Chronicles Through the Centuries (Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries) [1 ed.] 9781118690086, 9781118690062, 9781118690079, 1118690087

Citation preview

Chronicles

Through the Centuries

Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries Series Editors: John Sawyer, Christopher Rowland, Judith Kovacs, David M. Gunn John Through the Centuries Mark Edwards Revelation Through the Centuries Judith Kovacs & Christopher Rowland Judges Through the Centuries David M. Gunn Exodus Through the Centuries Scott M. Langston Ecclesiastes Through the Centuries Eric S. Christianson Esther Through the Centuries Jo Carruthers Psalms Through the Centuries: Volume I Susan Gillingham Galatians Through the Centuries John Riches

Pastoral Epistles Through the Centuries Jay Twomey 1 & 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries Anthony C. Thiselton Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries Richard Coggins and Jin H. Han Lamentations Through the Centuries Paul M. Joyce and Diana Lipton James Through the Centuries David Gowler Chronicles Through the Centuries Blaire A. French The Acts of the Apostles Through the Centuries Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons

Forthcoming

1 & 2 Samuel Through the Centuries David M. Gunn 1 & 2 Kings Through the Centuries Martin O’Kane Psalms Through the Centuries: Volume II Susan Gillingham Song of Songs Through the Centuries Fiona Black Isaiah Through the Centuries John F. A. Sawyer Jeremiah Through the Centuries Mary Chilton Callaway Ezekiel Through the Centuries Andrew Mein Mark Through the Centuries Christine Joynes Romans Through the Centuries Paul Fiddes 1 Corinthians Through the Centuries Jorunn Okland

Genesis 1–21 Through the Centuries Christopher Heard Genesis 22–50 Through the Centuries Christopher Heard Deuteronomy Through the Centuries Jonathan Campbell Daniel Through the Centuries Dennis Tucker Luke Through the Centuries Mark Bilby Matthew Through the Centuries Ian Boxall Colossians and Philemon Through the Centuries Harry O. Maier Numbers Through the Centuries Ryan P. O’Dowd Job Through the Centuries David Tollerton and Stephen J. Vicchio

Chronicles

Through the Centuries Blaire A. French

This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148‐5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley‐blackwell. The right of Blaire A. French to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in ­preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Names: French, Blaire A., author. Title: Chronicles through the centuries / by Blaire A. French. Description: Hoboken : Wiley, 2016. | Series: Wiley Blackwell Bible commentaries |   Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016031602 (print) | LCCN 2016033473 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118690086 (cloth) |   ISBN 9781118690062 (pdf) | ISBN 9781118690079 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Chronicles–Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1345.52 .F74 2016 (print) | LCC BS1345.52 (ebook) | DDC 222/.606–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016031602 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: William Blake, ‘Satan going forth from the presence of the Lord, and Job’s charity’, from the Book of Job, 1825. © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge / The Bridgeman Art Library. Set in 10/12.5pt Minion by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For Calum Carmichael, an exemplary scholar, mentor, and friend

Contents Acknowledgmentsix Introduction1

Part 1: The Genealogies

13

1. The Genealogies

15

Part 2: The Reign of David

41

2. David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise 3. David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site 4. David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death

45 63 82

viii Contents

Part 3: The Reigns of Solomon and the Kings of Judah 5. The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa 6. The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz 7. The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah 8. The Reign of Manasseh

103 107 129 148 166

Coda A 187 Coda B 190 Glossary of Names and Terms 193 Abbreviations201 Bibliography203 Author Index 219 Scriptural Index 223 Subject Index 231

Acknowledgments I should like to express my gratitude first and foremost to Calum Carmichael, whose encouragement and guidance sustained me throughout this project. I also thank Martien Halvorson‐Taylor, whose love of the Hebrew Bible inspired my own. Under her expert direction as my thesis advisor at the University of Virginia, I developed the arguments presented in this work. Judith Kovacs, who is an editor of this series and by chance a former teacher and now close friend,  provided invaluable insights all along the way. John Sawyer and David Gunn, also editors of this series, meticulously edited my manuscript, and David Gunn assisted in selecting the artwork. At Wiley Blackwell, I thank Felicity Marsh for her skillful and careful copy editing, Vimali Joseph for her able assistance at the final stages of production, and Rebecca Harkin, who oversaw this book from inception to publication. Lastly, thanks go to my husband, James Ceaser, who painstakingly commented on every page, sentence, comma, and period.

Introduction In May 1690, French soldiers and their Indian allies raided the Anglo‐ American settlement in Casco Bay, Maine, brutally killing many of its ­inhabitants. The attack was one of many in King William’s War (1688–1697), a bitter struggle between France and England for sovereignty in the New World. Among the Abenaki Indians’ captives were Hannah Swarton, her three sons, and a daughter. Within two months, her eldest boy had been killed and the other children taken away. Swarton remained a prisoner, first of the Indians and then of the French, for five years. Following her release

Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2  Chronicles Through the Centuries she provided an account of her ordeal, singling out the book of Chronicles as her main source of consolation: And 2 Chron. 6.36, 37, 38, 39. was a precious Scripture to me, in the Day of Evil. We have Read over, and Pray’d over, this Scripture together, and Talk’d together of this Scripture, Margaret [a fellow captive] and I; How the Lord hath Promised, Though they were Scattered for their Sins, yet there should be a Return, if they did Bethink themselves, and Turn, and Pray. So we did Bethink our selves in the Land where we were Carried Captive, did Turn, did Pray, and Endeavour to Return to God with all our Hearts: And, as they were to Pray towards the Temple, I took it, that I should Pray towards Christ; and accordingly did so, and hoped the Lord would Hear, and He hath Heard from Heaven, His Dwelling Place, my Prayer and Supplication, and mentained my Cause, and not Rejected me, but Returned me. (C. Mather 1697: 70–71)

Swarton found justification in Chronicles of her suffering as well as a roadmap for deliverance. Her testimonial circulated widely as an appendix to a published sermon by Cotton Mather (1663–1728), the leading Puritan minister of his time. In his homily, Mather also focused on Chronicles, referencing another verse that spoke of salvation through humiliation and repentance (2 Chr 12:7) (C. Mather 1697). Swarton’s account was added to reinforce a prominent theme of Chronicles: God rewards the true penitent. While Chronicles’ distinctive offerings have attracted devoted readers like Swarton and Mather in every age, for many today the book is unfamiliar ­terrain. Some modern commentators go so far as to judge Chronicles to be one of the least influential and interesting books of the Bible. They cite in particular its opening nine chapters of genealogies as a major stumbling block, causing ­readers to give up the fight even before they begin, and further characterize its narrative as repetitious (duplicating large portions of Samuel and Kings) and  overly pious. In Chronicles’ account, most of David’s wrongdoings are omitted, as are those of Solomon. Also missing are many colorful triumphs, including David’s contest with Goliath and Solomon’s legendary judgment on the baby claimed by two mothers. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author of the popular ­volume Biblical Literacy, declares that Chronicles is “the least read of the Bible’s h ­ istorical books” (Telushkin 1997: 395), and the claim is not baseless. Anyone searching for selections from Chronicles in the Revised Common Lectionary  –  the three‐year cycle of weekly readings for Protestant churches – will seek in vain. Yet Chronicles’ reception history demonstrates that it has commanded a highly attentive audience. Saint Jerome (c.347–420) was drawn to its succinct

Introduction  3 rendition of Israel’s past from Adam to the end of the Babylonian exile, and his admiration spawned its modern title. Jerome lauded the book for giving its readers “a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history” (Hieronymi Prologus Galeatus, NPNF2 6.490). For Jerome and countless other interpreters, up to and including the present, Chronicles’ offer of an alternative to the books of Samuel and Kings (primarily) is precisely what makes the book so significant. Its differences and deviations create interpretive opportunities for readers. In some cases, the variations can be dramatic. For instance, in Chronicles the prophet Oded admonishes his fellow Israelites of the Northern Kingdom to  return their Judean prisoners, captured during Israel’s victory over King Ahaz. After clothing, feeding, and anointing their captives, the Israelites do so (2 Chr 28:8–15). This account, entirely absent from Kings, may have inspired the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 10:25–37). Chronicles’ small and subtle shifts in tone or emphasis can be equally potent. The verses Swarton singled out (KJV 2 Chr 6:36–39) closely parallel Solomon’s dedication prayer in Kings (KJV 1 Kgs 8:46–50), but the wording is not quite identical. In Chronicles, Solomon implores God alone for relief, whereas in Kings he includes a plea for the compassion of Israel’s captors. In choosing Chronicles, Swarton kept the focus on God’s acceptance of repentance and a return from captivity, to the exclusion of everything else. The history of Chronicles’ reception is largely shaped by interpreters who have opted to stray from the account of Israel contained in Genesis through Kings, what David Noel Freedman has well termed the “primary history” (1962). In these instances, Chronicles’ version of events takes the place of, or is read alongside, what have tended to be considered the “standard” biblical accounts of Samuel and Kings. Even when it is not obvious, Chronicles almost always stands in relation to other passages of Scripture.

Chronicles as a Work of Reception In reception history, the reader, not the original author, is the focus of attention. Questions regarding the inception of biblical books  –  the historical critical ­concerns about who wrote what, where, when, and why  –  are subjects for another kind of inquiry. Chronicles, however, demands to be treated as an exception to this rule in that the Chronicler received and interpreted key texts that ultimately comprised part of the canon. Study of the reception history of Chronicles, therefore, needs to begin with consideration of the book itself as a work of reception. Ancient and contemporary commentators agree that the Chronicler lived during the Second Temple period (530 bce–70 ce) and that his writings postdate

4  Chronicles Through the Centuries the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. A saying from the tannatic period (c.70–200 ce) preserved in the Babylonian Talmud (compiled around 600 ce) ascribes the composition of the Pentateuch to Moses (with the exception of the record of his death, Dt 34:5–12), the book of Joshua (and Dt 34:5–12) to Joshua, the books of Judges and Samuel to Samuel, and the book of Kings to Jeremiah. As for Chronicles, the Babylonian Talmud holds that Ezra began the book and  Nehemiah finished it (b. B. Bat. 14b‐15a). Their assumed authorship of Chronicles is most likely due to the duplicate verses relaying the edict of Cyrus that end Chronicles and open Ezra, joining one narrative to the other (2 Chr 36:22–23; cf. Ezr 1:1–3a). Early Christian exegetes also considered Chronicles’ composition to be ­postexilic. Theodoret of Cyrus (393–460) explicitly classified Chronicles as a historical rather than a prophetic work and asserted that its contents proved it was written in the Second Temple era (Quaest. Reg. et Para. PG 80.857). Among modern biblical scholars, there is near universal agreement that the Chronicler drew on the Genesis–Kings narrative, and that the version he knew, whether through oral or written transmission, closely resembled what has come down to us in the Masoretic Text (MT, the standard text in Hebrew) (Kalimi 2005: 1–2; Knoppers 2003: 66; Schmid 2010: 287; Japhet 1993: 27). The majority of the Chronicler’s material came (directly or indirectly) from Samuel and Kings, and he derived great portions from these books almost ­verbatim. Many of his narratives, however, have no parallel in Samuel or Kings and, as already noted, even in the parallel passages there are small but sometimes crucial differences. It is this exceptional material (Sondergut), special to Chronicles, that has drawn the attention of readers through the centuries.

Chronicles’ David Chronicles is best known for its transformation of David from a gifted but imperfect king into a pious leader of the Temple cult. In Samuel/Kings, David has no role in the Temple’s construction or management (1 Kgs 5–8). In Chronicles, by contrast, David undertakes the preliminary work to lighten the burden on the young and inexperienced Solomon (1 Chr 22:5). He receives the building’s blueprint in writing from God (1 Chr 28:19) and arranges for the provision of the necessary materials for its construction (1 Chr 22:2–4, 14–15 29:1–5). Equally significantly, it is David who organizes the priests and assigns the Levites their functions (1 Chr 23:2–24:19; 2 Chr 8:14, 23:18, 29:25). Another striking feature of Chronicles’ David is that he is a unifying political figure from the outset, acclaimed king by Judah and Israel, the north and the south, in one fell swoop (1 Chr 11:1–3). In Samuel, after David is anointed king in Judah, seven years pass before Israel finally accepts him (2 Sm 5:5), and even

Introduction  5 then he must contend with rebellions (2 Sm 20). His own son Absalom nearly succeeds in usurping his throne (2 Sm 15–18). In Chronicles’ account, David’s rule is steadfast and without challenge. Chronicles’ David also appears without many of the shortcomings ascribed to him in Samuel/Kings. Missing from the Chronicler’s account is any mention of David’s adulterous intrigue with Bathsheba and his orchestration of Uriah’s death (2 Sm 11–12), his problematic relationship with the northern tribes (2 Sm 2:8–10, 16:5–8), and the difficulties with his children (2 Sm 13–15; 1 Kgs 1). Other differences also redound to David’s credit. In Chronicles, David is the seventh son of Jesse (1 Chr 2:15), not the eighth, as reported in Samuel (1 Sm 16:10–11, 17:12–14). Elsewhere in the Bible, seven sons signify God’s exceptional blessing (Ru 4:15; Jb 1:2, 42:13). Lastly, Chronicles’ David arranges for the smooth succession of Solomon to the throne before his death (1 Chr 29:10–28). The palace intrigues and settling of scores that mark the end of David’s life in Kings (1 Kgs 1–2) are nowhere to be found. Not all of David’s liabilities, however, are purged from Chronicles. As in Samuel, David conducts the census and invokes God’s wrath (though it is Satan, not God, who incites him) (1 Chr 21:1–17; cf. 2 Sm 24:1–17). It should also be noted that in at least one instance Chronicles goes beyond the other books in criticizing David. Only in Chronicles is David held to account by God for having “shed blood,” one of the most serious offenses in the Bible (1 Chr 22:8, 28:3; cf. Gn 9:6). David, like all others, is answerable for his deeds. For both good and ill, Chronicles’ David magnifies God’s watchfulness, a refrain that runs throughout the book.

The centrality of the Temple cult and Levitical service in Chronicles The establishment of the Temple cult is a defining moment for the Chronicler. Its preservation and maintenance, according to the standards set by David, become the obligation of all subsequent kings. In setting forth these standards, Chronicles’ David expands the role of the Levites far beyond the duties ascribed to them in the Pentateuch, designating to them Temple roles as officers, ­gatekeepers, bakers, and musicians (1 Chr 23:4–5, 28–32; 2 Chr 17:8–9; cf. Nm 1:50–53, 3:6–9, 4:1–3; Dt 17:8–9, 21:5, 24:8, 33:10). The importance of the Levites is highlighted by Chronicles’ account of the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem. According to the book of Samuel, the first attempt fails because Uzzah touched the ark, and David only summons the courage to try again after he has evidence that God’s wrath has abated (2 Sm 6:6–12). In Chronicles, David attributes that initial failure to the fact that the ark was borne by non‐ Levites. When he orders the Levites to perform their rightful task, its transfer is successful (1 Chr 15:11–15; cf. Dt 10:8).

6  Chronicles Through the Centuries Of the Levites’ new duties, the most extraordinary is the obligation to make music. David appointed Levitical singers and musicians to stand before the ark and invoke, thank, and praise God with cymbals, harps, and lyres (1 Chr 16:4– 5, 41, 23:5, 30). According to Chronicles, God commanded David to install the Levitical musicians (2 Chr 29:25), and the regulations governing the Levitical choir put their role on the same footing as those of the other divinely sanctioned offices of judge, priest, and prophet (Dt 16:18–18:22). Moreover, the Temple musicians are themselves prophets (1 Chr 25:1), and one of them is identified as “the king’s seer” (1 Chr 25:5). Many have found in Chronicles justification for instrumental music in the sanctuary, including Johann Sebastian Bach.

Chronicles’ theology of immediate reward and retribution In Chronicles, God is manifestly and promptly responsive to every deed and thought, and repentance in particular always meets with divine favor. When God threatens to abandon King Rehoboam and the people of Judah to King Shishak of Egypt for their sins, their penance saves them from destruction (2 Chr 12). The failure of King Asa to turn to God for deliverance, by contrast, merits divine reprisal (2 Chr 16). The seer Hanani notes God’s vigorous oversight of each individual: “For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the entire earth, to strengthen those whose heart is true to him” (2 Chr 16:9). The actions of monarchs are subject to the greatest scrutiny, and justice is usually meted out within the ruler’s lifetime. King Uzziah is immediately afflicted with leprosy following his attempt to usurp the role of the priests (2 Chr 26:16–21). When Jehoshaphat acknowledges Israel’s total dependence on God for salvation in the face of the enemy (“We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you,” 2 Chr 20:12), God answers with a swift and positive response. By contrast, in Samuel/Kings divine punishment for bad acts may be delayed for generations. The abominations of Kings’ Manasseh result in the fall of Judah long after his death (2 Kgs 21:10–15, 24:3–4). The piety of a monarch is more closely tied to his political fortunes in Chronicles than in Samuel/Kings. Manasseh, the longest reigning monarch in the history of Israel, remains in power despite his wickedness in Kings but because of his repentance in Chronicles (2 Kgs 21:1–18; 2 Chr 33). David also illustrates the point. In Chronicles, after the peaceful and divinely sanctioned succession of Solomon, David dies “at a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor” (1 Chr 29:28), whereas bloody and divisive struggles precede and follow his death in Kings (1 Kgs 1:1–2:12). For the Chronicler, there is always a clear correlation between civic conduct and religious devotion.

Introduction  7

Chronicles’ prophets Prophecy in Chronicles takes a different turn. In Samuel/Kings, the prophets are in some sense professionals, having a permanent calling and going by the title “prophet” or “prophetess” (e.g. 1 Sm 22:5; 2 Sm 7:2; 1 Kgs 11:29, 18:36; 2 Kgs 20:1, 22:14). In Samuel/Kings, there are also traveling bands of prophets (e.g. 1 Sm 10:10; 1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 4:1) and anonymous prophets (e.g. 1 Kgs 13:11, 18:4). All appear to engage in prophecy as a primary occupation. Chronicles mentions nearly all the prophets named in Samuel/Kings (the exception is Elisha), but, along with the Levites, introduces a new kind of medium. The spirit temporarily seizes (literally, “clothes”) these individuals, whom Yairah Amit aptly terms “pro tem” prophets (Amit 2006: 93), in a manner akin to the spirit’s possession of the judges in premonarchic Israel (e.g. Jgs 6:34, 14:19) and of King Saul (1 Sm 10:9–13). Examples include the military leader Amasai (1 Chr 12:18 (MT 1 Chr 12:19)), Azariah son of Oded (2 Chr 15:1), the Levite Jahaziel (2 Chr 20:14), and Zechariah, the son of a priest (2 Chr 24:20). Even more striking is that the role of the prophet changes. Unlike some of their counterparts in Samuel/Kings, Chronicles’ prophets neither perform miracles nor act as intercessors. Their purpose is strictly to relay messages between God and the king or Israel as a whole. In Kings, Elijah resurrects a widow’s child (1 Kgs 17:17–24) and Isaiah makes the shadow of the sundial move backwards as a sign to Hezekiah that God will heal him (2 Kgs 20:8–11). In Chronicles, Isaiah’s role is limited to praying with Hezekiah for the defeat of Sennacherib (2 Chr 32:20). As for Elijah, he does not even appear in person in Chronicles. He delivers his single prophecy of doom via a letter (2 Chr 21:12–15). The ordinariness of these interactions, combined with the character of Chronicles’ “pro tem” prophets, emphasized for many readers that anyone was capable of being a conduit of God’s will (Knoppers 2010). Chronicles goes so far as to extend the role of divine mediator to a non‐ Israelite monarch, proclaiming that “the Lord stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia” (2 Chr 36:22). In Chronicles’ closing verse, Cyrus declares that God has charged him to rebuild the Temple, and he urges exiled Israelites to return home (2 Chr 36:23). Chronicles states that his edict is a prophetic fulfillment, demonstrating that God rules over all, even foreign kings, and directs the course of world events (2 Chr 36:22).

Chronicles’ consistency and completeness Chronicles gives a synopsis of history from Adam to the end of exile that unfolds without interruption and in a consistent voice. It avoids or smooths over contradictions that arise elsewhere in the canon. Whereas in Samuel the

8  Chronicles Through the Centuries monarchy is first condemned (1 Sm 8:7–18) and then endorsed (9:15–17), Chronicles’ support of the office is unequivocal. Chronicles also harmonizes the conflicting directions for the preparation of the Passover sacrifice in Exodus and Deuteronomy (2 Chr 35:13; Ex 12:8–9; Dt 16:7). Most importantly, Chronicles recasts Genesis through Kings as a unified whole. Chronicles’ comprehensive and synthetic retelling has provided others with a platform and a template for articulating their own summation of the past. David’s religious leadership, the elevation of music and the Levites, concern for the Temple cult, God’s immediate attentiveness, the spontaneous and democratic spirit of prophesy, and the book’s sense of its own completeness are the primary spurs to Chronicles’ reception. These elements are the ones that present readers with unique exegetical openings for adapting the Bible to their own time.

The Significance of Chronicles’ History To the extent that modern biblical scholars consider Samuel/Kings to reflect real events, they usually consider Chronicles to be less trustworthy. The reason is that Chronicles is seen to follow a more deliberate theological design. They therefore debate whether the Chronicler was a historian. From the perspective of reception history, however, the veracity of Chronicles as a work of history is beside the point. What matters is how the Chronicler sought to derive meaning from the record of Israel’s past. Through selective recollection and strategic forgetting, the Chronicler reconfigured events and brought to the fore elements that lay in the background of Samuel and Kings. Chronicles’ David is the most important case. Its Torah‐observant king is very different from the flawed warrior who commits adultery and worse in Samuel. Nevertheless, as in Chronicles, Samuel’s David also sometimes displays great piety. In a poetic section at the end of 2 Samuel, David says, “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me … I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from guilt” (2 Sm 22:21, 24a; cf. Ps 18:20, 23 (MT Ps 18:21, 24)). It is this David whom the Chronicler retrieves and brings to life. The Chronicler’s account adapted and carried forward the traditions he inherited. In his national saga, David, Solomon, the Levites, and prophets – all different but still familiar – hold center stage, while the patriarchs, Moses, and the exodus recede far into the background. The Chronicler’s motivation for muting events that occurred before David’s reign remains a matter of dispute. There is one constant, however. Even though the Chronicler presents a new version of the past, his account, no less than that of Genesis or Samuel or Kings, continues to bear out the same theme: God’s involvement in the salvation of Israel.

Introduction  9

Chronicles’ Jostling for Authority Within the Canon Chronicles’ standing within the canon was challenged almost from the start. For some, Chronicles’ perceived “lateness” may have detracted from its authority. In the Hebrew Bible,the book appears in the category of the Writings, two removes from the Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy) and one remove from the Prophets (which include Samuel and Kings). If the ordering of the books represents a spectrum of sanctity, with the Pentateuch at the pinnacle, then Chronicles’ position implies it had lesser status than Samuel and Kings. It is perhaps for this reason that the first translators of the Bible into Syriac excluded Chronicles from the canon (Ben Zvi 1988: 77). Chronicles’ title, however, demonstrated that others during this same period ­valued Chronicles highly. Its name in Hebrew, “the events of the days” – a name given sometime before the second century ce (the Mishnah uses it in m. Yoma 1:6) – has strong positive connotations. A book with the same title plays a crucial role in Esther. When Mordecai foils a plot to kill King Ahasuerus, the incident is inscribed in “the book of the events of the days” (Est 2:23). Later, during a sleepless night, the king has the written account of the affair read back to him (Est 6:1). What he recalls sets in motion the story’s critical events to the great benefit of the Jews. Chronicles’ Greek designation in the Septuagint, “Things Omitted”  – a  name it acquired sometime in the first few centuries of the Common Era (if not before)1 – implies that Chronicles is a repository of information that is missing from the other historical books. Elsewhere the Septuagint indicates the importance of preserving and transmitting the full record of sacred history. Ezra the scribe is praised because he omits nothing of the Torah from his instruction of Israel (1 Esd 8:7). Chronicles’ doctrines were particularly attractive to ancient Christians interested in theology. The church fathers overwhelmingly favored Chronicles’ contrite King Manasseh over the unrepentant Manasseh in the book of Kings. God’s ­forgiveness of Chronicles’ Manasseh was a dramatic illustration of the central church teaching that even the most wicked can find redemption if they repent. 1   No one knows for sure when Septuagint Chronicles acquired its name. The translation of Chronicles into Greek occurred sometime before the middle of the second century bce, but our earliest copies of the Septuagint, complete with book titles, date to the third and fourth century ce. (The Septuagint is also the earliest witness to the division of Chronicles into two books.) Chronicles retained the name “Things Omitted” in the Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, and in the first English Bibles (e.g. the fourteenth-century Wyclif Bible). When Luther named the historical books in his 1524 translation, he was inspired by Jerome to abandon the Greek title in favor of “Die Chronika.” Miles Coverdale, following Luther, called the book “Chronicles” in his 1525 English translation. This is now its title in all translations of the Bible, including the Jewish Publication Society’s English translation of the Tanakh.

10  Chronicles Through the Centuries Also telling is the book’s place in the canon. In two important manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible – the Aleppo codex (tenth century ce) and the Leningrad codex (1009) – Chronicles comes at the beginning of the Writings, immediately preceding the Psalms. This arrangement may reflect a desire to closely link Chronicles’ David, with his intense interest in sacred music, to the Psalter, which, according to tradition, he authored (b. B. Bat. 14b). These codices ­conclude with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the Talmud, in the majority of medieval biblical manuscripts, and in the finalized form of the Hebrew Bible, however, Chronicles comes last within the Writings. This arrangement defies the natural order by making Chronicles follow, rather than precede, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, suggesting that it was more important to end the Jewish canon with Chronicles than to honor the logic of the narrative flow. The significance of being last becomes clear when one compares the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Christian Bible ends with The Revelation to John and its vision of a future apocalypse presided over by Christ. In the broad scheme of Christian soteriology, Chronicles is part of a greater history of events that culminates in this salvific moment. In concluding with Chronicles, by contrast, the Jewish Bible anchors its lengthy epic of Israel with a recapitulation of that history. The arrangement indicates that for the community that canonized Jewish Scripture, past events – not those of the future – hold the interpretive key to the present. Also, the final scene of Chronicles appears to parallel the ending of the Pentateuch. Like Deuteronomy, Chronicles closes with the people of Israel on the cusp of return to the land, perpetually poised to reclaim God’s covenantal promise.

The Scope and Organization of this Commentary If one were to describe the reception of Chronicles through the ages in musical terms, its rhythm would be staccato rather than legato. Whereas the books of Samuel and Kings have the sustained attention of readers, Chronicles’ audience comes and goes, depending on the times and circumstances. Accordingly, many different interpreters appear in the following pages, some repeatedly (such as the Geneva Bible glossators) and some only once (Hannah Swarton). Like left‐hand accompaniment on the piano, Chronicles is usually in a supportive role, adding background and texture to Samuel and Kings. Occasionally, however, its narrative dominates. The ancient period was particularly propitious for engaging Chronicles, as early Jewish and Christian readers explicated Chronicles in light of their emerging religions. Their exegesis was foundational for those who followed, and their interpretations figure prominently in these

Introduction  11 pages. The Reformation – particularly the production of vernacular Bibles and the succession crises in England – also proved favorable for those who plumbed Chronicles for relevancy. As old religious and political orders became transformed, Chronicles’ moral yardstick for rulers offered lay leaders and clerics alike biblical warrant to sanction or oppose church and state. Yet even when Chronicles’ readership appears to be largely quiescent, the book is never entirely out of view. The immense popularity of Bruce Wilkinson’s The Prayer of Jabez (2000), a book based on 1 Chronicles 4:10, shows that, in an age of widespread scriptural illiteracy, Chronicles is still capable of speaking to millions. The material special to Chronicles (its Sondergut) drives its reception. This volume therefore deals almost exclusively with verses and passages that are either unique to Chronicles or differ from their parallels elsewhere in Scripture, primarily Samuel/Kings and is divided into three parts: “The Genealogies,” “David,” and “Solomon and the Kings of Judah.” Each part begins with a brief overview before presenting the chapter(s) in the section. The chapters set forth specific Chronicles verses in successive order and highlight their significance for interpreters against the backdrop of the primary history. Two brief codas appear at the end. One coda describes the reception of Chronicles’ concluding verses, while the other outlines Julius Wellhausen’s treatment of Chronicles and its impact on modern readers. The receptions that follow are selected because they are deemed to reveal something important and interesting about an individual, a moment in history, or the practice of interpretation. One caveat: not all the kings of Judah are ­represented. Jehoram, Ahaziah, Amaziah, Jotham, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiachin are omitted. Also, because of the tremendous attention Chronicles’ Manasseh commanded, this volume devotes an entire chapter to him.

Part I The Genealogies

Chapter 1 The Genealogies In all of Scripture, there is nothing quite like the opening nine chapters of Chronicles. Starting with Adam, the first man, a series of genealogies records Israel’s various bloodlines before terminating with the residents of Judah in the late‐fifth century bce. The Chronicler begins his tale of the Judahite monarchy only when this recitation is complete. His interest in lineages was not unusual for a member of an ancient Mediterranean society. Prefacing an extended ­historical narrative with a catalog of descendants, however, sets Chronicles apart not only from the rest of the Bible but also from other ancient Near Eastern works (Knoppers 2003: 260). Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

16  Chronicles Through the Centuries For many modern readers, religious and secular, the unbroken cascade of unfamiliar names poses a near‐impassable hurdle. It is difficult to grasp the genealogies’ relevance in an age in which, upon making another’s acquaintance, one asks, “How (or what) do you do?” but never “From whom do you spring?” Patrick Henry Reardon, an Antiochian Orthodox priest and editor of Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity, describes a believer’s encounter today with Chronicles’ genealogies in these terms: Aware that the page in front of him is the Word of God, [the reader] is understandably hesitant to call it boring. Nonetheless, what is he to make of all these interminable names with no discernible narrative? He finds himself plodding through a primitive phone book, as it were, published long before the telephone was invented. This view would at least explain why the numbers are missing. (2006: 7)

The reception history of the genealogies reveals, however, that they are a­ nything but dull. Interpreters through the ages have brought the genealogies to bear on timeless concerns as well as on the most pressing questions of their day. These include the identity of the messiah, the scope of salvation, the standing of Jews in the world, and the divine right of kings. Here, as elsewhere, Chronicles’ exceptional verses provide exegetical purchase. The verses in the birthlists that differ from or are perceived to be in tension with other biblical books are those that have exploded with significance through interpretation. These deviations fall into three categories. First, Chronicles gives scant information about the people it lists. Chronicles’ opening verse  –  “Adam, Seth, Enosh” – is the shortest in the Bible (1 Chr 1:1), and that is all we hear of these three (Figure  1.1). Similarly, Abraham, his children, and Moses appear only as names, detached from any tales of the patriarchal age and the exodus experience. In reception, the book’s terseness proved to be an irritant. Various interpreters sought to correct Chronicles’ deficiency by discovering within the birthlists references to and elaborations of these narratives. Paradoxically, the genealogies’ brevity of content generated a substantial expansion of biblical tradition. Second, the Chronicler introduces many persons otherwise unknown. Some interpreters accepted his expansion of the sacred record at face value, others rejected it, and still others understood the names to be different monikers for well‐known biblical figures. These different approaches reflected the ebb and flow of readers’ confidence in Chronicles as an authoritative historical archive. Lastly, at various points the Chronicler’s information conflicts with what is said elsewhere in the canon. Faced with discrepancies, some readers wrestled over whether to privilege Chronicles’ version, ignore it, or somehow resolve the contradiction. The reasoning behind their decisions, when offered, also yielded meaningful insights.

Genealogies  17

Figure 1.1  Illuminated (gold lettering on blue) ADAM in Hebrew at the beginning of Chronicles. From a Hebrew Bible of 1448 or 1449, the “Duke of Sussex’s Italian Bible” (British Library Add MS 15251, f 313v). Source: The British Library.

The passages that were either most consequential for readers or that best display the various techniques of interpretation – or both – are the genealogy of David (1 Chr 2 and 3), the justification for Reuben’s placement in the lists (1  Chr 5:1–2), the Ephraimites’ death in Canaan at the hands of the

18  Chronicles Through the Centuries Gaths (1 Chr 7:20–23), and the story of Jabez (1 Chr 4:9–10). The discussion that f­ ollows treats each of these cases.

David’s Genealogy and the Christian Messiah Of all the lists in the genealogies, the Chronicler’s report on David’s origins and offspring has inspired the most important receptions. The reasons are clear. David is a key figure in Israel’s history, and both Jews and Christians identify him as the ancestor of the messiah. Chronicles is the only book in Scripture to list David’s postexilic descendants (1 Chr 3; Kings ends with Jehoiachin in Babylon and does not indicate whether he has children (2 Kgs 25:27–30)). It is difficult to overemphasize the significance of this genealogy for Jews in the first century of the Common Era. At this time, the community began to divide into those who accepted Jesus as the messiah and those who did not. The expectation that the messiah would be a descendant of David had already taken hold (Is 11:10; Jer 23:5, 33:15), and for some Jewish Christians, it was crucial to establish that Jesus met that qualification. Paul was among the first to assert Jesus’s place in the Davidic line. Paul’s letter to the Romans opens with the declaration that Christ was “descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). The author of the second letter to Timothy also proclaimed, in Paul’s name, his “gospel” attesting to Jesus’s resurrection from the dead and his descent from David (2 Tm 2:8). The first verse of Matthew’s Gospel also affirmed that Jesus is “the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt 1:1), and the Gospel’s opening genealogy drew on Chronicles for proof. It is generally agreed that the Greek version of Chronicles was a primary source for the names of Jesus’s forebears up until the return of the Judahites from exile (Albright and Mann 1971: 3; Fitzmyer 1981: 491–494). Matthew also follows LXX Chr’s identification of Zerubbabel’s father. In MT Chr, Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah, but in LXX Chr, Zerubbabel is the son of Salathiel (Greek for Shealtiel), Pedaiah’s brother (LXX 1 Chr 3:19). Once Matthew reached Zerubbabel, however, he set aside Chronicles’ record and supplied names that have no other scriptural attestation.1

1   Luke went in a completely different direction from Chronicles (and Matthew) and traced David’s line through his son Nathan rather than through Solomon (Lk 3:27–31; Nathan is mentioned in 2 Sm 5:14 and 1 Chr 3:5). Some suggest that Luke wished to distance Jesus from idolatrous kings such as Solomon and Rehoboam, or, alternatively, that Luke knew a different “pre-Lucan” tradition concerning the Davidic line (Fitzmyer 1981: 496–497). In any case, the only names among David’s descendants that reflect Luke’s reception of Chronicles are those of two postexilic figures, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

Genealogies  19 Nevertheless, it is possible to argue that the evangelist was deeply indebted to Chronicles and that his genealogy emulated the spirit and form of the book’s introductory chapters with the intent of fulfilling and expanding them. Matthew, like the Chronicler, goes out of his way to distinguish David. Of all the rulers of Judah, David alone merits the title of king (Mt 1:6). Moreover, some suggest that Matthew’s three groupings of fourteen generations (Abraham to David, David to Jeconiah, Jeconiah to Jesus) were a play on David’s name in Hebrew. The calculation of gematria assigned numeric value to letters and was a popular practice in this period. Revelation 13:18, for example, stipulates that the numeric value of the letters comprising the name of “the beast” is 666. “David,” consisting of three consonants (which may account for the three groupings), has a numerical value of fourteen (Allison 2004: 4). Like the Chronicler, Matthew chose to preface his narrative with a genealogy. The apostle, however, altered the Chronicler’s template to suit his own purpose and injected a supernatural dimension into the beginning of his list. Jesus’s genealogy starts with the words “A book of the origin (biblos geneseos) of Jesus Christ” (Mt 1:1). The only other place biblos geneseos occurs in all of Scripture is in Genesis. There this phrase introduces not only the generations of the first man but also the generations of the heavens and the earth (LXX Gn 2:4, 5:1). Its invocation by Matthew gave cosmic coloring to Jesus’s birth. The Chronicler emphasized the preeminence of Judah’s line within the genealogies and thus prepared his audience for his account exalting David. Matthew’s introductory genealogy also prepares his readers, but to an entirely different end. Matthew highlights four women among Jesus’s ancestors: Tamar (Judah’s daughter‐in‐law who tricked him into fathering twins), Rahab (the Canaanite prostitute who saved the Israelite spies), Ruth (the Moabite widow who contrived to spend a night in secret with her future husband Boaz), and Bathsheba (who committed adultery with David). Rahab and Ruth do not appear in Chronicles’ birthlists. Even so, it is possible that in this instance, too, Matthew emulated the Chronicler. Matthew’s listing of these women, all of whom engaged in unconventional sexual activity, set the stage for Mary and the unconventional story of Jesus’s virgin birth (Mt 1:18–24). Matthew never mentions Bathsheba by name. Rather, she is “the wife of Uriah” (Mt 1:6), a designation that owes nothing to Chronicles. In Chronicles, Bathsheba’s one appearance is in David’s genealogy, where she is called Bathshua and is credited with having borne David four sons (1 Chr 3:5). The Chronicler never acknowledges Bathsheba’s previous marriage to Uriah, let alone her illicit affair with David while Uriah was alive or David’s hand in Uriah’s death. The phrase “wife of Uriah” in Matthew’s genealogy indicates that the apostle was intent not only on emphasizing David’s central importance in Jesus’s lineage but also on contrasting David’s all‐too‐human shortcomings with the perfection

20  Chronicles Through the Centuries of Christ. The Chronicler composed his genealogy so that Abraham and Moses would stand in the shadow of David. Matthew adopts the Chronicler’s model but undermines the aim of his source. In Matthew’s new and improved version of Chronicles’ synopsis of sacred history, Jesus supersedes all, including and especially David. A similar spirit imbued the exegesis of Jerome, one of the most influential of the ancient Christian interpreters, in resolving a major challenge to Chronicles and Matthew posed by the book of Jeremiah. At issue was the fate of Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin and Coniah), the last king of Judah. In Chronicles, Jeconiah fathers seven children (1 Chr 3:17–18), and Jeconiah is one of Jesus’s ancestors (Mt 1:11–12). According to Jeremiah, however, Jeconiah is a wicked king whom God punishes by denying him offspring: “Record this man as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, for none of his offspring shall prosper in sitting on the throne of David, and rule again in Judah” (Jer 22:30). Jerome argued, first, that the phrase “in his days” signified that Jeconiah’s offspring would reign after some significant time had passed. Second, by stating that none of Jeconiah’s seed was destined to rule, Jeremiah meant that God rather than a human descendant was destined to reoccupy David’s throne (Comm. Jer. 22:30). Jerome’s resolution by and large set the course for subsequent Christian exegetes. Christian appropriation of Chronicles’ genealogies was taken to its logical conclusion by the British Nonconformist (Presbyterian) minister Matthew Henry (1662–1714). Henry’s verse‐by‐verse commentary of the Bible (An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments) was highly influential in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and continues to be studied today. (A new edited version was published in 2010.) In his opening exegesis of chapter one of 1 Chronicles, Henry argued that the genealogies show “that our blessed Saviour was, according to the prophecies which went before him, the son of David, the son of Judah, the son of Abraham, the son of Adam.” Henry continued, And, now that he [Jesus] has come for whose sake these registers were preserved, the Jews since have so lost all their genealogies that even that of the priests, the most sacred of all, is forgotten, and they know not of any one man in the world that can prove himself of the house of Aaron. When the building is reared the scaffolds are removed. When the promised Seed has come the line that was to lead to him is broken off. (1998: 651)

According to Henry, the significance of the genealogies began and ended with Christ. With the Advent, all vital and enduring connections between the genealogies and the Jews ceased to exist. Henry’s remarks were repeated in other important commentaries, including that of John Wesley (1703–1791), one of the founders of Methodism.

Genealogies  21

David’s Genealogy and the Jewish Messiah The messiah’s Davidic ancestry was also of paramount importance for Jews. From Chronicles’ genealogy of David, some key interpreters deduced the ­identity of Israel’s redeemer and others discovered proof of divine intercession in the continuance of the Davidic line. Both strands of interpretation affirmed God’s everlasting commitment to Israel. Like the Christian Jerome, these Jewish interpreters found Jeremiah’s proclamation of Jeconiah’s childlessness to be a formidable stumbling block. They took an entirely different approach, however, and resolved the problem through chronology. Jeconiah was cursed, but, after he reformed, God reversed his decree. The compilers of Leviticus Rabbah (a midrash of around the fifth century ce) spelled out the sequence of events. When God exiled Jeconiah for his sins and Nebuchadnezzar confined the captive king to a cell, the men of the Great Sanhedrin feared the Davidic line had come to an end. They successfully appealed to Nebuchadnezzar’s wife for help, and the next time Nebuchadnezzar came to her bed she reproached him. Jeconiah was also a king, she said, and therefore equally deserving of sexual satisfaction. Nebuchadnezzar promptly arranged for a conjugal visit, but the couple abstained from intercourse because Jeconiah’s wife was menstruating. God saw that Jeconiah, who had violated the Law while in Jerusalem, now upheld it. God (El) therefore asked (sha’al) the Holy Court to absolve him of his vow to inflict childlessness upon the king, and the  Court assented. For this reason, Jeconiah named his son Shealtiel (Lev. Rab. 19.6). The Talmud gives another reason for Shealtiel’s name. In tractate Sanhedrin, Rabbi Johanan stated that Jeconiah successfully impregnated his wife within his prison cubicle even though the walls were too close together for copulation. “Shealtiel” testifies to the miraculous nature of the child’s conception. Because of the restricted space, God (El) took extraordinary measures to “plant” (shatal) the child in the womb (b. Sanh. 37b–38a). A verse from the book of Haggai also helped readers within the ancient Jewish community to neutralize Jeremiah’s condemnation of Jeconiah. Here, too, the establishment of a chronology was key. In addition to proclaiming that Jeconiah would be without issue, Jeremiah declared, “As I live, says the Lord, even if King Coniah [Jeconiah] of Judah were the signet ring on my right hand, even from there I would tear you off ” (Jer 22:24). Haggai, however, employed the same simile to opposite effect in reporting God’s announcement about Jeconiah’s grandson Zerubbabel: “On that day [of Apocalypse], says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, son of Shealtiel, says the Lord, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, says the Lord

22  Chronicles Through the Centuries of hosts” (Hg 2:23). The author of a homily from Pesqita Rabbati, a collection of homilies dating from the ninth century of the Common Era, understood the apparent reversal to mean that Jeremiah’s report preceded Jeconiah’s return to God, whereas Haggai spoke afterward (Pesiq. Rab. pisqa 47; see also Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 24.11). The timing of God’s singular selection of Zerubbabel in Haggai – the day of the world’s destruction – imbued the continuation of the Davidic line with messianic significance. In the background for interpreters as they wrestled with the discrepancies between Chronicles’ genealogy of David, Jeremiah’s proclamation of Jeconiah’s childlessness, and Haggai’s elevation of Jeconiah’s progeny was the story of Chronicles’ Manasseh. Jeconiah and Chronicles’ Manasseh both spent time as captives of the Babylonians, a fact that may have led these early Jewish interpreters to import the details of Manasseh’s experience into their resolution of the conflicting reports on Jeconiah. According to Chronicles, the imprisoned king repents and God returns him to Jerusalem and to his throne (2 Chr 33). In the traditions that sprang up around Jeconiah, his divine reward is different but has the same end of reestablishing the Davidic monarchy. In any event, like Chronicles’ Manasseh, Jeconiah became a model of contrition for later Jewish thinkers. The twelfth‐century philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204 ce) viewed the continuation of Jeconiah’s lineage in Chronicles as confirmation that repentance brings individuals and communities close to God no matter how wicked they have been (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuva, 7). In the Zohar, a Jewish work of mysticism compiled in the thirteenth century, God’s annulment of his judgment against Jeconiah was the Bible’s prime example that “nothing can withstand repentance” (Zohar II:106a–b; Tishby 1989: 1511–1512). Other Jewish readers in the early period found evidence that the record of  David’s descendants in Chronicles culminated with the messiah within Chronicles itself. The compiler(s) of Targum Chronicles focused on the final verse in Chronicles’ genealogy of David. It lists the sons of Elioenai and ends with the words “Anani, seven” – indicating that Anani is the last son and that Elioenai’s offspring were seven in all (1 Chr 3:24). Targum Chronicles changed the ending to read, “and Anani – he is the king Messiah who will be revealed – in all, seven” (Tg. 1 Chr. 3:24; tr. McIvor 1994: 57). The compilers of Midrash Tanḥuma, in their exegesis of 1 Chronicles 3:10–24, also deduced that “Anani” was the messiah, basing their claim in part on their interpretation of a vision in Daniel. The verse literally reads, “I saw, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man coming” (Dn 7:13). In Aramaic, the word for cloud is anan. Accordingly, the midrashists understood Daniel to say, “I saw, with Anani of heaven, one like a son of man coming,” which indicated to

Genealogies  23 them that Anani was the messiah (Townsend 1989: 167; see also Pseudo‐Rashi’s comments repeating this tradition in his commentary on 1 Chr 3:112). In the modern era, Rabbi Malbim (1809–1879) gave new expression to the eschatological expectations raised by Chronicles’ genealogies. Malbim was renowned not only for his insightful biblical commentaries but also for his opposition to Reform Judaism, which rejected belief in the messiah. According to Malbim, though God removed Jeconiah as a signet ring in Jeremiah, Haggai attested that, at some unspecified time in the future, God would wear Jeconiah as the ring on his right hand because the messiah will come from Jeconiah’s seed. As every ring bears the engraved name of its owner, and by this means broadcasts the identity of the owner, so the miracles of the messiah will proclaim the name of God (Malbim 2014, commentary on Jer 22:24). For Malbim, God’s anointed one was neither Zerubabbel nor Anani, both of whom had come and gone, but rather a descendant of Jeconiah who had yet to arrive. The door for the messiah was thus left perpetually open.

David as the Seventh Son of Jesse The genealogies’ designation of David as the seventh son of Jesse created yet another challenge and opportunity for exegetes. In Samuel, David is the eighth and youngest son of Jesse (1 Sm 16:10–11, 17:14). The fact arises during the ­celebrated story of Samuel’s search among Jesse’s sons for the one whom God has chosen to be king in Saul’s stead. Jesse makes seven sons pass before Samuel, yet God rejects each in turn. Finally, Samuel asks if all are present and discovers that the youngest, David, is away tending sheep. When David is brought forth, God tells Samuel, “Rise and anoint him, for this is the one” (1 Sm 16:6–12). In Chronicles’ genealogy of Judah, however, David is listed as the seventh (and last) of Jesse’s sons (1 Chr 2:15). It has been speculated that the Chronicler changed David’s standing in the birth order to connote the king’s nearness to perfection, and in so doing reinforced a powerful biblical tradition. Elsewhere in the Bible, seven sons signify exceptional blessing. The womenfolk of Bethlehem declare that Ruth is more precious to Naomi than seven sons (Ru 4:15), and Job loses and regains seven sons (Jb 1:2 and 42:13). To be the seventh is also a mark of distinction. In Genesis, God blesses and hallows the seventh day (Gn 2:3). Additionally, the number seven figures prominently in extra‐biblical sources from the ancient period. Philo, a Jewish philosopher writing at the dawn of the   Pseudo-Rashi’s commentary appears in all editions of the Rabbinic Bible, and rather than point the reader to any specific edition, I will simply refer to his commentary on particular verses. 2

24  Chronicles Through the Centuries Common Era, considered seven to be the most potent and harmonious number in all creation (De opificio mundi 89–128); and Leviticus Rabbah continued to affirm that anything that came seventh (including David) was more favored than the rest (Lev. Rab. 29.11). Though some ancient readers resolved the issue by making Chronicles ­conform to Samuel (in Peshitta Chronicles, a Syriac translation that may have been composed as early as 200 ce, David is Jesse’s eighth son), most found Samuel’s tale and Chronicles’ numbering equally attractive. In Josephus’s rewritten Bible, Jewish Antiquities (composed in the late first century ce), Jesse shows six of his sons to Samuel – whose names Josephus took from the Greek version of Chronicles (LXX Chr 2:13–15) – before he sends for David, the seventh (Ant. 6.161). A wall painting of the Dura‐Europos synagogue (completed 244–245) depicts the anointing of David by Samuel, which the Bible reports was done “in the presence of his brothers” (1 Sm 16:13). The prophet holds a horn of oil over David’s head as six other men look on (Figure 1.2). The attempts by later interpreters to harmonize Chronicles and Samuel reveal the lengths to which exegetes would go to preserve David’s seventh‐son status. The medieval Christian commentator Rabanus Maurus (c.776–856) adhered to a tradition he had heard from “the Hebrews.” He maintained that Samuel’s initial review of Jesse’s sons had included Nathan the prophet, who had been adopted by Jesse, whereas Chronicles listed only Jesse’s natural children (Comm. Para. PL 109.292a). The anonymous Jewish commentator writing at the turn of the eleventh century (traditionally identified as a student of Saadia Gaon) similarly preferred Chronicles’ birth order. He proposed that at the time of Samuel’s encounter with Jesse, Jesse’s youngest son Elihu was in his cradle under the care of a nursemaid. (1 Chr 27:18 refers to “Elihu, one of David’s brothers” but does not identify him as the youngest.) He also ­entertained the possibility that a grown son of Eliab, the oldest of David’s brothers (1 Sm 17:28; 1 Chr 2:13), was with Jesse’s sons when Samuel appeared, which would place seven youths at the scene but only six sons (Kirchheim 1874: 10–11). David Kimḥi joined Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1167) in proposing yet another solution. He asserted that Jesse’s eighth son was from a different mother and therefore was omitted from Chronicles’ list (Berger 2007: 40). Of these explanations, perhaps the most evocative came from the twelfth‐ century German exegete Pseudo‐Rashi, who recruited the ancient midrash Genesis Rabbah to resolve the discrepancy. Pseudo‐Rashi compared Samuel’s search for God’s anointed to a king who, while traveling, lost a jewel from his crown. The king abruptly halted his retinue, began sifting through the sand, and did not stop until he found his pearl. This is the analogy used by Genesis Rabbah to account for the dispatch with which Chronicles marched through Judah’s descendants to David (1 Chr 2:5–15) and Chronicles’ terse listing of

Figure 1.2  David anointed by Samuel with six brothers looking on. Top: Wall painting (tempera over plaster) in the Dura‐Europos synagogue, Syria, third century, ce. Source: The British Library. Bottom: From an illuminated manuscript, the “Winchester Psalter,” England, twelfth century (British Library Cotton MS Nero C IV, f 7r). Source: The British Library.

26  Chronicles Through the Centuries Abraham’s immediate ancestors (1 Chr 1:24–26). God did not wish to waste time tracing tangential lineages but hastened to arrive at Abraham and David (Gen. Rab. 34.10). In Pseudo‐Rashi’s retelling, David now becomes “the pearl.” For this reason, Pseudo‐Rashi argued, the youngest, Elihu, was not included in the count (Pseudo‐Rashi, commentary on 1 Chr 2:15). Many post‐Reformation Christian Bible commentaries also strove to maintain David as Jesse’s seventh son. The English Puritan Matthew Poole (1624– 1679) suggested in his commentary (published in 1683) that, of the eight young men who appeared before Samuel, one was either a child of a concubine or a son who died soon afterwards (M. Poole 1853: 553). During the centuries that followed, one or both of these possibilities appeared in other popular commentaries, including that of the English Baptist John Gill (published 1763), the English Methodist John Wesley (1765), and the American Presbyterian Albert Barnes (1834). Today the World Wide Web is the conduit for this strand of tradition, though it is unclear whether the impetus for its transmission remains constant. The American Church of Christ minister Eric Lyons, in a 2002 blog devoted to “Alleged Discrepancies,” explained that David is Jesse’s eighth son but is listed as the seventh in Chronicles because another son died (Lyons 2002). Lyons appears to be more interested in resolving a contradiction rather than in celebrating the significance of David being the seventh son. Nonetheless, the posting shows the continuing attention David’s birth order in Chronicles receives.

Solomon’s Place in the Davidic Line After David, Solomon is the most important of Israel’s kings. In Samuel, Solomon is the oldest of David’s surviving sons by Bathsheba. In Chronicles’ genealogy of  David, Solomon appears fourth in the list of David and Bathsheba’s sons (1 Chr 3:5). Several interpreters, Jewish and Christian, attached special significance to Solomon’s seniority, however. Rabbi David Kimḥi (1160–1235), for instance, refused to believe that Chronicles’ list reflected actual birth order. If it had, Kimḥi asserted, Solomon would have come first (Berger 2007: 56–57). The Christian glossators of the Geneva Bible (published 1560) were perhaps the most discomfited by Solomon’s fourth‐place position. Their note to this verse argues against recognizing Bathsheba’s first three children altogether and asserts that the unnamed dead child who preceded all of them did not count either. The annotation reads: Only Solomon was David’s natural son, the other three were Uriah’s, whom David made his by adoption, he that was begotten in adultery & died the eighth day, is not reckoned among David’s sons. (GB note on 1 Chr 3:5; Berry 1969: 179)

Genealogies  27 For the Geneva Bible commentators, of those born to David and Bathsheba, Solomon is the first and only son. Though there is no annotation to the parallel verse in Samuel (2 Sm 5:14), 1 Chronicles 3:5 is given as a cross‐reference. It is possible that the compilers of the Geneva Bible chose to clarify Chronicles’ verse rather than its counterpart in Samuel because of Chronicles’ importance for tracing the human lineage of Christ. A hundred years later, the English Puritan John Trapp (1601–1669) also asserted that Solomon was the firstborn son, and he drew on Proverbs for ­evidence. Trapp wrote that Solomon was “the only beloved in the sight of his mother” because he was the eldest. The last phrase is taken from Proverbs (“the only son in the sight of my mother,” Prv 4:3), which, according to tradition, was authored by Solomon. Though Trapp recognized the legitimacy of Bathsheba’s other children, he ended up discounting them as thoroughly as did the Geneva Bible (Trapp 1662: 461). Other important commentators transmitted this interpretation, including Trapp’s fellow Puritan Poole, the English Catholic exegete George Haydock (1774–1849), and Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, the authors of A Commentary Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, published in 1871.

Reuben’s Genealogy Reuben’s genealogy gave interpreters another avenue for probing Scripture for ageless as well as immediate truths. In its opening verses, the Chronicler uncharacteristically offered a rationale for an editorial decision. He explained why the genealogy of Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, is not listed first: The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel, so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright; though Judah prevailed over his brothers and a ruler came from him, the birthright belonged to Joseph). (1 Chr 5:1–2)

The reason for Reuben’s disinheritance in Chronicles echoes Jacob’s deathbed condemnation of Reuben in Genesis, where he denounces Reuben for defiling Jacob’s bed and then affirms Judah’s preeminence and enduring rule: “your father’s sons shall bow down before you …The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Gn 49:8, 10). The Chronicler’s paraphrase – “Judah became prominent among his brothers and a ruler came from him” – implies that Jacob foresaw David’s rise. Context suggests that the Chronicler considered David to be the predicted king.

28  Chronicles Through the Centuries The medieval Jewish philosopher Gersonides (1288–1344) reinforced the Chronicler’s interpretation of Jacob’s blessing. Gersonides maintained that the kingdom was taken from Saul and given to David in order that Jacob’s dying words could be fulfilled. David, not Saul, was from the line of Judah and therefore, of the two, David was the only one destined to rule (Gersonides 1888: 43). Other readers, however, went in an entirely different direction and loaded the verse with eschatological significance. The Syriac Bible (composed c.200 ce) renders 1 Chronicles 5:2 as “From Judah goes out the King Messiah” (tr. Flesher and Chilton 2011: 367). Scholars debate whether the ancient community that produced Peshitta Chronicles was Jewish or Christian, and this verse illustrates the difficulty in making a determination. Members of both groups would have been equally receptive to a suprahistorical interpretation of the ruler that sprang from Chronicles’ Judah. A case in point, the Christian exegete Theodoret of Cyrus (393–460) was sure of the passage’s messianic import. He believed that Scripture was speaking prophetically and that the king was none other than Christ: “By the will of God Judah had the dignity of receiving the Lord who was born from him according to the flesh. This is the sense tacitly expressed with the words ‘A leader from him’” (Quaest. Reg. et Para. PG 80:801–803; tr. Conti 2008: 245). The authors of the Geneva Bible fully embraced this understanding. Their annotation for 1  Chronicles 5:2 reads: “That is, he [Judah] was the chiefest of all the tribes according to Jacob’s prophecy, Gen 49,8, & because Christ should come of him” (Berry 1969: 180). The prelate Rabanus Maurus also considered Reuben’s misdeed, its consequences, and Judah’s celebration to point to the advent of Christ, but Rabanus discerned in these verses criticism of the Jews as well. Reuben’s acts foreshadowed the Jews sullying their own Father’s bed through their rejection of Jesus, which in turn led to the award of the birthright to Christ – the awaited king from Judah – and his followers (Comm. Para. PL 109.309b–c). The Jewish author(s) of the Zohar employed yet another exegetical strategy and explored the verse for its mystical teachings. The point of entry was Chronicles’ notice of the birthright’s transfer from Reuben to Joseph. The Zohar noted that when Jacob initially lay with Leah, he thought he was sleeping with Rachel. Chronicles revealed that the power of his intention was such that the birthright of the firstborn went to the child Jacob meant to sire rather than to the son he fathered in fact. From the transference, the Zohar concluded that the direction of a person’s heart and mind have significant and enduring consequences (Va‐Yḥi, 1:222b; Va‐Yishlaḥ, 1:176b; Matt 2005: 65, 334). During the Reformation, interpreters took a different tack and read the verses for guidance in contemporary debates over royal succession. For the English political theorist Robert Filmer (c.1588–1653), there was no question

Genealogies  29 about who should inherit the throne under normal circumstances. Filmer defended absolute monarchy on biblical grounds in his work Patriarcha, or, The Natural Power of Kings, written in the period leading up to the English Civil War. God granted Adam and the patriarchs dominion over others, and, according to Filmer, from this grant came the divine right of kings. A monarch’s right to rule passed down through the law of primogeniture to the eldest son. Filmer was worried, however, that if the king should die without an obvious heir, his successor would be determined by popular vote. Proponents of this plan cited Chronicles, which said that Solomon assembled “all Israel” before undertaking certain important tasks (2 Chr 1:2, 5:2). Filmer argued that a closer reading of these verses revealed that “all Israel” consisted of the elite – commanders and elders and leaders of families – and these “supreme heads” alone had the power to identify the natural heir (Filmer 1680: 51). Filmer therefore advocated a ­limited body of electors, should succession ever prove problematic. In answer, another English political theorist, John Locke (1632–1704), cited Reuben’s genealogy in Chronicles to throw into question the whole case for primogeniture and the divine right to rule. Locke’s part in this discussion is important because he was the founder of modern liberalism and his writings had a profound influence on the framers of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States of America. Locke cited Chronicles’ genealogy of Reuben as proof that possession of the birthright did not translate into authority over others. The birthright of the firstborn entailed inheritance of property, not power, and Chronicles showed that even the birthright was transferable to another son. In Chronicles, dominion did not fall to Reuben, the firstborn son of the patriarch Jacob, nor to Joseph, who received the firstborn’s birthright, but to Judah, who appeared to have no special inherent standing within the family (Locke 1690: 148–149). Locke’s arguments helped advance a republican model of government, which Americans later implemented as their own system of rule.

