outcome of these divine actions depends upon the people of Judah’s attitude, viz. whether they ‘seek the Lord’ or ‘abandon the Lord’. It is rather unlikely that the war narratives in the Book of Chronicles should be traced down to the concept of holy war. For, as Weinberg has demonstrated, the large majority of the Chronicler’s war narratives do miss essential and/or constitutive elements, which are indissolubly connected to the classical scheme of holy war as brought to the fore by G. von Rad.25

Wright, ‘The Fight for Peace’, 176. G. Knoppers, ‘ “Battle against Yahweh”: Israel’s War against Judah in 2 Chr 13:2–20’, RB 100 (1993), 511–532 (530). 25 See Weinberg, ‘Krieg und Frieden’, 123–124, esp. ‘Tabelle 2’. 23

24

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING REGISTERED: THE ROLE AND MEANING OF THE VERB ‫ יחש‬IN THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES1 Joel Weinberg, in his numerous publications on the Book of Chronicles, has offered a lot of sociological and statistical material dealing with the post-exilic religious community in Judah and Jerusalem, especially in the Persian period.2 The topic of identity in the Book of Chronicles has explicitly been brought to the front by Jonathan E. Dyck in an essay of which one should be aware of its full title: ‘The Ideology of Identity in Chronicles’.3 Dyck adduces further observations relating to the still ongoing scholarly debate with respect to the question whether Ezra-Nehemia and Chronicles were painted with the same brush, in other words whether these books share a common authorship.4 In a fine essay Dyck describes how the concept of ethnicity that we find in Ezra-Nehemia was rooted in the experience of the Exile, and that its full expression and further development was determined by the nature of the relationship between the post-exilic community and its neighbours. ‘Whereas Ezra-Nehemia makes a clear distinction between the “Israelite” community and other people living in the land of Israel, the Chronicler maintains an “all Israel” perspective throughout the book’.5 1 This Chapter is a modified version of a contribution that was first published as ‘Identity and Community in the Book of Chronicles: The Role and Meaning of the Verb ‫’יחש‬, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 12 (1999), 233–237. 2 J.P. Weinberg, ‘Die soziale Gruppe im Weltbild des Chronisten’, ZAW 98 (1986), 72–95; id., ‘«Wir » und «sie» im Weltbild des Chronisten’, Klio 66 (1984), 19–34; id., The Citizen-Temple Community ( JSOTSS 151), Sheffield 1992; id., Der Chronist in seiner Mitwelt (BZAW 239), Berlin 1996. 3 J.E. Dyck, ‘The Ideology of Identity in Chronicles’, in: M. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible (BIS 19), Leiden 1996, 89–116; id., The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler (BIS 33), Leiden 1998. 4 S. Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia Investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968), 332–372; id., ‘The Relation between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (VTS 43), Leiden 1991, 298–313; H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977, 37–70. 5 Dyck, ‘Ideology of Identity’, 105.

188

chapter twelve

Investigating the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9 for the preparation of a ne Dutch commentary on the Book of Chronicles, the present author came across a specific aspect of ‘identity and community’ in the Book of Chronicles, viz. the use and function of the root ‫יחש‬.6 The verb ‫יחש‬, always in hitpa{el, is found twenty times in the Hebrew Bible, with no less than 15 occurrences in the Book of Chronicles.7 It can hardly be an accident that the vast majority of these occurrences (75%) is found in 1 Chronicles 1–9, the socalled ‘genealogical hall’.8 It is of great interest, therefore, to examine very carefully what entities within the ‘genealogical hall’ are involved with the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp. To start answering this question in a negative way: the verb is not used relating to Judah (2:2–4:23), Levi (5:27–6:66) 9 and Benjamin (8:1–40), which are precisely the tribes that in the post-exilic period, i.e. in the Chronicler’s own days, constitute the people of Israel. These three ‘sons of Israel’ remained loyal to the House of David and to the Temple. The positioning of Levi which is found exactly in the middle of the “genealogical hall” bespeakes the Chronicler’s central interest in Temple and cult. Between the genealogy of Judah (2:3–4:23) and that of Levi (5:27– 6:66) we are told of the tribe of Simeon (4:24–43), the tribe of Reuben (5:1–10), the tribe of Gad (5:11–17) and Half-Manasseh (5: 18–26). Between the genealogy of Levi (5:27–6:66) and that of Benjamin (8:1–40), the Chronicler pays attention to the tribe of Issachar (7:1–5), the tribe of Naphtali (7:13), the tribe of Manasseh (7:14–19), the tribe of Efraim (7:20–29), and the tribe of Asher (7:30–40). In the Chronicler’s own days, all those tribes that in the genealogical hall of 1 Chronicles 1–9 have been inserted between Judah and Levi, on the one hand, and between Levi and Benjamin on the other, had in fact disappeared from the historical and geographical scene.10

6 P.C. Beentjes, 1 Kronieken (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2002; id., 2 Kronieken, (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2006. 7 1 Chr 4:33; 5:1. 7. 17; 7:5. 7. 9. 40; 9:1. 22; 2 Chr 12:15; 31:16. 17. 18. 19. Moreover in Ezra 2:62; 8:1. 3; Neh 7:5. 64. 8 M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel. Die «genealogische Vorhalle» 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990, 9. At the very end of his monograph, however, Oeming favours the notion ‘proleptic summary’ (‘proleptisches Summarium’). 9 Many Bible translations have a deviating numeration, viz. 6:1–81. 10 The tribes of Dan and Zebulon are not even mentioned in the “genealogical hall”.

the importance of being registered

189

It is a major manoeuvre by the Chronicler to create and to establish an ideal community, which not by chance is called ‫ כל ישראל‬for the first time in 1 Chr 9:1, serving as the summarising conclusion of 2:3–8:40.11 From 1 Chr 11:1 onwards, the expression ‫ כל ישראל‬is used about forty-five times in the Book of Chronicles12 and must therefore be considered one of its favourite characteristics. Now it is time to have a closer look at the use and function as well as at the meaning of the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp.which hints at a formative concept by the Chronicler. Within 1 Chronicles 1–9, the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp. is used in three clusters: (1) Framed by the genealogies of Judah (2:2–4:23) and Levi (5:27–6:66), the verb functions with respect of Simeon (4:33), Joseph (5:1), Reuben (5:7), and Gad (5:17). (2) Framed by the genealogies of Levi (5:27–6:66) and Benjamin (8:1– 40), the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp. occurs four times, each time in combination with the characteristic formulae ‫( גבורי חילים‬7:5 [ Issachar]; 7:7; 7:40 [Asher])13 or ‫( גבורי חיל‬7:9); both expressions are only found in this chapter.14 (3) Framed by the first (8:29–38) and second (9:35–44) genealogy of Saul, the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp., on the one hand, is connected to the first occurrence of the essential notion ‘all Israel’ (9:1) and, on the other hand, to the gatekeepers (9:22). The latter group is set out by the Chronicler in a section (9:17–26) which provides a ‘disproportionate amount of detail’15 with respect of this specific group of Temple personnel. As compared to Ezra-Nehemia, where no Levitical lineage is indicated for them (Ezra 2:42/Neh 7:45; Neh 11:19; 12:25),16 the Chronicler does his very best to present the gatekeepers as being an inner-levitical group from old. 11 H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), Grand Rapids MI: 1982, 86; S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993, 206. 12 H.J. Zobel, ‫ישראל‬, in: G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren (eds.), TDOT VI, Grand Rapids MI 1990, 418. One should add 1 Chr 28:8 to his list. 13 Not 7:10, as given by William Johnstone, I & II Chronicles, Vol. I: I Chronicles 1–2 Chronicles 9 ( JSOTSS 253), Sheffield 1997, 69. 14 Within the Book of Chronicles the expression ‫ גבורי חילים‬is found only once more: 1 Chr 7:11 (see 1 Chr 11:26). 15 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 90. 16 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 214 erroneously listed Neh 11:9 instead of Neh 11:19, and mentioned the non-existant verse Ezra 10:45.

