More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Chronicles, on the other hand, is more traditional than Ezra–Nehemiah in the form of its history writing and continues to a great measure the literary tradition of earlier biblical historiography, in particular the Deuteronomistic, but at the same time deviates from its predecessor in its theological purpose and general understanding of the history of Israel. Chronicles is not a limited theodicy for a specific crisis, but an attempt to find the general principles which govern the history of Israel. ‘History’, according to Chronicles, is a series of concrete expressions of the Lord’s rule of
...more
The northern kingdom is thus not absent from Chronicles. It is presented – with everything that the Chronicler found in his sources – from the perspective of Judah.
Chronicles is a comprehensive expression of the perpetual need to renew and revitalize the religion of Israel. It makes an extremely important attempt to affirm the meaningfulness of contemporary life without severing ties between the present and the sources of the past; in fact, it strengthens the bond between past and present and proclaims the continuity of Israel’s faith and history.
This list contains the most comprehensive enumeration of the Canaanite peoples, who together with Canaan himself number twelve, probably paralleling the twelve sons of Israel (Pseudo-Rashi, Kimhi).
Both were renamed by God as an act of special grace and symbolic blessing. However, while Abraham’s original name is still cited and the change noted, Jacob is always called ‘Israel’ throughout Chronicles
the overall purpose of the genealogical introduction of I Chron. 1–9 is to portray the pre-Davidic background from which the history of Israel will unfold.
For the Chronicler, very much more than for the Deuteronomist, Judah plays the central role in the history of Israel.
Indeed, one of the goals of these genealogies is the inclusion, rather than exclusion, of the non-Israelite elements in the people of Israel, by presenting them as an organic part of the tribes, mainly in the status of ‘wives’ or ‘concubines’.
It is precisely these historical difficulties which emphasize the Chronicler’s intentions: to establish some kind of genealogy for the Zerahites, and to weave into his genealogical fabric as many as possible of the historical figures appearing in his narrative sources but which he does not mention in his own narrative sections.
the list is a sophisticated composition, numbering ten generations from Judah to Jesse and purporting to depict the family of Jesse as rooted in the most ancient and venerated of Judean families.
Jether (II Sam. 17.25, Jethra) is designated here as an Ishmaelite, while he is called ‘Israelite’ in Samuel. This is one of many instances where Chronicles probably preserves the original version, changed in Samuel for apologetic reasons.
Of special interest in this context is the connection between the Calebites and the town of Hebron, which, notwithstanding the somewhat corrupt reading of v. 42b (cf. below), is firmly established. Hebron is the ‘son’ of Caleb’s (grand)son, Mareshah, and the father of four other ‘sons’, of whom two (Tapuah and Shema) may also indicate place names. This could mean that the Calebites expanded to Hebron, and from there to farther areas in the territory of Judah. It was probably the weight of this tradition which also caused the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets to adopt and emphasize the
...more
The formula ‘to this day’ in Chronicles is restricted, almost exclusively, to parallel texts (cf. II Chron. 5.9//I Kings 8.8; II Chron. 10.19//I Kings 12.19, etc.).
The Chronicler utilizes the two records. Drawing from each passage the details he prefers, he creates a completely new historical structure: (a) the subject of the passage is the first exile, that of Tiglath-pileser; however, the places to which the Israelites were exiled are cited from the record of the second exile. (b)
The Chronicler recalls the sins of the Transjordanian tribes in order to justify their exile, and he uses harsh words, resembling those referring to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in the time of Zedekiah.
With these far-reaching reformulations, the Chronicler has created a new historical and theological scene: although the north-western part of the land has suffered from some violent incursions, it underwent no fundamental change. In spite of temporary failure, the majority of the Israelites remained settled in their ancient territories and were expecting the return of their brethren (II Chron. 30.6–9, cf. in detail there). The only complete failure, an exile from which there was no reprieve, was that of the Israelites in Trans-jordan. This reconstruction presents an important expression of the
...more
It is therefore likely that the context for the original promulgation of the list is to be sought in the figure of Jehozadak (v. 15) who now concludes it. The death of Seraiah, Jehozadak’s father, is narrated in II Kings 25.18–21//Jer. 52.24–27, but the present passage is our only evidence, not only of Jehozadak’s Aaronide ancestry, but also of his kinship to Seraiah. Here, then, we have the key to the levitical/Aaronide legitimacy of Joshua, the high priest of the Restoration period (Hag. 1.1, etc; Ezra 3.2, etc), and the missing link between the priesthood of the First and Second Temple.
with a dilemma: he is described as an ‘Ephrathite’ (= Ephraimite, I Sam. 1.1) and yet, as ‘ministering to the Lord under Eli’ (I Sam. 3.1), a task which was by definition considered levitical. Here, then, an effort is being made to present Samuel as a Levite, a descendant of Kohath. Since, however, Samuel is not a very significant figure in Chronicles, this effort is hardly a product of the Chronicler’s own genealogical goals; it must have answered some contemporary need. And indeed, in the following section, the founder-singer ‘Heman’ is introduced as Samuel’s grandson. It is for his
...more
(c) The list itself is a perfect reflection of the unity and completeness of the people of Israel. It contains all the tribal units – including the two half-tribes of Manasseh and the inner division of the Levites (cf. also I Chron. 12. 24–28) – 15 components altogether. It therefore serves one of the Chronicler’s main aims – to depict the whole people of Israel in all its elements, settled in its land.
