The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought 9781575066073

Citation preview

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page i Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page ii Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page iii Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Ideology of the

Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought

Sara Japhet

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2009

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page iv Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

ç Copyright 2009 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com First published as vol. 9 of Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums in 1989. Translated by Anna Barber This edition completely retypeset and reprinted by Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Japhet, Sara. [Emunot ve-de’ot be-sefer Divre ha-yamim u-mekoman be-’olam hamahashavah ha-mikra’it. English] The ideology of the book of Chronicles and its place in biblical thought / Sara Japhet. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-159-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Chronicles—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1345.2.J3713 2009 222u.606—dc22 2009010688

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. †‘

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page v Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Contents Preface to the English Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Translator’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I 1 II 3 III 5

1. Yhwh, the God of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 I. The Names of God 10 A. God of the Fathers 11 B. Yhwh, God of Israel 15 C. Adonay 16 D. The Lord of Hosts 19 E. The God of Heaven 20 F. Elohim 21 G. The Interchange of “Yhwh” and “Elohim” 24 H. Yhwh Elohim 30 II. The Monotheistic Idea 33 III. Yhwh — Creator and Ruler of the World 42 IV. God’s Presence in the World 47 A. Yhwh’s Presence in the Temple 50 B. Yhwh’s Presence in Heaven 64 V. The Relationship between Yhwh and the People of Israel 67 A. Chosenness 70 B. Covenant 76 C. The Nature of the Relationship between Yhwh and Israel 91 VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel 98 A. The Way in Which God Acts in History 98 B. Angels in the Book of Chronicles 107 C. Guiding Principles for Divine Action 117 D. Reworking the Historical Narrative according to the Principles of Retribution 129 E. Warning and Repentance 138 F. God’s Testing of Man 149 v

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page vi Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

vi

Contents

2. The Worship of Yhwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 I. The Prohibition against Idolatry 159 II. Maintaining Temple Worship 170 A. The Prohibition against High Places 170 B. Worshipping Yhwh in the Temple 174 III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh 194

3. The People of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 A. The Idea of “All Israel” 209 I. The Term “All Israel” in Chronicles 211 II. The Tribal System 217 A. The Genealogies — 1 Chronicles 1 to 9 218 B. David and Solomon — 1 Chronicles 10 to 2 Chronicles 9 223 C. The Kings of Judah — 2 Chronicles 10 to 36 227 D. The Origins of the Chronistic Outlook and Its Historical Significance 235 III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom 241 IV. The Attitude toward the Samaritans 254 V. Foreigners and Aliens 261 B. The People of Israel and the Land of Israel 275 I. The Geographic Dimensions 275 II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land 284 A. Destruction and Exile 284 B. Conquest and Settlement 292 C. The Tradition of the Exodus 296 III. The Religious Basis for the Bond between the Land and the People 301

4. Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 A. Monarchy as Such 308 I. The Concept of “Yhwh’s Kingship” 308 II. The Person and Position of the Monarch 321 III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities 334 B. The Davidic Dynasty 347 I. Election 347 II. The Covenant 353 III. The Dynastic Promise 358 IV. The Davidic Monarchs 364 A. David 364 B. Solomon 372

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page vii Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

vii

Contents C. Other Judean Monarchs

381

5. The Hope of Redemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Bibliographical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 Index Index Index Index

of of of of

Scripture 411 Ancient Versions 433 Authors 435 Subjects and Personal Names

440

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page viii Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page ix Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Preface to the English Edition The translation here presented to the reader represents the final stage of a familiar and well-trodden path of modern scholarship. What began as a dissertation submitted to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, subsequently reworked and somewhat elaborated into book form, is now offered, in a new attire of translation, to the general public of Bible students. The steady hermeneutic stream of which our work forms a part gradually shifts its currents of interest and the emphases of scholarly discussion, introducing along the way new approaches and methods to the material at hand. A distinctive aspect of this development in biblical scholarship over the last decades is the growing appreciation of Chronicles as a major exponent of biblical faith, a distinct and idiosyncratic voice which played a central role in the development of biblical literature and thought. Attempts are constantly being made to penetrate the peculiar world, to decipher the message and to clarify the specific historical and theological position of the Chronicler. This is the context in which our work is now presented, in the hope of making a modest contribution to the understanding of Chronicles, as well as to the intricate, sometimes hidden, paths of modern research. This translation would not have been possible without the moral and material support of many, and first among them the many colleagues and friends who have urged me through the years to make the fruits of my research available to the general public. Special gratitude is due to the editor of this series, Dr. M. Augustin, whose initiative and unfailing encouragement have at last made possible the publication of this book. A translation is, as biblical scholars in particular are so well aware, far more than a literal transposition from one language to another. In many ways it is a new creation, in which author and translator become partners in a fresh endeavour. Ms. Anna Barber — for whom no expression of gratitude will be an overstatement — took this difficult task upon herself. She made every effort to render faithfully the original, while never losing sight of her obligation to the new attire of the target language. This new work has been created with careful attention to the minutest variations of the Hebrew idiom and through a complicated process of rethinking and reformulating the English renderings. It is my hope that the publication of this work will be Anna’s reward, as it is mine. ix

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page x Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

x

Preface to the English Edition

I wish to extend my thanks to the foundations without whose generous financial aid the translation and production of this work would not have been realized: The Alex Springer Stiftung, the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research, and the A. Lubin Foundation at the Hebrew University. May they all “carry away a blessing from the Lord” (Psalm 24:5). Sara Japhet Jerusalem January 1989

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page xi Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Translator’s Preface This translation has been written with a hypothetical unilingual English reader in mind. Hebrew passages, phrases, and words are presented in translation, sometimes followed by the original language, although the Hebrew text as such must be the focus of occasional philological or linguistic discussion. Transliteration has been avoided as much as possible, on the assumption that those familiar with Hebrew would prefer to see the text in its own alphabet. When used, transliteration follows the principles set out in the Encyclopedia Judaica, as do the English rendering and abbreviation of Hebrew names, books and tractates, and so on. The Revised Standard Version has been chosen as the English translation of the Hebrew Bible most suitable for quotation here, given its familiarity to the scholar and closeness to Hebrew syntax and wording. However, when the RSV diverges from the Masoretic Text without so indicating, a more faithful translation has been provided. In these cases, the new Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh has been consulted; occasionally, both RSV and NJPS translations are quoted. Biblical names are spelled in conformity with the RSV. Traditional and scholarly works cited frequently are designated by the author’s name and/or an abbreviated title. Full bibliographical information then appears at the end of the book. Unless indicated as original translations, quotations from the Midrash and Talmud are taken from the recent editions of the Soncino Midrash Rabbah (ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon, London, 1951) and the Soncino Hebrew-English Talmud (trans. M. Simon, ed. I. Epstein, London, 1960). Quotations from the Apocrypha are taken from Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (cited within), unless otherwise indicated; Mekilta passages are quoted from Lauterbach’s translation (see bibliography). When possible, existing translations of Hebrew, German, and French works have been quoted, as is indicated in the footnotes and bibliography. Bearing the unilingual reader in mind, I have provided English renditions of other quotations, at times repeating a particularly evocative or important word or phrase in the original language. It is hoped that the ultimate result of this combination of existing and original translations, whether biblical, rabbinic, or modern, is an accurate and readable text. I wish to thank Professor Sara Japhet for her patient help throughout the process of translation. Her explanations and suggestions have been xi

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page xii Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

xii

Translator’s Preface

invaluable, and without her guidance the present English form of the book would be no more possible than the original Hebrew. Above all, I thank Professor Japhet for providing me with the opportunity to translate The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles. Anna Barber Jerusalem January 1988/Shevat 5748

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 1 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Introduction I. The ideology of the book of Chronicles has engaged the attention of biblical scholars since research into the book began in the early nineteenth century. In the case of Chronicles — in contrast to the development of scholarship on other biblical books — interest in the area of ideology preceded discussion of aspects such as composition, structure, literary strata, sources, and the like. This interest was not without its ulterior motives, which stemmed from the needs of biblical scholarship in other areas. The earliest researchers of Chronicles wished to prove that the book had absolutely no value as an historical source and should therefore be ignored by any scientific account of Israel’s history during the First Commonwealth. They claimed that most of the differences between Chronicles and Samuel–Kings resulted either from the writer’s tendentiousness — the outcome of his religious world-view — or from the influence of his own historical experience in the Persian period. They sought to verify their claim by elucidating the book’s views and purposes, which then served as criteria by which they judged the historical reliability of Chronicles. This line of historical research began with the important work by W. M. L. de Wette, Historisch Kritisch Untersuchung über die Bücher der Chronik, which appeared in 1806. 1 It continued in K. H. Graf’s detailed study, Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1866, pp. 114– 247), and, at its apogee, was perfected by Julius Wellhausen in his brilliant chapter on Chronicles. 2 Subsequent works relied on de Wette, Graf, and Wellhausen for both method and conclusions, and in all these studies, discussion of the Chronicler’s outlook and goals served as the means to an end: the assessment of his historical reliability. 3 1. This study constitutes the first part of de Wette’s book, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Halle, 1806). 2. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1878), pp. 165–223. Hereafter, we shall refer to the book in its English translation: Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies (Edinburgh, 1885). 3. For example, see Curtis’ commentary, which devotes one chapter of the introduction to “Plan, Purpose, and Historical Value” (Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 6–16). The most extreme position vis-à-vis the reliability of the Chronicler and his work was taken by Torrey in a series of studies in which he described the Chronicler as a “novelist” who gives free rein to his imagination. For example: C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value

1

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 2 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

2

Introduction

The third decade of the twentieth century saw a change in approach to the book, beginning with Hänel’s introduction to Rothstein’s commentary on 1 Chronicles. Hänel expanded the theological aspect of the discussion and separated it from the question of historical reliability. He began his introduction with a chapter on the theology of Chronicles that constitutes the most comprehensive chapter of his work. 4 A few years later, in 1930, a study by G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, appeared. The orientation of this work is apparent in its title: von Rad turned his attention, not to the historical elements contained in the book, but to the “picture of history” produced by its writer, and the word “Geschichtsbild” already indicates that he did not consider the two identical. Von Rad wished to uncover the spiritual world of the Chronicler, as revealed in his book’s portrayal of history. Martin Noth’s chapter on the principal theological ideas found in Chronicles, in his Überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Studien (1943; pp. 171–180), was written in the same spirit. Noth examined the two biblical historiographic complexes — Deuteronomistic and Chronistic — from his traditio-historical point of view, and attempted to ascertain the ideological system of each complex by studying the way in which it formulated its historical narrative. From this point on, the ideology of Chronicles became a subject in its own right, and was discussed in works dealing with biblical theology in general, 5 in a variety of monographs, 6 and in commentaries on Chronicles; 7 moreover, some scholars devoted entire studies either to the subject as a whole or to individual issues. 8 of Ezra–Nehemiah, BZAW, 2 (1896), pp. 51–65; idem, Ezra Studies (1910; rpt. New York, 1970), pp. 208–251. 4. J. Hänel and W. Rothstein, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik, KAT (1927), pp. viii, ix–xliv. 5. G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, I (Munich, 1957), pp. 344–351, and in translation, Theology, I, pp. 347–354; Y. Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion (Heb.), IV ( Jerusalem. 1959/60), pp. 453–481; W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments, I (Stuttgart, 1959), pp. 286ff., and see index (in English, Theology, I, pp. 424ff.). 6. For example: G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament (Upsala, 1946), pp. 270–286; O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman (Oxford, 1968), pp. 37ff.; N. Poulssen, König und Tempel (Stuttgart, 1967), pp. 155ff. 7. Rudolph devotes almost three chapters of the introduction to his commentary on Chronicles to this matter (W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, HAT [1955]). Chapter Three is entitled “Content and Purpose” (pp. viii–ix), Chapter Six, “Leading Ideas and Reliability” (pp. xiii–xviii), and Chapter Seven, “The Chronicler’s Message” (pp. xviii-xxiv). Myers also devotes one chapter of his introduction to “The Intention of the Chronicler” and another to “The Theology of the Chronicler” ( J. M. Myers, I Chronicles, AB [1965], pp. xviii–xl, lxiv–lxxxv). 8. Such as: G. Wilda, “Das Königsbild des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes,” Diss., Bonn, 1959; A. M. Brunet, “La Théologie du Chroniste, Théocratie et Messianisme,” Sacra Pagina, I, ed. J. Coppens (Gembloux, 1959), pp. 384–397; R. North, “Theology

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 3 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Introduction

3

II. Although the various studies of Chronicles’ views may sometimes come to contradictory conclusions, they all share several basic presuppositions. The first is a literary presupposition: the books of Chronicles and Ezra– Nehemiah were written by one author, “the Chronicler.” Zunz and Movers simultaneously proposed this theory in the first half of the nineteenth century, 9 and within a short time it was accepted as an indisputable fact by the vast majority of scholars. 10 Because of this assumption, neither book could be discussed without constant reference to the other. Scholars based their conclusions on a perpetual harmonization of the two works that obscured the distinctiveness and meaning of each text. The issue of whether or not Ezra–Nehemiah ought to be included in a study of Chronicles demanded a clear answer to the question of authorship and led me to examine the subject in its own right. 11 I came to the conclusion that Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah are two distinct works which were not, and could not have been, written by the same man. 12 The present study is therefore confined to the book of Chronicles. In fact, we shall see below that there are profound differences between many aspects of the books’ world-views. of the Chronicler,” JBL, 82 (1963), 369–381; R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtwerkes (Freiburg, 1973). 9. Zunz, Vorträge, Chapter Two, pp. 13–36; F. C. Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik (Bonn, 1834). 10. For example, see C. C. Torrey. “The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra– Nehemiah,” BZAW, 2 (1896), p. 1: “It is at present generally agreed that Chronicles– Ezra–Nehemiah originally formed one book, which was put in its final form by the author of the book of Chronicles, commonly called ‘the Chronicler’.” Among the few who disagreed were, primarily, W. M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch des historischkritische Einleitung in die Bibel, I (Berlin, 1845), pp. 290ff.; A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (London, 1939), p. 1; M. H. Segal, “Ezra–Nehemiah’’ (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 14 (1942/3), 81–86; and W. A. L. Elmslie, The First and Second Books of Chronicles, IB (1954), pp. 345, 347–348. 11. S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT, 18 (1968), 330–371. 12. The basic elements of this argument had been accepted by a number of scholars in Israel who took up Segal’s position and even enlarged upon it. See J. Liver, “History and Historiography in the Book of Chronicles” (Heb.), in Sefer Biram, The Society for Biblical Research, II (Tel Aviv, 1955), pp. 154ff.; Y. M. Grintz, “Aspects of the History of the High Priesthood” (Heb.), Zion, 23–24 (1958–59), 138–140; B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah (Heb., Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 172ff. It has since been accepted, with some variations, by other scholars and has led to a re-evaluation of later biblical historiography. In particular, see Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, FRLANT, 106 (1972), pp. 37–38; R. L. Braun, “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles,” JBL, 92 (1973), 516; J. D. Newsome Jr., “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purpose,” JBL, 94 (1975), 201–203.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 4 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

4

Introduction

The second presupposition concerns the book’s historical position. To be sure, not all scholars agree in their dating of Chronicles; some date it as early as the destruction of the First Temple, 13 others, as late as well into the Hellenistic period. 14 Nevertheless, most accept the opinion that Chronicles was written towards the end of the Persian era 15 and constitutes one of the most recent biblical books. This presupposition, which is correct in and of itself, had a decisive influence on the study of Chronicles, leading research in two main directions. Scholars proceeding in one direction see the impact of the historical background in the book’s social and political aspects and stress that Chronicles is by nature a polemical work with concrete contemporary goals. Accordingly, the book expresses the struggles that led up to the creation and consolidation of the Jewish community’s social and political institutions during the early Second Temple period. Chronicles’ agenda was seen to include an anti-Samaritan polemic 16 and the promotion of Levitical interests, in terms of position and privileges. 17 Scholars who proceed in the second direction emphasize the book’s ideological aspects. Its sources and motives, as well as its goals, are viewed much more broadly. This line of research stresses that Chronicles represents a transitional stage; therefore, it comes to grips with the ideas of the past and sows the seeds of new concepts and future patterns of thought. This approach (which is, essentially, justified) leads in turn to two avenues of research. The first views Chronicles as a transitional stage between the biblical period and the Judaism that succeeded it and describes its spiritual world in terms commonly used in discussions of post-biblical Judaism: “legalism,” “normativeness,” “ritualism,” “formalism,” and the like. Aspects of the book that are emphasized therefore include its links with the Priestly stratum of Pentateuchal literature, its great interest in the cult, and its strict doctrine of retribution. 18 The second line of research begins with the same basic idea but considers Chronicles a transitional stage to Christianity rather than Judaism. Studies of this type attempt to explain the book and its ideology in terms and concepts borrowed from Christian thought: “Verus Israel,” “the religion of the Law,” “Kingdom of God,” and

13. Welch, Chronicler, pp. 155–162. 14. Noth, Studien, pp. 154–155. 15. B. Mazar, “Chronicles” (Heb.), EB, II, 605. 16. See in detail below, pp. 254ff. 17. For example, see Welch, Chronicler, pp. 55–67; Pfeiffer, Introduction, pp. 792– 801; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 88ff.; Smith, Parties and Politics, p. 4. 18. For example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 182, 187, 211, 223, etc.; Eichrodt, Theology, I, pp. 177, 220, etc.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 5 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Introduction

5

so forth. 19 By such means, Chronicles is depicted as leading up to and anticipating Christianity. This approach emphasizes the book’s resemblance to Deuteronomistic literature in general and Deuteronomy in particular 20 and attaches great importance to David’s role in Chronicles. Yet, if one defines Chronicles as a polemical work of any stripe, one reduces the book’s real meaning and importance, and if one stresses its transitional nature, mechanically projecting later concepts onto its world-view, one obscures the intensity of its distinctive spiritual world. If we wish to understand the Chronicler’s spiritual world in its entirety, we must examine the book on its own terms, and not try to harmonize Chronicles with something else, be it Ezra–Nehemiah or a predetermined ideological structure. We must identify the book’s uniqueness within the context of biblical thought and then uncover, insofar as we are able, the basic line of continuity, as well as specific elements that connected the Bible to the post-biblical period.

III. The nature of the book of Chronicles actually determines the line of research to be taken. It is a work of historiography, an account of Israel’s history from its beginning until the destruction of the First Temple. Its contents therefore parallel what we find in other books, the Former Prophets in particular. These two facts dictate the form our research must take. (1) As an historiographical book whose subject is the occurrence of historical events, Chronicles is not a philosophical treatise concerned with concepts and beliefs. Therefore, its treatment of the latter area is indirect and unsystematic. Scattered references to an issue appear throughout the book wherever the historical narrative furnishes the appropriate opportunity or the writer himself creates that opportunity. Even in such instances, the Chronicler does not always express his views directly; at times, they 19. See Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xliv; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 29, 136; A. Noordtzij, “Les Intentions du Chroniste,” RB, 49 (1940), 161–168; and others. 20. After many years during which only the priestly element in Chronicles was recognized, it was von Rad who brought about the shift; his work contained many innovations, including an emphasis on the influence of Deuteronomy. Although there is no doubt that von Rad’s emphasis led to a more balanced assessment of Chronicles’ sources, it, too, is somewhat one-sided, and each of his examples must be judged on its own merits (see below, p. 73). In my opinion, the entire Pentateuch, with all its various strata, constituted only one of the Chronicler’s sources, and his dependence on the whole biblical corpus will be illustrated and discussed throughout this study. An important contribution to this subject was made by Th. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Göttingen, 1972).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 6 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

6

Introduction

are discerned in the text’s structure, the formulation of the narrative, and so on. (2) The material found in Chronicles is primarily of two kinds: material taken from various sources and transposed, at times verbatim, at times with drastic changes, and material written by the book’s author. Certain important conclusions may be deduced from this point: a) The Chronicler’s principal sources were the biblical books that preceded him, notably Samuel–Kings. 21 When we compare Chronicles to its source texts, we discover changes — changes of language, style, content, and ideology. It may be that a few of these differences already appeared in the Chronicler’s Vorlage, 22 but most of them were his own work, and they give us a clear picture of his world-view. 23 b) Although the Chronicler edited his source material quite comprehensively, he was not always systematic, and at times the text reveals not his opinion, but that of his sources. 24 The question of whether a certain view only appears in parallel texts or is actually attested in the Chronicler’s own writings is therefore of considerable importance. c) We must ask if the author did not also use extra-biblical sources — were all the “additions” really written by the Chronicler? It seems likely that he had other sources which have not come down to us. 25 Thus, we are unable to determine with absolute certainty whether something repre-

21. For a table comparing all the parallel material, see Driver, Introduction, pp. 519– 525. See also P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti (Rome, 1931–1934); A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible (Heb., Jerusalem, 1972). 22. This supposition has been confirmed by the fragments of Samuel found at Qumran, in which readings that differ from MT are sometimes closer to the text of Chronicles. On this topic, see esp. W. E. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem of the Chronicler’s History,” HThR, 58 (1965), 350ff. 23. The comparison of parallel texts and analysis of variants between parallels provide an important means for studying the biblical text, as well as the historical development of the Hebrew language. Although both these fields lie beyond the scope of the present study, each and every change necessitates some decision concerning its nature and purpose. 24. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 18. 25. Wellhausen ruled: “To speak of a tradition handed down from preexilic times as being found in Chronicles, either in I Chr. 1–9 or in I Chr. 10–II Chr 36, is thus manifestly out of the question” (Prolegomena, p. 222). However, it is more generally thought that the Chronicler did have access to extra-biblical sources. Cf., among others, Kittel, Chronik, p. xiii; Rudolph, Chronik, p. xi. More recently, Welten has turned back to the extreme position taken by Wellhausen and asserted that the Chronicler used almost no sources apart from the Bible (Welten, Chronik, passim and, in his conclusion, pp. 195– 198); see also Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 67, n. 70.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 7 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Introduction

7

sents the Chronicler’s views or those of his source; to a great extent, the decision must be left to the interpreter’s judgment. d) An assessment of the additional material in Chronicles must consider the possibility that the book was altered after its composition and that passages were added in the course of transmission. Scholars differ regarding the extent and dating of additions, although there seems to be a tendency to exaggerate in this matter. It would seem that additions of this sort are not numerous or extensive; the book’s diversity is produced, on the whole, by its use of sources rather than by an ongoing redactional process. 26 e) Among the Chronicler’s additions, speeches and prayers are of particular importance. Throughout the historical account, these rhetorical passages of the Chronicler’s own creation are put in the mouths of prophets and kings. 27 They tie in with the historical background and the flow of the narrative but are not integral to the description. Added speeches and 26. Welch assumes that 1 Chronicles 1 to 9 is a later addition to the book (A. C. Welch, Post Exilic Judaism [Edinburgh, 1935], pp. 185–186). Noth classifies as “additions” large portions of 1 Chronicles, in particular 1 Chronicles 23–27 and most of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9, and smaller sections of 2 Chronicles (Noth, Studien, pp. 110–122). Rudolph accepts this basic position and differs only in matters of detail (Chronik, pp. 1–5). Galling divides all of Chronicles (and Ezra–Nehemiah) into two sources, of which Chronicler B is “the second, expanded and improved edition” of the preceding composition, although the two works remain very similar in terms of ideology (Galling, Chronik, p. 8). More recent studies have also responded to these questions. Willi and Mosis fully accept the Noth-Rudolph position (Willi, Auslegung, pp. 194ff.; Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 44, n. 2). Willi goes even further and claims that many of the book’s passages dealing with ritual are secondary (op. cit., pp. 195–204). A look at the evolution of research into the subject suggests that literary criticism developed, expanded, and proliferated before the basic assumptions had been examined or verified. The starting point for this process, which appears in Noth’s words (Studien, pp. 112ff.), has never been proven, and therefore it would seem that the criticism of Liver and Myers is justified — J. Liver, Chapters, p. 11; idem, “History and Historiography,” loc. cit. (see above, n. 12); Myers, I Chronicles, p. lxiii. 27. Already in the mid-nineteenth century, Graf claimed that the book’s speeches were placed in the mouths of various characters by the Chronicler himself (Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 122). Driver analysed these speeches in detail, showing that they contained considerable evidence of the Chronicler’s distinctive usage and style; see S. R. Driver, “The Speeches in Chronicles,” Expositor, 6th Series, I (1895), 241–256; II (1895), 286–308. The phenomenon of using speeches to express the views of the writer is not limited to biblical historiography; it is especially common in the case of Greek and Roman historiography. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, pp. 51ff.; M. Dibelius, Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung (Heidelberg, 1949). For a summary regarding the speeches in Chronicles, see O. Plöger, “Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk,” in his Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments (Göttingen, 1971), pp. 54ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 8 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

8

Introduction

prayers therefore provide a clear and unequivocal expression of the writer’s views. There are many components to the world-view expressed in Chronicles, and not all of them are equally important. Certain matters are assumed from the outset and rarely referred to; others are the focus of great interest, and their influence is evident throughout the book. Therefore, the subjects for discussion here will not adhere to a prescribed inventory of basic topics in religious thought; rather, our subject list will follow the dictates of the material itself. To understand the book of Chronicles, we must begin with its concept of God. Since God is first and foremost the God of Israel, this topic involves other key points: the nature of the relationship between the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and the people of Israel in its own right. Thus, subjects that appear to be secular — such as ethnic, geographic, and social aspects of Israel or the various political activities of its monarchs — also express the book’s broad religious outlook, according to which all of history is a constant illustration of the enduring relationship between God and His people.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 9 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Chapter One

Yhwh, the God of Israel The book of Chronicles is a work of historiography, and so it is only natural that anyone examining it would immediately tend to focus on the human side of things: the people and society whose history is being recounted. Yet a closer look makes it clear that the book’s real starting point is not man or the people, but God; only after the nature of God, His attributes, and the principles by which He runs the world have been understood does the history attain coherence and clarity. The book of Chronicles may therefore be called “theocentric historiography,” in which every sphere of life derives its significance and ultimate reality from its relationship to God. It is for this reason that the concept of God found in Chronicles constitutes the central component of this study. By dividing the subject into subtopics and analysing each subtopic in terms of order and extent, we are able to discern the author’s own scale of priorities. The dominant feature of the image of God throughout the book is that of a God-in-relation, and this relationship operates on two levels. The first is that of God in relation to the world, expressed in His creation, domination, rule, and providence. On the second level, God is in relation to the people of Israel, and this constitutes the focal point of His relationship with the world. We shall begin our study of the concept of God with an examination of those issues that refer to God per se, a being isolated and non-related (although the basic image of the God-in-relation penetrates even here): the names and epithets of God and the monotheistic idea and its expression. We shall then move on to matters concerning God’s relationship to the world — creation, domination, and presence — and from there, to the relationship between God and Israel. The nature of this relationship, together with the attributes of God Himself, accounts for divine intervention in the history of Israel and forms the basis of Chronicles’ special historical philosophy. 9

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 10 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

10

Yhwh, the God of Israel

I. The Names of God Any conclusions drawn from a discussion of divine names and epithets, however important such a discussion may be, are bound to be limited in scope. First of all, one must bear in mind that a name or title is only a partial expression of a concept; it is the literary work as a whole that presents a broad and multifaceted theological expression, an expression which may reveal the full range and meaning of the concept of God. What limits our conclusions even more and also affects the general direction of the discussion is the fact that tradition exerts a very strong influence when it comes to names, and a name may continue to be used long after its meaning has been forgotten. What is true of proper names in general is all the more true of divine names, 1 and one must be cautious in attributing special significance to the use of proper names, particularly in the case of a book as late as Chronicles. On the other hand, the use of epithets, which changed over the years and therefore testifies to the ideas and outlook of each generation, is highly significant. Because of their centrality to questions of the nature, scope, and origins of Pentateuchal sources, the various names for God have engaged the attention of biblical criticism from the start. 2 The study of divine names was extended from the Pentateuch to other books of the Bible. 3 Divine names in Chronicles were usually examined in the context of the historical development of divine epithets in general, and discussion has focussed less frequently on the phenomenon in Chronicles. 4 The questions we wish to pose here are of a conceptual rather than a literary nature, and they are: Does the use of divine names (a) reflect a particular world-view, and (b) teach us anything about the concept of God in Chronicles? The book of Chronicles employs a great number of divine names and epithets, but none of these constitutes a complete innovation. The book is distinctive in that it contains only the tetragrammaton (hereafter, “Yhwh” or “Lord”) and Elohim (“God”), or various combinations of those names, such as Yhwh Elohim or Yhwh God of Israel, God of our fathers, and the like. There is no occurrence of the more archaic or poetic names, such as 1. See Y. Kaufmann, Religion, I, p. 417. 2. H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der Historisch-Kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments . . . (Neukirchen, 1956), pp. 84–87; cf. also Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 182–183. 3. F. Baumgärtel, Elohim ausserhalb des Pentateuchs, BZAW, 19 (1914); M. H. Segal, “The Names yy and μyhla in the Books of the Bible” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 9 (1937/38), 123– 162; idem, “The Names ‘El,’ ‘Elohim,’ and ‘Yhwh’ in the Bible,” in Tradition and Criticism (Heb., Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 31–46; idem, The Pentateuch . . . and Other Biblical Studies ( Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 103–124. 4. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 3–8.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 11 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

11

la, ydç, ˆwyl[, ynda, or ryba. Its lack of innovation notwithstanding, Chronicles does present a number of interesting phenomena: (a) Certain epithets occur in far greater frequency in Chronicles than in other biblical books, and the way in which they are used is indicative of a particular outlook. These epithets are “God of the fathers” and “God of Israel.” (b) The Chronicler deliberately avoids using certain names and epithets, despite the fact that they were common in his own time or appeared in the sources at his disposal. These names are: μymçh yhla (“God of Heaven”), twabx uh (“Lord of Hosts”), and ynda (“Adonay”). (c) The changes in divine names from the sources of Chronicles to the book itself, particularly with reference to “Yhwh” and “Elohim,” may teach us something about the general historical development of the use of divine names.

A. God of the Fathers The epithet “God of the fathers” (twbah yhla) in a variety of forms 5 appears twenty-seven times in Chronicles. 6 None of these instances is taken from the parallel source in Samuel–Kings; 7 one case constitutes an actual change of the wording that appears in Kings. 8 The fact that the epithet is given in a variety of forms, depending on the context, as well as the frequency with which it appears, indicates that its use is deliberate and significant, and not merely the result of current usage. Apart from the examples in Chronicles, the epithet appears nineteen times in the Bible, always in prose passages. The distribution is as follows: four times in Exodus, eight in Deuteronomy, once each in Joshua, Judges, and 2 Kings, once in Daniel, and three times in Ezra. 9 The occurrences in

5. “The God of their fathers,” “Yhwh God of their fathers,” “Yhwh God of our fathers,” “Yhwh God of your fathers,” etc. The tetragrammaton is added to the epithet more often than not. 6. 1 Chr 5:25; 12:18; 29:18, 20; 2 Chr 7:22; 11:16; 13:12, 18; 14:4 (Heb., 14:3); 15:12; 19:4; 20:6, 33; 21:10; 24:18, 24; 28:6, 9, 25; 29:5; 30:7, 19, 22; 33:12; 34:32, 33; 36:15. 7. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 7, for a short summary of the data. H. G. May, “The God of my Father,” JBR, 9 (1941), 155–158, 199–200. 8. 2 Chr 7:22: “Because they forsook the Lord the God of their fathers”; 1 Kings 9:9: “Because they forsook the Lord their God.” 9. Exod 3:13, 15, 16; 4:5; Deut 1:11; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 27:3; 29:24; Josh 18:3; Judg 2:12; 2 Kgs 21:22; Ezra 7:27; 8:28; 10:11; Dan 11:37; and possibly also Exod 3:6, “I am the God of your father,” for which the Samaritan Pentateuch reads “fathers.” Most exegetes, however, prefer MT. See M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York, 1969), p. 73.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 12 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

12

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Joshua, Judges, and 2 Kings would seem to be incidental, 10 whereas in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the epithet is used in a consistent way, in a definite context. The earliest source for “God of the fathers” is Exodus 3–4, where the tetragrammaton is revealed to Moses. In this passage, “the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is juxtaposed with Yhwh. The essence of the revelation is the identification of Yhwh with “the God of the fathers,” 11 the “fathers” being Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 12 Yet, although the use of “God of the fathers” in the context of a revelation of the tetragrammaton is essential and may even seem indispensable, it nevertheless does not appear in the parallel tradition of that revelation found in Exodus 6. 10. Josh 18:3: “How long will you be slack to go in and take possession of the land, which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you?” “Your fathers” does not appear in LXX Codex Vaticanus, which reads “which the Lord our God has given.” The two other examples, Judg 2:12 and 2 Kings 21:22, are part of the Deuteronomistic layer of the Former Prophets and consist of the same phrase: “And they/he forsook the Lord, the God their/his fathers.” Given that the epithet appears only twice, it can hardly be considered characteristic of the Deuteronomistic layer. 11. This passage is a key source for Alt’s hypothesis of a patriarchal religion that preceded and later merged with Mosaic religion — A. Alt, “The God of the Fathers,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson (Oxford, 1966), esp. pp. 11–14. Without going into Alt’s theory in detail, it is worth noting that he did not distinguish between “the God of the fathers,” in the plural, and “the God of a father.” Even if we assume for the sake of argument that “the fathers” refers exclusively to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the very idea of a god of all three renders the concept expressed in “the god of my father” meaningless. It is doubtful whether the phrase, “God of the fathers,” could have existed prior to the emergence of a people that traced its origins back to three patriarchal ancestors, and it would seem that this patriarchal idea was a fairly late development. Unlike “the God of my father,” the expression “God of the fathers” cannot reflect the authentic tradition of the Mosaic period and must, in fact, post-date it. For an analysis of Alt, see: J. Lewy, “Les textes paléo-assyriens et 1’Ancien Testament,” RHR, 110 (1934), 50–56; H. G. May, “The God of my Father,” JBR, 9 (1941), 155–158; idem, “The Patriarchal Idea of God,” JBL, 60 (1941), 113–128; M. Haran, “Towards a Description of Patriarchal Religion” (Heb.), in dwdl z[: Festschrift in Honour of David Ben-Gurion ( Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 40–70, esp. pp. 52–58; and H. Weidmann, Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Licht der Forschung seit Julius Wellhausen, FRLANT, 94 (1968), pp. 126–173. 12. The fact that the text in Exodus takes great care to present the full title (“the Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob” — Exod 3:15, 16; 4:5) raises the question of whether there were originally two distinct epithets: one being “the God of the fathers,” which appears in Exod 3:13 in the form “the God of your fathers,” the other being “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” which sought to clarify the more general concept of a “God of the fathers” in the light of Israel’s particular outlook.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 13 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

13

In Deuteronomy, we find the epithet “God of the fathers” in three contexts: five times with reference to Israel’s inheritance of the land (1:21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 27:3); twice concerning the exodus from Egypt (26:7; 29:24); and once when describing the people’s fruitfulness (1:11). In all cases, the “fathers” would appear to be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 13 In Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, the epithet is not used in the contexts we find in Exodus and Deuteronomy and, in fact, is not limited to any particular types of context. In Chronicles, it may interchange with other epithets within the same passage, and these texts can be taken as a starting point for understanding its significance: 1 Chr 29:20: “Then David said to all the assembly. ‘Bless the Lord your God.’ And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers . . .” A completely parallel structure is found in the two parts of the verse, and thus “the Lord your God” must be parallel to “the Lord, the God of your fathers.” (2) 2 Chr 33:12: “And when he was in distress he entreated the favour of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers.” Here, too, we find no difference between “the Lord his God” and “the God of his fathers”; they are used interchangeably and are, therefore, identical in meaning. (3) 2 Chr 15:12–13: “And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers . . . whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death . . .” 14 Occasionally, two epithets may be found in this sort of close proximity in Deuteronomy, but there, we always find that the transition from the simple form “the Lord your God” to the more complex “the Lord, the God of your fathers” provides nuance and additional meaning. The reference to the fathers creates a link with the Lord’s promise to the Patriarchs. 15 This is not the case in Chronicles, which indiscriminately parallels 13. In Deuteronomy, “fathers” is used in the broad sense of “preceding generations,” or ancestors. At times, the term refers to a particular “segment” of these ancestors, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those who migrated to Egypt, the speaker’s generation, and so on. Cf. Deut 5:3; 8:3, 16; 10:22; and elsewhere. According to Diepold, this variegated usage provides one indication that Deuteronomy consists of different layers: see P. Diepold, Israels Land, BWANT, 95 (1972), p. 78. 14. Likewise 2 Chr 11:16; 28:9–10; 30:7–9; 34:33. 15. Deut 1:10–11: “the Lord your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. May the Lord, the God of your fathers, continue and make you a thousand times as many as you are, and bless, you as he has promised you”; Deut 1:21: “Behold, the Lord your God has set the land before you; go up, take possession, as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has told you”; Deut 27:3: “the land which the Lord your God gives you . . . as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 14 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

14

Yhwh, the God of Israel

“the Lord your God,” “the Lord, the God of Israel,” and “the Lord, the God of your fathers.” The fact that these epithets are of equal standing and are used to parallel or complement one another may be regarded as an expression of Chronicles’ concept of God: Yhwh is the Lord our God, He is the Lord, God of Israel, and He is the Lord, God of our forefathers. The link between Yhwh and the people is continuous and abiding; in every generation, Israel’s God is Yhwh. 16 Each generation, irrespective of its own chronological position, invokes Him in three ways — as God of that particular generation, as God of its ancestors, and God of the people — all from a sense of eternal, uninterrupted continuity. 17 Where did the epithet “God of the fathers” as used in Chronicles originate, and how is it related to Deuteronomy? Von Rad believes that there is a direct literary connection between the two books. 18 This would not seem to be the case, however. To begin with, there is no relation between the usage of the epithet in Chronicles and in Deuteronomy; the particular context in which it appears in Deuteronomy does not apply at all in the case of Chronicles. Furthermore, the epithet is found in other compositions, contemporary to Chronicles: three times in that part of Ezra–Nehemiah known as “Ezra’s memoirs”; 19 in Dan 11:37; 20 and in the apocryphal promised you.” Here, “the Lord, the God of your fathers” is clearly linked to the promise made to the Patriarchs. 16. See L. Köhler, Theology, p. 30. 17. The common liturgical phrase, “our God and God of our fathers,” is an even more striking example of this parallelism. The phrase is probably ancient, although it does not yet appear in the Bible. (However, it is interesting that Gen 43:23, for which MT reads “your God and the God of your father,” appears in the Sam. Pent. and LXX as “your God and the God of your fathers.”) The Shemoneh Esreh prayer (of eighteen benedictions) begins with the words “Blessed are you, O Lord, our God and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” See J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (Berlin, 1977), p. 26, n. 16, and pp. 30–31. We read in the Mekilta to Exod 13:3: “And how do we know that one should say: ‘Blessed be Thou, O Lord, our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob’?” The Mekilta’s explanation of why the prayer’s opening should name the patriarchs may indicate that, at first, the prayer only mentioned “our God and God of our fathers” in a more general sense of “fathers” and that the specification of the three patriarchs was added subsequently. It is possible that the phrase appeared already in Judith 7:28; see M. E. Cowley, Judith, in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford, 1913), ad loc. 18. Geschichtsbild, p. 7. In von Rad’s opinion, the epithet is one example of Chronicles’ direct dependence on Deuteronomy; see above, p. 5, n. 20. 19. Ezra 7:27; 8:28; 10:11. Scholars do not agree on the scope of the “Ezra memoirs” and their connection with the book’s final redaction, known as the Chronistic redaction.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 15 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

15

books of Tobit and Judith. 21 It would seem, then, that there is no direct literary influence at work; rather, what we have here is the general, free, and variegated use of a particular expression — usage that became current at the end of the biblical period and found its way into a variety of canonical and apocryphal books. The Chronicler took the epithet from the general linguistic pool and used it to express his own conception of God. His handling of the phrase is significant in that it emphasizes the continuity of the relationship between the Lord and His people and may be seen as a transitional stage to the later usage, commonly found in the liturgy, “our God and God of our fathers.”

B. Yhwh, God of Israel “The God of Israel” and “Yhwh, the God of Israel” are found thirtythree times in Chronicles, 22 eight of which are paralleled in the book’s

There are two main positions: (a) Most scholars believe that the redactor had a source that included the Ezra memoirs at his disposal. Some think that this source contained only the narrative in the first person, i.e., Ezra 7:27–9:5 (or 15); 10:18–44; see, for example, Zunz, Vorträge, p. 30, note a; Driver, Introduction, pp. 549–550; Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 533–554. Others include material written in the third person, that is, Ezra 7:12–10:44; Neh 7:8 (or 72)–9:2 (or 5); cf. W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, HAT (1949), p. xxiv; R. A. Bowman, The Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah, IB (1954), p. 656. According to the latter opinion, all the passages we have cited would be part of the “Ezra memoirs”; according to the former, Ezra 10:11 belongs to the redactional material. (b) Another group of scholars believes that everything known as “Ezra’s memoirs” is the product of the Chronicler, and the use of this epithet would serve them as further proof of the work’s literary unity. See A. S. Kapelrud, The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative (Oslo, 1944). Only by adopting this extreme position can one consider all three passages the work of the Chronicler, but in any case, the verses in Daniel and the Apocrypha remain beyond his scope. 20. In Dan 11:37, “the gods of his fathers” has nothing to do with Israel and refers to Antiochus. 21. Tobit 8:5: “Blessed art thou, God of our fathers, and blessed is thy name for ever and ever.” Judith 5:7: “. . . the gods of their fathers, which were in the land of the Chaldeans”; 10:8: “the God of our fathers give thee favour.” Likewise, 1 Esdras 4:60, 62: “and to thee I give thanks, O Lord of our fathers,” “and they praised the God of their fathers.” (Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from apocryphal literature are from R. H. Charles, op. cit.) 22. 1 Chr 4:10; 5:26; 15:12, 14; 16:4, 36; 22:6; 23:25; 24:19; 28:4; 29:10; 2 Chr 2:11; 6:4, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17; 11:16; 13:5; 15:4, 13; 20:19; 29:7, 10; 30:1, 5; 32:17; 33:16, 18; 34:23, 26; 36:13. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 7, and C. Steuernagel, “Jahwe, der Gott Israels,” in Festschrift fur J. Wellhausen, BZAW, 27 (1914), pp. 331–349, including a list of passages on pp. 332–333.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 16 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

16

Yhwh, the God of Israel

sources. 23 This epithet is used freely in Chronicles, unlinked to any particular context. According to von Rad, the influence of the Deuteronomic school, via Kings, is also responsible for the epithet’s appearances in Chronicles. 24 However, von Rad does not present any evidence in support of his claim and seems to base his idea solely on the fact that this epithet is found in both books. To be sure, “God of Israel” is found in the Deuteronomistic layer of Kings — but it is also found in other books, 25 and there is no convincing reason to suppose that our case is one of literary dependence. In fact, the use of this epithet, which binds Yhwh to the people who worship Him, seems to give His “natural name,” no different from the epithets for other deities mentioned in Chronicles, such as “the gods of the peoples of the land” (1 Chr 5:25), “the gods of the men of Seir” (2 Chr 25:14), “the gods of Edom” (2 Chr 25:20), “the gods of Damascus” (2 Chr 28:23), “the gods of the kings of Aram” (2 Chr 28:23), “the gods of the nations of the lands” (2 Chr 32:13), and so on. 26 It therefore seems likely that although the epithet originally suited particular contexts and was more frequently used in certain literary strata of the Bible, its meaning and application were not linked to specific contexts by the time of Chronicles or within the book itself. The epithet is significant in that it testifies to a direct bond between Yhwh and His people. By virtue of His very essence, Yhwh is the God of Israel. This view of a God in relation to human beings is a key element in Chronicles’ concept of God. 27

C. Adonay The divine name “Adonay” (ynda) is found four hundred and fifty times in the Bible, over one hundred and thirty times by itself, and for the remainder, in the expressions “Adonay Yhwh” or “Yhwh Adonay.” 28 The 23. 1 Chr 16:36 = Ps 106:48; 2 Chr 6:4, 7, 10, 14, 16 = 1 Kings 8:15, 17, 20, 23, 25; 2 Chr 34:23, 26 = 2 Kings 22:15, 18. 24. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 7: “There can be no doubt that it passed from this school to the Chronicler; we also have the link in the book of Kings, which so greatly influenced the Chronicler.” 25. Including many examples in Jeremiah (although Steuernagel considers them all part of the redactional layer of the book — BZAW, 27 [1914], pp. 333–334) and others in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, etc. 26. See Köhler, Theology, pp. 19–20. 27. See below, pp. 42–47; 98ff. 28. G. H. Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonay und seine Geschichte (Berlin, 1889); see the table on p. 91 classifying all the passages according to expression and biblical book. Most examples (two hundred thirty-two) occur in Ezekiel.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 17 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

17

epithet “Adonay” never appears in Chronicles. This fact has attracted the special attention of biblical scholars, 29 who took a great interest in the historical development of divine names and the process which led to the pronunciation and vocalization of the tetragrammaton as “Adonay.” The name “Adonay” occurs ten times in the Chronicler’s sources in Samuel–Kings. On two occasions, the relevant passage or verse is omitted entirely in Chronicles (1 Kings 3:10, 15). In the remaining cases, the Chronicler has substituted other names for “Adonay.” In his prayer in 2 Samuel 7, David addresses God as “Adonay Yhwh” in verses 18, 19, 20, 22, 28, and 29. 30 In the parallel text in 1 Chronicles 17, this formula is changed, either by omitting “Adonay” or by using other names, such as “Yhwh Elohim” or “Elohim.” Thus: 1 Chr 17:16, 17 — “Lord God”; vv. 19, 20, 26, 27: “Lord”; and v. 17: “God.” The example other than 2 Samuel 7 is 1 Kings 22:6: “for the Lord (ynda) will give it into the hand of the king.” 2 Chr 18:5 reads: “for God (μyhla) will give it into the hand of the king.” The absence of the name “Adonay” in Chronicles has been explained in a variety of ways. According to Jacob, the tetragrammaton was already pronounced “Adonay” in the time of the Chronicler, who would therefore have considered the phrase “Adonay Yhwh” redundant and would have omitted “Adonay.” 31 Baudissin and, following him, Eichrodt explained the omission in a completely different way. They believed that the tetragrammaton became “Adonay” after Chronicles had been written, but, according to them, the name “Adonay” was originally confined to prayer and direct invocations of God. Any cases where “Adonay” is used beyond these purposes are the result of a later reworking, traces of which are found throughout the Bible, apart from the Pentateuch and the book of Chronicles. The Pentateuch remained untouched because it was already sacrosanct, Chronicles because it was not yet in the canon. 32 This analysis also involves the question of the Septuagint’s translation of the tetragrammaton as “Kyrios.” In the opinion of Baudissin and Eichrodt. “Kyrios” was the literal translation of the tetragrammaton in its original meaning and thus preceded its replacement by “Adonay.” They see no

29. Cf. B. Jacob, In Namen Gottes (Berlin, 1903), esp. pp. 164–176; B. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen, 1893), pp. 16–17; W. W. von Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname in Judentum, II (Giessen, 1929), pp. 61, 64–66; Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 203. 30. For v. 22, Codex Leningrad reads “Adonay Yhwh” whereas the Rabbinic Bible has “Yhwh Elohim.” For v. 25, both read “Yhwh Elohim.” On this interchange, see below, pp. 30ff. LXX for both verses has “Adonay Yhwh.” Again, see below, p. 31, n. 95. 31. See Jacob, op. cit., pp. 165–168. 32. Baudissin, op. cit., pp. 61, 64–66; Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 203.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 18 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

18

Yhwh, the God of Israel

connection between “Kyrios” and the later “Adonay.” Thus we see that this question is not confined to Chronicles; it involves the broader issue of the tetragrammaton and the way in which it was pronounced. If we consider the substitution in 2 Chr 18:5 (1 Kings 22:5), 33 together with the examples from 1 Chr 17 (2 Sam 7), Jacob’s view that, in order to avoid redundancy, “Adonay” was omitted (leaving Yhwh on its own) is unconvincing. In the case of 2 Chr 18:5, there was only one epithet to begin with, and in 1 Chr 17:16, 17, another double form would then be produced: “Yhwh Elohim.” Nor can Baudissin’s thesis — that “Adonay” was introduced at a late stage as a replacement for the tetragrammaton — explain the substitution in 2 Chr 18:5. Today, we have the benefit of a source in addition to the Septuagint that can shed light on this question: the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran. In the book of Isaiah, the name “Adonay,” whether on its own or as part of “Adonay Yhwh,” is found forty-six times. In twenty-nine cases, the Qumran version is identical to MT. There are seventeen cases of differences between lQIsaa and MT — substitutions, omissions, and corrections above the line accompanied by dots over the original, 34 indicating the scribes’ doubts as to the correctness of the text. 35 The evidence from 1QIsaa proves conclusively that it was “Adonay” — and not “Yhwh” — that came to be replaced; substitute epithets include “Adonay Elohim” — which never occurs in MT — and “Yhwh Elohim” — which is not found in the MT of Isaiah. These epithets must be secondary forms that were used to replace the primary “Adonay.”

33. Jacob does not mention this substitution. 34. There are five examples of MT “Adonay” (Isa 6:11; 7:14; 9:7; 21:16; 28:2) and four examples of MT “Adonay Yhwh” (28:22; 49:22; 52:4; 61:1) where 1QIsaa reads “Yhwh.” In one case, MT has “Adonay Yhwh” and 1QIsaa reads “Adonay Elohim” (50:5); in another, for MT “Adonay Yhwh,” 1QIsaa reads “Yhwh Elohim” (61:11). There are seven examples of variants within the Isaiah Scroll itself, that is, cases of corrections above the line. Three of these are in places where MT reads “Adonay Yhwh”; the word “Adonay” on the line in lQIsaa is deleted, and then rewritten above the line (3:15; 28:16; 30:15). In three cases, MT reads “Adonay”: twice, 1QIsaa has “Yhwh” on the line and “Adonay” above it (3:18; 8:7, where the scroll is torn); in the third case, “Adonay” is on the line and “Yhwh” is above it (3:17). There is one instance where MT reads “Adonay” and 1QIsaa also has “Adonay” on the line, with “Elohay” written above (49:14). 35. Kutscher deals with this subject in three places; Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, p. 216, no. 3; p. 218, no. 12; p. 241, no. 79. He does not include Isa 3:15; 28:16, 22; 30:15; 49:22; 52:4; 61:1 — i.e., all the examples of “Adonay” being omitted — and three other cases (3:15; 28:16; 30:15) of supralinear notations. It may be that the scattered distribution obscured this phenomenon, and no importance was attached to it.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 19 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

19

Thus, the use of the epithet “Adonay” in various biblical passages cannot be explained by Baudissin’s and Eichrodt’s theory of a later redactional stage. On the contrary, later editors, as represented clearly in Chronicles and the Isaiah Scroll, wished to expunge the epithet and replace it with the tetragrammaton or other divine names. 36 It would seem that, even in the Chronicler’s day, it was considered improper to write the word “Adonay.” It had come to be identified universally with the tetragrammaton, whose original pronunciation was long forgotten, to the extent that writing “Adonay” might have been considered blasphemous. The deciding factor was not the question of redundancy in the form “Adonay Yhwh”; rather, it was the very use of “Adonay,” thought to be completely equivalent in pronunciation to the tetragrammaton.

D. The Lord of Hosts The epithet twabx (“of hosts”) is found in several combinations six times in the Chronicler’s sources in the Book of Samuel. In three instances, the passages are transferred, verbatim or with minor changes, to Chronicles: 1 Chr 11:9: “the Lord of hosts” (2 Sam 5:10: “the Lord, the God of hosts”); 1 Chr 17:7: “the Lord of hosts” ( = 2 Sam 7:8); 1 Chr 17:24: “the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, is Israel’s God” (2 Sam 7:26: “the Lord of hosts is God over Israel”). In the three other passages, the epithet is omitted: 1. 1 Chr 13:6: “. . . to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord who sits enthroned above the cherubim.” 2 Sam 6:2: “. . . to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim.” 37 2. 1 Chr 16:2: “. . . he blessed the people in the name of the Lord.” 2 Sam 6:18: “. . . he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.” 3. 1 Chr 17:25: “For thou, my God, hast revealed to thy servant . . .” 2 Sam 7:27: “For thou, O Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, hast made this revelation to thy servant . . .” The epithet does not appear anywhere else in the book of Chronicles.

36. However, cf. below, p. 31, n. 96. 37. On the textual problems of these verses, cf. I. L. Seeligmann, “Indications of editorial alteration and adaptation in the Massoretic text and the Septuagint,” VT, 11 (1961), 204–205.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 20 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

20

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Within the book itself, material related to this subject is scant and does not lead to any significant conclusions regarding Chronicles. Nevertheless, this material may be viewed in conjunction with further evidence from parallel biblical texts. The epithet twabx occurs frequently in Isaiah, including three times in Isa 37–39 (37:16, 32; 39:5). This passage is repeated almost word for word in 2 Kings 19–20, but there twabx is deleted. 38 In the Isaiah Scroll, however, there is no change, and we find twabx uh in all but one of its many occurrences. 39 The fact that the same phenomenon can be traced in two unrelated texts — in parallel texts in Chronicles and in a different passage paralleled in Isaiah and Kings — suggests that it is not the product of chance but rather of a particular redactional trend. Examining the distribution of the epithet in Scripture may clarify the provenance of this trend, as well as the reasons for it. twabx is used widely in prophetic literature, particularly in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Second Commonwealth prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but is less common in Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. The epithet occurs occasionally in Samuel–Kings and Psalms and does not appear at all in Ezekiel or the Pentateuch. This distribution is undoubtedly significant, and the avoidance of the epithet serves a particular purpose. The evidence from 1QIsaa indicates that this trend had already abated or disappeared entirely by the time the Scroll was written; the redactional trend must therefore predate the Isaiah Scroll.

E. The God of Heaven It is well known that calling Israel’s God the “God of Heaven” (yhla μymçh) is a characteristic feature of the Persian period and is confined to that period. 40 The sources of this epithet, the development of its usage, and its connection with non-Israelite cultures are unknown and can only 38. Isa 37:16: “O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who art enthroned above the cherubim” — 2 Kings 19:15: “O Lord the God of Israel, who art enthroned above the cherubim.” Isa 37:32: The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this” — 2 Kings 19:31: “The zeal of the Lord will [accomplish] this.” The Qere for this verse adds “of hosts” in a later attempt, it seems, at harmonization with the Isaiah reading. Finally, Isa 39:5: “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts” — 2 Kings 20:16: “Hear the word of the Lord.” 39. Some sixty examples. The one case of twabx being omitted was probably an error, since the word is restored above the line (Isa 19:14). 40. It does appear in Gen 24:7: The Lord, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house.” However, Gen 24:3 and LXX for 24:7 make it clear that the original version in our verse was “the Lord, God of heaven and of the earth” and that the words “and of the earth” were dropped at some point. Cf. J. Skinner, Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC (1930), p. 342.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 21 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

21

be surmised. 41 The epithet is found in Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts — Jonah, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah; 42 it appears frequently in the Elephantine letters 43 and is also found in Tobit 44 and Judith. 45 In other words: it is well represented in Jewish literature from the Persian period. Given this characteristic distribution, it is significant that the epithet never appears in Chronicles, with the exception of a quotation (in 2 Chr 36:23) from Cyrus’ proclamation. It would seem that this absence testifies to a particular polemical tendency that is further confirmed by other phenomena. 46 However, owing to the paucity of material and the obscurity of the epithet itself, we are unable to construct a clear picture of this trend and its causes.

F. Elohim The name “God” (“Elohim”) appears some one hundred and thirty times in Chronicles, where we must distinguish from the outset between its use as a proper name for Yhwh the God of Israel — which concerns us here — and its use as a general term for a god. 47 It is given in two forms: 41. See Eichrodt, Theology, I, pp. 191–192; Urbach, The Sages, pp. 69ff. 42. Jon 1:9; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4, 5; 2:4, 20; and, in Aramaic, Dan 2:18, 19, 37, 44; Ezra 5:11, 12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23. In the Aramaic section of Daniel, we find the epithets, “King of heaven” (Dan 4:37 [MT 4:34]) and “Lord of heaven” (5:23), which also appear in 1 Esdras 4:46, 58 and in Tobit 1:18; 7:12; 10:14; 13:17 in the long recension, in 10:13; 13:9 in the short, and in 13:13 in both, alongside the epithet “God of heaven.” 43. See D. K. Andrews, “Jahweh The God of Heavens,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (Toronto, 1964), pp. 45–57. 44. E.g., Tobit 6:18; 7:13; 8:15 in the long recension and 7:17 in both. 45. E.g., Judith 5:8; 6:19; 11:17. 46. Primarily by evidence from the two recensions of Tobit. Epithets which link the God of Israel to heaven — “God of heaven” (oJ qeo;Í touÅ ouj ranouÅ ), “Lord of heaven” (oJ kuv rioÍ touÅ oujranouÅ), “King of heaven” (oJ basileu; Í touÅ ouj ranouÅ) — are far more common and widely distributed in the longer recension; in the shorter version, they are either lacking or replaced by other epithets. (For references, see notes 42 and 44 above.) 47. For detailed statistics, see F. Baumgärtel, Elohim ausserhalb des Pentateuchs, BZAW, 19 (1914), pp. 68–74. For a discussion of all the passages, see M. H. Segal, “The Names yy and μyhla in the Books of the Bible” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 9 (1937/38), 137ff. There is no doubt that “Elohim” is used in a general sense when it appears in construct phrases or with the possessive pronoun (e.g., “God of Israel,” “my God,” and the like). Expressions such as “Yhwh is God” (2 Chr 33:13) also fall into this category, as do the few passages in which the name denotes the superlative, as in “an army of God” (1 Chr 12:22 [Heb., 23]; see Thesaurus, I, p. 159; D. Winton Thomas, “Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT, 3 [1953], 210) or in which it refers to gods of other nations (e.g., 2 Chr 7:19, 22, etc.). In a few cases, it is difficult to know whether “Elohim” is intended in a general sense or as a proper name; see Baumgärtel, op. cit., pp. 72–73 and 77, and, for a critique of his position, Segal, Tarbiz5, 9, 125–126.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 22 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

22

Yhwh, the God of Israel

indeterminate (μyhla) and determinate (μyhlah) — “God” and “the God.” What is most noteworthy is the use of the determinate form as nomen rectum in construct phrases, such as μyhlah tyb (the house of God), 48 ˆwra μyhlah (the ark of God), 49 and so on. 50 Only very occasionally does “God” in the indeterminate form appear as nomen rectum. 51 This phenomenon has nothing to do with a preference for “the God” over “God” — it is the result of the special formation of the construct in Hebrew, in which determining the nomen rectum determines the phrase as a whole (μyhlah tyb = the house of God), 52 and of the fact that indeterminate construct phrases tend to emphasize the adjectival function of the nomen rectum. 53 In order to understand the meaning and usage of these two forms, we must examine them as they appear in the absolute state and not in the construct. Even then, we must bear in mind aspects of the process of transmission: the general phenomena of manuscript variants or differences between MT and the ancient versions and the more particular case of masoretic interference with the transmission of the name “God,” at least in some passages where “God” originally took the definite article but lost its determination when the masoretes vocalized the preposition in the indeterminate. 54

48. 1 Chr 6:48 (Heb., 6:33); 9:11, 13, 26, 27; 22:2; 23:28; 25:6; 26:20; 28:12, 21; 29:7; 2 Chr 3:3; 4:11, 19; 5:1, 14; 7:5; 15:18; 22:12; 23:3, 9; 24:7, 13, 27; 25:24; 28:24; 31:13, 21; 33:7; 35:8; 36:18, 19 — in all, thirty-three examples. 49. 1 Chr 13:5, 6, 7, 12, 14; 15:1, 2, 15, 24; 16:1; 2 Chr 1:4. In 1 Chr 16:6, we find “the ark of the covenant of God.” 50. “The man of God,” “the servant of God” — 1 Chr 6:49 (Heb., 6:34); 23:14; 2 Chr 8:14; 11:2; 24:9; 25:7, 9; 30:16; “Instruments for the songs of God” — 1 Chr 16:42; “the word/matters of (rbd, yrbd) God” — 1 Chr 25:5; 26:32; “the tent of meeting of God” — 2 Chr 1:3; “the freewill offerings of/to God” — 2 Chr 31:14; “the messengers of God” — 2 Chr 36:16. 51. “Spirit of God” — 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20; “fear of God” — 2 Chr 20:29; “an army of God” — 1 Chr 12:22 (Heb., 12:23); “word of God” — 1 Chr 17:3; “house of God” — 2 Chr 34:9; “covenant of God” — 2 Chr 34:32. These tend to be stock phrases. See Segal, Tarbiz5, 9 (1937/38), 129ff. On the epithet “Yhwh Elohim,” see below. 52. Gesenius, 127a, pp. 410–411. 53. Gesenius, 128p, s–v, pp. 417–418. 54. “Elohim” with the prepositions “in,” “like,” and “to” (-b, -k, -l) appear throughout the Bible in the indeterminate, with the following two exceptions: Exod 22:20 (Heb., 19) — “Whoever sacrifices to any god (μyhlal:)” — and Ps 86:8 — “There is none like thee among the gods (μyhlaB:).” Traditional Jewish exegesis has seen these uses of determinate prepositions as consciously denoting something other than the God of Israel, whether it be foreign gods (Rashi on Exod 22:19) or angels (Nachmanides on the same verse). See U. Cassuto’s article on “Names of God” (Heb.), EB, I, 307. The preposition “from” (-m) appears twice In the determinate — μyhlah: m E — both times in Chronicles

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 23 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

23

“God” in the absolute state appears forty-two times in Chronicles (including thirteen examples with the prepositions “in” (-b) or “to” (-l). 55 “God” is used as a proper name in twenty-eight of these instances 56 and as a general term in fourteen. 57 “The God” in the absolute state is found thirty-six times — thirty-three times as a proper name 58 and three times as a general term. 59 “The gods” in a plural sense appears once, in 2 Chr 2:5 (Heb., 2:4). An examination of the names in context indicates that they are used interchangeably, even within a continuous text. Thus we find in 1 Chronicles 13, for example: “before the God” (v. 8); “before God” (v. 10); and “of the God” (v. 12). The entire passage is paralleled in 2 Samuel 6, but in each case, the form of “God” in 1 Chronicles 13 replaces (with no particular consistency), a different form or divine name in the source in 2 Samuel. 60 Similarly, the two forms are interchanged within unparalleled texts, such as 2 Chr 26:5: “He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of the God; and as long as he sought the Lord, the God made him prosper.” It is therefore clear that, apart from instances of the construct, the two forms — determinate and indeterminate — appear approximately the same number of times and are used interchangeably. What is noteworthy is the relatively extensive use of μyhlah — “the God” — as a proper name, which is characteristic of all late biblical literature. 61 (1 Chr 5:22; 2 Chr 25:20). This vocalizations seems to stem from polemical considerations on the part of the Masoretes. 55. μyhlaBE — 1 Chr 14:10, 14; 2 Chr 25:8; 36:13 — and once, μyrja μyhlaBE (“other gods”) — 2 Chr 7:22; μyhlalE — 1 Chr 5:20; 17:22; 2 Chr 1:8; 13:8; 20:15; 25:14 — and twice, μyrja μyhlalE — 2 Chr 28:25; 34:25. 56. 1 Chr 4:10; 5:20, 25; 13:10; 14:10, 14; 17:17; 21:20; 26:5; 29:1; 2 Chr 1:7, 8, 11; 6:18; 13:16; 15:6; 18:31; 20:15; 22:7; 25:8, 16; 26:5; 32:29; 33:7; 34:27; 35:21, 22; 36:13. 57. 1 Chr 16:25; 17:20, 22, 24; 2 Chr 6:14; 7:19, 22; 13:8, 9; 20:6; 25:14; 28:25; 34:25. In four of these cases, the word is used in the plural as part of the standard phrase, “other gods” (2 Chr 7:19, 22; 28:25; 34:25) — three times taken from parallel texts in Kings (1 Kings 9:6, 9; 2 Kings 22:17). 1 Chr 16:25 (= Ps 96:4) and, possibly, 2 Chr 25:14 are also uses of the plural. 58. 1 Chr 5:22; 13:8, 12; 14:11, 14, 15, 16; 15:26; 16:1; 17:2, 21; 21:7, 8, 15, 17; 25:5; 28:3; 2 Chr 9:23; 10:15; 13:12, 15; 18:5; 19:3; 24:16, 20; 25:8, 20; 26:5, 7; 29:36; 30:12, 19; 32:31. 59. 1 Chr 17:26; 2 Chr 2:4; 33:13. 60. 1 Sam 6:5 — “before the Lord”; 6:7 — “beside the ark of God”; 6:9 — “David was afraid of the Lord.” 61. This fact can be verified by a simple statistical check. In the Pentateuch, “God” in the indeterminate appears more than two hundred times (see Segal, Tarbiz5, 9 (1937/38] 145–150), whereas “the God” appears over fifty times; in other words, we find a marked

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 24 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

24

Yhwh, the God of Israel

How is all this significant? The use of “Elohim” as the proper name for the god of Israel neutralizes any plural connotation the word might have 62 and expresses the abstract idea of “godliness.” 63 The determinate form (“ha-Elohim”) as a proper name suggests the fuller sentence “The Lord [is] the God” (μyhlah awh hwhy). Not only does it express an abstract understanding of the divine essence, it also emphasizes God’s qualities of uniqueness and exclusiveness. The increased use of the determinate form testifies to a stronger awareness of God’s exclusiveness and may be seen as a theological-linguistic development typical of late biblical literature, including the book of Chronicles. However, this usage does not constitute a conscious exegetical principle restated in each and every example. Within the general ideological and literary framework, such usage may well be mechanical, not deliberate.

G. The Interchange of “Yhwh” and “Elohim” The most common divine name in Chronicles, as in the Bible as a whole, is “Yhwh,” or “Lord”; it appears in Chronicles more than four hundred and fifty times, more than all the other names for God put together. Nevertheless, we find quite a few passages in which “Elohim” replaces the original “Yhwh” of the source text. 64 Commentators on Chronpreference for the indeterminate “Elohim.” However, in Ezra–Nehemiah, the determinate form is found thirty-five times, eight of them not in the construct (as a general term — Ezra 1:3; Neh 8:6; 9:7; as a proper name — Ezra 1:3; Neh 4:9; 5:13; 7:2; 12:43); the indeterminate appears on its own only three times (Neh 5:15; 6:12; 13:26 — all as proper names) and twice with a preposition (Neh 12:46; 13:25). In Ecclesiastes, the determinate form appears thirty-two times, twenty-six of them not in the construct, whereas the indeterminate is found on its own seven times and with the preposition “to” in one case. In Daniel, we find only the determinate — five times. It is interesting that there are very few instances of the determinate form in Psalms. Although the indeterminate (on its own or with prepositions) appears over two hundred times, the determinate is found on its own only three times, always in the construct — Ps 87:3; 90:1; 136:2 — and once with the preposition “in” — 86:8 (see above, n. 54). 62. Which constitutes the primary meaning of “Elohim”; see Thesaurus, I, pp. 158– 159; BDB, p. 43. 63. See Gesenius, 124g, pp. 398–399. BDB defines it as a “pl. intensive” (p. 43), whereas Eichrodt calls it an “abstract plural” and “thus suited to the task of summing up the whole of divine power in a personal unity” — see Theology, I, p. 185. According to Loewenstamm’s Thesaurus, however, it is a plural “of majesty” (I, p. 159). Cf. also S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, WC (1904), p. 402. 64. Hänel-Rothstein cite the following passages: 1 Chr 13:8, 12 (twice), 14; 14:10, 11, 14, 15, 16; 16:1; 21:8, 17a (Chronik, pp. xii–xiv). Von Rad adds: 1 Chr 17:2, 3, 17; 2 Chr 1:7; 10:15; 18:5; 33:7; 34:27, as well as passages in which “house of God” replaces “house of the Lord” — 2 Chr 3:3; 4:11, 19; 5:lb, 14; 7:5; 15:18; 22:12; 23:3, 9; 25:24;

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 25 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

25

icles have made much of this, explaining the phenomenon in one of two ways. The first approach interpreted these substitutions as part of a more general process: the tendency of later scribes to refrain from using the tetragrammaton. 65 This development has been described as “a lengthy process that led to the restriction of the writing of the Ineffable Name and to its substitution by other sigla or various names and epithets, as well as to stringent limitations on its enunciation” 66 and has been explained in a variety of ways. According to some, it reflects a shift in the concept of God: “God is no longer to be viewed as the bearer of a personal name or as Israel’s God; He is recognized as God of the entire world. “ 67 Others have pointed to some polemical intent, for example, Urbach, who stresses the attention paid to avoiding inappropriate uses of the tetragrammaton, particularly “the use of the Name for magical purposes.” 68 Since, according to the first approach, the replacement of the tetragrammaton was considered a general phenomenon typical of the entire period, this replacement did not give rise to any exegetical conclusions regarding specific passages in Chronicles. However, scholars who followed 34:9 (Geschichtsbild, pp. 4–5). This comes to a total of thirty-two. See also Segal, Tarbiz5, 9 (1937/38), 140. 65. For example, see Driver, Introduction, p. 372, in reference to the Elohistic Psalms: “The reason of this change probably is that at the time when this compiler lived there was a current preference for [“Elohim”] (comp. the exclusive use of the same name in Ecclesiastes, and the preference shown for it by the Chronicler).” Kittel writes: “[one should] see the Chronicler’s usage in direct analogy to the custom of the redactors of Psalms, and both of these stem from the writers’ avoidance of the tetragrammaton” (Chronik, p. 63). 66. Urbach, The Sages, pp. 126–127. One must bear in mind that the phenomenon in rabbinic literature is not identical to the case of the Bible. Although both avoid using the tetragrammaton (for whether this is true of Chronicles, see below, pp. 28–29), the Rabbis do not replace it with “Elohim.” The reluctance of later scribes to write “Elohim” for the God of Israel may be explained in one of two ways: (a) It was thought that “Elohim,” like “Yhwh,” was a proper name rather than an epithet and therefore should not be used. (b) Aramaic distinguishes between the singular (hla) and the plural (ayhla). In biblical Aramaic, the plural form denotes “gods” and the singular is used for Israel’s “God”; see, e.g., Dan 2:11, 47; 5:4, 23; as opposed to Dan 2:20; 3:26, 32; and many others. It is possible that, as the influence of Aramaic grew, a sensitivity to the plural implications of “Elohim” also developed, and its use was avoided. 67. Kittel, Chronik, pp. 63–64. Cf. also Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (Heb., Jerusalem. 1958), I, p. 125. 68. Urbach, The Sages, p. 134. See pp. 129ff.: “If the exact date when caution began to be exercised in respect of the pronunciation of the Name in the Temple and it commenced to be muffled is unknown to us, the reason at least for the change is stated: “when unruly men increased’, and these unruly men are none other than people who used the name irresponsibly” (p. 129).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 26 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

26

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the second approach explained the substitutions within the context of the book itself and examined each verse independently, with the aim of uncovering its particular orientation. 69 Hänel-Rothstein’s commentary represents the prime example of this method, and their work was taken up and extended by von Rad. The advocates of the second approach deny that a general reluctance to use the tetragrammaton can be discerned in Chronicles and explain each individual substitution as having a particular, clearly defined purpose. 70 According to Hänel and Rothstein, 71 the name “Yhwh” most fully expresses the divine essence, God in all His glory. In the Chronicler’s time, God was perceived as distant from the human realm, impossible to reach or even approach; if He wished to reveal Himself or approach man, He did so as “Elohim,” without expressing the complete essence of “Yhwh.” The replacement of “Yhwh” by “Elohim” is therefore an important expression of the increasing sense of God’s transcendence, which these scholars consider the cardinal trend in Chronicles’ concept of God. 72 Von Rad follows in the footsteps of Hänel-Rothstein and writes: “The use of God’s name, the frequent substitution of “Elohim” for “Yahweh,” betokens . . . a clear transcendentalization of Yahweh. Yahweh is cut off from the world of religious phenomena and, to an increasing extent, becomes removed from the human experience.” 73 Whether or not divine transcendence and the complete distancing of God from the human realm do in fact constitute the essential trend in Chronicles will be discussed in detail below. 74 However, first we must ask if the names “Yhwh” and “Elohim” in Chronicles did in fact have the 69. This method is basically the same as that established by the Rabbis; cf., for example, Exodus Rabbah 3:6: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses, ‘You want to know my name. I am named according to my deeds . . . When I judge humanity, I am called μyhla. When I do battle against the wicked, I am called twabx. When I suspend judgment on a man’s sins, I am called ydç — and when I have compassion on My world, I am called hwhy, for Yhwh is none other than the attribute of compassion” (translation A.B.). 70. See Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xiv. 71. See, e.g., Chronik, p. 271 on 1 Chronicles 14, p. 394 on 1 Chronicles 21; cf. von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 4–5. 72. See Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. xiii-xiv: “We find the distinctive theme of Chronistic theology in the transcendental nature of its God concept . . . The striking phenomenon in which the name μyhla is noticeably preferable to hwhy also leads us in the same direction. What is present in the symbol of the ark is not hwhy in all His ultramundane dominion, but simply μyhla in His neutral capacity. . . . Finally, it is worthy of note that μyhla appears in . . . 1 Chr 21:8, 17a . . . hwhy is too distant for the gulf between Him and the sinner to be bridged; only as μyhla can He be attainable.” 73. von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 5. 74. See below, pp. 98ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 27 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

27

meaning that has been ascribed to them by scholars. When we check the overall use of divine names, we find that Chronicles shows no evidence of the supposed semantic difference between the two. Hänel-Rothstein and von Rad only discuss the phenomenon of substitutions and not the larger question of what the divine epithets mean. Even when we look at those passages in which a substitution does occur, we see that the abovementioned interpretations sometimes miss the meaning of the text. 75 A few examples may be offered: On 2 Chr 10:15, von Rad writes: “Once again, the reason that . . . the hbsn now comes from Elohim is apparently that Yahweh Himself should not be shown as the direct cause for the events in Shechem.” 76 A look at the verse in question reveals that von Rad’s citation is incomplete: “So the king did not hearken to the people; for it was a turn of affairs brought about by God that the Lord might fulfil his word, which he spoke . . .” Is there any difference between the divinity who made a promise to Ahijah and wished to see that promise fulfilled, and the one who brought about the “turn of affairs”? Unless we consider the two identical in every respect, we are forced to some very odd conclusions. On 2 Chr 18:31 — “Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him. God drew them away from him” — von Rad comments: “The Chronicler relates how it is Yahweh who hears and is ready to help. However, the concrete, immanent undertaking — drawing the enemies away — comes from Elohim.” 77 As a result of von Rad’s interpretation, the concept becomes virtually dualistic. Not only is such a concept incompatible with the Chronicler’s views, von Rad’s division of labour between two divine entities goes against what is generally found in the book, such as: “And the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of the countries when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel” — here it is the Lord who intervenes directly in the course of events, the war against Israel’s enemies. 78 An extreme example of the complete correspondence and interchangeability of the names is found in 2 Chr 26:5: “He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God; and as long as he sought the Lord, God made him prosper.”

75. Rudolph discusses the question of divine names in a systematic fashion; see Chronik, pp. 115, 128, 137, 149, 152, 185, 194, 197, 209, 219, 225, 235, 239, 249, 265, 269, 280, 283, 287, 293, 315, 318, 333, 338. He also concludes that the text does not support the views of Hänel-Rothstein and von Rad. For example, see p. 149. 76. Geschichtsbild, p. 4; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 235. 77. von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 4–5. 78. As in 2 Chr 13:12, 18, 20; 20:17, 22, 27, etc., and see below, pp. 99ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 28 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

28

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Here, “seeking God” is the same as “seeking the Lord,” and it is God who responds to this seeking. The problems involved in the transmission of the text also make it difficult to accept this line of interpretation. An approach that relies on MT as original and unchanged and overlooks the significance of other textual evidence, particularly on this question of divine names, cannot be considered critical. A few of the textual variants completely contradict the interpretations described above. For example: In 1 Chr 17:2, MT reads “Elohim”; the parallel in 2 Sam 7:3 reads “Yhwh.” According to von Rad: “Revelations, particularly visions in dreams, can no longer be innocently identified with Yahweh.” 79 Similarly, MT for 1 Chr 16:1 has “Elohim,” whereas the parallel passage in 2 Sam 6:17 has “Yhwh,” and von Rad writes: “In 1 Chr 16:1 . . . the sacrifices are no longer offered to Yahweh, but rather to Elohim.” 80 Nevertheless, the Septuagint for both verses in 1 Chronicles (17:2; 16:1) reads “the Lord”; in other words, the passages are identical to Samuel in this respect — there is no substitution at all. 81 To be sure, we have no way of ascertaining which version of Chronicles is the more original. It is possible that the Greek translator of Chronicles was influenced by the wording in Samuel, or that he was not all that precise in his translation. However, it seems likelier that the translator was working with a Hebrew Vorlage of Chronicles which read “Yhwh” 82 and that the substitution did not come from the Chronicler himself, but appeared at a later date. In any case, the different reading in LXX casts considerable doubt on von Rad’s interpretation. Furthermore, there are numerous instances — at times in rather instructive contexts — where LXX for Chronicles reads kuv rioÍ for MT “Elo79. Geschichtsbild, p. 4. 80. Ibid., p. 4. 81. See also 2 Chr 34:27 (which von Rad discusses on p. 4); MT for 2 Chr 34:27 reads “before God . . . his words” whereas LXX has “before me . . . my words.” Here, too, LXX is more in keeping with the verse as a whole — “because . . . you have humbled yourself before me . . . and wept before me, I also have heard you.” MT for the parallel in 2 Kings 22:19 reads “before the Lord.” Cf. also the difference between the two versions of 2 Chr 20:29. 82. It is well known that the Septuagint generally translates “Elohim” as qeovÍ and “Yhwh” as kuv rioÍ. Although this translation is not entirety systematic, when one considers the widespread use of the two terms, it is nonetheless consistent to a high degree. In the case of a disagreement between the two sources — in other words, where “Elohim” is translated as kuv rioÍ or “Yhwh” as qeovÍ — two possibilities exist: either the Greek translators had a different Hebrew Vorlage, or the change was made in the translation, whether by the translators themselves or by those who edited and transmitted the Septuagint. The first possibility seems the more likely of the two. See Allen, The Greek Chronicles, II, pp. 146–148.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 29 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

29

him.” 83 It appears likely that, here, LXX reflects a more original Hebrew text: for all its limitations, the testimony of the Septuagint cannot be ignored, and the large number of differences suggests that in many cases where MT reads “Elohim,” the Greek translators were working with a text that still contained the tetragrammaton. 84 In these cases, at least, the substitutions of names were not the Chronicler’s work and surely were not determined by his concept of God. What is to be concluded from all these considerations? The book of Chronicles contains some thirty passages in which “Elohim” is substituted for the tetragrammaton of the source text. Both theories explaining this substitution create certain difficulties. There is no doubt that the deliberate avoidance of the tetragrammaton is a proven phenomenon in some parts of the Bible, notably Ecclesiastes and the Elohistic Psalms (42–83); 85 however, this trend has not been attested for Chronicles. The name “Yhwh” appears in Chronicles, in a variety of contexts, approximately five hundred times, more than all the other names put together. It is difficult to reconcile this fact with a supposed general tendency to avoid the tetragrammaton. 86 Yet attempts to explain each and every substitution as the result of some theological purpose, caused by a change in the concept of God, are also unconvincing: if we check the actual passages, we see that they do not always have the meaning their interpreters have ascribed to them and that the proposed significance of divine names is not attested within Chronicles. Furthermore, the Septuagint text, which often reads “Lord” for MT’s “Elohim,” must reflect — in some instances, at least — the original Hebrew version. We may therefore suggest that the transition in 83. See Allen, op. cit., II, p. 147. 84. Allen, op. cit., II, p. 147: “It is very probable that most of these cases are to be traced back to a divergent Vorlage.” 85. There is, of course, the separate question of the view, found in certain strata of biblical thought, that the name “Yhwh” was not known before the time of Moses. In those strata, we find “Elohim,” and the tetragrammaton is avoided until its revelation to Moses. 86. We find only one clear case in all of Chronicles in which the tetragrammaton has been avoided — 2 Chr 34:32: “And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers.” The phrase “God, the God of their fathers” is reminiscent of the secondary phrases found in the Elohistic Psalms, e.g., Ps 43:4; 45:8; 51:16; 67:7; 68:9, etc. Interestingly enough, LXX to this verse contains a different version: “And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made a covenant in the house of the Lord, the God of their fathers.” Thus LXX has preserved the original phrase, “Yhwh, the God of their fathers,” and not the later reworking, “God, the God of their fathers.” In 1 Chr 28:20 and 2 Chr 30:19, the conflated forms are only apparent in 1 Chr 28:20, we find the name “Yhwh Elohim”: “The Lord God, even my God”; in 2 Chr 30:19: “to seek God — the Lord the God of his fathers.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 30 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

30

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Chronicles from “Yhwh” to “Elohim” was, first and foremost, the result of the process of manuscript transmission and not the work of the actual author of the book. 87 The translators of the Septuagint used a Hebrew text in which “Elohim” appeared less frequently than in the Masoretic Text, and it seems likely that the change-over to “Elohim” in the manuscripts of Samuel–Kings and of Chronicles occurred over an extended period of time.

H. Yhwh Elohim The phrase “Lord God” (μyhla hwhy) or “the Lord God” (hwhy μyhlah) denoting a proper name — in other words, virtually one name in which “God” does not serve as a general term 88 — is obscure. The phrase’s distribution in Scripture is distinctive: it appears twenty times in the story of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4–3:24), thus constituting a separate unit; in Chronicles, twelve times; 89 and throughout the rest of the Bible, nine times, mainly in Psalms. 90 The origins and significance of the name are not at all clear, and while some scholars see it as merely the result of some redactional process, 91 others are convinced that the phrase conveys a particular meaning. 92 87. The following passage may serve as an example of this complex process of transmission: in 2 Sam 6:12, the ark is called “the ark of God”; the parallel text in 1 Chr 15:25 has “the ark of the covenant of the Lord.” LXX to Samuel reads “the ark of the Lord” and to Chronicles, “the ark of the covenant.” Thus, four different names for the ark have resulted from the interchange of divine epithets, and this interchange cannot be adequately explained by either method mentioned above. It can only be explained as the consequence of a lengthy history of transmission in the case of both MT and LXX, each on its own or in relation to the other. 88. As in 2 Kings 19:19: “thou, O Lord, art God alone” or Jer 10:10: “but the Lord is the true God; he is the living God and the ever-lasting King.” This distinction also holds true for “the Lord God”; in passages such as 1 Sam 6:20; Neh 8:6; 9:7, μyhlaj is used as a general term. See Segal, Tarbiz5, 9 (1937/38), 129, note 1. 89. 1 Chr 17:16, 17; 22:1, 19; 28:20; 29:1; 2 Chr 1:9; 6:41, 42; 26:18; 32:16. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 6, where he mentions ten examples. 90. Exod 9:30; 2 Sam 7:25; Jon 4:6; Ps 59:6; 72:18; 80:5, 20; 84:9, 12. There are textual variants for two passages. For Exod 9:30 (“you do not yet fear the Lord God [hwhy μyhla]”), Codex Vaticanus reads μyhla, and the Sam. Pentateuch reads hwhy ynda. For 2 Sam 7:22, the Rabbinic Bible has μyhla hwhy and Codex Leningrad has hwhy ynda. Here, the Hebrew variants are equivalent to the difference between MT and the Sam. Pentateuch for Exod 9:30. It should also be noted that in Psalms the phrase appears in two forms — μyhla uh (72:18; 84:12) and twabx μyhla uh (59:6; 80:5, 20; 84:9) — and is mainly to be found in the Elohistic Psalter. 91. Skinner, following in the path of Budde and Gunkel, saw Genesis 2–3 as the amalgamation of two sources, one using “Yhwh” and the other, “Elohim”; see Skinner, Genesis, 2nd ed. (ICC, 1930), pp. 52–53. However, according to Driver, “it is generally

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 31 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Names of God

31

Rare as the use of this name may be, it is nonetheless linked to an interesting phenomenon. The pronunciation tradition for divine names, as handed down by the Masoretes, equated two different forms and produced a third, not found in the Bible 93 but somewhat similar to each of the original forms. Thus, the Masoretes pronounced both “Yhwh Elohim” and “Adonay Yhwh” in the same way — as “Adonay Elohim,” which differs from both forms. If we assume that the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton as “Adonay” was relatively early, 94 the new form “Adonay Elohim” would reflect “Yhwh Elohim” rather than “Adonay Yhwh.” We may therefore conclude that the phrase “Yhwh Elohim,” in its pronunciation “Adonay Elohim,” overtook the form “Adonay Yhwh,” which disappeared from usage, both in form and meaning. 95 In the Bible itself, we do not find the written form, “Adonay Elohim” as such, 96 but it does appear once in the Isaiah supposed that . . . the original author wrote simply Jehovah and that God was added by the compiler, with the object of identifying expressly the Author of life of II.4b–25, with the Creator of ch. i” (Driver, Genesis, WC [1904], p. 15). Tur-Sinai links the phrase’s origins to the particular technique used in the writing of this pericope in Hebrew and cuneiform; see N. H. Tur-Sinai, Peshuto shel Miqra (Heb., Jerusalem, 1962), I, pp. 8–10. Speiser is of the same opinion; E A. Speiser, Genesis, AB (1964), pp. 15–16. 92. See U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. I. Abrahams ( Jerusalem, 1961), I, pp. 86–88. 93. It may appear once, in the determinate, in Dan 9:3: “Then I turned my face to the Lord God (μyhlah ynda).” 94. See above, p. 19. 95. No doubt this was a gradual, complex process. LXX continues to distinguish between the two forms. In general (where the translation is identical to MT) “Yhwh Elohim” is translated as kuvrioÍ oJ qeo;Í; however, for “Adonay Yhwh,” we find a variety of translations which do not always retain both words, e.g., devspota kuv rie (Gen 15:8); kuv rie mou (2 Sam 7:22); kuv rie kuv rie (Deut 3:24; 9:26; Judg 6:22); and the translation that appears in Codex Alexandrianus to Ezekiel, kuv rioÍ ajd∫nai (Ezek 5:7, etc.). Thus we see that the translators did not consider the two forms identical. Translating “Adonay” as devspota proves that the meaning of the word was still known, just as a translation such as kuv riev mou kuv rie shows that the translators were aware of the possessive pronoun in the word ynda and that the expression was far from petrified. Whether hwhy ynda was pronounced “Adonay Adonay” or whether the tetragrammaton was pronounced differently, it is clear that the form “Adonay Elohim” had not yet taken over. 96. However, cf. immediately above, n. 95. We do find yhla ynda (“Adonay Elohay” — Ps 38:16; 86:12) and wnyhla ynda (“Adonay Eloheynu” — Ps 90:17; Dan 9:9, 15). It may be that these forms reflect the later pronunciation of the tetragrammaton and replace hwhy yhla and wnyhla hwhy. If this is so, we are faced with two contradictory trends, apparently from two different periods, concerning the use of “Adonay.” On the one hand, its use is discontinued and the written form ynda is avoided; on the other hand, the opposite is true: “Adonay” comes to be used as a replacement for the tetragrammaton.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 32 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

32

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Scroll (Isa 50:5) as the replacement for MT’s “Adonay Yhwh” — clear evidence of the way in which the latter was pronounced. The pronunciation of “Adonay Yhwh” as “Adonay Elohim” may also have influenced the transmission of the text, and in certain passages, at least, its presence could be explained as the product of later phases of transmission. Examples include Exodus 9:30 (“Yhwh Elohim”), for which the Samaritan version preserves “Adonay Yhwh,” as does the Septuagint to 2 Sam 7:22, 25; 1 Chr 17:16, 17, where “Yhwh Elohim” replaces “Adonay Yhwh” of the source in 2 Sam 7:18, 19; and possibly certain passages in Psalms. 97 However, this interpretation does not cover all instances of “Yhwh Elohim,” nor does it provide an explanation of the epithet’s origins. In the context of Chronicles, the epithet follows its own particular usage. We may take the psalm in 2 Chr 6:41–42, parallel to Ps 132:8–10, as our starting point. The most striking difference between the two versions is the thrice-used addition of μyhla hwhy (“Lord God”) in every verse of the text in Chronicles: And now arise, O Lord God, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might. Let thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in thy goodness. O Lord God, do not turn away the face of thy anointed one!

According to general opinion. Psalm 132 presents this song in its original form, and the addition of “Yhwh Elohim” is considered unwieldy and detrimental to the rhythm. 98 Yet it is clear that the addition is deliberate, which testifies to the distinctive use of “Yhwh Elohim” among the various divine epithets as a means of invoking the deity. The phrase was used in its own right and not as a replacement for some other form. Other biblical passages in which this epithet occurs, whether in the determinate or indeterminate, 99 should be explained in the same way. In these passages, the use of “Yhwh Elohim” is sporadic and does not seem to point to any particular intent or requisite context, but then, we are not provided with many examples. The usage in Chronicles may indicate that the epithet was no innovation; rather, it continued a tradition that was not preserved in other parts of the Bible. Thus, it is possible that, during a certain period 97. We also find textual variants in the versions for Ps 59:6 and 72:18. The fact that these passages are all from the Elohistic Psalter, where the divine names have no doubt been reworked, raises certain questions regarding the names’ authenticity and the redactional method involved. 98. For example, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 213. In the indeterminate: 1 Chr 28:10; 29:1; 2 Chr 1:9; 26:18; in the determinate 1 Chr 22:1, 19; 2 Chr 32:16. 99. In the indeterminate: 1 Chr 28:10; 29:1; 2 Chr 1:9; 26:18 in the determinate 1 Chr 22:1, 19; 2 Chr 32:16.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 33 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Monotheistic Idea

33

of time, the name “Yhwh Elohim” had its own distinctive meaning. Only later — because of its components — did it come to be used instead of the more widespread “Adonay Yhwh,” which formerly was pronounced in a different way. Once the two were pronounced identically, the form “Yhwh Elohim” sometimes replaced “Adonay Yhwh” in biblical manuscripts, but the fact that this only happened on a few occasions provides evidence of the reliability and accuracy of Masoretic transmission.

II. The Monotheistic Idea By the time Chronicles was written, the monotheistic idea was a given of Israelite religion 100 and was expressed in biblical literature by means of established formulae. 101 The question before us is: do we find an expression of the monotheistic idea in Chronicles, and if we do, what form does it take? Of the various tendentious declaratory formulae expressing the exclusiveness of God, only one appears in Chronicles. It is not coined by the Chronicler himself, but rather is included in a text from Samuel: “There is none like thee, O Lord, and there is no God besides thee” (1 Chr 17:20; 2 Sam 7:22). 102 Apart from this verse, we find three other passages which address the relationship of Israel’s God to the gods of the nations. Two are found in parallel texts, and one has no parallel. 1. 1 Chr 16:25–26: “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and he is to be held in awe above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols; but the Lord made the heavens.” ( = Ps 96:4–5) 2. 2 Chr 6:14: “. . . there is no God like thee, in heaven or on earth” (1 Kings 8:23) 3. 2 Chr 2:4: “. . . for our God is greater than all gods” 103 100. See Eichrodt, Theology, I, pp. 220–227, esp. p. 226. According to Urbach, the twice-daily recital of the verse “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one,” which affirms the primacy of the monotheistic principle, was instituted during the Persian period in reaction to Persian dualism. The entire prayer attained its final form by the 3rd century b.c.e. and thus influenced LXX’s translation of Deut 6:4 (Urbach, The Sages, pp. 19–21). Urbach accepts the opinion of Segal (“The Nash Papyrus” (Heb.], Lesonenu, 15 [1947], 33) and rejects that of Yehoshua Gutman (The Beginnings of JewishHellenistic Literature [Heb., Jerusalem, 1958], p. 126, n. 16). 101. Such as “the Lord is God; there is no other besides him” (Deut 4:35; cf. also Deut 4:39; 1 Kings 8:60; and many examples in Second Isaiah, including 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22). See Kaufmann, Religion, I, p. 610. 102. There are a few textual differences between the two verses, but they are not relevant to our context. See Smith, Samuel, p. 304, and Curtis, Chronicles, p. 232. 103. The expression “for our God is greater than all gods” seems to have become a standard biblical formula. We find it in Jethro’s words, “now I know that the Lord is

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 34 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

34

Yhwh, the God of Israel

These verses express the supremacy and uniqueness of Israel’s God amongst all the gods, yet they do not deny the reality of those other gods altogether. 104 Thus, a true expression of monotheism — in the sense that “there is no God beside thee” — appears only in 1 Chr 17:20; the other passages merely proclaim that “there is none like thee.” The difference between these two expressions is attested elsewhere in the Bible. For example, in Second Isaiah, we find unequivocal declarations of God’s uniqueness and complete exclusiveness, such as: “For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa 45:22). However, there are also statements which proclaim that the Lord is superior to other gods, not that He alone is God — for example, Exod 15:11: “Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?” 105 However, in a few passages the distinction between the two types of expression is nullified, as we see in the following examples: 1. 1 Sam 2:2: “There is none holy like the Lord, [for] there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God.” 2. 2 Sam 7:22: “. . . for there is none like thee, and there is no God besides thee.” In 1 Sam 2:2, the words, “none holy like the Lord” and “no rock like our God,” merely compare Yhwh to other gods, who also are holy, though to a lesser degree. 106 However, the middle phrase — “there is none besides Thee” — conveys the monotheistic idea that no other gods exist. When the two elements are combined, the effect is less than convincing: no other god is as holy as the Lord — because there is no other god! 107

greater than all gods” (Exod 18:11), and slightly altered, in Ps 77:14; 95:3; 135:5. The version in Ps 135:5, at least, seems to indicate that the phrase originated in Exod 18:11; the words “for I know” appear out of place in the psalm and may be directly influenced by Jethro’s declaration. 104. The Rabbis were also aware that expressions such as these did not rule out the existence of other gods; see Urbach, The Sages, p. 21. LXX shows the same awareness in several places; for example, it translates MT “there is no one like the Lord our God” (Exod 8:10 [Heb., 8:6]) — which is merely a comparison — as ouj k eßstin aß lloÍ plh;n kurÇon — “there is no other except the Lord.” 105. Cf. also Exod 9:14; Deut 33:26; Jer 10:6, 7; Mic 7:18; Ps 35:10; 40:6; 71:19; 86:8; 89:7–9, etc. 106. A very similar verse in Ps 18:32 (2 Sam 22:32) does express the idea of God’s uniqueness and exclusiveness: “for who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?” 107. In fact, Driver argues that considerations of content and syntax (the transition from 3rd to 2nd person) and the effect of the verse’s parallelism suggest that the phrase “for there is none besides Thee” is either a gloss or — in the LXX form, “there is none holy besides Thee” — a variant of v. 2a (Driver, Samuel, p. 24). Even if we assume that

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 35 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Monotheistic Idea

35

The verse in 2 Sam 7:22 (and its parallel in 1 Chr 17:20) also juxtaposes the two types of description, with the result that the second affirmation — “there is no God beside thee” — robs the first — “there is none like thee” — of its significance. 108 It seems that there was no awareness of any tension between the two parts of the verse; the combined effect neutralized the comparative-relative implications of “there is none like thee” and transformed the phrase into an absolute expression similar to “there is none besides thee.” 109 A similar juxtaposition appears in the psalm quoted in 1 Chronicles 16. The first verse (v. 25) proclaims the Lord’s supremacy, suggesting, nonetheless, that other gods do exist: “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and he is to be held in awe above all gods.” Yet in the same breath, the psalmist declares that “all the gods of the peoples are idols (μylyla)” (v. 26) — in other words, they are illusions with no real existence. 110 What, then, is so remarkable about Yhwh being “held in awe above all gods”? As the Rabbis rightly noted, 111 there is a fundamental distinction between descriptions of Yhwh’s greatness and superiority to other gods and unequivocal expressions of His uniqueness and exclusiveness. Nevertheless, literary descriptions of the first variety were retained in Israel even after the monotheistic idea was formulated in a clear-cut and uncompromising manner. It seems unlikely that a Second Commonwealth reader would have perceived any significant difference between “there is none besides thee” and “there is none holy like thee”; as far as he was concerned, both expressed God’s exclusiveness — the first, in terms of His existence, the second, in terms of His holiness. Thus, the Chronicler has not provided us with his own unequivocal affirmation of the monotheistic idea. To a certain extent, this fact may be the original version was merely comparative and that “for there is none besides Thee” was added later, we must acknowledge that the glossator, at least, saw no difference between the comparative premise of “there is none holy like the Lord” and God’s utter uniqueness. 108. Our verse bears a certain resemblance to Isa 46:9: “For I am God, and there is no other God, and there is none like me (ynwmk spaw)”; the words “none like me” weaken the absolute statement — “there is no other God.” However, it may be that the idea is the same as that expressed more clearly in Isa 45:14: “God is with you only, and there is no other, no god besides him (μyhla spa).” 109. See also C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1966). 110. For the meaning of lyla, see Baumgartner, Lexikon, I, p. 54; Thesaurus, I, pp. 176d–177a. 111. See above, p. 34, n. 104.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 36 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

36

Yhwh, the God of Israel

explained by the nature of the book: it contains historiography, not religious dogma. 112 However, this is only a partial explanation. Chronicles includes a large number of speeches and prayers in which a range of religious ideas, even creeds, are formulated very clearly. 113 Yet nowhere is the idea of monotheism proclaimed. 114 A striking example of this absence is the prayer in 1 Chr 29:10ff., which ardently proclaims God’s tremendous might, His endlessness and dominion over the cosmos, and so on, but does not mention his exclusiveness. 115 The historical development of the monotheistic idea in Israel may provide a further explanation of this phenomenon. It seems quite likely that the Chronicler already took monotheism for granted and was more interested in emphasizing other divine attributes, such as God’s might, justice, and involvement in the history of His people. Another aspect of the monotheistic question is the attitude towards the gods of the nations. Did they really exist? What was the Chronicler’s position on this subject? A polytheistic religious outlook sees the world divided into the various deities’ spheres of action on all planes, natural-cosmic as well as humannational. 116 On the human level, each nation constitutes a sphere of activity for the particular god whose duty it is to help his people — lead it into battle, protect it from the enemy, and so on. Humanity provides the playing-field and teams for a host of different gods. Traces of this view also appear in the Bible, perhaps most strikingly in Judges 11:24: “Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all

112. Indeed, all four verses mentioned above (1 Chr 16:25; 17:20; 2 Chr 2:4; 6:14) are found in other invocations or prayers. 113. And on a variety of subjects, such as “the Lord is with you, while you are with him” (2 Chr 15:2); “Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations?” (2 Chr 20:6); “there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking bribes” (2 Chr 19:7). 114. Proclamations of monotheism do appear in several verses from the Chronicler’s sources: the statement in 1 Kings 8:60 “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other” is part of Solomon’s blessing, which does not appear at all in the Chronistic parallel (2 Chr 7:1). See below, p. 57. Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kgs 19:15–19), virtually a monotheistic credo, with verses such as “thou alone art God, thou alone of all the kingdoms of the earth” (v. 15) and “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O Lord, art God alone” (v. 19), is not found in Chronicles. 115. Nor does the Targumist repair this oversight, although in certain passages — including our prayer — he adds what he thinks the Hebrew version is lacking. See below, p. 43, n. 140. 116. See Kaufmann, Religion, I, p. 613.

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 37 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Monotheistic Idea

37

that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.” 117 According to this sort of outlook — which might be classified in the framework of biblical thought as “popular” 118 — the deities of other nations have real power and the destiny of these peoples depends on their gods. However, the predominant biblical view considers the gentile deities mere illusion. Deuteronomy consciously deals with the question of other gods and bases the relationship between Yhwh and these “gods” on the firm conviction that the only god which exists is the Lord, God of Israel. Deuteronomy asserts that the gods worshipped by the various peoples were given to them by Yhwh: “. . . when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven . . . things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven” (Deut 4:19; cf. also 29:25). The Lord has assigned each nation its god but He alone is master of the world: “the Lord is God; there is no other besides him” (Deut 4:35). Whatever occurs in the world of the nations is caused by God, 119 117. Kaufmann explains the matter differently, arguing that the entire Bible, without exception, portrays the Lord as sole ruler of the world. In his opinion, “Jephthah is presenting his claim to the king of Ammon . . . Is it any wonder, then, if the narrator provides him with a fictitious acknowledgement of that king’s god? The Bible as a whole proves that this acknowledgement is nothing but a fiction. Here, Jephthah merely addresses the king on his own terms” (Religion, I, p. 621). It is evident that this idea of “the Bible as a whole” provides Kaufmann with a means of ignoring the literal meaning of a passage; in our case, his argument of a “fictitious acknowledgement” is unconvincing. It is true that we find many other verses that credit Yhwh with allotting lands to the peoples who inhabit them; cf. Deut 2:5, 9, 19: “because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession”; “because I have given Ar to the sons of Lot for a possession”; “for I will not give you any of the land of the sons of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.” Nevertheless, none of these can alter the significance of Jephthah’s words. 118. Kaufmann does acknowledge the presence of popular religion in the Bible and attempts to define it (Religion, I, pp. 589–623), but he neutralizes the concept by broadening it, to the extent that he even includes all of Pentateuchal literature. When he writes, “we must distinguish between two great periods in the history of monotheism: that of the popular religion crystallized in the Pentateuch and that of the prophetic religion which obtained its form in the books of the Prophets” (loc. cit., p. 623), he classifies both the intellectual religious outlook of Deuteronomy and the Priestly literature as “popular religion.” Scholars have made a variety of attempts to define “popular religion”; for example, cf. J. L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, BZAW, 124 (1971), pp. 6, 24– 38, and bibliography. 119. This explanation answers the most pressing difficulty of the relationship between the God of Israel and the other gods; however, it raises a different question: “Why?” — why did God allot deities with no real existence to the nations of the earth? Taken to its logical conclusion, this question must be damaging to Yhwh’s image,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 38 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

38

Yhwh, the God of Israel

and it was He who gave them their gods, mere objects of worship. 120 Chronicles contains only two explicit statements in keeping with the predominant biblical view concerning the nature of the gods of the nations. One presents the writer’s reaction to the Assyrian taunts: “And they spoke of the God of Jerusalem 121 as they spoke of the gods of the peoples of the earth, which are the work of men’s hands” (2 Chr 32:19). Here, the Chronicler’s dismissal is all-embracing; as general phenomena, “the gods of the peoples of the earth” are idols produced by human beings. 122 The second example is found in a psalm: “For all the gods of the peoples are idols” (1 Chr 16:26). However, it is not only his direct statements, but, above all, his descriptions and underlying assumptions that reveal the Chronicler’s opinion. The book is governed by the presupposition that the Lord is sole ruler of the world and the arbiter of mankind’s destiny. 123 Given this assumption, two phenomena are of particular interest: one is a question of terminology, and the other has to do with the occasional echoes of popular attitudes towards gentile deities. The gods of the nations are always called “gods” (μyhla) in Chronicles:

whereas if one sees paganism as the free choice of those nations — in other words, as their own fault — the problem does not arise. In any case, Deuteronomy does not take the question to its logical conclusion. 120. Kaufmann makes a distinction between “spheres of worship” and “spheres of activity” (Religion, I, p. 621). On the basis of this distinction, “it is not divine rule that is divided between the Lord and pagan gods . . . the division is merely one of religious worship. The Lord rules throughout the world; however, He has assembled His ritual sanctity in one land, where He is to be worshipped. In other lands, idols are worshipped . . . but they have no real power” (loc. cit., p. 616). “According to the biblical world-view, the sphere of the other gods is confined to the worship of celestial bodies and fetishes, which the gentiles consider powerful” (loc. cit., p. 621). Kaufmann’s distinction is correct in the case of the world-view found in Deuteronomy, but there is no evidence in support of his attempt to apply it uniformly to all of Scripture. 121. This is the only example in the Bible of Yhwh being called “the God of Jerusalem,” and it is surprising to find such a restrictive epithet precisely when the writer wishes to contrast His power with that of “the gods of the peoples of the earth.” The phrase may have been influenced by the wording of Cyrus’ proclamation: “the Lord, the God of Israel — he is the God who is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:3). The Targumist senses the restriction implied by the epithet in Chronicles and translates: “And they spoke of the Lord God whose Presence (Shekhinah) dwells in Jerusalem.” 122. The Bible often describes other gods as fetishes, the work of men’s hands; this seems to have become a stock phrase — see Deut 4:28; 2 Kings 19:18; Ps 115:4; 135:15 (the last two apparently influenced by Deuteronomy). It is possible that the phrasing of our verse was directly influenced by 2 Kings 19:18. Cf. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 313. 123. See below, pp. 42ff.

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 39 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Monotheistic Idea

39

“the gods of Aram,” “the gods of the peoples of the earth,” and so on. 124 We find that derogatory names, such as “shame” (tçb), “abomination” (≈wqç), “idol” (lwlg, lyla), etc., are less common in Chronicles than in the parallel texts. 125 A certain liberalism prevails, whereby foreign gods are not denoted by derogatory epithets, but instead are called by their more common names: “the gods of Edom,” “Asherah,” “Baºal,” and so on. Even more significant is the fact that Chronicles contains echoes of the “popular” outlook. Sennacherib’s message to Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:10–17) expresses the view of the foreign monarch: just as the other nations’ gods were unable to save them, Israel’s God will be powerless to deliver his people from the Assyrian king. 126 The Israelite God is one of many, and He is not strong enough to contend with the gods and the king of Assyria. The words of Ahaz reflect a similar presupposition: “For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which had defeated him, and said, ‘Because the gods of the kings of Aram helped them, I will sacrifice to them that they may help me’ ” (2 Chr 28:23). The fact that he lost the war proves to Ahaz that the victors’ gods are preferable to his own. 127 124. 2 Chr 28:23; 1 Chr 5:25; likewise 2 Chr 25:14, 20; 32:13, 14, 15, 19; 35:21. This phenomenon is not uniquely Chronistic; it appears throughout the Bible. Nevertheless, compare, e.g., 1 Kings 11:7, as well as the Targumic habit of referring to the gods of the nations as “errors” — atww[f. See M. H. Segal, Introduction to the Bible (Heb., Jerusalem, 1954/55), IV, pp. 966–967. 125. μylwlg does not appear in Chronicles, and occurrences from the parallel texts have been omitted. Compare 2 Chr 33:22 with 2 Kings 21:20–21; 2 Chr 14:2–3 (Heb., 1–2) with 1 Kings 15:11–12. tçb, whether on its own or as part of a proper name, does not appear, so that we find “Eshbaal” instead of “Ishbosheth” (1 Chr 8:33; 9:39) and “Meribbaal” instead of “Mephibosheth” (1 Chr 8:34; 9:40). ≈wqç appears only once (2 Chr 15:8), in the description of Asa’s reforms. The entire verse is highly reminiscent of Josiah’s reform, although Chronicles’ account of that event does not contain the word ≈wqç; the source in 2 Kings 23:24 does, however. lyla appears in the parallel text in 1 Chr 16:26, and μybx[ are mentioned in 1 Chr 10:9 and 2 Chr 24:18. In Chronicles, idolatry is described as the worship of other gods or the worship of Baºalim and Asherot (2 Chr 15:16; 17:3; 19:3; 24:7, 18; 28:2; 34:3–4, etc.), but idols are mentioned in the case of Manasseh’s transgressions and Josiah’s reform (2 Chr 33:19, 22; 34:3, 4, 7). 126. Sennacherib’s message is taken, with some reworking, from Rabshakeh’s speech in 2 Kings 18:28–35. The speech in Kings contains some additional rhetorical elements — enticement, threats, and so on — whereas Chronicles retains only one argument; Yhwh will not save you. Furthermore, Rabshakeh makes the point that, just as the gods of the other nations did not save their peoples, Yhwh will not save Judah; however, in Chronicles, the emphasis is on Yhwh’s powerlessness: Yhwh is incapable of saving Judah, in the same way that the other nations’ gods could not deliver them. Compare 2 Chr 32:13, 14, 15 with 2 Kings 18:35. 127. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 292.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 40 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

40

Yhwh, the God of Israel

In both examples, the belief portrayed is considered misguided and false. Sennacherib’s words are proved false by God’s spectacular destruction of the Assyrian army and by his own immediate downfall (2 Chr 32:21–22). As for Ahaz, the Chronicler ends the verse by commenting, “But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel” (2 Chr 28:23). Elsewhere in the story of Ahaz, the writer makes it clear that it was Yhwh’s direct intervention, and not the gods of Aram, that brought about the defeat, as in 2 Chr 28:5 — “Therefore the Lord his God gave him into the hand of the king of Aram” — or 2 Chr 28:19 — “For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel.” However, Ahaz’ attitude is also presented — as a legitimate outlook — in the words of a prophet of the Lord who chastises the king of Judah: “. . . and sent him a prophet, who said to him, ‘why have you resorted to the gods of a people, which did not deliver their own people from your hand?’ ” (2 Chr 25:15). In other words: the gods you have been worshipping are not worthy of your devotion, as the fact that they were unable to save their own peoples shows. This line of thinking raises the question, what if Edom had won the war? Would her gods then deserve to be worshipped? The underlying assumption of the prophet’s reproach is thus no different from what is said explicitly by Ahaz. 128 The prophet’s words express the popular outlook: a god’s power is assessed according to the help he has given his people; if he cannot protect them, he is proved worthless. This hardly constitutes an absolute denial of the existence of the other gods. Another attitude towards the gods of the nations and their function in the world may be discerned in the story of Pharaoh Neco in 2 Chr 35:21– 22. These verses do not appear in the parallel in Kings; they are added here in order to explain the defeat of a righteous king, Josiah, in his war against the Egyptian pharaoh. 129 The addition is divided into two parts: Pharaoh Neco’s message to Josiah via his messengers (v. 21) and a description of Josiah’s reaction (v. 22).

128. The messages of the anonymous prophet and the Assyrian kings strongly resemble each other in their phrasing, as in their outlook; compare 2 Chr 25:15 — “the gods of a people, which did not deliver their own people from your hand” — with 2 Chr 32:17 — “the gods of the nations of the lands who have not delivered their people from my hand.” 129. See below, p. 131 and also n. 486. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 207; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 332, and others. No position regarding the historicity of the story is taken here; on that matter, cf. A. Malamat, “The Historical Background of Josiah’s Encounter with Necho at Megiddo” (Heb.), in the Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume, Eretz Israel 12 ( Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 88–90.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 41 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Monotheistic Idea

41

v. 21: But he sent envoys to him, saving, ‘What have we to do with each other, king of Judah? I am not coming against you this day, but against the house with which I am at war; and God (Elohim) has commanded me to make haste. Cease opposing God who is with me, lest he destroy you.’ v. 22: Nevertheless 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 joined the battle in the plain of Megiddo.

The word, “God” (“Elohim”) is used three times in this passage, but in two different senses. In v. 21, Pharaoh Neco is referring to the Egyptian god, which he describes as “God, who is with me.” Apparently, this god accompanies the pharaoh on his military campaign; it was he who ordered the Egyptian ruler to undertake the war, and now he urges him to hurry. 130 In v. 22, Josiah’s reaction and fatal error are described. Here, the reference is to the Lord, God of Israel, whom Josiah should have obeyed, but “he did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God.” This story, like others in the Bible, presents the view that Josiah’s defeat was punishment for his sin and that Pharaoh Neco was God’s instrument in inflicting this punishment. The Egyptian ruler sees the victory as a triumph for his god — as is also the case in other stories. Yet the juxtaposition of verses 21 and 22 adds another dimension: Pharaoh Neco affirms a strong belief in his god’s power, but what he says is then described by the writer as “the words of Neco from the mouth of God.” This means that there is indeed something to the pharaoh’s boasting, i.e., something to his god. According to the story’s peculiar logic, Josiah should have obeyed Neco and returned to Jerusalem. In other words, he should have accepted Neco’s threat and the idea that Judah was being opposed by a real god. Since Josiah did not accept this — how could he, as a righteous and pious king? — he offended God and was punished. Thus, two presuppositions underlie the story. On the one hand, it is Yhwh alone who is ruler of the world and cause of all that happens. On the other hand, the divine sanction given to what Pharaoh Neco says about his god in effect concedes the reality and actual power of other gods — not only for their peoples but also for the Children of Israel, who are forced to acknowledge them as the instruments of Yhwh’s will. We may conclude from this survey that the references in Chronicles to the question of monotheism are infrequent and indirect. Declarations 130. That is how the Rabbis understood it in the Talmud (Ta’an. 22b): “What is meant by ‘God who is with me’? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Idols. Josiah said, Since he [Neco] puts his trust in idols, I will prevail over him.” The Targum likewise translates “errors” (atww[f) in v. 21. See also R. P. Couroyet, “Le litige entre Josias et Nechao,” RB, 55 (1948), 388–396.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 42 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

42

Yhwh, the God of Israel

that the Lord alone is God are rare and do not appear in the book’s key speeches. Apart from a few vestiges of the popular view, passages in which the gods of the nations are accorded a real existence, Chronicles asserts that Yhwh is the only God, ruler and governor of the world. However, we find no new formulations or emphasis of this conviction in the recounting of events, nor does monotheism inspire any reworking or recasting of the source material. We must therefore assume that, for the writer or his generation, the subject was of little interest; an equilibrium in Israelite religious conviction — including the matter of other religions — had already been established. This would explain two phenomena: (a) The lack of polemic against other religions. Even the minimal degree of polemic produced by using derogatory epithets for foreign gods is lacking. There are no references, or even allusions, to any form of Persian beliefs or to any other religions. 131 (b) Chronicles contains no reference to the nations in their own right, nor does it show any interest in reforming the world. The religious reality, whether that of Israel or the world beyond, is accepted without question. For example, the phrase in Hezekiah’s prayer — “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O Lord, art God alone” (2 Kings 19:19) 132 — and many others of its kind found in the rest of the Bible are missing in Chronicles. The only Chronistic passage (taken from a source in Kings) that mentions the gentiles’ recognition of Yhwh makes no reference to the monotheistic idea. 133 The acceptance of the religious status quo as a fait accompli leaves no room for missionary aspirations. 134

III. Yhwh — Creator and Ruler of the World God’s relationship with the world is determined by two axioms: God created the world and, from the moment of creation, He rules it. The book of Chronicles takes this relationship for granted and rarely refers to it in the course of the book’s narrative. In one instance, the idea that God 131. It may be that some sort of silent polemic is involved in the avoidance of the epithet “God of heaven,” but more than that cannot be said. The theory that all sorts of religious phenomena were produced under the influence of Persian religion or in opposition to it — for example, see above, p. 33, n. 100 — is not supported by the evidence of Chronicles. 132. Or 1 Kings 8:60. See above, p. 36, n. 114. 133. 2 Chr 6:33 = 1 Kings 8:43: “in order that all the peoples of the earth may know thy name and fear thee, as do thy people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by thy name.” 134. Cf. Rudolph, Chronik, p. xxiv, and, for a different opinion, M. Delcor, “Les sources du Deutéro-Zacharie,” RB, 59 (1952), 405–406.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 43 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. III. Yhwh Yhwh —— Creator Creator and and Ruler Ruler of of the the World World

43

created the world is stated explicitly by Huram, king of Tyre: 135 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who made heaven and earth” (2 Chr 2:11). 136 The belief that God runs the world finds more frequent expression in the book. David’s prayer (1 Chr 29:10ff.) contains the most comprehensive formulation, stressing God’s absolute supremacy, His dominion over all of creation, and the utter insignificance of humanity when compared to God. Alongside descriptions of God’s lofty majesty — “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty” (v. 11) — we find an emphasis on His connection to the world and to human beings: “. . . and thou rulest over all. In thy hand are power and might; in thy hand it is to make great and to give strength to all” (v. 12). God’s dominion is expressed through His connectedness to the entire world 137 — “for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine” (v. 11) 138 — and, particularly, through His attachment to humanity, which He has endowed with wealth and honour, power and might (v. 12). The basis for God’s dominion is ownership: God rules the world because it is His (v. 11). Yet, even in this context, creation itself is not mentioned. In Chronicles, we do not find the idea, common elsewhere in the Bible, 139 that God rules the world because He created it. 140 It is the abiding relationship of dominion and leadership that constitutes divine providence, as demonstrated, for example, in the building of the Temple and 135. 1 Chr 16:26 may express the same intention — “but the Lord made the heavens.” The verse, part of a psalm, deals only with God’s creation of heaven and serves as a polemic against idolatry. 136. S. D. Luzzatto comments on Isa 1:2: “ ‘O heavens . . . O earth’ — that is, the entire world: the heavens and all their host, the earth and everything on it”; cf. A. M. Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL, 71 (1952), 16. 137. From a literary point of view, this idea is emphasized by the repeated use of “all” — “for all that is . . . thou art exalted above all . . . thou rulest over all . . . to give strength to all” (vv. 11–12). 138. MT for v. 11b appears to be corrupt as the result of haplography and should probably be emended following the Vulgate, which has “thine” twice. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 192, and Curtis, Chronicles, p. 306. 139. Compare, e.g., Psalms 104, 141, 148, and others. 140. This omission was sensed by the Targumist, who proceeded to expand the biblical text by illustrating each of the abstract attributes mentioned in the passage: “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness [ for you have created the world in greatness], and the power [ for with acts of power, you brought our ancestors out of Egypt],” and so on. The Targum for v. 11 alters the text slightly: “For all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine” reads “for everything — in the heavens and in the earth was created by you [literally: is the work of your hands]” and thereby links ownership with creation. The connection between creation and ownership may be elucidated by an examination of the use and semantic development of the root juunq; in addition to the lexicons, see P. Humbert, “ ‘Qana’ en hébreu biblique,” in Festsch. A. Bertholet (Tübingen, 1950), pp. 259–266.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 44 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

44

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Israel’s freewill offerings. The gold and silver pledged by the people had all come from God; without God, man is powerless — “But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from thee, and of thy own have we given thee” (v. 14). However, this feeling of insignificance and powerlessness is not accompanied by a sense of distance between man and God. On the contrary, God is felt to be very near; for all His awesome majesty, He has given humanity everything it possesses: “all this abundance . . . comes from thy hand” (v. 16). Linking a sublime depiction of the Lord with this one-time incident of pledges for the Temple provides a practical example of divine providence and reflects God’s constant involvement in the details of human affairs. What we have here is a providence that functions directly in the course of events. 141 Yhwh’s rule is also mentioned in the prayer of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:6ff.), once again within a specific context, an appeal for divine assistance in the war against the Ammonites. The appeal is based on two lines of argument: Yhwh’s power and dominion over creation (vv. 6, 12) and the justice of Israel’s cause in this war (vv. 7–11). It is the first line of reasoning that is of interest to us here: 142 “art thou not God in heaven? Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations? In thy hand are power and might.” The similarity between this verse and 1 Chr 29:12 is striking, and a comparison of the two brings out the significance of each verse: 1 Chr 29:12: “. . . thou rulest over all. In thy hand are power and might.” 2 Chr 20:6: “Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations? In thy hand are power and might.” 143

What differs between the two is the change from “thou rulest over all” — emphasizing the Lord’s dominion over the universe and following “all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine” — to “dost thou not rule

141. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 153–154. Eichrodt distinguishes between two concepts of divine providence; he defines the variety described here as the “popular outlook,” which was developed by the prophets, as opposed to the “Priestly outlook.” According to the latter, divine providence was effected by means of laws that had been fixed “once for all,” and relieved God of the need to participate in the day-to-day affairs of His world (op. cit., II, pp. 154–156). Elsewhere (op. cit., I, pp. 424ff.), Eichrodt includes Chronicles as an example of the Priestly outlook. Without entering into a discussion of how the “Priestly outlook” should be defined, it must be said that Chronicles bears no trace of such an outlook concerning this matter. 142. On the second line of argument, see below, pp. 299–300. 143. The combination “power and might” (hrwbgw jk) appears in the Bible only in these two passages in Chronicles. It is divided up in the hemistichs of Ps 65:7: “who by his power has established the mountains, who is girded with might.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 45 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. III. Yhwh Yhwh —— Creator Creator and and Ruler Ruler of of the the World World

45

over all the kingdoms of the nations” — dominion in the human sphere, in man’s socio-political organizations; in other words: dominion over history. Chronicles may not expound the belief that Yhwh rules all “the kingdoms of the nations” at any length or in great detail, yet that belief underlies the historical narrative throughout the book. There is always some connection between Israel’s history and that of her neighbours; according to the Chronicler, Yhwh intervenes directly in the affairs of these peoples to make them His instrument in directing the history of Israel. 144 Thus we read, for example: “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria” (1 Chr 5:26); “And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the anger of the Philistines and of the Arabs” (2 Chr 21:16); “Therefore the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria” (2 Chr 33:11), etc. The question is: to what extent did the Chronicler transform this general principle into a guide for a consistent reworking of the sources, and how deeply did the principle penetrate the process of redaction and the details of rewording? In Chronicles’ sources in the Former Prophets, it is assumed that God controls cosmic events but, on the whole, His involvement is not described as direct. 145 The book of Chronicles, however, emphasizes God’s direct and immediate intervention in history and describes that intervention in one of two ways. Either the wording conveys a clearly causal relationship, as in “therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans” (2 Chr 36:17), 146 or the objective historical account is supplemented with explanatory statements indicating that Yhwh brought about this particular event. The first method — causal formulation — is also found in passages describing the nations’ inaction as the result of divine intervention, for example: “And the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands . . . and they made no war against Jehoshaphat” (2 Chr 17:10). 147 This method is never used in the parallel texts in Samuel–Kings. The second method appears when the Chronicler preserves the language of his sources but then expresses his own views by means of an explanatory gloss. The description of Shishak’s campaign against Judah in 2 Chr 12:1–12 is a case in point. The book of Kings presents an objective description of Shishak’s attack: “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem” (1 Kings 14:25). It may be possible to infer from the context that the attack was punishment for Rehoboam’s sins, mentioned 144. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 10; Rudolph, Chronik, p. xviii. 145. See also below, pp. 104–105. 146. Likewise 1 Chr 5:26; 2 Chr 21:16; 28:5; 33:11, and 2 Chr 36:22 = Ezra 1:1. 147. And also 2 Chr 14:6 (Heb., 14:5); 20:29.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 46 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

46

Yhwh, the God of Israel

in vv. 22–24 of the same chapter, but no explicit connection is made. The Chronicler uses the objective wording of Kings to describe the invasion but includes an addition that clearly interprets it as divine retribution: “In the fifth year . . . Shishak king of Egypt came up . . . because they had been unfaithful to the Lord” (2 Chr 12:2). The results of the campaign are also described objectively in Kings: “he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away everything . . .” (1 Kings 14:26–28). To this, the Chronicler adds, by way of explanation: “he took away the treasures . . . and when he [Rehoboam] humbled himself the wrath of the Lord turned from him, so as not to make a complete destruction” (2 Chr 12:9–12). An entire episode is introduced into the description — Shemaiah’s prophecy — in which the writer plainly expresses his own view: “Thus says the Lord, ‘You have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak’ ” (2 Chr 12:5) and, later, “ ‘They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them’ ” (2 Chr 12:7). These explanations make it clear that the Lord was the direct initiator of Shishak’s actions, which were a means of punishing Israel. Similar explanations appear in other passages: 1. 2 Chr 21:10: “So Edom revolted from the rule of Judah to this day. At that time Libnah also revolted . . . because he had forsaken the Lord, the God of his fathers.” The parallel source in 2 Kings 8:22 reads only: “So Edom revolted from the rule of Judah to this day. At that time Libnah also revolted.” 2. 2 Chr 24:23–24: “At the end of the year the army of the Arameans came up against [Joash] . . . because they had forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers.” This description is a paraphrase of 2 Kings 12:18: “At that time Hazael king of Aram went up.” 3. 2 Chr 28:17–19: “For the Edomites had again invaded . . . and the Philistines had made raids . . . For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz.” The description of the invasions is objective, but in the explanatory gloss they are portrayed as the direct result of divine intervention. It is evident from these examples that the Chronicler emphasizes, to a far greater extent than do his sources, the belief that God rules the kingdoms of the world and is responsible for their acts. He reworks material from Kings accordingly; however, the reworking is not completely thorough, and a few passages are transferred verbatim without any additions.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 47 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

47

Especially noteworthy is the description of the events leading up to the fall of Judah 148 (2 Chr 36:2, 6, 10). 149 To conclude: the belief that God rules, oversees, and controls the world and everything that happens in it finds its expression in Chronicles through explicit declarations of faith and as an underlying assumption of the narrative. The deeds of the various peoples, which might be seen as the result of their own initiative and free will, are plainly described as divine intervention, Yhwh’s means of carrying out his plans vis-à-vis Israel. When working with sources from Samuel–Kings, the Chronicler retains the objective narratives at his disposal but adds explanatory notes; on other occasions, he expresses his views directly. However, his reworking is not completely systematic. A totally systematic method only appears in the Chronicler’s exposition of Israelite history, as we shall see below in our discussion of God’s involvement in the history of Israel.