190

chapter twelve

No wonder that precisely 1 Chr 9:17b–33 is unparalleled in Biblical literature; it is a delibrate move from the Chronicler’s own desk.17 It is not by chance, therefore, that in 9:22 ‘Samuel the seer’ is explicitly mentioned in the same breath as David, having installed the gatekeepers in their office. For according to 1 Chr 6:12–13 Samuel is a Levite himself. The Chronicler (or his unknown source) created the section on the gatekeepers (9:17–26) in order to provide them with an unambiguous position as Levites, most probably reflecting the situation of his own days. It is presented as if this is a continuous tradition going back as early as to Phinehas and the wilderness tabernacle, and was re-established by David and Samuel. Within this theological rather than historical pattern, the verb ‫יחש‬ hitp. is a crucial element too. It appears to function as the parallel or supplement of their installation by David and Samuel. So doing, the Chronicler in 9:19–22 runs ahead of 1 Chronicles 23–27 (entirely ‘Sondergut’) where all four classes of Levites, including the gatekeepers, are described in full. Using the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp., the Chronicler does not so much refer to the process of registration as to the result of being registered, viz. that one belongs to a family or group and that such a registration entitles to specific rights and privileges. The verb ‫ יחש‬hitp. does not express [T]he genealogical relationship of the individual members in a temporal sequence of generations; it expresses a relationship that is present and timeless . . .; it assigns someone to a specific circle with reference to the present and therefore timelessly . . .; the ‘enrollment’ referred to is not meant diachronically but synchronically.18

That the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp. indeed refers to membership of a group, i.e. explicitly deals with the question who are concretely reckoned among a specific circle, is excellently demonstrated in 2 Chr 31:16–19 and Ezra 2:62 (cf. Neh 7:64). Though in Bible translations 2 Chr 31:16–19 is rendered in quite different ways, which, on the one hand, is caused by a probable textual

As to the setting of 1 Chronicles 9, see P.B. Dirksen, ‘1 Chronicles 9:26–33: Its Position in Chapter 9’, Bib 79 (1998), 91–96. 18 R. Mosis, ‫יחש‬, in: G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren (eds.), TDOT VI, Grand Rapids MI 1990, 55–59 (57). 17

the importance of being registered

191

corruption in verse 15 (‫)בערי‬19 and, on the other hand, by the question to what extent verse 16 is to be considered parenthetical, the purport of ‫ יחש‬hitp. in this pericope (vv. 16.17.18.19) is unequivocal. There is no doubt whatsoever that this passage deals with special privileges exclusively given to certain groups: priests and Levites who derive their rights to the fact that they have been registered. Ezra 2:62 reports how priests belonging to the line of Hobaiah, the line of Hakkoz, and the line of Barzillai, after their return from Exile, unsuccesfully searched for their names among those enrolled in the genealogies. Since their names could not be traced, they were deemed disqualified and debarred from officiating; they actually lost their priestly rights. Harking back to the verb ‫ יחש‬hitp. in 1 Chronicles 1–9, it is not by chance that the Chronicler by using such a special concept of ‘being registered’ breathes new life into all those tribes which actually had disappeared in his own days. ‘The genealogies describe Israel as it always was, its inner structure and hierarchy, and its geographical place. It treats of space, not time’.20 Once the relation of people to territory is established, they are given an identity. Or to say it in William Johnstone’s words: ‘By possession of land identity is established’.21 In the ‘genealogical hall’ of the Book of Chronicles, the verb ‫יחש‬ is used as a literary and theological ‘glue’ in order to save all those ‘forgotten tribes’ from oblivion and to put them permanently on the literary map of the Book of Chronicles, so that all the ‘invisible sons of Israel’ should be reckoned among the ideal Israel, which is given the notion ‘all Israel’.

19 ‘The phrase ‘in the cities of the priests’ is impossible at this point in the text because (a) it creates a contradiction within the passage itself, ascribing to the priests ‘in the cities’ (v. 15) the office actually executed in the Temple . . .; (b) it also creates un unnecessary doublet to v. 19, where the priests in their cities are explicitly referred to, with the full designation of these cities . . .; (c) finally, with this rendering, the passage overlooks the most important constituent of the priesthood, the priests of Jerusalem. The original version is still preserved in the LXX, where ‘in the cities’ (be{arê) is represented by διὰ χειρὸς (literally ‘at the hand’), which clearly reflects the Hebrew idiom ‫ ביד‬or ‫( על יד‬1 Chr 26.28; 29.8; 2 Chr 23.18 etc.), rendered variously by the translations according to the various contexts: ‘by’, ‘under’, ‘in the care of ’, etc. (cf. RSV of 1 Chr 24.19; 2 Chr 23.18; 1 Chr 26.28). When this slight error is restored, the contradiction and the doublet disappear, and the passage refers to the priests who actually officiate in the Temple’; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 970. 20 Dyck, ‘Ideology of Identity’, 110. 21 Johnstone, I &II Chronicles, 69.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abadie, Ph., ‘Une histoire “corrective: le modèle du Chroniste’, Théophilyon 3 (1997), 65–90. ——, ‘Quelle place occupe l’Exode dans le livre des Chroniques?’, Cahiers de l’Atelier 482 (1998), 90–100. Ackroyd, P.R., I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible), London 1973. ——, ‘The Chronicler as Exegete’, JSOT 2 (1977), 2–32 [= Ackroyd, P.R., The Chronicler in His Age ( JSOTSS 101), Sheffield 1991, 311–343]. Allen, L.C., The Greek Chronicles. The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text I–II (VTS 25, 27), Leiden 1974. Amit, Y., ‘The Position of the Egypt Exodus Tradition in the Book of Chronicles’ (Hebr.), Te‘uda 2 (1982), 139–155. ——, ‘The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Book of Chronicles’ (Hebr.), in: Beth Mikra 28 (1982), 113–133. Augustin, M., ‘Beobachtungen zur chronistischen Umgestaltung der deuteronomistischen Königschronik nach der Reichsteilung’, in M. Augustin & J. Kegler (Hrsg), Das Alte Testament als geistige Heimat. FS H.W. Wolff (EHS XXIII/17), Frankfurt 1982, 11–50. ——, ‘Neue territorialgeschichtliche Aspekte zu 1 Chronik 1–9 am Beispiel der Rubeniten’, in: H.M. Niemann u.a. (Hrsg), Nachdenken über Israel. Fs K.D. Schunck (BEAT 37), Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 299–309. Baehrens, W.A., Überlieferung und Textgeschichte der lateinisch erhaltenen Origeneshomilien zum Alten Testament (TU 42, 1), Leipzig 1916. ——, Origenes Werke. VIII. Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten, Kommentar zum Hohelied in Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzungen (GCS 33), Leipzig 1925. Bailey, N., ‘David’s Innocence: A Response to J. Wright’, JSOT 64 (1994), 83–90. ——, ‘David and God in 1 Chronicles 21: Edged with Mist’, in: M.P. Graham & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 337–359. Balentine, S.E., ‘“You Can’t Pray a Lie”: Truth and Fiction in the Prayers of Chronicles’, in: M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSS 238), Sheffield 1997, 246–267. Barnes, W.E., ‘The Midrashic Element in Chronicles’, The Expositor 5th Series 4 (1896), 426–439. Barthélemy, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 50/1), Göttingen 1982. Bartlett, J.R., ‘The Edomite King-List of Genesis XXXVI.31–39 and 1 Chron. I.43–50’, JTS 16 (1965), 301–314. Becker, J., 1 Chronik (NEB, Lfg 18) Würzburg 1986. ——, 2 Chronik (NEB, Lfg 20) Würzburg 1988. Becking, B., ‘Sennacherib and Jerusalem: New Perspectives’, Journal for Semitics/Tydskrif vir Semitistiek 16 (2007), 267–288. Becking, B. & M.C.A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Traditions in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS 42), Leiden 1999. Beentjes, P.C., ‘King Jehoshaphat’s Prayer: Some Remarks on 2 Chronicles 20:6–13’, BZ 38 (1994), 264–270. ——, ‘Tradition and Transformation: Aspects of Innerbiblical Interpretation in 2 Chronicles 20’, Bib 74 (1993), 258–268. ——, ‘Jerusalem in the Book of Chronicles’, in: M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem. Historical Perspectives, Kampen 1996, 15–28.