It should be noted that according to the Pentateuch’s portrayal of the history of Israel, this Manassite-Aramaean ambience was actualized only during the tribal settlement after the Exodus, and had nothing to do with the individual figure ‘Manasseh the son of Joseph’, who spent his whole life in Egypt, and whose son Machir as well as his grandsons were born there (Gen. 50.23). The Chronicler, by contrast, conceives of the bond between the Manassites and the Aramaeans as going back to the person of Manasseh himself. In this respect, the Chronicler’s picture of Manasseh resembles that of Judah;
...more
The Bible in several places narrates the construction of cities (Gen. 4.17; 10.11; Judg. 1.26; 1 Kings 16.34, etc.), but there is never a woman among the builders. The author here credits Sheerah with founding not only the city which bears her name (Uzzen-sheerah) but two other important towns – upper and lower Beth-horon – in the hill country of Ephraim.
Therefore, while the actual historical background and the geographical, political and social presuppositions of the events can be learned from the book of Samuel and its commentaries, the full meaning of the chapter, in general and in detail, can only be appreciated from its actual context in Chronicles.
the Chronicler’s version broadens the scope of the defeat: not only Saul and his sons died on that day but ‘all his house died together’.
the Chronicler omits from the summary not only the armour-bearer, but what is more significant: ‘all his men’. The result is clear: the overthrow of the house of Saul is utter and complete – but this is all. The death of ‘all his men’ is passed over in silence.
From his point of view the kingship of David over all Israel was a direct and immediate outcome of the battle of Gilbo’a. As far as his historical conception is concerned the kingdom of Ish-bosheth and the partial kingdom of David never existed.
All in all, the Chronistic reworking of the story smoothes the rough edges and moderates the extremes: the scope of the defeat, the disgrace of Saul and his sons, the geographical expansion of the Philistines and the heroic acts of the people of Jabesh-gilead are mitigated by carefully chosen changes, while interference with the original is kept to a minimum.
The actual addition of the Chronicler is only in one detail, that Saul ‘did not seek guidance from the Lord’, which is an unavoidable conclusion from some of his basic suppositions. According to I Sam. 28.6 it was only out of absolute distress that Saul turned to a medium, for ‘when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him’. According to Chronicles it was Saul’s free choice. The possibility that God would not answer his seekers is inconceivable for the Chronicler. His general rule is expressed very clearly: ‘If you seek him, he will be found by you’ (II Chron. 15.2).
The significance of vv. 13–14 lies as much in what they do not say as in what they say. The tendency revealed in the reworking of the story, to play down the role of the people and to concentrate on Saul and his house, is developed even further here; the people are omitted altogether. This is all in sharp contrast to the Chronicler’s general practice of emphasizing the people’s role, which we will encounter again and again elsewhere (cf. for the time being, Japhet, Ideology, 416–28). Here the concluding remarks deal only with Saul, his sins and his fate.
To sum up: with introductions completed and uncertainties solved, the proper history of Israel now begins. From David onward, the central factor of Israel’s political existence, its royal dynasty, is established – soon to be followed by the implementation of all the religious institutions. This is surely in one sense a point of beginning; yet, in the continuum which is the life of Israel, it is merely a turning point.
A careful comparison of the parallel texts will show how the method followed in the omission of the various elements from the text demonstrates one form of editing characteristic of the Chronicler: a strict adherence to the literal sequence of the source, the transference of certain parts verbatim or with only minor changes, and the complete omission of other elements along the way.
The omission of ‘the son of Zeruiah’ is probably a matter of style, an example of the Chronicler’s economy of expression and his inclination to avoid unnecessary details.
One of the features of the Deuteronomistic historiography is its systematic neglect of a major source of historical data: the whole range of lists, geographical, genealogical, etc. The Chronicler, on the other hand, made ample use of such materials, of various forms and origins. The very existence of lists and their importance as a historical source cannot be doubted, and it is very likely that such lists were extant for the particular historical setting in question.