IV. God’s Presence in the World The Bible does not treat the question of the Lord’s dwelling place in a systematic, theoretical fashion. In fact, two conflicting premises underlie the passages which refer to this subject: on one hand, God is the far-off, omnipotent master of the universe, dwelling above and beyond the world He created; on the other, He is not distant, but near, and those who believe in Him find Him everywhere. Both approaches are part of the believer’s religious experience, an experience that encompasses faith in a sublime, transcendent deity, distant and unattainable, as well as a sense that God is nearby, protectively watching over his faithful and answering their prayers. The idea that God is distant comes to the fore through descriptions of His dwelling in heaven; for example, “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Ps 11:4). 150 God’s nearness and presence in 148. As we shall see below (pp. 284ff.), Chronicles describes the last days of Judah in an extremely concise and elliptical manner and thus forfeits a variety of themes in the process of reworking its sources. 149. Likewise the war with the Philistines (1 Chr 10:1), Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chr 32:1), and Pharaoh Neco’s campaign (2 Chr 35:20). Even when a story appears only in Chronicles, this emphasis may be lacking, as in the wars against Zerah the Cushite (2 Chr 14:9 [Heb., 8]) or the Moabites and Ammonites (2 Chr 20:1). These wars, in which Judah is attacked, are apparently seen as the initiative of the enemy and not divinely inspired. However, they do conform to the Chronistic outlook in another respect; cf. below, pp. 151ff. Wars initiated by Israel are not relevant in this context. 150. This idea is also found in early texts; see Gen 21:17 (“angel of God”); 22:11 (“angel of the Lord”); Exod 20:22; Deut 4:36; 26:15; Ps 2:4; 18:10, etc.; and compare

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 48 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

48

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the human world may be affirmed explicitly in verses such as “You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel” ( Joel 2:27), 151 but, for the most part, they are expressed in descriptions of God’s presence in His dwelling place, “the house of God.” 152 At times, the two concepts appear together, as when Solomon’s Temple is dedicated. God is described as dwelling in the sanctuary — “I have built thee an exalted house, a place for thee to dwell in for ever” (1 Kings 8:13) — and in the heavens: “hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place” (8:30). 153 God’s presence in a particular place, whether it be heaven or the Temple, does not confine Him to that place: 154 presence does not denote containment. 155 This idea is expressed by Solomon when he asks, rhetorically, “But will God indeed dwell 156 on the earth?” and answers. “Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built” (1 Kings 8:27). 157 Thus, there is a certain tenverses such as “the Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high” (Isa 33:5), “for thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place” (Isa 57:15), and others. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 190–192. 151. Other verses include “because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp” (Deut 23:14 [Heb., 15]) or, formulated in the negative, “do not go up . . . for the Lord is not among you” (Num 14:42). 152. The same verbs — usually ˆuukç or buuçy — describe God’s dwelling place both in heaven and in the Temple. Thus we find: “He who sits (bçwy) in the heavens laughs” (Ps 2:4), as well as “the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thy abode” (or “dwelling” — ˚tbç — Exod 15:17), or Isa 33:5 as opposed to Exod 25:8. There are many examples (see also Psalm 132). Cross argues that the two verbs are used in different ways, particularly in P (F. M. Cross, “The Tabernacle,” BA, 10 [1947], 66–68). Clements develops this thesis, claiming that although there was no difference between the two originally, a distinction is made from Deuteronomy onwards. buuçy means “to dwell,” whereas ˆuukç denotes something temporary — to “tabernacle” or “tent.” According to Clements, ˆuukç acquired a special theological significance which is most noticeable in the Priestly Document (Clements, God and Temple, p. 116). For a critique of this view, cf. M. Haran, “The Idea of Divine Presence in Israelite Cult” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 38 (1968/69), 112. 153. This does not mean, however, that the two passages were written by the same author. It seems likely that 1 Kings 8:13 comes from an ancient poem (see, among others, Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 283, and Sanda, Könige, p. 220). 154. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 188: “. . . an assertion that Yahweh dwelt and manifested himself at a particular place involved absolutely no idea of limiting God to the place in question.” 155. It would appear that this was true even of pagan concepts of divine presence. See H. H. Nelson, “The Egyptian Temple,” BA, 7 (1944), 48–50, and G. E. Wright, “The Temple in Palestine-Syria,” loc. cit., 70, 72ff. 156. The version in 2 Chr 6:18 adds “with man,” as does LXX for 1 Kings 8:27. 157. Commentators have regarded this verse as later than the rest of Solomon’s prayer. For example, see R. de Vaux, “Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom,”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 49 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

49

sion inherent in the concept of God’s presence. God may dwell in many places: heaven, the Temple, Sinai, 158 “above the circle of the earth,” 159 and so on — but under no circumstances can He be thought of as finite. He is present in all these places, but none of them completely contains Him. The idea that God could have an earthly abode — even if He is not confined to that abode — seems to lend His presence a slightly static quality. The presence is linked directly to sites of worship and is basic to any approach to ritual. 160 There is thus a tendency to view God’s presence as a fixed, unchanging condition connected to certain concrete objects: the ark, the tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem. However, this aspect is of secondary importance in the overall biblical concept of divine presence. God’s “static” presence in the sanctuary is rendered dynamic by the element of revelation. 161 Furthermore, the Bible emphasizes the active quality of divine presence: not only does God exist; more importantly, He acts. He watches over the world and over Israel. He intervenes directly in history, and He answers those who pray to Him. This active concept of divine presence is less limited by time and space and obviates the dangers inherent in a static perception of God. Rather than presenting any unique concept of divine presence, Chronicles reflects the general biblical attitudes: God dwells in heaven, He inhabits the Sanctuary, and yet neither place can contain Him. However, we do find frequent differences between source passages and the text in in Festsch. L. Rost, BZAW, 105 (1967), p. 226. Even if intended as a polemic against 1 Kgs 8:13, this verse does not negate or deny God’s presence in the Temple (cf. Sanda, Könige, p. 226). 158. As in Ps 68:16 (Heb., 68:17): “the mount which God desired for his abode.” In the biblical tradition, the most important element in Yhwh’s relation to Mount Sinai is the idea of revelation, not ongoing presence. Some even consider it the only feature of God’s presence at Sinai (see Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 186ff.) and the authentic characteristic of Israelite religion (see Clements, God and Temple, pp. 17–27, and also M. Haran, Tarbiz5, 38 [1968/69], 109). Milgrom has shown that the description of the theophany at Sinai and the concepts of the tabernacle and God’s presence found in P have much in common (Milgrom, Studies, pp. 44–46). 159. Isa 40:22; see Thesaurus, III, p. 93. 160. Haran writes: “The idea that God is present in the place of worship is essential to all ritual” (Tarbiz5, 38 [1968/69], 105). Whether or not this statement is valid in every case, it undoubtedly does hold true for the Bible. 161. Eichrodt sees both a qualitative difference and a tension between God’s “dynamic presence, his presence in revelation” and “localized” presence and argues for “the primacy of the dynamic idea over the localized idea of Yahwe’s presence” (Theology, II, pp. 190, 192). However, it is doubtful whether one may accept the claim that certain sanctuaries were considered only places of revelation. Cf. G. E. Wright, BA, 7 (1944), 71.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 50 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

50

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Chronicles, changes that testify to a whole range of approaches and an awareness of the question. We therefore turn to a detailed and systematic examination of what Chronicles has to say about God’s presence.

A. Yhwh’s Presence in the Temple Chronicles has various ways of describing the Lord’s presence in the Temple, and the terms and expressions used are taken from different biblical literary and ideological strata. The definitive passage on this subject is the description of building and dedication of the Temple, for which Chronicles is dependent on the narrative complex found in 1 Kings 8:1–61. The story we find in Kings is not unified, and its composition is the result of a complex process 162 which, some scholars argue, took hundreds of years. 163 Nevertheless, where the Chronicler is concerned, the passage in Kings may be treated as a completed document. We need not examine this literary process and are free to concentrate on the story’s conceptual elements; even if these elements also evolved as the Kings version was composed, the later Chronicles was unaffected by this evolution. One concept to be studied is the belief that the Temple is God’s house and dwelling place: “I have built thee an exalted house, 164 a place for thee to dwell in for ever” (1 Kings 8:13). Initially, this idea may have been as162. See detailed analyses in Sanda, Könige, pp. 242–246; Montgomery, Kings, pp. 185–201; Gray, Kings, pp. 189–219. 163. For example, see Gray, who claims that the story was put in its final form after the writing of Chronicles, i.e., in the 3rd century b.c.e. The redactor was a Priestly writer familiar with and influenced by the book of Chronicles (Gray, Kings, p. 191). This strikes me as a somewhat extreme interpretation of the fact that certain passages which are missing in some LXX mss. to Kings do appear in Chronicles (both MT and LXX). It is possible that a number of verses, sentences, and words were introduced into the text of Kings from Chronicles — which would also be in keeping with the affinity for harmonization we find in the transmission of biblical manuscripts. Nevertheless, this does not seem to warrant the conclusion that Kings was actually edited under the influence of Chronicles or, as Gray puts it, “. . . the passage in Kings . . . was finally revised by a priestly editor familiar with Chronicles.” Kaufmann holds a totally different opinion and argues that Solomon’s prayer is an ancient composition: “There can be no doubt of the antiquity of Solomon’s prayer, which is no later than the time of Solomon himself ” (Religion, II, p. 368; see also pp. 361, 367–368). However, Kaufmann’s opinion is not shared by other scholars; for a critique of it, see M. Haran, “On the Problems of Composition of the Books of Kings and the Former Prophets” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 37 (1967/68), 1ff. 164. This would appear to be the meaning of the phrase lwbz tyb; the ancient versions, which understood it as “dwelling place” or “abode,” must have relied on the context for their interpretation (see Thesaurus, III, p. 7; Baumgartner, Lexikon, I, p. 252). Cf. also Montgomery, Kings, pp. 191–192.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 51 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

51

sociated with the Ark of the Lord and later applied to the Temple when the Ark was put in the Holy of Holies, which became God’s dwelling place “for ever.” 165 Another element is the idea that God’s presence in the Temple is expressed by His glory (dwbk): “And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:10–11). It is not clear whether the presence of God’s glory is dependent on the ark being in the Sanctuary, or whether the two phenomena are independent of each other. 166 In any case, His glory so fills the place that there is no room left for the priests; 167 this utter fullness constitutes the concrete expression of the Temple’s dedication and its transformation into the house of the Lord. There is a striking resemblance between the descriptions of the Temple dedication in 1 Kings 8:10–11 and the consecration of the tabernacle in Exodus 40:34ff., both in form 168 and content — in Exodus, too, “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” However, there is also an important difference between them: the story in Exodus designates two concrete expressions of God’s presence, “the cloud” and “the glory,” each different

165. See below, pp. 59–60. 166. Most exegetes believe that there is a connection between the ark and God’s glory. For example, see the commentaries of Ibn Ezra and Rashbam to Exod 40:34–35 and, in a different vein, von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, p. 41. However, nowhere is it explicitly said that the glory rests “above the mercy seat” (or “cover” — trpk); it either fills the entire tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35) or hangs above it (Lev 9:6, 23; Num 16:19; 17:7, etc.). Elsewhere, when God’s appearance to Moses is described, we read that Yhwh speaks to him “from above the mercy seat . . . from between the two cherubim” (Num 7:89; Exod 25:22), but these passages do not mention God’s glory. The two elements are already combined in Rashbam’s commentary to Exod 40:35. 167. God’s glory is constantly present in the tabernacle and in the Temple (see Ezek 10–11; 43:2ff.); cf. Ibn Ezra on Exod 40:35; “for the glory was always upon them.” This raises the question of how Moses or the priests could enter the tabernacle or Temple. The Rabbis asked this question (Sifra, Rabbi Ishmael’s baraita on Portion Vayiqra 8) and answered that the cloud did remove itself after a while. See also Rashi on Exod 40:35. Rashbam finds a different answer: “When the Temple was completed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, consecrated it with the cloud. Afterwards, He contracted His Presence and confined it above the ark between the two poles” (on Exod 40:35). There is no basis for Rashbam’s interpretation in the text itself, where the question remains unanswered. 168. Such as Exod 40:34 — “and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” — and 1 Kings 8:11 — “for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord”; and see Ezek 43:5. The resemblance is also apparent in “and Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting” (Exod 40:35) and “the priests could not stand to minister” (1 Kings 8:11). These similarities were discussed already by the early exegetes.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 52 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

52

Yhwh, the God of Israel

from the other. 169 The cloud covers the tabernacle’s exterior, whereas the glory fills it from within: 170 “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exod 40:34; see also v. 35). The story in Kings makes no distinction whatever between the cloud and the glory. The cloud dwells in, not on, the Sanctuary (1 Kings 8:10), and the parallel structure of verse 11 equates the two expressions of divine presence: “the priests could not . . . minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.” Another approach to the question of God’s presence in the Temple appears in the prologue and conclusion to Solomon’s prayer (8:15–21, 44– 53). The brief prologue repeatedly introduces a new, Deuteronomistically formulated concept — the Temple has been built for the name of the Lord. 171 It is with good reason that von Rad calls this formulation a “theological corrective” 172 which replaced the more natural wording, “to build a house for the Lord.” 173 This approach sees God’s name as the means by which His presence in the Temple is expressed. 174 The Lord has “put” His name — and thereby, His presence — on the Temple. 175 169. The names, too, express this distinction: the glory is always called “the glory of the Lord,” but here the cloud is merely “the cloud,” with no divine name appended. It is termed “the cloud of the Lord” in only two passages (Exod 40:38; Num 10:34) and “thy cloud” in Num 14:14. 170. This is also suggested by other passages, such as Exod 16:10: “they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud.” The glory appears in the cloud yet is distinct from it. According to Exod 24:16–17, “the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel,” but it was covered by the cloud: “the glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days.” 171. 1 Kings 8:16: “to build a house, that my name might be there”; v. 17: “to build a house for the name of the Lord, the God of Israel”; v. 18: “to build a house for my name”; etc. See also 9:3, 7: “the house which I have consecrated for my name.” 172. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, p. 38: “The Deuteronomic theologumenon of the name of Jahweh clearly holds a polemic element, or, to put it better, is a theological corrective.” 173. For example, cf. Ezra–Nehemiah, which always has “a house for the Lord,” never “for the name of the Lord.” See Japhet, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” 24. 174. Von Rad, op. cit., p. 38: “. . . what is decidedly new is the assumption of a constant and almost material presence of the name at the shrine.” See also Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 41–42: “The Name, therefore, now acquires a more independent function as the representative of the transcendent God, by means of which he assures men of his nearness and the continuing efficacy of his power.” 175. In his critique of von Rad, de Vaux distinguishes between the terminology of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic terminology of Kings found, inter alia, in the additions to Solomon’s prayer. He argues that Deuteronomy depicts God’s ownership of the Temple (as does Jeremiah’s prophecy); it is only in the Deuteronomistic redaction

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 53 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

53

The mention of “the name of the Lord” in the prayer’s prologue and in what appears to be its latest stratum 176 furnishes what the prayer itself lacks. Within the prayer, three points are emphasized: God dwells in heaven, He answers supplications, and He forgives sins. “Yea, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place; and when thou hearest, forgive” (1 Kings 8:30; see also vv. 34, 36, 39, 43). Yet, nowhere is God’s presence in the Temple mentioned! The Temple is to serve as a house of prayer (8:33); the service is directed to the Lord, not conducted in His presence. Man “stretches out his hands toward this house” (8:38), and, from heaven, God hears him. In the prayer’s only reference to Temple worship, the altar serves as medium: “If a man . . . swears his oath before thine altar . . .” (v. 31). 177 It is the main body of the prayer that best corresponds to the polemical tone of Solomon’s message, expressed in his words in v. 27: “Will God indeed dwell on the earth?” Not explicitly, but rather by means of omission, the prayer succeeds in distancing the divine presence from the Temple. Later additions reverse this pattern and repair the omission; they refer repeatedly to God’s presence in the Temple by stressing that the Temple was built “for the name of the Lord,” in accordance with God’s wishes — “that my name might be there.” The description of the Temple’s construction and dedication, already a lengthy section of the narrative in 1 Kings, is even more extensive in Chronicles and figures as an important component of the account of David’s reign. We find that the Chronicler selected those elements of the description in Kings which conformed to his outlook and then expanded on them. The concept most emphasized in the Chronicler’s description of divine presence in the Temple is the presence of God’s name — “a house built for the name of the Lord.” In addition to the synoptic texts, 178 every context pertaining to the Temple’s construction mentions the name of God. In each case — David’s charge to Solomon (1 Chr 22:7, 8, 10), 179 David’s of Kings that we find this “théologie du Nom” (R. de Vaux, “Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom,” BZAW, 105 [1967], pp. 219–228). This is one of many differences between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic redaction of Kings; see also Y. Zakovitch, “ ‘To Cause His Name to Dwell There’ — ‘To Put His Name There’ ” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 41 (1971/72), 338–340. 176. Especially 1 Kings 8:44–45, 48–49; see de Vaux, p. 226. 177. See Montgomery, Kings, p. 202, on this verse. 178. 2 Chr 6:5, 6 (not in the existing parallel text, but apparently omitted through homoeoteleuton), 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 34, 38; 7:16, 20; and 2 Chr 12:13 (parallel to 1 Kings 14:21); 33:4, 7 (2 Kings 21:4, 7). 179. Apart from the change of person, this is an almost verbatim repetition of 1 Kings 5:17–19. Although building a house “for the name of the Lord” is the dominant

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 54 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

54

Yhwh, the God of Israel

words to the people (1 Chr 22:19; 28:3; 29:16), the recounting of Solomon’s intention to build the Temple (2 Chr 1:18), and Solomon’s letter to Hiram (2 Chr 2:3) — the wording resembles that of Kings. This, as it were, stereotypical repetition of the Deuteronomistic formulation clearly illustrates the degree of literary influence we find in Chronicles. What we must ask is: how vital does this concept remain in the book of Chronicles, and what does the Chronicler mean by divine presence through the name of the Lord? Jehoshaphat’s prayer, which may be said to represent something of a response to Solomon’s prayer, 180 provides us with an answer: “And they have dwelt in it, and have built thee in it a sanctuary for thy name, saying, ‘if evil comes upon us, the sword (of) judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we will stand before this house, and before thee, for thy name is in this house, and cry to thee in our affliction, and thou wilt hear and save’ ” (2 Chr 20:8–9). The connection between the two prayers is obvious. 181 The supplication from Jehoshaphat and the people to God via the Temple applies the abstract principles inherent in Solomon’s view of the Temple as a house of prayer. Therefore, the differences between the two may tell us something about the Chronicler’s views. Whereas Solomon portrays the people’s prayer as an act of repentance, supplication for divine forgiveness in the wake of God’s wrath (the recurring motif being “hear thou and forgive” 182), Jehoshaphat seeks, not pardon, but a demonstration of divine salvation. A request for deliverance — from pestilence, hunger, or other suffering incurred by God’s wrath — may be implicit in a prayer of repentance, but the prayer’s point of departure is nonetheless different. Jehoshaphat turns to God confident in the utter justice of his cause. The two prayers also view the building of the Temple differently. In verse 8, Jehoshaphat explicitly states that it was built for God’s name (“. . . and have built thee in it a sanctuary for thy name”) and, in v. 9, he elaborates on the idea: “we will stand before this house, and before thee, for thy name is in this house.” To stand before the house is to stand before God. Here we find the element missing from the body of Solomon’s phrasing, we do find “for the Lord” where the influence of Kings is not as strong; thus: “the house that is to be built for the Lord” (1 Chr 22:5, likewise 22:6). See also below, p. 55. 180. On internal exegesis and its place in the development of biblical literature, see I. L. Seeligmann, “Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese,” SVT, I (1953), pp. 150–181, and J. Weingreen, “The Continuity of Tradition from Bible to Mishna,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1969), I, pp. 27–34. 181. See Pseudo-Rashi’s commentary to 2 Chr 20:9; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 407; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 261. 182. As in 2 Chr 6:21, 25, 27, etc.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 55 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

55

prayer: Yhwh’s presence in the Temple, which is conveyed with “before the Lord.” The words, “for thy name is in this house,” reinforce (a) the idea that “the name of the Lord” is fully equivalent to “the Lord” and (b) the strong emphasis on God’s presence in the Temple. The Temple does not function as a channel through which prayers pass upward to heaven, where they are heard by God; rather, prayers are said in the Temple because God hears them in the Temple. The absolute equation of God and His name is also implicit in the parallel structure of 1 Chr 29:13: “And now we thank thee, our God, and praise thy glorious name.” When we praise His glorious name, repeatedly utter His name in hymn and thanksgiving, we thank God; “thee” and “thy name” are therefore one and the same. We see from the Chronicler’s interpretation of Solomon’s prayer that he made no real distinction between building a house for God and building a house for His name. The frequent interchange of the two expressions, sometimes within one passage, 183 is thus understandable. The Chronicler generally calls the Temple “the house of the Lord” (or “the house of God”). 184 The Deuteronomistic term, “to build a house for the name of the Lord,” appears as the result of literary influence, and nothing more; the phrase has lost its original meaning and is no different from a direct formulation, “to build a house for the Lord.” Our discussion would not be complete without a few words concerning the Chronicler’s understanding of “the name of the Lord.” The phrase has two meanings in Chronicles. 185 At times, “name” appears in its basic sense — that by which an object is designated or the speaker refers to himself. 186 We find this usage in all the contexts that do not involve the

183. For example, 1 Chr 22:5–11: “the house that is to be built for the Lord must be exceedingly magnificent . . .” (v. 5), “then he . . . charged [Solomon] to build a house for the Lord, the God of Israel” (v. 6), “David said . . . ‘I had it in my heart to build a house for the name of the Lord my God’ ” (v. 7), “. . . you shall not build a house for my name” (v. 8), “. . . he shall build a house for my name” (v. 10), “. . . building the house of the Lord your God” (v. 11). 184. The name appears this way over a hundred times, with “house of the Lord” more frequent than “house of God.” When Yhwh speaks in the first person, the Temple is called “my house and my courts” (1 Chr 28:6; likewise 1 Chr 17:14 — “my house and my kingdom”); in the third person possessive, we find “God and his house” (2 Chr 24:16). Other names in Chronicles include “the temple of the Lord” (uh lkyh — 2 Chr 26:16; 27:2; 29:16), “the sanctuary of the Lord” (uh çdqm — 1 Chr 22:19; 2 Chr 30:8), and “his dwelling place” (wnw[m — 2 Chr 36:15). 185. Apart from “name” in the sense of renown and reputation, which appears in 1 Chr 22:5; 1 Chr 16:35 (parallel to Ps 106:47); and 1 Chr 17:24 (parallel to 2 Sam 7:26). 186. See O. Grether, Name und Wort Gottes im AT, BZAW, 64 (1934), pp. 1–3.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 56 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

56

Yhwh, the God of Israel

construction of the Temple. It appears (a) in the area of worship — “to bless in the name of Yhwh,” that is, to bless 187 or thank 188 God by invoking His name — and (b) in the context of prophecy: prophets speak “in the name of the Lord”; in other words, they announce the source of their message (1 Chr 21:19; 2 Chr 18:15; 33:18). When His people go into battle, God’s name is invoked in order to procure divine assistance: “Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on thee, and in thy name we have come against this multitude” (2 Chr 14:11 [Heb., 14:10]). We also find the more complex, apparently juridical, terminology whereby the people, Temple, and ark are “called by the name of the Lord” 189 — they belong to Him and He is their master. 190 When the context concerns the building of the Temple, God’s “name” is used in a different sense — as an expression of divine presence. It is here that we find a complete identification of the Lord with His name: God’s name in the Temple means that the people are standing before God Himself (2 Chr 20:9). Some scholars have tried to identify a gradual development in biblical thought towards the hypostatization of the divine name, 191 a trend that reached its peak in the post-biblical period. According to these scholars, the cause for such a development was the distancing of God from the human sphere, necessitating contact and communication via an intermediary. Thus, for example, God’s glory, face, name, and so on became hypostases. Eichrodt posits a double hypostasis of the divine name already in Chronicles: one expresses God’s presence in the Temple and the other rules the world. 192 In order to evaluate this theory, we must question two separate assumptions. First, we must ask if this development towards a transcendental concept of God, emphasizing His distance from the world, actually occurred. Then we must ascertain whether the divine name was ever hypostatized. The first question will be considered at greater length below; 193 as for the second, there is no indication in any of the relevant passages in Chron187. 1 Chr 23:12: “. . . burn incense before the Lord, and minister to him and pronounce blessings in his name for ever.” 188. 1 Chr 16:8, 10, 29 parallel to Ps 105:1, 3; 96:8. 189. 2 Chr 7:14; 2 Chr 6:33 (parallel to I Kings 8:43); 1 Chr 13:6 (parallel, with variants, to 2 Sam 6:2). 190. See de Vaux, BZAW, 105, pp. 222–223, for a detailed discussion along with a list of references. On the juridical nature of the term, see K. Galling, “Die Ausrufung des Names als Rechtsakt in Israel,” ThLZ, 81 (1956), 66–70. 191. See O. Grether, BZAW, 64, pp. 44–58 (“der Name Jahwes als Hypostase”). 192. Theology, II, pp. 41–45, esp. p. 43; see also his discussion of other concepts that were hypostatized. 193. See pp. 98ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 57 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

57

icles 194 that God’s name possessed any sort of existence distinct from the deity it named. As an expression of late biblical Judaism, the book of Chronicles provides nothing to support this so-called trend. 195 Alongside the idea that God is present in the Temple through His name, Chronicles contains the parallel idea that He is present through His glory. The description of God’s glory filling the Temple is transferred, with minor changes, to 2 Chr 5:11a, 13b, 14, 196 and in 2 Chr 7:1–3 the Chronicler repeats this idea in a passage of his own, added to Solomon’s prayer: “When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord filled the Lord’s house. When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the Lord upon the temple, they bowed down . . . and worshipped and gave thanks to the Lord.” There are three elements to this addition — the glory of the Lord, the fire, and “all the children of Israel” as witnesses to what is happening; the first is also found in the description in 1 Kings 8:10–11 and in the parallel (2 Chr 5:11–14). However, the passage reveals literary affinities with other biblical texts, and these associations lend a special significance to its content. In Kings, the presence of the Lord enters the Temple, thus confirming divine approval of its dedication, before Solomon’s prayer (8:10–11). The response to Solomon’s prayer and his blessing are given to the king alone by means of a vision (1 Kings 9:2ff.). Almost all of this description is transposed to Chronicles, but the sequence of events is altered. Solomon’s blessing (1 Kings 8:55–61) is omitted, and the consecration of the Temple and the altar occurs after his prayer, as a publicly-witnessed sign from God. Not only the Temple but also the altar is consecrated by the conferring of divine presence; God’s glory fills the Temple, and fire comes down from heaven after the sacrifices are offered. Both events are witnessed by 194. The list of passages cited by Grether (including texts outside Chronicles) should, in my opinion, be re-evaluated. See above, n. 42 (p. 21). 195. Similar questions may be raised with regard to the concept of the name of Yhwh in Kings, which Eichrodt understands along the same lines. Von Rad is much more cautious when he writes that the name “verges closely upon a hypostasis” (Studies in Deuteronomy, p. 38). It seems to me that nothing concerning the relationship between Yhwh and His name can be adduced from the phraseology in Kings. 196. The principal difference is between 1 Kings 8:10 — “the cloud filled the house of the Lord” — and 2 Chr 5:13b — “the house, the house of the Lord, was filled with a cloud.” The version in Chronicles appears to be corrupt, particularly in view of its repetition of “the house,” and indeed we find that LXX has a different version; see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 211.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 58 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

58

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the entire people — “all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the Lord upon the Temple” (2 Chr 7:3). In Chronicles’ version of events, God’s endorsement of Solomon’s achievement is much more evident. All the elements in the description are Pentateuchal, taken from a variety of sources and contexts. The passage constitutes a literary mosaic that combines various individual elements. The elements are transposed almost verbatim, which makes their origins all the more evident. 197 One source passage is Exodus 40:34–35, the consecration of the tabernacle: “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses could not enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” The resemblance to 2 Chr 7:1–2 is more than striking: “. . . and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord filled the Lord’s house.” Although this last passage is similar to 2 Chr 5:14 (and the source in 1 Kings 8:11), its direct influence comes from the Pentateuch: 198 2 Chr 5:14 reads “the priests could not stand to minister,” whereas our passage has the wording “the priests could not enter,” just like Exod 40:35 — “and Moses could not enter.” “And the glory of the Lord filled the . . .” (subject followed by verb) appears in 2 Chr 7:1 and Exod 40:34, but not in 2 Chr 5:13 or 1 Kings 8:10. It is clear that the Chronicler relied, not on the source closest to him, but on the Pentateuchal story in order to make a point. He wished to identify the Temple and its functions with the tabernacle of early Israelite history and to depict the Temple as heir to the tabernacle. 199 A second Pentateuchal influence, although not as strong in terms of actual wording, is the passage describing the consecration of the altar in Lev 9:23–24. 200 This description contains the same three elements as 197. Willi emphasizes the Chronicler’s “mosaic style” (“Musivstil”), which he explains as a function of the book’s fundamental nature and purpose: the interpretation of a canonical text (Auslegung, pp. 176–179 et passim). Although Willi has not exhausted the evidence, he does mention two passages that are important to our discussion: Exod 40:34–35 and Lev 9:24 (ibid., pp. 158, 174). 198. See Willi, loc. cit.; Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 148ff. 199. See Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 130. It may be because of this identification that the term “tent of meeting” lost its original meaning and was applied to the Temple, as in 1 Chr 9:17–23 — in particular, “so they and their sons were in charge of the gates of the house of the Lord, that is, the house of the tent, as guards” (v. 23) — and 1 Chr 23:32: “Thus they shall keep charge of the tent of meeting and the sanctuary, and shall attend the sons of Aaron, their brethren, for the service of the house of the Lord.” 200. On the unit’s composition and its relationship to Exod 40:34–35, see Noth, Leviticus, OTL (1965), pp. 80–82. See also Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 151–152.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 59 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

59

2 Chr 7:1–3 — the fire on the altar, the glory of the Lord, and the people as witnesses: “. . . and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. And fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell upon their faces.” Note, however, the indirect formulation: “the glory . . . appeared to (dwbk aryw),” “the fire came forth from before the Lord (uh ynplm).” The third element, “all the people saw (μyawr) it,” appears in a variety of Pentateuchal sources; the instance closest in wording to the Chronicles passage is Exod 20:18: “all the people perceived (μyar) the thunderings . . . and the mountain smoking.” 201 Both are written in the active, without any attempt at paraphrase, and are thus similar to Exod 24:10, “and they saw the God of Israel” (larçy yhla ta waryw). The people “see” God’s presence in the desert several times in the course of the Pentateuchal narrative, 202 but the experience at Sinai is unparalleled in its physical and psychological immediacy and its impact on the entire people. It is this experience that the Chronicler superimposes on the dedication of Solomon’s temple. From his point of view, God’s presence in the Temple is very real, and all the people of Israel are eyewitnesses to Yhwh’s entry into His house. 203 In Chronicles, it is not only God’s name and glory that indicate His presence in the Temple; the ark serves as a further expression of divine presence. 1 Chr 17:1–4 (parallel to 2 Sam 7:2–5) makes the connection between Yhwh’s dwelling in the Temple and the fact that the ark is kept there. To David’s words, “Behold, I dwell (bçwy) in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord is under a tent” (1 Chr 17:1), 204 God responds, “You shall not build me a (Heb. “the”) house to dwell in (tbçl)”

201. It is interesting that neither Willi nor Mosis has discussed this connection to the revelation at Sinai. 202. Such as Lev 9:24; Exod 16:10; etc. 203. The description is also important in that it testifies to the worthiness of the people in Solomon’s time. This point is brought out later in midrash, such as Exodus Rabbah 15:26: “The moon begins to shine on the first of Nisan and goes on shining till the fifteenth day, when her disc becomes full; from the fifteenth till the thirtieth day, her light wanes, till on the thirtieth it is not seen at all. With Israel, too, there were fifteen generations from Abraham to Solomon. Abraham began to shine . . . Isaac also shone . . . Jacob . . . and after them came Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon . . . David. When Solomon appeared, the moon’s disc was full, for it says: ‘And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord as King’ [1 Chr 29:23].” A different, shorter version of this midrash is told in the name of R. Berachia, Yalkut Shimoni, I, Section 190. 204. In 2 Sam 7:2: “I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent.” 1 Chr 17:1 does not repeat the verb “dwell,” but the difference is merely stylistic.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 60 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

60

Yhwh, the God of Israel

(1 Chr 17:4 — 2 Sam 7:5). 205 2 Chr 6:2 (1 Kings 8:13) also describes the Temple as God’s dwelling-place: “I have built thee an exalted house, a place for thee to dwell in (˚tbçl) for ever.” The connection between the ark and divine presence is conveyed in a quotation from a psalm: “And now arise, O Lord God, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” 206 In these passages, the Chronicler does not suppress any of his source material, nor does he add to it. Nevertheless, it would seem that he holds his own special view of the ark’s role as an expression of divine presence. Early biblical literature connects God’s presence in the midst of Israel to the physical presence of the ark in the camp. 207 The story of the dedication of the Temple in Solomon’s day (in Kings and in Chronicles) separates ark from divine presence and considers the former nothing more than a repository for the tablets of the law. 208 However, David’s speech in Chronicles presents a different view of the ark. The king describes his idea of building a Temple as follows: “I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God” (1 Chr 28:2). This description makes several important points: (a) The principal role of the Temple is to provide the ark with a “house of rest,” a permanent home. 209 This idea is directly linked to David’s words in 2 Sam 7:2 (parallel to 1 Chr 17:1), “I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent”: the Temple was to be built in order to house the ark for all time. 1 Chr 22:19 also affirms this role: “Arise and 205. On the change from a question — “Would you build me a house to dwell in?” (2 Sam 7:5) — to an explicit veto, see Driver, Samuel, p. 274. On the substitution of “the house” for “a house,” see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 129ff., and Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 102. 206. 2 Chr 6:41, taken from Ps 132:8, with a minor change (˚jwnl for ˚tjwnml — “resting place”). See n. 207 below. 207. For example, see Num 14:42: “Do not go up . . . for the Lord is not among you”; v. 44: “neither the ark of the covenant, nor Moses, departed out of the camp.” Whether the connection between the ark and God’s presence is integral to the ark is a question in and of itself. Clements, for example, sees the link as a merely secondary one, the basis of the connection being the cherubim. Nevertheless, he does acknowledge that it is an ancient link dating back to the Shiloh period (God and Temple, p. 35). On the matter as a whole, see ibid., pp. 28–35 and references. 208. 1 Kings 8:9: “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the people of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt” (paralleled in 2 Chr 5:10). On the text of this verse, see below, p. 78. 209. Mosis believes that the expression “house of rest” is a key to Chronicles’ worldview (see Untersuchungen, pp. 95ff., 135, etc.). However, it seems to me that he attaches too much importance to this phrase, which appears only once in the book and can hardly be considered a central conceptual term.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 61 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

61

build the sanctuary of the Lord God, so that the ark of the covenant of the Lord and the holy vessels of God may be brought into a house built for the name of the Lord.” (b) Here, the ark is called the “footstool” of God, and this title represents an innovation. Scholarship has assumed — primarily because of the phrase “who sits enthroned above the cherubim” 210 and the interpretation of Num 10:35–36 — that ancient Israel saw the ark as the empty throne or footstool of Yhwh. 211 Thus, it was thought that any biblical verses mentioning God’s “footstool” referred to the ark. 212 This, however, is not the case. We see from the actual contexts that God’s footstool is the entire Temple, not the ark. 213 In Ps 132:7 — “Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool” — “dwelling place” and “footstool” are perfectly parallel. Ps 99:5 (“Extol the Lord our God; worship at his footstool! Holy is he!”), although not unequivocal, seems to describe the people worshipping (literally, prostrating themselves) at the Temple, not at the ark. The repetition of the refrain in v. 9 — “Extol the Lord our God, and worship at his holy mountain; for the Lord our God is holy!” — and the parallelism between “his footstool” and “his holy mountain” provide the explanation to verse 5. 214 Lam 2:1 — “He has cast down from heaven to earth the splendour of Israel; he has not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger” — clearly is to be understood in the same way. 215 In all these passages, Yhwh’s footstool is the Temple as a whole. 210. See J. Maier, Das Altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, BZAW, 93 (1965), p. 55. 211. See Maier, op. cit., pp. 55ff., 68ff., and H. Davies, “The Ark of the Covenant,” ASTI, 5 (1966/7), 43. 212. There are not many such verses: Ps 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1. The word (μdh) is also found — again in the combination μylgr μdh — in Isa 66:1 and Ps 110:1. See Thesaurus, II, p. 340. Weiser comments on Ps 99:5: “In view of v. 1 and of I Chron. 28:2, Ps. 132:7 we may perhaps presume that the phrase ‘worship at (lit. fall down before) his footstool’ is meant to refer to gesture in worship before the Ark of the Covenant above which God is thought to sit invisibly enthroned on his sublime mercy-seat; for in that case, the Ark stands ‘at his feet’ like a footstool” (A. Weiser, The Psalms, OTL [1962], p. 642; see also in his introduction, pp. 33–34, 40–41, 45). The same understanding of Ps 132:7 and 99:5 is found in BDB, p. 213, and Baumgartner, Lexikon, p. 229. 213. Thus the entry for “footstool” in Thesaurus, II, p. 340, which brings an interesting parallel from Isa 60:13: “. . . to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.” See also R. David Kimhi’s commentary to Ps 99:5; 132:7; and Maier, BZAW, 93 (1965), pp. 68–69. 214. This is in fact the Targum’s understanding of the passage: “his footstool” is translated as “his Temple” and “his holy mountain” as “the mountain of his Temple,” thus underlining the parallelism, of the two verses. 215. However, see H.-J. Kraus, Klagelieder, BK (1956), p. 37, who is certain that this verse refers to the ark. Nevertheless, Rudolph suggests a number of possibilities: Jerusalem, the Temple, and, as least likely, the ark (Die Klagelieder, KAT [1962], p. 222).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 62 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

62

Yhwh, the God of Israel

1 Chr 28:2, which describes the ark, not the Temple, as God’s footstool, is thus an innovation. In light of the close connection between Chronicles and Psalm 132, 216 it may be that this innovation served a polemical purpose. 217 The psalm’s “footstool” is the Temple, and Yhwh Himself will dwell there: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation (wl bçwml): ‘This is my resting place for ever; here I will dwell (bça), for I have desired it’ ” (Ps 132:13–14, also v. 8). In 1 Chr 28:2, the ark is “the footstool of our God” and the Temple its resting-place. 218 (c) The image of the ark, God’s footstool, resting in the Temple affirms that Yhwh is actually present, however insignificant the Temple may be in comparison to God Himself. 219 We visualize the subjects prostrating themselves before the throne. All that they see is its footstool, but the king’s presence is felt nonetheless, and there is no doubt that He sits upon His throne. With the footstool there, divine presence is real, not merely metaphorical. 220 According to Chronicles, then, the Temple represents, first and foremost, God’s actual presence in the midst of His people. Whatever happens there happens “before Him” — “to His face.” Yet Chronicles is the only book to define the Temple as a “house of sacrifice” (jbz tyb). Yhwh’s response to Solomon begins: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice” (2 Chr 7:12). 221 God reacts to 216. Part of the psalm is transferred to conclude Solomon’s prayer (Ps 132:8–10 // 2 Chr 6:41–43); in addition, Chronicles reflects certain concepts found in Psalm 132. For example, see below, pp. 359ff. C. B. McCarthy came to the same conclusion in her doctoral thesis on this psalm; see ZAW, 81 (1969), 395. 217. It is less likely that 1 Chr 28:2 reflects the phrase’s original ancient meaning. Given the polemical treatment of Psalm 132 and the Chronicler’s habit of reinterpreting various biblical passages, our hypothesis would appear to be the more convincing. 218. Elsewhere, we find “after the ark rested there” (1 Chr 6:31 [Heb., 6:16]). Here, the ark is resting, not in the Temple, but in the tent that was erected after it had been brought from Kiriath-jeºarim. Mosis does not mention either this verse or the polemical parallelism with Ps 132:5, 13–14. 219. We find this idea at its strongest in Isa 66:1, whether we interpret the verse as a denial of any need for a temple (thus most exegetes; see, e.g., Ehrlich, Mikrâ kiPheschutô, III, p. 160) or as encouragement for the returning exiles unable to complete its reconstruction — M. Haran, Between Ri’shonôt (Former Prophecies) and Hadashôt (New Prophecies) (Heb., Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 94–95; see also Westermann, Isaiah, OTL (1969), pp. 412–413. 220. In contrast to the image in 2 Chr 7:16 — 1 Kings 9:3: “my eyes and my heart will be there for all time.” This is clearly a purely metaphorical description of God’s presence in the Temple. 221. In the Elephantine Papyri, we find a ajbdm tyb (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century [Oxford, 1923], p. 123, no. 32, line 3). Cowley translates it as “altarhouse” and expresses his surprise that this term, rather than the standard arwga, should

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 63 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

63

what Solomon has said, but in doing so, He introduces a completely new element. In his prayer, Solomon never mentions sacrifices or asks that God accept the offerings of His people; in fact, he ignores the Temple’s ritual function. 222 Yet, in 2 Chr 7:2ff., God answers Solomon as if the latter had sought divine approval of the Temple as a site of sacrificial worship. Moreover, God makes use of the root “choose” (ruujb) in His response. The phrasing of “I have chosen this place” as a statement, as well as the juxtaposition of “choose” and “place,” undoubtedly is connected to the common Deuteronomic formula, “the place which the Lord will choose.” 223 In the Deuteronomic usage, the purpose of Yhwh’s choice is “to make his name dwell there,” whereas in Chronicles, the place is chosen “as a house of sacrifice.” Since the Chronicler himself describes the Temple as a house built for the name of Yhwh, it is clear that his intention in this passage is not polemical; he merely wishes to remedy what he considers an omission. The same awareness of something lacking is found in 2 Chr 7:1–3 and is responsible for the inclusion of the altar’s consecration in the narrative. 224 Another passage in Chronicles describes the Temple’s function as the locus of sacrificial ritual without specifically terming it “a house of sacrifice.” Solomon writes to Huram: “Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him . . . Who am I to build a house for him, except as a place to burn incense before him?” (2 Chr 2:4–6 [Heb. 3–5]). This letter specifies that the Temple is being built only as a place of sacrifice; the idea that it could contain God is denied outright, “since heaven, even highest heaven, could not contain him. Who am I to build a house for him, except as a place to burn incense before him?” The phrase “to burn incense before him” 225 appears at the beginning and at the end of the letter to sum up the Temple’s principal role: to serve as the site of sacrificial

be used. According to Epstein, the phrase is not “altar-house,” but “house of offering” (“Opferhaus”); ajbdm should be vocalized aj:B}d]mI, as an inf. abs. rather than a noun, similar to ay;T}v‘mI (“banqueting hall”) in Dan 5:10 (I. N. Epstein, “Weitere Glossen zu den ‘aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka,’ ” ZAW, 33 (1913), 139. In his translation, Ginsberg accepts Epstein’s conclusion (ANET, p. 492). 222. This is in contrast to the importance of sacrifices in the actual consecration ceremony. See 1 Kings 8:5, 62–64 and the parallel in 2 Chr 5:6; 7:4–5, 7. 223. Deut 12:11, 14, 18, 21, 26, and many others. 224. See also Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 146–147. 225. The more common expression is “to burn incense to”; however, there are a few other instances of “to burn incense before,” such as Exod 30:8; Num 16:40 (Heb., 17:5).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 64 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

64

Yhwh, the God of Israel

worship in accordance with divine commandments. Since this worship will be “before him,” God’s presence in the Temple is taken for granted. Portraying the Temple as a place of ritual sacrifice complements its description as a house of prayer. The Chronicler views prayer and sacrifice as two sides of the same coin. 226 We see this very clearly when we examine the full text of God’s answer to Solomon: because God has chosen “this place . . . as a house of sacrifice” (2 Chr 7:12), “the prayer that is made in this place” (2 Chr 7:15) will be heard. Thus, Chronicles expresses the idea of divine presence in the Temple in a number of ways, some influenced by a variety of biblical strata, some newly-formulated. Approaches stemming from different, even opposing, 227 currents are found side by side within the book, at times within a continuous text. 228 This diversity is characteristic of the Chronicler’s spiritual world. 229 From a philosophical or rationalistic point of view, the various approaches create a certain tension; yet no effort is made to harmonize ideas or carry them to their “logical” conclusions. Using many images to convey Yhwh’s presence in the Temple, without any attempt at harmonization, does indicate that the material at hand has not been analyzed in a rational way. More importantly, though, it shows that the experience of God’s presence was powerful and sure. Every image made that experience all the more real; none could begin to capture it fully.

B. Yhwh’s Presence in Heaven The idea that God dwells in heaven is expressed a number of times in Chronicles, first and foremost eight times within Solomon’s prayer, which is transposed almost verbatim from Kings: “yea, hear thou from heaven 226. See Isa 56:7: “these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for (yk) my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” The very prophet who defines the Temple as a “house of prayer” sees an organic connection between prayer and sacrifice: the offerings will be accepted because the house is a house of prayer. 227. Such as the view characteristic of P that God is present through His glory, as opposed to the particularly Deuteronomistic concept of divine presence via Yhwh’s name. See von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, pp. 37–45. 228. See, e.g., 1 Chr 28:2–3: “I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God . . . But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name.’ ” Thus, lack of uniformity in the terminology is no reason to assume a literary reworking of the text or a variety of redactional stages (for example, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 148, note 71). 229. Clements discusses this diversity, although he does not analyse it in detail. In his opinion, Chronicles passes on a variety of traditions without synthesizing them or making any original contribution (God and Temple, p. 128).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 65 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. God’s Presence in the World

65

thy dwelling place” (2 Chr 6:21). 230 God’s response to Solomon in the same passage also contains this idea. The text appears only in Chronicles, although both style and content are dependent on Kings: “then I will hear from heaven” (2 Chr 7:14). 231 Originally, there must have been a polemical reason for emphasizing so strongly — in the context of the dedication — that Yhwh’s “dwelling place” is in fact in heaven and not in the Temple. 232 The Temple is where people pray; from it, their prayers rise to heaven. That is where prayers are heard. However, the reworking that Solomon’s prayer underwent in the book of Chronicles weakened its polemical thrust and accentuated the direct link between God’s dwelling in heaven and the hearing of prayer. Only in Chronicles do we find this emphasis as part of the divine response: “then I will hear from heaven.” In these texts, dependent on sources in Kings, God’s dwelling in heaven is connected to the dedication of the Temple. Chronicles contains a few other references to this idea, and they are usually within the same type of context: the hearing of prayer. When the Temple was rededicated in Hezekiah’s time, “the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to his holy habitation 233 in heaven” (2 Chr 30:27). The prayer itself is not recorded; rather, this short narrative establishes, in wording reminiscent of Solomon’s prayer, that it was heard by God. The prayer of the priests and Levites demonstrates that the wish expressed by Solomon was actually realized in the life of the people. 234

230. Parallel to 1 Kings 8:30. The other instances are 2 Chr 6:23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39, parallel to 1 Kings 8:32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49. The versions in Chronicles and Kings only differ linguistically: Kings generally reads “hear thou in heaven (μymçh),” apart from 1 Kings 8:30: “hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place (μymçhAla ˚tbç μwqmAla).” Chronicles, with the exception of 2 Chr 6:27, an apparent corruption, always reads “from heaven (μymçhAˆm)”; see Kropat, Die Syntax der Chronik, p. 44. 231. The response to Solomon (1 Kings 9:2–9 — 2 Chr 7:12–22) contains a short addition in Chronicles (7:13–14), in which God gives His own precis of Solomon’s prayer. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 218–219. 232. See Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 283, and above, p. 53. 233. In biblical usage, the phrase “holy habitation” (wçdq ˆw[m) describes Yhwh’s dwelling place in heaven, as in “the Lord will roar from on high, and from his holy habitation utter his voice” ( Jer 25:30) and “Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel” (Deut 26:15); a similar meaning seems to be found also in Zech 2:13 (Heb., 2:17) and Ps 68:5 (Heb., 68:6). The verse closest to ours is Deut 26:15, which apparently was the source for Chronicles. However, “habitation” on its own indicates the Temple — Ps 26:8; 76:2 (Heb., 76:3); 2 Chr 36:15. 234. We find a similar connection between the prayers of Solomon and Jehoshaphat; see above, pp. 54ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 66 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

66

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Also from Hezekiah’s time, we have the supplication by Isaiah and the king: “Then Hezekiah . . . and Isaiah . . . prayed because of this and cried to heaven” (2 Chr 32:20). The intent is clear: they petitioned heaven because that is where God dwells and receives prayers. Another such elliptical description appears in 2 Chr 28:9: “but you have slain them in a rage / which has reached up to heaven (μbAwgrhtw [ygh μymçl d[ π[zb).” The abrupt syntax of this sentence is rather obscure and may result from an attempt at a lofty, poetic style. It is not clear what has reached up to heaven: the rage of the Israelite killers of their Judean brothers 235 or the deed itself, demanding retribution. 236 In either case, the words assume that whatever reaches heaven reaches God and elicits His reaction. Not only do prayers and outcries reach heaven; it is from heaven that the answer comes. Two passages concerning the consecration of altars serve as illustrations. Both are additions in Chronicles to stories originating in Samuel–Kings: 237 1 Chr 21:26: “And David . . . called upon the Lord, and he answered him with fire from heaven upon the altar of burnt offering.” 2 Chr 7:1: “When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices.” Fire from heaven is an answer to human prayer. The very wording of 1 Chr 21:26 portrays fire as a response: “he answered him with fire” — çab whn[yw. In 2 Chr 7:1, the fire descends as an immediate answer to Solomon’s words, a sign that they have been accepted by God. 238 God’s dwelling in heaven is mentioned in a different context in one other passage in Chronicles. In 2 Chr 20:6, we read, “art thou not God in heaven? Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations?” This verse is something of a declaration of faith: being “God in heaven” elevates Yhwh above the world and expresses His omnipotent rule over it. 239 235. Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 458, 459. 236. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 290. 237. Compare 2 Sam 24:25; 1 Kings 8:54. 238. It may be that the source of both descriptions is the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal; see 1 Kings 18:24 — “and you call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; and the God who answers by fire, he is God” — and v. 38: “Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood. . . .” See also J. D. Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes,” JBL, 94 (1975), 203. 239. The verse that most resembles ours is Ps 115:3 — “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” — which explicitly links God’s absolute omnipotence to His presence in heaven. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 131; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 406; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 261.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 67 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

67

The fact that Yhwh dwells on high does not confine him to heaven. Chronicles transmits Solomon’s polemical words in their original context, “Behold, heaven 240 and the highest heaven cannot contain thee” (2 Chr 6:18), and repeats them in another context: “But who is able to build him a house, since heaven, even highest heaven, cannot contain him” (2 Chr 2:6 [Heb. 2:5]). Scholars have often assumed that describing Yhwh as “God in heaven” or “God of heaven” indicates an increasing sense of His distance, an emphasis of His transcendence. 241 The passages from Chronicles in which God is depicted as dwelling in heaven prove that the increase in distance is only physical; there is no disruption of the spiritual link or the experience of divine presence. In fact, most of these passages deal with the hearing of prayer and God’s immediate response. In another context, the description of God’s presence in heaven serves to emphasize His rule over the world. That God dwells in heaven expresses, above all, his supremacy and omnipotence, not his distance. There is no gap or separation between Him and human beings; from heaven, He rules them and answers their prayers. 242

V. The Relationship between Yhwh and the People of Israel The book of Chronicles is based on the assumption that Yhwh is God and ruler of the world, yet it is Yhwh’s identity as God of Israel that dominates the book’s concept of God. How are these two ideas — Yhwh is ruler of the entire world and is the God of Israel — related? David’s speech in 1 Chronicles 29 and Jehoshaphat’s prayer in 2 Chronicles 20 provide an answer. David begins his blessing in this way: “Blessed art thou, O Lord God, the God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power . . . for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord . . . and thou rulest over all” (1 Chr 29:10–12). Jehoshaphat says, “O Lord, God of our fathers, art thou not God in heaven? Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations . . .” (2 Chr 20:6). Each does more than invoke the name of Yhwh; he adds an epithet indicating His essential nature as God of Israel. Both 240. In the Hebrew, the h is missing because of haplography; the verse should read μymçh, as it does in 1 Kings 8:27 — thus Rudolph, Chronik, p. 212. 241. For example, see Clements, God and Temple, p. 131. 242. Consider the words of Psalm 113: “The Lord is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens! Who is like the Lord our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down upon the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust. . . .”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 68 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

68

Yhwh, the God of Israel

present a prime definition of Yhwh: He is “God of Israel” or “God of our fathers.” The prayers then go on to identify Him as God of all the world, and this adds to their efficacy: the king of Israel’s prayer differs from that of any other king or people because only the God of Israel is God of the entire world. We see that this line of thinking is unusual when we compare it to the view found elsewhere. For example, in Deuteronomy, we read: “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it; yet the Lord set his heart in love upon your fathers and chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as at this day” (10:14–15). According to this description, Yhwh is first of all God of everything — of the heavens, the earth, and the peoples that inhabit it — but He favoured Israel and its forefathers and chose it as His people. The limitation or narrowing implied by the relationship between God and Israel must then be explained and justified. 243 Chronicles, however, begins with this special connection; Yhwh is first and foremost the God of Israel, and his relationship to the rest of the world therefore broadens His role. The God of Israel is also ruler of all the world. The connection between Yhwh and the people of Israel is emphasized through the use of language. Apart from the epithets “God of Israel” and “God of our fathers,” most striking are the possessive form found in Israel’s prayers (“the Lord my God,” “our God,” and so forth 244) and the description of Israel as Yhwh’s people. 245 What, then, determined or determines this relationship between the people and its God? Is the connection defined, and if it is, how is it defined? 243. See also Deut 4:19–20: “Beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars . . . which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the Lord has taken you, and brought you forth . . . to be a people of his own possession, as at this day”; and vv. 32–39. 244. “My God” — 1 Chr 11:19; 17:25; 21:17; 22:7; 29:2, 3 (twice), 17; 2 Chr 2:4 (Heb., 2:3); 6:19, 40; 18:13. “Our God” — 1 Chr 13:2.3; 15:13; 16:14; 19:13; 28:2, 8; 29:13, 16; 2 Chr 2:4, 5 (Heb., 3, 4); 13:10, 11; 14:7, 11 (Heb., 6, 10); 19:7; 20:7, 12; 29:6; 32:8, 11. “Your [sing.] God” — 1 Chr 11:2; 12:18 (Heb., 19); 22:11, 12; 2 Chr 9:8; 16:7. “Your [pl.] God” — 1 Chr 22:18, 19; 28:8; 29:20; 2 Chr 20:20; 24:5; 28:10; 30:8, 9; 32:14, 15; 35:3. “His God” — 2 Chr 1:1; 14:2, 11 (Heb., 1, 10); 15:9; 20:30; 26:16; 27:6; 28:5; 31:20, 21; 33:12, 18; 34:8; 36:5, 12, 23. “Their God” — 2 Chr 31:6; 33:17; 34:33. In a few instances, the Chronicler alters his source: 1 Chr 11:19 — 2 Sam 23:17; 2 Chr 14:2 (Heb., 14:1) — 1 Kings 15:11; 2 Chr 34:8 — 2 Kings 22:3; 2 Chr 36:5 — 2 Kings 23:37; 2 Chr 36:12 — 2 Kings 24:19. 245. The Lord’s people — 1 Chr 17:22; 2 Chr 23:16. “My people” — 1 Chr 11:2; 17:6, 7, 9, 10; 2 Chr 1:11; 6:5, 6; 7:13, 14. “Thy people” — 1 Chr 17:21, 22; 21:17; 29:17, 18; 2 Chr 1:10; 6:21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 39; 20:7. “His people” — 1 Chr 14:2; 22:18; 23:25; 2 Chr 2:11 (Heb., 2:10); 31:8, 10; 32:17; 35:3; 36:15, 16, 23.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 69 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

69

In the Bible, two principal concepts define the relationship between God and Israel: covenant (tyrb) and chosenness, or election (hryjb). 246 The concept of covenant determines the nature of the relationship, and the concept of chosenness describes how Israel was singled out as partner to the covenant. 247 The fullest expression of both concepts appears in formative events in the people’s early history. Israel’s election is most clearly seen in the miraculous deliverance from Egypt, when Yhwh revealed His special regard for the people; the purpose of election was the establishment of the covenant at Sinai. According to this view, the bond between God and His people was produced by a unique event in the course of history. Thereafter, both parties are committed to a permanent covenantal relationship. The most explicit expression of this idea appears in Deuteronomy, 248 which emphasizes the following aspects: (1) the basis for Israel’s election was the favoured position of the patriarchs; (2) the Exodus from Egypt constituted the concrete expression of the actual choosing of Israel; (3) the revelation at Sinai was the ceremony that formalized the covenant; 246. Biblical scholarship now understands that relationship between Yhwh and the people of Israel in terms of “election” and “covenant.” The concept of covenant is considered the more central; it appears more frequently in the Bible and has merited greater attention on the part of scholars. The principal differences in critical interpretation involve the relative importance of the two concepts in biblical thought, their antiquity, and the meaning of “covenant.” Eichrodt, for example, regards the idea of covenant as the basic concept defining the relationship between God and Israel from the time of Moses on. He describes the interaction between Yhwh and His people, as well as much of Israel’s religious outlook, in the context of this idea (Eichrodt, Theology, I, passim). See also M. Weinfeld, tyrb, TDOT, II, 253–279; E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament, BZAW, 131 (1973). 247. The connection between election and covenant is generally accepted by scholars, albeit with varying degrees of emphasis. Rowley believes that they are related but by no means one and the same (Election, passim; see his index). Begrich, however, argues that “the establishment of the covenant is in reality none other than the expression of election” ( J. Begrich, “Berit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform,” ZAW, 60 [1944], 7). This opinion is shared by Mendenhall: “. . . the religious meaning of God’s ‘choosing’ must be looked for within the framework of the religious bond which held early Israel together. This can only be the covenant tradition” (G. E. Mendenhall, “Election,” IDB, II, 79). According to I. Heinemann, “the election of individuals involves the establishment of a covenant between them and God . . . likewise the election of the entire people . . .” (“Election” [Heb.], EB, II, 47). 248. Although the first instance of God’s “choosing” (ruujb) and Israel’s being chosen is in Deuteronomy (see Mendenhall, loc. cit., 76), the idea did not begin there. Amos 3:2 and 9:7–10 (in which the root ruujb does not appear) are often cited as an expression of this concept. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly Deuteronomy that develops the religious concept of chosenness most systematically in the Bible.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 70 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

70

Yhwh, the God of Israel

(4) the commandments and laws serve as the covenant’s conditions in perpetuity. 249 Chronicles’ position on this range of ideas remains to be seen; how does the book understand the relationship between God and the people of Israel?

A. Chosenness In the Bible, the root ruujb has the meaning “to choose,” 250 which comprises three elements: (1) differentiation — separating a part from the whole; (2) preference — the desired as opposed to the undesired; (3) mission — something is preferred because it is intended for a particular purpose. Differentiation can be expressed with other verbs, such as luudb; however, luudb lacks the connotations of favouring and specific function, and thus we find in Gen 1:7: “And God made the firmament and separated (ldbyw) the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.” The verbs buuha, quuçj, and [uudy indicate favour, but not separation. Only the root ruujb combines these elements: something is preferred and separated from the whole for a specific purpose. 251 All biblical cases of election have this meaning: the choosing of Israel from among the nations to be Yhwh’s people, the choosing of Jerusalem out of all the cities as the Temple site, and so on. Chronicles use of the verb ruujb conforms to general biblical usage and is linked to the following objects: (1) Jerusalem and the Temple (2 Chr 6:5– 6, 34, 38; 7:12, 16; 12:13; 33:7); (2) the Levites (1 Chr 15:2; 2 Chr 29:11); (3) David and the Davidic dynasty (1 Chr 28:4–6, 10; 29:1; 2 Chr 6:5–6). (1) The choosing of Jerusalem is mentioned a few times in Chronicles, in parallel texts from the Deuteronomistic stratum of Kings, 252 by means of the standard phrase “the city which Yhwh has chosen to put His name there.” 253 The Chronicler also uses this phrase in an original passage and 249. On the relative importance of these concepts in the Deuteronomic world-view, see von Rad, Theology, I, pp. 223ff. 250. Thesaurus, II, p. 51. 251. The verb “elect” does not fully express these various meanings, which involve “selection” as well as “election.” 252. 2 Chr 6:5–6 — 1 Kings 8:16; 2 Chr 6:34, 38 — 1 Kings 8:44, 48. 2 Chr 12:13 — 1 Kings 14:21; 2 Chr 33:7 — 2 Kings 21:7. 253. With minor variations: “I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there . . . but I have chosen Jerusalem that my name may be there” (2 Chr 6:5–6); “the city which the Lord has chosen . . . to put his name there” (2 Chr 12:13); “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name for ever” (2 Chr 33:7): “this city which thou hast chosen” (2 Chr 6:34); “the city which thou hast chosen” (2 Chr 6:38).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 71 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

71

inserts the special choosing of the Temple: “Then the Lord appeared to Solomon . . . and said to him: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice . . . For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there for ever’ ” (2 Chr 7:12–16). 1 Kings 9:3 reads: “And the Lord said to him. ‘I have heard your prayer . . . I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever.” The text in Kings only mentions the consecration of the house, whereas Chronicles adds its chosenness, both at the beginning and the end of the passage. This type of emphasis is certainly not accidental. It serves a dual purpose: the intended sacrificial function of the chosen house is stressed, 254 and, by means of the standard formula, the focus is shifted from the chosenness of Jerusalem to the chosenness of the Temple. The passage therefore represents a development in the idea of chosenness vis-à-vis Jerusalem and the Temple. Deuteronomy speaks only of “the place which the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name . . . and make his habitation there,” 255 without actually naming the place. 256 Deuteronomistic historiography took it for granted that Jerusalem was intended and made this clear by altering the wording from “the place” to “the city” or “Jerusalem.” 257 Because of this assumption, Kings applies the concept of chosenness to the city of Jerusalem, not to the Temple. 258 However, Chronicles returns to the original idea and stresses that the chosen place was in fact the Temple, reviving the Deuteronomic formula, “the place which the Lord will choose,”which appears in Chronicles as “I . . . have chosen this place.” 259 (2) Although not found in the source material in Samuel–Kings, the choosing of the Levites is mentioned twice in Chronicles: (a) 1 Chr 15:2: “for the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him for ever.” 254. On “house of sacrifice,” see above, pp. 62–63. 255. Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 21, etc. 256. Much ink has been spilled regarding this question. For example, see Kaufmann, Religion, I, p. 89. 257. 1 Kings 8:16; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7, etc. 258. Thus we find, for example: “and they pray to the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen and the house which I have built for my name” (1 Kings 8:44, likewise v. 48). See also 1 Kings 8:29: “that thy eyes may be open . . . toward this house, the place of which thou hast said, ‘My name shall be there.’ ” In these verses, the house is not “chosen.” 259. It may be that “place” was understood in the more limited sense of “sanctuary,” and this interpretation is indeed possible; see meaning no. 6 for μwqm in Baumgartner, Lexikon, II, p. 592.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 72 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

72

Yhwh, the God of Israel

(b) 2 Chr 29:11: “the Lord has chosen you to stand in his presence, to minister to him, and to be his ministers and burn incense to him.” The meaning of “Levites” in these passages and in Chronicles as a whole is a controversial issue. Is the word used in a narrow sense, referring only to the non-priestly members of the tribe of Levi, 260 or in its broader meaning, denoting all members of the tribe, including priests? 261 It seems to me that the two meanings appear side by side in Chronicles and can only be distinguished in context. 262 The above verses are related to, although not an exact quotation of, Deut 10:8: “At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day.” The most noticeable difference is the use of the verb “choose” instead of “set apart” (luudb). “Choose” does appear in Deut 18:5 and 21:5 with reference to the priests. 263 In l Chr 23:13, “set apart” describes the selection of the priests alone: “Aaron was set apart, he and his sons, forever, to be consecrated as most holy, to make burnt offerings to the Lord and serve Him and pronounce blessings in His name forever” (NJPS). Despite the similarity, this verse, like the two above, does not seem to be directly dependent on Deut 10:8. 264 The resemblance between the verses in Chronicles and formulae describing the election of the priests and Levites in Deuteronomy, however great, was not the result of outright borrowing. 265 It may be that certain stock formulae, such as “to stand before the Lord,” “to minister to him,” and “to pronounce blessings in his name 260. As in Num 3:5ff., which speaks of “Levites” (vv. 9, 12, etc.) and even the “tribe” (v. 6) or “sons” (v. 15) of Levi in contrast to “Aaron and his sons” (v. 9). Many other examples may be found. This is the common interpretation of the term in Chronicles; for example, see Welch, Chronicler, p. 103. 261. Among the examples are: Exod 6:25, where “these are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites by their families” concludes a genealogy including Aaron’s family; Josh 21:1ff., which includes the priests in “the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites” and regards priestly cities as also belonging to the Levites. 262. Levites as opposed to priests: 1 Chr 13:2; 15:4; etc. Levites as the entire tribe, including priests: 1 Chr 15:12; 2 Chr 29:5, 11, etc. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 293. The first meaning is the more common in Chronicles. 263. Deut 18:5: “For the Lord your God has chosen [the priest] out of all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever”; Deut 21:5: “And the priests the sons of Levi shall come forward, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord.” 264. The short formula, “to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord,” is also found in Deut 21:5, but the phrases “to burn incense before Yhwh” or “to be consecrated as most holy” never appear in Deuteronomy. 265. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 99, speaks of actual quotation, as does Mendenhall, albeit more cautiously (IDB, II, 80).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 73 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

73

for ever,” already existed; the writer then selected the phrases appropriate to his particular context and outlook. Depending on his intention, the subject could also be changed: priests, Levites, or all members of the tribe of Levi. “To choose” (ruujb) is used in an unrestricted fashion, when demanded by the particular context. (3) The choosing of David as king of Israel is mentioned in Chronicles’ sources (1 Kings 8:16 — 2 Chr 6:5–6), but the Chronicler goes on to develop the subject more fully. Awareness of David’s chosenness is intensified and is extended to his son Solomon, on one hand, and to his family and the entire tribe of Judah, on the other. Narrowing the choice down to Solomon is described as one selection after another, emphasizing the restriction inherent in the process of choosing: “for he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father’s house, and among my father’s sons he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. And of all my sons . . . he has chosen Solomon my son” (1 Chr 28:4–5). The process comes to an end only when Solomon is chosen as David’s heir. 266 The different applications of “choose” in Chronicles show clearly that the word was current in a variety of senses and served the Chronicler’s purposes in a number of contexts. It is therefore very significant that the most important election in biblical thought — the election of Israel — never appears in the book of Chronicles. 267 Given this concept’s centrality to the book of Deuteronomy, a recognized influence on Chronicles in other respects, 268 as well as Chronicles’ fundamental assumption of a special relationship between God and the people, this absence is puzzling indeed. Moreover, not only is the concept of Israel’s chosenness omitted (which cannot be merely accidental), it would appear that it has even been suppressed. The Chronicler has deleted, each in a different manner, the two references found in his sources:

266. Cf. also 1 Chr 29:1. Solomon’s chosenness is an innovation of Chronicles; see below, pp. 350ff. 267. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 64; “. . . yet of the election that constitutes an indispensible prerequisite for every specific case [of election], we hear nothing.” However, von Rad claims that it is impossible to understand Chronicles without the prior assumption of chosenness, “die Voraussetzung der Erwältheit”; see also below. 268. See above, p. 5, n. 20. In his book, von Rad clarifies and pays particular attention to the influence of Deuteronomy on Chronicles; those who follow in his footsteps at times draw much more extreme conclusions than he did. (See, e.g., T. E. Fretheim, “The Priestly Document: anti Temple?” VT, 18 [1968], 320ff.) The shared use of the root ruujb, which Rudolph considers unimpeachable proof of Deuteronomy’s influence (Chronik, p. xv), is in fact merely superficial linguistic evidence and cannot testify to the books’ ideological content.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 74 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

74

Yhwh, the God of Israel

(a) 1 Kings 3:8–9: “And thy servant is in the midst of thy people whom thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered or counted for multitude. Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind . . .” 2 Chr 1:9–10: “O Lord God, let thy promise to David my father be now fulfilled, for thou hast made me king over a people as many as the dust of the earth. Give me now wisdom and knowledge . . . for who can rule this thy people, that is so great?” Solomon’s words are paraphrased in Chronicles. The Chronicler adopts a more common phrasing by substituting “as many as the dust of the earth” 269 for “that cannot be numbered or counted for multitude”; the second component — “whom thou hast chosen” — is simply omitted. (b) The conclusion to Solomon’s prayer establishes the concept of chosenness as the ideological basis of the entire speech. When Yhwh delivered Israel from Egypt, he singled them out from all other peoples as His people: 1 Kings 8:51–53: “for they are thy people, and thy heritage, which thou didst bring out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron furnace . . . For thou didst separate them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be thy heritage, as thou didst declare through Moses, thy servant, when thou didst bring our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord God.” Apart from a few minor changes, Solomon’s prayer is transposed to Chronicles in its entirety; this concluding passage, however, is omitted completely. Instead, the prayer ends with part of a psalm which might have been used in ritual worship, thus lending Solomon’s words a liturgical dimension not found in Kings. Neither the idea of chosenness 270 nor the historical event associated with it 271 is mentioned by the Chronicler. An idea along the lines of chosenness — Yhwh’s love for the people of Israel — appears twice in Chronicles in similar contexts. One quotes the queen of Sheba: “Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever, he has made you king over them . . .” (2 Chr 9:8, parallel to 1 Kings 10:9). In the other, King Hiram of Tyre says, “Because the Lord loves his people he has made you king over them” (2 Chr 2:11 [Heb., 10]). 269. Gen 13:16; 28:14. See Willi, Auslegung, p. 158. 270. This idea appears only once in Chronicles: “O offspring of Israel his servant, sons of Jacob, his chosen ones” (1 Chr 16:13, which is parallel to Ps 105:6). We must, however, take into account not only the Chronicler’s lack of editorial consistency, but also the fact that this sort of case, which involves a psalm that is, by its very nature, a complete, fully-rounded work, automatically limits the redactional possibilities. A few scholars believe that the psalm was not inserted by the Chronicler himself. See HänelRothstein, Chronik, p. 297; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 127; Willi, Auslegung, p. 163, and n. 209. 271. See also below, pp. 296ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 75 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

75

The literary influence of the first verse on the second is clear, 272 and both link God’s love for Israel to the reign of Solomon. Unlike Deuteronomy, where this love is directly related to the election of Israel, 273 Chronicles makes no mention of such a connection. This absence of the concept of chosenness also sheds light on another issue. According to Deuteronomic ideology, Yhwh’s choosing of the people is based on his love for the Patriarchs. Deuteronomy provides no reason for this special love which, along with the promise made to the Patriarchs, leads to Israel’s election and inheritance of the land. 274 This matter is not discussed in Chronicles, although an allusion to it might appear once: “ ‘Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land . . . and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham thy friend (˚bha)?’ ” (2 Chr 20:7). Apparently, this verse was influenced by Isa 41:8 275 — “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend (ybha)” — which sees God’s love for Abraham as the cause of Israel’s election. 276 Isaiah’s words represent a certain innovation in the concept of chosenness as found in Deuteronomy; in this verse, God chose Israel not because of His love for Abraham, but because of Abraham’s love for Him. 277 Only the final element in Isa 41:8 — Abraham’s love for 272. Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 66. 273. See Deut 7:7–8: “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you . . . but it is because the Lord loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers.” Rowley sees God’s love for Israel — “the miracle of Divine grace” — as the basis for any concept of chosenness or covenant (Election, p. 18). 274. Deut 4:37; 10:15; etc. 275. See Willi, Auslegung, p. 177. 276. For example, cf. C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (1969), pp. 59–60; P. Volz, Jesaia II, KAT (1932), pp. 18ff. Second Isaiah does not explain why Abraham merited the epithet “friend” (from the root buuha); perhaps it was in keeping with Deuteronomy’s general view of how to love God — by observing His commandments, walking in His ways, and obeying Him (see W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern background of the love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ, 25 [1963], 78). Thus, the epithet referred to Abraham’s faith and obedience to God described, for example, in Gen 26:5. It is only a short step from this view of Abraham to the midrashic and New Testament association of his love of God with the binding of Isaac (Sotah 3la; Epistle of James 2:21–23). However, it may be that the passage in Isaiah is not dependent on the Deuteronomic outlook but rather constitutes another example of the use of buuha as a synonym to duub[ (“serve,” “worship”) — a technical meaning that appears in contracts and treaties and is the result of Assyrian-Babylonian influence on Israelite usage (see Moran, loc. cit., 79, n. 9). 277. The Septuagint shows an awareness of this innovation. In LXX to Isa 41:8 and to 2 Chr 20:7, we find variants to MT: Abraham becomes the object rather than the subject of love. Isa 41:8 reads: spevrma Âbraavm o¶n hjgavphsa — “the seed of Abraham, whom I have loved” — and 2 Chr 20:7: (spevrmati Âbraavm tåÅ hjgaphmevnå sou — “thy beloved seed

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 76 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

76

Yhwh, the God of Israel

God — appears in Chronicles; the book never mentions Yhwh’s love for the Patriarchs.

B. Covenant The concept of covenant is well attested in Chronicles, 278 although we must distinguish between the word’s appearance in the phrase “ark of the covenant” and the covenant per se. “Ark of the covenant” or “ark of the covenant of God\the Lord” occurs twelve times in Chronicles: twice quoted verbatim from the sources in Kings, 279 five times as a substitute for another phrase found in the parallel texts, 280 and five times in passages unique to Chronicles. 281 Many other names for the ark appear in Chronicles in both parallel and original passages; they include “ark of the Lord,” “ark of God,” and “the holy ark.” “Ark” — on its own is the most common, followed by “ark of God.” 282 of Abraham.” Yet, in other biblical passages mentioning those who love God, LXX translates MT verbatim, as in Deut 5:10; 7:9; Judg 5:31; Ps 97:10; Neh 1:5; etc. Since LXX follows two different methods in translating Isa 41:8 and 2 Chr 20:7, the two translations are apparently not mutually dependent: rather, the translator had to deal with the same problem in both cases. Although it is difficult to know precisely what he considered problematic, it is clear that the shift in Isa 41:8 and 2 Chr 20:7 was recognized but not accepted (see Allen, The Greek Chronicles, I, pp. 125–126). The English translation “my friend” (like the German “mein Freund”) obscures the distinction between active and passive in the Hebrew and appears to follow LXX. “My friend,” more accurately a translation to ydydy (found in Isa 5:1 and translated in LXX as hjgaphmevnoÍ), does not express the very different one-sidedness of bhwa (“loves”) and bwha (“beloved”). 278. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 64–65. 279. 2 Chr 5:2, 7 — 1 Kings 8:1, 6. 280. “Ark of God” in 2 Sam 6:12; 2 Sam 7:2; “ark of the covenant of the Lord” in 1 Chr 15:25; 17:1; “ark of the Lord” in 2 Sam 6:13, 15, 17; “ark of the covenant of the Lord” in 1 Chr 15:26, 28, 29. 281. “Ark of the covenant of the Lord” in 1 Chr 16:37; 22:19; 28:2, 18; “ark of the covenant of God” in 1 Chr 16:6. 282. In parallel texts: “ark of God” — 1 Chr 13:6, 7 = 2 Sam 6:2, 3; “ark of God” in Chronicles as opposed to “ark of the Lord” in the source text — 1 Chr 13:12, 14; 16:1 and 2 Sam 6:10, 11, 17; “the ark” — 2 Chr 5:4, 6, 8, 9, 10; 6:11 = 1 Kings 8:3, 7, 9, 21; “the ark” in Chronicles as opposed to “ark of the Lord” in the source — 1 Chr 13:13; 2 Chr 5:5 and 2 Sam 6:10; 1 Kings 8:4; “the ark” in Chronicles versus “ark of God” in the sources — 1 Chr 13:9, 10 and 2 Sam 6:6, 7; “the ark” in Chronicles versus “the holy place (çdqh)” in the source — 2 Chr 5:9 and 1 Kings 8:8. In texts that have no parallel: “ark of the Lord” — 1 Chr 15:2, 3; 16:4; 2 Chr 8:11; “ark of God” — 1 Chr 13:5; 15:1, 2, 15, 24; 2 Chr 1:4; “the ark” — 1 Chr 15:23, 24, 27; 16:37; “ark of our God” — 1 Chr 13:3; “ark of the Lord, God of Israel” — 1 Chr 15:12, 14; “the ark of thy might” — 2 Chr 6:41; “the holy ark” — 2 Chr 35:3. The use or interchange of names is random. It stems from stylistic or textual variations and does not testify to any particular intention on the writer’s part. See J. Maier, BZAW, 93 (1965), pp. 84–85.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 77 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

77

We find the tendency to add “of the covenant” to the shorter “ark of Yhwh” elsewhere in the Bible. An addition of this sort within a text is not readily evident unless it mars the verse’s syntax. In Josh 3:14, it is clear that “tyrbh” has been tacked onto the original ˆwrah yaçn to produce the ungrammatical tyrbh ˆwrah yaçn. In Josh 3:17, uh tyrb ˆwrah yaçn resulted when uh tyrb was added to ˆwrah yaçn, and in 3:11, the addition of tyrbh to the original ≈rahAlk ˆwda uh ˆwra (which in fact appears in verse 13 of this chapter) produced the peculiar form ≈rahAlk ˆwda tyrbh ˆwra. 283 It seems that a similar process is at work in the case of 1 Sam 4:3–5: MT reads “ark of the covenant of the Lord,” whereas LXX has “ark of the Lord.” Given that the rest of the story only uses the phrase “ark of God/the Lord” and that the Septuagint actually tends to add rather than omit “covenant,” the reading of LXX appears to be preferable. 284 As we have said, the Septuagint shows a decided tendency to add the word “covenant” in naming the ark. 285 At times, the difference is not between MT and LXX; even two LXX manuscripts may contain different versions. 286 The addition of “covenant” may be interpreted in two ways: either the translators veered away from a verbatim translation and were drawn instead to the use of standard phraseology, or their Hebrew Vorlage differed from MT. If the latter is true, the Chronicler may simply have had a different Vorlage of Samuel when he “added” the word “covenant” to his source in five passages. 287 Nevertheless, he undoubtedly made greater use of this epithet, as the five other examples show. Was this use merely stylistic, or did it indicate an ideological shift? The phrase “ark of the covenant” appears frequently (although not uniquely) in texts classified as Deuteronomistic. 288 Deut 10:1–5 presents the view that the sole function of the acacia wood ark is to house the stone tablets. Since these tablets engraved with the words of covenant between God and Israel are called the tablets of the covenant (Deut 9:9, 11, 15), the ark is called the ark of the covenant. 289 283. M. Noth, Das Buch Josua, HAT (1953), p. 28. 284. See Driver, Samuel, p. 46. 285. As in Josh 3:13, 15 (twice); 4:10, 11; 6:9, 11, 12; 1 Sam 5:4; 6:3, 18; 7:1 (twice); 2 Sam 6:10; 1 Chr 15:27; 16:4. See F. Seyring, “Der alttestamentliche Sprachgebrauch in Betreff des Names der sog. ‘Bundeslade’,” ZAW, 11 (1891), 121. 286. For example, in 1 Kings 2:26. 287. On the question in general, see G. Gerleman, Synoptic Studies in the OT (Lund, 1948), pp. 28–35; W. E. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History,” HThR, 58 (1965), 349. 288. See Driver (Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC [1902], p. 122), who draws from Seyring, loc. cit. (see above, n. 285). 289. This type of meaning is also implied in the phrase “tablets of testimony” that appears in Exod 31:18; 32:15; 34:29. However, the epithet “ark of testimony” is ambiguous,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 78 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

78

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Giving it this name appears to be a polemic against other biblical views that attribute additional, more essential, functions to the ark. 290 This type of Deuteronomic polemic is also found in 1 Kings 8:9: “There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the Lord made [a covenant] with the people of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.” The syntax of this verse is faulty; the Hebrew contains no subject for the relative clause rça larçyAynb μ[ uh trk. The Septuagint’s version, which adds the words “tablets of the covenant,” appears to be preferable. Thus: “There was nothing in the ark except two tablets of stone . . . tablets of the covenant which the Lord made with the people of Israel . . .” 291 The polemical intent could not be more clear. The ark is not “the ark of Yhwh,” but merely “the ark of Yhwh’s covenant” by virtue of its contents, the stone tablets which are the tablets of the covenant. We see the complete identification of these tablets with the covenant in 1 Kings 8:21: “And there I have provided a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which he made . . .” 292 The epithet “of the covenant of the Lord” refers to the ark’s contents, the tablets. 293 The tablets themselves are “the covenant” because as we see in Exod 25:21–22: “and in the ark you shall put the testimony (td[h) that I shall give you. There I will meet (ytd[wnw) with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony (td[h ˆwra), I will speak with you.” Here, “the ark of testimony” houses the tablets, “the testimony,” and is also a place of meeting between God and Moses, a place of testimony. “Testimony” (td[) is also used as a name for the tablets in Exod 25:16 and 40:20 and for the ark in Exod 27:21; 30:6; and elsewhere. The term “ark of testimony” is confined to Priestly literature and does not appear even in the book of Chronicles. 290. The tension between various Pentateuchal views of the ark is conveyed in the midrash quoted by Rashi: “Rabbi Judah bar Ilai taught: The people of Israel had two arks in the wilderness. One held the Torah, and the other held the fragments of the broken tablets. The one containing the Torah remained in the tent of meeting . . . and the one containing the fragments would come and go with them” (Yalkut Shimoni, I, Section 367). According to von Rad, Deuteronomy’s concept deviates from that of JE, for whom the ark is the Lord’s throne; von Rad, Deuteronomy, OTL (1966), p. 79. Weinfeld, however, believes that the polemic is also against P; M. Weinfeld, “The Change in the Conception of Religion in Deuteronomy” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 31 (1961/62), 15–16. 291. Von Rad suggests that the omission of “tablets of the covenant” in MT of Kings and both MT and LXX for the parallel verse in 2 Chr 5:10 is not accidental, but the deliberate result of a tendency first seen in MT of 1 Kings 8:9 (Geschichtsbild, p. 65, n. 5). See also below, p. 81, n. 303. 292. The parallel in 2 Chr 6:11 reads: “And there I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord . . .” 293. Rudolph’s translation of this verse — “. . . and there I have provided a place for the ark. In which is the law of the covenant (das Gesetz des Bundes) of the Lord which he made . . .” (Chronik, p. 212) — also explains, by means of elaboration, how “the covenant” could be put in the ark.

spread is 12 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 79 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

79

(as we read in Exod 34:28) the words of God, of the covenant, are engraved upon them. Thus, it would seem that “ark of the covenant of the Lord” was introduced as a polemic against the older term “ark of the Lord” and expressed the belief that the ark was merely a testimony to Yhwh’s covenant written on the tablets. However, an examination of the relevant passages in Chronicles suggests that this polemical significance was no longer recognized; the epithet was simply one of several that described the ark. Perhaps its significance faded with the passage of time, and the ease with which the phrase uh ˆwra could be altered to uh tyrb ˆwra may also have led to its frequent occurrence. The use of this epithet in Chronicles must be considered a literary-stylistic phenomenon that had lost its polemical edge. In discussing the concept of covenant per se, we must first distinguish between religious and non-religious covenants, bearing in mind that all covenants have a religious basis in that they are made under oath “before God.” 294 Our distinction refers to the parties to a covenant. If both parties are human, the covenant is non-religious; in a religious covenant, God Himself is one of the two parties. Three political covenants are mentioned in Chronicles, all taken from the parallel sources with no change in wording: 1. The covenant between David and the elders of Israel in 1 Chr 11:3– 2 Sam 5:3. 2. The covenant between King Asa of Judah and Benhadad king of Aram, in which Asa calls upon Ben-hadad for support against Baºasha of Israel (2 Chr 16:3 — 1 Kings 15:19). 3. The covenant with which Jehoiada banded the commanders of hundreds together in an alliance against Athaliah. Here, we find certain differences between the two texts: 2 Kings 11:4: “But in the seventh year Jehoi’ada sent and brought the captains of [MT: read ‘of the hundreds of’] the Carites and of the guards, and had them come to him in the house of the Lord; and he made a covenant with them and put them under oath in the house of the Lord, and he showed them the king’s son.” 2 Chr 23:1–3: “But in the seventh year Jehoi’ada took courage, and entered into a compact (tyrb) with the commanders of hundreds . . . and they came to Jerusalem. And all the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God.” The book of Kings describes one covenant between Jehoiada and the commanders of hundreds. This covenant is established in order to make 294. M. Weinfeld, tyrb, TDOT, II, 255–256.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 80 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

80

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the son of Ahaziah king. The prince himself takes no part in the proceedings and is presented to the commanders by Jehoiada only after the covenant has been established. Chronicles speaks of a double covenant: the first between Jehoiada and the commanders 295 and the second between all the assembly and the king’s son, which constitutes the main covenant. 296 The course of events is described somewhat differently in the two books. In Chronicles, the principal covenant — the one between the new king and the people — is given priority and occurs at an earlier stage; in Kings, it only appears at the end of the story. Although the narrative describing the events is different, their significance remains the same. 297 Chronicles’ testimony concerning religious covenants is more complex. Two covenants are mentioned: one between Yhwh and David and the Davidic dynasty, the other between Yhwh and the people of Israel. God’s covenant with David and his descendants appears several times in the Bible 298 and is mentioned twice in Chronicles (2 Chr 13:5; 21:7, with changes to the parallel source in 2 Sam 8:19). This covenant occupies a relatively unimportant position in the book’s world-view. 299 The covenant between God and Israel refers to two different matters: (1) covenants established in the past, which, from the later perspective of Chronicles, represent historical traditions; these include the Patriarchal and Sinaitic covenants, and (2) covenants made during the monarchy, which are part of the book’s historical narrative. (1) Covenants as historical tradition: The covenants between God and the people or the Patriarchs only appear in Chronicles when parallel texts are transmitted. In two instances, the subject is the consecration of the Temple; in one, a psalm is being quoted: (a) 1 Chr 16:15–17 (Ps 105:8ff.): “Be mindful 300 of his covenant for 295. The peculiar expression used, which literally means “he took with him into the covenant” (tyrbb wm[ . . . jqyw), appears only in this one context. It apparently resulted during the transposition of the verse from Kings. 2 Kings 11:4 reads “. . . he took . . . and he made a covenant” (trkyw . . . jqyw); Chronicles retained the beginning of the verse but omitted the second verb. 296. Rudolph is aware of the difference between Kings and Chronicles and he eliminates it by emending the text. For 2 Chr 23:3a, he reads l[ for MT μ[ and translates, “and all the assembly made a covenant regarding the king (‘in Sachen’ des Königs) in the house of God” (Chronik, p. 270). 297. See also below, pp. 85–86. 298. For example, 2 Sam 23:5; Jer 33:21; Ps 89:28 (Heb., 29). In Jer 33:17–26, chosenness and covenant appear in the same context. On the origins of this passage, see W. Rudolph, Jeremiah, 3rd ed., HAT (1968), p. 217. 299. The covenant with David is discussed in greater detail below, pp. 353ff. 300. Ps 105:8 reads “he is mindful of his covenant for ever,” “he” being God. This reading is generally considered the original (for example, see BH); it is thought that the

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 81 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

81

ever / of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations / [the covenant] which he made with Abraham / his sworn promise to Isaac / which he confirmed as a statute to Jacob 301 / as an everlasting covenant to Israel / saying. To you I will give the land of Canaan / as your portion for an inheritance.” This is the only passage in Chronicles that mentions the covenant with the Patriarchs — simply as part of a psalm which has been transferred intact. 302 (b) 2 Chr 5:10 (1 Kings 8:9): “There was nothing in the ark except the two tables which Moses put there at Horeb, where the Lord made [a covenant] with the people of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.” (c) 2 Chr 6:11: “And there I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which he made with the people of Israel.” 1 Kings 8:21 reads: “And there I have provided a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” Despite the textual problem in 2 Chr 5:10 and its omission of the word “covenant,” there is no doubt that the words “which the Lord made with the people of Israel” refer to the covenant. 303 2 Chr 6:11 uses the word itself, as the object placed in the ark; here, “covenant” refers to the actual tablets or what is engraved upon them. 304 Thus, “covenant” is given a new meaning, but this meaning is not unique to Chronicles — it also appears in the source in 1 Kings 8:21. However, we do find that the Chronicler text in Chronicles was corrupted under the influence of v. 12 — “Remember the wonderful works that he has done.” 301. The Hebrew verb used — duum[ in the hiphºil — is very common in late biblical literature (see Driver, Introduction, p. 535, no. 4). It also means “to give,” as in 2 Chr 33:8: “the land which I appointed (ytdm[h) for your fathers”; the source in 2 Kings 21:8 has yttn. In Neh 10:32 (Heb., 10:33), we find the verb used in “we also lay upon ourselves (wnyl[ wndm[hw) the obligation. . . .” Cf. also Ps 148:6; 2 Chr 30:5. In our context, “statute” is parallel to “covenant” and has the sense of “undertaking” or “commitment” (Baumgartner, Lexikon, I, p. 332; Thesaurus, III, p. 225; see also Num 18:19). 302. On the promise and possession of the land, see below, pp. 301ff. 303. LXX to the parallel text in 1 Kings 8:9, which does mention “the tablets of the covenant,” is preferable (see above, p. 78). It would seem that the Chronicler was working with a text of Kings that corresponded to MT; see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 211. He did introduce certain minor changes, such as “the two tables” instead of “the two tables of stone” and the use of the verb ˆtn rather than jynh for “put.” It is difficult to believe, as von Rad does, that the words “tables of the covenant” were deliberately omitted by the Chronicler (von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 65, n. 5; and see above, p. 78, n. 291). 304. Eichrodt, Theology, I, p. 63, provides further examples of “covenant” paralleling “laws of the covenant,” including Ps 25:10 and 103:18, in which “covenant” is parallel to “testimonies” and “commandments.” See also Weinfeld, tyrb, TDOT, II, 257.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 82 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

82

Yhwh, the God of Israel

has altered his source in other respects that reveal his own special position. Two changes have been made: 305 instead of “which he made with our fathers.” Chronicles has “which he made with the people of Israel,” and the phrase “when he brought them out of the land of Egypt” has been left out altogether. The book of Kings describes the actual circumstances of the covenant, a covenant made in the past “with our fathers” and associated with a particular event, the exodus from Egypt. “With our fathers” adds to the strength of the covenantal commitment; “when he brought them out of the land of Egypt” evokes the greatest manifestation of God’s steadfast love for Israel and compels the people to prove their absolute loyalty to Him. By leaving “our fathers” out of the picture, the Chronicler frees the covenant from any particular time frame. Now it is with “the people of Israel” whose national existence is timeless and permanent. The exodus is omitted for the same reason: from the Chronicler’s point of view, the covenant is unconnected to any historical event — even the exodus from Egypt. It does not depend on a one-time revelation for its authoritative power. In Chronicles, “covenant” (meaning the laws and commandments stipulated) involves the people in a timeless and eternally-binding commitment. The specific historical event — the covenant at Sinai — is not mentioned. In the two verses taken from Kings, it becomes the covenant “which he made with the children of Israel,” meaning the laws engraved on the tablets, which is not confined to a particular time and place. The Chronicler did not attribute any ideological role to the covenant made at Sinai after the exodus, and his attitude on the subject is coloured by polemical concerns. 306 There are two possible motives for his polemical position. The first has to do with the very nature of the covenantal relationship: the Chronicler may not have wished to describe the bond between God and the people as a contract. Alternatively, he may have objected to the association of this bond with a particular, unique historical event. It would seem that the latter motive explains the polemic in Chronicles. We see from the historical development of the concept of covenant that by the Chronicler’s time, the idea no longer signified a covenantal act, but rather the commitment between God and Israel, particularly Israel’s commitment to obeying God. The contractual basis of this commitment had lost virtually all its impor305. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 65. 306. This was also his attitude towards the exodus itself; see below, pp. 296ff. It is true that the covenant at Sinai does not often appear in the Chronicler’s sources. Apart from the passages mentioned above, 1 Kings 11 and 17 and 2 Kings 13:23 and 18:12 refer to it. These passages are omitted entirely in Chronicles.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 83 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

83

tance and thus cannot account for the Chronicler’s polemical attitude. However, the second motive may have prompted his unwillingness to mention the exodus from Egypt (whatever the context) in particular and his treatment of the historical tradition in general. 307 Thus, the omission of the covenant at Sinai is better explained by the Chronicler’s objection to any idea that a historical event determined the relationship between God and the people of Israel. (2) Covenants during the monarchial period: Covenants are mentioned four times — during the reigns of Asa, Jehoash, Hezekiah, and Josiah. The covenants of Jehoash and Josiah were taken from the source in Kings; the other two were added by the Chronicler himself, testifying that he considered the subject an important one. Disregarding chronological considerations, we shall begin with the parallel texts. (a) Josiah — 2 Kings 23:2–3 (2 Chr 34:29–33): “And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant . . . And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes . . . to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people joined in the covenant.” What does “covenant” signify in this story? Noth’s very influential opinion is that this covenant parallels those at Shechem ( Joshua 24) and at Sinai (Exod 24:3–8). The covenant is between Yhwh and the people, with Josiah serving as mediator in the manner of Moses and Joshua. 308 However, an examination of the language used to describe Josiah’s covenant does not support Noth’s interpretation. In the Bible, a covenant is always made “between” or “with” two parties (ˆyb, μ[, ta, or -l). 309 It is taken for granted that the ceremony takes place in the presence of God and involves an oath. When this assumption actually appears in the text, we find that the covenant between the parties is made “before God,” as in 1 Sam 23:18: “And the two of them made a covenant before the Lord”; 2 Sam 307. See below, pp. 292ff. 308. M. Noth, “Die Gesetze im Pentateuch” (1940). In his Gesammelte Studien (Munich, 1957), pp. 61ff., and, in Noth’s footsteps, Gray, Kings, pp. 662–663. 309. As in Gen 9:15 — “I will remember my covenant which is between me and you (μkynybw ynyb) and every living creature”; Deut 5:2–3 — “The Lord our God made a covenant with us (wnm[) in Horeb . . .”; Gen 16:18 — “On that day the Lord made a covenant with (ta) Abram”; 2 Sam 5:3 — “So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them (μhl) at Hebron.” Cf. G. Quell, diadhvkh, TDNT, II, 108–109. On the relationship between making a covenant “between” or “with” and making a covenant “to,” see below, pp. 88ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 84 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

84

Yhwh, the God of Israel

5:3: “and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord”; Jer 34:15: “and you made a covenant before me” (and see also v. 18). In the first case, the covenant is between David and Jonathan; in the second, between the elders of Israel on behalf of the people and King David, and in the third, between Zedekiah and the people of Jerusalem. 310 Thus, a covenant “before the Lord” is by no means a covenant with Him; rather, the compact — between two other parties — is given validity because it is made in a sanctuary before God. 311 2 Kings 23:3 also speaks of a covenant in Yhwh’s presence. The entire people, from the least to the greatest, gathers in the Temple to establish this covenant. Although the text does not go into detail, one may assume that a whole ceremony was conducted in the Temple, before God. The parties to this covenant are not named, but the story suggests that the compact was between the king and the people, along the lines of Zedekiah’s covenant in Jeremiah 34. “And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord . . . and all the people joined (duum[) in the covenant” (2 Kings 23:3). 312 According to the covenant’s terms, the king and the people undertake to “walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes . . . to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book.” As far as God is concerned, this is a unilateral undertaking; the bilateral agreement is between the king and the people. The story goes on to describe the reform whereby the terms of the covenant were met by both parties. Josiah did his duty by purging the nation of idolatrous practices, and the people fulfilled their part of the agreement by observing the Passover — “and the king commanded all the 310. Rudolph comments on “my covenant” in Jer 34:18: “The initiative came from the monarch, but because it involved an intrusion into private life, the king was unable or unwilling simply to issue an order. Instead, he concluded an agreement with the slavemasters who were affected. Because this agreement was concluded in the Temple in the sight of Yahwe, it acquired the character of a religious duty and therefore could be called a covenant with Yahwe (ytyrb)” (W. Rudolph, Jeremiah, 3rd ed., HAT [1968], p. 223). 311. “Before God” is more than an abstraction. It is meant in a very real sense; an activity “before God” takes place in the Temple, in His actual presence. Jer 34:15 makes this point explicitly: “you made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name.” See Quell, loc. cit., 112. 312. Even though Montgomery translates this verse literally — “and the King stood by the pillar and he executed the covenant before Yhwh” — he entitles the passage “The solemn covenant of the king and people with Yhwh” (Montgomery, Kings, p. 528; emphases mine). At the end of his commentary, Montgomery compares this covenant with that of Jehoash in 2 Kings 11:17. He does not refer to the verse he translated with “before Yhwh” and simply takes it for granted that the covenant is with God. Gray (Kings, pp. 662–663) and others follow suit.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 85 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

85

people, ‘Keep the passover to the Lord your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant’ ” (2 Kings 23:21). The purging of idolatry and the observance of Passover complement each other as terms of the covenant. Josiah’s covenant is described in 2 Chr 34:29–33. Its position in the narrative of events is somewhat different, and a few details of the story have been changed. In Kings, the order of events is as follows: the Temple repairs (2 Kings 22:3–7), the discovery of the book (22:8–13), the consultation with Huldah the prophetess (22:14–20), the covenant (23:1–3), Josiah’s reform (23:4–20), and the observance of Passover (23:21–23). According to this version, the covenant prompted the reform; in Chronicles, however, the reform, which included repairing the Temple (2 Chr 34:3–13), preceded the covenant. Only after Josiah’s reform was the book found (34:14–21), Hulda consulted (34:22–28), the covenant made (34:29– 32), and Passover observed (35:1–19). Among the differences in the story’s details is Chronicles’ version (v. 32) that the covenant was not with “all the people” but rather with “all who were present in Jerusalem,” 313 although the latter served as the people’s representatives (vv. 29–30). The celebration of Passover is not recorded as a stipulation or consequence of the covenant; in Chronicles, Josiah reinstitutes the practice on his own initiative (2 Chr 35:1ff.). Yet the aftermath of the covenant vis-à-vis both the people and the king is described: “And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God” (v. 32) “and Josiah took away all the abominations . . .” (v. 33). The covenant’s essential significance as an agreement between king and people in the presence of God, whereby both parties undertake to follow the commandments, is unchanged in Chronicles. (b) The covenant of Jehoash — 2 Kings 11:17: “And Jehoi’ada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and people, that they should be the Lord’s people; and also between the king and the people.” This verse speaks of two covenants. In one, Yhwh is the first party and the king and the people make up the second; the covenant is established “that they should be the Lord’s people.” The second covenant is between the king and the people. 314 Thus, because God is Himself party to the 313. 2 Chr 34:32a reads: “Then he made all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin stand [to it].” The suggested emendation of ˆmynb (“Benjamin”) to tyrbb (“in covenant”) would remedy the unlikely pairing of Jerusalem and Benjamin — unlike the more common “Judah and Benjamin,” this is the only occurrence of this phrase in all of Chronicles — as well as the difficult grammar of the sentence, which lacks the necessary object. Moreover, the verse goes on to speak of “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” only. See Kittel, Chronik, p. 175, and BH. 314. A number of LXX manuscripts do not contain “and between the king and the people.” Some commentators consider this section inauthentic, citing as a further argument the fact that the covenant also does not appear in the parallel in 2 Chr 23:16.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 86 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

86

Yhwh, the God of Israel

first agreement, it is a religious covenant in the full sense of the term. It resembles Josiah’s covenant in that both led to reforms but is completely unlike it in nature. 315 Chronicles contains a different description: “And Jehoi’ada made a covenant between himself and all the people and the king that they should be the Lord’s people.” One difference (already mentioned above 316) is that the covenant between the people and the king is now first in the order of events. The second difference has significant implications regarding the nature of the covenant — God is no longer a party to the agreement. Unlike the source in Kings, Chronicles only records a covenant between Jehoiada on one side and the king and the people on the other: “And Jehoi’ada made a covenant between himself 317 and all the people. . . .” This covenant is now the same as Josiah’s, with the sole difference that the priest substitutes for the king. Both covenants are between the people and its leader at the time. 318 Although the covenant’s purpose is the fulfilling of God’s commandments, the parties to it are human, and God plays no role. 319 (c) The covenant during the reign of Asa — 2 Chr 15:12–15: “And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul . . . They took an oath to the Lord with However, the situation in Chronicles does not warrant this conclusion, as our discussion will show. Cf. Montgomery, Kings, pp. 422 and 426. 315. The identical nature of these two covenants has been taken for granted by many: see, for example, Montgomery, Kings, p. 528; Gray, Kings, p. 662. 316. See above, pp. 79–80. 317. Kittel, following 2 Kings 11:17, suggests emending the text to read “between Yhwh” instead of “between himself” (Chronik, p. 148; cf. BH on this verse). This emendation would eliminate the possibility that the change was deliberate and testified to the writer’s outlook. 318. The two parties to Josiah’s covenant are the king and the entire people, including priests; Jehoiada’s covenant is between king and people on one side and high priest on the other. It seems to me that the difference is not a significant one, but merely the result of the unusual circumstances surrounding the second covenant. (However, cf. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 272.) If we ignore the masoretic division of the verse, it may also be read as follows: “And Jehoiada made a covenant between himself and all the people / and the king.” In this case, the two parties would be priest and people on one side and king on the other. The delineation of the parties has been changed, but the human, non-religious nature of the covenant remains the same. 319. Von Rad discusses the difference and concludes that it is a deliberate “theological corrective” stemming from the Chronicler’s desire to separate this covenant from the major canonical covenants (Studies in Deuteronomy, p. 64, n. 1). The change is certainly deliberate, but the reason provided by von Rad is not convincing, given Chronicles’ attitude towards these canonical covenants (see above, pp. 80–83).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 87 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

87

a loud voice . . . And all Judah rejoiced over the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart, and had sought him with their whole desire, and he was found by them.” The gist of the covenant is set forth in one very general sentence: “to seek the Lord, the God of the their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul” (v. 12). Since “to seek the Lord” appears frequently in Chronicles and expresses a variety of meanings, it is difficult to know precisely what is meant in our context. The story as a whole indicates that the covenant was the culmination of the reforming process aimed at purging the nation’s religious worship of any pagan elements. 320 Who are the parties to this covenant? We are not told explicitly, and the wording of the passage is of little help: “they entered into a covenant . . . they took an oath to the Lord.” In biblical usage, “entering into a covenant” refers to both (or all) parties, as in “all the princes and all the people who had entered into the covenant” ( Jer 34:10). 321 Thus, the people itself would appear to be entering into a covenant. However, the words “they took an oath to the Lord” can be interpreted in two ways. Taking this oath may constitute an additional act that reinforces the covenant 322 or it may refer to the actual making of the covenant and to the parties involved, along the lines of Ezek 16:8: “I plighted my troth [[bçaw] to you and entered into a covenant with you.” In the usage of the Dead Sea Sect, “entering into a covenant” is identical to “taking an oath”: “every one who enters into the council of the community, shall enter in God’s covenant in the presence of all those who devote themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to return to the Torah of Moses.” 323 Members of the sect are themselves called tyrb yab — “those who enter the

320. Many critics consider Asa’s covenant a literary imitation of Josiah’s covenant and reforms and therefore see no historical value in the description; for example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 193; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 246. Kraus believes the opposite: in his view, the Chronicler’s accounts of the covenants of Asa and Hezekiah reflect the authentic Jerusalem tradition; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, trans. G. Buswell (Oxford, 1966), pp. 194ff. His theory — which must remain in the realm of speculation — is that the original Sinai tradition was brought to Jerusalem along with the ark. This tradition included a ceremony for renewing the Sinaitic covenant similar to the reenactment at Shechem. In his opinion, the ceremony also involved purging the ritual of pagan elements. 321. Likewise 1 Sam 20:8 — “for you have brought your servants into a sacred covenant with you”; Ezek 16:8 — “I plighted my troth to you and entered into a covenant with you”; Ezek 20:37 — “I will bring you into the bond of the covenant.” 322. See below, p. 90. 323. 1QS 5:8. Translation from P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (Leiden, 1957), p. 28; see also J. Licht, The Rule Scroll (Heb., Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 60, 131.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 88 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

88

Yhwh, the God of Israel

covenant.” 324 The question is: is the usage in Chronicles closer to Ezekiel, which still speaks of a mutual covenant, or to Qumran, where God is no longer party to the covenant? The book of Chronicles as a whole seems to testify to a closer resemblance to Qumran usage, and the wording of the oath in our story serves as more explicit evidence: “whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, would be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman” (2 Chr 15:13). (d) Hezekiah’s covenant — 2 Chr 29:10. What is known as “Hezekiah’s covenant” is in fact a one-sentence description: “ ‘Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with [or “to” — Heb., -l] the Lord, the God of Israel, that his fierce anger may turn away from us.” Hezekiah tells the Levites of his intention “to make a covenant to the Lord” as a preface to the purification of the Temple. In order to understand his meaning in this sentence, we must first examine the significance of making a covenant “to” Yhwh. In biblical usage, there is a real difference between making a covenant “with” (μ[, ta) and making a covenant “to” (-l) someone. 325 Scholars are not of one mind as to what this difference is. Begrich and those who follow him argue that it is a crucial one: a covenant is made “with” equal parties, whereas a covenant “to” distinguishes between a superior and an inferior party. 326 Quell represents the other school of thought, which 324. For example see the Damascus Document II:2, VIII:4, etc.; C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford, 1958). 325. This distinction is not always evident in translations of the Bible, which do not differentiate consistently between the original prepositions. For example, the preposition pro;Í translates μ[ (Deut 5:2 wnm[ — pro;Í uJ ma;Í), -l (Deut 7:2 μhl — pro;Í auj tou; Í) and ta (2 Sam 3:13 ˚ta — pro;Í sev). Yet, within a continuous narrative, two different Greek words may translate a single, repeated Hebrew preposition. In 2 Sam 3:13, ˚ta is translated as pro;Í sev and in 3:21, as meta souJ . As a result, the Septuagint does not reproduce MT exactly, for example, see Gen 15:18, Exod 34:27, 2 Chr 6:11, where LXX, unlike MT, reads “made a covenant to.” Modern translations do not preserve these distinctions, either, particularly in the case of making a covenant “to.” For example, Gen 15:18 contains the preposition ta and is translated as “the Lord made a covenant with Abram”; in Exod 23:32, we find the preposition -l, yet the English reads “you shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.” See also Exod 34:12, 15; Josh 9:6, 7, among others. We therefore cannot rely on English (or German) translations to convey this difference. Buber made an attempt to be more exact, but he, too, was inconsistent. Thus he translated -l in 2 Chr 21:7 as “des Bundes . . . den er für David geschlossen hatte” and in Ezra 10:3 as “schliessen wir einen Bund auf unseren Gott zu” (and likewise in 2 Chr 29:10). In Exod 34:12, 15, the Hebrew -l is replaced by “mit.” 326. J. Begrich, “Berit,” ZAW, 60 (1944), 1–11. Taking the indisputable linguistic distinction as his starting point, Begrich then proposes that making a covenant “to” was the original formula, whereas “with” and “between” were later developments (see 3, 5). This leads him to some rather extreme conclusions regarding the concept’s development. See also Köhler, Theology, pp. 62ff.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 89 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

89

maintains that a distinction must be made between religious and nonreligious covenants. When the covenant is not a religious one, the preposition used indicates nothing more than a variation in emphasis: “to” stresses that the covenant was initiated by one of the parties but does not alter its content in any legal or dogmatic sense. 327 However, the difference is more substantial in the case of a religious covenant. We know from the outset that this type of covenant is not between equals; using “to” makes the one-sidedness of this divine initiative even more obvious. The choice of the preposition “to” expresses an ideological direction which is particularly strong in Ezekiel and Chronicles. 328 Thus, both opinions agree that making a religious covenant “to” emphasizes the one-sidedness of the covenant and the superiority of the party that initiated it. In light of this conclusion, two passages are especially noteworthy: Ezra 10:3: “Therefore let us make a covenant to our God to put away all these wives and their children . . . and let it be done according to the law.” From the passage under discussion, 2 Chr 29:10: “Now it is in my heart to make a covenant to the Lord, the God of Israel.” It is the people who make a covenant to God in both these verses. Yet, if we interpret them in the light of the above-mentioned theories, we come to a conclusion that is logical and at the same time impossible: 329 it cannot be that the superiority of the initiating party is stressed here. Expressions of man’s superiority to God are utterly alien to biblical thought in general and this type of context in particular. The passage in Ezra describes the great assembly that was called in response to the spread of intermarriage. 327. Quell, TDNT, II, 108. Although it is true that biblical usage is not entirety consistent, it seems to me that Quell underestimates the importance of this difference in terminology. Exod 23:32; 34:12, 15; Deut 7:2; Judg 2:2 discuss covenants “to” the inhabitants of the land following the conquest. In Josh 9:6, 7, 11, 15, 16, Joshua the conqueror makes a covenant “to” the Gibeonites “to let them live” (9:15). 1 Sam 11:1 reads “make a treaty to us, and we will serve you” (likewise 2 Sam 5:3 and 1 Kings 20:34). It is clear that all these “covenants to” indicate the superior position of one party to the agreement. 328. Quell, loc. cit., 109: “In this case there is no reciprocal action.” Even though he does not mention specific passages in Ezekiel and Chronicles, he apparently had Ezek 34:25; 37:26; 2 Chr 7:18; and 21:7 in mind. 329. Emendation cannot offer us a way out here; the text does not appear to be corrupt. For Ezra, LXX reflects MT — diaq∫meqa diaqhvkhn tåÅ qeåÅ hjmwn — and for 2 Chr 29:10, it is phrased differently — “to make a covenant of the Lord, God of Israel” — diaqevsqai diaqhvkhn kurÇou qeouÅ ΔIsrahl. The change may be due to the Septuagint’s characteristic lack of consistency in translating prepositions or to the theological difficulty inherent in the Hebrew verse. Whatever the reason for the change in LXX to the second passage, the presence of the same expression in two different, but contemporary, contexts eliminates the possibility of textual corruption.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 90 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

90

Yhwh, the God of Israel

The entire episode is imbued with a spirit of penitence and contrition — “Behold, we are before thee in our guilt, for none can stand before thee because of this” (Ezra 9:15). 2 Chronicles 29 conveys a similar message. Hezekiah is the leading force in the effort to purify national worship, and all his hard work has one avowed aim: to appease the wrath of God against His people. The idea that the people, in some position of superiority to God, initiate a “covenant to” Him is unthinkable; we must therefore assume that the phrase “make a covenant to” has a new meaning in these verses. A careful examination of the contexts does in fact suggest that “covenant” is not being used in its original sense. The thrust of Shecaniah ben Jehiel’s words in Ezra 10:3 may be summarized in the following: “Let us make a covenant with our God . . . and let it be done according to the law.” In response, “Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites 330 and all Israel take oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath” (10:5). The “covenant” takes the form of an oath, an undertaking on the part of the entire people to obey the commandments. 331 Although an oath is not mentioned in 2 Chr 29:10, the intention is similar. Hezekiah wishes to appease the Lord by embarking on a great enterprise. These verses describe the people’s unilateral undertaking to obey the commandments or perform some other religious duty; in Ezra, this commitment is expressed by means of a solemn oath in the House of God. In both verses, the phrase “make a covenant to” emphasizes the unilateral nature of the commitment. The Chronicler describes four covenants from the monarchic period, but the concept of covenant differs significantly from one description to the next. Josiah does not make a covenant with God but rather with the people — in the presence of God. Both he and the people promise to follow the words of the newly-found book. According to the source in Kings, the covenant from the time of Jehoash is between Yhwh and the people; in Chronicles, Jehoiada makes a covenant between himself and the king and people. In Asa’s reign, the people undertake, by means of an extremely solemn oath, to obey God’s commandments. Hezekiah’s “covenant” is most clearly not a covenant in the usual sense of the word but a unilateral commitment vis-à-vis God. 330. The reading “and Levites” is based on the versions; MT μywl would denote “Levitical priests.” Cf. BH. 331. Rudolph also understands Ezra 10:3 in this way and translates “let us now solemnly undertake a commitment towards our God” (W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, HAT [1949], p. 92). He translates Jeremiah 34 along the same lines. Yet Rudolph does not apply this interpretation to 2 Chr 29:10, which he translates: “Now I have it in my heart to conclude a covenant with Yahwe.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 91 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

91

When we examine the concept of “covenant” from the perspective of Chronicles, its historical development is very apparent. By the end of the First Commonwealth, the people already had trouble conceiving of a covenant with God in the traditional sense. The formative, ultimate national experience of a covenant had occurred in the past, at Mount Sinai; in the present, the people could do no more than undertake certain obligations to God, a “covenant to” Him. It was this sense of the sublime and now-irretrievable quality of the covenant at Sinai that led to the idea of an eventual “new covenant” between God and Israel, as envisioned in Jer 31:31ff. During the Second Commonwealth, the concept of covenant changed even more; from then on, “covenant” was a unilateral commitment or a way of referring to the commandments. 332 The book of Chronicles goes one step further: “covenant” — whether the result of a past event 333 or an ongoing condition — no longer describes the relationship between God and Israel. To return to our original question: Chronicles’ concept of God begins with the belief that He is the God of Israel, and His relationship with Israel serves as the basis for any view — and thus any written account — of history. Yet this relationship is not defined in terms of chosenness or covenant. How, then, is it defined?

C. The Nature of the Relationship between Yhwh and Israel A name for God particularly characteristic of Chronicles is “God of the fathers.” This epithet signifies that each generation considers Yhwh the God of its fathers. At any and every point in its history, the people acknowledges its God in three ways: by the personal name Yhwh, as the “God of Israel” in constant affiliation with the people, and as the “God of the fathers,” the God of all previous generations. The continuum has no beginning — it is timeless — and we shall see later that a similar timelessness also characterizes Chronicles’ concept of the people. The relationship between Yhwh and Israel is not associated with historical events; it always was and always will be. But where does this “always” begin? Even though the Chronicler does not provide a direct answer, his description of history serves as an indication. Yhwh is first mentioned in 1 Chr 2:3: “Now Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he 332. Eichrodt (Theology, I, p. 63) is of another opinion. 333. Although von Rad mentions that the Sinaitic covenant does not appear in Chronicles, he nevertheless considers the “covenant with Yhwh” the basis for God’s relationship with His people (Geschichtsbild, pp. 60–65). Eichrodt accepts von Rad’s interpretation and describes the Chronistic covenant as a “distinctive extension of the priestly point of view” (Theology, I, p. 64).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 92 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

92

Yhwh, the God of Israel

slew him.” Already in 1 Chr 4:10, He is called “God of Israel”: “Jabez called on the God of Israel . . . and God granted what he asked.” Both contexts assume that their naming of God requires no particular explanation. Both describe Him requiting human deeds — punishing in one case, rewarding in the other. The stories from Genesis place only Er in a chronological context, but the matter is of no importance, really. It would be possible to mention Yhwh, God of Israel, at any point in the genealogies, and the reference would have no special significance. According to the Chronicler, the history of the people begins with its creation, in other words: with Adam. 334 From the instant they come into being, the people of Israel is Yhwh’s people. The bond between Israel and God is not created — it already exists. It exists a priori, by virtue of the people’s existence; Yhwh is, by definition, the God of Israel. Chronicles’ understanding of the relationship between God and Israel goes beyond the ideological framework of the Hebrew Bible. The concept which is expressed, if not all that explicitly, appears nowhere else in the Bible; however, it does appear occasionally, in clear and even dogmatic form, in apocryphal and rabbinic literature. The most important apocryphal sources are from the first century c.e.: II Esdras and the Assumption of Moses. 335 Assumption of Moses 1:12–13: “So saith the Lord of the world. For He hath created the world on behalf of His people. But He was not pleased to manifest this purpose of creation from the foundation of the world. . . .” The wording is very strong. Not only is Yhwh. Israel’s God, God of the entire world — the world was actually created for the sake of Israel. This would suggest that “His people” existed, as an idea if not a physical reality, even before Creation. The unfolding of history is nothing more than the actualization of what has existed since before the world came into being, 336 and at the centre of this outlook stands the creation of the 334. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 66: “The monotonous chain from Adam on is, in its own way, a profound expression of the recognition that the constantly saving relationship between God and His people exists from time immemorial.” Eichrodt, Theology, I, p. 64: “By this device he manages to extricate the saving relationship of Israel from any historical basis or limitation and stamps it instead as something existing from eternity, an element in God’s universal design which is constant from the beginning.” 335. We are not concerned here with the disagreement over the dating of these books. The Assumption of Moses appears to be from the beginning of the first century c.e. (Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 624); II Esdras is apparently late first century to early second century (ibid., p. 626). 336. In 12:4, the writer concludes: “All the nations which are in the earth God hath created and us . . . from the beginning of the creation of the earth unto the end of the age. . . .”

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 93 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

93

world for Israel’s sake. It represents the most extreme formulation of the relationship between Yhwh and his people. 337 II Esdras 6:53–59 contains the same idea in similar wording. In this passage, the seer protests the unfathomable contradiction between Israel’s glorious destiny and her present state. He introduces his protest by describing the six days of creation as a preamble to the people’s election. 338 Following his line of thought, creation culminated in the creation of Adam, ancestor of the chosen people: “and from him all of us whom you chose as a people are descended” (v. 54). 339 The writer goes on to explain in greater detail. Although it is true that other peoples are also descended from Adam, they are of no importance, and it may thus be said that “the world was created for us” (v. 59). 340 Another passage in II Esdras makes it very clear that Adam is considered a member of the people of Israel. The people’s fate from his time on is the result of Adam’s sin: “That too is Israel’s lot. For I did make the world for their sakes and when Adam transgressed my orders what was made was judged” (7:10–11). It was not a process of choosing, 341 but the very act of Creation 342 (or something which preceded even Creation), that determined the relationship between Yhwh and His people. Israel was created the people of God. 343 337. And has in fact been the subject of severe criticism on the part of apologetic commentators. C. Clemens, who prepared the text for the Kautzsch edition, emends plebem to legem, thereby producing “for He hath created the world on behalf of His Torah.” In 12:4, he adds the pronoun “them” and changes the verse’s meaning — “them and us from the beginning of the creation of the earth.” By means of these “textual emendations,” Clemens changes the point of the Assumption of Moses beyond recognition. 338. W. Harnisch defines this description as a type of midrashic hymn on the subject of Genesis 1: “The hymn . . . culminates, characteristically, with the idea of the election of God’s people who are descended from Adam” (Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte, FRLANT. 97 [1969], p. 24). 339. Translation from J. Myers, I and II Esdras, AB (1974). 340. Likewise in the Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch, esp. 14:18. 341. Although the relationship is also described in terms of chosenness. Whereas the word “chose” in the verse, “and from him all of us whom you chose as a people are descended” (6:54), does not really suggest the concept of election, a more traditional description does appear in 5:23–27: “O Lord, Lord! From all the forests of the earth and from all its trees, you have selected a single vine; from all the lands of the globe, you have selected for yourself an insignificant one [or: a small pit] . . . from all the multitudinous peoples, you acquired for yourself [only] one people, and you gave a law esteemed by all to this people whom you called.” 342. See Hamisch, op. cit. (above, n. 338), p. 25. 343. This extreme position seems to necessitate a reassessment of the commonlyaccepted idea that II Esdras reflects a universalist outlook. For example. Oesterley claims that the writer had such an outlook and even believed that the Torah was given not only to Israel but to all the peoples; W. O. E. Oesterley, II Esdras, WC (1933), pp. xxviii–xxx,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 94 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

94

Yhwh, the God of Israel

The Rabbis express a similar idea, although they set out with different assumptions and formulate their thoughts in other ways. The first to do so is R. Eleazar ha-Modaºi, 344 who interprets Exod 14:15 as follows: “ ‘Wherefore criest thou unto Me?’ Do I need any urging concerning my sons? . . . Have they not already from the time of the six days of creation been designated to be before Me? For it is said: ‘If these ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me for ever.’ ” (Mekilta to Exod 14:15). His interpretation is unusual because, in this context, most exegesis on the verse criticizes Israel. 345 R. Eleazar cites Jer 31:36 as his proof-text, but his understanding of Jeremiah is innovative. The prophet bases his analogy between the heavenly bodies and the people of Israel on their fixed, unending quality; the idea is to provide consolation and hope for the future. According to R. Eleazar’s interpretation, the common denominator is that like the sun, moon, and stars, the people came into being during the six days of Creation. They are alike not only in their unending future but in their primeval beginning; all were “designated,” or prepared, during the six days of creation. Like the celestial bodies, the people of Israel exists eternally, from creation ad infinitum. The passage in II Esdras differs from this midrash in that it has a particular aim and asserts that the world was created for the sake of Israel. R. Eleazar merely wishes to establish the chronological aspect of the link between the people Israel and Creation: both occurred at the same time. II Esdras compares Israel’s present position to the special merit implied by the fact that the world was created for its sake and raises the question of Israel’s place among the nations. 346 For R. Eleazar, Israel’s creation at the beginning of the world is a subject in and of itself, with no particular implications vis-à-vis the present. His attitude is like the one found in Chronicles, which begins its history of Israel with Adam without feeling obliged to explain the choice of starting-point. Any discussion of Israel’s esp. p. xxx, 7:11, 22–24. Even when the writer speaks about Adam, it is difficult to reconcile a universalist approach with his explicit belief that “all the peoples are as nothing.” As far as he is concerned, the chance of a new life is reserved for the righteous alone, the “righteous” being those who observe the Torah given to Israel. 344. Who lived in the late first to early second century and is mentioned as a pupil of R. Yohanan ben Zakkai. According to a legend, he was killed by Simeon ben Koziba at the time of the rebellion against Rome (TJ, Taºan. 4:5). 345. It seems that this tendency is characteristic of R. Eleazar ha-Modaªi. See I. Konovitz, Maºarakot ha-Tannaim (Heb., Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 113–122. 346. Although the Assumption of Moses does not raise this question in the same way, the relationship between Israel and the other nations is considered important. See 1:12–13; 12:4.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 95 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

95

place among the nations would lead almost automatically to the question of chosenness; R. Eleazar and Chronicles are concerned instead with Israel on its own, in relation with God from the time of Creation. Other rabbinic passages resemble the Apocrypha’s outlook more closely. For example, the corollary to II Edras’ assumption that the world was created for the sake of Israel is the belief that Israel already existed at the time of Creation. The Rabbis also believed that even before the world was created, certain things existed in tangible form or as divine ideas. A standard formulation expressed this belief, such as the one in Genesis Rabbah 1:4: “Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some of them were actually created, while the creation of others was already contemplated. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created . . . The creation of the Patriarchs . . . the Temple . . . and the name of the Messiah [were] contemplated . . . I still do not know which was first . . . R. Huna, reporting R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, 347 said: The intention to create Israel preceded everything else.” The only difference between the two things which “really” existed and the four which God intended to create is one of staging: three of the four took their place at specific points in history, and the fourth — the Messiah’s name— was as yet unknown. This midrash continues with the parable of the king who has no son. Because he learns, by means of astrology, that his son is destined to be born, the king prepares everything for him. This parable leaves no room for doubt as to the meaning of our midrash: it is not just that one element precedes the other chronologically — the preparations are made for the sake of what will be created. 348 We also find in Numbers Rabbah 14:11: “. . .«as the thought of creating Israel was conceived by the Omnipresent first and after that He prepared the Torah for them.” The point of this midrash is that God created the world for a specific reason: to provide Himself with a sphere of action, a place where He could be revealed, acknowledged and worshipped. The 347. A third generation amora. In his youth, he studied with Rav, but his principal teacher was Rav Huna. 348. These midrashim should be compared with others that speak of the creation of the world larçy twkzb — “because of Israel’s merit” or “by virtue of Israel.” Schechter, Rabbinic Theology, p. 98, translates twkzb as “for the sake of,” as does the Soncino edition of the following two midrashim: “R. Banayah said: The world and the fullness thereof were created only for the sake of (twkzb) the Torah . . . R. Berekiah said: For the sake of Moses” (Genesis Rabbah 1:4); Leviticus Rabbah 36:4: “R. Berekiah said: The Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of (twkzb) Israel.” Like the midrashim discussed above, these two state that Israel existed before heaven and earth were created. Unlike them, they argue that Creation took place “by virtue of Israel,” and we must ask ourselves what precisely is meant by the word twkzb in these contexts.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 96 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

96

Yhwh, the God of Israel

knowledge and worship of God fall to the people of Israel, via the Torah. It may thus be said that the world was created for the sake of Israel and the Torah, which are inseparable. This view of the people’s origins makes subsequent events in the course of its history relatively unimportant. To be sure, “free will is given” (m. Avot 3:15), but the element of predestination is dominant, as R. Eleazar’s words show: “Do I need any urging concerning my sons?” God already knows His duty towards His people. How does this outlook relate to the concept of chosenness? In principle, when taken to their logical conclusions, the two must be mutually exclusive. They can only exist side by side when “chosenness” no longer retains its original meaning and merely refers to God’s loving recognition of, or preference for, the people of Israel. 349 In its original sense, chosenness implies the simultaneous existence of many things, including the thing to be chosen. It also implies a particular act of choosing. That is why the belief in Israel’s actual superiority to the other nations is so important to the concept of chosenness, as we see, for example, in the following: “When he saw someone whose deeds were good, he would choose that man and bring him near. “ 350 This belief combines two aspects of chosenness: Yhwh’s choosing of Israel and Israel’s choosing of Him. 351 The idea that Israel came into being alongside, or even prior to, the creation of the world does not fit into the concept of chosenness. 352 When we compare Israel to the other items in the list, we see that we can349. M. Kadushin argues that the Rabbis used the root ruujb in this way, as an indication of God’s “special love” for Israel — “The Choosing of Israel in Rabbinic Literature” (Heb.), Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, VIII (New York, 1941– 1944), p. 24. Even if his definition applies in the case of rabbinic usage, the word “choose” does not have this meaning in the Bible and certainly cannot be understood in this sense when defining the biblical outlook. 350. Midrasch Samuel, ed. S. Buber (Cracow, 1893), p. 70. See also Urbach, The Sages, p. 532. 351. A familiar expression of this idea is the oft-cited midrash that God offered the Torah to other nations, who were less than receptive . . .” But when he came to the Israelites . . . they all opened their mouths and said: ‘All that the Lord hath spoken will we do and obey’ ” (Mekilta to Exod 20:2). Urbach comments on this homily: “It was transmitted in the course of generations and served to justify the giving of the Torah to Israel and thus to consolidate the sense of election, specifically in the active signification” (The Sages, pp. 533–534). 352. Urbach finds it difficult to define this idea and comes up with a number of descriptions: “the doctrine of cosmic-eternal election” (The Sages, p. 529), “Israel’s election as a cosmic act” (ibid., p. 527), “the election of Israel as an arbitrary cosmic act” (ibid., p. 535), “the consciousness that their election had a cosmic and eternal character” (ibid., p. 528). However, when Urbach discusses the nature of this type of election, it becomes clear that the word “election” is not really appropriate.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 97 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. V. The The Relationship Relationship between between Yhwh Yhwh and and the the People People of of Israel Israel

97

not apply criteria of preference or choice to Israel’s position any more than we can to the creation of the Torah, Divine Throne, or Messiah’s name. God simply decided to create Israel and give it the Torah in the same way that He decided to create the world. According to this view, God’s relationship with Israel just is; its validity and degree of obligation are as strong as in the case of God’s relationship with the entire world. Perhaps they are even stronger, since Israel was created before the world. There is no question of changing or ending this relationship and the bond between the two parties. They are absolute and, when considered fully, they make the whole idea of chosenness superfluous. Israel was created the people of God; history is nothing more than the stage on which this essential truth is played out. 353 There are, then, two fundamental views of Israel’s relationship with God. According to one, chosenness is an historical process: Israel’s superiority to the other nations is stressed, and the relationship between Yhwh and the people is described as the result of a mutual choice. The other view isolates Israel from other nations and depicts the people’s formation on the cosmic scale of Creation. Israel’s relationship with Yhwh is unconditional and unlinked to any historical event. 354 The book of Chronicles does not contain an explicit definition of the relationship between God and Israel, but its views on the question are clear. Yhwh is the God of Israel, and Israel, by its very nature, is Yhwh’s people. This relationship exists a priori and is not the result of any historical process. The religious concepts of chosenness, the promise to the Patriarchs, and the covenant at Sinai lose their pride of place. The formative episodes in Israelite history — Egyptian bondage, Exodus, and conquest of the land 353. According to this sort of view, God’s behaviour is highly arbitrary. The Rabbis who attempted to deal with the apparently arbitrary quality of His choosing Israel could not accept this view and ultimately preferred to describe Israel’s election as a relative, historical process: “The selective process of the election . . . continuing for generations . . . removes the arbitrary aspect from the question of election” (Urbach, The Sages, p. 531; cf. also pp. 532–535). 354. The history of these two views, as developed by the Rabbis, lies beyond the scope of the present study. However, it seems to me that the dissonance between the idea of chosenness and the realities of life, as well as the increasingly polemical attitude towards non-Jews, led to a strengthened idea of Israel’s historical election: the emphasis on chosenness demanded of Israel religious and ethical superiority as justification for its election; the people’s failure to meet this demand could then explain its present unhappy state. The second view was more convincing when the people’s sense of security and religious faith were strongest and there was little need to deal with the present reality. II Esdras shows that a belief in the eternal nature of God’s relationship with Israel could pose critical problems when it came to the present: “So if the world was created for us, why do we not enjoy possession of the heritage of the world?” (6:59).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 98 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

98

Yhwh, the God of Israel

— do not even figure in the book’s historical narrative. In the genealogies that preface the narrative itself, Israel is a static, monolithic entity; the people’s history follows one continuous line from Creation onwards. This line is not cut by the destruction of the Temple or the end of the Davidic monarchy, and Cyrus’ proclamation allows it to go on into the future.