194

bibliography

——, ‘Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics’, in: L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard and J.P. Fokkelman (eds), Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, Assen 1996, 31–50. ——, ‘Transformations of Space and Time. Nathan’s Oracle and David’s Prayer in 1 Chronicles 17’, in: A. Houtman, M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz (eds.), Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity ( Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, Vol. I), Leiden 1998, 27–44. ——, ‘Identity and Community in the Book of Chronicles: The Role and Meaning of the Verb ‫’יחש‬, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 12 (1999), 233–237. ——, ‘War Narratives in the Book of Chronicles: A new Proposal in respect of their Function’, Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 59 (2003), 587–596. ——, ‘ “They saw that his forehead was leprous” (2 Chr 26:20). The Chronicler’s Narrative on Uzziah’s Leprosy’, in: M.J.H.M. Poorthuis, J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus ( Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, Vol. II), Leiden 2000, 61–72. ——, ‘Prophets in the Book of Chronicles’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet. The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS 45), Leiden 2001, 45–53. ——, 1 Kronieken (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2002. ——, 2 Kronieken, (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Kampen 2006. ——, ‘Israel’s Earlier History as Presented in the Book of Chronicles’, in: N. CalduchBenages & J. Liesen (eds.), History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History (DCLY 2006), Berlin 2006, 57–75. ——, ‘Psalms and Prayers in the Book of Chronicles’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking and H.G. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 9–44. ——, ‘Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21’, in: F.V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, K. Schöpflin (eds.), Angels. The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception (DCLY 2007), Berlin 2007, 139–154. Begg, C., ‘ “Seeking Yahweh” and the Purpose of Chronicles’, Louvain Studies 9 (1982), 128–141. ——, ‘The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History’, BZ 32 (1988), 100–107. Bendavid, A., Parallels in the Bible (‫)מקבילות במקרא‬, Jerusalem 1972. Ben Zvi, E., ‘Shifting the Gaze: Historiographic Constraints in Chronicles and Their Implications’, in: J. Andrew Dearman & M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller ( JSOTSS 343), Sheffield 2001, 38–60 [= id., in: History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (Bible World), London 2006, 78–99]. Beuken, W.A.M., Haggai-Sacharja 1–8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN 10), Assen 1967. ——, ‘Isa. 55.3–5: The Reinterpretation of David’, Bijdragen 35 (1974), 49–64. Bloch, R., ‘Midrash’, in: W.S. Green and J. Neusner (eds.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism, Vol. I: Theory and Practice (BJS), Missoula 1978, 29–50. Boer, R.T., ‘Utopian Politics in 2 Chronicles 10–13’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 360–394. Braun, R., 1 Chronicles (WBC), Waco: Word Books, 1986. ——, ‘Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles’, JBL 92 (1973), 502–514. ——, ‘Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles’, JBL 95 (1976), 581–590. ——, ‘A Reconsideration of the Chronicler’s Attitude toward the North’, JBL 96 (1977), 59–62. ——, ‘Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTS 30), Leiden 1979, 52–64.

bibliography

195

Brettler, M.Z., ‘From the Deuteronomist(s) to the Chronicler: Continuities and Innovations’, in D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A, Jerusalem 1995, 83–90. Breytenbach, C.—P.L. Day, Satan, in: DDD, 1369–1380. Brooke, G.J., ‘Rewritten Bible’, in: L.H. Schiffman & J.C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2, Oxford 2000, 777–781. Brown, M.L., ‫רפא‬, in: TDOT XIII, Grand Rapids 2004, 593–602. Brunet, A.-M., ‘Le Choniste et ses sources’, RB 60 (1953), 481–508; RB 61 (1954), 349–386. Bussche, H. Van den ‘Le texte de la prophétie de Nathan sur la dynastie davidique (II Sam. VII–I Chron. XVII)’, ETL 24 (1948), 354–394. Butler, T.C., ‘A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. XVI 8–36), VT 28 (1978), 142–150. Caquot, A., ‘Les “grâces de David”: à propos d’Isaïe 55:3b’, Sem 15 (1965), 45–59. ——, ‘Peut-on parler de messianisme dans l’oevre du Chroniste?’, RTP 16 (1966), 110–120. Childs, B.S., Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT II/3), London 1967. ——, ‘Midrash and the Old Testament’, in: J. Reumann (ed.), Understanding the Sacred Text (FS M.S. Enslin), Valley Forge, 1972, 47–59. ——, Isaiah (OTL), Louisville 2001. Cross, F.M., ‘Reuben, First-Born of Jacob’, ZAW 100 (1988) Supplement, 46–65. —— et al., Qumran Cave 4 XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD XVII), Oxford 2005. Curtis, E.L. & A.A. Madson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910. Dalman, G., ‘Die Stammeszugehörigkeit der Stadt Jerusalem und des Tempels’, in: W. Frankenberg/F. Küchler (Hrsg.), Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft; FS W.W. Graf Baudissin (BZAW 33), Giessen 1918, 107–120. Da Silva, A.A., ‘A Comparison between the Avenging Angel of 1 Chr 21 and analogous ‘Angel-like’ Figures in the Ugaritic Ba’al-cycle’, Journal for Semitics 6 (1994), 154–169. Davies, G.I., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Cambridge 1991. Day, J., ‘The Ark and the Cherubim in the Psalms’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking & H.G. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 65–77. Day, P.L., An Adversary in heaven: śā ān in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43), Atlanta 1988, 127–145. Déaut, R. Le, ‘À propos d’une définition du Midrash’, Bib 50 (1969), 395–413. ——, ‘Apropos a Definition of Midrash’, Int 25 (1971), 259–283. Déaut, R. Le—J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques I–II (AnBib 51), Rome 1951. Dillard, R., ‘The Reign of Asa (2 Chronicles 14–16): An Example of the Chronicler’s Theological Method’, JETS 23 (1980), 207–218. ——, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15), Waco 1987. Dion, P.E., ‘The Angel with the Drawn Sword (II [sic] Chr 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context’, ZAW 97 (1985), 114–117. Dirksen, P.B., ‘1 Chronicles 9:26–33: Its Position in Chapter 9’, Bib 79 (1998), 91–96. ——, ‘1 Chronicles 5:1–2’, JNSL 25 (1999), 17–23. ——, 1 Chronicles (HCOT), Louvain 2005. Dörfuss, E.M., Mose in den Chronikbüchern. Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung (BZAW 219), Berlin 1994. Duke, R.K., The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis ( JSOTSS 88), Sheffield 1990. Dyck, J.E., ‘The Ideology of Identity in Chronicles’, in: M. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible (BIS 19), Leiden, 1996, 89–116.