The Ephraimites’ Early Exodus For readers, Chronicles’ notice of the death of Ephraim’s sons during the settlement of Canaan spurred reflections on the themes of divine justice, human salvation, and the nature of God’s covenant. The passage reads, The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, and Bered his son, Tahath his son, Eleadah his son, Tahath his son. Zabad his son, Shuthelah his son, and Ezer and Elead. Now the people of Gath, the ones born in the land, killed them because they went down to seize their livestock. Their father Ephraim mourned many days, and his

30  Chronicles Through the Centuries brothers came to comfort him. Ephraim went into his wife, and she conceived and bore a son; and he called his name Beriah, because disaster [beraah] had befallen his house. (1 Chr 7:20–23)

These verses raise a problem of timing. In Chronicles, the Ephraimites’ calamitous end occurs during their father’s lifetime, but according to Numbers and Deuteronomy, everyone who had been in Egypt with Moses was dead when Israel entered Canaan (Caleb and Joshua excepted) (Nm 14:20–24, 26:65, 32:10–14; Dt 1:34–40). Some early Jewish exegetes therefore concluded from this passage that the sons of Ephraim left Egypt thirty years before everyone else, while Ephraim was still alive. In other words, there was an exodus before the exodus. There are two strands of this tradition; one is critical of the Ephraimites and the other is sympathetic. For interpreters who comprise the first group, the Ephraimites’ early departure was due to pride. According to the second‐­ century midrash Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael, they willfully disregarded the divinely stipulated term of enslavement. (In Genesis, God tells Abraham that his offspring will be slaves in a foreign land for 400 years (Gn 15:13).) As divine punishment for their disobedience, the Philistines attacked and killed them. This event, the midrash noted, was also recorded in Psalm 78 (Lauterbach 1933: 1.172–173), which declares, “The Ephraimites, armed with shooting the bow, turned back on the day of battle. They did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law” (Ps 78:9–10). In Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Eliezer reveals that the instigator was Ganoon, a grandson of Ephraim. Ganoon claimed that God had designated him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan. The Ephraimites, convinced of their special status among the tribes, believed him, with disastrous consequences (Pirqe R. El. 48; Friedlander 1916: 377). Others, however, asserted that the Ephraimites’ premature exodus was simply a tragic accident. According to the sage Rab in the Talmud, Ephraim’s sons miscounted the number of years that constituted captivity, and they left Egypt with the best of intentions. It is their dry bones that were brought back to life by Ezekiel (b. Sanh. 92b). Targum Chronicles explained how this happened. The Ephraimites thought the countdown to freedom began the moment God proclaimed to Abraham the length of Israelite captivity when the correct starting point was actually the birth of Isaac (Tg. 1 Chr 7:21). The Mekilta also found in these verses the reason why God did not take the Israelites to the Promised Land by the most direct route, which would have been through Philistine territory. The book of Exodus reports, “God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, which was closer, for God said, ‘Lest the people have a change of heart when they see war and return to

Genealogies  31 Egypt’” (Ex 13:17). In light of Chronicles’ report, the Mekilta understood the Exodus verse to mean that if the Israelites had seen the bones of the Ephraimites lying on the battlefield in Philistia, they would have turned back (Lauterbach 1933: 173; see also Tg. Sg. 2:7 and Pirqe R. El. 48 (Friedlander 1916: 377)). The authors of Exodus Rabbah (compiled between the fifth and tenth century ce) claimed that ultimately God was the one most deeply affected by the Ephraimites’ deaths. The root consonants of the Hebrew verb “to lead” are the same root consonants for the verb “to comfort.” Rather than read Exodus 13:17 as “God did not lead,” the midrash says the more accurate translation is “God could find no comfort” – meaning, God chose the other route because it was God who could not bear to behold the corpses of the Ephraimites. The midrash further claimed that God, wearing clothes dipped in their blood, declared, “I have no comfort until I avenge the death of the Ephraimites” (Ex. Rab. 20.11). In the Chronicles passage, after Ephraim’s brothers come to console him, he has another son (1 Chr 7:23). In this reception, God’s grief cannot be assuaged and there are no substitutes. The midrash thus portrays God’s ongoing love of Israel as greater than a father’s love for his children, a reassuring message in the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction. Some suggest, however, that the story originated as a rebuke against those who participated in the Bar Kokhba revolt, a rebellion of  Jews against their Roman rulers that erupted in 132 ce (Blidstein 2008; Heinemann 1975). Seduced (and, in many cases, coerced) into revolt by the charismatic military leader Simon Bar Kokhba, the insurgents’ initial success fueled expectations that the redemption of Israel was at hand. In short order, however, the Romans regrouped, and in 135 the affair ended, as had been the case for the Ephraimites, in mass slaughter. Anti‐Zionists today draw on the midrash to demonstrate the perilous consequences of hastening the resettlement of Israel. A posting on the website of Nazarene Israel (a messianic Jewish evangelical organization) claims the Ephraimite exodus teaches “the hazards of early ingathering” (Nazarene Israel 2015). The Ephraimites’ demise served an entirely different purpose in the exegesis of the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546). For Luther, the event proved God’s rejection of the Jews and demonstrated God’s free will. Luther expounded on the theological lessons of the Ephraimites’ fall in a series of lectures on Genesis delivered at the University of Wittenberg through the last decade of his life. Two verses from Genesis (Pharaoh’s praise of the God‐given wisdom of Ephraim’s father Joseph (Gn 41:39) and Jacob’s singling out of Ephraim in his blessing (Gn 48:1–2, 19)) provided Luther with an opportunity to decry the vanity of the Ephraimites. Luther, echoing one strand of rabbinic tradition, claimed that the Ephraimites, filled with haughty ambition, attempted to usurp the honor of leading the Israelites to Canaan by disregarding the pre‐set time for

32  Chronicles Through the Centuries departure from Egypt. Luther claimed that all Jews displayed the same sense of entitlement even though God had extended the covenant to include Gentiles, who were by definition not in the bloodline of Abraham. The ­destruction of the Ephraimites, Luther concluded, taught that God’s blessings are not inherited or gained through observance of the Law (which also leads to arrogance) but are a gift of grace (Luther 1955–1976: 8.107, 150–151, 175–176).

Jabez Within the genealogies, Jabez is second only to David for galvanizing readers. From the ancient early rabbis to twenty‐first century practitioners of the Prosperity Gospel, interpreters have probed Jabez’s vignette to evaluate the efficacy of prayer, the place of private petition, and the spiritual significance of material goods. Their findings reveal the potential role of exegesis in establishing societal norms. The Chronicler introduces Jabez abruptly, about halfway through the genealogy of Judah, and his story captures Chronicles’ central theme that God is responsive to all who call upon heaven. Jabez was more honored than his brothers; and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, “Because I gave birth in pain.”3 Jabez called to the God of Israel: “Oh that you would indeed bless me and enlarge my territory and your hand would be with me and you would keep me from evil so that I not be in pain!” And God granted what he requested. (1 Chr 4:9–10)

Ancient Jews debated the identity of this extraordinary figure. It appeared to stretch the credulity of the early rabbis that the other books of Scripture would omit him. They therefore understood Jabez to be an alternative moniker for an illustrious person already known from the earlier books. This method of interpretation was consistent with the rabbis’ general understanding that much of Chronicles required a nonliteral reading. R. Simon b. Pazzi, addressing the book directly, declared, “All your words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning” (b. Meg. 13a; cf. b. Pesaḥ. 62b). Based on Chronicles’ details, an early sage taught that Jabez – who receives from God what he requests – is Othniel (Jgs 3:9–11), the first judge of Israel. The connection stems from Othniel’s name, which combines the root letters for “to respond” and “God,” signifying that God answered him. The uncovering of Jabez’s true name allowed the rabbis to define what Jabez had requested from   “Jabez” shares the same root consonants as the verb “to have pain.”

3

Genealogies  33 God. Since, according to R. Abbuha, Othniel restored the teachings that were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses, and since Othniel and Jabez were one and the same, the rabbis understood Jabez’s prayer to be a request for the attainment of instruction in the Law. “Oh that you would indeed bless me!” was Jabez’s plea to God to be blessed with Torah. In asking that his borders be enlarged, Jabez meant that he desired students. His petition that God’s hand be with him was to ensure that he would not forget what he had learned, and asking God to keep him from evil was a request that he would meet friends like himself. Lastly, Jabez’s appeal to God to safeguard him from pain was a petition that his own evil inclination not keep him from study (b. Tem. 16a). The Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael (a second‐century midrash on the book of Exodus) relied on a similar interpretation to establish a connection between Jabez and Moses’s father‐in‐law, Jethro. A brief narrative in chapter two of 1 Chronicles describes the families of scribes that lived in a city called Jabez, and identifies them as Kenites (1 Chr 2:55). A verse in Judges states that the Kenites are the offspring of Jethro, who left Jericho to resettle in Judah (Jgs 1:16). The midrashist understood these two verses to mean that Jethro’s descendants, seeking a Torah teacher, departed from Jericho to study with Jabez. In this way God answered Jabez’s prayer for pupils (Lauterbach 1933: 2.188). In medieval times, the purported student of Saadia Gaon embraced the Talmud’s identification of Jabez with Othniel but added a new wrinkle to the tale. He asserted that Jabez vowed to do certain unspecified things if God blessed him, and God granted Jabez what he requested only after he fulfilled those promises. In this instance, the commentator assumed that the standard grammatical formula of a vow (“If you do X, I will do Y”) was at work in the verse, even if the second part, what Jabez promised to do in return, was not stated (Kirchheim 1874: 18). This understanding of the passage fended off the notion that prayer could be a means to instant and effortless gratification. Even Othniel, a man of proven righteousness, contracted an obligation as part of his request. Pseudo‐Rashi embraced the notion of an implicit quid pro quo between God and Jabez, but he did not conflate Jabez with Othniel or any other known illustrious figure. His reading opened up the possibility that what happened to Jabez could happen to anyone. Accordingly, Pseudo‐Rashi derived a universal teaching from Jabez’s actions. If Jabez fulfilled his end of the bargain despite no mention of the fact, then people should make charitable donations without publicly swearing to do so (Pseudo‐Rashi, commentary on 1 Chr 4:9–10). These currents and crosscurrents are also evident in the Christian reception of Jabez. Early interpreters held Jabez up as a model petitioner while at the same time spiritualizing his demands and dampening expectations of

34  Chronicles Through the Centuries easily replicating his success. Reading the story of Jabez in light of Christian kerygma (“preaching”), Rabanus Maurus came to the same conclusion as the early rabbis: that Jabez was no ordinary Judahite. Rabanus did not conflate him with Othniel, however. Instead, he understood Jabez’s spirit to be that of Christ and his prayer to concern the needs of the church. Accordingly God’s blessing of Jabez is akin to God’s nourishment of the church through ­baptism, and the expansion of his borders signified the extension of God’s possessions to the ends of the earth. Jabez gained protection from harm because the devil had no dominion over those who had given themselves over to the Lord. Rabanus thought that the declaration in Philippians that every knee would bow to, and every tongue confess, the glory of Christ (Phil 2:10–11) was the post‐Advent continuation of Jabez’s prayer (Comm. Para. PL 109.303d–304c). Stephen Langton (c.1150–1228), the Archbishop of Canterbury, considered Jabez to be no more or less than a worthy individual whose prayer merited emulation. Jabez’s name, which could be interpreted as either “sorrow” or “drought,” indicated his character. Sorrow in the Bible, Langton observed, was tied to wisdom (Eccl 7:4). Drought also had positive connotations. The drying up of desire was a great good, and Jabez’s achievement of “dryness” made him more honorable than his brothers. Chronicles’ report that Jabez’s mother bore him with sorrow indicates that at the moment of his birth, flesh was in contention with mortification. It is therefore not only possible but also right to pray with sorrow and dryness of desire for God’s blessing. Langton also maintained that there was more to the story than God simply giving Jabez what he requested. Langton treated the prayer as an example of aposiopesis, a rhetorical term for a sentence that was deliberately broken off, with the rest left unstated. What was missing, Langton claimed, was Jabez’s promise to do as God wished (Langton 1978: 89). The Geneva Bible annotators also asserted that Jabez’s prayer (“If you will bless me…”) was the beginning of an oath: “It is to be understood, that then he would accomplish his vow which he made.” They followed the tradition of ­conflating Jabez with Othniel (GB note on 1 Chr 4:9; Berry 1969: 179), however, thereby preserving his distinctive status and placing his accomplishment out of the easy reach of others. In the post‐Reformation period, a new front of interpretation opened up. Several English Christian interpreters debated to what extent Jabez had prayed for material gain and whether such a prayer should be emulated. The question was complicated by what the German sociologist Max Weber (1864– 1920) termed the “spirit of capitalism” that challenged older views of the morality of riches. Weber traced its origins to Calvin’s theology of predestination and the Calvinist movement’s subsequent understanding that wealth

Genealogies  35 could be interpreted as a sign of salvation (Weber 2016). The potential difficulty that Jabez’s blessings posed in the wake of Calvinism is evident in the exposition of the lay‐exegete Lady Anne Halkett (1623–1699): He [Jabez] is called more Honourable than his Bretheren, not so much, on the account of his noble exploits, as his eminent Piety; that appears in this his Prayer, which, in so far as it seems mainly to be made for Temporal Blessings, is not to be a rule for any, absolutely to ask Temporal things, no more than the Thief on the Cross, should be encouragement to any to delay seeking Mercy & Pardon, until they can Sin no more. Both, it’s true, had a grant of their requests, but neither is to be imitated, in what was singular and extraordinary: Yet both are recorded in Holy Scripture, to shew how prevalent faith is, when placed on the right object. (1702: 28)

Though in this passage Halkett acknowledged that Jabez requested temporal blessings, she nonetheless went on to spiritualize those requests. She claimed that when Jabez petitioned for the enlargement of his territory, he was actually praying for “the enlargement of God’s Kingdom”; and asking that God’s hand be with him was no different from requesting one’s daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer. The essential point of Jabez’s prayer, Halkett maintained, was to demonstrate the utter dependence of humans upon Heaven (1702: 34). The English Dissenter Daniel Turner (1710–1798) took the next step and left open the possibility, without qualification, that Jabez’s gains were material goods. First, however, he established that Jabez merited God’s benefaction upon request: About Jabez himself we know little, if any thing, except what is here told. It is said he was more honourable than his brethren; either that he had more eminently distinguished himself in a military capacity; had obtained some high civil distinction, or what seems more probable, only because of a piece with his prayer, superior to his brethren; that is, tribe in general, or family in particular, on account of his shining virtues, and singular piety. (D. Turner 1789: 37)

Turner speculated further that the report that Jabez called on “the God of Israel” might be contrasting Jabez with others who prayed to idols. Perhaps Jabez was like Abraham, who worshipped only the true deity (D. Turner 1789: 37). With Jabez’s exceptional piety duly noted, Turner proceeded to affirm that Jabez’s request for expanded territory was indeed a prayer for material benefits. Turner offered a defense for such a request: “Though the glory of God is our chief end, and our immortal concerns of the greatest consequence, yet a limited and prudent care about our situation in life, is also requisite” (1789: 43–44).

36  Chronicles Through the Centuries Turner thus cautiously sanctioned the spread before God of “temporal, as well as spiritual wants … provided we keep them in their proper place.” He continued, The curious question of theology, Whether it be lawful to desire more than we posses [sic], if our necessary wants are supplied? Or if, having daily bread, we may be justified in desiring more? is what here I shall not discuss, but rest contented with observing, that from the conduct of the pious Jabez, the devout man may discern the propriety of repairing to God in all possible emergencies, or distress. (D. Turner 1789: 46–47)

In Turner’s exegesis, Jabez’s remarkable qualities did not preclude others from following his lead in praying for material benefits if their circumstances warranted such a request. One hundred years later one of the most renowned preachers of the English clergy, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) (the “Prince of Preachers”), inveighed against the notion that Jabez asked for temporal gifts. In 1871, he delivered a sermon on Jabez, and he limited its lemma to “Oh that you would bless me indeed!” According to his reading, those words were the full extent of Jabez’s prayer. Spurgeon reviewed the most common transient goods people desired – wealth, fame, health, and an abode – and warned his congregants against asking for these or any other specific benefits lest there be unforeseen and undesirable consequences. God alone was the best judge of what blessings to bestow, not humans. To drive home the point, he told the story of a woman who insisted that her minister omit “If it be thy will” from his prayer for the healing of her sick boy. The child lived, only later to be hanged from the gallows as a criminal before his mother’s eyes. Much better, Spurgeon said, to ask for God’s blessing – period (Spurgeon 1995: 25–37). Spurgeon thus deemphasized Jabez’s exceptionalism. The prayer was indeed worthy of imitation, as long as it was properly understood. A new interpretation of Jabez burst onto the scene at the beginning of the twenty‐first century and captivated a worldwide audience. It leveled all personal qualifications, eliminated any conditions, and embraced this‐worldly goods. In 2000, Bruce Wilkinson, an American evangelical minister, published The Prayer of Jabez. In this book, Wilkinson guaranteed that the daily recitation of Jabez’s prayer would elicit an immediate and positive response from God. He further stated that it was acceptable, and indeed desirable, for people to ask for blessings in the form of wealth. To illustrate his point, he argued that it would be well within bounds for a modern‐day Wall Street businessman to ask God for more profit from his investments. Such a gain would be the modern equivalent of expanding one’s territory (Wilkinson 2000: 31–32). Critics of Wilkinson pounced on the book and accused him of promoting the Prosperity Gospel, a religious doctrine that celebrates consumerism and

Genealogies  37 equates wealth with Christian virtue. In a newspaper interview, Wilkinson denied the charge in the strongest terms, claiming, “It’s the opposite of what I  believe” (Baker 2001: 21). Wilkinson’s disclaimer, however, did not deter Ross  Douthat, a New York Times columnist and author of Bad Religion, from  ­characterizing Wilkinson’s beliefs as “God‐and‐Mammon Christianity” (Douthat 2012: 206.) It is hard to identify a more powerful modern reception of Chronicles than this slim book. By the end of 2001, The Prayer of Jabez had sold 8.3 million ­copies. That year, Publishers Weekly speculated that it might be “the fastest ­selling book of all time” (Maryles 2001). At the close of 2005, a Wall Street Journal article reported that The Prayer of Jabez and its variants (including the leather‐ bound edition and The Prayer of Jabez For Teens) had achieved sales totaling more than 22 million. The number puts an exclamation mark on the statement that Chronicles’ genealogies continue to find relevance today.

The Genealogies – Inside or Outside of History? Interpretations of individual verses and sections in the genealogies lead to the larger question of the historical value of Chronicles’ opening nine chapters for readers through time. In the ancient period, the early rabbis and church fathers generally viewed the birthlists as an important supplement to, and illumination of, the biblical record. Figurative interpretations in particular allowed for the discovery of stories about the patriarchs and the exodus  –  as well as, for Christians, Christ – within the genealogies, thereby wearing away at some of the features that set Chronicles apart from the canon. A budding preference for rationalism in the Middle Ages influenced the reading of all of Scripture, and the change enhanced the genealogies’ status as an authentic independent archive. A good example of this effect is found in the interpretations of Kimḥi, who believed that the historical information contained in the genealogies had been reliably transmitted from one generation to the next (Berger 2007: 68–69). He therefore took Chronicles’ unique figures largely at face value. Writing at the start of the Reformation, the sixteenth‐­ century Jewish historian Joseph Ha‐Kohen (1496–1578) carried forward this approach. Ha‐Kohen used Chronicles’ initial reckoning of humankind as an introduction to his mostly secular account of international relations, Divre ha‐yamim le‐malkhe Tsarfat u‐vet Oṭoman ha‐Tugar (“History of the Kings of France and of the Ottoman Turkish Sultans,” completed in 1553). The title of his book incorporated Chronicles’ title in Hebrew (Divre ha‐yamim) and its adaptation of Chronicles’ opening birthlists launched the narrative (“Adam begot Seth, and Seth begot Enosh, and Enosh begot Kenan …”) (Ha‐Kohen 1859: 1).

38  Chronicles Through the Centuries By the eighteenth century, many notable exegetes viewed the Chronicler as an archivist who had preserved the most up‐to‐date information available to him at the time. The literal reading of the names in the birthlists now worked in combination with Chronicles’ “lateness” to enhance the book’s value. The influential American preacher Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) flatly stated, “None that read those genealogies and historical references will make himself so ridiculous as to question whether these were not taken from the very history that we have in the Pentateuch, and an history that the Jews had among them as the ancient, great, and established records of their nation” (1998: 457). In a tract published in 1785, Richard Watson, the Lord Bishop of Llandaff and Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University in England, lauded the Chronicler for resuming the genealogies of the Pentateuch “with all possible exactness” (Watson, 1785: 1.326). In the nineteenth century, the Jamieson‐Fausset‐Brown Bible commentary (1871) endorsed Chronicles’ genealogies as an impeccable source of information. Commenting on the opening verse of chapter nine of First Chronicles (“So all Israel was enrolled by genealogies …”), the authors wrote, These genealogical tables, then, are of the highest authority for truth and correctness, the earlier portion being extracted from the authenticated records of the nation; and as to those which belong to the time of the captivity, they were drawn up by a contemporary writer, who besides enjoying the best sources of information, and being of the strictest integrity, was guided and preserved from all error by Divine inspiration. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown 1871: 254)

At the start of the twentieth century, however, Chronicles’ vaulted historical status was in dire jeopardy. In 1878, the German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen published his groundbreaking work Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels and upended the world of biblical critics generally and their view of Chronicles in particular. In that work, Wellhausen devoted particular attention to Chronicles’ birthlists. He discerned in the genealogy of Caleb evidence that the Chronicler altered the ancient record to reflect postexilic circumstances, which, for Wellhausen, signaled the artificiality of the lineages as a whole. Wellhausen found additional proof of his thesis in the fact that the book of Samuel preserved Saul’s genealogy but offered nothing for David. If David’s bloodline was missing from this earlier work, Wellhausen reasoned, it could only mean that the information did not exist. It appeared clear to Wellhausen that once all these factors were taken into consideration, Chronicles’ tribal family trees – and most especially the pedigree of David – could be seen to be fake. The perpetrators of this fraud, he argued, were Second Temple priests who were intent on enhancing the glory of David, the Temple cult, and their own standing in the community (Wellhausen 1895: 217–218).

Genealogies  39 Wellhausen’s findings had an immediate and dramatic effect on the reception of the genealogies. In 1899, the British cleric and professor Hope Hogg (1863–1912), writing on Chronicles’ genealogy of Benjamin for the Jewish Quarterly Review, concluded that “there may be little that is historical in the chapter beyond the clan‐names” (1899: 114). The passage of time has largely solidified this position. In 1943, Martin Noth (1902–1968), another seminal German interpreter, argued in his influential book Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien that the genealogies by and large were a confused amalgamation of postexilic additions that obscured whatever facts may underlie them (Noth 1987: 36). More recently, Israeli commentator Sara Japhet has asserted that “the artificial nature of [Jesse’s] genealogy” in Chronicles is “universally recognized” (2012: 298). Today, in the wake of Wellhausen, many readers throw up their hands at the question of the genealogies’ historical value. They find them meaningful on other grounds. Some treat the birthlists as a literary composition that yields clues to the author’s circumstances and concerns. Others use them as a platform for treating modern theological and philosophical themes. Gary Knoppers, the American author of the Anchor Bible Commentary on Chronicles, maintains that the Chronicler engaged a larger theological purpose through the genealogical lists. They affirmed God’s universal sovereignty, Israel’s special status, and postexilic Judah’s unbroken connection to its sacred origins. The fact that the genealogies extend beyond the historical narrative (which ends with the edict of Cyrus) was, Knoppers proposes, the Chronicler’s reminder to his people that, though the Judahite monarchy may have come to an end, their sacred community endures (Knoppers 2003: 264–265). In much the same vein, another American scholar, Steven Schweitzer, argues that the genealogies were integral to the Chronicler’s utopian depiction of Israel. The lineages did not reflect and maintain Judah’s composition in the Chronicler’s own day but rather were intended to offer a “better alternative reality” (Schweitzer 2007: 54, 74). Taking an entirely different tack, the Australian biblical scholar Julie Kelso views Chronicles’ opening nine chapters through the lens of Irigarayan theory, which posits that in Western culture men strive to “forget” their mothers in order to represent themselves as “self‐made.” Kelso sees in the genealogies evidence of the Chronicler’s perpetration of the “phantasy of mono‐sexual, masculine (re)production.” The patrilineal progression of the generations gave men the primary credit for their progeny and, in the rare instance in which a mother’s speech was recorded (Jabez’s mother), there was no father and the line came to an end (Kelso 2007: 161–163). For Kelso, the birthlists are an early example of how men have silenced women. Religious readers continue to find in the genealogies relevant spiritual truths, as so ably demonstrated by Wilkinson’s The Prayer of Jabez. Reardon,

40  Chronicles Through the Centuries who, as we saw at the outset of this chapter, compared the pages and pages of Chronicles’ names to a phone book without numbers, provides another example. He urges Christian readers to think of themselves as potential extensions of Israel’s family tree: How should the Christian read this list of names? First, he should see them as pertaining to his own family history. Second, he should regard them as the names in that “great cloud of witnesses” [Heb 12:1]. If they tend to become blurry, he does well to remember that a certain blurriness is characteristic of clouds. The reader should not think of this as a problem. Third, let the Christian reader devoutly pray that his own name will be added to this ancient list. If he bears these considerations in mind, it is unlikely that the task of reading these countless names will ever be boring. (Reardon 2006: 33)

The Orthodox rabbi Moshe Eisemann maintains that the key to life’s meaning lies within the genealogies. Though he believes access to this secret has been intentionally hindered, study of Talmudic and midrashic commentary on Chronicles’ birthlists may offer inklings of what is yet to be fully revealed: The treasures of truth hidden behind the façade of these lists is to remain hidden from us until such a time when Divine Providence will once more permit them to be known. Nevertheless, here and there, a few of the teachings of the Sages have been preserved and through them we have been permitted an occasional glimpse. Several times we have surmised that these hidden truths concern the qets, the end of days, the ultimate mystery of Jewish experience. (Eisemann 1987: 49)

According to Eisemann, Chronicles’ genealogies should command our rapt attention. If ever properly decoded, they would reveal God’s ultimate plan.

Part II The Reign of David In 1589, King James VI of Scotland (1566–1625) penned a meditation on Chronicles to commemorate the defeat of the Spanish Armada. The public tract, among the earliest by the twenty‐three‐year‐old monarch, was certain to be scrutinized both at home and abroad. Chronicles’ depiction of King David’s second attempt to convey the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem was James’s passage of choice. The book of Samuel and Chronicles relate the same tale of David’s initial disastrous attempt, but they offer different reasons for David’s ultimate triumph. In Samuel, after failing the first time, David musters the courage to try again. In Chronicles, however, David realizes he erred in not enlisting the help Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

42  Chronicles Through the Centuries of the Levites. Once he corrects his mistake, the Ark arrives in Jerusalem ­without further mishap. Chronicles’ depiction of David as a faithful monarch who s­ olicits and inspires help from others fitted James’s political aims to a tee. At the time James composed his meditation, he was the likely, but not assured, successor to Queen Elizabeth of England. One notable strike against him was his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots. Over the years, Mary had fanned hopes among fellow Catholics for the overthrow of her Protestant cousin Elizabeth. In 1587, those hopes ended with the beheading of Mary by the English for her part in a Spanish plot to assassinate their queen. Mary’s death advanced James in the line of succession, but her life threw a shadow on his suitability to rule. Though James had been raised as a Protestant and had had little contact with Mary, as her son, doubts lingered. Chronicles presented James with a means to dispel those doubts. In his treatise, James transformed the defeat of the Armada into a replay of David’s transfer of the Ark. He identified himself with David, cast the Scottish Protestant clergy in the role of the Levites, and made the Ark into the true Christian Gospel. By analogy, James and the Protestant kirk were thus joined in battle against popery. In addition to establishing his Protestant bona fides, James’s interpretation of these Chronicles verses served another related purpose. It was a means to secure allies on the home front in his pursuit of the English crown. In 1584 James had incurred the animosity of many Scottish clerics and gentry by persuading Parliament to pass the so‐called Black Acts, which affirmed his authority over kirk and state. In James’s discussion of David’s actions in Chronicles, he expressed his commitment to collaboration with the religious and temporal leaders of the land. With respect to the clergy, he wrote: This is to be marked well of Princes, and all those of any high calling or degree that come together to do in God’s cause: David does nothing in matters appertaining to God without the presence and special concurrence of God’s Ministers appointed to be spiritual rulers in his Kirk: and in the first hunt to convey the same Ark to Jerusalem finding their absence and want of their counsel hurtful … (James I 1589)

As for the nobles of his realm, he likened them to the elders and captains of Israel who accompanied David and also played a necessary role in his success. In other words, James’s mediation on Chronicles was a reset. Whatever might have occurred in the past, James now claimed to envision king, baron, and cleric working hand‐in‐hand. It did not require a huge leap of the imagination to

The Reign of David  43 c­ onjure the benefits that would accrue to James’s supporters should the Scottish king ascend to the English throne. The inclusive element that drew James to this passage animates David’s reign throughout Chronicles and is one of the features that attract interpreters to the book. It would be wrong, however, to say that only in Chronicles does David collaborate with others. In Samuel, David’s second attempt to deliver the ark to  Jerusalem also required assistance from his fellow Israelites. Unlike in Chronicles, however, David’s mastery of his own fear – and not the specific help of the Levites – proves to be the key to his success. This fact points to an important observation about the reception of David generally. The Bible’s portrait of David emerges primarily from the narratives of Samuel/Kings and Chronicles, as well as from the Psalms. (According to tradition, David is the author of the Psalter.) Each source brings different elements of David’s personality to the fore. None, however, has a monopoly on any particular attribute of the king. What distinguishes the David of one book from the David of another is often a matter of emphasis. In Chronicles, David is first and foremost a devout religious leader. Chronicles alone reports that he established the Temple cult and made all the preparations for its construction. David is also a unifying political force who inspires ardent loyalty. Only Chronicles remarks that the number of supporters who flocked to David was so great, his army was like “an army of God” (1 Chr 12:22). He reigns unchallenged, and dies after a long life full of riches and honor. Chronicles’ King David is not perfect, but he is nearly so. Chronicles’ account of David omits many of the stories that make him such a colorful, complex, and flawed character in Samuel/Kings. Chronicles relates little of David’s rise to power, which means David’s victory over Goliath is missing as well as details of his relationships with Saul and Saul’s children, Jonathan and Michal. Nor does Chronicles mention David’s adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, Uriah’s murder, the rape of David’s daughter Tamar by his son Amnon, or the near‐successful coups d’état of two other sons, Absalom and Adonijah. In the reception of David, Samuel/King’s saga of the king generally dominates Chronicles’ laudatory version of his life. At times, Chronicles’ David is eclipsed altogether. The illustrators of Biblia Pauperum, a picture Bible that had wide circulation in late medieval Europe, relied exclusively on Samuel for their depictions of David’s life (Labriola and Smeltz 1990). Other interpreters used Chronicles to supplement Samuel/Kings. In Sarah Trimmer’s Sacred History, a popular late eighteenth‐century guide to reading Scripture, David slays Goliath, commits adultery, and inaugurates Temple worship practices (Trimmer 1783).

44  Chronicles Through the Centuries Sometimes, however, Chronicles’ David commands center stage. In King James’s meditation, Chronicles’ David apparently stands alone. Yet even in this instance, Samuel/Kings’ David is still present. It is always the contrast of Chronicles’ David to the David of the primary history that draws readers to the text.

Chapter 2 David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise 1 Chronicles 11–17

The introduction of David’s rule in Chronicles takes the reader through David’s election, his transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, his psalm of thanksgiving, and his receipt of God’s dynastic promise. For readers, these ­passages have invited reflection on God’s role in history, spiritual warfare, the scope and nature of monarchic power, and the rights and obligations of a ­ruler’s subjects. Chronicles’ exceptional description of the bearing of the Ark in particular has inspired numerous works of art and given rise to distinctive religious rituals.

Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

46  Chronicles Through the Centuries

David’s Election David’s universal acclamation at Hebron as king over all Israel is the Chronicler’s starting point for his account of David’s reign (1 Chr 11:1–3). In Samuel, by contrast, David becomes king by increments and encounters stiff resistance along the way. After his anointment by God, he must contend with Saul, the first king of Israel, who is bent on killing him. When David is finally installed as king over Judah, seven years elapse before his anointment by the elders of Israel at Hebron. The interregnum is marked by rivalry, war, defection, and murder (2 Sm 2–4). In Chronicles, however, Israel is united in its intent to make David king and the narrative implies that it was ever so. The Chronicler highlights David’s tremendous popular appeal by following the notice of his anointment with a discussion of his supporters, including David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:10–47; cf. 2 Sm 23:8–39) and those who came to join David’s army when he was in hiding from Saul (1 Chr 12:1–22). In Samuel, the passage detailing their organization and exploits is treated as supplemental information, appearing at the end of the book without any context. The Chronicler, by contrast, introduces the mighty men early and ascribes to them an essential role in the ­election of David. Chronicles’ account of the warriors closely parallels that of Samuel, but the Chronicler adds this introduction: “Now these are the chiefs of David’s warriors, who gave him strong support in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of the Lord concerning Israel” (1 Chr 11:10). Chronicles thus elevates two elements of David’s rule: his inspirational leadership and his dependence on popular appeal. The character of David’s army in Chronicles provided Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of his age, with a useful simile in his heated dispute with Augustine over the proper understanding of Scripture. Augustine had sent a series of letters from Africa to Jerome in Bethlehem, which, among other things, criticized the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation of the Bible) as well as Jerome’s interpretation of Galatians. Jerome responded in a letter, written around 404. Before launching into a blistering critique of Augustine’s charges, Jerome invoked Chronicles: I am well assured that your prayer as well as mine is, that in our contendings the victory may remain with the truth … We read … in Chronicles that the children of Israel went to battle with their minds set upon peace [mente pacifica], seeking even amid swords and bloodshed and the prostrate slain a victory not for themselves, but for peace. (Letter 75; tr. NPNF1 1.334)

The Chronicles verse reads: “All these men of war, arrayed in battle order, came to Hebron with a lev shalem [a perfect or peaceful mind or heart] to make

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  47 David king over all Israel, and also all the rest of Israel had a lev echad [a single mind] to make David king” (12:38 (MT 1 Chr 12:39)). In context, the phrasing indicates that the soldiers were in complete accord in their objective, which was to join the rest of Israel in the anointing of David. In Jerome’s paraphrase, however, “minds set on peace” became the warriors’ perpetual attitude in battle and the standard for those who fight for truth. Jerome thereby defined the Christian martial spirit. With that said, Jerome considered himself free to mount a ­vigorous defense of his work. At the conclusion of the letter, Jerome returned to the imagery of Chronicles. He requested that the young Augustine direct his attention elsewhere so that he, an old soldier long retired, not be forced onto the field of war again. Jerome’s interpretation of Chronicles in turn served King Charles the Bald (823–877), the grandson of Charlemagne and heir to a portion of the Carolingian empire. The king invoked Jerome’s depiction of David’s soldiers with “minds set on peace” before setting down his own harsh remarks in a letter to Pope Hadrian, written in 872. The pope had condemned the king’s punitive treatment of Charles’s son Carloman and of Hincmar, the bishop of Laon. Charles refused to countenance Hadrian’s criticism, as the two men had, in his view, rightfully earned his ire. Carloman had attempted to usurp the throne and Hincmar of Laon had failed to endorse Carloman’s excommunication. In his missive to Augustine, Jerome had used the martial imagery of Chronicles as a metaphor to make his point. Charles, however, was willing and able to take to the field, and he threatened to come to Rome (Nelson 2013: 236). Upon receiving the letter, Hadrian quickly capitulated. Jerome’s paraphrase ultimately helped Charles put a decisive end to filial insubordination. In 873 another Hincmar (806–882), the archbishop of Rheims and a court favorite, wrote a treatise commissioned by the king entitled “On the Character of the King and the Ministry of Rulership” (De Regis Persona et Regio Ministerio). Hincmar argued that these warriors who fought “with minds set on peace” gave divine sanction to the shedding of blood for the good of the realm (Kershaw 2011: 221–223). Apparently taking this allowance to heart, Charles blinded Carloman, thereby terminating any further machinations on the part of his son. The maiming rendered the prince ineligible to rule. Long after his correspondence with Jerome, Augustine set forth his own view of the significance of David’s followers in Chronicles in his “Admonition and Grace” (composed 426–427). Augustine included the actions of a different set of supporters along with those of the mighty men as evidence that human intentions are subject to God’s will. In a passage without parallel in Samuel, Chronicles reports that a group of fighters arrived to join David in Ziklag, where he had taken refuge from Saul. When David goes forth to meet them, he declares his loyalty in return for theirs and God’s enmity if they betray him.

48  Chronicles Through the Centuries One soldier steps forward to give a striking response: “Then the spirit came upon [lit., clothed] Amasai, chief of the Thirty, and he said, ‘We are yours, David, and with you, son of Jesse! Peace, peace to you, and peace to the one who helps you. For your God is the one who helps you’” (1 Chr 12:18 (MT 1 Chr 12:19)). For Augustine, Amasai – gripped as he was by the spirit – could not but pledge himself to David. The same was true of the mighty men who gathered in Hebron who came with a peaceful heart (corde pacific) to proclaim David king. As with Amasai, their fidelity was an integral part of God’s plan to establish David as the ruler of all Israel. God therefore held and stirred their hearts so that their intent and God’s intent were in perfect accord, and their passionate devotion was of divine rather than human origin. For Augustine, these passages in Chronicles demonstrated that, in the progression of sacred history, human self‐determination is always subject to the will of God (Corrept. 45, NPNF1 5.490). For Jerome, David’s mighty men revealed the spirit of those dedicated to truth, and for Augustine, their peaceful hearts were proof that God was at work within. For the compiler of Targum Chronicles, a Jew living in Palestine in the eighth century ce, the introduction of this elite troop was an occasion to rhapsodize about David himself. In this project, the targumist relied on the precedent set by Targum Jonathan, an Aramaic rendering of the prophetic books originating between the first and third centuries ce. The author of Targum Jonathan’s version of Samuel interjected a poem extolling David immediately before relating the names of the mighty men and their great exploits in 2 Samuel 23:8, effectively establishing David’s superiority over them all. Targum Chronicles adapted this poem and included significant additions, indicated by italics: These are the names of the heroes who were with David, the hero, head of the armies sitting on the throne of judgment, and all the prophets and sages surrounding him, dignified with the holy anointing oil; – when he went out to battle, he was supported from above. And when he returned to the Law School, the teaching came out according to his opinion – chosen and pampered, beautiful in looks and handsome in appearance, wise in wisdom and intelligent in council, a hero in heroism, the head of the Law School, sweet of voice and a master in the art of singing, commander over all the heroes, he was prepared with sets of armour, and he carried his spear on which hung the sign of the battle‐lines of Judah, and he went out according to the voice of the Holy Spirit and was victorious in battle, and turned in by means of his spear 300 slain in one time. (Tg. 1 Chr. 11:11; italics denote the targumist’s additions; tr. van Staalduine‐Sulman 2002: 683–684)

In Targum Chronicles’ version of the poem, not only is David heroic, wise, and handsome, he is also an expert interpreter of the Law, a beautiful singer,

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  49 and under God’s direct command on the battlefield. Its description of David as the chief teacher of Torah makes David the most knowledgeable sage at a time when the rabbis enjoyed enormous prestige. The targumist’s expansion of David’s skills was in perfect accord with Chronicles’ depiction of the king as an exceptionally pious leader who inspired a devoted circle of followers. Targum Chronicles thus appears to outdo Targum Jonathan in extolling David, but in one important respect it is notably more circumspect. In Targum Jonathan, David is “anointed” with the holy oil at Hebron (as he is in Samuel and Chronicles), whereas in Targum Chronicles he is “dignified” with it. Moreover, the initial letters of the first three lines in Targum Jonathan’s poem spell out “anoint” (mashiach), which also means “messiah.” Targum Chronicles’ additions break up this acrostic. The combined revisions remove the eschatological elements from the poem. Perhaps the change is due to a tamping down of messianic expectations in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 ce), as suggested by Eveline van Staalduine‐Sulman (2002: 685). It is also possible that the targumist of Chronicles wished to shift the focus from David per se to other potential saviors. In the translation of David’s genealogy from chapter three of Chronicles, the targumist inserted the phrase “the king Messiah” after the name Anani, the last person listed in David’s genealogy. (See the discussion of “Anani” in Chapter One, “The Genealogies.”) This addition suggests that hope for a redeemer remained alive. For Pseudo‐Rashi, the spelling within the verse describing those who came to Hebron to anoint David was revelatory. The text says that David not only had the support of the warriors but also of “all the rest” of Israel. In Hebrew, the word that connotes “the rest” is normally spelled with an aleph, but here the aleph is missing – in order, Pseudo‐Rashi said, to show that the number who failed to turn out was insignificant. Presumably Pseudo‐Rashi was referring to the numeric value of aleph, which is one. The orthography thus indicated that nearly everyone in Israel participated in making David king (Pseudo‐Rashi, commentary on 1 Chr 12:38 (MT Chr 12:39)). Chronicles’ description of David’s supporters, his anointment, and his consensual approach to rule took on urgent political relevancy in the wake of the Reformation in Europe and Britain. In the period spanning James I’s accession (1603) to the onset of the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689), influential Protestant thinkers considered Chronicles key to discerning the scope of monarchic power. Among them was the Scottish divine Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), who discovered in Chronicles biblical warrant for revolt in the conflict known as the English Civil War (1642–1651). During this period, a faction of English Parliamentarians and Scottish Presbyterians took up arms against King Charles I (1600–1649), the successor to King James, and his supporters. The Scots were particularly irate over Charles’s attempts to make the liturgy and administration of the Scottish kirk conform to the English church.

50  Chronicles Through the Centuries Ironically, the collaborative element in Chronicles’ account of David’s transfer of the ark that proved so useful to King James in his petition for cooperation now served Rutherford to opposite effect. In Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince; A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People (published in 1644), Rutherford quoted the words of Chronicles’ David to the people before moving the sacred object: “If it seems good to you” (1 Chr 13:1–4). David’s deference to his subjects showed that the people “have a power of judging with the King or Prince in matters of Religion, Justice, and Government, which concern the whole Kingdom” (Rutherford 1644: 177). King Charles, Rutherford concluded, did not have the right to dictate to the kirk. In addition, the events at Hebron in Chronicles provided Rutherford with critical evidence of a contractual relationship between a sovereign and his countrymen. There David made a covenant with the people and they made him king (1 Chr 11:3; 12:38). Together, these acts proved, first, that the power to invest monarchs rested with the people and, second, that the two parties were under a mutual obligation. For good measure, Rutherford added that the Bible was full of instances in which God commanded the Israelites to fight and kill unjust rulers and peoples. Specifically, Amasai’s desertion from Saul and his inspired vow of loyalty to David showed that “resistance is in the Children of God an innocent act of self‐preservation.” Just as God sanctioned defiance of Saul, Rutherford argued, so too did God sanction insurrection against England’s violent prince (314). Rutherford accused Charles of infringing on his subjects’ inviolable liberty. For others, the problem with the king had less to do with freedom than with apostasy. Many suspected that Charles was not sufficiently anti‐papist. He had a Catholic wife, preferred the more elaborate rituals of Anglican liturgy, and notable Catholics (including the second Lord Baltimore) enjoyed the favor of the court. For this group of opponents, Chronicles also proved helpful. One exegete in this camp was the prominent Puritan preacher Stephen Marshall (c.1594–1655). In January of 1643, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities against Charles, Marshall gave a sermon before both houses of Parliament and commissioners from the Church of Scotland, preaching on the unity of David’s followers in Chronicles (Marshall 1644). Marshall considered the ­single‐minded and ardent devotion of David’s warriors to be the biblical prototype for the Parliamentarians’ opposition to Charles. David here was to be understood in two ways. On the highest spiritual level David was Christ, whereas in the temporal political sense he represented the ideal human ruler. The concurrence of David’s supporters was itself a sign that David was God’s anointed one. Extending the logic of the simile, Marshall insisted that the solid opposition of English and Scottish Protestants to Charles indicated that the king was the antithesis of all that was good, both spiritually and politically.

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  51 The remedy, therefore, was clear: “Go you on, Noble and Resolute Commanders, go on and fight the Battles of the Lord Jesus Christ … all Christendom, except the Malignants in England do now see, that the question in England is, whether Christ or Antichrist shall be Lord or King” (Marshall 1644: 21). At the close of 1646, Marshall delivered another sermon to the House of Commons, once again using Chronicles (Marshall 1647). A year earlier Charles had surrendered to the Scottish army and remained in its custody. Marshall chose to speak on a single verse from Chronicles’ list of the various tribes that came to Hebron to anoint David. The sermon’s epigraph quoted the verse as translated in the Geneva Bible: “And the Children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do: the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their command” (GB 1 Chr 12:32; Berry 1969: 184). In Jewish tradition, the tribe of Issachar’s special endowment with “understanding of the times” indicated that they were expert astronomers who knew how to calculate years and fix the times of festivals (b. Yoma 26a; Targum Chronicles 1 Chr 12:33; Tg. Ps.‐J. Gen. 49:15; b. Meg. 12b; Gen. Rab. 62:5). In Marshall’s exegesis, however, members of Parliament could and should acquire the tribe’s gift of perception for political purposes, manifested as prudence. Its application would reveal not the courses of the stars but the fate of the nation, now hanging in the balance. Marshall warned that the present was not only a  time of sin and war but also of religious reformation and deliverance. Dire ­consequences would result if the reformation were left incomplete: “Without ­settling Religion, you shall never settle the Commonwealth; he that writes a Book of the corrupt and troubled state of the Church, will hardly ever write a Book of the quiet and settled State of the Commonwealth: Christ is King of Nations and Commonwealths as well as King of Saints” (Marshall 1647: 39). Marshall further noted that the chiefs of the tribe had the loyalty and ­obedience of their clan. From this it was evident to Marshall that “when the Heads and Leaders of a people are wise, to do their duties, it gives them that interest in their Brethrens’ hearts, that they will be at their disposing” (1647: 43). In other words, if the members of Parliament understood what the times demanded and acted on that wisdom, then the people would submit and follow. Marshall’s foes and allies alike recognized the part he played in the course of events. In 1647, the Scots handed Charles over to the English, and two years later the king was tried for treason and beheaded. When Marshall died in 1655, he was buried with honors in Westminster Abbey. Following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, however, his remains were exhumed and transferred to a communal pit. During this turbulent period, another aspirant to the throne of England ­successfully appropriated Chronicles’ collaborative David to give his ascension

52  Chronicles Through the Centuries a biblical cast. Fear of a Catholic monarchy in England resurged with James II, a convert to Catholicism, and sparked “the Glorious Revolution.” In 1688, the Protestant Dutch prince William III invaded England to claim the crown (his  wife, Mary, also a Protestant, was James II’s daughter.) His banner bore the  inscription Pro Religione protestante  –  Pro libero Parlamento (For the Protestant religion, for the liberties of Parliament) as well as his personal motto: Je maintiendrai (I will maintain). On his way to London, William encountered commanders of James’s troops who professed a desire to join his army. William quoted Chronicles’ David upon meeting the deserters of Saul at Ziklag and declared that if James’s men came in peace, “mine heart shall be knit unto you,” but if not, he asked God “to look thereon and rebuke it.” The commanders gave the same reply as Amasai: “Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: Peace, Peace be unto thee, and Peace be unto thine helpers, for God helpeth thee” (KJV 1 Chr 12:17–18; Burnett 1688: 7–8). James fled when he learned of the defections and effectively abdicated. William and Mary were crowned the following year.

David’s Transfer of the Ark in Chronicles Chronicles’ version of David’s attempt to transport the ark to Jerusalem varies in significant ways from Samuel’s account. In Samuel, anonymous Israelites carry the ark and David is clad in a linen ephod as he leads the procession. The cloth covering is so skimpy that his wife Michal chastises him for exposing himself as he dances before the ark. In Chronicles, David wears a long robe as he whirls and leaps before the ark, and, for the last leg of the journey, the Levites bring it to Jerusalem. Both books report that the first transfer was interrupted when a man by the name of Uzzah touched the ark and was immediately killed by God. In Samuel, David is then too afraid to continue; he only resumes when he is reassured that God’s wrath has abated. In Chronicles, David is responsible for the initial failure. He erred in not mustering the Levites to bear the ark in accordance with Moses’s command (Dt 10:8, 31:9). When David corrects his ­mistake, he achieves his mission. In Jewish Antiquities, a recapitulation of Israel’s past by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus (37– c.100 ce), the retelling of the transport sometimes ­follows Chronicles, sometimes Samuel, and sometimes Josephus interprets otherwise. David consults with his countrymen before undertaking his task (Chronicles) and Michal reproaches David for his immodest dancing (Samuel), even though Josephus omits mention of David’s dress (included in both Chronicles and Samuel).

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  53 Chronicles’ version, however, proved particularly useful to Josephus in his efforts to highlight and safeguard the prerogatives of the priests, a consistent theme throughout Jewish Antiquities. Josephus himself was the son of a priest from the Hasmonean line of high priests, a fact he notes with pride at the start of The Life of Flavius Josephus, a short work he appended to Jewish Antiquities. This was not an idle boast but rather a statement that established important credentials for his Greco‐Roman audience. In the preface to Jewish Antiquities, Josephus declares that in making his comprehensive history of the Jews known to the Gentile world he is imitating the high priest Eleazar, who facilitated the translation of the Bible into Greek for Ptolemy II (309–246 bce). In other words, Josephus considered himself to be the high priest of his age and Jewish Antiquities to be a new and improved Septuagint. Chronicles usefully highlighted for Josephus that the ark bearers had to be of a special sanctified class. Josephus, however, deviated from Chronicles concerning the identity of that class. In Jewish Antiquities, the sacred task of bearing the ark does not belong to the Levites (as it does in Chronicles). Rather, the priests are the only ones authorized to carry the ark and they do so during the first aborted attempt as well as on the second successful try. Other changes also reflect Josephus’s intent to protect priestly privileges. Josephus implies that God struck Uzzah dead because he, as a non‐priest, did not have the right to touch the ark (Ant. 4.81). The omission of David’s blessing of the people at the conclusion of the transport (2 Sm 6:18; cf. 1 Chr 16:2) most likely reflected Josephus’s desire to prevent David from acting like a priest. Josephus may have omitted mention of David’s dress for the same reason. In Chronicles, David’s long robe is identical to the robes worn by the Levites. Josephus’s revision of Chronicles thus allowed him to enhance the status of the priests of old and, by extension, elevated his own authority to convey the sacred history of the Jews. In medieval illuminated Bibles, the long robe covering the nakedness of Chronicles’ David eventually proved to be an irresistibly attractive alternative to David’s ephod in Samuel. Initially, however, David’s exposure of himself served an important theological purpose. One of the earliest illustrated Bibles is the ninth‐century Vivian Bible, also known as the First Bible of Charles the Bald. A book of poetry and biblical illuminations commissioned by the lay abbot of Saint‐Martin at Tours, Count Vivian, it was presented to the young monarch in 845 as a Christmas gift. Its full‐page Psalms frontispiece depicts David playing a lyre naked, save for the loose drape of a shroud. The flow of the robe suggests movement, and experts of the period believe it is meant to depict David dancing before the ark in Samuel. At this time, the church considered David’s scant clothing a sign of his willingness to humble himself in the service of God, thus making him an exemplar for royal humility (Dutton and Kessler 1997: 82–83).

54  Chronicles Through the Centuries In the vast majority of subsequent illuminated Bibles, however, the depiction of David in the book of Samuel dancing before the ark shows the king clothed in a full‐length tunic, following Chronicles’ description (1 Chr 15:27). The t­ hirteenth‐ century Bible known as Codex Vindobonensis 2554 demonstrates the grip of Chronicles on illustrations of this passage in Samuel. Codex 2554 is one of seven rare French Bibles moralisées (moralized Bibles) and dates from c.1215/30. These lavishly illuminated Bibles paired images of biblical events with commentary, an innovative form of epitome. Of the extant moralized Bibles, Codex 2554 was the only one written exclusively in French, and its owner was most likely a member of the royal court. At least one historian has suggested it was written for a Capetian king (Heinlen 1991: 3). At any rate, the codex’s loose paraphrasing of Scripture, textual inaccuracies, and reliance on pictures indicate that it was intended, not for knowledgeable clerics, but for laity. Chronicles is not part of the codex, yet even so its influence is present.1 The codex has four pairs of roundels to a page, each set tying an Old Testament scene to one from the New Testament, and the marginalia provide a typological interpretation. In the roundel illustrating David’s transport of the ark to ­ Jerusalem in Samuel, David dances as the ark processes to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6:14). The commentary reads, “David undresses before all the others and takes off his robe as far as his chemise,” and then explains that the Christian counterpart to David’s dancing is Christ “who celebrated the Holy Church and included the poor and the simple and showed great humility” (44rB) (tr. Guest 1995: 121). The implication is that the connection between David’s nakedness and Christ’s humility still stands. The accompanying image, however, pictures David fully clothed. It is possible that the long chemise is nothing more than an updating of David’s dress to conform to the attire of the day. It is just as likely – if not more likely – that the producers of the codex preferred David’s attire in Chronicles because they (like Michal) thought it more becoming for a king. Among the other artistic representations that show David dancing in modest attire is a terra‐cotta sculpted plaque dating from the 1660s that now hangs in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. In this image David wears a knee‐length tunic and the Levites, in distinctive robes and hats, are shown bearing the ark. The plaque is a free rendering of the fresco by Domenichino (1581–1641), in the dome of San Silvestro al Quirinale in central Rome, whose design was widely reproduced (usually more faithfully) in engravings over the next few centuries (Figure 2.1). Once Bibles became objects of mass pro­duction,   Codex 2554 contains Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Kings I–IV (1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings). The manuscript is incomplete (the text breaks off at 2 Kgs 4:8–20), so it is impossible to know whether it originally contained Chronicles. However, a later three-volume edition of this single-volume Bible does not include Chronicles (Guest 1995: 4). 1

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  55

Figure 2.1  David dancing before the ark. Terra‐cotta relief, Rome, c.1660–1665. Sources: Top: The Victoria and Albert Museum. Bottom left: Stackhouse 1749. Bottom right: Brown 1873.

56  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 2.2  David dancing before the ark (2 Sm 6). Source: Harper 1846.

the replacement of Samuel’s dancing David with that of Chronicles proliferated. In the lavishly illustrated Harper and Brothers’ Illuminated Bible (1846), the editors selected Chronicles’ representation of David and the Levitical ark bearers to depict the scene in Samuel (Harper 1846: 325) (Figure 2.2). Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), perhaps America’s greatest theologian, enlisted Chronicles to curb the excesses of the Great Awakening. In a popular sermon entitled “Bringing the Ark to Zion a Second Time,” he drew a parallel between the Israelites and his congregation in Northampton, Massachusetts. The burst of religious revival that began in 1733 and c­ limaxed in 1734–1735 was the equivalent of the ark, as both were evidence of God’s presence within the community. Also, just as God made a breach in striking down Uzzah, so too had God made two breaches in Northampton: the suicide of a prominent man in town and the collapse of the church’s gallery, which resulted in many injuries. In the case of the Israelites, Edwards ascribed their initial failure to transport the ark to pride (they failed to consult God’s law), irreverence (Uzzah was emboldened to touch the ark even though he had no divine directive to do so), and a preference for profession (singing and dancing) over obedience (the law commanded that the Levites bear the ark and required the performance of sacrifices). In like manner, Northampton had erred. Edwards claimed the congregation had taken too much pride in being at the center of a momentous

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  57 spiritual awakening and had indulged in exuberant outward displays of faith. Better, Edwards said, to focus on “the duties of justice and forgiveness, and peaceableness and meekness, and forbearance and long‐suffering” (2003: 260). Edwards notably omitted mention of David’s unchecked dancing. In Edwards’s interpretation, the second successful transport of the ark in Chronicles was Scripture’s prime illustration of the virtue of restraint. Turning from New England to Africa, we see that Chronicles’ version of the ark’s transport has left its mark on the ritual observance of Epiphany in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Adherents of the church believe that they are in possession of the true Ark of the Covenant, and a reenactment of its transport is part of their observance of the holiday. According to their foundational text, the Kebra Nagast (Book of the Glory of the Kings – it first appeared in Coptic in the sixth century ce), the ark’s presence in Ethiopia dates to the reign of Makedda, the queen of Sheba. The Kebra Nagast relates that when Makedda traveled to Jerusalem to meet Solomon, the king tricked her into having sexual relations. On the journey home she gave birth to a boy, whom she named Menelik (Son of the Wise Man). Upon reaching maturity, Menelik went to meet his father, who feted him over the course of a year and urged him to stay as heir to the throne. Much to Solomon’s distress, Menelik resolved to return to his native land. When Solomon saw that he could not deter him, the king ordered that the firstborn sons of the Israelites accompany the prince. These young men could not bear to be separated from the ark, so they stole it and spirited it away to Ethiopia (Budge 2000). Today the Ark of the Covenant remains under guard in a stone temple beside St. Mary of Zion church in Aksum. Replicas of the sacred ark (called tabots) reside in every church, and once a year they are brought out as part of the celebration of Christ’s baptism. The priests (kahen) carry the tablets, covered with silk fabrics, on their heads. They are followed by the debtera, who are below them in rank. The primary functions of the debtera are much like those of the Levites in Chronicles. They serve as liturgical musicians and singers and oversee the day‐to‐day operations of the church. When the debtera enact the ritual transport of the ark, they wear long robes and move with a distinctive rhythm as they slowly accelerate. The step is said to have been handed down to them from David (McKinley 1998).

David’s Psalm of Thanksgiving The day the ark arrived in Jerusalem, Chronicles’ David appointed certain Levites, with Asaph as their chief, to stand before the ark and praise God with song and the playing of musical instruments. Specifically David assigned them

58  Chronicles Through the Centuries the singing of the Psalm of Thanksgiving. The first half of the psalm (1 Chr 16:8–22) closely parallels the opening fifteen verses of Psalm 105, and refers to God’s covenant with Israel and the wondrous works God has performed on Israel’s behalf. The bulk of the second half (1 Chr 16:23–33) draws on the first thirteen verses of Psalm 96 and urges universal worship of God. The last three verses (1 Chr 16:34–36) correspond to the first and last two verses of Psalm 106 (Ps 106:1, 47–48). It contains a refrain that is repeated throughout Chronicles: “for he [God] is good, for his steadfast love endures forever” (1 Chr 16:34, 41; 2 Chr 5:13, 7:3, 6, 20:21). According to the Seder Olam Rabbah, a second‐century Jewish work that gives the chronology of the world from creation to the destruction of the Second Temple, David’s Psalm was initially chanted daily in two parts. From the time of the ark’s arrival in Jerusalem until its installation in the Temple forty‐three years later, the Levites sang the first half of the psalm (1 Chr 16:8–22) after the morning sacrifice and then the second half (1 Chr 16:23–36) after the evening sacrifice (Seder Olam Rab. 14; Guggenheimer 1998: 136–137). At some point in time, the psalm in its entirety became part of the preliminary morning prayers, though its placement in the liturgy is not the same for  Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. The Sephardim recite the psalm after the Ketoret (incense offering) prayer, which reinforces the psalm’s association with sacrifice. Among the Ashkenazi, the psalm follows Baruch Sheh‐Amar (an opening prayer of blessings that praise God) and is the first psalm in the Pesukei D’Zimrah (“Verses of Songs”), highlighting the psalm as an expression of praise and thanksgiving. According to the compilers of The Complete ArtScroll Siddur (2004), a contemporary Orthodox prayer book, David himself taught it to Asaph and the other singers (Scherman 2004: 58). Cassiodorus (c.485– c.580), the Christian statesman who spent his last years as a monk, praised David’s blending of three psalms into one harmonious whole. In the same manner, Cassiodorus said, God created one church from two peoples. Cassiodorus’s life story indicates he had a strong affinity for bringing together disparate elements to create a greater good. In his civic role as advisor and administrator, Cassiodorus became an intermediary between Italy’s Gothic rulers and their Roman subjects. When he retired from public service, he founded a monastery to accommodate both cenobites who wished to live in community and hermits who sought a greater degree of solitude. He then developed a curriculum for the monks that included the assimilation of Greek and Roman classics into Christian education. In extolling David’s composite psalm, Cassiodorus claimed that, just as incense compounded with a variety of fragrances was pleasing to God, so too were the different flavors brought together in song by David a rejuvenating feast for the soul. For Cassiodorus, the appeal of both combinations stems from

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  59 the various parts retaining their distinctive qualities even as they form a new whole. By extending the comparison to God’s joining together two peoples to form the church, Cassiodorus implies that Jews and Gentiles each contributed something valuable to the formation of Christianity that remained recognizable as uniquely their own (Cassiodorus 1991: 102). Pseudo‐Rashi deduced David’s reason for drawing primarily on Psalms 105 and 96 from a midrash in Genesis Rabbah concerning the ark’s sojourn among the Philistines and God’s hand in its return to Israel. In Samuel, the Philistines send the ark back by placing it in a cart drawn by cows. The text says that even though the cows were driverless, they went straight along the road to Canaan, veering neither to the left or right (1 Sm 6:12). In Hebrew, the orthography of the phrase “and they went straight” (va‐yish‐shar‐nah) bears some resemblance to the word “song” (shi‐rah). It is possible that this likeness led the rabbis to conclude that the cattle sang. It is also possible that the unusual notice that the cows “lowed” as they made their way inspired the idea. (Cows low only one other time in the Bible (Jb 6:5)). In any case, the sages speculated that the cows sang passages from Scripture, and Psalms 96 and 105 were among the selections (Gen. Rab. 54.4). Pseudo‐Rashi believed that David therefore drew on these two psalms in composing the first hymn to be sung before the ark in Jerusalem because these were the songs with which the ark first began its journey home (Pseudo‐Rashi, commentary on 1 Chr 16:35). Cassiodorus and Pseudo‐Rashi extolled the spiritual elements of David’s Psalm of Thanksgiving. For Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626), arguably the most influential cleric in the court of King James, the Psalm contained an important political message. As the king’s Lord High Almoner, Andrewes had the honor of preaching before the monarch on feastdays, including Gowry Day. Gowry Day commemorated the foiling of a trap set by the Scottish Earl of Gowry on August 5, 1600. The earl and his brother had lured King James to the Gowry estate with the intention of kidnapping him or worse. In the melee that ensued, the Gowrys were killed and the king escaped unharmed. On the tenth anniversary of Gowry Day, Andrewes preached a sermon to James in Holdenby House, James’s Northamptonshire palace, based on the first part of a verse in David’s Psalm. Andrewes gave the phrase in Latin – Nolite tangere christos meos (Vulg. 1 Chr 16:22) – as well in English: “Touch not my anointed.” The sermon was printed in the same year of its delivery (1610) and ran to seventy‐three pages, an unusually long text. In the Psalm, the verse is part of David’s recap of the miracles God performed for Israel in the wilderness. Although the people were extremely vulnerable to attack, God protected them. “Touch not my anointed” was God’s warning to kings who might otherwise have done the Israelites harm as they wandered from land to land.