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel Divine involvement in the world constitutes the active side of divine presence. God’s presence at its fullest and most real. The principal sphere of God’s activity is the life of Israel, and the historical narrative in Chronicles serves as no less than a description of God’s constant involvement in the people’s history.

A. The Way in Which God Acts in History Is God’s involvement in the world a direct process, or is it mediated by some secondary force? 355 Most scholars have believed that Chronicles tends to conceive of divine activity via an intermediary. According to the prevailing opinion, Jewish literature from the Second Commonwealth, including the book of Chronicles, is distinguished by its concept of a transcendent God. God is removed from the world and its affairs; if He does intervene in earthly events, it is only by means of some intermediary. As Haenel writes, “the characteristic feature of Chronistic theology is seen in the transcendence of its concept of God . . . God is distant and should be drawn into this world as little as possible.” 356 Rothstein comments likewise: “The driving force in this process was the increasing refinement and transcendence of the belief in God. The perception of divine essence was lifted higher and higher above this world; more and more, God’s intramundane activity, whether for good or for bad, was left to be carried out via intermediaries.’’ 357 Von Rad also believes that “the introduction of these intermediaries serves the interest of making Yahweh transcendent . . . The Chronicler shares the post-exilic tendency to portray certain events, notably revelations, as involving mediation.” 358 355. Mittelwesen or êtres intermédiares. Urbach defines these as “intermediate beings” or “intermediate powers, through the medium of which God works in the world of phenomena” (The Sages, p. 39). 356. Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xiii. 357. Ibid., p. 380. 358. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 9. Rudolph writes in the same vein (although more moderately): “For him, Yahweh is by nature separate from all that is earthly or human . . . The occasional appearance of celestial intermediaries serves as evidence of this sense of distance” (Chronik, p. xviii).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 99 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

99

However, an examination of the book itself leads one to the opposite conclusion. 359 Let us begin with those passages which describe divine activity in the world in greatest detail — passages recounting the wars of Yhwh: 2 Chr 13:13–20; 14:8–14; 20:1–29. 360 In each of these wars, the underdog is victorious; divine assistance, not military superiority, determines the outcome, as is emphasized in every account: “. . .«God defeated Jeroboam and all Israel . . .” (2 Chr 13:15); “So God defeated the Cushites . . .” (2 Chr 14:12, Heb., 14:11); “for the battle is not yours but God’s” (2 Chr 20:15); “the Lord set an ambush . . . so that they were routed” (2 Chr 20:22). How is Yhwh’s intervention in these wars described? What form does the course of events take? At first glance, one might think that all the narratives have been cast in the same mould, but this is not the case. Each description is different, illustrating in its own way the basic principles discussed above. Of the three, the story of Abijah’s war against Jeroboam is the least concrete or realistic. Jeroboam and the Israelites are at a complete military advantage. The Judeans suddenly find themselves cut off on all sides — “behold, the battle was before and behind them” (v. 14). They cry to Yhwh, blowing their trumpets, and the course of the battle immediately swings in their favour: “God defeated Jeroboam . . . The men of Israel fled before Judah” (vv. 15–16). The form this divine attack takes — what it was that actually routed Israel — is not described. Drastic shifts in the course of wars appear in a number of biblical passages. They are explained as the result of Yhwh’s direct intervention and also as a human psychological response. At times, those who are fighting take courage: “Take courage, and acquit yourselves like men, O Philistines . . . acquit yourselves like men and fight. So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated” (1 Sam 4:9–10). In other instances, one side is seized by fear — sometimes described as the fear of Yhwh 361 — and the other side is victorious: “And there was a panic in the camp, in the field, and among all the people; the garrison and even the raiders trembled: the earth quaked; and it became a very great panic” (1 Sam 14:15). A specific act on the part of God Himself may also change the military situation: “the Lord threw down great stones from heaven upon them” ( Josh 10:11). 362

359. See Bentzen, Introduction, II, p. 214; E. Sellin and G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 10th ed. (Heidelberg, 1965), p. 267. 360. A thorough discussion of these wars appears in Welten, Chronik, pp. 115–175. 361. See von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg, p. 12. 362. See also Exod 14:24–25.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 100 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

100

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Our passage, however, provides no explanation. No external phenomenon or psychological factor 363 brings about this sudden shift in the course of events. An army that by any normal military standards should have lost, won. The reversal is perceived as utterly miraculous, 364 inexplicable in human, or any other, terms. Yet God does not fight the war Himself — that is done by Abijah and the Judeans. “Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter . . . And Abijah pursued Jeroboam, and took cities from him” (vv. 17–19). There are, then, two sides to this war. It is called Yhwh’s war, and He leads it and controls its outcome: “Behold, God is with us at our head, and his priests with their battle trumpets 365 . . . do not fight against the Lord, the God of your fathers; for you cannot succeed” (v. 12). Nevertheless, men are responsible for its execution — attack, pursuit, and conquest. Abijah’s war and Yhwh’s war are one and the same. The description of Asa’s war against the Cushites (2 Chr 14:9–15 [Heb., 8–14]) contains the same elements. The king’s army meets the Cushites in the valley near Mareshah, 366 and Asa prays to God prior to the battle. Yhwh responds directly: “So the Lord defeated the Cushites before Asa and before Judah, and the Cushites fled” (v. 12 [Heb., v. 11]). The transition is immediate. No action — divine or human — occurs between the prayer and Asa’s victory. As in the case of Abijah’s war, no explanation is given for the sudden reversal, 367 which is a direct response to the king’s 363. Later in the passage, we are told that “the men of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord, the God of their fathers” (v. 18). These words are a general conclusion to the war’s outcome, not a description of the swing which occurred as it was being fought. 364. This definition — “utter miracle” (“absoluten Wunder”) — follows von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg, p. 81. 365. In this verse, the blowing of trumpets appears to fulfill some magical purpose. It is not intended to rally the people or invoke God; the idea is “to sound the call of battle against you” (v. 12) — actually to affect the course of events. However, this idea is obscured or even absent when the war is described in verses 14–15: “and they cried to the Lord, and the priests blew the trumpets. Then the men of Judah raised the battle shout. And when the men of Judah shouted, God defeated . . .” Here, the trumpets accompany the Judean’s supplication; it is God’s response which changes the outcome of the war. 366. MT’s “the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah” (14:10, Heb., 9) appears to be corrupt. Most scholars adopt the reading of LXX: “the valley north (zaphonah) of Mareshah”; cf., for example, Curtis, Chronicles, p. 383. According to Rudolph (Chronik, p. 240), the corruption occurred when t replaced the original nw. 367. “For the fear of the Lord was upon them” at the end of the episode does not explain it. The purpose of these words is to emphasize that the Cushites’ defeat was stunning: “And [ Judah] smote all the cities round about Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was upon them” (v. 14 [Heb., 13]). Rudolph interprets otherwise; cf. Chronik, p. 244.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 101 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

101

prayer. The narrative does not present Yhwh’s deed in turning the tide of the war as a military action; instead, His behaviour constitutes an unexplained miracle. Asa and the Judeans are responsible for everything that happens after this reversal: “Asa and the people that were with him pursued them . . .” (v. 13 [12]). Nevertheless, the army is designated “the army of the Lord,” and it is He who fights the war: “Asa and the people that were with him pursued them . . . and the Cushites fell until none remained alive; for they were broken before the Lord and his army. [The men of Judah] carried away very much booty” (v. 13 [12]). 368 In Jehoshaphat’s war against Ammon, we find a more detailed and varied narrative amplifying elements that remain undeveloped in the two other stories. 369 God provides an explicit verbal response to the king’s lengthy prayer, making the essential point that “the battle is not yours but God’s” (2 Chr 20:15). Abijah expresses the same view when he tells the Israelites, “do not fight against the Lord” (2 Chr 13:12). The idea is repeated at the end of God’s answer to Jehoshaphat: “You will not need to fight in this battle; take your position, stand still, and see the victory of the Lord on your behalf . . . go out against them, and the Lord will be with you” (20:17). 370 Human action remains necessary as well; along with the 368. The war is fought by “Asa and the people that were with him,” who “carried away very much booty.” Thus “the army of the Lord” (uh hnjm) designates none other than the Judean army (Rudolph, Chronik, p. 244). According to von Rad, however, this “army” represents “the intervention of divine forces ( . . . dem Eingreifen himmlischer Mächte . . .)” (Der Heilige Krieg, p. 80, n. 134). μyhla hnjm as a term for divine forces appears only once, in Gen 32:2 (the etiological tale explaining the name “Mahanaim”). In Chronicles, uh hnjm signifies a particular part of the Temple (1 Chr 9:19; 2 Chr 31:2); μyhla hnjm appears once in a hyperbolic sense: “until there was a great army, like an army of God” (1 Chr 12:22 [Heb., 12:23]). The meaning of the phrase in our passage is explained by the parallel in 1 Chr 22:18 describing the Israelites’ conquest of the land: “. . .«and the land is subdued before the Lord and his people.” “His army” in the time of Asa is equivalent to the words “his people” in David’s speech. 369. (a) Speeches and prayers: In the first story, only Abijah’s speech to the Israelites is transmitted in detail; the people’s supplication prior to the battle is mentioned without being quoted. In 2 Chr 14:9–15, only Asa’s prayer is provided. However, in the account of Jehoshaphat’s war we find: a long prayer made by the king on the eve of the battle, God’s response through Jahaziel the son of Zechariah the Levite, Jehoshaphat’s speech immediately before the battle, and the song sung by the Levites as the army marched out. (b) Ritual: The priests participate in Abijah’s war, and the trumpets are blown. The description of Asa’s war contains no ritual element at all. In the case of Jehoshaphat, the Levites’ involvement is mentioned three times: at the end of his prayer (v. 19), during the march into battle (v. 21), and after the victory (v. 28). 370. Jahaziel’s speech in v. 17 is composed of a number of quotations from elsewhere in the Bible. “Stand still, and see . . .” is taken from Exod 14:13–14; “Fear not, and be not dismayed” is a common deuteronomistic phrase (cf. Josh 10:25; Deut 1:21; 31:8;

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 102 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

102

Yhwh, the God of Israel

message of encouragement, God gives the army specific instructions: “Tomorrow go down against them; behold, they will come up by the ascent of Ziz; you will find them at the end of the valley, east of the wilderness of Jeruel” (v. 16). Yhwh’s intervention in this war is executed by means of an “ambush” — μybram — : “the Lord set an ambush against the men of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Se’ir, who had come against Judah, so that they were routed. For the men of Ammon and Moab rose against the inhabitants of Mount Se’ir, destroying them utterly, and when they had made an end of the inhabitants of Se’ir, they all helped to destroy one another. When Judah came to the watch-tower of the wilderness . . . behold, they were dead bodies lying on the ground; none had escaped” (vv. 22–24). Israel’s enemies had destroyed themselves. The Ammonites and Moabites began by attacking the inhabitants of Seir and ended by killing each other, 371 so that no one was left to fight Israel. The description in Chronicles seems to be a literary elaboration on the idea suggested by 2 Kings 3:22–23: “the Moabites saw the water opposite them as red as blood. And they said, ‘This is blood; the kings have surely fought together, and slain one another. Now then, Moab, to the spoil!’ ” 372 What the Moabites believe has happened to Israel encourages them to make a rash attack, but in 2 Chronicles 20, they, along with the Ammonites and the inhabitants of Seir, meet the supposed fate of their enemies. The allies kill one another, and the other side is left to gather the spoils. What is meant by this “ambush” set by Yhwh? The Hebrew “μybram” means “ambushers,” but our story is concise in the extreme and does not

Josh 8:1 and elsewhere). On the use of quotation in the Chronistic speeches, see von Rad, “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” in his The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh, London, 1966), pp. 267– 280. Although von Rad pointed out this very important phenomenon, he did not exhaust the material or correctly explain the phenomenon’s origins. Cf. Willi, Auslegung, p. 218, n. 11. 371. Although the syntax of “they all helped to destroy one another” (Açya wrz[ tyjçml wh[rb) may be difficult, the meaning is clear enough, and the style contains certain elements peculiar to the Chronicler. What is particularly puzzling is the use of the verb “help” (ruuz[) in the sense of “attack.” Perhaps the verb here indicates something like “gathered their strength together” or “overcame,” as in the phrase “who helped him in war (hmjlmh yrz[)” (1 Chr 12:1 and, in Niph’al, 1 Chr 5:20, etc.). Rudolph prefers to emend the text to “wrrw[” — “incited” or “stirred up.” 372. This literary affinity could exist whether the story were an actual reworking of the text in 2 Kings 3:4–27 (thus Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 214–215) or an independent narrative based on the nucleus of some local tradition (see M. Noth, “Eine Palästinische Lokalüberlieferung in 2 Chr. 20,” ZDPV 67 [1944], 45–71).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 103 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

103

explain who these “ambushers” were. They are responsible for the enemies’ first defeat, after which the allies begin to suspect one another. It is commonly thought that they are super-human creatures such as angels. 373 However, all other “ambushers” mentioned in the Bible are human. The closest parallel appears in the story of Abimelech: “And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech . . . And the men of Shechem put men in ambush (μybram) against him on the mountain tops, and they robbed all who passed by them along that way” ( Judg 9:23–25). 374 The text in Judges clarifies what really occurs in our rather obscure passage: it may be that the “ambushers” in 2 Chronicles 20 are some sort of highwaymen who create “an evil spirit” among the allies and lead to internecine suspicion. If our interpretation is correct, Yhwh’s intervention once again takes a form which may be explained in human terms. Thus, it is God’s direct intervention that determines the outcome of the war, guaranteed beforehand through an oracle. Unlike the wars of Abijah and Asa, Jehoshaphat’s war requires almost no military action on the part of Israel. It is true that the army marches out to fight, 375 but all it really has to do is collect the spoils. Nevertheless, victory is achieved because of the actions of men, not of God: the enemy destroys itself. God intervenes directly in all three wars, causing a sudden shift in the course of events and producing an outcome that conforms to religious criteria but defies normal military considerations. Each war exemplifies the same principle: “Yhwh fought against the enemies of Israel” (2 Chr 20:29) 376 and “with us is the Lord our God, to help us and to fight our battles” (2 Chr 32:8). It becomes even more evident that God Himself switches the outcome of wars when we examine the paradoxical other side of the coin. God may fight against, as well as for, Israel, and divine intervention may produce the victory of the few over the many even when the underdog is Israel’s enemy. For example: “At the end of the year the army of Aram came up against Joash . . . Though the army of Aram had come with few men, the 373. Thus Elmslie, Chronicles (CB), p. 254; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 409; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 261; von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg, p. 80; S. Grill, “Synonyme Engelnamen im AT,” ThZ 18 (1962), 241. However, other explanations have been suggested, such as that of Pseudo-Rashi; Elmslie, Chronicles (CB), pp. 254–255; Galling, Chronik, p. 128; Ehrlich (who reads “μybIr;a“m"” — ambushes), Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 70, etc. 374. Ehrlich discusses this similarity — Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, pp. 459, 70. 375. v. 20: “And they rose early in the morning and went out into the wilderness of Tekoa.” Verse 21 even mentions ≈wljh — the equipped [warriors], or “shock-troops” (NJPS). 376. Cf. Exod 14:25; Deut 1:30; 3:22; Josh 10:14, 42; 23:3, 10.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 104 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

104

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Lord delivered into their hand a very great army . . . Thus they executed Judgment on Joash” (2 Chr 24:23–24). The narrative makes it clear that the Arameans have “few men” and owe their great victory to Yhwh’s intervention. God’s actions here are no different from his involvement in the wars discussed above. The description of Asa’s war also mentions the numerical imbalance: “Were not the Cushites and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand” (2 Chr 16:8). Along with descriptions of God’s direct involvement in the national, historical sphere, we find God intervening in the life of the individual. Because of Chronicles’ focus on the history of Israel, this aspect of divine activity is of secondary importance. Nevertheless, it appears in numerous passages, 377 including: 1. 1 Chr 2:3: “Now Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him.” 378 2. 1 Chr 4:10: “And God granted what he asked.” 3. 1 Chr 29:25: “And the Lord gave Solomon great repute . . . and bestowed upon him such royal majesty . . .” 4. 2 Chr 13:20: “And the Lord smote him, and he died.” 5. 2 Chr 18:31: “And Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him.” 379 In keeping with his view of divine intervention, the Chronicler also reworks sources from Samuel–Kings which describe events in a neutral, objective fashion. He emphasizes God’s involvement by means of paraphrase, as in 2 Chr 28:5 (in comparison to 2 Kings 16:5); 2 Chr 24:23–24 (2 Kings 12:18); 380 2 Chr 1:1 (1 Kings 2:12, 46). The Chronicler’s additions to his sources are particularly striking, such as his account of Saul’s death (1 Samuel 31 — 1 Chronicles 10). The original story makes no mention of any divine role; the war and the fate of the king and his sons are described in completely human terms. Only Samuel’s prophecy, as background to the story, indicates God’s involvement: “Tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the Lord will give the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines” (1 Sam 28:19). In Chronicles, this narrative appears with a few minor changes and with one significant addition — 1 Chr 10:13–14 — that conveys the Chronicler’s view of events. Saul’s death is explicitly described as the result of divine intervention: “[He] did not seek 377. Also 1 Chr 13:10, 14; 2 Chr 17:3, 5; 21:18; 26:20; etc. 378. Quoted from Gen 38:7. 379. See de Wette, Beiträge, pp. 79–80. 380. See above, pp. 45–46.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 105 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

105

guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord slew him” (v. 14). The only purpose of this war against Philistia was the downfall of Saul and his house, punishment for the king’s transgression. 381 The description in Chronicles contains changes because the writer’s outlook is different. Scholars have already observed a concept of “double causality” informing certain strata of biblical literature. 382 There are two levels of causality. On the surface, events are the result of natural circumstances (including factors of human nature) without any trace of the miraculous. In reality, however, everything has been brought about and controlled by God. 383 The wise and sensitive person is able to perceive God’s involvement; yet, to all intents and purposes, the course of events seems completely natural. 384 The Book of Chronicles is not informed by this concept of double causality. A concept of this type is more than a literary technique; it expresses a specific world-view. But in the Chronicler’s world-view, there is no double causality, only one cause: God. 381. The Chronicler also expresses this view by means of the changes he makes to the story itself. Most strikingly, he limits the defeat to Saul and his family. 1 Sam 31:6 reads: “Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armour-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together” — whereas we find in 1 Chr 10:6: Thus Saul died; he and his three sons and all his house died together.” 1 Sam 31:7: “And when the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley and those beyond the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their cities and fled” — compared to 1 Chr 10:7: “And when all the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that they had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their cities and fled.” According to the version in Samuel, Saul, his sons, his armour-bearer, and the men with Saul died; all the other Israelites fled. In Chronicles, neither the death of Saul’s men nor the Israelite flight is described. This is why the Israelite reaction is also more limited; only the men “in the valley” flee, compared to the original mass flight by “the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley and those beyond the Jordan.” Mosis offers the reverse explanation of these differences (Untersuchungen, pp. 22–24). 382. See I. L. Seeligmann, “Menschliches Heldentum und göttliche Hilfe: Die doppelte Kausalität im alttestementlichen Geschichtsdenken,” ThZ, 19 (1963), 385ff. Seeligmann traces the term to discussions with Professor Yehezkel Kaufmann (loc. cit., 386, n. 1). 383. As Joseph’s words in Gen 50:20 illustrate: “You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.” 384. “. . . the operations of the deity move out of the sphere of the miraculous and of the immediacy of the cult very largely into the hiddenness of an indirect guidance of history . . . the divine governance . . . attains its goal of salvation by the purposeful use of independent human decision — the wide scope given . . . which in no way relaxes men’s strict responsibility in face of the divine will” (Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 243). “Now this completely new way of picturing Jahweh’s action in history, which led, as we have seen, to a new technique in narrative . . . was merely an expression of a more profound spiritual transformation” (von Rad, Theology, I, p. 52).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 106 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

106

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Nowhere in Chronicles’ narrative do we find any attempt to reconcile events with human behaviour or the course of nature; they are simply caused directly by God. In various biblical texts, the belief that God alone is responsible for whatever happens constitutes a religious principle or article of faith; 385 In Chronicles, this principle is exemplified in the very description of events. In its specially-reworked Chronistic form, history serves as a perpetual illustration of the no longer abstract theological principle. The difference between these two views also affects the historical timeframe. If events are described in human terms, they must proceed at a human pace. While still a boy, David receives God’s promise that he will reign over Israel (1 Sam 16:12–13), but the promise is fulfilled only after David has had a long and chequered career. Here we have a case of longterm divine involvement that bears fruit after years of struggle. In Chronicles, however, God’s actions are not postponed. For example, Jeroboam’s sin of dividing the monarchy is punished by death: “Jeroboam did not recover his power in the days of Abijah; and the Lord smote him, and he died” (2 Chr 13:20). Yhwh Himself causes the king’s death immediately after the battle with Abijah and while Abijah is still alive. It has been noted that this account contradicts the historical facts in Kings, 386 which relate that Jeroboam outlived Abijah (1 Kings 15:1, 9, 25). This contradiction, however, only serves to emphasize that, above all, the Chronistic narrative illustrates a theological principle: Yhwh’s action is direct and immediate. Thus, the widespread belief that Chronicles portrays a distant God who only acts in the world by means of intermediaries is not borne out by an examination of the book’s many relevant passages. It is God who is active. Even the concept of double causality, whereby God controls events via natural, human deeds, does not describe divine involvement in Chronicles. Yhwh intervenes directly and immediately, and He alone is active. This view of divine intervention in the life of Israel lends history itself a special character — it becomes one long chain of miracles. 387 God’s ac385. Seeligmann speaks of the “exclusivity of God’s help” which underlies individual and national psalms of lament and also appears (at times as a polemic) in classical prophecy (ThZ, 19 [1963], 408–409). As Seeligmann shows, traces of this sort of monism — as opposed to the dual causality of early historiography — may, in fact, be found in historiographical works: “At a later date, Chronistic historiography was written in this same spirit” (loc. cit., 410). 386. See, for example, Curtis, Chronicles, p. 377; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 239. 387. Cf. Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 (1954), 377. For a definition of “miracle,” see J. S. Licht, EB, V, 874: “A miracle is an astonishing occurrence which the believer can only explain as direct divine intervention in the ordinary, predictable course of natural and human events.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 107 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

107

tion may take the form of natural and human phenomena, such as war or disease; 388 however, because these phenomena are attributed to immediate divine intervention — at times, God even announces His intentions beforehand 389 — they are transformed into miracles. Viewing history as a series of miracles is not the result of a literary inclination 390 or weakened faith in God’s role in history. 391 It is a consequence of the belief that, through history, God enacts His exclusive, direct control of Israel’s fate. Our discussion raises two questions that are not directly interconnected. The first rounds off our examination thus far: how did the Chronicler view the entire subject of mediators between God and man? The second extends and amplifies the issues: does our formal analysis of divine intervention force us to conclude that God’s actions are arbitrary and inexplicable, or can we discern the guiding principles behind them? Let us begin with the first question.

B. Angels in the Book of Chronicles Most scholars believe that the Bible does not contain any real angelology; in other words, it does not present an angelic sphere in any uniform or systematic way. 392 Yet post-biblical Judaism, in its many varieties, develops an extensive angelology, as we see in apocalyptic literature, 393 the writings of the Qumran sect, 394 and rabbinic literature. 395 The beginnings of this development may be traced in the most recent biblical book, Daniel. 396 There is no doubt that the belief in angels developed and became more widespread during the Second Commonwealth. This phenomenon has 388. As in 2 Chr 13:15; 14:12, Heb., 11; etc.; 2 Chr 13:20; 21:18; 26:19–20; etc. 389. As in 2 Chr 21:15. 390. As Quell believes — G. Quell, “Das Phänomen des Wunders im Alten Testament,” in Verbannung und Umkehr (Festsch. W. Rudolph, Tübingen, 1961), p. 253. 391. Thus Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 167: “It is . . . characteristic that a real addiction to the miraculous is found only with a slackening of religious strength. The apocryphal literature and to some extent also the Chronicler reveal the way in which, in the belief that the age of revelation has come to an end, miracles are required as a proof of every direct manifestation of God.” 392. For example, see G. von Rad, aßngeloÍ, TDNT, I, 76–80; Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 23–29, 194–202; A. Rofé, Angels, pp. 6ff. 393. See, e.g., W. O. E. Oesterley, Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (New York, 1935), pp. 106–110. 394. J. Guttmann, “Angels and Angelology,” EJ, 2, 962. 395. Urbach, The Sages, pp. 135–183. 396. “There thus opens a new phase in the history of the Jewish belief in angels. Though there are still variations in detail, a constant doctrine of the heavenly hierarchy begins to take shape, and here at last, in the final book of the OT canon, we can speak of OT angelology” — von Rad, TDNT, I, 79–80.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 108 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

108

Yhwh, the God of Israel

generally been explained in two ways, with varying emphasis on each explanation: (a) it is the result of foreign influence, primarily Persian and Babylonian, on Israelite religion; (b) it is an internal development, featuring an increasingly transcendental concept of God that distanced Him from the world and necessitated the intervention of some mediating force. 397 The book of Chronicles was written during the period in which this development occurred, and scholars have therefore made use of the book’s testimony in their efforts to understand this process and have considered Chronicles an evolutionary stage — according to some, an important stage — in the belief in angels. 398 What evidence of angels does Chronicles contain? Superhuman divine messengers 399 are only mentioned twice: in 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Chronicles 32. 400 Both passages are taken from source stories — the pestilence during David’s reign (2 Samuel 24) and the defeat of Sennacherib in his siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings 19). None of the passages added by the Chronicler mentions angels. These Chronistic parallels provide complex testimony. The text of the second is simpler; 2 Chr 32:21 reads: “And the Lord sent an angel, who cut off all the mighty warriors and commanders and officers in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land.” The parallel in 2 Kings 19:35 tells us: “And that night the angel of the Lord went forth, and slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.” The difference of interest to us here is the change from the source’s “the angel of the Lord went forth” to Chronicles’ “and the Lord sent an angel.” The version in Kings implies that the angel is an independent being carrying out an independent action. Here, the “angel” is whatever (pestilence, plague) smote one hundred and eighty-five thousand men in one night. 401 Chronicles eliminates the possibility of an independent be-

397. See J. S. Licht, “Angel of Yhwh” (Heb.), EB, IV, 986–987. 398. Cf., for example, Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xiv: “Gradually, angelology develops towards the final form it attains in Daniel and the Pseudepigrapha”; see also pp. xiv–xv. Von Rad, too, writes that “a developed angelology is part of the Chronicler’s religious world-view” (Geschichtsbild, p. 9). 399. As opposed to human messengers, who are also called μykalm; see below, pp. 112ff. 400. On the “army of Yhwh” and “ambushers,” see above, p. 101, n. 368, and p. 103. 401. Rofé believes that the angel is part of a secondary reworking of the original story of Sennacherib’s defeat; Rofé, Angels, pp. 209–218. However, it must be noted that the Chronicler already had the story in its present form.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 109 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

109

ing; it is clear that the angel is God’s messenger. To make the point even more obvious, the Chronicler adds a few verses of his own: “So the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . and many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah” (2 Chr 32:22–23). Another difference between the two versions is the form and extent of the angel’s “smiting.” In Kings, the attack on the camp is described as some sort of frightful plague which wipes out almost two hundred thousand men in a night. The enormous death toll and the swiftness of the attack (emphasized by “and when men arose early in the morning”) suggest that the angel is tremendously — unbelievably — powerful. The account in Chronicles is much more moderate. The angel’s activity is given no specific timeframe; the words “and that night” as well as “and when men arose early in the morning” have been omitted. 402 The extent of his attack is much more limited: instead of a hundred and eighty-five thousand men, “all the mighty warriors and commanders and officers” are killed. No figure is given; only the Assyrian fighting elite is destroyed. 403 All these changes indicate that the Chronicler views the angel differently. It is true that he does not write him out of the story, but he has eliminated the autonomous, demonic quality of the angel’s activity. Now the angel is Yhwh’s messenger, carrying out God’s mission of salvation. 1 Chronicles 21 presents a more complex problem. The story is taken from 2 Samuel 24, but changes have been made. In particular, the role of the angel has been enlarged: in Samuel, he is mentioned four times; in Chronicles, nine times. 404 In his acute and comprehensive analysis of 2 Samuel 24, A. Rofé discusses the chapter’s connection with 1 Chronicles 21, paying particular attention to the angelological reworking. 405 I shall therefore confine myself to a few remarks on the subject. (1) 2 Sam 24:16: “And when the angel stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, ‘It is enough; now stay your hand.’ ” 1 Chr 21:15: “And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but when he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw, and he repented of the evil; and he said to the destroying angel, ‘It is enough; now stay your hand.’ ” 402. “On that night” is also absent from the parallel in Isa 37:36, but “and when men arose early in the morning” does appear there and proves that the version in Kings is therefore preferable. 403. See Montgomery, Kings, p. 497; Rofé, however, disagrees — Angels, p. 210, n. 47. 404. 2 Sam 24:16 (three times), 17; 1 Chr 21:12, 15 (three times), 16, 18, 20, 27, 30. 405. Rofé, Angels, pp. 184–203.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 110 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

110

Yhwh, the God of Israel

One difference between the two verses is that the first speaks of the angel stretching forth his hand (˚almh wdy jlçyw) whereas in Chronicles, it is God who sends the angel (˚alm μyhlah jlçyw).The activity of the angel in Samuel is, to a certain extent, autonomous. It is true that the pestilence was originally sent by God (v. 15), but now that the angel has been empowered 406 to “work destruction,” he continues on his own. Some sort of conflict therefore arises between him and Yhwh in 2 Sam 24:16; the angel wishes to destroy Jerusalem, but God repents and orders him to stop. 407 The change in 1 Chr 21:15 makes it clear that the angel is God’s messenger — “And God sent the angel” — exactly as does the change in 2 Chr 32:21. This difference leads to another. According to the description in Samuel, the angel does not harm Jerusalem: God changes His mind and stops him just as he stretches out his hand. But in 1 Chr 21:15, the word tyjçhkw (when he was about to destroy it) has been added, indicating clearly that the process of destruction had already begun when God repented of the evil. This change appears most odd: why would the Chronicler wish to increase the damage described in Samuel? 408 In fact, the change is necessitated by what precedes it. The verse begins, “And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it.” At what point, then, does God repent and stop the angel? In Samuel, the angel is in the process of continuing his destruction and may be stopped mid-action, but Chronicles describes God’s sending of the angel as a new stage. God can hardly reconsider just as he sends the angel. Some sort of context for the change of heart is required, and that is why the Chronicler adds a further stage, indicated by the word tyjçhkw. (2) 1 Chr 21:28–30 constitutes a singular element in the story — an anticlimax or even a contradiction to what has already been related. In its present form, the story is etiological, explaining the choice of the Temple site. Thus it is a fitting preface to Chapters 22 to 29. Verse 18 states explicitly that the instruction to build an altar on Ornan’s threshing floor comes from God: “Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David that David should go up and rear an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” From this point on, David’s actions are directed towards the fulfilling of this order. After he has built 406. See Baba Kama 60a. 407. See Rofé, Angels, pp. 185ff. Although critics, including Rofé (Angels, p. 197, n. 17), have suggested that ˚almj wdy jlçyw in 2 Samuel is a corruption of an original jlçyw ˚alm hwhy, it does not appear to me that this is the case. On the problems with MT’s word order, see Driver, Samuel, pp. 377–378. 408. Particularly when he recounts that Benjamin and Levi were not included in those who were “numbered” and therefore did not deserve any punishment; see Rofé, op. cit., p. 187, n. 6.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 111 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

111

the altar and offered sacrifices, David calls upon Yhwh and is answered: the altar is consecrated by means of fire from heaven (v. 26). Then (1 Chr 22:1) David proclaims that the Temple will be built on the site of Ornan’s threshing floor. 409 Verses 28 to 30 recast the story, and David’s behaviour is described in an apologetic manner. It is now assumed that he should have offered a sacrifice in Gibeon — site of the tabernacle and altar — but because he was afraid of the sword of Yhwh’s angel, he offered the sacrifice on the threshing floor. Instead of the story’s original inspiring message of how the Temple site was chosen, with the divine will revealed by means of fire from heaven, it is a case of faute de mieux. Thus, there is a certain tension between the original etiological tale and the supplement in vv. 28–30. This tension has led many scholars to conclude that the verses are a postchronistic addition. 410 Yet the central idea being presented is in keeping with the Chronicler’s outlook and his position on the centralization of worship, 411 and it is difficult to imagine the story without vv. 28–30 (or, consequently, the omission of 16:39–40). In my opinion, the verses serve as one example of Chronicles’ attempts to combine a number of divergent trends without fully harmonizing them; the principal lines of agreement may be drawn, but there is no comprehensive reworking of the text. Three main strata in the composition of 1 Chr 21 are therefore suggested: (a) a non-angelological story describing the pestilence without mentioning the angel. 412 (b) an extensive angelological reworking, comprising a number of stages. At first, the pestilence was equated with the destroying angel himself (2 Sam 24:16, 17): the destruction is caused by the angel’s “hand” (1 Chr 21:15). Later, it is seen as “the sword of the angel,” or the angel himself may be seen as “the sword of the Lord” (1 Chr 21:12, 16, 27). 1 Chr 21:18 is also part of this reworking. 413 The entire reworking, including elements which do not appear in 2 Samuel, predated the Chronicler. 414 409. See Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 118. 410. See Kittel, Chronik, p. 81; Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. 392–393; and others. This conclusion is supported by a number of other arguments, which generally include the view that 1 Chr 16:39–40 is also an addition. 411. See below, pp. 177ff. 412. Rofé, Angels, pp. 198–199. 413. 1 Chr 21:20 appears to be corrupt: ˚almh has been substituted for the original ˚lmh; cf. BH. 414. Rofé is apparently correct when he writes (citing 4QSam as evidence): “The writer of the angelological reworking, including that in 1 Chronicles 21, had a version of the book of Samuel as his Vorlage” (Angels, p. 195). See also W. E. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History,” HThR, 58 (1965), 335–337; Kittel, Chronik, p. 80.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 112 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

112

Yhwh, the God of Israel

(c) When the story was incorporated into Chronicles, a few changes were made. 415 Two of these have been discussed: first, in 1 Chr 21:15 (parallel to 2 Sam 24:16), the text was altered to reflect a different relationship between God and the angel, as in the case of 2 Chr 32:21. This alteration is an active expression of the Chronicler’s reservations on the subject. Second, 1 Chr 21:26b–22:l were added. On the one hand, these verses accentuate the selection of Ornan’s threshing floor as site of the future Temple; on the other, from within the context of the centralization of Israelite worship, they express some reservation concerning David’s act. 1 Chronicles 21 is an isolated element in Chronicles, and this fact alone demands that its value as evidence of the book’s portrayal of angels must be assessed with caution. Moreover, careful examination reveals that “the angelological element was not introduced by the Chronicler, but by another writer.” 416 In fact, the Chronicler responded to the angelological elements in his sources by softening and reducing them. The overall use of the word ˚alm provides another source of evidence for Chronicles’ position on angels. As is the case elsewhere in the Bible, the word generally means “messenger”; 417 in Chronicles, it has two submeanings: (a) the king’s messenger and (b) a prophet. The first meaning is found five times, twice in parallel texts 418 and in the following examples: 1. 1 Chr 19:2: “So David sent messengers to console him . . .” 2 Sam 10:2: “So David sent by his servants to console . . .” 2. 1 Chr 19:16: “But when the Arameans saw that they had been defeated . . . they sent messengers and brought out the Arameans . . .” 2 Sam 10:15–16: “But when the Arameans saw that they had been defeated . . . Hadadezer sent and brought out the Arameans . . .” 3. 2 Chr 35:21: “But he sent messengers to him saying, ‘What have we to do with each other, king of Judah?’ ” 419 415. Here I do not accept the opinion of Rofé, who believes that the entire story in Chapter 21, including all redactional stages, predated the book of Chronicles (op. cit., p. 195). 416. Rofé, Angels, p. 195. 417. W. Baumgartner, “Zum Problem des Jahwe-Engels” (1944) in Zum AT und seiner Umwelt (Leiden, 1959), p. 241; Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 23; Rofé, Angels, p. 2. 418. 1 Chr 14:1 = 2 Sam 5:11; 2 Chr 18:12 = 1 Kings 22:13. 419. It would appear that the change in 1 Chr 19:2 predated the book and reflects a different, possibly preferable, version. For a detailed look at the question, see the debate between S. Talmon, “Synonymous Readings in the OT,” Scripta Hierosolymitana, 8 (1961), pp. 340–369, and I. L. Seeligmann, “Researches into the Criticism of the Masoretic Text of the Bible” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 25 (1956), 125 and n. 26. Regarding 1 Chr 19:16, the passage as a whole suggests that Chronicles’ version is preferable to that of Samuel

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 113 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

113

In two cases, Chronicles omits the word “messenger” found in the parallel sources: 1. 2 Kings 14:8: Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash . . . saying . . .” 2 Chr 25:17: Then Amaziah . . . took counsel and sent to Joash . . . saying . . . ” 2. 2 Kings 16:7: “So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria” 2 Chr 28:16: “At that time King Ahaz sent to the kings of Assyria for help.” (This text does not really parallel, but instead paraphrases, the source.) By means of paraphrase, Chronicles’ version of Sennacherib’s delegation avoids any mention of messengers (μykalm — 2 Kings 19:9, 14), who are called servants (μydb[ — 2 Chr 32:9, 16). Thus, there seems to be no consistency in Chronicles’ approach to this question. It would appear that a number of shifts and reworkings affected the book’s use of “messengers” in the sense of “the king’s messengers,” but without any clear, unequivocal evidence, we are unable to assess the Chronicler’s role in these reworkings. The question of Chronicles’ use of “messenger” as “prophet” is less complex; this usage in fact appears only once: “The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers . . . but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets (wyabn)” (2 Chr 36:15–16). Only from the post-exilic period onwards 420 do we find ˚alm with this meaning, as well as one example of the title being applied to the priest (Mal 2:7). The expression “Yhwh’s messenger” must have been a theological innovation of the period. In theory, calling human beings divine messengers might be interpreted as some sort of deification; however, within the context of biblical thought, only the opposite interpretation is possible. “Yhwh’s messenger” is not part of any divine sphere; the epithet expresses the primary sense of the word — a ˚alm is someone who has been sent by God. The name tells us nothing about his nature, position, or mode of action. That is the significance of Samuel (see Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. 353–354; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 138); and this seems to be the case in v. 16 (although here Rothstein prefers the reading in Samuel). 2 Chr 35:21 may also reflect the Chronicler’s source. 420. The texts are: Isa 44:26: “who confirms the word of his servant, and performs the counsel of his messengers” — the context providing conclusive evidence that the “messenger” indeed means “prophet” (cf. J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB [1968], p. 73) — and, probably, Isa 42:19: “Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I send?” Particularly important is Hag 1:13: “Then Haggai, the messenger of the Lord, spoke to the people with the Lord’s message (uh twkalmb).”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 114 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

114

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the phrase in 2 Chr 36:15–16 and its equation of “messengers of God” with “prophets.” Prophets, who are Yhwh’s messengers par excellence, are wykalm. 421 This usage is in keeping with our discussion of 1 Chr 21:15 and 2 Chr 32:21. The Chronicler wishes to emphasize that angels, too, are nothing more than messengers of God. Whether angelic or human messengers, their title is the same. Chronicles also contains one occurrence of the word ˆfç (satan), and this passage has merited a great deal of exegesis. “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel” (1 Chr 21:1). Discussion focusses not on God’s transcendence, but on the problem of evil and the need to separate the essence of evil from God. Scholars are in general agreement on this point, and their opinions may be summarized along the following lines: 422 (1) 1 Chr 21:1 represents the final stage in the biblical concept of the Satan; elements of post-biblical figure are already present. (2) What distinguishes the Satan here from the Satan in similar passages, notably Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3, is the fact that 1 Chr 21:1 does not consider him one of the angels. In Job and Zechariah, he is part of the heavenly entourage; only his function differentiates him from the others, and his name testifies to this special function. In Chronicles, there is no retinue, and “Satan” represents a proper name which determines identity, not function. (3) In 1 Chr 21:1, the Satan is a distinct being, the antithesis of God. As the embodiment of evil, he acts as the enemy of Israel and of God. His actions are not produced by a role he is filling, but by his own character, which typifies malice and hatred of the Lord. (4) Because evil is now distinct from God, a dualistic element has been introduced into Israelite belief under Persian influence. Since this entire conceptual structure has been built on one verse, a detailed examination of this verse (on its own and in relation to its parallel, 2 Sam 24:1) is in order. 421. However, this usage of the word disappears once more when angelology assumes greater importance in Jewish thought. Rofé cites a certain amount of evidence from Septuagint mss. (Angels, p. 339), but the later Targum provides clearer proof of this trend. The Targum is consistent: whenever μykalm are human messengers — including our passage (2 Chr 36:15–16) — the Aramaic reads ˆwdgza (1 Chr 14:1; 19:2, 16; 2 Chr 18:12; 35:21). Whenever the messenger is super-human, the Targum reads ˚alm (1 Chr 21:15, 16, 18, 20, 27, 30; 2 Chr 32:21). 422. See Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. 377–380; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 8–9; idem, diavboloÍ, TDNT, II, 74–75; Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 206–207: Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 142–143; R. Schärf, Satan in the Old Testament, trans. H. Nagel (Evanston, Ill., 1967), pp. 155ff.; Willi, Auslegung, pp. 155–156.

spread is 12 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 115 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

115

We must begin by asking what the word ˆfç means in its context. From a lexical point of view, it is clear that the word itself means “adversary.” 423 Other issues are less clear. Is “satan” being used as a proper name? Does it refer to a super-human being? Because “satan” appears in the indeterminate in our verse, 424 most scholars assume that the word is a proper name and not a generic term. 425 What is the usual practice in biblical language? Gesenius states that “the article is . . . employed . . . when terms applying to whole classes are restricted (simply by usage) to particular individuals or things, l[b = lord, l[bh = Baal as proper name of the god.” 426 Among his examples, Gesenius includes the change from “satan” (a generic term) to “the satan” (a proper name). 427 Thus, a generic name is converted to a proper one by the addition of the definite article. This is true of all levels of biblical Hebrew. The absence of the definite article in 1 Chr 21:1 is in fact an indication of the word’s primary usage: “satan” means “adversary” in a generic sense. Is the satan a super-human figure? As a result of their belief that “satan” in 1 Chr 21:1 signifies a proper name, most commentators identified him with the demonic being later called by the same name — the devil. It seems that this identification was also prompted by another cause. According to 2 Sam 24:1. It was God who incited David to take the census, and exegetes have usually examined the two parallel verses in tandem. Because of the verse in Samuel, they have assumed that the incitement in Chronicles would also be of super-human origin. Yet 1 Chr 21:1 contains no suggestion whatever that the figure is not human. Once the name is understood as “adversary,” we no longer associate it with the later figure of Satan. Moving from subject to verb, we must ask what is meant by “stood up against” (l[ dm[yw). Von Rad explains it as a legal phrase, 428 but one must 423. See BDB, p. 966; Köhler-Baumgartner, pp. 918–919. 424. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 143; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 8; and others. 425. Biblical lexicons also reflect this assumption: cf. BDB, p. 966, 2 (c), KöhlerBaumgartner, p. 919. 426. Gesenius, 126d, p. 405; see also 125e, p. 402. 427. Interestingly enough, in section 125f (p. 402), Gesenius makes a special rule for the question of “satan” in 1 Chr 21:1, claiming that the widespread use of the word as a proper name led to the displacement of its general meaning. This would explain why “Satan” became a name like “Shaddai,” “Elyon,” and so forth. However, it is difficult to believe that such a complex shift in usage, the result of which was the elimination of the general meaning of “satan,” could be concluded between the writing of Zech 3:1 and 1 Chr 21:1. The evidence of the word in Qumran scrolls also testifies to its continued use in a general sense (see 1QH, para. 4, l. 6). Gesenius’ discussion in 125f may be seen as yet another case in which exegetical considerations influence objective linguistic analysis. 428. “The legal element in the concept is still present in the l[ dm[yw of the Chronicler” (TDNT, II, 74) — as in the case of Zech 3:1 (loc. cit., 73).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 116 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

116

Yhwh, the God of Israel

distinguish between “stood at his right hand to accuse him” (Zech 3:1) — if indeed l[ dm[ has a legal significance — and “stood up against” in our passage. In late biblical Hebrew, dm[ replaces μwq in denoting “to stand up” or “to rise up,” as in, for example, the phrase l[ dm[ — to rise up against someone as an adversary. 429 Our verse should therefore be understood in the following way: an adversary arose against Israel and incited David. 430 Some sort of enemy, perhaps one of David’s courtiers or officials, incited him to take a census, thereby revealing his enmity. The story goes on to contrast this adversary’s influence with the role of Joab, who tries to dissuade David and later even impedes the census by omitting Levi and Benjamin. The adversary and Joab fulfill parallel roles in the structure of 1 Chronicles 21. According to 2 Sam 24:1, it is God who incites David to take a census. He is already angry at Israel, and the census provides a means of justifying the punishment in advance. The Chronicler transfers the incitement to a human plane and does not mention that God was angry. 431 In Chronicles, David commits a sin by allowing himself to be convinced and taking the census. The beginnings of the episode, however, are completely secular and have nothing to do with question of theodicy. 432 429. For the replacement of μuuwq by duum[, see BDB: Ps 33:11 (compared to Isa 14:24); Esther 3:4; Dan 11:17b; 12:13; and the entire discussion in Section 6 (p. 764). In 6 (c), our passage is cited as an example of “rise against,” together with 2 Chr 20:23; Dan 8:25; 11:14. 430. The verse parallels (with minor changes necessitated by the context) 1 Kings 11:14, 23. In particular, see H. Kaupel, Die Dämonen im Alten Testament (Augsburg, 1930), pp. 104–109, and F. X. Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus (Münster, 1922), pp. 241–243. 431. Scholars hasten to point out that 2 Sam 24:1 presents a theological difficulty that the Chronicler could not accept (e.g., see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 142). Yet it is questionable whether “again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” need be interpreted as an “unaccountable outburst of rage” (Rudolph, loc. cit.). The connection between 2 Samuel 24 and 21 (see Smith, Samuel, p. 373) provides evidence that the incitement to take a census was really perceived in 2 Sam 24:1 as punishment for some unnamed transgression, just as the famine in 2 Samuel 21 was punishment for a specific sin. (See also Hertzberg, Samuel, p. 411.) 432. The stages of the story’s development may be reconstructed as follows: the people’s memory of David’s reign included, among others, two events, the census (apparently the first of its kind) and the terrible pestilence. Since there is a typological connection between censuses and plagues (cf. S. E. Loewenstamm, “rpk,” EB, IV, 232; Rofé, Angels, pp. 184–185; Schärf, Satan in the Old Testament, pp. 151–153), the two were linked together. From a theological point of view, this link entailed the belief that David sinned by taking the census and the plague served as punishment of that sin. (See 2 Sam 24:10, 17 and C. R. North, “The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship,” ZAW, 50 [1932], 10–11.) However, this belief raises an extremely difficult theological question, which

spread is 9 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 117 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

117

Another conclusion arising from this analysis concerns the idea that God and evil have been separated. 1 Chr 21:1 is usually cited as proof of this idea, but we see that neither our verse nor Chronicles as a whole shows any evidence of it. There is no doubt that the book conceives of God as oneness. He embodies both good and evil, and this fact poses no theological difficulties. Thanks to the principle of supreme and absolute justice, it is impossible to consider God’s actions arbitrary and unnecessary to view evil as a separate being. 433

C. Guiding Principles for Divine Action From the first, biblical scholars have noted that one of Chronicles’ most striking features is its particular understanding of God’s involvement in the history of Israel: “In the kingdom of Jehovah it is not a natural and human, but a divine pragmatism that is operative . . . Never does sin miss its punishment, and never where misfortune occurs is guilt wanting.” 434 Wellhausen’s view is founded on a comparison of texts in Chronicles and their parallels in Kings 435 and tends to reappear, in some form or other, in later commentaries. For example: “. . . [the Chronicler] was equally interested in the divine rule. He interpreted Israel’s life . . . as that of a church with constant rewards and punishments through signal divine intervention . . . He made more universal the connection between piety and prosperity, and wickedness and adversity.” 436 Rudolph, too, writes: “. . . the Chronicler diligently endeavours to demonstrate this divinelyordered correspondence between deeds and destiny in the life of each

David himself poses: “Lo, I have sinned . . . but these sheep, what have they done?” (2 Sam 24:17). Why are the people being punished for David’s sin? 2 Sam 24:1 provides a theological solution: the people are in fact being punished for their own sin. God incites David to take the census in order to be able to punish them later on. That is why the verse reads, “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.” Israel sinned and was punished, Just as David sinned and was punished! Chronicles omits the opening verse and thus the theological solution. In the beginning, at least, the census and its origins are perceived in secular terms, and the question of why the people were punished is never answered in 1 Chronicles. 433. It is difficult to believe that if the Chronicler were really bothered by the nature of evil and its source, he would show no sign of his concern, apart from one indirect reference in 1 Chr 21:1. Von Rad is also rather doubtful — Geschichtsbild, p. 9. 434. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 203. 435. Ibid., pp. 203–210. 436. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 9.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 118 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

118

Yhwh, the God of Israel

and every king . . . in general, the description is dominated by the idea of reward and punishment.” 437 Chronicles’ portrayal of God’s active role in Israelite history has been seen as an expression of this concept of retribution 438 and compared to the Deuteronomist’s work. 439 The difference between the two works has been considered quantitative, not qualitative; 440 in other words, the Chronicler attempts to be comprehensive and include more details. Because most critics saw the Chronicler’s method merely as evidence of his unreliability as an historical source, almost no attempt was made to understand the origins and causes of his particular concept of retribution — what was important was its effect on the writing of history. Yet these questions are central to any understanding of the Chronicler’s outlook. Where did this principle originate, why is it so crucial to the book’s world-view, and how did it lead to the moulding of all history in accordance with “divine pragmatism”? A belief in reward and punishment signifies an assurance that God requites the deeds, good and bad, of human beings and stems from a conviction of divine providence. “Belief in” reward and punishment becomes a principle, or theory of retribution, when divine recompense is perceived as something constant operating in accordance with fixed rules. Any such theory is based on the view that retribution is meted out constantly and consistently and on the axiomatic acceptance of the system’s rules. In the Bible, these rules derive from the principle of justice. Thus, in addition to a belief in divine providence, every concept of retribution also entails the belief that God is just and requites human deeds justly. These two beliefs 437. Rudolph, Chronik, pp. xix, xiv. Mosis has argued fiercely against the importance of divine retribution in Chronicles, but his case is rather weak (see Untersuchungen, pp. 14–16, 201–202, and passim). 438. See von Rad, Geschichstbild, pp. 10–15; Bickerman, Ezra to Maccabees, pp. 24– 26; North, “The Chronicler,” 372ff.; Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 307, 487, and elsewhere. 439. According to Eichrodt, a new theological development, post-dating the Deuteronomistic redaction, is evident in Chronicles. “The old historical tradition, with its reverence in face of God’s inconceivable majesty, was no longer tolerated, and was rationalized by introducing a mechanical retribution, as a comparison of the Chronicler’s work with the books of Kings especially makes clear” (Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 487). In Eichrodt’s terms. Kings stills reflects “the old historical tradition,” whereas the historiography in Chronicles has been rationalized by means of mechanistic reward and punishment. Regarding this subject, see also below, pp. 120ff. There is no doubt, however, that Kings, too, expresses a sense that God’s deeds must be justified. For example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 277–279. 440. For example, cf. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 9; Rudolph, Chronik, p. xiv. Wellhausen does see a qualitative difference, not in method of redaction, but in the degree to which the Torah serves as the authority and in the specific Pentateuchal source that provides the authoritative basis (Prolegomena, p. 294).

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 119 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

119

— in divine providence and divine justice — are among the most important assumptions in biblical religion. 441 Religious doubt concerning God’s actions in the world usually assaults one or both of these beliefs, questioning the existence of divine providence 442 and/or doubting whether God really rules the world justly. 443 Usually, doubt is focussed on the latter principle; the belief that justice prevails in the world is challenged by the view that God’s actions are arbitrary and completely unrelated to any principle of justice. In the Bible, the existence of evil poses the foremost challenge to the belief in divine justice. Since biblical thinking is pragmatic and realistic, it is the reality of evil that raises the problem of justice. This concrete evil has a number of aspects: the evils of nature — death, disease, and natural afflictions; 444 social evils — the unfair lot of the righteous and the wicked; 445 and national evils — the fate of Israel 446 and of other nations. 447 All the biblical attempts to explain the existence of evil — stories, poems, sayings, aphorisms, and so on — by blaming it on human misdeeds, thus leaving absolute divine justice intact, may be considered forms of theodicy. They are all intended to show that a person’s fate has been justly determined by God in requital of his deeds. 448 441. For example, see Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 595–623; M. Weiss, “Some Problems of the Biblical Doctrine of Retribution” (I) (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 31 (1961/62), 249. Urbach attaches particular importance to the Rabbis’ belief in providence and the justice of God; The Sages, pp. 28–31. 178–179, 256–257. Cf. also Schechter, Rabbinic Theology, p. 26. 442. As in: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ” (Ps 14:1; 53:1 (Heb., 2] — in the NJPS translation: “The benighted man thinks, ’God does not care’ ”) or “Let him make haste, let him speed his work that we may see it” (Isa 5:19). 443. This doubt lies at the heart of Job and Ecclesiastes. Although Kohelet affirms that God watches over the world, he does not believe that His actions are determined by the principle of justice. Instead, the guiding principle, divine favour — expressed by the phrase wynpl bwf (“that pleases Him”) — remains unexplained: “For to the man who pleases him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy” (Eccles 2:26) or “it is God’s gift to man that every one should eat and drink . . .” (3:13). See H. L. Ginsberg’s commentary on Qohelet (Heb., Jerusalem. 1961), pp. 16–17. Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 494–495, holds a different opinion on this subject. 444. For example, Genesis 2–3 explains the pain of bearing children, man’s toil, and the snake’s crawling all as the result of Adam’s sin. See Kaufmann, Religion, II, p. 601. 445. As in Jer 12:1–3, Psalm 37, and elsewhere. 446. As in Deuteronomistic historiography; see the discussion below. 447. As in Genesis 18–19, which explains that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the sinfulness of their inhabitants or Deut 9:5, which attributes the Israelite conquest of Canaan to “the wickedness of these nations.” 448. Kaufmann claims that “the Bible is a book of theodicy” (Religion, II, p. 609), whereas Eichrodt attempts to prove that it contains no element of theodicy whatever

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 120 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

120

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Likewise, biblical historiography, with its explanation that the changes in Israel’s fortunes stem from the people’s deeds and misdeeds and are produced as divine requital, is based on the belief that God’s justice is absolute. In this sense, both Kings and Chronicles are works of theodicy; they attribute the people’s fate to its deeds and acquit God the Just of responsibility for that fate. 449 The two major historical compositions share the desire not merely to describe Israel’s history, but to explain it. Their explanation rests on the accentuation of God’s justice throughout the course of history. Although Chronicles and Deuteronomistic historiography are alike with respect to ends and motives, their means of explaining history differ. This difference focusses on two particular questions: the “starting point” and the concept of divine justice. (1) Starting Point: The Deuteronomist wished to explain the reality of his time, of the destruction of Judah and the Temple. That is his work’s starting point. For him, Israel’s history during the First Commonwealth is a history of disintegration in three stages: division into two kingdoms, the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, and, finally, the destruction of Judah. The entire history of the people is seen from the perspective of its disastrous end, producing a sense of disintegration and impending doom which comes to dominate the description. 450 Thus, in Kings, the principle of reward and punishment has as its starting point a particularly relevant concern: the need to explain the destruction of Judah in terms of divine providence and justice. 451 Chronicles’ starting point has to do with an overall religious system. The impetus is not an immediate need to provide the believer with answers to the acute challenge posed by the destruction, but rather a general religious awareness. This awareness entails a desire to demonstrate that divine jus(“Vorsehungsglaube und Theodizee im AT,” Procksch Festsch. [Leipzig, 1934], pp. 60ff.; Theology, II, pp. 484–495). Indeed, with his one-sided definition of theodicy as “theoretical reconciliation” in keeping with a “Platonic-Stoic world-view,” Eichrodt does manage to banish theodicy from the Bible. His reasons for doing so are clear — see, in particular, Theology, II, pp. 260, 487, 489: he believes that an “attempt to construct a theodicy on the basis of a rationalistic theory of retribution” is characteristic of “late Judaism” and antithetical to both Christianity and the Bible. 449. According to Kaufmann, “the reworking of historical literature provided in the book of Kings represents an enormous undertaking, which contains the great work of historical theodicy” (Religion, II, p. 300). Von Rad writes: “the Chronicler’s singular grapplings with reward and punishment, like Job’s questioning, must be understood as a form of . . . the problem of theodicy” (Geschichtsbild, p. 11). 450. There is only one interruption in this description — the stories about Elijah and Elisha shift the focus of attention from the future to the present. 451. See Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 296ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 121 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

121

tice is at work in the world and can be discerned throughout Israelite history. 452 The Chronicler expresses his general religious motivation in his writing and in his way of reworking sources. Two particular aspects, which may be termed the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of his reworking, reveal this motivation. Within the quantitative dimension, each and every event in Israel’s history has to be explained in terms of the Chronicler’s belief system — it is not enough to explain two or three crucial events. 453 Wellhausen discussed this aspect of the Chronicler’s work at length, and we shall return to it below. 454 The qualitative difference lies in his need to explain good as well as evil. The Deuteronomist does not account for the existence of good. When he describes a change for the better in Israelite history, he does not attribute that change to divine justice, but to God’s compassion: 455 “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he gave them continually into the hand of Hazael king of Aram . . . Then Jehoahaz besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened to him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Aram oppressed them . . . Nevertheless they did not depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam . . . and the Asherah also remained in Samaria” (2 Kings 13:3–6). The people’s behaviour does not improve, but because Yhwh is compassionate and responds to their oppression, they are saved. 456 In the case of 452. In this respect, Chronicles is closer to the redaction of Judges. (The relationship between the redaction of Judges and of Kings is another issue and not the subject of discussion here.) The editor of Judges did not attempt to justify a particular reality; he wished to explain a historic period from within a religious system. 453. Rudolph correctly points out that this intention was not carried out completely (Chronik, p. xix). He indicates two exceptions: 2 Chr 25:13 — the attack by Amaziah’s Northern recruits — and 2 Chr 32:1 — Sennacherib’s campaign. However, the story of Sennacherib’s campaign fulfills a different purpose in Chronistic historiography (see below pp. 151ff.). The story of the recruits (2 Chr 25:13), as well as 1 Chr 7:21–22, must be considered uncharacteristic. These exceptions to the system suggest an earlier tradition, taken by the Chronicler from extra-biblical sources, which was not reworked thoroughly. 454. Prolegomena, pp. 203–210; see below, pp. 129ff. 455. In only one instance does he see success as reward for the king’s actions: “He trusted in the Lord the God of Israel . . . he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments . . . and the Lord was with him; wherever he went forth, he prospered . . . He smote the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city” (2 Kings 18:5–8, concerning Hezekiah). We have here an excellent example of the way in which historical data, taken from various royal sources, were woven into the Deuteronomistic religious appraisal. Cf. Montgomery, Kings, p. 482; Gray, Kings, p. 609. 456. Likewise 2 Kings 13:22–23 — “Now Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 122 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

122

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the Chronicler, things are different. To begin with, his view of history is more optimistic — he sees a greater degree of good in the people’s past. 457 Moreover, he explains both good and evil in terms of divine justice. 458 Thus, the Chronicler’s special method of reworking his sources is evident in his interpretation of every historical event in terms of reward and punishment and in his explanation of good as well as evil. We might call this method an attempt at the systematization of history — historical description regulated by a religious system. (2) The Concept of Divine Justice: In both Kings and Chronicles, the aim is to prove that God acts in history according to the principle of divine justice. However, the two differ in their definition of the concept; what one considers an act of justice may be interpreted by the other as an injustice. According to Kings, the division of the kingdom served as punishment for Solomon’s sins: 1 Kings 11:11–13: “Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.’ ” This passage reflects the position of the Deuteronomistic redactor: 459 the kingdom was divided because Solomon sinned, yet the punishment does not affect Solomon himself, but rather Rehoboam and his contemporaries. It was deferred, not by virtue of Solomon’s good behaviour, but because of David. It is also thanks to David that the Davidic dynasty continues to reign over one tribe. Thus, Rehoboam’s fate is sealed, for better and he turned toward them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them . . .” — and 2 Kings 14:26–27. These passages combine redactional material with authentic historical data, and their reliability is the subject of disagreement among scholars. Cf. Montgomery, Kings, pp. 433–434, 443–444; Gray, Kings, pp. 538–539, 557. 457. Cf. Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 480–481. 458. The explanation of good provides a suitable starting point from which to examine the concept of divine retribution. When the need to explain a specific reality is of primary concern, the existence of evil usually poses the greatest theological challenge; in such a case, the principal question is “why do the righteous suffer?.” However, when a comprehensive belief system is being expounded, the question is not one-sided, and both good and evil must be explained (as in Ezek 18; 33:10–20; Exod 20:5–6; 34:6– 7; and elsewhere). See M. Weiss, Tarbiz5, 32 (1962/63), 1–18. 459. See Montgomery, Kings, p. 235; Gray, Kings, p. 260.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 123 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

123

(his rule over Judah) and for worse (the loss of everything else and the creation of the kingdom of Israel), without any consideration of his own behaviour. Only David’s virtue and Solomon’s misdeeds are responsible for his destiny. In fact, even Solomon’s fate is, ultimately, the result of David’s good deeds. This pattern recurs throughout the history of the Northern Kingdom. Jeroboam son of Nebat sins, but the punishment is meted out to his son: “As soon as [Baºasha] was king, he killed all the house of Jeroboam; he left to the house of Jeroboam not one that breathed . . . according to the word of the Lord which he spoke . . . it was for the sins of Jeroboam” (1 Kings 15:29–30). 460 Jeroboam himself is never punished and dies of natural causes in due time, 461 as is the case with other kings. 462 The destruction of the Temple provides the most striking example of the book’s concept of divine justice. In the Bible, justice, whether human or divine, is always based on the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. 463 Because the punishment — destruction of the kingdom and the Temple — is considered unparalleled in its severity, the sins which led to the punishment are magnified and overstated. 464 In the book of Kings, the actual sin is described in a number of ways. This lack of uniformity also testifies to the continued sense of confusion left by a very real and painful awareness of the destruction. The downfall of the Northern Kingdom was the result of generations of sin. The great indictment in 2 Kings 17:7–23 465 lists Israel’s transgressions 460. This passage, too, is Deuteronomistic. See Gray, Kings, p. 323. 461. 1 Kings 14:20, which contradicts Ahijah the Shilonite’s prophecy in 14:13. The Chronicler “emends” his version to conform with Ahijah’s prophecy (2 Chr 13:20). See above, p. 106. 462. For example, 1 Kings 16:12. The next verse (16:13) adds Elah’s sins to those of Baºasha. 463. S. E. Loewenstamm, “Measure for Measure” (Heb.), EB IV, 845. This principle is one of the punishment fitting the crime or “measure for measure” (as in the rabbinic phrase, hdm dgnk hdm) only in terms of its abstract dictum that “the size of the punishment be equal to the size of the crime” (Loewenstamm, loc. cit., 840). It does not involve literary dimensions, whereby the punishment resembles the sin by means of some external analogy: Loewenstamm, 844–845; I. Heinemann, Darkei ha-Aggadah, 2nd ed. (Heb., Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 64–70; and see below, p. 133, n. 493. 464. Kaufmann writes: “The Bible could not explain reality, the terrible calamity and destruction of the Temple without assuming that Israel is a sinful nation . . . If the sin did not exist, one would have to invent it. Israel’s sinfulness is imperative for biblical theodicy” (Religion, I, p. 663). 465. This passage is not uniform, but its exact composition is the subject of disagreement; cf. Montgomery, Kings, p. 470, Gray, Kings, pp. 587–592, and below, p. 255, n. 225. In any case, all its components are based on the idea of “cumulative sin.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 124 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

124

Yhwh, the God of Israel

— idolatry, disobeying God’s prophets, making Jeroboam their king and imitating his sinful ways — throughout its history. Yet the destruction already expected during Jeroboam’s reign 466 was held in abeyance until the people’s sinfulness had run its course. Here, the sin is considered “cumulative”; thus, it is not necessary to explain why certain generations are not punished in spite of their many misdeeds (as in the case of Omri and his dynasty) and why there is no correspondence (chronological or otherwise) between the sin and the behaviour of the one who is punished. In fact, we read of Hoshea, the son of Elah, that “he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel who were before him” (2 Kings 17:2). Hoshea’s improved behaviour notwithstanding, it is in his reign that Israel is destroyed. The sins have been adding up for generations; the final total alone is important. The book of Kings explains the destruction of Judah in two ways, both presented in “the prophets” speech in 2 Kings 21:11–15. This speech is a characteristic justification of the final destruction. To begin with, the destruction of Jerusalem was caused by Manasseh’s sins: 2 Kings 21:11–14: “Because Manasseh . . . has committed these abominations, and has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, 467 and has made Judah also to sin with his idols; therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel . . . I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish . . . and I will cast off the remnant of my heritage, and give them into the hand of their enemies . . .” 468 Secondly, the conquest of the land and exile to Babylonia were caused by the sins of all generations from the Exodus until the present: 2 Kings 21:15: “Because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the days their fathers came out of 466. 1 Kings 14:15–16: “the Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and root up Israel out of this good land . . . and scatter them beyond the Euphrates . . . and he will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam . . .” This passage is a Deuteronomistic addition to Ahijah’s speech (see Montgomery, Kings, p. 266) and appears to be composed of various elements. 467. The words “and has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did before him” shift the verse’s focus from Manasseh to the entire people of Judah, and it is possible that they were added to the speech (see Montgomery, Kings, p. 522). This addition and the idea expressed in Gen 15:16 are part of the same historical outlook. In Genesis, the Amorites are destroyed only after their sinfulness has run its course: “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” In the past, the removal of the Amorites allowed the children of Israel to occupy Canaan. Now that the latter have outdone the Amorites as sinners, they will share the same fate: exile and dispossession. 468. See also 2 Kings 23:26–27; 24:3; and Jer 15:4.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 125 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

125

Egypt, even to this day.” 469 What the two views share is their extensive, detailed description of the sin — an elaboration necessitated by the severity of the punishment — and the fact that punishment has been delayed. Both explanations (but mainly the first) are motivated by one goal in particular: to discover who was “to blame” for the calamity which befell the people. As ad hoc solutions go, they manage to defer several pressing questions rather successfully. However, they also raise a number of new problems, especially in the area of divine justice. The principal problem posed by the first explanation is one of chronology: why did God postpone execution of the sentence instead of punishing the sinners themselves? A meaningful response, and one that might withstand critical religious scrutiny, is the idea that God still hoped that the people would repent and wipe out Manasseh’s sin. Unfortunately, this idea conflicts with the historical facts. There was, after all, a national repentance of unparalleled proportions during the reign of Josiah, which had no effect. This is the purpose of 2 Kings 23:26 — to assert that the Temple was indeed destroyed because of Manasseh’s misdeeds, Josiah’s reforms notwithstanding: “Still the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him.” This verse appears immediately after a glowing appraisal of Josiah and his reign 470 — “Before him there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses: nor did any like him arise after him” (2 Kings 23:25) — and makes the question all the more acute. Why was Judah destroyed after Josiah’s reign — and so soon after it? 471 The theodicy of verse 26 is obvious, but it does not solve the problem. In fact, God’s continued wrath in the face of such splendid penitence might be considered somewhat arbitrary, the antithesis of divine justice. The second view, which explains the destruction as punishment for the people’s cumulative sin, 472 provides a better solution to the problem posed by Josiah’s reign: even though the reforms mitigated the sin, they

469. See also 1 Kings 9:6ff. and 2 Kings 17:7ff. 470. Only Hezekiah merits a similar appraisal (2 Kings 18:5–6), but Josiah seems to be considered the more admirable; at any rate, his repentance is portrayed as being more profound. 471. Jehoiachin was exiled in 597 b.c.e., only twelve years after Josiah’s death in 609. See H. Tadmor, “Chronology” (Heb.), EB IV, 276. 472. The sin either began to mount up from the Solomon’s reign onwards or even, as in Ezekiel’s extreme opinion (20:7ff.), from the period of Egyptian bondage.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 126 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

126

Yhwh, the God of Israel

did not wipe it out. The kings who succeeded Josiah — Jehoiakim and Zedekiah — more than made up for Josiah’s lack of wickedness, so that the requisite measure of sin was complete. Since this explanation handles the question of deferral and that of the punishment’s severity more successfully, it no doubt represents the second stage of theodicy in the book of Kings. However, both explanations raise a further problem: why is the sinner not punished, and why do those who are punished suffer for something they did not do? The first part of the question may be answered in terms of divine grace — God is patient and will wait for the sinner to repent. It is more difficult to explain why the innocent are punished. Even if they are not completely innocent, does the punishment fit their own crime? Here we see the root of the biblical puzzle, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” 473 The real problem is not that the fathers’ teeth remain untouched, but that the children, who have eaten no sour grapes, suffer the consequences. That is why Jeremiah promises that in the future, “each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.” It is Ezekiel who really confronts the question; 474 his answer is “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (18:20). There is no such thing as cumulative sin or punishing one generation for the sins of another. Ezekiel provides examples from the realm of the individual — the righteous man and his son, the sinner and his son 475 — but his statement of principle extends the conclusion to divine justice in general. 476

473. Jer 31:29–30; Ezek 18:2; and see also Lam 5:7: “Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear their iniquities.” 474. Ezekiel’s struggle with divine recompense and retribution — and the question of whether he really discusses reward and punishment as such — has been the subject of extensive scholarship which lies beyond the scope of this study. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, pp. 369ff., as well as the references on p. 369; Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 484–486; Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 595ff., III, pp. 553–554; M. Weiss, Tarbiz5, 31 (1961/62), 253, 256–259; M. Greenberg, Prolegomenon to: C. C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New York, 1970), pp. xxv–xxix. 475. Ezek 18; 33:10–20. Some scholars believe that the two passages were written by different men, one of them a later editor (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, p. 158, II, p. 189). In any event, the question of authorship does not affect our discussion here. 476. Greenberg believes that all of Ezekiel’s prophecy grapples with the paramount problem of its time, the destruction of the Temple. Thus, the entire work is one of theodicy — although Greenberg himself does not use the term. He explains Ezekiel’s description of sins and historical outlook in terms of this basic principle. “Ezekiel’s recasting of the past was the only way to bring history under the yoke of intelligibility, to show that it followed rules” (Greenberg, op. cit., p. xxviii).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 127 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

127

The concept of divine justice that we find in the book of Chronicles is essentially the same as Ezekiel’s, although Chronicles does not provide us with a theological dictum. Nevertheless, the book’s outlook may be defined in Ezekiel’s words: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” The sinner is punished for his sins, the righteous man receives his due, and no one’s fate is decided by his father’s actions. The deeds of one generation are not “visited on” another: any ideology of “the sins of the fathers” or ancestral merit (twba twkz) has no place in the book. 477 Each generation is responsible for its deeds and for its own fate. 478 The book of Chronicles presents a particular refinement of this basic principle, a refinement that might be termed “the imperative of reward and punishment.” Not only is man rewarded or punished for his deeds — each and every deed must be requited. That is the unavoidable consequence of human behaviour. 479 Chronicles does not allow for the theoretical possibility that a man may sin and neither he nor his son will be punished: every sin must be punished. For this reason, Chronicles cannot justify the destruction of the Temple as punishment for the sins of previous generations. The two attempts at theodicy we find in Kings are omitted altogether. Neither 477. And, indeed, the idea of ancestral merit appears nowhere in Chronicles, apart from one exceptional case, 2 Chr 21:7 (2 Kings 8:19). The effect of the preceding generations’ behaviour on the division of the kingdom as presented in Kings has been discussed above (pp. 122–123). The story in Chronicles leaves out this idea: Solomon’s sins are not even mentioned; only Rehoboam’s actions are responsible for the division. Nor does David’s merit have any effect on the course of events (see 2 Chr 10:1–11; 13:6–7). It would appear that 2 Chr 10:15 is an inconsistent holdover from 1 Kings 12:15. 478. The complete negation of “ancestral merit” is therefore a consequence of the concept of justice, not the product of human or social factors. In II Esdras, we find the question, “If perchance on the day of judgment the just will be able to intercede for the wicked or to plead with the Most High on their behalf — fathers for sons, or children for parents, or brothers for brothers, relatives for next of kin . . . He answered as follows . . . The day of judgment is decisive, making clear to all the seal of truth . . . all will bear, each, then, his own injustice or justice” (7:102–105). Concerning the day of judgment, it will be said: “Intemperance has been abolished, Faithlessness has been cut off, But justice has grown up, And truth has arisen. Then no one will be able to have compassion for him who is convicted in the judgment or to cast down him who is victorious” (7:114–115). Urbach discusses the question of “merit” (including “ancestral merit”) and its importance in rabbinic thought at great length (The Sages, pp. 496ff.). He describes the debate concerning the power of “merit” and comes to the conclusion that the Rabbis made little of this idea because they “were afraid of too much reliance on this merit and the consequent weakening of the sense of duty and of the need to fulfil the commandments” (p. 497). Cf. also Schechter, Rabbinic Theology, pp. 170ff. 479. It may be that Ezekiel also contains this belief to a certain degree. It is possible to conclude from 33:18–19 and 18:13 that requital inevitably follows any human action.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 128 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

128

Yhwh, the God of Israel

Manasseh’s sinfulness nor the people’s cumulative transgression brought about the Temple’s destruction. Only Zedekiah and his generation are responsible for the disaster that occurred in his time. 480 In Chronicles, “the imperative of reward and punishment” is fully realized. Alongside this idea, a second principle is introduced, albeit less consistently: Chronicles negates the idea of collective retribution. 481 The behaviour of one generation cannot affect the fate of another; now, moreover, one man’s acts cannot determine another’s destiny. This separation comes into play, primarily, in defining the king and the people as two distinct “individuals,” each responsible for its deeds; 482 the people is still thought of in a collective sense. However, the separation of king and people is not consistent. Although, as we have seen, Chronicles’ concept of justice may be compared to that in Ezekiel, a number of differences exist. Two in particular should be mentioned. First, Ezekiel only discusses reward and punishment in individual terms — personal sin and righteousness. Chronicles deals with the question on the national, historical level that constitutes the book’s principal sphere of interest. Second, Ezekiel affirms theoretical dicta concerning reward and punishment. He does not describe past or present events; his focus is the future: “this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel” (Ezek 18:3). He does not attempt to refute the people’s words with evidence from the past; instead, he calls them to repent and sets out the principles of divine retribution. Conversely, Chronicles’ goal is an accurate, comprehensive description of the past within the context of those principles. There are no promises for the future, whether immediate (Ezekiel) or distant (Jeremiah); what we find instead is the conviction that divine justice has actually been realized in human history. This is how God has acted throughout the history of His people. Chronistic historiography takes the concept of divine justice, as expressed by Ezekiel, and uses it to reshape the history of Israel. To conclude: 1. The book of Chronicles reshapes Israelite history as a description of Yhwh’s direct intervention in the course of events. 480. Which is why their sins are described at much greater length in Chronicles (2 Chr 36:12–14, 16). See also Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 474; Greenberg, op. cit., pp. xxiv–xxv. 481. See Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 595–596. 482. The rise of the individual and the conception of the people as distinct from their king appear to be the result of sociological influence on religious thought, and not vice versa. These changes represent the decline of the “corporate personality,” which was a long, gradual process. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 231–167; below, pp. 325ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 129 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

129

2. The starting point for this description is one of theodicy. Israel’s history is interpreted in terms of the principle of divine retribution: the people’s deeds determine its fate, for better or worse. 3. Chronicles does not attempt to justify a specific reality, but to present a religious system combining knowledge, conviction, and faith. 4. Systematization entails a reworking that is comprehensive and an explanation of both types of requital, good and bad. 5. Chronicles’ theodicy is based on a particular concept of divine justice: it is the sinner who is punished and the righteous man who is rewarded, and the deeds of one generation are not visited on the next. 6. Retribution is imperative and, to a certain degree, individual; there is no such thing as “cumulative sin” or “ancestral merit.” 7. These ideas are not presented as abstract truths, but as a reworking of the historical narrative. The new narrative constitutes a description of their realization in the course of history. We come now to the question of how history was reworked.

D. Reworking the Historical Narrative according to the Principles of Retribution The nature of Chronistic historiography is determined, above all, by the fact that it represents a reworking of existing material. This material determines the text to a very large extent; the writer is not free to portray events in complete adherence to his axioms. A comparison of the narrative in Chronicles and its parallels in Kings suggests certain rules governing the reworking and thus the Chronicler’s method of moulding the sources to conform to his system. A fundamental assertion of the principle of retribution, phrased in the negative, appears once in Chronicles, where the source text has been altered: 2 Kings 14:6: “But he did not put to death the children of the murderers; according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man be put to death (Qere; Ketib: shall die) for his own sin.’ ” 2 Chr 25:4: “But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, ‘The fathers shall not die for the children, or the children die for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’ ”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 130 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

130

Yhwh, the God of Israel

In Kings, the two parts of the story are perfectly consistent. Amaziah does not execute the conspirators’ children because “children shall not be put to death for the fathers.” The rule cited is perfectly appropriate to this judicial situation involving the conviction and execution of political insurgents. It appears as a law in Deut 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Chronistic version contains a seemingly minor change: the verb tuuwm is put in the qal (wtwmy) rather than in the hoph’al (wtmwy) (— in English, “die” instead of “be put to death”). Yet this small change extends the rule’s validity from the purely judicial execution of punishment to punishment in general. 483 It is now not merely a legal ruling affecting the court, but a statement of principle involving Providence — one feature of divine justice. An examination of Chronicles’ reworking of historical events shows that: 1. in the case of any transgression (described as such in Samuel–Kings or conceived as such by the Chronicler), an appropriate punishment is added by the Chronicler; 484 2. whenever righteousness or piety is displayed with no mention of recompense, the Chronicler adds a fitting reward; 485 3. every difficulty, affliction, and defeat is automatically perceived as retribution. For this reason, when any incident which might be a

483. On the difference between “put to death” (by an earthly court) and “die” (a fate determined on high), see Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Exod 21:12 and Deut 24:16, as well as Rashbam’s interpretation of the latter verse. The relation in biblical thought between “the fathers shall not be put to death for the children” and “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” (Exod 20:5) is discussed by M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” Y. Kaufmann Jubilee Volume ( Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 20– 26. Greenberg does not include the evidence from Chronicles. 484. Thus the following punishments are added: Israel’s defeat by Abijah and Jeroboam’s untimely death are punishment for Jeroboam’s sins and the kingdom of Israel’s rebellion against the Davidic dynasty (2 Chr 13:17–20); the promise that “from now on you will have wars” is punishment for Asa’s appeal to Aram for help and his lack of faith in Yhwh (2 Chr 16:7–9); Jehoram and Judah are punished severely for their sins (2 Chr 22:16–19); the military defeats suffered by Ahaz are punishment for his sins (2 Chr 28:17ff.); and Manasseh is punished with exile and humiliation (2 Chr 33:11). 485. Such as: the peace, security, prosperous building, and military success enjoyed during the reigns of Asa (2 Chr 14:5–7, 11–14; 15:15) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:2–5, 10–19; 20:1–30); Jehoiada’s long life and burial in the city of David among the kings “because he had done good in Israel” (2 Chr 24:15–16); the prosperity and military victories in the time of Uzziah (2 Chr 26:6–15), Jotham (2 Chr 27:3–6), and Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:27–30).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 131 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

131

punishment remains unexplained, the Chronicler adds a suitable sin; 486 4. every success, whether personal or public, is considered a reward. Whenever a possible reward is mentioned without the appropriate causes for it, the Chronicler provides the source of merit; 487 5. if two occurrences, one a possible sin, the other an apparent punishment, are described independently, the Chronicler makes a causal connection between the two. 488 In all these instances, the Chronicler does not alter the historical facts in his sources; he merely explains them according to his system. For the most part, he relates one fact from his sources and provides the missing corollary. In the remaining cases, both elements are present in the source text, and the Chronicler provides the causal link. The principle of cause and effect is evident throughout Chronicles (although not operative in every single incident). Not only implied by the course of events, it is also stated explicitly: “From the time when he turned away from the Lord they made a conspiracy against him” (2 Chr 25:27) or “we have sought the Lord our God; we have sought him, and he has given us peace on every side” (2 Chr 14:7 [Heb., 14:6]). 489 486. Asa’s double sin — his treatment of Hanani the seer (2 Chr 16:10) and his seeking help from physicians instead of Yhwh (2 Chr 16:12) — explains why his feet became diseased and he ultimately died of this illness. Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahaziah leads to their ships being wrecked (2 Chr 20:35–37, where the order of events differs from that in Kings). The sins committed by Joash and the people during his reign account for his defeat by Aram and subsequent assassination (2 Chr 24:17–19, 21–22, 24, 25). It is because Amaziah worships Edomite gods and silences Yhwh’s prophet that he is defeated by Joash king of Israel and killed by conspirators (2 Chr 25:14–16, 27). Uzziah’s behaviour in the Temple explains why he is stricken with leprosy (2 Chr 26:16– 20). Josiah’s sin of ignoring God’s message via Pharaoh Neco explains his defeat at Megiddo (2 Chr 35:22). Finally, the many sins of Zedekiah and his contemporaries provide an explanation for the destruction of the Temple (2 Chr 36:12–16). 487. The beginning of Rehoboam’s reign is portrayed as God-fearing to explain the four years of peace and prosperity (2 Chr 11:5–23; and see discussion below). The penitence of Rehoboam and Judah provides an explanation for the outcome of Shishak’s campaign (2 Chr 12:6, 7, 12); Abijah’s good deeds account for his defeat of Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:10–12); Jehoshaphat’s appeal to God saves him during the war (2 Chr 18:31); Amaziah vanquishes the Edomites because he behaved properly (2 Chr 25:7–10); Manasseh’s repentance explains why his reign ended successfully and he himself lived a long life (2 Chr 33:12–13). 488. Such as the connection between: Saul’s transgression and his death (1 Chr 10:13–14); Rehoboam’s sins and Shishak’s campaign (2 Chr 12:2, 5); Jehoram’s sins and the revolts by Edom and Libnah (2 Chr 21:10); Ahaz’ sins and his defeat (2 Chr 28:19). 489. Also 2 Chr 12:7, 12; 13:18; 15:15; 16:8; 17:3–5; 24:24.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 132 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

132

Yhwh, the God of Israel

The stories of three kings may be used as a detailed illustration of the Chronicler’s method: Rehoboam, Abijah, and Joash. 490 (1) Rehoboam. There is one outstanding piece of information in Kings’ account of Rehoboam’s reign: in the fifth year of his reign, Shishak attacked Jerusalem and carried off the king’s treasure and the riches in the Temple (1 Kings 14:25–28). This fact might give rise to a number of conclusions on the Chroniclers part, given his outlook and principles: (a) The attack itself is a punishment and therefore implies a prior misdeed. (b) Since Shishak attacks in the fifth year of Rehoboam’s reign, and since a punishment cannot lag too far behind its cause, the implication is that no sins were committed in the early years of the reign. (c) Because the attack is not all that disastrous, something must have happened to mitigate the punishment. Given these assumptions, the Chronistic version of the story is almost to be expected. The date of the attack — “in the fifth year of King Rehoboam” — provides the basis for a new chronological framework: the attack occurs in the fifth year, the sin in the fourth. The first three years of Rehoboam’s reign were years of obedience to God. Thus: 2 Chr 11:17: “for they walked for three years in the way of David and Solomon”; 2 Chr 12:1: “When the rule of Rehoboam was established and was strong, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him”; 2 Chr 12:12 “In the fifth year . . . because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem.” This structure is obviously contrived; 491 from a literary point of view, it most resembles Gen 14:4–5: “Twelve years they had served Ched-orlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 492 In the fourteenth year Ched-or-laomer and the kings who were with him came and subdued . . .” The similarity is also evident in Shemaiah’s words: “they shall be servants 490. At first glance, it seems as though the principle of retribution comes into play from the time of Rehoboam onwards and the book’s approach to history could be divided into two periods, only one of which employs the criterion of retribution. However, this difference stems only from the fact that, in Chronicles’ account, no sins mar the reigns of David and Solomon, a period portrayed as a time of peace and prosperity, of building and expansion. The ups and downs of reward and punishment become far more noticeable after the monarchy is divided. 491. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 204; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 233–234. Rudolph discusses the contrived chronological structure of the description of Asa’s reign in detail (pp. 239–240); all the chronological systems in Chronicles merit similar examination. 492. Here, the kings “rebel” (wdrm); in 2 Chr 12:2, the term is “wl[m” (“forsook,” “were unfaithful to”). In these contexts, the two words have the same meaning. See Josh 22:22 and 18–19; 29–31.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 133 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

133

to him, that they may know my service and the service of the kingdoms of the countries” (2 Chr 12:8). Service of Yhwh brings the people peace and prosperity, whereas forsaking God’s service leads to a punitive attack, “the service of the kingdoms of the countries”: vassalage, oppression, and destruction. The attack led to loss and destruction, but not to total ruin. For the Chronicler, this may mean that something must have intervened to forestall annihilation, and so he makes certain additions. First, he puts words expressing his own opinion into the mouth of Shemaiah: “Thus says the Lord, ‘You have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak’ ” (2 Chr 12:5). 493 Then comes the repentance of the king and his people — “the princes of Israel and the king himself humbled themselves and said, ‘The Lord is righteous’ ” (v. 6). Although Shishak still attacks, his success is limited, as the prophet has foretold: They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance, and my wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak” (v. 7). The fact of Shishak’s campaign also explains the structure of 2 Chr 11:5–22. The Chronicler sees prosperity and military success as rewards. Therefore, in prefacing Shishak’s campaign with three years of obedience to Yhwh, he provides an appropriate spot for other data at his disposal and includes the construction of the fortified cities (2 Chr 11:5–12) at this 493. The wording of this verse emphasizes that in this case, divine retribution takes the form of “measure for measure.” There is a perfect formal correspondence between the punishment and the crime — “you have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you.” (See S. E. Loewenstamm, “Measure for Measure” [Heb.], EB IV, 845–846.) The writer plays on the double meaning of the verb buuz[ (see D. Yellin, Selected Writings [Heb., Jerusalem 1938/39], pp. 86–106). The first part of the sentence uses buuz[ in its simple meaning — “abandon”; in the second part, dyb bz[ means “to hand over.” Cf. Ps 37:33; Neh 9:28. We find a few other examples of this sort of correspondence between crime and punishment in Chronicles, such as “because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you” (2 Chr 24:20). The most fully-developed case appears in 2 Chr 30:6–9: “O people of Israel, return (wbwç) to the Lord . . . that he may turn again (bçyw) to the remnant of you . . . serve the Lord your God, that his fierce anger may turn away (bçyw) from you. For if you return (μkbwçb) to the Lord, your brethren and your children will find compassion with their captors, and return (bwçlw) to this land. For the Lord your God is gracious and merciful . . . if you return (wbwçt) to him.” The root buuwç has several connotations. It describes the people’s behaviour: returning spiritually — in penitence (vv. 6, 9) and physically — from exile (v. 9) The verb is also used of God, who will turn again to the remnant (v. 6) and turn away his anger (v. 8). A turn to God will bring the turning away of divine wrath and return from exile. The use of the root huubç, which bears an external resemblance to buuwç, heightens the effect. See also 2 Chr 25:16 (which plays on the root ≈uu[y).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 134 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

134

Yhwh, the God of Israel

point. 494 By these means, the Chronicler is able to attribute national prosperity to the people’s piety, to magnify Shishak’s attack by adding that “he took the fortified cities of Judah” (2 Chr 12:4), and to suggest that everything achieved thanks to the people’s obedience to Yhwh was lost when they abandoned Him. In the same way, the list of women and children is included because it is assumed that fertility indicates blessing and Rehoboam’s blessings were confined to the first years of his reign. 495 The question of divine justice affects the description of Shishak’s campaign in another way. Since the attack injured both Rehoboam and the people (2 Chr 12:4), the Chronicler makes a point of mentioning both the king’s behaviour and that of the princes and people: “he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him” (2 Chr 12:1); “because they had been unfaithful to the Lord” (v. 2); “then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves” (v. 6); and, in summation, “when he humbled himself the wrath of the Lord turned from him, so as not to make a complete destruction; in Judah, too, good things were found” (v. 12). A most important aspect of the story, the fate of the entire people, is not determined by the king’s behaviour. It is the people who sin and are punished, repent and are pardoned. Rehoboam is responsible for his fate, the people for theirs. Thus, the Chronicler begins with the facts concerning Rehoboam’s reign found in the book of Kings. 496 He considers these facts in the light of his particular concept of divine justice and proceeds to create a new framework. He fills this framework out with additional material — some of his own creation, some based on other sources at his disposal. In the end, the story of Rehoboam is moulded into a finished product perfectly in keeping with the Chronicler’s special historical outlook. 497 494. Despite Alt’s opinion that the cities listed were built in Josiah’s time, it would appear that these cities do in fact date from the reign of Rehoboam, as Beyer argues — A. Alt, “Festungen und Levitenorte im Lande Juda,” KS, II (1953), 306–315; G. Beyer, “Das Festungssystem Rehabeams,” ZDPV, 54 (1931), 113–134. However, they would have been built after Shishak’s attack. 495. See 1 Chr 26:4–5: “And Obed-edom had sons . . . for God blessed him.” Once again, however, this list must be assigned to the end of Rehoboam’s reign. According to Noth (Studien, p. 143), and Rudolph (Chronik, p. 233), it is post-Chronistic. 496. Including the Deuteronomistic framework in 2 Chr 12:13–16, which does not pertain to our discussion here. 497. Rudolph discusses the history of Asa along similar lines, showing how the structure and chronology combine information from Kings with the principle of retribution, together with details from other sources (Chronik, pp. 239–242). We might add that in the story of Asa, the Chronicler almost always distinguishes between Asa’s deeds and the people’s behaviour. For example, at the beginning of the reign, the people are recompensed for their piety: “ ‘we have sought the Lord our God; we have sought him and he has given us peace on every side.’ So they built and prospered” (2 Chr 14:7 [Heb.,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 135 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

135

(2) Abijah. The book of Kings contains a very brief account of Abijah’s reign. It comprises certain standard details: 498 synchronism vis-à-vis the Northern Kingdom, the length of his reign, and his mother’s name (1 Kings 15:1–2); the source of data concerning Abijah, his death and burial place, and the accession of his son (15:7–8). The account also includes a negative appraisal of Abijah’s reign with reference to that of David (15:3–5) and the comment that he and Rehoboam were constantly at war with Jeroboam (15:6, 7b). In addition to the story in Kings, the Chronicler had two pieces of information from other sources at his disposal: the fact that Abijah defeated Jeroboam in battle (2 Chr 13:19) and the number of Abijah’s wives, sons, and daughters (2 Chr 13:21). 499 The Chronicler would see these two details as divine recompense and would therefore regard as impossible the contradictory Deuteronomistic assessment that Abijah “walked in all the sins which his father did before him; and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord” (1 Kings 15:3). Thus, when the Chronicler reworks the information from Kings and incorporates the Deuteronomistic framework, 500 he omits his source’s appraisal of Abijah’s reign. Instead, he expresses a positive appraisal by means of the king’s speech and the description of his victory (2 Chr 13:10–11, 18, 21). Because of this omission, the description of Abijah’s reign differs from all other Chronistic accounts of the kings of Judah: all the others retain the Deuteronomistic assessment in Kings verbatim or with minor changes. 501

14:6]). Although the initiative is Asa’s, the entire people participate and therefore deserve the reward. The reform in Chapter 15 also represents a national endeavour for which the people are rewarded: “and the Lord gave them rest round about” (v. 15). However, Asa alone is responsible for the appeal to Aram (16:7) and improper treatment of Hanani (16:10), and he alone is punished: “Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe” (16:12). Once he is afflicted, Asa continues to sin by consulting doctors and, as punishment, dies of his illness (16:12–13). This story, too, carefully ensures that it is the sinner who is punished. 498. See Driver, Introduction, p. 186. 499. Wellhausen emphatically denies the historical accuracy of these data (Prolegomena, pp. 209–210), but Graf believes that they are reliable (Die Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 137; likewise Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 235–237, 239). More recently, Welten has denied the historicity of the entire story (Chronik, pp. 122–129). 500. 1 Kings 15:1, 2, 7–8 — 2 Chr 13:1–2, 22–23. The framework is altered in two respects: the name of Abijah’s mother (v. 2), which has been the subject of much discussion (see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 231–233), and the source of “the rest of the acts of Abijah” (v. 22). References to sources in Chronicles always differ from those in Kings. 501. 2 Chr 12:14; 14:1; 15:17; 20:32–33; 21:6; 22:4; 24:2; 25:2; 26:4; 27:2; 28:1–4; 29:2; 33:2–9, 22; 34:2; 36:5, 9, 12ff. The only other king whose assessment has been

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 136 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

136

Yhwh, the God of Israel

(3) Joash. Joash is described in Kings as doing “what was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days” (2 Kings 12:2 [Heb., 12:3]). 502 Yet immediately after Joash works energetically at repairing the Temple (vv. 4–16 [Heb., 5–17]), he is defeated by Hazael king of Aram (vv. 17–18 [18–19]) and murdered by his servants (vv. 20–21 [21–22]). This course of events raises serious problems for the Chronicler. How could a king who had been described so positively come to such an unhappy end? In order to solve the problem, he divides Joash’s reign into two periods. 503 The turning point comes with the death of Jehoiada the priest: in Jehoiada’s lifetime, king and people benefit from his influence (2 Chr 24:2–16), but after his death, the influence and its positive effects on the reign of Joash end (2 Chr 24:17–27). The importance of this division is also expressed in the story’s structure. In Kings, the first part of Joash’s reign occupies seventeen verses, whereas the second is described in only five. The Chronicler doubles the second part, thereby creating a balanced description. In the second part of Joash’s reign, the king forsakes Yhwh and, under the influence of his princes, begins to worship idols (2 Chr 24:17–18). Punishment does not follow immediately; in the beginning, prophets are sent to admonish and warn him. These prophets are described twice — once in a general way — “he sent prophets among them to bring them back to the Lord; these testified against them, but they would not give heed” (2 Chr 24:19) — and once in the specific case of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chr 24:20). Joash’s reaction to Zechariah adds insult to injury — or vice versa: he orders that the prophet be stoned in the Temple court (2 Chr 24:21). 504 After the prophets have been sent, suitable consequences of Joash’s deeds are described. The Aramean attack begins directly “at the end of the year” (2 Chr 24:23). The attack has a threefold effect: it affects the princes 505 — “and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the omitted is Jehoahaz the son of Josiah (2 Chr 36:2). In the case of Jehoahaz, the omission may be explained by the extreme brevity of this king’s history in Chronicles. 502. The words “because Jehoiada the priest instructed him” do not lessen the period of Jehoash’s righteousness in any way; rather, they explain the form his good behaviour took and the reason for it (cf. Burney, Kings, pp. 312–313). 503. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 273. 504. It is difficult to believe that the Chronicler “invented” the story of Zechariah; more likely, he found it in one of his sources. Although this assessment does nothing to establish the tradition’s historicity, it does illustrate the way in which various elements were incorporated into an ideological framework. 505. Curtis writes: “Thus the Chronicler brings upon the princes a just retribution for their seduction of Joash into idolatry” (Chronicles, p. 438).

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 137 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

137

people, 506 and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus” (24:23); the people — “though the Aramean army had come with few men, the Lord delivered into their hand a very great army, because they had forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers” (24:24); and the king himself — “Thus they executed judgment on Joash” (24:24). In this way, every sinner is punished for his sins. However, Joash commits two sins: he forsakes Yhwh, ignoring the prophets’ indictment, and he is responsible for the death of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Therefore, he is punished twice, once by means of the Aramean army — “they executed judgment on Joash . . . they departed from him, leaving him severely wounded” 507 (2 Chr 24:24–25) — and once by means of his own servants — “his servants conspired against him because of the blood of the sons 508 of Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed” (v. 25). Thus the Chronicler assembles and fits together his data from the book of Kings and other sources. He creates a solid structure whereby the life of Joash testifies to the inevitable role of divine justice in the course of history. When all of history becomes theodicy, two aspects of religious thought are greatly emphasized: (a) Belief in divine providence, both general and specific, becomes absolute: God is omniscient, and nothing escapes his justice. Justice and providence alike are absolute, (b) Human moral responsibility is of prime importance. Man becomes master of his fate; his actions are responsible for whatever befalls him. Moreover, these actions are the result of his free choice. 509 These two foci raise certain questions. Given that divine justice is speedy and all-embracing, what place is there for human repentance? Can it have any effect? If, at the same time, man alone determines his fate, divine action becomes a series of reactions. A purely mechanical view of history would be possible. What, then, would become of divine sovereignty? The book of Chronicles consistently stresses that God’s actions are the

506. It is hard to know what is meant by “from among the people” (μ[m). The reading of LXX — “among the people” (apparently the result of the interchange of a b and a m) — does not make things any clearer. Perhaps it is the result of dittography. 507. The Hebrew word μyyljm (the plural of ywljm) is a hapax legomenon. The root huulj may also express wounding, as in 1 Kings 22:34; 2 Kings 8:29. 508. LXX reads “son”; the corruption in MT seems to be the result of dittography of the yod. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 276. 509. A few isolated verses in Chronicles indicate that man does not have complete freedom of choice and that his temperament has been determined by God. See 1 Chr 22:12; 29:18–19; 2 Chr 30:12; and below, pp. 254–255ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 138 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

138

Yhwh, the God of Israel

direct result of His will; 510 His sovereignty is exemplified by means of the “test” or “trial” — an initiative controlled completely by God. These questions bring us to discuss (a) warning and repentance and (b) God’s testing of man.

E. Warning and Repentance In Chronicles, the call to repentance is the responsibility of prophets. They have a twofold role; in addition to calling the people to repent, they also admonish them: “He sent prophets among them to bring them back to the Lord; they admonished them . . .” (2 Chr 24:19). The definition of the prophet’s task as the call to repentance appears in the prose passages of Jeremiah, 511 as in “the Lord . . . sent to you all his servants the prophets, saying, ‘Turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and wrong doings’ ” ( Jer 25:4–5). 512 Similarly, the role of the “former prophets” is described in this way by Zechariah: “Be not like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out . . . ‘Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds’ ” (Zech 1:4). 513 Ezekiel’s prophecy defines the prophet as one who warns. 514 Like the watchman whose duty it is to warn the people of a military attack (Ezek 33:1–6), the prophet must warn the Israelites that their evil deeds will be requited; the wicked (3:18–19; 33:8–9) and the righteous who have strayed (3:20) must therefore change their ways. 515 Late biblical literature combines the prophet’s two roles: he warns the people and calls them to repent. (a) Neh 9:26–30: They . . . killed thy prophets, who had warned 516 them in order to turn them back to thee . . . And thou didst warn them in order 510. See above, pp. 98ff. 511. The question of the origins of these passages does not concern us here. Cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, pp. 217–218; A. Rofé, “Studies on the Composition of the Book of Jeremiah” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 44 (1974/75), 1ff. 512. Likewise Jer 26:3–5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; etc. 513. Zech 7:7–12 expresses the same idea, although without using the word “return.” 514. Ezek 3:16–21; 33:1–9. The root ruuhz (ryhzh — “warn”) is found twenty-four times in the Bible, including fifteen occurrences in these verses. On the relation between the two passages (which does not concern us here), see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, pp. 57–58, 60. 515. On the prophet’s role as watchman, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, II, p. 190 and the bibliographical references on p. 179. 516. The form dy[h, derived from the root duuw[, first signified a warning or admonition involving repetition. At a later stage, as a denominative verb from d[ (“witness”), it came to mean “to enjoin witnesses” (Köhler-Baumgartner, pp. 685–686). See I. L. Seeligmann, “Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren,” Festsch. W. Baumgartner (SVT, XVI, Leiden, 1967), pp. 265–266. For an account of the semantic development

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 139 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

139

to turn them back to thy law. Yet they acted presumptuously . . . Thou didst . . . warn them by thy spirit through thy prophets; yet they would not give ear.” (b) 2 Kings 17:13: “Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, 517 saying. Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes.’ ” 2 Chr 24:19, discussed above, may also be included. In the book of Chronicles, the prophet’s call to repentance represents an historical fact and an integral element in the course of events. At various times in the people’s history — and always in times of crisis — prophets appear and charge the people or king to reform. 518 In terms of formulation and structure, prophecies may be said to take two forms. Some of them contain an explicit call to repent and reform, for example, “But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded” (2 Chr 15:7). 519 Others merely explain events, showing the connection between actions and consequences: “Because you have joined with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made” (2 Chr 20:37). Prophecies of this type, in turn, take two forms. They may explain an event after it has occurred, as in 2 Chr 19:2–3: 520 “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord. Nevertheless some good is found in you, for you destroyed the Asherahs out of the land, and have set your heart to seek God.” These explanations are really no different from those which the Chronicler himself includes in his narrative; 521 that differs (particularly with regard to the verb’s meaning as “admonition”), cf. BDB, pp. 723, 729–730; see also below, p. 146, n. 554. 517. On the textual problems of this verse, see Montgomery (Kings, p. 478) and Gray (Kings, p. 587). 518. Wellhausen acknowledges that many prophets appear in Chronicles but he believes that their principal function was the interpretation of history in the light of the Chronicler’s theory of retribution: “They connect the deeds of men with the events of the course of the world, and utilize the sacred history as a theme for their preaching, as a collection of examples illustrative of the promptest operation of the righteousness of Jehovah” (Prolegomena, p. 203). However, Wellhausen is mistaken in his view of the prophets’ role. They are not theoreticians of religion or interpreters of history; their Job is to preach repentance. Welch also does not appear to take this role into account (Chronicler, pp. 42–54). See Rudolph, Chronik, p. xx; Willi provides an extensive discussion of the prophets’ importance in Chronicles (Auslegung, pp. 216–244); see also Newsome, JBL, 94 (1975), 212–213. 519. And also 2 Chr 25:7–8; 28:9–11. 520. And 2 Chr 12:7–8; 16:7. 521. Such as 2 Chr 12:12 — “And when he humbled himself the wrath of the Lord turned from him, so as not to make a complete destruction; in Judah, too, good things were found” — and many other examples. See Willi, Auslegung, 217–222.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 140 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

140

Yhwh, the God of Israel

the fact that they are given by prophets is merely a means of creating a rhetorical-poetic style and enhancing their authority. The second and most common type of explanatory prophecy provides the explanation before an event or while it occurs. This explanation is, in reality, an implicit call to repentance. Shemaiah appears to be relating facts when he prophesies, “Thus says the Lord, You have abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak’ ” (2 Chr 12:5), yet his prophecy convinces the people to return to Yhwh: “Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, the Lord is righteous’ ” (v. 6). Azariah the son of Oded concludes his words to Asa, “But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak” (2 Chr 15:7). However, this conclusion only spells out the call to repentance implicit in his statement of the facts: “The Lord is with you, while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you” (2 Chr 15:2). The very idea that events represent God’s reaction to human deeds demands that man return to Him. Other prophecies in Chronicles should be understood in the same way. When Zechariah son of Jehoiada says, “Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you” (2 Chr 24:20), he is not explaining the situation. He is crying out for change. The prophet sent to Amaziah appears to be asking a question — “Why have you resorted to the gods of a people, which did not deliver their own people from your hand” (2 Chr 25:15) — but the king understands what is meant. Both Amaziah’s reaction (“Have we made you a royal counsellor?”) and the prophet’s concluding words (“I know that God has determined to destroy you because you . . . have not listened to my counsel”) in verse 16 show that the question was intended as advice and was received as such. Speeches of this type are not questions or analyses of the situation; their real purpose is to change the situation. The Chronicler also mentions prophets without quoting them. It is taken for granted that these prophets were sent to bring the people back to God. 522 We see the importance of the prophet’s role in the fact that the way in which the king and people react to him may have a decisive effect on their fate. Because Rehoboam and his men listen to Shemaiah, Jerusalem is saved from utter destruction (2 Chr 12:6ff.). Asa’s response to Azariah’s prophecy and the subsequent national reform lead to a period of peace (2 Chr 15:8, 15). However, the king’s treatment of Hanani the seer is the 522. As in 2 Chr 33:10, 18; 36:15; and elsewhere.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 141 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

141

direct cause of Asa’s illness and, ultimately, his death (2 Chr 16:10ff.). Joash is assassinated by conspirators because he had Zechariah stoned (2 Chr 24:25), and Amaziah suffers the same fate for not listening to the prophet sent to him (2 Chr 25:16ff.). 523 The sins of Manasseh and his generation and later of Zedekiah include ignoring the words of God’s prophets (2 Chr 33:10; 36:12). Among the reasons given for the Babylonian conquest, rebelling against the prophets is considered a particularly grave sin: 524 “but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, till the wrath of the Lord rose against his people, till there was no remedy” (2 Chr 36:16). It is the people’s attitude towards God’s prophets which fills the quota of sins and brings them to a point of no return. “till there was no remedy.” Chronicles does not only suggest a correct attitude towards prophecy in the way events are described; we also find an explicit statement of principle in Jehoshaphat’s exhortation: “Believe in the Lord your God, and you will be established; believe his prophets, and you will succeed” (2 Chr 20:20). With this deliberate paraphrase of Isaiah (Isa 7:20), the Chronicler transforms belief in prophets into an essential of religious faith 525 and, in doing so, departs from earlier views on prophecy. Deuteronomy cautions the people not to believe in prophets or prophecy as such but to consider only the content of a prophetic message (Deut 13:2–6); yet, in Chronicles, they are told: “believe his prophets.” 526 The book of Chronicles accords prophets an unusually important role in history. It is true that Deuteronomistic historiography mentions many prophets; 527 in terms of typology, Chronistic prophets do resemble those 523. Chronicles describes two sins and two punishments at the end of Amaziah’s reign. The punishments are taken from Kings (2 Kings 14:8–14, 19), but the Chronicler has added the sins: worshipping Edomite gods (2 Chr 25:14) and mistreating the prophet (v. 16). The punishments are (1) military defeat by Joash, king of Israel, and the looting of Jerusalem’s treasuries (vv. 17–24) and (2) the king’s assassination (vv. 27– 28). It is not clear which sin is responsible for which punishment. 524. See Welch, Chronicler, p. 42. 525. Cf. Willi, Auslegung, pp. 227–228. 526. It would seem that the change in historical circumstances led to this departure. In the context of Deuteronomy 13, prophecy still occurred and represented a real problem; by the time of Chronicles, it was a tradition. 527. The “man of God” (1 Sam 2:27ff.); Samuel (1 Samuel 3ff.); Gad (1 Sam 22:5 and elsewhere); Nathan (2 Samuel 12 and elsewhere); Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29–39; 14); Shemaiah the prophet (1 Kings 12:22– 24); the man of God from Bethel (1 Kings 13); Jehu the son of Hanani (1 Kings 16:1–4); Elijah (1 Kings 17ff.); Micaiah the son of Imlah (1 Kings 22); Elisha (2 Kings 2ff.); Jonah the son of Amittai (2 Kings 14:25); Isaiah (2 Kings 19–20); and Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings 22:14).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 142 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

142

Yhwh, the God of Israel

who proclaim the beliefs of the Deuteronomistic redactor. 528 However, there are also significant differences between the two groups of prophets — differences in what they say and in their historical role. What is the source of the phenomenon in Chronicles? The answer would appear to be obvious. The call to repentance is the essence or substance of classical prophecy. 529 We see this even before the prophet’s role is defined, and it is clearly the case after Jeremiah and Zechariah provided a definition. One would assume, given the provenance of Chronicles, that the prophets’ function, as well as the content of their prophecies, would be patterned after the classical model. 530 Yet the literary prophets play no part in the Chronicler’s narrative. Kaufmann emphasizes this phenomenon in Kings. 531 However, although it might be said of Kings that classical prophecy had no real influence because “the books of the prophets as we know them only became sacrosanct at a later date,” 532 this explanation cannot be applied to a book as late as Chronicles. Furthermore, in order to provide the narrative with a continuous prophetic tradition, the Chronicler includes all the prophets mentioned in Kings (apart from Elisha and Jonah ben Amittai). He even moves some of them from Israel to Judah as the need arises. 533 He also mentions prophets who do 528. On the function and importance of prophecy in the Deuteronomistic redaction, see I. L. Seeligmann, “Aetiological Elements in Biblical Historiography” (Heb.), Zion, 26 (1960/61), 167–169; Weinfeld, Former Prophets, pp. 56ff. 529. Kaufmann, Religion, III, p. 37: “The prophets were sent to Israel to protest the desecration of Yhwh’s covenant . . . but their mission was not one of protest alone. It was their duty to convince the people to repent.” See also pp. 88, 144, 266, and entries in the index. 530. Although Willi explains the prophet’s role in Chronicles differently, he does believe that, in the matter of repentance, it is based on classical prophecy (Auslegung, p. 223). 531. See Religion, I, pp. 25–26: “. . . the historical books make absolutely no mention of literary prophecy. The book of Kings does not mention any literary prophet other than Isaiah, who appears not as preacher but as soothsayer, physician, and miracle-worker . . . Had the prophetic books not been preserved, we would not even know from Kings that such a thing as literary prophecy existed.” 532. Ibid., p. 26. 533. In doing so, the Chronicler adjusts the date of the prophet in Israel to his period of activity in Judah. He transfers Jehu the son of Hanani, prophet against Baºasha in Israel, to Jehoshaphat’s reign in Judah (1 Kings 16:1–4; 2 Chr 19:1–3) and Elijah to the reign of Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 2; 2 Chr 21:12). This adjustment is not entirely successful, particularly in the case of Elijah, who (according to 2 Kings 2) died during Jehoshaphat’s reign (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 267). The Chronicler also identifies Ahijah the Shilonite as an author of Solomon’s annals (2 Chr 9:29).

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 143 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

143

not appear in Kings, 534 includes anonymous prophets, 535 and sometimes transmits prophetic messages via men who are not prophets. 536 Yet the literary prophets do not figure in his narrative; Jeremiah alone is mentioned. 537 Since it cannot be that these prophets were unknown in his time, we must assume that the Chronicler was aware of them but made a conscious distinction between classical literary and non-classical prophecy and included only the latter in his work. The many verses of classical prophecy quoted by the Chronicler, particularly in his speeches, 538 prove his familiarity with this corpus. However, quotations from the prophets constitute only a small portion of the Chronicler’s biblical citations and, most significantly, they do not include the prophetic call to repentance. It would seem, then, that the Chronistic prophet’s role as a preacher of reform was not shaped by the idea in classical prophecy. The role expresses 534. Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29; 12:15); Azariah the son of Oded (2 Chr 15:1); Hanani the seer (2 Chr 16:7); Eliezer the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah (2 Chr 20:37); Zechariah (2 Chr 26:5); Oded (2 Chr 28:9). It is possible that the tradition concerning Hanani the seer, father of Jehu, provided an illustration of the principle formulated in Leviticus Rabbah 6:6: “Rabbi Johanan said: Wherever a prophet’s own name is specified and his father’s name also, he is a prophet the son of a prophet; wherever a prophet’s name is specified, but his father’s name is not specified, it indicates that he was a prophet, but that his father was not a prophet . . . But the Rabbis say that whether the father’s name is specified or not, it is to be assumed that in all cases it was a prophet the son of a prophet.” 535. The “man of God” in 2 Chr 25:7–9, the prophet in 2 Chr 25:15–16, and the seers in 2 Chr 33:18, 19. (The troublesome yzwj in 33:19 seems to be a corruption, due to haplography, of wyzwj — “His seers.”) That the Chronicler does use most of the names found in Kings and relegates nameless prophets to the reigns of Amaziah and Manasseh indicates that the named prophets unknown to us from our sources may nevertheless have appeared in the sources at his disposal. The attempt to synchronize Northern prophets with Judean history also shows that the Chronicler was working with an existing tradition and did not “invent facts.” The existence of such a tradition does not prove its authenticity but it does tell us something about the Chronicler’s methods. 536. Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the Levite (2 Chr 20:14); Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chr 24:20). 537. 2 Chr 36:12, 21. Isaiah appears thanks to his inclusion in Kings; see Kaufmann’s comments, above, p. 142, n. 531. Jeremiah seems to be included because of his activities during Zedekiah’s reign and because parts of the book of Jeremiah are prophetic narratives or historiography similar to what we find in Kings. 538. Such as 2 Chr 16:9 (Zech 4:10), 2 Chr 15:6 (Zech 11:6), 2 Chr 15:7 ( Jer 31:16), and 2 Chr 20:20 (Isa 7:9). These are the most obvious quotations, cited by von Rad in “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” in his The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh, London, 1966), pp. 267–280. See above p. 101, n. 370. Cf. also Willi, Auslegung, p. 177, n. 2, pp. 223ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 144 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

144

Yhwh, the God of Israel

a religious principle, but that principle comes from legal, not prophetic, tradition. At a later date, the Rabbis would formulate it clearly and systematically. Rabbinic thought emphasizes the concept of warning, termed harth (“hatraªah”) and hrhza (“azharah”). The purpose of a warning is to make man aware of the meaning of what he is doing or intends to do and to provide the opportunity for reconsideration. 539 It creates an unequivocal distinction between deliberate and unintentional transgression and thereby eliminates any possibility that a man might be punished for sin committed unawares. For this reason, the Rabbis were scrupulous in legislating that warnings be given and ruled that even a scholar, who would know exactly what was forbidden, must be warned in order to avoid any chance of error. It was the duty of witnesses to warn a potential sinner, and, since any conviction requires two witnesses, the Rabbis deduced that two warnings must be given. The witnesses would be asked in court if they had warned the accused and if he had committed the offence in spite of their warning. 540 The legal principle of warning does not apply only to human affairs, but also to God’s relationship with Israel. In providing the commandments and ruling the world, God interacts with His people and His world according to the same principle. 541 In this case, the principle is termed “ªazharah.” 542 The Rabbis assume that every prohibition mentioned in the Pentateuch entails two elements: warning and punishment. The Torah does not consider casuistic formulations such as ‘’whoever strikes a man so that he dies 539. ET defines hatraªah as “a warning given to someone about to commit an offence punishable by flogging or execution” (291; see entire article, 291–332). Since “every proscription in the Torah carries [such] a punishment,” this warning would apply to almost any case (apart from a few exceptions) in which a biblical prohibition is ignored (ibid., 311–314). 540. See Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:1. 541. We see here an example of transference, or projection, from one plane to another. The Rabbis project their idea of absolute justice onto divine behaviour; however, according to their understanding of the situation, it is not man who projects his concepts onto God. It is God who calls upon man to imitate Him, to “cleave to His ways.” Thus: “What means the text, Ye shall walk after the Lord your God’? Is it, then, possible for a human being to walk after the Shekhinah . . . ? But [the meaning is] to walk after the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He. As He clothes the naked, so do thou also clothe the naked” (Sotah 14a). And, in other words: “The ways of God differ from those of man; whereas man directs others to do a thing whilst he does nothing, God only tells Israel to do and observe those things which He himself does” (Exodus Rabbah 30:9). 542. See “ªazharah (Warning)” (Heb.), ET, I, 193–195. This entry only discusses warnings concerning Pentateuchal commandments. See also Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna, Makkot 3:1; W. Bacher, Die Exegetische Terminologie der Jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (Leipzig, 1905), p. 41.

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 145 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

145

shall be put to death” (Exod 21:12), which describe the transgression and its punishment, sufficient; it also sets forth explicit prohibitions, regarded as “warnings”: “You shall not murder” (Exod 20:13). The prohibition should not be inferred from the punishment: a potential sinner must be given an explicit warning. 543 The Mekilta reasons in the same way and looks for the warning: “We have heard the penalty but we have not heard the warning.” 544 These are standard formulations which demonstrate that the principle was a familiar one basic to legal thinking. Whenever the Bible does not appear to provide an explicit warning, the Rabbis deduce one by various means. 545 The warning inherent in the commandments parallels the witness’s caution of the potential criminal. Both accentuate the fact that a man can only be punished for a crime if he knows it is a crime. Both are based on the assumption that “a man cannot be punished unless he has been warned.” 546 The Rabbis saw this principle as an expression of divine justice at work in the world; it became a virtual dogma for them: “God does not punish without warning.” 547 The following midrashim illustrate how this principle is upheld in God’s rule of the world: “R. Yose says, ‘The children of Noah have been warned regarding everything mentioned in this passage, for it is said: “There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering . . . [and because of these abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out before you]” (Deut 18:10–12). ‘Is it possible, then, that Scripture imposes a punishment without warning? No, it provides a warning and afterwards imparts the punishment. From this we learn that He has warned them first and

543. Sanhedrin 56b: “(The Almighty] does not punish without first warning”; see ET, I, 193. 544. For example, the Mekilta to Exodus 20:13: “Thou Shalt Not Murder.’ Why is this said? Because it says: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood,’ etc. (Gen. 9.6). We have thus heard the penalty for it but we have not heard the warning against it; therefore it says here: ‘Thou shalt not murder.’ ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.’ Why is this said? Because it says: ‘Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death’ (Lev. 20.10). We have thus heard the penalty for it but we have not heard the warning against it; therefore it says here: ‘Thou shall not commit adultery.’ Thou Shalt Not Steal.’ Why is this said? Because it says: ‘And he that stealeth a man and selleth him’ (Exod. 21.16). We have thus heard the penalty for it but we have not heard the warning against it; therefore it says here: ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ ” 545. “According to the rule that warning is indicated by four words [prefacing prohibitions] in the Torah: al, rmçh, ˆp, la” (ET, I, 193). The many examples include Mak. 14b; Yoma 8la; Sanh. 56b. 546. Sifrei to the portion Shofetim, paragraph 173. 547. TJ Yoma 1:5, or, as we find elsewhere, “He did not punish without warning.” For example, see Yoma 8la.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 146 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

146

Yhwh, the God of Israel

then punished them.” 548 Another tanna teaches on the same verse: “ ‘And because of these abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out before you.’ Rabbi Simeon 549 says: ‘Thus we see that the Canaanites were warned about these practices, since man is not punished until after he has been warned.’ ” 550 The principle is considered universal; the simple fact that the Canaanites were punished leads the rabbi to suppose that they, too, must have been warned, although no such warning is mentioned in the Bible. 551 The Rabbis also apply it with reference to Israel’s destiny: “God will not bring punishment upon Israel without warning 552 them first.” 553 The beginnings of the Rabbis’ outlook may be seen already in late biblical literature. 554 It is expressed clearly, with reference to Israel and other nations, in Nehemiah 9. 555 Sinners are punished only when their sin is deliberate: Concerning Israel, we read “but they and their fathers acted presumptuously (wdyzh) and stiffened their neck and did not obey thy commandments” (Neh 9:16); concerning Pharaoh and the Egyptians: “Thou didst perform signs and wonders against Pharaoh and all his servants and 548. Tosefta Av. Zar. 8:6–7. 549. This Rabbi Simeon is Simeon bar Yohai, and the R. Yose mentioned above is R. Yose ben Halafta. Both were pupils of R. Akiva. It would seem that the same midrash appears in two versions, attributed to two of R. Akiva’s students. 550. Sifrei to Shofetim, paragraph 173. 551. See also Exodus Rabbah 9:8: “but God warned Pharaoh with every plague, in the hope that he might repent.” 552. Here, the biblical verb dy[h is still used to indicate a warning; see immediately below. 553. Sifra to portion Behukkotay 5:1. The statement is made by “R. Eliezer” — R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanus, a pupil of R. Johanan ben Zakkai. 554. The Bible’s term for this kind of warning is “-b dy[h,” as in Gen 43:3; Exod 19:21, 23; Jer 11:7; and elsewhere. The legal phrasing in Exod 21:29 reads “if . . . its owner has been warned (d[wh) but has not kept it in . . .” It is the warning which distinguishes between a blameless ox and one known to be dangerous (whose owner may be held accountable). In rabbinic usage, the second meaning of the verb dy[h — “to enjoin witnesses” — came to predominate, although the Mekilta retains the sense of “warning”: “ ‘And Warning Hath Been Given to Its Owner.’ This tells us that he is not responsible unless he has been forewarned” (Mekilta to Exod 21:29). Also, see R. Eliezer’s statement quoted in Sifra (above, n. 553). 555. However, it does not appear in Ezekiel. The Rabbis believed that “God does not punish without warning”; in other words, a sinner cannot be punished unless he has been warned. It is true that Ezekiel is sent to warn the people, but the sinner will be punished whether or not he hears a warning: “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning . . . that wicked man shall die in his iniquity’ ” (Ezek 3:18). “If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity . . . he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin” (v. 20). See also 33:8.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 147 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

147

all the people of his land, for thou knewest that they acted insolently (wdyzh) against our fathers” (v. 10). The sinner who “acts insolently” is a deliberate sinner, one who has been warned but disregards the warning. The function of warning falls to the prophets. God sends prophets to caution the people and exhort them to repent: Neh 9:26, 29–30: They . . . killed thy prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to thee. . . . And thou didst warn them in order to turn them back to thy law. Yet they acted presumptuously . . . and turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck and would not obey. Many years thou didst bear with them, and didst warn them by thy spirit through thy prophets; yet they would not give ear.” Because the people ignore the prophets’ warnings, they are considered deliberate sinners — their punishment is therefore inevitable. 556 This view combines two ideas: the concept found in Ezekiel that the prophet is a watchmen who must warn the sinner and the legal principle that only a deliberate sinner can be punished. We find this view of prophecy in the book of Chronicles. 557 As a general formulation, it appears in 2 Chr 24:19: The Lord sent prophets among them to bring them back to Him; they admonished them (μb wdy[yw) but they would not pay heed” (NJPS). However, more important than this abstract principle is its realization in events, its transformation into an historical reality. The Chronicler believed that the historical events described in his narrative must have conformed to the principle of “no punishment without warning.” That is why God sends prophets to warn Israel of requital; if they ignore the warning and do not repent, they will be punished. Not only is it the prophet’s duty to warn — it is God’s duty to send a prophet. The constant appearance of new prophets, continuing even after the first warnings go unheeded, is an outstanding expression of Yhwh’s compassion for His people. Because of their repeated calls to repentance, it is always possible for punishment to be rescinded. Right before the end of the Judean monarchy, Jeremiah is sent to warn Zedekiah: it is not too late to repent and be spared. 558 On the very eve of destruction, God “sent 556. The same pattern appears in 2 Kings 17:13–14 (see above, p. 139): “Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, ‘Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments’ . . . but they would not listen, but were stubborn.” 557. As far as I can tell, only Bickerman connects the Chronicler’s outlook to the views on warning and premeditation developed by the Rabbis. He does not discuss the matter in any detail; see Ezra to Maccabees, p. 23. 558. Because Zedekiah does not heed Jeremiah, he is a deliberate sinner: “He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord, the God of Israel” (2 Chr 36:13).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 148 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

148

Yhwh, the God of Israel

persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place” (2 Chr 36:15). The function of warning is not confined to prophets; in a few cases, depending on the context or the source of his tradition, the Chronicler attributes messages of warning to other figures. During Abijah’s reign over Judah, the king himself delivers such a message to the Northern Kingdom: “O sons of Israel, do not fight against the Lord, the God of your fathers; for you cannot succeed” (2 Chr 13:12). As the context of the story itself demands, priests, not prophets, warn Uzziah: “and they withstood King Uzziah, and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord . . . Go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong’ ” (2 Chr 26:18). Hezekiah calls upon those left in the Northern Kingdom after its downfall to repent: “O people of Israel, return to the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel . . . Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were . . . Serve the Lord your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you” (2 Chr 30:6–8). King Josiah is warned not only by Huldah the prophetess, but also by Pharaoh Neco to abandon the war (2 Chr 35:21– 22). Joab’s words to David ought to be understood as a warning — which would explain the change in phrasing: “Why then should my lord require this? Why should he bring guilt upon Israel?” (1 Chr 21:3). 559 Because David ignores the warning, he is punished immediately after the census has been taken: “But God was displeased with this thing, and he smote Israel” (1 Chr 21:7). 560 The fact that warnings are transmitted by people other than prophets proves that the following principle informs the Chronicler’s narrative: a sinner must be warned and asked to repent. This principle is applied almost without exception. 561 The sinner is forewarned, and his reaction to the warning determines whether or not he will be punished. 559. 2 Sam 24:3 conveys only the first part of the text in Chronicles: “why does my lord the king delight in this thing?.” The Chronicler added the second question to make it quite clear that taking the census was a sin. 560. This verse does not appear in 2 Samuel 24. Scholars have shown that this early punishment disrupts the order of events (e.g., see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 248). In light of the outlook discussed above, we see that the apparent disruption is part of a new chain of events: intention to sin — warning — sin — punishment. The passage is quite in keeping with descriptions found elsewhere. 561. No warning is mentioned in the case of a few kings — Ahaziah, Athaliah, Ahaz, Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin. It is surprising that Ahaz, unlike other sinful kings (such as Jehoram and Manasseh), receives no warning, since both his sins and his punishment are very serious. The other kings listed are in any case described somewhat sketchily by the Chronicler. See below, pp. 284ff.; Rudolph, Chronik, p. xx, note 3.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 149 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

149

The Chronicler’s view of repentance is quite clear. Repentance has the power to change destiny, personal and national. It can counteract the effects of even the worst sin. 562 Repentance and the call to repentance are not only connected to divine justice; God’s compassion, or mercy, is also involved. Chronicles contains only two mentions of Yhwh’s compassion for His people, 563 and both touch on two aspects of repentance. One aspect is the power of repentance to appease God’s wrath and evoke the divine quality of mercy: “O people of Israel, return to the Lord . . . and serve the Lord your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you . . . For the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you if you return to him” (2 Chr 30:6–9). Second, divine mercy is expressed in the very opportunity to repent and change one’s fate for the better: “The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place” (2 Chr 36:15). Because the Chronicler’s world-view proclaims that man is master of his own destiny, repentance is of prime importance. Repentance obviates a mechanical concept of retribution, whereby reward and punishment automatically follow human actions, 564 and even when divine justice is most stringently applied, the possibility of repentance demonstrates God’s love and compassion.