196

bibliography

——, The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler (BIS 33), Leiden 1998. Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen ²1956. Eslinger, L., House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 ( JSOTSS 164) Sheffield 1994. Evans, P., ‘Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s Theology’, Bib 85 (2004), 545–558. Feldman, L.H., ‘Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus’, in: M.J. Mulder & H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra (CRINT, Section 2, Vol. 1), Assen 1988, 455–518. Fishbane, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985. ——, The Garments of Torah, Bloomington 1988. Gabriel, I., Friede über Israel: Eine Untersuchung zur Friedenstheologie in Chronik I 10–II 36 (ÖBS 10), Klosterneuburg 1990. Galil, G., The Genealogies of the Tribe of Judah (Ph. Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1983) (Hebr. with summary in English). Gerleman, G.,/E. Ruprecht, drs, in: THAT I, München ²1975, 460–467. Gese, H., ‘Zur Geschichte der Kultsänger am zweiten Tempel’, in: O. Betz, M. Hengel & P. Schmidt (eds), Abraham unser Vater (FS O. Michel), Leiden 1963, 222–234 (= id., Vom Sinai zum Zion, München 1974, 147–158). Goldingay, J., ‘The Chronicler as Theologian’, BTB 5 (1975), 97–126. Grabbe, L.L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, London 1994. Graham, M. Patrick, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS 116) Atlanta 1990. ——, ‘Setting the Heart to Seek God: Worship in 2 Chronicles 30:1–31:1’, in: id. (ed.), Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of John T. Willis ( JSOTSS 284), Sheffield 1999, 124–141. Gray, G., Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh 1912. Greenstein, E.L., ‘An Inner-Biblical Midrash of the Nadab and Abihu Episode’ (Hebr.), in: D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A, Jerusalem 1994, 71–78. Gunkel, H., Einleitung in die Psalmen, Göttingen 1975 (3rd ed.). Hamilton, V.P., ‘Satan’, in: ABD V, 985–989. Hausmann, J., ‘Gottesdienst als Gottes Lob: Erwägungen zu 1 Chr 16,8–36’, in: H. Wagner (Hrsg.), Spiritualität: Theologische Beiträge, Stuttgart 1987, 83–92. Hernando, E., ‘El Profetismo en los libros de las Crónicas’, Scriptorium Victoriense 34 (1987), 45–66. Hilbrands, W., ‘Das Verhältnis der Engel zu Jahwe im Alten Testament, insbesondere im Buch Exodus’, in: R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (CBET 44), Louvain 2006, 81–96. Hill, A.E., ‘Patchwork Poetry or Reasoned Verse? Connective Structure in 1 Chronicles XVI’, VT 33 (1983), 97–101. Honeyman, A.M., ‘The Evidence for Regnal Names among the Hebrews’, JBL 67 (1948), 13–25. Im, T.S., Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern (EHS XXIII, 263), Frankfurt a.M. 1985. Japhet, S., ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia Investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968), 332–372. ——, ‘Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles’, JBL 98 (1979), 205–218. ——, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt a.M. 1989. ——, ‘The Relation between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (VTS 43), Leiden 1991, 298–313. ——, ‘The Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles: A Case Study’, in: M. Fishbane & E. Tov (eds.), Sha’arei Talmon, Jerusalem 1992, 79–91. ——, I & II Chronicles (OTL) London 1993.

bibliography

197

——, ‘The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research’, in: J. Cheryl Exum (ed.), The Historical Books (The Biblical Seminar 40), Sheffield 1997, 258–281 [= id, JSOT 33 (1985), 83–107]. ——, ‘Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles’, in: B. Becking & M.C.A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Traditions in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS 42), Leiden 1999, 33–43. ——, ‘Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?’, in: A. de Pury, Th. Römer & J.D. Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research ( JSOTSS 306), Sheffield 2000, 144–173. Jarick, J., 1 Chronicles (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), Sheffield 2000. Jepsen, A., ’aman, TWAT I, Stuttgart 1974, 313–348. Johnson, M.D., The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSMS 8), Cambridge 1969, 37–82. Johnstone, W., ‘Guilt and Atonement: The theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles’, in: J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season (FS W. McKane) ( JSOTSS 42), Sheffield 1986, 113–138. ——, ‘The Use of Leviticus in Chronicles’, in: J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus. A Conversation with Mary Douglas ( JSOTSS 227) Sheffield 1996, 243–255. ——, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Volume 1: I Chronicles 1–2 Chronicles 9 ( JSOTSS 253), Sheffield 1997. Joüon, P., Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique (2nd ed.), Rome 1947. Kahle, P., ‘Die hebräische Bibelhandschriften aus Babylonien’, ZAW 46 (1928), 113– 137. Kalimi, I., The Books of Chronicles. A Classified Bibliography (Simor Bible Bibliographies 1), Tel Aviv/ Jerusalem 1990. ——‘The Land/Mount Moriah, and the Site of the Jerusalem Temple in Biblical Historical Writing’, in: id., Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy ( Jewish and Christian Heritage 2), Assen 2002, 9–32. ——, ‘Was the Chronicler a Historian?’, in: M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSS 238), Sheffield 1997, 73–89. ——, I., The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, Winona Lake IN 2005. ——, An Ancient Israelite Historian. Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46), Assen 2005. ——, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten. Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihre Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226), Berlin 1995. Kartveit, M., Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConB, Old Testament Series 28), Stockholm 1989. Kasher, R., ‘The Saving of Jehosaphat; extent, parallels, significance’ (Hebr.), in: Beth Mikra 31 (1985), 242–251. Kegler, J., ‘Das Zurücktreten der Exodus-Tradition in den Chronikbüchern’, in: Schöpfung und Befreiung (FS Cl. Westermann), Stuttgart 1989, 54–66. ——, ‘Prophetengestalten im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk und in den Chronikbüchern. Ein Beitrag zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbücher, ZAW 105 (1993), 481–497. Kellerman, D., ‫אשמה‬, in: G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren, TDOT I, Grand Rapids 1977, 429–437. Kellermann, U., ‘Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen Schriften’, BN 42 (1988), 49–92. Kelly, B.E., Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 211), Sheffield 1996. Klein, R.W., 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2006. Kleinig, J.W., ‘The Divine Institution of the Lord’s Song in Chronicles’, JSOT 55 (1992), 75–83. ——, The LORD’s Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles ( JSOTSS 156), Sheffield 1993.

198

bibliography

Knoppers, G.N., ‘ “Battle against Yahweh”: Israel’s War Against Judah in 2 Chr 13:2–20’, RB 100 (1993), 511–532. ——, ‘Images of David in Early Judaism: David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles’, Bib 76 (1995), 449–470. ——, ‘Treasures Won and Lost: Royal (Mis)Appropriations in Kings and Chronicles’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 180–208. ——, 1 Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12), New York 2004. ——, 1 Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A), New York 2004. Koch, K., ‘Die mysteriosen Zahlen des judäischen Könige und die apokalyptischen Jahrwochen’, VT 28 (1978), 433–441. Kooij, A. van der, ‘De tekst van Samuel en het tekstkritisch onderzoek’, NTT 36 (1982), 177–204. ——, ‘Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr.’, ZDPV 102 (1986), 93–109. Kratz, R.G., Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT 42), Tübingen 2004. Kraus, H.-J., Psalmen 1–63 (BKAT XV, 1) Neukirchen 1972 (4th ed.). Kreutzer, F., ‘Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen Bibel—eine bekannte Größe?’, Bib 86 (2005), 536–544. Kuntzmann, R., ‘La fonction prophétique en 1–2 Chroniques: Du ministère de la parole au Service de l’institution communautaire’ in: F. Diedrich—B. Willmes (Hrsg.), Ich bewirke das Heil und erschaffe das Unheil ( Jesaja 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten (FS L. Ruppert; FzB 88), Würzburg 1998, 245–258. Laato, A., ‘The Levitical Genealogies in 1 Chronicles 5–6 and the Formation of Levitical Ideology in Post-Exilic Judah’, JSOT 62 (1994), 77–99. Langton, Stephan, Commentary on the Book of Chronicles, edited with an Introduction by Avrom Saltman, Ramat Gan 1978. Lemke, W.E., Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler’s History, Diss. Harvard 1963. ——, ‘The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History’, HTR 58 (1965), 349– 363. Loader, J.A., ‘Redaction and Function of the Chronistic “Psalm of David”’, in: W.C. van Wyk (ed.), Studies in the Chronicler (OTWSA 19), Pretoria 1976, 69–75. Long, B.O., 1 Kings, with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL IX), Grand Rapids MI 1984. Loretz, O., ‘The perfectum copulativum in 2 Sm 7:9–11’, CBQ 23 (1961), 294–296. Maier, G. ‘Die Funktion der Gebete in den alttestamentlichen Apokryphen’, in: Theokratia (FS K.H. Rengstorff ), Jahrbuch des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum II, 1970–1972, 16–25. Maier, J., Zwischen den Testamenten (NEB, Ergänzungsband 3 zum Alten Testament), Würzburg 1990. 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 1982, 137–154. ——, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990. Mathias, D., ‘ “Levitische Predigt” und Deuteronomismus’, ZAW 96 (1984), 23–49. McCarter, P. Kyle, I Samuel (AB 8), Garden City, 1980. McCarter, P. Kyle, II Samuel (AB 9), Garden City 1984. McKenzie, S.L., The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta 1984. ——, 1–2 Chronicles (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville TN 2004. Micheel, R., Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18), Frankfurt 1983. Milgrom, J. Cult and Conscience, Leiden 1976.