60  Chronicles Through the Centuries In Andrewes’s sermon, however, the caution was not directed to rulers but rather issued on their behalf. Andrewes argued that those chosen by God to be kings, including the biblical David and England’s King James, are God’s anointed. As such, they are also akin to the Son of God. The Latin and English translations of the phrase, recited right at the start, reminded Andrewes’s audience of the connection between the Latin word for “anointed” – christos – and “Christ.” To confirm the affinity between the kings whom God had anointed and Christ, Andrewes quoted the risen Christ’s words to Mary Magdalene: Noli me tangere (“Touch me not,” Jn 20:17). He concluded that, just as Jesus was not to be touched, so too was James not to be touched. The conflation implied that James himself had divine status. Andrewes could have cited Psalm 105 as the source for “Touch not my anointed” (Ps 105:15) but he found that Chronicles better served his aims by drawing more attention to the verse. In Psalm 105, the phrase occurs in a narrative and is no more or less significant than the other verses. Such is not the case in Chronicles. David recites Psalm 105 up until the verse that contains “Touch not my anointed” (1 Chr 16:22), at which point he turns to Psalm 96. By breaking off here, Andrewes said, David showed that the phrase marked “the end and upshot of all the Psalm besides” (1610: 67). Andrewes also argued that David’s uttering of God’s injunction immediately after the ark’s successful transport meant that its fate and that of God’s anointed were one: This Halleluia is a Psalm purposely for the bringing home of the Ark. And that shows, his Ark, and His Anointed are allied, and that no sooner is the Ark welcome home, but this Commandment goes forth straight from it, first of all, before all other: That all may know, what account they were to make of this duty, how high regard to have His Anointed in, in that the Ark’s welfare and theirs, are so in separably knit together. And indeed, experience has taught it; The well settling of the Ark, depends much upon the safety of the Prince. (1610: 65–66)

By analogy, Andrewes implied, the spiritual health of England was also inextricably bound up with the wellbeing of its king. Chronicles thus provided Andrewes a platform for stressing James’s cosmic importance for the kingdom on a day that reminded James and others how much of a mortal he was.

God’s Dynastic Promise and David’s Response Chronicles’ version of God’s promise to establish a descendant of David on an eternal throne largely parallels that of Samuel (1 Chr 17:1–15; cf. 2 Sm 7:1–17). From early on, the chain of Christian interpretation transmitted the

David’s Reign from Election to Dynastic Promise  61 understanding that these lines referred to Jesus, and commentaries tended to focus more on this greater point than on Chronicles’ unique variations. The great exception to this generality is Martin Luther (1483–1546 ce). For Luther, Chronicles’ unique wording of the dynastic promise was critical to  refuting Jewish claims that God was speaking of David’s son Solomon. He addressed the issue in a treatise on the last words of David in Samuel (2 Sm 23:1–7), written in 1543. Luther seized on the phrasing of the very first verse to affirm that the Old Testament itself bore witness to the advent of Christ. His translation differed from that of others, both in his time and now. The Coverdale Bible (1535), for example, rendered the passage’s opening description of David (2 Sm 23:1) as follows: David the son of Jesse said. The man, that was set up to be the anointed [meshiach] of the God of Jacob … said.

Present‐day translations are similar. The English Standard Version (1971) reads, The oracle of David, the son of Jesse, the oracle of the man who was raised on high, the anointed [meshiach] of the God of Jacob

Luther, however, translated the line to read The oracle of the man who is assured of the Messiah [meshiach] of the God of Jacob…(1955–1976: 15.286)

In the Coverdale Bible and the English Standard Version, David is the subject throughout the line, whereas in Luther’s reading, “the anointed” refers to someone other than David, namely the messiah. Luther was intent on proving that the messiah in question was Christ, and it is at this juncture that he turned to Chronicles. His preference for Chronicles’ version of God’s dynastic promise stemmed from its specific designation that David’s son would be the Temple builder. In Samuel, God tells David, “I will raise up your offspring after you, who will come forth from your loins, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish his throne forever” (2 Sm 7:12). In Chronicles, however, God says, “I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever” (1 Chr 17:11). Luther believed that no mortal was capable of creating something as miraculous as the Temple. The “son” in question, he therefore maintained, could be none other than the Son of God (1976: 15.282).

62  Chronicles Through the Centuries Luther discovered further evidence for his thesis in Chronicles’ version of David’s response to the dynastic promise  –  specifically in the second half of 1 Chronicles 17:17. The Hebrew here is difficult to decipher, a fact that Luther indirectly acknowledged. He prefaced his translation with the remark that other Hebraists had given the phrase a far different meaning, but he insisted that only his rendering was true: “Thou hast regarded me as in the form of a Man who is God the LORD on high” (1 Chr 17:17b). (Most other translations consider “Lord” and “God” to be in the vocative. The NRSV, for instance, reads, “You regard me as someone of high rank, O Lord God!”) As Luther understands the verse, David’s words reveal that David knew all along that his true son, the son whom God would raise up to receive an everlasting covenant, was Jesus rather than Solomon (1976: 15.286). The rabbis of the Talmud had a quite different view of David’s response to God, also based on Chronicles. They found evidence of God’s unique love of Israel in 1 Chronicles 17:21: “Who is like your people Israel, one nation on earth?” The verse arises in a discussion of God’s synagogue attendance. The sages claim that not only is God present for services, the Holy One even wears tefillin. Tefillin are boxes containing passages of Scripture that Jewish worshippers strap to their forehead and upon their left arm, a practice that continues to this day. The first passage included in tefillin is the Shema (Dt 6:4–9), the ­central creed of Judaism, which begins “Shema Israel [Hear O Israel] Adonai Eloheinu [the Lord is our God] Adonai ehad [the Lord is one].” The sages in the Talmud argued that God understood “Adonai ehad” to mean that the people of Israel had made God the singular object of their devotion. God declared his intention to reciprocate, and therefore chose David’s response in Chronicles to be the first passage of Scripture in the divine tefillin: “Who is like your people Israel, one nation [goy ehad] on earth?” (b. Ber. 6a). Samuel’s record of David’s prayer has identical wording save for one small difference. In Samuel, David asks, “Who is like your people, like Israel, one nation on earth?” Here “like Israel” is an appositive, meaning that it is another way of saying “like your people.” The rabbis may have preferred Chronicles’ “your people Israel” because the phrasing left no room for distinguishing between God’s people and Israel. The singular identification in Chronicles was thus a better counterpart to God’s singularity in the Shema.

Chapter 3 David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site 1 Chronicles 21–22

In the description of David’s census and penitential sacrifice, the Chronicler launches David into the realm of the supernatural. Cosmic forces are also at work in Samuel’s account of these events, but in Chronicles they are more intense and are of greater consequence. Satan, a figure absent in Samuel, ­suddenly appears. God’s destroying angel, who has a cameo in Samuel, is now armed and remains on the scene until there is certain closure between David and God. When God answers David’s offering and call, only in Chronicles does God respond with a burst of fire from heaven. In comparison to Samuel, Chronicles increases David’s interaction with the divine realm and adds drama Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

64  Chronicles Through the Centuries and flair. Moreover, these incidents unfold within the body of Chronicles’ main narrative. They follow a series of wars (1 Chr 20) and lead directly to David’s preparations for the Temple (1 Chr 22). The parallel narrative in Samuel is tacked onto the end of the book, is not situated in any particular period of David’s life, and has no apparent connection to the opening scene in Kings. For many readers, Chronicles offers a more colorful story than Samuel does and has the added virtue of making the census and sacrifice integral to David’s reign. From this unique presentation, interpreters have derived new principles of theology and justice.

Satan and the Census The account of David’s census in Samuel is bewildering. It appears in the appendix to the book, following the list of David’s mighty men, and begins abruptly: “Once again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and He incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, count Israel and Judah’” (2 Sm 24:1). The text offers no explanation for God’s anger. Even more mystifying, after David does as God commands, God sends a plague upon the land as punishment (2 Sm 24:10–16). The Chronicler seems to have been discomfited by the potentially c­ apricious depiction of God, for in his version it is Satan who incites David: “Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number the people of Israel” (1 Chr 21:1). The replacement of God with Satan as the inciter of David relieved God of irrational behavior and increased David’s culpability. The king was not obeying a divine command but rather doing something bad at the behest of a third party. When the plague comes, David – not God – is to blame. This change, however, introduced new uncertainties. The Chronicler does not make clear whether his Satan is a mortal or a non‐earthly being. In the Hebrew Bible, satan means “adversary.” The designation can be a generic term for “foe” and can apply to humans (2 Sm 19:22 (MT 2 Sm 19:23); 1 Kgs 5:4 (MT 1 Kgs 5:18); 11:14, 23, 25; Ps 109:6) as well as angels (Nm 22:22). Indeed, David himself is spoken of as a potential satan by the military commanders of Gath (1 Sm 29:4). There is also a supernatural satan in Job and Zechariah. In these two instances the term has a definite article (ha‐satan), indicating that it is a title of a heavenly assistant who is tasked by God to be adversarial (Jb 1–2; Zec 3:1–3). Whether Chronicles’ satan signifies a generic foe or something completely new – the proper name of a supernatural individual – is much debated today. Chronicles’ satan lacks the definite article, leading some to argue that a human opponent “stood up against Israel” and incited David to conduct the census.

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  65 Proponents of this view point out that twice in Kings God “raised up an adversary [satan]” against Solomon as punishment for idolatry, and in both cases that opponent was human (1 Kgs 11:14, 23) (Japhet 1993: 375; Knoppers 2004: 744). Others, however, assert that satan is a name. In searching for God’s replacement as the one who incites David, they argue, the Chronicler was inspired by Job to select the Adversary (Jb 1:6), a semidivine being whom God permits to afflict Job. After the Adversary’s initial attack on Job, God tells him, “He [Job] still persists in his uprightness, although you incited me against him.” (Jb 2:3). In like manner, Chronicles’ supernatural satan  –  now simply Satan without the definite article – incites David (Williamson 1982: 143–144). The unique features of Chronicles’ Satan that so “bedevil” modern scholars are those that likely influenced early Christian views of this being. The supernatural satans, as well as many of the human satans in the Hebrew Bible, appear to do God’s bidding. Chronicles, however, presents an exception. Here there is no indication that Satan is God’s agent, raising the possibility that Satan acts on his own as he leads David to sin. By omitting mention of God’s involvement, Chronicles may have helped shape the concept of Satan that surfaced in the New Testament. For a number of New Testament writers, Satan is God’s antagonist rather than his helpmate, and he appears to have latitude to exploit human weaknesses as he so chooses, though ultimately he is subject to God’s will (e.g. Mt 4:8–10, Mk 4:15; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 11:13–14; 1 Thes 2:18; 1 Tm 5:15; Rv 3:9; 20:2–3). Chronicles’ substitution of Satan for God helped the ancient Christian theologian Tertullian (c.155–c.249) make the case that Christ was the inheritor of God’s covenant as articulated in the Old Testament. The issue arose as Tertullian attempted to repudiate his nemesis, Marcion (c.85–c.160), whose doctrinal views vied with others for dominance at a time when the tenets of Christianity were in flux. Marcion maintained that the God of Israel was a demiurge mired in the material world, whereas the Christian God was an ethereal spiritual being. Accordingly, Marcion dismissed the Old Testament as irrelevant for Christians. After Marcion’s death, Marcionism continued to attract followers, and Tertullian was among the movement’s most ferocious opponents. Part of his efforts to discredit Marcion entailed demonstrations that Christ’s advent fulfilled Old Testament prophesies. In making this argument, however, Tertullian had to contend with competing Jewish interpretations of oracles, and the Chronicler’s substitution gave the exegete a useful rhetorical weapon. Specifically, Jews insisted that Solomon was David’s heir to the eternal throne. Tertullian argued against this position on the grounds that God eventually ceased being merciful to Solomon, something that never happened to Christ. For evidence, Tertullian pointed to the penalty imposed on Solomon for worshipping idols. In Kings, God punishes Solomon’s

66  Chronicles Through the Centuries apostasy by raising up Hadad the Edomite as an adversary (1 Kgs 11:14), but in Tertullian’s retelling, Satan is the one who raises Hadad against Solomon, taking God’s place (Marc. 3.20, ANF 3.339). Tertullian’s removal of God from the scene signified that Solomon was truly among the godforsaken, having fallen entirely into the hands of the devil. For the Jews who produced the Babylonian Talmud (compiled around 600 ce), the Chronicler’s introduction of Satan raised significant questions of agency and motivation. In tractate Berachot, Rabbi Eleazar declared that God sent Satan to punish David for an earlier offense. The book of Samuel records a conversation between David and Saul in the wilderness in which David asks why the king pursues him. David says, “If the Lord has incited you against me, let Him accept an offering” (1 Sm 26:19). According to Rabbi Eleazar, God was not pleased with the proposition that the Holy One could be an inciter. God therefore sent Satan to make David fail to follow the divinely prescribed procedure for a census. Here the sage looked not to Numbers, where Moses counts the people several times without adverse consequences (Nm 1, 4, 26), but to Exodus, where the people, when counted, must ransom their lives to avert a plague (Ex 30:12). Because David did not collect ransoms, Israel was ravaged (b. Ber. 62b). In this interpretation, Satan is God’s proxy for delivering justifiable retribution. Satan is also God’s emissary for the compiler of Targum Chronicles. In the course of producing his vernacular translation, the targumist combined the reports of Samuel and Chronicles, thereby affirming both. He changed “Satan stood up against Israel” (1 Chr 21:1) to “The Lord raised up Satan” (Tg. 1 Chr. 21:1; tr. McIvor 1994: 114). In the eighth century ce (the likely date of Targum Chronicles’ final compilation) this Jewish tradent, perhaps in reaction to Christian views of Satan, may have perceived a need to assert that Satan acted for rather than against God. The medieval Jewish commentator David Kimḥi (c.1160–1235) picked up this thread and added an existential dimension. He considered Satan to be an external being who does God’s bidding as well as an inner inclination to wrongful action that forms early in life. Both components appear to be at work in Kimḥi’s explanation for the census. According to Kimḥi, God sent Satan to incite David in both Samuel and Chronicles as punishment for Israel’s sins. Moreover, it was Satan – in the guise of the destroying angel – who brought the ensuing plague (Berger 2007: 152–153). Chronicles’ Satan thus enabled Kimḥi to affirm that God was not the source of wrongdoing and violence. The purported student of Saadia Gaon placed Satan firmly in the human realm, opening up yet another facet of interpretation. He posited that Satan was an extraordinary person already known from the book of Samuel. “He was one of David’s commanders,” the exegete wrote, “and I say Satan was none

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  67 other than the one who led Absalom to sleep with David’s concubines” (Kirchheim 1874: 34). In other words, Satan was David’s erstwhile advisor Ahitophel who defected to join Absalom’s rebellion. Ahitophel counseled Absalom to make a public show of going into David’s concubines to solidify Absalom’s usurpation of his father’s throne. After Absalom did so, Samuel adds, “Now in those days the counsel that Ahitophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God” (2 Sm 16:23). According to this reading, Ahitophel’s uncanny acuity and his urging of a sinful act qualified him as Chronicles’ Satan. The conflation of the two figures implies a different understanding of human satans than that found in the Bible, where they are adversaries who pose a physical challenge. Here Satan is a man who uses his great intelligence to influence others to disobey God. In this exposition, therefore, Satan is much like the Bible’s “crafty” corrupters of others, a list that begins with the serpent in Eden (Gn 3:1). The reading also carries a potential criticism of David. If Absalom’s ambition induced him to follow Satan’s lead and transgress against heaven, then the same flaw could be attributed to David for conducting the census. The Christian annotators of the Geneva Bible (1560), building on the image of Satan in the New Testament, viewed Chronicles’ Satan as a supernatural tempter. His appearance in Chronicles allowed the glossators to highlight the difference between David and Christ in confrontation with the devil. Their marginal note to “And Satan stood up against Israel” (GB 1 Chr 21:1) reads, “He tempted David in setting before his eyes his excellency & glory, his power & victories, read 2. Sam, 24.1” (GB note to 1 Chr 21:1; Berry 1969: 187). The language of the annotators recalls the scene in Matthew’s Gospel in which Satan tempts Jesus. Satan, whom Matthew also called “the devil,” takes Jesus to the top of a mountain, shows him the world’s kingdoms and their splendor, and promises them to Jesus if only Jesus will worship him; Jesus refuses (Mt 4:8–11; cf. Mk 1:12–13; Lk 4:5–8). In like manner, according to the Geneva Bible’s marginalia, Satan showed David all that the king had accomplished. The annotators then explained why the census was a “cause of trespass to Israel” (1 Chr 3): “It was a thing indifferent & usual to number the people, but because he did it of an ambitious mind, as though his strength stood in his people, God punished him” (GB note to 1 Chr 21:3; Berry 1969: 187). The annotators thus implicitly contrasted David, who succumbed to Satan’s temptation, to Jesus, who did not. Chronicles’ narrative was so attractive to the annotators that they introduced it in their gloss on Samuel’s parallel verse. Samuel says that the wrath of the Lord was again kindled against Israel and then continues, “and bhe moved David against them, in that he said; Go, number Israel and Judah” (GB 2 Sm 24:1). The gloss reads, “b The Lord permitted Satan, as 1 Chro. 21,1” (GB note to 2 Sm 24:1; Berry 1969: 147). Reading Samuel in light of Chronicles, the

68  Chronicles Through the Centuries annotators maintained that it was really Satan who “moved David” against Israel. By the same token, the mention of God in Samuel indicated to them that Satan acted with divine sanction in Chronicles. Only when the books were read together, the gloss implies, could the full story be known. The Geneva Bible compilers’ notion that David was susceptible to Satan’s provocation because of his pride in his own strength and riches was given a modern cast by the American Presbyterian radio minister J. Vernon McGee (1904–1988). In 1967 McGee launched Thru the Bible, a radio show that took listeners through the Bible in five years, tackling one short biblical passage a day. Posthumously, McGee remains one of the most popular Christian broadcasters in the world. According to the Thru the Bible Radio website, Thru the Bible today airs on 800 stations in 200 countries and has been translated into 100 languages. In a series of segments devoted to David and the census, McGee resolves the mystery of David’s offence. He prefaces his remarks by reminding his audience that, while Samuel and Kings were written from a human point of view, Chronicles gives God’s perspective. Accordingly, in Samuel it is unclear why the census was a cause for divine punishment. Not so in Chronicles. The presence of Satan indicated that David’s great sin was unbelief. McGee hastens to add that David’s pride was also a factor. McGee cites Jeremiah, who proclaimed that God condemns the mighty who boast in their might as well as the wealthy who boast in their wealth, while those who are to be praised are the ones who boast of their knowledge of God (Jer 9:23–24). McGee then comes to the same conclusion as the Geneva Bible glossators. By counting the armed men at his command, David indicated that he was a boaster of his own power and might. McGee then updates David’s offence to the modern age. Today, he says, Satan puts unbelief in people’s hearts through the sin of statistics, which manifests itself through pride in advanced weaponry. Speaking of his fellow Americans in particular, McGee proclaims, “They trust mathematics and not the Maker. They trust computers and not Christ. They trust numbers and not the name of the Lord.” The psalms revealed to McGee that ultimately David recognized his fault and learned to take refuge in God (Ps 71:1 and 118:8). McGee’s professed aim in retelling the story of Satan and David is to make Americans cognizant of their own unbelief so that they might do the same (McGee 1991).

The Destroying Angel Chronicles’ destroying angel has gripped the imagination of readers from ancient times to the present. In Samuel, the angel “stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it” (2 Sm 24:16). Chronicles’ description, however,

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  69 is more majestic and threatening: “David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between earth and heaven, and his drawn sword was in his hand outstretched over Jerusalem” (1 Chr 21:16). Samuel makes no more mention of the angel after David’s initial sighting. Chronicles’ angel, however, hovers ­overhead as David purchases the threshing floor from Ornan (Chronicles’ name for Samuel’s Araunah), and does not put away his weapon until David makes his offerings on the newly constructed altar (1 Chr 21:18–27). Even after the crisis is over, David continues to fear the angel’s sword (1 Chr 21:30). The weapon raises the level of peril and, as the reader sees it from David’s perspective, introduces a new catalyst for experiencing awe. For many interpreters, the sword added irresistible drama (Figure  3.1, Figure  3.2, and Figure  3.3). In Josephus’s account of the census in Jewish Antiquities, the angel who stands aloft over Jerusalem is armed (Ant. 7:327, composed 93/94 ce). For Isho’dad of Merv (fl. 850), a Syriac church father, Chronicles’ especially fearsome angel accounts for David’s sudden deterioration between the census narrative, which ends the book of Samuel, and the beginning of Kings, which depicts David as old and cold (1 Kgs 1:1). By Isho’dad’s calculation, David should still have been relatively young at the time of King’s opening narrative. Chronicles provided Isho’dad with the answer to this conundrum. The vision of the angel holding his sword caused David such a fright that he instantly aged and all the warmth fled from his body (Books of Sessions, 1 Kgs 1:1; Conti 2008: 2). Chronicles’ angel also appears in the Haggadah, the book read during the ritual observance of the Jewish holiday Passover. The Mishnah attests to an established text for the Haggadah as early as the second century of the Common Era (m. Pesaḥ. 10), and the oldest complete version is preserved in the prayer book of Saadia Gaon (tenth century). In the recitation of the critical events leading up to Israel’s deliverance, the Haggadah quotes Deuteronomy: “And the Lord brought us from Egypt with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, with great terror, and with signs and with wonders” (Dt 26:8). The Haggadah then explains, “And with an outstretched arm. This means the sword. As it is written: ‘And his drawn sword was in his hand outstretched over Jerusalem’” (1 Chr 21:16) (Davidson 1941: 139). In this gloss, the weapon of Chronicles’ angel has transferred to God, who now extends a sword to direct the Israelites toward Canaan. An illustration in The Golden Haggadah, a lavishly illuminated codex created in Barcelona around 1320, may have been influenced by the Haggadah’s gloss conflating Chronicles’ armed angel and God. In the exodus account of the death of Egyptians’ firstborn, neither God (who “strikes”) nor the destroyer whom God sends is armed (Ex 12:23). One of the Golden Haggadah’s illustrations of the plague of the firstborn, however, shows an angel attacking a man with a sword as he lies in bed (14vA).

70  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 3.1  The destroying angel over Jerusalem. Top: David’s numbering of the people punished by the plague (2 Sm 24) by Otto Elliger. Source: Mortier 1700. Bottom: David praying the plague is stayed (1 Chronicles 21) by Isaac Taylor, Jr. Source: Boydell 1820.

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  71

Figure 3.2  The destroying angel appearing to David (1 Chr 21) from The Christian’s Complete Family Bible (“Fowler’s Family Bible”). Source: Fowler 1870.

72  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 3.3  King David purchasing the threshing floor (2 Sm 24) by William Hole. Source: Hole 1925.

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  73 The transference of Chronicles’ angel into the Samuel narrative of the census as well as into the story of the exodus also occurs in another medieval work, the  thirteenth‐century Bible moralisée (or picture Bible) known as Codex Vindobonensis 2554, one of the earliest of its kind. Its illustration of God’s punishment for the census in Samuel shows an angel cutting up the people with a sword (48rC), and in its depiction of the tenth plague, a sword‐wielding angel passes over the Israelites to slay Pharaoh’s son (20vD). One of the Sforza Book of Hours’s illustrations of David’s penance employs Chronicles’ angel to enhance a political point. The prayer book was commissioned around 1490 by Bona of Savoy, the widow of the Duke of Milan, and was beautifully illustrated by the Milanese court artist Giovan Pietro Birago. Before it could be bound, however, leaves of the manuscript were stolen, and the work remained unfinished. Bona’s heir, Margaret of Austria, became the Regent of the Netherlands, and in 1516 she hired the Flemish artist Gerard Horenbout (c.1465–1541) to finish the work. It is generally believed that she presented it to her nephew Charles V (1500–1558) in celebration of his coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in 1520 (Evans 1992: 12). The completed book contains seven miniatures of “King David in Penitence” as illustrations for the traditional seven Penitential Psalms of Christian liturgy. Six are by Birago (215r, 218r, 223r, 227r, 232r, 233v) and one by Horenbout (212v). Horenbout’s image is the only one that explicitly invokes Chronicles, and in the book’s final form his penitential David comes first, before those of Birago. Birago’s Davids all make supplication in a desert setting, usually to a visible God and once before the prophet Nathan. In Horenbout’s miniature, David prays under a colorful arcade opposite a town square (Figure  3.4). Chronicles’ armed angel is overhead with God watching over his shoulder. The angel’s weapon, however, has been altered. Instead of a sword he holds three arrows – presumably reflecting the three punishments between which God made the king decide in atonement for his offence of counting the Israelites (2 Sm 24:12–13; cf. 1 Chr 21:11–12). Also, the angel points the arrows in the direction of David, who is the only one who sees them. The image emphasizes David’s contrition in the face of God’s wrath. Meanwhile, in the background a king dressed in the same attire as David sits in a balcony and appears to review people as they pass before him in single file. Some art historians believe that Margaret intended the miniature to remind her nephew Charles that the king who scrutinizes others is also under the judgment of Heaven (Warner 1894: xliii). In any case, Chronicles’ armed angel highlights the immediate and dire consequences for David’s bad act, an element that is missing from Birago’s scenes. There was no substituting Chronicles’ sword, however, in the writings of the American statesman John Quincy Adams (1767–1848). Adams seized on the

74  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 3.4  David in penitence. A miniature by Flemish artist Gerard Horenbout from an illuminated manuscript, the “Sforza Hours,” Milan, Ghent, and Brussels (British Library Add MS 34294, f 212v). Source: The British Library.

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  75 image to describe in prescient terms the import of the Missouri Compromise. The law, enacted in 1820, configured American states and territories into two blocks, one slaveholding and the other free. Adams was secretary of state at the time, and he recorded his reflections in a diary entry, dated November 29 of that same year: If slavery be the destined sword in the hand of the destroying angel which is to sever the ties of this Union, the same sword will cut in sunder the bonds of slavery itself. A dissolution of the Union for the cause of slavery would be followed by a servile war in the slave‐holding States, combined with a war between the two severed portions of the Union. It seems to me that its result might be the extirpation of slavery from this whole continent; and, calamitous and desolating as this course of events in its progress must be, so glorious would be its final issue, that, as God shall judge me, I dare not say that it is not to be desired. (Adams 1874: 210)

For Adams, the sword was the embodiment of the brutal forces at God’s command that would tear the Union asunder and grant independence to the slaveholding states. Adams foresaw, however, that these same forces would then violently annihilate slavery itself. Adams, who went on to become the sixth President of the United States, died in 1848 before his prophecy was realized in the American Civil War. Others also embraced the idea that the sword remained a potent sign and perpetual threat, including John Dunmore Lang (1799–1878), a Scotsman who became the first Presbyterian minister of Sydney, Australia. In 1823, three years after Lang’s arrival in New South Wales, Sydney was struck by its first influenza epidemic. Lang considered the outbreak to be divine punishment for the people’s sins. He composed a poem likening the suffering of Sydney’s inhabitants to that of the Israelites who had been sickened and killed following David’s census, which he entitled “David’s Pride and Penitence.” In it, Lang urged the people to atone as David did and thereby bring an end to their travails. He then invoked Chronicles: Here too the Angel of the Lord, By righteous Heaven’s command, Has girded on his vengeful sword To smite a guilty land! O may we then like Judah’s king, With penitential care, Our willing sacrifices bring Of undissembled prayer!

76  Chronicles Through the Centuries So shall the ever‐gracious Lord Spare our devoted shore, As when of old he sheathed his sword At Ornan’s threshing floor. (Lang 1873: 103) By the end of the poem, God – not the angel – sheaths the sword while hovering over the threshing floor. Lang’s substitution brings God to the fore as the ultimate source of affliction and relief. The American Mormon missionary Orson Hyde (1805–1878), one of the original Twelve Apostles of the Mormon Church, considered Chronicles’ sword to be uniquely portentous. In 1841 Hyde set out for Jerusalem to dedicate the land of Israel in preparation for the return of the twelve tribes, an event that would herald the apocalypse (cf. Is 11:11–12). Hyde described his experience during the sea passage from Beirut to Jaffa in a letter dated October 20, 1841: As I was meditating on the deck of the vessel … a very bright glittering sword appeared in the heavens, about six feet in length, with a beautiful hilt, as plain and complete as any cut you ever saw; and what is still more remarkable, an arm with a perfect hand stretched itself out, and took hold of the hilt of the sword. The appearance really made my hair rise, and the flesh, as it were, crawl on my bones. The Arabs made a wonderful outcry at the sight. Allah! Allah! Allah! (O Lord, O Lord, O Lord) was their exclamation all over the vessel. I mention this because you know there is a commandment of God for me, which says, “Unto you it shall be given to know the signs of the times, and the sign of the coming of the Son of Man.” (Smith 1902: 1542)

In Hyde’s vision, Chronicles’ sword and outstretched hand became the fulfillment of prophecy twice over. First, the hand and sword qualified as an omen along the lines of Jesus’s prediction concerning the end of the age: “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven” (Mt 24:30). Second, Hyde’s “commandment of God” was a revelation from the church’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith, indicating God’s intentions for Hyde. The commandment’s wording draws on Chronicles’ description of Issachar’s descendants as “those who had understanding of the times” (1 Chr 12:32). Chronicles’ sword thus not only heralded the end of days for Hyde, it also proved that he was the sort of person Smith had proclaimed him to be.

David’s Altar as the Site of the Temple and Mount Moriah Chronicles is the only book of the Bible to claim that the site upon which David built his altar is also the Temple Mount and Mount Moriah (1 Chr 22:1; 2 Chr 3:1). Samuel reports David’s altar, but it plays no role in determining the

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  77 Temple’s location in Kings, and neither Samuel nor Kings establishes a link with the mountain upon which Abraham bound Isaac (Gn 22). The identification of a single locale for these momentous events is one of Chronicles’ best‐known additions to biblical tradition. The third‐century Dura‐Europos is among the first visual witnesses to Chronicles’ conflation of the Temple Mount with Mount Moriah. In the center of the synagogue’s western wall, above the niche for the ark containing the Torah scrolls, is a mural that the congregation would have faced as they prayed. A painting of the Temple occupies the space directly above the ark. Beside it is an image of an altar with Isaac lying on top, the hand of God above him. Abraham stands nearby holding a knife as below him a ram waits, tied to a tree. The design places the binding of Isaac within the precincts of the Temple, and the picture’s prominent display within the synagogue underlined the importance of conveying that fact to the congregation. These connections play a vital role in the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, a ­second‐century midrash to Exodus. According to the traditions preserved in the Mekilta, Chronicles’ identification of Mount Moriah as the site of David’s ­sacrifice led to the startling conclusion that God spared the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the aftermath of David’s census because of Isaac’s blood. Both Samuel and Chronicles mention that God repented the decision to destroy Jerusalem as punishment for David’s numbering the people but only Chronicles reports that God “saw and repented” (1 Chr 21:15). The midrashist cited Abraham’s name for Mount Moriah – Adonai‐yireh (“the Lord will see”) (Gn 22:14) – and, in light of Chronicles, read it as a foretelling. As Jerusalem was being laid to waste by the angel, God looked down and saw Isaac’s blood, spilled during his binding by Abraham, and changed his mind (Lauterbach 1933: 1.57; see also b. Ber. 62b). Chronicles’ addition of David’s altar to the site of the Temple and Mount Moriah exerted a magnetic effect, leading many exegetes to connect still more significant events to this location. A midrash preserved in Pesiqta Rabbati (ninth century ce) relates that David was in such great distress over God’s lack of a home that God sent the prophet Gad to show him the future location of the Temple. There David found the altar upon which Adam, Noah, and Abraham had sacrificed (Pesiq. Rab. 43.2). Genesis Rabbah adds the claim that Abel and Cain made their offerings on this same site (Gen. Rab. 22.7; cf. 34.9). Lastly, Midrash Tehillim (compiled from the ninth to the thirteenth century ce) contends that the spot even has a connection with the revelation of the Law. At the beginning of the world, Sinai was part of Mount Moriah but, like the priest’s portion that is taken as challah from dough, so too was Sinai plucked from Moriah. When the messiah comes, the two mountains will once again be joined (Midr. Tehillim 68; Wünsche 1892: 351).

78  Chronicles Through the Centuries Today Chronicles’ identification of the Temple Mount with Mount Moriah is a staple belief in Jewish and Christian tradition. The association has been repeated in guidebooks to Jerusalem for almost as long as there have been tourists and continues to appear today. The Discovery Channel’s Insight Guide: Israel, to pick but one contemporary example, informs visitors to the Temple Mount that they are also standing before the site of Abraham’s near‐sacrifice of Isaac (Bell 2008: 141). The enhanced significance of the site in Chronicles is also reflected in the book’s report of its purchase price. Samuel’s David pays a Jebusite fifty shekels of silver for his threshing floor and oxen, but in Chronicles, David pays him 600 gold shekels (1 Chr 21:25). The early rabbis demonstrated a decided preference for Chronicles’ higher price. One sage claimed that David collected fifty shekels from each tribe for a total of 600, and another asserted that David acquired the oxen, wood, and place of the altar for fifty shekels but paid 600 for the entire site of the Temple. Yet another resolved the matter by asserting that the silver David collected was equal in value to 600 shekels of gold (b.  Zebaḥ. 116b; Num. Rab. 11.7). Their harmonizations of the discrepancy became standard in later Jewish and Christian commentaries, including those of Rabanus Maurus and David Kimḥi. Perhaps because this understanding of the transaction was so widespread, the medieval Dominican bishop Ptolemy of Lucca (c.1240–1327) did not bother with Samuel and referred exclusively to Chronicles in his discussion of the purchase. Ptolemy was the principal author of the opus De Regimine Principum (Government of Rulers), a book that shaped political thought from the Middle Ages through the beginning of the modern era. At the time of De Regimine Principum’s composition (c.1300 ce), Ptolemy’s native northern Italy consisted of semi‐independent city‐states. They were often rife with ­factionalism, and many submitted to tyrannical despots in order to maintain stability. Ptolemy, however, was a proponent of the Aristotelian principle that rulers exist to promote the welfare of their people, and in De Regimine Principum he made his case by reference to the Bible. One of Ptolemy’s concerns was royal appropriation of private property, and his star witnesses in making the case against the practice were Ahab and Jezebel. Ptolemy claimed that their bad end was a direct result of their acquisition of Naboth’s vineyard through violence and deceit. David, on the other hand, provided the positive example for rulers. Ptolemy maintained that David avoided the fate of Ahab and Jezebel because he insisted on paying 600 shekels of gold for Araunah’s threshing floor despite Araunah’s offer to give it to him for free. David’s actions proved, Ptolemy argued, that a king should not burden his people by seizing their possessions (Reg. Princ. 3.11; Ptolemy 1997: 9–11, 179–181).

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  79

Fire From Heaven In the wake of David’s sacrifice, Samuel reports that God answered David’s supplication, but it does not say how (2 Sm 24:25). In Chronicles, God sends fire from heaven to the altar (1 Chr 21:26). The immediacy of God’s response to David’s call and its marvelous manifestation set Chronicles’ version apart from that of Samuel. The Spanish medieval poet and philosopher Moses Ibn Ezra (c.1055–c.1138) held that God’s emphatic acceptance of David’s petition in Chronicles was a sign to all that God hears the faithful. Ibn Ezra wrote piyyutim, or lyric poetry, to supplement the Sephardi machzor (prayer book) for the Jewish Days of Awe. The collection of verses that he wrote for the afternoon service of Yom Kippur included a poem entitled Ya she‐ay shof‐chay si‐chah (O God, Listen to the ones who pour out their conversation!) (Ibn Ezra 1957: 287–290). In it, Ibn Ezra described various petitions of the righteous as well as the unrighteous and what they received in response, and David is listed among them. In an ambiguous line starting “A mighty pure‐eyed one,” Ibn Ezra continues, “He [God] listened to him [David] and He [God] answered him with fire from the heavens” or (alternatively translated) “He [David] inclined his ear to [i.e. obeyed] Him [God] and He [God] answered him with fire from the heavens” (1957: 288). Though the recipient of fire from heaven could be either David or Solomon (since God also answers Solomon’s sacrifice with flames), the poem’s reference to the hero’s eyes indicates that David is under discussion here, as David’s eyes were one of his distinguishing characteristics (1 Sm 16:12). Ibn Ezra appears to have adopted not only Chronicles’ version for God’s response but also its general account of David. Though the piyyut is a meditation for the Day of Atonement, there is no indication that Ibn Ezra’s David has done anything wrong. To the contrary, the adjective used to describe David’s eyes (tehor) connotes ritual purity. The message is both uplifting and cautionary. The good have the ear of God but only someone as exceptional as David may expect a miracle in reply. The depiction of the altar fire in the twelfth‐century Christian Psalter of Melisende, by contrast, highlights David’s contrition (Figure 3.5, top left). The image is carved into the thick ivory panel that forms the front cover of the psalter and is one of six medallions of scenes from David’s life. In the lower left roundel, David crouches before the burning holocaust and looks up, a hand raised in supplication, at an airborne angel who holds a sword over his head. The scene suspends David in the moment after God’s shot of flame hit the altar and before God’s command to the angel to sheath his sword. The psalter was produced by the scriptorium of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher sometime between 1131 and 1143, and it is generally accepted that

80  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 3.5  David’s sacrifice in the field of Araunah (2 Sm 24 and 1 Chr 21). Top left: From an ivory panel, the front cover of a twelfth‐century psalter from Jerusalem, the “Melisende Psalter.” Source: The British Library. Top right: From Christoph Weigel’s Biblia Ectypa. Source: Weigel 1695. Bottom: After a design by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld. Source: Foster 1884.

David’s Reign from the Census to the Selection of the Temple Site  81 Queen Melisende of Jerusalem (1105–1161) was its original owner. The ­medievalist Jaroslav Folda argues that the psalter was a gift from Melisende’s husband, King Fulk (c.1089–1143), as part of a concerted effort at reconciliation with his wife. The rupture occurred after the death of the queen’s father, Baldwin II (c.1060–1131), who had named them as co‐regents. Though Melisende and Fulk did ascend the throne together, Fulk tried – and failed – to oust her from power. The lavish prayer book was Fulk’s peace offering (Folda 2012: 437). In this case, Chronicles’ version of David’s sacrifice may also have conveyed a promise of submission. Though the fire on the altar affirms the success of his petition, David still cowers before the armed angel. William of Tyre’s history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a work he began in 1167, lends credence to this conjecture. Once Melisende was appeased, William of Tyre reports, Fulk deferred to her in all matters, no matter how small (Chronicron LXIII A; Folda 2012: 437). Charles Foster (1822–1887), the nineteenth‐century English author of a widely read synopsis of the Bible entitled The Story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation Told in Simple Language Adapted to All Ages, But especially to the Young (1884), emphasized redemption in his depiction of the fire from heaven. Foster followed Samuel’s account of David’s life up until the census and plague, at which point he inserted Chronicles’ version of David’s sacrifice. The accompanying illustration, simplified from that of the much‐copied Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (Die Bibel in Bildern, 1860), shows David kneeling, head bowed, as flames cascade from the sky to his sacrifice (Figure 3.5, bottom). A slanting column of heavenly light falls upon the king while an angel, sword in hand, flies away. Its caption reads: “David Sacrifices on Mount Moriah” (Foster 1884: 309). The image transforms David’s transgression into triumph. Foster’s choice indicates that Chronicles’ visible details  –  the fire from heaven, the angel’s sword – and its enhanced hallowing of the ground were the elements of the story he deemed most likely to inspire and instruct.

Chapter 4 David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death 1 Chronicles 22–29

Chronicles’ life of David culminates with his efforts toward the establishment of the Temple and the smooth accession of Solomon to the throne. Over the course of time, readers have found in these chapters a basis for lauding David as Israel’s foremost spiritual and civic leader. The insights and creativity these chapters have generated extend to the realms of religion, politics, poetry, music, and art and illustrate the power of Chronicles as a supplement to the Bible’s dominant narrative. Chronicles’ capacity to supersede that primary history is also on display here, as many interpreters have preferred Chronicles’ version of David’s end to that of Kings. Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  83

David’s Disqualification as Temple Builder In Chronicles, David proclaims that God forbade him to build the Temple because he had shed blood. Neither Samuel nor Kings records this disqualification. In Samuel, the prophet Nathan simply declares that David’s son will construct God’s house (2 Sm 7:1–16); in Kings, Solomon says his father would have built the Temple but was prevented from doing so “because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him” (1 Kgs 5:3 (MT 1 Kgs 5:17)). The Chronicler appears to have adapted Kings’ explanation. In a private exchange, David tells Solomon, “My son, I had planned to build a house to the name of the Lord my God. But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed much blood in my sight on the earth’” (1 Chr 22:8). David’s revelation continues, offering more specific information about the identity of the builder and the circumstances surrounding the event. God tells David, “See, a son shall be born to you. He will be a man of rest and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side, for his name will be Solomon1 and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days” (1 Chr 22:9). Later, when David informs the people that Solomon will be the one to build the Temple, the king reiterates publicly his disqualification: “But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for my name, for you are a man of wars and have shed blood’” (1 Chr 28:3). David’s language leaves open the possibility that he has taken innocent life. The Chronicler preserves a distinction maintained throughout the other biblical books between killing on the battlefield and “shedding blood.” Shedding blood in the Bible always takes place outside the context of war and is something akin to murder. It is therefore difficult to discern whether David is disqualified because he engaged in battle or because, in addition to having waged wars, he committed murder. The formative Christian exegete Jerome was aware of the ambiguity and had  his own decided opinion. He emphatically rejected the argument that war prevented David from building the Temple, maintaining instead that the prohibition was punishment for his complicity in the death of Uriah. The subject came up in Jerome’s refutation of a contemporary Christian thinker named Jovinianus. Jovinianus argued, among other things, that sexual abstinence was not a special Christian virtue and cited as proof married heroes from the Old Testament. Jerome countered by pointing out the terrible price David paid for satisfying his lust. Jerome wrote, “David slew Uriah the Hittite and committed

  In Hebrew the name Solomon contains the root consonants for “peace.”

1

84  Chronicles Through the Centuries adultery with Bathsheba. And because he was a man of blood – the reference is not, as some think, to his wars, but to the murder – he was not permitted to build a temple of the Lord” (Jov. 1.24; tr. NPNF–2 6.363). Jerome’s choice of words strengthened his case. “A man of blood” is the epithet that Shimei hurls at David for slaying relatives from the house of Saul (2 Sm 16:7). For the Syrian Christian theologian John of Damascus (c.676–c.754), the prohibition had political import. It proved God’s intention to maintain a separation between secular and religious spheres of authority. The matter was of immediate concern to John. In 726, the Byzantine emperor Leo III (717–741) forbade the veneration and exhibition of icons throughout the empire over the objection of Germanus (c.634–c.733), the patriarch of Constantinople. In response John wrote three treatises defending the sanctity of revering images. In the second treatise, he cites Chronicles’ verse disqualifying David from building the temple in order to differentiate political and spiritual leadership and calls upon Christians to resist the emperor’s edict (Apol. 2.12; John of Damascus 2003). Among Jewish interpreters, however, David’s culpability in Chronicles was contested. Midrash Tehillim, a medieval aggadic work, relates that when David learned he was unfit to build the Temple, he was overcome with fear. God hastened to reassure David that the blood he had shed was a matter of indifference. The real reason for the prohibition was that any house of God built by David could never be destroyed. Since God could foresee Israel’s sins, he determined that, at the hour of reckoning, it was better for the divine wrath to fall on the Temple than on the people themselves (Midr. Tehillim 62.4; Braude 1959: 522–523). For the midrashist, God’s exclusion of David from the sacred task was really an affirmation of David’s perfection. The purported student of Saadia Gaon, writing in the eleventh century, understood Chronicles’ prohibition to mean that David’s battles had left him in too much pain and had aged him too much to build the Temple (Kirchheim 1874: 35). David Kimḥi, however, maintained that Chronicles’ disqualification of David was proof that violence was antithetical to the spirit and purpose of the Temple. Kimḥi’s list of the innocents whom David had had a role in killing included Uriah, the priests of Nob, and the anonymous victims of his various military campaigns (Berger 2007: 159–160). David’s inability to execute the construction of the Temple was of immediate relevance to Brigham Young (1801–1877), the great Mormon leader who led his people in their own exodus from Illinois to Utah. Young drew on Chronicles’ prohibition to affirm the sanctity of the temple at Great Salt Lake City. The church’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith (1805–1844), had overseen the building of temples in Kirtland, Ohio; in Zion, Missouri; and in Nauvoo, Illinois. Over the course of time, all three temples had to be abandoned and

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  85 were subsequently defiled. Smith himself was murdered before the completion of the Nauvoo Temple in 1844. The Salt Lake City temple represented the fourth attempt at construction and the first initiated without the prophet Smith. Moreover, its design was different from the others. Smith’s temples had one tower; this one had six. In an address to mark the laying of the new temple’s cornerstone on April 6, 1853, Young asserted that both Smith and David had failed to fulfill their heavenly task on account of their enemies. According to Young, God had in fact commanded David to build a temple, but the ceaseless attacks of his foes had made it impossible for him to comply: David was not permitted to build the house which he was commanded to build, because he was “a man of blood,”2 that is, he was beset by enemies on every hand, and had to spend his days in war and bloodshed to save Israel (much as the Latter‐day Saints have done, only he had the privilege to defend himself and people from mobocrats and murderers, while we have hitherto been denied that privilege), and consequently, he had no time to build a house unto the Lord but commanded his son Solomon, who succeeded him on the throne, to erect the Temple at Jerusalem, which God had required at his hands. (Young 1855: 30)

In like manner, Young said, Smith’s persecution proved to be an insurmountable challenge to temple building. Just as David’s task fell to his successor Solomon, so Smith’s charge had fallen to Young, Smith’s successor. Chronicles’ notice that the building would coincide with a time of rest also allowed Young to link Smith’s trials and tribulations to those that the Mormons had endured. Now that they were in a place of peace, Young claimed, the temple could be built. Young went on to state that Smith “not only received revelation and commandment to build a Temple, but received a pattern also, as did Moses for the Tabernacle, and Solomon for his Temple” (1855: 31). The idea of a divine ­blueprint for the temple comes from the declaration of Chronicles’ David that he was given a pattern from God (1 Chr 28:11–19). (There is no mention of a pattern for the Temple in Samuel or Kings.) From Young’s remarks, it appears that he believed that all whom God appointed to build a sanctuary – Moses, Solomon, Smith – received a plan, and he would naturally include himself among them. In a sermon Young delivered that same day within the Tabernacle, he disclosed that almost five years earlier, while scouting for a location for the temple, he had had a vision of the completed building upon its selected site (Young 1854: 277). Though the Salt Lake City temple differed from the others, Young could attest – with the backing of Chronicles – that its design was equally inspired.   In the Book of Mormon, “a man of blood” is a military warrior (Alma 44:1).

2

86  Chronicles Through the Centuries

David and the Temple Musicians If readers considered the book of Psalms to be David’s hymnal, then Chronicles offered a glimpse of the individuals who sang those sacred songs (and, in some cases, composed them) as well as the character of their performance. Though Ezra and Nehemiah mention the singers (Ezr 3:10–11, 7:7; Neh 7:1, 10:28 (MT 10:29), 12:8–9, 27), only Chronicles describes at length the Temple choir and orchestra (1 Chr 6:31–53, 9:33, 16: 4–7, 37–42; 2 Chr 7:6, 8:14, 29:25–30). From early on, therefore, Chronicles offered a template for worship that included a central place for music. Among those who fell under Chronicles’ sway was Ben Sira, a Jewish teacher who lived in Jerusalem near the beginning of the second century bce. Ben Sira composed a stirring book‐length poem that combined proverbial wisdom, praise of Israel’s heroes, and prayer. In an epilogue, Ben Sira expressed his hope that his work would enhance understanding and observance of the Law (Sir 50:27), and in fact it circulated widely as a handbook of instruction among Jews. Some early Christians granted Ben Sira’s poem canonical status, as demonstrated by its inclusion in Codex Sinaticus, a fourth‐century Christian Bible. Today the work is part of the Bible of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and it is alternatively titled “Ecclesiasticus,” “The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach,” or simply “Sirach.” Chronicles’ imprint is evident in Sirach’s synopsis of David’s life. In a section honoring Israel’s ancestors, Ben Sira lauds the king’s valor and strength as the youthful slayer of Goliath and annihilator of Israel’s foes. Then these lines appear: In every deed of his he gave acknowledgement to the Holy One, the Most High, with a word of glory; with his whole heart he sang hymns, and he loved him who made him. He established harp‐singers before the altar also to make sweet melodies with their ringing sounds. He gave dignity at the feasts, and he arranged seasons until completion, when they were praising his holy name, and from early morning the holy precinct was resounding. (Sir 47:8–10; tr. Wright 2014: 758) Only Chronicles reports that the Temple musicians sang God’s praises every morning and evening as well as during sacrifices on Sabbaths, new moons, and festivals (1 Chr 23:30–31). The instruction of Chronicles’ David to the Levites to participate in festivals becomes, in Sirach, the basis for asserting that David set the tone and timing of

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  87 holiday celebrations, a claim that goes beyond Chronicles’ narrative. These deeds crown David’s achievements and are followed by a report of God’s rewards (Sir 47:11). Ben Sira was thus inspired by Chronicles to exceed Chronicles itself and bind David even more closely to the most beautiful and elevating expressions of veneration. Though it is impossible to say with certainty, Ben Sira’s description of David may have helped foster the singing of psalms and other prayers by ­laypeople as a meaningful form of worship in and of itself. In his poem the singers are anonymous with no designated priestly rank. Also, David’s song is his only form of adoration. Ben Sira omits his sacrifices even though both Samuel and Chronicles record them (e.g. 2 Sm 6:17–18; 1 Chr 16:1–3, 21:26, 29:21). The reason cannot be an antipathy to the practice. Ben Sira’s last entry into the pantheon of Israel’s heroes is Simon the high priest, and this section of the poem climaxes with Simon’s sacrificial offerings on behalf of the ­community (Sir 50:1–21). Perhaps in light of both Chronicles and the Psalms (traditionally ascribed to David), Ben Sira considered singing to God to be David’s h ­ allmark. In any event, Sirach’s depiction of the singers and the elevation of their song provided a worship model for both Jews and Christians in a world without the Temple or sacrifices. For the Jewish historian Josephus, Chronicles provided the raw material for a detailed description of David’s musical talents designed to impress the first‐ century Mediterranean world. Chronicles’ David speaks of charging 4,000 Levites to perform “with the instruments that I have made for praise” (1 Chr 23:5) and specifies the occasions (sabbaths and festivals; 1 Chr 23:31). Josephus relied on these verses to claim in Jewish Antiquities that David fashioned the instruments himself and taught the Levites when and how to play them. Josephus also made David’s skills conform to Hellenistic standards, claiming that David composed his hymns in trimeters and pentameters (Ant. 7.305). These rhythm patterns are characteristic of Greek verse but not of Hebrew poetry, and in asserting his use of them Josephus established David as the master of liturgical music by the measure of his own day. In giving David the lion’s share of credit, Josephus, like Ben Sira, minimalized the Levites’ original contribution to the composition and performance of sacred song; he may have done so to prevent the Levites from overshadowing the priests. Chronicles’ description of the division of labor among the Levitical singers offered a model to the Christian theologian Origen (184–254) for the delegation of ministerial leadership to new prelates. Chronicles indicates which Levite was to play what instrument and who was to direct (1 Chr 15:16–24, 16:4–5). Origen understood the superscription to LXX Psalm 76 (MT/English Bible Ps 77) – “Regarding completion, for Jeduthun, a psalm by Asaph” – to mean that Asaph wrote the psalm and Jeduthun performed it. Origen further deduced from this

88  Chronicles Through the Centuries verse that only some were graced by the Holy Spirit with the gift of composing and that they, in turn, were empowered to designate others who lacked this gift to sing. In like manner, Origen continued, newly appointed bishops were deputized to perform the Eucharist by experienced bishops whose time was more circumscribed. Just as Jeduthun spoke in the persona of Asaph, Origen argued, so the inexperienced bishop accepted the pattern of the more practiced bishop in performing the Eucharist. For Origen, reading Chronicles in combination with the Psalms showed under what circumstances a righteous man could and should take up the persona of another (Origen, Hom. I in Psalm. LXXVI; Perrone 2015: 293–294). In the Talmud, Chronicles’ Temple singers figured directly and indirectly in the debate over the status of music in the post‐Second Temple period. Verses describing the Temple musicians were among the biblical proof texts cited in support of the claim that song was obligatory during sacrifices (1 Chr 15:22 and 2 Chr 5:13; b. ‘Arak. 11a–b). For some of the early rabbis, the singing of prayers in the synagogue was to be similarly celebrated and endorsed (b. Ber. 6a). Others argued, however, that in the wake of the Temple’s destruction singing should be restricted and the playing of instruments prohibited (b. Git. 7a; b. Sotah 48a). Those who took this position believed Chronicles described a form of ideal worship that could no longer be emulated. During the Reformation, Protestants also relied on Chronicles to determine the appropriate use of music in worship. For the Puritans in the New World, the book shaped the creation of their hymnal The Whole Booke of Psalmes Faithfully Translated into English. Richard Mather (1596–1669) and John Cotton (1584– 1652), two influential clerics, were among those who worked on the translations. Reflecting its origins in the Massachusetts Bay colony, it was commonly known as The Bay Psalm Book (1640) and was among the first books printed in an English‐speaking colony. The singing of psalms was an important component of Puritan worship. (Choral arrangements and the playing of instruments were banned on anti‐papist grounds.) At the time of the book’s publication, however, certain issues remained to be resolved, including whether a select few should be tasked with singing and the degree to which the metered verses in English should reflect the original Hebrew. The preface to The Bay Psalm Book, most likely penned by Mather or Cotton, provided the answers largely based on interpretations of Chronicles. The author understood Chronicles’ division of Levitical singers into twenty‐ four courses (1 Chr 25:9–24) to be a foreshadowing of the church in Revelation, where Christ’s followers are a kingdom of priests designated to sing praises to God by the twenty‐four elders who sit enthroned in heaven (Rv 1:4, 4:4). The author therefore insisted that every member of the church was commanded to sing David’s psalms. He further argued that the musical instruments used by

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  89 the Temple singers had now become, in the new Christian order, the lips and hearts of the worshippers. The preface also derived from Chronicles the best approach for translating the psalms. In Chronicles, Hezekiah commanded the Levites “to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David and of the seer Asaph” (2 Chr 29:30). The author of the preface took this verse to mean that one should hew as closely as possible to the original Hebrew. On this basis, he defended the somewhat inelegant style of the psalter’s translators. He contended that other popular translations often sacrificed David’s sacred hymns on the altar of rhyme, resulting in paraphrases, deletions, and additions. By contrast, The Bay Psalm Book’s use of plain English words and meter – devoid of poetic flourishes – best complied with Hezekiah’s standard. The preface concluded: “God’s Altar needs not our polishings” (Eames 1903: **2–**3). On the other side of the spectrum was Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750). Some fellow German Lutherans of his day rejected playing musical instruments in worship. Bach’s reading of Chronicles, however, affirmed their rightful place in the sanctuary as well as the sacredness of his own calling. His notations to various Chronicles verses indicate that he understood himself to occupy in some vital sense the same office as the Temple musicians. Bach’s Bible of choice was Cavlov’s Bible, a reproduction of Martin Luther’s translation glossed by the Lutheran theologian Abraham Cavlov (1612–1686). Bach made a note alongside a Chronicles verse stating that the Temple musicians should prophesy “with lyres, harps, and cymbals” (1 Chr 25:1). Bach wrote, “NB. This chapter is the true foundation of all God‐pleasing church music.” Beside the verse in which David tells Solomon that the priests and Levites will do all that is needful for the service of the Temple (1 Chr 28:21), Bach wrote, “NB. A splendid proof that, besides other arrangements of the service, music was also especially ordered by the Spirit of God through David.” Most importantly, the value Chronicles placed on liturgical music shaped Bach’s understanding of his own vocation. Chronicles’ account of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple includes a description of the trumpeters and singers who, in unison, praised and thanked God with the refrain, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!” In response, “the glory of God” filled the Temple in the form of a cloud (2 Chr 5:13). Bach wrote in the margin, “NB. Where there is devotional music, God with His grace is always present” (Leaver 1985: 93–95). For Bach, Chronicles proved that Heaven took as much delight in instruments as in song, and that the orchestration of devotional music was itself a sacred calling. Cotton Mather (1663–1728), the grandson of Richard Mather and John Cotton and arguably the most prominent Puritan theologian, was more interested in the demographics of Chronicles’ Temple singers than in their music.

90  Chronicles Through the Centuries Specifically, Mather discussed Chronicles’ female musicians in Triparadisus (“The Threefold Paradise,” 1726/1727), a work he completed shortly before his death. The book marked Mather’s decisive turn from his earlier belief that the prophecies of the Bible had yet to be fulfilled to a conviction that all the signs of the coming apocalypse had already been given several times over. Mather ascertained from Chronicles the role of women in paradise and argued that knowledge of their high station in the world to come should help them make peace with their current lot. Mather reported complaints from women in his community about their limited education and scant opportunities to serve the church. In Triparadisus he assured them that in the Kingdom of God they would be priests with full privileges. The male and female singers in Chronicles, Mather wrote, were the heavenly exemplars: Yea, tho’ the Apostolical Injunctions do not suffer Women to take any Part of Teaching in the Christian Assemblies of these Days, yet your Lord may one day send you to do a Part among the Teachers of His Flocks here below. Of old, about the Temple of GOD, there were Women, (usually the Daughters of the Levites) who were employ’d in the Songs of His praise, and with all possible Decency & Modesty & Reserve, bore a Separate Part, in the Instrumental as well as Vocal Music, which kept up the Religion of the Holy Nation. Tis for this Cause, that we find the Daughters, as well as the Sons, of Heman, who was one of the Three Praesidents over the Temple‐Music, mentioned in, The Chronicles. (Triparadisus, III: ix; Smolinski 1995: 266)

The singling out in Chronicles of Heman’s daughters as Temple musicians alongside his sons (1 Chr 25:4–6) signified that women would also have their part as teachers, once the New Earth came into being. With this promise of future eternal equality, born of his reading of Chronicles, Mather attempted to assuage his female parishioners’ disappointment in the here and now. Today Chronicles continues to play a role in debates over music in houses of worship. In Judaism, by and large there was no playing of instruments on Shabbat and other holidays following the destruction of the Temple until the nineteenth century. In 1818, Israel Jacobson, a lay member of the burgeoning Reform movement, challenged that custom when he opened a synagogue in Seesen, Germany and installed an organ. In the twenty‐first century, many Reform synagogues claim to be upholding biblical tradition by incorporating instrumental music into services. Recently Temple Emanuel of Greater New Haven cited “the Levites who sang the Psalms and played instruments on the steps leading to the Temple in Jerusalem” as precedent for its synagogue band’s participation in worship (“Music to Our Ears,” Temple Emanuel newsletter, March 9, 2012).

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  91 Many contemporary Christians also invoke Chronicles to endorse or inveigh against devotional music. The African musicologist Yomi Daramola (2008) takes as his standard the professionalism and spiritual discipline of Chronicles’ Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, applies it to present‐day Christian musicians in Nigerian churches, and finds they fall far short of the mark. Yet many of the younger congregants of these churches claim that their Gospel bands emulate the enthusiastic spirit of the ancient Temple orchestra. Anthony O. Nkwoka, another African scholar, relates that Nigerian Igbo Christian youth cited the lively description of the Levitical musicians in 1 Chronicles 25 as justification for shouting, dancing, and the introduction of electric instruments to worship services (Nkwoka 2000).

David’s Advice to Solomon David’s last instructions to Solomon in Chronicles (1 Chr 28) provided interpreters with an opportunity to discuss the challenge of maintaining God’s ­covenant from one generation to the next. In both Chronicles and Kings, David has parting words for the son who is about to inherit his realm. In Kings, David’s final directions to Solomon are given in private conversation between the two. His exhortation to obey God’s law is coupled with encouragement to find a way to kill enemies (1 Kgs 2:1–9). In Chronicles, David’s counsel to Solomon takes the form of an address to his son before the whole assembly of Judah. He focuses entirely on Solomon’s relationship to God, telling Solomon, “If you seek him [God], he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will reject you ­forevermore” (1 Chr 28:9). The verse captures Chronicles’ signature theme that God is responsive to all individuals within their lifetimes. The public setting of David’s advice in Chronicles drew the attention of the Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639–1723). For Increase  –  whose father (Richard Mather) and son (Cotton Mather) were also Puritan ministers – the conjoining of the familial and political spheres of influence in this verse provided an opening to advocate measures to ensure the survival of the church. In 1679, Increase pleaded his case in a two‐part jeremiad on 1 Chronicles 28:9 entitled A Call from Heaven To the Present and Succeeding Generations. The work marked a turning point in his theology and charted a new course for church and state relations. At the time, how the community would recognize who was among the Elect was an especially relevant topic. The founding generation of Puritans in New England came to their beliefs through a “conversion experience,” and a profession of such an experience had become a requirement for full membership in the church. One of the privileges of full membership

92  Chronicles Through the Centuries was the ability to have one’s children baptized. A growing problem was that many second‐generation Puritans, baptized by their parents as infants, were unwilling or unable to make the necessary profession. As a result, their own children could not be baptized. The state of affairs jeopardized the survival of the community. As a remedy, several leading ministers, including Increase’s father, supported “The Half‐way Covenant,” a measure accepted by a synod of Congregationalist churches in 1662 that permitted baptism of children whose parents were among the “unconverted.” Increase initially opposed “The Half‐way Covenant” but altered his position after his father’s deathbed request that he reconsider (Scheick 1989: 21). It is a curious fact, and perhaps not coincidental, that Increase chose to broadcast his change of heart through an interpretation of David’s own last words to his son. Increase’s first sermon was an exegesis of the opening of David’s exhortation to Solomon: “If thou seek him, he will be found of thee.” Increase, in his preface to A Call from Heaven, notes that he preached the sermon “some years” before its publication, though the exact date and venue remain unclear (I. Mather 1679: A 4). Addressing the adult members of the church, Increase walked them through the scriptural evidence that the Elect’s children are, as a general rule, also among the Elect. A chief proof text was God’s covenant with Abraham, as that divine promise extended to future generations (Gn 17:7). Increase argued on these grounds that “the vein of Election doth run through the loins of godly Parents for the most part” (I. Mather 1679: 5). In other words, paternity trumped confession in determining who was among the Elect. The parental role went far beyond reproduction, however. Children needed good examples perpetually before them to emulate, which meant parents had to be in a state of grace. The children were also forbidden to be passive. Pausing at the end to address the younger generation explicitly, Increase urged them to assume responsibility for their own spiritual health. The greatest danger, he warned, was complacency. Even the offspring of the godly had to seek God for themselves. From the second sermon it is possible to deduce Increase’s conviction that the relaxation of standards in one quarter had to be balanced by the tightening of standards in another. As in the first sermon, Increase spoke on 1 Chronicles 28:9, but for this homily he interpreted the second half of the verse, which he rendered, “But if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever” (I. Mather 1679: D 3). Increase also used the same structure. Whereas in the first sermon he addressed parents and then children, in the second he addressed those who had oversight of the community before turning to the people themselves. The civic coloring of his remarks was appropriate to the occasion. He delivered his sermon on Election Day, May 23, 1677, before the General Assembly of the Massachusetts Colony in Boston.