F. God’s Testing of Man Certain episodes in the Chronicler’s historical narrative do not conform to his usual view of divine retribution. Before we examine their place in his idea of history, a preliminary look at the Chronistic concept of war — which occupies an important place in the book — is in order. According to the Chronistic view of history and retribution, not only the aftermath of war, but war itself is a punishment; the absence of war is considered a reward. Asa’s reign provides an illustration. During Asa’s first ten years as king, “the land had rest. He had no war in those years, for the Lord gave him peace” (2 Chr 14:6 [Heb., 14:5]). Later, when punishment is threatened, the prophet tells Asa: “You have done foolishly; for

562. Consider the life of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:12ff.), for example. 563. Apart from 1 Chr 21:13, which parallels 2 Sam 24:14. 564. Eichrodt considers “mechanical retribution” a feature of Chronistic historiography (Theology, II, p. 487). Rudolph is more correct in saying that the “agreement [between action and retribution] is not a sterile, immutable principle . . . it is in the hands of the living God . . . who shows sinners the way to repentance” (Chronik, p. xx).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 150 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

150

Yhwh, the God of Israel

from now on you will have wars” (2 Chr 16:9). 565 An examination of the wars described in Chronicles reveals that this principle is not always an inherent part of the description. The book distinguishes between two types of wars. (1) Some wars of conquest and expansion are not considered a form of retribution in and of themselves. However, their outcome conforms to the principle of reward and punishment: victory is achieved with God’s help and therefore constitutes a reward; defeat represents punishment. These wars include: (a) the war of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh against the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:18–22); 566 (b) all of David’s wars (1 Chr 11:4–6; 14:8–16, 18–20); (c) Solomon’s war against Hamath-zobah (2 Chr 8:3); (d) Abijah’s war against the Northern Kingdom (2 Chr 13:2ff.); (e) the war of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against Ramoth-gilead (2 Chr 18); 567 (f) Amaziah’s war against Edom (2 Chr 25:11–12) and against Joash king of Israel (2 Chr 25:17–24); (g) Uzziah’s wars of conquest (2 Chr 26:6–8); (h) Jotham’s war against the Ammonites (2 Chr 27:5). (2) In other wars, Israel is attacked as a means of punishment; usually, these wars are portrayed as direct divine intervention. They include: (a) Tiglath-pileser’s war against Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (1 Chr 5:25–26); 565. Contrasting “he had no war” with “you will have war” (˚m[ çy — hmjlm wm[Aˆya hmjlm) is a literary device which heightens the contrast between the beginning and end of Asa’s reign. As the phrases show, his reign began with reward and ended with punishment. From a textual point of view, they also show that the prophet’s speech was written by the author of the narrative. 566. This appears to be the same war as that mentioned in 1 Chr 5:10. However, the latter description differs in that: it only mentions Reuben; its scope is smaller; the number of captives is not given; and it is not accompanied by any religious exegesis. All these elements were added when the story was reworked in 1 Chr 5:18–22 and provide a good illustration of the Chronicler’s method of redaction. See Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 496–497. The words “for they cried to God in the battle, and he granted their entreaty because they trusted in him” (v. 20) ascribe the outcome of the battle to the tribes’ behaviour. 567. This story has not been property reworked; it is transmitted almost word for word from 1 Kings 22. Neither war nor outcome is explicitly described as divine retribution. Ahab’s defeat represents the fulfilment of Micaiah’s prophecy, which foretells the defeat but does not explain it as punishment for the king’s deeds.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 151 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

151

(b) Shishak’s campaign (2 Chr 12:2ff.); (c) the war of the Philistines and Arabs against Jehoram (2 Chr 21:16– 17); (d) Aram’s war against Joash (2 Chr 24:23–24); (e) the war of Aram, Israel, et al. against Ahaz (2 Chr 28:5–8, 17–19); (f) the campaigns conducted by the king of Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia up to the conquest of Judah (2 Chr 36:3, 6–7, 10, 17–19). Thus, the consequences of a war are always a function of the principle of retribution. 568 However, the war itself is only seen as punishment when Israel is attacked. Yet we find four exceptions to the latter rule: the attack by Zerah the Cushite (2 Chr 14:9–15 [Heb., 8–14]); the war between Asa and Baºasha (2 Chr 16:1–7); the Moabites’ and Ammonites’ war against Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1–30); 569 and Sennacherib’s campaign (2 Chr 32:1– 21). 570 One exception may be considered carelessness, inconsistency, or a case of verbatim transmission; however, when the phenomenon recurs — in reference to important events — some sort of explanation is required. This explanation may be found in the concept of the divine test. 571 The verb huusn (to “test” or “try”) appears once in Chronicles: 572 “And so in the matter of the envoys of the princes of Babylon, who had been sent to him to inquire about the sign that had been done in the land, God left him to himself, in order to try him (wtwsnl) and to know all that was in his heart” (2 Chr 32:31). This complex, somewhat unclear sentence 573 relates 568. Exceptions to this rule are the tradition of Simeon’s attack of the Meunim and the Amalekites (1 Chr 4:41, 43) and the brief tradition concerning Reuben’s war with the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:10). Both are incorporated directly from their sources into Chronicles without any reworking. See above, p. 150, n. 566. 569. Wellhausen believed that this war also contains elements of divine retribution (Prolegomena, p. 204), but Rudolph has already disproved this view (Chronik, pp. 255, 260). 570. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. xix. 571. S. E. Loewenstamm & J. Licht, “Test” (Heb.), EB, V, 879–883; J. Licht, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-biblical Judaism (Heb., Jerusalem, 1973). 572. It also appears once in a nonreligious sense in a parallel text: the queen of Sheba “came to Jerusalem to test Solomon with hard questions” (2 Chr 9:1 — 1 Kings 10:1). 573. According to Ehrlich, the “envoys” are the “princes of Babylon” (Mikrâ kiPheschutô, II, p. 467). Rudolph suggests reading “prince” — a reference to Merodachbaladan. In Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô, Ehrlich vocalizes the problematic verb μyjlçmh in keeping with the targumim: μyjL:v¨mh (“envoys”), as do other commentators (cf. Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 493, 494). Elsewhere (Randglossen, VII, p. 381) Ehrlich suggests another passive form, reading μyjlUç μh, which is also adopted by Rudolph (Chronik, p. 312). In

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 152 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

152

Yhwh, the God of Israel

to the description of Merodach-baladan’s delegation to Jerusalem in 2 Kings 20:12–19. The Chronicler does not recount the full story; he merely refers to it and defines it as a test. This definition indicates that the Chronicler was familiar with the idea that human beings were sometimes tested by God. When he describes events in detail, there is no need for him to provide a definition; only in this verse, which transmits the barest essentials, do we find the phenomenon summarized: “in order to try him and to know all that was in his heart.” In Kings, this episode is not described as a trial, and neither the account in Kings nor the laconic reference in 2 Chr 32:31 explains how Hezekiah was tried 574 or whether he passed the test. 575 From a literary point of view, the concept is taken from Deut 8:2: “. . . testing you to know what was in your heart.” In this verse, as in other biblical passages, 576 God’s test is to see “whether you would keep his commandments, or not.” However, the commandments are not even mentioned in the story of Hezekiah. It may be that the king’s reaction to Isaiah’s prophecy is being both interpretations, Ehrlich gives the verb a passive vocalization, altering the active form we find in MT. 574. According to the story in Kings, Isaiah foretells God’s punishment of Hezekiah without indicating his sin (2 Kings 20:16–18). The midrash is sensitive to this omission and relates that the king sinned twice, once in thought and once in deed: “His heart was puffed with pride . . . and further, he opened the Ark of the Covenant, and he showed them the tables of the Law, and he said to them: ‘With this do we wage war and conquer.’ ” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, trans. G. Friedlander [New York, 1965, c1916], Chapter 52). Elsewhere, we read: “For this reason it is said that a man should not benefit from the words of the Torah and be proud because of them, lest he lose his position; for we find that Hezekiah was proud and was himself almost overthrown. Furthermore, because he ate with idolaters and showed them the ark, revealing sublime mysteries, he was given a son like Manasseh” (Yalkut Shimoni, II, Section 243). 575. The controversy on this point begins at an early date. The two midrashim quoted above make it clear that Hezekiah sinned and therefore failed God’s test. However, in the version of the midrash from Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer found in the Aramaic targum to Chronicles, the outcome is not so dire: “Because he was permitted by God to show them, he himself was not injured — ‘in order to try him and know all that was in his heart.’ ” The exegetes follow the example of the midrash and comment that Hezekiah sinned; see the interpretation of Pseudo-Rashi — “he did not withstand the test and showed them all his treasures” — and the commentary by David Kimhi. Curtis (Chronicles, p. 493) and Rudolph (Chronik, p. 315) take the middle ground: the king was proud at first but ended by humbling himself. 576. Such as Deut 13:3–4 (Heb., 4–5) — “For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord . . . You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him” — and Judg 2:22: “that by them I may test Israel, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their fathers did, or not.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 153 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

153

tested (“then Hezekiah said . . . ‘The word of the Lord which you have spoken is good’ ” — 2 Kings 20:19), or perhaps God wishes to test the extent of Hezekiah’s faith and trust in Him. In either case, the concept of a trial is extended beyond observance of the commandments to include inner religious convictions. In the words of 2 Chr 32:31, testing these inner convictions is “to know all that was in his heart.” 577 The episodes in Chronicles which represent trials test moral fibre and faith and trust in God. In Asa’s wars against Zerah the Cushite and Baºasha king of Israel, the events themselves suggest a divine test. The wars are not perceived in terms of retribution, nor are they described as punishment. In the tenth year of Asa’s reign, Zerah the Cushite prepares to attack with an unusually strong army. King Asa’s behaviour is irreproachable: he prays to his God, expressing perfect confidence in Yhwh’s power, and asks for divine assistance (2 Chr 14:11 [Heb., 14:10]). Sure enough, God answers his prayer, and Asa enjoys complete victory (vv. 12– 15 [11–14]). No explanation is provided, but the implicit moral of the story is obvious. Only perfect faith and trust in God can guarantee divine help and victory, “because the war was of God” (1 Chr 5:22). Apart from minor changes, the war with Baºasha appears in Chronicles as it does in 1 Kings 15:17–22. During the course of the war, Asa appeals to Ben-hadad, the king of Aram, for assistance and, with the latter’s help, manages to rout Baºasha (2 Chr 16:5–6). Asa’s actions in this war are totally different from his behaviour in 2 Chronicles 14, and his victory is incomprehensible by the Chronicler’s religious standards. 578 For this reason, Hanani the seer appears to chastise the king and convert the victory into a defeat: “the army of the king of Aram has escaped you” (2 Chr 16:7). 579 Hanani’s words 577. Licht makes a distinction between the biblical concept of a trial and that of the Apocrypha. Among the differences between the two is the fact that the apocryphal trial does not test deeds; instead it looks for “a certain pious mentality” indicated by “fortitude in the face of misfortune, trust in God, and patience”: “In the Bible, God tests man to see whether or not he will observe the commandments. In apocryphal literature, the test is a means of verifying man’s faith” (Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-biblical Judaism, pp. 70, 71). Therefore, “a biblical test will consist of a specific episode,” whereas an apocryphal test occurs over a long and unspecified period of time (ibid., p. 71). Thus, we see that the book of Chronicles represents the transitional stage between these two views. The trial is intended to assess inner piety, not outward observance. It is both a one-time episode and a day-by-day process. Yet its ultimate concern is the difficult problem of reward and punishment. It may be that this concern constitutes the uniqueness of the book’s contribution. 578. See below, pp. 201ff. 579. But the war was against Israel, not Aram, and Asa himself appealed to the king of Aram for help! Hanani’s prophecy reveals the tension between the historical material and its theological reworking. The Chronicler did not alter the actual story in spite

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 154 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

154

Yhwh, the God of Israel

explain the message in both wars: “Because you relied on the king of Aram, and did not rely on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped you. Were not the Cushites and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand” (2 Chr 16:7–8). Thus it becomes clear that the two wars were intended as a test of Asa’s faith and trust in God. The king passed the first test, but not the second. Even though the wars are described objectively and not portrayed as divine intervention, it is evident that they represent a trial. This is true of the other exceptional wars mentioned above. The Ammonite-Moabite war tests Jehoshaphat, and Sennacherib’s campaign tests Hezekiah. Both kings pass their tests with flying colours. They express their confidence in God 580 and pray to Him for help, 581 and therefore they are utterly victorious. Not only are their wars won — much more is achieved. In the case of Jehoshaphat, “the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of the countries when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel. So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about” (2 Chr 20:29–30). As for Hezekiah — “many brought gifts to the Lord and to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward” (2 Chr 32:23). These particular, noteworthy cases present divine trials of men and their faith. However, the idea of God’s testing of man has broader applications. As far as the Chronistic view of retribution is concerned, each king’s account is settled with his death. A new unblemished and neutral chapter, freed from the influence of the past, opens with the accession of the succeeding king. This situation in itself is a test for each king, 582 who determines his future of his own free will. The chain of reactions described of the theological problems it posed. This tension led Galling to suggest and Rudolph to assert that the text should read “king of Israel” instead of “king of Aram”; see Galling, Chronik, p. 177; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 247–248. 580. 2 Chr 20:6ff.; 2 Chr 32:7. 581. 2 Chr 20:12; 2 Chr 32:20. 582. This situation represents a different type of test in that man’s behaviour and convictions are constantly being tested. Urbach illustrates the tension between the two when he writes: “The precepts constantly test man. The very testing constitutes the refining process and suffices to save a person from making mistakes, and there is no need for him to add thereto other tests.” The distinction is made, although not explicitly, between the demands of religion as an ongoing test and special trials with limited aims. This distinction explains Urbach’s statement that “The precepts are intended to augment man’s strength, so that he can stand up to the tests” (Urbach, The Sages, p. 367).

page is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 155 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

VI. God’s Involvement in the History of Israel

155

above 583 begins anew with each monarch. Some kings depart from their father’s righteous ways, 584 some compensate for the misdeeds of the father, 585 and still others merely follow in their father’s footsteps. Yet in every case, each king is master of his fate. Including the concept of tests in the framework of a historical outlook serves two purposes. On the one hand, it emphasizes that human free will determines the course of events. On the other, it shows that there is a place for voluntary, sovereign divine actions that are not controlled by rules of reward and punishment. God retains His freedom of action even within the context of a refined system of retribution. 586 583. See above, pp. 132ff. The reigns of Uzziah and Manasseh provide good examples of the series of causes and effects. Each change in their lives is the direct result of some form of retribution. In the case of Manasseh, the pattern is: sin — exile to Babylon — repentance — return to Jerusalem — religious reform — peace and prosperity. With Uzziah: obedience to God — success — pride and the desire to burn incense in the Temple — leprosy. 584. Such as Rehoboam (in the fourth year of his reign), Jehoram, Ahaz, Manasseh, and Jehoahaz. 585. Such as Abijah, Joash, Amaziah, Hezekiah, and Josiah. 586. The Chronicler was not aware that divine trials are problematic in that they suggest that God does not know something. He saw no conflict between divine omniscience and human free will. See J. Licht, “Test” (Heb.), EB, V, 882–883; idem, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures. . . , Section 21, pp. 25ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 156 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Chapter Two

The Worship of Yhwh Our look at the Chronistic concept of God suggests that the relationship between Yhwh and the people of Israel was not established by one specific historical act; this relationship, an integral part of Creation itself, is renewed from generation to generation. God constantly watches over the people and determines their fate for better or for worse, and Israel’s duty is to follow God’s ways and observe the commandments. Thus, the people’s obligation has actually been written into the plan of Creation. It is an absolute duty based on the very nature of Israel’s relationship to Yhwh, and does not stem from either awe or a sense of gratitude on the part of the people. 1 The book of Chronicles continually emphasizes the direct, immediate connection between serving Yhwh and Israel’s fate. This connection is described in statements of fact, 2 not emotional appeals or sermons. Chronicles demands, without moralizing or justifying its demand, that the people do its duty towards God. Although the book does not provide any explicit definition of the people’s duty, 3 it frequently refers to this duty. By assembling and analys1. In this respect, it differs considerably from the Deuteronomic view. For example, see S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC (1902), p. 124: “gratitude, not less than awe, should prompt Israel.” See also p. 82. 2. Such as: “The Lord is with you, while you are with him” (2 Chr 15:2); “Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you” (2 Chr 24:20); “Then you will prosper if you are careful to observe the statutes . . .” (1 Chr 22:13); etc. We do not find a sort of preaching that offer God’s goodness in the past as a reason to serve Him, as we often do in Deuteronomy: “When your son asks you . . . ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes . . . ?’ . . . then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand . . . and the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes . . .’ ” (Deut 6:20ff.) or “. . . and you forget the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, who led you through the great and terrible wilderness . . . who fed you in the wilderness, etc.” (Deut 8:11ff.). 3. Deuteronomy does contain such a definition: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I command you this day” (Deut 10:12–13). Von Rad understands this idea as “an independent and novel attempt

156

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 157 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The TheWorship WorshipofofYhwh Yhwh

157

ing such references, it is possible to reconstruct the Chronistic view. At times, our sources are positive — descriptions of the institution or reinstatement of Yhwh worship — and at times, negative — accounts of its abolition or replacement. The descriptions take two literary forms: either they are part of the historical narrative 4 or they are spoken by a prophet or king to encourage piety or condemn sin. 5 As a positive deed, serving God is described by means of various general expressions, including: 1. “doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Chr 24:2; 25:2) or variations such as “doing what is good and right” (2 Chr 14:2 [Heb., 14:11]) or “doing what is good and right and faithful” (2 Chr 31:20) 2. “walking before Yhwh” (2 Chr 7:17) or: “walking in the ways of Yhwh” (2 Chr 6:31), “walking in Yhwh’s law” (2 Chr 6:16), “walking in Yhwh’s commandments” (2 Chr 17:4), and “ordering one’s ways before Yhwh” (2 Chr 27:6) 3. “seeking Yhwh” (2 Chr 14:4, 7 [Heb., 3, 6]; 15:12; 17:4) and “seeking out Yhwh’s commandments” (1 Chr 28:8) 4. “observing the statutes and the ordinances which the Lord commanded” (1 Chr 22:13) or: “keeping Yhwh’s commandments, testimonies, and statutes” (1 Chr 29:19), “doing all that Yhwh commanded, all the law, the statutes, and the ordinances given through Moses” (2 Chr 33:8), and “keeping the law and the commandment” (2 Chr 14:4 [Heb., 14:3]) 5. Other expressions appear to have a more limited meaning: “to serve the Lord” (2 Chr 33:16; 34:33; etc.) and “keeping the charge (trmçm) of the Lord” (2 Chr 13:11). The negation of this idea, the non-worship of Yhwh, is expressed in the following general terms: 1. “doing what is evil in the eyes of Yhwh” (2 Chr 21:6; 22:4; 33:2; 36:9; etc.). Simply “doing (what is) evil” also appears (2 Chr 12:14) 2. “forsaking Yhwh” (2 Chr 7:22; 24:20, 24; etc.) or: “forsaking Yhwh’s law” (2 Chr 12:1), “forsaking Yhwh’s statutes and

to define Israel’s total relationship to Yahweh. Deuteronomy was, in fact, the first place where such far-reaching efforts were made to gain a theoretical understanding of the relationship to Yahweh” (Deuteronomy, OTL [1966], p. 84). See also Josh 22:5. 4. As in 2 Chr 8:13–14; 12:1, 12, 14; 14:2–5 (Heb., 14:1–4); 15:8–15, 16–17. 5. As in 1 Chr 28:7–9; 29:19; 2 Chr 13:10–11; 16:7–9; 19:9–19.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 158 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

158

The Worship of Yhwh

commandments” (2 Chr 7:19), and “transgressing Yhwh’s commandments” (2 Chr 24:20) 3. “being unfaithful to Yhwh (uhb luu[m)” (1 Chr 5:25; 10:13; 2 Chr 12:2; 28:19, 22; etc.) 4. negative formulations of positive descriptions, for example: “And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Chr 28:1). Not all these expressions are used as a standard, or fixed, term. At times, one expression has a number of meanings. 6 In other cases, more than one expression may be used to convey the same meaning, even within a passage. 7 Most of the standard expressions are taken from sources in Kings and transferred with minor changes, 8 whereas the variations or innovations appear in the Chronicler’s original passages. 9 The sources of these usages are not uniform; some were influenced by other strata of biblical usage, 10 and others are characteristic of the Chronicler’s 6. For example, “seeking (çuurd) Yhwh” has the limited meaning of asking for divine guidance (2 Chr 16:12) as well as a broader sense of doing God’s will (2 Chr 14:7 [Heb., 14:6], etc.). See Driver, Introduction, p. 536, number 7. 7. As in 2 Chr 12:1–5. In v. 1, we read “he forsook the law of the Lord”; in v. 2, “they had been unfaithful to the Lord”; and in v. 5, “you have abandoned me” — all referring to the same matter. Similarly, something positive may be described in a number of ways. For example, 1 Chr 22:12–13 contains: “that you may keep the law of the Lord” as well as “if you are careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances which the Lord commanded Moses.” See also 1 Chr 28:8; 29:19. 8. For example, see 2 Chr 26:4 — 2 Kings 15:3; 2 Chr 27:2 — 2 Kings 15:34; 2 Chr 28:1 — 2 Kings 16:2; 2 Chr 29:2 — 2 Kings 18:3. 9. Compare the parallel story about Asa (in 2 Chr 14:2 [Heb., 14:1]; 15:17 // 1 Kings 15:11, 14), where the use of standard expressions is almost identical (with the addition of “good” in 2 Chr 14:2 [14:1]), with the original 2 Chr 14:4, 7 (14:3, 6); 15:12, 13. Likewise, in the description of Jehoshaphat, the parallel texts (2 Chr 20:32 // 1 Kings 22:43) are identical, whereas the Chronicler’s additions (2 Chr 17:4, 6; 19:3) present various innovations. 10. At times (and not always in parallels from Kings), Deuteronomistic phraseology appears: “doing what is right in Yhwh’s eyes,” “doing what is evil in Yhwh’s eyes,” “being careful to do the law, statutes, commandments, and ordinances”; see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, pp. 320ff. Examples of Priestly language include “being unfaithful to Yhwh (luu[m)” (see Driver, Introduction, p. 134, number 43) and “keeping Yhwh’s charge” (see Milgrom, Studies, pp. 8ff.). Regarding Priestly language, it must be noted that the meaning of a phrase when used in Chronicles may not correspond to its original technical definition. The correspondence is one of literary form rather than content. We also find phrases that are not characteristic of any one stratum, such as “serving Yhwh (duub[)” (e.g., see Judg 10:6; 2 Sam 15:8; Jer 30:9. On the special use of hdwb[ in P and Chronicles, see Milgrom, Studies, pp. 20ff., 82ff.). Another example is “forsaking Yhwh (buuz[)” (Isa 1:4; Jer 2:13; etc.).

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 159 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry

159

lexicon and style. 11 This variety of phraseology and literary influence does not testify to a diversity of outlook or possible tensions between sources of influence. On the contrary, the many phrases all give literary expression to a clear and uniform perception of the people’s duty towards God. We might define that perception at its broadest and most basic as the belief that Yhwh must be worshipped exclusively and wholeheartedly. Worship therefore has a negative as well as a positive aspect: serving any other god is absolutely prohibited, and Yhwh must be worshipped in the proper way. This way involves both legitimate ritual in the Temple and personal, wholehearted devotion to God on the part of man.

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry According to the religion of Israel, serving other gods — “avodah zarah” in the Rabbis’ phrase 12 — constitutes the most serious sin possible. Already in very ancient laws, idolatry is expressly forbidden. 13 A strictly monotheistic outlook considers the very acceptance of the reality of other gods an offence against belief in Yhwh. 14 However, the Israelite prohibition against worshipping other gods is not dependent on a monotheistic view of this sort; it also stems from the essentially exclusive nature of its religion and from the nature of its God, who is a jealous God. 15 Scholars are not agreed as to the extent of idolatry during the First Commonwealth, its form, or its supporters and promulgators. Nevertheless, the stringent Pentateuchal prohibitions and the stinging condemnation in prophetic and historiographical literature 16 suggest that the problem plagued both ruling class and general population. 17 When the book of Chronicles was written, the worship of foreign gods was no longer an issue in Israelite religion. Ancient pagan influence had dissipated, and the Hellenistic pagan renaissance had not yet emerged. 18 11. Such as “seeking Yhwh (çuurd)” (see above, p. 158, n. 6), “humbling oneself ([nkn) before Yhwh,” and others. 12. See Urbach, The Sages, p. 21. 13. See Exod 20:3; 22:19; 34:14 (cf. F. Langlamet, “Exode XXXIV 11–16,” RB, 76 [1969], 322ff., 490–496, 503–507); Urbach, The Sages, pp. 351–356. 14. See Urbach, The Sages, pp. 21–26. 15. See von Rad, Theology, I, pp. 203–212; Eichrodt, Theology, I, pp. 222–223. 16. For example, Exod 23:24ff., 33; 34:12ff.; many passages in Deuteronomy; Isa 2:6, 8; Jer 2:5–13; Hos 3:1; 4:12ff. On the book of Kings, see below. 17. Kaufmann, however, believed that the problem of idolatry was limited to court circles. See Religion, I, pp. 667–672. 18. An apt description of this period appears in the book of Judith (8:18): “For there arose none in our age, neither is there any of us today, tribe or kindred, or family,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 160 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

160

The Worship of Yhwh

Yet the Chronicler is aware that the phenomenon existed in Israel and, via the historical narrative, he sets forth his views on the subject. Although his principal source of information is the book of Kings, he deviates from the story in Kings; in his narrative, both the facts and their interpretation may differ. The redactional framework of Kings judges the monarchic period and the behaviour of individual kings according to the criterion of loyalty to Yhwh. This criterion comprises several different aspects of Israelite religion in both North and South. The essential difference between the two monarchies is the existence of “Jeroboam’s sins” in the North. According to the redactor of Kings, the cult of the calves constitutes “doing evil in the sight of Yhwh,” and all the Israelite kings, including those who campaigned against Baal worship, are therefore described as sinful. 19 Nevertheless, the degree of sinfulness does differ, even in the case of the Northern kingdom. 20 In Kings, the monarchs of Judah are assessed according to two, consistently distinct, criteria. The first is the worship of other gods, and the second, worshipping Yhwh at the “high places” (twmb). 21 A completely negative assessment of “doing evil in Yhwh’s sight” is reserved for kings during whose reign idolatry was practiced in Judah. 22 Monarchs who abolished idol worship “did what was right in the eyes of Yhwh.” In their case, the second criterion is applied: did they demolish the high places? The continuance of such sites, although a sin, did not detract from a basically

or city, which worships gods made with hands, as it was in the former days.” Urbach provides external evidence confirming this description; see The Sages, p. 22. 19. For example, see 1 Kings 15:26, 30, 34; 16:19. 20. See 2 Kings 10:28–29 — “Thus Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel. But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and in Dan” — and 10:31. Cf. also 2 Kings 17:2: “And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel who were before him.” The distinction between degrees of sinfulness is not maintained consistently; for example, see 1 Kings 14:9. It may be that this lack of consistency indicates various redactional strata within the book. 21. Many scholars tend to emphasize the latter criterion, at times even to the exclusion of the former. See Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 283–284; Gray, Kings, p. 12; but cf. Driver, Introduction, p. 200; Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 297–298. 22. They are: Solomon (1 Kings 11:6), Rehoboam (14:22), Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18), Ahaziah (8:27), Manasseh (21:2), Amon (21:20), Jehoahaz (23:32), Jehoiakim (23:37), Jehoiachin (24:9), and Zedekiah (24:19). Concerning Ahaz, we read, “he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Kings 16:2), and concerning Abijah, “he walked in all the sins which his father did” (1 Kings 15:3).

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 161 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry

161

positive assessment. 23 Only two kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, are praised unreservedly. 24 Thus, the most serious sin in Israel’s history is idolatry, which, according to Kings, held sway in Judah during five periods: from Solomon to Abijah, Jehoram to Athaliah, Ahaz’ reign, Manasseh to Amon, and the last kings — Jehoahaz to Zedekiah. In between, there were four periods when idolatry was purged and the exclusive worship of Yhwh reinstated: the reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat, Joash to Jotham, Hezekiah’s reign, and Josiah’s reign. The pendulum swings back and forth at its own speed, fitting the description into a single, harmonious design. There is a difference in detail between periods of idolatry. The introduction of idolatry into Israelite religion is attributed to Solomon, who built altars in Jerusalem to the deities his wives worshipped (1 Kings 11:7– 8). 25 During Rehoboam’s time, idolatry becomes more widespread 26 and persists into the reign of Abijah (1 Kings 15:3), until abolished in the course of Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s purges (1 Kings 15:12–13; 22:47). Foreign worship is resumed during the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah, who are related to the kings of Israel, and the idolatry of this period is in fact termed going “the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done” (2 Kings 8:18 and 8:27). Apparently, the reference is to the Israelite adoption of Canaanite Baal worship in Ahab’s time; 27 Jehoiada’s uprising makes it clear that Baal ritual had spread to Jerusalem. 28 Following a long respite during the reigns of Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, and 23. These kings are: Asa (1 Kings 15:11), Jehoshaphat (22:43), Jehoash (2 Kings 12:2 [Heb., 3]), Amaziah (14:3), Uzziah (15:3), and Jotham (15:34). 24. 2 Kings 18:3, 5–6; 22:2; 23:25. 25. The book of Kings accuses Solomon of also worshipping these gods. The reading of 1 Kings 11:33 is interesting. MT has the verbs in the plural — “they have forsaken me and worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians . . . and have not walked in my ways . . . as David his father did.” The Greek translations and the Vulgate (and, following them, the RSV) have read in the singular — “he has forsaken me, etc.” — which appears to be the original version. (See Ehrlich, Randglossen, VII, pp. 242–243; Sanda, Könige, p. 319.) The sin ascribed to Solomon is shifted onto the entire people. 26. 1 Kings 14:22–24. These descriptions might also be interpreted as accounts of non-legitimate forms of Yhwh worship and infiltration of the Canaanite fertility cult into Israelite religion (see Gray, Kings, p. 311). However, the purge executed by Asa shows that actual worship of foreign gods was involved (1 Kings 15:12–13). 27. 1 Kings 16:30–33; 18:18; 21:25–26; 22:53 [Heb., 54]; and elsewhere. 28. 2 Kings 11:18 recounts that the people destroyed the temple of Baal and killed Mattan, the priest of Baal. In Reviv’s opinion, it was competition from Baal ritual that led to Jehoiada’s rebellion in the first place. See H. Reviv, “On the Days of Athaliah and Joash” (Heb.), Beth Mikra, 16 (1970/71), 544.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 162 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

162

The Worship of Yhwh

Jotham, foreign worship returns to Judah in the days of Ahaz. 29 The idolatry of Ahaz includes the sins ascribed to Rehoboam, “walking in the ways of the kings of Israel,” and burning his son as an offering (2 Kings 16:3– 4). The fourth period, that of Manasseh, is the most severe: 30 pagan elements of various origins come to dominate Israelite religion, and Canaanite Baal and Asherah ritual merges with Assyrian-influenced worship of celestial bodies. 31 We see the full extent of this phenomenon when we combine the description of Manassah’s deeds (2 Kings 21:3–9), the list of vices purged by Josiah’s reform (2 Kings 23:4–7, 10–12, 24), and references from prophetic texts apart from the book of Kings. 32 It is during Manasseh’s reign that the relationship between pagan ritual and Yhwh worship in the Temple first becomes an issue. The account in Kings makes it clear that Temple worship was not interrupted even when foreign religious influence was at its strongest. 33 Manasseh was the first to transform the Temple itself into a centre of pagan ritual by bringing in a statue of Asherah (2 Kings 21:7) and erecting altars to “the host of heaven” in the Temple courtyards (21:5). It seems unlikely that Yhwh worship came to a complete stop, but no doubt it was severely corrupted. During this period above all, the unique character of Israelite worship was imperilled. 34

29. Given this long interval, it seems surprising that Ahaz would return to idolatry. The standard explanation is that he was forced to do so by his dependence on Assyria; for example, see Bright, History, p. 259; Gray, Kings, p. 590. Tadmor denies that Ahaz was coerced, arguing that the king acted of his own accord: “It appears that Ahaz had decided to become an Assyrian vassal, not only politically but also culturally and religiously” (History, p. 138). Cogan argues that, in keeping with imperial policy, Assyria never imposed its own form of religion on vassal states, including Judah; Judean idol worship was initiated by Ahaz (and later Manassah) and did not result from Assyrian influence. See M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, SBL Monograph Series, 19 (U. of Montana, Missoula, MT, 1974), pp. 55–61, 73–77, 88. 30. Kaufmann considers Manasseh’s deeds absolutely extraordinary, explicable only as the result of some sort of nervous breakdown: “For the biblical writers, Manasseh’s idol worship represents a unique atrocity” (Religion, II, pp. 234–235). 31. See Tadmor, History, pp. 146–148; Cogan, op. cit., pp. 84–88. 32. Particularly the considerable testimony from the book of Jeremiah and from Zeph 1:4–5; cf. Cogan, op. cit., pp. 88–96. 33. As in the days of Athaliah, when Temple ritual was maintained without interruption by Jehoiada the priest (2 Kings 11), and during the reign of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:13–15). 34. W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York, 1963, c1949), p. 79.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 163 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry

163

Although the deeds of the last kings of Judah are not specified, we read that they did evil in the sight of God; in other words, they worshipped foreign gods. Sources outside Kings also confirm this account. 35 In the book of Chronicles, details in the narrative often differ, and the steady interchange of good and bad periods has been abandoned. Solomon is portrayed as a paragon of virtue, and neither his foreign wives nor the high places he built for them are mentioned. 36 Although it does say of Rehoboam that he “did evil” (2 Chr 12:14) and abandoned Yhwh (12:1, 2, 5), the detailed account of his sins in 1 Kings14:22–24 is missing; 37 moreover, according to 2 Chr 12:6, 7, 12, Rehoboam and the people repented and humbled themselves before God. The reference to Abijah’s sins (1 Kings 15:3) is also omitted, and the king is described as “keeping the charge of the Lord” (2 Chr 13:11). Pagan practices begin, not with Solomon, but during the reign of Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram; thus, they are the result of Ahab’s influence and the spread of Baal worship. The Chronicler stresses that despite his potentially dangerous family connections to Ahab, Jehoshaphat himself did not practice idolatry. 38 In the case of the other Judean monarchs, Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah, the Chronicler includes the material from Kings 39 and elaborates upon it. He accuses Jehoram of leading Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem astray, as Ahab and his descendants did in Israel (2 Chr 21:13; see also v. 11), 40 and his attitude towards Athaliah’s period differs significantly from that in Kings. The most important change appears in a reference explaining the Temple repairs during Joash’s reign: “For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken into the house of God; and had also used all the dedicated things of the house of the Lord for the Baals.” In other words: Joash

35. For example, see Ezekiel 8 and numerous passages in Jeremiah. In spite of this evidence, Kaufmann believes that the last kings did not reinstate pagan worship, which had been extirpated once and for all during Josiah’s reign (Religion, II, p. 236). On the nature of the testimony from Ezekiel, see M. Greenberg, Prolegomenon to C. C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New York, 1970), pp. xxiv–xxv. 36. Chronicles omits 1 Kings 11, as well as the reference to high places during Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 23; 13); see below, p. 373. 37. See de Wette, Beiträge, p. 103. Rudolph believes, given this omission, that the description of Rehoboam as a sinner (2 Chr 12:13–14) is a later addition to Chronicles. See Chronik, p. 235. 38. 2 Chr 17:3–4: “he did not seek the Baals . . . and walked . . . not according to the ways of Israel.” 39. 2 Chr 21:6; 22:3–4; 23:17. 40. The use of the root huunz (“to commit harlotry”) may indicate influence from prophetic literature — Hosea in particular. On the other hand, consider the connection between 1 Chr 5:25 and Deut 31:16.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 164 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

164

The Worship of Yhwh

did not order the repairs because of routine deterioration — they represented an extraordinary measure to mend the deliberate damage done in the days of Athaliah. 41 The spread of Baal ritual to Jerusalem had actually affected the worship of Yhwh in the Temple, and the extent and nature of the damage are described when the Temple is restored during Joash’s reign (2 Chr 24:4–14). Chronicles’ account of the Temple repairs differs from that of Kings (2 Kings 12:4–16 [Heb., 5–17]) in many respects. 42 Two changes regarding the work itself are of interest to us. First, we read in Kings that the repairs were only intended to reinforce the structure where necessary: “let them repair the house wherever any need of repairs is discovered” (v. 5 [6]; likewise vv. 6, 8, 12 [7, 9, 13], etc.). However, Chronicles relates that the repairs served two purposes: “to restore the house of the Lord” (2 Chr 24:4) and to “repair,” or “reinforce” (qzj), it (v. 5). The two plans are executed by different craftsmen — “and they hired masons and carpenters to restore the house of the Lord, and also workers in bronze and iron to repair the house of the Lord” (v. 12). Second, the text in Kings makes it clear that the gold and silver collected were to be used in the repairs; they were not intended as material for ritual utensils: “But there were not made for the house of the Lord basins of silver, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, or any vessels of gold, or of silver, from the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, for that was given to the workmen who were repairing the house of the Lord with it” (2 Kings 12:13–14 [14–15]). Yet in Chronicles, we find the opposite: “when they had finished, they brought the rest of the money . . . and with it were made utensils for the house of the Lord, both for the service and for the burnt offerings, and dishes for incense, and vessels of gold and silver” (2 Chr 24:14). 43 These two differences conform to Chronicles’ story of what happened to the Temple in Athaliah’s time: the building was damaged, 44 and its 41. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 199. 42. See de Wette, Beiträge, pp. 98–102; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 198–200. 43. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 199–200. 44. RSV’s translation (“broken into”) notwithstanding, there is no reason to understand the verb in question — ≈uurp — in any other than its usual sense. Ehrlich deviates from standard biblical usage and explains its meaning here in a passive sense: “they failed to maintain the Temple, and therefore it constantly deteriorated” (Ehrlich, Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 462). His explanation is adopted by Rudolph (Chronik, p. 274). BDB assigns this occurrence of the verb its own meaning — ≈rp 3. “break into” (p. 829). Since 2 Chr 24:7 is BDB’s only example of such a meaning, the definition is somewhat exegetical. See Köhler-Baumgartner, p. 780. However, the biblical meaning of tyb ≈rpl is to damage and in some way destroy a building; this is the meaning that appears in our context and in late biblical literature generally (for example, Neh 2:13; 3:35; 4:1). Consider the use of ≈uurp in Eccles 3:3 — “a time to break down, and a time to build up.”

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 165 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry

165

utensils were taken for use in Baal worship. 45 The changes in detail, together with the Chronistic explanation of the need for repairs, express the same view: idolatry actually interfered with the orderly running of Yhwh worship in the Temple. 46 The period from Joash to Amaziah is also portrayed differently in Chronicles. The Chronicler mentions two sins committed by Joash after Jehoiada’s death: abandoning the Temple and worshipping idols and Asherim — “and they forsook the house of the Lord, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols” (2 Chr 24:18). There is a causal relationship between these two transgressions: because of idolatry, the Temple is forsaken. 47 In practical terms, this probably means that both physical structure and ritual observance were not maintained property. 48 When the Chronicler comments with reference to Jehoiada’s influence, “they offered burnt offerings in the house of the Lord regularly all the days of Jehoiada” (2 Chr 24:14), we may again deduce that Temple ritual was disrupted after his death. Amaziah is also accused of idolatry — and serving Edomite gods (2 Chr 25:14). As in the case of Joash, Amaziah’s lapse occurs after he has been king for some time; his reign does not begin with transgression. These descriptions are most surprising: in the book of Kings, Joash and Amaziah are portrayed as righteous kings who did what was right in God’s eyes. In Chronicles, we see them as idolaters. As Kaufmann says, it is very difficult to reconcile such negative episodes with the usual tendency to glorify the Davidic monarchs. 49 Both kings are led astray under external influence at some point during their reigns — Joash is swayed by the princes of Judah, and Amaziah is changed by his contact with Edom. As we have seen, the altered details may be explained by the need to portray

45. See Ehrlich, Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 462. 46. See the commentary of Rabbi Elijah of Vilna to 1 Chr 6:10 (Heb., 5:36): “because the wicked Athaliah had damaged the Temple and stopped the worship there; and Jehoiada repaired it all.” 47. It seems rather unnecessary to question MT’s reading and emend the text, either by preferring certain LXX manuscripts which omit “house” (thus Galling, Chronik, p. 137) or by substituting “covenant” (tyrb) for “house” (tyb), as Rudolph does (Chronik, p. 276). 48. The king was responsible for the Temple’s upkeep: “The contribution of the king from his own possession was for the burnt offerings: the burnt offerings of morning and evening, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, the new moons, and the appointed feasts” (2 Chr 31:3). It may be that this verse reflects not only the Chronicler’s view, but the historical reality of the First Commonwealth, when the Temple was the “royal sanctuary”; see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 306–307. 49. Religion, IV, p. 474.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 166 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

166

The Worship of Yhwh

Israelite history as a model of divine justice. 50 Thus, for the sake of the latter principle, there must be something wrong with Joash and Amaziah; in the Chronistic scheme of history, the glory of David’s descendants is of less importance than the idea that God is just. The portrayal of Joash and Amaziah reveals another interesting aspect of the Chronistic narrative. We saw that the account in Kings is regulated by a unified redactional framework: the reigns are described and grouped according to the criterion of faithfulness to Yhwh versus idolatry. The book of Chronicles relies on events in Kings without consistently retaining this framework. In it, we read that Joash sinned and led the people astray, for which they all were punished. No mention is made of any repentance or religious reform. Yet the account of Amaziah’s reign begins as it does in Kings, with king and people worshipping Yhwh and no indication that the previous king sinned — or made up for his sin. The same is true of Uzziah’s accession. His predecessor, Amaziah, worshipped the gods of Edom and was punished, but we are not told that idolatrous practices were then abolished. The entire matter is dropped when Uzziah becomes king, and the situation resembles that in Kings. This phenomenon appears in the reverse with the transition from Abijah to Asa. Due to the Chronicler’s altered account of Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijah, the requisite background to Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s reforms is missing, and there is no longer any visible need for them. Nevertheless, Chronicles contains an account — an expanded account — of these reforms. 51 It would seem that the Chronicler changed elements in the portrayals to suit his particular purposes. However, because the underlying idea uniting his account is to be found elsewhere, the Chronicler did not bother to synthesize the new elements in any systematic, creative way. The matter was not as important to him as it was to the editor of Kings. Following the reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, idolatry returns to Judah during the reign of Ahaz, who is described in Chronicles as the most sinful of Judah’s monarchs. 52 He is worse than Manasseh, the most wicked king in the book of Kings, or Zedekiah, who is held responsible for the destruction of the Temple. In addition to the description taken more or less intact from Kings, 53 the Chronicler provides his own portrayal and ac50. See p. 131, n. 486, and pp. 136ff. 51. See 2 Chr 14:3, 5 (Heb., 2, 4); 15:8; 17:6. Cf. Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 238, 243; and see below, pp. 171–174. 52. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 474; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 289–293. 53. 2 Chr 28:2–4 — 2 Kings 16:3–4. There are some minor changes. Chronicles adds two phrases: 1) “he even made molten images for the Baals” as a gloss to “he walked in

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 167 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry

167

cuses Ahaz of three sins. First, he worshipped the gods of Aram (2 Chr 28:23). Second, he abolished service to Yhwh by closing the Temple and cutting up the ritual vessels (v. 24). 54 Third, he erected high places to other gods in all the cities of Judah (v. 25). Hezekiah exposes the full significance of Ahaz’ deeds: “For our fathers have been unfaithful and have done what is evil in the sight of the Lord our God; they have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord and turned their backs. They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense or offered burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel” (2 Chr 29:6–7). The consequence of idolatry and foreign rituals is the elimination of Yhwh worship. According to the Chronicler, the two types of worship are mutually exclusive. The gist of this idea appears in connection with Athaliah and Joash; here, we find it fully and forcefully expressed. Surprisingly enough, Chronicles exhibits a certain tendency to mitigate and minimize the sins of Manasseh. Although the Chronicler does list the sins mentioned in Kings, 55 he seems to regard them as some sort of “phase”: after Manasseh is punished, he humbles himself “greatly before the God of his fathers” (2 Chr 33:12), and following his return from captivity, he purges the Temple of the idols and altars he himself had introduced (2 Chr 33:15–16). 56 According to Chronicles, Manasseh’s evil deeds did not really take root or have any significant effect, even during his own reign. Amon emulated his father’s behaviour — without repenting — but was assassinated almost immediately (2 Chr 33:22–24). Consequently, the the ways of the kings of Israel”; 2) “he burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom,” a general conclusion based on the information that Ahaz offered his son(s) to Molech. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 289. 54. He did this in order to melt them down and reuse the metal (see Ehrlich on 2 Kings 18:17, Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 373). Although Ahaz’ actions differ from those of Athaliah, the outcome is the same: ritual vessels are stolen from the Temple. 55. 2 Kings 21:2–9 — 2 Chr 33:2–9. Chronicles contains a number of changes: the reference to King Ahab of Israel (2 Kings 21:3) is omitted; “Baal” and “Asherah” appear in the plural (2 Chr 33:3 — 2 Kings 21:3); “sorcery” is added to soothsaying, augury, and dealings with mediums and wizards (apparently the result of influence from Deut 18:10; 2 Chr 33:6 — 2 Kings 21:6); and “the image of the idol” (2 Chr 33:7, 15) replaces “the image of Asherah” (2 Kings 21:7). See Rudolph’s discussion; Chronik, p. 314. 56. Following this purge, Manasseh erects an altar to Yhwh: “he built [Qere ˆbyw as in LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta, as opposed to Ketib ˆkyw] the altar of the Lord and offered upon it sacrifices of peace offerings and of thanksgiving; and he commanded Judah to serve the Lord the God of Israel” (2 Chr 33:16). Although the text is not explicit, it is possible that here, too, the Chronicler links introducing idolatrous elements into the Temple with the complete abolition of Temple Yhwh ritual. In that case, the removal of such elements would restore the worship of Yhwh.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 168 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

168

The Worship of Yhwh

dimensions of Josiah’s reform are reduced: 57 the high places erected by Solomon for his wives do not exist, Hezekiah has already obliterated any trace of Ahaz’ misdeeds, and Manasseh himself repaired the damage he did. It only remains for Josiah to remove any vestiges of idolatry found in the country after the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. The Chronistic account of the last kings of Judah is extremely brief. 58 Perhaps that is why the comment “he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” has been omitted in the case of Jehoahaz but retained concerning the other kings (2 Chr 36:5, 9, 12). By means of a minor alteration to his source, the Chronicler adds “and the abominations which he did (wytb[tw)” to the description of Jehoiakim. 59 Most of the Chronistic expansion involves the sins of Zedekiah and his generation: “All the leading priests 60 and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations; and they polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem” (2 Chr 36:14). The system of divine retribution demands that this generation be “exceedingly unfaithful”; likewise, in keeping with the principle of “measure for measure,” their desecration of the Temple justifies its destruction. However, the wickedness of Zedekiah’s generation does not lie in idolatry, although idolatry is suggested by their polluting the Temple and “following the abominations of the nations”; rather, the people’s stubbornness and their rejection of God’s prophets are responsible for their downfall. Chronicles refers to the sins of the Northern Kingdom in two contexts: the ritual (called worship of calves, satyrs, and “no-gods” 61) instituted by Jeroboam after the kingdom was divided; and the Baal worship defined as 57. 2 Chr 34:3–7, as opposed to 2 Kings 23:4–20. See H. Gressmann, “Josia und das Deuteronomium,” ZAW, 42 (1924), especially 315–316. Chronicles’ account is very different from that of Kings (see below, pp. 233, 259). Instead of separate episodes, we find the reforms summarized in lists of purged “high places, Asherim, graven and molten images” (2 Chr 34:3) or “altars of Baals, incense altars (μynmj), Asherim, and graven and molten images” (v. 4). The incense altars and graven and molten images do not appear in Kings. Nevertheless, Chronicles’ dependence on the source in Kings (particularly for vv. 4b, 5a, 6, and 7a) is evident; see Rudolph’s detailed discussion — Chronik, p. 319. 58. For further details, see below, pp. 284ff. 59. See 2 Kings 24:5: “the rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim, and all that he did” and 2 Chr 36:8: “the rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim, and the abominations which he did.” In Kings, “doing abominations” is ascribed to Manasseh (2 Kings 21:11), explaining the destruction of the Temple. 60. The reading of LXX appears to be preferable: “and all the great men of Judah, and the priests . . .” See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 336; Galling, Chronik, p. 182. 61. 2 Chr 11:15; 13:8–9. The phrase “no-gods” (μyhla al) as a term for foreign gods may have been influenced by the language of Jeremiah; cf. Jer 2:11; 5:7.

spread is 9 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 169 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Prohibition against Idolatry

169

“the way of the kings of Israel” from the time of Ahab on. 62 The people in Israel are generally considered unfaithful to God and idolatrous throughout their history (2 Chr 30:7; 1 Chr 5:25), although it is always possible for them to return to God. 63 We see that in Chronicles, as in Kings, idolatry is considered the most grievous sin possible in the history of Israel and is described as unfaithfulness, forsaking Yhwh, and doing evil in his sight. It is responsible for military defeats, the death of kings, and, ultimately, the destruction of the Temple. The Chronicler’s history of the First Commonwealth is related long after its downfall and from the standpoint of a Judaism which was, at the time, unaffected by pagan worship. Yet his account retains a high degree of vitality 64 — a possible indication that although the actual phenomenon had disappeared, Israelite awareness of its dangers had not. It is this awareness that we find in Chronicles. Nevertheless, the question of idolatry is not as central to Chronicles as it is to Kings, nor does it provide the narrative’s unifying theme, as is the case in Kings. For a variety of reasons, the Chronicler alters details, and at times these changes are written into a perfectly reworked narrative, as with the transition from Ahaz to Hezekiah and Manasseh to Josiah. 65 In other instances, they are simply inserted without any harmonization of the description as a whole; it would appear that these unsynthesized elements are subordinate to other concepts in the Chronicler’s world-view. The most striking difference between the two sources’ descriptions of idolatry lies in the relationship between pagan ritual and Yhwh worship in the Temple. The account in Kings, which accords with the historical reality, assumes that there was never any interruption in Temple worship, and only Manasseh’s reign may have posed a threat to this continuity. 62. The behaviour of Southern kings is contrasted — at times favourably, at times not — with Northern practice; 2 Chr 17:3–4; 21:6; 22:3–4; 28:2. 63. See above, p. 149 and below, p. 249. 64. It is therefore difficult to accept Kaufmann’s opinion that Chronicles represents “a new assessment of the First Commonwealth” (Religion, IV, p. 480). In the Chronicler’s eyes, this period is one of great sin, no less than in the portrayal of Kings and, at times, even greater. The difference lies in the Chronistic principle of divine justice, whereby sin, instead of being cumulative, comes to an end, fully requited, once punishment has been meted out (as Kaufmann himself shows — ibid., p. 474). There is no reason to see the book as a “forerunner and introduction to the Talmudic and midrashic legends . . . which portray these generations as ones of learning, wisdom, and piety” (ibid., p. 480). 65. Ehrlich holds a different view of 2 Chr 33:22: “The writer was not all that awake when he wrote these words — he forgot that he himself had related that Manasseh removed the idols and threw them out of the city” (Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 468).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 170 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

170

The Worship of Yhwh

However, in the Chronistic, perhaps “historically impossible,” view, 66 pagan ritual had a direct adverse affect on the worship of God, to the extent that the Temple was closed and Yhwh worship abolished. This principle of exclusivity, which governs the entire concept of divine worship, operates in two directions. Just as one cannot worship Yhwh and recognize other gods, so, too, it is impossible to serve other gods and still worship Yhwh.

II. Maintaining Temple Worship The principle of exclusivity finds its positive expression in the proper establishment and maintenance of legitimate Yhwh worship. On one hand, this involves the smooth running of Temple ritual according to the rules set down by Moses and David; on the other, it necessitates the abolition of any other form of Yhwh ritual — and, first and foremost, the destruction of local places of worship, “the high places.” 67

A. The Prohibition against High Places Without entering into a detailed discussion of the origins and history of the “high place,” 68 we may define it as a ritual site 69 considered legitimate during the First Commonwealth until forbidden by the book of Deuteronomy and abolished by Hezekiah and Josiah. 70 The book of Kings makes a clear distinction between worship at the high places and forms of idolatry; even though the former is not considered legitimate, it is recognized as a type of Yhwh worship. As we have 66. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 292. 67. Other rituals were considered legitimate at given times in Israelite history, such as Jeroboam’s golden calves or practices borrowed from Canaanite religion. However, these rituals were already banned prior to Chronicles’ composition and therefore do not pertain to our discussion. 68. See Thesaurus, II, p. 92; Baumgartner, Lexikon, pp. 130–131; W. F. Albright, “The High Place in Ancient Israel,” SVT, 4 (1957), pp. 242–258; W. Boyd Barrick, “The Funerary Character of ‘High Places’,” VT, 25 (1975), 565–595. 69. Thereby avoiding the question of whether or not it was an actual sanctuary. Kaufmann speaks of “high places and sanctuaries” at one and the same time, using the two terms indiscriminately (μyçdqmw twmb), e.g., see Religion, I, pp. 85–86. However, de Vaux (Ancient Israel, p. 287) and Haran (“Sanctuary and Temple in Israel” (Heb.), (EB, V, 325) believe that the high places were “open-air sanctuaries” (de Vaux), not temples. 70. 2 Kings 18:4; 23:8, 15. See Kaufmann, Religion, I, pp. 81ff.; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 331–339. It seems likely that high places to other gods existed alongside those to Yhwh and that even on the latter, or adjacent to them, ritual objects of Canaanite origin (particularly pillars, Asherim, incense altars) might have been found (2 Kings 17:10; Isa 27:9; etc.). See de Vaux, pp. 285–286, 288.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 171 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

171

seen, the existence of high places is one of the criteria used to assess Judean monarchs, although usually the worship itself is seen as a sin on the part of the people, not the king. The standard formula in Kings is worded as follows: the king “did what was right in the sight of the Lord; yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.” 71 The book’s portrayal of this situation reflects the historical reality: the country’s official form of worship was conducted at the Temple in Jerusalem, and the high places, located in towns throughout the land, were used by the people. The kings accused of worshipping at the high places include Solomon (in the pre-Temple period) and two wicked kings, Ahaz and Manasseh. 72 This ritual is presented as being legitimate in Solomon’s time, in keeping with Deut 12:8ff., to which 1 Kings 3:2–3 serves as exegesis. 73 Thus, Solomon’s journey to sacrifice at the great high place in Gibeon is also justified. It is difficult to determine whether the high places in the reigns of sinful kings were part of Yhwh worship. They are mentioned in conjunction with “pillars and Asherim” and doing “according to all the abominations of the nations” (1 Kings 14:23–24; 2 Kings 16:3–4; 21:2–3). Since such ritual objects were also found alongside forms of Yhwh worship, 74 this juxtaposition alone does not provide conclusive evidence. Nevertheless, the fact that, out of all Judah’s kings, only Ahaz and Manasseh are explicitly accused of worshipping at the high places suggests that the latter were considered sites of pagan ritual; these two kings may even have converted high places dedicated to Yhwh into pagan sites. 75 In the book of Chronicles, we find that the subject of the high places has been comprehensively reworked. 76 The book does not mention worship of this type during the pre-Temple period (1 Kings 3:2–3). Instead, it 71. This formula appears, sometimes with minor changes or additions, in 1 Kings 22:43–44; 2 Kings 12:2–3 (Heb., 3–4); 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35; see also 1 Kings 15:14. Although the standard wording is omitted, the people are blamed for worshipping at, and even erecting, high places in 1 Kings 14:23. 72. The wording is not uniform: Ahaz “sacrificed and burned incense on the high places” (2 Kings 16:4), whereas Manasseh “rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed” (2 Kings 21:3). 73. 1 Kings 3:2–3: “The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord. Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father; only, he sacrificed and burnt incense at the high places.” See Kaufmann, Religion, I, p. 86. 74. Manasseh is said to have rebuilt the altars destroyed by Hezekiah — some of these must have been altars to Yhwh; see Kaufmann, Religion, 1, p. 100, n. 20; II, p. 235. 75. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 288. 76. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 471–473.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 172 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

172

The Worship of Yhwh

provides another explanation for Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon: the king offered his sacrifices at Gibeon and God was revealed to him there because it was the site of the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness and the bronze altar built by Bezalel (2 Chr 1:3–5). In this context, the term “high place” merely indicates the location of Yhwh’s tabernacle. 77 Chronicles also omits the reference to the building of high places during Rehoboam’s reign, 78 and their erection is first attributed to Jehoram (2 Chr 21:11). According to Chronicles, no high places existed in Judah until Jehoram’s reign. We also find a clear difference regarding the formula “yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.” In Kings, it is applied to the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham. In Chronicles, it almost never appears — although it has not been deleted consistently. The sentence is omitted for Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah. The positive assessment — “he did what was right in the sight of the Lord” — is retained, albeit with some note of reservation concerning the king, not the people. 79 Although we find a general expression of misgiving in the case of Jotham — “but the people still followed corrupt practices” — the Chronicler does not mention high places, and it is difficult to know exactly what he had in mind. Thus, the high places do not appear with reference to these four kings, and when it comes to Joash, the story is somewhat inconsistent — although we are told that high places were built during Jehoram’s reign, we never hear of their destruction. The words “the high places (however) were not taken away” are applied only to Asa and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 15:17; 20:33), though in the case of the latter, the verse does not continue according to the standard formula in Kings but instead ends “the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their fathers” (2 Chr 20:33). The Chronicler’s reworking of the accounts of Asa and Jehoshaphat is problematic. At or near the conclusion of their stories, he notes that “the 77. The Targum conveys this distinction in an interesting way. The word hmb is always translated as aysmb, aytmb, and the like (on the interchange of these forms and on textual variants, see the appropriate passages as discussed in R. le Déaut & J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques, II [Rome, 1971]). However, in the context of Gibeon, we find hmb translated as: ˆw[bgbd açdqmb (1 Chr 21:29), ˆw[bgbd atmr (2 Chr 1:3, 13), and ˆw[bgbd atçnk tybb (1 Chr 16:39) — the “house of assembly” or “synagogue” at Gibeon! 78. Compare 1 Kings 14:22ff. with 2 Chr 12:14. 79. Concerning Joash — “all the days of Jehoiada the priest” (2 Chr 24:2), Amaziah — “yet not with a blameless heart” (2 Chr 25:2), and Uzziah — “according to all that his father Amaziah had done” (2 Chr 26:4). The Chronicler ascribes sins that are not mentioned in Kings to these three monarchs. On Joash and Amaziah, see above, pp. 165– 166; on Uzziah, see p. 131, n. 486 and below, p. 203.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 173 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

173

high places were not taken away,” yet at the beginning, he states that these kings destroyed the high places (2 Chr 14:3, 4; 17:6). Whereas the entire issue is ignored in the case of other kings, the Chronicler provides two pieces of information concerning Asa and Jehoshaphat: in the beginning, we read that they removed the high places, and at the end of the story, we are told that the high places were maintained during their reigns. The two comments are equally senseless. 80 Since, according to Chronicles, no high places were built until the reign of Jehoram (2 Chr 21:11), there is no point to statements that they were removed or continued to exist. The comments are particularly meaningless in the case of Jehoshaphat, who followed in the footsteps of his father, Asa. It is only in the case of contrasting monarchs (Hezekiah after Ahaz, Josiah after Manasseh) that the destruction of high places would make any sense in Chronicles (2 Chr 31:1, 34:3). The problem of logic inherent in the double comments may be explained — although not eliminated — by Chronicles’ dependence on its sources in the book of Kings. References to high places were deleted because of the special Chronistic view of Solomon and his successors; however, the desire to praise Asa and Jehoshaphat, which may be based on an historical memory, produced portrayals of these two kings as reformers who abolished the high places before Hezekiah and Josiah did so. No attempt was made to synthesize these two intentions in a new framework. In the book of Chronicles, worship at the high places is associated with sinful kings: Jehoram, Ahaz, and Manasseh. 81 Jehoram’s building of high places constitutes one aspect of his leading Judah into the sinful ways of Ahab’s dynasty (2 Chr 21:11, 13). In the case of Ahaz, we read that “in every city of Judah he made high places to burn incense to other gods” (2 Chr 28:25). In the case of Manasseh, the high places are mentioned alongside idols and Asherim: “and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images . . .” (2 Chr 33:19). It would seem, then, that the worship at high places is considered idolatrous in Chronicles. The evidence from one verse alone runs counter to this general trend: “Nevertheless the people still sacrificed at the high places, but only to the Lord their God” (2 Chr 33:17). In

80. Wellhausen has rightly pointed out the illogic of the situation (Prolegomena, p. 193). Rudolph attempts to resolve the contradiction by claiming that 2 Chr 15:17 and 20:33 (which describe the persistence of worship at the high places) belong to a later stage, in which Chronicles was supplemented by material from Kings (Chronik, pp. 241, 263). However, evidence from the text itself (such as the changes to 2 Chr 20:33b) does not support this claim which, in any case, provides no answer to the problem of logic. 81. 2 Chr 21:11; 28:4, 25; 33:3, 19.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 174 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

174

The Worship of Yhwh

principle, the Chronicler is aware of high places for Yhwh worship but only mentions them once, during the reign of Manasseh. 82 When we compare the Chronistic account to its sources in Kings, we see that the question of high places became less and less important. Unlike Kings, Chronicles does not assess a monarch on the basis of his attitude towards high places; in fact, it rarely discusses the matter. The unsystematic reworking vis-à-vis this subject — the contradictory statements about Asa and Jehoshaphat and the lack of continuity from Jehoram to Joash — also testifies to its declining importance. We can only understand the data in Chronicles by comparing its narrative with that of Kings. Although such a comparison does not solve problems of inconsistency, it does shed light on the literary process at work in the book of Chronicles.

B. Worshipping Yhwh in the Temple Temple worship represents the practical side of Israel’s relationship with its God; by establishing and maintaining Temple ritual, the continuity and constancy of the bond between Yhwh and the people was expressed. The Chronicler describes this form of worship at length, and a few prefatory remarks concerning methodology are in order before we examine the subject itself. As in other areas, the Chronicler conveys his views by moulding the historical narrative in his own special way, yet on this subject in particular, the distinction between past and present becomes blurred. During the Chronicler’s time, Yhwh worship was an established, thriving reality. As is usually the case with religious thought, cultic institutions expressed the continuity between past and present, and the religious ideology of his period viewed its own institutions and practices as the embodiment of principles and frameworks established in the past. The Chronicler’s perspective became blurred, and his description of history was shaped in the light of present circumstances. 83 It must also be noted that most of the Chronistic material on the subject has no parallel in earlier or later sources, and we are unable to compare it critically. We can only examine it on its own terms. The Chronistic portrayal of Temple worship appears to have been determined by three factors. The first is the historical reality of the First Commonwealth at various stages and as described in the Chronicler’s sources. The second is the reality of the Second Commonwealth, reflected 82. Rudolph also makes a precise distinction in the case of 2 Chr 14:3 (Heb., 14:2) — “he took away the foreign altars and the high places” — and argues that only the foreign altars were sites of pagan worship (Chronik, p. 241). 83. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 88–89.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 175 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

175

in contemporary material used by the Chronicler and in the reworking of earlier sources. Third, the Chronicler’s portrayal was influenced by his personal opinions and purposes, which refashioned the existing material and informed his own contributions. Because parallels are, for the most part, lacking, it is up to us to deduce from the book itself not only the various historical foundations, but also the Chronicler’s intentions in reworking these historical data. 84 Yet the history of Israelite worship is such a controversial subject, inspiring so vast a range of opinions, that it is difficult to find any agreed-upon basis for a historical reconstruction. 85 For this reason, I shall not attempt to examine the overall system of Temple ritual but, instead, will concentrate on certain specific aspects that testify to the Chronicler’s views. (1) What strikes the reader of Chronicles immediately, as almost every study has noted, is the book’s emphasis of the subject. 86 It contains a wealth of information regarding the Temple’s construction (2 Chronicles 3–4), the way in which the service was conducted, 87 and the identity and hierarchy of Temple ministrants. 88 Particular events associated with the Temple and its ritual are also described: its purification, the celebration of 84. Von Rad, ibid., p. 80. 85. As only a few examples of this problem, we may take the controversies over the dating of P, the nature and chronology of ritual institutions described in P, and the history of the Levites. The two serious attempts to assess Chronicles’ testimony on the subject of Levites were made by von Rad (Geschichtsbild, pp. 88–119) and Liver (Chapters). (Cf. A. H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester [Göttingen, 1965], pp. 204–216.) These two studies illustrate the degree to which any interpretation of evidence from Chronicles is dependent on one’s historical starting-point. 86. For example, see de Wette, who devotes Chapter Five to the book’s Levitical bias and Chapter Six to ritual, commenting that “this point most interested the Chronicler” (Beiträge, p. 102). Curtis (Chronicles, p. 7) notes: “The writer is concerned above everything else with the life of Israel centred in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem.” Von Rad believes that “the Levites’ position in post-exilic Israel is the central concern of the Chronicler” (Geschichtsbild, p. 119). Cf. also Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 190ff.; Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 537–538; Bentzen, Introduction, p. 214; Bickerman, Ezra to Maccabees, p. 23; Poulssen, König und Tempel, p. 167; Caquot, Messianisme, pp. 118ff.; North, “The Chronicler,” 374–376; and others. Willi, on the other hand, claims that the cult is of secondary importance to Chronicles and that most of the passages on the subject are later (late third to early second century b.c.e.) additions to the book. Following Noth and Rudolph, he denies the authenticity of many sections in 1 Chronicles (such as large portions of the genealogies, most of 1 Chronicles 15 and 16, and all of 1 Chronicles 23–27); moreover, he believes that many passages in 2 Chronicles are not original (Willi, Auslegung, pp. 194–204). 87. Including 1 Chr 9:29–32; 23:28–32; 2 Chr 5:12–13; 7:5–6; 8:12–13; 13:10–11; 23:18. 88. Such as 1 Chr 23:6–24; 24; 25; 26:1–28; 2 Chr 8:14–15.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 176 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

176

The Worship of Yhwh

Passover (2 Chr 29; 30; 35:1–19), and so on. We see the great variety in the Chronistic picture of the Temple when we compare it with the data found in Kings. Although Kings also presents considerable information about the Temple, apparently based on authentic Temple records, 89 this information focusses on only two areas: the construction and ongoing maintenance of the Temple 90 and the fate of its treasures and ritual vessels. 91 Whatever we know from Kings about the Temple service, ministrants, and so on, comes to us incidentally. The description of the building and vessels tells us something about the form that the ritual took, 92 and the story of Jehoiada’s rebellion and the repairs undertaken by Joash provides information regarding the Temple guard and its sources of income (2 Kings 11:4, 7, 11; 12:4–5, 16 [Heb., 5–6, 17]). The erection of the new altar during the reign of Ahaz is accompanied by important details concerning the regular ritual, 93 and the various lists in Kings, such as the lists of Solomon’s officials or of the exiles, tell us something about the priestly hierarchy (1 Kings 4:4; 2 Kings 25:18). Only one verse in Kings deals directly with Temple ritual: “Three times a year Solomon used to offer up burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built to the Lord, burning incense (with it which [thus MT]) before the Lord. So he finished the house” (1 Kings 9:25). The verse discusses one aspect of the regular ritual, and even on this limited subject, its testimony is far from clear. 94 Chronicles transmits almost all the material found in Kings. 95 However, not only are descriptions added to this material, the book’s focus is 89. For example, see Driver, Introduction, p. 189. J. Liver, “Kings” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1138–1139; however, Montgomery (Kings, pp. 37–38) holds a different view. 90. Without discussing the proportion of authentic material, the following should be mentioned: the construction of Solomon’s Temple, described in detail in 1 Kings 6– 7, the Temple repairs undertaken by Joash and Josiah (2 Kings 12:4–16 [Heb., 5–17]; 22:3–7), and the construction by Jotham (2 Kings 15:35) and Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10–11). See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 312–322. 91. From the reigns of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:26), Asa (1 Kings 15:18), Joash (2 Kings 12:18 [Heb., 19]), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:14), Ahaz (2 Kings 16:8, 17–18), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:15–16), Jehoiakin (2 Kings 24:13), and Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:13–17). 92. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 319–320, for a concise discussion. 93. 2 Kings 16:12–13, 15 — even though the text is not as clear as it might be. 94. The second part of the verse — “burning incense (with it which) before the Lord. So he finished the house” — is extremely puzzling. For a discussion of its textual problems, as well as suggestions for emendation and interpretation, see Montgomery, Kings, pp. 211, 214–215; Gray, Kings, pp. 235–236. Ehrlich examines the verb μlç (RSV “finished”) in this context — Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 286. 95. A few passages are omitted because of different considerations; for example, the list of exiles and the inventory of plundered Temple vessels are deleted. See below, p. 286.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 177 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

177

entirely different from that of Kings. Chronicles is concerned primarily with the form Temple ritual took, with its organization and implementation, and not with the structure that housed the worship. The writer of Kings saw the political significance of the Temple and its treasures and described the attitude of the Judean kings in this matter; he did not view the Temple’s internal organization as a subject of public interest. For the Chronicler, what went on inside the Temple was of crucial importance to Israel’s history. The difference between these two views may reflect ideological changes which had affected the entire people. The Chronicler’s position is evident in his deliberate effort to create a systematic, unbroken description of Yhwh worship in the Temple. He assembles and reworks a wide range of material from various sources, including Samuel–Kings and Pentateuchal traditions, and then attempts to unify the material within a harmonious ideological framework. However, his efforts to integrate discrete elements are not always successful, and certain inconsistencies and contradictions between sources remain. 96 (2) The Chronistic narrative is based on the assumption that centralization of the cult was a binding principle throughout Israelite history. 97 This assumption has a considerable effect on the description of cultic history, particularly during the time of David and Solomon, as we see from the preface to the Temple’s construction and the fact that David is credited with laying the real foundation for its construction. Thus, there is a continuity between the reigns of David and Solomon, and the actual building of the Temple no longer constitutes a radical innovation. David’s involvement in the project may be divided into two stages: (a) bringing the ark from Kiriath-jearim and organizing the worship at the tent housing the ark (1 Chr 13; 15:1–16:28) and later (b) choosing the Temple site (1 Chr 21:1–22:1) and making intensive preparations for its construction (1 Chr 22:2–26; 28–29). The first stage follows the general lines of the account in Samuel, which relates that David brought the ark from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1–16), erected a tent to house it (2 Sam 6:17), and apparently established a regular cultic ritual at the site of the ark (2 Sam 6:17–18, and

96. Some scholars have seen these contradictions as evidence that numerous sections of the book were later additions and not written by the Chronicler himself. It is indeed likely that parts of the book, particularly in this area, were added (see, e.g., Liver, Chapters, pp. 110–111). Nevertheless, many of the problems of consistency can be explained by an inability to harmonize details completely or by the fact that the Chronicler refrains from thoroughly reworking the particulars of lists taken from various sources. 97. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 471ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 178 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

178

The Worship of Yhwh

especially 1 Kings 3:15). After the Temple had been built, the ark was moved and placed in the holy of holies (1 Kings 8:1, 6). In addition to this information, Chronicles details the roles of priests and Levites (1 Chr 15:4–24) and describes the form of ritual at the tent (1 Chr 16:4ff.). The basic account in Samuel–Kings already presents the Chronicler with substantial difficulties. According to Samuel–Kings, at least two sites of worship were in operation during the reigns of David and Solomon — the tent housing the ark and the high place in Gibeon — and both are mentioned in the context of 1 Kings 3 (vv. 4 and 15). The existence of two recognized cultic sites immediately contradicts the assumption that centralized worship was always a binding principle, and the sacrifice at the high place in Gibeon is completely inappropriate to the Chronistic portrayal of Solomon and his reign. 98 Both problems are solved by the reworking in 2 Chronicles 1: the cultic site in Jerusalem is not mentioned in this context (compare 2 Chr 1:13 to 1 Kings 3:15) 99 and the high place at Gibeon assumes a new significance as site of “the tent of meeting of God which Moses . . . had made” (2 Chr 1:3) and “the bronze altar that Bezalel . . . had made” (2 Chr 1:5). Solomon’s sacrifice is no longer questionable, and the continuity of the legitimate cult is maintained. 100 However, Chronicles does not eliminate the simultaneous existence of two cultic sites by reworking the story of Solomon’s trip to Gibeon. The “tent of meeting” houses the ark in the city of David (1 Chr 6:32 [Heb., 6:17]) and the “tent of meeting of God” built by Moses is found in Gibeon (2 Chr 1:3). The Chronicler overcomes this difficulty by differentiating between two types of worship. In the tent housing the ark, there is only song and the playing of instruments: 101 “he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the Lord, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the Lord, the God of Israel” (1 Chr 16:4). Even the priests worship through music: “and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests were to blow trumpets regularly, before the ark of the covenant of God” (v. 6). Ritual worship at the tent takes place “as each day requires” (1 Chr 16:37), and gatekeepers 98. See Noth, Studien, p. 137, n. 6, and p. 170; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 121. Cf. also above, pp. 171ff.; below, pp. 372ff. 99. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 183; Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 315–316; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 197. 100. Since de Wette’s time, it is commonly held that the Chronicler introduced this view of Gibeon for apologetic purposes (de Wette, Beiträge, pp. 108–112). However, a few scholars believe that Chronicles is preserving an authentic historical tradition (see H. W. Hertzberg, “Mizpa,” ZAW, 47 [1929], 176–177) or at least a variant of a reliable tradition concerning the role of the tabernacle until David’s reign (see Milgrom, Studies, pp. 67–72). 101. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 121, 197.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 179 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

179

stand guard alongside the singers (v. 38). The Chronistic reworking is quite thorough (see also 1 Chr 6:31 (Heb., 16]ff.), but not perfect — the Chronicler failed to delete the reference to sacrifices in the story of the move from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem: “and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God.” 102 However, the sacrifices are not portrayed in this context as precedents for a regular cult. The most difficult and perhaps most surprising thing about this description is the very idea that a ritual comprising only praise and music could be considered worship. The Chronicler’s account of Yhwh worship without offerings is inconsistent with biblical views of ritual. 103 We might possibly see it as the earliest testimony to the institution of the synagogue, found in the land alongside the Temple and serving as a centre of regular prayer. 104 The Chronicler’s innovations in the narrative describing this stage of worship are not reworked or fully integrated into the description as a whole. We have already noted the disagreement concerning worship at the tent housing the ark between the story in Samuel, transmitted in Chronicles, and the Chronicler’s own account. Nor does his introduction of the tabernacle at Gibeon merge satisfactorily into the rest of the story. When the Temple is completed, Solomon brings the ark, tent, and vessels to Jerusalem — as we read in Kings (2 Chr 5:5 // 1 Kings 8:4). However, the tabernacle and altar at Gibeon do not appear in this context, and we never discover what happens to them. 105 The Chronicler revived the tradition of the tabernacle in order to resolve an immediate problem but failed to integrate it into the narrative as a whole, and the subject was not developed fully. (3) In Chronicles, the second stage of David’s involvement — his preparation of everything associated with the Temple save its actual construction 102. 1 Chr 16:1–2 // 2 Sam 6:17–18, with minor changes. 103. Rudolph is aware of the difficulty but does not analyse it thoroughly. He concludes that the lack is a literary one: because of his great interest in the musical praise, the Chronicler did not bother to discuss the arrangements concerning sacrifices (Chronik, p. 121). Thus, sacrifices did take place; they just were not described in Chronicles. Rudolph does not deal with the issue in connection with centralization of the cult, and his solution to the problem is less than convincing. 104. Scholars do not agree on the date of the synagogue’s establishment. Some believe synagogues appeared during the Babylonian exile or even earlier; indeed, a few see indications of synagogue worship in the Bible. It is generally thought that the synagogue was established during the Second Commonwealth, although our evidence comes only from the end of that period, at the height of synagogue development. See Schürer, Geschichte, II, pp. 499ff.; L. I. Rabinowitz, “Synagogue,” EJ, 15, 579–581. 105. See Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 129.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 180 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

180

The Worship of Yhwh

— is very different from the account in Samuel. According to Chronicles, David produced a detailed plan for the building’s design and furnishings (1 Chr 28:11–19), prepared the necessary materials (1 Chr 22:2–4, 14, 16, etc.), recruited the workmen (1 Chr 22:2, 15), organized the Temple personnel (1 Chronicles 23ff.), and enlisted the people’s support for the project (1 Chr 22:17–19; 29:6ff.). The organization of Temple personnel, described in 1 Chronicles 23 to 26, is of particular interest to us here. 106 The account proceeds as follows: towards the end of his life, David decides to undertake this project (1 Chr 23:1). He takes a census of Levites of the appropriate age (1 Chr 23:3) 107 and divides them into four groups with separate functions. Most of them are to serve in the Temple — to “have charge of the work in the house of the Lord” (1 Chr 23:4a); the remainder will be officers and judges (v. 4b), gatekeepers (v. 5a) or singers of praise and instrumentalists (v. 5b). After they are counted, their organization into divisions is mentioned (23:6), followed by a genealogy of the Levitical families (23:6–24) and a detailed list of their duties (23:25–32). A supplement to these lists, together with the information that the Levites “cast lots” among themselves, appears in 1 Chr 24:20–31. 108 The priests and musicians are then divided into twenty-four groups on the basis of family and the casting of lots (24:1–19; 25). Finally, the organization and duties of the gatekeepers (26:1–19), 109 Temple treasurers (26:20–28), and

106. These chapters are among the most complex in the entire book; many commentators have simply discarded them as “unchronistic”; see Liver, Chapters, p. 11 and notes 1–4. Despite their crudeness and inconsistencies, however, they are clearly regulated by a literary structure. Both the language and ideological content of these chapters correspond to the style of Chronicles. I have come across no arguments, apart from claims of disorderliness or contradictions between details in various lists, supporting the repudiation of these chapters. 107. In 1 Chr 23:3, the age of service is “thirty years old and upward,” which conforms to Num 4:3, 23, etc. Yet in 1 Chr 23:24 and 27, the age is “twenty years old and upward” — the usual age in a census; see Exod 30:14; Num 1:3, 18, and elsewhere. On the relationship between the two traditions according to P, see Milgrom, Studies, p. 61. 108. On the relationship between the two lists, see Liver, Chapters, pp. 12–18. 109. In the case of the gatekeepers (as in the classification of Levites), the word “division” (twqljm) appears as a heading (1 Chr 23:6; 26:1, 12, 19), but does not correspond to the contents of the lists. It is only in the case of the priests and musicians that we find an actual classification of ministrants into twenty-four divisions; in some places, the list of musicians still appears contrived (1 Chr 25:4, from Hananiah on — cf. Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 278–280). These facts affect our assessment of the material in Chronicles. It would appear that the Chronicler conceived of the ministrant organization in a particular way, but did not apply his conception to all the material. We might ask whether the Chronicler himself or some other writer was responsible for the contrived structure of the musicians’ divisions. In any case, this sort of construction was limited

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 181 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

181

officers and judges (26:29–32) are related. The entire account is based on the assumption that David organized the Temple personnel according to a detailed plan prepared well before it could be implemented, and this assumption informs the passage and unifies it. David took all the minutiae of the service into account and provided his son with a blueprint not only for construction, but for worship: “And behold the divisions of the priests and the Levites for all the service of the house of God” (1 Chr 28:21). An assumption of this kind stems from a particular way of thinking, which might be termed “a priori thought”: Israel’s institutions were not produced by the historical reality, but the reverse. They anticipate history — history is the realization of their already-existing blueprint. We see this way of thinking in biblical law: 110 while still in the wilderness, Israel receives a set of statutes, many of which can only be put into practice once the land has been conquered. At times, the phrasing of a law discloses this fact: “When you come into the land . . .” (Lev 19:23) — “When the Lord your God brings you into the land . . .” (Deut 7:1) — “These are the statutes and ordinances which you shall be careful to do in the land which the Lord, the god of your fathers, has given you to possess” (Deut 12:1) — and so forth. The law is binding in the wilderness, even though it will only be implemented at the next stage of history. Two axioms underlie this “a priori” outlook: first, God is the source of the law, which is therefore absolute and ahistorical, 111 and second, the wilderness period was the formative period in Israel’s history, during which the entire framework of national life was determined. These axioms are also basic to our context: according to Chronicles, David’s period was formative and the plan for the Temple came from God. It is true that, in the beginning, David appears to take the initiative, 112 motivated by a desire to spare his son the difficult task. 113 However, at the end of the narrative, we read that David followed “the writing from the hand of the Lord” and did “all the work . . . according to the plan” (1 Chr 28:19). This “plan” consists primarily of the blueprint for the Temple and its furnishings (1 Chr 28:11–18) but also includes the “the divisions of the priests and of the Levites” (28:13a). In a sense, Chronicles’ “a priori” outlook is stronger than that of the Pentateuch. Many of the laws given to the people in advance are not all to the musicians; the Chronicler transmitted the division of gatekeepers and Levites according to his sources. 110. See Z. Adar, Educational Values in the Bible (Heb., Tel Aviv, 1953/54), pp. 166– 167. 111. See M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” Y. Kaufmann Jubilee Volume ( Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 11–13. 112. 1 Chr 23:2, 6; 24:3; 25:1. 113. 1 Chr 22:5, 7; and elsewhere.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 182 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

182

The Worship of Yhwh

that specific, such as “you shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns” (Deut 16:18), “you may indeed set as king over you him whom the Lord you God will choose” (Deut 17:15), or even “you shall seek the place which the Lord your God will choose” (Deut 12:5). The choice of place, monarch, and judges is left to be decided when the time comes. Yet Chronicles lists every ministrant and assigns him his duty. Not only the principle, but also its detailed execution, is provided. Solomon has only to put the preappointed functionaries to work, as he does: “According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded” (2 Chr 8:14). (4) As we have noted. Chronicles makes a deliberate effort to present a continuous history of Yhwh worship in the Temple, and the Solomonic period represents the next stage. The construction and dedication of the Temple become the focal points of his reign. This new emphasis leads to a revised picture of the period. 114 Once the Temple has been dedicated, the Chronicler tells us, Solomon established a regular daily and yearly ritual. The writer takes a passage in Kings and expands it: “as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts . . . he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices” (2 Chr 8:13–14). 115 Only after the establishment of ritual worship has been described does he conclude, “so the house of the Lord was completed” (verse 16). 116

114. See below, pp. 374ff. 115. The Chronicler’s method of enlarging 1 Kings 9:25 into 2 Chr 8:12–16 is characteristic. The passages begin — “Solomon used to offer up” (hmlç hl[hw) / “Then Solomon offered up” (hmlç hl[h za) — and conclude — “So he completed the house” (tybhAta μlçw) / “So the house of the Lord was completed” (uh tyb μlç) — in almost the same way. However, their scope and meaning differ significantly. Solomon’s sacrifice is transformed from a regular offering into a one-time event, and it becomes necessary to change the rest of the verse. The offering is made not “three times a year,” but “upon the altar of the Lord.” The Chronicler goes on to describe the regular order of sacrifice in the Temple without mentioning Solomon. Likewise, the import of the conclusion is quite different: Solomon did not “complete” the house; the house “was completed.” Cf. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 221. 116. Although the text of this verse is not very clear, there does not seem to be much justification for the extensive emendations proposed by BH. Cf. Ehrlich, Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, pp. 451, 286.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 183 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

183

Abijah’s speech provides us with the details of daily worship: “They offer to the Lord every morning and every evening burnt offerings and incense of sweet spices, set out the showbread on the table of pure gold, and care for the golden lampstand that its lamps may burn every evening” (2 Chr 13:11). 117 During the reign of Asa, the Chronicler mentions only the restoration of the altar in front of the Temple (2 Chr 15:8) — apparently a routine repair 118 — and does not discuss Temple worship until the period of Jehoiada the priest. Here, he goes into detail: “And Jehoiada posted watchmen for the house of the Lord under the direction of the Levitical priests [RSV: priests and Levites] whom David had organized to be in charge of the house of the Lord, to offer burnt offerings to the Lord, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David. He stationed the gatekeepers at the gate of the house of the Lord” (2 Chr 23:18–19a). It has been suggested that the Chronicler uses repetition here to emphasize the subject and to describe “the abiding tradition [Kontinuität] of the legitimate cultus at Jerusalem.” 119 However, this does not appear to be the case. It is true that the Chronicler assumes the existence of a legitimate cult, but he does not assume that it existed without interruption. 120 In fact, that is precisely why Jehoiada’s actions are emphasized: he restored the cult in its original setting after it had been interrupted during the days of Athaliah. 121 The course of events demands that this reinstatement of the cult be mentioned. Temple worship is suspended during Ahaz’ reign and restored by Hezekiah, who celebrates with a ceremony resembling the Temple dedication 117. This verse is a good example of the inadequate synthesis of the book’s various elements. Solomon’s Temple contained not one, but ten, golden lampstands — as the Chronicler himself (following his sources in Kings) relates in 2 Chr 4:7 and 1 Chr 28:15. The description of the tabernacle (Exod 25:31ff.) mentions only one lampstand, and we know that the Second Temple only contained one (1 Maccabees 1:21; 4:49). From a literary point of view, our passage depends on P (see Num 8:2–4); it may also reflect the historical reality of the Second Commonwealth. However, the mention of one lamp is not in keeping with a description of Solomon’s Temple and contradicts the Chronicler’s own account elsewhere. (See also Rudolph, Chronik, p. 237.) This contradiction and the lack of synthesis do not constitute sufficient proof that two writers or later additions are involved. See above, p. 180, n. 106. 118. Cf. 2 Chr 8:12, and see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 245. 119. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 203. 120. See above, pp. 169–170. 121. The literary technique here resembles the description of Solomon’s actions. The Chronicler takes a source text, changes its significance, and expands upon it. 2 Kings 11:18 reads: “And the priest posted watchmen over the house of the Lord.” The difference between the two accounts has excited the interest of scholars; see de Wette, Beiträge, pp. 55–56, and many others after him.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 184 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

184

The Worship of Yhwh

(2 Chr 29:20ff.). The connection between the two ceremonies is in fact noted in 2 Chr 30:26. The Chronicler also mentions the fixing of regular worship in this context: “And Hezekiah appointed the divisions of the priests and of the Levites, division by division, each according to his service, the priests and the Levites, for burnt offerings and peace offerings, to minister in the gates of the camp of the Lord and to give thanks and praise” (2 Chr 31:2). After the account of Hezekiah’s reign, the Chronistic narrative follows its source in Kings. As we have seen, Manasseh’s sins are considered a “phase”; the king himself restored the altar to Yhwh (2 Chr 33:16). As a result, Josiah’s reforms are mentioned more briefly. 122 Thus, the book attempts to be consistent in its description of Temple worship. Repeated accounts, mutatis mutandis, of the re-establishment of Temple ritual do not stem from a desire to emphasize; the Chronicler’s historical narrative makes them imperative. This narrative is informed, in turn, by the basic axioms of the exclusivity of Yhwh worship and the centralization of the cult. (5) It is characteristic of Chronicles’ description of worship that the source and authority for an action or plan are cited in order to provide the necessary legitimation. For example: “They took their accustomed posts according to the law of Moses the man of God” (2 Chr 30:16). We find this phenomenon only twice in Kings: “But he did not put to death the children of the murderers; according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses” (2 Kings 14:6) and “ ‘Keep the passover to the Lord your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant’ ” (2 Kings 23:21). 123 in Chronicles, it appears some twenty times, and almost all the examples pertain to the cult. God is always at the source of deeds, and it is His authority that dictates their performance. His commandment reaches the people via some intermediate authority. At times, this authority is described as emanating from Yhwh; at other times, it is named in its own right. Without going into the various formulations, it may be said that three intermediate authorities appear in Chronicles: Moses, David, and the king. Moses represents the authority of the Torah which he handed down. Its full title is: “the book of the law (torah) of the Lord given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14). In principle, then, we may consider it the authority of the 122. See below, p. 259. 123. These references are unrelated to two other features of Kings — the repeated injunction to observe the commandments, statutes, and ordinances (as in 1 Kings 2:3; 11:33) and the comment on whether or not the commandments were followed (2 Kings 10:31; 17:13; and elsewhere).

spread is 9 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 185 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

185

Torah. 124 In this instance, as in others, the terminology is far from uniform, testifying to a preference for variety and an avoidance of stock phrases. Thus we find: “the law of the Lord” (no mention of Moses) — 1 Chr 16:40; 2 Chr 31:3; “the law of Moses” (no mention of God) — 2 Chr 23:18; 30:16; “the word of the Lord by Moses” (no mention of the law) — 1 Chr 15:15; 2 Chr 35:6; “all that Moses . . . had commanded” (1 Chr 6:49 [Heb., 34]; and “as prescribed” (2 Chr 30:5.18). This last (bwtkk) is an indefinite formulation which, in later usage, indicates biblical authority. 125 This great variety of expressions for the same matter shows that the words used, such as law, commandments, and so on, did not serve as limited, clearly defined technical terms. Rather, they were living words with a range of meanings. 126 The second source of authority lies with David (or David and Solomon), and is called “the commandment of David” (2 Chr 8:14 29:25; 35:15). Once, his authority is described as a written document — “the directions (btk) of David king of Israel and the directions (btkm) 127 of Solomon his son” (2 Chr 35:4) — and once David is mentioned as the authority who established cultic practices (2 Chr 23:18). Third, the reigning monarch may be a source of authority. Three kings are cited as authorities — Solomon (2 Chr 8:15), Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:15; 30:12), and Josiah (2 Chr 35:16). David’s authority is binding in two clearly defined areas: (a) the organization of Temple personnel and delineation of their duties (2 Chr 8:14; 23:18; 35:4) and (b) the establishment of musical worship in the Temple 124. I have chosen to call it the authority of Moses for two reasons. First, Moses is mentioned more often, and second, the contrast between Moses and David becomes clear (see below). 125. For example, m. Yoma 3:8; 4:2: m. Ta’an. 3:3. 126. In this sense, their use in Chronicles corresponds to biblical usage in general. In Chronicles, “torah” (translated as law in the RSV) indicates the priestly teaching (2 Chr 15:3), laws and commandments (2 Chr 14:4 [Heb., 3]; 31:21; 33:8), a particular type of commandment (2 Chr 19:10), and the written book, usually called “the torah of Yhwh” or “the torah of Moses” (1 Chr 16:40; 22:12). The “book of the torah” only appears twice: in 2 Chr 34:15 (taken from 2 Kings 22:8) and in 2 Chr 25:4 — “the torah of the book of Moses” (as opposed to 2 Kings 14:6 — “the book of the torah of Moses”). This variety and lack of uniform terminology are very common in Chronicles (see also above, pp. 157ff. and elsewhere). As Plöger shows, this sort of phenomenon also appears in Deuteronomic usage; J. G. Plöger, Literarkritische formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuterorumium, BBB, 26 (1967), pp. 64, 129. 127. The words btk and btkm indicate the same thing: a written document or book (Baumgartner, Lexikon, pp. 480, 551). The use of two different words may well indicate two separate documents.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 186 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

186

The Worship of Yhwh

(2 Chr 29:25; 35:15). A second source of authority — that of the prophets — is also involved in the latter: “according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet; for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets” (2 Chr 29:25) 128 and “according to the command of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun the king’s seer 129” (2 Chr 35:15). Moses’ authority — that of the Torah — is mentioned mainly in connection with sacrificial worship in the Temple; it appears five times in matters of the regular service (1 Chr 6:49 [Heb., 34]; 16:40; 2 Chr 8:13; 23:18; 31:3) and twice with reference to the passover sacrifice. (One reference is general — 2 Chr 35:6 — and the other pertains to a specific stage of the sacrifice — 2 Chr 30:16.) The authority of Moses is also applied to the Levites’ carrying of the ark (1 Chr 15:15) and appears in one parallel passage from Kings (2 Kings 14:6 // 2 Chr 25:4). Thus, David and Moses have their own well-defined, separate spheres of authority in the book of Chronicles. 130 David’s authority does not conflict 128. This is the only passage in Chronicles which states explicitly and as a general rule that the commandment of God is transmitted to the people via His prophets. A similar idea appears in 2 Kings 17:13 and Ezra 9:10–11, but the formulation in Chronicles is the most sweeping and definite. It may be suggesting that only the prophets were empowered to transmit Yhwh’s commands to the people. Is David also considered a prophet here? On this subject, see below, p. 365, n. 62. The translation “for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets” does not reflect the difficulty of the Hebrew wyaybnAdyb hwxmh uhAdyb (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 296 — although his suggested emendation is less than satisfactory). Perhaps b was substituted for m under the influence of the subsequent dyb, and the original wording read uh dym yk . . . (as in 1 Chr 28:19). Willi believes that this verse and 2 Chr 35:18 are later additions, but his arguments are not convincing; Auslegung, p. 200. 129. A number of manuscripts, as well as the versions, read “seers” in the plural, which appears to be preferable (see Kittel, Chronik, p. 177; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 330; and BH). “Seer” is applied to Asaph alone in one context (2 Chr 29:30) and to Heman in another (1 Chr 25:5). See also 1 Chr 25:1, 2, 3, 5. 130. In one instance, the authorities of David and Moses may overlap: the carrying of the ark. Whether or not they really overlap depends on one’s interpretation of 1 Chr 15:2: “Then David said, ‘No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God.’ ” Verses 13 and, in particular, 15, inform us that Moses established the rule that only Levites may carry the ark: “And the Levites carried the ark of God upon their shoulders with the poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord.” Is v. 2 to be understood as a new ruling originating with David — in which case there is indeed a conflict between the two authorities — or as David’s restatement of an established principle? The conclusion of v. 2 raises a similar question — “for the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him for ever.” This sentence is no doubt related to Deut 10:8, which states that the Levites were set apart to carry the ark. Does this connection confirm that David was following a practice established in Deuteronomy, or does it testify to a clash between his command and that of Moses? The answers to these

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 187 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

187

with or supersede that of Moses. Each has his own authority, and David’s actions complement and supplement Moses’ commandments. 131 The authority of Hezekiah and Josiah pertains to current matters of ritual; in other words, it is temporary. Hezekiah exercises his authority by ordering the purification of the Temple and the observance of Passover (2 Chr 29:15; 30:12), and Josiah organizes the Passover sacrifice (2 Chr 35:10, 16). One passage explicitly tells us that the authority comes from God — “to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the Lord” (2 Chr 30:12) 132 — and presumably Yhwh is understood to be the source of authority in the other verses. The frequent dependence on the law as authority for the cult demands clarification: what does the Chronicler mean when he writes that something was done “as prescribed”? Is he referring to the Torah in its canonical form, to some part of it, or to a different matter altogether? 133 Studies of Chronicles emphasize the influence of Pentateuchal law on the book’s historical narrative and the way in which sources were reworked

questions are not obvious. Attempts to arrive at a solution by understanding the words “then David said” as evidence of a new command are not terribly persuasive. The context, the book’s literary technique, and other examples of the Chronistic outlook suggest that David’s order is in fact based on the authority of Moses and does not constitute an innovation on the part of the king. 131. Von Rad, arguing from a different viewpoint, speaks of “David’s law” as completing “Moses’ law” and imbuing the biblical concept of Torah with a new, richer meaning (Geschichtsbild, p. 136). In the spirit of von Rad, other scholars have claimed that David came to replace Moses as the central figure of biblical religion. Wilda stresses that in order to put the king in Moses’ place, Chronicles deliberately portrays David in much the same way that Moses is described in the Pentateuch (“Königsbild,” pp. 47–52; cf. Poulssen, König und Tempel, pp. 175ff.). However, in spite of the fact that David assumes a central role in Chronicles and Moses does not, the two figures remain distinct. Moses has his own sphere of action and authority, which even David cannot control. 132. In the beginning, Hezekiah appears to initiate all these actions without any divine inspiration; see 2 Chr 30:1, 2, 4, 5, etc. Only in v. 12 are we told, as a sort of afterthought, that the initiative by the “king and princes” came “by the word of the Lord.” In this respect, our passage resembles the description of David’s preparations for the Temple (see above, p. 181). These descriptions raise the important question of what is meant by “the word of the Lord”; how did the Chronicler understand the communication between God and the king? Since the subject is never discussed directly — we are provided with only indirect references — the question must remain unanswered. 133. On the general question of Chronicles’ relation to the various Pentateuchal strata, see N. H. Snaith, Chronicles - Ezra - Nehemiah (“The Historical Books”), in H. H. Rowley, The Old Testament and Modern Study (Oxford, 1951), pp. 109–112. See also I. L. Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 280, n. 16; above p. 5, n. 20; p. 73, n. 268.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 188 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

188

The Worship of Yhwh

in order to harmonize history with the laws of the Torah. 134 Perhaps this emphasis is responsible for the fact that many instances of disharmony and even outright contradiction between Chronicles and Pentateuchal law have been overlooked by scholars. 135 Of particular interest to us are cases in which the Chronistic narrative is inconsistent with Pentateuchal law, yet cites the authority of the “torah” or “the commandments of Moses.” Two examples may be quoted: (a) 2 Chr 30:15–16: “And they killed the passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the second month. And the priests and the Levites were put to shame, so that they sanctified themselves, and brought burnt offerings into the house of the Lord. They took their accustomed posts according to the law of Moses the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood which they received from the hand of the Levites.” Verse 16 is the direct continuation of v. 15a; 15b is a parenthetic sentence explaining that although they had been unprepared for the sanctification of the Temple (2 Chr 29:34), the priests and Levites were, in this case, ready to fulfill their function. 136 The idea of the passage in sequence is: “And they killed the passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the second month and took their accustomed posts . . .” The description in Chronicles introduces two elements which do not appear in the Pentateuchal laws on the subject. The first is the sprinkling of blood, which does not appear in the Torah because of the special nature of the passover sacrifice. It was originally a family sacrifice that in-

134. Wellhausen in particular viewed this phenomenon as a determinative factor in the Chronistic reworking of history (Prolegomena, p. 244), and his view has had substantial influence. It served as one reason for von Rad to term Chronicles a “nomistic view of history” (“nomistische Geschichtsbetracht”) — Geschichtsbild, p. 1. See Willi, Auslegung, pp. 48ff. 135. This lack of harmony does not only apply to the general Chronistic view of the cult, which contains elements not found in the Torah (e.g., see Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 539); we also find it in various details that do appear in the Pentateuch. Von Rad has noted this phenomenon and come to two conclusions: the Chronicler was working with a Pentateuchal text that differs from the one we know; moreover, he lived at a certain inner distance from the world of the Pentateuch (Geschichtsbild, p. 63 and n. 106). Rudolph accepts the idea that Chronicles does not always conform to the canonical law of the Torah and agrees with von Rad’s first conclusion (Chronik, p. xv; in n. 2, he questions some of von Rad’s examples). Milgrom has pointed out the degree to which the Chronicler deviates from the instructions of P even as he quotes Priestly language; Studies, p. 82 and notes 46, 307. 136. The “burnt offerings” do not refer to the paschal lamb, but to sin offerings brought by the priests and Levites as part of their sanctification, as in Ezek 44:27. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 301; for a different view, cf. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 475.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 189 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

189

cluded an unusual rite featuring the blood of the slaughtered lamb. 137 At a later date, the passover sacrifice was transferred to the Temple 138 and, like other sacrifices, involved sprinkling the animal’s blood and burning its fat on the altar. The Pentateuch makes no mention of this ritual vis-àvis the paschal lamb; Chronicles is the only biblical source for it. Apart from our example, it appears twice in Josiah’s celebration of Passover: “And they killed the passover lamb, and the priests sprinkled (the blood) which they had received from them 139 while the Levites flayed the victims” (2 Chr 35:11) and “the priests . . . were busied in offering the burnt offerings and the fat parts until night” (v. 14). The second innovation in the Chronistic account involves the role of the Levites. According to the Torah, the priests were responsible for sprinkling the blood of sacrifices: “And Aaron’s sons the priests shall throw the blood against the altar round about” (Lev 3:2). The law does not tell us who gives them the blood to sprinkle. Only two parties are mentioned in Leviticus: the one offering the sacrifice, who places his hand on the head of the animal and kills it (3:2), and the priests, who scatter the blood and burn the entrails (vv. 2b–5). The Rabbis filled in the gaps with their detailed scheme of sacrificial practice. On this matter, they ruled that “the work of the priesthood is commanded only from the receiving [‘presenting’] of the blood and so on; 140 thus, the priests took the blood and brought it to the altar. 141 In the Mishnah, we find an exact account with reference to the passover sacrifice: “An Israelite slaughtered his [own] offering and the priest caught the blood” (m. Pesahim 5:6). 137. Exod 12:7, 13, 21–23. See Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, p. 87. It seems to me that Loewenstamm is correct in arguing that the original tradition of the sacrifice is actually preserved in P; ibid., pp. 84–94. 138. A passage in Deuteronomy testifies to this transfer (see Deut 16:1–7), but the process must have been long and complex. See J. Licht, “Passover” (Heb.), EB, VI, 519– 523. M. Haran claims that “in all the literary evidence at our disposal, the Passover sacrifice was already considered a Temple offering” and thus includes even the earliest biblical sources; M. Haran, “Laws concerning the Passover in Ex 23:18, 34:25” (Heb.), Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1969), p. 78. 139. The word “blood” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but it is already found in the Targum (ˆwhydym amdAty aynhk wqyrzw). The Talmud also has the verse in this form: “Ask R. Hisda, what of carrying by a lay Israelite [zar]? — It is valid, he replied, and a Scriptural text supports me: ‘And they killed the Passover lamb, and the priests dashed the blood, which they received of their hand, and the Levites flayed them’ ” (Zebahim 14a); however, cf. Yoma 49a. “From them” refers to the Levites, the slaughterers appointed by the king in v. 6. 140. See, primarily, Yoma 27a. 141. Although Rav Hisda expresses the minority opinion that even someone who was not a priest could carry the blood. See above, n. 139.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 190 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

190

The Worship of Yhwh

Chronicles’ description of the Levites sprinkling the blood conforms neither to Pentateuchal law nor to what we know of the actual practice of the passover sacrifice. Yet we read that the Levites acted “according to the law of Moses”; in fact, the formulation makes the point twice: “They took their accustomed (μfpçmk) posts according to the law of Moses the man of God” (2 Chr 30:16). The same feature is found in the account of Josiah’s Passover, where something that never appears in the Torah is sanctioned with the words “as it is written in the book of Moses.” 142 (b) 1 Chr 15:15: “And the Levites carried the ark of God upon their shoulders with the poles (twfmb), as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord.” The words “as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord” refer to the method of carrying the ark — upon the shoulders with poles. The verse is formulated as though some explicit directions concerning the carrying of the ark existed in the Torah, but nothing of the sort appears in the Pentateuch. 143 Information on the subject is indirectly provided by a combination of three sources. We know from the construction of the ark that poles (μydb) were fitted into rings on its sides (Exodus 25, especially vv. 12–15). Num 4:4–15 gives a detailed description of the method of covering the holy vessels for transport. Finally, we have the incidental comment in Num 7:9 that the sons of Kohath were not provided with a cart because “they were charged with the care of the holy things which had to be carried on the shoulder.” 144 Thus, “as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord” does not refer to a specific commandment but, at most, to a conclusion based on a few Pentateuchal data. Moreover, the method of transport described in Chronicles is problematic. The Torah clearly distinguishes between two ways of carrying: on poles (μydb) and on a carrying frame (fwm). The heavy, massive ritual articles — the ark, table, sacrificial altar, and incense altar — were constructed with rings into which poles could be fitted for transport. 145 The vessels 142. 2 Chr 35:6, 12. The passover sacrifice in 2 Chr 30:18 — “otherwise than as prescribed” — does not conform to any biblical law, not even to the second Passover in Num 9:10ff. 2 Chr 35:13 — “And they cooked (wlçbyw) the passover lamb with fire according to the ordinance” — represents harmonistic exegesis to Exod 12:8–9 and Deut 16:7. 143. See Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides on Exod 25:12. 144. This is the only time that the Pentateuch states that the ark was carried on the shoulder; the idea is echoed in 2 Chr 35:3. Isa 46:7 describes idolaters carrying their gods upon their shoulders. 145. See Exod 25:12–14, 26–27; 27:4–7; 30:4. There is a difference between the ark and the other holy vessels in this group. We see from Exod 25:15; 37:5; 40:20 and 1 Kings 8:7–8 // 2 Chr 5:8–9 that the poles were a permanent feature of the ark, which

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 191 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

191

that were not equipped with poles — the lampstand and its utensils (Num 4:10) and the service vessels (Num 4:12) — were moved on a carrying frame. 146 In contrast to the Pentateuch and other sources, our passage in Chronicles states that the ark was carried twfwmb and not with μydb. We cannot know whether an actual change is involved, with the Chronicler deliberately indicating some other method of transport, 147 or whether the difference is merely one of terminology in a later period (such as the Chronicler’s) when usage no longer distinguished between fwm and db. 148 Even if we assume that the difference is only a matter of usage, the Chronistic reference to the Pentateuch remains general and imprecise. Although our two examples are very different, both cite the authority of the Torah or Moses’ commandments quite explicitly. Both lead us to conclude that phrases such as “as prescribed,” “according to the law of Moses,” or “as Moses had commanded” do not refer to specific Pentateuchal laws and certainly do not represent the opening to a quotation. They sometimes refer to the import of a particular law or to a conclusion drawn from passages in the Torah; at other times, they do not allude to anything found in the Pentateuch. This leads one to ask whether the Chronicler might not have been referring to the exegetical understanding of his time rather than to Scripture itself. 149 However, as far as we know, some of the subjects mentioned in this manner by the Chronicler bear no relation to the tradition of his period. The Chronicler’s citing of the Torah appears to be founded on the need to indicate an authority, a need that is characteristic of his entire method. He repeatedly specifies the sources for his historical narrative. 150 In these cases, too, the nature of the sources and the Chronicler’s way of resorting to them are problematic. At any rate, the examples above indicate that

was not the case with the others. This distinction is blurred in Num 4:6; see Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides on the verse. 146. See Ibn Ezra on Num 4:10 — “for it had no poles.” 147. See Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. 276, 306. 148. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 117. 149. Von Rad and Rudolph explain the deviations from Pentateuchal law by arguing that the Chronicler did not work with the canonical Torah (see above, n. 135). It is indeed probable that the Chronicler’s text differed somewhat from the one we know; the question is: how extensive was the difference — was it great enough to clarify all the phenomena discussed above? It seems more likely to me that these deviations stem from the Chronicler’s free, interpretative way of approaching all his sources, including the Torah. Bickerman terms this approach “emancipation from the authority of tradition”; Ezra to Maccabees, p. 21. 150. For example, 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; see Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 21–24.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 192 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

192

The Worship of Yhwh

neither terminology such as “torah” or “law of Moses” nor the way in which it functioned as a source of authority was, as yet, clearly defined. (6) Although maintaining the Temple service represents the people’s practical obligation to God, Chronicles provides us with one indication that ritual worship was not the sum total of this obligation. We read in 2 Chr 19:10: “whenever a case [or dispute — byr] comes to you from your brethren who live in their cities, concerning bloodshed, law or commandment, statutes or ordinances, then you shall instruct them, that they may not incur guilt before the Lord and wrath may not come upon you and your brethren. Thus you shall do, and you will not incur guilt.” This verse, composed in the Chronicler’s style, is part of Jehoshaphat’s admonition of the judges he appointed in Jerusalem. 151 The verse’s syntax is faulty, and presents two main defects in reasoning: (a) The basic sentence runs as follows: “whenever a case comes to you . . . concerning bloodshed . . . then you shall instruct [or warn — μtrhzhw] them, that they may not incur guilt before the Lord.” The meaning of this sentence is not entirely clear, since the role of a judge in matters “concerning bloodshed” 152 is not to warn, but rather to weigh the evidence and come to a decision, as we read in Deut 17:9 — “they shall declare to you the decision.” (b) The differentiation of “law or commandment, statutes or ordinances” is a continuation of “whenever a case comes to you”; yet distinguishing between various types of laws does not seem to be part of the concept of a legal dispute, a byr. Thus, the verses actually comprise two elements, and each is phrased elliptically. The first formulation lacks an end and the second, a beginning. Sentence One begins “whenever a case come to you . . . concerning bloodshed” and should end with something like “you shall pronounce judgment.” Sentence two ends “law or commandment, statutes or ordinances, then you shall instruct them”; a likely beginning would be: “Whenever a question comes to you concerning . . .” The elliptical combination of these two ideas stems from the writer’s strong dependence on Deut 17:8–9, 153 which he in effect interprets. The text in Deuteronomy reads: “If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one 151. The Chronicler’s style is most evident in vv. 6–7, 9–10, and 11b. Regarding the historical authenticity of the judicial reform described, see below, p. 337, n. 93. 152. This expression — μdl μdAˆyb — is explained in two ways. The Targum relates it to the punishment: “between a man sentenced to death and one acquitted of a capital crime.” The phrase is more commonly understood as a distinction between deliberate and unintentional crimes. See Pseudo-Rashi; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 257. 153. On the connection, see von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 61; Galling, Chronik, p. 125, Rudolph, Chronik, p. 257. The similarity between the two passages is more clearly evident when one compares the Hebrew texts.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 193 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Maintaining Temple Worship

193

kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God will choose . . . you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.” According to 2 Chr 19:10, the court in Jerusalem was intended to fulfill two functions: pronouncing legal decisions and instructing the people in the commandments. Of the two, the latter — distinguishing between “law and commandment, statutes or ordinances” — receives the greater emphasis. 154 In the Bible, including the book of Chronicles, the terms “law,” “commandment,” “statutes,” and “ordinances” serve as synonyms for the laws of the Torah. 155 However, it is possible that in our context they already indicate specific types of commandments, in the way that technical terms in later literature do. 156 This function of the judges in Jerusalem — the importance of which is emphasized by the verse’s conclusion — “Thus you shall do, and you will not incur guilt” — involved responding to problems and legal questions from across the country and assisting the people with expert knowledge of the Torah’s laws. This one verse in Chronicles provides us with some new insight into a period which, for all its emphasis

154. This function extends and develops a role previously ascribed to the priests (see Jer 18:18; Ezek 7:26; Zeph 3:4; Mal 2:7, 9; 2 Chr 15:3; cf. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 404; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 257). The best example appears in Haggai: “Ask the priests to decide this question, ‘If one carries holy flesh in the skirt of his garment . . .’ ” (2:11ff.). The men who fulfilled this role had to interpret the laws of the Torah and apply them to a variety of concrete cases. In our verse, the function is shifted from priest to court — where priests also sat (2 Chr 19:8) and where the high priest was in charge of “all matters of the Lord” (v. 11). 155. See 1 Chr 22:12–13; 28:7; 29:19; 2 Chr 7:19; 34:31. The same combination of the four found in 2 Chr 19:10 (“statutes or ordinances” in the plural, “law or commandment” in the singular) appears in exactly the same way in 2 Kings 17:37 and almost the same way in 2 Kings 17:34. 156. For example see the Mekilta to Exod 15:25: “ ‘There He Made for Them a Statute and an Ordinance.’ ‘A statute,’ that is the law about the Sabbath. ‘And an ordinance,’ that is the law about honoring father and mother — these are the words of R. Joshua. R. Eleazar of Modiºim says: ‘A statute,’ meaning the laws against incestuous practices [twyr[] . . . ‘And an ordinance,’ meaning laws about robbery, laws about fines, and laws about injuries.” On Exod 15:26, we read: “ ‘And Wilt Give Ear to his Commandments,” meaning the decrees [twrzg]. ‘And Keep all his Statutes.’ meaning the Halakot [traditions or unwritten laws].” See also the Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 133: “ ‘and you shall teach them the statutes (μyqj)’ — these are the decrees, or rabbinic restrictions (twrzg) — ‘and the decisions (twrwt)’ — these are the rabbinic teachings (twarwh) — thus R. Joshua. R. Eleazar ha-modaºi says: “ ‘the statutes’ — these are the laws against sexual misconduct (twyr[) — ‘and the decisions’ — these are the restrictions (twrzg)”; see Urbach, The Sages, pp. 378–380.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 194 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

194

The Worship of Yhwh

on centralized worship in the Temple, appreciated that certain facets of religious life affected each and every human being.

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh “The service of the heart” or “devotion” — the spiritual force at work in divine worship — represents the internal aspect of religious life. 157 It comprises: (a) the feelings and awareness which attend and complement actions — for “even the practical duties can not be efficiently performed without willingness of the heart and desire of the soul to do them” 158 — and (b) feelings and awareness unconnected to any outward deed, such as a belief in God, faith, trust, love, piety. 159 “Service of the heart” involves many theoretical questions concerning the value of action without devotion, the worth of spiritual devotion, the possibility of a spirituality unaccompanied by action, and the like. These questions engaged Jewish thought at various times, 160 and although they are not discussed in the Bible, the fundamentals of both aspects of devotion often do appear there. Deuteronomy repeatedly emphasizes the duty of observing God’s commandments, 161 and we find occasional references to the spiritual side of the commandments — the need to observe them wholeheartedly: “This day the Lord your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances; you shall therefore be careful to do them with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut 26:16). 162 The need to act from the proper spiritual motivation is related not only to the observance of commandments in general, but also to specific duties. Examples include the obligation to supply the poor man with his needs — “You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him” (15:10) — and the commandment to free slaves in the seventh year — “It shall not seem hard to you, when you let him go free from you” (15:18). The book of Deuteronomy also mentions spiritual matters in their own right. Total belief in the uniqueness of God is seen as an essential precondition to the observance of commandments: “know therefore this day, 157. See J. Dan, “Ethical Literature,” EJ, 6, 926. 158. Bachya ben Joseph ibn Paquda, Duties of the Heart, trans. M. Hyamson (New York, 1925), I, p. 4. 159. Ibid., I, p. 7. 160. See Urbach, The Sages, pp. 395–399, 400ff.; Dan, “Ethical Literature,” EJ, 6, 922–932, particularly 926ff. 161. Deut 4:5–6; 5:1, 31–33; 6:2–3, 17, 24; 8:6; and many others. 162. See also Deut 10:12 and compare to Lev 19:37 (“And you shall observe all my statutes and all my ordinances, and do them: I am the Lord”) and Lev 20:8, 22; 22:31; 25:18; and the like.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 195 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

195

and lay it to your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. Therefore you shall keep his statutes and his commandments, which I command you this day” (Deut 4:39–40). 163 According to Deuteronomy, loving God constitutes a distinct principle; not only does it attend one’s actions, it exists in its own right as a spiritual attribute: “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (30:6). Religion in its full sense includes the practical observance of commandments and spirituality: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God . . . to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I command you this day for your good?” (10:12–13). 164 The Deuteronomistic redaction of Kings also considers spiritual devotion an important element of divine worship; often it uses spirituality as a means of assessing personal integrity or the completeness of human deeds. This assessment may be expressed in terms from Deuteronomy or in new formulations. 165 The people are expected to “walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul” (1 Kings 2:4; likewise 8:48; 2 Kings 23:3). They are “thy servants who walk before thee with all their heart” (1 Kings 8:23) and are commanded: “Let your heart be wholly true to the Lord your God” (1 Kings 8:61). A number of kings are judged, to varying degrees, by the same standard. We read that David “walked before thee in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward thee” (1 Kings 3:6; similarly, 9:4) and “followed me with all his heart” (1 Kings 14:8). It is said that Josiah “turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might” (2 Kings 23:25) and that “the heart of Asa was wholly true to the Lord all his days” (1 Kings 15:14). A king may fail to meet the standard: “his heart was not wholly true to the Lord, his God, as was the heart of David his father” (of Solomon — 1 Kings 11:4; of Abijah — 1 Kings 15:3). Jehu “was not careful to walk in the law of the Lord . . . with all his heart” (2 Kings 10:31). The prophets often allude to the service of the heart. 166 Isaiah’s words virtually provide us with a definition of the relationship between deeds and devotion: “And the Lord said: ‘Because this people draw near with 163. See also Deut 7:9–11: “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God . . . you shall therefore be careful to do the commandment . . .” 164. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, p. 273. 165. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, pp. 334–335, nos. 8–11. 166. From positive and negative points of view. On absolute faith in Yhwh’s power, see Isa 7:4ff.; 30:15; 31:1; and below, pp. 200–201. On the knowledge of God — Hos 4:1; 6:6; on the sin of hubris — Isa 2:6–22; 10:7–9; and elsewhere.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 196 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

196

The Worship of Yhwh

their mouth and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote’ ” (Isa 29:13). His terminology is somewhat obscure; it would seem that “their fear of me (μtary)” is meant to indicate worship or service — μtdwb[. 167 Nevertheless, it is clear that the prophet is denouncing superficial religious deeds that do not involve the heart. We deduce that a complete act of religious worship must unite the outer deed with inner devotion. 168 The question of devotion, both as a complement to deeds and as a distinct quality, is of great importance in Chronicles. 169 The book emphasizes the spiritual state of mind that must accompany religious acts; only an act performed “with all the heart and with all the soul” is complete. A variety of phrases express this idea. Some are taken from Deuteronomic phraseology or from the Deuteronomistic stratum of Kings: “with all his heart and with all his soul”; 170 “with all his heart”; 171 with a “whole” or “blameless” heart (μlç blb). 172 A few other phrases appear throughout the Bible, such as “uprightness of heart.” 173 Some are unique to Chronicles, for example: “a whole heart and a willing mind” (1 Chr 28:9) and “with all their heart and . . . with their whole desire” (2 Chr 15:15). As in the Deuteronomistic stratum of Kings, spiritual devotion serves as a criterion for assessing kings, such as Asa — “Nevertheless the heart of Asa was blameless all his days” (2 Chr 15:17); Jehoshaphat — “who sought the Lord with all his heart” (2 Chr 22:9); and Hezekiah — “seeking his God, he did with all his heart” (2 Chr 31:21). There are certain reservations with respect to Amaziah: “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, yet not with a blameless heart” (2 Chr 25:2).