bibliography

199

Morgenstern, J., ‘Amos Studies II. The Sin of Uzziah, The Festival of Jerobeam and the Date of Amos’, HUCA 12–13 (1938), 1–53. Mosis, R., Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FThSt 92), Freiburg 1973. ——, ‫יחשׂ‬, in: G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren (eds.), TDOT VI, Grand Rapids MI 1990, 55–59. Myers, J.M., I Chronicles (AB 12) New York 1965. Naveh, J., ‘Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave’, IEJ 13 (1963), 74–92. Neusner, J., The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism with a Critique and a Commentary by Mary Douglas (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity from the First to the Seventh Century), Leiden 1973. ——, Between Time and Eternity, Dickenson 1975. Newman, J.H., Praying by the Book. The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature, 14), Atlanta GE 1999. Newsome, J., The Chronicler’s View of Prophecy (PhD Vanderbilt University), Ann Arbor (UMI), 1973. ——, ‘Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes’, JBL 94 (1975), 201–217. Nickelsburg, W.E., ‘The Bible Rewritten and Expanded’, in: M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, Section Two, II), Assen 1984, 89–156. Nielsen, K., ‘Whose Song of Praise? Reflections on the Purpose of the Psalm in 1 Chronicles 16’, in: M.P. Graham & S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 327–336. Nissinen, M., Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Writings from the Ancient World 12), Atlanta 2003. Noth, M., ‘Eine siedlungsgeographische Liste in I Chr 2 und 4’, ZDPV 55 (1932), 97–124. ——, ‘Eine palästinische Lokalüberlieferung in 2 Chr. 20’, ZDPV 67 (1945), 45–74. ——, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Darmstadt 31976. Oeming, M., Das wahre Israel: Die „genealogische Vorhalle“ 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990. Osborne, W., The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (Ph. Dissertation, The Dropsie University, 1979). Peltonen, K., History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical and Critical Research (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 64), Göttingen 1996. Peri, V., ‘Intorno alla tradizione manoscritta delle omelie origeniane su Isaia nella traduzione latina di S. Girolamo’, Aevum 31 (1957), 205–229. Peterca, V., ‘Die Verwendung des Verbs B R für Salomo in den Büchern der Chronik’, BZ 29 (1985), 94–96. Petersen, D.L., Late Israelite Prophecy. Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23), Missoula 1977. Pisano, S., Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel. The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO 57), Fribourg 1984. Plöger, O., ‘Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, in: id., Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 1977, 50–66. Podechard, E., ‘Le premier chapître des Paralipomenes’, RB 13 (1916), 363–386. Preuss, H.D., ‫ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬milchāmâ, TDOT VIII, Grand Rapids MI 1997, 334–345. Rad, G. von, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT IV, 3), Stuttgart 1930. ——, ‘Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik’, in: FS O. Procksch, Leipzig 1934, 113–124 (= id., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ThB 8), München 1965, 248–261). Rechenmacher, H., ‘Das Mosebild im chronistischen Geschichtswerk’, RB 109 (2002), 57–65.

200

bibliography

Rendsburg, G.A., ‘The Internal Consistence and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies’, VT 40 (1990), 185–204. Renz, J. & W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, Darmstadt 1995. Ridderbos, Nic. H., ‘Enkele beschouwingen naar aanleiding van ta aminu in Jes. 7:9’, in: Schrift en Uitleg (FS W.H. Gispen), Kampen 1970, 167–178. Riley, W., King and Cultus in Chronicles.Worship and the Reinterpretation of History ( JSOTSS 160), Sheffield 1993. Rinaldi, G., ‘Quelques remarques sur la politique d’Azarias (Ozias) de Juda en Philistie (2 Chr 26:6ss.), in: Congress Volume Bonn 1982 (VTS 9), Leiden 1963, 225–235. Ristau, K.A., ‘Breaking Down Unity: An Analysis of 1 Chronicles 21.1–22.1’, JSOT 30 (2005), 201–221. Rofe, A., ‘4QSama in the Light of Historico-Literary Criticism: 2 Sam. 24–1 Chr. 21’, in: A. Vivian (ed.), Biblische und Judaistische Studien: FS für P. Sacchi ( Judentum und Umwelt 29), Frankfurt a. M. 1990, 109–119. Rooy, H. Van, ‘Prophet and Society in the Persian Period According to Chronicles’, in: T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period ( JSOTSS 175), Sheffield 1994, 163–179. Rothstein, J.W.—J. Hänel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT XVIII/2), Leipzig 1927. Rudolph, W., ‘Der Aufbau der Asa-Geschichte’, VT 2 (1952), 367–371. ——, Chronikbücher (HAT 21), Tübingen 1955. ——, ‘Uzzias „Haus der Freiheit“, ZAW 89 (1977), 418. Ruffing, A., Jahwekrieg als Weltmetapher. Studien zu Jahwekriegstexten des chronistischen Sondergutes (SBB 24), Stuttgart 1992. Saebø, M., l , THAT II, München 1976, 551–556. Saltman, A. (ed.), Stephen Langton, Commentary on the Book of Chronicles, Ramat Gan 1978. Schafer, G.E., The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) 1972. Scharbert, J., ‘Bēyt āb als soziologische Grösse im Alten Testament’, in: W.C. Delsman et al. (eds.), Von Kanaan bis Kerala (FS van der Ploeg; AOAT 211), Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, 213–237. Schenker, A., ‘Die Verheissung Natans in 2 Sam 7 in der Septuaginta’, in: M.A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195), Louvain 2006, 177–192. Schmitt, A., ‘Das prophetische Sondergut in 2 Chr 20,14–17’, in: L. Ruppert— P. Weimar—E. Zenger (Hrsg.), Künder des Wortes (FS J. Schreiner) Würzburg 1982, 273–285. Schniedewind, W.M., The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period ( JSOTSS 197), Sheffield 1995. ——, ‘The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 158–80. Schoors, A., Berseba. De opgraving van een bijbelse stad (Palaestina Antiqua, 5), Kampen 1986. Schorn, U., Ruben und das System der zwölf Stämme Israels: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Ertsgeborenen Jakobs (BZAW 248), Berlin 1997. Schweitzer, S.J., Reading Utopia in Chronicles (Dissertation University of Notre Dame IN, 2005). Seeligmann, I.L., ‘Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese’, VTS 1 (1953), 150–81. ——, ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in den deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS 29), Leiden 1978, 254–284. ——, ‘The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles’, Tarbiz 49 (1979/1980), 14–32.