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  93 Increase’s exegesis of the Chronicles phrase quickly put his audience on notice that the community was in trouble. When the children of the Elect become apostates, Increase said, the consequences are especially dire. Arguing that the rising generation was at particular risk, he put forth a series of reforms to safeguard the church. In lieu of established practice, which limited the involvement of magistrates in church affairs, Increase proposed handing these officials oversight of religious instruction and ministerial competence as well as enforcement of orthodoxy throughout the land. Many of Increase’s suggestions were accepted by a synod in 1679, the year in which he published A Call from Heaven, and they eventually led to legislative initiatives (Bremer and Webster 2006: 167). Increase was able to capitalize on Chronicles’ description of God’s immediate responsiveness to bring about changes of his own design.

David’s Blessing of God The unique blessing of God by Chronicles’ David may well have spurred one of Chronicles’ most enduring and pervasive receptions. The day before Solomon assumes David’s throne in Chronicles, David blesses God before the people one last time. He begins, … Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our father Israel, forever and ever. 11Yours, O Lord, are the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty, for everything in the heavens and on the earth is yours. O Lord, yours is the kingdom and you are exalted as head over all. 12 Riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and it is in your hand to make great and to give strength to all.13 And now, our God, we give thanks to you and praise your glorious name. (1 Chr 29:10–13) 10

It is generally accepted that 1 Chronicles 29:11 is the source of the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer from the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 6:9–13). Several versions of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew from antiquity end with the line “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, Amen” (Mt 6:13). Many text critics surmise, however, that the doxology is not original to Matthew. It is missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (two fourth‐century codices), from most of the Old Latin texts (third and fourth century), and from the early patristic commentaries of Tertullian (160–220), Origen (184–254), and Cyprian (c.220–258) (B. Metzger 2006: 13–14). One theory is that it originated in liturgies of the early church and was deemed to be such a fitting close to Jesus’s prayer that it became part of the Gospel tradition (Allison 2004: 95).

94  Chronicles Through the Centuries Among the earliest witnesses to a doxology are the Didache (a Christian treatise of the late first or early second century primarily focused on worship) and John Chrysostom (c.347–407), a seminal early church father. The Matthaen Lord’s Prayer appears in a section of the Didache that instructs Christians how to pray. Its doxology omits “kingdom”: “For thine is the power and the glory forever” (Did. 8.3). One of the first attestations of the full doxology is Chrysostom’s nineteenth homily on Matthew (c.390), in which he provides a line‐by‐line commentary of the Lord’s Prayer. According to Chrysostom, Christ added this concluding phrase as a comforting reminder that God is more powerful than the forces of evil. One should therefore be confident and fearless, no matter how many dangers arise (Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., homily 19, NPNF1 10.133). The Christian reception of the doxology, and the Chronicles verse it epitomizes, was uneven. Eventually the doxology’s line of transmission extended to Protestant Bibles, including the Tyndale Bible and the King James Version. Its absence from the Vulgate (fourth/early fifth century), however, proved fatal for its reception among Catholics, for whom the Vulgate is foundational. As a result, today Protestants recite the doxology as part of the Lord’s Prayer but Catholics do not. As for the rabbis, they understood David’s blessing – his last in the Bible – to be the king’s crowning tribute to God’s beneficence. In their interpretation, the divine qualities David lauded were made manifest in God’s concrete deeds on behalf of Israel. In the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Shila understood David’s praise of God’s greatness to refer to the act of creation; God’s power, to the ­exodus; God’s glory, to the sun and moon standing still for Joshua; God’s victory, to the fall of Rome; God’s majesty, to the battle in the valleys of Arnon (Nm 21:14); “For all that is in the heavens and on the earth,” to the war of Sisera when the stars fought from heaven; “yours is the kingdom,” to the war against Amelek; and “head over all” meant that God oversees the appointment of even the lowliest worker to his position. Akiba’s exegesis was more succinct. God’s greatness referred to the parting of the Red Sea; God’s power, to the death of the firstborn; God’s glory, to the giving of the Torah; God’s victory, to the establishment of Jerusalem; and God’s majesty to the Temple (b. Ber. 58a). This reading makes David’s last blessing a sort of summary within a book that is itself a summary, and fills in the gaps of Chronicles’ own record of sacred history. Solomon Ibn Gabirol (c.1021– c.1058), the Jewish poet and thinker who is credited with being Spain’s first philosopher, transformed David’s public ceremonial blessing into a private devotional meditation. The opening verses of Ibn Gabirol’s celebrated poem, Keter Malkhut (“Royal Crown”) read: Wonderful are thy works, as my soul overwhelmingly knoweth. Thine, O Lord, are the greatness and the might, the beauty, the triumph, and the splendour.

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  95 Thine, O Lord, is the Kingdom, and Thou art exalted as head over all. Thine are all riches and honour: Thine the creatures of the heights and depths. They bear witness that they perish, while Thou endurest. (Keter Malkhut, I; tr. Zangwill 1923) The composition goes on to combine Ibn Gabirol’s celebration of God and creation with his personal confession of sin and repentance. The change befitted Ibn Gabirol’s circumstances. At an early age he contracted tuberculosis of the skin (also known as “Job’s disease”), a lifelong affliction that caused chronic pain. From his discussions of impurity and leprosy in Keter Malkhut, it is possible to surmise that either the condition excluded him from communal worship or that he felt he should be shunned (XXX and XXXV). The poem attracted an ardent readership and spawned imitations by other writers, including Moses Ibn Ezra. From the sixteenth century on, it found a place in Jewish machzorim (prayer books) for Yom Kippur, and today Sephardic Jews continue to read it as part of the liturgy on that day (Tanenbaum 2002: 59). A favorite Christian hymn and an enduring Jewish custom also arose out of David’s blessing of God. In 1 Chronicles 29:14, David declares that, in making freewill offerings to the Temple, the people tendered what God himself had provided: “For all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (KJV 1 Chr 29:14). This verse inspired the nineteenth‐century English bishop William How (1823–1897) to compose “We Give Thee But Thine Own.” How included the song in the enlarged edition of Psalms and Hymns, a hymnal he compiled with his fellow rector Thomas Morrell and published in 1864. In that work, How placed a line from Proverbs as a heading to the hymn: “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord” (Prv 19:17). The hymn’s lyrics reveal that How considered assistance to those in need to be the contemporary equivalent of biblical Israel’s contributions towards the Temple. We give thee but thine own, Whate’er the gift may be, For all we have is thine alone, A trust, O Lord, from thee. May we thy bounties thus As stewards true receive, And gladly, as thou blessest us, To thee our firstfruits give. To comfort and to bless, To find a balm for woe, To tend the lone and fatherless Is angels’ work below.

96  Chronicles Through the Centuries And we believe thy word, Tho dim our faith may be; Whate’er we do for thine, O Lord, We do it unto thee. (How 1864) Since its publication, the hymn has appeared in almost 400 other hymnals, Protestant and Catholic. In Jewish tradition, the first lines of David’s blessing were similarly interpreted. They appear in the Pesukei d’Zimrah, a collection of passages praising God that form part of Jewish morning worship. According to the Artscroll Orthodox siddur (prayer book), it is a common practice to set aside something for charity when uttering these verses from Chronicles (Scherman 2004: 76). In the course of his benediction, David contrasted Israel’s tenuous existence with God’s omnipotence and omnipresence and came to a sobering conclusion: “For we are aliens and sojourners before you, as were all our fathers; our days on the earth are like a shadow and there is no hope” (1 Chr 29:15). In translation, this line became a vehicle for expressing the challenges of the human condition. The Septuagint and Vulgate render the last phrase as “our lives on earth are like a shadow and there is no endurance.” Whereas the Hebrew describes an ongoing internal state, the Greek and Latin focus attention on the fleeting character of mortality. The Peshitta’s rendition takes yet another tack and speaks of acute vulnerability within a hostile political landscape: And we are sojourners before thee, insignificant in the world; and thou didst rule over our fathers formerly and command them by which way they should go, that they might live; and thee do we praise, O Lord our God, that thou mayest save us from all the nations that harm and revile us, saying: “Where is your God that ye worship?” (tr. Weitzman 1999: 208)

A mid‐twentieth‐century sundial in Poland brings the Chronicles verse perpetually to life (Figure  4.1). Taken from the Latin Vulgate, the words run along a painted ribbon on a wall below a sundial affixed to St. Mary’s Basilica in Krakow, Poland: DIES NOSTRI QVASI VMBRA SVPER TERRAM ET NVLLA EST MORA (Our lives on earth are like a shadow and there is no endurance) By literally connecting shadows to the passage of time, the church’s sundial gives a daily public demonstration of David’s words.

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  97

Figure 4.1  “All our days on earth are like a shadow and there is no hope” (1 Chr 29:15). Sundial affixed to St. Mary’s Basilica in Krakow, Poland. Mid‐twentieth century. Source: Author’s image.

98  Chronicles Through the Centuries Lastly, the Syriac scholar Sebastian P. Brock claims that Peshitta Chronicles’ version of the end of David’s blessing is the earliest witness of the Kaddish, a foundational Jewish prayer. The Kaddish begins, “May His great name be exalted and sanctified in the world that He created as He willed.” In the Masoretic Text of Chronicles, David concludes with a request that God endow Solomon with a perfect heart to carry out the building of the Temple (1 Chr 29:19). The Peshitta adds, “so that Your great name may be sanctified and praised in the world which You created before those who fear You” (Brock 2006: 110). It is possible that the addition of this phrase in Peshitta 1 Chronicles 29:19 was intended to refute gnostic beliefs by affirming God’s hand in creation (Weitzman 1999: 234). In any case, the author of Peshitta Chronicles sealed David’s blessing of God with another blessing from Jewish liturgy, forging a link between biblical and post‐biblical worship practices.

David’s Death Chronicles’ report of David’s death is concise: “He died at a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor, and his son Solomon succeeded him” (1 Chr 29:28). The length of David’s life, his wealth and standing, and his successful orchestration of a peaceful transition of power all bear out the theme in Chronicles that God rewards the righteous. The narrative of David’s last days in Kings, by contrast, is a saga of ill health, family strife, political upheaval, and the pursuit of personal vendettas (1 Kgs 1–2). Chronicles’ version is an attractive alternative for those exegetes who find Kings’ depiction of David’s end problematic. The availability of this choice was noted by the Hungarian‐born rabbi Joseph Hertz (1872–1946). In his Torah commentary (popularly called the Hertz Chumash), Hertz expressed a decided preference for Chronicles’ depiction of David’s end. He wrote that the Farewell Speech of Chronicles’ David was a “nobler utterance” than the last sentiments of Kings’ David (Hertz 1981: 192). Many during the Reformation considered the longevity, wealth, and honor of Chronicles’ David to be divine rewards bestowed on all faithful kings. The idea found special traction following the death of King George II of Great Britain (1683–1760). Preachers throughout the land eulogized him in sermons that took 1 Chronicles 29:28 as their theme verse. The inclination to compare King George II to David was due in part to the fact that King George reigned for thirty‐three years, the same amount of time for which David ruled Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:11; cf. 1 Chr 29:27). Another factor was George’s longevity. Two weeks shy of seventy‐seven when he died, George had lived longer than any other British monarch and had reigned for more years than anyone since Elizabeth I.

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  99 The span of his rule also exceeded that of nearly all his fellow rulers on the Continent. By any objective standard, the king, like Chronicles’ David, had died “at a good old age.” The English Presbyterian minster John Palmer (1729–1790) was among those most intent on establishing the correspondences between Chronicles’ David and King George. Palmer delivered “A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of His Late Majesty, King George the Second, and the Accession of his Present Majesty, King George the Third” to his congregation in New Broad Street Church in London on November 2, 1760. Palmer considered the similarities to be so strong that he was emboldened to give this paraphrase: “Thirty‐three years reigned King GEORGE the Second in Britain; and he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honour” (1760: 23). Palmer also cited David’s blessing of God to show that George’s character and piety were on par with that of the biblical king. The absence of any citations from Samuel and Kings attests to Palmer’s belief that Chronicles’ David set the ideal standard by which to measure George. Palmer likened the ascension of King George III (1738–1820), George II’s grandson, to that of Solomon in Chronicles, not only because of the smooth transition of power but also because of the fitness of the successor (1760: 18–19). Circumstances warranted Palmer’s appreciation for how peacefully matters had unfolded in England. George II had been on poor terms with his son Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707–1751). Banished from the court, the prince had openly opposed many of his father’s policies. Frederick died at age forty‐four, while his father was still very much alive, and Frederick’s son George then became the next heir apparent. George III happened to be a favorite among the people. He was the first monarch in the Hanoverian line to be born and educated in Britain and for whom English was his mother tongue. Palmer concluded his sermon with the wish that George III would be blessed, like his grandfather and Chronicles’ David, with length of days, a flourishing kingdom, and a life filled with honor. David’s gold standard applied to this new Solomon as well. Palmer’s comparison of George II to David, however, provoked a backlash. In 1761, a London publisher issued an anonymously authored pamphlet entitled “The History of the man after God’s own heart.” The preface began, Some reverend panegyrists* [*Dr. Chandler, Mr. Palmer, and others.] on our late king, have, a little unfortunately, been fond of comparing him with a monarch in no respect resembling him; except in the length of his reign, thirty and three years … A reverence for the memory of our late worthy prince, has occasioned the world being troubled with a new history of king David; which might otherwise not have appeared: merely to shew how the memory of the British monarch is insulted by the comparison. Comparisons are frequently said to be odious: but no one was ever more so, than in this present instance. (Anon. 1761: v–vi)

100  Chronicles Through the Centuries In the lengthy summary of David’s life that follows, only Chronicles’ account of the Levites’ bearing of the ark is taken from that book’s special material (Anon. 1761: 49). The author otherwise relies on Samuel and Kings, taking special note of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and of his complicity in the killing of Uriah (2 Sm 11) and his orders for the brutal execution of Saul’s descendants (2 Sm 21). For good measure, the author plucked bloodthirsty sentiments from the Psalms to show that even in prayer David’s murderous character was on display. Lastly, the author cites David’s dying words in Kings: “When he lay on his death‐bed, when all mankind resign their resentments and animosities, his latest breath was employed in dictating two posthumous murders to his son Solomon!” (92–93). It was a heinous act, the pamphlet concluded, to liken King George II to such an impious figure. The pamphleteer’s history of David illustrates an important point. The sources that readers privilege determine the David they receive. It also shows the sort of portrait of David one is capable of creating when Chronicles is nowhere in sight. A book making the rounds among churchgoers today demonstrates that Chronicles’ portrayal of the end of David’s life retains a powerful allure. In 2005, the Christian publisher Zondervan issued an abridgement of Scripture in thirty‐one chapters entitled The Story: Read the Bible as One Seamless Story From Beginning to End. The editors’ professed aim was to make the Bible as enjoyable to read as a novel. Pastors began to adopt the book for congregational use, spurring Zondervan to launch a new edition of The Story in 2011 along with a vast array of study tools, a CD of The Story music, and trading cards for children. By March 2013, The Story had sold over a million copies. The Story devotes two chapters to David’s reign. The first (“From Shepherd to King”) charts David’s rise to power and draws mostly on Samuel. The next chapter (“The Trials of a King”) covers David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the murder of Uriah, and Nathan’s rebuke (2 Sm 11–12), David’s repentance (Ps 51) and gratitude for God’s forgiveness (Ps 32), and Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sm 18–19). The editors then provide a transitional paragraph: Absalom’s rebellion was suppressed and the political damage repaired. Now David turned his attention to more pleasant concerns. The word of the Lord had come to David that the temple project would fall to his successor, Solomon. David planned big and gathered lavish materials, but Solomon would later manage the construction itself. David’s work was nearly done. A time of transition was coming. Would the future be as God‐blessed as the past? (Lucado and Frazee 2011: 169)

The Chronicles passages that follow – David’s preparations for the Temple (1 Chr 22) and his blessing and praise of God before the people (1 Chr 29) – set

David’s Reign from His Preparations for the Temple to His Death  101 the stage for Solomon’s ascension. The editors add that David resisted turning over power to Solomon until “one day his lovely wife Bathsheba whispered in his ear: ‘Now, David, is the time.’ And the king complied” (Lucado and Frazee 2011: 173). Their synopsis gives no inkling that Adonijah nearly usurped the throne, forcing both Bathsheba and Nathan to intervene strenuously on Solomon’s behalf. In the next chapter (“The King Who Had It All”), The Story reproduces from the book of Kings David’s exhortation to Solomon to obey God’s commandments (1 Kgs 2:1–4) and the notice of David’s death (1 Kgs 2:10–12). The five lines missing from this scriptural excerpt are David’s orders to kill Joab and Shimei son of Gera (1 Kgs 2:5–9). The omission sanitizes David’s deathbed instructions. Though the narrative of Solomon’s succession and David’s final words to his son are ostensibly drawn from Kings, the spirit animating The Story’s editorial decisions springs from Chronicles. The Story’s juxtaposition of its sources makes Chronicles’ David the sum total of the king’s life experiences. David begins as a hero who stumbles badly (Samuel). His great sin leads to repentance and acknowledgment of his reliance on God (Psalms). With this turn, David emerges as a great religious leader of his people and as a model of piety for his son (Chronicles and Chronicles‐influenced Kings). The Story demonstrates that, in the transmission of David in the twenty‐first century, Chronicles continues to have its say.

Part III The Reigns of Solomon and the Kings of Judah A strict moral accounting of the rulers who follow David is one of the hallmarks of Chronicles. David, in his last address to Solomon, describes God’s perpetual oversight: “And you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve him with a perfect heart and a willing mind, for the Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever” (1 Chr 28:9). David’s two themes  –  God’s insight into every individual and God’s immediate responsiveness  –  become recurring refrains in the narrative that

Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

104  Chronicles Through the Centuries follows his death (e.g. 1 Chr 29:17; 2 Chr 6:30; 12:5, 15:2 and 4, 16:9, 24:20, 26:5, 34:3). Though in principle David’s dictum is universal, in practice Chronicles’ post‐David history manifests God’s surveillance and its consequences primarily through the successes and failures of those who sit on the throne. The wicked King Jehoram is a notable exception, as God allows him to reign in order to preserve the Davidic line (2 Chr 21:7; cf. 2 Kgs 8:19, in which God holds back for the sake of David). Yet even this example underscores the rule. The fact that the Chronicler preserved an explanation for why God did not destroy Jehoram implies that one should expect the swift deliverance of retribution from on high. In Chronicles, Solomon takes his father’s words to heart and rivals Chronicles’ David as the paradigmatic ruler. Unlike in Kings, where Solomon ultimately embraces idolatry, in Chronicles he remains steadfastly devoted to God (1 Kgs 11; 2 Chr 9). Chronicles thus provides a portrait of Solomon that better befits the builder of the Temple and the first practitioner of the Temple cult. Only when the Judean kings enter the picture is Chronicles able to display the full range of consequences for those who follow or ignore David’s advice. In Kings, God rewards devout monarchs and punishes royal transgressors, but not always and not necessarily in their own lifetimes. The Chronicler’s revision of that history offers readers a more direct and consistent correlation between earthly action and heavenly reaction. Kings’ Josiah, for instance, suffers an untimely and violent death despite his faithful obedience and despite God’s promise that he would die in peace (2 Kgs 22:1–23:29), but in Chronicles, Josiah’s bad end is justified. Josiah begins by leading the same exemplary life and receives the same promise as in Kings but subsequently refuses to listen to the word of God (2 Chr 34–35). Chronicles also expands Kings’ history of Jehoshaphat to provide more proof of God’s attentiveness and involvement. Only in Chronicles does God defeat Jehoshaphat’s enemies as a reward for his fidelity (2 Chr 20:22) and then, a few verses later, wreck the king’s ships as punishment for his bad behavior (2 Chr 20:37). Chronicles’ depiction of the immediate impact of the piety of Judah’s rulers upon the welfare of the polity made a deep impression on early English Protestants, who believed the same dynamic was at work in their own time. Within this group, the accountability of kings emerged as an important theme. The first translators of the Bible into English were inspired to undertake their task in large part because they believed that their fellow citizens should have access to Chronicles and read for themselves what made for good and bad rulers. The Wyclif Bible, named after its principal translator John Wyclif (c.1320–1384), first appeared in 1382 and circulated widely. By 1388 it included a lengthy prologue that provided a synopsis of the Pentateuch and

The Reigns of Solomon and the Kings of Judah  105 the historical books through Chronicles. Its summary of Chronicles gave the civil and religious authorities in England a taste of what a lay audience could glean from this book: This process of Paraleipomen in the first and second book should stir Christian kings and lords to destroy sin, and love virtue, and make God’s law to be known and kept by their people, for here they see, how sorely God punished evil kings, that lived evilly, and drew the people to idolatry, or other great sins, and how greatly God praised, rewarded, and cherished good kings, that lived well, and governed well the people in God’s law, and open reasoning, and good conscience. And though kings and lords knew no more of holy scripture than three stories of the second Book of Paraliepomen and of Kings, that is the story of king Jehoshaphat, the story of king Hezekiah, and the story of king Josiah, they might learn sufficiently to live well and govern well their people by God’s law, and eschew all pride, and idolatry, and avarice, and other sins. (WB, Prologue, Chapter 10)

The authors of the Wyclif Bible thought Chronicles spelled out the stakes for contemporary Britain. When good kings reigned, the people obeyed God’s law and everyone prospered; when bad kings ruled, so too did sin, with disastrous consequences for all. The Prologue claimed that the English Crown and church fell far short of Chronicles’ standard, and it warned that if England’s rulers and clerics did not repent, the country was at risk of being conquered by foreign invaders. The reaction from these quarters shows how seriously the established authorities took the translators’ condemnation. The monarchy joined the church leadership to coordinate efforts to stop the production of vernacular Bibles, and it went so far as to authorize the execution of translators. Exegesis of these chapters in Chronicles was not limited to civic instruction, however. The emphasis in Chronicles on the private character of God’s engagement with every individual has led many to read its history of Solomon and the Judean kings as a story that sheds light on the invisible inner workings of the  spirit, both human and divine. This facet of interpretation is prominent in the reception of Chronicles’ King Manasseh, the longest reigning monarch in the Bible. In Kings, he is irredeemably wicked, whereas in Chronicles he repents and thus merits his longevity. Because of the rich array of interpretations that this contrast sparked, Chronicles’ Manasseh is considered in a separate chapter (see Chapter 8).

Chapter 5 The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa 1 Chronicles 29–2 Chronicles 16

Solomon Chronicles’ Solomon is a model of piety on the order of David and thus ­provided readers with another illustration of the benefits of devotion. The con­ trast of this ideal ruler with the idolatrous Solomon of Kings introduced new avenues for exploring the monarch’s ultimate standing with God. Specifically, Chronicles’ exceptional notice that Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord offered grounds for lauding as well as criticizing the king. Readers also mined

Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

108  Chronicles Through the Centuries Chronicles’ unique description of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple for insights into God’s accessibility and David’s redemption. Many were captivated by the blaze of fire that descends on Solomon’s first sacrifice on the Temple’s altar, a detail reported only in Chronicles. Lastly, the wording of God’s response to Chronicles’ Solomon sparked a chain of interpretation that led to a major twenty‐first‐century global prayer movement.

Solomon’s throne of the Lord In Chronicles, Solomon’s ascension is a great unifying celebration. The people slaughter their sacrifices, offer their holocausts, and hold a feast. Those who signal their obedience include all the sons of David. After the people anoint Solomon, he sits on “the throne of the Lord” (1 Chr 29:23). Chronicles con­ cludes its report of the event with the statement that God “highly exalted” Solomon and bestowed on him more royal splendor than any monarch before him (1 Chr 29:25). In Kings, Solomon’s rise is littered with various threats, including his brother’s attempt to rule in his stead. When Solomon finally ascends, he simply sits on “the royal throne” (1 Kgs 1:46) and on “the throne of his father” (1 Kgs 2:12). By comparison, Solomon’s occupation of “throne of the Lord” in Chronicles dramatically ups the ante, presaging the book’s unalloyed praise of the king’s reign. Unlike Kings’ Solomon, who spends the last years of his life worshipping the idols of his foreign wives (1 Kgs 11), Chronicles’ Solomon is faithful to the end. The early rabbis read Chronicles’ report with ambivalence. The very verse that in Chronicles attested to Solomon’s elevation became, in rabbinic exegesis, proof of the king’s descent from divine grace. In the Babylonian Talmud, Resh Lakish linked Chronicles’ notice that Solomon sat on God’s throne to Kings’ description of the physical boundaries of Solomon’s domain (1 Kgs 4:24). Resh Lakish concluded that at the outset Solomon ruled heavenly beings but after­ wards his reign extended only to those on earth. Presumably Solomon’s later idolatry, as recorded in Kings but not in Chronicles, led to the diminution of his power. Two other sages go on to contend that the scope of Solomon’s dominion continued to shrink until he was a commoner, and they debate whether he ever regained his royal status (b. Sanh. 20b). These interpreters accept the accounts of  both Chronicles and Kings but place Chronicles first in time. As a result, the  ­seating of Solomon on God’s throne in Chronicles is only temporary and ultimately highlights the extent of Solomon’s fall in Kings. Though in this instance Chronicles is accorded no less authority than Kings, the resolution of their dif­ ferences ultimately undermines Chronicles’ portrait of Solomon. No such tempering of this Chronicles verse occurs in the Pesqita de Rab Kahana. The pisqa (or discourse) for the Shabbat that ushers in the month of

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  109 Nisan (and Passover) is an exposition of Exodus 12:2 (“This month [Nisan] shall be for you the chief of the months; it shall be for you the first of the months of the year”). Reading Exodus 12:2 in conjunction with Psalm 89’s contention that David’s seed shall be established forever like the moon (Ps 89:37), the author of the pisqa compared the waxing and waning of the worthiness of Israel’s leaders to the lunar phases. His list of those leaders consisted of thirty‐ one names, beginning with Abraham and concluding with King Zedekiah, whose reign led to Judah’s fall and exile. Solomon, the fifteenth, occupies the same position as the full moon within the lunar cycle. The pisqa cites Chronicles’ report that Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as proof that Solomon’s rule marked the apex of Israel’s glory and strength. As for Israel’s nadir, Kings’ notice that the Babylonians blinded Zedekiah (2 Kgs 25:7) comports with the com­ plete darkness of the last phase of the moon (Pesiq. R. Kah. 5.12; Braude and Kapstein 1975: 256–257). Two coronation sermons advanced the throne of Chronicles’ Solomon for political purposes during the Restoration, a period that marked the reintro­ duction of the British monarchy after the fall of Cromwell’s Commonwealth in 1659. Here the verse’s capacity for double‐edged significance was once again revealed, lending support to those who harbored republican sentiments as well as to those who favored the divine right of kings. The Scottish Protestant ­minister Robert Douglas (1594–1674) delivered the first of these sermons on the occasion of Charles II’s coronation as the king of Scotland (and ostensibly England, France, and Ireland) on January 1, 1651 in Scone, Scotland. Two years earlier, England had witnessed the execution of Charles I, Charles II’s father. Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658) had then taken control of the new Commonwealth of England. Charles II’s coronation in Scone was a first step to reclaiming sovereignty. Scotland, however, had had its own difficulties with Charles I. His attempts to make Scottish Presbyterian churches adopt the ­practices of the English church had led to armed rebellion. Therefore, Charles II’s Scottish support came with certain expectations, which Douglas ­com­municated to the new monarch with the help of Chronicles. Douglas delivered a two‐hour sermon following the installment of Charles II on his throne, with 1 Chronicles 29:23 as the theme verse. Douglas understood the designation of the throne as God’s property to mean that kings have no inherent claim to rule. That seat, he said, belongs to God alone and anyone who occupies it does so only at God’s behest. Since the king and the people are equally subject to the will of Heaven, no sovereign can or should place himself above those whom he rules. Moreover, just as the king is in covenant with God, so too is he in covenant with his vassals. Should he break his pledge, the people have the obligation to overthrow him. According to Douglas, Charles II’s ­travails were God’s punishment for the deeds of his father (Charles I) and

110  Chronicles Through the Centuries grandfather (James I), both of whom believed in the divine right of kings. In Douglas’s interpretation, Chronicles’ “throne of the Lord” should remind Charles II of the limits of his sovereignty and of his obligation to rule in ­collaboration with his subjects (Douglas 1660). The second of these sermons was delivered by Bishop Francis Turner (1637–1700) at the coronation of Charles II’s successor, James II, in Westminster Abbey on April 23, 1685. In Turner’s exegesis, Chronicles’ notice that Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord affirmed that James was king by divine election and that the people’s only role was to acclaim God’s choice. For Douglas, God’s ownership of the throne diminished the king, but for Turner, it conveyed upon the monarch absolute authority. Turner therefore went so far as to raise the specter of damnation for those who failed to obey James (F. Turner 1685). Turner may have thought threats were necessary. Though James was the son of Charles I and brother of Charles II, some had considered James’s Catholicism sufficient grounds for exclusion from the line of succession. They had urged that the Protestant duke of Monmouth, Charles II’s oldest illegitimate son, receive consideration instead. There had even been a plan (“The Rye House Plot”), uncovered in 1683, to assassinate Charles II and James by those who feared their papist sympathies. Efforts to deny James standing as heir in the last years of Charles’s life, however, proved fruitless. When Charles died, James stepped forward to take his place. Turner’s selection of 1 Chronicles 29:23 as the coronation sermon’s theme verse thus allowed the bishop to deliver a message to James’s friends and foes alike: England’s new monarch had the backing of the full force of Heaven. Finally, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) took the interpretation of Solomon’s throne in an entirely different direction. Edwards explained in a letter written a few months before his death that this verse revealed an essen­ tial truth about Old Testament history. At the time Edwards composed his missive, he was awaiting word on whether the local ministerial council in Stockbridge, Massachusetts (Edwards’s place of residence at the time) would approve his appointment as president of the College of New Jersey (now known as Princeton). Edwards initially expressed reluctance to entertain the offer because of his desire to complete several works, and he only allowed the process to go forward after receiving reassurances that he would have time to write. One of his projects was The Harmony of the Old and New Testament. The book was to be Edwards’s response to the claim of various Enlightenment thinkers that history was accidental. Edwards intended to show that Old Testament actors and events prefigured the advent of Christ (Marsden 2004: 430).

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  111 For Edwards, Chronicles’ notice that Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord was one of the verses that, when properly interpreted, foretold the Christian kerygma. In the fall of 1757, Edwards’s friend and colleague Joseph Bellamy wrote to ask Edwards about Jesus’s citation of a phrase from Psalm 82  –  “You are gods” – to describe the Jews in John (“If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’….” Jn 10:35). In response, Edwards contended that Jesus and Psalm 82 were referring to the rulers of Israel, and he cited Chronicles as proof. In Edwards’s view, Solomon was not the only one to sit upon the throne of the Lord. All Israel’s monarchs had that privilege as part of their foreshadowing of Christ: The throne of Israel, or of God’s people, properly belonged to Christ; he only was the proper heir to that crown: and therefore the princes of Israel are said to sit upon the throne of the Lord … Thus, the princes of Israel are called “gods,” in that 82nd Psalm, and “sons of God” or all of them “children of the Most High,” being appointed types and remarkable representations of the true Son of God, and in him of the true God. (Letter to Joseph Bellamy, December 1, 1757; Claghorn 1998: 733–734)

Edwards died from a smallpox inoculation the following year. His interpreta­ tion of Solomon’s throne in Chronicles was Edwards’s last recorded exegesis.

Solomon’s dedication of the Temple Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the Temple in Chronicles closely follows Kings (2 Chr 6:1–42; cf. 1 Kgs 8:12–53). Interpreters have nonetheless exploited Chronicles’ slight differences to extract new relevance from Solomon’s words. A case in point is the captive Hannah Swarton. As noted in the Introduction, Swarton turned to Chronicles’ version of the prayer for inspiration when cap­ tured by the Abenakis. It omitted Solomon’s plea in Kings that God make Israel’s captors compassionate, allowing Swarton to petition exclusively for Heaven’s acceptance of her repentance (1 Kgs 8:46–52; 2 Chr 6:36–40). Chronicles also enjoys the great advantage of providing immediate proof that God has accepted Solomon’s prayer. When the king finishes, fire comes down from heaven and consumes Solomon’s sacrifice (2 Chr 7:1) (Figure 5.1). There is no such instantaneous supernatural response in Kings. Both phrasing and context appeared to have influenced the choice of Chronicles in a prayer of Saint Quintinianus (f. early 500 s), as relayed by the Gallo‐Roman bishop and historian Gregory of Tours (c.538–594). Quintinianus was one of the subjects of Gregory’s Vitae Patrum (Life of the Fathers), a collec­ tion of stories about the miracles wrought by various holy men of Gaul. According to  Gregory, Quintinianus, a bishop of Rodez, was renowned for

112  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 5.1  Miraculous fire consuming Solomon’s sacrifice (2 Chr 7). Source: Cassell’s Illustrated Family Bible 1860.

his piety. When a drought struck the region, the people asked him to pray for rain. Gregory recounts what followed: The holy bishop prostrated himself on his cloak in the middle of the road, and prayed for a long time in tears. Then he got up and, as far as his strength allowed him, he intoned the antiphon [verse] which they had asked for. Its words were taken from Solomon as follows: “When the heaven is shut up and there is no rain because of the sins of the people, yet if they pray towards this place, then hear thou from heaven, and forgive the sins of thy servants, and send rain upon the land which thou has given unto thy people for an inheritance.” And when they devoutly began to sing, the humble prayer of the confessor penetrated to the ear of Almighty God, and behold, the sky darkened and covered itself with clouds. And before they arrived at the gate of the town, a heavy rain fell upon the whole land, so that they were lost in admiration, and said that it was due to the prayers of this holy man. (Vitae Patrum 4.4; tr. James 1991: 26–27)

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  113 Quintinianus’s prayer is a condensed version of two verses from Solomon’s prayer of dedication as it appears in Vulgate Chronicles (Vul 2 Chr 6:26–27). The wording of Vulgate Chronicles varies slightly from the parallel verses in Vulgate Kings. The salient difference here is that Kings blames the lack of rain on “their sins” (Vul 1 Kgs 8:35) whereas Chronicles specifically ascribes the drought to “the sins of the people” (Vul 2 Chr 6:26). If one wished to begin a prayer with this verse, as Quintinianus did, Chronicles is the better option because it supplies the identity of the sinners. An additional reason for choosing Chronicles’ verse may have been the rec­ ognition that God’s immediate answer to a righteous individual’s prayer is more a theme of Chronicles than of Kings. In both Chronicles and Kings, Solomon’s petition does not require God to act at that very moment. The shutting of the heavens is part of a series of events that will occur sometime in the future and there is no guarantee that God will do as Solomon requests. For Quintinianus and the people of Rodez, the crisis was upon them and their need was acute. Perhaps they thought that selecting Solomon’s words from the book that gener­ ally testified to the alacrity of God’s response increased the chances for a swift and sure remedy. In any case, the quick results Quintinianus obtained through prayer accord with what one would expect from reading Chronicles. As for the early rabbis, Solomon’s prayer in Chronicles confirmed the ulti­ mate redemption of David. They found their proof in the line that culminates Solomon’s petition: “O Lord God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember your steadfast love for your servant David” (2 Chr 6:42; cf. Ps 132:1, 10). Kings’ Solomon, by contrast, stakes his request for a divine hearing on God’s promise through Moses at the time of the exodus that Israel would be God’s special possession (1 Kgs 8:53). The Babylonian Talmud attests to the need within the rabbinic community to assert that David’s behavior did not bring him permanent disgrace. Several tractates preserve different iterations of a tradition that David asked God to forgive his iniquity (context implies that David was referring to his adultery with Bathsheba) and God promptly did so. David then requested visible evi­ dence so that his enemies would know and be shamed. God agreed to make the pardon public in Solomon’s lifetime, after David’s death. Accordingly, when Solomon prepared to bring the ark into the newly erected Temple, the gates of the inner sanctuary would not open. Solomon attempted to spring them by uttering twenty‐four prayers. Still the gates remained closed. He tried reciting verses from Psalm 24 (“Lift up your heads, O you gates!” Ps 24:7), but to no avail. Finally he uttered Chronicles’ verse (“O Lord God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember your steadfast love for your servant David”), and the gates flew open. At that moment the faces of David’s foes blackened and all Israel knew that God had forgiven David (b. Sanh. 107b, b. Šabb. 30a, b. Mo’ed

114  Chronicles Through the Centuries Qat. 9a). In this narrative, Chronicles’ David, whose moral slate is clean, appears to rehabilitate Samuel’s David. When Chronicles’ Solomon asks God to recall his love of David, presumably the king expects the pious David of Chronicles to come to God’s mind. The eleventh‐century Jewish exegete Rashi (1040–1105) amplified the Talmud’s singling out of Chronicles for the redemption of David. Rashi under­ stood the Talmud’s reference to Solomon’s twenty‐four prayers to mean that the king was in fact reciting his prayer of dedication in order to open the gates. Rashi based this conclusion on the twenty‐four expressions of entreaty that he counted within the prayer, without distinguishing Chronicles’ version from that of Kings (Rashi, commentary on b. Sanh. 107b; Steinsaltz 1999: 130). In Rashi’s reading, the prayer was entirely ineffective right up until the end. When Solomon uttered Chronicles’ unique last line, however, the gates swung wide. By implication, in Rashi’s retelling not only did Chronicles’ version ultimately succeed, that of Kings failed. This verse allowed other interpreters to build on Chronicles’ David’s ­indispensability to the planning of the Temple and extend it to the Temple’s ­consecration. (Samuel/Kings’ David plays no role in the Temple’s construction.) In Ecclesiastes Rabbah, Solomon’s problem had nothing to do with gates. Rather, the king’s difficulty was that when he prepared to sacrifice on the altar of the new Temple, he was unable to make fire descend from heaven to consume it. He offered 1,000 sacrifices and twenty‐four prayers, but still nothing. He then recited 2 Chronicles 6:42, urging God to remember David, and fire came down at once. One sage claimed that in that moment David was resurrected, while others said that Solomon exhumed David’s coffin and brought it to the site. In either case, David was a necessary witness to the ­hallowing of the building. This tradition’s insistence on David’s involvement with the Temple even after his death bears the stamp of Chronicles’ influence (Eccl. Rab. IV; see also Midr. Tanhuma, Exodus, Va’era, 2; Pesiq. Rab. 2.5; Ex. Rab., Va’era, 1). Chronicles’ report of fire descending upon Solomon’s sacrifice is among the miraculous events mentioned in the letter that opens the second book of Maccabees (124 bce). The epistle from the Jews of Judah urges Egyptian Jews to celebrate Hanukkah and cites the fire that consumed Solomon’s sacrifice as one of the precedents for the cleansing of the Temple in 164 bce. According to the letter, sacred fire links Solomon as well as Moses and Nehemiah to Judas Maccabeus and his rededication of the altar (2 Mc 1:18–2:18). In this reception, the speed and drama of God’s response to Solomon were not as important as the heavenly fire’s purifying properties. Presumably, positing Solomon’s sacrifice in Chronicles as foundational for Hanukkah was part of the Judean Jews’ general effort to increase the sanctity of a relatively new holiday.

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  115 The image of fire falling from the sky to the altar as Chronicles’ Solomon looked on was such a popular illustration for printed Bibles and scriptural commentary that in some cases the image illuminated Kings’ narrative of Solomon’s sacrifice, despite the absence of fire in that account. In Biblia Ectypa, the widely circulated and copied picture Bible produced in 1695 by the German engraver and publisher Christoph Weigel (1654–1725), the picture that depicts the dedication of the Temple in Kings shows the back of Solomon as he faces an altar ablaze with flames from heaven (Weigel 1695) (Figure 5.2). (The fourteen images devoted to Chronicles do not include one illustrating Solomon’s dedica­ tion of the Temple and sacrifice). Above the engraving is “I. Reg VIII” (I Kgs 8) and below is a caption in German, which reads in translation, “King Solomon dedicates the temple with prayer, offerings, and other festivities.” Chronicles’ fire is similarly transferred to Kings in The History of the Old Testament in Verse (1704), a rhymed biblical synopsis by the English cleric Samuel Wesley (1662–1735). Though best known as the father of John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism, Wesley enjoyed moderate fame as a poet. In The History of the Old Testament in Verse, the illustration for Solomon’s sacrifice in Kings is borrowed from the one in Biblia Ectypa. Solomon faces away from the reader as he beholds the altar engulfed in fire and smoke. The artist was the engraver John Sturt (1658–1730), one of the celebrated illumina­ tors of John Bunyon’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. Moreover, Wesley describes the conflagration in his synopsis of Kings rather than in his summary of Chronicles (Wesley 1704: 343). The first English translation of Augustin Calmet’s Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique et littéral, written by the English c­ lergymen Samuel D’Oyly and John Colson in 1732, also added God’s fire in Chronicles to Solomon’s sacrifice in Kings. Calmet’s work, first published in 1728, created the  template for modern dictionaries of the Bible. The written overview of Solomon’s reign in this English edition includes the miraculous inferno on the altar, and a picture of the event is the entry’s only illustration. A full‐page ­copper‐ plate engraving shows fire pouring down from the sky to an altar in the center of the Temple courtyard as a wreath of thick smoke billows up (D’Oyly and Colson 1732: 2.735) (Figure 5.3). Of all the scenes from the life of Solomon, the authors apparently believed that this one would make the greatest impression upon their readers.

God’s answer to Solomon’s prayer of dedication Chronicles and Kings record in similar language that, following the Temple’s dedication ceremony, God appeared to Solomon to describe the rewards for obe­ dience as well as the punishment for disobedience (1 Kgs 9:1–9; 2 Chr 7:16–22).

116  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Figure 5.2  Solomon’s sacrifice (1 Kgs 8) with fire from heaven (2 Chr 7). Source: Weigel 1695.

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  117

Figure 5.3  Solomon’s sacrifice with fire from heaven. Top: Illustration of 1 Kings 8 by Jan Luyken. Source: Mortier 1700. Bottom: Solomon dedicates the temple to the Lord. Source: D’Oyly and Colson 1732.

118  Chronicles Through the Centuries Chronicles’ account of the theophany begins, however, with information that is missing from Kings. God declares to Solomon: I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself to be a house of sacrifice. If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people, then if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, and seek my face, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer of this place. (2 Chr 7:12–15)

These verses, unique to Chronicles, recapitulate Chronicles’ theme of God’s perpetual readiness to respond when called upon. In this passage God prom­ ises to do all that Solomon has requested in the king’s prayer of dedication and then offers something extra. Not only will God forgive the people their sin, God will also heal their land. Chronicles’ notice of this additional benefit, the healing of the land, is therefore “doubly” unique. One of the most striking receptions of Chronicles’ extraordinary notice occurred during the Reformation. Most Protestants in the British Isles consid­ ered their country to be the new Israel and, as a corollary, that every citizen bore equal responsibility for the maintenance of God’s covenant with the people. Accordingly, many understood God’s promise to Chronicles’ Solomon to heal the land to mean that God would protect the state. For such an event of divine grace to occur, however, the nation had to repent. Corporate atonement required the cooperation of all. Fast Day sermons became one vehicle for national penitence in England and 2 Chronicles 7:14 (“then if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, and seek my face, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and heal their land”) emerged as  a popular lemma for sermons preached on these days. In the 1570s the practice of collective humiliation and fasting on designated days, initiated by English Presbyterians, slowly took hold; by 1624, Fast Days and their atten­ dant s­ ermons were a regular component of Parliament (C. Hill 1993: 79–81). An eighteenth‐century guide to sermon topics and texts written by William Enfield (1741–1797), an influential English Presbyterian minister and educa­ tor, lists 2 Chronicles 7:14 among the preferred verses for Fast Day sermons (Enfield 1771: 130). The selection of 2 Chronicles 7:14 for Fast Day sermons allowed ministers to designate the national disaster that the contrition of the populace was intended to avert. For the Irish preacher George Wightwicke, those who eschewed revela­ tion in favor of reason were undermining the general piety of the citizenry with

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  119 dire consequences for all (Wightwicke 1741). James Ancell, the English curate of the parish church in Monks Kirby, read England’s recent earthquakes as a sign of God’s anger at the moral decay of the nation (Ancell 1757). (The great Lisbon earthquake had occurred two years earlier, in 1755.) In 1776, the Irish minister William Steel Dickson claimed that Britain’s war against its American colonies was the result of corrupt judgment and would bring divine chastisement through foreign invasion (Dickson 1776). In the shadow of the French Revolution, the Reverend Henry Poole preached that his fellow Englishmen were sorely in need of God’s protection from the “regicide Revolutionists of France” and their sym­ pathizers within Britain itself (H. Poole 1794). In each case, the only sure method for removing calamity was an act of atonement that inextricably linked the redemption of each citizen to the redemption of the nation. The assignment of “the land” to a place other than geographic Israel was a pivotal moment in the reception history of 2 Chronicles 7:14. Once biblical interpreters of the verse declared England to be the intended beneficiary of God’s healing, the door was open for transferring that designation to other countries, a practice that continues today. In modern America, for example, 2 Chronicles 7:14 is regularly invoked by those who pray for divine intercession in national affairs. In 2000, Charisma Magazine reported that a group of African Americans were urging the recitation of 2 Chronicles 7:14 as part of a congres­ sionally issued national apology for slavery (Lowe 2000). It has been the spur for calling for coast‐to‐coast repentance on the Fourth of July by the Christian minister Jeffery Anselmi (2008). On the tenth anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, the National Highway of Prayer sponsored “9/11/11 … TEN YEARS LATER,” a twelve‐hour national Christian prayer meeting devoted to 2 Chronicles 7:14. In 2012, a group called America For Jesus held a prayer rally forty days before the presidential election, citing the verse as its inspiration. The rally was held at Independence Mall in Philadelphia. Over 10,000 people participated in collective prayer for the healing of the United States (Kumar 2012). Present‐day readers have also employed 2 Chronicles 7:14 countless times for the healing of other lands. In a missionary trip in 2009, the American‐based Christian evangelist Benny Hinn, whose television program This is Your Day has worldwide viewership, prayed for the healing of Trinidad, Tobago, and Nigeria, citing 2 Chronicles 7:14 (Taylor 2011: 152). The verse also inspired the Australian Christian Values Institute’s forty‐day period of prayer and fasting to “heal the land” of Australia in 2010 (Australian Christian Values Institute 2010). In 2012, over 100,000 Indonesians participated in a prayer meeting for their country that took the Chronicles verse as its theme (Greig 2012). In 2012, the nonprofit organization Transform Kenya invoked 2 Chronicles 7:14 and asked Kenyans to set aside fifteen minutes every Friday to pray for the state.

120  Chronicles Through the Centuries Perhaps the most far‐reaching twenty‐first‐century reception of this Chronicles verse is the Global Day of Prayer. In 2001, members of a Christian movement began to pray for divine healing of the land and in 2005, half a bil­ lion people in 198 countries participated (Brown 2006: 644). Their impetus comes from a series of visions based on 2 Chronicles 7:14 proclaimed by the South African entrepreneur Graham Power (Power and Verooten 2009). Since Power’s initial vision in 2000, the objective has progressed from the healing of the country of South Africa to the healing of the states within the region of southern Africa, to all African countries, and finally to every nation across the globe. On May 31, 2009 the movement met its goal: citizens from every country on earth participated in the Global Day of Prayer. Today the Global Day of Prayer continues to be observed every Pentecost Sunday. To a great extent, Power’s interpretation of 2 Chronicles 7:14 verse conforms to that of those Presbyterians (and other Nonconformists) in seventeenth‐ and eighteenth‐century Britain. For both, the cultivation of righteousness by each citizen is important for the welfare of the nation. On the other hand, Power’s exegesis is innovative. The Presbyterians would never have countenanced the proposition that there could be more than one Israel in the world. Power and the movement he inspired, conversely, set individual political entities on equal spiritual footing.

Rehoboam Chronicles’ description of the reign of Rehoboam offers demonstrations of God’s swift response to infidelity as well as to penitence. It stands in sharp con­ trast to Kings’ account. The point where this becomes evident is in the account of Egypt’s invasion of Judah under the command of King Shishak. In Kings, though Judah commits innumerable sins on Rehoboam’s watch, the peoples’ iniquity does not explicitly trigger the incursion (1 Kgs 14:21–25). In Chronicles it does. Chronicles’ Rehoboam initially obeys God, but once his rule is secure, he and Judah forsake the Law. Shishak’s attack then comes as divine ­punishment for their unfaithfulness. The prophet Shemaiah personally delivers God’s mes­ sage: “You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you” (2 Chr 12:5). Rehoboam and his men immediately humble themselves and God relents – but only to a certain degree. God declares, “I will grant them some deliverance” (2 Chr 12:7). Total annihilation has been averted, but Shishak still loots the treasures of the Temple and the palace. Cotton Mather took note of the partial character of Rehoboam’s deliverance in a major meditation on the themes of captivity and salvation, which was central to the concern of Puritans in their ongoing conflict with the (Native American)

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  121 Indians. Mather selected this Chronicles’ passage as the focus of his widely read sermon “Humiliations, Follow’d by Deliverances,” which he presented in Boston on March 6, 1697. Mather intended his homily to be preparation for an upcom­ ing general fast, and he chose for an epigraph an abbreviated citation of 2 Chronicles 12:7: “When the Lord saw that they Humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came unto Shemaiah saying, They have Humbled themselves, I will not Destroy them, but I will grant them some Deliverance.” Mather used the verse to impress upon his audience the necessity for their own abasement, listing among their sins apostasy, drinking, swearing, slander, vanity, and sorcery. It has already been noted in the Introduction that Mather added Hannah Swarton’s first‐person testimony of her enslavement by the Abenaki as an appendix to the printed version of this sermon. While a prisoner, Swarton adapted Solomon’s plea in 2 Chronicles 6:36–39 to her own situation and, after her release, she understood her return to signal God’s acceptance of her atonement. Mather held a different view. In his exegesis of 2 Chronicles 12:7 he ­cautioned against making any correlation between release and redemption. He recounted for the first time the story of another Indian captive, Hannah Dustan (1657–1737), from Haverhill, a Puritan community some forty miles north of Boston. After witnessing the murder of her newborn daughter, Dustan, along with her midwife and an unrelated boy, became the prisoner of a Catholic Indian family consisting of two men, three women, and seven children. When it was revealed to Dustan that she would be stripped and scourged upon arrival at their destination, she devised a plan of escape. In the hour before dawn, pilfered hatchets in hand, Dustan and the others killed their sleeping captors, save for one woman and a boy who managed to escape. Dustan returned with ten scalps as proof. Adding to the drama, Mather announced that Dustan, the midwife, and the boy were among the assembled worshipers, having come to give thanks. Mather then addressed the former captives directly. From his remarks it is possible to deduce the lesson Mather derived from the experience of Chronicles’ Rehoboam, who, according to Chronicles, received only “some” deliverance. The king had still been subject to divine chastisement, his rescue by God not­ withstanding. Mather issued a similar warning. Just as no one presumed that Dustan and her fellow captives were the greater sinners for having been cap­ tured when others were not, so now they should not presume that they were better than the unfortunates who remained in the enemy’s hand. Their return did not signify salvation, as their souls were in as precarious a state as ever. Mather thereby established a difference between physical deliverance, which could be accomplished in one stroke, and spiritual deliverance, which could only be brought about by unceasing effort.

122  Chronicles Through the Centuries In the final product – the published version of “Humiliations, Follow’d by Deliverances” (Mather 1697)  –  Mather added Swarton’s narrative to his ­discourse. Both Mather and Swarton affirmed Chronicles’ central theme of God’s immediate responsiveness to every individual. Swarton focused on the benefits of divine grace. Mather, on the other hand, pointed out the dangers attendant to God’s vigilance. Together they provided the reader with two alternate understandings of release from captivity, each drawn from an inter­ pretation of Chronicles.

Abijah Chronicles’ description of Abijah’s reign is a major point of contrast with Kings’ narrative, where he is called Abijam. Matthew Henry’s analysis of  the two names in his commentary on Kings conveys how greatly Chronicles’  Abijah differs from King’s Abijam: “There [Chronicles] he is called Abijah – my father is the Lord, because no wickedness is laid there to his charge. But here [Kings], where we are told of his faults, Jah, the name of God, is, in disgrace to him, taken away from his name, and he is called Abijam” (Henry 1998: 510). Kings sums up Abijam’s character in two verses: he ­committed the same sins as his father and his heart was not true to God (1  Kgs 15:2–3). Kings then notes a war between Abijam and Jeroboam and concludes with notice of Abijam’s death after a three‐year reign (1 Kgs 15:6–8). Chronicles’ longer account is unreservedly laudatory. Before he fights Jeroboam, Abijah stands on a mountaintop to shout an indictment of Jeroboam and Israel for rebelling against Rehoboam, and when the battle is joined, God makes Abijah the victor. Jeroboam never regains his power and is struck dead by God. (Kings has no comment on how Jeroboam died (1 Kgs 14:20)). Abijah, by contrast, grows strong, takes many wives, and fathers thirty‐eight children (2 Chr 13). The details of Abijah’s victory over the Northern Kingdom gave key ancient Jewish exegetes pause. In the Palestinian version of the Talmud known as the Jerusalem Talmud (compiled c.400 ce), the war arises in a discussion of the importance of the nose as a facial feature in enabling the identification of a corpse. Chronicles’ report that Abijah and his men engaged in a “great s­ laughter” (2 Chr 13:17) of the Israelites led R. Aba b. Kahana to conclude that Abijah took the extra measure of mutilating the Israelites’ corpses by taking off their noses. Another sage claimed that Abijah posted guards over the unburied bodies of Jeroboam’s men for three days in order that their faces would decom­ pose past the point of recognition. The king thereby achieved the same end by different means.

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  123 With this depiction of Abijah’s brutality in the background, R. Samuel asserted that God’s wrath felled the king. When Chronicles reported that after the battle Jeroboam did not recover his power and “the Lord struck him down and he died” (2 Chr 13:20), R. Samuel claimed that the “he” in the last part of the verse referred to Abijah, not Jeroboam. Three reasons are given for his punishment. First, the rabbis viewed Abijah’s harangue from the mountaintop as an instance of public shaming, which in rabbinic literature is a heinous act that inflicts incal­ culable harm. Second, the sages believed that when Abijah called those who gathered around Jeroboam “worthless” (2 Chr 13:7), he insulted Ahijah the Shilonite, the prophet from the Northern Kingdom who foretold Jeroboam’s downfall (1 Kgs 14). Third, the rabbis accused Abijah of failing to eradicate idol­ atry from the land. Chronicles says that Bethel was among the cities Abijah took from Jeroboam but it makes no mention of the destruction of the golden calf that Jeroboam erected there (2 Chr 13:19; cf. 1 Kgs 12:29) (y. Yebam. 16:3). In the Jerusalem Talmud’s recapitulation of events, Abijah’s conduct pro­ vides grounds for condemnation and rebuke of the king himself. The sages thus treat Chronicles as a supplement to Kings, finding in its account the details missing from Kings’ terse report of Abijam’s wrongdoings. For these exegetes, Abijah’s war in Chronicles did not teach a positive lesson – the rewards that come from reliance on God, as the Chronicler would have it – but rather a negative one. The depiction of Abijah showed them how humans in general – and brothers in particular – should not treat each other.

Asa Asa is a far more instructive figure in Chronicles than in Kings. In Chronicles’ expansive account, the king displays greater faithfulness and faithlessness than his Kings’ counterpart. Uniquely in Chronicles, Asa makes a battlefield declaration of his reliance on Heaven (prompting God to defeat his enemies forthwith), and the pro tem prophet Azariah conveys a divine message to Asa and his army upon their return. Both Kings and Chronicles report Asa’s attempted reforms, culminating with the demotion of his mother, Maacah, from her position as queen mother because of her worship of Asherah, and both describe Asa’s alliance with Aram against Israel. At this point, however, Chronicles introduces the seer Hanani, who condemns that alliance as a sign of the king’s lack of faith, prompting Asa to tor­ ture him in response (2 Chr 16:7–10). These acts receive no mention in Kings where, rather, Asa is spoken of as “true to the Lord all his days” (1 Kgs 15:14). Moreover, while Kings only makes passing mention that Asa’s feet are diseased (1 Kgs 15:23), in Chronicles, his affliction leads to yet another act of impiety, as the king turns to physicians rather than to God for relief (2 Chr 16:12).

124  Chronicles Through the Centuries

The prophet Azariah John Owen (1616–1683), a leading Puritan minister during Cromwell’s rule in England, seized on the inspired speech of Azariah to characterize the nature of Israel’s polity and, by extension, that of England. Owen was in a position to make his views heard. His strong support of Protestant‐backed parliamentary rule won him the admiration of Cromwell, and he even served as Cromwell’s chaplain for a time. In 1652, Cromwell appointed him Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, a position he held for five years. Owen preached a Fast Day Sermon on October 30, 1656 to the second Protectorate Parliament, taking 2 Chronicles 15:2 as his theme verse: “And he [Azariah] went to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, O Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you” (KVJ 2 Chr 15:2). Owen relied on this verse to distinguish God’s conditional relationship with a nation from God’s unconditional covenant of grace with individuals. He began by explaining an apparent contradiction. How could Azariah proclaim the possibility of being forsaken by God when Christ had  ensured that all enjoy “the immutable purpose of grace”? The answer, according to Owen, was to be found in Azariah’s opening exhortation: “Hear ye me, O Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin!” (2 Chr 15:2). Owen stressed the significance of Azariah’s addressing Judah and Benjamin – the two tribes that comprised the nation of Judah – alongside Asa. The designation of Judah and Benjamin indicated that Azariah spoke to the people “in their national state” (Owen 1656: 433). Owen maintained that a citizenry had a different character and status from that of individuals. It concerned itself with national doings, including national obedience. As such, it was subject to God’s “special provi­ dential dispensations” of immediate and visible rewards and punishments (Owen 1656: 435). This verse also allowed Owen to ratify a republican form of rule. He under­ stood Azariah’s inclusion of Judah and Benjamin to mean that they were as responsible as Asa for the proper conduct of the state. In the Commonwealth, Owen argued, Parliament was now the entity charged with tending to Zion’s business, which included seeing to the spiritual health of Britain’s various tribes. Owen’s immediate purpose was to convince Parliament to attend to Wales, whose ministers Owen perceived to be careening between excessive zeal and stultifying traditionalism. He urged the body to demonstrate that God was with Parliament and Parliament was with God by taking steps to  remedy the situation (Owen 1656: 452). Through his interpretation of Chronicles, Owen thus confirmed that a representative body had the same capacity as an individual sovereign to retain or lose God’s abiding presence for the nation.