167. See S. D. Luzzatto’s commentary on this verse: “ ‘and their fear of me’ — their worship of me — not the fear within the heart — almost like [the case of 2 Kings 17:28, where the priest] ‘taught them how they should fear the Lord.’ ” 168. We do not find as unequivocal a position in later Judaism. The question arises primarily when the Rabbis discuss whether or not a commandment must be performed with devotion in order to be fulfilled; see Urbach, The Sages, pp. 395–397. 169. See especially von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 15–17. 170. 2 Chr 15:12; 34:31; and see above, p. 195, n. 165. 171. 2 Chr 6:14; 22:9; 30:19; 31:21. This expression does not appear in Deuteronomy, but we do find it in the Deuteronomistic biblical strata and in non-Deuteronomistic texts. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. 334, no. 9a. 172. This phrase appears only in Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic layer of Kings. See 1 Kings 8:61; 11:4; 15:3, 14; 1 Chr 12:39; 28:9; 29:9, 19; 2 Chr 15:17; 16:9; 19:9; 25:2. The only doubtful case is that of 2 Kings 20:3 // Isa 38:3. 173. Which is very common in Psalms (7:10 [Heb., 11]; 11:2; 32:11; 36:10 [Heb., 11]; 64:10 [Heb., 11]; 94:15; 97:11; 119:7] and also appears, for example, in Deut 9:5; 1 Kings 3:6; Job 33:3.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 197 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

197

In order for man to serve God fully, he must “set” or “direct” 174 his heart to that end. As positive assessments, we read of Jehoshaphat, “you . . . set your heart to seek God” (2 Chr 19:3) and of the people, “those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord” (2 Chr 11:16). In the case of Rehoboam’s sinfulness, we are told that “he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord” (2 Chr 12:14); later, we read that the high places remained because “the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their fathers” (2 Chr 20:33). Injunctions to seek Yhwh are phrased in a similar way; the people are told, “Now set your mind and heart to seek the Lord your God” (1 Chr 22:19), and the individual is commanded to “know the God of your father and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind” (1 Chr 28:9). In Chronicles, setting one’s heart to act with perfect devotion is a criterion not only for the general assessment of people or behaviour; the standard of wholeheartedness is also applied to specific deeds. For example: “for with a whole heart they had offered freely to the Lord” (1 Chr 29:9); “in the uprightness of my heart I have freely offered all these things” (1 Chr 29:17); “they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord . . . with all their heart and with all their soul” (2 Chr 15:12). 175 The judges are charged: “Thus shall you do in the fear of the Lord, in faithfulness, and with your whole heart” (2 Chr 19:9). Given Chronicles’ great emphasis on the importance of devotion, what was the connection between devotion and deeds? It would seem that the Chronicler was aware of this question. At one point, he clearly contrasts action and spiritual intent: “For a multitude of the people . . . had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one who sets his heart to seek God . . . even though not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.’ 176 And the Lord heard Hezekiah, and healed the people” (2 Chr 30:18–20). 177 174. ˆykh in a number of forms and phrases is a Chronistic “favourite,” but the usage is not exclusive to the Chronicler. See Driver, Introduction, p. 536, no. 6; BDB, p. 466. Apart from the examples in Chronicles, “setting one’s heart” appears in 1 Sam 7:3; Ps 10:17; 78:8; Job 11:13; Ezra 7:10. Willi has claimed that Chronicles’ frequent use of the root ˆuuwk is not a matter of linguistic or syntactic preference, but the result of a particular intent bound up with the Davidic dynasty; Willi, Auslegung, pp. 186–187. He considers the very examples mentioned above to be exceptions (ibid., p. 186, n. 38). 175. Likewise 2 Chr 15:15; 29:34; and 2 Chr 6:37–38 (parallel to 1 Kings 8:47–48). 176. The RSV translation does not follow MT’s division of the text, in which “who sets his heart to seek God” begins a new sentence, but instead reads v. 19 as the continuation of v. 18. The division in MT renders the last words in v. 19 (“not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness”) and the word d[b at the end of v. 18 meaningless. The

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 198 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

198

The Worship of Yhwh

Although this passage describes an event and does not present theoretical issues, it nevertheless reveals the Chronicler’s scale of values quite clearly. Hezekiah prays for God’s forgiveness of those who prepared their hearts, although not their bodies, for the eating of the paschal lamb. “Setting one’s heart” is deliberately presented in contradistinction to “the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.” God’s acceptance of the prayer shows that although the proper execution of ritual acts (in this case, purification) may be important, preparing oneself spiritually is more important still. 178 The demand that an act be performed out of wholehearted devotion sheds light on the Chronistic emphasis on joyfulness. Acting joyfully testifies to one’s complete absorption in what one is doing. The people’s joy is mentioned in the context of their contribution to the building of the Temple. Not only do they contribute of their own free will, they also rejoice at their opportunity to participate: “Then the people rejoiced because these had given willingly, for with a whole heart they had offered freely to the Lord; David the king also rejoiced greatly” (1 Chr 29:9). 179 Similarly, in the case of the Temple repairs in the time of Joash, “all the princes and all the people rejoiced and brought their tax and dropped it into the chest until they had finished” (2 Chr 24:10). Asa’s reforms are also accompanied by joyfulness: “And all Judah rejoiced over the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart, and had sought him with their whole desire” (2 Chr 15:15). This view also explains the significance of the joyfulness associated with music in Temple worship. It was this aspect that motivated David when he decreed that singing and the playing of instruments were to be an integral part of divine worship — “with rejoicing and with singing, according to the

reading indicated above, which has been suggested by David Kimhi, Pseudo-Rashi, Ehrlich (Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 466), and others, is preferable to the division in MT. In early usage, the ˆykh wbblAlk would read something like wbbl ˆykh rça lk. On the omission of the relative pronoun as a syntactic feature characteristic of late usage, see Driver, Introduction, p. 537, no. 30. Driver mentions this passage as an example. 177. The idea that God “healed” the people is somewhat problematic, since there is no mention that they were in need of healing. Kimhi understands the verse in a figurative sense — “he pardoned their sins” — citing Ps 41:4 (Heb., 5) as proof-text. Most exegetes believe that the words were intended in a passive sense — God did not harm or punish the people. See Ehrlich, Mikrâ Ki-Pheschutô, II, p. 466; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 303. 178. “We are accustomed to think of the Chronicler as a typical representative of legalistic religiosity. However, we must not obscure the trait that becomes apparent here: he is also aware that a pious attitude may be worth more to God than ritual purity” (Rudolph, Chronik, p. 303, and see also p. xxi). Various studies of post-exilic Judaism do not give this idea sufficient prominence, and some deny it altogether. 179. See also 1 Chr 29:17.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 199 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

199

order of David” (2 Chr 23:18). 180 Rejoicing through music constitutes an important part of religious ceremonies: the transfer of the ark (1 Chr 15:16–25), the dedication of the Temple after its purification (2 Chr 29:25–30, 36), and the celebration of Passover (2 Chr 30:21, 25–26): “And the people of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, with instruments of might to the Lord” (2 Chr 30:21). 181 If the Chronicler demands wholehearted devotion, he also shows an awareness that this demand is difficult to meet and requires support from God. David ends his last prayer with a request: “O Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, our fathers, keep for ever such purposes and thoughts in the hearts of thy people, and direct their hearts toward thee. Grant to Solomon my son that with a whole heart he may keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes” (1 Chr 29:18–19). The people’s selfless effort in contributing towards the building of the Temple proves that they could achieve the desired level of wholeheartedness, but Yhwh’s help is necessary for them to persevere in their spiritual devotion. During Hezekiah’s reign, we read as a statement of fact that “the hand of God was also upon Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the Lord” (2 Chr 30:12). The people’s ability to unite and follow the king’s command wholeheartedly is the result of Yhwh’s intervention. 182 In these verses, the Chronicler deviates somewhat from his usual view that man has absolute free will. Here, the freedom to choose is limited to the extent that man needs God to 180. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 199. 181. See also 1 Chr 16:4; 25:6; 2 Chr 5:13; and elsewhere. The emphasis on rejoicing as an expression of complete identification with what is happening also appears in descriptions of ceremonies that do not quite fall into the category of cultic worship. The coronations of David and Solomon (1 Chr 12:39–41; 29:22) provide the best examples of this. On “the joy of the precept” (hwxm lç hjmç) in rabbinic thought, see Urbach, The Sages, pp. 391ff. 182. It may be that the same idea appears in 2 Chr 29:36: “And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced because of what God had done for the people; for the thing came about suddenly.” The verse’s meaning is generally understood in the following way: all that might have been considered the result of Hezekiah’s initiative and the labours of king and people was in fact “what God had done (μyhlah ˆykhh)” (Rudolph, Chronik, p. 298; see also Curtis, Chronicles, p. 470). The Targum presents another interpretation, reading, “And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced because God had directed (ˆykh) the people’s inclinations (wbl rxy)”; Pseudo-Rashi comments along the same lines. Ehrlich supports the Targum’s interpretation and proposes emending μ[l to read μbl. This reconstruction would produce the reading “because God had directed the people’s heart” — which fits nicely into the style of Chronicles. See Ehrlich, Randglossen, VII, p. 376.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 200 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

200

The Worship of Yhwh

guide his inclinations and help him choose good. The conception of man is a realistic and honest one that recognizes how difficult it is to worship God with constant, perfect devotion. Chronicles also emphasizes the second aspect of devotion, the existence of religious convictions and feelings in their own right — not as accompaniment to acts of worship — which shape one’s actions and way of life. The positive aspects of this spirituality include, most clearly, perfect faith in God’s power and complete trust in His help; its negative aspect is human pride. The principal test of faith in God comes in times of trouble: war, sickness, and the like. Through his behaviour, man indicates the real object of his trust. Outward signs include appeals for help, prayer and crying out to God, or expressions of encouragement, for example: “Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on thee” (2 Chr 14:11 [Heb., 10]) 183 or “Be strong and of good courage. Do not be afraid or dismayed . . . for there is one greater with us than with him. With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God, to help us and to fight our battles” (2 Chr 32:7–8). Chronicles makes it very clear that Yhwh’s response to appeals for help is immediate. The transition from prayer to rescue or victory is instant: “and Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him” (2 Chr 18:31); “Jabez called on the God of Israel . . . and God granted what he asked” (1 Chr 4:10); “He prayed to him, and God received his entreaty” (2 Chr 33:13); and so on. 184 In this way, we are assured that God “hears prayer” 185 and that absolute reliance on Him guarantees salvation. Just as God answers those who trust in Him, He punishes those of little faith. Twice, Asa is reproved for his lack of faith in God and his reliance on human support: at a time of war, he appeals to the king of Aram for help (2 Chr 16:2–3, 7), and when he is ill, he calls in physicians (v. 12). 186 In both cases, he is punished immediately (2 Chr 16:7–8, 12–13). 183. Likewise 1 Chr 4:10; 2 Chr 20:12; simply “crying out” to God appears in 1 Chr 5:20; 2 Chr 13:14–15; 18:31; 32:20. 184. See also 2 Chr 14:11–12 (Heb., 10–11); 20:22; 30:20; 32:20–21. 185. Ps 65:2 (Heb., 65:3). The immediacy of God’s response to prayer might suggest that prayer actually has a power of its own. This is not the case — all the examples cited state explicitly that salvation comes from Yhwh. Thus, prayer is part of Chronicles’ overall system of retribution. Although the Chronicler does not deal directly with the problem of the prayers of the wicked (see Prov 15:29; 28:9), those described as praying are all righteous men. In his public prayer to God, Solomon portrays the people’s supplication as the stage following repentance. See 1 Kings 8:33, 38–39 and the parallel in 2 Chr 6:24, 29–30; see also 2 Chr 33:12–13. 186. This is the only time in the Bible that consulting physicians is considered a sin. On the whole, it is portrayed as a natural response and part of society’s norms. For example, see Gen 50:2; Exod 21:19; Jer 8:22.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 201 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

201

The question of insufficient faith is crucial to an understanding of Chronicles’ view of religiosity. One passage (referring to Ahaz) makes a direct connection between lack of faith in God’s help and idol worship: “For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which had defeated him, and said, ‘Because the gods of the kings of Aram helped them, I will sacrifice to them that they may help me’ ” (2 Chr 28:23). Here, trust in divine aid goes together with the worship of Yhwh, and a weakening of faith paves the way for idolatry. The other passages dealing with trust in God do not assess faith in terms of religious duties, yet they do incorporate the question into the system of retribution: trust and lack of trust in Yhwh are subject to reward and punishment like any other religious act. The reward for trust is military victory and rescue from one’s enemies (as in 2 Chr 18:31; 32:21); the punishment for lack of faith is defeat or natural but untimely death (2 Chr 16:9, 12–13). There is no real difference between Jehoram’s sin of idolatry and subsequent fatal illness (2 Chr 21:13–15) and Asa’s dying of a disease in his legs because he did not trust God (2 Chr 16:13) — the perception of the sin and its outcome are the same. Absolute faith in God and the day-to-day demonstration of one’s faith are an essential part of man’s religious duties. God “examines” or “searches” the heart of man, 187 always watching over him and rewarding those who are faithful: “For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the whole earth, to show his might in behalf of those whose heart is blameless toward him” (2 Chr 16:9). 188 Although the basis for this view is to be found in the Bible, it has no parallel there as a comprehensive philosophy of history. Passages in the Torah enjoin man to trust absolutely in Yhwh: “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today . . . The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still” (Exod 14:13–14). 189 When the people complain to God and Moses, manifesting their lack of faith in Yhwh’s power, some of the wilderness stories portray their discontent as 187. bbl ˆjwb — 1 Chr 29:17; likewise 1 Chr 28:9; 2 Chr 6:30 parallel to 1 Kings 8:39. 188. This verse is made up of two parts. The first is taken almost verbatim from Zech 4:10 — “. . . the eyes of the Lord, which range through the whole earth” — and the second is written in the distinctive style of Chronicles. The meaning of the verse in Zechariah is far from clear (see E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, KAT [1930], II, pp. 505ff.; H. G. Mitchell, Haggai and Zechariah, ICC [1912], pp. 161ff.); it may be referring to God’s omniscience (see K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, ATD [1964], II, pp. 110–111). The Chronicler assumes this meaning and expands upon it. Because of their new context and conclusion, the words signify not only omniscience, but divine providence. God knows everything, including people’s thoughts, and he rewards those whose inner faith is perfect. 189. It appears to be no accident that this particular verse is quoted in God’s message to Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:17).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 202 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

202

The Worship of Yhwh

a rejection of God (Num 11:20), and their punishment is severe. 190 However, the people’s complaints are not perceived in this way in all the stories; 191 moreover, unlike the narrative in Chronicles, none of the episodes juxtaposes trust in Yhwh and reliance on man. Isaiah’s prophecies contain both elements: absolute trust in God is demanded, and the reliance on Egyptian kings is portrayed as a sin against Yhwh. 192 Yet the lack of faith is punished by means of chastisement and the threat of future disaster; 193 it does not constitute a principle that might explain Israel’s present troubles or its history. The view in Chronicles resembles that of Isaiah and, indeed, is dependent on it. It is as though the Chronicler took the simple meaning of the prophet’s words and infused into them their ultimate significance. Because he was not a prophet, but a writer of history, he transformed a prophetic idea into an all-embracing religious principle realized in the course of events. 194 A sort of negative spirituality that appears in Chronicles is the quality of hubris — not mere arrogance influencing the behaviour of one man towards another, 195 but a profound inner pride which leads man to selfelevation. 196 This type of pride is mentioned a number of times in the Bible. It may be caused by material success, prosperity, or strength and it results in a denigration of God’s power, the human fabrication of gods, or the apotheosis of man. The last is primarily a gentile sin, 197 but the first two also apply in the case of Israel. For example: “lest, when you have eaten and are full, and have built goodly houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply, and your silver and gold is multiplied . . . then 190. Num 11:1–3, 4–34; 14:11, 22–24, 26–29, 37. 191. This element is entirety absent in Exod 15:24; 16:2ff.; 17:2ff. Even though the complaints express a lack of faith, they are not punished or even described as sins. Yhwh answers the people and satisfies their needs. This approach may have to do with the order of events — before the revelation at Sinai, Israel is not yet fully obligated to Yhwh. 192. Isa 7:4; 30:15; 37:22ff.; see also Hos 8:13b–14 and Isa 30:1–2; 31:1; and, apparently, 28:14–15. Cf. Kaufmann, Religion, III, pp. 138–139; 233–235; von Rad, Theology, II, p. 160; Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 279ff. 193. See Isa 30:16–17: “but you said, ‘No! We will speed upon horses,’ therefore you shall speed away; and, ‘We will ride upon swift steeds,’ therefore your pursuers shall be swift. A thousand shall flee at the threat of one, at the threat of five you shall flee, till you are left like a flagstaff on the top of a mountain, like a signal on a hill.” See also 30:2–3. 194. See Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 307–308. 195. Such as we find in Deut 17:20; Psalm 131; Prov 6:16–17; 16:5, 19; 30:13; see J. A. Wharton, “Pride,” IDB, III, 876. 196. See Kaufmann, Religion, III, pp. 202–203, 217, 577. 197. See Isa 10:12–16; Ezek 28:2–10; 29:3, 9.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 203 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

203

your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God . . . lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth’ ” (Deut 8:12–17). 198 Isaiah paints a disturbing picture of the second result of pride: “Their land is filled with silver and gold . . . their land is filled with horses . . . their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made” (Isa 2:7–8). 199 Chronicles mentions man’s pride vis-à-vis God twice: Uzziah is directly accused of pride, and Hezekiah appears in a more general, oblique reference. 200 Following a detailed description of Uzziah’s success — his victories, wealth, and various undertakings, including improvements to his considerable army — the Chronicler informs us of the result: “But when he was strong he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was false to the Lord his God” (2 Chr 26:16). The description represents the materialization of all that is mentioned in Deut 8:12ff. as a theoretical possibility. However, the consequence differs from what we read in Deuteronomy. Uzziah did not abandon Yhwh and turn to idolatry; instead, he committed an act of desecration within the sphere of Yhwh worship. He entered the inner Temple and burned incense, thereby trespassing on the spatial and ritual territory reserved for priests (2 Chr 26:16). 201 Hezekiah also commits the sin of pride: “But Hezekiah did not make return according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath came upon him and Judah and Jerusalem. But Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them” (2 Chr 32:25–26). The wording is very general, and we are not told how Hezekiah sinned or what form his ingratitude to God took. 202 The fact that Hezekiah repented and

198. See von Rad, Deuteronomy, OTL (1966), p. 73; see also Deut 32:15. 199. See Kaufmann, Religion, III, pp. 202–203. See also Isa 2:20; 17:8; 31:7; Hos 14:4. 200. Although we are not told explicitly, it may be that pride is also at the root of Rehoboam’s sin. The king abandons God when he is assured of his strength — “When the rule of Rehoboam was established and was strong, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him” (2 Chr 12:1). When Rehoboam repents, we read that he “humbled” himself (v. 6). See also below. 201. In this way, the Chronicler combines the two aspects of Uzziah’s reign found in his sources — the tremendous political and economic success and the Priestly tradition concerning Uzziah’s leprosy — and portrays one as the result of the other. 202. Some idea may be gleaned from a story in Kings; it is commonly thought that the passage in Chronicles refers to the visit by Babylonian emissaries and Hezekiah’s showing off of his wealth. See Pseudo-Rashi on the verse: “the writer of the book abridged [the story] here because it is written in Kings and Isaiah.” See also Curtis, Chronicles, p. 491; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 313–314; and others.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 204 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

204

The Worship of Yhwh

“humbled himself” saved him and the people from punishment, “so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them.” Man’s correct demeanor with respect to God should be one of humility, the opposite of pride. 203 Humility is a precondition for repentance: “if my people . . . humble themselves, and pray and seek my face . . .” (2 Chr 7:14). 204 All penitents are portrayed as humble — Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:6, 7, 12), Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:26), and Manasseh (2 Chr 33:12, 19, 23) — but we see that the opposite response in Amon (2 Chr 33:23) and, particularly, Zedekiah constitutes a sin. Zedekiah’s pride and unwillingness to repent go hand in hand: “He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord . . . he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord, the God of Israel” (2 Chr 36:12–13). In addition to “humbling oneself,” the Chronicler employs another expression to indicate the opposite of pride: “His heart was courageous (or proud — wbl hbgyw) in the ways of the Lord” (2 Chr 17:6). This is the only instance in the Bible in which a lofty heart is considered a positive attribute. Such an exception is problematic; 205 still, it would appear that we must take the verse at face value — “for one who takes pride in God’s ways exerts himself and makes an unusually strong effort.” 206 In two isolated verses, Chronicles mentions two other aspects of devotion to God. One is the duty to know God. Knowledge of God serves as the basis for observing the commandments: “Know the God of your father, and serve him” (1 Chr 28:9). 207 The other aspect of devotion is the 203. The phrases “he humbled himself” or “he humbled himself before the Lord” are characteristic of the book’s style; see Driver, Introduction, p. 536, no. 18; Japhet, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” 359–360. 204. See also 2 Chr 30:11. 205. The midrash takes note of this difficulty: “Was arrogance involved when it states that ‘his heart was courageous?’ Rather, he appointed judges who knew how to follow in God’s ways — as it is written “to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen 18:19) — and said to them, ‘Behold, justice belongs to God’ ” (Tanhuma to Shofetim 1; and also in a different version in S. Buber’s edition of Tanhuma, [2] 9). We see the meaning of this midrash when it continues: “. . . and the judges acted proudly because they were judging for the Holy One, Blessed be He, as Jehoshaphat had instructed them ‘judge not for man but for the Lord.’ ” The response of the midrash is that although a lofty heart does indicate pride (“the judges acted proudly”), this pride is justified when judges are involved, in order for them to gain the litigants’ respect. Ehrlich deals with the problem by suggesting an emendation from wbl hbgyw to wbl rbgyw (Randglossen, VII, p. 367), even though no such idiom appears in the Bible. 206. Rabbi Elijah of Vilna on our verse. See also Bachya ibn Paquda in his “Treatise on Humility”: “Such pride is not detrimental to humility nor repellent to it . . . Such pride aids humility and increases it” (Duties of the Heart, IV, p. 24). 207. This sequence — knowing Yhwh before worshipping Him — is also apparent in Chronicles’ account of Manasseh’s repentance. Manasseh goes through a number of

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 205 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

205

prohibition against loving Yhwh’s enemies: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (2 Chr 19:2). Devotion to God must be utterly exclusive; loving His enemies constitutes a sin and therefore incurs punishment. It is only by virtue of his righteous deeds that Jehoshaphat escapes punishment: “Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord. Nevertheless some good is found in you” (2 Chr 19:2b–3a). The view expressed in this passage takes the idea of devotion to an extreme without parallel in the Bible. 208 It is true that the basis for the Chronistic approach to the service of the heart may be found elsewhere in the Bible, particularly in Deuteronomistic and prophetic literature. However, the approach as a whole is characterized by a number of features that are the book’s alone and that provide it with both unity and uniqueness. We also see the independent distinctiveness of Chronicles versus its sources when we consider what does not appear. For this reason, it is worthwhile to compare the book with Deuteronomy. The ideas of fearing God, loving Him, and cleaving to Him, both as accompaniment to religious acts and as values in their own right, occupy a central place in Deuteronomy. Through them, religious perfection can be achieved. 209 These psychological dispositions are all but absent in the book of Chronicles. Fearing God appears three times, twice in passages from Solomon’s prayer parallel to the text in Kings, 210 and once in 2 Chr 19:9 — “Thus you shall do in the fear of the Lord, in faithfulness, and with your whole heart” — in the context of instructions concerning a specific subject, the administration of justice. Loving God and cleaving to Him do not appear anywhere in Chronicles. 211 The book’s demand that one “set

phases in his relationship to God: sin, punishment, prayer, humility, recognition of God, and service of God (2 Chr 33:9–10, 11, 12, 13a, l3b, 15–17). Deliverance brings about recognition — “Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God” (v. 13b) — which leads, in turn, to the worship of Yhwh (vv. 15–16). 208. The psalmist does present hatred of God’s enemies as an expression of absolute loyalty: “Do I not hate them that hate thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe them that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies” (Ps 139:21–22). However, nowhere else in the Bible do we find an explicit order to stay away from Yhwh’s enemies or the belief that contact with them is sinful. We see in our verse that Chronicles applies the Pentateuchal attitude towards gentile idolaters (as stated, for example, in Deuteronomy) to those within Israel who “hate the Lord.” 209. For example, see Deut 6:4; 10:12, 20: 11:1, 13, 22; 30:6, 16, 20. See also Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 295–299. 210. 2 Chr 6:31 // 1 Kings 8:40, referring to Israel; 2 Chr 6:33 // 1 Kings 8:43, referring to the nations of the earth. 211. In a quotation from Isa 41:8, Abraham is called “Abraham thy friend (˚bha)” in 2 Chr 20:7. See above, pp. 75–76.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 206 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

206

The Worship of Yhwh

one’s heart” towards God involves recognition, absolute trust in His help, humility, and rejoicing; it does not include fearing or loving Him. The subject of devotion cannot be left without some examination of one last aspect of the Chronistic understanding of divine worship: the place of morality in the relationship between the people and their God. Kaufmann has paid close attention to the moral element in the Bible 212 and has used it as a significant criterion in his historical-chronological organization of different biblical sections: “(1) the Torah-group — including the historical books (Former Prophets), and (2) the Prophets,” including (a) literary prophets and (b) the writings. 213 Kaufmann’s view may be summarized as follows: (1) The great teaching of prophecy is that “morality and not ritual is the essence of religion,” 214 whereas in the Torah-group, a balance exists between morality and religiosity — there is no “primacy of morality over the cult.” 215 (2) According to the Prophetic historical outlook, there are two reasons for Israel’s downfall: religious sin and moral sin. The Prophets emphasize the latter, which they consider as much of a historical factor as the religious-ritual element. The historical view of the Torah-group explains the destruction as the result of religious sin alone. 216 Kaufmann also mentions other differences between the two “groups,” primarily: the eschatological vision of the disappearance of idolatry, found only in Prophecy, 217 and the doctrine of centralized worship, which appears only in the Torah. 218 In the light of these distinctions. Kaufmann concludes that “the order of these groupings [Torah + Former Prophets; Prophecy; Writings] reflects the stages of their historical development. The difference between the Torah-group and the Writings . . . is that a number of distinctively Prophetic ideas exert their influence on the latter. These ideas appear nowhere in the Torah, yet their influence on the Writings is considerable.” 219 212. Religion, I, pp. 27–34, 37–39, et passim. 213. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, abridg. and trans. M. Greenberg (Chicago, 1960), p. 157. The translation of certain terms in the discussion below is taken from Greenberg. In Religion, I, p. 24, Kaufmann defines the “writings” as a “third group including some of the Writings” and also a number of “apocryphal books”; he does not specify which books are meant or how they were decided upon. Later in his discussion, he speaks of “the writings” in a general way. 214. Religion, I, p. 31. 215. Ibid., pp. 32–34; see Greenberg’s translation, p. 160. 216. Ibid., pp. 27–31. 217. Ibid., pp. 39–44. 218. Ibid., pp. 34–37. 219. Ibid., p. 46.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 207 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. Wholehearted Devotion to Yhwh

207

The question before us is: does the book of Chronicles exhibit the “considerable influence” of “distinctively Prophetic ideas”? Has the moral factor become decisive in determining the fate of Israel? The answer suggested by the evidence from Chronicles must be “no”. When we apply Kaufmann’s assumptions to the book of Chronicles, we find that the moral element — in the description of reality, explanation of history, and definition of religiosity — plays a minor part, even smaller than the moral component of the Pentateuch or the Former Prophets. Only two of the sins and merits described in Chronicles have any moral implications. Jehoram’s killing of his brothers (2 Chr 21:13) is presented as one of his sins, but hardly the most heinous. The release of captives by the Northern tribes (2 Chr 28:11, 14) to some extent makes amends for their capture. 220 All other actions are in the realm of religion. This fact becomes even more evident when we consider two other points. First, a considerable prophetic influence may be discerned in Chronicles. The Chronicler quotes the prophets and makes use of their ideas. His philosophy of retribution is strongly influenced by Ezekiel’s prophecy, and he has taken Isaiah’s call for absolute trust in God and transformed it into an explanation of the course of history. Yet precisely those two ideas which Kaufmann considers fundamental to prophecy — the primacy of morality and the envisioned end to idolatry — appear nowhere in the book of Chronicles. Second, Chronicles portrays a deep, inner religiosity which is not satisfied with outward acts of ritual. Moral demands are not proposed as a complement to ritual acts; instead, the internalization of religious life serves as a model. The service of Yhwh demands humility and wholehearted devotion and it can be perfected within the context of the relationship between a man and his God. 221

220. Certain passages with an ethical message appear in the Former Prophets but are not repeated in Chronicles, for example: the stories of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11–12) and Naboth and Ahab (1 Kings 21). Chronicles also omits Manasseh’s sin — “the innocent blood that he had shed” (2 Kings 24:4). Shedding blood does appear as a sin imputed to David; however, his misconduct is not considered a question of ethics, but a ritual blemish that disqualifies him from building the Temple (1 Chr 22:8; see also below, pp. 370–371). 221. This does not mean that Chronicles eliminates the ethical dimension. It seems likely that the relationship between man and his fellow was included in the sphere of religious life. We see this in the instruction to the judges: “for you judge not for man but for the Lord . . . Now, then, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed what you do, for there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking bribes” (2 Chr 19:6–7). However, the Chronistic view of history does not include an ethical dimension.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 208 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

208

The Worship of Yhwh

This examination of the Chronistic approach to morality has serious implications vis-à-vis Kaufmann’s views. Although the book was written after the period of classical prophecy and although the Chronicler no doubt had many prophetic books at his disposal, Kaufmann’s “distinctively Prophetic ideas” 222 — the end of idolatry and the primacy of morality — play no part in Chronicles. Their absence cannot be explained as a matter of chronology. Chronicles belongs to the same literary genre as the books of the Former Prophets from Joshua to Kings: historiography. Perhaps the absence of Prophetic moral ideas from the Former Prophets as well as Chronicles can be explained as a function of their literary genre or of the circles in which the books were written. Kaufmann’s differentiation of various biblical “groups” may help us understand the interaction of these groups, but it does not tell us anything about their chronology. 223 222. Religion, 1, p. 46. 223. The question of intermarriage provides a post-exilic example of this interaction. The question appears in two contemporary books, Ezra–Nehemiah and Malachi. In Ezra–Nehemiah, intermarriage is considered a grievous religious sin and a transgression against the Torah’s commandments. The element of uncleanness is emphasized most strongly: “And now, O our God, what shall we say . . . For we have forsaken thy commandments . . . : ‘The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands . . . Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons’ ” (Ezra 9:10– 12; see also vv. 1–2, 14; 10:3; and elsewhere). Malachi, on the other hand, stresses the moral aspect of the issue, the relationship between a man and the bride of his youth: “Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal 2:14). Malachi reveals the human side of things: “You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning” (v. 13).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 209 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Chapter Three

The People of Israel A. The Idea of “All Israel” In discussing the Chronistic account of David’s reign, Wellhausen noted that Chronicles places great emphasis on the idea that the Davidic kingdom was, from the outset, the kingdom of “all Israel.” 1 He provided detailed evidence for his claim, citing both the Chronicler’s changes to the sources in Samuel and original passages added to the sources. 2 Wellhausen believed that such a view of David’s reign stems from the book’s fundamental aim: to clericalize the figure of David and the entire First Commonwealth in keeping with post-exilic tastes. 3 Wellhausen’s assertion was widely accepted, although some disagreed with the proposed cause for this view of David and his reign. For example, von Rad claims that Chronicles describes David as ruler of an empire throughout his reign because “in the Chronicler’s dogmatic thinking, David and the Israelite empire are inseparable.” 4 According to von Rad, the very idea of “all Israel” was necessitated by the dogma of Yhwh’s promise to David and his dynasty; its source may therefore be traced to the “fundamental significance of the Davidic dynasty in the Chronicler’s theological thinking.” 5 Wellhausen and those who succeeded him always linked the idea of “all Israel” to David’s reign or the reigns of David and Solomon; for them, it was dependent on other aims or tendencies that they saw in the book. Yet the idea constitutes an independent and extremely important element of the Chronistic world-view and is expressed in numerous ways in the book’s historical narrative and philosophy of history. The first to separate the idea of “all Israel” from the Davidic period was Welch, who described it as characteristic of Chronicles’ general outlook, expressed throughout the book’s account of the First Commonwealth. According to Welch, the unity of all segments of the people is central to

1. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 172. 2. Ibid., pp. 173ff. 3. Ibid., p. 182. 4. Geschichtsbild, p. 35. 5. Geschichtsbild, p. 37.

209

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 210 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

210

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

the Chronistic view, which exhibits a positive attitude towards the northern tribes. 6 Danell follows in Welch’s footsteps and expands upon his opinion, coining the term “pan-Israelism” 7 to characterize the Chronicler’s view of the people. We may take Danell’s approach as the startingpoint for our discussion here, and a number of prefatory comments on his work are therefore in order. Danell defines the basic Chronistic outlook correctly, but his examination is not exhaustive, and he does not deal with all its facets and modes of expression. His book analyses the name “Israel” throughout the Bible; he devotes only one short chapter to Chronicles and does not even mention the evidence from the genealogies. 8 He does not discuss the concept of the twelve tribes; 9 although he hints at the subject once, he does not connect it to the central, pan-Israelite outlook. 10 Danell struggles with what he sees as the conflict between the Chronicler’s theoretical outlook and his practice; i.e., between the opinions expressed in the book of Chronicles and the content of Ezra–Nehemiah: “The Chronicler in the books of the Chronicles represents on principle a pan-Israelite point of view . . . But in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the only people who are reckoned with in practice, are those who have returned from the Judean golah in Babylon,” 11 He asks, “how the panIsraelite line can be reconciled with the Judean particularist line.” 12 Danell is not satisfied with the answers he himself proposes. The entire dilemma of course stems from the assumption that Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were written by the same author, and Danell’s inability to arrive at a satisfactory reconciliation of the two outlooks serves as further evidence that this assumption is erroneous. He concludes that it is Chronicles that reveals the writer’s fundamental outlook, although his decision is influ6. Welch, Chronicler, p. 24; see pp. 17 et passim. 7. Danell, Israel, pp. 270, 280, 281, etc. 8. Welch also ignores their testimony, but for different reasons — he believes that the first nine chapters of Chronicles are only an addition to the book; A. C. Welch, PostExilic Judaism (Edinburgh. 1935), pp. 185–186. Danell does not appear to hold this opinion; we find no explicit discussion of the question, yet he does quote from the genealogical chapters in other contexts (see, especially, p. 270). On the outlook of the genealogical lists and their place in Chronicles, see Johnson, Biblical Genealogies, and pp. 44–55 in particular. 9. This question is much emphasized — although, again, not exhausted — by von Rad (Geschichtsbild, pp. 25ff.). 10. The twelve tribes are mentioned in a brief sentence on p. 285: “the theory of the twelve tribes is upheld, at any rate as a principle.” 11. Danell, Israel, p. 284. 12. Ibid., p. 285.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 211 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Term “All Israel” in Chronicles

211

enced by the supposed conflict with Ezra–Nehemiah. Moreover, his assumption leads to another, equally widespread, misconception: the belief that the Chronicler’s outlook is anti-Samaritan. 13 The idea of “all Israel,” that is, the people of Israel in its greatest and most inclusive sense, is indeed fundamental to the book of Chronicles. It appears not only in connection with David’s reign or from the time of David on, but throughout the book. Although there is no question that the idea is most strongly expressed in David’s period, the historical facts, and not only specifically Chronistic concerns, are responsible for this emphasis. It is true that the Chronicler’s account may not always be historically accurate — he portrays David as king over all Israel from the outset of his reign, in direct succession to Saul 14 — but, on the whole, he remains faithful to the actual course of events. In the case of David and Solomon, the Chronicler’s emphasis of “all Israel” could be supported by preceding historiography, which supplied him with at least some of his material and laid the foundation for this emphasis. However, the idea becomes more problematic when it clearly conflicts with the historical facts, that is, during the divided monarchy. Still, there is no doubt that “all Israel” appears throughout Chronicles and, in particular, in the genealogical lists and the accounts of two important kings, Hezekiah and Josiah. We find the idea not only when it is designated by the terms “all Israel” and “Israel” but in numerous aspects of the narrative. Thus, analysing what is meant by the phrase “all Israel” — although important — will not provide us with a full understanding of a concept which may also be indicated by other terms, such as “the people,” “all the people,” “the assembly” and so on, or by the description as such, without any reliance on specific terms. We shall therefore follow our discussion of the term “all Israel” with an examination of other aspects of the Chronicler’s view of the people.

I. The Term “All Israel” in Chronicles We find many examples of the phrase “all Israel” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel–Kings; in other words: in Chronicles’ Deuteronomistic sources. 15 It has a number of meanings: (a) the entire people; 16 (b) the 13. This also appears in one short sentence — “The anti-Samaritan tendency is evident” (p. 285) — suggesting that although the idea does not really appeal to Danell, he is forced to advocate it for want of anything better. He refers us in any case to Noth (Danell, Israel, p. 285, n. 64). See below, pp. 254ff. 14. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 297; below, pp. 315ff. 15. See Danell, Israel, pp. 64, 67, 87. 16. As in Deut 1:1; 5:1; 11:6; etc.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 212 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

212

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

entire people, apart from one tribe or group mentioned by name; 17 (c) the northern kingdom, which is called not only “Israel” but also “all Israel”; 18 (d) one entire segment of the people, for example; the men going into battle; 19 (e) all those present at a particular place, constituting the assembly. 20 In Chronicles, the phrase appears in passages transferred verbatim from Samuel–Kings and in the Chronicler’s own work. Still used in a variety of senses without any uniformity or dogmatic significance, it is noticeably more frequent in Chronicles. On fifteen occasions, “all Israel” is transferred verbatim 21 or with minor changes 22 from Samuel–Kings. In all 17. As in Judg 20:1, 34 — likewise “all the children of Israel” ( Judg 20:1) and “all the men of Israel” (20:11) — etc. 18. As in 1 Kings 14:13, 18; 15:33. 19. As in 1 Kings 15:27; 16:16. 20. 1 Kings 8:62, 65; likewise “all the men of Israel” or “all the house of Israel” — for example, see 2 Sam 6:15. 21. 1 Chr 18:14 // 2 Sam 8:15; 1 Chr 19:17 // 2 Sam 10:17; 2 Chr 5:3 // 1 Kings 8:2 (“all the men of Israel”); 2 Chr 6:3, 12 // 1 Kings 8:14, 22 (“all the assembly of Israel”); 2 Chr 7:8 // 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chr 9:30 // 1 Kings 11:42; 2 Chr 10:11 // 1 Kings 12:1; 2 Chr 10:16 // 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Chr 18:16 // 1 Kings 22:17. 22. (a) 1 Chr 11:1 — “all Israel” — as opposed to 2 Sam 5:1 — “all the tribes of Israel.” According to von Rad (Geschichtsbild, p. 34) and Rudolph (Chronik, p. 97), this change serves a purpose: 1 Sam 5:1 denotes only the northern tribes, whereas 1 Chr 11:1 speaks of the entire people. Although the purpose noted by von Rad and Rudolph does indeed appear in Chronicles, it is indicated by the sense of the narrative itself, not by means of specific terminology, which can tell us nothing in this instance. For one thing, “all the tribes of Israel” does not necessarily denote the northern tribes; for another, Chronicles sometimes uses “all Israel” to designate only the North; see below. The substitution of “Israel” for “all the tribes of Israel” also appears in 1 Chr 21:2 (as opposed to 2 Sam 24:2). These two examples notwithstanding, there is no reason to suppose that the Chronicler deliberately avoided referring to “the tribes of Israel.” He uses the expression in parallel texts (2 Chr 6:5 // 1 Kings 8:16; 2 Chr 12:13 // 1 Kings 14:21; 2 Chr 33:7 // 2 Kings 21:7) and in other passages (1 Chr 27:16, 22; 29:6; 2 Chr 11:16). (b) “The house of Israel” appears three times in Chronicles’ sources and, in all three, is replaced by “Israel”: twice, “all Israel” is substituted for “all the house of Israel” (1 Chr 13:8 // 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Chr 15:28 // 2 Sam 6:15), and once, “Israel” replaces “the house of Israel” (2 Chr 11:1 // 1 Kings 12:21). Moreover, “the house of Israel” does not appear in texts that are original to Chronicles. It is true that the material at our disposal is limited, yet it would seem that the omission of “house of Israel” is intentional; we can only guess at the purpose it served. Other phrases with “house” do appear: for example, “house of Judah” (1 Chr 28:4; 2 Chr 22:10; 2 Chr 11:1 // 2 Kings 12:21), “house of David” (2 Chr 21:7; etc.), “house of Ahab” (2 Chr 21:6; 22:3, 7; etc.). For the Chronicler, such phrases may have the connotation of a limited group, along the lines of “family,” which would prevent him from applying the word “house” to the people of Israel. (c) In 1 Chr 17:6, we find “all Israel” in the place of “all the children of Israel” (2 Sam 7:7). Since “the

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 213 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Term “All Israel” in Chronicles

213

these passages, the phrase retains whatever meaning it had in the source text, be it “the entire people” (e.g., 1 Chr 18:14), “the entire northern kingdom” (2 Chr 10:1), “all those present” at a ceremony (2 Chr 7:8), or the like. In nine instances, the Chronicler alters his sources by adding “all Israel.” Some of these passages do not constitute any real deviation from the sources; they merely amplify their intended meaning or reflect stylistic considerations. However, in a number of them, the addition of “all Israel” produces an extra emphasis not found in the sources. The following examples represent the first type of addition: (1) 1 Chr 14:8: “When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over all Israel” (2 Sam 5:17: “over Israel”). The wording in Chronicles merely clarifies the meaning: David had previously been king over Judah; it was his becoming king over all Israel that led the Philistines to attack. This meaning is indicated by the story in Samuel and is only made more obvious by the Chronicler’s alteration. 23 (2) 2 Chr 7:4–6: “Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the Lord . . . So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God . . . and all Israel stood.” 1 Kings 8:62–63: Then the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice . . . So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of the Lord.” In these verses, “all Israel,” “all the children of Israel,” and “all the people” alternate at random, and the phrase “all Israel” is added at the end of the description in Chronicles. It seems clear that the interchange of phrases is merely stylistic. (3) 2 Chr 10:16: “And when all Israel [saw] 24 that the king did not hearken to them . . . all Israel departed to their tents.” 1 Kings 12:16: “And when all Israel saw that the king did not hearken to them . . . Israel departed to their tents.” In the two verses, both “all Israel” and “Israel” refer to only the northern tribes and appear interchangeably as a matter of style. (4) 2 Chr 11:3: “Say to Rehoboam the son of Solomon king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin.” This verse serves as a cornerstone to von Rad’s views of the meaning of “Israel” in Chronicles; he sees it as evidence that “Judah and Benjamin are now the true Israel,” 25 apparently children of Israel” appears quite frequently in Chronicles, it is unlikely that this change was deliberate — and “all Israel” does in fact appear in LXX to 2 Sam 7:7. (d) “All Israel” (2 Chr 10:3) replaces “all the assembly of Israel” (1 Kings 12:3), but in view of other texts, this substitution appears to be accidental. 23. See Hertzberg, Samuel, pp. 272–273. Some scholars believe that the question is simply a textual one and argue that the original “all” was omitted in our text of Samuel. For example, see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 209 and BH to 2 Sam 5:17. 24. The RSV restores the verb “saw,” which apparently was omitted; see BH on this verse. 25. Geschichtsbild, p. 31, and, following him, Rudolph, Chronik, p. 227.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 214 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

214

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

interpreting the verse as follows: “to all Israel, who now are only Judah and Benjamin.” We shall return to the question of “the true Israel.” 26 In this context, it would seem, as Danell points out, 27 that von Rad ignores the obvious interpretation: the verse’s meaning in Chronicles is no different from that in its source, 1 Kings 12:23 — “Say to Rehoboam . . . and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people.” The passage refers to the men recruited by Rehoboam in his war against Jeroboam. According to Kings, they include Judeans, Benjaminites, and others, called “the rest of the people”; in 1 Kings 12:17, they are termed “the people of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah.” In other words, they are people descended from the other tribes, residing in territories controlled by Rehoboam, who join forces with him in the war. The book of Chronicles conveys the same idea in different wording. Instead of speaking in the tribal terms found in Kings — “the house of Judah and Benjamin” and “the rest of the people” — geographical labels are used — “Judah and Benjamin.” The residents of these areas, subject to Rehoboam, are designated as “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin” without any mention of their tribal origins. “All Israel” is equivalent to “all the people,” “all those present,” and the like. 28 The additions of the second type are: (1) 1 Chr 11:4: “And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem” — 2 Sam 5:6: “And the king and his men went to Jerusalem.” In Samuel, only David and his men are responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem; in Chronicles, the entire people is involved. 29 (2–3) 1 Chr 13:6 — 2 Sam 6:2, and likewise 1 Chr 15:3, as opposed to the not-fully-parallel 2 Sam 6:12. In Samuel, the story of the ark’s transfer to Jerusalem opens first with the words “And David arose and went with all the people who were with him” (6:2) and later with “So David went and brought up the ark of God” (6:12). The account in Chronicles lays particular emphasis on the participation of the whole people: the first opening reads “And David and all Israel went up” (13:6), and the second. “And David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem” (15:3). To be sure, the story in Samuel also makes it clear that the ark was moved with the help of all the people. We read that “David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark 26. See pp. 252ff. 27. Israel, p. 275. 28. As in 1 Chr 28:8; 2 Chr 7:6; and elsewhere. See also Danell, Israel, p. 275: “that part of Israel that lived in Judah, or quite simply the Judean population.” 29. This change has been much emphasized by commentators on Chronicles; for example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 173; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 185; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 97–99.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 215 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Term “All Israel” in Chronicles

215

of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the horn” (2 Sam 6:15); that “David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the Lord” (6:5); and that after the ark had been moved, the king “distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel . . .” (6:19). The Chronicler transmits these facts with added emphasis. 30 (4) 1 Chr 21:1–5: “An adversary (ˆfç) stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab . . . ‘Go, number Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan . . . So Joab departed and went throughout all Israel and came back to Jerusalem . . . In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men . . . and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand . . .” These verses parallel 2 Sam 24:1–9 with certain changes. The phrase “all Israel” is substituted for two other expressions: “all the land” (2 Sam 24:8) and “Israel” (24:9). The principal change in Chronicles involves the meaning of “Israel.” According to the story in Samuel, all the people, including every tribe, are numbered, whereas Chronicles deliberately excludes Levi and Benjamin from the census (1 Chr 21:6). However, in Samuel, “Israel” refers only to the northern tribes, and it is made very clear that the people comprises two separate units, “Israel” and “Judah.” Chronicles eliminates this contrast, 31 and the name “Israel” is used for the entire people, with no distinction between its two components. 32 Only at the end of the passage do we find the distinction made in Samuel, differentiating between Israel and Judah (1 Chr 21:5b), although it is doubtful whether v. 5bb is an integral part of the story. 33 (5) 2 Chr 1:2–3: “Solomon spoke to all Israel . . . And Solomon, and all the assembly with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon.” 1 Kings 3:4: “And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there.” In Kings, Solomon alone goes to Gibeon, and his sacrifice there is closely connected with his enthronement. In Chronicles, the sacrifice at Gibeon is a public act involving the people’s participation, similar in scope to David’s transfer of the ark to Jerusalem. 34 30. He does so not only by changing certain details in the account but, first and foremost, by adding substantially to the text (1 Chr 13:1–5); see below, pp. 278ff. 31. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 250; Danell, Israel, p. 217; and below, pp. 227–230. 32. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 36; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 250; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 144–145. 33. Its presence at the end of verse 5 might be explained as yet another example of the inconsistent method of reworking found in Chronicles. However, the half-verse seems more likely to be a gloss, as various critics have suggested (Curtis, Chronicles, p. 250; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 144; Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. 391; Welch, Chronicler, p. 23; and others); see also below, p. 227. 34. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 183; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 196–197; R. L. Braun, “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles,” JBL, 92 (1973), 510, 513.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 216 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

216

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

“All Israel” appears some twenty times in passages with no parallel in the source texts. At times, it is found in the context of the reigns of David and Solomon and serves to emphasize that the two ruled over the entire people; 35 the other instances are scattered throughout the book. Once again, the phrase is used in a variety of senses, among which three principal meanings may be discerned: 36 (a) the entire people, consisting of all the tribes, as in 2 Chr 29:24; 37 30:5; 38 35:3; 39 and, possibly, 1 Chr 9:1. 40 (b) the northern tribes, kingdom. The use of “all Israel” and not just “Israel” to indicate the northern kingdom 41 shows that the expression was used flexibly, depending on the context. See 2 Chr 11:13; 42 13:4, 15; 43 30:1, 6; and, possibly, 1 Chr 9:1. 44 (c) The kingdom of Judah, 45 as in 2 Chr 12:1: “When the rule of Rehoboam was established . . . he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” In this context, “all Israel” refers, not to the tribe of Judah or Judah and Benjamin, but to the southern king35. 1 Chr 11:10; 12:39; 13:5; 28:4, 8; 29:23, 25, 26. 36. See J. Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled,” p. 488. 37. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 468. Danell (Israel, p. 276) and Rudolph (on verse 21, Chronik, p. 297) believe that this verse refers only to Judah. 38. Here “all Israel” is defined explicitly: “So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan.” 39. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 512; Danell, Israel, p. 278; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 325. 40. The Masoretic division of the verse contrasts “all Israel was enrolled by genealogies; and these are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel” with “and Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their unfaithfulness” — a contrast that makes it clear that “all Israel” denotes the northern kingdom alone. However, given that the genealogical lists summarized in the verse include Judah (1 Chronicles 2–8), it may be that “all Israel” does in fact mean the entire people. For a detailed discussion of the question, see Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled,” pp. 486–489. 41. ”Israel” for the northern kingdom appears in 2 Chr 21:13; 25:6, 7, 9; and elsewhere. 42. And, in the same context, “all the tribes of Israel” to denote only the northern tribes — 2 Chr 11:16: “And those . . . came . . . from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem.” 43. Given the programmatic importance of Abijah’s speech vis-à-vis relations with the northern kingdom, the reference to the northern tribes as “all Israel” is all the more significant. See below, pp. 242ff. 44. See above, n. 40. 45. The phrase’s use in this sense is much emphasized by von Rad (Geschichtsbild, pp. 30ff.) and leads him to the conclusion that, according to Chronicles, only Judah is the “true Israel.” Liver puts a similar idea into different words: “ ‘Israel’ . . . may mean Judah and surroundings as representatives of the whole people, not only after the ten tribes are exiled, but from the division of the kingdoms on” (“So All Israel Was Enrolled,” p. 488). These interpretations do not conform to the plain meaning of the text; see below, pp. 252ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 217 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

217

dom, in which members of many tribes lived (2 Chr 11:13–17). This is also the case in 2 Chr 24:8 46 and 2 Chr 28:23. The name “Israel” also appears as an epithet for the kingdom of Judah, particularly in standard phrases such as “the princes of Israel,” “the enemies of Israel,” “the king of Israel,” and so on, but also on its own. 47 However, neither “all Israel” nor “Israel” is widely used to denote the kingdom of Judah. 48 Thus, the expression “all Israel” appears quite frequently in Chronicles — in texts transferred with or without changes from the sources and in the book’s original passages. At times, “all Israel” expands the account to include the entire people with all its tribes and components. Nevertheless, the phrase’s semantic range remains broad and it may also be used to designate the northern kingdom alone or the southern kingdom alone. We even find this broad range of meaning within one context. 49

II. The Tribal System Among the distinctive features of the historical narrative in Chronicles is the existence of the tribal system. Chronicles’ view of this system involves two aspects: (a) understanding Israel as a comprehensive unity made up of twelve tribes 50 and (b) portraying the political reality throughout the First Commonwealth as comprising functioning tribal units. Our examination of Chronicles’ evidence on the subject will be divided, as is the book, into the following three sections: the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9; the time of David and Solomon in 1 Chronicles 10— 2 Chronicles 9; and the reigns of Judah’s kings in 2 Chronicles 10–36.

46. “Go out to the cities of Judah, and gather from all Israel money.” Here, “all Israel” means “everyone,” “all the people” living in the cities of Judah. It has no tribal or ethnic significance (see also Danell, Israel, p. 274), nor does it include all of Judah, since Jerusalem is not mentioned. 47. “Princes of Israel” — 2 Chr 12:6; 21:4; “heads of families of Israel” — 2 Chr 19:8; 23:2; “king of Israel” — 2 Chr 21:2; 28:19, 27 (“kings of Israel”); “enemies of Israel” — 2 Chr 20:29. “Israel” as the name of the southern kingdom appears in 2 Chr 15:17; 17:1; 24:16. 48. There is no evidence to support M. Gil’s claim that the Chronicler always called Judah “Israel” unless he was copying his sources mechanically or wished to condemn the southern kingdom by calling it “Judah” (M. Gil, “Israel in the Book of Chronicles” (Heb.], Beth Mikra, 13 [1967/68], 110). In fact, the name “Judah” appears more often than does “Israel” as Chronicles’ term for the kingdom, and its use is perfectly neutral. 49. See 2 Chr 30:1, 6 versus 30:5. 50. “Everywhere it is presupposed that Israel throughout the entire period of the monarchy was organised on the basis of the twelve tribes” (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 214). Von Rad tends to limit this view to the Davidic period (Geschichtsbild, pp. 25ff.).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 218 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

218

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

A. The Genealogies — 1 Chronicles 1 to 9 These chapters represent a kind of introduction to the book of Chronicles, 51 as we see from their form and content. 52 They seek to answer two questions: who were the people whose story will be told, and where did they live? Given this purpose, the evidence of the genealogies makes a particularly important contribution to our understanding of the Chronistic outlook. The genealogies express the view that Israel is made up of twelve tribes which, united, truly represent “the sons of Israel.” 53 Contrary to von Rad’s opinion, this outlook is not simply a “theologumenon” or relic from the past, 54 but the actual view of the Chronicler himself, expressed to the best of his ability. The Chronicler does not just present the standard system and the abstract idea of the twelve tribes; he goes on to infuse life into the system, portraying it as a functioning ethnic body. In this respect, his work bears a typological resemblance to that of P, which is also dominated by the idea of a people comprising twelve tribes, whose unity and completeness are historical facts. In P, we find the people, made up of all the tribes, described as a vigorous ethnic group at the time of the journey through the wilderness. In Chronicles, we find the same sort of reality as background to the events of the monarchic period. 55 The Chronistic construction of 51. Indeed, most commentators call them “introduction” (Curtis, Chronicles, p. 6), “Einleitung” (Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. L), “Vorhalle” (Rudolph, Chronik, p. viii), and so on. See also Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB 60, (1953), 482, 486. 52. The remainder of the book, from 1 Chronicles 10 on, is an historical narrative along a chronological continuum. The account begins with Saul’s death and ends with the destruction of the kingdom of Judah. However, the dimension of time is absent from the first nine chapters of introduction. These include static elements that describe situations instead of conveying a process or progression. The few verses that are fixed in time (such as 1 Chr 4:31, 41; 5:10, 17) do not provide chronological continuity; they simply indicate certain select facts within the wider static picture. 53. 1 Chr 2:1. See Noth, Stämme Israels, p. 21. This outlook remains valid whether we attribute little or most of the genealogies to the Chronicler. For example, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. viii; Willi, Auslegung, p. 191. 54. “We see that the redactor, as well as the Chronicler himself, must exert himself in order to drag on an inherited theologumenon” — von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 26). 55. It might be said that from a typological standpoint, the Chronistic description precedes that of P: the Chronicler speaks of a period that is chronologically very close — perhaps even identical — to the time when the tribes were a historical reality (see also below, pp. 238ff.). P, however, boldly projects a unity of twelve tribes onto the far earlier wilderness period. The texts might also be understood from a different perspective: Chronicles’ conception of the people’s origins represents an alternative to that of P. See below, pp. 292ff.

spread is 6 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 219 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

219

the tribal past is innovative, unparalleled in the preceding historical books, 56 and it is also based on almost entirely new material. This material appears to have been taken, not quite systematically, from a broad range of sources. 57 Chronicles’ view of the tribal system is best seen in the underlying structure of the chapters. The preface in 1 Chr 2:1–2 lists all Jacob’s twelve sons. Detailed family trees and settlement locations are then provided for each tribe, and the narrative concludes with the summary in 1 Chr 9:1: “So all Israel was enrolled by genealogies.” 58 The tribes are listed differently in the preface and in the genealogies which follow, and, with respect to both sources and form, there is no uniformity to the material concerning the different tribes. 59 The following groupings may be discerned: Judah and Simeon (1 Chr 2:3–4:43); Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (5:1–26); Levi (6:1–81 [Heb., 5:27–6:66]); Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher (7:1–11, 30–40); Dan and Naphtali (7:12–13); 60 Manasseh and Ephraim (7:14–29); and Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8). We find that the genealogies mention fourteen tribes, instead of the twelve demanded by the tribal scheme. 61 The tribe of Levi and both of Joseph’s sons are listed; 62 moreover, Manasseh appears as two separate tribes, one on either side of the Jordan. The complete people must include every element, and thus a number of different approaches to the identity 56. Even the book of Joshua, which contains a detailed account of the tribal system, portrays the tribes as a geographic, not an ethnic, reality. From Joshua 13 on, we are told of the various tribal territories and frontiers, but not of the families who made up the tribes. 57. On the sources, see, for example, Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. Lff. It was, primarily, the lack of systematic editing that led many scholars to claim that the genealogical chapters were “glosses” to the Chronicler’s work. See especially Noth, Studien, pp. 117–122; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 1–2. 58. On the connection between 1 Chr 9:1 and the genealogies, see Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled,” pp. 487–489. 59. See Johnson, Biblical Genealogies, pp. 55ff.; S. Japhet, “Chronicles,” EJ, 5, 519– 521. 60. Although Dan’s name does not appear, it would seem that 1 Chr 7:12 refers to his family tree. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 150; Noth, Studien, p. 118. H. G. M. Williamson disagrees — “A Note on 1 Chronicles VII 12,” VT, 23 (1973), 375–379. 61. On Dan, see n. 60 above. It is likely that one of the Benjaminite genealogies originally applied to Zebulun. For a detailed discussion, see Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 145– 149; however, cf. Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 65ff. 62. Noth divides the Pentateuchal genealogies into two groups: in the first, Levi appears and Joseph is considered one tribe (as in Gen 49:1–27; 35:23–26; and elsewhere); in the second, Levi is omitted and Joseph becomes two tribes (Num 26:5–51, etc.). See Stämme Israels, pp. 7–19.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 220 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

220

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

of the “twelve tribes” are synthesized. 63 This creates a tension between the two goals: to portray Israel as a complete whole in keeping with the concept of “twelve tribes” and, at the same time, to provide the broadest possible description of the people, incorporating all its components. Since the genealogies present a horizontal rather than a vertical picture of Israel’s history — that is, they do not deal with chronological developments or changes in the people’s composition at particular times — there is a discrepancy between the theoretical figure of twelve and the larger number of tribes that actually made up the people. The theoretical idea of twelve tribes also appears in the list of Levitical cities in 1 Chr 6:54–81 (Heb., 6:39–66), a duplicate of the list in Joshua 21. 64 This list constitutes the largest unit transferred from Joshua to Chronicles. It describes a united people made up of fourteen tribal units. 65 The Chronicler was interested in the Levitical cities for geographical reasons; 66 nevertheless, the cities’ geographical significance and the concept of the people are connected: the list represents the only source in the Former Prophets that provides a concise, yet detailed, portrayal of all the tribes making up a united people. 67 In addition to the chapters’ overall tribal schema, specific references to the existence of tribal units during the monarchic period also appear: 1 Chr 4:41; 5:3–7, 11–17, 26. (1) 1 Chr 4:41: “These, registered by name, came in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and destroyed their tents . . . and exterminated them to this day, and settled in their place.” The verse describes military forays 63. See Noth, Stämme Israels, pp. 20–21. Although Noth terms this phenomenon “the tribal system running rampant” (“Verwilderung des Stämmes system” — ibid., p. 20), the phrase does not do justice to Chronicles’ deliberate and consistent expansion of the tribal system. 64. On the relationship between the two texts, see B. Mazar, “Levitical Cities” (Heb.), EB, IV, 479, and idem, “The cities of the priests and levites,” SVT, 7 (1960), pp. 193–205. 65. The two semi-tribes of Manasseh and the tribe of Levi are included. Although it is true that no territory is allotted to Levi, the tribe is considered a component of the people and receives its inheritance in the Levitical cities. Noth does not take this list into account in his treatment of the tribes. 66. See below, pp. 281–282. 67. We do find a few such depictions in Numbers in, for example, the story of the census (Chapter 1), the description of the camp (Chapter 2), and the order in which the people traveled (10:14–28). However, these descriptions are woven fast into the story of the wilderness journey, an important part of the Priestly narrative, and do not match the Chronicler’s outlook (see below, pp. 296ff.). As Noth points out (Studien, pp. 118ff.), the only one of these sources used in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 2–9 is the account of the census in Numbers 26.

spread is 6 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 221 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

221

made by Simeon during the reign of Hezekiah; 68 it was written at a later date, that is, at the end of the First Commonwealth. Those described were “registered by name” — counted and listed in a census. 69 The verse indicates that censuses taken during this period, even late in the period, were conducted on a tribal basis; an individual was recognized in terms of his tribe. 70 Thus, the tribal framework endured, preserving the basic contours of Israelite existence. 71 The records of the tribe’s experiences, preserved for later generations, provided the source, whether written or oral, for the Chronistic narrative. (2) 1 Chr 5:3–7: “The sons of Reuben . . . Be-erah his son, whom Tiglath-pilneser king of Assyria carried away into exile; he was a chieftain of the Reubenites. And his kinsmen by their families, 72 when the genealogy of their generations was reckoned . . .” This passage tells us that at the time of Ahaz, the tribe of Reuben constituted a clearly-defined ethnic group, organised according to family and led by a tribal “chieftain.” 73 Not

68. The translation is based on this understanding of the verse, since the extent of the subordinate clause is not clear from the Hebrew, and we do not know whether (a) the men came or (b) their names were registered in the days of Hezekiah. Rudolph believes the first (Chronik, p. 42), Curtis (Chronicles, pp. 116–117), the second. Because of the similarity to verse 38 (“these mentioned by name”), it seems to me that the first interpretation is preferable: the clause is limited to “registered by name,” and the men came in the days of Hezekiah. 69. The phrases “registered by name” (twmçb μybwtkh) and “mentioned by name” (twmçb μyabh) appear nowhere else, and some scholars consider twmçb μyabh the result of scribal error (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 40, and Galling, Chronik, p. 26). The phrases may be synonyms for the more common twmçb wbqn (RSV “expressly named” — Ezra 8:20; 1 Chr 12:31 [Heb., 32]; 16:41; etc.). The motif of inscribing, or registering, names as a means of counting the people is found elsewhere in the Bible; for example, see Ezek 13:9 and Ps 87:6. 70. See Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled,” p. 489: “those who were enumerated were registered according to tribe, family, and ‘father’s house.’ ” 71. It is commonly thought otherwise: the First Commonwealth is seen as the period in which the tribal system broke down completely — see below, p. 238. Although some scholars do accept 1 Chr 4:41 as a reliable historical source, they do so with reservations. Rudolph claims that “the cessation of the tribe of Simeon’s political independence does not mean the extinction of Simeonite families” (“simeonitischen Geschlechter” — Chronik, p. 41), and Liver writes that “the privileges and duties of an Israelite were dependent, at least theoretically, on his enrolment according to tribe and family within a tribe” (“So All Israel Was Enrolled,” p. 489). Rudolph’s distinction between “political independence” and the actual existence of a tribe and Liver’s “at least theoretically” reveal their reluctance to take the verse to its logical conclusion. 72. “Their families” is probably preferable to MT “his families”; see BH on the verse. 73. See Noth, Stämme Israels, pp. 153ff. and p. 158.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 222 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

222

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

only the structure but also the experiences of the tribe are preserved, linking their settlements in Gilead to wars they waged during the days of Saul. 74 (3) 1 Chr 5:11–17: The sons of Gad . . . all . . . were enrolled by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel.” The synchronism of Jotham’s reign with that of Jeroboam, which used to be considered completely untenable, 75 has now been confirmed as historical fact, thereby enhancing the reliability of the passage as a whole. 76 The verses make it clear that, during the monarchy, censuses were conducted according to tribe and that the tribal unit served as the framework for independent military activity. (4) 1 Chr 5:26: “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria . . . and he carried them away, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh . . . to this day.” The exile of those who lived east of the Jordan also appears in 2 Kings 15:29, but here it is described in markedly tribal terms. 77 The eastern tribes lived in their territories “until the exile” (1 Chr 5:22) — only Tiglath-Pileser’s campaign put an end to their tribal existence. Apart from this information, the genealogies also contain two comments relating the tribal reality to the Davidic period: (1) 1 Chr 4:31: “These were their cities until David reigned.” The list of Simeonite cities appears in Josh 19:2–8, 78 and the preceding sentence constitutes Chronicles’ main addition to its source. The sentence sums up the passage and associates the list with David’s reign. 79 (2) 1 Chr 7:2: “. . . their number in the days of David being twenty-two thousand six hundred.” Scholars disagree as to the authenticity and reli74. See 1 Chr 5:8–19. No one doubts the reliability of these verses as historical evidence; see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 45. 75. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 213: “Jotham and Jeroboam . . . make so impossible a synchronism that the partisans of Chronicles will have it that none is intended.” 76. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 48–49; Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled,” p. 496. 77. See also below, p. 240. 78. The same cities are considered Judean in Josh 15:26–32. See S. Talmon, “The List of Cities of Simeon” (Heb.), Eretz-Israel, 8 (1967), pp. 265–268. 79. Aharoni takes the testimony of Chronicles at face value and asks, “Is there any reason to doubt the reliability of this statement?” (“The Districts of Israel and Judah,” p. 120). Talmon supports the sentence with historical arguments: “When David became king of Judah, he simply converted his lands in the territory of Simeon to royal territory . . . Thus, from David’s time on, the Simeonite towns came to be counted as Judean, although this process had in fact begun at an earlier date” (Talmon, op. cit., p. 267). Liver presents a different case; he claims that the list itself did not exist prior to David’s reign and suggests two possibilities: it may date from either the early monarchy or the time of Uzziah and Hezekiah (op. cit., pp. 493–494).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 223 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

223

ability of this verse; what is clear is the Chronicler’s belief that national censuses, including the census during David’s reign, numbered the people by tribe. 80

B. David and Solomon — 1 Chronicles 10 to 2 Chronicles 9 We have seen that describing the people as “all Israel,” that is, in the most comprehensive understanding of the people, is particularly evident during David’s reign. Yet the principal means of portraying the unity of Israel — in David’s time as in others — is the emphasis on the idea of “twelve tribes.” This emphasis appears at the beginning of David’s reign and at its end. (1) 1 Chr 12:23–40 (Heb., 24–41). 81 This passage lists the numbers of troops who arrived in Hebron to make David king and thus represents an elaboration on the brief account in 1 Chr 11:1–3. Three opinions have been expressed on the subject of the list’s origins and place in the book: (a) The Chronicler was using an earlier source, 82 probably a list of recruits from some unspecified period. 83 (b) The list is a “Chronistic work par excellence.” 84 (c) The list is a later addition to Chronicles. 85 This last opinion is usually based on fairly unconvincing arguments. 86 When we examine 80. Liver writes that this belief is based on an authentic tradition and ascribes the census list to the united monarchy (ibid., pp. 498–499). Curtis sees it as exegesis to David’s census (Chronicles, p. 145), whereas Rudolph attributes the sentence to a later writer (“Ergänzer”) who “completed” the genealogies and asserts that it cannot be authentic (Chronik, p. 65). 81. This list, like those that follow, is found nowhere else in the Bible, and we must evaluate it on the basis of two issues: first, its origins — is the list an authentic historical account or a literary work? Second, is this passage an organic part of Chronicles or a secondary addition to the book? The two questions are connected but not interdependent: the list may be an authentic document that predates or postdates the Chronicler, or it may be a literary work written by the Chronicler or by an earlier or a later author. These questions will be raised again, as the occasion arises, in the course of our discussion. 82. See Graf (Geschichtlichen Bucher, pp. 198–199), who believes that we cannot determine the list’s original form because of the extensive reworking it has undergone. 83. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 108 (and also below, n. 85). Rudolph considers vv. 21– 25 and 29–37 (Heb., 22–26, 30–38) original, v. 26 (27), the Chronicler’s addition, and vv. 27–28 (28–29), even later additions (ibid., p. 109). 84. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 34–35; see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 174, Kittel, Chronik, p. 61. 85. See Noth, Studien, p. 115. Noth does not discuss the list’s origins, but Rothstein, who also considers the passage a later addition, believes that its source was a recruitment list (Chronik, p. 245). Rudolph concurs with Rothstein on this point. 86. For example, Noth writes: “If the Chronicler really knew the number of tribal members who streamed to Hebron to make David king, he might have saved himself

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 224 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

224

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

the list, we find that in some respects it appears authentic — geographical order, 87 military quality, 88 and numerical balance among the tribes. 89 Yet, other aspects are also apparent: the list is somewhat schematic, 90 and there are clear signs of later reworking. 91 It would seem, then, that the passage was not written by the Chronicler himself; it consisted of an earlier list which had been reworked and which was ultimately used by the Chronicler for his own purposes. There can be no doubt as to the list’s purpose: 92 according to its description, the entire people — via the military representatives of the tribes who came to Hebron — made David king. The figure “twelve” does not appear in this portrayal of national unity; the tribes’ listing is not determined by the number, but rather by the reality of all the elements making up the people — fourteen or perhaps even fifteen tribes. 93 the bother of listing numerous isolated figures who supported David’s kingship” (Studien, p. 115). This opinion is based on the supposed duplication in 1 Chr 11:10–47 and 1 Chr 12:21–40 (Heb., 22–41) and on the assumption that the Chronicler would have wished to minimize bother, but neither argument withstands careful consideration. See also Rudolph’s objections, Chronik, p. 107. 87. It is clear that the list was constructed according to a geographical principle and is unparalleled in other biblical lists. First, the tribes west of the Jordan are enumerated from south to north (including Levi in Judah), and then the eastern tribes are listed, again from south to north. It would appear that the writer had in mind the configuration of the Israelite settlement at a specific point in history, when Dan had already become a northern tribe. 88. The section mentions: military designations or ranks, including “armed troops” (abx yxwlj — v. 24 [Heb., 25]), “mighty men of valour for war” (abxl lyj yrwbg — v. 25 [26]), and “seasoned troops” (abx yaxwy — vv. 33, 36 [34, 37]); a wide range of weapons and military corps, as in “men . . . bearing shield and spear” (v. 24 (25]) and, all together, “all these men of war, arrayed in battle order . . . with full intent” (v. 38 [39]). 89. The proportions found here are unique (see Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 199; Kittel, Chronik, p. 61; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 108). Judah, Simeon, Levi, and Benjamin are the smallest tribes, and their combined numbers remain less than those of Ephraim alone (1 Chr 12:24–30 [25–31]). 90. Particularly when it comes to the numbers for the eastern tribes — one hundred and twenty thousand (v. 37 [38]). 91. Most obvious in the description of Levi and, in particular, the mention of twenty-two priestly commanders. The latter is equivalent to the detailed lists in Neh 10:1–8 (Heb., 2–9); 12:1–7, 12–21 (see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 174). 92. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 174–175; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 200; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 34–35; Welch, Chronicler, p. 15. 93. Including Levi and dividing Manasseh into two groups brings the total to fourteen. (We are not left with twelve tribes even if we eliminate Levi, although Rudolph reckoned otherwise — Chronik, p. 109.) The distinction between two components of Levi, priests and Levites, raises it to fifteen.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 225 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

225

The unity and completeness of Israel are described with great emphasis and in a number of ways. David is king over all Israel (1 Chr 12:38 [Heb., 39]). The enumeration of tribes includes all national elements, who are mentioned in detail. The list tells us who did and did not come to Hebron but asserts that everyone chose David as king — and they did so united and wholeheartedly: “likewise all the rest of Israel were of a single mind to make David king” (v. 38 [39]). (2) 1 Chr 27:16–22. This list is associated with the end of David’s reign and Solomon’s succession and has also been the subject of scholarly dispute. The various assessments of its origins and place in Chronicles are: (a) The Chronicler was using an original list, dating either to David’s reign or to some other period. 94 (b) The list was written expressly by the Chronicler and reflects his own position. 95 (c) The entire chapter, including the list, is a later addition to the book. 96 There is no real reason to eliminate the entire chapter from Chronicles, 97 and so the question is: did the Chronicler use an earlier source, or is the list the synthetic construction of a later mind? Advocates of the second possibility claim that the desired figure of twelve was produced by deliberately omitting Gad and Asher, which proves that the list’s composition is contrived. 98 In fact, the list comprises not twelve, but thirteen, tribes, even in its present form, since both Manasseh and Levi have two chiefs each. It would seem, therefore, that Gad and Asher were omitted accidentally, just as Naphtali is mentioned in the wrong place. The full number of tribal chiefs would have been fifteen; indeed, the figure twelve does not appear at all. 99 This list resembles 1 Chr 12:23–40 (Heb., 24–40) in that: “Aaron” is considered a separate entity, which means that there are two tribes for Levi; both Levi and Joseph’s sons are listed; and three distinct tribes are descended from Joseph. The two lists differ primarily in their order: in 1 Chronicles 12, the tribes are listed on a geographical basis, and in 1 Chr 27:16–22, they are listed by mother (Leah, Rachel, and

94. See Yadin, “Army Reserves of David and Solomon,” p. 358. 95. According to Curtis, the list is connected to vv. 23–24; it was designed to show that David’s census conformed to the law in the book of Numbers: see Chronicles, pp. 291–292. 96. See Noth, Studien, pp. 112ff.; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 182. 97. See above, p. 180, n. 106. 98. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 291; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 183. Hänel-Rothstein (Chronik, p. 494) and Noth (Stämme Israels, p. 21) are of a different opinion. 99. Nor do we find the number of tribal chiefs in other relevant passages, such as 1 Chr 28:1 or 29:6. Grouping the people into twelve divisions, one for each month of the year, has nothing to do with the tribal structure (1 Chr 27:1–15).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 226 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

226

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

so on). The tribal chiefs are enumerated so as to depict the people’s full representation at the time of the succession from David to Solomon. Thus, Chronicles associates the concept of Israel as a complete unity made up of individual tribes with David’s reign. In addition to this general concept, some evidence of specific tribal frameworks also appears in connection with David. (1) 1 Chr 12:1–22 (Heb., 1–23). 100 This is a list of military men who joined David before he became king. They are mentioned by tribe and town, and the tribes that appear are Benjamin (vv. 2ff.), Gad (vv. 8 [Heb., 9]ff.), the “sons of” Benjamin and Judah (vv. 16 [17]ff.), and Manasseh (vv. 19 [20]ff.). The list is actually a collection of various data, apparently authentic, 101 reworked by the book’s author into one narrative. In it, Benjamin, Judah, Manasseh, and Gad are distinct tribal entities. (2) 1 Chr 26:32: “King David appointed him and his brethren . . . to have the oversight of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of the Manassites for everything pertaining to God and for the affairs of the king.” Here, the people are described from a geographic perspective: those west of the Jordan (v. 30) and those east of the Jordan (vv. 31–32). The area east of the Jordan, which constitutes a geographic unit, is known by the names of the three tribes that inhabit it. 102 (3) 1 Chr 27:1–15. This passage lists the commanders of the divisions that served the king on a monthly rotation. Although the origins and authenticity of the list are questions in and of themselves, 103 our interest at 100. Noth (Studien, p. 116) and Rudolph (Chronik, p. 103) believe that this list was added to Chronicles and may even be later than 1 Chr 12:23 (24)ff. Curtis (Chronicles, pp. 194–195), Rothstein (Chronik, pp. 239, 242), and von Rad (Geschichtsbild, p. 34) consider it the product of the Chronicler himself. Curtis thinks that the Chronicler wrote the passage as midrash, whereas the others believe that he based his work on historical fact. See Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 198; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 34; Welch, Chronicler, p. 14; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 105ff. 101. It has been suggested that 1 Chr 12:1–22 (Heb., 12:1–23) is based on traditions linked to Absalom’s rebellion, taken by the Chronicler from some source or other and reworked in keeping with his goals into a different historical context. See A. Zeron, “Tag für Tag kam man zu David, um ihm zu helfen,” TZ, 30 (1974), 257–261. 102. According to von Rad, “the author operates completely theoretically, according to the ancient tribal schema” (Geschichtsbild, p. 95). Rudolph, however, believes that “one has the impression that . . . actual historical circumstances are behind vv. 29–30” (Chronik, p. 179). Curtis claims that the passage reflects the historical reality of the Chronicler’s period (Chronicles, pp. 288–289), and Rudolph dates it even later (Chronik, pp. 177–179), but Mazar believes that the facts are historical and authentic to David’s time (“Levi” (Heb.), EB, IV, 482). Mazar uses these verses as the starting-point for his views of Levitical history. 103. See below, p. 334, n. 85.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 227 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

227

this point lies in the basis upon which it was constructed. Apart from minor differences, the commanders of each division are also among David’s “mighty men” in 2 Sam 23:8ff. and 1 Chr 11:10ff. Thus, we have here a third version of a list of heroes. The names resemble those in 1 Chronicles 11, 104 but some differences cannot be explained as merely textual, the result of transmission. It would seem that 1 Chr 27:1–15 reflects a separate tradition. 105 Of interest to us is the fact that the tribes of certain commanders are mentioned in this passage, even though they do not appear in 2 Samuel 23 or 1 Chronicles 11. The following tribes and families are mentioned: “Jashobe-am the son of Zabdi-el . . . a descendant of Perez” (vv. 2–3), “Helez the Pelonite, of the sons of Ephraim” (v. 10), “Sibbecai the Hushathite, of the Zerahites” (v. 11), “Abiezer of Anathoth, a Benjaminite” (v. 12), “Maharai of Netophah, of the Zerahites” (v. 13), “Benaiah of Pirathon, of the sons of Ephraim” (v. 14), and “Heldai the Netophathite, of Othni-el” (v. 15). Apparently, a tradition existed which preserved the tribal affiliations of David’s men and which served as the basis for the list in 1 Chronicles 27. Neither 2 Sam 23:8ff., which mentions only names, nor 1 Chr 11:10ff. preserved this tradition. Chronicles also emphasizes the people’s tribal unity under David and Solomon by eliminating the idea that they were divided into two entities, Judah and Israel. Judah is merely one of the tribes, not an independent political body. 106 Source references to Israel and Judah are deleted: 2 Sam 5:4–5 is omitted from the parallel in 1 Chronicles 11, 107 and 1 Kings 4:20; 5:5; 12:20 are also missing. 1 Chr 21:1 (parallel to 2 Sam 24:1) has been altered, and the story’s only reference to the division appears in v. 5. 108 In the book of Chronicles, Israel and Judah only become two separate entities after the monarchy is divided.

C. The Kings of Judah — 2 Chronicles 10 to 36 As in the case of David and Solomon, the main source for the Chronistic narrative here is the historical data found in the Former Prophets. The narrative therefore cannot ignore the division of the kingdom; it must be shaped by the fundamental fact that two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, existed. Yet even within this obligatory framework, the book’s distinctive approach and purposes come through, particularly when enabled to do so 104. See B. Mazar, “David’s Mighty Men” (Heb.), EB II, 398–400. 105. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 181. 106. See Danell, Israel, p. 271. 107. This omission is especially evident because the verses immediately before and after (2 Sam 5:1–3; 5:6ff.) are transferred intact. 108. See above, p. 215 and n. 33.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 228 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

228

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

by the historical data of a given period. The special Chronistic outlook is revealed already with the dividing of the monarchy and continues to be evident in the accounts of many later events.

(1) The Division and Rehoboam’s Reign: 2 Chronicles 10 to 12 We read of the schism, as well as the events leading up to it, in 1 Kings 11:1–12:24. This literary unit is complex; without entering into the complicated question of its various strata, 109 it is possible to discern a number of different views. In 1 Kings 11, which serves as a kind of preamble to the division, we find three: (a) The entire kingdom will be taken from Solomon in his lifetime and given to Jeroboam — 1 Kings 11:31b a, 38b b. The wording in these verses resembles that of 1 Sam 15:27–28. 110 It would seem that this view is connected to Jeroboam’s revolt against Solomon. 111 (b) The kingdom will be taken from Solomon in his lifetime — but not in its entirety: Jeroboam will be given ten tribes and Solomon, one (1 Kings 11:31bb–32, and v. 13). (c) The kingdom will be taken away only after Solomon dies, during his son’s lifetime. Ten tribes will be given to Jeroboam, one to Solomon’s son (1 Kings 11:12, 34–36). These differing views are united by the common idea of the division into two parts — Israel versus Judah, ten tribes versus one. Some biblical scholars see a historical reality behind this division and attempt to explain it according to the circumstances of the Solomonic period. 112 However, the division does not express any historical or political reality. It is typological — Judah is presented as constituting one tenth of the people 113 — and this typology also appears in the numerical data from other passages. 114

109. For example, see Montgomery, Kings, pp. 236–245; Gray, Kings, pp. 268–275; Noth, Könige, pp. 244–247, 268–272. 110. See below, p. 318, n. 37. 111. Only a suggestion of this revolt appears in 1 Kings 11:26; it is possible that Ahijah’s original prophecy had to do with the same uprising; see Sanda, Könige, pp. 323– 324; Montgomery, Kings, p. 242. 112. For example, see Noth, Stämme Israels, p. 111, n. 1. Noth deduces that the kingdom was divided according to the traditional number of twelve tribes and that the story’s figures of ten versus one omit Judah. The one tribe is Benjamin, and Noth therefore reads 1 Kings 12:20 as “the tribe of Benjamin only.” He argues that Simeon is included in Judah. 113. There is thus no reason to adopt the readings of versions which corrected MT by bringing the number up to “twelve”: LXX reads “two tribes” in 1 Kings 11:32, whereas BH proposes “eleven” (rç[ ytç[) instead of “ten” (hrç[) at the end of verse 31. See Montgomery, Kings, p. 247. 114. Particularly 1 Sam 11:8: “When he mustered them at Bezek, the men of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah thirty thousand.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 229 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

229

The actual story of the schism in 1 Kings 12 presents two views of how the people were divided. One provides an explanation for the prophecy of Ahijah. “There was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only” (1 Kings 12:20) — Ahijah’s “one tribe” is understood to be Judah. According to the second view, the kingdom of Judah was not limited to the tribe of Judah; it included Judah and Benjamin (1 Kings 12:21), Judah, Benjamin, and “the rest of the people” (v. 23), or “the people of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah” (v. 17). 115 In the book of Chronicles, the typology of ten tribes versus one disappears altogether. 1 Kings 11 does not appear in Chronicles, and 1 Kings 12:20 is deliberately omitted from the account of the schism. The people are divided in two, and “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin” (2 Chr 11:3) live in the kingdom of Judah. The geographic bounds of the kingdom are “the districts of Judah and Benjamin” (2 Chr 11:23), but the inhabitants come from a variety of tribes. This extended view of Judah’s population also appears in Chronistic passages added to the description of Rehoboam’s reign in 2 Chronicles 11. The first is the list of fortified cities, based on an authentic source, 116 to which the Chronicler added his own introductory and concluding remarks. Most significantly, two mentions of Benjamin are added (vv. 10, 12), although no Benjaminite cities appear in the list itself. 117 The list’s conclusion in verse 12 — “So he held Judah and Benjamin” — provides a link to the next passage, which also refers to the question of who lived in Judah. Following the schism, many people moved to Judah: “The priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him from all places where they lived. For the Levites left their common lands and their holdings and came to Judah and Jerusalem” (11:13–14). Moreover, “those who had set their hearts . . . came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord, the God of their fathers” (v. 16). Although the wording of verse 16 seems to suggest a temporary move or sort of pilgrimage, verse 17 makes it clear that, like the priests and Levites, these new residents 115. It may well be that 1 Kings 12:21–24 and v. 17 constitute a separate stratum in the story of the division; see Noth, Studien, p. 79, n. 12; Gray, Kings, p. 285; J. H. Grønbæk, “Benjamin und Juda — Erwägungen zu I Kon. XII 21–24,” VT, 15 (1965), 421–436. Cf. Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 169, n. 6, 171, n. 9, who evaluates the passage’s components differently. 116. The list’s authenticity has been universally accepted since the work of G. Beyer (“Die Festungssystem Rehabeams,” ZDPV, 54 [1931], 113–114); more recently, see Welten, Chronik, pp. 11–15. 117. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 227. The emphasis on Benjamin reappears at the end of the chapter: “And he dealt wisely, and distributed some of his sons through all the districts of Judah and Benjamin, in all the fortified cities” (2 Chr 11:23).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 230 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

230

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

remained in Judah: “They strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and for three years they made Rehoboam the son of Solomon secure.” 118 Thus, Chronicles presents a consistent picture of the nature and extent of the schism, and this consistency is all the more striking when we consider the wide range of perspectives found in Kings. Geographically, the southern kingdom comprises the territory of Judah and Benjamin, but its population is much broader: Judeans and Benjaminites, members of all the tribes, as well as priests and Levites. They are, in the Chronicler’s words, “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin.” 119 The people remains one even after the monarchy is split in two, and all its elements and tribes continue to be represented in the kingdom of Judah.

(2) The Reign of Asa: 2 Chronicles 14 to 15 We find the same view of the people in the Chronicler’s account of Asa’s reign. The kingdom is usually called “Judah,” 120 but a few passages refer explicitly to specific questions of its geography and demography, and the details include Benjamin as well as other tribes. In the description of the army’s make-up, we read: “And Asa had an army of three hundred thousand men from Judah, armed with bucklers and spears, 121 and two hundred and eighty thousand men from Benjamin, that carried shields and drew bows; all these were mighty men of valour” (2 Chr 14:8 [Heb., 7]). The tribal origins of Judah’s soldiers are given in every detailed account of who made up the army; the other examples come from the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Amaziah: 122 2 Chr 17:14–18 — “Of Judah, the commanders of thousands . . . Of Benjamin: Eliada, a mighty man of valour . . . and next to him Jehozabad” — and 2 Chr 25:5 — “Then Amaziah assembled the men of Judah and set them by fathers’ houses 123 118. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 231; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 368. 119. See Danell, Israel, p. 275. 120. Whether in a geographic (e.g., 2 Chr 14:5, 6 [Heb., 4, 5]) or ethnic-demographic (2 Chr 14:4, 7 [3, 6], etc.) sense. 121. The combination jmrw hnx (“bucklers and spears” — 1 Chr 12:9, 25; 2 Chr 11:12; 14:8 |Heb., 14:7]; 25:5) is unique to Chronicles, as is tynjw hnx (1 Chr 12:34 [Heb., 35]). Elsewhere, we find only the word hnx on its own (1 Sam 17:7, 41; 1 Kings 10:16; Ezek 26:8 [?]; Ps 5:12 [Heb., 13] [?]) or in phrases such as ˆgmw hnx (“buckler and shield” — or vice versa — Jer 46:3; Ezek 23:24; 38:4; 39:9; Ps 35:2) or hrjsw hnx (“shield and buckler” — Ps 91:4). “Spear” (jmr) also appears on its own (Num 25:7; Ezek 39:9) or in combinations such as jmrw ˆgm ( Judg 5:8; 2 Chr 26:14). 122. Uzziah’s reign does not provide an example; neither the names of the men nor their tribes are preserved in the description of Uzziah’s army (2 Chr 26:11ff.). On the historical value of these details, see below, pp. 338–339. 123. Here, too, we find evidence that those in the army were named by family, as was the case in the genealogies (see above, pp. 220–221).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 231 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

231

. . . for all Judah and Benjamin.” Similarly, the people is described as “Judah and Benjamin” in 2 Chr 15:2: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin.” Members of other tribes also live in Judah: “And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were sojourning with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel” (2 Chr 15:9). “Israelites” were constantly moving to Asa’s southern kingdom because, as the verse ends, “they saw that the Lord his God was with him.” The reason given for this steady migration — the king’s prosperity — lends a certain authenticity to the account. At the very least, the choice of tribes demonstrates some historical and geographical sensitivity: Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon were Judah’s closest neighbours to the north and south. 124 The Chronicler describes a process of geographical expansion during Asa’s reign: “he put away the abominable idols from all the land of Judah and Benjamin and from the cities which he had taken in the hill country of Ephraim” (2 Chr 15:8). The various data from Asa’s reign combine to create a picture of growth, both geographic and demographic. The kingdom expands to the north, and its population comprises members of the people’s tribes, who are designated by their tribal affiliation.

(3) The Reign of Hezekiah: 2 Chronicles 30 to 31 One of the outstanding episodes in the Chronistic account of Hezekiah’s reign is the Passover celebration. Its description is characterized by the Chronicler’s desire to include the entire people in the celebration. Constant references to the tribes serve as one expression of this tendency: “Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh” (2 Chr 30:1). “So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan” (v. 5). “So the couriers went . . . through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun” (v. 10).

124. In Chronicles, Simeon is considered part of Israel, not Judah. The Chronicler defines the southern kingdom as “the territories of Judah and Benjamin” and mentions Simeon together with the northern tribes (2 Chr 15:9; 34:6). There are two possibilities. This view may reflect an actual historical memory which linked Simeon to the North, either because of its origins in that region, implied in the early tradition of Gen 34; 49:5–7 (see A. de Pury, “Genèse XXXIV et l’histoire,” RB, 76 [1969], 5ff.), or because of northern links with Beersheba (Amos 5:5; 8:14; see Gray, Kings, p. 274). Conversely, it may be a purely artificial construction based on certain late religious and historical assumptions; see Noth, Stämme Israels, p. 77, n. 2. On the whole, scholars are of the opinion that Simeon was absorbed by Judah at an early date.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 232 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

232

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

“Only a few men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem” (v. 11). “For a multitude of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves . . .” (v. 18). Most of the interest focusses on Ephraim and Manasseh, 125 and Issachar, Zebulun, and Asher are also mentioned. Only Dan and Naphtali are missing from the northern tribes, if we exclude those east of the Jordan. 126 Since the tribes are not mentioned in any consistent way, the names cannot lead us to any specific conclusions. In verse 1, we are told that letters were sent to Ephraim and Manasseh, yet in verse 10, we read: “So the couriers went . . . through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun.” In verse 11, those who come to Jerusalem are “a few men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun,” but in verse 18, Asher is omitted and Issachar is added. It would seem that the individual verses reflect a selection of tribes; only the account as a whole provides us with a complete picture. The constant mention of tribes is part of the writer’s policy. He is not content to speak in general terms of “Israel”; rather, he repeatedly names specific tribes. For him, the “all Israel” to which Hezekiah turned included the people “from Dan to Beer-sheba” (v. 5). These people were organised into tribes that were both ethnic and geographic entities. Each tribe inhabited its own territory, and the couriers travelled “through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun” (v. 10). It is clear, although not expressly stated, that the tribal frameworks described in the Davidic period still functioned in the time of Hezekiah. After celebrating Passover, the people go out and cleanse the land of idolatry “throughout all Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh” (2 Chr 31:1). “Ephraim and Manasseh” represent the northern kingdom of Israel; 127 Chronicles’ combination of tribes in this verse parallels “Israel and Judah” in Kings. The two kingdoms are denoted by their component or representative tribes, which serves to emphasize the existence of a tribal framework. 125. They also appear in 1 Chr 9:3; 2 Chr 15:9; 31:1. 126. Most scholars believe that the references to the tribes here are a reflection of the Chronicler’s purposes (for example, see Welch, Chronicler, pp. 120–121; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 299–301). Nevertheless, it must be noted that the Chronistic account is in complete accord with what we know of Hezekiah’s kingdom. Both biblical and nonIsraelite sources indicate that the east bank of the Jordan and the Upper Galilee — in other words, the territories of the tribes who do not appear in 2 Chronicles 30 — were conquered by Tiglath-Pileser III. See 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chr 5:26; and H. Tadmor, History, pp. 134–135. 127. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 477; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 305.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 233 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

233

(4) The Reign of Josiah: 2 Chronicles 34 According to the account in Kings, Josiah’s reforms also encompassed parts of the northern kingdom; we find references to the territory “from Geba to Beer-sheba” (2 Kings 23:8), Bethel (v. 15), and “the high places that were in the cities of Samaria” (v. 19). Although the Chronistic description is briefer than that of Kings, and Bethel and the cities of Samaria are not mentioned, the boundaries of the reforms are reported in detail: “He purged Judah and Jerusalem. And in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, and as far as Naphtali, in their ruins round about, 128 he broke down the altars . . . and all the incense altars throughout all the land of Israel” (2 Chr 34:5b–7). In Chronicles, the geographic bounds of the reforms are far greater than in Kings. The borders are defined by indicating tribal territories, from Simeon in the South to Naphtali in the North. 129 The Chronicler also points out the tribal, geographic extent of the reforms in his conclusion: “And Josiah took away all the abominations from all the territory [MT: the lands] that belonged to the people of Israel, and made all who were in Israel serve the Lord their God” (2 Chr 34:33). 130 “All the territory (twxrahAlk) that belonged to the people of Israel” is the territory of all the tribes. 128. On the difficulties of the Hebrew text here, see I. L. Seeligmann, “Indications of editional alteration and adaptation,” VT, 11 (1961), 202, n. 1. 129. See Noth, Stämme Israels, p. 77, n. 2: “These words [from Simeon to Naphtali] present a distinctive feature of the Chronicler’s style, one that serves to depict all Israel’s areas of settlement on the basis of the traditional tribal geography.” 130. According to Milgrom, the description in Chronicles provides no evidence that Josiah’s political control extended as far as the Galilee. “The fact that altars were destroyed . . . throughout the land as far as Naphtali does not prove that Josiah had political control over the entire country . . . Even if it is true that a religious reform took place in the Galilee . . . this reform was accepted by the local populace without intervention on the part of the king’s army . . . Although Josiah provided the impetus, he himself played no part in the Galilean reforms” ( J. Milgrom, “Did Josiah Take Control of Megiddo?” [Heb.], Beth Mikra, 16 [1970/71], 26). I am not convinced that Milgrom’s sharp distinction between political rule and religion is possible with reference to our period, nor does it seem likely to me that Josiah could have influenced a territory in the way that he did unless he had political control over it. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the Chronicler wishes to convey such an idea. He writes that Josiah “made all who were in Israel serve the Lord their God. All his days they did not turn away from following the Lord” (2 Chr 34:33). In verse 7, we read that the king “hewed down all the incense altars throughout all the land of Israel. Then he returned to Jerusalem.” The Chronicler lays particular emphasis on Josiah’s personal involvement in the process of reform. On the tendentiousness of this passage, see A. Malamat, “The Historical Background of Josiah’s Encounter with Necho at Megiddo” (Heb.), Eretz-Israel, 12 (1975), p. 83 and, especially, p. 86.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 234 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

234

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

When we consider Chronicles’ history of the Judean monarchy from Rehoboam to Josiah and the names of the tribes associated with each reign, we realize that, step by step, Judah exercises more and more influence. Gradually, all the tribes are returned to her. During Rehoboam’s reign, members of unspecified non-Judean tribes move to Judah, but the boundaries of the kingdom are limited to the territory of Judah and Benjamin. In the days of Asa, people from other tribes — in particular, nearby Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon — continue to join forces with Judah, whose borders expand to include a few Ephraimite cities. When Passover is celebrated during Hezekiah’s reign, the couriers travel as far as Zebulun, and by the time of Josiah, the reforms extend from Simeon to Naphtali and encompass “all the territory that belonged to the people of Israel.” Even apart from the tribal framework, a constant effort is made to revitalize the concept of “all Israel” in the widest possible sense.

(5) The List of Jerusalem’s Inhabitants: 1 Chr 9:2ff. This passage must be added in order to complete the picture. It refers, not to a particular monarch, but to the period as a whole: “And some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh dwelt in Jerusalem” (1 Chr 9:3). The first section of the list that follows parallels Neh 11:3–19, 131 although the Chronicler has made a number of tendentious changes to its heading 132 — including the addition of Ephraim and Manasseh. 133 Without entering into a discussion of the list’s origins or the historical reality it reflects, 134 it would appear from its context that the Chronicler 131. On the relationship between the two lists, see Segal, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” 86ff. 132. See Japhet, “Ezra–Nehemiah,” 352–353. These distinctively Chronistic changes prove that the Chronicler inserted the list at this point after altering it somewhat and cutting off its conclusion. However, for a different view, cf. Noth, Studien, p. 122; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 85. 133. Kittel believes that Ephraim and Manasseh were originally mentioned in the list and that their inclusion may even represent a reliable tradition (Chronik, p. 52); Rudolph argues that these original elements were deliberately deleted from the list in Nehemiah (Chronik, pp. 84–85). Yet, only Judeans and Benjaminites are enumerated in the list itself, both in Nehemiah and Chronicles; the basis for Kittel’s claim is thus not quite apparent. See Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 231. 134. Graf (Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 230) and Wellhausen (Prolegomena, p. 215) believe that it is an authentic source, albeit a late one. Conversely, Meyer considers it a complete fabrication (Entstehung des Judentums, pp. 189–190), and many scholars accept his position. It would seem to me that although the list’s historical basis remains unclear, it is an authentic document. In Nehemiah, it is assigned to the time of Nehemiah; Segal believes that its view of Jerusalem’s population reflects the situation shortly after Nehemiah (“Ezra–Nehemiah,” 86). Some date it from the time of the Restoration; for example, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 84.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 235 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

235

connected the list with the monarchic period. The link between 1 Chr 9:lb and 9:2a presents it as a register of “first settlers” — those who inhabited their own territories and Jerusalem before the exile. According to the Chronicler, the population of Jerusalem during the pre-exilic monarchy comprised Judeans and Benjaminites and members of Ephraim and Manasseh, in other words: representatives of the entire people.

D. The Origins of the Chronistic Outlook and Its Historical Significance Taken all together. Chronicles’ testimony regarding the tribes is both considerable and thought-provoking. Most particularly, it leads us to ask: where did the Chronistic view originate, and what historical significance does it have? It is of course possible that the book’s descriptions reflect the historical reality of the Chronistic period, 135 but such a possibility is not very likely. Some evidence from Ezra–Nehemiah suggests that the returning exiles continued to identify themselves as Judeans and Benjaminites. 136 Although the lists of those who returned do not mention tribal affiliation, but only “father’s house,” family, and place of settlement, 137 we may deduce that residents of Gibeon, Geba, and Michmas belonged to the tribe of Benjamin and Bethlehemites belonged to Judah (Neh 7:25, 30, 31, 26). However, early in the Second Commonwealth, a new means of identification developed — one that was, apparently, more in keeping with the new patterns of life. Now the people were divided according to religious status: priests, Levites, and Israel, “Israel” including anyone who did not have clerical status. The new division completely obscured tribal distinctions. 138 It would seem that nothing was left of the tribal system or tribal affiliation by the time of the Chronicler. Yet, we do have some evidence that the idea 135. This is the opinion of Grintz, who believes that Chronicles’ testimony concerning Simeon reflects data from the Second Commonwealth. See Y. M. Grintz, The Book of Judith (Heb., Jerusalem, 1957), and idem, “Cities of Nabhrachta” (Heb.), Zion, XII (1947/48), 16. 136. Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9; Neh 11:3, 7, 25, 36. The testimony of Ezra–Nehemiah vis-àvis the inhabitants of the land at the time of the return is complex and tendentious and cannot be taken literally. Nevertheless, the evidence provided by the source lists remains intact, even if the lists originated in a period other than that indicated in Ezra– Nehemiah. On the question of the land’s inhabitants, see, inter alia, E. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 45–54; Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias,” pp. 316ff. 137. This is true of the list found in Ezra 2:1–70 // Neh 7:6–72. Those returning are enrolled by “father’s house” (Neh 7:8–24), settlement (vv. 25–38), and, finally, clerical status — priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants (μynytn), and sons of Solomon’s servants (vv. 39–60). Those who were unable to prove their descent are mentioned at the end of the list. 138. See Ezra 9:1; 10:5, 25; Neh 10:40, and elsewhere.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 236 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

236

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

remained alive in literature. Three literary works from the period furnish the tribal origins of their heroes: “Now there was a Jew in Susa the capital whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, son of Shime-i, son of Kish, a Benjaminite . . .” (Esther 2:5). “The book of the words of Tobit, the son of Tobiel, the son of Hananiel, the son of Aduel . . . of the tribe of Naphtali” (Tobit 1:1). “. . . and presented him to the rulers of their city; which were in those days Ozias the son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon, and Chabris the son of Gothoniel, and Charmis the son of Melchiel” ( Judith 6:14–15). “Judith . . . the daughter of Merari, the son of Ox, the son of Joseph . . . the son of Salasadai, [the son of Simeon,] 139 the son of Israel” ( Judith 8:1). Although Tobit and Judith are set in different periods of the First Commonwealth, and Esther describes events from the Persian Empire, it would seem that all three were written around the same time — during the Persian era, at the earliest. 140 We see from their testimony that mentioning the tribes gave a story an air of antiquity, as well as authenticity, and was a favourite device of the period’s writers. Underlying this device was the implicit assumption that the tribal framework functioned throughout Israelite history, or — as far as these writers were concerned — “in the past.” The Chronicler wrote at the end of the Persian period but described events of the First Commonwealth; we must therefore ask: what is idea and what is reality in the book of Chronicles? Is it all merely tendentious reworking of sources and artificial constructions conforming to a tribal schema, or does the book reflect the historical reality of the First Commonwealth? To what extent might it reflect this reality? Biblical sources alone are available to us in our attempt to answer these questions; their evidence, however limited, demands clarification. The Former Prophets, in particular, are central to our examination. The books of the Former Prophets do not all treat the question of the tribes in the same way; there is in fact a discrepancy between the treatment in Joshua and that in Samuel–Kings. In Joshua, the tribal framework is maintained; 141 alongside the general idea of a people comprising twelve tribes, 142 we find a division of the land into fourteen tribal portions. 143 139. The name Simeon only appears in some manuscripts and is not always included in printed editions. Its authenticity is supported by Judith 9:2: “the Lord, God of my father Simeon.” See Y. M. Grintz, The Book of Judith, p. 130. 140. See C. A. Moore, Esther, AB (1971), pp. lvii–lx; D. Flusser, “Tobit” (Heb.), EB, III, 370; Y. M. Grintz, “Judith” (Heb.), EB, III, 512–514. 141. In terms of its tribal idea, Joshua may be seen as the conceptual (although not necessarily literary) continuation to the Pentateuch. See Driver, Introduction, pp. 103ff.; Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 250ff.; Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, p. 14. 142. Josh 3:12; 4:2ff.; 14:1–5; etc. 143. Josh 13:15–31; 15–19; 21. spread is 12 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 237 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

237

Thirteen of the tribes are allotted territories, while one tribe, that of Levi, is given land within the boundaries of the other tribes. 144 In order to express the tribal concept, the book makes use of various sources and documents that sometimes reflect the political reality of a later period or of different phases in the monarchic period. 145 In Samuel–Kings, 146 the tribal framework all but disappears; whatever indications of it remain are random and infrequent. The books’ perception of the people rests on a dichotomy — Israel versus Judah. The entire narrative emphasizes the existence of two separate entities: Judah in the south, Israel in the north. This division does not appear with the schism at the time of Jeroboam and Rehoboam; instead, it may be traced to the time of Saul 147 and even to the pre-monarchic period. 148 It continued to exist throughout the united monarchy, during the reigns of David and Solomon. 149 According to the perception of Samuel–Kings, what took place in the days of Rehoboam was no schism, but rather the restoration of an age-old situation.

144. The tension between the perfect figure of twelve and the actual number of tribes is very apparent in Joshua; the number twelve is repeatedly emphasized, therefore, even in the chapters recounting the allotment of territories. The concept of “Joseph” is preserved ( Josh 14:4; 16:4; 17:1, 14, 17), and the fact that Levi receives no territory is stressed ( Josh 14:3–4; 18:7). 145. Opinion is divided as to the dating of the lists. For example, see A. Alt, “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua” (1927), in his Kleine Schriften, I, pp. 193ff.; idem, “Judas Gaue unter Josia” (1925), in KS, II, pp. 276ff.; M. Noth, Das Buch Josua, HAT (1953), pp. 13–14; Aharoni, “The Districts of Israel and Judah,” pp. 119ff. 146. The book of Judges represents an intermediate position in this matter. The framework of twelve tribes is known; we see it primarily in the story of the concubine at Gibeºah ( Judges 19 to 21) — see Noth, Stämme Israels, pp. 162–170. The book’s detailed enumeration of tribes in various contexts encompasses almost all the tribes: Reuben (5:15–16), Simeon (1:3, 17), Levi ? (17:7, 9; 19:1), Judah (1:2, etc.), Zebulun (1:30; 4:6–7, 10; etc.), Issachar (5:15; 10:1), Asher (1:31; 5:17; 7:23), Manasseh (1:27; 6:35; etc.), Ephraim (5:14; 7:24; etc.), Dan (1:34; 18), Naphtali (1:33; 4:6, 10). Only Gad is not mentioned. The testimony of Judges in this respect may be considered inadvertent rather than directed towards some overall goal. 147. As we see in 1 Sam 15:4: “So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Tela’im, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah.” BH proposes “men on horseback” (μyçrp) instead of “men of Judah” (hdwhy çyaAta) and, in any case, sees the second half of the verse as an addition. This proposal represents an attempt to solve historical and religious problems by “emending” the text. See 1 Sam 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sam 21:2. 148. 1 Sam 11:8: “. . . the men of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah thirty thousand.” Here, BH suggests deleting the entire verse; see n. 147 above. 149. We see the division not only in David’s reign over Judah (2 Sam 2:4, 10–11, etc.), but also after he rules over all Israel (2 Sam 19:12ff., 41–44; 20; 24:1, 9; 1 Kings 1:35; 2:32; 4:20; 5:5; etc.).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 238 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

238

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

It is a methodological assumption of those who study biblical historiography that the Former Prophets, particularly Judges-Kings, provide a reliable historical evidence, since they were written around the time of the actual events and related to these events in a non-partisan fashion. The books are considered tendentious in only one respect: their later pragmatic structure, which portrays the people’s history as an uninterrupted chain of sin and punishment and assesses the kings of Judah and Israel in terms of their respective attitudes towards Yhwh worship. 150 Samuel shows very little evidence of this pragmatic framework and is considered almost totally reliable as an historical source. 151 Because of these assumptions, scholars have considered the separation of Judah and Israel extremely ancient; 152 David’s monarchy is seen as the personal union of two distinct political entities, 153 and the schism is understood as a return to the former state of affairs. This view of the Former Prophets is highly problematic — and not only because of its implications regarding Saul’s reign. 154 The books are far more tendentious than is usually thought. It would seem to me that neither their elimination of the tribal framework 155 nor their representation of Israelite history from the time of Saul (or even earlier) as an opposition between north and south is in keeping with the historical reality. Both these features must be considered tendentious. In many respects, Saul’s reign is an extension of the period of judges; 156 it seems likely that the tribal system that existed in their time 157 provided 150. See, in greater detail, above, pp. 160ff. 151. For example, see Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 280–281. 152. E. Meyer bases his account of Israel’s formation on these assumptions; see Eduard Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (Halle a. S., 1906). He describes Judah as non-Israelite (pp. 75, 163, et passim) and sees the opposition between Israel and Judah as central to the people’s history. Even Noth, who views the division as a relatively late process, ultimately assigns it an earlier date (Stämme Israels, pp. 109–112). 153. Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State,” pp. 211ff. 154. Noth, Stämme Israels, p. 109. 155. The book of Samuel mentions Judah and Benjamin (1 Sam 23:23; 30:26; etc.; 1 Sam 4:12; 9:21; etc.); limited or implied references to Ephraim and Gad also appear (2 Sam 2:9; 23:36). None of the other tribes is mentioned by name. 156. For example, see Bright, History, p. 169: “Saul made no change in the internal structure of Israel that we know of . . . The tribal organization was left as it was.” Tadmor writes: “These qualities indicate that the first king was rooted in the Israelite society of the period of the Judges, sharing its conceptions and way of life” (History, p. 94). 157. The existence of such a system during the time of the judges is widely accepted. For example, see Malamat in History, pp. 78–79; Bright, History, pp. 142ff.; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 92–95. The nature and structure of this system are another matter; see Noth, Stämme Israels, and G. Fohrer, “Altes Testament — ‘Amphiktyonie und Bund?’ ” in BZAW, 115 (1969), pp. 84–119.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 239 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Tribal System

239

the organizational basis for Saul’s rule. 158 The book of Samuel supplies very limited means of elucidating this subject. 159 It describes the people as “one man” and completely disregards the tribes’ existence; from the outset, Judah is considered a separate political entity 160 in a ratio of one to ten vis-à-vis the rest of the people. Saul’s kingdom is described at one and the same time as incorporating two separate elements, Judah and Israel, and as one single, united body; this dual conception combines an anachronistic retrojection of later conditions with an idealized construction of a situation that probably never existed. The first historical evidence of a distinct Judean polity appears in David’s anointing in Hebron as ruler over Judah (2 Sam 2:1–4). From then on, David’s monarchy is characterized by tension between the two parts of his kingdom. 161 The list of regional commissioners and administrative districts in Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 4:7–19) indicates that despite the portrayal of a united population, the traditional tribal division endured and provided David and Solomon with the organizational basis for their monarchy. 162 The book of Kings contains no more than isolated allusions to the preservation of the tribal framework. In 1 Kings 11:28, we read that “he gave him charge over all the forced labour of the house of Joseph,” which indicates that forced labour during Solomon’s reign was organized by tribe. 1 Kings 15:27 tells us that Baºasha the son of Ahijah came “from the house of Issachar.” It is difficult to explain this lack of evidence as either a reflection of the historical reality or a literary accident. The tribal reality could not have vanished overnight. The fact that the books reveal virtually no indication of it suggests that the subject was avoided and the narrative deliberately

158. Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State,” p. 194. In the light of 2 Sam 2:9, Aharoni attempts to describe the organizational structure developing within established frameworks; see “The Districts of Israel and Judah,” pp. 114–115. 159. Principally, 1 Sam 14:49–52. Saul concentrated his efforts on organizing the army, which he seems also to have done on a tribal basis. See H. Tadmor in History, p. 93: “. . . this new army continued to be organized on the basis of the traditional tribal and territorial structure.” 160. 1 Sam 11:8; 15:4; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sam 21:2. 161. See especially 2 Sam 19:41–20. 162. “The new Davidic-Solomonic polity takes the old Israelite tribal regions created in the past, where they exist, as basis for the new administrative partition” (Alt, “Israels Gaue unter Salomo” (1913), in his Kleine Schriften, II, pp. 83–84). Aharoni writes likewise “it would seem that the above-mentioned data . . . taken in conjunction strongly suggest that David made a systematic attempt to organize Israel and Judah into administrative regions based on the traditional twelve tribes” (“The Districts of Israel and Judah,” p. 121).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 240 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

240

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

phrased so as to eliminate any reference to the tribes. The following passages provide examples of this phenomenon: (1) The list of David’s mighty warriors. As we saw above (p. 227), the version of this list that served as the basis for the list of commanders and officers of divisions in 1 Chr 27:2–15 occasionally retained a warrior’s tribal or familial affiliation. 163 It is unlikely that these references were added; more likely, the list preserved details which were omitted from 2 Sam 23:8–39. We can only conclude that the list in 2 Samuel deleted the tribal affiliation of David’s warriors and merely retained their places of origin. 164 (2) Chronicles names the tribes east of the Jordan which were exiled in the reign of Tiglath Pileser III: “he carried them away, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh” (1 Chr 5:26). Although the same event is related in the book of Kings, the description is purely geographical: “. . . and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maªacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria” (2 Kings 15:29). The verse’s structure is elliptical; the names indicate places, whereas “he carried them captive” refers to the population (as is reflected by the RSV’s “the people”). The order in which the places are named is unclear, but we can deduce from the list that the following tribes were affected: from the Upper Galilee, Dan and Naphtali, and from east of the Jordan, at least Manasseh. These are the people “he carried captive,” even though the account in Kings ignores the nature of the population and focusses on geography. This bias may also explain the fact that the tribal affiliation of an Israelite king is hardly ever mentioned. 165 If we knew more on the subject, perhaps we would understand the history and dynastic fluctuations of the northern kingdom a little better. 166 163. 1 Chr 27:3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 164. Certain warriors are said to be members of particular peoples — Zelek the Ammonite (2 Sam 23:37), Uriah the Hittite (v. 39), and others. These details support our assumption that the tribal origins of other warriors may well have been registered. The omission of the list’s ending in 2 Samuel 23 (compare 1 Chr 11:26–47) also confirms that the list has been reworked. It may be no coincidence that most — possibly all — of the missing names belong to warriors from tribes east of the Jordan (thus Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 198). 165. We know only that Jeroboam was an Ephraimite and Baºasha came from the tribe of Issachar. 2 Kings 15:25 suggests that Pekah the son of Remaliah was a member of an eastern tribe, which would explain his ties to Aram (2 Kings 16:5). 166. See A. Alt, “The Monarchy in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah” (1951), in his Essays on O.T. History and Religion (Oxford, 1966), p. 247. Tadmor writes: “The northern kingdom of Israel was . . . an intricate web of tribal aims and traditions” (H. Tadmor, The History of the Jewish People [Heb., Tel Aviv, 1969], I, p. 111; see also in English, Tadmor, History, p. 111).

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 241 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

241

Thus, it would appear that the books of Samuel–Kings deliberately avoid the tribal framework. The people of Israel is portrayed schematically; from the beginning of the monarchic period on, the schema is based on an opposition between north and south. The books’ perception of history manages to emphasize the ongoing existence of two distinct entities, Israel and Judah, while, at the same time, describing each of the two sides as a unified body with no internal groupings or conflicts. This tendentious view has moulded our understanding of Israel’s history, and it needs to be reassessed. For example, was the account of David’s reign, including Absolom’s rebellion and its effects, written from this particular point of view? Does the biased, schematic portrayal of the northern kingdom obscure the actual historical processes? The book of Chronicles is not bound by a schematic view of the people and it therefore provides a freer, more diverse expression of Israel’s ethnic reality. At least some of its evidence on the subject reflects the political reality of the First Commonwealth and preserves sources dating from the period. Nevertheless, it must be said that both aspects of the tribal idea provide the Chronicler with an excellent means of expressing his own views. An emphasis on the people’s abiding unity and completeness is central to the book’s concept of Israel. What, then, could be more fitting than the idea, firmly rooted in the people’s consciousness, that they were made up of twelve tribes descended from the same father? At the same time, the tribal idea expressed the view that a number of different elements — the tribes themselves — were represented in the people of Israel. The inclusion of every element was more important to the Chronicler than the traditional figure of twelve, as his detailed enumerations show. When necessary, he abandoned abstractions and employed the schema to his own ends.