bibliography

201

Seitz, C.R., Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39, Minneapolis 1991. Shaver, J.R., Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work (BJS 196), Atlanta 1989. Shipp, R.M., ‘”Remember His Covenant Forever”: A Study of the Chronicler’s Use of the Psalms’, Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993), 29–39. Smelik, K.A.D., Historische Dokumente aus dem alten Israel, Göttingen, 1989. ——, Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (OTS 28), Leiden 1992. Smend, R., ‘Zur Geschichte von he amin’, in: Hebräische Wortforschung (FS W. Baumgartner; VTS 16), Leiden 1967, 284–290. Snyman, G., ‘’Tis a Vice to Know Him’. Reader’s Response-Ability and Responsibility in 2 Chronicles 14–16’, Semeia 77 (1997), 91–113. Steins, G., Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen. Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1–2 Chronik (BBB 93), Weinheim 1995. Strübind, K., Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW 201), Berlin 1991. Sugimoto, T., ‘The Chronicler’s Techniques in Quoting Samuel-Kings’, AJBI 6 (1990), 30–70. ——, Chronicles as Independent Literature’, JSOT 55 (1992), 61–74. Tadmor, H., ‘The Meunites in the Book of Chronicles in the Light of an Assyrian Document’ (Hebr.), in: Bible and Jewish History (FS J. Liver), Tel Aviv 1971, 222–231. Talstra, E., Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8:14–61 (CBET 3), Kampen 1993. ——, ‘The Discourse of Praying: Reading Nehemiah 1’, in: B.E.H.J. Becking and H.G. Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 219–236. Thackeray, H.St.J.—R. Marcus—A. Wikgren—L.H. Feldman, Josephus VI (Loeb edition), London ³1966. Then, R., „Gibt es denn keinen mehr unter den Propheten?“. Zum Fortgang der alttestamentlichen Prophetie in frühjüdischer Zeit (BEATAJ, 22), Frankfurt a.M. 1990. Throntveit, M.A., When Kings Speak. Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93), Atlanta 1987. ——, ‘The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, in M.P. Graham, S.L. McKenzie & G. Knoppers (eds.), The Chronicler as Theologian ( JSOTSS 371), New York 2003, 105–121. Tuell, S., First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation), Louisville 2001. Ulrich, E.C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19), Missoula 1978. Vermeylen, J., ‘Hypothèses sur l’origine d’Isaïe 36–39’, in J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah (BETL 132), Louvain 1997, 95–118. Vries, S.J. De, ‘The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles’, HAR 10 (1986), 15–36. ——, ‘Moses and David as Cult-Founders in Chronicles’, JBL 107 (1988), 619–39. ——, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL XI), Grand Rapids 1989. Vriezen, Th.C., ‘Einige Notizen zur Übersetzung des Bindewortes kî, in: W. Albright et al. (eds.), Von Ugarit nach Qumran (FS O. Eissfeldt; BZAW 77), Berlin 1958, 266–273. Wagner, S., ‫דרש‬, in: TWAT II, Stuttgart 1977, 313–329. Wallace, H.N., ‘What Chronicles Has To Say About Psalms’, in: M. Patrick Graham & Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture ( JSOTSS 263), Sheffield 1999, 267–291. Watt, J.W., Psalm and Story. Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative ( JSOTSS 139), Sheffield 1992, 155–68. Weinberg, J.P., ‘Das bēit ābōt im 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z.’, VT 23 (1973), 400–414 [= id., The Citizen-Temple Community ( JSOTSS 151), Sheffield 1992, 49–61].

202

bibliography

——, ‘Die “Ausserkanonischen Prophezeiungen” in den Chronikbüchern’, Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), 387–404. ——, ‘Das Wesen und die funktionelle Bestimmung der Listen in I Chr 1–9’, ZAW 93 (1981), 91–114. ——, ‘Krieg und Frieden im Weltbild des Chronisten’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), 111–129. ——, ‘„Wir“ und „sie“ im Weltbild des Chronisten’, Klio 66 (1984), 19–34. ——, ‘Die soziale Gruppe im Weltbild des Chronisten’, ZAW 98 (1986), 72–95. ——, The Citizen-Temple Community ( JSOTSS 151), Sheffield 1992. ——, Der Chronist in seiner Mitwelt (BZAW 239), Berlin 1996. Weippert, M., ‘Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals’, in: F.M. Fales (Ed.), Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in literary, ideological, and historical analysis (Orientis Antiqui Collectio XVII) Rome 1981, 71–115. Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin-Leipzig 61927 (Reprint, Berlin 1981). Welten, P., Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973. ——, ‘Lade—Tempel—Jerusalem. Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher’, in: A.H.J. Gunneweg und O. Kaiser (Hrsg.), Textgemäss. Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments (Fs E. Würthwein), Göttingen 1979, 169–183. Westermann, Cl., ‘Die Begriffe für Fragen und Suchen im Alten Testament’, KD 6 (1960), 2–30 (= id., Forschung am Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien Band II, ThB 55, München 1974, 162–190). Wildberger, H., ‘Glauben’, in: Hebräische Wortforschung (FS W. Baumgartner; VTS 16), Leiden 1967, 372–386. ——, ’mn/fest, sicher, THAT I, München 1971, 177–209. Willi, Th., Die Chronik als Auslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972. ——, ‘Thora in den biblischen Chronikbüchern’, Judaica 36 (1980), 102–105. ——, ‘Late Persian Judaism and Its Conception of an Integral Israel According to Chronicles: Some Observations on Form and Function of the Genealogy of Judah in 1 Chronicles 2.3–4.23’, in: T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period ( JSOTSS 175), Sheffield 1994, 146–162. ——, Chronik (BKAT 24/1–3), Neukirchen 1991–2006. Williams, P.J., ‘The LXX of 1 Chronicles 5:1–2 as an exposition of Genesis 48–49’, TynBul 49 (1998) 369–371. Williamson, H.G.M., ‘The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, VT 26 (1976), 351–361. ——, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, Cambridge 1977. ——, ‘Eschatology in Chronicles’, TynBul 28 (1977), 115–154. ——, ‘The Sure Mercies of David: Subjective or Objective Genitive?’, JSS 23 (1978), 31–49. ——, ‘Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah’, JBL 98 (1979), 351–359. ——, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), London 1982. ——, ‘The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles’, in: A. Rofé (ed.), Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, Vol. III Non-Hebrew-Section (Seeligman Anniversary Volume) Jerusalem 1983, 305–318. ——, ‘The Temple in the Book of Chronicles’, in: W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel ( JSNTSS 48), Sheffield 1991, 15–31. Wilson, R.R., Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, New Haven 1977. Woude, A.S. van der, ābā /Heer, THAT II, München 1967, 498–507.

bibliography

203

Wright, A.G., ‘The Literary Genre Midrash’, CBQ 28 (1966), 105–138. 417–457 (= id., The Literary Genre Midrash, New York 1967). Wright, J.W., The Origin and Function of First Chronicles 23–27 (Diss. University of Notre Dame) 1989. ——, ‘The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23–27’, JBL 110 (1991), 229–242. ——, The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21, JSOT 60 (1993), 87–105. ——, ‘The Fight for Peace: Narrative and History in the Battle Accounts in Chronicles’, in: M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSS 238), Sheffield 1997, 150–177. ——, ‘Remapping Yehud: The Borders of Yehud and the Genealogies of Chronicles’, in: O. Lipschits & M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 67–89. Zeitlin, A., ‘Midrash. A Historical Study’, JQR 44 (1953), 21–36. Zeron, A., ‘Die Anmassung des Königs Usia im Lichte von Jesajas Berufung. Zu 2 Chr. 26:16–22 und Jes. 6:1ff’, ThLZ 33 (1967), 65–68. Zobel, H.J., ‫ישראל‬, in: G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren (eds.), TDOT VI, Grand Rapids MI, 1990, 397–420. Zunz, L., Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden: Historisch entwickelt (ed. N. Brüll), Frankfurt a. M. 21892 (Reprint, Hildesheim 1966).

INDEX OF AUTHORS References to commentaries have not been included Abadie, Ph. 106 Ackroyd, P.R. 1, 5 Allen, L.C. 24 Amit, Y. 76, 97, 106, 132 Augustin, M. 23, 25, 93 Baehrens, W.A. 90 Bailey, N. 47 Balentine, S.E. 141 Barnes, W.E. 4 Barthélemy, D. 80 Becking, B. 91 Beentjes, P.C. 138, 144, 151 Begg, C. 1, 33, 63, 80, 89, 94, 132, 136, 154, 182 Ben Zvi, E. 19, 113 Bendavid, A. 55, 133 Beuken, W.A.M. 138, 174 Bloch, R. 87 Boer, R.T. 104 Braun, R.L. 1, 3, 36–37 Brettler, M.Z. 93 Breytenbach, C. 46 Brooke, G.J. 6 Brown, M.L. 169 Brunet, A.M. 55 Butler, T.C. 170 Caquot, A. 31, 174 Childs, B.S. 87, 91, 94, 125 Cross, F.M. 23, 55 Dalman, G. 120 Day, J. 172 Day, P.L. 46 Déaut, R. le 25, 87, 145 Dillard, R.B. 2, 133 Dirksen, P.B. 24, 190 Dörfuss, E.M. 111 Duke, R.K. 1, 11, 62, 97, 130 Dyck, J.E. 104, 187, 191 Eissfeldt, O. 77, 98 Eslinger, L. 32

Evans, P. 46 Even-Shoshan, A.