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  125 In Chronicles, Azariah follows his exhortation to Asa, Judah, and Benjamin with an illustration: “Now for a long time Israel was without the true God and a teaching priest and Law. But when in their distress they turned to the Lord, the God of Israel, and sought him, he was found by them” (2 Chr 15:3–4). Several interpreters took up God’s temporary disappearance from Israel to expound on what it meant to be without God and when this absence occurred. Early Jewish exegetes debated whether Azariah was speaking of a specific his­ torical period, and if so, when. One sage in the Babylonian Talmud argued that Azariah was describing a timeless condition of individual alienation from Heaven. In tractate Avodah Zarah, R. Huna stated that if someone studies Torah but does not also perform benevolent acts, that person is like one who has no God, citing 2 Chronicles 15:3 as his proof text (b. ‘Avod. Zar. 17b). For the author of Targum Chronicles, however, Azariah was describing a real event in the past – the secession of the Northern Kingdom – and the prophet’s reference to Israel was limited to those tribes who broke away from Judah. In the targu­ mist’s rendering of this passage, the house of Israel was without God because it adored golden calves and its priests were the ones who had no connection to the Law (Tg. 2 Chr. 15:3–4). The targumist thus excluded the possibility that the Judahites were ever without the true God. Abraham Miguel Cardozo (1626–1706), a Marrano Jewish philosopher, had another reading. He believed that Azariah was predicting the future. Cardozo is notable for his support of one of the most extraordinary figures in Jewish history, the mystic Sabbatai Zvi (1626–1676). Zvi was a Jew from Smyrna (now Izmir, Turkey) who rocked the Diaspora with his claims to be the messiah. After ­winning recognition by the visionary Nathan of Gaza (1644–1680) in 1665, he quickly acquired a massive following. Zvi’s provocative acts included the purposeful ­violation of the Law on the grounds that, since redemption was at hand, the s­ trictures of Torah were no longer necessary. In 1666, when Zvi was at the height of his fame and influence, he announced that he would soon have the crown of the Turkish Sultan. In response, the Sultan in question, Mehmed IV (1642–1693), offered him the choice of death or conversion to Islam. To the dismay – and ­disillusionment – of many of his followers, Zvi chose to convert. Cardozo, however, was among those who considered Zvi’s apostasy to be part of a yet‐to‐be‐revealed mystery. He continued to espouse Sabbatian beliefs, not only after Zvi’s conversion but also after the mystic’s death. In doing so Cardozo was apparently completing a task that he thought Zvi had left unfinished and for which the proper understanding of Chronicles was crucial. In bringing to closure that redemptive mission, Cardozo left open to question whether he ultimately considered himself to be the true messiah. In his treatise This is My God and I will Praise Him (composed in 1685/86), Cardozo placed Azariah’s words in the future tense: Israel will be a long time

126  Chronicles Through the Centuries without a true God (Cardozo 2001: 180). According to Cardozo, the Jews of his day had forgotten the true identity of their God, and it was the messiah’s task to teach them. First they had to learn to distinguish between two divine entities, the First Cause and its emanation the Creator God. The First Cause was acces­ sible to all through reason, and Gentiles of every stripe and in every age revered it as their creator. Only the Creator God, however, was salvific. The Jews previ­ ously knew this God through revelation but over time they began to think like Gentiles, thereby fulfilling Azariah’s prophecy. Cardozo hoped his exegesis of 2 Chronicles 15:3 would reverse Jews’ alienation from God and bring about the end of their exile. With this treatise, Cardozo offered Jewish Enlightenment thinkers a Jewishly inflected understanding of divinity as an alternative to the deracinated conception of God proposed by another Marrano Jew, Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) (2001: 329).

Asa’s demotion of the queen mother, Maacah Chronicles’ Asa had a hand in bringing about the King James Version of the Bible, thanks to a gloss in the earlier and widely used Geneva Bible. Both Kings and Chronicles relate that Asa demoted his mother Maacah for possessing an idol, and in each book Asa burns it (though Chronicles’ Asa takes the addi­ tional step of pulverizing the idol before its incineration) (1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Chr 15:16). The Geneva Bible’s annotators’ gloss on 1 Kings 15:13 reads, “Neither kindred nor authority ought to be regarded, when they blaspheme God & become idolaters, but must be punished” (Berry 1969: 159). The note on Chronicles goes much further and makes it crystal clear that the annotators did not think demotion was a sufficient penalty. It said Asa should have killed Maacah, an act that encompassed both regicide and matricide: “… and herein he showed that he lacked zeal, for she ought to have died both by the covenant and by the Law of God: but he gave place to foolish pity, and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the Law” (GB note on 2 Chr 15:16; Berry 1969: 197). It is likely that the annotators considered Chronicles a better context than Kings for advocating the death penalty, given the consistency and immediacy with which God punishes rulers in Chronicles’ account. The note was to prove incendiary, in no small part because of its wide cir­ culation. After its completion in 1560, the Geneva Bible quickly became the most popular English translation in the land, and it appeared in at least 140 editions. Its translators were drawn from among prominent English Protestants living in exile in Geneva during the five‐year reign of England’s Catholic queen Mary Tudor (1553–1558). The Geneva Bible’s marginalia contributed greatly to the book’s appeal as lay readers depended on the annotations to give them the “correct” sense of the verses.

The Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa  127 One of its readers was King James. James, whose own mother Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded for treason, considered the note to 2 Chronicles 15:16 (as well as that to Exodus 1:19, which declared lawful the Hebrew midwives’ disobedience of Pharaoh) to be dangerous and traitorous. He therefore com­ missioned a translation of Scripture without marginalia, the Authorized Version, now popularly known as the King James Version (KJV). Published in 1611, the KJV eventually overtook the Geneva Bible and supposedly erased the call in Chronicles to kill Maacah. The gloss, however, proved tenacious. There were eight printings of the KJV with Geneva annotations, the last as late as 1715.

Asa’s diseased feet Chronicles’ discussion of Asa’s feet became, through exegesis, a scriptural basis for linking piety to health. John Chrysostom (c.347–407 ce), a founda­ tional church father, was an early proponent of the view that Asa’s affliction came from God, an idea he derived from Chronicles. In a homily on the Gospel of John, Chrysostom makes the connection between sin and illness in his explanation of Jesus’s warning to a man he had healed (“See, you are made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to you,” Jn 5:14). Chrysostom interpreted this verse to mean that while not all sickness is the result of sin, some blows to the body are indeed manifestations of divine chastisement and therefore should be received with gratitude. He pointed to the example of Asa in the book of Kings, whose gout, Chrysostom said, was a punishment for his transgressions (Hom. Jo. 38.1). The book that associates Asa’s disability with his moral failings, however, is not Kings but Chronicles. Chrysostom conflates the two accounts. His trans­ mission of Chronicles is further complicated by the fact that he conflates inex­ actly. Chronicles does not ascribe the origin of Asa’s disease to his unfaithfulness. The aftermath is the problem, as Asa’s worsening condition leads him to look to doctors rather than to God for healing (2 Chr 16:12). In Chrysostom’s retelling, Asa’s disease is itself the result of sin, which is in keeping with the other instances in Chronicles of God’s swift reward and punishment of the king. Through the commentary of this foundational church father, Chronicles’ Asa influenced readers’ understanding of illness as it related to Kings’ Asa as well as to Jesus’s admonition to the man he healed in the Gospel of John. A sermon by the renowned English preacher Charles Spurgeon reveals the persistence of the belief that Asa’s illness was itself a manifestation of God’s judgment. Delivered in 1874 in the Metropolitan Tabernacle of London, Spurgeon’s “A Lesson from the Life of King Asa” held up the ruler as an example of a man who began well and then erred badly. Chronicles provided Spurgeon with the details of Asa’s failings, which included his ill‐advised alliance with

128  Chronicles Through the Centuries Aram and Asa’s mistreatment of the prophet Hanani. God, Spurgeon said, was watching:“‘Now,’ He seemed to say, ‘I will take you in hand Myself,’ and He sent him a disease in his feet – a very painful disease, too. He [Asa] had to suffer night and day. He was tormented with it and found no rest; God’s own hand was heavy upon him” (Spurgeon 1874). Spurgeon took Chronicles’ notice that the people honored Asa after his death and perfumed his funeral bier with spices (2 Chr 16:14) to mean that the king repented and died “rejoicing in his God.” Nonetheless, Spurgeon said, Asa’s malady remained a reminder that God will chasten backsliders with “vexation” for the rest of their days (1874: 7). Christian Scientists have a natural interest in Asa’s feet. The founder of the Christian Science movement, Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910), maintained that sin and disease were illusions that could be dispelled through true belief in  Christ. Silas Cobb, an early Christian Science practitioner, supported this  argument in an article for The Christian Science Journal, drawing on Chronicles’ account of Asa for evidence: “Moreover, there is no record that God or Christ Jesus made use of any material remedy to cure disease; but it is recorded that King Asa ‘slept with his fathers,’ after trying drugs to heal him; which would seem to indicate that it was wrong” (Cobb 1910: 188). For Cobb, the fact that the notice of Asa’s death came immediately after his consultation with doctors (found only in Chronicles) could and should be taken as a sign of divine disapproval. Today Chronicles’ Asa continues to be read by Christian Scientists as part of the biblical proof of Eddy’s principles. The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Bozeman, Montana included 2 Chronicles 16 in its compilation of biblical texts for November 30, 2011 (FCCS Bozeman 2011). In that list, Chronicles’ account of Asa’s attempt to cure his feet with medicine is followed by a verse from Psalm 118: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man” (Ps 118:8). The juxtaposition indicates that Asa would have done better had he directed all his efforts toward prayer.

Chapter 6 The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz 2 Chronicles 17–28

Jehoshaphat Chronicles includes important passages on Jehoshaphat that are not found in Kings. Only Chronicles details Jehoshaphat’s judicial and educational initiatives, and only in Chronicles does Jehoshaphat utter a heartfelt prayer before all Israel on the eve of a terrifying battle. Some interpreters relied on these verses to provide a biblical basis for their own political and legal reforms. Others adapted Jehoshaphat’s prayer to address their unique needs. Through these

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

130  Chronicles Through the Centuries readers, Chronicles’ Jehoshaphat had a significant impact in the realms of law, politics, religion, music, art, and philosophy.

Jehoshaphat’s reforms Chronicles’ Jehoshaphat is one of the great scriptural sources for support of the rule of law and for those seeking guidance on the role of the state in the promulgation of virtue. In Chronicles, one of Jehoshaphat’s programs for enhancing public morality focuses on the judicial system. He dictates the following code of ethics to his newly appointed magistrates: Consider what you are doing, for you judge not on behalf of human beings but on behalf of the Lord. He is with you in giving judgment. Now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you. Be very careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking of bribes. (2 Chr 19:6–7)

Jehoshaphat’s vision of judicial conduct was taken up in the Sachsenspiegel. The first German law book, the Sachsenspiegel (1235) proved foundational for European jurisprudence in the Middle Ages. Its author was Eike von Repgow (1180–1235), a Saxon legal expert who intended the work to be a handbook for those charged with administering the law. The Sachenspiegel opens with a dictum to judges. According to the Sachenspiegel scholar Guido Kisch, Eike modeled it on Jehoshaphat’s command that magistrates be just and impartial and that they not take bribes (Kisch 1941: 92). In the best‐preserved manuscript (the Wolfenbüttel codex), the line reads, “No one should let himself be diverted from the law, not for love or jealousy, wrath or gain” (tr. Dobozy 1999: 67). The book’s influence extended throughout the German territories and beyond, and Prussia continued to rely on it well into the eighteenth century. Its wide reception marked it as “the single most significant document of its kind in the history of German laws, customs, and material culture” (Dobozy 1999: 7). During the Reformation, the Scottish Presbyterian divine Samuel Rutherford (c.1600–1661) considered Chronicles’ description of Jehoshaphat’s judiciary to be proof that God sanctified the rule of law. In Lex, Rex (1644), a seminal work defending constitutionalism, Rutherford maintained that no one was exempt from obedience to the law, not even  –  or especially not  –  kings. Rutherford drew on biblical examples to make his case, and two Chronicles verses were crucial to his argument: Jehoshaphat’s assertion that magistrates judged for God and Chronicles’ report that “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord, as king” (1 Chr 29:23). Rutherford deduced from these verses that judges were the equal of kings in the administration of justice: Inferior Judges [the judiciary] are no less essentially Judges, and the immediate Vicars of God, than the King … [T]he formal reason, why the King is univocally

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  131 and essentially a Judge, is, because the King’s throne is the Lord’s throne; 1 Chron. 29.23. And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord, as King, instead of David his father: 1 King. 1.13. It is called David’s throne, because the King is the Deputy of Jehovah; and the judgment is the Lord’s: I prove the assumption. Inferior Judges appointed by King Jehoshaphat have this place, 2 Chro. 19.6. The King said to the Judges, Take heed what ye do … for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord: then they were Deputies in the place of the Lord, and not the King’s Deputies in the formal and official acts of judging. (1644: 159)

Rutherford thus rejected the notion that judges served at the behest of human sovereigns. An independent judiciary, he concluded, was in accordance with God’s plan. John Calvin (1509–1564) understood Jehoshaphat’s assertion that judges acted on God’s behalf to mean that the objective of civil rule was to safeguard the church. The Institutes of the Christian Religion (first edition, 1536), Calvin’s influential summary of Christian teaching, describes two kingdoms, one spiritual and the other civil. The first is concerned with humankind’s eternal life and the second with existence in the material world. The spiritual and civil realms are not completely separate, however. Calvin, citing Chronicles’ Jehoshaphat (as well as the Pentateuch’s Moses), claimed that, as “God’s representatives,” the piety of the people was the magistrates’ primary concern. One of the judges’ God‐given duties, therefore, was the eradication of heresy (Calvin 1995: 4.20). Calvin eventually put his theories into practice in Geneva, where his views shaped the ecclesiastic and political governance of that city‐state. Two prominent seventeenth‐century English Puritans looked not to Jehoshaphat’s judiciary but to the king’s educational and religious reforms to discern the state’s duty to uphold religion. In Chronicles’ account, Jehoshaphat’s initiatives include a push to provide national instruction in God’s law. The king selects five officials, several Levites, and two priests to teach Torah throughout the country. Chronicles records their activity: “They taught in Judah, and with them was the book of the law of the Lord. They went around through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people” (2 Chr 17:9). In John Cotton’s “The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven” (1644) and in John Owen’s “Of toleration; and the duty of the magistrate about religion” (1649), Jehoshaphat’s initiative is a model to emulate in their own day. Cotton and Owen maintained that the safety and health of a country required political leaders actively to ensure the dissemination of the Gospel, properly understood. For Cotton, Jehoshaphat’s coalition of civic and religious authorities meant that each was to bring the full force of their respective powers to bear in the rooting out of corrupt worship practices: It is true, the establishment of pure Religion, and reformation of corruptions ­pertain also to the Churches and Synodical Assemblies. But they go about it only with spiritual weapons, ministry of the Word, and Church‐censures, upon such

132  Chronicles Through the Centuries as are under Church‐power. But Magistrates address themselves thereto, partly by commanding, and stirring up the Churches, and Ministers thereof to go about it in their spiritual way; partly also by civil punishments upon the willfull opposers, and disturbers of the same. (Cotton 1843: 96)

Owen also advocated that magistrates “set hedges of thorns” in the path of heretics. Citing Jehoshaphat’s removal of idols from Judah (2 Chr 17:6), Owen claimed, “It is the duty of the magistrate not to allow any public places for (in his judgment) false and abominable worship; as also, to demolish all outward appearances and demonstrations of such superstitious, idolatrous, and unacceptable service” (Owen 1862: 194). Both men, however, stopped short of advocating the use of law to compel men to worship. Their writings were important in Puritan debates over models of self‐government.

Jehoshaphat’s reliance on God When Jehoshaphat learns that the Moabites and Ammonites are about to invade Judah with a massive force, he immediately turns to God. After proclaiming a fast, he utters a public prayer reminding God of his promise to hear the cries of the people when they are in need. The prayer concludes with an ardent appeal: “O our God, will you not execute judgment upon them? For we have no power against this great multitude coming against us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you” (2 Chr 20:12). The pro tem prophet Jahaziel steps forward to declare to the king and all Judah, “Thus says the Lord to you: ‘Do not be afraid or dismayed at this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God’s’” (2 Chr 20:15). In the morning when the fight is about to begin, Jehoshaphat further assures the people: “Believe in the Lord your God and you will be established” (2 Chr 20:20). He places singers in the vanguard of the army to sing God’s praises. As soon as they begin, God causes the enemy armies to turn on one another, resulting in their mutual destruction. Judah is saved (2 Chr 20:22–23). Jehoshaphat’s prayer has had a long and interesting afterlife. The spur for invoking the prayer has oscillated between actual military threat and internal spiritual distress. An early instance of the metaphorical use of the prayer is the anonymously authored thirteenth‐century book Ancrene Wissen (A Guide for Recluses). Composed primarily in early Middle English, the vernacular of the time, Ancrene Wissen was originally a guide written for three young sisters who were about to become anchoresses. Anchoresses were women who withdrew to cells where they practiced a solitary life of physical deprivation and prayer. In thirteenth‐century England, some 120 women enclosed themselves in “anchorholds” (Warren 1985: 20). Over time the book’s audience expanded and the work eventually acquired an extensive readership, remaining popular

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  133 well into the Reformation period. Its admirers included King Henry VIII (1491–1547), who requested and received a Latin copy for his personal library (Wada 2003: 6). Jehoshaphat appears in Part IV, the section of the book that deals with temptations. The author transforms the threat posed by the Ammonites and the Moabites into a private internal crisis. He warns the sisters that in their new vocation they will be subject to attack by the devil’s army, and he urges them to imitate Jehoshaphat by praying quickly for help. The author first supplies, in Latin, excerpts from Vulgate 2 Chronicles 20:12, 15, and 17: In Chronicles: Indeed we do not have enough strength to be able to resist this multitude that is advancing on us. But since we do not know what we should do, all that is left to us is to turn our eyes on you. There follows: These are the words of the Lord to you: do not be afraid, and do not be frightened of this multitude. For it is not your fight, but God’s. (tr. Millett 2009: 101)

His vernacular rendering follows: This is the English: “Dear Lord, we do not have enough strength to be able to resist the devil’s army that is attacking us so violently. But when we are so besieged, so hard‐pressed that we have no idea at all what we should do, this one thing we can do, lift up our eyes to you, merciful Lord. You must send us help, you must scatter our enemies, because we are looking to you.” (ibid.)

The author instructs the sisters that if they do not immediately hear from God, they are to cry out more loudly and insistently. And if God still does not listen, they are to threaten to surrender the castle unless he sends you help more promptly, and moves faster. But do you know how he answered Jehoshaphat the good? In this way: Do not be afraid, etc. This is how he will answer you when you call for help: “Do not be afraid. Do not be at all frightened of them, even though they are strong and there are many of them; the battle is mine, not yours. Just stand firm, and you will see my help. Only have confident belief in me, and you will be quite safe.” (ibid.)

The translation places in God’s mouth the words Jahaziel addressed to Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:15 and 17) and the words Jehoshaphat addressed to the people (2 Chr 20:20), thereby creating one address directly from God to the anchoresses. The change increases the immediacy of God’s engagement and makes his promised support and protection more certain than it is in Chronicles itself.

134  Chronicles Through the Centuries In the face of an incursion by the Ottoman Empire, Martin Luther (1483– 1546) listed Jehoshaphat as a model for turning aside God’s wrath through prayer in his essay “On War Against the Turk.” The treatise was published in 1529, the year Vienna came under siege by Muslim invaders. In order to be successful on the field of battle, Luther wrote, the Christian soldier must first reform his life through penance. Jehoshaphat was among those biblical figures whom Luther believed demonstrated the power of supplication to God. Luther’s followers took heed and adopted Jehoshaphat’s prayer as an ideal petition of God when physically or spiritually beset. All or part of the prayer (2  Chr 20:5–12) appears in a vast array of sixteenth‐century Lutheran prayer books, sermons, and hymns. Among Lutherans, the martial circumstances of its origins had as much resonance as its deeply personal confession of need. In 1577, the Lutheran pastor and poet Zacharias Praetorius (1535–1575) published Sacer Thesaurus, a work that contained two of his sermons on Chronicles’ Jehoshaphat. In the first, Praetorius uses the prayer to teach the proper understanding and conduct of war, and in the second, he discourses on the prayer’s efficacy in times of personal discord and suffering (Haemig 2004: 522–535). One hymn from this era stood out from all the rest and remains popular to this day: “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein” (“When in the hour of utmost need”), written by the German Lutheran theologian Paul Eber (1511–1569) and published in the 1560s. Eber appeared to base his composition on “In Tenebris Nostrae et Densa Caligine Mentis,” verses written by his teacher, the Lutheran classicist Joachim Camerarius (1500–1574), but as early as 1593 prayer books also credited Jehoshaphat’s prayer in Chronicles as Eber’s inspiration (Haemig 2004: 528). Consisting of seven stanzas, “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein” is a plea for succor, forgiveness, and rescue from anguish and need. Eber is reputed to have written this piece in 1547 when he and other Lutherans were in mortal danger. The Catholic Emperor Charles V and his forces had arrived at the gates of Wittenberg, where Eber resided, fresh from their victory over the Protestants in Mühlberg. No doubt Charles had a special interest in capturing Wittenberg, as it was there that Luther had nailed his ninety‐five theses to a church door in 1517. The town capitulated and Eber survived (Kübler 1865: 260–261). The hymn’s salvific power in the heat of battle was hailed during the Thirty Years’ War, a conflict sparked by the Holy Roman Empire’s attempt to enforce religious conformity. Sweden entered the fray to defend the autonomy of the northern Protestant states, and in 1644 Swedish forces besieged the Saxon town of Pegau. When the town ran out of food, the Saxon general sued for peace, but the Swedish commander, Lennart Torstensson, refused and vowed that all would die. Pegau’s pastor, Samuel Lange, then ventured forth into the enemy camp, accompanied by twelve young boys dressed in white. When they came to

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  135 Torstensson, the boys knelt and sang “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein.” The general suddenly recognized Lange as an old schoolmate and friend, and at once ordered that Pegau be spared. The inhabitants of Pegau commemorated their deliverance by proclaiming that the hymn should be sung every Sunday (Kübler 1865: 261–262). An English translation of the song remains a staple in The Lutheran Hymnal (1944) and 2 Chronicles 20 is routinely cited as its source: 1. When in the hour of utmost need We know not where to look for aid; When days and nights of anxious thought Nor help nor counsel yet have brought, 2. Then this our comfort is alone, That we may meet before Thy throne And cry, O faithful God, to Thee For rescue from our misery; 3. To Thee may raise our hearts and eyes, Repenting sore with bitter sighs, And seek Thy pardon for our sin And respite from our griefs within. 4. For Thou hast promised graciously To hear all those who cry to Thee Through Him whose name alone is great, Our Savior and our Advocate. 5. And thus we come, O God, today And all our woes before Thee lay; For sorely tried, cast down, we stand, Perplexed by fears on every hand. 6. Ah! hide not for our sins Thy face, Absolve us through Thy boundless grace, Be with us in our anguish still, Free us at last from every ill, 7. That so with all our hearts we may To Thee our glad thanksgiving pay, Then walk obedient to Thy Word And now and ever praise Thee, Lord. (Hymn no. 522; tr. Catherine Winkworth)

136  Chronicles Through the Centuries With Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750), the setting for Eber’s hymn once again migrated from the battlefield to the soul. Bach included “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein” as a chorale prelude in his Weimar Orgel‐büchlein collection (BWV 641, composed c.1713 (Stinson 2003: 36)). Bach composed an expanded version that later became one of the Great Eighteen Chorales (BWV 668a, revised c.1739–1742 (Wolff 2002: 450)). On his deathbed, Bach introduced further changes to the arrangement and substituted another hymn text, from which he gave the piece its new title: “Vor deinen Thron Tret Ich hiermit” (“Before Your Throne I Now Appear,” BWV 668). In “Vor deinen Thron Tret Ich hiermit,” the speaker stands before God, professes God’s salvation, and asks for a blessed end. By comparison, “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein” is not as personal (it uses “we” while “Vor deinen Thron” uses “I”) nor does its description of woes include the imminence of death. It would appear that, in making the switch, Bach wished to give new urgency to the act that connected Eber’s hymn to Jehoshaphat’s prayer: a turn to God in the hour of utmost need. Though “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein” was superseded in the process, its imprint on Bach’s last chorale remains. Jehoshaphat’s words of encouragement on the morning of the battle revealed the transformative power of belief to young Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882). Emerson was to become one of the founders of American Transcendentalism, a philosophical movement that urges each person to connect to the universe through intuition. Eventually Emerson expressed his views through poetry, essays, and lectures. In the beginning, however, he aspired to the ministry and the pulpit was his platform. In 1827, the second year of his preaching career, he wrote a sermon that took as its theme verse Jehoshaphat’s assurance to the ­people on the morning of battle: “Believe in the Lord your God, so shall you be  established” (2 Chr 20:20), which he delivered thirteen times in various churches in and around Boston up until April 1830 (von Frank 1989: 93). Two years later Emerson resigned, and in 1836 he produced Nature, a foundational essay setting forth his Transcendental beliefs. In it he argued that Nature held the key to spiritual advancement. God’s existence and the character of reality could be deduced by studying the world that lay before one’s eyes. The sermon on Chronicles was an early intimation of these convictions. In this homily, Emerson asked his listeners to consider the ebb and flow of fortune and health in the inexorable march toward death. Everything decays, even the stars: “wherever there is matter, there is mutation.” This fact, he said, makes existence intolerable: One alteration begets another, and man, the observer of all, feels himself afflicted with the same evil he laments. It is a question which arises with great force in our minds whenever we turn our thoughts to these melancholy images of progressive ruin, whither we shall go for refuge, what rock, what rampart is left, behind which

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  137 we may retire, and feel safe? What is the natural relief which man possesses to keep him from growing giddy whilst he gazes on these turning wheels of nature? (von Frank 1989: 96)

Emerson’s answer was belief in the idea of an immoveable, immutable, and all‐powerful God as the wellspring of life and action. With this leap of faith, Emerson claimed, “we shall meet a Being who, though high and omnipotent, is yet our near companion on the way of existence” and who will impart to the believer the ability to discern right from wrong. The nexus for this relationship is the mind, the indestructible and unchanging spark of the divine within humankind. Through thought, every believer may acquire knowledge of spiritual things and transcend “the storm and commotion of the world below” (von Frank 1989: 98). This is the essential truth, Emerson concluded, of Jehoshaphat’s claim: “Believe in the Lord your God, so shall you be established.” The rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud, for their part, focused on Judah’s advance into battle. Yet their real interest lay not with military maneuvers but with the nature of God. They examined the refrain “Give thanks to the Lord, for his steadfast love endures forever,” sung by those who led the troops into battle and the trigger for God’s ambush of the opposing armies (2 Chr 20:21–22). By comparing this chorus to its near parallel in Psalms, R. Jonathan deduced that God does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked. Several psalms contain the line “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good (ki tov), for His steadfast love endures forever” (Ps 106:1, 107:1, 118:1, 136:1). The words ki tov can also mean “for it is good.” The vanguard’s omission of ki tov, R. Jonathan argued, meant that God did not want “it” – meaning in this case the impending annihilation of Judah’s enemies – to be extolled as good (b. Sanh. 39b, b. Meg. 10b).

Joash Chronicles’ Joash has had a paradoxical reception. Some have compared Chronicles’ report of Joash’s reign to that of Kings and found evidence of Chronicles’ historical untrustworthiness, which in turn caused them to spurn the book. Yet others have spun from Chronicles’ account a rich and complex web of tradition that extends into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These two responses show the capacity of the material special to Chronicles to alienate as well as enchant readers.

Joash’s escort out of the Temple Chronicles’ retelling of the emergence of seven‐year‐old Joash from the Temple generally follows the contours of Kings’ narrative, except for a change in personnel. In both books, Joash is the only child of the royal family to survive Queen

138  Chronicles Through the Centuries Athaliah’s coup. Unbeknown to her, he is secreted away and hidden in the Temple. In the sixth year of Athaliah’s reign, the priest Jehoiada gathers a force to enter the Temple and brings the boy outside safely. Joash is then anointed king of Judah and Athaliah is put to death (2 Chr 23; 2 Kgs 11). However, the narratives of Chronicles and Kings provide different identities for the men who rescue Joash. In Kings, Jehoiada’s extraction team consists of palace guards and foreign mercenaries (2 Kgs 11:4–12). In Chronicles, Jehoiada specifies that only priests and Levites are allowed within the holy precincts of the Temple so they are the ones who serve as Joash’s escort and protectors (2 Chr 23:6–8). For Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), the German scholar who brought the documentary hypothesis into the mainstream of biblical studies, this passage was prime evidence that Chronicles was a work of dubious historical value. In Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, first published in 1878), Wellhausen argued that the character of the Chronicler’s revision of Kings’ account reflected his allegiance to the priestly sensibilities of the Second Temple period. The Chronicler could not abide the notion that the priest Jehoiada had willfully violated the Law by ordering lay people, to say nothing of mercenaries, to enter the Temple, so he replaced them with Levites (Wellhausen 1895: 195–197). In the eyes of Wellhausen, similar contrivances appear throughout the book and disqualify it as a transmitter of genuine tradition. Wellhausen’s dismissal of Chronicles as a piece of propaganda for the Temple cult soon came to dominate the growing field of biblical historical criticism. In  the years since the publication of Prolegomena Wellhausen has been the ­primary source for the low opinion in which students of this school hold Chronicles. A more detailed treatment of Wellhausen’s impact on the scholarly reception of the book may be found at the end of this volume in Coda B.

The murder of the prophet Zechariah The murder of Zechariah at the command of Joash has had a remarkable and complicated afterlife. The event is absent from Kings. In that book, Joash imbibes the lessons of Jehoiada the priest and remains faithful to God all his life (2 Kgs 12:2). The king nonetheless meets a bad end, dying at the hands of his servants for no discernable reason (2 Kgs 12:20). Chronicles’ rendition supplies a cause: After Jehoiada dies, Joash sanctions idol worship. God then sends prophets to rebuke the king and the people. Included among them is Jehoiada’s son Zechariah. Seized by God’s spirit, he declares, “Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you.” In response, Joash orders the people to stone Zechariah in the Temple courtyard (2 Chr 24:15–21). As the prophet’s life ebbs away, he calls upon God to witness and require an accounting, crying,

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  139 “May the Lord see and avenge!” (2 Chr 24:22). According to the Chronicler, the servants’ fatal attack on Joash is divine punishment for the prophet’s death (2 Chr 24:25). Several important exegetes in the ancient period appear to have judged the murder of the king insufficient recompense for the violence committed against Zechariah. Missing from Chronicles is any notice of retribution against the people who were also party to the crime. It is therefore noteworthy that in the retellings of these interpreters, justice is often administered collectively. They also amplify the initial offense, serious as it was, so that the murder is even more atrocious. A catastrophic event follows, often occurring several centuries later and usually involving the loss of myriad lives. In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the stoning of Zechariah culminates a series of outrages spanning the life of Israel. Jesus holds responsible the entirety of the current generation for shedding the blood of God’s messengers, “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Mt 23:35; Lk 11:51). Matthew and Luke add details about where Zechariah was killed, placing him between the sanctuary and the altar (Mt 23:35; Lk 11:51). Matthew, however, identifies Zechariah not as the son of Jehoiada but as the son of Berechiah, one of the twelve minor prophets (Mt 23:35; cf. Zec 1:1). This notice proved to be a cause of great confusion. Jerome raised the possibility that “Berechiah” (Hebrew for “Praise God”) was an honorific title for Jehoiada (Jerome, Comm. Matt. 23.35), and other interpreters (including John Calvin and the glossators of the Geneva Bible) embraced this logic. Today the description of Zechariah’s death in Chronicles is one of the recommended readings in the Catholic Lectionary for the celebration of martyrs (Common of Martyrs 713.1). In Vitae Prophetarum (The Lives of the Prophets), a first‐century work that was most likely authored by a Palestinian Jew, Zechariah’s death has immediate consequences for Israel’s access to the divine realm. In this retelling, Joash himself kills Zechariah and pours his blood on the porch of the Temple. Afterwards, the priests can no longer see angels, pronounce oracles, or otherwise communicate with God (Charlesworth 1983–1985: 2.398). The Jerusalem Talmud’s account provides more damning information and describes greater repercussions. Tractate Ta‘anit relates that the murder of Zechariah occurred on Yom Kippur, the holiest of days, which that year happened to fall on Shabbat, making it even more sacred. The crime took place in the Temple courtyard of the priests, where the prophet’s blood was poured on a stone. After Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (586 bce), Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s commander, entered the courtyard to find a pool of bubbling blood. Nebuzaradan soon discovered that it was the blood of Zechariah, and he tried to appease it by slaughtering 80,000 young priests over the site. When that massacre had no effect, he rebuked the blood, asking if the whole

140  Chronicles Through the Centuries nation would be forced to perish for its sake. God heard and relented, remarking that if one such as Nebuzaradan could feel compassion, how much more so should God. God then gestured toward the blood and it dried up (y. Ta‘an. 4). Two tractates in the Babylonian Talmud offer variations that further increase the magnitude of the offense. In Gittin, Nebuzardan fails to appease the blood after killing 94,000 on one stone, including the members of the great and small Sanhedrins, young men, women, and schoolchildren. When he rebukes the blood and it ceases to bubble, it is Nebuzardan himself who feels remorse. Given that the penalty was so great for killing one human being (Zechariah), he fears how much greater it will be for him, who has slain multitudes. As a result, Nebuzardan sells his worldly possessions and becomes a convert (b. Git. 57b). Tractate Sanhedrin relates the same sequence of events, but Nebuzardan’s victims are scholars, schoolchildren, and young priests (b. Sanh. 96b). The number of rabbinic texts that convey other variants of the story show how deeply it resonated in Jewish circles. The list includes Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (15.7; fifth century ce); Lamentations Rabbah (Proem 5; fifth to sixth century); Targum Lamentations (2.20; Zechariah is identified as the son of Iddo (cf. Zec 1:1); fifth to sixth century); Ecclesiastes Rabbah (3.16; between the sixth and tenth centuries); Targum Sheni to Esther, which casts Nebuchadnezzar in the role of Nebuzaradan (1.2; eighth to ninth centuries); Sefer Ha‐zikronot (twelfth century); and Ma‘aseh Daniel (medieval). In Ma‘aseh Daniel, the victims selected to settle Zechariah’s blood include 2,000 children, who are wrapped in Torah scrolls and thrown into fire. The narrative concludes with the blood still seething (Jellinek 1853–1877: 5.118). The Spanish Jewish philosopher and poet Judah Halevi (c.1075–1141) further enhanced the tradition with his poem “The Murder of Zechariah.” In one respect, it relates the story much as it appears in the Talmud. In an attempt to calm Zechariah’s blood, Nebuzaradan slays hundreds of old men and tens of thousands of young men, priests, and schoolchildren, yet still God’s wrath is not appeased. With language that invokes the sight of the armed angel of destruction over Jerusalem following the census (1 Chr 21:16), the narrator declares that even after this slaughter, “The enemy’s sword wreaked vengeance … yet His anger was not turned back and His hand was stretched out still!” (tr. Carmi 1981: 341). After Nebuzaradan kills women and suckling babies, he lifts his eyes to heaven and asks, “Will this blood not be content with the blood of Jerusalem’s daughters? Are You going to wipe out the remnant of Israel?” (ibid.). Only then does the blood stop. A striking feature that sets Halevi’s poem apart from all other receptions is  that its first line identifies the speaker as Zechariah’s killer: “On that day I made my burden heavier and multiplied my crimes when I shed the prophet’s blood in the court of the Lord’s temple….” (Carmi 1981: 340). In the poem, the

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  141 anonymous “I” who confesses to the crime speaks in the persona of all the people of Judah. As Nebuzaradan begins his efforts to appease the blood, the narrator declares, “I said to myself, ‘This is your sin and this is its fruit’” (Carmi 1981: 341). When the blood finally comes to rest, there is no undoing the murder of innocents. This first‐person voice brings to the fore an undercurrent of suspicion that runs through many of the traditions of the prophet’s death. It suggests that the destruction of the Temple is God’s revenge for Zechariah’s murder and that all Jews continue to suffer because of it. The poem is one of the kinnot (laments) chanted on Tisha B’Av, a fast day marking the destruction of the First and Second Temples. Within Christian circles, another variant took hold. Some identified the martyr as a different Zechariah: the priest Zechariah who was the father of John the Baptist (Lk 1:5). Matthew and Luke facilitated the substitution through their placement of Zechariah by the altar. By and large, the traditions that make this connection retain a key element from the receptions of Chronicles’ Zechariah, which is the presence of supernatural events related to his blood. Protevangelium of James, an apocryphal gospel from the second century ce, offers early evidence of the switch. It relates events from the life of Mary, including the successful hiding of the infants Jesus and John from the murderous Herod. In this account, Herod dispatches soldiers to the Temple to force John’s father, Zechariah, to reveal his son’s whereabouts. Zechariah refuses, and they kill him. The priests later find his blood, which has turned to stone, by the side of the altar, and they hear a voice announcing that Zechariah has been murdered. His blood will not wash away, the voice continues, until it has been avenged (Prot. Jas. 23–24). In 333, when the Bordeaux Pilgrim made his tour of the Holy Land, he was shown the blood of Zechariah on the Temple Mount. He claimed it lay on the marble pavement before the altar and looked so fresh, one would think the soldiers had slain him that day (Maraval 1982: 73). Stories of the murder of John the Baptist’s father circulated in the Eastern and Ethiopian churches. According to Isho’dad of Merv (fl. 850), the bishop of  Hadatha, Zechariah’s blood bubbled and cried out for fifty‐eight years, until  the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 ce. The victorious Titus finally calmed the blood by slaughtering priests (Isho’dad of Merv on Mt 3:4; M. D. Gibson 1911: 23). In the Amharic andəmta, a medieval commentary of the Ethiopian church (sixteenth to eighteenth century), Herod himself is Zechariah’s murderer and Titus slays seven of Herod’s relatives over the blood (Cowley 1985: 293). Lastly, some strands of the tradition barely attest to Chronicles, but the ­connections are there nonetheless. Origen (184–254) and Gregory of Nissa (c.335–c.395) claim that the Jews killed Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, by the Temple’s altar because he verified the virginity of Mary

142  Chronicles Through the Centuries (Comm. Matt., PG 13.1631; Gregory of Nissa, On the Birth of Christ, PG 46.1137). In a Muslim account, the Babylonian king invades, finds John the Baptist’s bubbling blood, kills a multitude of people over it, and then destroys the Temple. The blood continues to boil until the ascension of Jesus (J. C. L. Gibson 1955: 341). Few verses in Chronicles have provoked such a wide array of receptions. No single theme contains them all, but they share the one constant of spilled blood as a symbol of a crime left unpunished. This image recalls the blood of the slain Abel that cried out to God from the ground (Gn 4:10). The afterlife of Chronicles’ Zechariah attests to an enduring belief that the scales of justice will eventually be balanced, no matter what the cost.

Uzziah Uzziah’s severe penalty for transgressing his God‐given boundaries – a punishment he incurs only in Chronicles – has been useful to exegetes intent on creating or preserving boundaries of their own choosing. In Kings, the account of Azariah (Uzziah’s name in this book) is short (seven verses) and the assessment of the king is largely positive: he did “what was right in the eyes of the Lord.” Nonetheless, God strikes Azariah with leprosy and thereafter he lives in a house of isolation while his son Jotham rules as co‐regent (2 Kgs 15:1–7). In Chronicles’ much longer report, Uzziah brings his affliction upon himself. Initially Uzziah does what is right in the eyes of the Lord, but then a change occurs. Once Uzziah becomes strong, he undergoes a transformation. He becomes proud. He enters the Temple to make an incense offering, usurping a prerogative that belongs to priests. When the high priest Azariah and eighty other priests attempt to thwart him, he responds in anger. In punishment, God strikes his forehead with leprosy, a disease that excludes him from entering the Temple. Thereafter he must live in a separate house while his son takes up the governance of the land (2 Chr 26:1–23). The Jewish historian Josephus added dramatic color to Uzziah’s fall, increasing the scope of the king’s offense and the nature of his penalty. Josephus most likely exaggerated the tale because it protected the prerogatives of the priestly caste with which he identified. In Jewish Antiquities, Josephus told his readers that Uzziah decided to offer incense on a feast day, a day of special holiness. When Azariah and the other priests prohibited the act, Uzziah threatened to kill them. Just then the earth shook so hard, it created a breach in the Temple roof. A shaft of bright sunlight fell upon Uzziah’s forehead and instantly the spot turned leprous. The priests, seeing his pollution, commanded him to live outside the city and Uzziah obeyed. Jotham ruled in his stead, and Uzziah died grief‐stricken (Ant. 9.222–227).

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  143 For the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth‐century document setting forth Christian rituals and laws, Uzziah demonstrates the dangers of anyone who was not a priest attempting to usurp their functions: “And as Uzziah the king, who was not a priest, and yet would exercise the functions of priests, was smitten with leprosy for his transgression; so every lay person shall not be unpunished who despises God, and is so mad as to affront His priests, and unjustly to snatch that honour to himself ” (Apostolic Constitutions 2.27; tr. ANF 7.410–411). Here Uzziah is a warning to laity, indicating that Christian worship practices were still in flux and that the distinct roles of priests and laypeople had yet to be fully recognized and established. Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263–340) believed that the story of Uzziah demarcated the different fates of Jews and Christians. In the view of this church father, the king’s malady presaged God’s retribution against the first‐century Jews who denied Christ. Eusebius arrived at this conclusion primarily through reading the prophet Amos. Amos also speaks of an earthquake during Uzziah’s reign (Am 1:1). Eusebius equated this natural catastrophe with Amos’s vision of the day of God’s judgment, which includes (according to Eusebius) God striking the altar and destroying all Israel (cf. Am 9:1). This prophecy was fulfilled with the coming of Christ. When the Jews rejected the true High Priest (Christ), God afflicted their souls with leprosy and punished them with the destruction of the Second Temple (Dem. Ev.; Ferrar 1920: 2.32–33). Uzziah joins a cadre of reviled religious dissidents in De unitate (On the Unity of the Catholic Church), a treatise by Cyprian (c.200–258), a bishop of Carthage who was influential in the early church. At the time Cyprian composed his work, another African bishop, by the name of Novatian (c.200–258), had set himself up as a rival pope to the newly elected Cornelius (d. 253) in Rome. Cyprian vehemently rejected Novatian’s claim. In De unitate, Uzziah is a prime example of the schismatic that Cyprian considered Novatian to be, and the king’s crime and punishment are part of a cautionary tale for those who would destroy the unity of the church. Cyprian likens Uzziah to Korah and his followers, who tried to usurp the privilege to offer sacrifice that belonged to Moses and Aaron and were swallowed up by the earth (Nm 16), and to Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu, who were burnt alive because they offered strange fire in a sacrifice that had not been commanded by God (Lv 10). In Uzziah’s case, God afflicts him with leprosy on his forehead, which, Cyprian points out, is the part of the body that bears the mark of God’s favor.1 The noxious branding confirms that Uzziah’s behavior is the antithesis of what God desires (De unitate 18). 1   In Ezekiel and Revelation, those who are protected from God’s destruction receive a mark on their forehead (Ez 9:4–5; Rv 7:3), and in Revelation the wicked receive a mark on their forehead or hands (Rv 13:16,14:1).

144  Chronicles Through the Centuries For Ephrem the Syrian (306–373) and John Chrysostom (c.349–407), Uzziah illustrates the consequences of failing to respect God’s constraints on human understanding. Ephrem considered Uzziah’s sin to be akin to that committed by Adam. Both men attempted to chart their own advancement – to wisdom (Adam) and to the priesthood (Uzziah)  –  rather than obey God. In Ephrem’s poetic “Hymns on Paradise,” Uzziah’s entrance into the Temple is equivalent to Adam’s approach to the Tree of Knowledge. Adam seized the fruit of the Tree, Uzziah the censer of incense. Uzziah’s leprosy had the same effect as Adam’s discovery of his nakedness. Both men hid, their bodies having become a cause for shame. In their attempts to gain the treasures they desired, they lost the good things they already possessed (“Hymns on Paradise” 3:14, 12:4; Brock 1997: 91, 161–162). For Chrysostom, the sin of Uzziah was that of overreaching in the realm of  religious convictions. He considered this defect to be a hallmark of the Anomeans, a sect that enjoyed vigorous support in the fourth century within the eastern churches. In contradistinction to those who professed according to the Nicaean Creed, Anomeans did not believe that Christ was of the same substance as God. Anyone who thought he could know God’s essence was, in Chrysostom’s view, as presumptuous as Uzziah and put everyone at risk. He understood the opening line of Isaiah 6:1 describing that prophet’s commission (“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on the throne”) to mean that God ceased to communicate with the people during Uzziah’s lifetime. The same thing could happen again if the Anomeans were not expelled from the Christian community (Homily 4, In Oziam; R. C. Hill 2005: 36). Theodoret of Cyrus (393–460) also interpreted Isaiah in light of Chronicles’ Uzziah. Like Chrysostom, Theodoret understood Isaiah 6:1 to mean that God put a stop to prophecy during Uzziah’s reign, but Theodoret considered the break to reflect divine disapproval of Isaiah. Theodoret argued that God faulted Isaiah for not speaking out against Uzziah at the time the king committed his sacrilegious act. Once Uzziah died, however, God relented. The seraph touched Isaiah’s mouth with the live ember because it was the site of the prophet’s fault. Moreover, the seraph’s use of tongs to take the ember from the altar highlighted the gravity of Uzziah’s sin. The king had approached the altar without fear and dared to grab the censor with his bare hands (Guinot 1980: 254–257, 266–267). For the theologian Pseudo‐Dionysius (late fifth/early sixth century), Uzziah proved the importance of maintaining the church hierarchy. Pseudo‐Dionysius cited Uzziah in a letter to a monk who sought approbation for entering a space and touching objects that were prohibited to someone of his rank. The monk had gone into the inner sanctuary to remove implements of worship so that they would not be handled by a defiled priest. Pseudo‐Dionysius replied that  Uzziah showed that one must respect the limitations inherent to each

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  145 ­ articular ministry, not taking over tasks that, according to God’s law, belong to p others (Pseudo‐Dionysius, Letter 8; Luibheid 1987: 273–274). Other Christian exegetes turned to Uzziah to justify a division between church and state. In 543/544, when Justinian (c.482–585), ruler of the Byzantine Empire, anathematized writings of three authors (Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa) in a bid for harmony within the church, the African bishop Facundus (fl. sixth century) drew on Uzziah to condemn the emperor. In Facundus’s view, Justinian’s effort to define orthodoxy was a crime equal to, if not greater than, that of the biblical king: Our very humble Prince knows that Oziah [Uzziah] did not go unpunished for daring to sacrifice and usurp the function of a priest, even of the second order: all the more should he know that he will not escape punishment for discussing the essentials of the Christian faith, which he cannot do; or for making new canons, which is the privilege of the priests of the first order. (Pro defensione Trium Capitulorum, XII, 3; PL 67: 838; tr. Dvornik 1966: 2.826)

Justinian, however, did not waver and Facundus was forced to go into hiding. The emperor’s demand for compliance ultimately created a schism that would endure throughout his reign as various bishops, following Facundus, continued to resist. Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex has already been noted for its argument, based on Jehoshaphat’s judicial instructions in Chronicles, that kings are under the rule of law. In this same work, Rutherford found in Chronicles’ account of Uzziah grounds for dethroning monarchs when they fail to respect the law. The nature of Uzziah’s transgression was of particular import to Rutherford, who supported the Scottish kirk’s vehement rejection of Charles I’s attempts to dictate its worship practices. According to Rutherford’s reading of Chronicles, the passive verb in the notice that Uzziah “was cut off from the house of the Lord” (2 Chr 26:21) indicated that Uzziah did not step down from his position voluntarily. Though Uzziah kept his title, Rutherford wrote, “God’s law removed the actual exercise of his power” (1644: 461). Moreover, from the eighty priests who stood against Uzziah in the Temple (2 Chr 26:17–18), Rutherford deduced that Heaven sanctioned violent resistance to tyrants. Accordingly, it was the people who transferred the governing authority from Uzziah to Jotham, his son. By analogy, Rutherford reasoned, the parliaments of Scotland and England may take the king’s power from him and rule in his stead (1644: 348). Lex, Rex appeared during the English Civil War, and the Parliamentarians who battled King Charles I seized on its arguments. When Charles II ascended to the throne in 1660, he ordered the burning of all copies and decreed that anyone caught in possession of the book be charged with treason.

146  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Ahaz In Chronicles and Kings, Ahaz is an apostate who, among other heinous deeds, burns his own offspring in sacrifice (2 Chr 28:1–4; 2 Kgs 16:1–4). Both books relate that the kings of Aram and of the Northern Kingdom of Israel besiege Ahaz. In Kings, Ahaz wins protection from Israel by becoming a vassal of King Tiglath‐pileser of Assyria (2 Kgs 16:5–9; cf. Is 7:1–9), but in Chronicles, God gives Ahaz and Judah over to the invading forces as punishment for their sins. Israel then bears 200,000 Judeans north to Samaria, their homeland. The prophet Oded meets the troops upon their return and exhorts them to send back “the captives whom you have taken from your kindred” (2 Chr 28:11). Leaders of the Israelites also urge the return of the Judeans. The warriors agree to hand over their hostages to the officials. The Chronicler continues, Those who were mentioned by name got up and took the captives, and with the booty they clothed all the naked among them. They clothed them, and gave them sandals, food, and drink, and anointed them. They then bore all the feeble among them on donkeys and brought them to their kindred at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria. (2 Chr 28:15)

This poignant display of victors’ kindness to their conquered foes on the ­battlefield is unique within Chronicles, if not within the Bible itself. The HarperCollins Study Bible is one of many commentaries to suggest that this passage from Chronicles may have influenced the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 10:29–37) (Attridge 2006: 632). In Luke, a Jewish lawyer asks Jesus to identify the neighbor whom one is to love as oneself. Jesus responds with a story about a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho who was attacked by robbers. They strip him, beat him, and leave him half‐dead. A priest and a Levite both take pains to avoid the man when they pass him on the road. Only a Samaritan stops to help: He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.” (NRSV Lk 10:34)

Jesus then asks the lawyer which one was the robbed man’s neighbor, and the lawyer answers, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus tells him to go forth and do likewise (Lk 10:36–37). The parable’s similarities to Chronicles include the national identities of the wounded and the rescuer. In both, a Samaritan comes to the aid of a Judean in

The Reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, Uzziah, and Ahaz  147 need (Samaria being an alternative name for the Northern Kingdom). The acts of benevolence are also similar. Chronicles’ Israelites anoint their captives and return them to their kindred by donkey. Luke’s Samaritan pours oil and wine on the wounds and then transports the man to shelter on the Samaritan’s own mount. The destination in each case is Jericho. If the parable of the Good Samaritan is indeed partly inspired by Chronicles, then the point of Chronicles’ story has changed in Jesus’s retelling. In Chronicles, events culminate with a collective recognition of wrongdoing on the part of the Israelites. Oded’s explicit reminder of the Israelites’ familial bonds with the very people they have killed and taken captive forces them to recognize the extent of their present sins. They return their Judean prisoners in a bid to prevent incurring further guilt. Jesus’s parable is about the identification of one’s neighbor. The priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan equally happen upon the victim by chance. The priest and Levite do nothing to help him. The Samaritan, by contrast, is moved by spontaneous concern to offer assistance. The elements that make the Chronicles story so compelling  –  compassion and connectedness  –  have transferred from the interactions of groups who are explicitly designated as kindred to the interactions of individuals who are not. Luke’s Jesus may have appropriated Chronicles’ tale but the teaching is different. In Luke, a true neighbor is identified by good deeds rather than by nationhood. The parable calls into question the importance the Chronicler attached to blood ties. It is meant to point to an alternative bond based on common human sympathy.

Chapter 7 The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah 2 Chronicles 29–36

Hezekiah Chronicles’ portrait of Hezekiah opened the door to elevating him to the highest degree imaginable  –  identifying him as the messiah  –  while also providing grounds for his diminution in the eyes of God. Both Kings and Chronicles laud Hezekiah as one of Judah’s great monarchs, though his piety is more prominently on display in Chronicles. Hezekiah’s restoration of the Temple in Chronicles (missing in Kings) makes him another Temple builder on the order of David and

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  149 Solomon (2 Chr 29 and 31), and his celebration of Passover (also absent in Kings) is treated at length (2 Chr 30). There is, however, at least one verse, unique to Chronicles, that casts Hezekiah in a less than favorable light. A bout of pride brings God’s wrath down upon him, and only the king’s subsequent contrition fends off Judah’s destruction (2 Chr 32:24–26). Yet the conclusion of his story in Chronicles, unlike that in Kings, is unequivocally positive. In Kings, Isaiah rebukes Hezekiah for his behavior with the Babylonian envoys and his  burial occurs without fanfare (2 Kgs 20:15–19, 21). No similar condem­ nation is found in Chronicles, and when Hezekiah dies, all Judah honors him (2 Chr 32:33). Early Jewish readers interested in promoting Hezekiah as a religious leader naturally looked to Chronicles. These exegetes amplified the affinity of Chronicles’ Hezekiah to David and Solomon. In tractate Baba Kama of the Babylonian Talmud, R. Eleazar, using linguistic analysis, derives an important conclusion from the location of Hezekiah’s grave. Chronicles reports that he was buried “on the ascent” (2 Chr 32:33). In Hebrew, “on the ascent” may also mean “in the best.” According to the sage, Hezekiah was buried “in the best” of the graves – that is, beside David and Solomon (b. B. Qam. 16b). Hezekiah was also celebrated for his devotion to the Law and for encourag­ ing its instruction. The Talmud relates that the people placed a Torah scroll on Hezekiah’s coffin and declared that he had fulfilled all that was written in it (b. B. Qam. 17a). In much the same vein, the rabbis understood Chronicles’ report that the people honored Hezekiah when he died to mean that they set up a yeshiva (a school for the study of Torah) upon his grave (b. B. Qam. 16b). The suitability of this tribute is reinforced by an interpretation of R. Isaac in tractate Sanhedrin. The sage asserts that the burning of the oil furnished by Hezekiah in synagogues and schools (presumably to provide light for study) brought about the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of liberation (“On that day … his [Sennacherib’s] yoke will be destroyed from your neck” (Is 10:27)). A story about the king then follows: Hezekiah planted a sword by the door of a school and announced that anyone who did not study the Law would be thrust through. A subsequent search throughout the land revealed that there was not a man, woman, boy, or girl who was not thoroughly knowledgeable about the laws of purity and uncleanliness (b. Sanh. 94b). Exaltation of Hezekiah among Jews in the early period included the assign­ ment to him of the title Immanuel, the name of the child in Isaiah’s prophecy whom God sends to King Ahaz as a sign of divine protection (Is 7:14). Here, too, Chronicles played a role. Exodus Rabbah preserves a tradition that Hezekiah received the name “Immanuel” (Hebrew: “God is with us”) after God’s deliver­ ance of Judah from Sennacherib, the Assyrian king (Ex. Rab. 18.5). A Chronicles verse provides the midrashist’s proof text. As hordes of Assyrian troops marched

150  Chronicles Through the Centuries on Jerusalem, Hezekiah reassured the people: “With him [Sennacherib] is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God” (2 Chr 32:8). The claim that Immanuel was another name for Hezekiah continued to be transmitted within the medieval period. Joseph Kimḥi (c.1105–1170), an accom­ plished grammarian and theologian (and father of the renowned exegete David Kimḥi) took the lead. Like his contemporary Maimonides (1135–1204), Kimḥi believed the best means of understanding Scripture was through the application of reason. In The Book of the Covenant, one of the first polemical essays in Hebrew written in Europe (Talmage 1972: 18), Kimḥi rejected Christians’ reliance on miracles to argue that Jesus fulfilled scriptural prophecies. Specifically, he attacked the Christian argument that Immanuel, the child whom Isaiah proclaims is God’s sign to Ahaz (Is 7:14), is Christ. Kimḥi argued that for a sign to perform its func­ tion, it must be seen before the event it foretells unfolds. Isaiah therefore could not have been speaking of Jesus because his advent occurred well after Ahaz’s death. For Kimḥi, the sign refers to Hezekiah. Through a lengthy and complicated inter­ pretation that includes a verse from Chronicles (2 Chr 28:6), Kimḥi demonstrated that Hezekiah’s birth occurred when God was not with Ahaz. Only after Hezekiah’s arrival does God intervene to protect the king (Talmage 1972: 53–55). The elevation of Hezekiah within ancient Judaism culminated with his iden­ tification as the messiah. The Talmud preserves several strands of this tradition. In tractate Sanhedrin, a dying sage orders his disciples to prepare a throne for Hezekiah, the king of Judah, “who is coming” (b. Sanh. 28b). R. Hillel asserts that Israel has already enjoyed the messiah during Hezekiah’s reign (b. Sanh. 98b). Lastly, heavenly beings and the earth debate whether Hezekiah deserves to be designated as God’s Anointed (b. Sanh. 94a). The scholar David Daube (1909–1999) argues that the biblical portrait of Hezekiah helped shape the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament. Most of his evidence derives from Chronicles. Citing early Christian and rabbinic sources, Daube maintains that Hezekiah had the status of messiah among first‐ century ce Jews. In a bid to assert Jesus’s own messianic bona fides, the Gospel authors ascribed to him the same deeds that set Hezekiah apart. Many of the acts Daube identifies are those that Hezekiah performs only in Chronicles: cleansing the Temple, holding a Passover feast, and healing others. (In response to a prayer from Hezekiah, God heals those who ate the Passover meal in a state of uncleanliness, 2 Chr 30:20.) Lastly, Daube conjectures that Jesus’s cry on the cross (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34) corresponds to Chronicles’ notice that God forsook Hezekiah in order to test him (2 Chr 32:31). If Daube is correct, then Chronicles’ Hezekiah played a significant role in the New Testament authors’ attempt to establish Christ as the only true messiah (Carmichael 2000: 157–163).

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  151 Yet even as Chronicles provided exegetes with proof of Hezekiah’s special relationship with God, it also supplied evidence of the king’s ultimate failure to live up to divine expectations. Interpreters found proof of the king’s faults in Chronicles’ conjoining of the visit of the Babylonian envoys with God’s test of Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:31). Kings and Isaiah describe the encounter between the envoys and Hezekiah in detail, but they omit any mention of a test. In recep­ tion, the test became the focal point for condemning Chronicles’ Hezekiah, even if readers derived many of the grounds for their criticism from the events described in Kings. In Kings and Isaiah, the story of the visit is a very different narrative from that in Chronicles. The purpose of the envoys’ visit is to deliver letters and a present because their king had heard that Hezekiah had been sick. After wel­ coming his guests, Hezekiah proceeds to show them his treasury as well as all  that is in his house and realm. When Isaiah learns of this indiscreet act, which let the envoys know the extent of Judah’s wealth, he rebukes Hezekiah. He tells the king the day is coming when the Babylonians will carry everything away, including his sons, who are destined to become palace eunuchs (2 Kgs 20:12–19; Is 39:1–8). In Chronicles’ account, by contrast, the envoys ask about “the wonder that had been done in the land” (2 Chr 32:31). Earlier in the narrative, God had given an unspecified sign to Hezekiah in response to his prayer when he was deathly ill (2 Chr 32:24). The sign, together with the visit of the envoys, enters into Hezekiah’s divine trial: “Hezekiah had success in all his works. So also with respect to the envoys of the commanders of Babylon, who had been sent to him to inquire about the wonder which had happened in the land, God ­forsook him in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart” (2 Chr 32:30–31). The notice that “God forsook him in order to test him” is as ­fascinating as it is mysterious, and the Chronicler does not elaborate. Instead, he indicates where the rest of the king’s good acts are recorded. There is no indication that Hezekiah failed his test or that his behavior was in any way wanting (2 Chr 32:32). Chronicles’ terseness about this test invited further explanation. Targum Chronicles fleshes out a full account and comes to a positive conclusion. It iden­ tifies the sign God gave Hezekiah, fills in what transpired with the Babylonian visitors, and affirms that Hezekiah did nothing wrong: Hezekiah had success in all his works. So, too, in (the incident concerning) the interpreters of the commanders of the king of Babylon who had been sent to him to inquire about the wonder which had happened in the land, to see the two ­tablets of stones which were in the ark of the covenants of the Lord where Moses had placed

152  Chronicles Through the Centuries them along with the two tablets of stones which had been broken because of the sins (connected with) the calf which they had made in Horeb: the Memra of the Lord allowed him to show them without his suffering any injury, because he was testing him to know all that was in his heart. (Tg 2 Chr 32:31; italics denote the targu­ mist’s additions; tr. McIvor 1994: 228–229)

In the targumist’s retelling, the visitors have come to see the Ark of the Covenant – which is God’s sign to Hezekiah – and God permits Hezekiah to show them this most sacred object. Other interpreters, however, bring Chronicles in line with the books of Kings and Isaiah, which have an unqualifiedly negative view of Hezekiah’s ­dealing with the envoys. In Pirque de Rabbi Eliezer, Hezekiah’s display of the tablets to the Babylonians is his downfall. When the king opens the Ark of the Covenant before the envoys, he says, “With these we wage war and conquer!” God reacts by proclaiming that Hezekiah will be punished for exhibiting the work of God’s hands. The Babylonians will take all his treasures, and in place of the two tablets, the invaders will carry away Hezekiah’s offspring to be palace eunuchs (Pirqe R. El. 52). Pseudo‐Rashi also confirms that, in the king’s encounter with the Babylonians, Hezekiah does not pass God’s test (Pseudo‐ Rashi, commentary on 2 Chr 32:31). Exegetes do not just draw on Kings and Isaiah to condemn Hezekiah, ­however. They also find fodder in Chronicles. After God heals Hezekiah and gives him a sign, Chronicles reports that the king’s pride showed ingratitude (2  Chr 32:25). In a sermon entitled “Ingratitude to God  –  A Heinous but General Iniquity,” the American colonial Presbyterian minister Samuel Davies (1732–1761) argued that this defect was responsible for Hezekiah’s feckless dis­ play of wealth to the envoys. In Chronicles, Hezekiah’s ingratitude is separated from the envoys’ visit by a successful act of repentance. Yet in Davies’s homily, Hezekiah’s pride is coincident with his foolhardy performance before his visi­ tors. God then metes out exile for Judah as punishment, just as Isaiah promises in Kings (Davies 1766). Some believe Jews continue to suffer because of Hezekiah’s wrongdoings. According to the orthodox rabbi Moshe Eisemann, Hezekiah lost his chance to be the messiah when he displayed the tablets. By attempting to appropriate God’s glory for his own aggrandizement he disqualified himself as an agent of redemption. For Eisemann (1992: 423–424; 430–431), Hezekiah’s misstep put off the arrival of the messiah to the indefinite future. This interpretation captures the great allure of Chronicles’ Hezekiah as well as his capacity to disenchant. Few figures from Chronicles have given rise to such dramatically different assessments.