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom One of the most striking differences between the books of Chronicles and Kings is the fact that Chronicles narrates the history of only one kingdom, the kingdom of Judah. Ancient exegesis found a literary explanation for this fact, 167 but from the time of R. David Kimhi on, its causes have been sought in the subject matter itself. Some scholars see it as an expression of the Chronicler’s hatred for the northern kingdom; 168 a few even go

167. Thus we understand the Septuagint’s name for Chronicles — paraleipomevnwn — “the book of the things that were left over.” According to this interpretation, Chronicles complements the Former Prophets; see Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 1ff. and 270, n. 184. 168. This interpretation is based primarily on 2 Chr 13:7; 25:7. De Wette sees “favouritism towards Judah and hatred of Israel” (“Vorliebe für Juda und Hass gegen Israel”) as a characteristic theme of the book (Beiträge, pp. 126ff.). See also Seeligmann,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 242 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

242

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

so far as to argue that the Chronicler did not consider the kingdom Israelite any longer — for him, it was a gentile kingdom. 169 However, the majority believe that the Chronicler saw Judah alone as legitimate heir to the monarchy of David and Solomon and therefore described only Judah. 170 Abijah’s speech in 2 Chr 13:4–12 expresses some of the principles underlying the Chronicler’s attitude towards the northern kingdom. The speech makes two main points: (a) Yhwh gave the monarchy to David for ever (v. 5), and therefore rebellion against David’s monarchy constitutes rebellion against God (v. 12). 171 (b) Only Judah maintains legitimate worship of Yhwh; the ritual of the northern kingdom serves “no gods” (v. 9). The juxtaposition of these two points raises the hypothetical question: if Jeroboam had instituted legitimate worship in Israel following the rebellion, would his monarchy have been valid? According to the redactor of Kings and, undoubtedly, according to the Chronicler, no such validity was possible. Any ritual practiced outside the Temple in Jerusalem would be illegitimate; 172 cutting oneself off from Jerusalem automatically eliminated the possibility of true service. Anyone from Israel who wished to worship Yhwh properly had to come to Jerusalem (2 Chr 11:16). The account in Kings speaks of two separate phases — the revolt against David’s

“Historic Reality,” p. 313: “It is clear that our author does not miss the opportunity to denounce the northern kingdom.” 169. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 190; H. H. Rowley, “Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple,” BJRL, 38 (1955–1956), 191: “The Chronicler . . . omitted the history of the northern kingdom altogether. He no longer recognized it as Israelite at all. To him it was an alien community, that had no more part in the history of the people of God than other foreign countries.” (Likewise, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 171, 200–201.) 170. This is the essence of Kimhi’s words: “The chronicles of Israel’s kings were also written in a book, but that book did not become part of the canon because the kingdom of Israel did not survive. Moreover, in the future, the Davidic monarchy alone will be restored” (Introduction to his commentary on Chronicles). Noth pays particular attention to the issue of legitimacy — Studien, pp. 174ff.; see also von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 31–33; Freedman, “The Chronicler’s Purpose,” 437. 171. Chronicles contains two contradictory versions of Jeroboam’s rebellion. Its account of the schism (2 Chronicles 10) follows the story in 1 Kings 12 and speaks of a revolt against Rehoboam. However, Abijah’s speech mentions a revolt against Solomon which reached its climax in Rehoboam’s time: “Yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat, a servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up and rebelled against his lord; and certain worthless scoundrels gathered about him and defied Rehoboam the son of Solomon” (2 Chr 13:6–7). This version of a gradual schism accords with the historical circumstances indicated by 1 Kings 11:26–40. 172. Although Abijah’s speech makes no mention of the Temple or Jerusalem, we have seen (above, pp. 177ff.) that the idea of centralized worship is basic to the Chronistic outlook.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 243 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

243

dynasty and, at a later stage, calf worship and the prohibition against pilgrimages to Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:26–28). According to Chronicles, the two go together. The second stage is a direct result of the first; in fact, it is part and parcel of it. From the schism to its downfall, the northern kingdom represents rebellion against God; only Judah is “the kingdom of the Lord” (2 Chr 13:8). In Abijah’s speech the very existence of the northern kingdom is condemned; yet, a related verse elsewhere in Chronicles depicts its creation as the fulfilling of God’s word: “So the king did not hearken to the people; for it was a turn of affairs brought about by God that the Lord might fulfill his word, which he spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (2 Chr 10:15). Since this verse has been transferred from 1 Kings 12:15, we might ask if it really reflects the Chronistic point of view. It would seem that it does. The fact that the verse was not deleted in spite of the problems it poses for Chronicles’ system of retribution 173 indicates that its retention was deliberate, not merely the result of a redactional oversight. 2 Chr 10:15 states explicitly that the success of Jeroboam’s rebellion represented the fulfilment of Yhwh’s will. 174 The Chronicler’s attitude towards the northern kingdom may be described in terms of the tension between these two views. Although the book does not provide a systematic account of Israel’s history, Chronicles’ inclusion of many details on the subject cannot be inadvertent. Whenever the book of Kings describes some sort of contact between the two kingdoms, Chronicles transmits the episode in full. Moreover, the book includes incidents that do not even appear in Kings but are, apparently, taken from other sources. They are: the story of the schism (2 Chronicles 10); Jeroboam’s sins (2 Chr 11:14–15); the war between Abijah and Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:2–20); the war between Asa and Baºasha (2 Chr 16:1–6); Jehoshaphat’s marriage alliance with Ahab and their joint campaign at Ramoth-gilead (2 Chronicles 18); Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahaziah of Israel and the ship-building project (2 Chr 20:35–37); Jehoram’s connection 173. See above, p. 127, n. 477. 174. We might also ask whether the verse should be considered an isolated element and, in Chronicles, interpreted in its new context alone, or whether the background story (1 Kings 11:29ff.), which Chronicles does not include but assumes to be known, should be taken into account. Mosis is firmly of the first opinion — “We cannot reintroduce into the text of Chronicles information that has been omitted” (Untersuchungen, p. 169, n. 2) — whereas Curtis (Chronicles, p. 363), Rudolph (Chronik, p. 227), and Willi (Auslegung, p. 58) are of the second. We must seek the answer not only in an analysis of Chronicles’ literary processes (as Rudolph and Willi do) but also in the Chronistic attitude towards the northern kingdom. Once this consideration is included, it would seem to me that 2 Chr 10:15 should be interpreted in the second way.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 244 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

244

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

by marriage to Ahab’s family (2 Chr 21:6); his son Ahaziah’s connection with the house of Ahab, alliance with Jehoram king of Israel, and death during Jehu’s rebellion (2 Chr 22:2–9); Amaziah’s hiring of the Ephraimite unit and his war against Joash of Israel (2 Chr 25:6–10, 13, 17–24); Pekah’s war against Ahaz (2 Chr 28:5–15); the exile of the northern tribes (1 Chr 5:26; 2 Chr 30:6–9). The systematic consistency of these accounts is seen most clearly when they come into conflict or collide with other trends in the book. Two examples, one from the period of Jehoshaphat, the other from Amaziah’s reign, serve as examples of this phenomenon. During Jehoshaphat’s reign, the ties between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were strengthened; they then endured through the period of the house of Omri. The marriage alliance and treaty between the two kingdoms led to joint action and even reciprocal influence. 175 The book of Kings describes the connections between Jehoshaphat and Ahab 176 without taking a particular stand on the subject. They are viewed negatively for the first time during the reign of Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, and then later in the days of Ahaziah.The negative assessment focusses on the marriage alliance, which resulted in the infiltration of northern practices and Baal worship (2 Kings 8:18, 26–27). The Chronicler describes the ties between the two kingdoms fully; he does not omit any details and he mentions the marriage alliance already during Jehoshaphat’s reign: “Now Jehoshaphat had great riches and honour; and he made a marriage alliance with Ahab” (2 Chr 18:1). The verse implies that this alliance was something of an achievement on Jehoshaphat’s part. The passage in Chronicles then goes on to reproduce, almost verbatim, Kings’ account of the war at Ramoth-gilead, 177 a campaign that further emphasizes the ties between the two kingdoms. Following the detailed description, the Chronicler expresses a negative view of the campaign: Jehoshaphat’s behaviour arouses the anger of Jehu the son of Hanani the seer, who asks the king, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (2 Chr 19:2). The seer makes it clear that Jehoshaphat’s sin has placed him in grave danger; only his calling upon Yhwh and his readiness to seek God (2 Chr 18:31–32; 19:2–3) have saved him from death. The inclusion of the story in Chronicles compels the Chronicler to criticize Jehoshaphat and thereby sully the king’s image. Yet the book makes a great point of Jehoshaphat’s virtues and accomplishments and presents him as one of the 175. See Bright, History, p. 222; Tadmor, History, pp. 118–120. 176. 1 Kings 22:2ff. (the war of Ahab and Jehoshaphat at Ramoth-gilead), and likewise vv. 45 and 50. The marriage alliance between the two is only mentioned during the reigns of later monarchs. 177. 2 Chr 18:3–34 — 1 Kings 22:2–38. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 466–467.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 245 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

245

most righteous monarchs! The account of his reign would have been much smoother and more harmonious had the Chronicler simply eliminated this chapter, as he did with episodes from the reigns of David and Solomon. 178 The same might be said of the account of the ships and their destruction in 2 Chr 20:35–37. This episode also calls attention to Jehoshaphat’s ties with Israel and is mentioned as an aside at the end of Kings’ description of Jehoshaphat’s reign (1 Kings 22:49 [Heb., 50]). The entire incident is quite dispensable from a literary point of view; 179 it is in any case tacked on to the end of the description of the reign. Yet, the Chronicler inserts the episode at the appropriate point in his account, altering the version in Kings 180 and presenting Jehoshaphat in a worse light. He adds Eliezer’s prophecy, which upbraids the king for his links with Israel and explains the ships’ destruction. The result of these changes is somewhat puzzling. According to the Chronicler’s outlook, the northern kingdom is made up of sinners, and contact with them constitutes a major transgression. He introduces prophets in order to chastise Jehoshaphat for his links with Israel, which, in Chronicles, are his only sin — the book presents a highly complimentary portrayal of Jehoshaphat. Why, then, did the Chronicler not delete the account of Jehoshaphat’s connections with Israel? The only possible answer, it would seem to me, is that the Chronicler had an interest in describing them, which overcame other goals, such as glorifying the Davidic dynasty. The account of Amaziah’s reign leads us to the same conclusion. The description in Kings includes the story of Amaziah’s campaign against Joash king of Israel and subsequent defeat (2 Kings 14:8–14). Amaziah’s initiation of the war is depicted as an act of foolish pride, while Joash is portrayed as a powerful monarch trying to prevent bloodshed and war between brothers. 181 The Chronicler transmits the entire story with only 178. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 253: “We might have expected him to overlook this painful point.” Although Chronicles’ retention of the chapter has been explained in a number of ways, most of these explanations are rather unconvincing excuses; see Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 176–177 and n. 20. 179. The passage in 1 Kings 22:41–49 (Heb., 51–60) is transferred to Chronicles with certain omissions. The following verses are missing from 2 Chr 20:31–37: 1 Kings 22:41b, 44 (45), 46–47 (47–48). The verse describing the ship incident (v. 49 [50]) has not been omitted. 180. In spite of the opinion, dating from de Wette’s time, that the Chronicler made these changes (de Wette, Beiträge, p. 132; see also Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 205), Rudolph believes that they originated in the Chronicler’s source and are more in keeping with political conditions during the period he describes (Chronik, pp. 264–265). 181. See the parable of the cedar and the thistle, as well as the explicit words of Joash: “Be content with your glory, and stay at home: for why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?” (2 Kings 14:10).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 246 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

246

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

minor changes (2 Chr 25:17–24) and provides a detailed description of the extent of Amaziah’s defeat. Since, according to the Chronicler’s distinctive historical philosophy, a defeat of this sort must be a punishment, Amaziah’s sin is added: “he brought the gods of the men of Seir, and set them up as his gods, and worshipped them, making offerings to them” (2 Chr 25:14). A verse appended to the account of the war points out the connection between sin and defeat: “But Amaziah would not listen; for it was of God, in order that he might give them into the hand of their enemies, because they had sought the gods of Edom” (2 Chr 25:20). Thus, the story presents a king of Israel in a positive light and a Judean king in a negative one and therefore stands in opposition to Chronicles’ general tendency to extol the Davidic line. Moreover, the inclusion of Amaziah’s sin becomes necessary in order for the episode to conform to the book’s system of retribution and in order to explain the military defeat. Finally, we also have Amaziah’s verbal attack on the prophet who reproves him (2 Chr 25:16). All in all, the king is portrayed as an ingrate who responds to his divinely-ordained victory over Edom by worshipping other gods and threatening the prophet sent to warn him. Again we must ask: why did the Chronicler not omit this entire story? Its inclusion can only be interpreted as a clear desire on his part to relate the episode. The Chronicler’s interest in the history of the northern kingdom is particularly evident in his account of the period of Ahaziah and Ahaz. Ahaziah the son of Joram, king of Judah, reigned for only one year. Kings connects his fate with the history of Joram, king of Israel, and the rebellion by Jehu (2 Kings 9:21–28), and Chronicles follows the same course. It assembles all the verses in Kings that mention Ahaziah, thereby presenting its own concise version of most of the stages of Jehu’s rebellion. The following details are included: Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah joined forces against Aram at Ramoth-gilead (2 Chr 22:5), Joram was wounded and returned to Jezreel to recover (vv. 5b–6), and Ahaziah went to visit him there (v. 6b). Yhwh anointed Jehu the son of Nimshi to destroy the house of Ahab (v. 7b), and Joram, together with Ahaziah, went out to fight him (v. 7a). Jehu annihilated the house of Ahab (v. 8a), also killing Ahaziah’s nephews and the princes of Judah (v. 8b). Ahaziah was captured in Samaria, brought before Jehu, and executed (v. 9). Thus Ahaziah’s reign provides the opening for a detailed account of events in the northern kingdom. Chronicles relates an episode from the reign of Ahaz that does not appear in Kings: the war between Judah and Israel, described in detail in 2 Chr 28:6–15. The description interrupts the flow of the account of Ahaz’ reign, and its insertion at this particular point must be deliberate. 182 The 182. The continuous narrative runs from 2 Chr 28:1–5 and from 28:16ff. (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 289). Our episode illustrates the general statement at the end of v. 5:

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 247 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

247

episode’s content distinguishes it from its context, and its positive assessment of Israel’s inhabitants is unparalleled. Nowhere else in the Bible do we find a community of men, motivated by purely humanitarian and religious causes, acting in perfect unity in order to help their captives. 183 No order comes from above; by common consensus, the people undertake a major, organized project of assistance. 184 A number of assumptions underlie the story. The people of Judah and Israel are brothers (v. 8). Even though the Judeans were defeated as punishment for their sins (v. 9), the Israelites’ behaviour is nevertheless unjustified, and the latter commit a sin by taking their prisoners as slaves (v. 10). The men of Israel acknowledge that they have sinned and invited God’s wrath, which they wish to assuage (v. 13). A prophet appears in Israel, and his message is received favourably (vv. 9–11, 14). We see that Chronicles not only relates the connections between Judah and Israel in full, 185 it also takes advantage of any opportunity to recount

“He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who defeated him with great slaughter.” The story of the war then appears in detail as an example. See also 2 Chr 13:2, 3. 183. We must bear in mind that, in antiquity, soldiers returning from battle were entitled to (at the very least) a share of the spoils and prisoners they took (see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 255–256). Here we find that each and every soldier willingly gave up his share: “So the armed men left the captives and the spoil before the princes and all the assembly” (2 Chr 28:14). 184. 2 Chr 28:15: “. . . and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all that were naked among them; they clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them; and carrying all the feeble among them on asses, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho.” 185. Given this evidence, a new look at the point of view reflected in the Greek name for Chronicles — paraleipomevnwn — is in order (see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 1, and, especially, Willi, Auslegung, pp. 50–51). The book of Kings is really a chronicle of the northern kingdom which, according to 1 Kings 11:38, is considered the true heir to Solomon’s kingdom. The period of the divided monarchy (from the reigns of Jeroboam and Rehoboam until the destruction of Israel) is described in a little over twenty seven chapters (1 Kings 12:25 — 2 Kings 17). Of these, only five are devoted to Judah — and these five include “joint” accounts: the wars between Asa and Baºasha, Amaziah and Joash. It is clear from the narrative that the writer was located in Israel, not Judah, and only provides brief, stereotypical descriptions of the southern kingdom. After Israel is destroyed, he reverts to a more extensive description of Judah. All the literary elements that were formerly employed in his account of Israel are now added to the stereotypical frameworks: elaborate narrative, accounts of wars, stories of prophets, and so on. Conversely, the book of Chronicles centres on a history of Judah. It describes the divided kingdom in eighteen chapters (2 Chronicles 11–28), the vast majority of which are devoted to Judah. Israel is portrayed only from the perspective of the southern kingdom.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 248 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

248

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

events in Israel by means of its narrative of Judah’s history. 186 Almost all the major Israelite kings are mentioned in the course of the narrative and in a variety of contexts, 187 as is almost every prophet who prophesied in the kingdom and appears in the book of Kings. 188 Two of the prophets also prophesy in Judah: Ahijah the Shilonite records the acts of Solomon (2 Chr 9:29), and Jehu the son of Hanani chastises Jehoshaphat and also records his history (2 Chr 19:2; 20:34). It is evident that the Chronicler made a literary effort to include Elijah the prophet in the framework of the narrative: Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat is not reproved by a Judean prophet; instead, he receives a letter of chastisement from Elijah. The Chronicler structures the story so that Elijah may be mentioned. 189 Thus, the Chronicler’s attitude towards the northern kingdom is somewhat ambivalent: the kingdom is based on a sin, yet its establishment fulfills the word of Yhwh to Ahijah the Shilonite. The historical narrative does not focus on Israel, since only Judah is considered the true extension of David and Solomon’s monarchy, yet all the connections between the two kingdoms are described systematically and even more fully than in the book of Kings. The Chronicler must make literary as well as theological adjustments to include these descriptions, even at the expense of the image of Judah’s kings. His ambivalence can only be explained by the fact that the northern kingdom, for all its sins, is an integral part of the people of Israel. This conclusion is confirmed when we examine the Chronicler’s attitude towards the people of the northern kingdom. 186. In his literary analysis of 1 Chr 5:4–6, Rudolph determines that the verses are a later addition to the book. One of his arguments is of interest to us here: “. . . in the major, narrative portion, the Chronicler avoids speaking of the northern kingdom whenever he can; why, then, should he needlessly mention Tiglath-pileser’s exile of the Reubenites at this point?” (Chronik, p. 45). Thus, a misunderstanding of the Chronicler’s views becomes a criterion for literary criticism, and scholarship finds itself trapped in a vicious circle. 187. Jeroboam the son of Nebat (2 Chr 9:29; 10:2, 3, 12, 15; 11:4, 14; 12:15; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 20); Baºasha the son of Ahijah (2 Chr 16:1, 3, 5, 6); Omri (2 Chr 22:2); Ahab (2 Chr 18:1, 2, 3, 19; 21:6, 13; 22:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8); Ahaziah the son of Ahab (2 Chr 20:35, 37); Jehoram the son of Ahab (2 Chr 22:5, 6, 7); Jehu the son of Nimshi (2 Chr 22:7, 8, 9; 25:17); Jehoahaz the son of Jehu (2 Chr 25:17, 25); Joash the son of Jehoahaz (2 Chr 25:17, 18, 21, 23, 25); Jeroboam the son of Joash (1 Chr 5:17); Pekah the son of Remaliah (2 Chr 28:6). The following kings are not mentioned: Nadab, Elah, Zimri, Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Hoshea. 188. Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chr 9:29; 10:15), Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chr 19:2; 20:34); Elijah (2 Chr 21:12); Micaiah the son of Imlah (2 Chr 18:7, 8, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 27). Elisha and Jonah the son of Amittai arc not mentioned. 189. 2 Chr 21:12. The literary strain also creates a chronological problem. See above p. 142, n. 533.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 249 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

249

Certain aspects of this subject have already been mentioned above, and we may begin our examination with a summary of those aspects. The inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel are an organic part of the people of Israel. They are descendants of the tribes which, together, make up the people in its entirety. 190 Because of this basic assumption, the northerners are called the Judeans’ “brothers” — during the united monarchy (1 Chr 12:40; 13:2) and after the schism, even when the division is at its sharpest. 191 That they are part of the people is evident, first and foremost, in their identity as “Yhwh’s people”; they are duty-bound to observe God’s commandments and follow in His path. They worship “the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel” (2 Chr 30:6), the God whose very name unites all the people’s elements. They do not always do their duty or follow God’s path, yet the fact that they sin before Yhwh merely accentuates their essential identity: they belong to Yhwh’s people. 192 Even at the most polemical point in Chronicles, Abijah cries out to them: “O sons of Israel, do not fight against the Lord, the God of your fathers; for you cannot succeed” (2 Chr 13:12). Even Ahab, the most wicked of kings, seeks the advice of Yhwh’s prophets and, through them, hears the word of God. 193 Just as the Israelites are obligated to worship God, so, too, are they bound by Yhwh’s ways of ruling His people. They are subject, first and foremost, to His system of rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked, in other words, to divine retribution. The Chronicler describes the kingdom’s defeat in its war against Abijah as Israel’s punishment for its sins and the Judeans’ reward (2 Chr 13:11, 12b, 18). The Israelites themselves acknowledge God’s justice and recognize that Yhwh’s anger was caused by 190. Cf. Willi, Auslegung, pp. 191–192. However, Willi is convinced that the book’s attitude towards the northern kingdom is purely negative. See also von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 33. 191. 2 Chr 28:8, 11; 2 Chr 11:4. This last verse, in which Shemaiah the prophet urges Rehoboam not to fight against Israel, is taken from 1 Kings 12:24: “You shall not go up or fight against your kinsmen (μkyja).” This is the only time Kings defines the relationship between the two kingdoms as fraternal, and the definition here runs counter to the book’s general position of emphasizing the opposition between Judah and Israel (see also above, p. 229, n. 115). The Bible applies the term “brothers’ primarily to the relationship between the two-and-a-half tribes living east of the Jordan and the western tribes, as in Deut 3:18, 20; Josh 1:15; etc. 192. Cf. Willi, Auslegung, p. 191. 193. It is true that Jehoshaphat tells him to consult the prophets (2 Chr 18:4). The transfer of this chapter from Kings creates a paradox in Chronicles: on other occasions, the book stresses Ahab’s sins (2 Chr 21:6, 13; 22:3–4) and calls him a “hater of the Lord” (2 Chr 19:2), yet the Chronicler’s only story about Ahab portrays him as a monarch who consults the word of God before going into battle. Regarding other difficulties presented by the story, see above, pp. 244–245.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 250 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

250

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

their own transgressions. In response to the prophet’s words — “Have you not sins of your own against the Lord your God? . . . for the fierce wrath of the Lord is upon you” (2 Chr 28:10–11) — the people say, “you propose to bring upon us guilt against the Lord in addition to our present sins and guilt” (v. 13). It is this guilt that causes the kingdom’s exile and ultimate destruction: “Do not be like your fathers and your brethren, who were faithless to the Lord God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation” (2 Chr 30:7). 194 Yet, even when the people are at their most sinful, the road to repentance remains open and may bring their exile to an end: “For if you return to the Lord, your brethren and your children will find compassion with their captors, and return to this land” (2 Chr 30:9). Indeed, in every period, there are virtuous men in the northern kingdom who wish to serve Yhwh; they leave their homes and move to the South. 195 Judah’s righteous kings feel a duty to bring the inhabitants of Israel back to unadulterated worship of Yhwh, and the undertakings of Hezekiah and Josiah are particularly striking. 196 The ideological basis for Chronicles’ view of Israel’s inhabitants is stated expressly in 1 Chr 5:1–2: “The sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel — for he was the first-born; but because he polluted his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel . . . though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince 197 was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.” In these two verses, fitted into the text by means of a “resumptive repetition,” 198 the Chronicler elucidates the relationship between three of Jacob’s sons, Reuben, Joseph, and Judah. The first verse explains the relationship between Reuben and Joseph and the second, between Judah and Joseph. Although Reuben was the eldest, he sinned and lost his birthright, which was given to Joseph’s sons. 199 194. Likewise 2 Chr 5:25–26. 195. 2 Chr 11:16; 15:9; 30:11. 196. 2 Chr 30:1–31:1; 2 Chr 34:6–7, 33. 197. The lamed preceding the word dygn in the Hebrew is emphatic; as the RSV reflects, the sense is “prince” (with no preposition) — see Kropat, Die Syntax der Chronik, pp. 4–5. 198. “Wiederaufnahme.” See C. Kuhl, “Die Wiederaufnahme, ein literarkritisches Prinzip,” ZAW, 64 (1952), 1ff.; I. L. Seeligmann, “Hebräische Erzählung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung,” ThZ, 18 (1962), 314ff. In our passage, the opening is taken up again in verse 3, and the repeated words are “the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel.” Cf. R. David Kimhi’s words: “Since he digressed from the subject, he begins again and repeats ‘the sons of Reuben.’ ” 199. It may be that the Chronicler is interpreting Gen 48:5 (“And now your two sons who were born to you . . . are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are”), taking “as Reuben and Simeon” to mean “in the place of Reuben and

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 251 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

251

The birthright was transferred de facto, which did not affect the genealogical registration as such, and therefore Joseph is not enrolled “according to the birthright.” The transferred birthright remains with Joseph, but rule is given to Judah because he is the strongest of Jacob’s sons — “Judah became strong . . . and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.” In the eyes of the Chronicler, Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh are really “the first-born of Israel,” 200 and this fact informs his attitude towards them. Chronicles contains only one example of a negative attitude towards the people of Israel — 2 Chr 25:7: “O king, do not let the army of Israel go with you, for the Lord is not with Israel, with all these Ephraimites.” Although the wording of this verse appears to be general, the passage must be understood within the framework of the Chronicler’s outlook, and an outright rejection of one part of the people is not possible within that framework. Military victory is achieved with Yhwh’s help, which is only provided to those who follow in His ways. The basic principle — “the Lord is with you, while you are with him” (2 Chr 15:2) — is applied separately to every case. In our verse, “the Lord is not with Israel” should be interpreted along the same lines. The people of the northern kingdom are sinners who have forsaken God; 201 therefore, not only does their participation in the war not enhance Judah’s chances of victory, it actually detracts from them. The prophet’s words do not represent an abiding denunciation of Israel’s inhabitants; rather, they apply to their specific context, Amaziah’s war against Edom. The very fact that, because of their sins, “the Lord is not with Israel” places the northerners within the people of Israel. Furthermore, it is only with the inclusion of the inhabitants of the northern kingdom that Israel becomes complete. Contemporary scholarship holds a very different position in regard to this question. Given the considerable influence this position has had on Simeon.” This is not the text’s literal meaning; even Gen 49:4 does not state that the birthright was actually taken from Reuben. See also Genesis Rabbah 98:5. 200. The verses are written in the Chronicler’s language and style, and their meaning is clear, yet a number of critics have expressed doubts on the subject. Rothstein supposes that vv. 1b–2 are an addition, not the Chronicler’s work (Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. 91). Although von Rad does not accept Rothstein’s view, he assumes MT to be corrupt. In vv. 1a and 2, following LXX, he emends “birthright” to read “blessing” (hrkb to hkrb — Geschichtsbild, p. 73). Rudolph proposes a more complicated handling of the verses: he also reads “blessing” in v. 1a; for v. 2, he suggests that “to him . . . not” (al wl) fell out. In his opinion, the verse originally read: “the birthright belonged to him (i.e., to Judah], not to Joseph” (Chronik, p. 43; this reading is also adopted by the NEB). The tendentious nature of all these interpretations is quite striking. 201. See Pseudo-Rashi on our verse.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 252 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

252

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

the interpretation of Chronicles, it deserves to be assessed in its own right. One of the postulates that have come to be accepted is the idea that, according to the Chronistic outlook, “only Judah is the true Israel.” The idea was proposed in von Rad’s study 202 and serves as the basis for his understanding of Chronicles’ view of the people. It was passed on to commentaries, 203 introductions, 204 and other studies 205 and became linked to Noth’s view that the book’s ultimate aim was to polemicize against the Samaritans. 206 “The Chronicler’s main theme — the idea that the true Israel only exists in Judah and Jerusalem — clearly aims a barb at Samaritan claims.” 207 We see von Rad’s point of departure when he asks, “where does the Chronicler stand [on the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms]; what is the true Israel, in his opinion?” 208 His answer — that Judah, not Israel, is “the true Israel” — is based on three factors: (a) an examination of the use of the name “Israel” in Chronicles (Geschichtsbild, pp. 29– 31); (b) the fact that the Chronicler does not include the history of the northern kingdom (ibid., pp. 31–32); (c) Abijah’s speech in 2 Chr 13:4ff. (ibid., pp. 32–33). The name “Israel” appears some three hundred times in Chronicles; von Rad discovers fewer than twenty cases in which the name refers to Judah, and these cases include phrases such as “princes of Israel” and “heads of families of Israel” which serve as standard terms. 209 This limited list of occurrences leads von Rad to a very broad conclusion: Judah is called “Israel” because only the inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin are “the true Israel.” Danell has already shown that von Rad’s conclusions are “unjustified”; 210 after a systematic examination of the verses, he asserts

202. Geschichtsbild, pp. 29–33. 203. For example, see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. ix, xiii et passim; Galling, Chronik, pp. 7ff.; Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. xxxii. 204. See Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 531; Bentzen, Introduction, p. 215; Weiser, Introduction, p. 328. 205. For example: Danell, Israel, p. 275; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 484, RB, 61 (1954), 350; Plöger, Theocracy, pp. 37ff.; Poulssen; König und Tempel, pp. 167– 168; Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 170. 206. Noth, Studien, pp. 174–175; see also below. 207. Rudolph, Chronik, p. ix. 208. Geschichtsbild, p. 29. 209. For references, see above, p. 217 n. 47. Von Rad does not point this out, and it must be said that his interpretation does not always correspond to the text’s literal meaning. The question is of particular importance in the case of 2 Chr 11:3, a key element in von Rad’s argument; see above, pp. 213–214. 210. Danell, Israel, p. 275.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 253 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Attitude toward the Northern Kingdom

253

that “it is not possible from these passages alone to establish any definite tendency in the Chronicler to make Judah into Israel proper.” 211 An analysis of Abijah’s speech leads von Rad himself to a somewhat different conclusion. Here, he argues that the Chronicler considered Jeroboam’s kingdom illegitimate — the kingdom of Judah alone is legitimate. 212 Thus, sin and illegitimacy are connected to the monarchy as a political institution; the people and land earn the Chronicler’s sympathy. 213 Von Rad, as it were, changes horses in midstream: in the beginning, he claims that the people who live in Judah — and not the sinners who inhabit the northern kingdom — are “the true Israel”; in the end, he determines that the northerners are kinsmen, in fact, brothers (“Brudervolk”), and “the Chronicler strives after the broadened, ideal concept of Israel.” 214 It is the northern monarchy that is illegitimate. This conclusion could not really be avoided; it is difficult to ignore the persistent evidence of the text, which repeatedly emphasizes an extremely broad concept of the people of Israel. However, it effectively invalidates von Rad’s first conclusion, a conclusion that would not demand consideration were it not for the extensive influence it has nevertheless had on the course of scholarship. This inner contradiction is an inevitable result of the very question von Rad poses. “What is the true Israel, in his opinion?” assumes from the outset that the Chronicler actually distinguished between “true” and “false” Israel; the interpreter has only to decide which is which. It then takes only a short step to determine that “the true Israel” is in fact the one not called Israel; in other words: Judah. In spite of all that has been written on the subject, 215 nothing has proved the legitimacy of von Rad’s question. It has never been demonstrated that the Bible differentiates at any point between a “true Israel” and something that, although called Israel, is “not true.” The Bible does distinguish between Israelites and foreigners, and it speaks of sinning Israelites, those who have forsaken Yhwh and forgotten God. However, none of

211. Ibid., p. 275. Danell’s conclusion here is significant, because he ultimately accepts von Rad’s view of “the true Israel.” It would have been simpler for him also to adopt von Rad’s linguistic analysis in support of this idea. 212. Geschichtsbild, p. 32. 213. Ibid., p. 33: “In effect, our author only passes judgment against the illegitimate monarchy; the people and land are by no means rejected in principle: the Chronicler immediately sympathizes with the northern kinsmen, just as he has a positive attitude towards David’s throne.” 214. Geschichstbild, p. 33; see also pp. 33–36. 215. In particular, see L. Rost, Israel bei den Propheten (Stuttgart, 1937).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 254 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

254

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

their sins can rob the latter of their essential identity as Israelites. 216 In this respect, Chronicles is no different from the rest of the Bible: the northern kingdom was established in sin, its existence constitutes a rebellion against Yhwh, and its history is an unbroken chain of transgression leading up to destruction. Yet it is part of Israel, and without the members of the northern tribes, the people of Israel cannot be complete. 217

IV. The Attitude toward the Samaritans Although Torrey was the first to describe Chronicles as a polemic against the Samaritans, 218 it was Noth who elevated the idea to the book’s central theme: “The Chronicler’s central purpose was to prove the legitimacy of David’s monarchy and of the Jerusalem Temple as the true site of Yhwh worship . . . [He] wished to show that the religious community in Jerusalem is the true heir to the ancient, legitimate ‘Israel.’ ” 219 Noth also takes up von Rad’s thesis and further emphasizes the question of the legitimacy of David’s throne and the role of worship. 220 What von Rad considers one aspect of the Chronicler’s concept of Israel is, according to Noth, the book’s principal subject. 221 The question of “true Israel” or, in Noth’s wording, “legitimate Israel” has already been discussed above, and we may now turn to a second, re216. In the spirit of the Talmudic proverb: “Even though [the people] sinned, they are still [called] Israel” (or, literally, “though he sinned, he is Israel” — Sanh. 44a). See also J. Katz, “Though He Sinned, He Remains an Israelite” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 26 (1957/58), 203–217. 217. It would seem that the term “true Israel” and the raising of the question, along with its answer, stem, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the religious imperatives of the scholars themselves. They have transferred to the Bible the later Christian distinction between the Israelite who, despite his origins, has lost his birthright as “Israel” and the non-Israelite by birth who nevertheless represents “the true Israel.” This transfer produces an Israelite, biblical precedent for Christianity and an internal continuity between Old and New Testament: Judah is taken to be essentially “non-Israelite” but is called “Israel” as an expression of her special bond with Yhwh and her identity as bearer of the sacred tradition. In the same way, and for a second time in history, the Christian Church calls itself “Israel” to indicate continuity; Christians are “the true Israel” whereas those who call themselves “Israel” — the entire Jewish people — are “not true.” See Rost, op. cit., p. 130, and Rowley, Election, pp. 139ff. 218. C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910; rpt. New York, 1970), pp. 154–155, 208ff.; likewise Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. 376–377, 385. 219. Noth, Studien, pp. 174–175. 220. Following in Noth’s footsteps, Freedman describes the Chronicler as a “legitimist” (“The Chronicler’s Purpose,” 436). See also North, “The Chronicler,” 370–372. 221. Noth’s view has had considerable influence; for example, see Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 531; Pfeiffer, Introduction, p. 808; M. Delcor, “Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im AT,” ZAW, 74 (1962), 281ff.; Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” pp. 17–29.

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 255 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Attitude toward the Samaritans

255

lated question: does the book of Chronicles take a stand on the Samaritans; and if it does, what is its stand? Kaufmann stresses that “the Samaritans are not mentioned or alluded to in all of Chronicles,” 222 and indeed we find no explicit mention of the Samaritans. However, in order to ascertain whether any allusion to them appears, we must ask ourselves who the Samaritans were, according to the various biblical views on the subject. 223 The only passage in the Bible that mentions “the Samaritans” is 2 Kings 17:29, where the name refers to the previous inhabitants of Samaria — in other words, the Israelites — and not the new settlers in the region. 224 “Samaritans” in its later sense of the name of the community living in the region does not appear in the Bible. We hear about the beginnings of that particular group, which ultimately became the later Samaritan community, in 2 Kings 17. 225 The chapter paints the following picture: Samaria was attacked by the king of Assyria and conquered after a three-year siege. All the Israelites were exiled to Assyria and resettled there (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11). The kings of Assyria brought in members of foreign nations from Babylonia, Cuthah, and elsewhere “and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria, and dwelt in its cities” (2 Kings 17:24). This description conforms to evidence from Assyrian sources, as well as Assyrian practice, 226 and tells us that the entire region of Samaria was settled with non-Israelite peoples. 227 222. Religion, IV, p. 476. 223. At the moment, we are only concerned with the biblical conceptions; a more difficult question is the issue of whether or not these conceptions reflect the historical facts. See S. Talmon, “Biblical Tradition on the Early History of the Samaritans,” in Eretz Shomron: The Thirtieth Archeological Convention (Heb., Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 19–33. 224. The English translation of the verse makes this clear: “But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made.” The Samaritans are not the nations making gods of their own or the area’s present inhabitants, but rather those who lived there at an earlier date and built the high places. See Sanda, Könige, p. 288; Montgomery, Kings, p. 473. It may well be that some polemical intent is hidden in the use of the term “Samaritans” with reference to the Israelites who once lived in Samaria. See Sanda, Könige, pp. 229, 235; however, cf. Gray, Kings, p. 582. 225. I shall not enter into the chapter’s composition, which is by no means uniform, combining as it does annalistic sections (such as vv. 3–6), a few strata of Deuteronomistic redaction (such as those in the speech in vv. 7–23), and very late sources (such as vv. 29–34), but shall concentrate on the outlook it suggests. See, for example, Sanda, Könige, p. 235; Gray, Kings, pp. 579–582; as well as R. J. Coggins, “The OT and Samaritan Origins,” ASTI, VI (1967–68), 35–42; Talmon, loc. cit., pp. 24ff. 226. See Tadmor, History, pp. 136–137; idem, “On the History of Samaria in the Biblical Period,” in Eretz Shomron (Heb., Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 69ff. 227. The wording of the verse (“and they took possession of Samaria, and dwelt in its cities”) tells us explicitly that the entire area was resettled, and no Israelites were left.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 256 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

256

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

After a while, a priest was sent to them from Assyria to “teach them the law of the god of the land” (v. 27), and the result was a syncretistic religion according to which “they feared the Lord but also served their own gods” (v. 33). 228 A similar picture is produced by the descriptions in the book of Ezra. According to Ezra 4:1ff., “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” ask permission to participate with the returned exiles in the building of the Temple. They justify their request with the words “for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria who brought us here” (Ezra 4:2). By their own definition, “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” are descendants of the peoples brought to the land by Esar-haddon. 229 Their words do not tell us whether they worshipped Yhwh as one of many deities, along the lines of 2 Kings 17, or as their only god. 230 In our passage, they are considered foreigners even though they worship Yhwh. We receive the same impression from the letter of accusation the people of Samaria write to Artaxerxes, in which they identify themselves as the descendants of the peoples resettled in Samaria by Assurbanipal: “the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa . . . the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River” (Ezra 4:9– 10). 231 On the basis of these verses, we may conclude that “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” who appear in verse 1, with no mention of their geographic location, are likewise the inhabitants of Samaria. According to the testimony of 2 Kings 17 and Ezra 4, all the Israelites were exiled from their land (2 Kings 17:20–23), and their cities came to be

This is also the view in 2 Kings 17:20; 23:27; Jer 31:15–21; etc. It is generally thought that this view does not reflect the historical reality and that many inhabitants of the northern kingdom did in fact continue to live in the same place, primarily in Galilee, but also in the region of Samaria. See Tadmor, History, pp. 137–138; Bright, History, p. 258; Talmon, loc. cit., pp. 28ff. 228. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 189. 229. The resettlement of alien residents in the land continued from the time of Sargon, who conquered Samaria in 720 b.c.e., until the reign of Assur-banipal, that is, for as long as the Assyrians had firm control over the region. See Tadmor, History, p. 137; idem, Eretz Shomron, pp. 69–72; M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion (Missoula, Mont., 1974), pp. 100–102. 230. Kaufmann, for example, believes the latter; see Religion, IV, p. 190. 231. Torrey’s emphatic opinion (Ezra Studies, pp. 140–157) notwithstanding, scholars no longer believe that the material in Ezra 4:6–6:18 is merely the product of the writer’s imagination. See Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums, pp. 12ff.; Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 542–543.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 257 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Attitude toward the Samaritans

257

inhabited entirely by foreigners, the descendants of peoples deported to the land by Assyrian kings. In spite of the fact that they worshipped Israel’s God, they were considered aliens both by the returned exiles and by their own definition. What is Chronicles’ view of these facts? We see the book’s outlook in its description of the population’s composition during this period: the entire historical narrative, from beginning to end, makes no mention of the presence of foreign peoples in the land of Israel. Hezekiah’s reign is particularly significant because of its historical conditions and the period’s singular importance in Chronicles. According to biblical and extra-biblical historical sources, members of foreign nations, deported by the kings of Assyria, already inhabited the land in the time of Hezekiah. 232 There is absolutely no sign of their presence in Chronicles: 233 only Israelites live in the northern region. The book’s lengthy account of the Passover celebration during Hezekiah’s reign depicts the time after the fall of Samaria and the deportation of her inhabitants. 234 Hezekiah sends messengers throughout the land of Israel, calling for the Israelites to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 30:1, 5, 6, etc.). The couriers travel the length of the country; in “the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun,” they actually go “from city to city” (2 Chr 30:10), trying to persuade people to make the pilgrimage. The account portrays a clearly Israelite settlement in the North. According to the Chronistic outlook, the population’s composition remained completely unchanged following the downfall of the northern kingdom and the exile: members of Israel’s tribes live throughout the region “from Beersheba to Dan” (2 Chr 30:5), and Hezekiah calls upon them to once again worship Yhwh in Jerusalem. 235 In his 232. See above, p. 256, n. 229. Even if we assume that this population ultimately merged with the remnants of the northern tribes (for example, see Bright, History, p. 258; Tadmor, History, pp. 136–137), it was still a completely foreign element in Hezekiah’s time. Alt and those who follow in his footsteps believe that the resettled population retained its own identity and never mixed with the Israelite community; see Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias,” p. 322. 233. 2 Kings 17 does not appear in Chronicles at all, a rather surprising omission if the latter’s key motif is really “anti-Samaritanism.” See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 186. 234. 2 Chr 30:6–9. The course of events in Chronicles does not conform to the accepted chronology of Hezekiah’s reign. It is generally thought that the destruction of Samaria took place in the sixth year of his reign (see H. Tadmor, “Chronology” [Heb.], EB, IV, 287–288); Chronicles, however, tells us that Passover was celebrated in his first year as king, when the destruction of Samaria was a fait accompli. This discrepancy stems from the book’s distinctive bias and cannot lead us to any conclusions concerning chronology. 235. Welch, Chronicler, p. 109; Elmslie, Chronicles (IB), pp. 344–345; see also Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 299–300. Tadmor argues that there is in fact an historical background to

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 258 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

258

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

effort to cleanse the land, Hezekiah also demolishes the altars “throughout all Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh, until they were all destroyed” (2 Chr 31:1). The very regions that, according to all the other evidence at our disposal, were centres of foreign population are described by Chronicles as inhabited only by Israelites, members of the northern tribes. In his description of the Passover celebration, the Chronicler provides us with a more detailed view of the population in Hezekiah’s time: “The whole assembly of Judah, and the priests and the Levites, and the whole assembly that came out of Israel, and the sojourners who came out of the land of Israel, and the sojourners who dwelt in Judah, rejoiced” (2 Chr 30:25). 236 The northern contingent comprises two different groups: “the whole assembly that came out of Israel” — members of the northern tribes — and “the sojourners who came out of the land of Israel.” 237 The term for the “sojourners” — “gerim” — and their participation in the Passover celebration testify that although these pilgrims are of foreign origin, they are now considered part of the people. One wonders if this might be the Chronicler’s allusion to the foreigners resettled in the land by the kings of Assyria. The account of Josiah’s activities presents a similar picture. According to the story in Kings, Josiah’s reforms took place both inside and outside Judah and had two goals: the removal of ritual objects (idols, ritual vessels, altars, and the like) 238 and the dismissal of the priests involved in illegitimate worship. Josiah transferred the priests who served at Judean high places to Jerusalem and stripped them of their priestly functions (2 Kings 23:9); as for the priests who served at high places in the cities of Samaria, Josiah killed and burned them on their own altars (2 Kings 23:20). The geographical range of Josiah’s work extends from Beersheba in the south the Chronicler’s description and that Hezekiah attempted to extend his influence in the north (History, p. 139); however, it is difficult to believe that this sort of expansion could have been possible at a time when the Assyrian Empire had a strong hold on the region. The only biblical evidence on the subject appears in our chapter and is undoubtedly tendentious. 236. “The sojourners who came out of the land of Israel” and “the sojourners who dwelt in Judah” are two distinct groups. “The sojourners who dwelt in Judah” comprise the northerners who moved to Judah while the kingdom of Israel still existed and who are mentioned in the reigns of Rehoboam and Asa (2 Chr 11:16; 15:9) and also — in another context — in Hezekiah’s time (2 Chr 31:6). “The sojourners who came out of the land of Israel” are not of Israelite origin. 237. On the geographical distinction between the two, see below, p. 283. 238. For example: “all the vessels made for Baºal and for Asherah” (2 Kings 23:4); “the Asherah” (v. 6); “the houses of the male cult prostitutes” (v. 7); the horses and chariots dedicated to the sun (v. 11); the altars (v. 12); the high places (v. 13).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 259 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Attitude toward the Samaritans

259

to “the cities of Samaria” in the north, 239 but the inhabitants of the northern kingdom are not mentioned in the description. In Judah, Josiah’s reform is based on the covenant undertaken by “all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:2); in the case of the north, however, the reform is dictated from above, and the local people do not take an active part in it. In the book of Chronicles, Josiah’s reformation is described more briefly; 240 moreover, its nature and extent have been altered. It affected a far greater territory and population: Judah and Jerusalem, Ephraim and Manasseh — in other words, the region of Samaria — and the entire area of Israelite settlement from Simeon in the south to Naphtali in the north (2 Chr 34:6–7). The term “land of Israel” denotes the greatest possible dimensions of the land, and the summary of Josiah’s activities — “And Josiah took away all the abominations from all the territory [twxra] that belonged to the people of Israel” (v. 33) — refers to every region inhabited by the Israelites. 241 A second difference between the two accounts is the fact that in Chronicles Josiah’s reformation affects not only ritual objects and priests, but the people itself. As in Kings, the actual covenant is made with the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem; following the covenant, however. Josiah applies a deliberate policy with respect to the people — “and made all who were in Israel serve the Lord their God” (2 Chr 34:33). “All who were in Israel” denotes the inhabitants of “all the territory that belonged to the people of Israel,” mentioned at the beginning of the verse. This terminology is unusual; it bears no relation to ethnic identity and constitutes an extremely general description of everyone in the area. 242 Both the 239. Pfeiffer assumes that Josiah’s activities could not have extended as far as Bethel and Samaria because the king did not control these areas (Introduction, p. 402); likewise, see H. D. Lance, “The Royal Stamps and the Kingdom of Josiah,” HThR, 64 (1971), 331–332. However, it is generally thought that, with the decline of Assyria’s domination of the land, Josiah managed to control certain regions within the nowextinct northern kingdom. For example, see Bright, History, p. 295; Tadmor, History, p. 149. 240. 2 Chr 34:3–7, 33. It is not clear whether verse 33 continues the account of the reforms or serves as a summary of Chapter 34, but, for our purpose, the difference is unimportant. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 323, n. 2. 241. Compare 2 Chr 11:23: “all the districts (twxra) of Judah and Benjamin.” See below, p. 282. 242. See Danell, Israel, p. 278. S. Iwry interprets the Hebrew axmnh (“who were”) as a technical term, used in post-exilic Israel, meaning “captive” or “prisoner”; he believes that the word has this sense when Chronicles refers to the people of the north. It would seem to me that, at times, Iwry misses the plain meaning of the text. See S. Iwry, “axmnhw: A Striking Variant Reading in IQIsa,” Textus, 5 (1966), 34–43, particularly 39ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 260 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

260

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

broad description of the area’s inhabitants and the use of the hiphºil (“and made [them] serve”) suggest a strong element of imposition from above. It would seem that the wording has been carefully chosen to point out that Josiah also applied his religious reforms to non-Israelites. The desire to expand the definition of the people of Israel informs other details from the account of Josiah’s period, such as the following change to the text in Kings: 2 Kings 22:13: “Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah.” 2 Chr 34:21: “Go, inquire of the Lord for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah.” In Chronicles, Josiah’s authority extends to “those who are left in Israel” 243 — an explicit reference to the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, who also appear in the account of the Passover celebration: “And the people of Israel who were present kept the passover . . . none of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah, and the priests and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Chr 35:17–18). 244 We have seen that the Chronicler’s broad definition of the people of Israel includes, in addition to Judah and Israel, everyone living in the land, in one context termed “the sojourners (gerim) in the land of Israel” and elsewhere, “all who were (axmnh) in Israel.” The most comprehensive expression of this tendency appears precisely at a time when large groups of foreigners lived in Israel and the native population had undergone a major crisis. It is no accident or oversight that the presence of these foreigners is ignored; the omission is a deliberate policy: everyone who lives in the land of Israel, whatever his status, belongs to the people of Israel. It would seem to me that this portrayal betrays the writer’s view of his own period and expresses his attitude towards the Samaritan problem of his time. Even without approaching the historical question of the status, cohesiveness, and singularity of the Samaritan community at that time, 245 it 243. The expression “those who are left (raçnh) in Israel and in Judah” poses certain problems. Given the northern situation during Josiah’s time, “those who are left in Israel” is clear enough; however, “in Judah” is more difficult to understand. Rudolph therefore claims that the Chronicler retrojects the reality of his own period onto that of Josiah (Chronik, p. 324). Although there is no doubt that the expression is late, part of post-exilic usage, it would seem that, in the course of time, raçn came to have a broader meaning, along the lines of axmn; see below, 2 Chr 35:18: “all Judah and Israel who were present (axmnh)” (and also Neh 1:3; 1 Chr 13:2). 244. The parallel text in 2 Kings 23:21 only mentions the king’s order to the people without going into detail concerning those who celebrated the Passover. 245. This question is vital to our understanding of the historical conditions of the Chronicler’s period. The question comprises two aspects, both of which are subject to

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 261 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

261

may be stated that the Chronicler did not consider the Samaritans a separate community. The inhabitants of Samaria were, along with the “resident aliens,” descendants of Israelite tribes, the Judeans’ brothers and an organic part of the people of Israel. We may say that the Chronicler calls for an end to tension and hatred between segments of the people and summons all Israel to unite in worshipping Yhwh in Jerusalem.

V. Foreigners and Aliens Chronicles’ attitude towards the foreigners who inhabited the land in the time of Hezekiah and Josiah is in keeping with the book’s position on foreigners in general. In describing the construction of the Temple during Solomon’s reign, the book of Kings tells us, inter alia, that forced labour was used: “All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel — their descendants who were left after them in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to destroy utterly — these Solomon made a forced levy of slaves, and so they are to this day” (1 Kings 9:20–21). 246 Thus, in Solomon’s day, controversy: (a) Chronicles’ date of composition; scholars have proposed dates ranging from the sixth to the third century b.c.e., with most critics taking the middle ground (see N. H. Snaith, “The Historical Books,” in H. H. Rowley, The OT and Modern Study [Oxford, 1951], pp. 107–109); (b) the formation of the Samaritan community, the date when the temple was established at Mount Gerizim, and the final schism with Judaism; these subjects have been substantially re-evaluated by scholars. On the whole, it used to be thought that the final break occurred during the time of Nehemiah (for example, see H. H. Rowley, “Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple,” BJRL, 38 [1955–56], 166– 198); scholars (apart from those who gave the book a relatively early date) then put the composition of Chronicles after the Samaritan schism. More recently, however, the evidence of Josephus has merited a renewed appraisal. According to Josephus, the temple at Mount Gerizim was built in the days of Alexander the Great (Antiquities, XI, viii, 4– 7); Josephus’ chronology is supported by historical and archaeological considerations (see G. E. Wright, “The Samaritans at Schechem,” HThR, 55 [1962], 357–368). Moreover, Cross believes that the final break between the communities came, not with the erection of the Samaritan temple, but only during the Hasmonean period (F. M. Cross, “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History,” HThR, 59 [1966], 206ff.). Even if we do not put the schism at such a late date, it seems to me that the Chronistic position on the subject could only be possible at a time when, although tension between the two communities existed, they were not completely separate and there was yet some hope of unification. 246. The historical reliability of this datum is the subject of controversy. A few scholars believe that verses 20–22 contradict the authentic information contained in 1 Kings 5:13 (Heb., 5:27) and are merely a later gloss justifying Solomon’s behaviour (Gray, Kings, p. 222). However, Noth believes that although they show clear signs of later reworking, the verses in their original form are authentic (Könige, pp. 217–218). In any

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 262 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

262

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

an ethnic group living in the land were defined as “not of the people of Israel” and were utilized by the king in his building projects and other enterprises. This group continued to exist after Solomon’s reign and on into some unspecified time, known as “to this day.” 247 Further information on the subject appears in 1 Kings 5:13–16 (Heb., 27–30), in which Solomon’s forced labour is divided into two groups. One group of thirty thousand men was levied from all Israel and sent to Lebanon in shifts of ten thousand per month (vv. 13–14 [27–28]). In the second group, there were one hundred and fifty thousand men — “seventy thousand burden-bearers and eighty thousand hewers of stone in the hill country” (v. 15 [29]). 248 Although we are not told who the hundred and fifty thousand men were, it seems likely that they were identical to those mentioned in 1 Kings 9:20–22: “All the people who were left of the Amorite . . .” Chronicles transmits the first piece of information in full, with minor changes (1 Kings 9:20–22 — 2 Chr 8:7–9). 249 In the case of 1 Kings 5:13– 14 (Heb., 5:27–28), the first two verses concerning Israelite forced labour are omitted, 250 and the information about the other workers (vv. 15–16 [29–30]) appears on two occasions: 2 Chr 2:2 (Heb., 2:1): “And Solomon assigned seventy thousand men to bear burdens and eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country, and three thousand six hundred to oversee them.” 2 Chr 2:17–18 (Heb., 2:16–17): “Then Solomon took a census of all the aliens [gerim] who were in the land of Israel, after the census of them case, one ought to distinguish between verses 20–21, which constitute a distinct unit, and verse 22, which is some sort of secondary, apologetic continuation. 247. On the historical, non-etiological use of this formula, see B. S. Childs, “A Study of the Formula ‘Until This Day,’ ” JBL, 82 (1963) 279–292, especially 289ff. on our passage. 248. Scholars do not agree on the source for these data and their place in the narrative; most believe that either all or part of the passage is secondary but proceed to draw differing conclusions from this literary analysis. Montgomery is convinced that the verses are secondary, influenced by the “later invention” of 1 Kings 9:20–22, and entirely unreliable (Kings, p. 137). Gray believes that the verses “in their present form are secondary” (Kings, p. 155, note c). Noth believes that although it was added to the text, the information (apart from the actual figures) represents an authentic tradition. 249. The differences are primarily matters of language and style. Seeligmann sees a deliberate modification in the change from “whom the people of Israel were unable to destroy utterly (μmyrjhl . . . wlkyAal)” (1 Kings 9:21) to “whom the people of Israel had not destroyed (μwlkAal)” (2 Chr 8:8) — “Historic Reality,” p. 287, n. 33. 250. This omission is not accidental; it stems from the desire to harmonize the text with 1 Kings 9:22. See Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 (1954), 360; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 201.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 263 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

263

which David his father had taken; and there were found a hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred. Seventy thousand of them he assigned to bear burdens, eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country, and three thousand six hundred as overseers to make the people work.” 251 The first verse comes before the account of Solomon’s negotiations with Hiram and provides an initial description of the king’s preparations. After Solomon has come to an agreement with Hiram, verses 17–18 (Heb., 16–17) appear as a sort of summary preceding the account of the Temple’s construction. 2 Chr 2:17 (16), in which the Chronicler supplements his sources, is of particular interest to us. He denotes Solomon’s forced labour as “all the aliens (gerim) who were in the land of Israel” — an apparent conflation of the information in 1 Kings 5:15–16 (29–30) and in 1 Kings 9:20–21. The text in Kings merely allows for this interpretation; Chronicles transforms it into an actual definition: the hundred and fifty thousand men mentioned in 1 Kings 5:15 (5:29) are in fact “all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” (1 Kings 9:20). 252 Chronicles reveals a distinctive outlook here in that it calls the forced labourers “gerim”; along with 1 Chr 22:2, which is linked directly to our passage, this constitutes the Bible’s only use of the term for the remnants of the indigenous Canaanite population. By means of this definition, the Chronicler indicates that they are an adjunct to the Israelite community and eliminates their foreign affiliation. Does a view of this sort reflect the historical reality? Did the Canaanites living in the land of Israel have the status of gerim? A few scholars believe that they did; for example, de Vaux writes: “When the Israelites had settled in Canaan, they considered themselves the legitimate owners of the land, the ‘people of the land’; the former inhabitants, unless they were assimilated by marriage or reduced to slavery, became gerim.” 253 Seeligmann, too, reasons that “it would seem likely that the aliens in the land of Israel, whom David and Solomon used as porters and quarrymen . . . were all who were left of the Amorites, Hittites . . . We may therefore conclude that the remnants of the pre-conquest indigenous population were called ‘gerim.’ ” 254 251. There is a literary connection between the two passages; it would seem that 2 Chr 2:2 (Heb., 2:1) is dependent on 2 Chr 2:17–18 (16–17). This leads Rudolph to conclude that 2 Chr 2:2 (2:1) is secondary (Chronik, p. 201). 252. See R. David Kimhi on 2 Chr 2:17 (16); Rudolph, Chronik, p. 49 (on 1 Chr 22:2); Galling, Chronik, p. 49. 253. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 74. 254. I. L. Seeligmann, “Ger” (Heb.), EB, II, 547. Seeligmann continues: “it would seem that the vast majority of aliens living in the land were previous inhabitants of Canaan whom the Israelites had not expelled.” He also claims that the phrase used as a

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 264 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

264

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

This view of the situation creates certain difficulties. The usual biblical meaning of “ger” is “someone who (alone or with his family) leaves his village and tribe because of war . . . famine, plague, an accusation of murder, and so on, and seeks refuge and residence in a place where his rights to own property, marry, and participate in judicial, ritual, or military matters are limited.” 255 There are two sides to this standard interpretation: The alien is someone who has left his own territory and moved to another place; moreover, he is generally an individual without any affiliation who then joins a tribe, family, or the like. 256 If the term in this sense is to be applied to the remnants of the native population, we must assume that after David and Solomon established control over the entire country, they completely dispossessed the Canaanites of their property rights: although the country’s autochthonous inhabitants remained where they were, they were now dependent on the protection of the new local land-owner. 257 However, there is no biblical proof that this was the case. The scant evidence at our disposal even suggests that the reverse was true: David and Solomon left the native population where it was and incorporated the Canaanites into an administrative framework which, as it happens, also preserved their rights. 258 Moreover, the datum in Kings makes the point that these residents were recruited for forced labour. “Forced labour” was a common means of subjugation or enslavement in Antiquity; it was “enforced physical service that vanquished peoples rendered the victorious power,” 259 but it did not involve displacing those who were subjugated.

rationale for various biblical laws — “for you were strangers (gerim) in the land of Egypt” — represents “an echo of the perpetual subjugation of Canaanite gerim in the land of Israel” (loc. cit., 547). See also A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 432–433. 255. Baumgartner, Lexikon, I, p. 193; see also “rg,” Thesaurus, II, p. 246. 256. According to Baumgartner’s Lexikon, this is in fact the term’s only meaning. However, one exception to this definition appears in the Bible — the term also refers collectively to the children of Israel in Egypt (Exod 22:20; 23:9; Lev 19:34; Deut 10:19). The Thesaurus therefore includes the following definition: “nation living in a foreign country” (II, p. 247). See also below, n. 260. 257. De Vaux indicates that a situation of this sort existed: “Since all landed property was in Israelite hands, the gerim were reduced to hiring out their services” (Ancient Israel, p. 75), and Seeligmann states explicitly; “one axiom of the administrative system under David and Solomon had a profound effect on the status of gerim: . . . an alien was no longer allowed to own or acquire property in the land” (EB, II, 548). 258. Alt discusses this aspect of the Davidic and Solomonic monarchy at length — “The Formation of the Israelite State,” pp. 221–225. 259. A. F. Rainey, “Forced Labour” (Heb.), EB, V, 55–56. We are not concerned here with the question of whether the two terms, sm and dbw[ sm (both translated as “forced

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 265 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

265

This is the message of Gen 49:15: “he saw that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant; so he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a slave at forced labour (db[Aμml yhyw).” Issachar chose an agricultural way of life and was willing to subjugate himself to the surrounding Canaanite population in order to work the soil. Other passages also indicate that subjugation of a people and its exploitation as forced labour actually constituted the reverse of displacement or dispossession of land (which was the lot of the ger). 260 The fact that the remnants of the Canaanite peoples were subjugated by David and Solomon and recruited as forced labour does not signify that they were dispossessed of their land or transformed into gerim. There is no essential difference between their forced labour and that provided by Israelites. 261 Portraying these Canaanites as gerim is a reflection of the Chronicler’s distinctive approach and not of any historical reality. What, then, is the significance of such a portrayal? What, precisely, does the word “gerim” mean in Chronicles? The term (always in the plural) appears four times in Chronicles. In one case, it is used figuratively; 262 on the other three occasions, it appears in the same phrase “the aliens who were in the land of Israel” (1 Chr 22:2; 2 Chr 2:17 [16]; and, with a slight variation, 30:25). Given this uniform usage, it would seem that the phrase had a clearly-defined sense that was specific to Chronicles. In the various strata of biblical literature, the term “ger” has a social significance and refers to a particular social status. In Second Commonwealth Judaism, the term is a religious one: a ger is someone

levy” in the RSV), refer to the same thing or to two different types of corvée; see M. Haran, “The Gibeonites, the Nethinim, and the Servants of Solomon” (Heb.), in Judah and Jerusalem: The Twelfth Archeological Convention (Heb., Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 40ff. 260. For example, Judg 1:27–28, 30, 33, etc. The only gerim who are enslaved are the Israelites in Egypt, but their case is an unusual one produced by the coincidence of two distinct factors. At first, the sons of Israel came to Egypt as gerim, aliens who were sheltered by the royal authorities (Gen 47:4–6 and elsewhere). At a later stage and due to a particular change of circumstance, they were enslaved; at this second stage, they were no longer gerim who needed royal protection. Instead, they constituted an “exceedingly strong” minority which the native population saw as a threat (Exod 1:8ff.). The phrase that is sometimes connected to biblical injunctions — “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” could not refer to slavery; rather, it indicates a state of disenfranchisement and lack of support from the dominant society. 261. The only difference is one of extent. See Tadmor, History, p. 105. 262. 1 Chr 29:15: “For we are strangers (gerim) before thee, and sojourners (μybçwt) as all our fathers were.” The verse is based on a quotation from Psalms, rewritten from the singular to the plural: “For I am a stranger with thee, a sojourner, like all my fathers” (Ps 39:12 [Heb., 13]).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 266 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

266

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

who has forsworn paganism and adopted the Jewish religion. 263 To which of these semantic spheres do the passages in Chronicles belong? Scholars have given conflicting answers to this question. According to Bertholet, “the step was taken during the time between P and the Chronicler: ger received the specific meaning with which it later entered talmudic literature . . . The ger became a proselyte.” 264 Kaufmann, however, believed that “biblical literature makes absolutely no mention of the religious proselytism of later Judaism.” 265 Because the disparity between answers such as these stems in part from differences of definition, we must go one step further and examine the concept itself. With the scant biblical evidence at our disposal, we are able to reconstruct a few stages in the semantic development of the term “ger.” We must first of all distinguish between the phenomenon of religious proselytism — that is, the adoption of Israel’s religion in whatever way — and the later term used to describe and define this phenomenon. 266 Post-exilic biblical literature contains some testimony concerning the phenomenon of religiouslymotivated proselytism of foreigners; we may begin, in no particular chronological order, with two passages from Ezra–Nehemiah. (1) “It was eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile, and also by every one who had joined them and separated himself from the pollutions of the peoples of the land to worship the Lord, the God of Israel” (Ezra 6:21). Two groups of people celebrate Passover: the Jewish community, or “returned exiles” (hlwghAynb), 267 comprising Israel, priests, 263. See Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 351ff.; A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu dem Fremden (Freiburg, 1896), p. 178, Schürer, Geschichte, III, pp. 175ff.; Y. Kaufmann, Golah ve-Nekar, I (Heb., Tel Aviv, 1929), pp. 226ff. 264. Bertholet, op. cit., p. 178. It must be noted that Bertholet puts P at a very late date and discusses him (in chronological order) after Ezra–Nehemiah. In any case, he believed that the process of semantic change was concluded before the composition of Chronicles. 265. Religion, IV, p. 298. Although it is true that Kaufmann does not discuss the verses in Chronicles, his unequivocal assertion encompasses all of biblical literature. 266. This distinction is particularly important with regard to Kaufmann’s position. He defines “religious proselytism” as “an unqualified move from paganism to Israelite religion which is accomplished in one step by means of a standard ceremony” (Religion, IV, p. 295; see also pp. 298–299). Accordingly, one may only speak about proselytism once a ceremony has been established and the transition from one religion to another is drastic — conditions that substantially reduce the extent of the phenomenon. This definition also entails the existence of a transitional stage, which Kaufmann calls “judaization” rather than “proselytism” (Religion, IV, pp. 298–299). 267. Ezra 6:19, 20; likewise Ezra 4:1; 8:35; 10:7, 16. Similar names for the community include “those who returned from exile” (Ezra 6:21), “the congregation of the exiles”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 267 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

267

and Levites (Ezra 6:20), and those who had separated themselves “from the pollutions of the peoples of the land to worship the Lord.” The text indicates that the latter were not Israelites originally; 268 they joined the people 269 in order to seek Yhwh. (2) Neh 10:28–30 (Heb., 29–31): “The rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, the temple servants, and all who have separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to the law of God . . . join with their brethren, their nobles, and enter into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s law . . .” These verses specify the segments of the people that entered into a covenant and took on all its obligations. The segments are listed in standard order — the rest of the people, priests, Levites, and so on — but a special group appears at the end of the list: those “who have separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to the law of God.” The designation makes it clear that these people separated themselves from other nations; they were not Israelite in origin. Their participation in the covenant shows that they were considered Israelite in every respect. They undertook all that it entailed, including the prohibition against marrying foreign women. 270 The passage does not tell us how this group joined the Israelite community, yet it provides a precise, lucid expression of the actual phenomenon of religious proselytism: converts separate themselves from the “peoples of the lands” in order to follow (or “join”) “the law of God.” 271 Ezra 6:21 and Neh 10:28 (29) present two different accounts of the same phenomenon, a phenomenon that could not yet be described in (10:8), and “the exiles” (1:11; 9:4; 10:6); atwlgAynb appears in Aramaic in Ezra 6:16. Applying the word hlwg to those who returned is peculiar to Ezra; in Dan 2:25; 5:13; 6:14, it refers to Jews living in Babylonia. 268. Whether or not this was actually the case is another issue. Some scholars believe that these people were in fact members of the Israelite community who did not go into exile; however, the verse itself gives no indication of this possibility. See, for example, Batten, Ezra–Nehemiah, pp. 152, 153, 155; Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 331. 269. This was the Rabbis’ understanding of the verse (Kid. 70a); see also Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, p. 61. The Hebrew usage . . . la . . . m ldbn has a specific meaning; the preposition la is integral to the expression (although Batten, Ezra–Nehemiah, p. 155, misinterprets it). As the English translation indicates, the expression means: to separate oneself from one group and join a second, as in “from the Gadites there went over to David . . .” (1 Chr 12:8 (Heb., 9]) — these men left the tribe of Gad and joined forces with David. See also S. D. Luzzatto’s commentary to Isa 56:3. 270. This leads us to the question that has engaged many critics: why did Ezra expel the foreign women without giving them the chance to convert? (See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 284–303.) Kaufmann’s answer — that religious conversion as such did not yet exist — is unconvincing; see below. 271. See Rudolph, Ezra und Nehemia, p. 61.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 268 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

268

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

standardized terminology. 272 The phrasing here developed ad hoc; it never entered standard usage, nor does it appear in any other text. In the Bible, religious proselytism is also indicated, somewhat more often, by the word hwln (“joined himself”). Isa 56:3–8 discusses the case of “the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord” (v. 3) and “the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants” (v. 6). 273 Adopting Yhwh worship by definition entails joining the people of Israel, who maintain Yhwh worship; the assurance that their offerings will be accepted transforms those who join into a part of the community. 274 For the prophet of Isa 56:3–8, the issue may have represented a concrete, possibly sacrallegal situation. 275

272. There are a few differences of terminology in the two passages. In Ezra, it is a case of separating oneself “from the pollutions of the peoples of the land (≈rahAywg)’’, in Nehemiah, “from the peoples of the lands (twxrah ym[).” The verse in Ezra contains the only example of the phrase ≈rahAywg; twxrah ym[ and its equivalent, ≈rah ym[, are more common (on their equivalence, see Kropat, “Die Syntax der Chronik,” pp. 8–9) — they appear in Ezra 9:2, 11; Nehemiah 9:30; 10:32; and elsewhere. The text in Ezra emphasizes the question of impurity, possibly under the influence of its context, the purification for Passover (Ezra 6:20: “For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all of them were clean”). In Nehemiah, we are told in concise, formal fashion that the people joined “to the law of God”; in Ezra, the purpose is stated twice and at greater length: the people joined the returned exiles (μhla) “to worship the Lord, the God of Israel.” It would seem that Neh 10:28 (Heb., 10:29) contains the more developed phrasing. 273. On textual differences between MT and 1QIsaa and their significance, see M. Weinfeld, “Universalism and Particularism in the Period of Exile and Restoration” (Heb.), Tarbiz5, 33 (1963/64), 240–241. 274. See S. D. Luzzatto to Isa 56:7 and, likewise, C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (1969), p. 315. Even Kaufmann admits that Isaiah 56 “contains a flicker of the idea of religious proselytism,” but he defines those who “joined” as Judaizers, not converts; see Religion, IV, p. 136. 275. As Westermann believes: “In actual fact, what comes in point is a decision in the realm of sacred law . . . Sanction is conferred on a decision taken purely on the basis of sacral law by dressing it up as a divine oracle” (Westermann, op. cit., p. 312). Kaufmann argues the opposite: “the response of Second Isaiah is, simply, an eschatological vision” (Religion, IV, p. 137). Scholars do not agree in their dating of the prophecy in Isa 56:3–8. Generally speaking, those who consider Isaiah 40–66 a unified work date it as early as the return from exile, whereas those who ascribe Chapters 56–66 to a third prophet suggest that it dates from the time of Ezra–Nehemiah. Some scholars do not even believe that the prophecy comes from Third Isaiah; they see it as a later addition to the book (see Westermann, op. cit., p. 307, and, on the problem in general, M. Haran, Between Riªshonôt [Former Prophecies] and Óadashôt [New Prophecies] [Heb., Jerusalem, 1963], pp. 73ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 269 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

269

Although the term hwln appears in other, contemporary texts, 276 Isa 14:1 is especially significant: “The Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and aliens will join them (μhyl[ rgh hwlnw) and will cleave to the house of Jacob.” The prophecy speaks of the people’s future return to their land 277 and it contains both rg (“ger”) and hwln: it is the ger who will join the people of Israel. The verse suggests that aliens became affiliated with the people during the exile; 278 the prophet promises that all of Israel, including the aliens who have joined them, will be brought safely to “the Lord’s land” (Isa 14:2). In this context, the word “ger” has no social connotation. The members of other nations who joined the Israelite community in the diaspora did not have to leave their homes and seek refuge as second-class residents in a foreign country. Here, “ger” has a purely religious meaning equivalent to hwln. The same phrase may be found in the long recension (S) of Tobit 1:8, understood by B. Heller to mean “and the aliens who joined (μyrgh l[ μywlnh) the Israelites.” 279 In this passage, the aliens who joined the 276. In particular, Est 9:27: “the Jews ordained and took it upon themselves and their descendants and all who joined them, that . . . they would keep these two days.” This verse specifies who will be the Jews of the future: those who were born Jewish (“their descendants”) and those who join the Jewish community (“all who joined them”). It would appear that Est 9:20–32 was added to the book. See C. A. Moore, Esther, AB (1971), p. 97; L. B. Paton, The Book of Esther, ICC (1908), pp. 57–60. The word μydhytm appears in the book proper (Est 8:17); it is a hapax legomenon and is usually understood as the equivalent of μyryygtm or, as BDB puts it, “becoming Jews” (BDB, p. 397; Rashi on Est 8:17; and others; but cf. Ibn Ezra). 277. It apparently dates from the time of the return and has a literary connection to Second Isaiah and Zechariah (see G. B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah, vol. I, I–XXVII, ICC (1912), pp. 214ff.). Kaufmann also believes that this prophecy cannot be attributed to the prophet Isaiah but he does not propose a date for it (Religion, III, p. 178). 278. Compare the description of the ger in Ezek 47:22–23: “You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you . . . In whatever tribe the alien resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance.” Ezekiel also considers gerim part of the future Israel, but he is speaking of aliens living in the land of Israel who, over the years, have become members of the people; see W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, OTL (1970), p. 592. Jewish exegesis has described these gerim as proselytes, comparing Ezek 47:22–23 to Isa 14:1–2: “who converted to Judaism within a particular tribe during the exile” (Rashi); “who produced children in your midst during the exile . . . for, in the future, when Israel returns from exile, their tribes will be known” (R. David Kimhi). See also Zimmerli, Ezekiel, pp. II, p. 532. 279. See B. (Dov) Heller, The Apocryphal Books, ed. A. Kahana (Heb., Tel Aviv, 1959), II, ad. loc. The translators of the Septuagint use the same Greek verb for hwln in Isa 56:3 — oJ ajllogenhjÍ oJ proskeimevnoÍ proÍ kuv rion — and also in v. 6. In Isa 14:1 and Est 9:27, they translate l[ hwln as prostÇqgmi. The root proskeÇhai is frequently used for the Hebrew

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 270 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

270

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

Israelites are among those who receive the tithe according to the laws in Deuteronomy. Thus, although the phenomenon of religious proselytism was already in existence during the relatively early period of the Second Commonwealth, it was not yet defined in any uniform way. As “ger” came to be equated with hwln, the more ancient “ger” ultimately took over and became the exclusive term. Equating the ger with the proselyte had a number of important consequences. According to the Priestly laws, the ger could take part in the religious life of the people, but he could not partake of the Passover sacrifice without being circumcised. 280 Passover and circumcision were related in a peculiar way because of the apotropeic nature of the two rituals, which is why uncircumcised men were vehemently forbidden to participate in the Passover ceremony. 281 Once a ger had been circumcised he could participate — an opportunity not given to the sojourner (bçwt) or hired servant (Exod 12:44ff.). According to Priestly law, the right to be circumcised and then partake of the Passover sacrifice resulted from the alien’s social status rather than determining it, and the status itself therefore did not change after the ger had been circumcised. In later Judaism, we see a double process at work: the new phenomenon of conversion to Judaism based on religious conviction comes to be defined by means of the ancient term “ger,” which thus receives a different meaning. At the same time, the biblical condition for participation in the Passover ceremony, which was the result of the sacrifice’s unique quality, is transformed into the standard rite for converting a foreigner to Judaism. We might say that the equation of the new phenomenon and the ancient term, together with the laws of Passover in Exod 12:43ff., enabled later Judaism to legitimize proselytism fully and also provided the formal means of conversion. At the very minimum, it is possible to understand “ger” in the book of Chronicles as we find it in Priestly literature — a sociological term for an alien who could participate in the religious life of the Israelite community. However, it is more likely that Chronicles already uses the term in its later sense: a “ger” is a member of a foreign people who has joined the people of Israel, adopted their religion, and thus lost his foreign identity. As we have seen, the term “gerim” describes two groups in Chronicles: the remnant of the Canaanite population mentioned during Solomon’s ruuwg in the “the alien who lives (rgh) in your midst” (Lev 17:8; 10:13; and many others) — but in the phrase proskeÇmai ejn. It would seem that Tobit 1:8 reflects the expression l[ hwlnh rgh. 280. See Exod 12:48–49; Lev 24:22; Num 15:15–16; etc. 281. Thus Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 87–88.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 271 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

271

reign and the people who come from around the country to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah. In the book of Kings, too, the reigns of Solomon and Hezekiah are the only periods (during the First Commonwealth) in which non-Israelites living in the land are expressly mentioned. Chronicles describes these members of foreign peoples as “gerim” and thereby transforms them into a segment of the Israelite community. As a result of this transformation, there are no longer any foreigners living in the land of Israel. Chronicles’ attitude towards foreigners may also be seen in its view of intermarriage. A few examples appear in the genealogies, particularly those of Judah: (1) “The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, and Shelah; these three Bath-shua, the Canaanitess bore to him” (1 Chr 2:3). (2) “Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite” (1 Chr 2:17). (3) “Sheshan had an Egyptian slave, whose name was Jarha. So Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to Jarha his slave” (1 Chr 2:34–35). (4) “These are the sons of Bithi-ah, the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered married” (1 Chr 4:18). (5) “The sons of Manasseh . . . whom his Aramean concubine bore” (l Chr 7:14). 282 Apart from 1 Chr 2:3, which is based on the tradition in Genesis 38, these texts appear uniquely in Chronicles, and their sources are unknown to us. Although apparently mere genealogical trivia, they in fact conceal an important Chronistic tendency. The way in which these details are presented indicates that the writer took a particular interest in them: (a) The genealogical lists in Chronicles, like other biblical genealogies, do not mention the wives of Jacob’s sons. In Chronicles, there are three exceptions to this rule: Judah married a Canaanite woman 283 and, later, his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who apparently was also Canaanite. 284 Manassah had an Aramean concubine. Of all Jacob’s daughters-in-law, only these three women are mentioned. (b) A number of formulas recur in the genealogies. One such formula is the introductory “the sons of . . .” (as in 1 Chr 2:42, 47), followed by the 282. Perhaps we might add 1 Chr 4:22; 8:8, which suggest ties between Judah and Moab and Benjamin and Moab, although the text is difficult to understand. 283. See the Targum to Chronicles, which attempts to obviate the matter by translating “Bath-shua the tradeswoman (atyfmqrp).” 284. 1 Chr 2:4. Genesis 38 does not state that Tamar was Canaanite, but the story would seem to indicate that she was; see, for example, E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB (1964), p. 300.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 272 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

272

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

sons’ names and, at times, their number. 285 1 Chr 2:3, cited above, begins with this formula, and we therefore might expect it to read something like “the sons of Judah: Er, Onan, and Shelah (these three).” The conclusion “Bath-shua the Canaanitess bore to him” adds a particular emphasis. 286 (c) The information that Judah was married to the Canaanite Bath-shua is taken from Genesis 38, 287 which speaks of Judah’s broader relationship with the Canaanites. Chronicles does not quote this datum; instead, it compresses the chapter’s contents. The way in which the mention of Bathshua is transmitted in 1 Chr 2:3 therefore suggests a deliberate effort on the writer’s part. (d) Jesse’s genealogy in 1 Chr 2:13–17 lists his descendants in the following order: sons (vv. 13–15), daughters (v. 16a), and grandsons by his daughters (vv. 16b–17a). 288 The list ends with the comment — almost an afterthought — that the husband of Abigail and father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite. 289 This comment strikes a somewhat incongruous note; the Chronicler must have included it in order to make the point that one of David’s relatives was a foreigner. (e) The story of Sheshan in 1 Chr 2:34–41 is puzzling. It provides a genealogy for Elishama, about whom nothing is known. 290 The family tree is a long and detailed one that reveals that the dynasty was founded by an Egyptian slave. Although the Rabbis and medieval exegetes took it for 285. Likewise 1 Chr 2:6, 16; 3:22, 23, 24; etc. 286. A similar addition is found in the list of David’s sons. In 1 Chr 3:5, we read “. . . four by Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel” (who, it seems, is in fact Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, mentioned in 2 Sam 11:3). A second addition in the same list mentions David’s daughter, Tamar (1 Chr 3:9). It may be that the references to these two women in David’s life purposely echo the references to Judah’s wives (and daughter-inlaw) in 1 Chronicles 2. 287. According to 1 Chr 2:3, “Bath-shua” was a proper name (as in 1 Chr 3:5); in Genesis. Judah married “the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” (Gen 38:2; see also v. 12). 288. See the commentary of R. Elijah of Vilna on this verse. 289. In 2 Sam 17:25, he is called “Ithra the Israelite,” but it is universally thought that Chronicles’ version is the more authentic. For example, see A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen (Breslau, 1857), pp. 361–362; Driver, Samuel, p. 326. The Rabbis had an interest in Jether’s identity because of his family connection to David; for example, see Yeb. 77a — “This teaches that he girded on his sword like an Ishmaelite.” See also Perush Talmid R. Saadya Gaon: “he was an officer over Ishmael but an Israelite . . . All David’s officers were called by their commands. Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 23:39), Ittai the Gittite (2 Sam 15:19), and Ithmah the Moabite (1 Chr 11:46) were David’s officers in those regions, and all were zealous men of action.” 290. Most commentators assume that he was a personage from the Chronicler’s time. For example, see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 95; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 19.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 273 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

V. Foreigners and Aliens

273

granted that this slave was a ger, 291 what is striking about the biblical text is its emphasis on an Egyptian as founder of a dynasty. (f) Manasseh’s genealogy in 1 Chr 7:14–15 appears to be based on Num 26:29ff.; 292 the principal addition to the source is the information that Manasseh had an Aramean concubine. These texts speak expressly of intermarriages; it may be that other wives mentioned only by name in the genealogies were also non-Israelite. 293 The foreign peoples referred to are Canaanites, Egyptians, Arameans, Moabites, and Ishmaelites — in other words, unrelated nations which, according to the laws of Deuteronomy, belong in separate categories. 294 Since the purpose of genealogies is to portray the composition of Israel’s tribes by family, we must understand the above verses in this context. They point out that large segments of the Israelite tribes, in Judah and Manasseh especially, and perhaps also in Benjamin, are descended from foreign women; likewise, the male head of individual fathers’ houses may be a foreigner. Taken together, the various comments in the genealogies testify to Chronicles’ view of intermarriage: marrying a member of the people transforms a foreigner, whether man or woman, into an Israelite, and the offspring of that marriage are, unquestionably, Israelites. Chronicles’ position is all the more unusual for its period when compared to the reverse, extreme outlook of Ezra–Nehemiah, which denies the legitimacy of intermarriage and demands the expulsion of foreign wives. 295 Following his sources in Samuel–Kings, the Chronicler mentions a few more intermarriages: Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh, 296 and others. 297 In 2 Chr 24:26, we find a significant change from the text in Kings: 291. See Perush Talmid R. Saadya Gaon, R. David Kimhi, and Pseudo-Rashi on our verse. 292. Rudolph analyses the text in detail; Chronik, pp. 69–70. 293. For example, see S. Yeivin, EB, III, 504: “such as . . . Ephrath (1 Chr 2:19–24). Ephah (2:46), and Maºacah (2:48).” Rudolph believes that the Maºacah mentioned in Manasseh’s genealogy (1 Chr 7:15, 16) was a foreign woman (Chronik, p. 70). Since the genealogies are, by nature, an expression of ethnological developments, we find that the foreign partner is usually the wife (or concubine), i.e., the less important member of a family or tribe (see Malamat, History, p. 63). 294. See Deut 7:1–6; 23:4–9. 295. Ezra 9–10; Neh 10:31; 13:23–27. 296. Chronicles does not emphasize this marriage in the way that Kings does. It is mentioned once (2 Chr 8:11 — 1 Kings 3:1; 7:8b; 9:16), and the Chronicler’s note of reservation focusses on the queen’s identity as a woman, not as a foreigner: “No wife of mine shall live in the house of David king of Israel” (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 220). Her foreign origins are not considered noteworthy. 297. 1 Chr 3:2; 2 Chr 2:12–13; 12:13.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 274 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

274

The People of Israel: The Idea of “All Israel”

2 Chr 24:26: “Those who conspired against him were Zabad the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess.” 2 Kings 12:21 (Heb., 22): “It was Jozacar the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, who struck him down.” Chronicles turns the fathers’ names into the names of the conspirators’ mothers and comments on their foreign origin. Usual biblical practice is to cite the name of a man’s father, not his mother, 298 and the text in Kings therefore appears to be more authentic. 299 We cannot tell whether the Chronicler made this change himself or took it from some source at his disposal. Even if the difference existed in his source, it nonetheless testifies to the Chronicler’s preference to include a comment on the mothers’ foreignness. The story as a whole portrays the men as Israelite in every respect; 300 they have Israelite names, 301 they kill Joash in order to avenge Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, and Amaziah dealt with them according to Israelite law (2 Chr 25:4 — 2 Kings 14:6). The book of Chronicles expresses a consistent attitude towards foreigners living in the land of Israel: no distinct, separate foreign population exists in the land. Everyone who lives there, whatever his origins, is part of the people of Israel. The foreigner joins the people in two ways. He or she may marry an Israelite, thereby becoming an integral part of a particular tribe and joining a genealogical tradition that relates ethnic developments within Israel. Second, the creation of the status of “ger” grafts a new, now inseparable, element onto the people. The first method integrates members of foreign nations into the tribal framework that is fundamental to the people of Israel. The second enlarges that framework in order to incorporate new elements. Both communicate the ideal of “all Israel” — the people of Israel at its broadest, perfectly united as one people. 298. The occasional exceptions to this rule include “the sons of Zeruiah” — their mother (1 Sam 26:6; 2 Sam 2:13, etc.). See Smith, Samuel, p. 321. 299. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 279. 300. David’s warriors also include a number of foreigners; the list mentions at least four — Zelek the Ammonite (1 Chr 11:39 — 2 Sam 23:37), Uriah the Hittite (1 Chr 11:41 — 2 Sam 23:39), Ithmah the Moabite (1 Chr 11:46), and Mibhar the son of Hagri (1 Chr 11:38 — on the reading of this name, see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 193; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 103). According to Chronicles, these men were considered full Israelites and were among the heroes “who gave [David] 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). 301. Particularly in Kings’ version of the episode: both names contain the theophoric element wy/why. On the text in Kings and the names’ original form, see Montgomery, Kings, p. 432.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 275 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Geographic Dimensions

275

B. The People of Israel and the Land of Israel I. The Geographic Dimensions Because the geographic details that appear in a historiographic text usually reflect a certain historical reality, they attract the attention of historical geographer and historian alike. Yet, these details do not always testify to the historical reality; at times, they express a world-view or a desired image of reality that differs from and may even contradict the historical situation. 1 We must therefore begin with the fundamental question of whether the geographic data in Chronicles reflect the historical reality or some idea or world-view. Rather than entering into a systematic analysis of all the geographic details, we will answer this question by discussing a number of particularly significant points. First, it must be noted that the Chronicler displays a strong awareness of geography, 2 as we see from the following features: (1) 1 Chronicles 1 to 9 serves as an introduction to the book and aims to settle two preliminary questions — the chapters identify the people whose history will be described 3 and the geographic territory in which they reside. 4 The geographic material presented 5 is no random collection of details; it comprises part of the book’s plan and is consciously presented in response to a question. 6 Most of the material is concentrated in the first part of the genealogies (1 Chronicles 2–6 ) and is not structured with any degree of uniformity. It does not come from a single source, nor does it appear, for the most part, anywhere else in the Bible. 7 The material includes 1. An outstanding example of this appears in the tension between the two descriptions of the conquest in Joshua: the “complete conquest” (e.g., Josh 11:16ff.) and other accounts such as Josh 12:1bff. See Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 377–386. 2. Rudolph is of the opposite opinion and believes that the Chronicler “has no special geographical interests” (Chronik, p. 39). On the basis of this assumption, he then rejects the authenticity of certain passages in the book. 3. See above, pp. 218ff. 4. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 81; Johnson, Biblical Genealogies, pp. 57–58. 5. Inter alia: 1 Chr 2:42–46, 50–55; 4:11–12, 21–23, 28–33, 39–43; 5:8–10, 11, 23– 26; 6:54–81 (Heb., 39–66); 7:21, 28–29; 8:6–8, 12–13. On the types of geographical lists, see Johnson, Biblical Genealogies, pp. 57–60. 6. These chapters have the same goal as the introduction to any modem historical work — providing answers to preliminary questions. “This chapter serves to introduce the genealogies of the tribes of Israel by showing Israel’s place among the nations and thus corresponds to the ethnic discussions with which modem writers frequently open their histories” (Curtis, Chronicles, p. 57, on 1 Chronicles 1). 7. The list of Simeon’s cities in 1 Chr 4:28–33 appears in a different form in Josh 19:2–8; the list of Levitical cities (1 Chr 6:54–81 [Heb., 6:39–66]) is also found in Joshua 21.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 276 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

276

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

lists of cities 8 and short accounts of population shifts within the land, 9 the construction of cities, 10 and tribal wars of expansion. 11 Some of the lists appear at first glance to be genealogies but, in fact, they describe the process of settlement and are unique to Chronicles. 12 Finally, we also find short descriptions of the areas of settlement. 13 (2) When the tribal lists in Chronicles are not directly dependent on Pentateuchal sources, they follow a geographic order. This order changes from list to list, and the way in which it does so indicates that the various enumerations are based on geographic principles. In the tribal list that provides the framework for the genealogies, we find the following order: 14 The centre serves as starting point — Judah and the neighbouring Simeon make up one unit in the south of the land (1 Chronicles 2–4). The direction then shifts to the east bank of the Jordan, and, moving from south to north, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh appear, along with a precise description of their territories (1 Chr 5:3–10, 11–13, 23–24). The conclusion to this section presents the three as one bloc of tribes, those east of the Jordan. 15 The tribe of Levi and the Levitical cities appear midway through the genealogies (1 Chronicles 6 [Heb., 1 Chr 5:27 — 6:66]), after which we move to the northern tribes — Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. 16 Finally, the direction shifts back to the centre of the country, with the enumeration (from north to south) of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin (1 Chr 7:14–29; 8:1–40). The list ends near its starting point and names those who lived in Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:3ff.). With the exception of one tribe, Asher, whose exact position between Ephraim and Benjamin 8. Particularly those of Simeon and the Levites; see note above. 9. 1 Chr 2:23; 7:21; 8:6, 13. 10. 1 Chr 7:24; 8:12. 11. The Simeonite war of expansion to the South and East — 1 Chr 4:39–43; the wars of the tribes who lived east of the Jordan — 1 Chr 5:10, 18–19. 12. 1 Chr 2:42–46, 50–52, and elsewhere. These lists describe cities and territories as the fathers or sons of tribes and are characterized by an awareness of the name’s eponymic quality, as in 1 Chr 4:12 — “Eshton was the father of Beth-rapha” — and 1 Chr 2:52, etc. See J. Liver, “Familial Relationships” (“sjy”), EB, III, 668ff.; Johnson, Biblical Genealogies, p. 58, n. 4. 13. 1 Chr 5:8–9, 11, 16, 23; 7:28–29. 14. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 80; Noth, Stämme Israels, p. 21: Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 485. Rudolph disregards the geographic order and constructs a different version of the original tribal order; see Chronik, pp. 47, 49, and especially 65. 15. 1 Chr 5:18–22, 25–26. These tribes are also viewed as one unit in 1 Chr 26:32, as opposed to 26:30. See also 1 Chr 12:38. 16. 1 Chr 7:1–13. It would seem that the second list for “Benjamin” in 1 Chr 7:6–11 actually applies to Zebulun; see above, p. 219, n. 61.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 277 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Geographic Dimensions

277

is unclear, 17 a continuous geographical circle has thus been drawn. This tribal order, unparalleled in the Bible, clearly reflects a geographical perspective on the division of the land into territories and areas of settlement. The list of Levitical cities in 1 Chronicles 6 is also structured according to geographic principles, with the various tribes separated into units. 18 This list parallels Joshua 21, and both versions list the tribes in the same order. The list of tribal members in 1 Chr 12:23–37 (Heb., 24–38) follows a straight line from south to north: Judah, Simeon, Levi, Benjamin, Ephraim, half-tribe of Manasseh, Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan, Asher. After all those west of the Jordan have been listed, the tribes living east of the Jordan appear as one group. We find that the order of the tribes does not follow a geographic principle in two instances: 1 Chr 2:1–2 and 1 Chr 27:16–22. In these passages, the tribes are listed according to mother, in keeping with the tradition in Gen 35:23–26. (3) The Davidic–Solomonic kingdom encompassed the entire land, and the book of Chronicles considers the kings of Judah the rightful heirs of David and Solomon. Their claim to rule over every part of the land remains valid even after the kingdom is divided. 19 In narrating the history of Judah’s monarchs, Chronicles describes the way in which this theoretical claim comes to be realized by means of constant, gradual territorial expansion until, finally, Josiah is able to exercise complete control. Thus, in Rehoboam’s time, the southern kingdom comprises the territories of Judah and Benjamin. With Abijah, we find the first expansion to the north: the southern portions of Ephraim are conquered — “Bethel with its villages and Jeshanah with its villages and Ephron (ketib; qere: Ephrain) with its villages” (2 Chr 13:19). We read that Asa’s influence extended to people “from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon” (2 Chr 15:9) and that Jehoshaphat set garrisons “in the cities of Ephraim which Asa his father had taken” (2 Chr 17:2). The boundaries of Jehoshaphat’s kingdom are described with

17. 1 Chr 7:30–40. It would seem that Asher originally appeared after Naphtali and before Manasseh; the genealogy for Asher is, apparently, a census list similar to those of Issachar and Zebulun and unlike the lists for Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin, with whom the tribe is now grouped. 18. The tribes appear in the following order: Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin as one unit — 1 Chr 6:65 (Heb., 50); Ephraim, Dan, Manasseh, and Issachar — 6:66–73 (Heb., 51–58; cp. Josh 21:20–29); Asher, Naphtali, and Zebulun — 6:74–77 (Heb., 59–62); Reuben and Gad — 6:78–80 (Heb., 63–65). Dan is still located in the centre of the land, and the two sections of Manasseh are enumerated one after the other. 19. See above, pp. 229ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 278 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

278

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

a phrase that indicates borders: “and he went out again among the people, from Beer-sheba to the hill country of Ephraim” (2 Chr 19:4); here, the hill country of Ephraim belongs at least in part to the kingdom of Judah. The next stage of expansion occurs after the northern kingdom has been destroyed. Hezekiah’s letters to all Israel are sent throughout the land “from Beer-sheba to Dan” (2 Chr 30:5), although, in reality, the king’s influence extends only as far as Zebulun and Asher (2 Chr 30:10, 11; 31:1). It is under Josiah that we find the greatest expansion (2 Chr 34:6); during his reign, the boundaries of Israel extend from Simeon in the south to Naphtali in the north, encompassing an area described as “all the territory that belonged to the people of Israel” (2 Chr 34:33). A consistent, conscious effort is made to describe the territorial expansion undertaken by Judah’s monarchs, with the restoration of the Davidic boundaries seen as the ultimate goal. We discover this tendency in isolated comments woven into the text here and there throughout the historical narrative. (4) Also woven into the text are various geographic descriptions, including indications of boundaries and regions, such as “from Beer-sheba to the hill country of Ephraim” (2 Chr 19:4), “from Beer-sheba to Dan” (2 Chr 30:5), 20 and “from Samaria to Beth-horon” (2 Chr 25:13). Wars and campaigns are also described in geographic terms: Asa’s war against Zerah the Cushite (2 Chr 14:13, 14 [Heb., 12, 13]) and, with great precision, Jehoshaphat’s war against Ammon and Moab (2 Chr 20:2, 16, 20, 24, 26). 21 The third point mentioned above indicates that the geographic data in Chronicles do not merely testify to the book’s geographic awareness — they also serve as expressions of its tendentious aims. A number of additional passages confirm that this is so. Geographic detail is valuable not only for its own sake — it provides a vehicle for the Chronicler’s views on the subject of the country’s boundaries, the territories settled by Israel, and the connection between the Israelites and the land. 22 In this context, 1 Chr 13:2–5 is of particular importance: “. . . let us send abroad to our brethren who remain in all the land of Israel, and with them to the priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands, that they may come together to us . . . So David assembled all Israel from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from 20. Likewise 1 Chr 21:2. On the order of this phrase (i.e., north to south or south to north), see A. Hurvitz, “ ‘Diachronic Chiasm’ in Biblical Hebrew” (Heb.), in Bible and Jewish History: Studies . . . Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, ed. B. Uffenheimer (Tel Aviv, 1972), pp. 253ff. 21. See Y. Aharoni, Carta Atlas of the Biblical Period (Heb., Jerusalem, 1964), map 122, p. 78; map 133, p. 85. 22. Only Johnson has noted this feature; Biblical Genealogies, pp. 57–58.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 279 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Geographic Dimensions

279

Kiriath-jeºarim.” These verses were written by the Chronicler 23 as an introduction to the story of the transfer of the ark from Kiriath-jeºarim to Jerusalem, which is transposed with alterations, deletions, and additions from 2 Samuel 6 to 1 Chronicles 13; 15–16. The introduction fulfills two functions. First, it links the transfer of the ark to David’s coronation, and moving the ark thus becomes David’s first act as monarch. 24 Second, it greatly extends the scope of events: “David . . . and all the people who were with him” (2 Sam 6:2) are no longer the only participants; all members of the people — whatever class or tribe they belong to, wherever they live — are involved. 25 Three elements in these verses are of particular relevance to our discussion: (a) “from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath”; (b) “the priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands”; (c) “our brethren who remain in all the territories of Israel.” The combination of these two demarcations of the land’s borders — “Shihor of Egypt” in the south together with “entrance of Hamath” in the north — is unique in biblical literature. “The entrance of Hamath” appears a few times as the northern border of the land, 26 once in the phrase, “from the entrance of Hamath to the Brook of Egypt,” which indicates the boundaries of Israelite settlement during Solomon’s reign. 27 “Shihor” refers to the Nile; 28 in addition to our passage, the word occurs only three times in the Bible, twice in poetic texts (Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18; the third occurrence is Josh 13:3). Thus, the description “from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath” does not reflect a standard phrase or a literary tradition known to us from other biblical passages. In fact, it represents 23. Such is the general opinion of scholars (for example, see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 204). Rothstein attempts to prove that these prefatory verses come from the story’s original text and were omitted in 2 Samuel 6. This leads him to conclude, among other things, that Chronicles did not use the text of Samuel which we know. Moreover, Rothstein believes, the preface in Chronicles was reworked at a later stage and has come down to us in its reworked form (Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. 258ff.) For a critique of Rothstein’s view, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 113. 24. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 204. 25. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 111. 26. Num 13:21; 2 Kings 14:25; Amos 6:14, etc. See B. Mazar, “The Entrance of Hamath” (Heb.), EB, IV, 416. 27. 1 Kings 8:65 and the parallel text in 2 Chr 7:8. “The Brook of Egypt” as the country’s southern border also appears in 2 Kings 24:7; Isa 27:12, and elsewhere. See S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Brook of Egypt” (Heb.), EB, V, 813. 28. The word is Egyptian: “Shi-hor” = “the waters of (the god) Horus.” See A. Alt, “Sihor und Epha,” ZAW, 57 (1939), 147–148. Josh 13:3 speaks of “the Shihor which is east of (ynpAl[) Egypt”; scholars therefore believe that the verse refers to the eastern branch of the Nile. See Kaufmann, The Book of Joshua (Heb., Jerusalem, 1966), p. 161.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 280 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

280

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

something of an innovation. Its usage as a definition of borders is singular and tendentious, aimed at describing the land of Israel in the broadest possible geographic terms. 29 From a literary point of view, the definition is related to Josh 13:2–5: “This is the land that yet remains . . . from the Shihor, which is east of Egypt . . . to the entrance of Hamath.” What conclusions may be drawn from this passage? The event described is the first of David’s monarchy; it occurs immediately after he becomes king, as the next step in his reign. Thus, in David’s first year and even before his military campaigns as king, the Israelites are said to live all over the land “from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath.” The boundaries mentioned do not express some ideal — they are intended as a description of the historical reality. As Galling rightly says, these details correspond to “the borders of the Davidic empire, which only appear in the later descriptions of David’s victories.” 30 The anachronism is deliberate and reflects the writer’s worldview: from the beginning of David’s reign, the Israelites inhabited the entire land, according to their tribal territories. This view also explains the literary connection to the term “the land that yet remains” in Josh 13:1–6. “The land that yet remains” refers to the gap between the promise and the reality. It includes areas that Joshua did not conquer but that — because God would someday turn them over to Israel — were to be apportioned by lot. The promise was never fully realized: some areas always eluded the people; others were conquered by David and only remained part of the monarchy under David and Solomon. 31 Nevertheless, the Chronicler takes the text in Joshua — Josh 18:1 and 21:43–44 as well as 13:1–6 — at its word: the Israelites did indeed occupy all of the land that had been promised. Although he describes David’s military campaigns, 32 he ignores their historical consequences. In his view, the country’s borders corresponded to the situation envisioned in Joshua 13 from the very beginning of David’s reign. Already at that time, the children of Israel inhabited the area “from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath.”

29. Most commentators reduce the definition by claiming that “the Shihor of Egypt” realty means “the Brook of Egypt,” that is, Wadi el ºArish (for example, see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 205; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 110). Some also emend the text accordingly (see I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik [Tübingen, 1901], p. 49). In actual fact, a precise geographic identification of “the Shihor of Egypt” is not all that important in our context; what is important is the tendentious reason for which it was chosen to denote the country’s southern border (see Kittel, Chronik, p. 63). 30. Galling, Chronik, p. 46. 31. See A. Malamat, H. Tadmor, History, pp. 60–61, 96–98, 103–104. 32. 1 Chronicles 18–20, parallel to 2 Sam 8; 10; 11:1; 12:26–31.

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 281 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Geographic Dimensions

281

The verses also include “and with them to the priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands.” This phrase is directly dependent on the list of Levitical cities in 1 Chr 6:54–81 (Heb., 39–65), 33 which parallels the list in Joshua 21. According to the account in Joshua, the Levitical cities were allocated by lot during Joshua’s time: “So by command of the Lord the people of Israel gave to the Levites the following cities and pasture lands out of their inheritance” ( Josh 21:3). Apart from this one example, the Levitical cities are never mentioned in the Former Prophets. We are not told whether the Levites actually settled in their cities or how they might have done so. Moreover, a number of the details in the list of cities appear suspect, and one wonders if the scenario described in Joshua was historically possible. Some of the cities mentioned were conquered long after Joshua’s time, and others were never controlled by Israel. 34 The book of Chronicles takes the data in the list of priestly and Levitical cities as they are — or rather, in an even clearer and more unequivocal fashion. A few changes are made to the list’s heading. It is preceded by a genealogy of Aaron’s sons up to Ahimaºaz the son of Zadok, that is, up to David’s time 35 (1 Chr 6:50–53 [Heb., 35–38]), and a new introductory 33. Most scholars have acknowledged the connection between the two texts (see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 204; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 110), but there are those who argue that the list of Levitical cities is secondary to the book of Chronicles (see Noth, Studien, p. 120; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 61). Rudolph provides one argument for this claim: in Chronicles, the list’s introductory verse has been altered (from the reading in Joshua 21) to indicate a preference for priests over Levites, and such a preference is antithetical to the Chronicler’s usual attitude (Chronik, p. 61). However, when we examine the text more thoroughly, we see that this argument does not hold, and the same may be said for a number of Rudolph’s interpretations on the subject. For example, he argues that the words “and with them to the priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands” in 1 Chr 13:2 are secondary because they are related to a secondary passage in 1 Chr 6:54 (Heb. 39)ff. (Chronik, p. 110). Yet, when discussing 2 Chr 11:13–14 — “And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him from all places where they lived. For the Levites left their common [pasture] lands and their holdings . . .” — Rudolph claims that the reference to priestly and Levitical pasture lands proves that these verses were written by the Chronicler! Moreover, as proof of his claim, he cites 1 Chr 13:2 and 1 Chr 6:54 (39)ff., which were previously deemed to be secondary (Chronik, pp. 230–231). In fact, “the cities of the priests and Levites” appear in a standard formula, as the occasion arises, throughout Chronicles (1 Chr 6:54 (39)ff.; 13:2; 2 Chr 11:13–14; 31:19). They conform very nicely to the book’s outlook, and there is absolutely no need to view their inclusion as some random assortment of additions on the part of an “Ergänzer.” 34. Most notably Gezer ( Josh 21:21), which Pharaoh gave Solomon as his daughter’s dowry (1 Kings 9:16), and Elteke and Gibbethon in the territory of Dan ( Josh 21:23), which remained in Philistia. See Kaufmann, The Book of Joshua, pp. 271–273. 35. 2 Sam 15:27, 36; 18:19, etc. See R. David Kimhi’s commentary to 1 Chr 6:35; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 137.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 282 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

282

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

formula is provided: “These are their dwelling places according to their settlements within their borders . . .” (1 Chr 6:54 [39]). Thanks to these alterations, the list no longer names cities to be allocated, whose ultimate settlement is a matter of speculation. Instead, it describes places that were already settled by priestly and Levitical families by David’s reign. 36 The evidence of the list of Levitical cities in 1 Chr 6:54 (39)ff., together with 1 Chr 13:2, leads us to conclude that the Chronicler took the description in Joshua as a geographical reality: the priests and Levites lived in their cities throughout the Davidic and Solomonic monarchy, until they left of their own free will to settle in Rehoboam’s kingdom (2 Chr 11:13–14). The third element — “our brethren who remain 37 in all the territories (twxra [RSV “land”]) of Israel” — relates to the first two. The phrase twxra larçy is peculiar to Chronicles; it indicates the Israelites’ area of settlement, referring to the country not as one unit, but in terms of twxra — tribal territories. During the reign of Josiah, which most closely parallels the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom in geographic terms, the people’s pattern of settlement is defined with the same word: “all the territories that belonged to the people of Israel” (2 Chr 34:33). Just as the reference to Levitical cities at the beginning of Chapter 13 links the passage to the list of cities in the book’s introductory chapters, this phrase in 1 Chr 13:2 reminds us of the introduction’s description of tribal territories. As David begins his reign — that is, with the start of the continuous Chronistic narrative — a summary of the information from the book’s introduction is provided: the Israelites inhabit all their promised land “from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath”; the country is divided into the requisite territories; and priests and Levites live among the people in their own cities. At this point, we might turn our attention to the phrase, “the land of Israel” (larçyA≈ra), which appears only ten times in the entire Bible. 38 Its

36. This portrayal is not maintained consistently; at times, the wording from Joshua reappears, as in 1 Chr 6:64 (49): “So the people of Israel gave the Levites the cities with their pasture lands.” 37. Various interpretations of the word “remain” (μyraçn) have been proposed; see Welch, Chronicler, pp. 16ff.; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 204; Galling, Chronik, p. 46. See also above, p. 260, n. 243. Concerning the expression twxra, see also 2 Chr 11:23 — “all the territories of Judah and Benjamin”; L. Delekat, “Zum Hebräischen Wörterbuch,” VT, 14 (1964), 20. 38. 1 Sam 13:19 (a few mss. read “the boundary (lwbg) of Israel,” a phrase common to Samuel; e.g., 1 Sam 7:13; 11:3, 7, etc.); 2 Kings 5:2; 6:23; Ezek 27:17; 40:2; 47:18; 1 Chr 22:2; 2 Chr 2:16; 30:25; 34:7. We also find one example of a similar term, “the land of the people of Israel” ( Josh 11:22); see also the long recension of Tobit 14:4ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 283 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. The Geographic Dimensions

283

usage varies; it may refer to the northern kingdom alone 39 or to the entire land, including both Israel and Judah. 40 Because the phrase is so infrequent, we are unable to reconstruct its development in biblical literature; 41 scholars even disagree as to its meaning in the Mishnah. 42 Nevertheless, given that four out of the expression’s ten occurrences are found in Chronicles, it may be that it already functioned as a set phrase in our book. The four passages are: (a) 1 Chr 22:2: “David commanded to gather together the gerim who were in the land of Israel.” (b) 2 Chr 2:17 (Heb., 16): “Then Solomon took a census of all the gerim who were in the land of Israel, after the census of them which David his father had taken.” (c) 2 Chr 30:25: “The whole assembly of Judah, and the priests and the Levites, and the whole assembly that came out of Israel, and the gerim who came out of the land of Israel and those who dwelt in Judah, rejoiced.” (d) 2 Chr 34:7: “. . . and hewed down all the incense altars throughout all the land of Israel.” 2 Chr 30:25 describes the segments of Israel’s population by means of three geographical terms: Judah, Israel, and the land of Israel. “The land of Israel” does not refer to the northern kingdom, which is called “Israel,” nor does it seem to denote Judah and Israel jointly. Since in three of the four examples “the land of Israel” relates to the gerim, we may conclude that the designated area extends beyond Israel’s tribal territories, which would explain why the phrase appears first during the reign of David and Solomon and then during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler’s use of geography may thus be characterized in the following way. The Chronicler does not relate to the historical and geographic situation of his own period; rather, from his own outlook and independent of Samuel–Kings, he creates a system of geographic terms and concepts to describe the people of Israel’s settlement in their land during the First Commonwealth. In doing so, he integrates a number of actual 39. 2 Kings 5:2; 6:23; Ezek 27:17; see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, II, pp. 66–67. 40. Ezek 40:2; 47:18. The latter only refers to the land west of the Jordan; see Zimmerli, loc. cit. 41. Mazar’s attempt to argue that the Bible already used “the land of Israel” as a standard geographical term is unconvincing: see B. Mazar, “Israel” (Heb.), EB, I, 612– 613, and also A. J. Brawer, EJ, 9, 108ff. 42. I. Baer claims that “the land of Israel” in early halakha alludes to the Hellenistic period and thus to Judah alone (I. F. Baer, “The Historical Foundations of the Halakha” (Heb.), Zion, XXVII (1962), 122; idem, “Mishnah and History” (Heb.), Molad, XXI (1963), 308ff.). Conversely, Mazar believes that “from the time of the Second Temple on, the Jews always called the [entire] land, ‘the land of Israel’ ” (EB, I, 613).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 284 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

284

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

geographic data into his own tendentious view of things. His ultimate goal is to extend as far as possible the borders of the land in which Israel, and only Israel, lived from the very outset of their history.

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land The book of Chronicles views the continuity of Israel’s settlement in the land in a distinctive fashion that is evident at two points in the people’s history: at its beginning, when the land is first conquered and settled, and at its end, when the monarchy is destroyed and the people go into exile. Chronicles’ continuous historical narrative begins with David, and the book therefore contains no structured account of the initial conquest and settlement. Its view of the subject may be discovered only indirectly from Chronicles’ relationship vis-à-vis the historical tradition and by means of the genealogical lists. Destruction and exile are part of the narrative itself and, for this reason, will be examined first. Reversing the chronological order, we shall move from the end of the monarchy to its beginning in the conquest of the land and, from there, to the tradition of the exodus and the sojourn in the wilderness.

A. Destruction and Exile To a very large extent, the book of Kings is an account of destruction. 43 The history of the two kingdoms is related with an awareness of their inevitable downfall, which is why the writer devotes a good deal of his description to the setbacks and disasters experienced by Judah and Israel 44 and almost none of it to their successes and periods of prosperity. In Chronicles, the destruction is far less central to the narrative. The history of the First Commonwealth is portrayed with its ups and downs, its victories as well as its defeats. The reader is no longer pulled along in the fatal acceleration of events. 45 Almost all the prophecies of doom and speeches interpreting God’s punishment are omitted in the transfer of texts from the book of Kings. 46 Only one of the Chronicler’s additions, a passage set 43. See above, pp. 120–121. 44. Concerning Judah: Shishak’s campaign (1 Kings 14:25–26), the Aramean campaigns (2 Kings 12:18; 16:5–6), Sennacherib’s attack (2 Kings 18:13), and the final Babylonian conquest (2 Kings 23:31 — 25). Concerning Israel: the Aramean invasions (2 Kings 10:32–33; 13:3) and the Assyrian conquests (2 Kings 15:29; 17:6; 18:11). 45. This difference stems from the Chronicler’s entire world-view; see above, p. 127. 46. Chronicles omits all the prophecies concerning the northern kingdom or King Manasseh (2 Kings 21:10–15; 23:26–27; 24:3–4) and retains only the threat of destruction that appears in the response to Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings 9:6–9 — 2 Chr 7:19–22) and Huldah’s prophecy (2 Kings 22:16–20 — 2 Chr 34:24–28).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 285 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

285

in the actual period of invasion, discusses and justifies the destruction (2 Chr 36:15–19). Yet the destruction and exile are historical facts — what was the Chronicler’s view of them, and how did he rework the relevant sources in conformity with his view? (1) More than two chapters — fifty-seven verses — in Kings are devoted to the last kings of Judah and the events of the Babylonian conquest. 47 Chronicles discusses them in one chapter of twenty-three verses that also includes part of Cyrus’ proclamation (2 Chr 36:1–23). This drastic abridgement is all the more striking in view of the following two considerations: (a) This is the only passage in the entire history of Judah’s monarchs from Rehoboam on in which Chronicles is briefer than Kings. In the case of Athaliah and Amon, the material retains its original length, 48 and in the case of the other kings, Chronicles expands the text to varying degrees. 49 The extreme brevity of our passage is most uncharacteristic. (b) Additional sources for this very period were at the Chronicler’s disposal, such as material in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. We know from its style that the book was influenced by these prophets, 50 yet it makes no use of their testimony in its account of the destruction. Thus, the fact that the Chronicler provides a shortened history is an indication of his purpose, 51 and we see this all the more clearly when we take a closer look at the material. A number of details from Jehoahaz’ reign are missing from the account in Chronicles: his mother’s name, 52 the fact that Jehoahaz did evil in the 47. Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:31–34), Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:35 — 24:7), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:8–17), Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:18 — 25:21), Gedaliah the son of Ahikam (2 Kings 25:22–26), the “restoration” of Jehoiachin in Babylonia (2 Kings 25:27–30). 48. 2 Chr 22:10–12; 33:21–25. 49. The method of expansion and the sources of added material differ from monarch to monarch. At times, the entire text in Kings is transposed with additions, as in the case of Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat. Elsewhere, part of the source in Kings is deleted, and other material fills out the story; for example, see the reigns of Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Josiah. 50. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 334, 336, 337; below, p. 287, n. 60. 51. Both Rudolph and Galling were disturbed by this abridgement. Rudolph could see no good reason for the Chronicler to shorten the account of Jehoiakim’s reign; in fact, he considered the shortening contrary to the Chronicler’s goals. He was also puzzled by the abbreviated histories of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (Chronik, p. 366). According to Galling, the narrative’s drastic abridgement and subsequent lack of proportion prove that the Chronicler saw Josiah’s death as the real turning-point. It was after Josiah died that the progressive degeneration towards the catastrophe of 587 began (Galling, Chronik, pp. 182–183). Both scholars ignore the possibility that abridgement actually served the book’s purposes and accorded nicely with its view of the destruction. 52. The systematic omission of the name of the king’s mother begins with Manasseh and continues through Amon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 286 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

286

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

sight of God, 53 and a few of the narrative’s other elements, most notably Kings’ “and died there” (2 Chr 36:4). 54 In its account of Jehoiakim’s reign, Chronicles omits some details and adds others, and these additions show that abbreviation is not the book’s only goal — the changes are designed to depict events in a particular way. Along with the name of Jehoiakim’s mother, the following data are omitted: the king’s method of collecting the tribute demanded by Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23:35); Jehoiakim’s rebellion and the incursions by Judah’s neighbours (2 Kings 24:lb–2); the explanation that the destruction serves as punishment for Manasseh’s sins (2 Kings 24:3–4); the fate of the king of Egypt at the hands of Babylon (2 Kings 24:7). Two elements have been added to the Chronistic account: Jehoiakim is fettered, and some of the Temple vessels are taken by the victors. “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried part of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his palace in Babylon” (2 Chr 36:6–7). The historical and chronological problem posed by these additional data in Chronicles’ account of Jehoiakim 55 do not concern us here, but their effect on the unfolding tale of destruction is of interest. According to the version in Kings, it was Judah that was most harmed by the events of Jehoiakim’s reign: first the Judeans were forced to pay tribute to Egypt and then they were attacked by their neighbours. In Chronicles, the kingdom itself is unharmed. Only the king, bound and presumably exiled, and part of the Temple’s contents are affected by Nebuchadnezzar’s actions.

The name of Asa’s mother (which appears in Kings) is also missing, as are the names for Ahaz and Jehoram (which are not found in Kings, either). See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 315. 53. This omission is particularly surprising because it means that the characteristic principle of retribution is not applied to Jehoahaz. For the critics’ view of this question, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 334. 54. 2 Kings 23:34; see also below, p. 289. 55. The main problem is whether or not Jehoiakim was sent into exile. Daniel (1:1– 2) provides a more detailed version of the same datum, including the information that the king was exiled in the third year of his reign. It would seem that the text in Daniel is based, for the most part, on the passage in Chronicles, with the date of exile taken from 2 Kings 24:1, and most historians therefore disregard its testimony. Commentators tend to understand the text in Chronicles as a reference to Jehoiakim’s being bound, but not really exiled (thus Rudolph, Chronik, p. 335), although some believe that the verses reflect an historical tradition. For a discussion of the matter, see J. Lewy, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte Vorderasiens, MVAG, 29 (1924), p. 47; W. Baumgartner, “Neues Keilschriftliches Material zum Buch Daniel,” ZAW, 44 (1926), 51–55; J. Liver, “Jehoiakim” (Heb.), EB, III, 529; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, p. 393, and bibliographical references on p. 388.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 287 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

287

Chronicles describes Jehoiachin’s reign in two verses, 2 Chr 36:9–10. The siege of Jerusalem and the exile of the royal family, officials, and leaders of the kingdom have been omitted; only two succinctly-phrased pieces of information remain: the king is brought to Babylon, along with “the precious vessels of the house of the Lord” (2 Chr 36:10). Jehoiachin’s reign thus becomes fully parallel to that of Jehoiakim. The testimony in Kings and Jeremiah 56 makes it clear that the exile during Jehoiachin’s reign was the largest in the people’s history. Not only was it numerically greater than the others, it was qualitatively more significant, because the people’s spiritual and social elite also ended up in Babylon. 57 We find no trace of this exile in Chronicles. The account of Zedekiah’s reign has been thoroughly reworked in Chronicles. Only one and a half verses from Kings have been retained (2 Chr 36:11–12a), and the rest of the narrative bears no relation to the text in Kings. Chronicles’ version is characterized by its juxtaposition of a relatively brief account of the destruction and a long explanation of the sin — a juxtaposition aimed at balancing sin and punishment. 58 The destruction is described in elevated language, with some measure of rhythm and parallelism. 59 The style resembles that of a lament, 60 and the lofty description tends to avoid hard facts, such as dates, battles and sieges, and the types of spoils taken from the Temple. A literary and almost ahistorical portrait of destruction is painted. We do find the following details: (a) the Temple massacre of “young man and virgin, old and very old alike” (2 Chr 36:17). This specific episode, described here with some eloquence, does not appear in Kings. (b) The plundering of the kingdom’s treasure, including Temple vessels and treasures, and property belonging to the king and officials (v. 18). It would seem that these details are based on information from Jehoiachin’s 56. See 2 Kings 24:14–16; Jer 52:28–30. 57. See Tadmor, History, pp. 160–162; E. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 28ff. 58. Sin — vv. 12–16; punishment — vv. 17–21. This balance is fundamental to the Chronistic conception of history; it is not demanded by the outlook we find in Kings. 59. As in v. 19: “And they burned the house of God/ and broke down the wall of Jerusalem/ and burned all its palaces with fire/ and destroyed all its precious vessels.” See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 337. 60. In order to raise the tone, the Chronicler alludes to and even quotes poetic expressions; compare “he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart” (v. 13) to Deut 2:30; Jer 7:26, etc. or jwlçw μkçh — “sent again and again” — in v. 15 to Jer 7:25; 26:5; 29:19, and so on. The description also echoes the dirges of Lamentations, Isaiah 63–64, and, possibly, Ezekiel 19. A few of the expressions used are unique to Chronicles, such as “king of the Chaldeans” and “the house of their sanctuary.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 288 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

288

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

reign in 2 Kings 24:13 and not on the account of the destruction in Zedekiah’s time, which mentions only bronze and other Temple vessels (2 Kings 25:13–17). (c) The burning of Jerusalem — Temple, city walls, and palaces (v. 19). This description is based partly on 2 Kings 25:9–10 and partly on a literary addition. (d) The exile, which is described in 2 Kings 25:21 with the words, “so Judah was taken into exile out of its land,” is defined in the following way: “he took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword” (v. 20). This formula appears to be dependent on 2 Kings 25:11: “and the rest of the people who were left in the city . . . he carried into exile.” These various details suggest that the Babylonian attack was limited to Jerusalem. 61 The killing went on within the confines of the Temple — “he slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary” (v. 17). There then follows a description of the damage inflicted upon Jerusalem: the Temple, walls, and palaces were burned, and the treasuries were plundered (vv. 18–19). This restricted account also implies that “those who had escaped from the sword” were surviving inhabitants of Jerusalem alone. Thus the Chronicler reduces the dimensions not only of his account, but of the destruction itself. In Kings, disaster overtakes Judah in three stages. During Jehoiakim’s reign, the kingdom suffers incursions from neighbouring peoples; in Jehoiachin’s time, the monarch and part of the people are exiled, and some of Judah’s treasures taken as spoils. The end comes under Zedekiah: Temple and capital city are destroyed, and the people go into exile. In the book of Chronicles, disaster comes at once, in the time of Zedekiah. Prior to his reign, Babylonian monarchs made no attacks on the people or the country as a whole; they confined their actions against Judah to its kings and to Temple property. Even under Zedekiah, the destruction is limited to Jerusalem, and every mention of damage to the kingdom’s territory and non-Jerusalemite inhabitants has been deleted. The story of Gedaliah the son of Ahikam is omitted for the same reason. Gedaliah was appointed to govern “the people who remained in the land of Judah” (2 Kings 25:22), described as “the poorest of the land” (22:12). Such a story has no place in the Chronistic version of events, according to which Nebuchadnezzar never harmed the kingdom as a whole. 62

61. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 337. 62. Although the account in 2 Chronicles 36 is consistent on this point, the genealogies refer twice to the exile of Judah: “and Jehozadak went into exile when the Lord sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar” (1 Chr 6:15 [Heb., 5:41]); “And Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their unfaithfulness” (1 Chr 9:1).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 289 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

289

Cyrus’ proclamation, taken from 1 Ezra and quoted at the end of Chronicles, reverses the disaster’s effects in two ways: the Temple will be rebuilt and the exiles will return to their land (2 Chr 36:22–23). The destruction of the Temple did not really entail a break in continuity; the majority of the people remained in the land, and now the sanctuary that had lain in ruins for seventy years to requite the sins of Zedekiah’s generation would be rebuilt. 63 A related point concerns Chronicles’ testimony on the fate of the last kings of Judah. The book usually attaches great importance to questions such as: what became of the various kings, how did they die, and where were they buried? The fate of a king is a standard means of indicating divine retribution. 64 The last Judean kings, from Jehoahaz on, are the only monarchs whose death and burial are not recorded in Chronicles. When we compare the relevant verses to their source in Kings, this omission becomes all the more evident. Concerning Jehoahaz, we read: “But he took Jehoahaz away; and he came to Egypt, and died there” (2 Kings 23:34b). “But Neco took Jehoahaz his brother and carried him to Egypt” (2 Chr 36:4b). The words “and died there” do not appear in Chronicles. Although they have been added to the Septuagint and Syriac translation, 65 the recurrence of the same phenomenon in the case of other kings proves that the Masoretic reading is the correct one and the omission is deliberate. The book of Kings describes Jehoiakim’s death according to the set pattern; 66 Chronicles retains almost all of this Deuteronomistic framework but omits the words “so Jehoiakim slept with his fathers” (2 Kings 24:5–6 63. Here we see one of the paradoxes of the scholarly view of Chronicles. Torrey’s opinions on the Babylonian exile are well known; in his work on Chronicles, Ezra– Nehemiah, Ezekiel, and Second Isaiah, he argued again and again that the exile was briefer and far less comprehensive than we tend to think. Judah did not suffer that much damage, Israelite settlement in the land continued uninterrupted, and the Restoration portrayed in Ezra–Nehemiah was a figment of the writer’s imagination. It was the Chronicler who invented the whole business in order to describe the “restored” Judean settlement. (For example, see Torrey’s Ezra Studies [1910, repr. New York, 1970], pp. 285–314 and his historical reconstruction on pp. 305ff.) Now we find that Torrey and the Chronicler had similar ideas on the extent and importance of the Babylonian conquest. 64. Many scholars have pointed this out; for example, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. xx: “The way in which a king dies or is buried represents the final evidence of divine retribution.” Among the texts cited by Rudolph are 1 Chr 29:28; 2 Chr 13:20; 16:7ff., 12; 21:18–19. 65. On the text of LXX, see Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 519–520. 66. Driver, Introduction, p. 186.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 290 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

290

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

— 2 Chr 36:8). This change is apparently due to the Chronicler’s singular idea that Jehoiakim was exiled to Babylon, yet we find no account of his death in exile. We are simply told that Nebuchadnezzar “bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon” (2 Chr 36:6). The fate of his son, Jehoiachin, is described at some length in Kings. Jehoiachin is exiled to Babylon, and four verses describing his release from prison and the preferential treatment he received from the Babylonian court “every day of his life” appear at the end of the book (2 Kings 25:27–30). The Chronistic account merely informs us that he went into exile: “Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon” (2 Chr 36:10). Zedekiah’s fate merits even less attention. The book of Kings contains a powerful description of his capture and suffering before being sent into exile (2 Kings 25:5–7), and Jeremiah also records the king’s unhappy end, concluding with the words “and the king of Babylon took him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death” ( Jer 52:11). Not a word about Zedekiah’s fate appears in Chronicles. 67 We are not told of his flight and eventual capture or of his punishment at the hands of the Babylonians; for all we know, he may simply have been one of “those who escaped the sword” (2 Chr 36:20) and were sent into exile. Why are we not told how the last kings of Judah died? It seems unlikely that the Chronicler’s general tendency to abridge his account of the Babylonian conquest would produce such a highly consistent pattern of deletions; these particular omissions must have a significance of their own. Perhaps the Chronicler considered going into exile, whether to Egypt or Babylon, the end of the story. There was no need to elaborate on the fortunes of a monarch once he had been exiled — he was now no longer in Judah, but in a foreign country, and therefore outside the bounds of the narrative’s sphere of interest. (2) Sennacherib’s campaign also had harmful, even disastrous, consequences for the southern kingdom, and this campaign is described at great length in the book of Kings (2 Kings 18:13 — 19:37; and also Isaiah 36–37). We read that “Sennacherib . . . came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them” (2 Kings 18:13); only Jerusalem remained under Hezekiah’s control. 68 Chronicles contains a far shorter account of events (2 Chr 32:1–23), and the campaign’s outcome is also quite different: although Sennacherib besieges the Judean cities, he is unable to conquer them: “Sennacherib . . . came and invaded Judah and encamped against the fortified cities, thinking to win them for himself” (2 Chr 32:1). According to Chron67. See Galling, Chronik, p. 185. 68. This information is confirmed by Sennacherib’s Annals: “and I have trapped him like a caged bird in Jerusalem, his capital.” See Tadmor, History, p. 142.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 291 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

291

icles, the Assyrian campaign was a failure: it achieved none of its objectives and had no lasting effects for the inhabitants of Judah. 69 (3) Chronicles does not discuss the downfall of the northern kingdom explicitly; it is alluded to in Hezekiah’s letter (2 Chr 30:6–9), which suggests the following course of events: although the kings of Assyria invaded Israel and took some of her inhabitants captive, Israelite settlement in the north continued, and those still living in the land awaited the exiles’ return. “For if you return to the Lord, your brethren and your children will find compassion with their captors, and return to this land” (2 Chr 30:9). Hezekiah’s words are based on Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8:50: “and grant them compassion in the sight of those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them.” Both passages conceive of exile in the same way; the exile from Israel, like the captivity envisaged in Solomon’s prayer, is only temporary. (4) There is only one complete captivity in the book of Chronicles — the exile of the two and a half tribes living east of the Jordan: “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, . . . and he carried them away, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan, to this day” (1 Chr 5:26). 70 The exile of those living east of the Jordan appears in a more general description in 2 Kings 15:29, with no indication of where the captives were taken. The major exile ordered by Sargon is recounted in greater detail in 2 Kings 17:6; 18:11. These passages do mention the captives’ destinations; they were relocated “in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” Chronicles combines two originally distinct episodes and appends the list of cities from Sargon’s exile to the story of the two and a half tribes sent into exile during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. The combination serves a specific purpose: as the two episodes become one, the principal exile to “Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan” — a permanent captivity lasting “to this day” — only involves tribes living east of the Jordan. 71 Because these tribes were exiled, they do

69. Such an interpretation runs counter to the historical reality; on the serious consequences of the campaign, see W. Rudolph, “Sanherib in Palästina,” PJ, 1929, pp. 59–80. 70. 1 Chr 5:6, 22 also mention this exile indirectly. 71. Chronicles lists the sins that led to the tribes’ exile: “they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and played the harlot after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God had destroyed before them” (1 Chr 5:25). This description seems to summarize the lengthy indictment against the entire kingdom of Israel found in 2 Kings 17:7–18 (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 50).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 292 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

292

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

not appear in Chronistic descriptions of the land during the reigns of Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:5) and Josiah (2 Chr 34:6). The book of Chronicles takes the account of Israel’s exile and destruction and associates these disastrous events with the tribes who lived east of the Jordan — the two and a half tribes were indeed all sent into exile for a very long time. With respect to the land west of the Jordan, in both the northern and southern kingdoms, the effects of enemy invasions are minimized. Foreign armies come and go, but the people’s presence in the land continues uninterrupted.

B. Conquest and Settlement Chronicles begins its historical narrative with David; whatever happened before David is not recounted as history. From the beginning of David’s reign, the people are settled in the land, living in the tribal territories as portrayed in the book of Joshua. Since they already freely inhabit the entire land, Chronicles may disregard the period of struggle and warfare described in Judges; 72 the only tribal wars mentioned are wars of expansion. 73 Not only does the Chronistic narrative omit the Judges’ period, it makes no mention of the stage of conquest and settlement preceding it. The Davidic period follows directly upon the genealogies, which paint their own distinctive picture of the people’s history. The genealogies continue in sequence, one immediately after the other, without any chronological indications that might link them with specific periods in history; they constitute a “horizontal” ethnic picture and thus produce a sense of timeless continuity from Jacob and his sons to David. How are we to understand this sense of continuity? Were the accounts of conquest and settlement omitted because the writer assumed that these gaps would be filled by other biblical testimony, or did the Chronicler consider his narrative to be complete, a self-contained alternative to any description of conquest? In other words, is the uninterrupted line of Is72. It would seem that the prophet Samuel represents the period of Judges in Chronicles, as an interesting alteration to the story of Josiah’s Passover suggests. The source to 2 Kings 23:22 reads “for no such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah.” In 2 Chr 35:18, we find: “No passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet; none of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah.” See also 1 Chr 26:28. 73. The Simeonite wars (1 Chr 4:41–43); the Reubenite war against the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:10); the campaigns of the two and a half eastern tribes (1 Chr 5:18–22); and also, apparently, the Benjaminites’ attack on Gath (1 Chr 8:13). This last appears to have been a local shepherds’ conflict that was also associated with the tribe of Ephraim in 1 Chr 7:21.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 293 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

293

raelite history that Chronicles draws merely a function of literary form, or does it stem from the narrative’s actual content and point of view? The histories of three tribes — Manasseh, Ephraim, and, to a lesser extent, Judah — furnish examples of continuity in the genealogies. 1. Manasseh — 1 Chr 7:14ff.: “The sons of Manasseh: Asriel, whom his Aramean concubine bore; she bore Machir the father of Gilead . . . And Maºacah the wife of Machir bore a son . . .” The text of the verse appears to be corrupt, 74 but, for our purposes, their meaning is clear enough. Joseph’s son, Manasseh, had an Aramean concubine who bore him a son, Machir. 75 Machir 76 married a woman named Maºacah, who, apparently, was also Aramean. 77 These facts link Manasseh, Joseph’s son, to the Aramean region in which the tribe of Manasseh had its territory — the northern section of the east bank of the Jordan. Thus, Manasseh’s son, Machir, was born east of the Jordan. A genealogy of this sort represents a blatant contradiction of the accepted Pentateuchal tradition that Manasseh, Manasseh’s son, Machir, and Manasseh’s grandsons were all born in Egypt: “And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation; the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were born upon Joseph’s knees” (Gen 50:23). According to the standard tradition, Manasseh never left Egypt or lived in the land of Israel. However the different chronologies for the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt may vary, one point is beyond dispute: the first generations descended from those who migrated to Egypt died there. 78 Manasseh’s appearance in the region of Gilead is out of the question. The historian will naturally try to determine which tradition is closer to the historical reality, 79 but it should not be forgotten that the two express 74. The name “Asriel” seems to be a scribal error, resulting from the dittography of [hd]ly rça (“who bore”); most commentators delete it as the Syriac does. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 162; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 68; BH on 1 Chr 7:14. The original text of the succeeding verses is a subject of disagreement among scholars; see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 68–70, versus Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 151–152. 75. Whether or not Machir was Manasseh’s first son depends on whether or not one reads “Asriel” as a proper name. According to a number of biblical traditions, such as Gen 50:23 and Num 26:29, Machir was Manasseh’s firstborn. 76. Or possibly Gilead — according to one reconstruction of the text; see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 152, and likewise BH ad loc. 77. See Perush Talmid R. Saadya Gaon, as well as Curtis, Chronicles, and Rudolph, Chronik, on this verse. 78. See Exod 1:6: “Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation” — they all die even before the Israelites become slaves in Egypt. 79. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 70, writes: “Machir’s connections . . . with the Arameans, which are intimated here, are certainly more historically accurate than the statement in Gen 50:23 that Machir and his sons were born in Egypt.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 294 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

294

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

totally different, mutually-exclusive views. The tradition in Chronicles is, at least typologically, more ancient since it reflects a greater emphasis on the eponymic nature of Manasseh. This tradition reflects the ethnic makeup of the tribe of Manasseh and sees the man “Manassah” as an eponymic ancestor. 80 Chronicles takes the eponymic account and deliberately links it to the historical figure, Manasseh, Joseph’s son, thereby creating an alternative to the Pentateuchal tradition concerning Manasseh. 2. This process is all the more evident with respect to the tradition surrounding Ephraim, recorded in 1 Chr 7:20ff.: “The sons of Ephraim: Shutheiah, and Bered . . . whom the men of Gath who were born in the land slew, because they came down to raid their cattle. And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him. And Ephraim went in to his wife; and she conceived and bore a son; and he called his name Beriah . . . His daughter was Sheªerah, who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon, and Uzzen-sheªerah.” This tradition is unique. In its story-like nature, it resembles the tales in Genesis. Ephraim’s eponymic identity is obscured: phrases such as “and Ephraim . . . mourned many days” or “and his brothers came to comfort him” have no place in an eponymic legend; they belong to a literary portrayal. 81 Thus, the verses describe the individual Ephraim, Joseph’s son, yet the details they relate are in total opposition to what Genesis tells us about Ephraim. According to Genesis, he was born in Egypt and died in Egypt (Gen 41:50–52; Exod 1:6); he never visited the land of Israel — in short, he and his only brother, Manasseh, shared the same fate. According to the tradition in Chronicles, Joseph’s son, Ephraim, lived in the land and lost his sons to the men of Gath. His brothers also lived in the land and came to comfort him on his loss. Ephraim’s daughter built three cities: Lower and Upper Beth-horon and Uzzen-sheªerah. The close connection between Ephraim and the land of Israel is manifest in every detail of the story. 82 80. See J. Skinner, Genesis, ICC (1910), pp. xxix ff. 81. Skinner, op. cit., pp. XIII–XIV. 82. Recognition of the exegetical problems posed by these verses began with the midrash, which resolved some of the difficulties by associating the passage with the tribe of Ephraim and by assuming that Ephraim’s sons miscalculated and left Egypt thirty years before the Exodus; see Sanh. 92b and the Aramaic translation of the text. Another midrash on the sons’ early and rather unsuccessful entry into the land appears in the name of R. Eliezer in Yalkut Shimoni, II, Section 1077; see also the Mekilta to Exod 13:17. R. David Kimhi compounds the problem by connecting the words “who were born in the land” to the Ephraimites rather than the men of Gath; he solves the story’s difficulties by moving its setting from the land of Israel to the wilderness or Gilead. BH finds a textual solution for a very involved problem and proposes that the word “Ephraim” in v. 22 has been inserted as a gloss.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 295 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

295

A few scholars attempt to reconcile the two traditions. Some ascribe the story in Chronicles to the post-settlement period, 83 and others understand it as an episode from the period of tribal migration and war that preceded Joshua’s conquest. 84 Yet it is clear that the Chronicler wished to relate a story about a historical figure known from the Torah, Ephraim the son of Joseph. This story cannot but contradict the tradition in the book of Genesis. The Chronistic tradition concerning Ephraim continues with a direct genealogy from Ephraim to Joshua the son of Nun (1 Chr 7:25–27). 85 It may be that this genealogy is, at least partly, a literary fabrication. 86 Nevertheless, these verses associate Joshua, like Ephraim, with the land of Israel and not with the exodus from Egypt or its aftermath. 3. 1 Chr 4:21: “The sons of Shelah the son of Judah: Er the father of Lecah, Laºadah the father of Mareshah . . .” The genealogy is significant from an historical point of view in that it associates the inhabitants of two cities, Lecah and Mareshah, with the Judean family of Shelah. 87 This tradition may be based on an early historical source. 88 However, from a literary point of view, the subject is not the family descended from Shelah, but Shelah himself; the passage therefore connects to the story in Genesis 38. 89 As the two traditions are combined, an uninterrupted line is drawn between Judah’s son, Shelah, and the people living in certain Judean cities. The central biblical tradition that Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt and Shelah’s family later left Egypt (as in Num 26:20) demands a break between the two; the tradition in Chronicles 83. See Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 153–154; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 73 (including a discussion of earlier commentaries); S. Yeivin, “Ephraim” (Heb.), EB, I, 510. 84. Thus Albright in a number of works; for example, see W. F. Albright, “New Israelite and pre-Israelite Sites,” BASOR, 35 (1929), 6. Albright’s system represents an historical formulation of the midrashic concept; on the historical likelihood of a scenario of this kind, see S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Exodus from Egypt” (Heb.), EB, III, 756– 758. 85. Rudolph attaches Joshua’s genealogy not to the preceding verse (v. 24) but to v. 21a, thereby severing the immediate link between Joshua and the land of Israel (Chronik, p. 71); cf. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 154. 86. For example, Elishama the son of Ammihud, head of the tribe of Ephraim (Num 7:48: 10:22) and a contemporary of Joshua according to the Pentateuch, is named as Joshua’s grandfather in 1 Chr 7:26–27. 87. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 112; S. Yeivin, “Judah” (Heb.), EB, III, 498. 88. See M. Noth, “Eine Siedlungsgeographische Liste im 1 Chr 2 und 4,” ZDPV, 55 (1932), 97–124, esp. 122ff. 89. The name of Shelah’s first son, Er, may have something to do with the relationship between the two passages. See Rothstein, Chronik, p. 68; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 36, note 2.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 296 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

296

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

disregards any such interruption. Once again we must ask which tradition better reflects the historical reality; surprisingly enough, we find that 1 Chr 4:21 and the related story in Genesis 38 are truer to the actual history of the tribe of Judah. 90 However, this does not change the fact that the Chronicler was willing to present an account in blatant opposition to the Pentateuchal tradition that was sacrosanct already in his time. 91 According to the genealogical introduction to Chronicles, the people living in the land in David’s time are directly descended from the sons of Jacob. Nothing interrupted or disturbed the straight line of descent; we find no suggestion that some of the intermediate generations lived in Egypt, left Egypt, or returned to conquer the land of Israel. Biblical personalities who figure in the wilderness tradition — Nahshon the son of Amminadab, Bezalel the son of Uri, Joshua the son of Nun, for example — become links in the continuous genealogical chain (1 Chr 2:10, 20; 7:27) and no longer have anything to do with the generation of the exodus. A variety of eponymic traditions serve as tribal history and create an image of uninterrupted settlement in the land of Israel. Thus, the genealogies provide an alternative to the Hexateuchal account of history — an alternative that does away with the period of conquest and settlement. According to this version of history, the abiding connection between the Israelite tribes and the land of Israel knows no interruption.