115

Feldman, L.H. 88 Fishbane, M. 75, 96, 133, 137 Flusser, D. 115 Fohrer, G. 115 Gabriel, I. 177 Gerleman, G. 64 Gese, H. 71 Gill, M. 115 Goldingay, J. 2 Grabbe, L.L. 177 Graham, M.P. 1, 169 Greenstein, E.L. 87 Grossfeld, B. 26 Gunkel, H. 64, 160 Hamilton, V.P. 46 Hausmann, J. 170 Hernando, E. 132 Hill, A.E. 170 Honeyman, A.M. 79 Im, T.S.

1, 118

Japhet, S. 1, 3, 66, 69, 94, 103, 106, 108, 113, 145, 159, 162, 165, 182, 187 Jepsen, A. 75 Johnson, M.D. 7 Johnstone, W. 2, 81–82, 136 Jouon, P. 63–64, 160 Kahle, P. 66, 162 Kaiser, O. Kalimi, I. 2, 40, 86, 93, 101, 110, 115 Kartveit, M. 1, 22 Kasher, R. 71, 77, 98 Kegler, J. 11, 95, 106, 129–130, 132 Kellermann, D. 48 Kellerman, U. 158 Kelly, B.E. 31, 80, 136

206

index of authors

Kleinig, J.W. 1, 119, 170, 175 Knoppers, G.N. 52, 183, 185 Koch, K. 119 Kooij, A. van der 34, 91 Kratz, R.G. 131 Kreutzer, F. 46 Kuntzmann, R. 132 Laato, A. 18 Labahn, A. 19 Lella, A.A. Di 168 Lemke, W.E. 1, 34, 55 Levin, Y. 8 Loader, J.A. 170 Loretz, O. 40 Maier, G. 63 Maier, J. 87 Mason, R. 1, 31, 62, 72, 97, 123, 132 Mathias, D. 72 McKenzie, S.L. 1, 45, 55, 93 Micheel, R. 1, 10, 71, 73, 129 Milgrom, J. 81–82 Morgenstern, J. 87 Mosis, R. 1, 33, 40, 149, 157, 190 Naveh, J. 126 Neusner, J. 86, 89–90 Newman, J.H. 152 Newsome, J.D. 1, 3, 132, 137 Newsome, M. 2 Nickelsburg, W.E. 6 Nielsen, K. 170–171 Nissinen, M. 73 Noth, M. 3, 61 Oeming, M. 1, 8, 19, 63, 102, 116–118, 120–121, 143, 181, 188 Osborne, W. 8, 102 Peri, V. 90 Peterca, V. 37 Petersen, D.L. 1, 66, 68, 73, 132, 162, 164 Pisano, S. 53 Plöger, O. 63, 70, 109, 149, 165 Podechard, E. 8 Preuss, H.D. 178 Rad, G. von 25, 69, 71, 72–73, 76, 97, 108, 165 Rechenmacher, H. 111 Rendsburg, G.A. 7

Renz, J. 126 Ridderbos, Nic. H. 75 Riley, W. 1, 31, 40 Rinaldi, G. 81 Robert, J. 25, 145 Rofe, A. 53 Röllig, W. 126 Rooy, H. Van 10, 132 Rothstein, W. 22, 57, 116 Rudolph, W. 86, 133 Ruffing, A. 1, 178 Ruprecht, E. 64 Saebø, M. 76, 97 Schenker, A. 146 Schmitt, A. 71, 73, 166 Schniedewind, W.M. 6, 10, 35, 50, 95, 130, 132, 134 Schoors, A. 48 Schorn, U. 23 Schweitzer, S.J. 104–105 Seeligmann, I. 4, 10, 76, 86, 97, 132, 137 Seitz, C.R. 92 Shaver, J.R. 1 Shipp, R.M. 170 Skehan, P.W. 168 Smelik, K.A.D. 92, 126 Smend, R. 75 Snyman, G. 133 Steins, G. 5, 87 Stolz, F. 115 Strübind, K. 1, 5, 61, 71, 129 Sugimoto, T. 2, 5 Tadmor, H. 62 Talstra, E. 157 Then, R. 132 Throntveit, M.A. 1, 67, 70, 76, 94, 97, 124, 149, 163, 166 Tsevat, M. 115 Ulrich, E.C.

53

Van den Bussche, H. 32 Vermeylen, J. 92 Vries, S.J. De 2, 10, 111, 119, 132 Vriezen, Th.C. 25 Wallace, H.N. 169–170 Watt, J.W. 170 Weinberg, J.P. 1, 8, 10, 132, 178, 184, 185, 187 Weippert, M. 73

index of authors Wellhausen, J. 4 Welten, P. 61, 68, 81, 107, 122, 164, 177 Westermann, Cl. 64 Wildberger, H. 75 Willi, Th. 1, 5, 17, 70, 73, 109, 132, 158, 165 Williams, P.J. 25 Williamson, H.G.M. 1, 8, 24, 41–42, 115, 118, 124, 147, 156, 174, 189 Wilson, R.R. 7

207

Woude, A.S. van der 74 Wright, A.G. 4, 87 Wright, J.W. 1, 2, 47, 49, 102, 178, 185 Zakovitch, Y. 28 Zeitlin, A. 87 Zeron, A. 87–88 Zobel, H.J. 189 Zunz, L. 4

INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES Hebrew Bible Genesis 12–50 22–23 23:9 49:4

18 27–29 27 23

Exodus 14:13–14 14:31

74 98

Leviticus 10 26:34–35.43

87–88 133

Numbers 10:35–36

173

Deuteronomy 2:1–22

69

1 Samuel 17:47

73, 184

2 Samuel 24 24:13 24:16 24:18

45–59 59 58 58

1 Kings 8:29

159

2 Kings 18–20 19:35

91–98 57

Isaiah 7:9 37:35 41:8 55:3

75–77, 95–98 57 67 173–174

Jeremiah 25:11–12 29:10–14 31:16

133 133 138

Hosea 3:4

137

Amos 3:9

138

Zechariah 8:10

137

Zephaniah 3:16

138

Psalms 39:13 96 105 105:12 106 132:8–10

152 170 170 171 170 159, 171–172

1 Chronicles 1–5 1–9 1:28 1:34 2:1–2 2:3–4:23 2:55 3:4–5 4:9–10 5:1–3 5:18–22 5:20 5:28–41 6:16–17 8:28 9:3 9:17–33 9:34 10:13–14 14 15:3 16:8–36 16:19 16:41

18–29 116–121, 188–190 20 20, 109 21 26–27 144 117 143–145 23–26 181–182 143 118–119 119 120 121 190 120 33 33 123 169–171 171 175

index of textual references 17 17:1–3 17:16–27 17:27 21 21:1–6 21:7–14 21:12 21:15 21:15–22:1 21:17 21:18 22:2 22:6–10 22:8 22:9 22:11–13 27:23 28:1 28:9 29:10–13 29:10–20 29:12 29:29

31–44, 103–104 39–40 42–44, 146–149 43–44 45–59 46–49 49–51 59 58 51–54 52–53 58 36 36 181 155, 181 41 109 123 41 152 149–153 65, 161 131

2 Chronicles 1:1–13 1:8–10 1:11–12 3:1 5:13 6:3–11 6:12–42

153 153–155 155 110 175 156 142, 157–159

6:20 6:40–42 6:42 7:3.6 7:17–18 13:3 14:8–9 15:1–7 15:2 15:3–6 18 20 20:6 20:6–13 20:10–11 20:14–17 20:15 20:20 20:21 21:12–15 26 26:5–15 26:16–21 29–32 30 30:18–19 31:16–19 32:10 32:19 32:21 36:16 36:21–22

209 159 142, 171–174 173–174 175 41 183 183 133–135 135–137 137–139 129 61–77 65, 161 63–71, 160–167 67 71–74 73, 184 74–77, 95–98 175 130 79–90 79–81 81–86 91–98 124 167–169 190 182 125–127 57 95, 131 133

Septuagint 2 Samuel 24:17

53

Qumran 4QSam a 24:16–20

55

4QOrd b [4Q513] 2.2.1

168

Halakhic Letter [MMT B] 23, 65, 68 168

210

index of textual references Jewish Sources

Ben Sira 45:25

168

Targum Neofiti I Gen 49:3

26

Targum Jerushalmi I Gen 49:3

26

Sifra Mesora 5:7–9

89

Flavius Antiq. Antiq. Antiq.