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  153

Manasseh (See Chapter Eight) Josiah Chronicles’ Josiah is both more and less pious than his counterpart in Kings. In Chronicles, the king begins his purge of idolatry well before the discovery of the Book of the Law (2 Chr 34:1–7) whereas his reforms in Kings follow that event (2 Kgs 23). Chronicles’ account of the discovery itself and the covenant Josiah makes before God following the public reading of the book closely ­follows Kings; yet, as one would expect, the works are not identical (2 Chr 34: 8–33; cf. 2 Kgs 22:3–23:3). In both Kings and Chronicles, Josiah’s reading of the Law leads to his observance of Passover. While the celebration receives only a  few verses in Kings (2 Kgs 23:21–23), the Chronicler gives an expansive description of the feast, devoting particular attention to the Levites and their general responsibilities (2 Chr 35:1–19). Kings and Chronicles offer different treatments of Josiah’s end. In both, he dies violently, even though God (through the prophetess Huldah) had prom­ ised that he would be gathered to his grave in peace (2 Kgs 22:20; 2 Chr 34:28). Kings is relatively straightforward on this point: Pharaoh Neco of Egypt kills Josiah when Josiah goes out to meet him at Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:29). Perhaps because of the discrepancy between Huldah’s prophecy and actual events, Chronicles’ version introduces culpability on the part of the king. When Josiah meets Neco in 2 Chronicles, the pharaoh tells Josiah that he, Neco, is on a mission from God and Josiah is therefore forbidden to interfere. Josiah refuses to listen. In a sequence of events reminiscent of Ahab’s death in Kings, he disguises himself, goes out to do battle, and, when he is wounded by archers, he orders his servants to take him away from the battlefield (2 Chr 35:22–23; cf. 1 Kgs 22:30–34). His death is a penalty for disregarding God’s command. The two books also vary in their accounts of his burial. Kings reports that Josiah was buried in Jerusalem, nothing else (2 Kgs 23:30). When Chronicles’ Josiah dies, however, the people respond with an enormous outpouring of grief: “all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. Jeremiah lamented Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women have spoken their laments to this day. They made these a custom in Israel; they are also written in the Laments” (2 Chr 35:24–25). The final picture of Josiah in Chronicles is mixed: he deserves his terrible demise yet he also displays exceptional devotion to God. His faithfulness merits the participation not only of the nation but also of the prophet Jeremiah in mourning his death.

154  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Josiah’s instructions to the Levites Josiah’s instructions to the Levites have put him in the ranks of those who may hold the key to the fate of the Ark of the Covenant. This possibility arises from a verse in Chronicles in which Josiah, during preparations for the Passover ­celebration, tells the Levites, “Put the holy ark in the house that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built. It will no longer be a burden upon your shoulders. Now serve the Lord your God” (2 Chr 35:3). There are two important facts to note about this verse. First, this scene is the last record of the whereabouts of the ark. From this moment forward, the Bible is silent regarding whether the ark was destroyed or seized by the Babylonians or otherwise survived. Second, the news that the ark was not already in the Temple runs counter to Chronicles’ (and Kings’) earlier report that Solomon placed it there many generations ­earlier (2 Chr 5; 1 Kgs 8:1–11). The early rabbis’ interpretation of this verse explains away inconsistencies while attending to the question of the ark’s location. The rabbis assert that Josiah did not direct the Levites to install the ark in the Temple. Rather, he told them to hide it within the Temple. According to the sages, when Josiah read the Book of the Law, he saw a verse predicting the exile (Dt 28:36) and took steps to conceal the ark so that it would not fall into the hands of the Babylonians. Along with the ark, Josiah hid the holy anointing oil, the jar of manna, Aaron’s rod filled with blossoms and almonds, and the box contain­ ing the offering of the Philistines (t. Sotah 13.1; b. Yoma 52a, b. Keritot 5b, b. Horayoth 12a). Other interpreters proposed different scenarios. In the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus claimed that the Jews of his day said the ark was removed ­during the reign of Ahaz to the house of Huldah for safe keeping until Josiah became king; the Chronicles verse indicated that Josiah was finally returning the ark to its rightful place (Comm. Para. PL 109.527b). Several hundred years later, David Kimḥi suggested that Manasseh may have removed the ark during his time as an apostate, but Kimḥi quickly casts doubt on his own theory by wondering how Manasseh could have failed to return the ark after the king’s atonement – a question that presupposes Chronicles’ version of Manasseh’s life (Berger 2007: 275). In addition, Kimḥi cited a teaching of the rabbis (not found in any extant sources) that was also recounted by Moses Maimonides (1138–1204). According to this tradition, Solomon foresaw the destruction of the Temple and therefore built an underground vault in deep, winding compartments hidden below the building. The Chronicles verse reveals that Josiah, knowing the exile was at hand, commanded the Levites to deposit the ark (along with the jar of manna, Aaron’s staff, and the anointing oil) in the place Solomon had prepared long

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  155 ago. Maimonides added that none of these sacred objects returned to the Second Temple (Berger 2007: 276; Maimonides 2014, Mishneh Torah 8:4.1). Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994) reflected on the implications of Maimonides’ assertion that the ark remained where Josiah had hidden it. Schneerson was the seventh and last Lubavitcher Rebbe and leader of Chabad, a movement within Hasidism (a form of Judaism with roots in mysticism). As Rebbe, his influence extended over a wide segment of Jewry in the twentieth century and he is still revered today. Schneerson contended that the ark contin­ ues to sanctify the site of its concealment in anticipation of a future Temple. Schneerson also discovered a mystical meaning in Maimonides’ description of the ark’s location. The placement of the ark in “the depths of concealment and winding passages” meant that Jews, through following the twisting and wind­ ing way toward repentance, could access the Torah’s secrets (“the depths”): “Such a repentant evokes and elicits, in a positive way, the lofty mystical levels of the “depths of concealment” which cannot be elicited by or yasher – direct, straight light – but only by or chozeir – winding, indirect light of great intensity” (A. B. Metzger 2002: 349). In Schneerson’s reading, Josiah’s command to the Levites becomes a guide to personal enlightenment as well as a source of hope for the construction of the third – and final – Temple.

Josiah’s covenant Josiah’s ceremonial covenant offered readers a ritual to mark renewed commit­ ment to God. Chronicles and Kings both relate that, after the Book of the Law was discovered Josiah read it aloud to all of Judah. He then made a covenant before God, pledging to obey all the commandments written in the book. Josiah’s covenant signaled that the book’s reappearance was a watershed moment. Going forward, he would be starting a new and better chapter in his reign and in the history of Israel (2 Kgs 23:3, 2 Chr 34:31). Charles James Blomfield (1786–1857), lord bishop of London, took up Chronicles’ account of Josiah’s covenant in the sermon he delivered at the corona­ tion of Queen Victoria (1819–1901) in Westminster Abbey on June 28, 1838. The newspapers of the day reported that over 400,000 people flocked to London for the event, an i­ ndication of the monarchy’s popularity. Some, however, marked the day by staging protests, including an influential group of reformers, based largely in northern England, known as the Chartists. A month earlier they had published “The People’s Charter,” a list of reforms promoting greater political equality between Britain’s upper and lower classes. The petition ultimately garnered over a million signatures. One of the Chartists’ leaders was William Lovett (1800–1877), who, as a member of the Working Men’s Association, had sent a letter to the new queen

156  Chronicles Through the Centuries in September of 1837. (Though not yet crowned, Victoria had in fact ascended to the throne upon the death of her uncle in June.) Lovett urged Victoria to resist those who seek “to divide you from the people” and “inspire you with false notions of your own importance,” given that “the superstitious days of arbitrary dominion and holy errors are fast falling away” (Lovett 1920: 129). If Lovett wished Victoria to identify more closely with her people, then Blomfield meant to widen the gap through his exposition of Chronicles. For Victoria’s coronation sermon, Blomfield chose 2 Chronicles 34:31 as his theme verse: “And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book.” Blomfield no doubt intended to compliment the queen by likening her to one of Scripture’s ideal monarchs. The comparison of Josiah’s pledge to God to Victoria’s Coronation Oath was also a way to remind Victoria that, like Josiah, she was bound by the laws of Heaven. The bishop’s selection of Chronicles, however, also revealed his intent to convey a message to Victoria’s subjects. The verse appears in almost identical form in Kings, a book that would have been more familiar to Blomfield’s audience and from which come all the homily’s subsequent references to Josiah. The parallel verse in Kings, however, adds at the end, “All the people joined in the covenant.” Blomfield’s preference for Chronicles’ version indicates a desire to leave this line out in order to bolster monarchical authority. Blomfield emphasized Victoria’s unique role as the peoples’ intermediary with Heaven and explained that when Josiah made his covenant with God, he did so on behalf of himself and his people. Those in attendance were simply witnesses to the king’s pledge. In like manner, Victoria’s subjects were witnesses to the queen’s covenant with God on their behalf. The people’s charge, Blomfield declared, was “to accept their lawful Sovereign as given them by God to rule over them; and to promise their obedience, affection, and respect” (Blomfield 1838: 5–6). While stressing Victoria’s subordination to God, Blomfield’s use of Chronicles in the place of Kings also allowed him to convey that, in the Great Chain of Being, the queen nonetheless remained emphatically above her subjects.

The reception of Josiah’s death in the ancient period The particulars of Josiah’s death in Chronicles presented a stumbling block for many readers: But he [Neco] sent messengers to him, saying, “What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but against the house with which I am at war. Now, God has commanded me to hurry. Cease opposing God, who is

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  157 with me, so that he will not destroy you.” But Josiah would not turn away from him, but disguised himself in order to fight with him. He did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, but went to fight on the plain of Meggido. The archers shot King Josiah. (2 Chr 35:21–23)

Ancient interpreters wrestled with whether Neco, a pharaoh, was indeed God’s mouthpiece. They also struggled to discern whether the manner of Josiah’s demise revealed something of the king’s ultimate standing before God. The con­ clusions they reached shed light on thought about who is qualified to be God’s messenger and how much bad acts weigh in an otherwise virtuous life. The author of First Esdras, a book many date to the second century bce, appeared to hedge the question of Neco’s involvement with God. The beginning of First Esdras reproduces the first two chapters of Chronicles (1 Esd 1; cf. 2 Chr 35–36). In First Esdras’s version, though Neco is allowed to speak about God, Jeremiah is the only one who hears words “from the mouth of the Lord”: And the king of Egypt sent word to him saying, “What have we to do with each other, O king of Judea? I was not sent against you by the Lord God, for my war is at the Euphrates. And now the Lord is with me! The Lord is with me, urging me on! Stand aside and do not oppose the Lord!” Josiah, however, did not turn back to his chariot, but tried to fight him, and did not heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord. (NRSV 1 Esd 1:26–28)

It is possible that the author of First Esdras brought in Jeremiah because of his prophesy against Egypt: “The swift cannot flee nor the mighty one escape. In the north by the river Euphrates they have stumbled and fallen” (Jer 46:6). In any case, First Esdras affirms that Josiah disobeyed God but mitigates Neco’s role as the purveyor of revelation. Jerome (347–420 ce) also identified Jeremiah as the source of God’s warn­ ing. The shift could have cast Josiah in an even more unfavorable light, given Jeremiah’s own standing, but instead it became a source of consolation. Jerome noted that Scripture called Josiah “righteous” even though he failed to listen to the prophet. Jerome took this positive assessment to mean that virtue eclipses shortcomings (Letter 133.13). Jerome deduced insight about the fate of Jews from reading Josiah’s death in Chronicles alongside the book of Zechariah. He located a portentous parallel in Zechariah’s prophecy: “On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning of Hadad‐rimmon in the plain of Megiddo” (Zec 12:11). Jerome understood this verse to mean that the mourning for Christ on the Day of Judgment would be like the mourning that had occurred for Josiah. Key to Jerome’s exegesis is his insistence that “Hadad‐rimmon” is the name of a town on the plain of Megiddo and that the mourning in that town was for Josiah ­following his fatal encounter with Neco in Megiddo.

158  Chronicles Through the Centuries The Jewish people do not fare well in Jerome’s interpretation. He argued that just as the Jews annually lamented Josiah’s death because thereafter God ­forsook them, so Zechariah predicted that they would lament Christ’s death when they perceived their salvation was lost – unless they acknowledged their wickedness. In response to those who objected that Christ forbade weeping (Lk 23:28), Jerome said that the mourning in Jerusalem to which Zechariah referred was the lamenting that accompanied the repentance of true believers (Comm. Zach. on Zec 12:11). Some of the early rabbis, for their part, were determined to rehabilitate Chronicles’ Josiah. In tractate Ta‘anit, they corrected the impression that Neco was in communication with the God of Israel. One rabbi maintained that when Neco spoke of the god who was “with” him, the pharaoh was referring to his portable idol. Moreover, Josiah had good reason to think that he could prevail against the Egyptian king, given the divine assurances of protection in Leviticus 26:6. He had no inkling that the people had incurred God’s disfavor, voiding that promise. Most importantly, the Talmud reports that when Josiah was dying he acknowledged that the divine decree against him was just. He said, “The Lord is righteous, for I have rebelled against His word” (Lam 1:18). Jeremiah, who was at his side, responded with a tribute: “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord” (Lam 4:20) (b. Ta‘an. 22a–22b). Targum Chronicles, while not exonerating Josiah’s disobedience, lessened its extent and reminded readers of his good deeds. In its retelling, the God of Israel is not with Neco. Neco informs Josiah, “My idol has said that I should hurry! So now, stay away from me and my idol which is with me, lest it destroy you” (tr. McIvor 1994: 239). God subsequently punished Josiah with death not because he did not listen to Neco but because he did not consult Jeremiah before waging war. Though the targum does not record any last words of the king, the notice of his death concludes with a summary of his pious acts, with special mention of his restoration and purification of the Temple (Tg. 2 Chr. 35:21–27). Targum Lamentations went in a different direction and used Josiah’s death to illuminate the reason for God’s later punishment of Judah as a whole. In the targum’s rendition of Lamentations 1:18 Josiah not only committed a sin of omission (he failed to seek God’s instruction) but also a sin of commission (he went out against Neco). As in the Talmud, the dying Josiah quotes the open­ ing words of Lamentations 1:18, signaling recognition of his own culpability and God’s blamelessness. In the Talmud, Jeremiah then responds to this confes­ sion by lauding the king. Targum Lamentations records nothing of the sort. Instead, it weaves Chronicles’ notice of Jeremiah’s lament for Josiah into Judah’s grief over her own annihilation in Lamentations: “Hear now all the peoples, the lamentations which Jeremiah made over Josiah and see my affliction which has come upon me after his death. My maidens and young men have gone into exile”

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  159 (Tg Lam 1:18; italics denote the targumist’s additions; tr. Brady 2003). For the targumist, Josiah’s fate mirrors that of Judah. Both had to suffer destruction in order to recognize their guilt and God’s righteousness. Among these ancient readers, Josephus stands out for his thoroughly posi­ tive representation of Josiah’s end. If the Chronicler’s motivation for adding the encounter with Neco was to explain why Josiah’s demise was not the peaceful end Huldah prophesied, then Josephus’s version of the event in Jewish Antiquities was shaped by his desire to make Josiah’s death comport with an otherwise virtuous life. Josephus gives the following account : So Nechao sent a herald to him [Josiah], saying that he was not taking the field against him, but making for the Euphrates, and he bade Josiah not provoke him into making war on him by preventing him from going where he had made up his mind to go. Josiah, however, paid no attention to Nechao’s request, but acted as though he would not permit him to traverse his territory; it was Destiny, I believe, that urged him on to this course, in order to have a pretext for destroying him. For, as he was marshaling his force and riding in his chariot from one wing to another, an Egyptian archer shot him and put an end to his eagerness for battle, and, being in great pain from his wound, he ordered the call to be sounded for the army’s retreat, and he returned to Jerusalem. There he died from his wound and was buried magnificently in the tombs of his fathers, having lived thirty‐nine years, of which he reigned thirty‐one. Great was the mourning for him observed by all the people, who bewailed him and grieved for many days. And the prophet Jeremiah composed a song of lament for his funeral, which remains to this day. (Ant. 10.75–78; tr. Begg 1988: 159)

The scholar Christopher Begg has persuasively argued that Josephus neutral­ ized the Chronicler’s criticisms of Josiah while retaining the narrative bones of the story. First, in Josephus’s retelling, Neco is not impelled by God’s command. Josiah’s decision to engage the Egyptian ruler is therefore not an act in defiance of God. Also, Josephus removes some details that liken Josiah to Ahab while simultaneously appropriating Chronicles’ premise of similarity between them and recasting it. Josephus’s Josiah does not don a disguise or ask to be taken from the field when he is wounded (as he does in Chronicles and Ahab does in Kings). What the two kings have in common, however, is that they are both victims of fate. Josiah’s undoing is nothing more or less than the capricious work of destiny, the same force to which Josephus ascribes Ahab’s end (8.409). In this version of Josiah’s death, therefore, the king whom Josephus lauds at the outset as naturally virtuous, who restored proper worship and enjoyed reputation, riches, and peace (10.48–73) remains to the end an illustration of the teaching that opens Jewish Antiquities: Those who obey God’s law will prosper (1.14; Begg 1988).

160  Chronicles Through the Centuries

The reception of Josiah’s death in the Reformation During the Reformation, many Protestants took Josiah to be the image of the ideal Protestant king. He received and transmitted God’s word directly from the Book of the Law – a revered Protestant practice – and he purged the land of idolatry, which many Protestants equated with the abolishment of Catholicism. Exactly which monarch could rightfully claim to be the new Josiah was a matter of contention, however. Within less than half a century, England had experienced Charles I’s exe­ cution (1649), Cromwell’s Protectorate (1653–1659), the Restoration and return of Charles II (1660), and the ushering in of the Glorious Revolution with the crown­ ing of William and Mary (1689). Each new regime was a refutation of the last. Judah’s outpouring of grief in Chronicles for the death of Josiah provided a useful measure of royal virtue and stature for interpreters living through these political struggles. A propitious opportunity to invoke Judah’s anguish over the loss of a sovereign arose with King Charles II’s decree on January 25, 1660 of an annual national fast day to mark the anniversary of Charles I’s execution. The proclamation presented supporters of the slain monarch with their first opportunity to express outrage and grief over the manner of his death. The Reverend William Hampton (c.1599–1677) was among those who preached on the inaugural day (January 30, 1660). He gave two sermons, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon, under the title “Lacrymae Ecclesiae; or The mourning of Hadadrimmon for England’s Josiah … at the solemn Fasting and Humiliation, for the Martyrdom and horrid Murder of our late gracious King Charles the First, of ever blessed Memory …” The lemma for both addresses was 2 Chronicles 35:24–25, the mourning of Judah and Jeremiah for Josiah. Hampton delivered the sermons in his home church in  Surrey and dedicated them to Charles, Lord Cokaine, Viscount Cullen (d. 1661). Lord Cokaine, Hampton noted, had been fined more than £30,000 for remaining faithful to the memory of Charles I. Hampton began, This day is a day of blackness, and gloominess, a day of clouds, & thick darkness, a day of mourning for a good and a religious King cut off by untimely, violent death, to the inexpressible grief of all good Christians, by the traiterous heads, treacherous hearts and bloody hands of wicked, and ungodly men; yet great pretenders to holiness above all other. Now (I say) this being a black day, a day of mourning, I have chosen a Text of mourning, of mourning for a godly and religious King Josiah, the fittest parallel I can find in the whole sacred book, for our Martyred Sovereign. (Hampton 1661: A3)

Josiah, Hampton maintained, did nothing to deserve his death. He was in fact the only “blameless” king in Scripture – unequaled even by David and Solomon.

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  161 The only blemish Hampton could discover was “a little too much willfulness” in rushing into battle against Neco. Otherwise the king was perfect. Like Christ, Josiah promoted true religion and was sacrificed for his faith and the people. Hampton argued that in these respects Josiah was also like Charles I. The only real difference between the kings was that his own people, led by sectarians such as Anabaptists and Quakers, murdered Charles. In Hampton’s view, Charles, like Josiah, died as punishment for the sins of the wicked souls who plotted the execution of the king. The minister urged his congregation to beseech God’s pardon for the nation through grieving with the same intensity as those who lamented Josiah. Hampton closed his sermon with the reassurance that, with the rightful king now on the throne, the healing had begun. The day of mourning for Charles I, therefore, was also an occasion to bless and thank God for the miraculous return of Charles II, the new deliverer of the nation (Hampton 1661). Some thirty years later, the annual fast day for Charles I proved to be an equally effective platform for undermining Hampton’s view of Charles I and Charles II, and once again the public surge of sorrow at Josiah’s death in Chronicles was enlisted for the purpose. On January 30, 1691 William Lloyd (1627–1717) preached a sermon marking the martyrdom of Charles I before Queen Mary II (of William and Mary) in London at the Palace of Whitehall. Lloyd had vigorously opposed efforts by James II, Charles II’s successor, to grant more religious freedom to English Catholics. The tolerance shown by the king to his fellow Catholics and his promotion of them to positions of importance became unacceptable to Protestants when his second wife gave birth to a son. The knowledge that the child, who, as a male, would displace his two Protestant daughters in the line of succession, was to be raised as a Catholic, led to James being ousted from the throne in favor of his eldest daughter, Mary, and her Protestant husband, William of Orange. Like Hampton, Lloyd chose to sermonize on 2 Chronicles 35:24–25. Also like Hampton, Lloyd considered Josiah to be the only scriptural king free of fault, and he was equally dismissive of Josiah’s “indiscretion” in waging war against Neco. Lloyd differed from Hampton, however, regarding the true cause for grief upon Josiah’s death. He argued that the people’s great lament was not for Josiah himself (who, in accordance with Huldah’s prophecy, enjoyed peace in Heaven) but for the nation that was about to be punished by exile. Similarly, the people of England lamented Charles I for what his death revealed of their own spiritual decline. Lloyd argued that, after the initial burst of piety following the advent of the Reformation, England had strayed further and further from the true religion back toward popery. He continued, In this miserable condition, when we lay (as it were) gasping for Life, it pleased God out of the Cloud to look upon us. He gave us, as it were, a New Life, a

162  Chronicles Through the Centuries Resurrection from the dead. He restor’d us, when it was visible that none but he could do it. It was such a mercy to this Nation, such a heap of Mercies together, that all Nations stood amaz’d at it. (Lloyd 1691: 27–28)

According to Lloyd, the installation of William and Mary on the throne marked England’s “New Life” and “Resurrection from the dead.” In other words, Lloyd considered the period of England’s decline to encompass not only the reign of Charles I but also that of Charles II and James II. Lloyd concluded that the perpetual marking of Josiah’s death with lamentation in Chronicles served the same purpose as England’s annual mourning for Charles (Lloyd 1691). Both reminded the people of their divine deliverance from evil.

Jehoiakim Jehoiakim is a king about whom little good is said. The question for many read­ ers was what deed (or deeds) merited his blanket condemnation in Kings and Chronicles. Their efforts reveal exegetical sleuthing leading to extraordi­ nary – and unusual – claims. Chronicles and Kings simply report that Jehoiakim was an evildoer without specifying his wicked acts (2 Chr 36:5, 8; 2 Kgs 23:37). The early rabbis, how­ ever, deduced the nature of his crimes from the following verse in Chronicles: “The rest of the matters of Jehoiakim and his abominations that he committed and that which was found upon him [ ’ ] – they are written in the book of the Kings of Israel and Judah” (2 Chr 36:8). Most English translations render ’ as “against him” or “in him” but the rabbis understood the word according to its most common usage: “upon him.” They thus surmised that the telltale evidence of his sins had something to do with his body. In Leviticus Rabbah, three sages offered different possibilities for the physical proof of his malfeasance. One declared that the king wore kilaim (a forbidden mixture of linen and wool), another asserted that he attempted to reverse his circumcision, and the last maintained that he had inscribed something on his flesh (Lev. Rab. 19.6). The sages of the Babylonian Talmud also understood Chronicles to signal that the damning evidence was corporeal. R. Johanan stated that Jehoiakim had tattooed the name of a pagan deity on his penis, whereas R. Eliezer claimed it was the name of Heaven (b. Sanh. 103b). Other midrashim and the Jewish medieval commentator Pseudo‐Rashi also took this verse to mean Jehoiakim had engaged in some form of self‐mutilation (Tanhuma Yelammedenu 3.20; Aggadat Bereshit 49; Pseudo‐Rashi, commentary on 2 Chr 36:8). The Christian exegete Rabanus Maurus noted that the Jews of his day believed Jehoiakim had made profane marks on his body (Comm. Para. PL

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  163 109.531c). Stephen Langton (1150–1228) offered further elaboration, saying the marks were in fact letters that spelled out “Codonazor,” the name of the idol that Jehoiakim worshipped (Langton 1978: 204). The Geneva Bible commenta­ tors preserved a version of the story in their gloss on 2 Chronicles 36:8: “He means superstitious marks which were found upon his body, when he was dead: which declared how deeply idolatry was rooted in his heart, seeing he bore the marks in his flesh” (GB note to 2 Chr 36:8; Berry 1969: 206). At the end of the nineteenth century, the English cleric Frederic William Farrar (1831–1903) carried forward these efforts to decode the meaning of the king’s “superstitious marks” and determine the circumstances of their discovery. Farrar wrote in his exegesis on 2 Kings that 2 Chronicles 36:8 referred to “the name of the demon Codonazor, to whom he [Jehoiakim] sold himself, which after his death was discovered legibly written in Hebrew let­ ters on his skin” (F. W. Farrar 1894: 430). Farrar’s work on 2 Kings appeared in The Expositor’s Bible (1894), a collection of commentaries by prominent nineteenth‐century Protestant ministers that continues to be reprinted and consulted by readers today.

Zedekiah A unique vow in Chronicles, taken by Zedekiah the last king of Judah, became significant for interpreters who wished to explore the responsibilities and limits of self‐imposed obligation. In Kings and Chronicles, Zedekiah defies both God and Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king who installed him (2 Kgs 24:19–20; 2 Chr 36:12–13), but only Chronicles lays upon Zedekiah the additional charge of breaching an oath: “He [Zedekiah] also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who made him swear by God” (2 Chr 36:13). The circumstances leading up to Zedekiah’s vow as well as the consequences of breaking it came under the scru­ tiny of various Jewish and Christian readers. For the sages of the Babylonian Talmud, this verse from Chronicles raised the importance of exercising due diligence in the absolution of vows to the highest level. In Nedarim, the tractate dedicated to the subject of vows, the  sages revealed that the occasion for the oath was Zedekiah’s discovery of  Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit. Nebuchadnezzar immediately made Zedekiah swear that he would tell no one. Afterward Zedekiah regretted his vow, so he had it absolved by the Sanhedrin and then broadcast what he had seen. When Nebuchadnezzar found himself to be the subject of ridicule, he ordered the members of the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah to appear before him. Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to shame the Sanhedrin because they did not require Nebuchadnezzar’s presence when they released Zedekiah from his

164  Chronicles Through the Centuries oath, a violation of proper procedure. The tractate then quotes a verse from Lamentations to describe the reaction of the court: “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground in silence” (Lam 2:10). The identification of Lamentation’s elders with the members of the Sanhedrin implies that the improper abrogation of Zedekiah’s promise brought on the city’s destruction (b. Ned. 65a). The author of Pesiqta Rabbati interpreted Chronicles’ report that Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah “swear by God” to mean that Zedekiah ini­ tially tried to swear on something less: his own soul. The Babylonian king insisted, however, that Zedekiah swear by nothing but the Torah. The Judean king then did so, with a Torah scroll upon his knees. Zedekiah’s swift breaking of that vow resulted in utter calamity. The Babylonians attacked, and Zedekiah and his sons were caught as they attempted to escape through a tunnel. When they were brought before Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king claimed that Zedekiah deserved the death penalty for falsely swearing in God’s name. Zedekiah then begged that he die first in order not to see the shedding of his sons’ blood. At the same time, his sons pleaded to perish first. In response, Nebuchadnezzar slew the sons and then blinded Zedekiah (Pesiq. Rab. 26; cf. 2 Kgs 25:6–7). In this exegesis of Chronicles, Zedekiah’s violation of his oath became part and parcel of his rebellion against God and led not only to the exile but also to the murder of his children. At the dawn of the Reformation, Zedekiah’s oath entered into the debate over whether rebellions against sovereigns could ever be sanctioned. The French Protestant Theodore Beza (1519–1605) addressed the issue in Du droit des magistrats sur leur subiets (The Rights of Magistrates Over Their Subjects, 1574), a work he penned in the aftermath of the St. Bartholomew Day’s massacre of French Huguenots by King Charles IX (1572). Beza at the time was Calvin’s successor in Geneva. In this treatise, Beza claimed that all  monarchs were created for the sake of their subjects and, by this ­unimpeachable standard, those who wielded their power tyrannically for­ feited their right to be obeyed. In making his case, Beza noted that some cited the example of Zedekiah to argue that rebellion was forbidden, no matter how terrible the king. If Zedekiah had an obligation to uphold his oath to obey Nebuchadnezzar, were not the people even more bound to submit to their ruler? In response, Beza presented an entirely different view of the matter. Rebellion was the last resort of a cornered people, and Zedekiah was far from finding himself in that situation. According to Beza, not only had Zedekiah willfully subjected himself to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar had given Zedekiah ample opportunities to honor his sworn obligations. Citizens were equally

The Reigns of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah  165 obligated to honor oaths under these circumstances. When subjects rebel against a tyrant, however, they have not violated any pledge. Rather, it is the tyrant who has done so, and his perjury renders all promises and commitments to him null and void (Beza 1574: 70–71). Beza’s spirited defense of resistance to tyranny circulated widely, undergoing ten reprints in seven years. A Latin translation appeared shortly after its publication and remained popular well into the seventeenth century (Monahan 1994: 242).

Chapter 8 The Reign of Manasseh 2 Chronicles 33

There is no greater disparity between Chronicles and Kings than their accounts of the reign of Manasseh. In both books, Manasseh engages in abominable acts at the outset of his rule. Thereafter the histories diverge. In Chronicles, God punishes Manasseh with deportation and imprisonment, he repents in captivity, and God restores him to his throne. In Kings he remains a lifelong villain. The repercussions for Israel also drastically differ. In Kings (and Jeremiah), the con­ sequences of Manasseh’s sins are catastrophic. Generations later, the people are forced into exile on his account. In Chronicles, however, the destruction of Jerusalem is the result of the current generation’s failings. Manasseh’s restoration Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Reign of Manasseh  167 and Judah’s downfall are further illustrations that God recompenses the faithful and chastises the wicked within their own lifetimes. In light of Kings, readers of Scripture throughout the ages have had to decide how much to credit Chronicles’ account of Manasseh. The earliest readers reveal that almost from the beginning the reception of Chronicles’ Manasseh moved in two different directions simultaneously. One strand of tradition privileged Chronicles and expanded on the ruler’s reformation; the other strand sub­ ordinated Chronicles to Kings either by denying that Manasseh’s repentance, if it ever occurred, was genuine, or that God truly forgave him. In the discussions of the early rabbis both traditions are represented whereas the majority of the church fathers gave prominence to Chronicles’ history over that of Kings. The theological repercussions within nascent Judaism and Christianity were immense, as the account of Manasseh given in Chronicles became a platform for members of these communities to articulate views of salvation. Their insights continue to influence exegetes to this day.

Manasseh in Chronicles and Kings Kings begins its account of Manasseh with the notice that he ruled for fifty‐five years (2 Kgs 21:1), making him the longest reigning monarch in Israel’s history. He is unequivocally evil (2 Kgs 21:2). He consorts with wizards and soothsayers and emulates them (2 Kgs 21:6), he erects an idol of his own making in the Temple (2 Kgs 21:7), he offers his progeny as burnt sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:6), and he spurs his people to commit great evil themselves. The king sheds “very much” innocent blood – so much that it fills Jerusalem “from end to end” (2 Kgs 21:16). God takes note of Manasseh’s wickedness and vows punishment  –  not on  the king but upon Judah: “Because King Manasseh of Judah has com­ mitted these abominations … I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping and turning it upside down. I will abandon the remnant of my possession, and give them into the hand of their enemies” (2 Kgs 21:11–14a). God determines, however, to delay punishment of Manasseh’s sins for several generations. When it finally comes, it will fall on the people as a whole in the form of destruction and exile. This plan is repeated following Kings’ celebration of Josiah, Manasseh’s grandson: Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath, by which His anger burned against Judah, because of all the provocations by which Manasseh provoked Him. The Lord said, “I will remove Judah also from my presence, as I removed Israel, and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’” (2 Kgs 23:26–27)

168  Chronicles Through the Centuries When the terrible moment arrives and Judah falls to Nebuchadnezzar’s forces, the narrator of Kings again blames Manasseh: “Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them from His presence, for the sins of Manasseh and all that he did, and also for the innocent blood that he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to pardon” (2 Kgs 24:3–4). Manasseh also has an important cameo appearance in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, like Kings, holds Manasseh responsible for Judah’s exile. Through the prophet, God declares that not even Moses and Samuel could have deterred the divine wrath against Judah that Manasseh incited: “I will make them an object of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah of Judah did in Jerusalem” (Jer 15:1–4). In Chronicles, however, Manasseh’s life demonstrates a correlation between faithful obedience and a ruler’s political fortunes. Manasseh’s sinful ways pro­ voke God to send the Assyrians, who take the king in shackles to Babylon. As a captive, he does an about‐turn: “When he was in dire straits, he entreated the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers” (2 Chr 33:12). God restores him to Jerusalem and his throne (2 Chr 33:11–13). Upon his return, the king casts out idols and reinstitutes proper worship in the Temple. His incredibly long reign is proof positive of God’s responsive grace.

Chronicles’ Manasseh in the Septuagint Originating sometime in the second century bce, Septuagint Chronicles (LXX Chr) presents a powerful alternative to the Chronicles’ narrative that has come down to us in the Masoretic Text. In LXX Chr, God punishes Israel for Manasseh’s wrongdoings despite his repentance. The tradition preserved in Chronicles is reproduced at the beginning of LXX Chr. Manasseh is an evildoer who is taken captive, repents, and is then restored by God to his kingdom. In the subsequent celebration of Josiah and description of Judah’s fall, however, the author of LXX Chr inserts Kings’ devastating pronouncements against Manasseh Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn away from the anger of his great rage with which the Lord was angry with rage against Judah for all the provocations with which Manasseh provoked him to anger. And the Lord said, “I will remove Judah from my presence as I removed Israel and I have rejected the city that I have c­ hosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’” (LXX 2 Chr 35:19) Nevertheless, the Lord’s rage was upon Judah, in order to remove it from his presence on account of the sins of Manasseh in all that he did. (LXX 2 Chr 36:5)

The Reign of Manasseh  169 Though LXX Chr faithfully records Manasseh’s successful turn towards God, it  nonetheless bows to Kings’ final assessment of the price Israel paid for Manasseh’s sins.

Qumran’s Prayer of Manasseh Not all in the ancient world shared LXX Chr’s ambivalence. Some readers were keen to emulate Manasseh’s appeal to God so that they, too, could elicit an immediate and  favorable response from on high. An early effort to recreate his prayer comes from Qumran (4Q381). The text is fragmented and breaks off after fourteen lines: Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah when the King of Assyria i­ mprisoned him. [my] Go[d  ] near, my salvation is before your eyes, what [  ]. [  ] I wait for Your saving presence, and I cringe before you because of my s[in]s. For [You] have magnified [Your mercies] But I have multiplied guilt. And so I [will be cut off ] from eternal joy, And my soul will not behold what is good. For [          ], they went into exile, And [I      ]. [H]e exalted me on high, over a nation [     ]. And I did not remember you [in Your hol]y pl[ace], I did not serve [You      ]…. (tr. Schuller 1986: 151) The prayer appears in two manuscripts of Hebrew poetry discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls. The collection as a whole dates from the first century bce, but the prayer’s origins remain unclear. Its superscription may have been a later addition. In any case, the attribution of the prayer to Manasseh signals that for at least some members of this community the king had become a worthy model of contrition.

Josephus’s Manasseh Chronicles’ Manasseh held special appeal for the Jewish historian Josephus (37–c.100 ce). Josephus reported on Manasseh’s reign in Jewish Antiquities (written 93/94), an apologetic history of Israel directed to both Jews and Greeks.

170  Chronicles Through the Centuries The ramifications of Josephus’s reception of the king were extensive, as Jewish Antiquities was an authoritative source for the fathers of the early church. In Jewish Antiquities, Manasseh’s story is a gripping tale that sheds light on the human response to suffering and to divine approbation. Josephus height­ ened the drama by blackening Manasseh’s record of wrongful acts beyond the report in Kings or Chronicles, thereby making Manasseh’s turn that much more remarkable. Josephus describes the king’s initial contempt for God, citing his lawlessness and impiety (reflecting Kings and Chronicles), and adds that Manasseh murdered prophets. It was their blood that filled Jerusalem from end to end (Ant. 10.38). When forced to face the consequences of his crimes, however, Josephus’s Manasseh illuminates the process – and power – of inner transformation. According to Josephus, when Manasseh was imprisoned, he prayed that God would “make the enemy humane and merciful to him” (Ant. 10.41). When God heard his plea and returned the king to Jerusalem, Manasseh hastened to “change his mind” and “exhibited such a change that, for as long as he contin­ ued to live, he was regarded as most blessed and enviable” (Ant. 10.41–45; tr. Begg and Spilsbury 2005). Josephus’s additions gave his readers insight not only into the private and public effects of Manasseh’s ordeal and redemption but also into the rational aspect of the king’s conversion. Josephus attributes Manasseh’s reform to his enduring powers of self‐examination, a quality that would have appealed to Josephus’s Hellenized audience and lent a contemporary air to the biblical ruler.

Manasseh in The Ascension of Isaiah and 2 Baruch Other important traditions of Manasseh that circulated in the ancient period were decidedly negative. Manasseh has a direct hand in Isaiah’s martyrdom in The Ascension of Isaiah (extant in Ethiopic with early attestations in Greek and Latin) as well as in 2 Baruch, a work attributed to Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch (extant in Syriac with an early attestation in Greek). These texts surfaced in the first and second centuries of the Common Era and indicate that by this time, the anti‐Manasseh strand had hardened and deepened in some communities. In The Ascension of Isaiah, Manasseh, in addition to all his other horrible deeds, kills Isaiah. The prophet himself has an inkling of what is ahead. Before Manasseh is even born, Isaiah tells Hezekiah of his son’s wickedness. Manasseh bears out the prophecy the moment he becomes king by abandon­ ing God to serve the powers of evil. Isaiah, fearing for his life, flees to a desert mountain, but to no avail. Eventually Belkira, a false prophet, discov­ ers him and claims that Isaiah himself is prophesying falsely. Manasseh

The Reign of Manasseh  171 seizes on the charge, condemns Isaiah to death, and saws the prophet in half  (Ascen. Isa. 1–3.12, 5.1; Charlesworth 1983–1985: 2.156–160, 163) (Figure 8.1). Nowhere in this text is there any mention of Manasseh’s repent­ ance and divine reward. In 2 Baruch, Chronicles’ Manasseh is not ignored – he is repudiated. Manasseh repents, but the act is hollow and self‐serving. Though 2 Baruch purports to be

Figure 8.1  The martyrdom of Isaiah. From an illuminated manuscript, La Bible historiale complétée, France, 1357(British Library Royal 17 E VII, Part 2, f 36v). Source: The British Library.

172  Chronicles Through the Centuries a record of the visions of Jeremiah’s friend and scribe, Baruch,  following the Babylonian exile, it was written sometime in the century following the destruc­ tion of the Second Temple. It perpetuates the charge that Manasseh is to blame for the uprooting of Judah. In Baruch’s vision, six black waters alternate with six bright waters, each cor­ responding with bad or good figures in Israel’s history. Manasseh is the ninth (black) water, and his abominations have now grown to include his marriage to women who had been “violently polluted” and the expulsion of priests. Kings and Chronicles mention that Manasseh carved his own idol (2 Kgs 21:7; cf. 2 Chr 33:7). In 2 Baruch Manasseh goes further and fashions his creation to be an explicit affront to God. The idol has four faces pointed to the four winds, plus a fifth face on top “as an opponent against the zeal of the Mighty One.” Manasseh’s wickedness eventually becomes so great that God’s “glory” leaves the sanctuary (tr. Gurtner 2009: 107–109). Finally, 2 Baruch takes direct aim at Manasseh’s prayer. It reports that, while in captivity, Manasseh was imprisoned in a melting bronze horse and God heard the king’s entreaty as he was being slowly roasted alive. Manasseh soon realizes, however, that his desperate appeal has merely postponed his everlast­ ing torment. Manasseh’s “final abode” will be in the fire, the ultimate resting place of all who have no share in the world to come (2 Baruch 64; Charlesworth 1983–1985: 1.643).

Chronicles’ Manasseh in Early Rabbinic Literature The foundational works of rabbinic Judaism wrestled mightily with Chronicles’ Manasseh. His story raised the question of whether certain abominations could be grounds for expulsion from the body of Israel, even if the person who committed those acts successfully begged forgiveness from on high. The early rabbis considered the issue against the background of biblical ideas of resurrec­ tion, collective redemption, and eternal reward and punishment (cf. Is 26:19; Ez 37:1–13; Dn 12:1–2). God’s everlasting covenant, they believed, was with the nation of Israel rather than with individuals. Yet personal repentance was also prized. As the sages struggled to weigh mercy against justice, the fate of Manasseh hung in the balance. The Mishnah (c.200 ce) records one of the earliest debates over the king’s eternal status and closely parallels 2 Baruch in its reception – and rejection – of Chronicles’ Manasseh. Tractate Sanhedrin begins with the claim that “All Israel has a share in the world to come.” This statement is then amended, first to exclude certain classes of people and then specific individuals, including the idolatrous kings Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. At this point, R. Judah

The Reign of Manasseh  173 disagrees. He cites Chronicles’ report that God heard Manasseh’s entreaty and restored him to Jerusalem and his kingdom (2 Chr 33:13). The others reply, “He [God] restored him to his kingdom, but he did not restore him to the life of the world to come” (m. Sanh. 10:1–2). Whatever transpired between Manasseh and God, it did not convey permanent standing to the king. In the Mishnah, these sages have the last word. The Tosefta, compiled at roughly the same time as the Mishnah, revealed that the question of Manasseh’s fate was far from settled. The Tosefta identifies four kings who do not have a share in the world to come: Jeroboam, Ahab, Manasseh, and Ahaz. Here, as in the Mishnah, R. Judah disagrees, but in the Tosefta he quotes 2 Chronicles 33:19, which says that Manasseh’s prayer, his entreaty to God, and his bad acts prior to his self‐humbling are recorded in the Book of the Seer. The Tosefta concludes, “This teaches that he [God] was entreated by him [Manasseh] and he restored him to the world to come” (t. Sanh. 12:11). In this text, God’s restoration of Manasseh was good at the time of his request and for the future. The Palestinian version of the Talmud known as the Jerusalem Talmud (­compiled c.400) resurrects the charge that Manasseh killed Isaiah. The text declares that God will not pardon the murder of his prophet, who is on par with Moses. The Jerusalem Talmud adds that Hezekiah married Isaiah’s daughter, increasing the horror of Manasseh’s crime (y. Sanh. 10.28): in taking Isaiah’s life, Manasseh slew his grandfather. Here Manasseh’s prayer is less of a sincere expression of remorse than a test of God. The Jerusalem Talmud’s setting for the plea is the same as that of 2 Baruch. The Assyrians place the king in a bronze mule over a fire, and in his agony, Manasseh calls upon all the idols in the world before he finally remem­ bers the God of his father Hezekiah. The king says, “I shall call upon him. If he answers me, good – and if not, all ways are alike [i.e. equally useless].” The angels attempt to prevent his prayer from reaching God, citing his idolatry, but God insists that a refusal to accept Manasseh’s prayer would have a disastrous effect on all others who repent. God therefore digs a tunnel under the throne of glory in order to receive Manasseh’s supplication. Upon his return to Jerusalem, Manasseh declares, “There is judgment and there is a judge,” indicating his acceptance of God’s sovereignty (y. Sanh. 10:2). In the end, Manasseh becomes a believer and mercy prevails. What these events portended for the king’s ­ultimate disposition, however, remained unclear. The Babylonian Talmud (compiled c.600), the largest and most significant of these ancient texts, ranged widely as it explored the significance of Manasseh’s repentance. In keeping with its treatment of issues generally, the Talmud pre­ serves a variety of opinions regarding the king. In these discussions, however, there is one constant: Chronicles’ good Manasseh perpetually vies against the wicked Manasseh of Kings.

174  Chronicles Through the Centuries A discussion in tractate Sanhedrin nicely captures this fact. R. Johanan introduces a verse from Jeremiah, in which God says, “I will set them [the people of Judah] forth as a horror for all the kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah on account of what he did in Jerusalem” (Jer 15:4). R. Johanan argues that whether Jeremiah is praising or  condemning Manasseh depends on how one understands “because of Manasseh.” He presents the positive position first: “A scholar says, ‘because of Manasseh’: [because] he made repentance and they [the people] did not.” The sage may have been thinking here of Targum Jeremiah. This work is an early witness (fourth century ce) to an unqualified acceptance of the king’s repentance. Its rendition of Jeremiah 15:4 leaves no room for ambiguity: “And I will make them [the people of Judah] a terror to all the kingdoms of the earth, because they have not repented like Manasseh the son of Hezekiah” (tr. Hayward 1987: 34–35). R. Johanan then provides the negative interpreta­ tion: “A[nother] scholar says, ‘because of Manasseh’: [because] he did not make repentance” (b. Sanh.102b–103a), a view that reflects Kings. R. Johanan thereby makes clear that whether Manasseh is the great repentant whom the people failed to follow or the malevolent idolater who led them astray depends on which book one privileges: Chronicles or Kings. In the ensuing discussion, the Talmud ascribes to Manasseh atrocities above and beyond the biblical account. The charges include accusations that Manasseh slept with his sister, cut the divine name out of the Torah, and made a four‐ faced idol to provoke the Shekinah (the divine presence). Equally damning are two interpretations of Kings’ report that Manasseh shed innocent blood (2 Kgs 21:16). In Babylonia, the blood is understood to be that of Isaiah, and in Palestine, the blood is that of the 1,000 men whom Manasseh’s idol killed on a daily basis. The king’s name also works against him. The Talmud points out that the name Manasseh includes the root consonants for the verb “to forget” and again offers two explanations. Manasseh’s name indicates either that he forgot God or that he caused the people to forget (b. Sanh. 102b–103b). Elsewhere, the sages teach that the king expounded reproachful interpreta­ tions of biblical verses. They also discern an affinity between Manasseh and the inhabitants of Sodom. The king shed blood “exceedingly” (2 Kgs 21:16), just as the Sodomites sinned “exceedingly” (Gn 13:13). As the Sodomites have no por­ tion in the world to come (cf. m. Sanh. 10.3), that the rabbis’ link Manasseh to them suggests that he does not have a portion either (b. Sanh. 99b and109a). A Hebrew letter, a nun, in Judges offered yet another opportunity to ­pronounce judgment on Manasseh. The letter arises in a debate over whether Jonathan, the son of Gershom and the priest of the idolatrous Danites, was the grandson of Moses or Manasseh. For one sage, the answer is obvious. Chronicles’ genealogy lists Gershom as Moses’s son (1 Chr 23:15). The ensuing discussion,

The Reign of Manasseh  175 however, shows that the matter is open to interpretation, all because of a letter that someone attempted to insert into the fixed text of the Torah. The grandfa­ ther’s name in Judges 18:30 contains a “suspended nun [sic]”, meaning a nun that is slightly raised above the other letters. The nun changes the name of Jonathan’s grandfather from Moses to Manasseh, a move that defies chronology since Manasseh lived after Jonathan.1 The addition of the nun is justified on the grounds that both Jonathan and Manasseh are apostates (b. B. Bat. 109b). There is nothing positive in this assessment of the king. Even those sages who credit Chronicles’ version of events take an equivocal view of Manasseh’s repentance. R. Akiva says Chronicles’ description of the king’s ordeal teaches “that chastisements are precious” since they succeeded where Manasseh’s knowledge of the law – which, given that he was the son of Hezekiah, must have been great – failed (b. Sanh. 101b; cf. Sifre Deuteronomy, pisqa 32). In other words, Manasseh of all people should have known the ­perversity of his transgressions; nonetheless, punitive measures were necessary to make him stop. R. Yohanan, for his part, asserts that God accepted Manasseh’s atonement out of regard for others, even though what the king truly deserved was punishment (b. Sanh. 103a). The rabbis had alternative models of contrition. Tractate Megillah indicates that by the time the Babylonian Talmud was compiled, the book of Jonah was the haftarah (the main prophetic reading) for the afternoon prayer service on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (b. Meg. 31b). The community’s preference for the Ninevites over Manassah as an exemplar for atonement may reflect a reluctance to embrace Manasseh’s solitary penance. In Jonah, the king of Ninevah and his subjects atone as a nation and are saved as a nation (Jon 3). In Chronicles, however, though Manasseh finds his way back to the true faith, he fails to persuade others to abandon their unlawful sacrifices on the high places (2 Chr 33:17). When he is compared to the Ninevites, the question arises: What is the purpose of a king’s deliverance if his people are not included? A few centuries later, Targum Chronicles, the Aramaic rendition of Chro­ nicles, emerged to affirm without reservation Manasseh’s contrition. Composed at a relatively late date (the eighth century ce), the targumist had a vast pool of Manasseh traditions to draw upon, and he could have introduced the checks and reservations they preserved. Instead, Targum Chronicles takes elements that elsewhere form the basis of condemnation of the king and turns them to Manasseh’s advantage. In a long interpolation, the targumist describes the crowning moment of Manasseh’s transformation. The passage begins inauspiciously, as it reproduces 1   The early Greek Christian Bibles offer independent evidence of the change: Codex Alexandrinus has son of Moses (υἱoῦ Mωυσῆ), whereas Codex Vaticanus lists son of Manasseh (υἱὸς Mανασση).

176  Chronicles Through the Centuries elements from the stories that are most critical of the king. The Assyrians place him in a bronze mule and light a fire beneath it. The king calls first on all the idols he had made, and, when no aid comes, he prays to God: Immediately all the angels who had been put in charge of the entrances to the gates of prayer which are in heaven went forth and, because of him, closed all the entrances to the gates of prayer which are in heaven, and all windows and openings of heaven, so that his prayer would not be accepted. But immediately the mercy of the Lord of the universe prevailed, whose right hand is stretched out to receive the sinners who return to his fear and who break the inclination of their heart by repentance, and he made an opening and a gap in the heavens beneath the throne of his glory. He heard his prayer, he accepted his request, he shook the universe by his Memra, the mule was shattered, and he came out from there. Then there went forth a wind from beneath the wings of the cherubim; it blew him by the decree of the Memra of the Lord, and he returned to Jerusalem to his kingdom. And Manasseh knew that the Lord was God, who had worked with him these signs and wonders. He returned with all his heart before the Lord and forsook all the idols and no longer served them. (Tg. 2 Chr. 33:13; italics denote the targumist’s additions; tr. McIvor 1994: 231)

Manasseh’s initial wavering and the angels’ opposition are overshadowed by the eagerness of God to receive the king’s entreaty and the miracle of the king’s deliverance. The targumist’s endorsement of Chronicles’ Manasseh is forceful but may never have had much impact. Medieval Jewish exegetes appear to have been unaware of Targum Chronicles’ existence (Kalimi 2009: 157–158, 174–175).

The Early Church Fathers’ Reception of Chronicles’ Manasseh In contrast to the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud, the overwhelming majority of early church fathers accepted Manasseh’s repentance without reservation. Chronicles’ Manasseh exemplified their understanding of redemption as an individual internal conversion. For these Christian exegetes, Manasseh’s story was a perfect narrative for teaching that God and the church receive all true penitents, no matter how much they have sinned. Manasseh’s stature as a penitent was reinforced by another factor. In the Septuagint, his humbling of himself is more akin to the Psalmist’s atonement than to that of anyone else. The verb ταπεινόω (“to humble”) is used to describe Manasseh’s contrition in LXX Chr as well as self‐abasement in LXX Psalms. These linguistic ties are missing from MT Chr and MT Psalms. The corre­ spondence was probably not lost on the early church fathers, most of whom relied on the Septuagint for their Bible.

The Reign of Manasseh  177 For Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329–389), the story of Manasseh shed light on God’s qualities, the nature of true repentance, and the power of forgive­ ness. Gregory included Manasseh in an oration he delivered in the Cappadocian town of Doara in honor of its new bishop. Gregory began with a request. He asked his listeners to accept his homily even though it was not equal to the demands of the occasion. To encourage them to do so, he spoke of God’s ability to balance mercy with fairness, and he introduced examples: “For He [God] accepts that which is planted by Paul because it is Paul’s, but also Apollos’s irrigation, and the widow’s two small coins and the publican’s abasement and Manasseh’s confession. Accept my newly created homily for a newly created pastor” (Oration 13; PG 35: 852–853). Alongside the supreme contributions of Paul, Gregory places the efforts of Apollos (Paul’s partner in nurturing the church; 1 Cor 3:6), the poor widow’s donation of two small coins (Mk 12:42–44; Lk 21:1–4), the self‐abasement of the publican (Lk 18:9–14), and Manasseh’s confession. God’s equally favorable acceptance of great and humble offerings demonstrates that God welcomes gifts of the heart, no ­matter how simple they may be. Gregory’s examples align Manasseh with New Testament figures of commendable faith. Gregory also singled out Manasseh as symbolic of one sort of baptism in a homily celebrating the Feast of the Holy Lights (marking Jesus’s baptism). Gregory begins by classifying the different kinds of baptism: Moses represents baptism by water; John the Baptist, baptism by water plus repentance; Jesus, ­baptism in the spirit; and martyrs, baptism through dying for Christ. Manasseh signifies a fifth type – baptism through tears. Gregory describes it as “more toilsome, since it is the one who every night bathes his bed and bedding with tears, whose weals stink from wickedness and who goes about grieving and of sad countenance, and who imitates the conversion of Manasseh and the self‐abasement of the Ninevites ­having received divine mercy” (Oration 39; PG 36: 356). Gregory adds more reflections in a letter to his friend Theodore, the bishop of Tyana. Theodore was angry over an attack on Gregory by Arians, whose sect believed Jesus was a deity inferior to and different from God. The Arians had a significant presence in Constantinople when Gregory came to preach there in 379. After his arrival, they disrupted a service he was conducting and attempted to harm Gregory himself. Theodore wanted to prosecute the offenders, but Gregory argued for the superiority of compassion over revenge. His list of Old Testament figures who demonstrate this point culminates with Manasseh: “Manasseh was the most unlawful of kings, but also the most notable among those saved by their laments.” Here the severity of Manasseh’s crimes and God’s forgiveness of them marked the apex of divine mercy and human capacity to reform. Gregory therefore urged Theodore to be “Godlike” and display patience and kindness (Gallay 1964: 1.96).

178  Chronicles Through the Centuries John Chrysostom (c.347–407) also emphasized the horrendous nature of Manasseh’s crimes in order to show that God welcomes all penitents, no matter how horrible their sins. Chrysostom invokes Manasseh in Ad Theodorum lapsum, a letter he addressed to a friend who had abandoned his celibate life as a monk: [Manasseh], having surpassed all in madness and tyranny, and having subverted the lawful form of service, and having filled up the temple with idols, and having made deceit flourish, and having become more impious than all who had gone before, when he later repented, he was appointed to the friends of God. But if he, having looked at the greatness of his own transgressions, despaired of return and repentance, he would have been deprived of all which afterwards he gained. But now, after having seen in place of his surpassing sin the infinitude of God’s mercy, and after having broken the bonds of the devil, he rose up and contended and finished the good race. (Dumortier 1966: 108)

In detailing Manasseh’s wicked deeds, Chrysostom heightens the wonder of his turn toward God and complete rehabilitation. If someone so wicked could attain God’s mercy, there was hope for all who strayed. In the eyes of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313–386), nothing Manasseh did ­rendered him ineligible for salvation, not even the slaying of Isaiah. The deed simply gave even more proof to the world that God’s mercy was boundless: “If the one who sawed the prophet in half was saved by repentance, will you, ­having done no such wickedness, not be saved?” (Reischl and Rupp 1848: 1.56). For Cyril, Manasseh demonstrated that the greater the crime, the more ­awesome – and all‐encompassing – was God’s pardon. Augustine (354–430), however, considered Manasseh’s murder of Isaiah a deadly sin. His treatment of Manasseh shows that there were important excep­ tions to the church’s embrace of Chronicles’ Manasseh. In book eighteen of City of God, Augustine’s survey of Israel’s history, Manasseh receives brief men­ tion as the impious king who is said to have slain the prophet. City of God was (and remains) one of the most influential books within Christian literature. Chronicles plays no part in its account of Manasseh, as Augustine says nothing of the king’s repentance. A few other formative Christian interpreters went back and forth on the question of whether Manasseh was good or bad. Theodoret of Cyrus (c.393–457) developed both sides. In his commentary on Chronicles, he recounts Manasseh’s contrition while captive in Babylonia and (like R. Akiva) noted the benefits of his chastisement: “For the things that he did not have when ruling are the things that he obtained for himself as a slave” (Quaest. Reg. et Para. PG 80:887). Elsewhere Theodoret contrasted the ruler’s turn to repentance and salvation with the perpetual piety of Manasseh’s father, Hezekiah, and the

The Reign of Manasseh  179 ­ erpetual impiety of Manasseh’s son Amon (Inter. Ezech. PG 81:977). These p reflections manifestly draw on Chronicles. Theodoret took a different stance in his commentaries on Kings, Jeremiah, the Song of Songs, and the minor prophets. In these works Theodoret describes Manasseh’s wickedness in the course of relating Israel’s history without any reference to subsequent repentance (Quaest. Reg. et Para. PG 80:796; Inter. Jer. PG 81:496, 554; Explan. Cant. PG 81.29). Theodoret’s exegesis on the Song of Songs includes the accusation that Manasseh, “whose wickedness eclipsed all who came before or after him,” burned Scripture (Explan. Cant. PG 81.29). Ignoring Chronicles altogether, he expands Manasseh’s wrongdoings beyond the biblical account. The ambivalence of Jerome (c.347–420) is equally evident. On the positive side, he unequivocally defined Manasseh’s turn to God as an act of penance. In MT Chr and LXX Chr, the imprisoned Manasseh humbles himself greatly before he entreats God (MT 2 Chr 33:12; LXX 2 Chr 33:12), but neither account uses the word “repentance” to describe his actions. In the Vulgate, Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, Manasseh’s self‐abasement begins with “a great repentance” (paenitentiam valde) (Vulg. 2 Chr 33:12), leaving no doubt about the character of his deed. Continuing in this vein, Jerome presents Chronicles’ Manasseh as a genuine convert from evil in his commentary on Zephaniah. The book’s opening reference to Josiah son of Amon (Zep 1:1) prompted Jerome to expound on the meaning of Amon (“faith”). According to Jerome, the name signified Manasseh’s gratitude to God for his return to a life of faith (Comm. Zeph. PL 25:1340). Jerome’s eulogy of the Roman noblewoman Fabiola in a letter to their mutual friend Oceanus like­ wise favorably compared her heartfelt repentance to that of Manasseh, who, Jerome said, was doubly blessed with divine forgiveness and the return of his kingdom (Letter 77, NPNF2 6:159). In two major exegetical works, however, Jerome omits Manasseh’s repent­ ance and God’s benevolent intervention. In his commentary on the book of Isaiah, Jerome introduces the Jewish tradition that Manasseh sawed the prophet in half, filling the streets of Jerusalem with Isaiah’s blood, without mention of any subsequent atonement on the part of the king (Comm. Isa. PL 24:546–547). In his commentary on Ecclesiastes, Manasseh – the evildoer held hostage and then returned to his throne to live out a long life – is the foil to the righteous who die in their righteousness (cf. Eccl 7:15) (Comm. Eccl. PL 23:1066). Elsewhere in the same text, Jerome illustrates life’s lack of justice (cf. Eccl 8:14) by contrasting Aaron, who dies while sacrificing, with Manasseh who, after committing many sins, is restored to his kingdom (Comm. Eccl. PL 23:1079). Though Jerome incorporates details from Chronicles in these important works, ultimately the depiction of Manasseh that emerges is infused with the spirit of Kings.

180  Chronicles Through the Centuries Finally, in his exegesis of Jeremiah’s attribution of Judah’s exile to Manasseh (Jer 15:4), Jerome allows that Manasseh repented, but still considers him the cause of Judah’s destruction. When the generation that follows Manasseh repeats his horrible deeds, they bring down upon themselves the punishment Manasseh incurred. The lesson that Jerome takes from this verse is that the crimes of rulers can infect a whole people and lead to their extermination (Comm. Jer. PL 24:775). In other words, the corrosive influence of Manasseh’s evil deeds persisted, his contrition notwithstanding.