In such circumstances the gathering of organized, armed troops, from all quarters of the land, is historically inconceivable. Moreover, the very idea of such an armed force at that time is highly improbable. If such an army ever existed, could it have remained so well organized immediately after the defeat at Mount Gilbo’a? And further, one of the basic problems of Saul’s army was that of arms: ‘Now there was no smith to be found throughout all the land of Israel . . . so on the day of the battle there was neither spear nor sword found in the hand of any of the people’ (I Sam. 13.19–22). The
...more
All this, which at first glance seems so un-Chronistic, is really deeply rooted in the Chronicler’s view of the history of worship in Israel. In Hebron, the scene of the enthronement, according to the Chronicler’s view there was no sanctuary, and no ritual could have taken place there. Therefore the religious element is intentionally and consciously omitted from the picture. Another result of the same sensitivity is the inclusion of the conquest of Jerusalem as synchronous to the enthronement, and the description of the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem as the first act of David the king (I
...more
The role of ch. 14 is to demonstrate, in unequivocal terms, the blessing bestowed on David.
This context represents a twofold expansion in the application of the title: a full parallelism between ‘prophet’ and ‘anointed one’ (probably also in the Damascus Covenant, 5.21–6.1), and the inclusion of the three patriarchs in the category of prophets.
The main purpose of the tradition about ‘the tabernacle at Gibeon’ is to present a line of unbroken continuity in the cultic establishment of Israel from its inception by Moses to the kingdom of David and Solomon.
This chapter is the only instance in Chronicles in which the period of the judges is referred to explicitly (for an implicit reference cf. II Chron. 15.13ff., cf. ad loc.).
In II Sam. 7 the prayer concludes with a supplication: ‘may it please thee to bless . . . for . . . with thy blessing shall the house of thy servant be blessed for ever’ (v. 29). In Chronicles, the conclusion opens from an opposite angle: David regards himself not as someone who is still to be blessed, but as someone who has already received blessing through the very word of God! David, therefore, ends his prayer fully recognizing the grace which he has already received, and blessing God in turn: ‘For you O Lord have blessed and are blessed for ever’ (JPS). The Chronicler thus concluded
...more
However, some of the material omitted (e.g. II Sam. 9) portrays David in a favourable light. To account for this fact we must add to the Chronicler’s overall historical motivation another element: his reluctance to relate the private affairs of his protagonists, and his preference to stress the public and political aspects of their lives.
The situation depicted in this verse and the serious results for the Ammonites are strikingly parallel to another story – the division of the kingdom in I Kings 12.
factors which determined the rise of David and his success, one should not ignore the human and religious elements which turned the political options into reality.
The story ends with a narrative conclusion, ‘Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem’, with no reference to some basic details which may have been of interest to the historian: the status of Ammon after the conquest, the fate of Hanun the king, etc. Even the standard formulas which recurred in ch. 18, regarding Moab, Aram and Edom, are absent in this context. It is significant, however, that Solomon’s first queen, Rehoboam’s mother, was to be an Ammonite – a matter which no doubt should be interpreted politically.
Accordingly, I Chron. 21.1 has been taken to represent the ultimate stage in the development of the figure of Satan as the embodiment of evil, and the nearest in the Bible to a dualistic concept of the divine.
While in Zechariah and Job Satan is one of the ‘sons of God’, acting within the circle of the divine court where he accuses man and incites God against him, in the present context this figure is fully anchored in the human sphere. There is no reference to any activity in the divine realm and his incitement is against David, not God.
The additional clause in Chronicles, ‘why should he bring guilt upon Israel’, is a key to the Chronicler’s specific mode of reworking. Although II Sam. suggests that the census may cause a disaster, it is not defined explicitly as a sin. This is done in Chronicles, which sees the census as a cause of ‘guilt’. Moreover, the incurring of the guilt ‘upon Israel’ anticipates a theological difficulty raised by the story in its present form. Already in David’s words in II Sam. 24.17, the question of the people’s responsibility is raised: ‘I have sinned . . . but these sheep, what have they done?’ A
...more
Another difference between the parallel texts is in the duration of the famine: ‘three years’ in v. 12 against seven years in II Sam. 24.13. It is commonly accepted that Chronicles preserves the original reading, in view of the pattern ‘three years’, ‘three months’ and ‘three days’, in descending order.
This implies that the suggested punishments are of equal severity. By contrast, in Chronicles the propositions themselves are not equal but lengthen progressively. Thus, by the order in which the choices are presented, and even by their length, a certain gradation is created, the last being the most severe. This literary structure determines, as it were, the unavoidable choice: the last, the most severe, the punishment which comes directly from God.
The Chronicler’s contribution to the development of the concept lies in seeing the connection between ‘rest’ and ‘Temple building’ not as circumstantial but as essential: he who is not a ‘man of rest’ is ‘a man of war’ (cf. 28.3), and as such is prevented not only in practice but on principle from building a house for the Lord.
Yet, the force of absolute concepts is stronger than any logic: however necessary these wars may have been for the fulfilment of God’s plan for Israel, the objective fact remained that blood was shed; this, according to Chronicles, was David’s paradoxical and tragic flaw.