48 131 88–89

Josephus Jud. VII 318 Jud. VIII 231 Jud. IX 222–223

‫‪INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪178–181‬‬ ‫‪66, 161‬‬ ‫‪65–66, 161‬‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫‪81–82, 84‬‬ ‫‪85‬‬ ‫‪50, 130–131‬‬ ‫‪35–37, 173‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫‪158‬‬ ‫‪39, 43, 83,‬‬ ‫‪147‬‬ ‫‪144–145‬‬ ‫‪76, 80, 97‬‬ ‫‪153‬‬ ‫‪82, 85‬‬ ‫‪50, 130‬‬ ‫‪169‬‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫‪167‬‬ ‫‪51, 82‬‬ ‫‪68–70, 164,‬‬ ‫‪166‬‬ ‫‪158‬‬

‫מדרש‬ ‫מלחמה‬ ‫ממלכות הארצות‬ ‫ממלכות הגוים‬ ‫מעד‬ ‫מעל‬ ‫מצח‬ ‫נביא‬ ‫נוח‬ ‫עזב‬ ‫עזרה‬ ‫עמד‬ ‫עצב‬ ‫צלח‬ ‫)‪ (noun‬קהל‬ ‫קטר‬ ‫)‪ (noun‬ראה‬ ‫רפא‬ ‫שטן‬ ‫שחט הפסח‬ ‫שחת‬ ‫שפט‬ ‫תורה‬

‫‪181‬‬ ‫‪181‬‬ ‫‪126–127‬‬ ‫‪39, 42–43,‬‬ ‫‪147–148, 154‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪86‬‬ ‫‪37–38‬‬ ‫‪63, 80, 118,‬‬ ‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪65–67,‬‬ ‫‪160–163‬‬ ‫‪50, 130‬‬ ‫‪80–82‬‬ ‫‪173–174‬‬ ‫‪168‬‬ ‫‪168‬‬ ‫‪187–191‬‬ ‫‪69–70, 165‬‬ ‫‪115–127‬‬ ‫‪157–158‬‬ ‫‪180‬‬

‫איש מלחמות‬ ‫איש מנוחה‬ ‫אלהי ירושלם‬ ‫אמן‬ ‫אשמה‬ ‫בחר‬ ‫בטח‬ ‫בית החפשות‬ ‫בכסף מלא‬ ‫בקש את יהוה‬ ‫בנה בית‬ ‫דרש יהוה‬ ‫הלא‬ ‫)‪ (noun‬חזה‬ ‫חזק‬ ‫חסדי דויד‬ ‫טהרת הקדש‬ ‫יהוה הטוב‬ ‫יחש‬ ‫ירשה‬ ‫ירשלים‬ ‫כיור‬ ‫לחם‬

Studia Semitica Neerlandica www.brill.nl/ssn ISSN 0081-6914

Studia Semitica Neerlandica comprises of studies on the linguistics and literature of one the Semitic languages or the Semitic languages as a whole. Studies on texts written in one of the Semitic languages or texts that deal with the history and culture of groups speaking a Semitic language also fall within the scope of this series. 18. Koster, M.D. The Peshitta of Exodus. The development of its text in the course of fifteen centuries. 1997. ISBN 978 90 232 1503 5 23. Fokkelman, J.P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A full interpretation based on stylistic and structural analyses Volume II. The crossing fates (I Sam. 13-31 & II Sam. 1). 1986. ISBN 978 90 232 2175 3 24. Regt, L.J. de. A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus. Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1-30. 1988. ISBN 978 90 232 2381 8 26. Fontaine, T.A.M. In Defence of Judaism: Abraham Ibn Daud. Sources and Structure of ha-Emunah ha-Ramah. 1990. ISBN 978 90 232 2404 4 27. Fokkelman, J.P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A full interpretation based on stylistic and structural analysis Volume III. Throne and City (II Sam. 2-8 & 21-24). 1990. ISBN 978 90 232 2546 1 28. Verhey, A.J.C. Verbs and Numbers. A Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. 1990. ISBN 978 90 232 2572 0 29. Siebesma, P.A. The Function of the niph'al in Biblical Hebrew. In relationship to other passive-reflexive verbal sytems and to the pu'al and hoph'al in particular. 1991. ISBN 978 90 232 2594 2 31. Fokkelman, J.P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A full interpretation based on stylistic and structural analyses Volume IV. Vow and desire (I.Sam. 1-12). 1993. ISBN 978 90 232 2738 0 32. Endo, Y. The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story. An Approach form Discourse Analysis. 1996. ISBN 978 90 232 3093 9 33. Kouwenberg, N.J.C. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. 1997. ISBN 978 90 232 3255 1 34. Rodrigues Pereira, A.S. Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c.100 B.C.E.-c. 600 C.E). Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems. 1997. ISBN 978 90 232 3260 5 35. Johnson Lim Teng Kok. The Sin of Moses and the Staff of God. A Narrative Approach. 1997. ISBN 978 90 232 3261 2 36. Rosenbaum, M. Word-order Variation in Isaiah 40-55. A Functional Perspective. 1998. ISBN 978 90 232 3262 9 37. Fokkelman, J.P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis. Volume I: Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3. 1998. ISBN 978 90 232 3367 1 38. Coetzee, A.W. Tiberian Hebrew Phonology. Focussing on consonant clusters. 1999. ISBN 978 90 232 3431 9

39. Regt, L.J. de. Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator. Reference Devices and their Rhetorical Impact. 1999. ISBN 978 90 232 3444 9 40. Abma, R. Bonds of Love. Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50: 1-3 and 54: 1-10, Hosea 1-3, Jeremiah 2-3). 1999. ISBN 978 90 232 3509 5 41. Fokkelman, J.P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible. At the interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis - Volume II: 85 Psalms and Job 4-14. 2000. ISBN 978 90 232 3381 7 42. Kessler, M. Battle of the Gods: The God of Israel Versus Marduk of Babylon. A Literary / Theological Interpretation of Jeremiah 50-51. 2003. ISBN 978 90 232 3909 3 43. Fokkelman, J.P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible. At the interface of Prosody and Structutal Analysis - Volume III: The Remaining 65 Psalms. 2003. ISBN 978 90 232 3936 9 44. Rogland, M. Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew. 2003. ISBN 978 90 232 3973 4 45. Shepherd, D. Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job. 2004. ISBN 978 90 232 4017 4 46. Kalimi, I. An Ancient Israelite Historian. Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing. 2005. ISBN 978 90 232 4071 6 47. Fokkelman, J.P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible. At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis - Volume IV: Job 15-42. 2004. ISBN 978 90 232 4072 3 48. Keulen, P.S.F. van and W.Th. van Peursen. Corpus Linguistics and Textual History. 2006. ISBN 978 90 232 4194 2 49. Malessa, M. Untersuchungen zur verbalen Valenz im biblischen Hebräisch. 2006. ISBN 978 90 232 4240 6 50. Zaman, L. Bible and Canon. A Modern Historical Inquiry. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16743 8 51. Deijl, A. van der. Protest or Propaganda. War in the Old Testament Book of Kings and in Contemporaneous Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16855 8 52. Beentjes, P.C. Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 17044 5