“The Prayer of Manasseh” As early as the second century of the Common Era, another prayer attributed to Manasseh testified to the high standing some circles of readers accorded Chronicles’ account of the king. The work may have circulated as early as the first century bce, but some leave open the possibility that it is of Christian ­origin (Davila 2007: 75–85). Unlike the other prayer assigned to Manasseh, this one found an expansive audience. It is a complete, well‐crafted document ­consisting of fifteen verses, preserved in Syriac and Greek. Its association with Chronicles’ king stems from the speaker’s assertion that he is shackled, calling to mind the fetters of Chronicles’ Manasseh as he is led to Babylon, as well as from the prayer’s focus on repentance: Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not constituted repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have constituted repentance for me, who am a sinner. For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied. I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron shackle, so that I cannot lift up my head, and I have no relief; for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up desecrations and multiplying abominations. And now I bend the knee of my heart, begging you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I beg, beseeching you: forgive me, Lord, ­forgive me! Do not destroy me with my lawless deeds; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth! For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent. (vs 8–13; tr. van der Horst and Newman 2008: 165–166).

The picture of Manasseh that emerges from the prayer is that of a solitary penitent beseeching God from the depths of his distress. The oldest extant ­witness to “The Prayer of Manasseh” is the Didascalia Apostolorum, a Syrian composition dating from the third century ce. The Didascalia was a formative

The Reign of Manasseh  181 guide for both clergy and lay members of the early church. In a chapter addressed to bishops, the author of the Didascalia offered up the repentant Manasseh as a worthy model for the sinners in their charge. Though the author’s retelling of Manasseh’s life begins with an account of the ruler’s abominations drawn from Kings, the story soon shifts to Chronicles’ account of Manasseh’s imprisonment and contrition. At this point “The Prayer of Manasseh” appears. The narrative then seamlessly resumes with God’s liberation of Manasseh from bondage. The Didascalia’s vivid description of Manasseh’s restoration borrows language from Deuteronomy (Dt 6:4–5; cf. Mt 22:37–40; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27) and Chronicles (2 Chr 33:13–20). And the Lord listened to the voice of Manasses, and had mercy on him. A flame of fire was formed around him, and the iron around him was melted. And he delivered Manasses from his afflictions, and restored him to his Kingdom in Jerusalem. And Manasses acknowledged the Lord saying: “He alone is the Lord God.” And he served the Lord God with all his heart and with all his soul all the days of his life, and was accounted just. And he slept in peace with his fathers. And Amon, his son, reigned in his place. (DA 2.22.15–16; tr. Stewart‐Sykes 2009)

The text concludes: “Dearest children, you have heard how the Lord forgave Manasses, who was an idolater and slew the innocent, yet repented. Surely there is no sin worse than idolatry, but there is room for repentance” (DA 2.23.1; tr. Stewart‐Sykes 2009). The Didascalia became an important transmitter of “The Prayer of Manasseh” (and of Chronicles’ version of the king) within the ancient Christian community. The presence of “The Prayer of Manasseh” among the Odes of the fifth‐­ century Codex Alexandrinus attests to its canonical status within the com­ munity that produced this Bible. (It is also the first record of the prayer’s transmission in Greek.) In this Bible, the Odes appear after the Psalter as an independent collection of poetry and are songs or prayers by biblical figures (with the exception of the concluding doxology). “The Prayer of Manasseh” is the eighth Ode. It follows a prayer of Hezekiah (Is 38:10–20) and precedes the prayer of Azariah (one of the three youths thrown into the furnace in Daniel) (LXX Dn 3:26–45), reflecting chronological order. Significantly, it is the only Ode beside the doxology that does not appear elsewhere in Scripture. The prayer was thus on equal footing with such poetic passages as the two songs of Moses (Ex 15:1–19 and Dt 32:1–43) and Mary’s song of praise (Lk 1:46–55). Its inclusion in Codex Alexandrinus marked the growing influence of the “pro‐Manasseh” strand within the early Christian community. Whatever the origins of the prayer, there is evidence that in the medieval period it had a Jewish audience. Amid the texts recovered from the Cairo

182  Chronicles Through the Centuries Geniza, a storehouse for Jewish manuscripts, is “The Prayer of Manasseh” in Hebrew. Linguistic evidence reveals that it is an adapted translation from Christian sources, dependent on Greek and Syriac, and probably dates from the tenth century (Leicht 1996: 359–369). The translation of the prayer into Hebrew suggests an effort to (re‐)appropriate this (by then) Christian prayer for Jews. One phrase is of particular interest. In the Greek and Syriac versions Manasseh simply begs God, “Do not remember my wicked actions forever in your anger” (vs. 12). In the Hebrew version Manasseh adds, “And your wrath may not be upon me in (this) world, and do not bring my sins before me (in view of) the world to come” (tr. Leicht 1996: 373). The interjection is a testament to a linger­ ing thread of support within Judaism for Chronicles’ Manasseh. The prayer secured a place in Christian liturgy and literature. In the mid‐ sixteenth century “The Prayer of Manasseh” was attached as an appendix to the Vulgate by order of the Council of Trent (1546). It was also included in the canon of the Geneva Bible, one of the most popular Bibles of the sixteenth and  seventeenth centuries. The Ethiopic Bible incorporated the prayer into 2  Chronicles, where it appears following the verse describing Manasseh’s ­turning to God (2 Chr 33:12). Today “The Prayer of Manasseh” is canonized in Greek and Slavonic Bibles, and is recited during the Great Compline, a peni­ tential office of the Orthodox Church.

Later Reception of Chronicles’ Manasseh in Jewish Interpretation Chronicles’ Manasseh surfaced a few more times within the vast sea of Jewish tradition. One variant of Aggadat Bereshit, a tenth‐century midrashic text, claimed that God accepted Manasseh’s prayer because “the Holy One does not want to drive out a creature from the world empty handed, but waits until he repents” (tr. Teugels 2001: 32). In a section of Numbers Rabbah that dates from the twelfth century, Manasseh testifies against those who claim their repent­ ance has been rejected by God (Num. Rab. 14.1). In the medieval texts Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the Seven Compartments of Gan Eden and Seder Gan Eden, Manasseh presides over penitents in the afterlife (Raphael 2009: 191, 198). The influential exegete Pseudo‐Rashi, however, was decidedly unsympa­ thetic to Chronicles’ king. In his commentary on Chronicles, also dating from the twelfth century, he blamed Manasseh for the current exile of the Jews. God’s acceptance of Manasseh’s prayer and the king’s return meant that God restored him to his kingdom but not to the world to come (Pseudo‐Rashi, commentary on 2 Chr 33). Among modern Jews, Chronicles’ Manasseh has not fared much better. Henrich Hirsch Graetz (1817–1891) was among the first to write an account of

The Reign of Manasseh  183 Jews from a Jewish perspective. His History of the Jews (1853–1875 (German edition), 1891–1898 (English edition)) is considered a pioneering book of ­historiography and continues to be read today. Manasseh appears in Graetz’s synthesis of Jewish history, but the depiction – to the extent that it draws on the Bible – owes more to Kings than to Chronicles, and the details from Chronicles that do appear have become part of a narrative that is quite different from that found within the book itself. Graetz describes the first part of Manasseh’s reign as a period marked by idolatry and the murder of prophets, following Chronicles and Kings. In ­ Chronicles, Manasseh then becomes a prisoner of the invading Assyrians and his captivity is a prelude to conversion. In History of the Jews, by contrast, Manasseh is seized while on a mission to broker a peace with the Assyrians. For Graetz, the fettered Manasseh’s entry into Babylon should be understood as a sign that Judah deserved punishment for having become “faithless to its origin” and for having shown “a blind love of the stranger.” Manasseh’s story continues: Manasseh himself was delivered from captivity, and sent back to his country by Esarhaddon or his successor; but his character had not improved. Idolatrous worship and the unfortunate conditions brought about by immorality and cruel persecution lasted until his death. When he died (641), he was not buried in the city of David, as his predecessors had been, but in the garden of Uzza [2 Kgs 21:18], attached to the royal palace in the suburb of Milo. He had himself selected this spot for his tomb, and had thereby tacitly acknowledged himself unworthy to rest in the grave of his forefather David. (Graetz 1891: 285)

In this account, Manasseh’s captivity and return to his throne do not betoken God’s grace or the king’s sudden reformation. Rather, Manasseh’s reign is an uninterrupted litany of wrongful acts right up until his ignoble end. Today Chronicles’ Manasseh is absent from debates over the character of Jewish election, the king’s relevance notwithstanding. The Babylonian Talmud’s discussion of Manasseh would have been apt, for instance, in Oswald Rufeisen v. Ministry of Interior, a famous Israeli court case that gripped the nation in the early 1960s. Oswald Rufeisen, better known as Brother Daniel, was a Jewish convert to Catholicism who applied for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. After his application was denied by the state, Brother Daniel appealed. The case tested whether certain actions disqualified a Jew from remaining in covenantal Israel, and various rabbinic texts were brought to bear in the discussion. The ancient debates over whether Manasseh had surpassed that limit, however, were not included despite being germane to both sides of the argument. In 1962, Israel’s High Court of Justice upheld the state’s denial of Brother Daniel’s request (Supreme Court Decision 72/62, Oswald Rufeisen v. Ministry of Interior (1962)).

184  Chronicles Through the Centuries

Later Reception of Chronicles’ Manasseh in Christian Interpretation The medieval reception of Chronicles’ King Manasseh within the Christian community was dependent on the generally favorable interpretations of the early church fathers. Rabanus Maurus (c.776–856), one of the most notable commentators of the period, embraced the tradition he inherited: Manasseh teaches that no one should despair of God’s mercy because repentance brings pardon, no matter how great the sinner (Comm. Para. PL 109.525–527). In the Glossa Ordinaria, the glossing of the Vulgate that became the major transmitter of the church’s orthodox interpretations, Rabanus’s claim that the king ­demonstrates the rewards of contrition appears in his commentary on wicked Manasseh in 2 Kings 21 as well as in his commentary on the contrite Manasseh of 2 Chronicles 33 (Glossa Ordinaria PL 113.626, 689). For Rabanus, Chronicles’ Manasseh reigns over both narratives. Martin Luther (1483–1546) passed along a similar view of Manasseh. In an open letter published on December 19, 1545 he presented Manasseh’s atone­ ment as a blueprint for the salvation of another captive ruler, Henry the Younger, the duke of Braunschweig (1489–1568). Henry, a staunch Catholic, had taken up arms against Landgrave Philip of Hesse and Elector John Frederick of Saxony, both Protestants, in a bid to restore Catholic worship to his duchy. After his surrender on the battlefield on October 21, 1545, Henry was escorted to the castle of Ziegenhain to await a decision on his fate. Luther wrote his letter to the Saxon princes to steel them against petitions for the duke’s release. Luther introduced Manasseh to persuade the princes that Henry’s continued detention was merciful. To make his case, Luther modified the example of the biblical king’s contrition to include reconciliation with former enemies. Luther argued that imprisonment offered an opportunity for repentance. He then advised Henry directly, suggesting that the duke utter words like those con­ tained in Manasseh’s Prayer, taking the full measure of his terrible sins. If Henry were then to humble and condemn himself and beg forgiveness not only from God but also from those whom he had harmed, then he, like Manasseh, would surely find salvation. Luther went on to caution the Saxon princes against releasing the duke even if the nobleman claimed to repent. Since it was impossible truly to know what was in a man’s heart, it was best to let God sort things out in the hereafter. Between 1545 and 1546 there were nine printed editions of the letter, appearing in both High and Low German. The duke’s captors kept him prisoner until they were forced to release him in 1547 (Luther 1955–1976: 43.257–284). John Calvin (1509–1564), another cleric at the forefront of the Reformation, offered an entirely different view of Manasseh. In his commentary on Jeremiah’s assertion that Manasseh is to blame for the exile (Jer 15:4), Calvin maintained

The Reign of Manasseh  185 that Manasseh only pretended to repent. The issue for Calvin, therefore, was not why Manasseh, in light of Chronicles, should be condemned but rather, why God would declare vengeance on Judah for sins that were committed by those who were dead and gone even though Ezekiel said that individuals shall die only for their own offences (Ez 18:20). Calvin claimed that Jeremiah did not really mean that the people of Judah were punished because of Manasseh. They instead incurred God’s wrath because they abused the forbearance God had shown during Manasseh’s reign. Calvin explained that God had withheld pun­ ishment in Manasseh’s lifetime on the condition that the people change, and the forestalled destruction fell upon Judah when no conversion subsequently took place. The generation that went into exile thus bore full responsibility for its own ruin (Calvin 1851: 256–257). The English priest, writer, and poet Robert Southwell (1561–1595) shows that during this period of religious tumult in Europe, Manasseh’s atonement spoke to Catholics as well. A Jesuit who received his training in Rome, Southwell embarked on a secret ministry in Protestant England in 1586, risking his life to do so. At the time, Jesuits were subject to imprisonment and execution in the country. Southwell was discovered in 1592, and in 1595 he was hanged, drawn, and quartered. Among the works he composed during his mission was a lengthy poem, “Saint Peter’s Complaint.” In it, Manasseh proves that God’s grace awaits all who repent: If King Manasses, sunk in depth of sin, With plaints and tears recovered grace and crown: A worthless worm some mild regard may win, And lowly creep, where flying threw it down. A poor desire I have to mind my ill, I should, I would, I dare not say, I will. (Southwell 1872: 42) Southwell’s writings enjoyed wide circulation in England. By 1636, his poetry had appeared in fourteen editions (203). For many English preachers in the centuries that followed, Chronicles’ Manasseh was a favorite subject for discourses from the pulpit. The cleric Isaac Ambrose (1604–1663/64) claimed that Manasseh showed that the most hellish creatures may partake of heaven through God’s mercy (“War with the Devil,” 1797); for John Bunyan (1628–1688), author of The Pilgrim’s Progress, Manasseh provided proof of God’s free grace (“The Law and Grace Unfolded,” 1659; “Saved By Grace,” 1675; “The Jerusalem sinner saved, or, Good news for the vilest of men,” 1689); and Manasseh was an example of reform by affliction for Stephen Addington (1729–1796) (“A practical treatise on afflictions,” 1779).

186  Chronicles Through the Centuries In the nineteenth‐century, the popular preacher Charles Spurgeon delivered several sermons on Manasseh, including one entitled “Pardon for the Greatest Guilt” (1888). Among (mostly Protestant) ministers today, Chronicles’ Manasseh contin­ ues to be a model of redemption. The titles of contemporary sermons on Manasseh listed on the website SermonCentral include “A Second Chance God” (Rick Gillespie Mobley, Protestant/Reformed, 2001); “King Manasseh – A Miracle of Grace” (Evie Megginson, Baptist, 2003); “Manasseh: Old Testament Grace” (Joe Mack Cherry, Christian Church of Christ, 2007); and “Manasseh Knew God – A Character Study of King Manasseh” (William R. Nabaza, Independent, 2013). Selected titles from the many sermons devoted to Manasseh on SermonAudio.com echo the same theme: “A Wealth of Love For a Wretched Libertine! Don’t Give Up On Big Sinners!” (Ian Brown, Londonderry Free Presbyterian, 2006); “Manasseh Saved!” (George Macaskill, Associated Presbytarian Church, 2014); “God’s Amazing Grace Toward Manasseh” (Bartel Elshout, Heritage Reformed Churches, 2015); and “Finishing Well  –  Truths Learned From King Manasseh” (Nathan Millican, Oak Park Baptist, 2015). The reception history of Chronicles’ Manasseh demonstrates that there is nothing preordained about the afterlife of a particular biblical tale. Early Jews and Christians had to grapple with the same problems in squaring Chronicles’ version of the king’s reign with that of Kings, and they came to very different resolutions. The perspectives of these two communities played a decisive role in the king’s fate, and ensured his preservation in – or erasure from – this world, if not the world to come.

Coda A The Conclusion of Chronicles The most powerful and enduring reception of the end of Chronicles is the Jewish Bible. In the canonized form of Jewish Scripture, Chronicles is the final book and its closing verses have the last word in the canon. From a chronological perspective, however, this position is not logical. The last verses of Chronicles are virtually identical to the opening verses of Ezra, meaning that Ezra picks up the history of Israel at precisely the point where Chronicles leaves off. Given the timeline of events, Chronicles should come before Ezra, and in fact, this is the order in Christian Bibles. In the Old Testament,

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

188  Chronicles Through the Centuries Chronicles follows on from Kings and immediately precedes Ezra, becoming part of the historical record leading up to the advent of Christ. Some ancient and medieval Jewish Bibles also placed Chronicles in chronological order. In fact, it is generally assumed that the Septuagint, the oldest extant Jewish Bible, is the origin for Chronicles’ position in the Christian canon list. Moreover, in two authoritative codices – the Aleppo codex (tenth century ce) and the Leningrad codex (1009) – Chronicles is the first book of the Ketuvim (the final section of the Jewish Bible, also known as the Writings) and Ezra and Nehemiah are at the end. In the Talmud, however, as well as in other medieval codices and printed Jewish Bibles in the modern era, Chronicles comes last. This position has its own logic. As the final book, Chronicles stands as a comprehensive and cohesive summary of the Bible. The order is now so entrenched that the publishers of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) dared not violate it. The BHS is the gold‐standard edition of the Hebrew Bible with vowels, cantillation marks, and other Masoretic notations, and its base text is the Leningrad codex. The publishers faithfully retained the codex’s particular order of the books in the Ketuvim but made an exception of Chronicles, which they placed at the end (Elliger and Rudolph 1997). The content of the book’s final verses may also have predisposed readers to prefer to conclude the canon with Chronicles: In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing, saying, “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up!” (2 Chr 36:22–23)

In Ezra, the notice of Cyrus’s edict is the preamble to a description of a resettlement marked by danger, dissent, and disappointment. As part of Chronicles’ “cliffhanger” ending, however, the edict points to a future yet to be determined and potentially full of hope. These verses affirm that God’s promises remain in effect, even after the destruction of the Temple and exile. The people of Judah are to be restored to their land, just as Jeremiah prophesied (cf. Jer 25:11–12, 29:10). Moreover, Cyrus himself testifies to God’s mastery of the universe, proving that even a foreign king can become God’s instrument in the purposeful unfolding of history. The diaspora Jews of the post‐Second Temple era who read Chronicles as the last book may have found the inherent optimism of these lines to be a compelling seal for their written record of revelation.

Coda A  189 Another contributing factor could have been the parallel between Chronicles and Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy, like Chronicles, presents a synopsis of Israel’s history and ends with the people on the brink of entering the Promised Land. As the last of the five books traditionally ascribed to Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the ending of Deuteronomy is also the ending of the Torah, the name for this group of most sacred books. Readers may have perceived Chronicles as a whole – and its ending in particular – as playing the same role as Deuteronomy within the context of the entire corpus of Scripture. Not everyone derived spiritual meaning from Chronicles’ conclusion. Thomas Paine (1737–1809), the English colonial political writer who helped ignite the American revolution, considered the overlap between Chronicles and Ezra to be proof positive that the “pretended word of God” – the Bible – was the work of human hands, and clumsy ones at that. In Part II of The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology (1795), Paine declared that the repetition demonstrated “the disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done” (Paine 1945: 544–545). Paine’s book was banned in Britain, a move that no doubt added to its allure. In America, The Age of Reason went through twenty‐one editions before 1800. For readers from the sages of the Talmud to present‐day scholars, however, these duplicate verses have not been proof of disorder but rather evidence that the same person who wrote Chronicles also wrote Ezra. In a recent commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah, Joseph Blenkinsopp surveyed the possible explanations for the parallel passages. On the basis of the doublet, he raised the possibility that one single composition (Chronicles/Ezra) was artificially separated into two books in order to highlight Cyrus’s edict as a watershed moment in the history of Israel (Blenkinsopp 1988: 49). The reception of Chronicles’ last lines has broadened to include other possibilities. Sara Japhet (1968: 330–371) and H. G. M. Williamson (1977: 37–59; 1982: 5–11) have argued on the basis of linguistic evidence that different writers composed Chronicles and Ezra. In their view, the overlap between the books indicates borrowing or later editing. Another scholar proposes that the Chronicler took his verses from Ezra with the explicit intent of countering that book’s narrative and imbuing the return from exile with greater hope and ­inspiration (Leuchter 2011: 183–200). This argument is but one of many entries in the ongoing debate over the meaning of the doublet. For such readers, the elusiveness of a definite answer continues to entice.

Coda B Julius Wellhausen’s Reception of Chronicles The hostile reading of Chronicles by Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), the ­foremost biblical scholar of the nineteenth century, has had a profound impact on modern interpretations of the book. Wellhausen argued that the Chronicler (meaning, for him, the scribal school that produced the book) revised the books of Samuel and Kings to reflect the ideology of the priestly class and to promote the Second Temple cult. The centerpiece of this argument is the Chronicler’s dramatically altered view of David. Instead of being a gritty man of arms, driven by ambition and passion, he is made to be a pious figure who is without flaws. Instead of fathering the Temple’s founder (Solomon), David is Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Coda B  191 elevated to being the founder himself and the Temple’s chief priest. Chronicles’ contrivances show that it had no authentic connection to the traditions of ancient Israel. Wellhausen’s argument has shaped the views of a vast number of scholars through the twentieth century and continues to do so today. In 1878 he wrote Geschichte Israels, the book that defined the documentary hypothesis and which is best known by the title of its second edition, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1895; later translated as Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (see  Wellhausen 1957)). Chronicles is perhaps the work’s most important text. Before Prolegomena’s publication, the notion that the Pentatuch (the first five books of the Bible) was a compilation of several documentary sources was gaining acceptance in the world of biblical scholarship. There was no consensus, however, on their chronological order. It was on this point that Prolegomena made a definitive case. Replacing previous views that put P (the Priestly writer of the laws in Numbers and Leviticus) first, Wellhausen contended that P was in fact last. First was J (the Jahwist, author of the most colorful passages, mostly in Genesis and Exodus), which was combined with E (the Elohist, whose narratives often paralleled those of J), then later came D (the Deuteronomist). This new order meant that many of the laws in the Bible were of a late appearance, added after the exile. A proper understanding of the order gave readers a glimpse of what Wellhausen considered to be authentic worship in ancient Israel. J, the oldest source, depicts spontaneous and heartfelt communion with the divine without the mediation of priests or the compulsion of laws. Wellhausen’s preference for this source reveals that he was a child of German Romanticism. The Romantics believed that the Enlightenment had degraded human existence, causing man to lose touch with the pulse of the earth and with his primal roots. Wellhausen invokes Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832), one of the great fathers of Romanticism, on behalf of his view. At the opening of his discussion on the oral and written Law, Wellhausen credits Goethe with the observation that the oral tradition was the prized possession of ancient Israel, citing Goethe’s West‐ Oestlicher Divan. The narrator of that poem wants nothing more than to fly back in time to the patriarchs, who in their sublime primitive state retained the capacity to receive God’s spoken word. D, for Wellhausen, was the first to attempt the imposition of a written law, marking an initial and tentative step away from instinctive and pure expressions of veneration. D promoted – and may well have been the propagandist for – King Josiah’s great religious reforms of the preexilic period that targeted Israel’s localistic worship and commanded the centralization of the cult. Sacrifices were no longer to be offered whenever and wherever the spirit was so moved: they would be permitted “only in the place which the Lord will choose” (Dt 12:13–14).

192  Chronicles Through the Centuries Yet Josiah’s reforms were too radical. In the regular course of events they would have been relegated to the dustbin of history, had it not been for the exile. The violent uprooting of the Israelites from their homeland gave these reforms new life. Those who returned from Babylonia were zealots who knew nothing of their ancestors’ genuine traditions. Needing a foundation for their new religious community, they appropriated Josiah’s project and dramatically expanded the scope and reach of D’s edicts. They bolstered their efforts by fabricating a history in which the Law was in effect as far back as the time of Noah. The scribal school responsible for creating this new narrative was P. Wellhausen considered Chronicles to be P’s signature work. Chronicles had only an artificial connection to the stories it reprised, using them for its own purposes. Wellhausen went so far as to liken Chronicles to a parasitic growth overlaying a dead tree, giving the appearance of life where in fact there was none. As a product of the Second Temple period, Chronicles’ emendation of Samuel and Kings reflected the taste and values of the priestly class. In its reconfiguration of events, human fortunes rise or fall in direct correspondence to adherence to the Law. Prolegomena inaugurated a paradigm shift within the field of biblical criticism. One result was a change in the Chronicler’s credibility as a historian. Before Wellhausen, commentators considered Chronicles to be a valuable storehouse of information. They took for granted that the book’s variances with Samuel and Kings were based on supplemental historical facts. Post‐Wellhausen, everything has changed. Chronicles’ account of events has been treated by scholars with much greater caution and skepticism. Wellhausen’s exegesis of Chronicles injected a wedge into Scripture. His interpretation placed J on the “good” side of the ledger, where it encompassed ancient Israel, authentic traditions, and genuine communion with God. On the other “bad” side he placed P, which represented late Israel, artificiality, and inauthentic communion with God. For Wellhausen, Chronicles was precursor to a desiccated and legalistic Judaism. The ramifications of his exegesis have been immense for the reception of Chronicles and the Bible as a whole. In undoing Chronicles’ bond to the other books, Wellhausen broke apart the canon. His disaggregation provided new footholds for disenchantment with the Bible, furthering the forces of secularization already at work.

Glossary of Names and Terms Adams, John Quincy (1767–1848): an American statesman who served as a diplomat, secretary of state, president, and then member of the House of Representatives. Aleppo Codex (tenth century ce): the oldest extant manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. The current text is missing great portions of the Bible, including most of the Pentateuch. Amit, Yairah (1941–): a biblical studies professor in Tel Aviv. Andrewes, Lancelot (1555–1626): an influential cleric in the court of King James. Augustine, Aurelius (354–430): a bishop of Hippo, prolific writer, including Confessions and City of God.

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

194 Glossary Bach, Johann Sebastian (1685–1750): a German musician who is considered one of the greatest composers of all time. Begg, Christopher T. (1950–): a scholar of the Bible and of Josephus at The Catholic University of America. Beza, Theodore (1519–1605): a reformed French theologian who was Calvin’s successor at Geneva, biblical translator, commentator, and textual scholar. Bible moralisée: a type of picture book dating from the Middle Ages, usually with eight images a page and texts in Latin or French bringing out the moral implications of biblical passages. Blenkinsopp, Joseph (1927–): an emeritus professor of biblical studies at the University of Notre Dame. Blomfield, Charles James (1786–1857): a Church of England minster who was bishop of London for twenty‐eight years. Brock, Sebastian P (1938–): a scholar of Syraic literature at the University of Oxford. Brown, David (1803–1897): a coauthor (with Robert Jamieson and Andrew Robert Fausset) of A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (1871): a widely read six‐volume work of verse‐by‐verse bible commentary. Calvin, John (1509–1564): a French Reformer who wrote major works of theology and biblical commentary and led a theocratic regime in Geneva. Cardozo, Abraham Miguel (1626–1706): a Marrano Jew, physician, and philosopher who became a follower of Sabbatai Zvi, a Jewish mystic who claimed to be the messiah. Cassiodorus (c.485–c.580): a statesman, biblical commentator, and a promoter of the monastic life. Chrysostom, John (c.347–407): an important early church father, a theologian of the Antiochian school, and a celebrated orator. Cotton, John (1584–1652): an influential first‐generation Puritan clergyman in New England and grandfather of Cotton Mather. Cyprian (c.200–258): a bishop of Carthage who was influential in the early church. Cyril (c.313–386): a bishop of Jerusalem who wrote of early church practice and doctrine. Daube, David (1909–1999): a preeminent British scholar of biblical and Roman law. Douglas, Robert (1594–1674): a leading minister of the Church of Scotland, officiated at Charles II’s coronation at Scone, Scotland. Dura‐Europos: a site located in Syria and occupied from the late fourth century bce until the mid‐third century ce. Dustan, Hannah (1657–1737): an American colonial Puritan. Her violent escape from Abenaki Indians was celebrated by Cotton Mather. Eber, Paul (1511–1569): a German Lutheran theologian, poet, and composer of hymns. Edwards, Jonathan (1703–1758): an American Calvinist theologian and evangelical preacher who supported the 1740s Great Awakening, and wrote on human depravity. Eisemann, Moshe (1935–): an American Orthodox rabbi and author of a commentary on Chronicles. Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1803–1882): an American poet, philosopher, essayist, and one of the leaders of the American Transcendentalist movement.

Glossary  195 Enfield, William (1741–1797): an English Unitarian minister and author of The Preacher’s Directory (1741): a work that offered ministers assistance in the selection of verses and subjects for sermons. English Civil War (1642–1660): a struggle over religious and political differences between supporters of Charles I (1600–1649) and Parliament. It led to the temporary removal of the Church of England as the state church, the king’s execution in 1649, and the triumph of Parliament, the Puritans, and Presbyterianism, lasting until 1660, when the monarchy was restored under Charles II (1630–1685). Ephrem (306–373): a Syrian Christian who produced numerous hymns and biblical commentary and defended orthodoxy. Eusebius of Caesarea (c.262–340): a major historian of the early church and a biblical exegete. Facundus (fl. sixth century): an African bishop who opposed the edict of the emperor Justinian condemning selected works of Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa. Farrar, Frederic William (1831–1903): an evangelical dean of Canterbury Cathedral. Filmer, Richard (c.1588–1653): an English political theorist and ardent supporter of the divine right of kings. Foster, Charles (1822–1887): an English author and publisher of popular books on the Bible. Geneva Bible (from 1560, many editions): a translation of the Bible produced during the English Reformation with marginal glosses in a Calvinist vein. The Bible of the Puritans and New England settlers. Geneva Bible glossators: a team of English Protestant translators, led by William Whittingham (c.1524–1579), who compiled an annotated version of the Bible in English in Geneva during the reign of the English Catholic queen Mary I. Gersonides (Ralbag: Rabbi Levi ben Gershon) (1288–1344): a Provençal Jewish ­philosopher and biblical commentator. Glorious Revolution (1688–1689): the overthrow of England’s Catholic king James II and the installation of the staunchly Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II as co‐regents. Glossa Ordinaria: the standard medieval collection of interpretations of each of the biblical texts, drawn from the church fathers. It included Jerome’s preface(s) to each of the books of the Bible and was printed many times from the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749–1832): a German poet, philosopher, novelist, and scientist who was immensely influential for Romanticism. Graetz, Henrich Hirsch (1817–1891): a Jewish German historian and biblical scholar, author of the eleven‐volume History of the Jews. Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329–389): an early Trinitarian theologian. Gregory of Nissa (c.335–395): a bishop and early Trinitarian theologian. Gregory of Tours (c.538–594): a Gallo‐Roman bishop and historian. Haggadah: the Exodus account of liberation from slavery read during the Jewish holiday of Passover. Ha‐Kohen, Joseph (1496–1578): a Jewish historian and physician, primarily working in Italy.

196 Glossary Halevi, Judah (c.1075–1141): a Spanish Jewish philosopher and writer of religious and secular poetry. Halkett, Anne (1623–1699): an English biblical commentator and autobiographer. Henry, Matthew (1662–1714): a Nonconformist minister born in Wales who studied law before becoming minister of a Presbyterian congregation in Chester. His Exposition, the work of a “sound and ripe scholar” (1 American edn, 1828), remains unrivaled in popularity. Hertz, Joseph (1872–1946): a Hungarian‐born biblical scholar, chief rabbi of the British Empire, and author of a widely read Torah commentary. Historical criticism: a branch of biblical criticism focused on the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of a text. Horenbout, Gerard (c.1465–1541): a leading Flemish artist best known for his miniatures in illuminated manuscripts. How, William (1823–1897): an English bishop, biblical scholar, and composer of hymns. Hyde, Orson (1805–1878): an American Mormon missionary, one of the original Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐Day Saints. Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meir (1089–1167): a Jewish grammarian, commentator, ­philosopher, poet, and scientist who wrote many ethical treatises and biblical commentaries of lasting importance. Ibn Ezra, Moses (c.1055–c.1138): a Spanish rabbi and prolific poet. Ibn Gabirol, Solomon (c.1021–c.1058): a Jewish poet and thinker, often credited with being Spain’s first philosopher. Isho’dad of Merv (mid‐ninth century): a bishop and author of biblical commentary. James I, King of England (1566–1625): the author of a meditation on Chronicles. He was spurred on in part by the commentary on Chronicles in the Geneva Bible to commission a new translation of the Bible, popularly known as the King James Version. Japhet, Sara (1934–): a biblical scholar and emeritus professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerome (c.347–420): a biblical scholar and papal secretary who translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). John of Damascus (c.676–c.754): a Syrian theologian, also known as John Damascene, who was an official in the court of the caliph at Damascus but resigned and joined a monastery in Palestine. Josephus, Flavius (37–c.100): a Jewish general and Roman Imperial pensioner who wrote on the Jewish War with Rome and a history of the Jews, becoming enormously influential. Kelso, Julie (1970–): an Australian scholar of feminist philosophy, literature, and religion. Kimḥi, David (c.1160–1235): Jewish lexicographer and grammarian who set the standard for such works in the Middle Ages. Kimḥi, Joseph (c.1105–1170): David Kimḥi’s father, a grammarian and literal interpreter who translated Arabic scientific works. King James Version (or Authorised Version of 1611): a translation of the Bible ordered by James I to counter the Geneva Bible, which it eventually supplanted. Based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, it was influenced by the earlier Wyclif version and the “Bishops Bible.”

Glossary  197 King William’s War (1688–1697): a struggle that pitted the Protestant New England colonies (and their Native American allies) against the Catholic French colonial ­powers (and their Native American allies) for dominance in the New World. Knoppers, Gary N. (1956–): biblical scholar at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. Lang, John Dunmore (1799–1878): a Scottish poet and the first Presbyterian minister of Sydney, Australia. Langton, Stephen (c.1150–1228): an archbishop of Canterbury, he is credited with dividing the Bible into chapters, and author of a commentary on Chronicles. Leningrad codex (1009): the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible and the base text for the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Lloyd, William (1627–1717): an English bishop and an ardent supporter of the Reformation. Locke, John (1632–1704): an English philosopher and political theorist. Luther, Martin (1483–1546): an Augustinian monk who became the leader of the Reformation in Germany. He commented extensively on the Bible. Mahzor: a specialized version of the Jewish prayer book used especially on Rosh Hashanah (the New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). Maimonides, Moses (Rambam) (1135–1204): the greatest Jewish philosopher and ­theologian of the Middle Ages. His works include The Guide to the Perplexed and The Mishneh Torah. Malbim (Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser) (1809–1879): a rabbi and biblical commentator who opposed the burgeoning Reform movement in Judaism. Marshall, Stephen (c.1594–1655): an English Puritan preacher of influential sermons before the English Parliament. Masoretic Text: a version of the Hebrew Bible that was produced by Jewish grammarians in the sixth to tenth centuries ce, introducing vowel points, accents, and detailed marginal instructions for later copyists. It became the standard Hebrew text. Mather, Cotton (1663–1728): a preeminent New England Puritan minister and theologian. Mather, Increase (1639–1723): a New England Puritan minister and father of Cotton Mather. He played a role in the governance of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Mather, Richard (1596–1669): an influential first‐generation Puritan clergyman in New England and grandfather of Cotton Mather. McGee, J. Vernon (1904–1988): an American Presbyterian radio minister. Midrash: a mode of biblical interpretation in the rabbinic academies of Palestine and Babylonia. Midrashic writings show the results of these endeavors (from second to eighth centuries ce) to explain gaps and apparent contradictions, harmonize, and apply the teaching of the Torah to daily life, justifying the distinctive rabbinic worldview. Mishnah: attributed to Rabbi Judah ha‐Nasi (early third century ce), a written collection of previously oral halachic (legal) material presented in six divisions: Seeds (agriculture), Festivals, Women (marriage laws), Impurities (civil and criminal laws), Holy Things (ritual laws), and Purifications. A core text for Jewish legal and moral understanding. Noth, Martin (1902–1968): a Heidelberg professor, he is known for History of Israel and Pentateuchal studies.

198 Glossary Origen (184–254): an Alexandrian biblical scholar, theologian, and Platonic philosopher. He was designated a heretic. Owen, Rev. John (1616–1683): an English Puritan. Paine, Thomas (1737–1809): an English rationalist, political reformer, and campaigner who had great influence on revolutionary politics in North America. Palmer, John (1729–1790): an English Presbyterian minister. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (fifth century): a compilation attributed to Rab Kahana of ­midrashic discourses that were to be read on festivals, fasts, special Sabbaths, and the New Moon during the Jewish year. Pesiqta Rabbati (ninth century): a collection of midrashic discourses inspired by ­lessons from the Bible, to be read on festivals, fasts, special Sabbaths, and the New Moon during the Jewish year. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer (“Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer”) (eighth to ninth century): a  ­midrashic work by an unknown Jewish exegete. The title reflects the author’s ­attribution of the text to the first‐century scholar Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos. Pisqa (“section”): a term denoting a passage of Scripture that also came to designate a midrash on a passage of Scripture. The plural of pisqa is pesiqta. Poole, Matthew (1624–1679): an English Nonconformist theologian who is famous for his synopsis of the work of earlier biblical scholars. Power, Graham (1955–): a South African entrepreneur and founder of the Global Day of Prayer movement. Protectorate (1653–1659): the period of England’s governance by the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658). It dissolved shortly after Cromwell’s death, leading to the return of the monarchy in 1660. Protestant Reformation: the sixteenth‐century movement to reform the Catholic Church that advocated acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revealed truth, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the universal priesthood of all believers. On these bases proposals were advanced for societal and political reform. Pseudo‐Dionysius (fifth‐century): a mystic and Neoplatonic theologian. Pseudo‐Rashi (twelfth‐century): a Jewish German exegete whose commentary has been ascribed to Rashi. Ptolemy of Lucca (c.1240–1327): a student of Thomas Aquinas and the author of political works, bible commentary, and histories. Puritans: the English Protestants who considered the sixteenth‐century Reformation in England incomplete and demanded stricter adherence to Scripture in doctrine and practice, on the model of Calvin’s Geneva and civic freedom. Opposed by the Crown, they were briefly successful because of the Civil War. Qumran: a Jewish sect that lived by the shores of the Dead Sea from the second century bce to the first century ce; its members produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rabanus Maurus (c.776–856): an abbot of Fulda Abbey (in Germany), archbishop of Mainz, biblical scholar, and spiritual advisor to members of the Carolingian court. Rashi (Shlomo Yitzchaki) (1040–1105): a French rabbi who founded a school in Troyes, one of the most renowned and influential of medieval Jewish commentators. His commentary appears in standard editions of the Rabbinic Bible. Reardon, Patrick Henry (1938–): an Antiochian Orthodox priest, author, and editor of Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity.

Glossary  199 Reform Judaism: a branch of Judaism that originated in nineteenth‐century Germany, is prevalent in America, and represents a more inclusivist and liberal response to Jewish faith than Orthodox Judaism. Repgow, Eike von (1180–1235): a Saxon legal expert who authored the first German law book, the Sachsenspiegel. Romanticism: an eighteenth‐century intellectual movement from Western Europe reacting to rationalization of nature and promoting folk art and customs. Rutherford, Samuel (1600–1661): a Scottish Presbyterian minister and author of Lex, Rex, a work that advocated checks on monarchic authority. Saadia Gaon’s purported student (eleventh century): author of a commentary on Chronicles. Schneerson, Menachem Mendel (1902–1994): the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and leader of Chabad, a movement within Hasidism, which is a form of Judaism with roots in mysticism. Schweitzer, Steven (1973–): a biblical scholar at Bethany Theological Seminary, Indiana. Septuagint (third–first centuries bce): a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek that included additions to some of its books as well as Greek works not originally in the Hebrew Bible. Smith, Joseph (1805–1844): the founding prophet of the Church of Latter‐Day Saints and publisher of the Book of Mormon. Southwell, Robert (1561–1595): an English priest, writer, and poet who was executed for his secret missionary work in post‐Reformation England. Spurgeon, Charles (1834–1892): an English Baptist preacher and popular author. Staalduine‐Sulman, Eveline van (1964–): a scholar of the Bible, the Targums, and early Judaism at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Swarton, Hannah (fl. 1690s): a Puritan settler in Maine who was taken captive during King William’s War, first by the Abenaki Indians and then by the French. Talmud: a rabbinic commentary on and including the Mishnah; two separate collections exist, which are known as the Palestinian Talmud (compiled c.400 ce) and the Babylonian Talmud (compiled c.600 ce). Targums: Aramaic paraphrases or translations of the Hebrew Bible. Tertullian (c.155–c.249): an early Christian theologian, later a member of the Montanist apocalyptic sect. Theodoret of Cyrus (393–460): a theologian of the Antioch school deeply involved in early Christological controversies and the author of a commentary on Chronicles. Tosefta: a rabbinic commentary collected at about the same period as the Mishnah. Trapp, John (1601–1669): an English Puritan author of a popular biblical commentary. Turner, Daniel (1710–1798): an English Dissenter, preacher, and hymnwriter. Vulgate (fourth century): the translation of the Bible into Latin by Jerome. Widely used in the West, it was pronounced the only authentic Latin text of Scripture by the Catholic Church’s Council of Trent in the mid‐sixteenth century. Weber, Max (1864–1920): a seminal German sociologist, the author of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weigel, Christoph (1654–1725): a German engraver and publisher. Wellhausen, Julius (1844–1918): a German scholar whose work is foundational for modern biblical historical criticism.

200 Glossary Wesley, John (1703–1791): an Anglican priest, evangelist, and founder of Methodism. Wesley, Samuel (1662–1735): a poet, Church of England clergyman, and father of John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism. William of Tyre (c.1130–1186): an archbishop of Tyre and historian. Williamson, H. G. M. (1947–): a biblical scholar and emeritus professor at the University of Oxford. Wyclif Bible: the first complete translation of the Bible into English, named after its principal translator, John Wyclif. It first appeared in 1382 and circulated widely. Wyclif, John (c.1320–1384): an English theologian and forerunner of the Reformation who promoted the translation of the Bible into English. Young, Brigham (1801–1877): the “American Moses” who assumed leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐Day Saints following the death of Joseph Smith and led the church’s migration to Salt Lake City, Utah. Zohar, the book of: a mystical commentary on Torah, written in medieval Aramaic and Hebrew. Zvi, Sabbatai (1626–1676): a Jewish mystic from Smyrna (now Izmir, Turkey) who claimed to be the messiah and acquired a massive following.

Abbreviations ANF Ante‐Nicene Fathers bce Before Common Era BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BWV Bach‐Werke‐Verzeichnis ce Common Era ECCO Eighteenth Century Collections Online EEBO Early English Books Online GB Geneva Bible KJV King James Version Chronicles through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

202 Abbreviations LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NPNF (1 & 2) Select Library of Nicene‐ and Post‐Nicene Fathers (First and Second Series) NRSV New Revised Standard Version PG Patrologia graeca PL Patrologia latina WB Wyclif Bible

Bibliography

Early Jewish Writings Josephus 

Ant. 

Jewish Antiquities

Mishnah m. Sanh.  m. Yoma

Tractate Sanhedrin Tractate Yoma

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

204 Bibliography

Tosefta t. Sanh. t. Sotah.

Tosfeta Sanhedrin Tosefta Sotah

Jerusalem Talmud y. Sanh. y. Ta‘an. y. Yebam.

Tractate Sanhedrin Tractate Ta‘anit Tractate Yebamot

Babylonian Talmud b. ‘Arak. b. ‘Avod. Zar.  b. B. Bat. b. Ber b. B. Qam. b. Git. b. Horayoth b. Keritot b. Meg. b. Ned. b. Pesaḥ. b. Šabb. b. Sanh. b. Sotah b. Tem. b. Yoma b. Zebaḥ.

Tractate ‘Arakin Tractate ‘Avodah Zarah Tractate Baba Batra Tractate Berachot Tractate Baba Qama Tractate Gittin Tractate Horayoth Tractate Keritot Tractate Megillah Tractate Nedarim Tractate Pesaḥim Tractate Shabbat Tractate Sanhedrin Tractate Sotah Tractate Temurah Tractate Yoma Tractate Zebaḥim

Other Rabbinic Works 1 Tg. Chr. 2 Tg. Chr. Eccl. Rab. Ex. Rab. Gen. Rab. Lev. Rab. Midr. Tehillim

Targum 1 Chronicles Targum 2 Chronicles Ecclesiastes Rabbah Exodus Rabbah Genesis Rabbah Leviticus Rabbah Midrash Tehillim

Bibliography  205 Num. Rab. Pirqe R. El. Pesiq. Rab. Kah. Pesiq. Rab. Seder Olam Rab. Tg. Ps.‐J. Tg. Sg.

Numbers Rabbah Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Pesiqta de‐Rab Kahana Pesiqta Rabbati Seder Olam Rabbah Targum Pseudo‐Jonathan Targum Song of Songs

Pseudepigrapha and Anonymous Works Ascen. Isa. DA Did. Prot. Jas.

The Ascension of Isaiah Didascalia Apostolorum Didache Protevangelium of James

Early Christian Writings Augustine Eusebius Jerome

Corrept. Dem. Ev. Jov. Comm. Eccl. Comm. Isa. Comm. Jer. Comm. Matt. Comm. Zach.

John of Damascus Origen

Comm. Zeph. Hom. Jo. Hom. Matt. Apol. Comm. Matt.

Rabanus Maurus

Hom. I in Psalm. LXXVI Comm. Para.

John Chrystostom

De correptione et gratia Demonstratio evangelica Adversus Jovinianum libri II Commentariorum in Ecclesiasten Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII Commentariorum in Jeremiam libri VI Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri IV Commentariorum in Zachariam libri III Commentariorum in Zephaniam Homiliae in Joannem Homiliae in Matthaeum Apologiae Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei Homilia I in Psalmum LXXVI Commentaria in libros II Paralipomenon

206 Bibliography Tertullian Theodoret of Cyrus

Marc. Explan. Cant. Inter. Ezech. Inter. Jer. Quaest. Reg. et Para.

Adversus Marcionem Explanatio in Canticum canticorum Interpretatio in Ezechielem Interpretatio in Jeremiam Quaestiones in libros Regnorum et ­Paralipomenon

Primary and Secondary Sources Adams, Charles Francis, ed. 1874. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848, Volume 5. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Co. Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. 1971. Matthew: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 26. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Allison, Dale C. Jr., ed. 2004. Matthew: A Shorter Commentary. London/New York: T & T Clark. Amit, Yairah. 2006. “The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Chronicler’s World.” In Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Tests in Second Temple Judaism, ed. M. H. Floyd and R. L. Haak, 80–101. LBHOT, 427; London/New York: T&T Clark. Ancell, James. 1757. “National Virtue: The Condition of National Happiness.” London: R. Baldwin. (ECCO) Andrewes, Lancelot. 1610. “A sermon preached before His Maiestie on Sunday the fifth of August last at Holdenbie by the Bishop of Elie, His Maiesties almoner.” London: Robert Barker. (EEBO) Anonymous. 1761. “The History of the man after God’s own heart.” London: R. Freeman. (ECCO) Anselmi, Jeffery. 2008. “Redirecting a Nation.” http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/ redirecting‐a‐nation‐08‐jeffery‐anselmi‐sermon‐on‐independence‐day‐124230.asp (accessed June 13, 2016). Attridge, Harold W. ed. 2006. The HarperCollins Study Bible. New York: HarperCollins. Australia’s Christian Value Institute 2010. “Australia’s Call to Prayer and 40‐Day Fast for the ‘Healing of the Land’ Down Under.” www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/ display_art.html?ID=8012 (accessed, June 9, 2016). Baker, Andrew Chase. 2001.“Gain, No Pain.” Religion in the News 4 (Fall): 21–22. Begg, Christopher T. 1988. “The Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 64 (1):157–163. Begg, Christopher T. and Paul Spilsbury, tr. 2005. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume Five: Judean Antiquities Books 8–10. Leiden: Brill. Bell, Brian, ed. 2008. Insight Guide: Israel. Long Island City, NY: Langenscheidt. Ben Zvi, Ehud. 1988. “The Authority of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Second Temple Period.” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 3 (September): 54–88. Berger, Yitzhak, ed. and tr. 2007. The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimḥi to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and Supercommentary. Brown Judaic Studies 345. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

Bibliography  207 Berry, Lloyd E. 1969. The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Beza, Theodore. 1574. Du droit des magistrats sur leurs subiets. https://books.google.de/ books?id=WSRNexJg7NEC&dq=du+droit+des+magistrats&hl=de&source=gbs_ navlinks_s (accessed June 8, 2016). Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1988. Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Blidstein, Gerald J. 2008. “Prayer Rescue and Redemption in the Mekilta.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (1): 68–87. Blomfield, Charles James. 1838. “A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria in the Abbey Church of Westminster.” London: B. Fellowes. Boydell, John. 1820. Boydell’s Illustrations of Holy Writ. London: Hurd, Robinson, and Co. Brady, Christian M. M. 2003. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God. Leiden: Brill. Braude, William G., tr. 1959. The Midrash on Psalms (The Second of Two Volumes). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Braude, William G., tr. 1968. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths, 2 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968. Braude, William G. and Kapstein, Israel J., tr. 1975. Pesikta de‐Rab Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America. Bremer, Francis J. and Webster, Tom, eds. 2006. Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC‐CLIO. Brock, Sebastian. 1997. St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Brock, Sebastian P. 2006. The Bible in the Syraic Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Brown, Candy Gunther. 2006. “From Tent Meetings and Store‐front Healing Rooms to Walmarts and the Internet: Healing Spaces in the United States, the Americas, and the World, 1906–2006.” Church History 75: 642–647. Brown, John. c.1873. Brown’s Self‐Interpreting Bible. Blackie & Son: London and Glasgow. Budge, E. A. Wallis, tr. 2000. The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek (Kěbra Nagast). Ethiopian Series. Cambridge, Ontario: In parentheses. http://www.yorku.ca/ inpar/kebra_budge.pdf (accessed June 13, 2016). Burnett, Gilbert. 1688. The Expedition of the Prince of Orange for England Giving an account of the most remarkable passages thereof, from the day of his setting sail from Holland, to the first day of this instant December, 1688, in a letter to a person of quality. Printed for T. W. (EEBO) Calvin, John. 1851. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and The Lamentations: Volume Second, tr. John Owen. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society. Calvin, John. 1995. Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1536 Edition, tr. Ford Lewis Battles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Cardozo, Abraham Miguel. 2001. Abraham Miguel Cardozo: Selected Writings, tr. David J. Halperin. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Carmi, T., ed. 1981. The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse. New York: The Viking Press.

208 Bibliography Carmichael, Calum, ed. 2000. New Testament Judaism: Collected Works of David Daube, Vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California. Cassell’s Illustrated Family Bible. 1860. London & New York: Cassell, Petter, and Galpin. Cassiodorus. 1991. Explanation of the Psalms, 3 vols, tr. and ed. P. G. Walsh. New York: Paulist Press. Charlesworth, James H., ed. 1983–1985. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. New York: Doubleday. Claghorn, George S., ed. 1998. Jonathan Edwards: Letters and Personal Writings. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Claydon, Tony. 2004. William III and the Godly Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cobb, Silas. 1910. “One Thing Thou Lackest.” The Christian Science Journal 28: 187–192. Conti, Marco, ed. and tr. 2008. 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 5. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Cotton, John. 1843. The keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and power thereof, according to the Word of God. Boston: Tappan and Dennet. Cowley, Roger W. 1985. “The ‘Blood of Zechariah’ (Mt 23:35) in Ethiopian Exegetical Tradition.” In Studia Patristica XVIII, Volume One, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications. Daramola, Yomi. 2008. “Christian Music as a Discipline: A Religious Appraisal of Christian Music in Nigeria Today.” Cyber Journals for Pentecostal–Charismatic Research 17. www.pctii.org/cyberj/(accessed June 9, 2016). Davidson, I., Assaf, S., and Joel, B. I., eds. 1941. Siddur Rav Saadia Gaon. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim (Hebrew). Davies, Samuel. 1766. “Ingratitude to God  –  A Heinous but General Iniquity.” In Sermons on the most useful and important subjects, adapted to the family and closet, Vol. 3, 105–126. London: J. Buckland and J. Payne. (ECCO) Davila, James R. 2007. “Is the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?” In Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition, ed. Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber. Leiden: Brill. Dickson, William Steel. 1776. “The Advantages of National Repentance.” Belfast: James Magee. (ECCO) Dobozy, Maria, tr. 1999. The Saxon Mirror: A Sachsenspiegel of the Fourteenth Century. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Douglas, Robert. 1660. “The form and order of the coronation of Charles II, King of Scotland together with the sermon then preached by Mr. Robert Douglas &c.; and the oath then taken, with several speeches made: as it was acted and done at Scoone, the first day of January, 1651.” Aberdene: James Brown. (EEBO) Douthat, Ross. 2012. Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. New York: Simon & Schuster. D’Oyly, Samuel and Colson, John, tr. 1732. An historical, critical, geographical, chronological, and etymological dictionary of the Holy Bible, in three volumes…Written

Bibliography  209 originally in French by … Augustin Calmet, 3 vols. London: J. J. and P. Knapton et al. (ECCO) Drummond, Lewis A. 1992. Spurgeon: The Prince of Preachers. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. Dumortier, Jean. 1966. Jean Chrysostome: A Théodore. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966. Dutton, Paul Edward and Kessler, Hebert L. 1997. The Poetry and Paintings of the First Bible of Charles the Bald. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dvornik, Francis. 1966. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Backgrounds, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Pub Service. Eames, Wilberforce. 1903. The Bay Psalm Book: being a facsimile reprint of the first edition printed by Stephen Daye at Cambridge, in New England in 1640. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company. Edbury, Peter W. and Rowe, John Gordon. 1988. William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, Jonathan. 1998. Notes on Scripture, ed. Stephen J. Stein. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Edwards, Jonathan. 2003. “Bringing the Ark to Zion a Second Time.” In Sermons and Discourses 1739–1742, ed. Harry S. Stout and Nathan O. Hatch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisemann, Moshe. 1987. Divrei hayamim I: 1 Chronicles. The ArtScroll Tanach Series. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications. Eisemann, Moshe. 1992. Divrei hayamim II: 2 Chronicles. The ArtScroll Tanach Series. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications. Elliger, Karl and Rudolph, William, eds. 1997. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Enfield, William. 1771. The Preacher’s Directory; or a series of subjects proper for public discourse. London: Joseph Johnson. (ECCO) Evans, Mark. 1992. The Sforza Hours. London: The British Library. Farrar, F. W. 1894. The Second Book of Kings. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son. Ferrar, W. J., tr. 1920. The Proof of the Gospel, 2 vols. New York: The Macmillan Company. Ferrell, Lori Anne. 1998. Government by Polemic: James I, the King’s Preachers, and the Rhetorics of Conformity, 1603–1625. Stanford, CA: University of Stanford Press. FFCS Bozeman. 2011. www.csbozeman.com/index.php?page=readings (accessed June 9, 2016). Filmer, Robert. 1680. Patriarcha, or, The Natural Power of Kings. London: Walter Davis Book‐binder, in Amen‐Corner, near Pater‐noster‐row. (EEBO) Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1981. The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX). AB 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Flesher, Paul V. M. and Chilton, Bruce D. 2011. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Folda, Jaroslav. 2012. “Melisende of Jerusalem: Queen and Patron of Art and Architecture in the Crusader Kingdom.” In Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, ed. Therese Martin, 429–477. Leiden: Brill.

210 Bibliography Foster, Charles. 1884. The Story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation Told in Simple Language Adapted to All Ages, But especially to the Young. Philadelphia, PA: Charles Foster Publishing Co. Fowler, John. 1807. The Christian’s Complete Family Bible. Ormskirk, UK: John Fowler. Freedman, David Noel. 1962. “Pentateuch.” In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, Vol. 3, 711–727. New York: Abington Press. Freedman, H. and Maurice, S., eds. 1961. Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English, 10 vols. 3rd ed. London: Soncino Press. Friedlander, Gerald, tr. 1916. Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. LTD. Gallay, P., ed. 1964. Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres, 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Gersonides. 1888. Be’ure Ralbag ‘al Ezra, Nehemyah ve‐Divre ha‐yamim, ed. Levi ben Gershom. Krakow: Josef Fischer. (Hebrew) Gibson, John C. L. 1955. “John the Baptist in Muslim Writings.” The Muslim World 45: 334–345. Gibson, Margaret Dunlop, ed. and tr. 1911. The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, Bishop of Hadatha (c.850 A.D.) in Syriac and English, Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gosselin, Edward A. 1976. The King’s Progress to Jerusalem: Some Interpretations of David during the Reformation Period and Their Patristic and Medieval Background. Malibu: Undena Publications. Graetz, Heinrich Hirsch. 1891. History of the Jews: Vol. 1, From the Earliest Period to the Death of Simon the Maccabees (135 B.C.E.). Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Greig, Pete. 2012. “Indonesia, 3 Million Pray.” www.24‐7prayer.com/features/1781 (accessed June 9, 2016). Guest, Gerry, tr. 1995. Bible Moralisée: Vienna, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Vind. 2554 (Manuscripts in Miniature). London: Harvey Miller Publishers. Guggenheimer, Heinrich W., tr. 1998. Seder Olam: The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. Guinot, J. 1980. Théodoret de Cyr: Commentaire sur Isaïe. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Gurtner, David. M. 2009. Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text With Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances. New York: T&T Clark. Ha‐Kohen, Joseph. 1859. Divre ha‐yamim le‐malkhe Tsarfat u‐vet Oṭoman ha‐Tugar. Lemberg: S. Bak & A. J. Menkes. (HathiTrust) Halkett, Anne. 1702. “Meditations upon Jabez his Request, I. Chron. iv.10.” Edinburgh, n.p.: 1702. (ECCO) Hampton, William. 1661. “Lacrymae Ecclesiae; or The mourning of Hadadrimmon for England’s Josiah … at the solemn Fasting and Humiliation, for the Martyrdom and horrid Murder of our late gracious King Charles the First, of ever blessed Memory.” London: Printed for Wil. Hope. (EEBO) Harper 1846. The Illuminated Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Bibliography  211 Hayward, Robert. 1987. The Targum of Jeremiah: Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier. Heinemann, Joseph. 1975. “The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus of the Tribe of Ephraim.” Harvard Theological Review 68 (1): 1–15. Heinlen, James Michael. 1991. “The Ideology of Reform in the French Moralized Bible,” PhD dissertation. Northwestern University. Henry, Matthew. 1998. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Joshua to Esther. 5th ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Hertz, J. H. 1981. The Pentateuch and Haftarahs. 2nd ed. London: Soncino Press. Hill, Christopher. 1993. The English Bible and the Seventeenth Century Revolution. London: The Penguin Press. Hill, Robert C. 2005. Reading the Old Testament in Antioch. Leiden: Brill. Hogg, H. W. 1899. “The Genealogy of Benjamin: A Criticism of 1 Chronicles viii.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 11: 96–133. Hole, William. 1925. Old Testament History. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. How, William. 1864. www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/w/e/g/wegiveth.htm (accessed June 9, 2016). Ibn Ezra, Moses. 1957. Moses Ibn Ezra: Shire ha‐Kodesh, ed. Shim’on Bernstein. Tel Aviv: Massadah. (Hebrew) Ibn Gabriol, Solomon. 1998. A Crown for the King, tr. David R. Slavitt. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. James I. 1589. “Ane meditatioun vpon the xxv, xxvi, xxvii, and xxix verses of the XV chapt. of the first buke of the Chronicles of the Kingis set doun be the maist Christiane king and sincere professour of the treuth Iames the Sext King of Scottis.” Edinburgh: Henrie Charteris. (EEBO) James, Edwards, tr. 1991. Gregory of Tours: Life of the Fathers. 2nd ed. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., and Brown, D. 1871. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Hartford, CT: S. S. Scranton & Company. Japhet, Sara. 1968. “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew.” Vetus Testamentum 18: 330–371. Japhet, Sara. 1993. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. Japhet, Sara. 2012. “Was David a Judahite or an Ephraimite? Light from the Genealogies.” In Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty‐Fifth Birthday, ed. Iain Provan and Mark Boda, 297–306. Leiden: Brill. Jellinek, Adolph, ed. 1853–1877. Bet ha‐Midrasch: Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der jüischen Literatur, 6 vols. Leipzig: F. Nies. (Hebrew) Jerome. 2011. Commentary on Jeremiah, Ancient Christian Texts, tr. Michael Graves, ed. Christopher A. Hall. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. John of Damascus. 2003. Three Treatises on the Divine Image, tr. Andrew Louth. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Joyce, Paul M. and Lipton, Diana. 2013. Lamentations Through the Centuries. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

212 Bibliography Kalimi, Isaac. 2005. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kalimi, Isaac. 2009. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Journey. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kelso, Julie. 2007. O Mother, Where Art Thou? An Irigarayan Reading of the Book of Chronicles. London: Equinox. Kershaw, Paul J. 2011. Peaceful Kings: Peace, Power, and the Early Medieval Political Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiecker, James G. 1988. “Luther’s Preface to His First Lectures on the Psalms (1513): The Historical Background to Luther’s Biblical Hermeneutic.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 85: 2. Kirchheim, Raphael, ed. 1874. Ein Commentar zur Chronik aus dem 10thn Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a.M.: Brünner. (Hebrew; HathiTrust). Kisch, Guido. 1941. Sachsenspiegel and Bible: Researches in the Source History of Sachsenspiegel and the Influence of the Bible on Mediaeval German Law. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Knoppers, Gary N. 2003. I Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 12. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Knoppers, Gary N. 2004. I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 12A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Knoppers, Gary N. 2010. “Democratizing Revelation? Prophets, Seers and Visionaries in Chronicles.” In Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, 391–409. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 531. London: T&T Clark. Kübler, Theodore, ed. and tr. 1865. Historical Notes to the Lyra Germanica. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green. Kumar, Anugrah. 2012. “Thousands Gather at Rally to Reclaim America for God.” The  Christian Post, September 30. www.christianpost.com/news/thousands‐gather‐ at‐rally‐to‐reclaim‐america‐for‐god‐82432/(accessed June 9, 2016). Labriola, Albert C. and Smeltz, John W., tr. 1990. The Bible of the Poor [Biblia Pauperum]: A Facsimilie and Edition of the British Library Blockbook C.9 d.2. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Lang, John Dunmore. 1873. Poems: Sacred and Secular Written Chiefly at Sea Within the Last Half Century. Sydney, Australia: William Maddock Bookseller. Langton, Stephen. 1978. Commentary on the Book of Chronicles, ed. Avrom Saltman. Jerusalem: Bar‐Ilan University Press. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. tr. 1933. Mekilta de‐Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. Philadelphia, PA. The Jewish Publication Society of America. Leaver, Robin A. 1985. J. S. Bach and Scripture: Glosses from the Calov Bible Commentary. St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. Lehrman, S. M., tr. 1939. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus. London: Soncino Press. Leicht, Reimund. 1996. “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version of the Apocryphal ‘Prayer of Manasseh.’”Jewish Studies Quarterly 3: 359–369.

Bibliography  213 Leuchter, Mark. 2011. “Rethinking the ‘Jeremiah’ Doublet in Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles.” In What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman, 183–200. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Levi DeLapp, Nevada. 2014. The Reformed David(s) and the Question of Resistance to Tyranny. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Lloyd, William 1691. “A sermon preached before the Queen at White‐Hall, January 30th being the day of martyrdom of King Charles the First by the Bishop of St. Asaph, Lord Almoner to Their Majesties.” London: Printed for Thomas Jones. (EEBO) Locke, John. 1690. “Two treatises of government in the former, the false principles and foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his followers are detected and overthrown, the latter is an essay concerning the original, extent, and end of civil government.” London: Printed for Awnsham Churchill. (EEBO) Lovett, William. 1920. The Life and Struggles of William Lovett in His Pursuit of Bread Knowledge, and Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Lowe, Vivian. 2000. “The History America Chose to Forget.” Charisma Magazine, November. www.njclc.com/news8.htm (accessed June 9, 2016). Lucado, Max and Frazee, R. 2011. The Story: The Bible As One Continuing Story Of God And His People. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Luibheid, Colm, tr. 1987. Pseudo‐Dionysius: The Complete Works. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Luther, Martin. 1955–1976. Luther’s Works, 55 vols, ed. J. Pelikan et al.. St Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. Lyons, Eric. 2002. “Jesse’s Missing Son.” http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/612 (accessed June 13, 2016). Maimonides, Moses. 2014. Mishneh Torah. sefaria.org (accessed June 9, 2016). Malbim. 2014. “Commentary on the book of Jeremiah.” www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_ Jeremiah (accessed June 9, 2016). Maraval, P., ed. 1982. Égerie: Journal de Voyage. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Marsden, George. 2004. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Marshall, Stephen. 1644. “A sacred panegyrick, or A sermon of thanks‐giving, preached to the two Houses of Parliament, His Excellency the Earl of Essex, the Lord Major, court of alderman and common councell of the city of London, the reverend Assembly of Divines, and commissioners from the Church of Scotland. Upon occasion of their solemn feasting, to testifie their thankfulness to God, and union and concord one with another, after so many designes to divide them, and thereby ruine the Kingdome, Ianuary 18, 1643.” London: Printed for Stephen Bowtell. (EEBO). Marshall, Stephen. 1647. “The right understanding of the times of the times opened in a sermon preached to the Honorable House of Commons, December 30, 1646, at Margaret Westminster, being the day of their solemne monethly fast.” London: Printed by Richard Cotes, for Stephen Bowtell. (EEBO). Maryles, Daisy. 2001. “Setting a New Record.” Publishers Weekly, November 5. http:// www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20011105/22087‐setting‐a‐new‐record.html (accessed June 9, 2016).

214 Bibliography Mather, Cotton. 1697. “Humiliations, follow’d by Deliverances. A Brief Discourse on the Matter and Method of that Humiliation which would be an Hopeful Symptom of our Deliverance from Calamity. Accompanied and Accommodated with a Narrative, of a Notable Deliverance lately Received by some English Captives, from the Hands of Cruel Indians. And some Improvement of that Narrative, Whereto is added a Narrative of Hannah Swarton, containing a great many wonderful passages, relating to her Captivity and Deliverance.” Boston: Printed by B. Green & J. Allen, for Samuel Phillips. (EEBO). Mather, Increase. 1679. A Call from Heaven to the Present and Succeeding Generations. Boston: John Foster. Matt, Daniel C., ed. 2005. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition: Volume 3. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. McGee, J. Vernon. 1991. 1 and 2 Chronicles: History of Israel. Thru the Bible Commentary Series. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. McIvor, J. Stanley, tr. 1994. The Targum of Chronicles. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. McKinley Jr., James C. 1998. “Aksum Journal; Found in Ethiopia: Keepers of the Lost Ark,” New York Times, January 27. www.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/world/aksum‐ journal‐found‐in‐ethiopia‐keepers‐of‐the‐lost‐ark.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed June 9, 2016). Metzger, Alter B. 2002. Chasidic Perspectives: A Festival Anthology. Brooklyn, NY: Kehot Publication Society. Metzger, Bruce. 2006. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Millett, Bella, tr. 2009. Ancrene Wisse: A Guide for Anchoresses. Colchester: University of Exeter Press. Monahan, Arthur P. 1994. From Personal Duties towards Personal Rights: Late Medieval and Early Modern Political Thought, 1300–1600. Montreal: McGill‐Queen’s University Press. Montefiore, Claude G. and Loewe, H., eds. 1963. A Rabbinic Anthology. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company. Mortier, Pieter. 1700. Historie des Ouden en Nieuwen Testaments. Amsterdam. Narkiss, Bezalel. 1997. The Golden Haggadah. London: The British Library. Nazarene Israel. 2015. www.nazareneisrael.org/books/revelation‐end‐times‐v2/the‐ hazards‐of‐the‐early‐ingathering/(accessed June 9, 2016). Nelson, Janet L. 2013. Charles the Bald. New York: Routledge. Nkwoka, O. Anthony. 2000. “The Bible in Igbo Christianity of Nigeria.” In The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends, ed. Gerald O. West and Musa W. Dube, 326–335. Leiden: Brill. Noth, Martin. 1987. The Chronicler’s History, tr. H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 50. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press. Owen, John. 1656. “God’s presence with a people the spring of their prosperity; with their special interest in abiding with Him.” London: R. N. for Philemon Stephens. (EEBO)

Bibliography  215 Owen, John. 1862. “Of toleration; and the duty of the magistrate about religion.” In The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, Vol. 8, 163–206. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Paine, Thomas. 1945. The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, ed. Philip S. Foner. New York: The Citadel Press. Palmer, John. 1760. “A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of His Late Majesty King George the Second and the Accession of his Present Majesty, King George the Third.” London: C. Henderson. (ECCO) Perrone, Lorenzo. 2015. Die neuen Psalmenhomilien: Eine Kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314. GCS 19. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Phillips, Michael. 2005. “In Swaziland, U.S. Preacher Sees His Dream Vanish.” The Wall Street Journal, December 19. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113495910699726095 (accessed June 9, 2016). Poole, Henry. 1794. “A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Michael, Lewes.” Lewes: Arthur Lee. (ECCO) Poole, Matthew. 1853. Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, 3 vols. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers. Power, Graham and Verooten, Diane. 2009. Not by Might, Nor by Power. Lake Mary, FL: Creation House. Ptolemy of Lucca. 1997. On the government of rulers: De remimine principum, With ­portions attributed to Thomas Aquinas, tr. James M. Blythe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Raphael, Simcha Paull. 2009. Jewish Views of the Afterlife. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Reardon, Patrick Henry. 2006. Chronicles of History and Worship. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press. Reischl, Wilhelm Carl and Rupp, Joseph, eds. 1848. Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt Omnia, 2 vols. Munich: Lentner. Riche, Pierre. 1993. The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, eds. 1903. The Ante‐Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Rutherford, Samuel. 1644. Lex, Rex or The Law and the Prince; A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People. London: Printed for John Field. (EEBO) Schaff, Philip, ed. 1886–1889. The Nicene and Post‐Nicene Fathers, Series 1, 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Scheick, William, ed. 1989. Two Mather Biographies: “Life and Death” and “Parentator.” Bethlehem, PA: Leigh University Press. Scherman, Nosson. 2004. The Complete ArtScroll Siddur: Weekday/Sabbath/Festival. 3rd ed. New York: Mesorah Publications. Schmid, Konrad. 2010. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, tr. James D. Nogalski. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schuller, Eileen M. 1986. Non‐Canonical Psalms From Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection. Harvard Semitic Studies 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Schweitzer, Steven. 2007. Reading Utopia in Chronicles. New York: T&T Clark International.

216 Bibliography Smith, Joseph. 1902. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐Day Saints, 7 vols, ed. B. H. Roberts. Salt Lake City: Deseret News. Smolinski, Reiner. 1995. The Threefold Paradise of Cotton Mather: An Edition of “Triparadisus.” Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Southwell, Robert. 1828. The Prose Works of Robert Southwell, ed. W. Jos. Walter. London: Keating, Brown, & Co. Southwell, Robert. 1872. The Complete Poems of Robert Southwell, Vol. 1., ed. Alexander B. Grosart. Printed for private circulation. Spurgeon, Charles H. 1857. “Manasseh: 2 Chr 33.13.” In Sermons of the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, 311–327. New York: Sheldon, Blakeman and company. Spurgeon, C. H. 1874. “A Lesson From the Life of King Asa.” www.spurgeongems.org/ vols19‐21/chs1152.pdf (accessed June 9, 2016). Spurgeon, Charles H. 1894. “Pardon for the Greatest Guilt: 2 Chr 33.13.” In Spurgeon’s Sermons, Volume 40:1894. No. 2378. www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/sermons40.xxxvii. html (accessed June 9, 2016). Spurgeon, Charles H. 1995. “The Prayer of Jabez.” In Spurgeon’s Sermons on Great Prayers of the Bible, 25–37. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. Stackhouse, Thomas. 1749. A New History of the Holy Bible. London: S. Austen. Steinsaltz, Aldin, ed. and tr. 1999. Tractate Sanhedrin: Part VII. Vol. XXI of The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition. New York: Random House. Stenstrup, Kenneth G. 2000. “King Manasseh in Early Judaism and Christianity.” Ph. D. dissertation. Claremont Graduate University. Stewart‐Sykes, Alistair. 2009. The Didascalia Apostolorum: An English Version with Introduction and Annotation. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. Stinson, Russell. 2003. J. S. Bach’s Great Eighteen Organ Chorales. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Talmage, Frank, tr. 1972. The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimḥi. Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Tanenbaum, Adena. 2002. The Contemplative Soul: Hebrew Poetry and Philosophical Theory in Medieval Spain. London: Brill. Taylor, Jonathan G. 2011. “The Application of 2 Chronicles 7:13–15.” Bibliotheca Sacra 168: 146–161. Telushkin, Joseph. 1997. Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas of the Hebrew Bible. New York: William Morrow and Company. Teugels, Lieve M. 2001. Aggadat Bereshit. Leiden: Brill. Tishby, Isaiah. 1989. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, 3 vols, tr. David Goldstein. London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Townsend, John T., tr. 1989. Midrash Tanḥuma (S. Buber Recension): Vol. 1, Genesis. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House. Trapp, John. 1662. Annotations Upon the Old and New Testament. London: Printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons. (EEBO) Trimmer, Sarah. 1783. Sacred History Selected from the Scriptures, with Annotations and Reflections, Suited to the Comprehension of Young Minds, Vol. 3. London: printed for J. Dodsley, T. Longman and G. Robinson, and J. Johnson. (ECCO)

Bibliography  217 Turner, Daniel. 1789. “A Sermon, preached before the Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, on December 27, 1788.” London: Printed and sold by T. Cadell. (ECCO) Turner, Francis. 1685. “A sermon preached before Their Majesties K. James II and Q.  Mary at their coronation in Westminster Abbey.” London: Robert Clavel. (EEBO) Ullendorff, Edward. 1998. Ethiopia and the Bible. London: Oxford University Press. van der Horst, Pieter W. and Newman, Judith H. 2008. Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. van Staalduine‐Sulman, Eveline. 2002. Targum of Samuel. Leiden: Brill. von Frank, Albert J., ed. 1989. The Complete Sermons of Ralph Waldo Emerson: Volume 1. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Wada, Yoko. 2003. “What is Ancrene Wisse?” In A Companion to Ancrene Wisse, 1–28. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. Warner, George F. 1894. Miniatures and Borders From The Book of Hours. London: William Clowes and Sons, Limited. Warren, Ann K. 1985. Anchorites and their Patrons in Medieval England. Berkeley: University of California Press. Watson, Richard. 1775. A Collection of Theological Tracts, in Six Volumes, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: J. & J. Merrill. (ECCO) Weber, Max. 2016. Die protestantische Ethik und der “Geist” des Kapitalismus: Neuausgabe der ersten Fassung von 1904–05 mit einem Verzeichnis der wichtigsten Zusatze und Veranderungen aus der zweiten Fassung von 1920, ed. Klaus Lichtblau and Johannes Weiss. Weisbaden: Springer. Weigel, Christoph. 1695. Biblia Ectypa. Bildnussen auss Heilige Schrifft dess Alt‐und Neuen Testaments. Augsburg. Weitzman, M. P. 1999. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wellhausen, Julius. 1870. De Gentibus Et Familiis Judaeis Quae I. Chr. 2. 4. Enumerantur. Göttingen: Officina Academica Dieterichiana. Wellhausen, Julius. 1895. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2nd ed. Berlin: G. Reimer. Wellhausen, Julius. 1957. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, tr. J. Sutherland Black and A. Enzies. New York: Meridian Books. Reprint of Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885. Translation of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2nd ed. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883. Wesley, Samuel. 1704. The History of the Old Testament in Verse, Vol. 1. London: Cha. Harper. (ECCO) Wightwicke, George. 1741. “National Repentance, the only way to prevent the ruin of a Sinful People.” London: J. Noon. (ECCO) Wilkinson, Bruce. 2000. The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers. Williamson, H. G. M. 1977. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

218 Bibliography Williamson, H. G. M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Wolff, Christoph. 2002. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, Benjamin G., tr. 2014. “Sirach.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Electronic version: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/(accessed June 2, 2016). Wünsche, August. 1892. Midrasch Tehillim oder Haggadische Erklärung der Psalmen. Trier: Sigmund Mayer. Young, Brigham. 1854. “Building Temples.” In Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, 277–279. Liverpool: F. D. Richards. Young, Brigham. 1855. “Necessity of Building Temples – The Endowment.” In Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, 29–33. Liverpool: F. D. Richards. Zangwill, Israel, tr. 1923. Selected Religious Poems of Solomon Ibn Gabirol. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America.

Author Index Adams, John Quincy, 73, 75, 193 Addington, Stephen, 185 Ambrose, Isaac, 185 Amit, Yairah, 7, 193 Ancell, James, 119 Andrewes, Lancelot, 59–60, 193 Anselmi, Jeffery, 119 Augustine, 46–48, 178, 193 Bach, Johann Sebastian, 6, 89, 136, 194 Baldwin II, 81

Bar Kokhba, Simon, 31 Barnes, Albert, 26 Begg, Christopher, 159, 194 Bellamy, Joseph, 111 Ben Sira, 86–87 Beza, Theodore, 164, 194 Birago, Giovan Pietro, 73 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 189, 194 Blomfield, Charles James, 155–156, 194 Bona of Savoy, 73 Brock, Sebastian P., 98, 194

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

220  Author Index Brother Daniel, 183 Brown, David, 27, 194 Brown, Ian, 186 Bunyan, John, 115, 185 Calmet, Augustin, 115 Calvin, John, 131, 139, 164, 184–185, 194 Camerarius, Joachim, 134 Cardozo, Abraham Miguel, 125–126. 194 Carloman, 47 Cassiodorus, 58–59, 194 Cavlov, Abraham, 89 Charlemagne, 47 Charles I, King of England, 49–51, 109, 145, 160–162 Charles II, King of England, 109, 110, 145, 160–162 Charles, Lord Cokaine, Vicount Cullen, 160 Charles the Bald, 47, 53 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 73, 134 Charles X, King of France, 164 Cherry, Joe Mack, 186 Chrysostom, John, 94, 124, 127, 144, 178, 194 Cobb, Silas, 128 Colson, John, 115 Cornelius (pope), 143 Cotton, John, 131–132, 194 Coverdale, Miles, 9 Cromwell, Oliver, 109, 124 Cyprian, 93, 143, 194 Cyril of Jerusalem, 178, 194 Daramola, Yomi, 91 Daube, David, 150, 194 Davies, Samuel, 152 Dickson, William Steel, 119 Domenichino, 54 Douglas, Robert, 109–110, 194 Douthat, Ross, 37 D’Oyly, Samuel, 115 Dustan, Hannah, 122, 194

Eber, Paul, 134, 194 Eddy, Mary Baker, 128 Edwards, Jonathan, 38, 56–57, 110–111, 194 Eisemann, Moshe, 39, 152, 194 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 42, 98 Elshout, Bartel, 186 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 136–137, 194 Enfield, William, 118, 195 Ephrem the Syrian, 144, 195 Eusebius of Caesarea, 143. 195 Fabiola, 179 Facundus, 145, 195 Farrar, Frederic William, 163, 195 Fausset, A. R., 27 Filmer, Richard, 28–29, 195 Folda, Jaroslav, 81 Foster, Charles, 81, 195 Frederik, John (of Saxony), 184 Frederik, Prince of Wales, 99 Freedman, David Noel, 3 Fulk, King of Jerusalem, 81 Geneva Bible glossators, 10, 26–28, 34, 67–68, 126, 139, 163, 195 George II, King of England, 98, 99 George III, King of England, 99 Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 84 Gersonides, 28, 195 Gill, John, 26 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 191, 195 Graetz, Henrich Hirsch, 182–183, 195 Gregory of Nazianzus, 177, 195 Gregory of Nissa, 141–142, 195 Gregory of Tours, 111, 195 Ha‐Kohen, Joseph, 37, 195 Hadrian (pope), 47 Halevi, Judah, 140–141, 196 Halkett, Anne, 35, 196 Hampton, William, 160–161 Haydock, George, 27

Author Index  221 Henry, Matthew, 20, 122, 196 Henry the Younger, 184 Henry VIII, King of England, 132 Hertz, Joseph, 98, 196 Hincmar (archbishop of Rheims), 47 Hincmar (bishop of Laon), 47 Hinn, Benny, 119 Hogg, Hope, 39 Horenbout, Gerard, 73, 196 How, William, 95–96, 196 Hyde, Orson, 76, 196 Ibas of Edessa, 145 Ibn Ezra, Abraham, 24, 196 Ibn Ezra, Moses, 79, 196 Ibn Gabriol, Solomon, 94–95, 196 Isho’dad of Merv, 69, 141, 196 Jacobson, Israel, 90 James I, King of England, 41–44, 49, 50, 59, 60, 110, 196 James II, King of England, 52, 110, 161, 162 Jamieson, Robert, 27 Japhet, Sara, 39, 189, 196 Jerome, 2, 9, 20, 21, 46–48, 83–84, 139, 179–180, 196 John of Damascus, 84, 196 Josephus, 24, 52–53, 69, 87, 142, 159, 169–170, 196 Jovinianus, 83 Justinian, 145 Kelso, Julie, 39, 196 Kimḥi, David, 24, 26, 66, 78, 84, 150, 154–155, 196 Kimḥi, Joseph, 150, 196 Kisch, Guido, 130 Knoppers, Gary, 39, 197 Lang, John Dunmore, 75–76, 197 Lange, Samuel, 134–135 Langton, Stephen, 34, 163, 197 Leo III (Byzantine emperor), 84

Lloyd, William, 161–162, 197 Locke, John, 29, 197 Lovett, William, 155 Luther, Martin, 9, 31–32, 61–62, 89, 134, 184, 197 Lyons, Eric, 26 Macaskill, George, 186 Maimonides, 22, 150, 154–155, 197 Makedda, Queen of Sheba, 57 Malbim, 23, 197 Marcion, 65 Margaret of Austria, 73 Marshall, Stephen, 50–51, 197 Mary I, Queen of England, 126 Mary II, Queen of England, 52, 160–162 Mary, Queen of Scots, 42, 127 Mather, Cotton, 2, 88–90, 92, 120–122, 197 Mather, Increase, 91–93, 197 Mather, Richard, 88, 92, 197 McGee, J. Vernon, 68, 197 Megginson, Evie, 186 Mehmed IV, 125 Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem, 79 Menelik, son of Makedda, 57 Millican, Nathan, 186 Mobley, Rick Gillespie, 186 Morrell, Thomas, 95 Nabaza, William R., 186 Nathan of Gaza, 125 Nkwoka, Anthony O., 91 Noth, Martin, 39, 197 Novatian, 143 Oceanus, 179 Origen, 87–88, 93, 141–142, 198 Owen, John, 124, 131–132, 198 Paine, Thomas, 189, 198 Palmer, John, 99–100, 198 Philip of Hesse, 184 Philo, 23

222  Author Index Poole, Henry, 119 Poole, Matthew, 26, 27, 198 Power, Graham, 120, 198 Praetorius, Zacharias, 134 Pseudo‐Dionysius, 144–145, 198 Pseudo‐Rashi, 23, 24, 26, 33, 49, 59, 152, 162, 182, 198 Ptolemy of Lucca, 78, 198 Ptolomy II, King of Egypt, 53 Quintinianus, 111–113 Rabanus Maurus, 24, 28, 33, 78, 154, 162–163, 184, 198 Rashi, 114, 198 Reardon, Patrick Henry, 16, 39–40, 198 Repgow, Eike von, 130, 199 Rufeisen, Oswald see Brother Daniel Rufeisen, Oswald (Brother Daniel), 183 Rutherford, Samuel, 49, 50, 130–131, 145, 199 Saadia Gaon’s student, 24, 33, 66–67, 84, 199 Schneerson, Menachem Mendel, 155, 199 Schweitzer, Steven, 39, 199 Smith, Joseph, 84–85, 199 Southwell, Robert, 185, 199 Spinoza, Baruch, 126 Spurgeon, Charles, 36, 127–128, 186, 199 Staalduine‐Sulman, Eveline van, 49, 199 Sturt, John, 115 Swarton, Hannah, 1, 3, 10, 111, 121, 122, 199

Telushkin, Joseph, 2 Tertullian, 65–66, 93, 199 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 177 Theodore of Tyana, 177 Theodoret of Cyrus, 4, 28, 144, 145, 178–179, 199 Torstensson, Lennart, 134–135 Trapp, John, 27, 199 Trimmer, Sarah, 43 Turner, Daniel, 35–36 Turner, Francis, 110 Victoria, Queen of England, 155–156 Vivian of Tours, 53 Watson, Richard, 38 Weber, Max, 34–35, 199 Weigel, Christoph, 115, 199 Wellhausen, Julius, 11, 38–39, 138, 190–192, 199 Wesley, Charles, 115 Wesley, John, 20, 26, 115, 200 Wesley, Samuel, 115, 200 Wightwicke, George, 118 Wilkinson, Bruce, 11, 36–37, 39 William III, King of England, 52, 160–162 William of Tyre, 81, 200 Williamson, H. G. M., 189, 200 Wyclif, John, 104, 200 Young, Brigham, 84–85, 200 Zvi, Sabbatai, 125, 200

Scriptural Index

Genesis Gn 2:3 Gn 2:4 Gn 3:1 Gn 4:10 Gn 5:1 Gn 9:6 Gn 13:13 Gn 15:13 Gn 17:7 Gn 22

23 19 67 142 19 5 174 30 92 77

Gn 22:14 Gn 41:39 Gn 48:1–2 Gn 48:19 Gn 49:8 Gn 49:10 LXX Gn 2:4 LXX Gn 5:1 Exodus Ex 1:19

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

77 31 31 31 27 27 19 19 127

224  Scriptural Index Ex 12:2 Ex 12:8–9 Ex 12:23 Ex 13:17 Ex 15:1–19 Ex 30:12

109 8 69 31 181 66

Leviticus Lv 10

143

Numbers Nm 1 Nm 1:50–53 Nm 3:6–9 Nm 4 Nm 4:1–3 Nm 14:20–24 Nm 16 Nm 21:14 Nm 22:22 Nm 26 Nm 26:65 Nm 32:10–14

66 5 5 66 5 30 143 94 64 66 30 30

Deuteronomy Dt 1:34–40 Dt 6:4–5 Dt 10:8 Dt 12:13–14 Dt 16:7 Dt 16:18–18:22 Dt 17:8–9 Dt 21:5 Dt 24:8 Dt 26:8 Dt 28:36 Dt 31:9 Dt 32:1–43 Dt 33:10 Dt 34:5–12 Judges Jdgs 1:16 Jdgs 3:9–11 Jdgs 6:34 Jdgs 14:19 Jdgs 18:30

30 21, 181 5, 52 191 8 6 5 5 5 69 154 52 181 5 4 33 32 7 7 175

Ruth Ru 4:15

5, 23

First Samuel 1 Sm 6:12 1 Sm 8:7–18 1 Sm 9:15–17 1 Sm 10:9–13 1 Sm 10:10 1 Sm 16:6–12 1 Sm 16:10–11 1 Sm 16:12 1 Sm 16:13 1 Sm 17:12–14 1 Sm 17:14 1 Sm 17:28 1 Sm 22:5 1 Sm 26:19 1 Sm 29:4

59 8 8 7 7 23 5, 23 79 24 5 23 24 7 66 64

Second Samuel 2 Sm 2–4 2 Sm 5:5 2 Sm 5:14 2 Sm 6:6–12 2 Sm 6:14 2 Sm 6:17–18 2 Sm 6:18 2 Sm 7:1–16 2 Sm 7:1–17 2 Sm 7:2 2 Sm 7:12 2 Sm 8–10 2 Sm 11 2 Sm 11–12 2 Sm 13–15 2 Sm 15–18 2 Sm 16:5–8 2 Sm 16:7 2 Sm 16:23 2 Sm 18–19 2 Sm 19:22 2 Sm 20 2 Sm 21 2 Sm 22:21 2 Sm 22:24 2 Sm 23:1–7

46 4 18, 27 5 54 87 53 83 60 7 61 5 100 5, 100 5 5 5 84 67 100 64 5 100 8 8 61

Scriptural Index  225 2 Sm 23:1 2 Sm 23:8–39 2 Sm 23:8 2 Sm 24 2 Sm 24:1–17 2 Sm 24:1 2 Sm 24:10–16 2 Sm 24:12–13 2 Sm 24:16 2 Sm 24:25

61 46 48 70, 72, 80 5 64, 67 64 73 68 79

First Kings 1 Kgs 1 1 Kgs 1–2 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12 1 Kgs 1:1 1 Kgs 1:13 1 Kgs 1:46 1 Kgs 2:1–4 1 Kgs 2:1–9 1 Kgs 2:5–9 1 Kgs 2:10–12 1 Kgs 2:11 1 Kgs 2:12 1 Kgs 4:24 1 Kgs 5–8 1 Kgs 5:3 1 Kgs 5:4 1 Kgs 8 1 Kgs 8:1–11 1 Kgs 8:12–53 1 Kgs 8:46–50 1 Kgs 8:46–52 1 Kgs 8:53 1 Kgs 9:1–9 1 Kgs 11 1 Kgs 11:14 1 Kgs 11:23 1 Kgs 11:25 1 Kgs 11:29 1 Kgs 12:29 1 Kgs 13:11 1 Kgs 14 1 Kgs 14:20 1 Kgs 14:21–25 1 Kgs 15:2–3 1 Kgs 15:6–8

5 5, 98 6 69 131 108 101 101 101 101 98 108 108 4 83 64 117 154 111 3 111 113 115 104, 108 64, 65, 66 64, 65 64 7 123 7 123 122 120 122 122

1 Kgs 15:13 1 Kgs 15:14 1 Kgs 15:23 1 Kgs 17:17–24 1 Kgs 18:4 1 Kgs 18:36 1 Kgs 20:35 1 Kgs 22:30–34 Vulg. 1 Kgs 8:35

126 123 123 7 7 7 7 153 113

Second Kings 2 Kgs 4:1 2 Kgs 8:19 2 Kgs 11 2 Kgs 11:4–12 2 Kgs 12:2 2 Kgs 12:20 2 Kgs 15:1–7 2 Kgs 16:1–4 2 Kgs 16:5–9 2 Kgs 20:1 2 Kgs 20:8–11 2 Kgs 20:12–19 2 Kgs 20:15–19 2 Kgs 20:21 2 Kgs 21  2 Kgs 21:1–18 2 Kgs 21:1 2 Kgs 21:2 2 Kgs 21:6 2 Kgs 21:7 2 Kgs 21:10–15 2 Kgs 21:11–14 2 Kgs 21:16 2 Kgs 21:18 2 Kgs 22:1–23:9 2 Kgs 22:3–23:3 2 Kgs 22:14 2 Kgs 22:20 2 Kgs 23 2 Kgs 23:3 2 Kgs 23:21–23 2 Kgs 23:26–27 2 Kgs 23:29 2 Kgs 23:30 2 Kgs 23:37 2 Kgs 24:3–4

7 104 138 138 138 138 142 146 146 7 7 151 149 149 184 6 167 167 167 167, 172 6 167 167, 174 6 104 153 7 153 153 155 153 167 153 153 162 6, 168

226  Scriptural Index 2 Kgs 24:19–20 2 Kgs 25:6–7 2 Kgs 25:7 2 Kgs 25:27–30

163 164 109 18

1 Chronicles 1 Chr 1:1 1 Chr 1:24–26 1 Chr 2 1 Chr 2:5–15 1 Chr 2:13 1 Chr 2:13–15 1 Chr 2:15 1 Chr 2:55 1 Chr 3 1 Chr 3:5 1 Chr 3:10–24 1 Chr 3:11 1 Chr 3:19 1 Chr 3:24 1 Chr 3:17–18 1 Chr 4:9 1 Chr 4:9–10 1 Chr 5:1–2 1 Chr 5:2 1 Chr 6:31–53 1 Chr 7:20–23 1 Chr 7:23 1 Chr 9:1 1 Chr 9:33 1 Chr 11:1–3 1 Chr 11:3 1 Chr 11:10–47 1 Chr 11:10 1 Chr 12:1–22 1 Chr 12:18 1 Chr 12:17–18 1 Chr 12:22 1 Chr 12:32 1 Chr 12:38 1 Chr 13:1–4 1 Chr 15:11–15 1 Chr 15:16–24 1 Chr 15:22 1 Chr 15:27 1 Chr 16:1–3

16 26 17 24 24 5, 24 23, 26 33 17, 18, 67 18, 19, 26, 27 22 23 18 22 20 34 18, 32, 33 17, 27 28 86 18, 30 31 38 86 4, 46 50 46 46 46 7, 48 52 43 76 47, 49, 50 50 5 87 88 54 87

1 Chr 16:2 1 Chr 16:4–5 1 Chr 16:4–7 1 Chr 16:8–22 1 Chr 16:22 1 Chr 16:23–33 1 Chr 16:23–36 1 Chr 16:34 1 Chr 16:34–36 1 Chr 16:37–42 1 Chr 16:35 1 Chr 16:37–42 1 Chr 16:41 1 Chr 17:1–15 1 Chr 17:11 1 Chr 17:17 1 Chr 17:21 1 Chr 20 1 Chr 21 1 Chr 21:1 1 Chr 21:1–17 1 Chr 21:3 1 Chr 21:11–12 1 Chr 21:15 1 Chr 21:16 1 Chr 21:18–27 1 Chr 21:25 1 Chr 21:26 1 Chr 21:30 1 Chr 22 1 Chr 22:1 1 Chr 22:2–4 1 Chr 22:5 1 Chr 22:8 1 Chr 22:9 1 Chr 22:14–15 1 Chr 23:2–24:19 1 Chr 23:4–5 1 Chr 23:5 1 Chr 23:15 1 Chr 23:28–32 1 Chr 23:30 1 Chr 23:30–31 1 Chr 23:31 1 Chr 25 1 Chr 25:1

53 6, 87 86 88 59, 60 58 58 58 58 86 59 86 6, 58 60 61 62 62 64 71, 80 64, 66, 67, 76 5 67 73 77 69, 140 69 78 79, 87 69 64, 100 76 4 4 5, 83 83 4 4 5 6, 87 174 5 6 86 87 91 6, 89

Scriptural Index  227 1 Chr 25:5 6 1 Chr 25:4–6 90 1 Chr 25:9–24 88 1 Chr 27:18 24 1 Chr 28 91 1 Chr 28:3 5, 83 1 Chr 28:9 91, 92, 103 1 Chr 28:11–19 85 1 Chr 28:21 89 1 Chr 29 100 1 Chr 29:1–5 4 1 Chr 29:10–13 93 1 Chr 29:10–28 5 1 Chr 29:14 95 1 Chr 29:15 96, 97 1 Chr 29:17 104 1 Chr 29:19 98 1 Chr 29:21 87 1 Chr 29:23 108, 109, 110, 130, 131 1 Chr 29:25 108 1 Chr 29:27 98 1 Chr 29:28 6, 98 LXX 1 Chr 2:13–15 24 LXX 1 Chr 3:19 18 Vulg. 1 Chr 16:22 59 Second Chronicles 2 Chr 1:2 2 Chr 3:1 2 Chr 5 2 Chr 5:2 2 Chr 5:13 2 Chr 6:1–42 2 Chr 6:26 2 Chr 6:26–27 2 Chr 6:30 2 Chr 6:36–39 2 Chr 6:36–40 2 Chr 6:42 2 Chr 7 2 Chr 7:1 2 Chr 7:3 2 Chr 7:6 2 Chr 7:12–15 2 Chr 7:14 2 Chr 7:16–22

29 76 154 29 58, 88, 89 111 113 113 104 2, 3, 121 111 113 112, 116 111 58 58, 86 118 118, 119, 120 115

2 Chr 8:14 2 Chr 9 2 Chr 12 2 Chr 12:5 2 Chr 12:7 2 Chr 13 2 Chr 13:7 2 Chr 13:17 2 Chr 13:19 2 Chr 13:20 2 Chr 15:1 2 Chr 15:2 2 Chr 15:3 2 Chr 15:3–4 2 Chr 15:4 2 Chr 15:16 2 Chr 16 2 Chr 16:7–10 2 Chr 16:9 2 Chr 16:12 2 Chr 16:14 2 Chr 17:6 2 Chr 17:8–9 2 Chr 17:9 2 Chr 19:6  2 Chr 19:6–7 2 Chr 20 2 Chr 20:5–12 2 Chr 20:12 2 Chr 20:14 2 Chr 20:15 2 Chr 20:17 2 Chr 20:20 2 Chr 20:21 2 Chr 20:21–22 2 Chr 20:22 2 Chr 20:22–23 2 Chr 20:37 2 Chr 21:7 2 Chr 21:12–15 2 Chr 23 2 Chr 23:6–8 2 Chr 23:18 2 Chr 24:15–21 2 Chr 24:20 2 Chr 24:22

4, 86 104 6 104, 120 2, 120, 121 122 123 122 123 123 7 104, 124 125, 126 125 104 126. 127 6, 127 123 6 123, 127 127 132 5 131 131 130 135 134 6, 132, 133 7 132, 133 133 132, 133, 136 58 137 104 132 104 104 7 138 138 4 138 7, 104 139

228  Scriptural Index 2 Chr 24:25 2 Chr 26:1–23 2 Chr 26:5 2 Chr 26:16–21 2 Chr 26:17–18 2 Chr 26:21 2 Chr 28:1–4 2 Chr 28:6 2 Chr 28:8–15 2 Chr 28:11 2 Chr 28:15 2 Chr 29 2 Chr 29:25 2 Chr 29:25–30 2 Chr 30 2 Chr 30:20 2 Chr 32:8 2 Chr 32:20 2 Chr 32:24 2 Chr 32:24–26 2 Chr 32:25 2 Chr 32:30–31 2 Chr 32:31 2 Chr 32:32 2 Chr 32:33 2 Chr 33 2 Chr 33:7 2 Chr 33:11–13 2 Chr 33:12 2 Chr 33:13–20 2 Chr 33:13 2 Chr 33:17 2 Chr 33:19 2 Chr 34–35 2 Chr 34:1–7 2 Chr 34:3 2 Chr 34:8–33 2 Chr 34:31 2 Chr 34:28 2 Chr 35–36 2 Chr 35:1–19 2 Chr 35:3 2 Chr 35:13 2 Chr 35:19 2 Chr 35:21–23 2 Chr 35:22–23

139 142 104 6 145 145 146 150 3 146 146 149 4, 6 86 149 150 150 7 151 149 151 150, 151 151, 152 151, 152 149 6, 22, 182, 184 172 168 168, 179, 182 181 173 175 173 104 153 104 153 155, 156 153 157 153 154 8 168 157 153

2 Chr 35:24–25 2 Chr 36:5 2 Chr 36:8 2 Chr 36:13 2 Chr 36:22 2 Chr 36:22–23 2 Chr 36:23 LXX 2 Chr 33:12 LXX 2 Chr 35:19 LXX 2 Chr 36:5 Vulg. 2 Chr 6:26 Vulg. 2 Chr 6:26–27 Vulg. 2 Chr 20:12 Vulg. 2 Chr 20:15 Vulg. 2 Chr 20:17

153, 160, 161 162, 168 162, 163 163 7 4, 188 7 179 168 168 113 113 133 133 133

Ezra Ezr 1:1–3 Ezr 3:10–11 Ezr 7:7

4 86 86

Nehemiah Neh 7:1 Neh 10:28 Neh 12:8–9 Neh 12:27

86 86 86 86

Esther Est 2:23 Est 6:1

9 9

Job Jb 1–2 Jb 1:2 Jb 1:6 Jb 2:3 Jb 6:5 Jb 42:13

5, 64 23 65 65 59 5, 23

Psalms Ps 18:20 Ps 18:23 Ps 24:7 Ps 32 Ps 51 Ps 71:1

8 8 113 100 100 68

Scriptural Index  229 Ps 77 Ps 78:9–10 Ps 82 Ps 89:37 Ps 96 Ps 96:1–13 Ps 105 Ps 105:15 Ps 106:1 Ps 106:47–48 Ps 107:1 Ps 109:6 Ps 118:1 Ps 118:8 Ps 132:1 Ps 132:10 Ps 136:1 LXX Ps 76 Proverbs Prv 4:3 Prv 19:17

87 30 111 109 59, 60 58 51 15 58 58 137 64 137 68, 128 113 113 137 87 27 95

Ecclesiastes Eccl 7:4 Eccl 7:15 Eccl 8:14

34 179 179

Isaiah Is 6:1 Is 7:1–9 Is 7:14 Is 10:27 Is 11:10 Is 11:11–12 Is 26:19 Is 38:10–20 Is 39:1–8

144 146 149, 150 149 18 76 172 181 151

Jeremiah Jer 9:23–24 Jer 15:1–4 Jer 15:4 Jer 22:30 Jer 22:24 Jer 23:5

68 168 174, 180 20 21, 23 18

Jer 25:11–12 Jer 29:10 Jer 33:15 Jer 46:6

188 188 18 157

Lamentations Lam 1:18 Lam 2:10 Lam 4:20

158 169 158

Ezekiel Ez 9:4–5 Ez 18:20 Ez 37:1–13

143 185 172

Daniel Dn 7:13 Dn 12:1–2 LXX Dn 3:26–45

22 172 181

Amos Am 1:1 Am 9:1

143 143

Jonah Jon 3

175

Zephaniah Zep 1:1

179

Haggai Hg 2:23 Zechariah Zec 1:1 Zec 3:1–3 Zec 12:11 Matthew Mt 1:1 Mt 1:6 Mt 1:11–12 Mt 1:11–12 Mt 1:18–24 Mt 3:4 Mt 4:8–10

22 139 64 157, 158 18, 19 19 20 19 65 141 65

230  Scriptural Index Mt 4:8–11 Mt 6:9–13 Mt 6:13 Mt 22:37–40 Mt 23:35 Mt 24:30 Mt 27:46

67 93 93 181 139 76 150

Second Corinthians 2 Cor 11:13–14

65

Philippians Phil 2:10–11

34

Mark Mk 1:12–13 Mk 4:15 Mk 12:30 Mk 12:42–44 Mk 15:34

First Thessalonians 1 Thes 2:18

65

67 65 181 177 150

First Timothy 1 Tim 5:15

65

Second Timothy 2 Tim 2:8

18

Luke Lk 1:5 Lk 1:46–55 Lk 3:27–31 Lk 4:5–8 Lk 10:25–37 Lk 10:27 Lk 10:29–37 Lk 10:34 Lk 10:36–37 Lk 11:51 Lk 18:9–14 Lk 21:1–4 Lk 23:28

141 181 18 67 3 181 146 146 146 139 177 177 158

Hebrews Heb 12:1

40

John Jn 5:15 Jn 10:35 Jn 20:17

127 111 60

Acts Acts 26:18

65

Romans Rom 1:3

18

First Corinthians 1 Cor 3:6

177

Revelation Rv 1:4 Rv 3:9 Rv 4:4 Rv 13:16 Rv 13:18–19 Rv 14:1 Rv 20:2–3

88 65 88 143 19 143 65

Sirach Sir 47:8–10 Sir 47:11 Sir 50:1–21 Sir 50:27

86 87 87 86

Second Maccabees 2 Mc 1:18–2:18

114

First Esdras 1 Esd 1 1 Esd 1:26–28 1 Esd 8:7

157 157 9

Subject Index Abenaki Indians, 1, 111 “Admonition and Grace” (Augustine), 47–48 Ad Theodorum lapsum (John Chrysostom), 178 The Age of Reason Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology (Thomas Paine), 189 Aggadat Bereshit, 162, 182 Aleppo codex, 10, 188, 193

America For Jesus prayer rally, 119 American Civil War, 75 Anabaptists, 161 Ancrene Wissen (A Guide for Recluses), 132–133 An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (Matthew Henry), 20 Anomeans, 144 Apostolic Constitutions, 143 Apostolic Constitutions 2.27, 143

Chronicles Through the Centuries, First Edition. Blaire A. French. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

232  Subject Index Arians, 177 Ascension of Isaiah, 170–171 Ascen. Isa. 1–3.12, 5.1, 171 Babylonian Talmud, 4, 10 b. ‘Arak. 11a–b, 88 b. ‘Avod. Zar. 17b, 125 b. B. Bat. 14b, 10 b. B. Bat. 109b, 175 b. B. Bat. 14b–15a, 4 b. Ber. 6a, 88 b. Ber. 58a, 94 b. Ber. 62b, 66 b. B. Qam. 17a, 149 b. B. Qam. 16b, 149 b. Git. 7a, 88 b. Git. 57b, 140 b. Horayoth 12a, 154 b. Šabb. 30a, 113 b. Keritot 5b, 154 b. Meg. 13a, 32 b. Meg. 10b, 137 b. Meg. 12b, 51 b. Meg. 31b, 175 b. Mo’ed Qat. 9a, 113–114 b. Ned. 65a, 164 b. Pesaḥ. 62b, 32 b. Sahn. 94a, 150 b. Sanh. 103a, 175 b. Sanh. 109a, 174 b. Sanh. 20b, 108 b. Sanh. 28b, 150 b. Sanh. 39b, 137 b. Sanh. 92b, 30 b. Sanh. 94b, 149 b. Sanh. 96b, 140 b. Sanh. 98b, 150 b. Sanh. 99b, 174 b. Sanh. 101b, 175 b. Sanh. 103b, 162 b. Sanh. 107b, 113, 114 b. Sanh. 37b–38a, 21 b. Sanh. 102b–103a, 174 b. Sanh. 102b–103b, 174

b. Sotah 48a, 88 b. Ta‘an. 22a–22b, 158 b. Tem. 16a, 33 b. Yoma 26a, 51 b. Yoma 52a, 154 b. Zebaḥ 116b, 78 Bar Kokhba revolt, 31, 49 The Bay Psalm Book, 88–89 Bible, persons from Aaron, 20, 143, 155, 179 Abel, 77, 139, 142 Abijah (also Abijam), 122–123 Abraham, 16, 19, 20, 26, 30, 32, 35, 77, 78, 109, 180 Absalom, 43, 67, 100 Adam, 3, 7, 15–17, 29, 37, 144 Adonijah, 43, 101 Ahab, 78, 153, 159, 172, 173 Ahasuerus, 9 Ahaz, 146–147, 173 Ahaziah, 11 Ahitophel, 67 Amasai, 7, 48, 50, 52 Amaziah, 11 Amelek, 94 Amnon, 43 Amon, 179 Anani, 22, 23, 149 Apollos, 177 Asa, 6, 123–128 Asaph, 57, 88–89, 91 Athaliah, 137–138 Azariah (prophet), 7, 124–126 Azariah (youth in Daniel), 181 Baruch son of Neriah, 172 Bathsheba, 19, 26, 43, 84, 100, 101 Benjamin, 39, 124 Bered, 29 Beriah, 30 Boaz, 19 Cain, 77 Caleb, 30, 38 Cyrus, 4, 7, 39, 188

Subject Index  233 David, 2, 4–6, 8, 11, 26–28, 37, 38, 44, 103–104, 107–109, 113–114, 131, 148, 149, 154, 160, 190 altar of, 76–79 and the census, 5, 63–68, 81, 82 death of, 5, 6, 98–101 and the destroying angel, 63, 68–76, 81 disqualified as Temple builder, 83–86 election of, 45–52 genealogy of, 17–23 and God’s dynastic promise, 45, 60–62 and his advice to Solomon, 91–93 and his blessing of God, 93–98 and psalm of thanksgiving, 45, 57–60 and purchase of the threshing floor, 72, 78 and sacrifice consumed by fire from heaven, 63, 79–81 the seventh son, 5, 23–26 and the Temple, 4, 43, 63 and the Temple musicians, 5–6, 86–91 and the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant, 41–43, 45, 50, 52–57 as unifying figure, 4, 41–43 Elead, 29 Eleadah, 29 Elihu, 24, 26 Elijab, 24 Elijah, 7 Elioenai, 22 Elisha, 7 Enosh, 16, 37 Ephraim, 29–31 Ezekiel, 185 Ezer, 29 Ezra, 9, 187, 189 Gad, 77 Gershom, 174 Goliath, 43, 86 Good Samaritan, 3, 146–147 Hadad the Edomite, 66

Haggai, 22, 23 Hanani, 6, 123, 128 Heman, 90, 91 Hezekiah, 7, 105, 148–152, 168, 173, 175, 178, 181 Huldah, 153, 154, 159, 161 Isaac, 30, 77, 78, 180 Isaiah, 7, 144, 149, 151, 152, 173, 178, 179 Issachar, 51, 76 Jabez, 18, 32–37, 39 Jacob, 27–29, 31, 61, 180 Jahaziel, 7, 132, 133 Jeconiah (also Jehoiachin and Coniah), 19–21, 23 Jeduthun, 87–88, 91 Jehoahaz, 11 Jehoiachin, 11, 18 Jehoiada, 138 Jehoiakim, 162–163 Jehoram, 11, 104 Jehoshaphat, 6, 105, 129–137 Jeremiah, 22, 23, 153, 157–160, 172, 184–185 Jeroboam, 122, 123, 172, 173 Jesse, 23, 24, 26, 52, 61 Jesus, 18–20, 27, 28, 34, 37, 51, 60–62, 67, 93, 94, 110–111, 127, 128, 139, 142–144, 146–147, 150, 158, 161, 177 Jethro, 33 Jezebel, 78 Joash, 137–142 Job, 23, 95 John the Baptist, 141, 142, 177 Jonathan, son of Gershom, 174 Jonathan, son of Saul, 43 Joseph, 27–29, 31 Joshua, 30 Josiah, 104, 105, 153–162, 167, 168, 191–192 Jotham, 11, 142, 145 Judah, son of Jacob, 19, 24, 27–29, 124 Judas Maccabeus, 114

234  Subject Index Bible, persons from (cont’d) Kenan, 37 Korah, 143 Leah, 28 Maacah, 123, 126 Manasseh, 6, 9, 11, 22, 105, 153, 154, 166–186 Mary, 19, 141, 181 Mary Magdalene, 60 Michal, 43, 52, 54 Mordecai, 9 Moses, 16, 20, 30, 33, 52, 85, 114, 131, 143, 168, 173–175, 177, 181, 189 Naboth, 78 Nadab, 143 Naomi, 23 Nathan (prophet), 24, 73, 83, 100, 101 Nathan (son of David), 18 Nebuchadnezzar, 21, 163–164, 168 Nebuzaradan, 139–141 Neco, 153, 156–159, 161 Nehemiah, 114 Noah, 191 Oded, 3, 146–147 Ornan (also Araunah), 69, 78 Othniel, 32–34 Paul, 18 Pedaiah, 18 Pharoah, 31, 73, 127 Rachel, 28 Rahab, 19 Rehoboam, 6, 18, 120–122 Reuben, 17, 27–29 Ruth, 19, 23 Salathiel, 18 Samuel, 23–25, 168 Satan, 63–68 Saul, 7, 23, 28, 38, 43, 46, 47, 50, 52, 84 Sennacherib, 149–150 Seth, 16 Shealtiel, 21 Shemiah, 120

Shimei, 84 Shishak of Egypt, 6, 120 Shuthelah, 29 Sisera, 94 Solomon, 8, 11, 18, 29, 57, 61, 62, 65, 79, 83, 85, 89, 91–94, 98–101, 103–104, 149, 154, 155, 160, 190 birth order of, 26–27 and God’s answer to prayer of dedication, 108, 115–120 and his dedication of the Temple, 111–115 and sacrifice consumed by fire, 108 succession of, 6, 82 and the throne of the Lord, 107–111, 130–131 Tamar, 19, 43 Tiglath‐pileser, 146 Uriah, 19, 26, 43, 83, 84, 100 Uzzah, 5, 52, 53, 57, 183 Uzziah (also Azariah), 142–145 Zabad, 29 Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father, 141 Zechariah, one of the twelve minor prophets, 139, 157, 158 Zechariah, son of Jehoiada the priest, 7, 138–142 Zedekiah, 109, 163–165 Zephaniah, 179 Zerubbabel, 18, 21–23 Bibles moralisées, 54, 73, 194 Biblia Ectypa (Christoph Weigel), 115 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 188 Biblia Pauperum, 43 Biblical Literacy The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas of the Hebrew Bible (Joseph Telushkin), 2 The “Black Acts,” 42 The Book of Mormon, 85 The Book of the Covenant (Joseph Kimḥi), 150 Bordeaux Pilgrim, 141

Subject Index  235 Cairo Geniza, 181–182 A Call from Heaven to the Present and Succeeding Generations (Increase Mather), 91–93 Cavlov’s Bible, 89 Charisma Magazine, 119 Chartists, 155 The Christian Science Journal, 128 Church of Christ, Scientist, 128 City of God, 178 Codex Alexandrinus, 175, 181 Codex Sinaiticus, 86 Codex Vaticanus, 175 Codex Vindobonensis 2554, 54, 73 A Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown), 27, 38 The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, 58 Condonazor, 163 The Constitution of the United States of America, 29 Council of Trent, 182 Coverdale Bible, 61

Divrey ha‐Yamim le‐Malkhey Zarefat u‐Malkhey Beyt Ottoman ha‐Togar (History of the Kings of France and of the Ottoman Turkish Sultans) (Joseph Ha‐Kohen), 37 Documentary Hypothesis, 191 Du droit des magistrats sur leur sujets (The Rights of Magistrates Over Their Subjects) (Theodore Beza), 164 Dura‐Europos, 24, 25, 77, 194

“David’s Pride and Penitence” (John Dunmore Lang), 75 Dead Sea scrolls, 169 The Declaration of Independence, 29 De opificio mundi (Philo), 24 De Regimine Principum (Government of Rulers) (Ptolemy of Lucca), 78 De Regis Persona et Regio Ministerio (On the Character of the King and the Ministry of Rulership) (Hincmar of Rheims), 47 De unitate (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) (Cyprian), 143 Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique et littéral (Augustin Calmet), 115 The Didache, 94 Did. 8.3, 94 The Didascalia Apostolorum, 180–181 DA 2.22.15–16, 181 DA 2.23.1, 181

Fast Day sermons, 118–119, 124 First Bible of Charles the Bald, 53

Ecclesiastes Rabbah Eccl. Rab. 3.16, 140 Eccl. Rab. 4, 114 Edict of Cyrus, 4, 7, 39, 188 English Civil War, 29, 49, 145, 195 English Standard Version of the Bible, 61 Ethiopic Bible, 182 Exodus Rabbah Ex. Rab. 18.5, 149 Ex. Rab. 20.11, 31 Ex. Rab. Va’era 1, 114 The Expositor’s Bible, 163

Ganoon, 30 Gematria, 19 Genesis Rabbah, 24 Gen. Rab. 22.7, 77 Gen. Rab. 34.9, 77 Gen. Rab. 34.10, 26 Gen. Rab. 54.4, 59 Gen. Rab. 62.5, 51 Geneva Bible, 10, 26–28, 34, 51, 67–68, 126, 127, 139, 163, 195, 196 The Global Day of Prayer, 120 The Glorious Revolution, 160, 195 Glossa Ordinaria, 184, 195 The Golden Haggadah, 69 The Good Samaritan, 3, 146–147 Government of Rulers (De Regimine Principum) (Ptolemy of Lucca), 78 Gowry Day, 60

236  Subject Index The Great Compline, 182 Great Eighteen Chorales, 136 A Guide for Recluses (Ancrene Wissen), 132–133 The Haggadah, 69, 195 The Halfway Covenant, 92 The Harmony of the Old and New Testament (Jonathan Edwards), 110 The HarperCollins Study Bible, 146 The Hertz Chumash, 98 Hieronymi Prologus Galeatus (Jerome), 3 History of the Jews (Henrich Hirsch Graetz), 183 History of the Kings of France and of the Ottoman Turkish Sultans (Divrey ha‐Yamim le‐Malkhey Zarefat u‐Malkhey Beyt Ottoman ha‐Togar) (Joseph Ha‐Kohen), 37 “The History of the man after God’s own heart” (Anonymous), 99–100 The History of the Old Testament in Verse (Samuel Wesley), 115 “Humiliations Follow’d by Deliverances” (Cotton Mather), 121–122 “Hymns on Paradise” (Ephrem the Syrian), 144 Illuminated Bible (Harper and Brothers), 56 “Ingratitude to God—A Heinous but General Iniquity” (Samuel Davies), 152 Insight Guide Israel, 78 Institutes of the Christian Religion (John Calvin), 131 “In Tenebris Nostrae et Densa Caligine Mentis” (Joachim Camerarius), 134 Irigarayan theory, 39 Jerusalem Talmud y. Sanh. 102, 173 y. Ta‘an. 4, 140 y. Yebam. 163, 123

Jewish Antiquities, 24, 52–53, 69, 87, 142, 159, 169–170 The Jewish Quarterly Review, 39 The Kaddish, 98 Kebra Nagast, 57 Keter Malkhut (Royal Crown) (Solomon Ibn Gabirol), 94–95 “The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven” (John Cotton), 131 King James Version of the Bible, 94, 126–127, 196 King William’s War, 1, 197 “Lacrymae Ecclesiae or the mourning of Hadarimmon for England’s Josiah” (William Hampton), 160 Lamentations Rabbah Proem 5, 140 Leningrad codex, 188, 197 “A Lesson from the Life of King Asa” (Charles Spurgeon), 127 Levitical musicians, 6, 86–91 Leviticus Rabbah Lev. Rab. 19.6, 21, 162 Lev. Rab. 29.11, 24 Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Samuel Rutherford), 50, 145 The Lord’s Prayer, 35, 93–94 The Lutheran Hymnal, 135 Ma’aseh Daniel, 140 Mekilta of Rabbi Ishmael, 30–31, 33, 77 Midrash Tanhuma, 22 Exodus Va’era, 2, 114 Midrash Tehillim 62.4, 84 68, 77 Mishnah m. Pesaḥ. 10, 69 m. Sanh. 10.3, 174 m. Sanh. 101–2, 173 m. Yoma 16, 9

Subject Index  237 Mishneh Torah, 22 Missouri Compromise, 75 Mount Moriah, 76–78 Mount Sinai, 77 “The Murder of Zechariah” (Judah Halevi), 140–141 National Highway of Prayer, 119 Nazarene Israel, 31 New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 62 Nicaean Creed, 144 Numbers Rabbah Num. Rab. 11.7, 78 Num. Rab. 14.1, 182

Prayer of Manasseh, 180–182 Qumran’s Prayer of Manasseh, 169 Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels) (Julius Wellhausen), 38, 138, 191–192 The Prosperity Gospel, 32, 36 Protevangelium of James, 141 Prot. Jas. 23–24, 141 Psalms and Hymns (William How), 95 Psalter of Melisende, 79–81 Quakers, 161

“Of toleration; and the duty of the magistrate about religion” (John Owen), 131 “On the Character of the King and the Ministry of Rulership” (De Regis Persona et RegioMinisterio) (Hincmar of Rheims), 47 “On War Against the Turk” (Martin Luther), 134 Oswald Rufeisen vs. Ministry of Interior, 183

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the Seven Compartments of Gan Eden, 182 The Reformation, 11, 28, 34, 37, 49, 88, 98, 130, 160–162, 164, 197, 198 The Restoration, 109, 160 Revised Common Lectionary, 2 The Rights of Magistrates Over Their Subjects (Du droit des magistrats sur leur sujets) (Theodore Beza), 164 The Rye House Plot, 110

Patriarcha, or, The Natural Power of Kings (Richard Filmer), 29 Peshitta Chronicles, 24, 28, 96, 98 Pesiqta de‐Rab Kahana, 198 Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 5.12, 109 Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 15.7, 140 Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 24.11, 22 Pesiqta Rabbati Pesiq. Rab. 2.5, 114 Pesiq. Rab. 26, 164 Pesiq. Rab. 43.2, 77 Pesiq. Rab. 47, 22 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 198 Pirqe R. El. 48, 30, 31 Pirqe R. El. 52, 152 The Prayer of Jabez (Bruce Wilkinson), 11, 36–37, 39

Sacer Thesaurus (Zacharias Praetorius), 134 The Sachsenspiegel (Eike von Repgow), 130, 199 Sacred History (Sarah Trimmer), 43 Saint Bartholomew Day’s Massacre, 164 “Saint Peter’s Complaint” (Robert Southwell), 185 Seder Gan Eden, 182 Seder Olam Rabbah, 58 Sefer Ha‐zikronot, 140 Septuagint, 9, 96, 168–169, 176, 179, 188, 199 Sforza Book of Hours, 73 Sifre Deuteronomy, 175 Slavery, 75, 119 Spanish Armada, 41

238  Subject Index The Story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation Told in Simple Language Adapted to All Ages, But especially to the Young (Charles Foster), 81 The Story: Read the Bible as One Seamless Story From Beginning to End (Max Lucado and R. Frazee), 100–101 Tanhuma Yelammedenu, 162 Targum Chronicles Tg. 1 Chr 211, 66 Tg. 1 Chr 324, 22 Tg. 1 Chr 721, 30 Tg. 1 Chr 1111, 48 Tg. 2 Chr 153–4, 125 Tg. 2 Chr 3231, 151–152 Tg. 2 Chr 3313, 176 Tg. 2 Chr 3521–27, 158 Targum Jeremiah Tg. Jer., 174 Targum Lamentations Tg. Lam. 118, 159 Targum Pseudo‐Jonathan Tg. Ps.‐J. Gn. 4915, 51 Targum Sheni to Esther, 140 Targum Song of Songs Tg. Sg. 27, 31 Temple Mount, 76–78 Thirty Years’ War, 134 This is My God and I will Praise Him (Abraham Miguel Cardozo), 125–126 Thru the Bible radio show, 68

Tosefta t. Sanh. 1211, 173 t. Sotah 13.1, 154 Touchstone Magazine A Journal of Mere Christianity, 16, 198 Transcendentalism, 136 Triparadisus (The Threefold Paradise) (Cotton Mather), 90 2 Baruch, 170–172 2 Baruch 64, 172 Tyndale Bible, 94 Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Martin Noth), 39 Vitae Patrum (Gregory of Tours), 111 Vitae Prophetarum, 139 “Vor deinen Thron Tret Ich hiermit” (“Before Your Throne I Now Appear”), 136 Vulgate, 9, 46, 94, 96, 113, 133, 179, 182, 184 “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöten sein” (“When in the Hour of Utmost Need”) (Paul Eber), 134–136 West‐Oestlicher Divan (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe), 191 Wyclif Bible, 9, 104–105, 196, 200 Ya she‐ay shof‐chay si‐chah (O God, Listen to the ones who pour out their conversation!) (Moses Ibn Ezra), 79 Yom Kippur, 79, 95, 139, 175 Zohar, 22, 28, 200

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.