C. The Tradition of the Exodus Scholars have already pointed out that the book of Chronicles does not describe the exodus from Egypt or the subsequent revelation at Mount Sinai. 92 This omission has been considered extremely significant, and rightly so, given the centrality of the exodus in biblical thought and especially in the Deuteronomistic strata of the Bible. 93 The exodus became a central doctrine of biblical ideology, at times affecting apparently unrelated areas and subjects, and was axiomatic to biblical historiography in particular. 94

90. R. de Vaux, “L’installation des Israelites dans le Sud Palestinien et les Origines de la tribu de Juda,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, I ( Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 150–156. 91. It may be possible to interpret a number of other Chronistic traditions in the same way; for example, see 1 Chr 2:21–23, concerning the relationship between Judah and Manasseh, or 1 Chr 8:3ff., on the tribe of Benjamin. 92. See von Rad, Geschichstbild, p. 65; Noth, Studien, p. 175; Rudolph, Chronik, p. ix; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 (1954), 361–362, 368–369; North, “The Chronicler,” 377–378; Poulssen, König und Tempel, p. 177; Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” pp. 33, 47, 56. 93. See, inter alia, von Rad, Theology, I, pp. 121ff.; Rowley, Election, pp. 37–38; Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 17–24. 94. Loewenstamm, op. cit., pp. 17–18.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 297 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

297

Scholars have explained the absence of the exodus from Chronicles’ historical framework in a variety of ways, 95 but very few have noted or paid sufficient attention to the following point: not only has the historical event been omitted from the Chronistic narrative, references to it have been deleted in parallel texts. 96 The exodus from Egypt is mentioned eight or nine times in the book’s sources, primarily in the Deuteronomistic sections of Samuel–Kings. Four of these passages have been transferred intact or with alterations that do not concern us here. 97 References to the exodus have been expunged from the remaining texts: (a) 2 Sam 7:6: “I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day.” 1 Chr 17:5: “I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up Israel to this day.” (b) 1 Kings 6:1: “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.” 2 Chr 3:1–2: “Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord . . . He began to build in the second month (in the second) 98 of the fourth year of his reign.” In Kings, the construction of the Temple and the exodus, two turning points in Israelite history, are joined by means of a date 99 which is central 95. Noth and Rudolph connect this omission to the anti-Samaritan polemic which they see in the Chronicler’s work; see Noth, Studien, p. 175; Rudolph, Chronik, p. ix. Brunet and North attribute it (to varying degrees) to the book’s preference for David’s covenant as opposed to the Sinaitic covenant and to its eschatalogical tendencies — Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 (1954), 368–369; North, “The Chronicler,” 377–378. On the question as a whole, see below, pp. 385–386. 96. Von Rad mentions one deletion — 1 Kings 8:21 // 2 Chr 6:11 — and attributes it to the book’s distinctive concept of covenant. He believes that, in Chronicles, the covenant established at Sinai has been replaced by an eternal covenant (Geschichtsbild, p. 65); see above, pp. 80ff. Brunet points out the differences between 1 Kings 8:20–21, 51, 53 and 2 Chr 6; 10b, 11 (“Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 [1954], 368–369) and compares 1 Kings 6:1 to 2 Chr 3:1 — loc. cit., 361–362; idem, “La Théologie du Chroniste,” in Sacra Pagina, I (Gembloux, 1959), pp. 389–391. This subject is also mentioned by North (“The Chronicler,” 378, note 27) and Willi (Auslegung, p. 94). 97. 2 Sam 7:23 // 1 Chr 17:21; 1 Kings 8:9 // 2 Chr 5:10; 1 Kings 8:16 // 2 Chr 6:5; 1 Kings 9:9 // 2 Chr 7:22. 98. It is not clear what the word ynçb means here; it is missing from three Hebrew mss. and from the ancient Versions [see BH]. This second “in the second” seems to be the result of dittography — thus Kittel, Chronik, p. 110. 99. This association represents a chronological version of the idea we find in the Song of the Sea, “which describes . . . the process from the dividing of the Reed Sea to the conquest of the entire land, Israelite settlement, and building of the Temple as a continuous, unified operation” (Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, p. 15).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 298 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

298

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

to the Deuteronomistic philosophy of history. 100 By paraphrasing this verse, the Chronicler avoids the full date and the subsequent association of events; in Chronicles, there is no connection between the building of the Temple and the exodus from Egypt. (c) 1 Kings 8:21: “. . . which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” 2 Chr 6:11: “. . . which he made with the people of Israel.” (d) 1 Kings 8:50–53: These verses have been abridged in Chronicles, and a different conclusion to Solomon’s prayer has been added. 101 These deletions and additions are particularly noteworthy in view of the fact that the rest of Solomon’s prayer is quoted almost verbatim in Chronicles. The text from Kings that has been omitted includes the following: “for they are thy people, and thy heritage, which thou didst bring out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron furnace” (1 Kings 8:51) and “for thou didst separate them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be thy heritage, as thou didst declare through Moses, thy servant, when thou didst bring our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD” (v. 53). These verses constitute the ideological foundation for Solomon’s prayer; by virtue of their religious significance, they provide an appropriate conclusion to his words. God is asked to heed Israel’s prayer because they are his people and his heritage; they became his people with the historic event of the exodus from Egypt. In Chronicles, the prayer also ends with a request for God to hear the supplications of his people (2 Chr 6:40), but nothing is offered in justification of this request; we find no reference to the exodus as the fundamental, constitutive event in the relationship between God and Israel. 102 (e) 1 Chr 16:8–36 contains a song made up of various poetic passages. 103 The first passage is taken from the historical Psalm 105. At first, Chronicles quotes Psalm 105 faithfully in its description of the Patriarchs’ destiny. When the psalm takes up the subject of the famine that resulted in Jacob’s descent into Egypt, Chronicles abandons it (1 Chr 16:22) and be100. Noth, Studien, pp. 18–27; von Rad, Theology, I, p. 115. On the typological character of this date and its historical implications, see Loewenstamm, “The Exodus from Egypt” (Heb.), EB, III, 755; Kaufmann, Religion, II, p. 316. 101. Only the beginning of v. 50 and part of v. 52 (reworded) are retained (2 Chr 6:39b–40), and a psalmodic conclusion has been added (vv. 41–42); see Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 344–345; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 213; and above, pp. 32–33, 74. 102. Rudolph explains that these verses were deleted because they simply repeated frequently recurring ideas and were therefore unnecessary (Chronik, p. 213). This sort of explanation has a somewhat apologetic air about it in any case; in terms of our passage, it also bears no relation to the facts. 103. Verses 8 to 22 come from Ps 105:1–15, verses 23 to 33 from Ps 96:1–13, and verses 34 to 36 from Ps 106:1, 47–48. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 221.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 299 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. Uninterrupted Settlement of the Land

299

gins to quote Psalm 96, a song of praise which refers to God’s sanctuary in Jerusalem. There is no doubt that the writer deliberately combined the two psalms and broke off his quotation of Psalm 105 when he did for a specific reason. However, we cannot know whether this writer was the Chronicler himself or whether the Chronicler used an existing compilation. Other passages in the book also confirm that Chronicles attempts (but does not fully manage) to delete any reference to the exodus from Egypt. 104 The exodus is a standard element in Deuteronomistic speeches, yet it does not appear in a single speech in Chronicles. 105 Only one text written by the Chronicler mentions it, and even in this passage, the exodus does not figure as a theological doctrine; it is simply a fact of history: “And now behold, the men of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir, whom thou wouldest not let Israel invade when they came from the land of Egypt, and whom they avoided and did not destroy — behold, they reward us by coming to drive us out of thy possession, which thou hast given us to inherit” (2 Chr 20:10–11). In his speech, Jehoshaphat depicts the war against Ammon, Moab, and Edom as Yhwh’s responsibility. Yhwh expelled the various indigenous peoples of the land so that Israel could occupy it (v. 7); He did not permit the destruction of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites 106 who were now threatening Israel. Since Israel had 104. Two more references to the exodus appear in speeches in Kings: 2 Kings 17:7ff. and 2 Kings 21:15. 2 Kings 17 concerns the history of the northern kingdom, and the entire passage is omitted in Chronicles. The second reference comes from a Deuteronomistic speech concerning Manasseh’s reign (2 Kings 21:10–15) which has been replaced by one sentence in Chronicles: “The Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they gave no heed” (2 Chr 33:10). This speech was omitted for a number of reasons, including, presumably, its mention of the exodus. 105. Weinfeld writes: “In the Deuteronomistic liturgy, the oneness of God and the miracle of chosenness (= the exodus from Egypt) are acknowledged as a sort of credo. This credo is worded in stereotypical formulae that entered the litanies . . . in biblical literature from the Second Commonwealth (Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles)” (Former Prophets, p. 76). Weinfeld does not indicate the relevant passages in Chronicles; however, as far as I can tell, the subject of the exodus does not appear — certainly not in stereotypical formulae — anywhere in the book. Its absence constitutes one of the differences between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. Unlike Daniel and Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles was not heavily influenced by the style of the Deuteronomistic speeches, although it does use a few Deuteronomistic phrases. 106. There are literary affinities between Jehoshaphat’s speech and Jephthah’s words in Judg 11:15–27, as well as the description of events in Deut 2:4–5, 9, 19. For example, Jehoshaphat includes the Ammonites in the wilderness precedent, in accordance with Deut 2:19, although they are not mentioned in Num 20:14–21 or Jephthah’s message; moreover, the Edomites are denoted as “Mount Seir.” Thus, Jehoshaphat’s words constitute a harmonious combination of all the biblical accounts of this incident. See also von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 77–78.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 300 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

300

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

obeyed God’s orders in the matter, it was up to God to save them. The exodus and its aftermath are not mentioned in support of Jehoshaphat’s claim or to remind God of His awesome rescue of the people or their chosenness. They merely serve to establish the time and place of the relevant episode. Jehoshaphat’s demand for assistance is justified by the existence of the Temple and the purpose it serves, 107 as well as by God’s direct responsibility for this particular situation. Moreover, Jehoshaphat’s description of the exodus is quite unique; he makes no use of the standard biblical formulae on the subject. Usually, we find the verbs auuxy and huul[, whether in qal or hiphºil; 108 here, the writer uses the neutral expression “when they came (μabb) from the land of Egypt.” We see just how unusual this phenomenon is when we compare Chronicles to other contemporary books. The lengthy historical survey of Neh 9:9–21, written in the spirit and style of Deuteronomy, provides the theodicy on which the request for Yhwh’s assistance is based. The exodus and related events are central to this survey (Neh 9:9–13). Dan 9:15 is even more significant: the reference to the exodus does not arise naturally from the context, which is not a historical survey, but a confession of sins. Here, the exodus serves as a principle of faith and testimony to God’s greatness; 109 “And now, O Lord our God, who didst bring thy people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast made thee a name, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly.” In Chronicles, the exodus is never presented as a principle of faith. The book clearly limits its role; under no circumstances can the exodus be considered a significant theological doctrine. In this, Chronicles deviates from the standard biblical view and from the outlook of its own period. What is the reason for this deviation, and how does its conception of the exodus relate to the book’s general ideology?

107. 2 Chr 20:8–9, which is dependent on Solomon’s prayer and in fact represents a synopsis of the prayer’s contents. See also above, pp. 54–55. 108. Exod 23:15; 34:18; Deut 9:7; etc.; Exod 12:51; 13:3; 16:6; etc.; Exod 13:18; Judg 11:13; Isa 11:16; etc.; Exod 17:3; 33:1; etc. See W. Wijngaards, “ayxwh and hl[h, a Twofold Approach to the Exodus,” VT, 15 (1965), 91–102. 109. Compare also Jer 23:7–8: “Therefore, behold, the days are coming . . . when men shall no longer say, ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the Lord lives who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them’ ” (see also Jer 16:14–15). As a principle of faith and means of describing God, references to the exodus even influenced the formula for swearing an oath and thereby became familiar expressions; see Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 16, 17.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 301 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Bond between the Land and the People

301

A standard ingredient of biblical thought during the postexilic period was the idea that exile and restoration paralleled Israel’s bondage in Egypt and the exodus. This belief in the historical parallel was based on the expectation that Yhwh’s greatness would be revealed to the returning exiles in the same way that it had been revealed to those who were rescued from slavery in Egypt. Ezekiel mentions the parallel, 110 the book of Jeremiah defines it more clearly, 111 and Second Isaiah provides its fullest expression, envisioning the departure from Babylonia as a second exodus. 112 In principle, the Chronicler also accepts this equation, but it leads him in a very different direction. In a general historical system of slavery, exodus, and conquest of the land, the settlement in Israel represents something of an innovation, a surprising change in the people’s fortunes, the ultimate expression of the bond between the people of Israel and the God of Israel. 113 Chronicles presents a different view of history: the dimensions of the Babylonian conquest and exile are reduced considerably, the people’s settlement in the land is portrayed as an uninterrupted continuum, and, in the same way, the constitutive force of the exodus from Egypt is eliminated. Chronicles simply omits the entire historical context — slavery, exodus, and conquest. The bond between the people and the land, like the bond between the people and its god, is described as something continuous and abiding. This bond cannot be associated with a particular moment in history, for it has existed since the beginning of time.

III. The Religious Basis for the Bond between the Land and the People Biblical thinking conceives of a balance between the God of Israel, the people of Israel, and the land of Israel that may be likened to a triangle

110. See Ezek 20:34ff. Zimmerli believes that the idea began in Hos 2:16–17 and Ezekiel represents the link between Hosea and Second Isaiah (Ezekiel, I, pp. 414–415). 111. Primarily Jer 23:7–8; 16:14–15 (see above, p. 300, n. 109). A few scholars think that these verses are later additions to the book which were influenced by Second Isaiah; for example, see P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremiah, 2nd ed., KAT (1928), p. 178, n. 2; W. Rudolph, Jeremiah, 3rd ed., HAT (1968), p. 122. According to this opinion, the verses in Jeremiah should be cited after, not before, those in Second Isaiah. 112. See, for example, C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (1969), pp. 21–22, and especially J. Muilenburg, Isaiah 40–66, IB (1954), pp. 400ff. It would appear that certain activities undertaken by the exiles, as described in Ezra–Nehemiah, represented a conscious imitation of the exodus from Egypt. These efforts were based on a belief that history was repeating itself; see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, p. 6. 113. This outlook appears, for example, in Lev 25:38, where it constitutes a tripartite doctrine: “I am the Lord . . . who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, [and] to be your God.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 302 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

302

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

formed between these three vertices. Because of circumstantial changes and developments in religious thought, different stages of biblical religion understood the interaction of these elements in different ways. 114 Eventually, a number of basic principles were formulated: The land of Israel, described as “a good land,” “a land flowing with milk and honey,” and so on, 115 was promised by Yhwh to Abraham and his descendants. 116 This promise was repeated and reinforced by God’s words to Isaac and Jacob. 117 During the Patriarchal period, the land was controlled by other peoples, 118 so that Israel’s inheritance of the land was postponed until after the exodus from Egypt. 119 The book of Deuteronomy presents the greatest emphasis of all these elements; for Deuteronomy, the question of “the land” constitutes an important theological issue 120 centred on the following points: Yhwh brings the Israelites to a land that did not belong to them; 121 this land is “a good land”; 122 it is Yhwh who dispossesses the land’s inhabitants for the Israelites; 123 Yhwh does all this not because Israel is righteous, but because the other peoples have sinned 124 and because Yhwh has promised the land to the Patriarchs. 125

114. See, inter alia, Kaufmann, Religion, II, pp. 87–88; S. A. Cook, The OT — A Reinterpretation (Cambridge, 1936), esp. pp. 119–121; W. Eckert et al., Jüdisches Volk — Gelobtes Land (Munich, 1970), a collection of articles on various aspects of the relationship between land and people in ancient and modem Israelite/Jewish thought; P. Diepold, Israels Land, BWANT, 95 (1972). 115. For example, see Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3. 116. Gen 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:7, 18–21; etc. 117. Gen 26:3; 28:4, 13. 118. The biblical tradition mentions either seven or ten nations, who are usually listed according to a set pattern; see Gen 15:19–21; Deut 7:1. At times, we find six peoples; for example, see Exod 3:8. On the relationship between the various figures, see Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 32ff. 119. Gen 15:16. On the authenticity of this idea within the tradition concerning God’s promise to the Patriarchs, see von Rad, Theology, I, p. 186, and also N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid (Stuttgart, 1967). 120. G. von Rad, “Verheissenes Land und Jahweh’s Land,” ZDPV, 66 (1943), 191– 204; O. Bächli, Israel und die Völker (Zurich, 1962), pp. 152–164; J. Plöger, Literarkritische, Formgeschichtliche und Stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteroromium, BBB (1967), pp. 60–128: P. Diepold, Israels Land, BWANT, 95 (1972), pp. 76–104. 121. As in Deut 6:10–11; 7:1–2. 122. Deut 4:21; 8:7–10; etc. 123. As in Deut 3:21–22; 7:22–24; 9:3; etc. 124. See, for example, Deut 9:4–6. 125. As in Deut 6:10, 18, 23; 8:1; 9:5; and many other verses.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 303 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Bond between the Land and the People

303

Does the book of Chronicles relate to this conceptual framework? How does Chronicles explain the link between the people of Israel and the land of Israel? A few verses in Kings mention “the land (≈ra or hmda) which you gave to our fathers,” and these verses are transferred to Chronicles intact; 126 the source text is changed in only one case: 1 Kings 8:34 reads “the land which thou gavest to their fathers”; 2 Chr 6:25 reads “the land which thou gavest to them and to their fathers.” The change signifies that the giving of the land is not considered one specific act that occurred in the past, but a process that constantly renews itself: the land is being given in the present “to them,” to the people who now inhabit it. 127 Chronicles only mentions the promise to the Patriarchs once, in a text, taken from Psalms, that emphasizes the eternal nature of the promise. 1 Chr 16:15–18 — Ps 105:8–11: “Be mindful 128 of his covenant for ever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations. the covenant which he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed as a statute to Jacob, as an everlasting covenant to Israel, saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan, as your portion for an inheritance.’ ” 129 The inheritance of the land appears in two contexts in Chronicles:

126. 1 Kings 8:40, 48; 2 Kings 21:8; 2 Chr 6:31, 38; 33:8. On the meaning of “the fathers” in Kings, see Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” pp. 282–284. 127. In addition, compare 1 Kings 9:7 to 2 Chr 7:20. 128. wrkz. Ps 105 reads “he is mindful (rkz)”; in Psalms, the subject of the sentence is God, whereas in Chronicles, it is the people. Awareness of the covenant and promise, termed “remembrance,” is shifted from God to the people; in addition, this awareness no longer appears in a statement of fact — it is phrased as an imperative, a duty to be undertaken by the people. Although one may provide textual-literary explanations for the substitution of “remember” for “he remembers” (such as the influence of v. 12; thus BH), it seems to me that the change serves a deliberate purpose. 129. A significant difference between the two texts appears in the following verse. Ps 105:12 reads “when they were few in number, and of little account, and sojourners in it”; 2 Chr 16:19 reads “when you were few in number, and of little account, and sojourners in it.” As in the change from 1 Kings 8:34 to 2 Chr 6:25 (quoted in the text), the focus switches to the present. The verse describes the people’s immediate situation, not some event in the distant past: in every generation, God “allowed no one to oppress them” (1 Chr 16:21 — Ps 105:14).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 304 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

304

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

(a) “Observe and seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God; that you may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children after you for ever” (1 Chr 28:8). In his charge to Solomon, David states that the commandments should be observed so that the land may be possessed and bequeathed in perpetuity. It is clear from the context that David is not referring to the initial period of conquest and possession, but to the continuation of the existing Israelite settlement. Thus, “possession of the land” does not denote the specific historical act of conquest; it is a goal to be achieved in every generation, and observing the commandments provides the means of achieving the goal. Because the verse’s style resembles that of Deuteronomy, 130 it is significant that the expression “which Yhwh gave to your fathers” (or something along those lines) does not appear after the words “this good land.” (b) 2 Chr 20:7: “Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham thy friend?” 2 Chr 20:11: “behold, they reward us by coming to drive us out of thy possession, which thou hast given to us to inherit.” The first verse relates to the people — God expels the land’s inhabitants “before thy people Israel.” The promise to the Patriarchs is not mentioned explicitly, although it may be that calling the people “the descendants of Abraham thy friend” deliberately evokes God’s promise to Abraham. 131 The second verse speaks of the land “which thou hast given to us to inherit”; 132 in other words, God gives the land to the present generation, to 130. Within the Pentateuch, the phrase “the good land” — hbwfh ≈rah — appears only in Deuteronomy, in eight verses: 1:35; 3:25; 4:21, 22; 6:18; 8:10; 9:6; 11:17. We also find it in Josh 23:16. hbwfh hmdah appears less frequently — Josh 23:13, 15; 1 Kings 14:15. “A good land” — hbwf ≈ra — is mentioned twice in the Torah: Exod 3:8; Deut 8:7. The beginning of the verse “observe and seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God” also resembles Deuteronomic style; among the many examples, see Deut 4:2; 6:17; 8:6. With reference to the entire passage, see Deut 4:1–2; 6:17–18. 131. From a literary point of view, this verse is connected not to the Torah, but to Isa 41:8; see above, p. 75. 132. The wording of this phrase — in Hebrew, wntçrwh rça ˚tçry deviates from standard biblical usage and poses a number of problems, (a) In general, the hiphºil çyrwh plus object is used to mean “expel, dispossess,” as in Josh 13:6; 16:10; etc. and, in our chapter, 2 Chr 20:7. When the verb appears with the preposition l, it indicates “give” or “bequeath,” as in Ezra 9:12: “and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever” (μlw[Ad[ μkynbl μtçrwhw), which is equivalent to 1 Chr 28:8 — “and leave it for an inheritance (μtljnhw) to your children.” The only instance of çyrwh plus object indicating “to bequeath” is Judg 11:24: “Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess (çryt . . . çwmk ˚çyrwy rça)? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 305 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Bond between the Land and the People

305

those who are praying to Him, and not to their forefathers. Once again, possession of the land is an ongoing matter, a constant challenge. Chronicles’ use of the term “rest” (hjwnm) testifies to the same conception. The term was coined in Deuteronomistic literature, 133 where it has two meanings: the end of the process of conquest and settlement 134 and the conclusion of all the military action, whether in the time of David or of Solomon, that followed David’s wars. 135 In Chronicles, “rest” retains some connection to its original contexts, although the Chronicler does not always quote his sources in Samuel–Kings. 136 When the term refers to the conclusion of the period of war, he usually relates it to the end of David’s before us, we will possess.” The second part of the verse follows standard usage; Ehrlich therefore suggests deleting the verbal suffix in the first part, which would eliminate the problem posed by its irregular usage of hiphºil plus object. He explains the form ˚çyrwy as the result of dittography from the k of çwmk (Randglossen, III, p. 119; likewise BH). It may be that the text in 2 Chr 20:11 is already dependent on Judg 11:24 in its present form. (b) The noun ˚tçry is also irregular. Usually, someone’s inheritance — hçwry — is that which he has inherited, not bequeathed, as in Deut 2:12; 3:20; Josh 1:15; etc. At times, he receives the inheritance from God, in which case we read, for example, “then you shall return every man to his possession (wtçry) which I have given you” (Deut 3:20). In our passage, the hçwry is being given, not inherited. It may be that the irregular phrase is the result of literary connections to a number of different biblical texts. 133. See G. von Rad, “Es ist noch eine Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes” (1933), in his Gesammelte Studien (Munich, 1958), pp. 104ff.; idem, Deuteronomy, OTL (1966), pp. 92–93: Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” pp. 285–288. The expression “when the Lord gives you rest from all your enemies round about” is the most common, with a few variations on the theme. 134. As in Deut 3:20; 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15; 22:4; 23:1; and especially Josh 21:43–44: “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands.” 135. Deut 12:9ff.; 2 Sam 7:1; 1 Kings 5:4 (Heb., 5:18); 8:56: compare 1 Kings 8:56 to Josh 21:44–45. The shift from David to Solomon produces an obvious tension between the contents of 2 Sam 7:1 and 1 Kings 5:4 (18). The final rest shifts from David to Solomon because Deuteronomy 12 is interpreted in the light of the delay in the Temple’s construction: since Solomon, not David, will build the Temple, the period of rest will likewise come during Solomon’s reign. 136. In 1 Chr 17:1, he omits the words “the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about” in 2 Sam 7:1; he also replaces the original “I will give you rest from all your enemies” (2 Sam 7:11) with “I will subdue all your enemies” (1 Chr 17:10). On the reason for this deliberate substitution, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 94ff., and Curtis, Chronicles, p. 226. The Chronicler deletes 1 Kings 5:3 (Heb., 5:17) and rephrases Solomon’s letter to Hiram (2 Chr 2:2ff.); he also omits part of Solomon’s blessing in 1 Kings 8:56. The two deletions appear to serve the book’s general purposes (see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 347; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 199 and 217).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 306 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

306

The People of Israel and the Land of Israel

reign and the building of the Temple. 137 However, Chronicles also has its own distinctive use for the term “rest”: “rest” describes any war-free period in the history of Israel. 138 It comes as a reward from God and appears during the reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat. 139 This rest, too, is denoted by the standard phrase “the Lord gave them rest round about” or variations thereof; thus, “rest” is no longer associated directly with the conquest of the land and building of the Temple. It is not a one-time achievement, but a blessing from God that may be earned by every generation, providing it behaves correctly. Therefore, there is no real difference between Solomon’s reign — of which it is said “he shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his enemies round about . . . and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days” (1 Chr 22:9) — and the reign of Jehoshaphat — “So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about” (2 Chr 20:30). 140 The book of Chronicles does not discuss this matter at all frequently and the evidence at our disposal is therefore limited. Only isolated, random elements of the conceptual framework found in Deuteronomy appear in Chronicles; as far as the Chronicler is concerned, the issue of the land is not as “problematic” as it is for the Deuteronomist. Nevertheless, 137. 1 Chr 22:18: “Is not the Lord your God with you? And has he not given you peace on every side? For he has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my hand; and the land is subdued before the Lord and his people.” David’s words bear signs of Deuteronomic terminology and are also connected to Num 32:22. There is a certain tension between this verse, which speaks of David’s conquest of the land, and 1 Chr 13:1– 5, which suggests that this sort of conquest was, in fact, superfluous. It may be that although the term “rest” is used, Chronicles regarded David’s wars as mere wars of expansion. 1 Chr 23:25, which associates “rest” with the ark’s transfer to Jerusalem, also concerns David’s reign — in this case, its early years. With reference to Solomon’s reign, we only find the word used in the unique expression, “man of rest” in 1 Chr 22:9. The epithet provides a deliberate contrast to David’s reputation as a “man of war” (1 Chr 28:3). Mosis argues that 1 Chr 22:18 and 23:25 are secondary additions to Chronicles (Untersuchungen, p. 95, n. 43, p. 96, n. 46) and thereby alters the ultimate sense of the text. 138. See von Rad, Gesammelte Studien, p. 104. 139. 2 Chr 14:6, 7 (Heb., 5, 6); 15:15; 20:30. See Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 286, n. 30. Mosis believes that only a limited “rest” prevails during the reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat; see Untersuchungen, p. 100. 140. Mosis considers “rest” a key word in Chronicles; it is “rest” that distinguishes the Solomonic period from any other period, before or after, in the history of Israel (Untersuchungen, pp. 94–101): “Peace and rest, on the one hand, and war and bloodshed, on the other, characterize two different epochs in Israel’s history: one . . . linked to the name of David, and the other . . . , to the name of Solomon” (ibid., p. 100). Mosis’ interpretation of the book’s testimony, which makes too much use of typology, is extreme.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 307 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Bond between the Land and the People

307

the Chronicler’s views on the relationship between the people of Israel and the land of Israel appear to be clear from what the book tells us on the subject — and also from what it leaves out. Its historical narrative completely disregards the exodus from Egypt, the conquest and settlement of the land — even the promise to the Patriarchs plays no significant part. Instead, Chronicles offers an alternative conception: with the help of the genealogies, Israelite settlement represents an uninterrupted continuum from Jacob’s own sons into the present. This conceptual framework, along with verses that discuss the matter explicitly, testifies to the Chronicler’s view that the bond between the people and the land is something constant — each generation must confront its difficulties anew. It was not created by a unique historical act representing the culmination of a historical process and the fulfilment of promises. This relationship, like other spheres of life, must be maintained with specific behaviour. By obeying the commandments and walking in God’s ways, Israel ensures that the constant bond between land and people operates smoothly. Yet there is no real doubt that the bond will continue into the future. Chronistic prophecies do not threaten exile, and the possibility of complete separation from the land is not even broached. Chronicles does not explain or attempt to justify Israel’s right to the land of Israel. The bond is taken for granted, axiomatic to the entire experience of Israel’s relationship with its God.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 308 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Chapter Four

Kingship When Chronicles describes kingship in Israel, its principal focus is the Davidic monarchy. 1 Yet it is possible to distinguish between two aspects — however closely connected — of the subject: the institution of monarchy as such and the form the monarchy, as moulded by David and his descendants, takes. Our discussion will approach each aspect individually, although it is clear that the two are not completely separate and one aspect influences the other.

A. Monarchy as Such I. The Concept of “Yhwh’s Kingship” Chronicles’ distinctive view of the nature of kingship is expressed in five separate verses, and a number of scholars have already noted the importance of these verses. 2 They are significant for two reasons: the uniqueness of their wording and forceful mode of expression, both unparalleled in biblical literature, and their distribution in Chronicles — they appear in original Chronistic passages or in the Chronicler’s alterations to his sources. All five deal with a specific issue from the same period: Solomon’s succession and rule over Israel. In the verses’ concentration on this issue, we see the Chronicler taking a clear position regarding a subject he considered problematic. The five verses, in order of their appearance, are:

1. Indirect statements indicate that the Chronicler viewed kingship as a sociopolitical phenomenon. He describes a world made up of kingdoms and calls the leader of a country “king” (1 Chr 5:6, 26; 18:3, 5, 9; 2 Chr 12:2, 9; 16:2, 7; 27:5; etc.). Countries are called “the kingdoms of the lands” (1 Chr 29:30; 2 Chr 17:10; 20:29) or, simply, “kingdoms” (2 Chr 9:19; 32:15); God’s dominion is a dominion over “kingdoms”: “Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations?” (2 Chr 20:6). The world is described in political terms: it is divided into kingdoms, over which Yhwh exerts control by means of monarchs (as in 1 Chr 5:26). 2. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 125–126; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 505; RB, 61 (1954), 372; R. C. North, “The Religious Aspects of the Hebrew Kingship,” ZAW, 50 (1932), 28; Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” p. 32; Poulssen, König und Tempel, pp. 172ff.; Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 304.

308

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 309 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I.I.The TheConcept Conceptofof “Yhwh’s “Yhwh’s Kingship” Kingship”

309

(a) 1 Chr 17:14: “I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.” 3 (b) 1 Chr 28:5: “he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.” (c) 1 Chr 29:23: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father.” (d) 2 Chr 9:8: “Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the Lord your God. Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever. . . .” 4 (e) 2 Chr 13:8: “And now you think to withstand the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David.” In Chronicles, we find the first express formulation of the concept uh twklm — “kingdom/kingship of the Lord” — which later became central to Jewish 5 and Christian 6 thought. 7 What does the concept signify? How does Yhwh’s kingship relate to the Davidic monarchy? What is the connection between the Chronistic concept and other biblical approaches to the kingship of the Lord? 1 Chr 28:5 tells us that Solomon was chosen “to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel”; the implications of Solomon’s kingship are explained in 1 Chr 28:7: “I will establish his kingdom for ever.” The same passage also speaks of David’s kingship: “the Lord God of Israel chose me . . . to be king over Israel . . . he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel” (2 Chr 28:4). Thus, three concepts are identified: Yhwh’s kingship over Israel, David’s kingship over all Israel, and Solomon’s kingship.

3. This passage in Chronicles recounts God’s promise to David concerning his heir; the source in 2 Sam 7:16 relates to David himself: “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.” 4. The parallel text in 1 Kings 10:9 reads: “Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord loved Israel for ever. . . .” 5. See W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums in späthellenistischen Zeitalter, ed. H. Gressmann (Tübingen, 1926), pp. 213–218; K. G. Kuhn, “μymç twklm in Rabbinic Literature,” TDNT, I, 571–574; Urbach, The Sages, pp. 400ff. 6. K. L. Schmidt, TDNT, I, 579–590, 591–593. 7. The idea of Yhwh as king appears frequently in the Bible, but the term “kingship of the Lord” is not used. In 1 Chr 28:5, we find uh twklm; in 1 Chr 17:14, ytwklm; and in 2 Chr 13:8, uh tklmm. Von Rad believes that the terms twklm (“kingdom or kingship”) and hklmm (“kingdom”) reflect different nuances (see TDNT, I, 570, n. 28). Nevertheless, it would seem that the difference in usage has to do with chronology: twklm is more common in later literature; see Gesenius, 86k, p. 241.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 310 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

310

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

2 Chr 13:8 mentions “the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David” — Israel’s kingdom and the kingship of Yhwh are identical, and, at the same time, Israel’s kingdom is established through David’s sons. 8 These two facets of kingship in Israel limit each other: the Davidic monarchy is still “the kingdom of the Lord,” and Yhwh’s kingship is only realized by means of the Davidic dynasty. 9 This definition also applies to 1 Chr 17:14 — “I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom.” God promises David that his successor will act in Yhwh’s capacity in His kingdom; 10 thus, Israel’s monarchy and the kingdom of Yhwh are identical, but David’s son must be appointed so that divine kingship can be put into practice. When the king sits on his own throne, he sits “upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel”; this basic equation informs the verse as a whole: “I will confirm him in my house 11 and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established forever” (1 Chr 17:14). 12 8. The expression “sons of David” refers to descendants in general, not sons per se; compare the term used for priests — “sons of Aaron” ( Josh 21:4; Neh 10:39; etc.). 9. If this be the case, how does such a view of Yhwh’s kingship relate to the idea that Yhwh rules as king throughout the world? The latter also appears in Chronicles: “for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord” (1 Chr 29:11). It seems likely that these two views represent complementary aspects of God’s kingship. One is Yhwh’s control of political life via His practical kingship over the people of Israel, the other, His dominion over all of nature and history. See J. S. Licht, “Kingship of Yhwh” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1121–1124. 10. “To confirm” here means to appoint. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 135, likewise BDB, p. 764b (no. 5). 11. “My house” poses a problem in this verse. “The house of the Lord” always refers to the Temple; it appears frequently in Chronicles (and in 1 Chr 28:6, we find the form “my house” regarding the Temple). This meaning is difficult to accept in our context; Chronicles carefully limits the king’s involvement with the Temple and matters of ritual (2 Chr 26:16ff.; 2 Chr 23:13; see Poulssen, König und Tempel, pp. 155–165). At times, a clear distinction is made between the house of Yhwh and Solomon’s “house,” the royal palace (2 Chr 2:1 [Heb., 1:18]; 2:12 [2:11] 7:11 // 1 Kings 9:1). It therefore appears unlikely that “I will confirm him in my house” in any way identifies the monarch’s role in “the kingdom of the Lord” with his function vis-à-vis “the house of the Lord,” the Temple. In theory, one might interpret “my house” as “the house of Israel”; in other words: “my people” (Num 12:7; Jer 12:7; see Poulssen, op. cit., p. 173). However, this usage is extremely rare and never appears in Chronicles. It seems to me that we can only understand this problematic term on the basis of the source text in 2 Sam 7:16: “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure.” Here, “your house” means “the house of David,” or “the Davidic dynasty,” and parallels “your kingdom.” In his version of the passage, the Chronicler changed “your kingdom” to “my kingdom” without considering the effect a change of pronoun would have on the parallel “house.” 12. Seeligmann sees a conflict between the king’s throne or “the throne of Israel,” on one hand, and “the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel,” on the other,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 311 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I.I.The TheConcept Conceptofof “Yhwh’s “Yhwh’s Kingship” Kingship”

311

The apparent contradiction between verses describing Solomon sitting on Yhwh’s throne and verses in which Solomon sits on his own throne is therefore resolved. The most pointed example of the former appears in 1 Chr 29:23. This is no promise of succession — Solomon actually sits on Yhwh’s throne: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord.” Not surprisingly, the verse has attracted the interest of translators 13 and rabbinic exegetes. 14 Yet the continuation of 1 Chr 29:23 clarifies what is meant by Solomon’s sitting on “the throne of the Lord”: he sat “instead of David his father.” The very fact that Solomon succeeds David places him on and attributes this conflict to the Chronicler’s somewhat absent-minded, inconsistent way of reworking his text — at times, he simply copies his sources mechanically (“Historic Reality,” p. 304, n. 66). However, Seeligmann does not explain the essential difference between the expressions. 13. LXX reads: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of his father David” — apparently a deliberate revision. A change along the same lines appears in the Septuagint for 1 Chr 17:14: kaμ pist∫sw aujto;n ejn o≥kå mou kaμ ejn basileÇç aujtouÅ, which may be translated as “and I will establish him in my house and in his kingdom.” The Septuagint translates the remaining verses in accordance with the Masoretic text. 14. The midrash poses the following question concerning our verse: “Is it possible for a man to sit on the throne of the Lord, of Him of whom it is written, ‘For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire’ (Deut 4:24), and it is also written, ‘A fiery stream issued and came forth,’ etc. (Dan 7:10), and it is also written, ‘His throne was fiery flames’ (ib. 9)? And you say ‘And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord!” (in the name of R. Isaac — Song of Songs Rabbah, I, 1:10; in a different formulation, see Exodus Rabbah 15:26, and also Yalkut Shimoni, II, Section 1082). The strict literal sense of this verse confronts the midrash with an unavoidable challenge, to which it responds in a number of ways. (a) The supernatural character of Solomon’s kingship may be emphasized; “the throne of the Lord” is just that: “Resh Lakish said: At first, Solomon reigned over the higher beings, as it is written, ‘Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king’; afterwards, he reigned over the lower, as it is written, ‘For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tifsah even to Gaza.’ ” (Sanh 20b). (b) The expression “Yhwh’s throne” may be taken as a metaphor, either for Solomon’s vast dominion — “. . . just as God rules from one end of the world to the other and also has dominion over all kings . . . so did Solomon reign over the whole earth, as it says: ‘And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon’ ” (Exodus Rabbah 15:26, which goes on to cite other analogies) — or for Solomon’s justice: “Just as the Lord on His throne judges without witnesses and without warning, so Solomon on his throne judged without witnesses and without warning” (Song of Songs Rabbah, I, 1:10). See also Yalkut Shimoni, II, Section 805. (c) At times, the association with Yhwh’s throne is ignored, and the phrase is seen as a term for Solomon’s throne. The throne mentioned in Est 1:2 is interpreted in the following way: “ ‘on his royal throne’ — this is the throne of Solomon, David’s son, who sat on it and judged Israel, as in the passage, ‘then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king’ ” (Aggadat Esther, 1–2). The Aramaic translation reads, “Then Solomon sat on the royal throne according to the word of the Lord as king instead of David his father” (likewise Pseudo-Rashi).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 312 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

312

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

Yhwh’s throne; in another passage we read that Solomon sits on the throne “as king for the Lord your God” (2 Chr 9:8: see also 1 Chr 29:22). “The throne of the Lord” constitutes an abstract expression referring to Yhwh’s dominion over Israel, which is put into concrete political practice by means of David and Solomon. In a metaphorical, completely nonmythological sense, it may be said that Solomon ascends the throne of the Lord: his very kingship over Israel is equivalent to sitting on Yhwh’s throne “as king for the Lord.” 15 In these verses, we find the clearest biblical expression of the idea that Israel’s monarchy — the actual political institution — is none other than divine kingship; the king is God’s representative and executor of the functions of kingship. 16 This view of Israel’s government as “kingship of the Lord” appears in one other context in the Bible: at the end of the period of Judges and at the beginning of the monarchy, in other words, during the transition to a monarchic system. 17 The idea that Yhwh rules over Israel is expressed clearly in a number of passages from the time of Gideon and Saul ( Judg 8:22–23; 1 Sam 8:5–7; 10:18–19; 12:12). These passages presuppose an essential contradiction between Yhwh’s kingship over Israel and an earthly monarchy. 18 When Gideon says, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you” ( Judg 8:23), he contrasts 15. Thus, there is no contradiction between verses mentioning the kingship of Solomon and other monarchs and those that speak of Yhwh’s kingship. The two types represent different facets of one concept, and the terminology is chosen according to context. Compare 1 Chr 28:5 to 1 Chr 22:10; 2 Chr 13:8 to 2 Chr 12:1; 1 Chr 28:7 to 2 Chr 1:1; 7:18; 11:1. 16. See, for example, Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” p. 32; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 505; Poulssen, König und Tempel, p. 170. 17. See M. Buber, Kingship of God, trans. R. Scheimann, 3rd ed. (London, 1967), pp. 136ff.; J. S. Licht, “Kingship of Yhwh” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1121–1122. 18. The question of when and how the opposition to monarchy began has preoccupied biblical scholars and led to a number of important conclusions regarding the development of the theocratic idea, a fundamental concept in biblical religion; for example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 248–256, 411–425; C. R. North, “The OT Estimate of the Monarchy,” AJSL, XLVIII (1931–32), 1–19; Kaufmann, Religion, I, pp. 687–688, 694–698; J. Liver, “King, Kingship” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1109–1111. The exact date of these verses does not concern us here; in any case, it is possible that the tradition was reworked over the course of time (see Buber’s distinction regarding the historicity of literary works, Kingship of God, pp. 62–65, and likewise Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” pp. 273–276). Nonetheless, I would accept Buber’s opinion (which Kaufmann also approves; see Kingship of God, pp. 64–65, 136ff. inter alia; Kaufmann, Religion, I, pp. 697–698): Buber believes that opposition to the monarchy actually began with the attempts to establish a monarchy — our verses therefore reflect ancient biblical beliefs that predate the monarchic period in Israel.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 313 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I.I.The TheConcept Conceptofof “Yhwh’s “Yhwh’s Kingship” Kingship”

313

two types of political rule: monarchy (in this case, dynastic monarchy) and divine kingship. According to Gideon, the two cannot exist at one and the same time; they are mutually exclusive. 19 With the start of the monarchy, during Saul’s time, this contrast is even more acute, and we see it expressed in the use of the term “king.” Samuel equates the people’s demand for a king with a rejection of divine kingship (1 Sam 8:7). It is evident from a number of passages that monarchy is not being compared to the rule of the judges; earthly kingship is opposed to the rule of Yhwh: “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.’ But you have this day rejected your God, who saves you . . . and you have said, ‘No! but set a king over us’ ” (1 Sam 10:18–19). Until this moment, Yhwh himself has conducted Israel’s wars and saved the people from all their enemies, and now Israel proclaims, “we will have a king over us . . . that our king may . . . go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:19–20). As Samuel says, “when you saw that Nahash the king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ when the Lord your God was your king” (1 Sam 12:12). The demand for an earthly king to replace God’s rule is the result of military exigencies: the man who leads Israel’s army will act in Yhwh’s stead, and his leadership will displace the kingship of the Lord. In his answer to the people and in his last words, Samuel’s view of the situation remains constant. He promises the people that God is still their God — “the Lord will not cast away his people” (1 Sam 12:22) — but he does not suggest that Yhwh’s kingship can endure even after an earthly king has been chosen. In this context, monarchy displaces theocracy. The Chronicler also describes an Israel ruled by divine kingship, but his description eliminates the conflict between theocracy and earthly monarchy expressed in the time of Gideon and Saul. According to Chronicles, Yhwh is ruler, but His rule is executed by the kings of Israel. The earthly monarchy does not contrast divine kingship — it puts God’s kingship into 19. We must then ask: is this conflict essential to Israelite religion or simply a temporary phenomenon? Biblical scholarship has tended to see the opposition to monarchy as a late motif but has nevertheless described it as a central theme in biblical thought (for example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, loc. cit.). Buber also considers the idea a tenet of Israelite faith; far from being late, however, it is an integral part of and even a determinative force in the early religion of Israel (Kingship of God, pp. 64–65; see also Licht, “Kingship of God” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1121–1122). Yet, Kaufmann believes that the ancient kingship of Yhwh is “a phenomenon which bears the historical marks of its particular context in time and space” (Religion, I, p. 707); It “did not rest . . . on a fixed religio-political ideology . . . ; rather, it developed spontaneously from the social order of ancient Israel and the functioning of prophecy” (ibid., p. 706).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 314 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

314

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

practice here on earth. This principle clarifies one of the differences between 2 Sam 7:16 and the parallel text in 1 Chr 17:14. 2 Sam 7:16 reads: “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me” 20 — the monarchy is David’s, yet God assures him that it will be established “before” Him. In Chronicles, we find “I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom” — the kingship is not “before” Yhwh; it is Yhwh’s. Licht argues that the idea of “Yhwh’s kingship” is by nature opposed to the election of the Davidic dynasty, or, more correctly, to the idea that the king is chosen by God. 21 He therefore concludes that “although the Davidic monarchy is considered the result of God’s will, the Bible does not view it as the unmediated realization of divine kingship.” 22 It seems to me that the Chronicler’s synthesis has escaped Licht; the approach of Chronicles, although late, is nonetheless biblical and should be taken into account. In response to Licht, it might be argued that the Chronicler succeeds in reconciling two essentially conflicting ideas: Chronicles does view the Davidic monarchy over Israel as the unmediated realization of Yhwh’s kingship. 23 In his polemic against the classic claim that a theocratic-priestly ideal prevailed in the Second Temple period, Kaufmann argues that since a monarchy no longer existed, post-exilic Judaism could, and did, glorify the institution. He cites the book of Chronicles as an example of this elevation of the monarchy. 24 It seems to me that Chronicles does even more than elevate and glorify the institution; it equates monarchy with theocracy — the Israelite monarchy is Yhwh’s kingship over Israel. As we have seen, all the verses clearly expressing the book’s concept of kingship concern one period; four relate to Solomon, and one speaks more generally of “the sons of David,” that is, the Davidic dynasty. This fact presents us with two possibilities. On one hand, the connection between “the kingship of the Lord” and the house of David may be essential — perhaps Yhwh’s kingship can only be established by means of the Da20. “Before me,” not “before you” (thus MT), following the reading of LXX and a number of Hebrew mss. (see Ehrlich, Randglossen, III, p. 289). ˚ynpl in the Hebrew is produced by dittography of the k in ˚ask. See Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 302. 21. Licht, EB, IV, 1122. Von Rad refers to both ideas in the context of eschatology; he describes them as two separate but related concepts whose interrelation cannot easily be defined in one formula (TDNT, I, p. 568). Kaufmann likewise approaches the subject from a discussion of messianic faith, but he considers the two complementary ideas (Religion, I, p. 696). 22. Licht, EB, IV, 1122. 23. See J. Liver, EB, IV, 1110. 24. Kaufmann, Religion, I, pp. 688ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 315 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I.I.The TheConcept Conceptofof “Yhwh’s “Yhwh’s Kingship” Kingship”

315

vidic dynasty. 25 On the other hand, Yhwh’s kingship may appear in this particular context because of the problematic nature of Solomon’s accession, along with other polemical concerns arising in Chronicles; 26 in this case, divine kingship is not contingent upon the Davidic dynasty as such. In order to weigh these two possibilities, we must examine the Chronicler’s attitude towards other Israelite monarchies — those of the northern kingdom and of Israel’s first king, Saul. Abijah’s speech and the account of the war between Jeroboam and Abijah (2 Chr 13:3–20) provide a polemical expression of the Chronicler’s attitude towards the northern monarchy. The northern kingdom is described as illegitimate, the product of insurrection. The war is not fought between equally valid monarchies — on one side, we find “the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David” (v. 8); on the other, “certain worthless scoundrels” (v. 7). The Chronicler also deletes a crucial verse in his rendition of the schism (2 Chronicles 10–1 Kings 12): “And when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel” (1 Kings 12:20). It is true that the principle implied by this omission is not applied throughout Chronicles, 27 and northern monarchs are indeed called “kings.” 28 Nevertheless, these passages seem to indicate the Chronicler’s real view of the institution of monarchy in the northern kingdom. When it comes to Saul’s monarchy, Chronicles provides a very brief description 29 — the reign of Saul is seen as some sort of transitional stage 25. As Brunet writes: “le régime politique d’lsraël n’est pas simplement une théocratie, sans plus, mais une théocratie davidique” (“Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 [1954], 369). 26. Solomon’s succession involves two problematic issues: the very principle of dynastic succession (although J. Liver claims that the dynastic principle was an essential feature of Israel’s concept of monarchy; see EB, IV, 1094) and the choice of Solomon out of all David’s sons. Although the Chronistic account of events differs greatly from the source text, traces of these issues may still be discerned, as in 1 Chr 29:24: “And all the leaders and the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David, pledged their allegiance to King Solomon.” 27. See 2 Chr 10:15 // 1 Kings 12:15, also above, p. 243. 28. As in 2 Chr 16:1, 3; 18:3ff.; 21:13; 22:5; 25:17ff.; 28:5. 2 Chr 13:1 is particularly striking: “In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam Abijah began to reign over Judah.” The verse is surprising for a number of reasons: (a) this is the only time Chronicles follows the pattern in Kings and synchronizes northern and southern reigns; (b) the synchronism is worded (albeit following 1 Kings 15:1) so as to emphasize the word “king”; (c) the verse introduces a passage that describes the war between the two kings and negates the legitimacy of Jeroboam’s monarchy. 29. 1 Chronicles 10 describes Saul’s last war against the Philistines and his death. The chapter enters into the story without any preamble — “Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines” — indicating the Chronicler’s

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 316 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

316

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

preceding David’s monarchy. 30 It only appears in association with David and is of minor importance in its own right; 31 nevertheless, an examination of Chronicles’ perception of Saul’s monarchy is indicated at this point. In the book of Samuel, there is a continuity from Saul’s monarchy to that of David, a continuity expressed by means of language, 32 motifs, 33 and outright assertion: “In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was assumption that his readers were familiar with the background and prior events (thus Curtis, Chronicles, p. 180; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 93ff.; but cf. Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 17ff.). Saul is also mentioned in the following texts: 1 Chr 5:10; 8:33; 9:39; 11:2; 12:1, 2, 19, 23, 29 (Heb., 20, 24, 30); 13:3; 15:29; 26:28. Rudolph believes that most of these verses were added to the book at various stages of transmission and that the only original passages are those that parallel the text in Samuel: 1 Chr 10; 11:2; 15:29; and also 1 Chr 12:23, 29 (24, 30); 13:3; see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 44–46, 81, 91ff., 103, 152. Rudolph’s arguments (which often follow Noth — Studien, pp. 114, 115–116, 120) are usually extremely general; for a more detailed discussion, cf. below, p. 318, n. 37, and p. 319, n. 38. 30. The book of Samuel also regards Saul’s reign as a transitional stage but it devotes more space to the unsuccessful experiment. Although the two books differ in their view of the reasons for Saul’s failure, the difference is again one of quantity and emphasis. According to Samuel, Saul’s monarchy was rejected in his own lifetime because of sins he committed (1 Sam 13:13–14; 15:26ff.), but punishment was deferred until after his death (also a result of his sin — 1 Sam 28:16–19). Chronicles likewise views the rejection of Saul’s monarchy as punishment for the king’s principal crime, his failure to carry out God’s orders concerning Amalek; however, Chronicles mentions an additional sin — Saul’s consulting the witch of Endor, which is not considered a transgression in Samuel. After describing Saul’s behaviour in general terms — “he was unfaithful to the Lord” — the Chronicler specifies the two crimes: “he did not keep the command of the Lord [regarding Amalek] and also consulted a medium” (1 Chr 10:13–14). See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 96–97. 31. Conversely, Mosis believes that the description of Saul’s reign is crucial to the Chronistic outlook; he considers it “a paradigmatic story” (“eine paradigmatische Erzählung”) or even the “basic pattern” (“Grundmuster”) for a number of historical situations; for a summary of Mosis’ views, see Untersuchungen, pp. 41–43. 32. Primarily the use of “prince” (dygn) as a term for the monarch. With reference to Saul, it appears in: 1 Sam 9:16 (“Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people”); the story in 1 Samuel 10:1 (compare LXX); the prophecy concerning the succession in 1 Sam 13:14 (“But now your kingdom shall not continue; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be prince over his people”), with its echoes in 1 Sam 25:30; 2 Sam 6:21; and 2 Sam 7:8 — “. . . that you should be prince over my people Israel.” On the meaning of the word and its use as a royal epithet, see J. Liver, “Prince” (Heb.), EB, V, 753, 755, and bibliography; L. Schmidt, Menschlicher Erfolg und Jahwes Initiative (Neukirchen, 1970), pp. 39ff. 33. See 1 Sam 16:13, 14.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 317 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I.I.The TheConcept Conceptofof “Yhwh’s “Yhwh’s Kingship” Kingship”

317

you that led out and brought in Israel; and the Lord said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel’ ” (2 Sam 5:2). The same continuity appears in Chronicles, accentuated in a number of ways. One of these ways is the inclusion of Saul’s death in 1 Chronicles 10. The Chronicler omitted anything else in Samuel that had to do with Saul; why, then, did he repeat the story of his death? According to the usual scholarly explanation, the episode served as an indispensable introduction to David’s monarchy. 34 In fact, the “inevitability” of such an introduction is the result of the Chronicler’s distinctive approach. From a literary point of view, the abrupt opening of 1 Chronicles 10 provides the narrative with no more continuity than the beginning of the following chapter; the only reason to include it would be the Chronicler’s desire to describe David’s reign as the continuation of Saul’s. If the narrative were to begin with the assembly at Hebron, David’s monarchy would have no past. Juxtaposing David’s anointment with Saul’s death creates a line of continuity, if not of succession, and that is why the chapter has been included. 35 The account of the warriors who support David’s election also provides continuity. They are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 11–12 in the following order: the “chiefs of David’s mighty men” who assembled to make him king (1 Chr 11:1–47), those who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:1–22 [Heb., 1–23]), and “the numbers of the divisions of the armed troops who came to David at Hebron” (1 Chr 12:23–40 [24–41]). The reference to David’s period in Ziklag, as well as the enumeration of his supporters there, alludes to 1 Samuel 29–30. 36 By mentioning Ziklag, the list of warriors 34. See Kittel, Chronik, p. 56; Elmslie, Chronicles, IB, p. 382; Galling, Chronik, p. 41. Rudolph words the idea somewhat differently: “David’s star rises, shining, out of the darkness that enfolds Saul” (Chronik, p. 96). See also von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 79. For a critique of this view, cf. Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 17ff. 35. Mosis discusses 1 Chronicles 10 at length and considers it one of the book’s key chapters and a paradigm for various historical situations. Because of his primary argument that Saul’s reign represented everything negative in Israel’s history, he stresses the book’s critical view of Saul and its sharp contrast between Saul and David. In order to lay particular emphasis on this contrast, Mosis asserts that many verses referring to Saul are secondary (following Rudolph, see above, n. 29: see Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 17– 43, and consult index for further references). Given that our discussion diverges from Mosis’ theories in basic assumptions, analysis of the texts, and conclusions, both general and specific, a response to his views on every issue strikes me as unnecessary. 36. In particular, cf. 1 Chr 12:19 (Heb., 12:20): “Some of the men of Manasseh deserted to David when he came with the Philistines for the battle against Saul. (Yet he did not help them, for the rulers of the Philistines took counsel and sent him away, saying, ‘At peril to our heads he will desert to his master Saul.’)” The verse is clearly based on 1 Sam 29:2–4 (although it may be that the Chronicler included traditions originally

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 318 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

318

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

intentionally hearkens back to the end of Saul’s reign and constitutes an actual link with the past: the men who supported David during Saul’s monarchy join his present allies in anointing him king of Israel. Continuity with the past is also made explicit in a statement quoted from 2 Sam 5:2 (1 Chr 11:2) and in verses written by the Chronicler himself. In 1 Chr 10:14, we read: “. . . and did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.” The verse makes a keen distinction between Saul and the kingship as such. Even though Saul sins and is punished, the kingship is not sullied in any way; it passes on to David intact. A stronger version of the same idea appears in a related verse. 1 Chr 12:23 (Heb., 24): “These are the numbers of the divisions of the armed troops, who came to David in Hebron to turn the kingdom of Saul over to him, according to the word of the Lord.” 37 The warriors who join David at Hebron bestow “the kingdom of Saul” upon him — “the kingdom” mentioned in 1 Chr 10:14. It is as though David’s kingship, as an institution and form of government, represents nothing new at all. We must conclude that “the kingdom of the set in a different context; see above, p. 226, n. 101). For some unspecified reason, Rudolph and Mosis consider this verse secondary to Chronicles. 37. Both verses use the same term — the verb buubs in the hiphºil — to describe the transfer of kingship from Saul to David. This shared usage is neither accidental nor self-evident. The Bible describes the transfer of Saul’s kingdom in four ways: (a) Yhwh tears the kingdom from Saul and gives it to David, who is called Saul’s “fellow” ([r); thus 1 Sam 15:28 — “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to another (˚][rl), who is better than you” — and 1 Sam 28:17 — “the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your fellow, David.” This usage recurs in prophecies concerning the division of Solomon’s kingdom — 1 Kings 11:11–12, 31; 14:8; and see above, p. 228. (b) Yhwh establishes or does not establish (μyqh) the kingship, as in “But now your kingdom shall not be established” (1 Sam 13:14) and “now, behold, I know that you shall surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in your hand” (1 Sam 24:20). (c) Yhwh “transfers” (ryb[m) — in other words, removes — the kingship: “to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and set up the throne of David over Israel” (2 Sam 3:10). (d) Yhwh discharges Saul: “. . . Saul, whom I put away (ytrsh) from before you” (2 Sam 7:15). The usage we find in Chronicles differs from all these. It most resembles 2 Sam 3:12: “behold, my hand shall be with you to turn over all Israel to you”; here, it is Israel, and not the kingship, which will be turned over to David. The similarity to 1 Kings 2:15 is even closer — “the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s.” As a way of describing the turning over of the monarchy from Saul to David, the word bsh appears only in our two verses in Chronicles. Noth considers 1 Chr 10:14 the Chronicler’s work and 1 Chr 12:23 (24) — like all of Chapter 12 — an addition (Studien, p. 115). Thus, he disregards the direct connection between the two, not to mention links with other verses, such as 1 Chr 11:3b and 10b, which portray David as monarch “according to the word of the Lord.” See also Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 107–108.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 319 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I.I.The TheConcept Conceptofof “Yhwh’s “Yhwh’s Kingship” Kingship”

319

Lord over Israel” signifies not only the Davidic monarchy, but the institution of monarchy as such, as of the very moment when Yhwh decided to provide an earthly king for Israel. It seems clear, although we find no explicit statement to the effect, that Saul’s monarchy also implements Yhwh’s kingship. 38 Thus, the Chronicler views the two non-Davidic monarchies in substantially different ways, and the different views have very little to do with his sources in the Former Prophets. The latter express ambivalence vis-à-vis Saul and Jeroboam alike: both are portrayed as men who began as Yhwh’s elect but, as time went on, changed for the worse. In the case of Jeroboam, the transformation is more extreme; the book of Kings depicts him as the great sinner and corrupter of Israel. Criticism of Saul is tempered with mercy, and we are made very aware of the tragedy of his fate. Their monarchies also differ: Jeroboam’s kingdom represents the will of God, and Jeroboam himself is selected by Yhwh’s prophet as the man to establish “a sure house” in Israel (1 Kings 11:38). The foundation of Saul’s monarchy represents the will of the people and is viewed as a sin, an act of rebellion against God. It is only after Yhwh accepts the idea of earthly monarchy that he chooses Saul as king. Thus, the origins of Saul’s kingship are revolt and transgression. 39 The book of Chronicles paints a different picture: Saul’s monarchy, as predecessor of the Davidic monarchy, constitutes Yhwh’s kingship over Israel, whereas Jeroboam’s kingship is a sin, a revolt against God. Three elements figure in this change in attitude: (a) the positive appraisal of the institution of monarchy, according to which Saul’s kingship is no longer a sin; (b) the relation of the other monarchies to that of David; (c) the role of the other monarchies in realizing the idea of “all Israel.” 38. Thus we are able to understand the Chronicler’s basically positive attitude towards Saul. The genealogies include a long list of Saul’s descendants (1 Chr 8:33–40); the Chronicler alludes to Saul’s monarchy (1 Chr 12:1), the war against Phlistia (12:19 [20]), and other wars during Saul’s reign (1 Chr 5:10). Saul is mentioned as one of the men who dedicated part of their spoils to Yhwh (1 Chr 26:28). Yet, most commentators view the matter quite differently. Von Rad writes: “His defeat and death are recorded only in order to point to his sins and mark the great turn towards David” and “one has the impression that the Chronicler would have preferred to keep quiet about Saul” (Geschichtsbild, p. 79). Likewise, Rudolph comments on 1 Chr 26:28 that “the fact that Saul and his commander, Abner, . . . stand peaceably alongside David and his commander, Joab, is a sure sign that the Chronicler did not wield the pen in this case” (Chronik, p. 177). See also Mosis (above, p. 317, n. 35). 39. This is the overall outlook produced by the books in their final form; we are not concerned here with the evolution of this outlook or the various stages in its development.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 320 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

320

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

We have already touched upon the first two elements, but a few words on the third are in order. As we have seen, Chronicles describes David’s monarchy as a monarchy over all Israel from the very outset. 40 Two aspects of the transition from Saul to David do not appear in Chronicles: David’s kingship over Judah, based in Hebron, and the reign of Ish-bosheth in Mahanaim — in other words, the intermediate period between the reigns of Saul and David, a period when the people were divided into two camps (2 Sam 2:2, 4, 8–11). 41 Thus, David succeeds Saul directly, inheriting a monarchy over all Israel. There is no hint of partial monarchy or a struggle to gain control over the entire people. In this respect, too, the Chronicler’s view of Saul differs from his attitude towards Jeroboam. Even though Saul’s kingship was short-lived, even though Saul himself sinned, his reign represented “the kingdom of the Lord over Israel” because Saul ruled over all Israel, and David took the entire kingdom over from Saul. Jeroboam’s kingship, by its very nature, violated the wholeness and unity of Israel. Thus, the book of Chronicles regards Israelite monarchy as such as “the kingship of Yhwh over Israel”; Yhwh’s kingship is realized by means of the monarch who rules over the people. The monarch sits “upon the throne . . . of the Lord over Israel” as “king for the Lord,” and by means of earthly monarchy, Israel functions as a theocracy. Although descriptions of the monarchy as Yhwh’s kingship mention only David and his descendants explicitly, the association is not indispensable: David’s monarchy continues that of Saul, and Saul, too, reigned over “all Israel.” By ignoring the reign of Ish-bosheth, as well as David’s control over Judah, Chronicles makes the continuity between the two monarchies quite clear. The foundation of the northern kingdom, however, is perceived as a sinful and rebellious act, and even after the schism, Davidic monarchs are considered the nominal rulers of the entire people. As such, they are constantly motivated by the desire to establish their rightful claim and, once more, rule over all Israel.

40. See above, pp. 209ff. 41. One intimation of this period appears in Chronicles: “all the treasuries of the dedicated gifts which David the king, and the heads of the fathers’ houses . . . and the commanders of the army . . . also all that Samuel the seer, and Saul the son of Kish, and Abner the son of Ner, and Joab the son of Zeruiah . . .” (1 Chr 26:26–28). The list mentions David and then goes back to an earlier period, referring to spoils from the wars before David’s reign. Four men appear: Samuel, Saul, Abner, and Joab. The chronological listing of Samuel and Saul, followed by the pairing of Joab and Abner, suggests an allusion to the period between Saul and David which is known by the names of the army commanders. Presumably, the idea of such a period was suggested by 2 Samuel 3.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 321 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

321

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch In view of Chronicles’ distinctive approach to kingship and monarchy, we might ask how the book understands the actual figure of the king — if monarchy signifies the kingship of the Lord and the king sits on Yhwh’s throne, is the king himself deified? Does he reveal certain supernatural qualities? Does his position or function bear signs of apotheosis? The divergence of scholarly opinion concerning deification of the king in the Bible is well known. For the “Myth and Ritual” school of research, as for scholars who support certain aspects of their conclusions, the issue is a central one. 42 A basic difference of approach seems to draw the dividing line between those who insist upon the biblical deification of the monarch and those who deny it. Scholars who assert that this sort of deification exists in the Bible view the text from an extra-biblical standpoint and attempt to find a biblical foothold for specific ideas. They therefore tend to focus on the psalms and their Sitz im Leben and on poetic texts generally. Those who deny any such deification are scholars interested primarily in Israelite history and the concept of monarchy as an historical institution; they concentrate on the Bible’s historiographical texts. 43 Chronicles is undoubtedly a historiographical text by genre, yet the problem of deification immediately arises from its concept of kingship, and the subject demands close attention. In Chronicles, the foothold for the idea of deification is provided by the fact that the book describes the monarch as Yhwh’s son. The image appears three times, including one parallel quotation of Nathan’s prophecy: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (1 Chr 17:13 // 2 Sam 7:14). The other two examples, 1 Chr 22:10 and 28:6, are also connected with Nathan’s words 44 — they appear in passages based on the prophecy from a linguistic and thematic point of view. 45 Today, scholars agree that 2 Sam 42. For a short summary of the various viewpoints, see J. S. Licht, “Kingship of Yhwh” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1124–1127, and consult his bibliography. A comprehensive bibliography appears in: K. H. Bernhardt, “Das Problem der Altorientalischen Königsideologie im AT,” SVT, VIII (1961), pp. 307ff.; see also A. Soggin, “Das Königtum in Israel,” BZAW, 104 (1967). 43. Cf. M. Noth, “Gott, König, Volk im Alten Testament” (1950), in his Gesammelte Studien (Munich, 1957), pp. 188–229. 44. C. R. North, “The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship,” ZAW, 50 (1932), 24, n. 5. Perhaps this is why Cooke does not mention them in his article; cf. G. Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW, 73 (1961), 202–225. See also G. Brin, “The History of the Formula ‘He Shall Be to Me a Son and I Will Be to Him a Father’ ” (Heb.), in Bible and Jewish History . . . Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (Heb., Tel Aviv, 1971), p. 58. 45. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 150–151, 187.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 322 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

322

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

7:14 simply repeats an adoption formula, 46 and the only matter open to dispute is the degree of deification presumed by the formula. 47 In Chronicles, this formula is simply a metaphorical turn of phrase. One passage retains the phrase intact, with David quoting God: “Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of rest . . . for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father” (1 Chr 22:9–10). The passage lists various expressions of Yhwh’s love for Solomon and, at its climax, describes the bond between God and Solomon as a father-son relationship. In 1 Chr 28:6, the strict formula disappears: “for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.” Here, the chosenness and son motifs are combined in order to convey Yhwh’s steadfast love. Thus, even if 2 Sam 7:14 contains an actual adoption formula. Chronicles obscures the phrase’s original meaning: the father-son motif becomes a metaphor, an expression of Yhwh’s special love for Solomon. We may also assess deification in Chronicles by examining its descriptions of the anointing of monarchs, a ceremony particularly likely to reveal a belief in the king’s apotheosis. Three passages recount the anointing of David, Solomon, and Joash, and the anointing of these kings also appears in the Former Prophets. 1 Chr 11:3 (basically parallel to 2 Sam 5:3) describes the anointing of David; in Yhwh’s presence, a covenant is established between him and the people’s elders, and David is anointed king. 48 Chronicles expands the account in Samuel, adding the following: a large delegation from the people as a whole attends the ceremony, and the festivities go on for three days, with the eating and drinking that traditionally accompany rejoicing (1 Chr 12:23–40 [Heb., 24–41]). Solomon’s anointing is described in a similar 46. See Gunkel, The Psalms, trans. T. Homer (Philadelphia, 1967), p. 7, and, following him, many others. North believes that the original version contains no such adoption formula and that “even foster-parentage in its proper sense is foreign to the passage” (ZAW, 50 [1932], 26; see 25–26). Cooke (loc. cit., 207) and Brin (loc. cit., p. 58) accept North’s opinion. 47. For example, see Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 303: “Certain aspects of the deification of the monarch commonly accepted, in one form or another, in the Ancient Near East have blended with this concept that the dynasty is everlasting. We read in Nathan’s prophecy . . . “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” . . (2 Sam 7:14) . . . The idea of God’s adopting David’s son and future descendants, which replaces the prevalent non-Israelite belief that a god or goddess gives birth to the king, . . .” Yet, Weinfeld argues that the formula “has nothing to do with mythology; it is a purely forensic metaphor” (M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the OT,” JAOS, 90 [1970], 192b). 48. On the anointing and its significance, see North, ZAW, 50 (1932), 13–16; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 103–106; E. Kutsch, “Salbung als Rechtsakt,” BZAW, 87 (1963).

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 323 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

323

fashion: a large assembly of the people convenes in Jerusalem, sacrifices are offered, the people eat and drink “before Yhwh,” manifesting their great joy, and then Solomon is anointed. “And they performed sacrifices to the Lord, and on the next day offered burnt offerings . . . and they ate and drank before the Lord . . . with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and they anointed him as prince for the Lord . . . Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of . . . his father” (1 Chr 29:21–23). The additions in the Chronistic rendition emphasize the ceremony’s popular aspects: mass participation, eating and drinking, and great rejoicing — apart from the actual anointing, the celebration has nothing to do with ritual. When it comes to the anointing of Joash, Chronicles follows its source more closely. 49 According to the text in Kings, Joash was crowned, “given the testimony” and proclaimed king, and anointed. Those attending then clapped their hands and shouted, “Long live the king!” 50 (2 Kings 11:12). In verse 14, we are told that Joash then stood by the pillar, surrounded by musicians, and the people of the land rejoiced and blew trumpets. Chronicles transmits this account with very few changes: the impersonal “and they anointed him” (or “he was anointed”) becomes “and Jehoiada and his sons anointed him” (2 Chr 23:11), the hand-clapping is omitted, and the participation of singers is added — “and the singers with their musical instruments leading in the celebration” (2 Chr 23:13). No sign of any sacral or ritual element appears in the entire elaborate ceremony. Chronicles describes the relationship between Yhwh and the king in a number of other contexts, and all are characterized by a strict separation of the divine and the human. God chooses the king (1 Chr 28:4–6), 51 He makes a covenant with him; 52 the king becomes king by Yhwh’s word. This last feature of kingship is particularly evident in the case of David: the Chronicler adds the words “according to the word of the Lord by Samuel” to an account that is otherwise transferred verbatim from the source text (2 Sam 5:1–3 — 1 Chr 11:1–3). “The word of the Lord” is then repeated in 1 Chr 11:10 and 12:23 (24). 53 The phrase recurs with respect to a monarch only once, referring to Jeroboam, in a passage taken from the book of Kings (2 Chr 10:15).

49. For a detailed comparison of 2 Chr 23:1–11 and 2 Kings 11:4–12, see de Wette, Beiträge, pp. 91–98; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 196ff. 50. See de Wette, Beiträge, p. 106. 51. See below, pp. 347ff. 52. See below, pp. 353ff. 53. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 97, 107–108; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 128, n. 17; Willi, Auslegung, p. 224.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 324 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

324

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

Chronicles emphasizes the fact that the king is human. He is a man like any other, as we see not only from his relationship with God, but also from his status among men. Three aspects of this interaction may be distinguished: (1) The king is mortal and reveals every human weakness. Solomon, of whom it was said “he shall be my son,” is described as “young and inexperienced” (1 Chr 22:5; 29:1), incapable of completing the Temple without his father’s assistance in the preparatory work and the active participation of his people. 54 In the same passage in which Abijah proclaims that Yhwh’s kingship has been given over to Rehoboam, the king is described as a “young and irresolute” man unable to withstand Jeroboam and his supporters (2 Chr 13:5, 7). Kings fall ill and die as a result of sickness; 55 they exemplify very human weaknesses and strengths. They are fearful, arrogant, ungrateful; sometimes they succumb to temptation, and sometimes they display courage and devotion. 56 None of the strength and weakness mentioned in Chronicles betrays the slightest indication of supernatural or exceptional powers. 57 David’s words make this very clear: “But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For we are strangers before thee and sojourners, as all our fathers were” 58 (1 Chr 29:14–15). Human beings are no more than gerim — strangers in the land — they cannot even build a Temple unassisted. It is only God’s help that enables people, including the monarch, to survive and prosper. 59 (2) In his relationship to the Torah and commandments, the king once again proves that he is only human. He is not only a man like any other, but also an Israelite like any other. His first duty is to obey God, observe His commandments, and follow His ways, 60 and in this respect he is no different from any other member of the people. David gives the same charge to the people and to his heir, Solomon: “observe and seek out all 54. 1 Chr 22:5, 14–16, 17–19; 28:11–19, 21; 29:2–9; and see below, pp. 328–329. 55. Asa’s legs become diseased (2 Chr 16:12), Jehoram develops a sickness of the bowels (2 Chr 21:18–19), and Uzziah is afflicted with leprosy (2 Chr 26:20–21). 56. In order: 2 Chr 20:3; 25:16; 24:21–22; 24:17ff.; 1 Chr 21:1; 2 Chr 32:6–8; 12:6–7. 57. Thus, the figure of the future king that appears, for example, in Isaiah’s prophecies has no influence on Chronicles (see Isa 9:5–6; 11:1–5; and compare Isa 16:5). 58. This verse appears to be a quotation from Ps 39:12 (Heb., 13) — see above, p. 265, n. 262. It may also echo other passages, such as Ps 119:19; see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 306. 59. See 2 Chr 14:11 (Heb., 10); 20:12; 32:8, 20; etc. 60. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 128–129. In this matter, the Chronicler does not differ from the Deuteronomistic redactor of Kings (for example, see 1 Kings 2:3ff.); see also above, pp. 160ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 325 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

325

the commandments of the Lord your God . . . and you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve him . . .” (1 Chr 28:8–9). 61 (3) Finally, the king’s position among the people tells us that he is considered human. Chronicles differs in certain key ways from earlier historiography on this matter, as on the broader question of the people’s status. Biblical historiography is essentially a historiography of great men. It focusses on the leaders and overlooks the people’s role in history. 62 Thus we find that, during the monarchy, the king represents the people and acts on its behalf; history is described by means of the monarch’s achievements and failures. This is so for a number of reasons, and the phenomenon cannot be explained fully by only one factor. 63 Although the book of Chronicles follows the historical narrative of the Former Prophets in general terms, it alters many details, and these alterations are produced by what might be termed the “democratizing” trend in Chronicles. The book tends to consider the people an active force in history, thereby eliminating the monarch’s position as exclusive representative. We see this trend in the addition of agents who act in history alongside the king — primarily, the princes and the people. The Chronicler may pursue his democratizing 61. See also 1 Chr 22:12–13; 28:7; 29:19; 2 Chr 6:16; 7:17–18; etc. 62. See H. Wheeler-Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality,” BZAW, 66 (1936), p. 55; Kaufmann, Religion, II, p. 540: “During the time of Saul, David, and Solomon, Israel’s history is dependent on the destiny of these men. National history becomes almost nothing more than background to the story of these great figures.” On page 535, Kaufmann writes, “It might be said that the Bible is a book about great men.” 63. Wheeler-Robinson attempts to do so by attributing this phenomenon to the concept of “corporate personality.” The concept works two ways: the individual represents the collectivity, and, at the same time, individual awareness develops into collective consciousness (loc. cit., p. 60). For a critique of Wheeler-Robinson’s analysis, see J. de Fraine, “Individu et Société dans la Religion de 1’Ancien Testament,” Biblica, 33 (1952), 460–463. Scholars of the Scandinavian school take the phenomenon as a sign of the monarch’s divine qualities: at one and the same time, he epitomizes the people for God and God for the people (see, for example, Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 11 [Oslo, 1924], pp. 299ff.). Other scholars speak in a less decisive fashion of “solidarity” (e.g., Eichrodt, Theology, II, pp. 232ff.) or the unifying nature of kingship, which is entailed by the “unitary character of society” in which the king acts in a “representative capacity” (see North, ZAW, 50 [1932], 37). Kaufmann views the great man’s role as “an outstanding expression of individualism” in that “the collectivity derives its rights and duties from the individual” (Religion, II, p. 535). He considers the Bible “a book about great men” because of the importance it attaches to these individuals. Elsewhere, he writes that “the individualism of the period is seen first and foremost in the way in which the life and deeds of a select few determine the fate of the entire people” (op. cit., p. 540). See also de Fraine, Biblica, 33 (1957), 339ff. It seems to me that Kaufmann overlooks the representative function of these great men.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 326 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

326

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

aims by altering source texts, but on the whole he does so by means of his own additions. Examples of alterations to existing texts include the following two passages: (1) 2 Sam 6:12: “So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing.” 1 Chr 15:25: “So David and the elders of Israel, and the commanders of thousands went to bring up the ark . . . with rejoicing.” Which version reflects the historical reality is irrelevant to us here; what is important is the way in which history is retold. Clearly, David did not transport the ark entirely on his own. He must have been accompanied by his own retinue, not to mention a crowd of celebrants, as the account in 2 Samuel indicates elsewhere (verses 15, 18, and 19, for example). Yet the episode is described in Samuel as David’s act. Chronicles is careful to add from the outset that David went with the elders and commanders of thousands, although neither group plays any part for the remainder of the story. (2) Example 2 is poised between tendentious and textual considerations: 2 Kings 8:21: “Then Joram passed over to Zair with all his chariots.” 2 Chr 21:9: “Then Jehoram passed over with his commanders and all his chariots.” The place name from Kings 64 becomes, in Chronicles, a description of those who accompanied the king. Even if the original version read hry[ç rather than hry[x, the Chronistic wyrçAμ[ cannot be explained as a purely graphic or technical change; the change is a deliberate one that has been fastened on to the similarity of the two sounds. 65 As we have said, the principal examples of this phenomenon come from passages that are unique to Chronicles. Two units may serve as illustrations: the assignment of divisions among the priests and Levites (1 Chronicles 23–26) and the activities of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29–31). Arranging the priests and Levites according to “divisions” was an internal bureaucratic task which Chronicles attributes to David: “And David organized them in divisions” (1 Chr 23:6). However, we read at the beginning of the section that David “assembled all the leaders of Israel” (1 Chr 23:2); according to the subsequent description, the actual allocation took place in a broader forum and involved the participation of various people. 64. Where Zair actually was is open to dispute. Some leave the form in Kings intact and identify it with Zoar (Montgomery, Kings, p. 396) or Zior, mentioned in Josh 15:54 (see Gray, Kings, pp. 481–482). Rudolph, however, believes that the text is corrupt and should read “to Sair” (Chronik, p. 264). 65. See S. Japhet, “Interchanges of Roots, in Verbs, in Parallel Texts in Chronicles” (Heb.), Lesonenu, XXXI (1966/7), 168, n. 12.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 327 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

327

The king, Zadok and Ahimelech, and the heads of the priestly and Levitical families all played some part in the organization of the divisions: “With the help of Zadok . . . and . . . Ahimelech . . . and the scribe Shemaiah . . . a Levite recorded them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and of the Levites” (1 Chr 24:3–6). The division of the Levites (1 Chr 24:31) and the musicians (1 Chr 25:1) is then described along similar lines (although with certain variations in wording). Hezekiah’s deeds fall into a different category. After cleansing and purifying the Temple, Hezekiah goes up to the house of the Lord, but he does not do so alone: “Then Hezekiah the king rose early and gathered the officials of the city, and went up to the house of the Lord” (2 Chr 29:20). Sin offerings are sacrificed, with both king and assembly participating in the ritual: “Then the he-goats for the sin offering were brought to the king and the assembly, and they laid their hands upon them” (29:23). Following the sacrifices, when the Levites are ordered to sing, the command comes from Hezekiah and his princes: “And Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises to the Lord” (29:30). A similar and even more noticeable pattern characterizes the description of Hezekiah’s Passover. The king does not act entirely on his own initiative or simply in his own name: “For the king and his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel to keep the passover . . . and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly. So they decreed to make a proclamation . . . and couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes . . .” (2 Chr 30:2–6). Later, we read that “the hand of God was also upon Judah . . . to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the Lord” (30:12). The princes and people also participate in the sacrifices (30:24) and in collecting the tithe (31:8). Chronicles does not only mention the combined action of king, princes, and people in connection with matters of great significance for Israel’s history and constitution; they also co-operate in matters of lesser importance. For example, “This Shelomoth and . . . were in charge of all the treasuries of the dedicated gifts which David the king, and the heads of the fathers’ houses, and 66 the officers of the thousands and the hundreds and the commanders of the army, had dedicated. From spoil won in 66. MT reads yrçl — the translation “and” follows the versions and a number of Hebrew manuscripts; yrçw also recurs in 1 Chr 29:6 (see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 174). Curtis considers this use of l a distinctive Chronistic feature and therefore prefers MT (Curtis, Chronicles, p. 301, on 1 Chr 28:21). Either way, the meaning of the verse remains the same.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 328 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

328

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

battles they dedicated gifts for the maintenance of the house of the Lord” (1 Chr 26:26–27). The dedication of the spoils also appears in the Former Prophets — for example, 2 Sam 8:11–12; 1 Kings 7:51 — and in the texts’ parallels in Chronicles (1 Chr 18:11; 2 Chr 5:1), but, in all cases, it is David alone who dedicates the gifts. In this passage, David is joined by all the leaders of the people who had been involved in the wars, and each group is mentioned individually. All the above passages take the joint efforts of king and people for granted; no explanation or justification of the fact that they act together is offered. However, other texts in Chronicles make it clear that the Chronicler considers their co-operation essential — an indispensable prerequisite for the king’s projects. The construction of the Temple, the most important task undertaken by David and Solomon, provides the outstanding example of this conviction. In the book of Kings, Solomon builds the Temple by himself. All the expenses are paid out of his treasury, and this arrangement is so self-evident that the matter is not even discussed. 67 The Temple construction and Solomon’s other extensive building projects are described as “all that Solomon desired to build” (1 Kings 9:1; see also vv. 10, 19). Things are quite different in the book of Chronicles. As we saw above, David was responsible for the bulk of the preparations. 68 Moreover, the assistance of the entire people was necessary to construct the Temple. On two occasions, David turns to them for help. At first, a general order is issued: “David also commanded all the leaders of Israel to help Solomon his son” (1 Chr 22:17). Later, the king asks more expressly for voluntary gifts and offers his personal example as a model: “And David the king said to all the assembly, ‘Solomon my son . . . is young and inexperienced, and the work is great . . . So I have provided for the house of my God, so far as I was able . . . Who then will offer willingly, consecrating himself today to the Lord?’ ” (1 Chr 29:1–5). It is assumed that Solomon is incapable of executing the work by himself or even with the help of his father, who has already made all the necessary preparations and has added funds from his personal fortune. The Temple can only be built with the assistance of the people via their representatives. 69 The generosity of their offering, which 67. In general, the Bible makes no distinction between the wealth of the monarch and the kingdom’s assets. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 139. 68. Above, pp. 177ff. 69. “Then the heads of the fathers’ houses made their freewill offerings, as did also the leaders of the tribes, the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, and the officers over the king’s work . . . Then the people rejoiced because these had given willingly” (1 Chr 29:6–9).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 329 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

329

outdoes the contribution of David himself, proves that the people play a decisive role in the building of the Temple. 70 In addition to providing financial help, the leaders assist in a number of projects. For example, “when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come . . . he planned with his officers and his mighty men to stop the water of the springs . . . and they helped him. A great many people were gathered, and they stopped all the springs and the brook that flowed throughout the land” (2 Chr 32:2–4). In response to the king’s appeal, the entire people help to stop the springs and divert the river. In 2 Kings 20:20, however, we read: “the rest of the deeds of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city, are they not written. . . .” The fact that Chronicles limits the monarch’s exclusive sovereignty and involves the leaders and people in his actions illuminates two other features of Chronistic historiography: consultation and explanation. We see from the examples above that an action is often preceded by a consultation which also furnishes the explanation or line of reasoning, thus: “Why should the kings of Assyria come and find much water?” (2 Chr 32:4). Hezekiah consults with the princes and the assembly in Jerusalem on the need “to keep the passover in the second month” (2 Chr 30:2). The reasoning behind the proposal then appears — “for they could not keep it in its time because the priests had not sanctified themselves in sufficient number, nor had the people assembled in Jerusalem” (v. 3) — and, finally, the decision is recorded: “and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly” (v. 4). Consultation was also added to stories transferred from the book of Kings (compare 2 Chr 25:17 to 2 Kings 14:8), and at times the addition seems somewhat superfluous: “And when [ Jehoshaphat] had taken counsel with the people, he appointed those who were to sing to the Lord and praise him in holy array, as they went before the army, and say, ‘Give thanks to the Lord’ ” (2 Chr 20:21). Jehoshaphat does not really need the co-operation of the people or their leaders in order to appoint musicians, 70. It is well known that the figures in Chronicles are often highly exaggerated, but in this case we are interested in the proportions, not the actual amounts of the contributions. David contributed three thousand talents of Ophir gold and seven thousand talents of refined silver (1 Chr 19:4). The leaders gave five thousand talents of gold, ten thousand of silver, eighteen thousand of bronze, and a hundred thousand of iron; ten thousand darics of gold; and precious stones (29:7–8). The princes also contributed to the celebration of Passover; in 2 Chr 30:24, their offering of animals for sacrifice outdid that of Hezekiah. In addition, 2 Chr 28:21 and 36:18 refer to the use of property belonging to the princes. On the question of figures in the Bible, see J. W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” Tyndale Bulletin, 18 (1967), 19–35.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 330 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

330

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

yet he consults the people before taking action. The stimulus for this description is not the question of appointing musicians, but rather a particular way of thinking, whereby the people must take responsibility and be involved in decisions. The same idea also produces an emphasis on the element of persuasion and debate. The people are not powerless subjects of an autocracy; they take part in decisions which they, too, must welcome. This principle underlies the message of many speeches in Chronicles, as well as their tone of persuasion and argumentation. A few such passages may serve as examples: 71 (1) The source’s one-verse introduction to the story of the transfer of the ark (2 Sam 6:2) is replaced by a lengthy passage in 1 Chr 13:1–5 which includes the following elements: (a) “David consulted with the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, with every leader” (v. 1); (b) “And David said to all the assembly of Israel, ‘If it seems good to you, and if it is the will of the Lord our God, let us send abroad to our brethren . . . and let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we neglected it in the days of Saul’ ” (vv. 2–3); (c) “All the assembly agreed to do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of the people” (v. 4). Scholars have correctly noted that the story displays an intense desire to describe the move as a mass event, but they have overlooked other aspects of the Chronistic account. David actually consults people’s leaders, explaining his intentions and the reasoning behind them, and asks for their approval. The people make the final decision as to whether or not the project should be undertaken: “All the assembly agreed to do so.” Now David is able to embark on the enterprise. (2) 2 Chr 14:7 (Heb., 14:6). This short passage recounts the construction of fortified cities during Asa’s reign. The king wishes to take advantage of a period of peace to strengthen the country’s defences; he therefore turns to the people with a well-reasoned proposal, and they agree and begin to build: “And he said to Judah, ‘Let us build these cities, and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars; the land is still ours, because we have sought the Lord our God . . . So they built and prospered.” We see how unusual this passage is when we compare it to the description of another building project undertaken by Asa — in this case, the text is transferred from Kings: “Then King Asa took all Judah, and they carried away the stones of Ramah and its timber, with which Baºasha had been building, and with them he built Geba and Mizpah” (2 Chr 16:6). (3) The book of Kings describes Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah at great length (2 Kings 18:13–19:37), relating numerous speeches, nego71. See also 1 Chr 15:12–13; 22:17–19; 29:1–9; 2 Chr 2:3–5; 13:12ff.; 19:6–11; 23:3; 24:6–7; 29:5–11; 30:6–9; and elsewhere.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 331 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

331

tiations between Hezekiah and Rabshakeh, and so on. Yet the people’s response — or, rather, lack of response — appears only once: “But the people were silent and answered him not a word, for the king’s command was, ‘Do not answer him’ ” (2 Kings 18:36). The Chronicler’s account of the campaign is much shorter, 72 and most of the speeches have been omitted, but one has been added, in which Hezekiah explains the situation to the people, attempting to win their confidence: “Be strong and of good courage. Do not be afraid or dismayed before the king of Assyria and all the horde that is with him; for there is one greater with us than with him. With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God, to help us and fight our battles” (2 Chr 32:7–8). This speech is followed by the people’s own position: “And the people took confidence from the words of Hezekiah king of Judah” (v. 8b). According to Kings, only the king displays the proper reliance on Yhwh and absolute trust in His assistance — the people maintain a silence imposed on them from above. In Chronicles, the entire people exhibit trust in God: Hezekiah’s speech of explanation and persuasion produces the desired response, and thus king and people share the credit for the deliverance from Assyria. The Chronicler tends to describe the people’s participation in a variety of events. As we saw above, 73 this tendency has been noted by most commentators 74 and needs no elaboration. It shapes the Chronistic reworking of stories about David’s anointing, the conquest of Jerusalem, the ark’s transfer, and Solomon’s anointing and trip to Gibeon, and it influences the Chronicler in his depiction, for example, of Jehoshaphat’s war, Hezekiah’s Passover, the rebellion by Joash. The people play an active part in all the decisive events in their history. Thus, the status of the king is different in Chronicles because the role of the people changes. The difference also becomes evident when the king does not act at all, and our discussion would not be complete without some illustration of this phenomenon. The account of Jehoiada’s rebellion and the anointing of Joash (2 Chronicles 23 — 2 Kings 11), which has been the subject of much scholarly interest, may serve as our first example. According to the text in Kings, Jehoiada discloses his intentions concerning the rebellion to the “captains of the Carites and of the guards” (11:4), who apparently guard the palace and Temple. 75 With their help, he places Joash on the throne, and only then do “the people” and “the 72. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 309; above, pp. 290–291. 73. Pp. 214ff. 74. See Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 204, 315, and elsewhere. 75. See S. E. Loewenstamm, “Carites” (Heb.), EB, IV, 310ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 332 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

332

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

people of the land” come into the story. 76 The account in Chronicles begins with the same situation, but the rebellion is depicted from the outset as a more broadly-based effort: “But in the seventh year Jehoiada took courage, and entered into a compact with the commanders of hundreds . . . And they went about through Judah and gathered the Levites from all the cities of Judah, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem” (2 Chr 23:1–2). This new comprehensive view of the rebellion is incorporated almost systematically into the rest of the story — v. 8 — “The Levites and all Judah did . . .” (2 King 11:9 reads, “The commanders of hundreds did . . . ”) — v. 10 — “he set all the people as a guard” (2 Kings 11:11: “and the guards stood”). The story in Chronicles also emphasizes the people’s active role in the rebellion. According to Kings, Jehoiada was the central — almost the sole — actor in the drama; even the Carites and guards are kept at a distance, and Jehoiada mediates between them and the heir to the throne. It is Jehoiada who establishes the covenant, administers the oath, and brings the king’s son out to his small group of coconspirators (2 Kings 11:4). In Chronicles, the entire assembly is in the thick of things; they see the prince and establish a covenant with him. 77 No longer do we find a limited compact between Jehoiada, the Carites, and the guards — now the two parties to the covenant are the new king and the people (2 Chr 23:3). Kings relates the events of the rebellion through a list of verbs, with Jehoiada as the subject: he sent, brought, made a covenant, adjured, and showed (2 Kings 11:4). Chronicles adds some other active parties: the commanders of hundreds went around Judah and gathered the assembly (v. 2), they all came to Jerusalem (v. 2), and the entire assembly made a covenant (v. 3). 78 Chronicles relates a different version of Jehoiada’s words. In 2 Kings 11:5–8, Jehoiada issues orders, setting out his plan in detail and assigning specific duties to his allies. They in turn obey their orders: “The commanders of hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded” (2 Kings 11:9). In Chronicles, Jehoiada does not “command”; instead, he “says.” Moreover, a sentence has been added: Jehoiada tells the

76. See 2 Kings 11:13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20. Following in the footsteps of Stade (B. Stade, The Book of Kings [Leipzig, 1904], pp. 41–42), most scholars attribute the interchange of the two phrases “the people” and “the people of the land” to the fact that 2 Kings 11 was compiled from two separate sources. It is thought to be made up of a Priestly source (vv. 4–12, 18b–20) and a lay source (vv. 13–18a). For example, see Montgomery, Kings, pp. 416–418; Gray, Kings, pp. 510–514. 77. See above, p. 79. 78. Likewise, see 2 Chr 23:11 versus 2 Kings 11:12.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 333 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Person and Position of the Monarch

333

assembly, “Behold the king’s son! Let him reign, as the Lord spoke concerning the sons of David” (v. 3). With these words, the priest explains why the people have been summoned; 79 only after explaining does he issue orders: “This is the thing that you shall do . . .” (v. 4). Thus, the people’s role in “Jehoiada’s” rebellion changes thanks to three innovations in the Chronistic account: the conspiracy becomes a mass revolt, the people play a significant, active role in it, and Jehoiada talks to them in an effort to explain and convince. Our second example — the story of Uzziah’s sin in 2 Chr 26:16–20 — has no parallel in the sources. Verses 17–18 are of interest to us here: “But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valour; and they withstood King Uzziah, and said to him. ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests . . . Go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong.’ ” We must assume from the story’s internal logic that a conflict exists between the king and the high priest. 80 It seems unlikely that such a large number of priests — “eighty . . . men of valour” — would rebuke the king in unison. The authoritative, uncompromising order — “go out of the sanctuary” — may befit a high priest asserting his position, but it would hardly be appropriate coming from a group of young men. The story then continues to speak of “priests” in the plural (vv. 19 and 20). Thus, it would appear that the writer has obscured the original logic of the story in his desire to democratize the priesthood. No longer does the high priest act on his own; at his side, we find a large band of priests who participate in the deed. 81 It has been suggested that the equation of Israel’s monarchy with the kingship of Yhwh must entail the monarch’s deification and apotheosis. In fact, we see quite clearly that no such development occurs in Chronicles. The book constantly emphasizes that the king is human: he is mortal, an Israelite bound by the covenant, and one of the people. In comparison with the Former Prophets, Chronicles limits the monarch’s exclusive representative function and, at the same time, expands the role of the people so that they make an independent, significant contribution to the course of history. 79. He also provides an explanation in v. 6. 80. The historical authenticity of the story does not concern us here. Most critics believe that it reflects an internal midrash explaining Uzziah’s leprosy; a few argue that it contains a kernel of historical truth — see Kittel, Chronik, p. 155; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 452. 81. Rudolph believes that the Chronicler did not create the story, but simply reproduced it from sources at his disposal (Chronik, pp. 286–287). Rudolph’s opinion is supported by the fact that the story in its present form bears traces of reworking in keeping with Chronistic biases.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 334 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

334

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities Biblical criticism has made much of the link between king and Temple in Chronicles, presenting the monarch’s duties in the Temple cult as practically his sole function: “It is for their sakes [the priests’ and Levites’] that kings exist as protectors and guardians of the cultus . . . ; to deliver discourses and ordain spiritual solemnities . . . are among the leading duties of their reign.” 82 It is true that the book emphasizes the king’s close connection to matters of religion and worship; however, it also devotes considerable attention to other aspects of political life: administration, construction, economy, and defence. Scholars have tended to assume that the Chronicler took no real interest in the kingdom’s military or political life — he only included descriptions from these areas because they served the purposes of his real focus, religion, or because he copied them routinely from his sources. 83 In order to assess their claim, we must take a fresh look at the king’s spheres of activity in Chronicles. 1. The political administration consists of three substructures: civil, military, and religious administration. The last is particularly evident, combining two of the Chronicler’s special interests: administrative and religious matters. (1) All the information regarding civil administration in the time of David appears in one literary context — the unit in 1 Chronicles 23 to 27 describing the country’s political structure at the end of David’s reign, on the eve of Solomon’s succession. The people are organized according to two principles: they are divided into tribes under tribal heads listed in 1 Chr 27:16–22 84 (and see 28:1; 29:6), and, at the same time, they are grouped into twelve divisions, military units serving the king in monthly rotation. The leaders of these divisions are listed in 1 Chr 27:1–15. 85 The king’s μyrç 82. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 190–191. See also p. 182, concerning David, and p. 187, concerning Solomon. 83. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 195; Welch, Chronicler, p. 21. Wilda, however, believes that the Chronicler’s accounts of military activity are not only the result of dependence on his sources; they also reflect his own interests (“Das Königsbild,” p. 38). De Vaux makes considerable use of the data in Chronicles, but given the particular focus of his work, he cannot attempt a systematic analysis of the book’s outlook, and Chronicles remains a mere source of information. 84. The historical accuracy of this list is not particularly relevant to our discussion; see also above, pp. 225–226. 85. E. Junge (Der Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda unter Josia [Stuttgart, 1937], pp. 64ff.) argues that this list is a military one. Yadin uses it as a main source for his discussion of reserve units in David’s time; see “Army Reserves of David and Solomon,” esp. pp. 355ff. Welten, however, considers it an invention, composed as an analogy to the list of Solomon’s administrative districts (1 Kings 4:7–19); moreover, he

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 335 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities

335

— princes, officers, etc. — are also divided into two categories: those who fulfill various functions, mentioned in 1 Chr 18:15–17 (parallel to 2 Sam 8:16–18) and 1 Chr 27:32–34, 86 and those who are “stewards” over the king’s property (1 Chr 27:25–31). The latter look after his estate; they are called “stewards of all the property and cattle of the king” (28:1) or “the stewards over the king’s work” (29:6). 87 In David’s time, we also find “officers and judges” (μyfpçw μyrfç — 1 Chr 23:4; 26:29; 2 Chr 1:2 [“judges” only]). The officers and judges take care of “everything pertaining to God and . . . the affairs of the king” (1 Chr 26:32) 88 — apparently they serve as administrators across the land. All of the above testimony produces the impression of a highly structured, ramified organizational system featuring established positions and models. Chronicles contains no comparable information concerning Solomon’s reign. Even the lists of his district officials — in 1 Kings 4:7ff. — and central government — 1 Kings 4:2–6 — are omitted. These literary omissions reflect the Chronicler’s view that Solomon did not initiate anything in the realm of administration. When David proclaims Solomon king, he assembles “all the officials (μyrç) of Israel, the officials of the tribes, the officers of the divisions that served the king, the commanders of thousands, the commanders of hundreds, the stewards of all the property and cattle of the king and his sons, together with the palace officials, the mighty men, and all the seasoned warriors” (1 Chr 28:1; see also 29:24). In other words, the administrative plan is already complete, and the only sphere in which Solomon can make a contribution is religious policy. Data from the Judean monarchy complement the basic facts from David’s monarchy. Chronicles mentions two activities — both in the realm of considers it a secondary addition to the book. Unfortunately, Welten provides no argument or evidence for his opinion on such an important subject (Chronik, pp. 93–94). 86. The list in 2 Sam 20:23–26 does not appear in Chronicles. As scholars have pointed out at length, certain changes have been made to the parallel text (2 Sam 8:16– 18 — 1 Chr 18:15–17); see de Wette, Beiträge, p. 81, and Rudolph, Chronik, p. 141. 1 Chr 27:32–34 mentions a different group of officials; it would seem that the subjects of the list (apart from Joab, commander of the king’s army) are the king’s personal advisers. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 185. 87. Today, no one questions the authenticity of this list; for example, see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 184. Yadin associates it with the list of district officials and considers the two together a comprehensive system of economic administration (Yadin, loc. cit., pp. 359– 360). 88. Although de Vaux does not question the authenticity of this datum, he is uncertain of its meaning and the historical situation it reflects and therefore he does not use it as evidence (Ancient Israel, p. 133). However, 1 Chr 26:29–32 is central to Mazar’s views on Levitical cities; see B. Mazar, “The Cities of the Priests and the Levites,” SVT, VII (1960), pp. 197–199.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 336 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

336

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

royal administration — from Rehoboam’s reign: the selection of Abijah as heir to the throne (2 Chr 11:22) and the distribution of the king’s sons throughout the fortified cities of Judah and Benjamin (11:23). It would appear that the selection of Abijah conferred certain duties on the crown prince; 89 likewise, the other princes were probably settled in their own cities to provide them not only with a source of income, but also with a role in the administrative system. Similar testimony concerning Jehoshaphat’s reign is included after his son Jehoram becomes king: “. . . all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat. Their father gave them great gifts . . . together with fortified cities in Judah; but he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the first-born” (2 Chr 21:2–3). The story goes on to describe how Jehoram massacred his brothers “and also some of the princes (μyrç) of Israel” (2 Chr 21:4). Royal princes (“the king’s sons”) and μyrç are also mentioned side by side in connection with David’s reign (1 Chr 29:24). The evidence suggests that the sons of the monarch played some part in administering the kingdom and that the king took pains to establish a fitting interrelationship between the crown prince, other royal princes, and the kingdom’s officials. In the context of our discussion, the historical questions arising from this testimony — primarily, whether or not it is based on historically reliable data, 90 and whether it reflects standard practice throughout the monarchic period or one particular incident 91 — must be left aside. Chronicles contains two additional pieces of information from the reign of Jehoshaphat. First, we are told that officers (μybyxn) were positioned in Judah’s cities, a fact that is advanced as an administrative innovation: “He . . . set officers in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim which Asa his father had taken” (2 Chr 17:2). 92 Second, the organization 89. The RSV translation, “and Rehoboam appointed Abijah the son of Maºacah as chief prince among his brothers,” reflects the Chronistic use of duum[ in the hiphºil, in the sense of “appoint” (see above, p. 310, n. 10), as well as the possibly technical use of çar and dygn. 90. Rudolph (Chronik, pp. 233 and 263) disagrees with Noth (Studien, p. 143, n. 1), although he accepts Noth’s opinion that 2 Chr 11:18–23 is a later addition to Chronicles. See also de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 119; J. Liver, “King, Kingship” (Heb.), EB, IV, 1096. 91. The question is bound up with the broader issue of coregency in the kingdom of Judah. The only example of coregency is provided by Jotham and is presented as an exceptional case (2 Kings 15:5). See Liver, loc. cit.; H. Tadmor, “Chronology” (Heb.), EB, IV, 269. 92. A few scholars believe that this verse transmits accurate evidence concerning the organization of Judah into districts, as renewed by Jehoshaphat, that is also reflected in the list of Judean cities that appears in Josh 15:21ff. See F. M. Cross and G. E.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 337 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities

337

of a judicial structure is attributed to Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 19:5–11). 93 The system includes the appointment of judges to Judah’s fortified cities and the establishment of a court in Jerusalem to serve both as district court for the inhabitants of the city 94 and as supreme court for the entire kingdom. The high priest and the governor (dygn) of the house of Judah are in charge of the court, and they are assisted by Levites. Jehoshaphat’s judicial structure completes the programme that David introduced when he appointed judges and officers from among the Levites. The Chronicler views the period from David to Jehoshaphat as the kingdom’s formative period in terms of administration: David sets down the basic patterns, which are complemented and revitalized during the reigns of his successors up to, and including, Jehoshaphat. After Jehoshaphat dies, Chronicles has nothing more to tell us about the kingdom’s administration. In the book of Kings, the only data concerning political administration are the lists of district commissioners and Solomon’s officials in 1 Kings 4. The contrast with Chronicles, which shows a marked interest in the subject, raises certain questions. The first question is that of the historian, and it has also tended to be the main question of critics: how authentic is the book’s evidence, and how does it add to our understanding of the First Commonwealth? The second question concerns the book of Chronicles itself: why did the Chronicler include all this data in his book, and what does its presence tell us about his view of history? We shall return to the Chronicler’s outlook at the end of our discussion. (2) The books of the Former Prophets contain a few pieces of information regarding military administration and organization, most of which appear in or alongside stories of Israel’s wars. 95 Chronicles has added much more data on the subject, and de Vaux notes that “quite the most Wright, “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah,” JBL, 75 (1956), 224–226, and Aharoni, “The Districts of Israel and Judah,” p. 125; see also de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 136. 93. In this case, the controversy over historical authenticity becomes acute. Wellhausen denies the accuracy of this testimony altogether; he considers the passage a commentary on Jehoshaphat’s name, a midrash that really reflects the Sanhedrin of the Second Commonwealth (Prolegomena, p. 191). Yet Albright claims (possibly in the footsteps of Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 144) that the description contains historical data; W. F. Albright, “The Reform of Jehoshaphat,” Alexander Marxs Jubilee Volume, ed. S. Lieberman (New York, 1950), pp. 61–82. Albright’s view has been extremely influential; cf. S. E. Loewenstamm, “Law, Biblical Law” (Heb.), EB, V, 630. 94. The wording of the conclusion to v. 8 is difficult to understand and apparently corrupt, and the reading of LXX — “and to judge the dwellers in Jerusalem” — should be adopted. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 404; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 256. 95. 1 Sam 13:19–22; 14:52; 2 Sam 6:1; 8:16; 20:4, 6–7, 23; 23:8ff.; etc.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 338 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

338

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

detailed information on the military organization under the monarchy is to be found in Chronicles.” 96 Most of the source testimony concerning the Davidic-Solomonic period appears in Chronicles: the lists of mighty warriors (μyrwbg), the information about “the thirty” and “the three,” the construction of the “chariot cities,” and so on. 97 To its sources, the book adds the list of monthly divisions (1 Chr 27:1–15) and a number of military terms included in lists from the beginning of David’s reign. 98 Further information from Solomon’s reign concerns the cities built by the king, which Chronicles defines as “fortified cities with walls, gates, and bars” (2 Chr 8:5). Much of the material relates to the reigns of Judah’s monarchs; we learn about military organization, construction for defence purposes, military equipment, ammunition, and provisions. Organizational details appear in the stories of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Hezekiah, 99 and fortified cities are built and supported during the reigns of Rehoboam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Manasseh. 100 According to Chronicles, these activities are appropriate to periods of peace; they represent a means of preparing oneself for more troubled times. 101 Ammunition and provisions are mentioned in detail during the reign of Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:12), Uzziah, 102 and Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:5). 96. Ancient Israel, p. 213. He continues “but these two books were written in an age when there was neither independence nor an army to defend it,” thereby indicating his view of the data’s possible authenticity. Nevertheless, in the discussion itself, de Vaux weighs each piece of evidence separately. More recently, Welten has devoted considerable attention to the information regarding military organization found in Chronicles. He concludes that all the data reflect the writer’s period and have no basis in the reality of the First Commonwealth. See Chronik, pp. 79–114, for his discussion, and the conclusions on pp. 195ff. 97. 1 Chr 11:11ff.; 18:15, 17; 2 Chr 1:14, 16, 17; 8:6; 9:15–16, 25. 98. See esp. 1 Chr 12:1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 24, 25, 33, 34, 37 (Heb., 1, 2, 4, 9, 15, 25, 26, 34, 35, 38). 99. 2 Chr 14:8 (Heb., 14:7); 17:2, 13–19; 25:5–6; 26:11–13; 32:6. 100. 2 Chr 11:5–12; 14:7 (6); 17:12; 26:6, 9; 27:3–4; 32:5; 33:14. We see from this emphasis on the issue of fortified cities that their construction and maintenance was considered crucial to the kingdom’s security. See M. Gichon, “The System of Fortifications in the Kingdom of Judah” (Heb.), in The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times (Heb.), ed. J. Liver (Tel Aviv, 1973), pp. 410–425; Y. Aharoni, “The Israelite Forts in the Negev” (Heb.), in op. cit., pp. 426–437. 101. See Asa’s words in 2 Chr 14:6–7 (5–6): “He built fortified cities in Judah, for the land had rest . . . and he said to Judah, ‘Let us build these cities, and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars; the land is still ours . . .’ ” 102. 2 Chr 26:14–15. See Y. Yadin, “Heshbon” (Heb.), EB, III, 314–315; S. Yeivin, “Uzziah” (Heb.), EB, VI, 129; Welten, Chronik, p. 89.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 339 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities

339

Concern for the security of the country is usually considered the ruler’s first priority. 103 This issue receives little attention in Kings but plays a significant role in Chronicles. The book contains a wealth of different data on the subject; moreover, it transmits the information as important in its own right, not merely incidental to accounts of wars. (3) The books of the Former Prophets contain almost no information on the subject of religious administration. A few facts are incorporated into the narrative, and attempts to reconstruct the history of Israel’s cultic institutions have drawn largely on these pieces of information. 104 However, it would seem that the facts that appear in the Former Prophets do not tell the entire story; many organizational details of religious life, in and out of Jerusalem, are missing. The scanty information in Kings concerns the priests alone 105 and tells us hardly anything about other Temple functionaries or how Temple service was structured. Chronicles provides a great many data on the subject, adding its material concerning religious administration at carefully selected points in the narrative: the story of the ark’s installation in Jerusalem and the pitching of a tent to house it (2 Chr 16:4–7, 37–42), the description of the preparations for the Temple’s construction (1 Chronicles 23ff.) and completion in Solomon’s time (2 Chr 8:14–16), and the account of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 31:2ff.). In the book of Samuel, the story of the transfer of the ark concludes with these words: “And they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place, inside the tent which David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings . . . and when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts, and distributed among all the people . . . to each a cake of bread . . . Then all the people departed, each to his house. And David returned to bless his household” (2 Sam 6:17–20). From a literary point of view, the conclusion is perfectly appropriate. The ark is transferred according to plan, and we are told what the various participants did after the transfer: David offered sacrifices, blessed the people, and distributed gifts, and then king and people returned to their homes. The final sentence — “And David returned to bless his household” — provides the link with the story of Michal’s reproach. Yet, although the literary work is complete, the story is lacking as an historical document. Presumably David instituted some sort of standard ritual at the ark’s new location, but the book of Samuel does not discuss the subject. Chronicles 103. See A. R. Johnson, “The Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship,” in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford, 1958), p. 205. 104. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 17ff., 127ff.; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 372. 105. See above, pp. 176–177.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 340 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

340

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

does: after describing the transfer, it gives a detailed account of the establishment of such a ritual (1 Chr 16:4–6, 37–38). In this way, the book provides what it perceives to be lacking, which indicates (however accurate or inaccurate the additions may be) that the writer is aware of the historical issues involved. He also demonstrates his sense of historical logic at other points: the preparations for the Temple at the end of David’s reign; Solomon’s completion of the Temple; Hezekiah’s innovations in religious administration (the organization and distribution of priestly and Levitical income — 2 Chronicles 31). Thus, the Chronicler adds a very important historical dimension to his narrative, one that was lacking not only from a post-exilic perspective, but from an historical perspective in general. Although this dimension no doubt existed, early biblical historiography makes very little mention of it. The organizational details are extremely complicated and, it would appear, anachronistic to a lesser or greater extent, 106 yet the very fact of their inclusion — as well as their locations in the narrative — reflects a fitting historical outlook. 2. The book of Chronicles contains much more information about construction than do Samuel–Kings, but the difference is less striking in this case. Samuel–Kings describe a number of building projects undertaken by the kings of Judah — Solomon first and foremost, as well as David, Asa, Joash, Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah. 107 Chronicles includes all the data in its sources, 108 apart from a few of Solomon’s projects, which appear to have been omitted in the desire to focus on the construction of the Temple. 109 Certain building projects have been added — the construction of fortified cities discussed above, the building of storehouses and treasuries, the digging of wells, and so on. 110 The most diversified activity

106. On the problems involved in this question, see above, p. 174. It seems to me that they cannot be solved by adopting one all-embracing position. When the examples are analysed closely, we find that material from the First Commonwealth may appear alongside data that undoubtedly reflect the Second Commonwealth reality, such as the divisions of Temple functionaries (1 Chr 24:1–19; 25:9–31). See Liver, Chapters, pp. 51– 52, 90ff., 121ff. 107. 1 Kings 6:1ff.; 7:1–12; 9:15, 17–19; 2 Sam 5:9, 11; 1 Kings 15:22; 2 Kings 12:11ff. (Heb., 12:12ff.); 14:22; 15:35; 20:20; 22:5–6. 108. 1 Chr 11:8; 14:1; 2 Chr 3:1ff.; 8:4–6, 11; 16:6; 24:12ff.; 26:2; 27:3; 32:3–4; 34:8ff. 109. The building of the palace only appears briefly (2 Chr 7:11; 8:1); unlike Kings, Chronicles does not mention it in the context of the Temple construction (1 Kings 7). See also Rudolph, Chronik, p. 226. 110. 2 Chr 17:12; 26:6, 9–10; 27:4; 32:5, 27–29. This material is usually considered a reliable historical source. See Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, pp. 160, 162, 168; Kittel,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 341 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities

341

occurred during the reigns of Uzziah and his son Jotham 111 and in the days of Hezekiah. 3. The economic activity of Judah’s monarchs is usually mentioned indirectly in the Bible; we learn of their assets and incomes from the accounts of wars and military victories that appear in Samuel–Kings. 112 In the book of Kings, specific details of economic activity and income appear only in the case of Solomon. 113 Chronicles describes Solomon’s financial dealings more briefly, omitting all but the essential facts. 114 All the source material pertaining to David is included, and Chronicles even contains additional information about the finances of David, 115 Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Jotham, and Hezekiah. 116 Certain aspects of the kings’ economic activity appear only in Chronicles. 4. The Former Prophets describe the kings’ military activities, an aspect of their relations with other nations, at length and in considerable detail. Here, too, Chronicles transmits almost all the material in Samuel–Kings and also adds accounts of wars unknown to us from other sources. Only two pieces of information concerning wars have been omitted — Hezekiah’s war against the Philistines 117 and Jehoiakim’s war against the bands of invaders from Babylon, Moab, and Ammon. 118 The added stories include Asa’s war against Zerah the Cushite (2 Chr 14:9 [Heb., 14:8]ff.), Chronik, pp. 154, 157, and others. However, Welten claims that except for the verses describing Rehoboam’s fortifications (2 Chr 11:5b, 6–10a), two short data from the reign of Uzziah (2 Chr 26:6a, 10), and the account of Hezekiah’s tunnel (2 Chr 32:30), all the other data reflect the reality of the Second Commonwealth. He sees this information as part of the book’s theological system (Welten, Chronik, pp. 78–79). 111. For the political background to this activity, see H. Tadmor, “Azariah of Judah in Assyrian Inscriptions” (Heb.), in The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Heb.), ed. A. Malamat ( Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 158ff. 112. For example, see 2 Sam 8:2, 6–8, 11–12; 12:30; 1 Kings 20:34; 2 Kings 3:4. 113. It would seem that this has to do with the nature of the writer’s source for Solomon’s reign; see Montgomery, Kings, p. 35. Cf., especially, 1 Kings 4:7; 4:21, 27 (Heb., 5:1, 7); 7:46; 9:26–28; 10:10–11, 14–15, 25, 28–29. 114. 2 Chr 1:16–17; 4:17; 8:17–18; 9:9–10, 13–14, 21, 24, 28. 115. The parallel passages are 1 Chr 18:2, 6–8, 10–11, 13; 20:2. The principal addition from David’s reign is the list of stewards over the king’s property, which also describes the stewards’ respective functions (1 Chr 27:25–31). This list represents an important source of evidence for the king’s wide-ranging economic activities. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 125. For an unusual interpretation of the list, see Yadin, “Army Reserves of David and Solomon,” p. 360. 116. 2 Chr 17:11, 13; 26:8–10; 27:5; 32:23, 27–29. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 125. 117. 2 Kings 18:8. Why this war was omitted is unclear; perhaps an allusion to it appears in 2 Chr 32:22: “So the Lord saved Hezekiah . . . from the hand of Sennacherib king of Assyria and from the hand of all his enemies.” See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 313. 118. 2 Kings 24:2. On the reasons for this omission, see above, pp. 286–287.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 342 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

342

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

Jehoshaphat’s battle with the Moabites and Ammonites (2 Chr 20:1ff.), the invasion by the Philistines and Arabs during Jehoram’s reign (2 Chr 21:16– 17), Uzziah’s war against the Philistines, Arabs, and Meºunites (2 Chr 26:6– 8), Jotham’s fight against the Ammonites (2 Chr 27:5), the raids by Edomites and Philistines in the time of Ahaz (2 Chr 28:17–18), and Solomon’s conquest of Hamath-Zobah (2 Chr 8:3). Even if the details of these episodes strike one as somewhat unrealistic, the idea that such wars took place, as well as the basic facts, would appear to be based on reliable historical sources. 119 5. As was mentioned above, studies of Chronicles have paid close attention to the king’s role in the religious sphere. Our discussion, too, has frequently emphasized the central position assumed by Israel’s religious life in the Chronistic narrative. We have seen that establishing and maintaining the kingdom’s religious structure was the monarch’s duty and one of his most important functions. In principle, the same is true of the books of the Former Prophets; Kings makes it clear that the monarch was responsible for the construction and maintenance of the Temple, 120 as he was for the smooth operation of Yhwh worship in the Temple. Yet Chronicles places a particular emphasis on the subject, first and foremost by devoting considerable space to it. The book deals at length with the history of the Temple and ritual worship and the organization of cultic functionaries and routines. 121 It assigns more duties to the monarch, expanding upon or even adding completely new elements to the material in Kings. In this context, the most obvious examples are the reforms by Asa and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 14:3–5 [Heb., 2–4]; 15:8–15; 17:6; 19:4), Jehoshaphat’s project for the teaching of the law in the cities of Judah (2 Chr 17:7–9), and Hezekiah’s Passover celebration (2 Chronicles 30). These accounts also exhibit one of the Chronicler’s most outstanding literary qualities — his great fondness for describing ceremony and pageantry. 122 Two other aspects of the question remain to be examined: the importance of royal initiative in matters of religion and the monarch’s role in the cult. As we have noted, the king is responsible for the proper maintenance of religious life, and the narrative tends to emphasize his role. The de119. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. xvii; Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 15–16. Welten, however, argues that there is no historical (First Commonwealth) basis for any of the wars described in Chronicles, with the exception of a few short passages; see Welten, Chronik, pp. 115–175. 120. See 1 Kings 6:1ff.; 2 Kings 12:5–17; 22:3–7; and de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 320. 121. See esp. above, pp. 175ff. 122. 1 Chr 13:15–16; 2 Chronicles 29; 30; 35. See Zunz, Vorträge, p. 22.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 343 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities

343

scription of Josiah’s Passover provides an outstanding example of royal initiative. 123 A short account appears in Kings: “And the king commanded all the people. ‘Keep the passover to the Lord your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant.’ For no such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah; but in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this passover was kept to the Lord in Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:21– 23). According to this description, the king performs only one direct action: he issues a command that Passover be observed. After the command is given, the rest of the action is described in the passive mode, and there is no mention of the king’s role. Chronicles contains a much longer account of the event (2 Chr 35:1–19), adding numerous details to the verses it quotes (with alterations) from Kings (2 Chr 35:1a, 18–19). The most notable difference for our purposes here is the central position of Josiah himself, 124 which becomes very evident when we compare the parallel verses: 2 Kings 23:21: “And the king commanded all the people, ‘Keep the passover to the Lord.” 2 Chr 35:1: “Josiah kept a passover to the Lord.” In Chronicles, the actual observance of Passover was an act performed by Josiah. This idea is maintained throughout the story: “Josiah kept a passover to the Lord in Jerusalem” (v. 1); “he appointed the priests . . . and encouraged them in the service of the house of the Lord” (v. 2); “he said to the Levites” (v. 3); “Josiah contributed to the lay people . . . from the king’s possessions” (v. 7); “when the service had been prepared for . . . according to the king’s command” (v. 10); “so all the service of the Lord was prepared . . . according to the command of King Josiah” (v. 16). The story concludes in the same spirit, adding to the ending in Kings: 2 Kings 23:22–23: “For no such passover had been kept . . . but in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this passover was kept to the Lord in Jerusalem.” 2 Chr 35:18: “No passover like it had been kept in Israel . . . none of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah (whyçay hç[Arça), and the priests and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the eighteenth year of Josiah this passover was kept.”

123. For example, see also 2 Chr 14:2–5 (Heb., 1–4); 15:8–9; 17:7; 29:3–5, 15, 18, 20. 124. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 325. Rudolph comments on this feature with reference to one limited, if significant, detail — the Levites are included among those who prepared the sacrifices.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 344 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

344

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

The priests, Levites, and singers are entrusted with the ceremony and offering of sacrifices, but the king is responsible for everything else and for the enterprise itself: he initiates it, organizes it, finances it, and carries it through according to Moses’ law (vv. 6, 12) and the regulations of David and Solomon (vv. 4, 15). The centrality of the king appears in marked contrast to the absence of any mention of the high priest. 125 We often come across this phenomenon in Chronicles, 126 and it accentuates the monarch’s exclusive authority and responsibility in matters of religion. 127 The priest merely fulfills a specific function; his authority and duties do not go beyond his limited sphere of activity. 128 Although the king assumes responsibility for the cult and initiates change or activity, he is excluded from any direct part in the ritual itself. The “Myth and Ritual” school adopts an extreme position on the subject of the king’s status and function in ritual, but even their critics assume that the monarch performed a variety of tasks in the Temple and ritual worship. 129 A few believe that the king was actually considered the high priest, 130 and others that he received his cultic functions by virtue of his position as head of state. 131 In any case, it is clear that the king’s general responsibility for the cult was combined with specific cultic duties. 132 Yet 125. The description does mention priests serving in the Temple, who have been given their positions by Josiah: “He appointed the priests to their offices” (2 Chr 35:2; see also vv. 10, 11ff.). Three priests are called “chief officers (μydygn) of the house of God” (v. 8). The first of these is Hilkiah, who, presumably, is Hilkiah the high priest, although his title does not appear: he is simply listed alongside Zechariah and Jehiel as a “chief officer.” (Neh 11:11, 1 Chr 9:11, and 2 Chr 31:13 mention one dygn; in these cases, dygn may well be a term for the high priest — see 2 Chr 31:10.) See also Poulssen, König und Tempel, pp. 180–181. 126. For example, in the course of all of Hezekiah’s activities, priests only appear in their role as Temple functionaries — 2 Chr 29:4, 16, 21–22, 24, 26; 30:16, 21, 24, 27; 31:2, 10, 13. 127. Concerning the role of the officials and lay people alongside the king, see above, pp. 325ff. This partnership makes the absence of any comparable role for the high priest even more striking. For example, in 2 Chr 31:8ff., the “king and princes” come to the Temple to hear the report of the high priest. See also 2 Chr 29:20 and elsewhere. 128. The only exception is the case of the rebellion led by Jehoiada, transferred from 2 Kings 11 to 2 Chronicles 23. 129. See North, ZAW, 50 (1932), 17–21; A. R. Johnson, in Myth, Ritual and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford, 1958), pp. 212ff.; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 113–114; J. Liver, EB, IV, 1092–1094. 130. Thus North, loc. cit., 21. 131. Thus de Vaux, op. cit., p. 114; Liver, loc. cit., 1093–1094. 132. The well-known important passages are 1 Sam 13:9–10; 2 Sam 6:14–18; 24:25; 1 Kings 3:4, 15; 8:64; 9:25; 2 Kings 16:12–15.

page is 15 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 345 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Monarch’s Role and Activities

345

the book of Chronicles reserves the right to perform ritual tasks for the priests and excludes the king from this right. 133 His exclusion is declared outright in the story of Uzziah’s leprosy (2 Chr 26:16–21): “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense” (v. 18). The Chronicler transmits the general principle found in Numbers — “any outsider (rz) who encroaches shall be put to death” 134 — by means of a story; in his version, the king is also considered an “outsider.” Although the reworking is not thorough, the Chronicler also recasts his sources in Samuel–Kings in keeping with this view: (1) According to the story in 2 Samuel 6, David fulfills a cultic role and serves as a priest 135 when he brings the ark to Jerusalem. He wears a linen ephod (2 Sam 6:14), dances before the Lord (v. 14), offers sacrifices (vv. 13, 17), and, after the ark reaches its destination, blesses the people in the name of Yhwh (v. 18). Although the description in Chronicles does not eliminate the basic facts, it does qualify and limit them quite significantly: instead of “he sacrificed,” the text in Chronicles reads “they sacrificed” (2 Sam 6:13 — 1 Chr 15:26); when David dances before the ark he wears, not an ephod, but a “robe (ly[m) of fine linen” (2 Sam 6:14 — 1 Chr 15:27); and instead of “David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings,” Chronicles has “they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (2 Sam 6:17 — 1 Chr 16:1). However, the reworking remains incomplete: although David wears “a robe of fine linen,” the verse retains the detail that he wore a linen ephod (v. 27). The same is true in the case of the sacrifices; the description begins with the new “they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” but continues in the wording of Samuel: “And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings . . .” (1 Chr 16:2a). Likewise, the account of David’s blessing the people has been retained (1 Chr 16:2b). The book of Chronicles describes the king as offering sacrifices in other passages, all relating to David or Solomon: 1 Chr 21:26 = 2 Sam 24:25; 2 Chr 1:6 = 1 Kings 3:4; and 2 Chr 5:6; 7:4, 5, 7 = 1 Kings 8:5, 62– 64. These last verses appear in the account of the Temple’s dedication; the offerings were apparently made in Solomon’s name, not actually sacrificed by the king, 136 and the Chronicler may well have understood the other passages in the same sense. 133. See Poulssen, König und Tempel, pp. 155ff. 134. Num 18:1–7. See Milgrom, Studies, pp. 5ff. 135. See R. Isaiah di Trani’s interpretation of 2 Sam 6:14. Cf. Smith, Samuel, p. 296; Hertzberg, Samuel, p. 280. 136. As in: “the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the Lord” (2 Chr 7:4) and “King Solomon offered as a sacrifice twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep” (v. 5).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 346 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

346

Kingship: Monarchy as Such

(2) Chronicles rewords passages mentioning the king’s blessing in the same somewhat inconsistent way. David’s blessing following the transfer of the ark is retained intact (2 Sam 6:18 = 1 Chr 16:2), as is Solomon’s blessing in 2 Chr 6:3 = 1 Kings 8:14. Yet, the blessing given by Solomon at the end of his long prayer — 1 Kings 8:54–55 — has been deleted (see 2 Chr 7:1). 137 Thus, it seems that despite the book’s unequivocal statement of principle in the story of Uzziah’s leprosy, not all of its sources are systematically reworked in keeping with this principle. In Chronicles, the monarch’s sphere of activity is expanded and the subject is presented in detail. This fact becomes all the more evident when we compare Chronistic passages to the material in Samuel–Kings. We do not glean information about administration, economy, or construction from indirect references in some other context; these subjects appear in their own right. Chronicles also devotes more attention than does the book of Kings to military activity. The many details that claim the historian’s attention are not the issue here; rather, their very inclusion demands a reappraisal of the Chronicler as historiographer. Whatever the accuracy of various data or the authenticity of their sources, there can be no doubt that the book follows an historical plan and pursues an historical goal. The idea that history is subservient to ideology in Chronicles 138 has been noted frequently in our discussion and need not be argued yet again. However strong this subservience may be, we cannot avoid the observation that the book was written as history and in conformity with the demands of historiography. Information was assessed according to historical categories and considerations, 139 and the book’s sources were utilized to their utmost — all with the aim of producing a complete historical picture.

137. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 22; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 347. Such striking inconsistency has led a few scholars to suppose that the changes in the text were made for some other reason and that the Chronicler had no objection to the king’s blessing as such; see Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 215–217, p. 217, n. 1, and also p. 119. See also Curtis, Chronicles, p. 347; and compare 2 Chr 30:27 with 2 Chr 31:8. 138. Welten lays great emphasis on the theological significance of Chronistic accounts of history, arguing that they functioned in their time as homiletical literature of chastisement or exhortation (Chronik, pp. 201–206). However, Welten concentrates on detail and pays little attention to the book’s broader literary-historical design. 139. This may explain the book’s lack of prophetic stories: although an extremely important element of the source in Kings, they have been eliminated from Chronicles. An explanation of this sort is particularly apt in the case of the stories about Isaiah in 2 Kings 19:2–20:19, which are only faintly echoed in Chronicles; see below, pp. 399ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 347 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. Election

347

B. The Davidic Dynasty I. Election 1 The Bible does not only express the idea of election by means of the root ruujb and other such verbs; 2 it also conveys the idea through its description of events, so that chosenness is understood from what happens in history. 3 The book of Samuel presents the election of Israel’s first kings, Saul and David, 4 in two ways: by portraying their lives up to the moment of anointing as evidence of the divine providence that paved the way to their special destiny and by using the verb “choose” (ruujb) — Saul is “chosen” in 1 Sam 10:24, 5 David in 2 Sam 6:21 and 1 Samuel 16. 6 1 Kings 8:16 mentions David’s election together with the choosing of Jerusalem: “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.” The parallel text in 2 Chr 6:5–6 contains a fuller and better reading: “Since the day that I brought my people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, 1. See, inter alia, G. Quell, ejklevgomai, ThWNT, IV, 148ff., esp. 156–163; W. Staerk, “Zum alttestamentlichen Erwählungsglauben,” ZAW, 55 (1937), 2–8; Rowley, Election, pp. 96–100; G. E. Mendenhall, “Election,” IDB, II, 78; C. Vriezen, Die Erwählung Israels nach dem Alten Testament (Zurich, 1953), pp. 45–46; K. Koch, “Zur Geschichte der Erwählungsvorstellung in Israel,” ZAW, 67 (1955), 212, 224; Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” pp. 298ff.; and see also above, p. 73. 2. See Quell, ThWNT, IV, 149ff. 3. The story of Saul’s selection as king in 1 Sam 9:1–10:16 provides a good example of this method. The verb “to choose” never appears, though the theme — the realization of divine chosenness — is stated even before the story begins: “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel” (1 Sam 9:16). 4. This fact leads Mendenhall to certain radical conclusions — he argues that the idea of individual election, like the institution of monarchy, had pagan origins; see IDB, II, 78; and cf. Koch, ZAW, 67 (1955), 224. 5. Saul is called uh ryjb in 2 Sam 21:6; LXX, Aquila, and Symmachus read “on the mountain of the Lord” (uh rjb), a reading preferred by most commentators. For example, see Ehrlich, Randglossen, III, p. 331. 6. Although Chapter 16 does not use the verb “choose” with reference to David himself, his election is clear from the context. We read three times that “the Lord has not chosen” David’s various brothers (vv. 8, 9, and 10), and the story concludes with the assumption of David’s chosenness: “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” The entire chapter plays on the verbs “choose,” “see,” and “reject,” contrasting “choose” and “see” with “reject.” David’s election also appears in 1 Kings 8:16; 11:34 — both verses from the book’s Deuteronomistic stratum (see Montgomery, Kings, pp. 193 and 242) — and Ps 78:80.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 348 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

348

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

and I chose no man as prince over my people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem that my name may be there and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel.” 7 The chronological-historical note that begins the verse is of prime importance because it indicates that the choosing of David and Jerusalem is without precedent. For our purposes, this view is significant in that it completely and deliberately disregards the election of Saul: David is considered Israel’s first chosen monarch. 8 A similar view is also expressed more systematically in Chronicles: “The Lord God of Israel chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel for ever; for he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father’s house, and among my father’s sons he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. He said to me, ‘It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father’ ” (1 Chr 28:4–6). The verses’ point of departure is seen in their opening: “The Lord . . . chose me . . . to be king.” The election of David functions as a sort of mooring point from both an historical and a religious point of view. Some of the elements included in the passage’s chain of election constitute complete innovations, and others are not fully grounded in the people’s religious consciousness. David provides the focal point, and the list stretches out away from him, backwards and forwards in time. It is an ever-narrowing progression: from Judah to Jesse’s house, from Jesse’s house to David, and from David to Solomon. This portrayal of a long chain of election culminating in David clashes with the historical account of how David came to be chosen. The course of events in Samuel, including the story in 1 Samuel 16, makes it clear that it was David, and David alone, who was chosen by God, chosen to replace Saul. That Samuel was sent to David’s family and not to David himself is a function of the story’s literary requirements: the narrative develops the mystery of election on two levels — by disguising the matter from Saul with the pretense of a sacrifice and by hiding Yhwh’s choice from Samuel, 7. The omission from “and I chose no man” to “that my name may be there” is correctly explained by the phenomenon of homoioteleuton. A few scholars, following the reading of Codex Vaticanus, believe that only the words “I have chosen Jerusalem that my name may be there” have been omitted from Kings (see Ehrlich, Randglossen, VII, p. 232, and BH); others consider the Masoretic text of Kings the original (see Sanda, Könige, pp. 221–222; Staerk, ZAW, 55 [1937], 26, n. 1). 8. Psalm 78 does not mention Saul, either; it goes directly from Shiloh to Jerusalem and then on to David’s election, passing over Saul’s monarchy in what must be a deliberate omission (Ps 78:55–72).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 349 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. Election

349

who sees outward appearances instead of a man’s heart. At a later stage, Jesse’s family comes to be important in its own right, as we see from Isaiah’s words: 9 “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isa 11:1). The affiliation with Jesse is not accidental; from Jesse’s “stump” and “roots” come David and, at some unknown date, the king of the future. 10 The election of Judah appears nowhere in Samuel; in fact, its only other occurrence is Ps 78:67–69: 11 “He rejected the tent of Joseph / he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim / but he chose the tribe of Judah / Mount Zion, which he loves / He built his sanctuary like the high heavens / like the earth, which he has founded for ever.” The reason for Judah’s election lies in the choosing of Jerusalem and the building of the Temple. The verses’ chiastic structure juxtaposes Ephraim-Shiloh and Judah-Jerusalem, and the psalm then goes on to speak of David’s special election as shepherd of his people (vv. 70–71). The election of Judah is portrayed as the culmination of an historical process in which Ephraim was chosen and later rejected. The book of Chronicles gives no reason for Judah’s destiny; he was chosen a priori. In the course of history, Judah’s chosenness is “put into practice”: because the tribe was destined to govern Israel, David is selected as king. We find the idea that Judah will govern (although the verb “choose” is not used) in Jacob’s blessing: “Judah, your brothers shall praise you / your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies / your father’s sons shall bow down before you” (Gen 49:8); “the sceptre shall not depart from Judah / nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” (Gen 49:10). Although the idea of Judah’s rule is phrased as a prophecy of future events, it would seem that the “prophecy” reflects an historical reality in which Judah already governed Israel. This reality is considered the fulfilment of a promise given in the past and is therefore expressed as a blessing spoken by the 9. Turn-of-the-century ideas concerning the lateness of the prophecy in Isa 11:1–9 (or 1–8), such as the view of G. B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, ICC (1912), pp. 213–215, have been overtaken by the opinion that the prophecy was uttered by Isaiah himself. See B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, GHAT (1922), p. 104; O. Procksch, Jesaia I, KAT (1930), pp. 151–152; Kaufmann, Religion, III, pp. 218ff. 10. A similar, if less strikingly phrased, appraisal is found in Isa 11:10: “In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.” Mic 5:2 (Heb., 5:1) may, possibly, provide another example. 11. Scholars hold differing opinions concerning the date of Psalm 78; for example, see Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 26–27; Weinfeld, Former Prophets, pp. 70ff.; Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 307, esp. n. 72. The idea of Judah’s election may well indicate that the psalm is late.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 350 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

350

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

tribal patriarch, Jacob. Chronicles takes Jacob’s blessing as an historical fact: Judah’s destiny to govern was first foretold and then realized in the course of history, 12 and David’s election is contingent upon the choice of Judah as ruling tribe. Judah’s election as ruler also appears in 1 Chr 5:2, in a text that is undoubtedly related to Jacob’s blessing. Again, the verb ruujb is not used: “though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph.” 13 Thus, the process of election is a gradual one. The choosing of David was no isolated phenomenon, a simple contrast to the election of Saul. It was the culmination of a process which began with the selection of Judah and which, by its very nature, could only result in the election of David. The concept of this gradual process of election parallels the practice of choosing by lottery, described twice in the Bible. For example, “Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. He brought the tribe of Benjamin nearby its families, and the family of the Matrites was taken by lot; he brought the family of the Matrites near, and Saul the son of Kish was taken by lot . . . And Samuel said to all the people, ‘Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen?’ ” (1 Sam 10:20–24). 14 The passage in Chronicles follows the same stages — from tribe to family to individual — and may well have taken the account of the lots as its model. However, the descriptions differ in two essential respects. First, the lottery is a onetime event, and the process of narrowing down the selection lasts only as long as the lottery itself. In Chronicles, we read of a real historical process, comprising stages that extend over a long period of time. Second, the intermediate stages in the lottery are meaningless; they only exist in order to bring us to the final choice. In Chronicles, choosing Judah and the house of Jesse has meaning in and of itself. Another Chronistic innovation is the election of Solomon, which receives far more emphasis than that of David; the subject appears four times: in David’s speech to the people — 1 Chr 28:5; 29:1; quoted from Yhwh’s message to David — 1 Chr 28:6; and in David’s words to Solomon — 1 Chr 28:10. With this election, we reach not only the final stage in the process of choosing, but also the goal of the entire process.

12. The connection between 1 Chronicles 28 and Genesis 49 is clearly evident, but no such connection exists in the case of Psalm 78. The psalm pursues the theme of chosenness versus rejection, retelling history in keeping with the material found in the Former Prophets. It does not relate the course of events to Jacob’s blessing. 13. See above, pp. 250–251. 14. See also Josh 7:16ff., which provides a detailed account of all the stages. The text in 1 Sam 10:21 may be corrupt; see Driver, Samuel, p. 84.

spread is 9 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 351 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

I. Election

351

In Chronicles, Solomon’s election is associated with the construction of the Temple and directly linked to Nathan’s prophecy that the Temple will be built by one of David’s sons (2 Sam 28:5–16). 15 In Nathan’s prophecy, which son will build the Temple remains unknown. 16 The actual connection between Solomon and the Temple appears for the first time in the new monarch’s speech in 1 Kings 8. In Samuel–Kings, Solomon’s role as builder of the Temple is not inevitable, but rather the result of circumstance: because God promised David that one of his sons will build the Temple, and because Solomon is the one who eventually succeeds to the throne, it is Solomon who fulfills God’s words concerning David’s son and builds the Temple: “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you shall build the house for my name. Now the Lord has fulfilled his promise . . . for I have risen in the place of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel . . . and I have built the house for the name of the Lord, the God of Israel” (1 Kings 8:19–20). 17 It is in Chronicles that we find the strongest connection between Solomon and the Temple — even before birth, Solomon is destined to fulfill two functions: he will succeed his father as king and he will build the Temple. “Behold, a son shall be born to you . . . his name shall be Solomon . . . He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father” (1 Chr 22:9–10). It would indeed seem that there is some polemical content to this idea. 18 The books of Samuel–Kings describe the events preceding Solomon’s accession in detail. We read of Amnon’s death, Absalom’s uprising, 15. The specific prophecy regarding David’s son appears in 2 Sam 7:12–13. There appears to be good reason for the prevailing view that Nathan’s prophecy has been reworked, v. 13 is a later addition, and the original prophecy did not associate the building of the Temple with David’s son. See L. Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT, 42 [1926]), p. 56; Noth, Studien, pp. 64–65. Seeligmann believes that verses 13b and 16 (those verses promising that David’s dynasty will rule forever) are the additions: see “Historic Reality,” pp. 301–303, p. 302, n. 61. When comparing the texts in Samuel and in Chronicles, we are only concerned with the prophecy in its present form. 16. Sarna stresses the son’s anonymity, seeing it as conclusive proof that the prophecy actually originated in David’s time (Sarna, “Psalm 89,” pp. 39–42). Seeligmann, however, believes that it comes from Solomon’s reign and that although “the name of the predestined son does not appear, we may assume that Nathan’s prophecy referred to Solomon, even if it does not mention the latter by name.” Seeligmann goes on to explain his assumption: “A sort of etiological prophecy authorizing Solomon’s reign as destined by God . . . is attributed to this same prophet” (“Historic Reality,” p. 300). 17. See also 1 Kings 5:5 (Heb., 5:19): “And so I purpose to build a house for the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord said to David my father, ‘Your son, whom I will set upon your throne . . . shall build the house for my name.’ ” 18. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 181–182.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 352 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

352

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

failure, and death, the fierce struggle between Adonijah and Solomon (2 Samuel 13, 15–18; 1 Kings 1–2). Solomon’s destiny to become king is only “recognized” after the fact; as Adonijah says, in retrospect, “the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s, for it was his from the Lord” (1 Kings 2:15). In Chronicles, however, none of these episodes appears; instead, Yhwh’s choice of Solomon is proclaimed from the start. 19 God selected him even before he was born, and when Nathan uttered his prophecy, he was speaking of Solomon. 20 We also see the Chronicler’s polemic against the version of history found in 1 Kings 1–2 in his description of Solomon’s anointing: “And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and they anointed him as ruler for the Lord, and Zadok as priest. Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. All the leaders and the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David pledged their allegiance to King Solomon” (1 Chr 29:22b–24). This account echoes David’s orders concerning his chosen successor, Solomon, in 1 Kings 1:35 21 and represents an express alternative to the story of Solomon’s accession in 1 Kings — an alternative that completely disregards the power struggle with Adonijah and all that it entailed. What is the significance of Solomon’s election? What conclusions may be drawn from the Chronistic view of the subject? The book of Samuel presents two separate issues: David is chosen as king of Israel (1 Samuel 16), and he also receives God’s promise that his “house . . . shall be made sure for ever” (2 Samuel 7). Although the two are essentially different, 22 they meet in the figure of David and are realized because of his merit. 23 Chronicles mentions these two themes 24 but adds a third, the special choosing of Solomon, which in effect diminishes the value of David’s election and the dynastic promise. Solomon succeeds to the throne and builds 19. See Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 300; Staerk, ZAW, 55 (1937), 7. 20. See Kaufmann, Religion, III, pp. 462–464; Sarna, “Psalm 89,” pp. 10–41. 21. “He shall . . . sit upon my throne”; “he shall be king in my stead”; “to be ruler (dygn)”; and also compare “all the sons of King David” and “all the leaders and the mighty men” in 1 Chr 29:24 to 1 Kings 1:9, 25. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 192–193. 22. Mendenhall does not believe that they are: he argues that every individual election also denotes the founding of a dynasty to perpetuate the individual’s function. In his opinion, Saul constitutes an exception to the rule; his election was revoked (IDB, II, 79). 23. As we also see from Ahijah’s message to Jeroboam. Ahijah selects Jeroboam as king (1 Kings 11:31), but the perpetuation of his dynasty depends on the new king’s behaviour and not on the fact that he was chosen: “And if you will hearken to all that I command you . . . keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you, and will build you a sure house, as I did for David” (11:38). 24. 1 Chr 28:5; 11:3, 17; etc. See also below, pp. 358ff.

spread is 3 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 353 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Covenant

353

the Temple not only by virtue of his father and the promise (as the version in Kings would have it), but also because he himself was chosen by God even before he was born. What implications does the Chronistic view of Solomon’s election have vis-à-vis the other Judean monarchs and the dynasty as a whole? According to the book of Kings, there is no difference between Solomon and the kings who governed Judah after him; they all ruled by virtue of God’s promise to David. In Chronicles, the dynastic promise is supplemented by the personal election of Solomon himself. In this respect, Solomon resembles his father, David, and differs from Judah’s other monarchs. He rules because God chose him specially, but they rule because of Yhwh’s promise to David.

II. The Covenant Biblical scholarship has paid a great deal of attention to the subject of the Davidic covenant and has examined the question from a number of angles. 25 Given the importance of each of the two elements. “David” and “covenant,” and given the position of David and his covenant in both Judaism and Christianity, it is easy to understand this interest. Studies of Chronicles also devote considerable attention to the Davidic covenant, which is likewise understandable in view of the book’s late date and the fact that it constitutes a transitional stage between the biblical and postbiblical eras. The covenant with David appears in two verses in Chronicles — one unique to the book and one transferred, in altered form, from Kings: 26 25. For example, see: L. Rost, “Sinaibund und Davidsbund,” ThLZ, 72 (1947), 128ff.; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Sinaibund und Davidsbund,” VT, 10 (1960), 335–341; M. Sekine, “Davidsbund und Sinaibund bei Jeremiah,” VT, 9 (1959), 47–57; R. E. Clements, Abraham and David (London, 1967), pp. 47–60; H. Gese, “Der Davidsbund und die Sionserwählung,” ZThK, 61 (1964), 10–26; R. de Vaux, “Le roi d’lsraël, vassal de Jahvé,” Festsch. Tisserant (Rome, 1964), pp. 119–133; D. J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the OT: The Present State of Inquiry,” CBQ, 27 (1965), 217–240, esp. 235–239; F. C. Fensham, “Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible,” ThZ, 23 (1967), 305–322, esp. 314–317; F. C. Prussner, “The Covenant of David and the Problem of Unity in O.T. Theology,” in Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J. C. Rylaarsdam (Chicago, 1968), pp. 17–41; M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the O.T. and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS, 90 (1970), 184–203; idem, “Berit,” ThWAT, I, 799–801. 26. It is possible that 2 Chr 7:18 belongs in this list. The text in Chronicles reads “then I will establish your royal throne, as I established / covenanted (ytrk) with David your father,” whereas 1 Kings 9:5 has “as I promised (ytrbd) David your father.” It may be that the verb tuurk is used elliptically here to signify the standard tyrb tuurk, or it might simply be the result of a textual corruption; see Rehm, Untersuchungen, p. 121; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 217.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 354 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

354

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

(1) 2 Chr 13:5: “Ought you not to know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel for ever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt?” (2) 2 Chr 21:7: “Yet the Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David, and since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.” 2 Kings 8:19: “Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah, for the sake of David his servant, since he promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons for ever.” The two verses differ in content, wording, and literary affinities. 2 Chr 13:5 (like all of Abijah’s speech) is influenced by Priestly language, whereas 2 Chr 21:7 betrays Deuteronomistic influences. The affinity in wording is greater in the case of 2 Chr 13:5, which bears a particularly strong resemblance to Num 18:19: “All the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the Lord I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt for ever before the Lord for you and for your offspring with you.” When we compare the two texts, we see that the central elements have been transposed from one to the other. In Chronicles, we find: Yhwh gives the kingship — over Israel — to David and his sons — for ever — a covenant of salt; in Numbers: Yhwh gives the holy offerings — of Israel — to Aaron and his sons — for ever — a covenant of salt. 27 The verse in Numbers 18 comprises two sections that explain each other. The main component is Section 1: “all the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the Lord I give to you, and to your sons . . . as a perpetual due.” The people of Israel give holy offerings to Yhwh, but Yhwh cedes them to the priests in perpetuity. Section 2 — “it is a covenant of salt for ever before the Lord” — clarifies Section 1: Yhwh promises the priests the holy offerings for the duration of a “covenant of salt” made before the Lord. Such a covenant is established between two parties “in the presence of Yhwh” and ratified for ever by the eating of salt. God is not 27. The expression “covenant of salt” (jlm tyrb) only appears in these two verses in the Bible, and we find tyrb jlm once — also in a Priestly text: “You shall season all your cereal offerings with salt; you shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be lacking from your cereal offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt” (Lev 2:13). In this verse, the meaning of the phrase is explained by its context: “You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be lacking” parallels the verse’s conclusion, “with all your offerings you shall offer salt,” and “covenant with your God” parallels “your offerings.” In other words, you shall not withhold the salt of offerings because it symbolizes the covenant with your God. The salt of offerings is the “salt of the covenant,” the salt that is eaten in order to ratify a covenant at the time it is made.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 355 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Covenant

355

one of the parties, and our verse here does not indicate a covenant between Yhwh and the priests. 28 Rather, Yhwh gives Israel’s holy offerings over to the priests, and his promise to do so is analogous to a covenant of salt in that it applies for all time. 29 “Covenant of salt” also appears in the same figurative sense in 2 Chr 13:5: God grants the kingship to David and his sons for ever — for as long as a covenant of salt is valid. The expression is simply a metaphor, and the verse makes no mention of any covenant between Yhwh and David. Rudolph translates correctly, “Yhwh the God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel to David and his sons forever as a covenant of salt.” 30 As he explains, “the expression ‘covenant of salt’ is merely a metaphor for the eternal duration of the promise given to the Davidic dynasty.” 31 There are a number of differences between our second verse, 2 Chr 21:7, and its source in Kings; the most significant for our purposes is the reading “because of the covenant which he had made with David” rather than “because of David his servant.” 32 The rest of the verse, which has been transferred intact, explains what is meant by the first part. “Since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons for ever” — Judah (or the house of David) will not be destroyed because of Yhwh’s promise to give 28. Nor can it be compared to Num 25:12–13, in which God grants a covenant of perpetual priesthood to Phinehas. On “granting a covenant,” see M. Weinfeld, “Covenant,” EJ, 5, 1013. 29. Noth struggles with the interpretation of this verse. He is aware that no covenant between Yhwh and the Priests is mentioned; he claims that some sort of covenant has been established with the house of Aaron “in the presence of Yhwh” and that the verse deliberately avoids designating God as one of the parties to this covenant. Nevertheless, Noth does not fully recognize the figurative use of the expression “covenant of salt”; M. Noth, Numbers, OTL (1965), p. 137. 30. Rudolph, Chronik, p. 236. 31. Ibid., p. 237. He believes that the expression “covenant of salt” has its origins in human relations — “among people, the communal partaking of salt symbolizes and secures the bond between partners to a covenant and the inviolable nature of the covenant itself” (ibid., p. 237). Rudolph cites Ezra 4:14 in addition to Pentateuchal references. 32. Von Rad places particular emphasis on this change (Geschichtsbild, p. 124). Rudolph also sees the Chronicler’s focus on the Davidic dynasty in the second change, the replacement of “would not destroy Judah” with “would not destroy the house of David” (Chronik, pp. 265–266). However, it seems to me that Rudolph has missed the point of this change, which must be explained by the Chronicler’s belief in the rigour of divine retribution: every individual is punished for his own sins, and the merit of the king cannot protect Judah; see, in greater detail, above, p. 128. It is true that 2 Chr 21:7 does retain the concept of ancestral merit, which does not really conform to the Chronicler’s system, but this merit is limited to the Davidic dynasty.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 356 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

356

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

David “a lamp” 33 for ever. In Kings, the promise is an act of divine love — “for the sake of David” 34 — but Chronicles describes it as a covenant. Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 focusses on God’s promise to establish a “sure house” for David, yet there is no mention of the term “covenant” in this very important context. 35 The promise to David is only described as a covenant in two biblical passages, Psalm 89 and Jer 33:21. 36 Ps 132:11 may also contain an allusion to a covenant with David. 37 The concept figures most highly in Psalm 89, which is based on and interprets Nathan’s prophecy; 38 for example: “I have made a covenant with my cho33. Although the meaning of the Hebrew ryn is not quite clear, it is generally understood as “lamp” or “light” in keeping with LXX luv cnoÍ. For example, see BDB, p. 633; R. Shmuel ben Meir’s commentary to Num 21:30. Hanson argues (basing his claim largely on Rashi’s interpretation of Num 21:30) that the word means “yoke.” In the sense of “yoke of power/government”; sec P. D. Hanson, “Song of Heshbon and David’s Nir,” HThR, 61 (1968), 297–320. 34. Kings mentions the idea that God sustains the kingdom of Judah and protects Jerusalem “for the sake of David” a few times without referring to the concept of covenant; see 1 Kings 11:12, 13, 34; 2 Kings 19:34; 20:6. 35. 2 Samuel 7 is a major component of discussions of the Davidic covenant, but, as Sarna has already noted, “in neither prose recension of the prophecy is tyrb or h[wbç mentioned. David, too, in his response to the oracle . . . makes no mention of either term” (Sarna, “Psalm 89,” p. 38). Likewise, Seeligmann writes: “This concept does not appear in Nathan’s prophecy, even if its absence has disturbed many scholars and even if some have nevertheless sought to find it in the text” (Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 303). The covenant with David is mentioned once in Samuel in the appendix to the book (2 Sam 23:5). 36. On the late origins of the prophecy in Jer 33:17–26, see W. Rudolph, Jeremiah, 3rd ed., HAT (1968), pp. 217–219; J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB (1965), p. 298; S. Hermann, “Die Prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament,” BWANT, 85 (1965), pp. 210–211. 37. In this verse, the idea is suggested by God’s oath to David: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: ‘One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.’ ” “Covenant” is not mentioned explicitly in v. 11 because the psalm employs it in another context: “If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies which I shall teach them” (v. 12). This use in v. 12 testifies to the lateness of Psalm 132. 38. The connection between 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89 becomes apparent immediately; for example, compare Ps 89:30–33 (Heb., 31–34) to 2 Sam 7:14b–15. The principal bone of scholarly contention has been the chronological relationship between the two texts. G. W. Ahlström believes that Psalm 89 is earlier (“Psalm 89 — eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden König,” Diss. Upsala 1959, pp. 182ff.); following him, Carlson claims that the Deuteronomistic school used the earlier psalm in writing 2 Samuel 7 — R. A. Carlson, David the Chosen King, trans. E. J. Sharpe and S. Rudman (Stockholm, 1964), p. 118. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Sarna is correct in arguing that Psalm 89 constitutes not another version but an interpretation of Nathan’s prophecy; the text in 2 Samuel 7 predates Psalm 89. Sarna concludes, “Psalm 89 . . . is itself a midrash on the original oracle of Nathan” (“Psalm 89,” p. 46).

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 357 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

II. The Covenant

357

sen one, I have sworn to David my servant / ‘I will establish your descendants for ever, and build your throne for all generations.’ Selah” (Ps 89:3– 4 [Heb., 4–5]; see also vv. 29–30, 36–37). The book of Chronicles frequently refers to God’s promise to David that he will be the first of an everlasting dynasty; these references generally follow the pattern set in Samuel–Kings — the promise is not defined as a covenant. In only one instance — 2 Chr 21:7 — does Chronicles equate the promise with a covenant along the lines of Psalm 89, and it may be that the verse echoes Ps 89:3 (4). In terms of its position in the book as a whole, 2 Chr 21:7 is not of primary importance. Our discussion here would not be complete without some reference to the phrase dwd ydsj (“David’s loyalty” or “steadfast love for David”) which a number of scholars have linked to the issue of the Davidic covenant. 39 The expression appears in an addition to a poetic passage quoted in Chronicles: “O Lord God, do not reject Your anointed one! Remember the loyalty of Your servant David” (2 Chr 6:42 — thus NJPS. The RSV translates: “Remember thy steadfast love for David thy servant.”) The text in Ps 132:10 reads: “For the sake of Your servant David / do not reject Your anointed one.” The verse is lengthened in a way reminiscent of the change from “because of David his servant” to “because of the covenant which he had made with David” (2 Chr 21:7); here, “for the sake of Your servant David” becomes “Remember the loyalty of Your servant David.” By alluding to other biblical passages, Chronicles enriches and expands the sources’ impersonal “for the sake of / because of / David”: 2 Chr 21:7 refers to Ps 89:3 (4), and 2 Chr 6:42, to Isa 55:3 — “And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, the enduring loyalty promised to David” (RSV: “my steadfast, sure love for David”). 40 Two issues must be clarified if we are to understand the meaning of the phrase dwd ydsj — the meaning of μydsj and the precise significance of the construct form. 41 It would seem that the plural form of dsj is a late linguistic phenomenon 42 that has two meanings: (a) acts of benevolence (dsj) towards others — in particular, Yhwh’s acts of benevolence towards humanity — as in Isa 63:7; Lam 3:32; etc. (b) acts of religion or righteous acts in a religious 39. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 122, 126–127. On the connection between tyrb and dsj, see M. Weinfeld, “dsjhw tyrbh — ‘Bond and Grace,’ ” (Heb.), Lesonenu, 36 (1971/72), 85ff., esp. 91–95. 40. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 215. 41. See the indispensable article by A. Caquot, “Les ‘Graces de David’ à propos d’lsaie 55/3b,” Semitica, 15 (1965), 45–59. Caquot proves that, contrary to the accepted opinion, dwd ydsj in Isa 55:3 refers to David’s righteous actions. 42. See Kropat, Die Syntax der Chronik, p. 9; Ehrlich, Randglossen, VII, p. 358.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 358 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

358

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

context, as in Neh 13:14; 2 Chr 32:32; 35:26. The second meaning only appears in Chronicles and Nehemiah and is the sole meaning the word has in these two books. 43 Clarification of the relationship implied by the construct supports this definition: the phrase refers to David’s μydsj — the righteous, religious deeds David performed. 44 The contexts indicate that these good deeds were his preparations for the building of the Temple. We also find a strong resemblance between 2 Chr 6:42 — “remember the loyalty of Your servant David” (˚db[ dywd ydsjl hrkz) — and Neh 13:14 — “Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds (ydsj) that I have done.” It would therefore seem that 2 Chr 6:42 is about righteous deeds performed by David. We need not enter into an examination of the relationship between the concepts dsj and tyrb at this point; the phrase in 2 Chr 6:42 apparently has nothing to do with “covenant” and the subject of our discussion. In view of what we have found above, it is difficult to understand how the Davidic covenant could have been considered fundamental or central to Chronicles. 45 Only one passage, 2 Chr 21:7, mentions the establishment of a covenant with David and refers to Yhwh’s promise to raise a “lamp” or “light” for David and his sons. It is true that the dynastic promise appears a number of times in Chronicles (as we shall see below), but the promise is not defined in terms of a covenant; 2 Chr 21:7 must be considered unusual in this respect. The concept of a covenant with David has no importance or theological significance in the book of Chronicles.

III. The Dynastic Promise 46 The key biblical source for God’s promise to perpetuate Davidic kingship in Israel is Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7, and the passages de43. For a third definition, which has implications for the texts in Chronicles, see Weinfeld, loc. cit., 92, note 62. 44. This is the most natural way of understanding the construct form. uh ydsj are acts of goodness performed by Yhwh (Isa 63:7; Ps 17:7; 25:6; 89:49 [50]; etc.), Nehemiah’s μydsj are his righteous deeds, and so on. Yet commentators and lexicographers are convinced that in the case of David, the phrase has a different meaning: Yhwh’s acts of goodness towards David. The fact that such a definition appears in the lexicons is an outstanding example of the influence of exegesis on so-called objective dictionaries (see Kropat, Die Syntax der Chronik, pp. 45–49). 45. As it has been by von Rad, Chronik, p. 125; McCarthy, CBQ, 27 (1965), 238, writes: “[The Chronicler’s] whole interest is concentrated on the Davidic covenant.” Brunet also indicates such an outlook, but not explicitly. Although he considers David and his theocracy the fundamental subject of Chronicles, he does not mention a covenant with David. Rather, he speaks of the fulfilment of Abraham’s covenant in the Davidic theocracy (“Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 [1954], 376). 46. See Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” pp. 301ff.

spread is 12 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 359 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Dynastic Promise

359

scribing Solomon’s accession (1 Kings 2:3–4) and the consecration of the Temple (1 Kings 8:24–26; 9:4–5) also mention the promise. Although the sources in Samuel and Kings share the same basic content, they differ in details of outlook and in their phrasing. 2 Sam 7:12, 14–16 is of particular interest to us: When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom . . . I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but my steadfast love shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.

In this passage, God promises David an heir to take over the throne after his death; moreover, He pledges that this heir will never lose Yhwh’s “steadfast love” (dsj) as Saul did. In the case of Saul, the removal of divine love signifies the loss of hereditary kingship — a new king is chosen to replace Saul and his heir. Thus, the persistence of God’s steadfast love for David is to be equated with kingship over Israel for David and his descendants. Verse 16 is therefore quite understandable as a continuation of the preceding idea: 47 Yhwh will not take his love from David’s son as he took it from Saul — in other words, David and his dynasty are assured everlasting kingship. God’s promise is absolute and unconditional. In fact, verse 14b, which suggests the possibility that the king might sin, affirms the unconditional nature of the promise: no matter what the king does, God’s dsj will not depart from him! The monarch will be punished for his wrongdoing, but the dynastic promise will remain unchanged. A different view of this subject appears in a number of passages in Kings. The fullest example is 1 Kings 8:25: “Now therefore, O Lord, God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father what thou hast promised him, saying, ‘There shall never fail you a man before me to sit upon the throne of Israel, if only your sons take heed to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.’ ” This verse portrays God’s assurance to David as a conditional promise contingent on certain terms. 48 The Davidic 47. Weinfeld has also cited parallel Ancient Near Eastern evidence which indicates that v. 16 is an integral part of the passage; see JAOS, 90 (1970), esp. 189–190. The comparison pertains to vv. 14–16: if the partner to an agreement sins, he will be punished accordingly, but the basic right pledged in the document is not affected. In our case, this right is Yhwh’s steadfast love and the perpetuation of the Davidic dynasty. 48. See Weinfeld, who rightly emphasizes the fact that this view constitutes an innovation on the part of Kings’ Deuteronomistic redactor (JAOS, 90 [1970], 195). However, he does not extend its implications to Psalm 132 (loc. cit., 196); cf. Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” pp. 308–309.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 360 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

360

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

dynasty will endure as long as “your sons take heed to their way, to walk before me,” the implication being that the dynasty will come to an end if the terms of the promise are violated. Such an idea runs contrary to Nathan’s prophecy, as it limits the permanence of the Davidic dynasty and may even suggest the possibility that the dynasty could be abolished. The three other passages in Kings dealing with the subject include the same elements: (a) “there shall not fail you a man before me / to sit upon the throne of Israel” — 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5; (b) “to walk before me” — 2:4; 8:25; 9:4; (c) Yhwh’s word to David — 2:4; 8:24, 26; 9:5; (d) “if your sons take heed to their way” — 2:4; 8:25; (e) as David walked — 8:25; 9:4. These passages also contain standard Deuteronomistic expressions such as “the law of Moses” (2:3) or “with all their heart and with all their soul” (2:4). Not one of the elements listed above appears in Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7, and only one is found in David’s prayer of thanksgiving. 49 The unusual phrasing of “there shall not fail you a man to sit upon the throne of David” is particularly striking. This phrase appears in all the passages and yet has nothing to do with the fundamental idea that the dynastic promise is conditional. 50 Thus we see that the link between the texts in Kings and Nathan’s prophecy is, at best, somewhat weak. To be sure, the material in Kings is presented as an exact quotation of God’s promise to David — in David’s own words — “that the Lord may establish his word which he spoke concerning me, saying” (1 Kings 2:4) — in Solomon’s words — “keep with thy servant David my father what thou hast promised him, saying” (8:25) — and in the words of Yhwh to Solomon — “as I promised David your father, saying” (9:5). However, it is not dependent on Nathan’s prophecy; neither the wording nor the motifs come from 2 Samuel 7. The question concerning the basis of the texts in Kings remains: do they relate to some other version of the prophecy, or are they actually exegetical passages 51 that completely reformulate their source? 49. Yhwh’s word to David is mentioned in 2 Sam 7:25: “And now, O Lord God, confirm for ever the word which thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning his house, and do as thou hast spoken.” 50. The phrase is also found in Jer 33:17: “For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.” The verse’s closest literary association is with 1 Kings 8:25; see also Jer 33:18; 35:19. 51. We find this type of exegesis elsewhere in the book of Kings: in 1 Kings 8:17ff., Solomon describes the circumstances whereby he, not David, was destined to build the Temple. He says, for example: “But the Lord said to David my father, ‘Whereas it was in your heart to build a house for my name, you did well that it was in your heart’ ” (8:18). Although these words are certainty in the spirit of Nathan’s prophecy, they do not appear in it; rather, they constitute an interpretation of the original prophecy. In the same vein, in 1 Kings 3:6, Solomon considers his kingship Yhwh’s reward for David’s good

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 361 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Dynastic Promise

361

The dynastic promise to David recurs in Chronicles in its transmission of Nathan’s prophecy from 2 Samuel 7 (1 Chronicles 17), as well as most of the passages from Kings (2 Chr 6:16–17; 7:17–18). It is also mentioned in speeches relating to the end of David’s reign (1 Chr 22:9–10; 28:6–7). 52 How does the book view this question, and how does it deal with its two basic sources for the subject? The Chronistic version of Nathan’s prophecy differs somewhat from the text in 2 Samuel 7. Most significant for our purposes is the omission of the words “when he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men” (1 Chr 17:13 versus 2 Sam 7:14b). Many scholars attribute this deletion to the book’s idealized view of the house of David — anything that might tarnish the dynasty’s reputation or suggest misbehaviour on the part of Solomon had to be omitted. 53 However, Ancient Near Eastern parallels show us that the words were not initially introduced in order to hint at some misdeed committed by Solomon (although they could be understood in that sense a posteriori). Rather, they are an integral part of the promissory formula. 54 Chronicles’ omission of 2 Sam 7:14b effectively eliminates any possible suggestion of Solomon’s misdeeds, but it seems to me that the omission serves an additional purpose. The sentence in 2 Samuel, which continues “but my steadfast love shall not depart from him,” constitutes the strongest expression of the absolute nature of Yhwh’s promise to David. The Chronistic version of Nathan’s prophecy does not make the promise contingent upon the observance of the commandments; the dynastic prophecy in Chronicles could not be termed conditional in that sense. However, it is not the same absolute assurance that we find in 2 Samuel 7. The prophecy in 2 Samuel

deeds: “Thou hast shown great and steadfast love to thy servant David my father, because he walked before thee in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward thee . . . and hast given him a son to sit on his throne this day.” This portrayal of the situation reflects the way in which the Deuteronomist assesses monarchs according to their behaviour. The verse has no basis in the book of Samuel. In 2 Samuel 7, Yhwh’s promise to provide David with an heir has nothing to do with David’s good deeds, but the Deuteronomist reinterprets the promise in keeping with his own world-view. 52. According to Mosis, Chronicles completely disregards the dynastic promise: all God’s assurances to David are limited to Solomon (Untersuchungen, pp. 89–94, 213; see also below, notes 53 and 55). 53. For example, see Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. 326; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 227; Rudolph, Chronik, p. 135; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 505. Mosis is especially emphatic; according to him, the Chronicler sought to avoid any suggestion that Solomon might sin (Untersuchungen, p. 90). 54. See above, p. 359, n. 47.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 362 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

362

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

raises the hypothetical question of the effect that a monarch’s transgression would have on the promise and answers the question in no uncertain terms: God’s steadfast love is guaranteed no matter what the king does. In Chronicles, this question remains unanswered. Moreover, other verses make it clear that the Chronistic answer would be very different: God’s promise concerning the Davidic dynasty does depend on certain conditions. We read in 1 Chr 28:6–7: “He said to me, ‘It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. I will establish his kingdom for ever if he continues resolute in keeping my commandments and my ordinances, as he is today.’ ” Apart from some changes to word order, the verses quote the prophecy in 2 Sam 7:13–14a almost verbatim: “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” The same elements appear: Solomon will build a house / and my courts / for my name / — I will establish / the throne of / his kingdom for ever — he shall be my son, and I will be his father. In the very position of 2 Sam 7:14b, 1 Chr 28:7b reads: “. . . If he continues resolute in keeping my commandments and my ordinances, as he is today.” The Chronicler expressly states that Yhwh’s promise to David is contingent upon the monarch’s behaviour. It is clear that 2 Sam 7:14b must be deleted, given this view that the dynastic promise is conditional and may be annulled by the king’s sinfulness. 1 Chr 22:10 also refers to the verses in Nathan’s prophecy, and the passage goes on to make Yhwh’s promise contingent upon the observance of His commandments: “Only, may the Lord grant you discretion and understanding, that when he gives you charge over Israel you may keep the law of the Lord your God. Then you will prosper if you are careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances which the Lord commanded Moses for Israel” (22:12–13). 55 As was mentioned above, the relevant passages from Kings have also been transferred to Chronicles, and it might be said that the book’s essential view of the dynastic promise, i.e., that it is a conditional promise, conforms to the outlook found in Kings. Yet the literary basis — which informs the Chronistic narrative — may be found in the tradition of Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel. All the passages discussed above are connected to the time of David and Solomon, and it would seem that Abijah’s words in 2 Chr 13:5 also refer to this period: “the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel to 55. Mosis believes that the promise to Solomon is absolute and unconditional. He therefore designates 1 Chr 28:7b, 9–10 and 1 Chr 22:9–10 as secondary additions, producing a circular argument (Untersuchungen, pp. 90–92).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 363 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

III. The Dynastic Promise

363

David for ever.” Although, as the context demands, this statement is not qualified by any conditions, the speech as a whole is an unparalleled declaration of obedience and devotion to Yhwh: by observing God’s commandments and maintaining the cult, Abijah and his people ensure their victory in the war. 56 Finally, the dynastic promise appears in Chronicles in one other historical context: during the period from Jehoram to Joash. From Jehoram’s reign, we read “the Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David, and since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever” (2 Chr 21:7). When Joash is made king, Jehoiada says “Behold the king’s son! Let him reign, as the Lord spoke concerning the sons of David” (2 Chr 23:3). The context for these statements becomes very clear when we consider the historical circumstances as portrayed in Chronicles: Jehoram killed all his brothers when he became king (2 Chr 21:4), his own wives and all his sons apart from the youngest, Jehoahaz-Ahaziah, were taken away by the Philistines and Arabs (21:17), and then Ahaziah and his nephews were slain by King Jehu of Israel (22:8). 57 Finally, Athaliah dealt with anyone who survived all these calamities (22:10), 58 so that only one descendant of David’s line remained alive: Joash, a seven-year-old boy. During this period, the Davidic dynasty was threatened with extinction, and that is why Yhwh’s promise to David was mentioned once again. With the downfall of Jerusalem in the time of Zedekiah, the monarchy came to an end. The fate of Judah’s last kings is not described, 59 and the restoration hinted at in the section from Cyrus’ proclamation that concludes Chronicles speaks only of the return from exile and rebuilding of the Temple (2 Chr 36:23). The monarchy is not mentioned. Yet, the genealogies in Chronicles provide us with the most important testimony 56. The book of Kings also mentions the promise to David in the context of Abijah’s reign. However, the reference in Kings serves the opposite purpose: because of Yhwh’s promise to David, Abijah remains king despite his sins (1 Kings 15:3–5). 57. In 2 Kings 10:13–14, we read that Jehu killed hdwhyA˚lm whyzja yja (RSV: “the kinsmen of Ahaziah . . .”). Chronicles refers more specifically to “the sons of Ahaziah’s brothers.” The reason for this change is evident in the light of 2 Chr 21:17, which states that all Ahaziah’s brothers were captured by the Philistines and Arabs: Chronicles took the word μyja in Kings in a restricted sense and was therefore compelled to alter the wording of 2 Kings 10:13–14. 58. A few scholars question the reliability of the story about Athaliah’s massacre; see H. L. Ginsberg, “The Omrid-Davidid Alliance,” Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1967), I, pp. 91–92; H. Reviv, “On the Period of Athaliah and Joash” (Heb.), Beth Mikra, 16 (1960/61), 542–543. 59. See above, pp. 290ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 364 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

364

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

regarding the continuity of David’s line after the destruction (1 Chr 3:17– 24). The list makes no distinction between David’s descendants before and after the time of Zedekiah. In Chronicles, we are told that the monarchy came to an end because certain conditions, which were part of Yhwh’s promise to David, were not fulfilled. The question is: did the promise itself also come to an end? Discussion of this important issue may be reserved for our closing chapter on hope and redemption in the book of Chronicles.

IV. The Davidic Monarchs The central figures in the Davidic monarchy are the first two kings, David and Solomon. In our attempt to discover the Chronicler’s view of the Davidic dynasty, we shall therefore focus on David and Solomon, concluding our discussion with a few remarks concerning the other kings of Judah.

A. David The Chronistic portrayal of David differs substantially from the depiction we find in the book of Samuel, and critics of Chronicles have devoted considerable attention to these differences. 60 Three features in particular characterize the portrayal in Chronicles: (1) the glorification of the figure of David and his kingship; (2) a lack of interest in David the man and a concentration on David as monarch; (3) the association of David with the foundation of the Temple and establishment of the cult. 1. Scholars have placed the greatest emphasis on the first motif, 61 and, indeed, the book of Chronicles exalts and glorifies David far more than the facts in Samuel–Kings would appear to warrant. In terms of the book’s literary technique, this glorification takes two forms: additions and deletions. A long list of civil and religious achievements is added to David’s accomplishments, and wordy speeches imbued with heart-felt spirituality and ardent devotion to the God and people of Israel are attributed to 60. See, inter alia: Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 172–182; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 119ff.; Welch, Chronicler, pp. 11ff.; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. 190–195; M. H. Segal, The Books of Samuel (Heb., Jerusalem, 1956), p. 46; Y. M. Grintz, “The Account of David’s Life in the Books of Samuel and Chronicles” (Heb.), Beth Mikra, 2 (1955/56), 69–75, and, with certain changes and additions, idem, Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History (Heb., Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 344–353; J. Botterweck, “Zur Eigenart der chronistischen David Geschichte,” in Festsch. V. Christian (Vienna, 1956), pp. 12–31. 61. See the works mentioned in n. 60 above, as well as Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 460–461; R. L. Braun, “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles,” JBL, 92 (1973), 503– 504; and see also below, pp. 368ff., 384ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 365 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

365

him. At one point, David is even called “the man of God.” 62 At the same time, any story that might possibly cast some sort of aspersions at David has been deleted from Chronicles; occasionally, the most minor of details is omitted for this reason. 63 Medieval exegetes took note of these omissions, 64 and modern scholarship has considered them extremely significant. It is well known that every story that might damage David’s image has been left out: we find no trace of David’s affair with Bathsheba, Amnon’s rape of Tamar, Absalom’s rebellion, the uprising by Sheba the son of Bichri, or the events of David’s old age (2 Samuel 11–21; 1 Kings 1–2). 2. For all the attention that has been paid to the first motif of glorification, the fact that Chronicles has very little interest in David as a man has been all but overlooked. 65 David is only considered interesting after he 62. 2 Chr 8:14: “According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests . . . and the Levites . . . and the gatekeepers . . . for so David the man of God had commanded.” David is called by the same name on two occasions in Nehemiah (12:24, 36), also in the context of his appointing of musicians and musical instruments for the Temple cult; the tradition is therefore not unique to Chronicles. The title “man of God” leads one to ask whether David is perceived as a prophet in Chronicles. Two other passages relate to this question. In 2 Chr 29:25, it is said of Hezekiah: “And he stationed the Levites . . . according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet; for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets.” David is not termed a prophet or seer here, but is he being equated with the prophets? The verse is ambiguous and may be interpreted either way. However, it would appear that cultic singing and playing in the Temple were in fact considered “prophesying” in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 25:1, 2, 3, and also 1 Chr 25:5; 2 Chr 29:30). Although there is no mention of David himself “prophesying” in this way, the abiding connection between David and Temple song, musical instruments (acknowledged in his own words and in the term “instruments of David” — 1 Chr 23:5; 2 Chr 29:26, 27; 7:6), and composition (2 Chr 7:6; 29:30) suggests that David might also be included with the prophets and seers in 2 Chr 29:25. The second passage relating to the question of David as prophet is 1 Chr 28:19, which tells us that David was given Yhwh’s blueprint for the Temple: “all this he made clear by the writing from the hand of the Lord upon me [RSV: concerning it], all the work to be done according to the plan.” Thus, there are indications in Chronicles that David was considered some sort of prophet in the context of Temple worship, but we must be careful not to extend this limited feature to David’s image as a whole or to the entire Davidic line (cf. J. D. Newsome Jr., JBL, 94 [1975], 203–204, 210–212). 63. Thus, for example, the story of Michal in 2 Sam 6:20ff., the episode of the famine (2 Sam 21:1ff.), and the fact that David was almost defeated by the Philistines (2 Sam 21:15–17) have all been left out. 64. See Pseudo-Rashi to 1 Chr 10:1: “And when he recounts the story of David, he does not mention anything demeaning; he only speaks of David’s heroism and greatness, for the book is really in honour of David and the kings of Judah.” 65. Y. M. Grintz draws attention to this point — Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History, pp. 345 and 349. Brunet hints that Chronicles does not take much interest in

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 366 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

366

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

becomes king; moreover, only those aspects of his life that relate to the people or state are featured. Many details regarding the book’s selection of material that cannot be explained by the first motif become clear once we take this outlook into account. We see that events to David’s credit are omitted because they occurred before he became king; thus Chronicles leaves out the anointing by Samuel (1 Samuel 16), the battle with Goliath (1 Samuel 17), and other positive stories. Certain aspects of David’s life as king, such as his poetry (2 Samuel 22–23), are also omitted. Yet, all the sources dealing with matters of state have been retained: all the wars mentioned in the book of Samuel 66 (including even the minor episodes of the warriors’ battles against the Philistines); 67 every detail pertaining to organization and administration, religion, foreign affairs, construction; David’s anointing and acquisition of wives and heirs; and, finally, the conclusion of his reign and the succession. 68 The Chronicler’s additions to the source material also indicate his interest in the public side of David’s kingship. They all concentrate on two areas: (a) political administration in both secular and religious matters 69 David’s personal life, but only in the context of the book’s deletion of the episode with Michal; see “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 504; also Willi, Auslegung, pp. 92, 98. 66. The conquest of Jerusalem — 2 Sam 5:6–9 and 1 Chr 11:4–7; the war against the Philistines — 2 Sam 5:17–25; 8:10 and 1 Chr 14:9–17 (Heb., 8–16); 18:11; the wars against Moab, Zobah, Aram Damascus, and Edom — 2 Sam 8:2–6, 13–14 and 1 Chr 18:2–6, 12–13; the war against the Ammonites and Arameans — 2 Sam 10; 12:26–31 and 1 Chr 19:1–20:3. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 461–462. The war against the Ammonites provides an excellent example of the Chronicler’s focus of interest; we find that he has deleted the entire literary context and retained only the war itself. In Samuel, the story of the war frames the episode of David and Bathsheba, with 2 Sam 10:1– 11:1 and, later, 12:26–31 describing the campaign. In Chronicles, however, the contents of 2 Sam 11:2–12:25 have been omitted, and an uninterrupted account of the war appears. The words “but David remained at Jerusalem” (2 Sam 11:1), which create a link between the war epic and the personal intrigue, are retained in Chronicles (1 Chr 20:1) but appear completely incongruous in their new context (see 1 Chr 19:17–19; 20:2–3). For a different understanding of the inclusion of these chapters in Chronicles, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 97–98; Braun, JBL, 92 (1973), 503. 67. 2 Sam 21:18–21 — 1 Chr 20:4–7; 2 Sam 23:8–9, 13–23 — 1 Chr 11:11–25. Only two of these short episodes do not appear. The battle in which David grew weary and had to be rescued (2 Sam 21:15–17) is missing; likewise, the heroic deed of Eleazar the son of Dodo, along with the name of Shammah the son of Agee (2 Sam 23:9bb–11ba), has been omitted, apparently accidentally. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 96. 68. See above, pp. 334–335, 337; see also 2 Sam 5:11–12 — 1 Chr 14:2–3 (Heb., 1– 2); 2 Sam 8:9–10 — 1 Chr 18:9–10. The dealings with King Hiram of Tyre and King Toºi of Hamath; 2 Sam 5:9 — 1 Chr 11:8; 2 Sam 5:1–3 — 1 Chr 11:1–3; 2 Sam 3:2–5; 5:13–16 — 1 Chr 3:1–8; 14:4–8 (3–7); 1 Kings 2:10–12 — 1 Chr 29:26–28. 69. See above, pp. 334, 339.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 367 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

367

and (b) public pageants or ceremonies, which appear briefly in Samuel– Kings and are described in detail in Chronicles. 70 By means of deletions and additions, the image of David is recast in Chronicles. Personal episodes have been omitted, but many details of political administration and organization are provided, and public ceremonies involving the king are described at length. 3. Chronicles pays particular attention to David’s role in laying the foundation for the Temple and Temple worship, as we have seen above. 71 The tradition that David established the Temple liturgy and even composed songs of worship is not unique to Chronicles — it appears a number of times in Ezra–Nehemiah, underlies some of the Psalm headings, and apparently has its roots in ancient historical circumstances. 72 What is unique to Chronicles is the view that David appointed the first gatekeepers 73 and established the divisions and duties of various types of cultic functionaries. 74 Also unique is the assertion that it was David who made most of the preparations for the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. 75 Thus, Chronicles presents a new image of David and a new set of foci for David’s rule. To what extent does the Chronistic perspective reflect the historical reality, and how does it relate to the tradition in the book of Samuel? Scholars no longer accept the dogmatic assertion that “it is only the tradition of the older source that possesses historical value” 76 without criticism. 77 The matter must now be judged from two standpoints: 70. They are: David’s anointing — 2 Sam 5:1–3 versus 1 Chr 11:1–3; 11:10–47; 12:24–41; the transfer of the ark — 2 Samuel 6 versus 1 Chronicles 13; 15–16; the anointing of Solomon — 1 Kings 1:32ff. versus 1 Chr 22:7–23:1; 28–29. In the first two passages, the source text has been expanded, but in the case of Solomon’s anointing, the Chronicler has replaced the material in Kings with something entirely new. 71. See pp. 178ff. 72. 2 Chr 29:25; 35:15; 1 Chr 23:5; 2 Chr 7:6; 29:26–27; 23:18; 29:30. The subject is mentioned four times in Ezra–Nehemiah: Ezra 3:10 apparently refers to psalms written by David, Neh 12:24, 45–46, to the musicians’ duties and work shifts, and Neh 12:36, to “the musical instruments of David” used in the Temple. On the historical sources for this tradition, see esp. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, 1942), pp. 125–129. 73. 1 Chr 9:22. This achievement is attributed to David and Samuel jointly. Chronicles also transmits a tradition crediting Phinehas the son of Eleazar with this role — 1 Chr 9:20. See Liver, Chapters, pp. 110–111. 74. 1 Chronicles 23ff.; 2 Chr 8:14; 23:18; 29:25. 75. See above, pp. 179ff. 76. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 182. 77. For example, Wellhausen describes 1 Chronicles 22–26 as a “free construction” (Prolegomena, p. 180), but Myers claims that even the tradition in these chapters “no longer appears so impossible as it was once thought” ( J. M. Myers, IDB, I, 782a).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 368 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

368

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

appreciation of the later tradition and criticism of the earlier tradition’s authenticity. Historians have long noted David’s central role in political organization and have gone so far as to consider administrative skill the king’s principal attribute. 78 Yet, the portrayal in Samuel says almost nothing about this side of his personality and certainly never refers to it directly. Furthermore, from a relatively early date on, the figure of David has symbolized greatness and majesty, 79 yet this image cannot be explained by the detailed stories describing David’s weaknesses and sins, not to mention the misfortunes and misdeeds of his family and his people, that we find in Samuel. David is portrayed as a persecuted king in all but a few chapters in Samuel: at the outset of his career, he is hounded by Saul, and at the end of his life, by his own sons, wives, and courtiers. Even David’s wars are fought by others (2 Sam 12:26ff.). Were it not for other information we have concerning David’s life and personality — only partially from the book of Samuel — his role as the focus of Israel’s faith and messianic hope would be quite inexplicable. The image of David presented in Chronicles has undoubtedly been influenced by the tendency to exaggerate David’s greatness and ignore his weaknesses. Nevertheless, the book’s emphasis on David as the leader who founded the political state and established its organizational system conforms to the historical image of David. Furthermore, Chronicles deletes large sections of personal biography and adds descriptions of the king’s public achievements. In methodological terms, at least, the Chronistic portrayal of David is more historical than the story in Samuel. It may therefore be said that a certain bias concerning the figure of David operates in both traditions, those of Samuel and Chronicles, and neither can be accepted or invalidated a priori. We must take full account of these biased tendencies and scrutinize the traditions’ individual elements in order to arrive at an understanding of David. Even then, we shall be unable to reconstruct a complete picture of David’s personal character and political achievements. The main question that confronts us in our examination of the Chronistic portrayal of David is: did the Chronicler produce an idealized, flawless king? Many critics believe that he did, 80 and some even view the 78. See T. J. Meek and W. O. E. Oesterley, “David,” Dictionary of the Bible, rev. ed., ed. C. Grant and H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 202b: “David owes his greatness largely to his genius in organization”; see also Yeivin, “David” (Heb.), EB, II, 638. 79. Particularly in Isa 11:1ff., and in the use of David as a religious model in the book of Kings — 1 Kings 11:38; 15:11; 2 Kings 18:3; etc. 80. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 129; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 505,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 369 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

369

idealization of David as the book’s primary purpose or one of its central themes. 81 Yet it seems to me that this was not the Chronicler’s intention. For all that David is cast in a positive light in Chronicles, certain components of the portrayal suggest a figure who is far from ideal: (1) The Story of the Census: 1 Chronicles 21 — 2 Samuel 24: The inclusion of this story goes against Chronicles’ tendency to avoid describing sin or failure during David’s reign, but it is clear why the episode was retained: it constitutes a hieros logos for the Temple in Jerusalem and explains the choice of that particular site. For this reason, a verse is added to the account: “Then David said, ‘Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel’ ” (1 Chr 22:1; see also 2 Chr 3:1). The story’s inclusion proves that the Chronicler had more important concerns than David’s honour, and certain details within the account confirm this assessment. An example is provided by the following alteration: 2 Sam 24:1: “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them.” 1 Chr 21:1: “An adversary (ˆfç) stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” According to 2 Sam 24:1, it was God in His wrath who wished to harm Israel. We are not informed of the reason for Yhwh’s anger — perhaps it was aroused by some sort of sin. In any case, it is clear that David is merely God’s instrument to carry out His will. We therefore understand why David disregards Joab’s attempts to dissuade him from taking the census (2 Sam 24:3). In 1 Chr 21:1, God does not initiate the course of events, and there is no suggestion of any divine wrath. The possibility that the people might have sinned is not even mentioned. Only one thing happens: David succumbs to his adversary’s incitement. Joab’s words now represent the will of God, and David ignores them (1 Chr 21:3, 6). The change to the beginning of the story may be explained by the Chronicler’s inability to accept the image of God expressed in 2 Samuel 24. 82 Because of his desire to alter this image, the Chronicler depicts David as acting independently and, as a consequence, also magnifies his sin. David is no longer God’s instrument; he himself brings disaster upon Israel through his own actions. 83 Three considerations with certain religious implications govern this story: the divine choosing of the Temple site, the image 508; RB, 61 (1954), 374–375, and elsewhere; Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” pp. 45ff.; North, “The Chronicler,” 376ff. 81. See, for example, North, loc. cit.; Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. x–xi; Brunet, loc. cit. 82. See above, pp. 116–117, and also n. 432 (p. 116). 83. See Caquot, “Messianisme,” 116.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 370 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

370

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

of God, and the figure of David. David’s image is clearly the least important of the three and must suffer for the sake of the other two. (2) The Transfer of the Ark: 2 Sam 6–1 Chr 13; 15:1–16:38: This story describes a failure — the failure of the first attempt to move the ark, which ends with Uzzah’s death and the temporary accommodation of the ark in the house of Obed-edom. We deduce from the circumstances described in 2 Sam 6:6–10 that the first move is unsuccessful because of Uzzah’s impetuosity. Because David fears further outbursts of divine anger, he decides to postpone the undertaking until he feels sure that Yhwh’s wrath has subsided. When the ark is moved for the second time, everything goes smoothly (2 Sam 6:12–17). A different account appears in Chronicles. Although the basic events follow the text in 2 Samuel (1 Chr 13:6–13), the Chronicler provides an explicit — and very different — reason for the failure: “Then David summoned the priests Zadok and Abiathar, and the Levites . . . and said to them . . . sanctify yourselves, you and your brethren, so that you may bring up the ark of the Lord . . . Because you did not carry it the first time, the Lord our God broke forth upon us, because we did not care for it in the way that is ordained. So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. And the Levites carried the ark of God . . .” (1 Chr 15:11–15). In this explanatory passage, the blame is shifted from Uzzah to David. The failure of the first attempt was not due to Uzzah’s haste, but rather to mismanagement: the move was not carried out as it should have been. In the second attempt, David makes every effort to correct the problems, and this time the ark reaches Jerusalem. Once again, the story has been altered because of the difficulty inherent in the source’s depiction of God: no longer is Uzzah struck down by an arbitrary, violent outburst of divine wrath; instead, he is punished because of the sin involved in the impropriety of the first move. The alteration has an effect on David’s image: he is portrayed as a man who failed to do what was required of him and subsequently brought calamity on the entire venture. (3) David and the Temple: Even more important than the two features discussed above is the Chronicler’s way of explaining why David could not build the Temple himself. 84 The explanation recurs a number of times and differs significantly from the reasons found in 2 Samuel 7 or the book of Kings. In 2 Sam 7:5–7, David is not considered unworthy of building the Temple; rather, God rejects the idea of constructing a Temple: “I have not 84. See Rudolph, Chronik, p. 151; Seeligmann, “Historic Reality,” p. 305; Caquot, “Messianisme,” 116.

spread is 12 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 371 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

371

dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day.” According to Kings, David had no time to build the Temple “because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him” (1 Kings 5:3 [Heb., 5:17]). Chronicles takes the explanation in Kings as a starting point but provides its own interpretation. David tells Solomon, “I had it in my heart 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 so much blood before me upon the earth’ ” (1 Chr 22:7–8). In another version, the king tells his officers, “God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood’ ” (1 Chr 28:3). Although David claims to be quoting Yhwh on both occasions, we have no source for these “quotations.” It would seem that they are really an interpretation of Nathan’s prophecy 85 as transmitted in Chronicles — “You shall not build me a house to dwell in” (1 Chr 17:4). The explanation in 1 Kings 5:3 (5:17) was not considered adequate, and the Chronicler provided a fuller, more profound interpretation: someone who has shed blood becomes unfit to build a house for Yhwh. 86 This interpretation is somewhat damaging to David’s image. Even though the king has fought for Israel’s sake, he is nevertheless a “man of war” with blood on his hands. He does not build the Temple because he is unworthy of the task. 87 85. See R. David Kimhi’s comment on 1 Chr 22:8: “We do not find God saying this; rather, it was David who said to himself that God prevented him from building the Temple for this reason. Or perhaps Nathan the prophet told him so, even though these words do not appear in the book of Samuel; many words like them may be found.” 86. As we see from R. David Kimhi’s comment on 1 Chr 22:8: “When he says, ‘you have shed much blood before me on the earth,’ this refers to the blood of innocent men who were among those he killed, such as Uriah the Hittite, and this is ‘before me’. Also [David] caused the killing of the priests . . . and among the foreigners he killed — with whom he was not at war — there may have been good, pious people. [David] was never punished because of them . . . However, because he was involved in so much bloodshed, he was prevented from building a Temple, which is dedicated to peace and atonement and the glory of prayer. In the same way, one may not brandish iron at the altar or in the Temple since iron is used to make weapons of war more often than instruments of peace.” 87. The midrash, which has an extremely strong tendency to glorify David, finds this idea problematic, to say the least. It diffuses it by overturning the literal meaning of the text: “When David heard these words, he became frightened and said, ‘I have been disqualified from building the Temple!’ R. Judah the son of R. Ilai says: ‘The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, “Fear not, David. By your life! Their blood is like that of a hart or a ram ‘before me’, for you have shed blood ‘upon the earth,’ and ‘upon the earth’ refers to the hart and the stag . . . Also, by your life, it is before me in the same way that sacrifices are; the verse reads ‘before me’ . . . and ‘before me’ refers to sacrifices.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 372 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

372

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

It must also be noted that although the Chronicler intended to glorify David, he managed to omit a few passages which do just that. He occasionally compares the kings of Judah to David, but does so far less frequently than the Deuteronomistic redactor of Kings, who routinely made use of this comparison. 88 Moreover, we find that a source extolling David’s virtues has been omitted: 2 Chr 1:8 — “Thou hast shown great and steadfast love to David my father, and hast made me king in his stead” — as opposed to 1 Kings 3:6 — “Thou hast shown great and steadfast love to thy servant David my father, because he walked before thee in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward thee . . .” 89 Thus, although it is true that many sources to David’s discredit have been omitted and elements enhancing his reputation have been added, the book of Chronicles does not present David as an idealized, perfect figure. A number of motives deriving from the Chronicler’s various purposes influence the depiction of David, and it cannot be said that the desire to praise the son of Jesse dominates the book as an all-embracing principle. 90

B. Solomon The image of Solomon is reworked in much the same way that the figure of David has been recast, 91 but the differences in source material have . . . [David] said to Him, “If that is the case, why am I not allowed to build it?” The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him. “If you were to build the Temple, it would last forever and never be destroyed” ’ ” (Yalkut Shimoni, II, Section 145). See also Urbach, The Sages, p. 520. Mosis neutralizes the problem in a somewhat different way: he claims that declaring David a man of war has no moral or ritual implications; it simply served as a typological means of identifying David’s reign. 88. The following monarchs are compared to David in the book of Kings: Solomon (1 Kings 11:6, 33), Abijah (1 Kings 15:3), Asa (1 Kings 15:11), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:3), Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3), and Josiah (2 Kings 22:2). In Chronicles, comparisons to Ahaz and Hezekiah are retained (2 Chr 28:1; 29:2), and a comparison to Jehoshaphat has been added (2 Chr 17:3 — although the word “David” in the verse is uncertain; see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 392). 89. In the conclusion of God’s words to Solomon, another verse, also referring to David, has been omitted: “And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days” (1 Kings 3:14). 90. However, Mosis goes too far, presenting David’s reign as a mere transitional or preparatory stage in which nothing was actually accomplished; see Untersuchungen, pp. 166–167. 91. As Wellhausen says, “the history of the son is treated after the same plan and by the same means as that of the father” (Prolegomena, p. 187); see also R. L. Braun, JBL, 92 (1974), 505–516.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 373 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

373

produced different results. Chronicles adds a number of motifs intended to enhance Solomon’s image. 92 God elects Solomon as king even before the latter is born (1 Chr 28:5; 22:9–10), and His relationship to Solomon is that of a father to a son (28:6). Solomon is unanimously proclaimed king by all the people of Israel (1 Chr 29:24–25), he sits upon the throne of Yhwh (29:23), and his reign is a period of peace and serenity (22:9). “And the Lord gave Solomon great repute in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel” (1 Chr 29:25). With the same goal in mind, the Chronicler also deletes all the sore points from Solomon’s reign. 93 Most of these points of weakness are concentrated at the beginning or end of the reign, so that it is relatively easy to rewrite the story without them. The Chronicler replaces the beginning of Solomon’s reign — in particular, the circumstances surrounding his accession in 1 Kings 1–2 — with a completely new account (1 Chronicles 28– 29), and David’s will in 1 Kings 2:1–9 is replaced by directions for the building of the Temple. The descriptions of Solomon’s last years as king, which included marriages to foreign women, religious transgression, and struggles against political opponents (1 Kings 11), are simply omitted. Chronicles also reworks a number of episodes that are not considered blameworthy in the book of Kings but might appear suspect to a later writer: the sacrifices at Gibeon, the letter to Hiram, and the handing over of cities to Hiram. The question of the high place at Gibeon has been discussed at length above. 94 The Chronicler considered Solomon’s worship at Gibeon a sin and he therefore transformed the high place into the site of “the tent of meeting of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness” (2 Chr 1:3) and “the bronze altar that Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, had made” (1:5). Solomon’s letter to King Hiram of Tyre includes a routine request for cedars from Lebanon — “for you know that there is no one among us who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians” (1 Kings 5:6 [Heb., 5:20]). This remark does not appear in Chronicles; instead, an explanation intended to justify Solomon’s request is proffered: “The house which I am to build will be great, for our God is greater than all gods. But who is able to build him a house . . . who am I to build a house for him?” (2 Chr 2:5– 6 [Heb., 4–5]). It does not seem fitting for Solomon to ask the help of a 92. See esp. Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 163–182; for Mosis’ view of Solomon’s role and importance, see pp. 162–163, 164–169. 93. See Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher, p. 124. 94. See pp. 171–172 and 178–179.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 374 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

374

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

foreign monarch in order to complete Yhwh’s Temple, and the request can only be justified by the awesome dimensions of the project. In other words, Solomon informs Hiram, “The house which I am to build will be great — that is why I need you to send me some of your timber. Were you to tell me to make the house smaller and save myself the need for outside help, I could not do so, for our God is greater than all gods. That is why I cannot make the house smaller in any way.” 95 When it comes to Solomon’s gift of cities to Hiram, Chronicles simply reverses the datum: in 1 Kings 9:11, Solomon hands twenty cities over to King Hiram; in 2 Chr 8:2, we are told that Hiram gave Solomon cities, which the king then settled with his own people. Apparently, considerations of “historical probability” led to the change in Chronicles. 96 The Chronicler could not even conceive of the possibility that Solomon might have been unable to pay Hiram for his assistance and therefore had to hand over part of his territory. It seemed to him that the reverse situation rang much truer. The second principle that determines the Chronistic reworking — an interest in the king’s reign, not his personal affairs — is less marked in the case of Solomon than in that of David. In this matter, the account in Chronicles resembles its source in Kings, which also focusses on Solomon as monarch and devotes little attention to the king’s personal life. Solomon’s relation to the Temple constitutes the most striking feature of the Chronistic reworking of his monarchy: the building of the Temple is presented as his principal — almost his only — undertaking. We see this in a number of changes: (1) Although the book of Kings describes the Temple construction at great length and in considerable detail, the Temple is only one, and not even the largest, of Solomon’s building projects in Kings. Chronicles merely hints at other projects — the Temple is Solomon’s ultimate achievement. (2) The Temple’s construction, the making of its fittings and vessels, and the dedication ceremony constitute the focus of Solomon’s reign in Kings, but they occupy only a third or so of the narrative; in Chronicles, they take up more than half the story of Solomon’s reign. (3) The story in Kings touches upon many subjects, such as Solomon’s wisdom, civil administration, palace provisions (1 Kings 3–5), before discussing the Temple. Only two of these matters are recorded by the Chronicler: the theophany at Gibeon (2 Chr 1:1–13) and Solomon’s wealth, which is

95. Pseudo-Rashi to 2 Chr 2:5 (4). For further differences between Chronicles and Kings concerning Solomon’s relations with King Hiram, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, p. 66. 96. See Bickerman, Ezra to Maccabees, p. 22.

spread is 6 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 375 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

375

described briefly (2 Chr 1:14–17). The account then proceeds directly to the preparations for the Temple, the negotiations with Hiram, and the actual construction. Thus, the building of the Temple becomes Solomon’s first and greatest accomplishment as king. 97 Thus we see that the figure of Solomon is reworked according to the same principles as that of David. Moreover, we find that David and Solomon are mentioned jointly in a number of passages: (1) 2 Chr 7:10: “. . . he sent the people away to their homes, joyful and glad of heart for the goodness that the Lord had shown to David and to Solomon and to Israel his people.” 1 Kings 8:66 reads: “. . . for all the goodness that the Lord had shown to David his servant and to Israel his people.” In Kings, the building of the Temple and fulfilment of God’s promises are portrayed as Yhwh’s “goodness” to David, who initiated and prepared the project. Chronicles links David with Solomon, who executed the plan and built the Temple. 98 (2) 2 Chr 11:17: “for they walked for three years in the way of David and Solomon.” The book of Kings compares Judah’s monarchs to David alone; here, however, both David and Solomon set the moral standard. Such an idea is only possible when Solomon’s misdeeds are overlooked completely. (3) Even though Chronicles describes Solomon as simply following his father’s orders concerning Temple practice and organization, he is mentioned alongside David in this context: “Prepare yourselves according to your fathers’ houses by your divisions, following the directions of David king of Israel and the directions of Solomon his son” (2 Chr 35:4). In the same passage, the Temple is described — uniquely — as “the house which Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, built” (35:3). These features of Solomon’s portrayal might lead us to think that David’s son is idealized in Chronicles. 99 However, this is not really the case. 97. See the presentation of parallel texts in Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 314–315; see also Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 61 (1954), 354ff. 98. The opposite process is at work in 2 Kings 21:7: “And the graven image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which the Lord said to David and to Solomon his son, ‘In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name for ever.’ ” In fact, God’s promise to establish His name in the Temple and in Jerusalem is only given to Solomon after the Temple has been built (1 Kings 9:3). However, in the intervening period, the association of David with Jerusalem (as in 1 Kings 11:32 — “for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen”) had grown so strong that the two, Jerusalem and David, seemed to go together. The mention of David gave Jerusalem’s chosenness even more theological weight. 99. Indeed, this assumption informs Mosis’ analysis of the subject; see above, p. 306, n. 140.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 376 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

376

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

Although Solomon is presented as a flawless king, 100 we see that his greatness has been diminished in two ways: many details concerning his character or accomplishments have been omitted, and others have been transferred to his father. 1. First of all, Chronicles diminishes Solomon’s greatness in quantitative terms: long texts have been deleted; added passages are rather short. The omissions affect three important aspects of Solomon’s life: his wisdom, his organizational and administrative accomplishments, and his building projects. (1) According to the book of Kings, Solomon’s greatest attribute is his wisdom. It would indeed seem that this tradition is not only ancient, but also historically reliable. 101 Solomon is described as “wiser than all other men” (1 Kings 4:31 [Heb., 5:11]), and this perception lays the principal foundation for the image of Solomon in later traditions, both biblical 102 and extra-biblical. 103 Kings discusses Solomon’s wisdom both explicitly — as in the story of the vision at Gibeon or the decision concerning the two mothers (1 Kings 3:7–15, 16–28) — and indirectly, in the context of other subjects — as in David’s final instructions (1 Kings 2:6, 9) or Hiram’s words (1 Kings 5:7 [Heb., 5:21]). 104 Solomon’s wisdom becomes less prominent in Chronicles. A few texts discussing it directly are omitted, most notably the episode of the two mothers seeking his judgment and the passage describing Solomon’s unsurpassed wisdom, his proverbs and songs, and his world-wide fame (1 Kings 8:16–28; 4:29–34 [5:9–14]). Other references to his wisdom have been lost along with their more general context — for example, 1 Kings 2:6, 9; 3:28; 5:12 (26). The allusions remain primarily in the revelation at Gibeon (2 Chr 1:7–12) and the story of the Queen of Sheba (2 Chr 9:1–9), although these, too, have been changed: 1 Kings 3:12–13: “Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honour, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days.”

100. See Caquot, “Messianisme,” 115–116. 101. See A. Alt, “Die Weisheit Salomos” (1951), Kleine Schriften, II (Munich, 1953), pp. 90–99. 102. As in the attribution of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs to Solomon — Prov 1:1; 10:1; 25:1; Eccles 1:1; Song 1:1. 103. The many rabbinic legends on the subject (see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, IV [Philadelphia, 1947]) and the apocryphal “Wisdom of Solomon” all testify to this tradition. 104. See also 1 Kings 4:29–34; 5:12 (Heb., 5:9–14; 26); 10:4, 6–8, 23–24; 11:41.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 377 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

377

2 Chr 1:12: “Wisdom and knowledge are granted to you. I will also give you riches, possessions, and honour, such as none of the kings had who were before you, and none after you shall have the like.” Both passages describe God’s bounty to Solomon — the wisdom that he asked for, plus wealth and honour. However, a shift in emphasis is very evident. The text in Kings focusses on wisdom as Solomon’s most important gift, the quality in which he will always be without equal. He is also given great riches and honour, but in this respect, he merely surpasses the kings of his own generation — “no other king shall compare with you, all your days.” The Chronicler reverses this balance: Solomon’s wisdom is simply stated as a fact, and no comparisons are made. His wealth and honour, however, make him the greatest of kings — past, present, and future. 1 Kings 11:41: “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?” 2 Chr 9:29: “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history . . . ?” The reference to Solomon’s wisdom has been omitted from the Chronistic conclusion to his reign. In Chronicles, Solomon’s wisdom is considered important when it comes to the building of the Temple: God granted David’s son wisdom so that he might build Yhwh’s house. Thus we read, “Blessed be the Lord . . . who has given King David a wise son, endued with discretion and understanding, who will build a temple for the Lord, and a royal palace for himself” (2 Chr 2:12 [Heb., 2:11]). 105 (2) A distinguishing feature of Solomon’s reign as portrayed in the book of Kings is his involvement in the area of administration. This includes: a list of officials (1 Kings 4:1–6), the list of district officers, designating their regional divisions and duties (1 Kings 4:7–19, 27–28 [Heb., 5:7–8]), and a description of his levy of forced labour (1 Kings 5:13 [27]). These data do not appear in Chronicles; in fact, the entire sphere of political administration is associated with David, 106 not Solomon. Solomon’s resourcefulness and greatness as a ruler are therefore diminished, and we shall see below how greatly Solomon’s initiative is reduced when it comes to the construction of the Temple. (3) The book of Kings depicts Solomon as the great builder; descriptions of or references to his undertakings appear throughout the account 105. Compare Hiram’s words in 1 Kings 5:7 (Heb., 5:21): “Blessed be the Lord this day, who has given to David a wise son to be over this great people.” This declaration is related to Solomon’s dream (1 Kings 3:9); it associates the king’s wisdom with its more general implications in terms of his reign. 106. See in detail above, pp. 334–335.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 378 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

378

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

of his reign. 107 The book of Chronicles focusses on one project — the construction of the Temple — and only occasionally alludes to other enterprises in bare statements of fact (2 Chr 7:11; 8:1, 4–6, 11). Yet, despite all these omissions, the Chronicler retains the passages describing Solomon’s wealth, income, and trading activity almost in their entirety (2 Chr 1:14–17; 9:9–10, 13–21, 24–25). The last two chapters on Solomon’s reign (2 Chronicles 8–9), which were taken from Kings in full (1 Kings 9:10–10:29), at last accord to Solomon some of the brilliance and majesty he enjoyed in the book of Kings. 2. Solomon’s image is also diminished when the Chronicler transfers the son’s achievements to the father, as he does primarily with reference to the building of the Temple. We have seen above that Chronicles credits David with all the preparations; Solomon merely puts David’s plan into operation. One of two techniques may be involved in this process: either the Chronicler adds a new detail that does not appear in his sources and attributes it to David, or else he takes something which was clearly ascribed to Solomon in the book of Kings and transfers it to David. The first technique is employed when David chooses the Temple site (1 Chr 22:1), provides a blueprint for the structure and its fittings (1 Chr 28:12–19), and establishes the order of Temple service (1 Chronicles 23–26). Although attributing these new features to David does not reduce Solomon’s existing role, it does mean that Solomon no longer has exclusive control over the undertaking. The second technique appears in the following cases: (1) The account in Kings explicitly credits Solomon with organizing the builders and workers (1 Kings 5:15–16 [Heb., 29–30]; 9:21; and also 5:13 [27]). The Chronicler takes this information and produces a new account describing Solomon’s efforts as something of a repetition of David’s work: “Then Solomon took as census of all the aliens who were in the land of Israel, after the census of them which David his father had taken . . . Seventy thousand of them he assigned to bear burdens, eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country, and three thousand six hundred as overseers to make the people work” (2 Chr 2:17–18 [Heb., 16–17]; see also 1 Chr 22:2). In this area, Solomon follows in his father’s footsteps and does not initiate any new activity. 108 (2) The organization of craftsmen: according to Kings, Hiram of Tyre produced all the fine work for the Temple after Solomon brought him to Jerusalem for just that purpose: “And King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre . . . a worker in bronze; and he was full of wisdom, un107. 1 Kings 3:1; 7:1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9–12; 9:1, 10, 15, 17–19, 24. 108. On the relationship between the texts concerning this subject and their reworking, see above, pp. 261ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 379 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

379

derstanding, and skill, for making any work in bronze. He came to King Solomon, and did all his work” (1 Kings 7:13–14). 109 In Chronicles, Solomon does not discover Hiram on his own — he is assisted by the king of Tyre: “So now send me a man skilled to work . . .” (2 Chr 2:7 [6]; and see 2:13 [12]). Even though the Chronicler adds to the praise of Hiram’s skill found in Kings, 110 he does not consider him the sole craftsman. Hiram works together with local artisans selected by David: Solomon requests someone “to be with the skilled workers who are with me in Judah and Jerusalem, whom David my father provided” (2 Chr 2:7 [6], likewise 14 [13]). When we examine the account of David’s preparations, we find that craftsmen are also mentioned: “You have an abundance of workmen: stonecutters, masons, carpenters, and all kinds of craftsmen” (1 Chr 22:15). (3) The preparation of building materials, metals, and so on: the negotiations between Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre recorded in 1 Kings 5:1ff. (5:16ff.) only mention the supply of timber for the Temple’s construction. Agreement is reached concerning the cutting of cedars and cypresses, their transport to Jerusalem, and the payment involved. Workers to cut the timber are recruited in Israel by Solomon and sent to Lebanon in monthly shifts (1 Kings 5:13–14 [27–28]). In the Chronistic version of these negotiations, the supply of wood becomes secondary — the main concern is Solomon’s request for a skilled craftsman (2 Chr 2:7 [6]). This change is due to the fact that, in Chronicles, David has already provided cedar wood for the Temple and Solomon has only to replenish the supply if necessary (see 1 Chr 22:4, 14). The same is true of the stone: according to Kings, Solomon arranged for the stone needed to build the Temple: “At the king’s command, they quarried out great, costly stones in order to lay the foundation of the house . . .” (1 Kings 5:17 [31]). This verse has been omitted from the parallel story in Chronicles, and the preparation of the stones (1 Chr 22:2, 14; 29:2), as well as vast quantities of precious metals and even Ophir gold (1 Chr 29:2–5), is attributed to David.

109. The book of Kings stresses Hiram’s skill as a bronze-worker; apart from 1 Kings 7:14, see also vv. 40b and 46, and cf. Gray, Kings, p. 171. The gold work is not ascribed to Hiram (1 Kings 7:48–50); see Gray, ibid., pp. 186ff. 110. The Chronicler describes him as “trained to work in gold, sliver, bronze, iron, stone, and wood, and in purple, blue, and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and to do all sorts of engraving and execute any design that may be assigned him” (2 Chr 2:14 [13]). It is commonly thought that this description of Hiram has been influenced by the image of Bezalel the son of Uri, the craftsman who outfitted the tabernacle (Exod 31:2– 5; 35:30–33); see Rudolph, Chronik, p. 199. However, whatever influence exists must be quite general, since the Chronistic depiction of Hiram does not correspond in detail to passages about Bezalel.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 380 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

380

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

The tendency to magnify David’s role in the Temple appears most strikingly in a verse unrelated to the general context of the building plans. We read in the account of David’s wars: 2 Sam 8:8: “And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, King David took very much bronze.” 1 Chr 18:8: “And from Tibhath and from Cun, cities of Hadadezer, David took very much bronze; with it Solomon made the bronze sea and the pillars and the vessels of bronze.” 111 This verse conflicts with 1 Kings 7:46, repeated in 2 Chr 4:17, which states that these vessels were cast in the Jordan plain, and accentuates the Chronistic bias: even the bronze for the Temple vessels was acquired by David in the course of his battles! We therefore see that two, apparently contradictory, tendencies inform the Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon: on the one hand, his principal function as builder of the Temple is emphasized, and many other matters are omitted in the interests of this emphasis; on the other hand, much of Solomon’s work — particularly his work in building the Temple — is attributed to David. Chronicles does add one quality to the character portrayed in Kings — Solomon is described as a warrior: “And Solomon went to Hamath-zobah, and took it” (2 Chr 8:3). It must be stated that this piece of information, whether accurate or not, 112 represents a total deviation from all that we know about Solomon. The Chronicler’s reworking of his sources through omissions and additions redresses the historical balance and creates some sort of parity between David and Solomon. 113 As far as he is concerned, the two reigns constitute one period; the son’s achievements draw upon and complement the work of the father. 114 Similarly, the images of the two kings are equated in certain respects when the Chronicler transfers some of David’s qualities to Solomon and some of Solomon’s achievements to David. The image of Solomon (unlike that of David) becomes that of a flawless king; 111. LXX to 2 Sam 8:8 contains a slightly different version of 1 Chr 18:8b, and Lemke deduces that the addition already appeared in the Hebrew text of Samuel used by the Chronicler; W. E. Lemke, “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History,” HThR, 58 (1965), 354–355. Lemke’s conclusion is not the only one possible (cf. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 234), but, if correct, it does indicate that the tendency to credit David with preparations for the Temple preceded the Chronicler and was adopted and expanded by him. 112. Graf believes that the Chronicler based this verse on a source which differed from Kings (Geschichtlichen Bücher, pp. 133–134), but Wellhausen considers it a complete fabrication (Prolegomena, p. 187). See also Kittel, Chronik, p. 120. 113. See R. L. Braun, JBL, 92 (1974), 515; Braun uses this idea as evidence for his dating of the Chronicler, but his conclusions are unconvincing. 114. See Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” p. 54; Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 460.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 381 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

381

however, since many of Solomon’s virtues and accomplishments are either minimized or attributed to David, the portrayal loses much of its grandeur and can hardly be called an idealization. Even when it comes to his greatest achievement, Solomon is merely following his father’s instructions, using the manpower, tools, and materials prepared by David. As individual characters, neither David nor Solomon is idealized in the book of Chronicles, but when the two figures are united by one central idea, their period becomes the golden era of Israelite history.

C. Other Judean Monarchs Many of the portrayals of Judah’s kings and many of their activities have been mentioned above, and our discussion here will be limited to a number of general points. When we read about these kings in Chronicles, we are immediately struck by the great variety and complexity to be found in their histories — the personalities, accomplishments, and appraisals of Judah’s monarchs are far from uniform. There are two reasons that this is so: the historical framework has been expanded to include many different spheres of royal activity, and the Chronicler’s religious outlook has recast the image of many kings and led to a new assessment of their reigns. For example, the book of Kings portrays Manasseh as the greatest sinner in Judah’s history; in Chronicles, Manasseh figures as a religious penitent. Kings considers Josiah the most righteous of monarchs; in Chronicles, this honour is given to Hezekiah. Uzziah is a marginal character in the book of Kings; Chronicles portrays him as enterprising and successful. In Kings, Jehoshaphat is completely dependent on the kings of Israel, but in Chronicles, he fights his own battles and effectively administers the kingdom. Chronicles even frees Jotham from the shadow of his father, Uzziah, and presents him as an accomplished ruler in his own right. Other kings also appear in a new light under the Chronicler’s influence. An independent examination of Chronicles’ religious assessment of Judah’s monarchs provides ample proof of the variety to be found in the book; this diversity becomes all the more apparent when we compare the appraisals to the source text. The book of Kings divides the monarchs into good kings and bad kings, and only one monarch is known to change category in the course of his life: Solomon takes up evil ways before he dies (1 Kings 11:4). 115 Chronicles also classifies kings as righteous or wicked, usually following or quoting the designation found in Kings, 116 but only a few monarchs consistently live up — or down — to such a broad assessment 115. See Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 473–474. 116. For example, see 2 Chr 12:14; 14:2 (Heb., 14:1); 20:32; 21:5–6; 22:3–4.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 382 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

382

Kingship: The Davidic Dynasty

of their career. Those who do conform completely to the designation “righteous” or “wicked” are generally kings who reigned for a short time or kings whose written history is brief. Each of the remaining kings, who include most of Judah’s important monarchs, undergoes changes or transformations and is appraised in more complex terms. Rehoboam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah all change in some way. 117 In a few cases, the deviation from the normal pattern of behaviour is something temporary, such as a sin that is punished and forgiven. 118 In others, the king undergoes a profound transformation that alters his destiny. 119 Chronicles also differs from Kings in the assumptions that underlie its assessment of Judah’s monarchs. The Deuteronomist employs uniform, clearly defined criteria to judge a king’s behaviour, which have to do with his position vis-à-vis idolatry and worship at the high places. 120 The Chronicler also assesses monarchs according to these criteria and frequently even transposes the appraisal verbatim from his sources. 121 However, his standards of righteousness and his definition of sinful behaviour are far more varied. 122 For this reason, a totally righteous king almost never appears in Chronicles; the one exception is Abijah, whose reign was extremely short. 123 The principle expressed by Solomon applies to all the kings of Judah: “for there is no man who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46 // 2 Chr 6:36). Even Hezekiah and Josiah, Judah’s most righteous monarchs, have their moments of sin. Conversely, we do find kings who are completely wicked — primarily Jehoram, Ahaz, and Zedekiah, 124 whose evil 117. In order 2 Chr 11:17; 12:1, 6; 14:2 (1); 15:8; 16:7, 10, 12; 17:3–4; 19:2; 20:35; 24:2, 17–18; 25:2, 14; 26:4, 16; 29:2; 30:20, 21; 32:25; 33:2ff., 12–13; 34:2; 35:22. See also above, p. 131, n. 487, pp. 132ff., 136ff. 118. Examples include: Rehoboam’s behaviour at the time of Shishak’s campaign (2 Chr 12:2, 7 [1, 6]); Jehoshaphat’s alliance with the kings of Israel (2 Chr 19:2–3; 20:35); and Hezekiah’s pride (2 Chr 32:25–26). 119. Asa and Josiah died for their sins (2 Chr 16:12–13; 35:22–24), and Uzziah was afflicted with incurable leprosy (2 Chr 26:20–21). Manasseh’s repentance put him back on the throne and brought him a long life (2 Chr 33:12ff.). 120. See in detail above, pp. 160–161. 121. On Chronicles’ faithfulness to the source in Kings, as well as the distinctive changes made by the Chronicler, see above pp. 163ff. 122. See Rudolph, Chronik, pp. xiv–xv, xxi–xxii; see also above, pp. 196ff. 123. Yet, no explicit appraisal of Abijah’s reign appears in the opening formula to the history (2 Chr 13:1–2). The Chronicler deletes the negative assessment found in 1 Kings 15:3 but does not substitute a positive one. However, his favourable view is evident in the king’s speech and from the account as a whole (2 Chr 13:10, 11, 21). 124. Some of the “minor” monarchs are also depicted as utterly evil: Athaliah, Amon, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 383 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

IV. The Davidic Monarchs

383

deeds lead the people to the brink of destruction or, ultimately, to the downfall of Judah. We see that the Chronicler presents multi-faceted portrayals of Judah’s monarchs, avoiding simplistic or all-embracing judgments. His perspective is sober and realistic, and he successfully overcomes the natural tendency to idealize the past.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 384 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Chapter Five

The Hope of Redemption For the last sixty years, studies of Chronicles have paid considerable attention to the question of the hope of redemption, and one may regard this discussion as a result par excellence of their approach to the book. Hänel’s introduction to Rothstein’s commentary on 1 Chronicles declared for the first time that the belief in and longing for a messianic Davidic monarchy are central to Chronicles and that the entire orientation of the book is in fact eschatalogical. 1 Von Rad followed Hänel’s opinion, developing it in greater detail with reference to the book as a whole, 2 and since his time, many scholars have adopted this view to varying degrees. 3 Some see eschatology as the book’s focus and central purpose, and others describe it as one aspect of a broader Chronistic world-view. There are also scholars who argue to the contrary that the book pays little attention to the subject from a quantitative point of view and is, moreover, noneschatological in nature, in its goals, and in its typology. These scholars include Eichrodt, Rudolph, Plöger, and Caquot. 4 Those who emphasize the eschatological factor in Chronicles focus on the centrality of David and on the book’s alleged tendency to idealize him. They assume that only a messianic outlook could lead people to idealize a king at a time when they no longer had their own monarchy. 5 This same 1. Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, pp. xliii, xliv; see also pp. x–xi. 2. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 119–132. 3. Some of them have done so in works centred on Chronicles, others in more general studies. For example, see A. Noordtzij, “Les Intentions du Chroniste,” RB, 49 (1940), 161–168; Brunet, “Le Chroniste,” RB, 60 (1953), 481–508, RB, 61 (1954), 349– 386; idem, “La Théologie du Chroniste, “Théocratie et Messianisme,” Sacra Pagina, I, ed. J. Coppens (Gembloux, 1959), pp. 384–397; W. F. Stinespring, “Eschatology in Chronicles,” JBL, 80 (1961), 209–219; R. North, “Theology of the Chronicler,” JBL, 82 (1963), 369ff.; Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 479, 480; Poulssen, König und Tempel, pp. 169ff. 4. Eichrodt, Theology, I, pp. 424–430; Rudolph, Chronik, pp. xiii–xxiv et passim (e.g., see p. 195); Plöger, Theocracy, pp. 39–43, 111; Caquot, “Messianisme,” 110–120; Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” pp. 32–36, etc.; J. Liver, The House of David (Heb., Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 105–107. 5. Thus Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xliii; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 126; Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 480; Poulssen, König und Tempel, p. 169; and others.

384

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 385 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Hope of Redemption

385

assumption is also expressed when the evidence of Chronicles and Ezra– Nehemiah on this subject is compared, in the belief that the books represent two parts of one work. The fact that Chronicles spotlights David whereas Ezra–Nehemiah all but ignores him is intended to communicate the idea that a real theocracy will only be established when a shoot of the house of David appears and rules God’s kingdom here on earth. The contrast between the two books is therefore considered a deliberate technique employed by the writer. 6 According to this view, the Messiah constitutes only one element in a broader eschatological approach — his coming will simply herald the longed-for realization of God’s kingdom on earth. 7 A limited number of arguments are cited, with varying degrees of emphasis, as proof of the eschatological element in Chronicles. The most important of these arguments are: (1) Chronicles lays particular emphasis on the Davidic covenant mentioned in Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 — a covenant promising the perpetual kingship of the Davidic dynasty. 8 Nathan’s prophecy is echoed many times in Chronicles; in fact, its message is central to the book as a whole. 9 Kaufmann, in particular, attaches great importance to the fact that David’s promise will last “for ever,” under any circumstances, and views this idea as the Chronicler’s prime motive in writing the book. 10 (2) The Chronicler’s messianic purposes led him to alter the text of Nathan’s prophecy: (a) The words “when he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men” (2 Sam 6. See, primarily, Brunet (Sacra Pagina, I, pp. 384ff.). Kaufmann also assumes that one writer deliberately created the contrast between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, but he has a different understanding of the writer’s purpose in doing so; see Religion, IV, p. 479. The same basic assumption has also led to an antithetical conclusion: Rudolph claims that the continuation of Chronicles found in Ezra–Nehemiah testifies to a complete loss of messianic hope (Chronik, p. xiii). Myers comments likewise that “if . . . the complex of Chronicles-Ezra–Nehemiah was basically the work of one man . . . then the messianic hope expressed in Chronicles is more apparent than real” (Chronicles, p. lxxxv). 7. “Temple, king, and messianism are subjects of secondary importance. They are only the necessary instruments by which the central aim — namely, the kingship of Yhwh, theocracy — is realized” (Poulssen, König und Tempel, p. 170). Not all scholars distinguish so clearly between the means and the end; those who do not generally view the messianic king as a central and integral component of the eschatological idea (see J. Liver, “Messiah” [Heb.], EB, V, 507–508). 8. Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xliii; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 126; Kaufmann, Religion, IV, pp. 461, etc. However, von Rad points out that 2 Samuel 7 does not yet speak explicitly of a covenant; see Geschichtsbild, p. 122. 9. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 124; Noordtzij, RB, 49 (1940), 163; and others. 10. Religion, IV, pp. 458, 461, 465, 466, 467, etc.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 386 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

386

The Hope of Redemption

7:14b) were deleted to eliminate the tension between justice and grace, so that the king might be subject to God’s grace (“Gnade”), alone. The elimination of this tension is seen as one form of messianic expectation. 11 (b) Chronicles substitutes “one of your sons” (1 Chr 17:11) for the source’s “who shall come forth from your body” (2 Sam 7:12). This change is considered crucial. In its Chronistic rendition, Nathan’s prophecy does not simply designate one of David’s actual sons as heir; it promises the throne to a member of his line, thereby shifting the fulfilment of the promise from a son to a more distant descendant — a change viewed as evidence of messianic expectation. 12 (c) Nathan’s prophecy in Chronicles describes the Davidic monarchy as “My — i.e., Yhwh’s — kingdom” (1 Chr 17:14), and this denotation recurs in other texts expressing a similar outlook. Thus, Yhwh’s kingdom becomes a lofty ideal to be realized in the future, an extension of God Himself. 13 (3) Emphasizing David’s covenant diminishes the importance of the Sinaitic covenant. Chronicles awards prime of place to God’s covenant with Abraham, and the Davidic covenant is viewed as the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. The covenant at Sinai merely constitutes a transitional stage. When the Davidic covenant is fulfilled, true theocracy on earth will be established. 14 (4) The book of Chronicles relates to messianic biblical passages such as Isa 55:3 and Psalms 89 and 132. 15 This connection serves as an expression of the Chronicler’s own eschatological purposes. (5) A number of the book’s details also indicate a messianic outlook: David’s kingship over all Israel, 16 the extension of David’s genealogy to include descendants after the Babylonian conquest, 17 and others. (6) Some of the studies on the subject emphasize that the promise to David was directed towards Jesus: Jesus’ appearance and life on earth represent the fulfilment of that promise. 18

11. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, p. 123; Noordtzij, loc. cit., 163. 12. Von Rad, op. cit., p. 124; Noordtzij, loc. cit., 163; Galling, Chronik, pp. 53–54; and others. 13. Von Rad, op. cit., p. 126. 14. See Noordtzij, RB, 49 (1940), 162–163; Brunet, Sacra Pagina, I, p. 391; Delcor, RB, 59 (1952), 403–404; North, JBL, 82 (1963), 378, 381, and elsewhere. 15. See Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xliii; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, pp. 126–127. 16. Hänel-Rothstein, loc. cit.; Kaufmann, Religion, IV, p. 461. 17. Hänel-Rothstein, loc. cit. 18. Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik, p. xliv; Noordtzij, loc. cit., 168; North, loc. cit., 381; Stinespring, JBL, 80 (1961), passim.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 387 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Hope of Redemption

387

A few of these arguments have already been discussed in detail as the occasion arose and will be referred to only briefly; others demand further elaboration and consideration. The idea of a “Davidic covenant” is not central to Chronicles. It rarely appears, and when it appears, it does so in passages of minor importance. Nathan’s prophecy does indeed occupy a prominent position in Chronicles; however, it is stressed in texts dealing with the construction of the Temple. 19 It is true that Chronicles deliberately overlooks the exodus from Egypt, but any attempt to deduce from this omission that the Chronicler negates the laws involved in the Sinaitic covenant or regards them as a mere transitional stage is completely antithetical to the spirit of Chronicles. In fact, one reason why the concept of covenant does not constitute a key element in the relationship between God and Israel is the Chronicler’s assumption that the Torah is eternally binding. The “Abrahamic covenant” only appears once in Chronicles, in a poetic passage that certainly cannot be taken as proof that “for the Chronicler, the covenant with Abraham is the covenant par excellence.” 20 The book makes no mention of the posited connection between the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, and it is difficult to see why any importance at all should have been attached to such a connection. The above-mentioned interpretations of various details in Nathan’s prophecy also raise many questions. Von Rad reads a great deal of meaning into the substitution of “one of your sons” for “who shall come forth from your body,” but, as Rudolph, Seeligmann, and others have shown, his analysis does not withstand more thorough scrutiny. 21 When we compare 2 Chr 32:21 to 2 Kings 19:37, we find that “your sons” and “those who come forth from your body” are equivalent expressions. 22 Similarly, von Rad’s complex interpretation of the omission of 2 Sam 7:14 does not hold true when examined closely. The attempts by Hänel and von Rad to detect literary ties between Chronicles and messianic biblical passages are not terribly successful. Von Rad presents the phrase dwd ydsj and the use of the root ˆma as a link

19. See Caquot, “Messianisme,” 115. 20. Noordtzij, RB, 49 (1940), 162. 21. I. L. Seeligmann, “Researches into the Criticism of the Masoretic Text of the Bible” (Heb.), Tarbiz5 25 (1955/56). 128–129 and 129, n. 41: Rudolph, Chronik, p. 133. 22. 2 Kings 19:37 reads “Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons [found only in the Qere] slew him”; 2 Chr 32:21, “and some of those who came forth from his body struck him down.” Perhaps the Chronicler considered the phrase wy[m yayxy disrespectful and therefore substituted the word “sons” with reference to David.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 388 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

388

The Hope of Redemption

between a few Chronistic passages and Isa 55:3 and Psalm 89; he also mentions a few allusions to Psalm 132, which he considers “loaded with eschatological tension” (“eschatologisch hochgespannt”), and argues that the use of the expression larçyb lçwm in 2 Chr 7:18 is related to Mic 5:1. 23 It is worth mentioning at this point that although the book of Chronicles abounds with quotations from the entire Bible and whole verses are frequently quoted almost verbatim, not one verse in Chronicles exhibits a real dependence on a clearly messianic biblical passage. The messianic content of Psalm 132 remains open to discussion, 24 but whatever the significance of the psalm as a whole, it is clear that the quotation appearing in Chronicles has no messianic import — it simply relates to the installation of the ark as an historical event (2 Chr 6:41–42). Chronicles does not contain the least suggestion of prophetic literature’s key eschatological texts. Those who consider Chronicles an eschatological text assume first and foremost that the book idealizes the figure of David and that this type of idealization in a non-monarchic period could only be the result of messianic longings. Yet there is nothing to confirm this assumption. The great figures of the past have been idealized as a matter of course. The desire to glorify them is typical of human beings; it has inspired literary creativity and provided the psychological basis for the epic. There is no special link between idealization and messianic hope. Extolling the accomplishments of past heroes constitutes a standard motif of post-exilic literature in all its forms. All those who argue that Chronicles is an eschatological text arrive at their conclusions in the same way — by inference. They base their interpretations on the book’s structure and hypothetical divisions, on its selection of material from its sources, on literary allusions and verbal associations. It is easy to see why they were forced to adopt this method: the book of Chronicles does not contain a single reference to the end of days or direct expression of eschatological yearnings. Even the promise to establish an everlasting Davidic monarchy (which will be discussed below) need not indicate messianic expectations. Given that the book makes a number of other goals and leanings very clear, this silence on what is alleged to be the book’s central purpose would be no less than astonishing — if Chronicles actually delivered a messianic message. In fact, however, the book of Chronicles is clearly a non-eschatological work. We see this not only in the complete absence of eschatological allu23. Von Rad refers to 2 Chr 1:10 (Heb., 9); 6:17; see Geschichtsbild, pp. 126–127. 24. As does the messianism of Psalm 89, for which von Rad produces an equally limited connection: the presence of the root ˆuuma in both the psalm and Chronicles.

spread is 12 points short

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 389 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Hope of Redemption

389

sions, 25 but also in its distinctive conceptualization, which is non-messianic by its very nature. In order to avoid confusion or semantic hairsplitting, let us begin our discussion by examining the term eschatology. Literally, the word means “the teaching of the last things” (tav e§scata), 26 which may be interpreted in a number of ways, and differences of definition are sometimes the source of controversy as to whether or not the Bible contains eschatology. Biblical scholarship has produced two main definitions — we may speak of “eschatology in the narrow sense of the word” and “eschatology in the broader sense.” 27 “Eschatology in the narrow sense” anticipates the annihilation of the existing world and the birth of a new world of everlasting salvation. It views the eschaton as something beyond history, beyond the time and space of the world as we know it. 28 Very few biblical texts may be classified as eschatological in this sense, apart from primarily apocalyptic passages such as Isaiah 24–27 and certain chapters in Daniel. Today, however, most scholars define eschatology in the broad sense of the word, characterizing the eschaton as “the dawn of the age of salvation . . . [in] the course of history.” 29 According to this definition, eschatology envisions the creation of a new and different world in the context of the existing world, “linked to time and history, to 25. Although Rudolph consistently maintains that Chronicles is non-eschatological, he does believe that the book contains “eschatological undertones” (Chronik, p. xxiii). Nevertheless, he considers these undertones virtually insignificant; they simply underscore the book’s overall lack of eschatological tendencies. 26. On the connection between “eschatology” and the biblical term “end of days” (μymyh tyrja), see H. Kosmala, “At the End of the Days,” ASTI, II (1963), 27–37. 27. E. Jenni, “Eschatology in the Old Testament,” IDB, II, 126; see also H. P. Müller, “Ursprünge und Strukturen alttestamentliche Eschatologie,” BZAW, 109 (1969), pp. 1–7. 28. G. Hölscher, Die Ursprünge der jüdischen Eschatologie (Giessen, 1925), p. 3; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson (Oxford, 1956), pp. 126–133; S. B. Frost, “Eschatology and Myth,” VT, 2 (1952), 70. 29. Eichrodt, Theology, I, p. 479. On the matter as a whole, see pp. 472–511 et passim (consulting his index); T. C. Vriezen, “Prophecy and Eschatology,” SVT, I (1953), pp. 200–203; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1962), pp. 360–375. It would seem that a prime reason for the definition’s expansion was the desire to link the Hebrew Bible — in particular, biblical prophecy — with the New Testament and the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. When the definition of eschatology is widened, the connection between “prophecy and fulfilment” — e.g., see W. Zimmerli, “Verheissung und Erfüllung,” Ev. Th., 12 (1952/53), 34ff. — does not merely associate Jesus with a number of isolated Christologically-understood prophecies. Instead, Christianity is described as fulfilling the essence of the entire prophetic phenomenon. Eichrodt, for example, writes of this interpretation: “It has understood fulfilment not mechanically . . . but organically” (Theology, I, p. 505).

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 390 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

390

The Hope of Redemption

space and form.” 30 Nevertheless, the idea that the new world will be altogether different from the world we know remains central to the definition of eschatology; 31 “a miraculous irruption of Yahweh into the course of history” 32 will cause the new world to be utterly unlike the old one. This broader definition has subsumed large portions of prophetic literature under the designation “eschatology”; some scholars even regard the eschatological motif as the essence of prophecy 33 or, indeed, of biblical passages that predate prophecy. 34 The book of Chronicles cannot be defined as eschatological in any sense of the word. The primary principle underlying the book’s worldview is acceptance of the existing world: no change to the world is anticipated in Chronicles. 35 Some discussion of this essential axiom is in order at this point. We have seen that Chronicles views the relationship between God and Israel as an everlasting, unchanging bond. This bond was not created through a specific historical act; it was part of the very blueprint of creation, part of the world’s natural order. 36 The world and the people are governed by fixed laws. These laws are a function of God’s attributes as creator of the world and its ruler, a ruler guided by the principle of divine justice. History is one long chain of events, the changing manifestations of this truth. The world as we see it at any given moment is an expression of God’s order. In fact, the dimension of time is relatively unimportant in such an outlook. Anything that happens in time — past, present, or future — is simply an expression of this eternal design. Time does not produce change, nor does the future hold any surprises for man. Time merely provides illustrations of unchanging principles. By the same token, the possibility of change or innovation is almost non-existent, for everything in the world comes from God, who is eternal and, by definition, unchanging. Moreover, the view that the natural order stems from the very nature of God, who created the world and rules it in absolute justice, necessitates an essentially positive, optimistic outlook on the world. When one believes that man has control over his own destiny and that the fulfilment of God’s will is built into the order of things, the result is a sense of direction, of 30. Eichrodt, ibid., p. 505. 31. Vriezen speaks of an “absolute break” (loc. cit., 224), Jenni, of a “new, entirely different state of things” (IDB, II, 126), and Eichrodt, of “an act of new creation” (Theology, I, p. 387; see also p. 386). 32. Eichrodt, ibid., p. 479. 33. Eichrodt, ibid., pp. 381–387. 34. Jenni, IDB, II, 128. 35. Eichrodt, Theology, I, esp. pp. 424–433. 36. See above, pp. 91ff. Eichrodt also expresses this view; Theology, I, pp. 64, 425.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 391 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Hope of Redemption

391

hope in the future. The future may be viewed with an optimistic confidence in the existence, power, and justice of God. We must therefore conclude that any approach presupposing a need for radical change or a new creation — either within or beyond history — is by its very nature alien to the Chronicler’s spiritual constitution. Continuity, not change, characterizes the Chronistic way of thinking on every subject. As was mentioned above, a few scholars have asserted that Chronicles is not an eschatological work and have suggested a number of explanations for its non-messianic outlook. According to Rudolph, the Chronicler believed that the Jewish community in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah fulfilled the theocratic ideal so perfectly that there was no longer any need for eschatological yearnings. 37 Caquot offers a similar reason: during the Persian era, Judaism focussed exclusively on the Temple and Temple ritual, which were seen as the source of salvation and a means of eliciting God’s love. Persian rule brought a long period of peace to the Jews and led to the creation of a hierocratic community that was satisfied with the present. 38 Bickerman goes considerably further, arguing that “the tendency of [the Chronicler’s] work is to recommend a kind of political quietism which should please the court of Susa as well as the High Priest’s mansion in Jerusalem.” 39 These explanations assume that Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were written by the same author, but even if that assumption were granted, they would not withstand careful scrutiny. 40 Can the Jewish community from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, with all its political, economic, social, and religious problems, really be considered the realization of an ideal? The book of Ezra–Nehemiah paints a very dark picture of the situation. In fact, de Vaux calls Nehemiah 9 “un cri de détresse,” 41 and Kaufmann offers the following convincing perspective: “It was a time of servitude and poverty. Nothing could be done without begging, without seeking the indulgence of foreign kings and governors . . . His description . . . of the period reeks of misery.” 42 Yet, the explanations outlined above share the opinion that the author of Chronicles was completely satisfied with the period in which he lived and even saw it as the fulfilment of an ideal. When we consider the book’s 37. Rudolph, Chronik, pp. xiv–xxiii. 38. Caquot, “Messianisme,” 119–120. 39. Bickerman, Ezra to Maccabees, p. 30. 40. See R. de Vaux, RB, 64 (1957), 280–281. 41. Loc. cit., 280–281. 42. Religion, IV, p. 479; see also Noth, Studien, p. 179.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 392 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

392

The Hope of Redemption

contents and then compare them to the Chronicler’s time, however, we cannot find any basis for such an assumption. It is true that the Chronistic elements we have discussed focus on what exists in the present or, more accurately, on what exists now and for all time — elements such as complete trust in God and His power, sovereignty, and justice, the absolute constancy of divine retribution, the eternal bond between Yhwh and the people, the glorified portrayal of the Davidic-Solomonic period, the perpetual longing for the people to be whole, with all its tribes occupying the entire land. Yet, despite their focus on the here and now, all these features are directed towards the future. 43 Through them, the writer expresses his hopes for the future and confidence that his hopes will be fulfilled. His expectations are not eschatological, for eschatology is entirely foreign to the Chronicler’s way of thinking. They are concrete hopes that the land will be redeemed and Israel’s greatness and glory will be restored. 44 The power to realize these hopes rests with the people; they need only follow God’s ways and observe His commandments. In his examination of the pre-Hasmonean concept of redemption, Urbach writes: “The absence of express dicta about redemption dating from the days of the Second Temple is no proof that there was no concern with the subject in the long, tempestuous period from the time of the dominion of the High Priests, under the auspices of the Persian kingdom, to the destruction of the Temple.” 45 With this assumption in mind, he attempts to reconstruct the period’s concept of redemption, relying chiefly on the language of early prayers and the words of Ben Sira. 46 Urbach concludes that “the concept of redemption in Sirach and also in sources close to its time is realistic, and is primarily concerned with the supplementation of the deficiencies of Israel’s sovereignty, well-being, and prosperity.” 47 “Sup-

43. As Noth rightly says, “the interest in the legitimate monarchy . . . must lead to an open question regarding the future” (Noth’s emphasis, Studien, p. 179). 44. See Noth, Studien, pp. 179–180, and following him, Wilda, “Das Königsbild,” pp. 35–36. Kaufmann may have had the same concept in mind when he wrote that “ ‘the kingdom of God’ would be established when God brought back the time of David and Solomon and restored the gift of monarchy to Israel” (Religion, IV, p. 479). However, Kaufmann defines this concept as messianic hope (ibid., pp. 479–480), thereby removing it from its original concrete, political context and assigning it an eschatological meaning. 45. Urbach, The Sages, p. 652. 46. In particular, Ben Sira 36:1–17; 51:21–35 (in Segal’s edition — Jerusalem 1971/72). 47. Urbach, The Sages, p. 658.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 393 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

The Hope of Redemption

393

plementing deficiencies” means gathering the exiles back to the land, settling them in their old territory, and restoring the Davidic monarchy. The book of Chronicles cannot fill the gap mentioned by Urbach; it, too, lacks “express dicta about redemption.” Yet the testimony of Chronicles supports Urbach’s conclusions and may be said to complement or even anticipate the concept he defined. The Chronicler believed in redemption in practical terms: with complete trust in the power and justness of Israel’s God, he awaited the restoration of Israel’s fortunes.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 394 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 395 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Epilogue Examining the ideology of Chronicles does more than uncover the book’s spiritual world and its constellation of views on the fundamental matters of religious thought; it also helps us understand Chronicles in its entirety — sources, character, genre, and purpose. First and foremost, a study of the book’s ideology reveals its uniqueness in the context of biblical thought. The Chronicler proves himself an independent thinker with clear and very distinctive opinions on the basic issues of Israel’s religion and history. His uniqueness becomes most apparent when we consider the book’s relationship to the Bible and biblical tradition. Chronicles anchors itself firmly in that tradition and takes the essentials of biblical thought for granted; these essentials include the beliefs that there is one God, who created and rules the world, that God is present in His world, overseeing it by means of divine providence and judging it in divine justice, and that God maintains a special relationship with the people of Israel. Yet the shared axioms of biblical faith are just that for the Chronicler: as axioms, they serve as points of departure for the creation of a particular world-view, a world-view that presents significant variations on the fundamental themes of religion — the nature of divine justice and providence, the relationship between Israel and its God or its land, and so on. Where does the Chronistic world-view come from? As was already mentioned, the book’s first source may be identified as the biblical tradition and corpus in its entirety. Again and again in our discussion, we have seen evidence of the strong influence that the biblical literary tradition had on Chronicles. It is as though the Bible provided the Chronicler with the building blocks of his stylistic, literary structure. 1 However, the building blocks of a literary tradition should not be confused with conceptual substance. From the Bible’s many and diverse literary works, the Chronicler selected those elements that would conform or add to the presentation of his own world-view. At times, he made use of a literary or stylistic tradition while either ignoring or altering its conceptual content. For this reason, it may be said that the connection between Chronicles and earlier biblical texts proceeds, not from the sources’ impact on the Chronicler, 1. The “mosaic style” is a prominent feature of the Chronicler’s style and has been emphasized by Willi in his study of Chronicles; see above, p. 58, n. 197.

395

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 396 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

396

Epilogue

but from the Chronicler’s own outlook, which led him to draw from these texts and integrate them into his world-view. There is no doubt that the books that provided the Chronicler’s source material — primarily Samuel–Kings 2 — left the strongest mark on Chronicles, a mark that is felt in points of similarity and in points of disagreement. At times, we can only understand Chronicles against the background of Samuel–Kings. Yet all the books of the Bible contributed, to a greater or lesser extent, to the spiritual world of Chronicles. We are unable to assess or compare their individual influences, since the Chronicler does not emphasize aspects of the religious experience that he considers selfevident — aspects that frequently testify to the tenets of biblical thought in general — and it is therefore difficult to identify the sources of these axiomatic elements. Nevertheless, it would seem that the Chronicler’s most important biblical influences apart from the Former Prophets were the Pentateuch, with its various strata, the Prophetic books, in particular Ezekiel and Isaiah, and the Psalms. Anything that appears in Chronicles and cannot be found in a source text is considered “new,” an “innovation” on the Chronicler’s part. However, we must ask whether this “new” element might not also incorporate components and sources which may be uncovered. One such component is the spiritual and social reality of the Chronicler’s time. Because few other sources of testimony to his period exist, we know little of this reality and are therefore in danger of arguing in circles when we attempt to ascertain the relationship between the book and the period in which it was written. Perhaps one criterion will prove sound: the principle of continuity. Our discussion has often shown that concepts or views expressed in Chronicles may reappear in later writings, such as apocryphal and rabbinic literature. 3 In certain instances, we can even uncover the historical development from biblical thought via Chronicles towards post-biblical thought. 4 Even if there is some doubt as to whether the ideas in Chronicles reflect the writer’s creative outlook and represent his per2. On the Chronicler’s sources, see also above pp. 6ff. 3. This phenomenon may be found, to varying degrees of emphasis, in the case of broad concepts and individual details alike. For example, we see the continuity of a fundamental concept in the question of the relationship between God and Israel: rather than describing an “election” at a particular moment in history, Chronicles perceives of a timeless bond that was created with, or even before, the world (see above, pp. 91ff.). Continuity of detail may be seen in the Chronicler’s deliberate, polemical avoidance of the term “God of heaven” — a phenomenon which also appears in recensions of apocryphal books (see above, p. 21, n. 46). 4. An outstanding example is the distinctive development of the doctrine of retribution and, in particular, the aspect of warning; see, in detail, above, pp. 144ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 397 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Epilogue

397

sonal contribution to this development, they may in any event be regarded as representative of the thinking of his period, in its entirety or in part. 5 We should take another source into account, although our ability to uncover this source must remain limited. The age-old ideas and traditions that existed in Israelite society without ever being expressed in biblical books may be termed “apocryphal biblical traditions.” These “apocrypha” can only be discerned as meagre allusions that survived within the existing biblical traditions. Tensions or contradictions between Chronistic views and biblical tradition may sometimes result from the Chronicler’s adoption of an early idea which was displaced by the dominant outlook as biblical religion developed. 6 Finally, in addition to biblical sources, apocryphal biblical traditions, and contemporary influences, there is the personality of the writer, who took all the material at his disposal and fused it into a work of his own creation. Through his efforts, the various conceptual components acted upon one another until they were reintegrated into a whole, new ideological structure. The result of this distinctive integration is a new account of Israel’s history moulded by the Chronicler’s fundamental principles, beliefs, and outlook. A few subjects present a consistent expression of the writer’s principles, to the point where his writing may be termed a “systematization of history”: the depiction of history in keeping with a system — in this case, a religious system. Even when the Chronicler’s version is not fully consistent or systematic, we are quite able to discern the influence his ideas had on the description of historical events and their causes or explanations. 7 The 5. External, non-Israelite influences of various types and origins would come under this heading of “contemporary ideas.” However, as far as we can tell, no traces of external influence, whether positive — in the form of the adoption of certain elements — or negative — in the form of a polemic — may be found in Chronicles. The book should therefore be considered the result of internal Israelite developments. 6. This phenomenon may be illustrated by the Chronicler’s position on the bond between the people and the land, which comprises the question of conquest and settlement (see above, pp. 292ff.). When it comes to this question, the Chronicler differs significantly from the standard biblical view and presents an alternative approach to Israel’s history. It would seem that his concept is based on ancient traditions, which may also appear in some form in Genesis. This entire matter demands further investigation. 7. Should we therefore describe the Chronicler as a tendentious “forger” or “fabricator” of historical data, as critical scholarship of the book often does? It seems to me that such an assessment is fundamentally mistaken. The Chronicler describes events as he understands them to have happened and he is guided, as Bickerman has aptly claimed, by his own principle of historical probability (Ezra to Maccabees, p. 22). As far as the writer is concerned, his account therefore presents the past “as it really was” and represents a revision of prior historiography.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 398 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

398

Epilogue

fact that the Chronistic account of history is subordinate to the writer’s basic presuppositions and views leads us to question the nature of the book itself: can it still be defined as work of history and an example of biblical historiography? Should it be placed in a different literary category? 8 A work is not defined as historiography on the grounds of its reliability or the type of sources that went into its creation; the first criteria must be the writer’s intention to write history and his awareness of his role as an historian. The book under discussion here does not contain an explicit declaration of intent, nor can we tell if its name, “Chronicles,” was provided by the writer himself or appended in the course of the book’s transmission. We must therefore ascertain its purpose by indirect means, including the book’s subject, 9 contents, method, and literary character. Chronicles is designed as a description of Israel’s history from its beginnings, that is, from the creation of humanity, until the first moments of national revival after the destruction of the Temple and conquest of Judah. The book’s narrative follows in the footsteps of previous historical books, primarily Samuel–Kings; like them, it fits historical details into a chronological framework and repeatedly indicates its sources or authorities. Yet the Chronicler also reveals his historical purpose and awareness of his identity as an historian by other means which have not received sufficient emphasis. 10 The book of Chronicles presents many items of realia from the kingdom of Judah during the First Commonwealth. It contains extensive information concerning administration, the military, the economy, and building enterprises, in addition to the history of cultic institutions. These data do not appear as incidental remarks introducing or complementing discussions of other matters; they are included for their own sake and represent an organic part of the historical narrative. 11 We see most clearly 8. For the various views concerning the nature of Chronicles, see Willi, Auslegung, pp. 48–66. 9. See also Willi, Auslegung, pp. 9–12. 10. Bickerman and, following him, Smith have stressed Chronicles’ historiographical nature and compared the book to Greek and Hellenistic historiography of the period (Bickerman, Ezra to Maccabees, pp. 22–29; Smith, Parties and Politics, pp. 149, 169– 170). Their comparison has a number of shortcomings: (a) it deals primarily with the book’s most general features, such as its desire to explain history; (b) it attaches great importance to the unity of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah and draws some farreaching conclusions on the basis of this assumption — an assumption that, in our opinion, is historically incorrect; (c) it depicts the Chronicler’s purpose and historical method in a limited, one-sided manner. Nevertheless, their analysis is very important in that it defines Chronicles as a work of historiography first and foremost, and the comparison with Greek and Hellenistic historiography merits more thorough investigation. 11. See in detail above, pp. 334ff.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 399 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Epilogue

399

that the information is extensive, variegated, and widely distributed, referring to a number of different topics, when we compare it to the data from what is considered historiography par excellence — the books of Samuel– Kings. These books contain little information concerning the areas mentioned above; in the case of certain periods, no details whatever are provided. The difference is not merely one of quantity and certainly cannot be explained by the availability or lack of appropriate source material — if the availability of sources served as criterion, we should expect the reverse. It would seem that the writer of Kings had at his disposal authentic material such as royal annals and Temple records, not to mention literary works of various types; 12 it is rather more doubtful that all these sources were available to the Chronicler. The real explanation apparently lies in the fact that the Deuteronomist provided little administrative or political detail and at times only hinted at such matters, whereas the Chronicler deliberately covered a number of areas and topics in the political life of the kingdom. The difference between Chronicles and Samuel–Kings is therefore one of methodology: the Chronicler considers this information an essential part of any historical account and consciously extends his description so as to provide the fullest possible picture of history. Another aspect of the book’s identity as an historical work concerns its introductory first nine chapters, 13 which have been defined as an “introduction” on the basis of their form and content. In terms of content, the chapters present the background to the historical narrative, answering the following two questions: who were the people whose history will be recounted, and where did they live? These ethnic and geographic data are required in order to understand the historical events, and this sort of introduction is therefore necessary to any historical work. In terms of form, the chapters represent an introduction in that they do not recount history as such. Whereas the rest of the book describes historical events in chronological sequence, the introductory information is presented in a static fashion — all the data occupy the same plane, and even the few events mentioned in the introduction serve as explanations or elaborations of a static network of facts. The writer’s selection of literary genres represents an additional aspect of his method. Prophetical stories — primarily stories about prophets active in the northern kingdom, but also stories involving Judean prophets

12. For a summary of the sources of Kings, see Montgomery, Kings, pp. 30ff.; Gray, Kings, pp. 14ff. Jepsen has written a detailed monograph on the subject; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd ed. (Halle, 1956). 13. See above, pp. 218, 275.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 400 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

400

Epilogue

— are an important literary feature of the book of Kings. 14 The stories are not all of a kind; they may differ, for example, in their connection to the historical background or in their inclusion of historical data, 15 but, in any event, they do not constitute historiography. The book of Chronicles does not contain prophetical stories. Its omission of stories about northern prophets may be explained by the book’s method of referring to Israel only indirectly and therefore briefly; 16 however, no such explanation can hold true when it comes to the kingdom of Judah, and yet the stories about Judean prophets are omitted, with only their gist recorded briefly. 17 Two additional points emphasize the deliberate nature of this phenomenon. Chronicles attaches great importance to the role of prophets — in particular, non-classical prophets — in Israel’s history, and it is these figures who provide the actual or potential heroes of prophetical stories. 18 The Chronicler takes their names from the books of Samuel–Kings, inserting them into his historical narrative and mentioning additional names, but he does not describe these prophets as the heroes of stories. Moreover, one of the prophet’s functions in Chronicles is the recording of history, and the reader is often referred to prophetic works. 19 In other words: Chronicles exhibits a strong awareness of the relationship between prophets and history and yet does not make prophets the heroes of history. The Chronicler consciously confined himself to writing an historical work and refrained from including literary genres that did not fit into this category. 20

14. Stories relating to the northern kingdom are included in 1 Kings 13:17–2 Kings 10; those concerning Judah appear in 2 Kings 19–20. 15. For example, see Gray, Kings, pp. 29–31, and A. Rofé, “The Classification of the Prophetical Stories,” JBL, 89 (1970), 427–440. 16. See above, pp. 241ff. 17. Compare 2 Kings 19–20 to 2 Chronicles 32. The prophet Isaiah is only mentioned in the narrative alongside Hezekiah, once in verse 20 — “Then Hezekiah the king and Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, prayed because of this and cried to heaven” — and once in verse 32, as recorder of the king’s deeds. 18. See above, pp. 141–143. 19. Thirteen works of this kind are mentioned, including “the Chronicles of Samuel the seer,” “the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet,” and “the Chronicles of Gad the seer” (1 Chr 29:29). See 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32; 33:19. There is no biblical parallel to this idea that the books of the Bible were written by prophets; however, the Rabbis did hold a similar view — also with regard to historiographical books. As we read in the well-known baraita, “Who wrote the Scriptures? . . . Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the book of Judges and Ruth . . . Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the book of Kings and Lamentations . . .” (Bava Batra 14b–15a). 20. It may be that not only the subject matter, but also literary considerations led the Chronicler to omit narrative material appearing in Samuel–Kings — for example, the story about Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kings 3:16–28).

spread is 6 points long

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 401 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Epilogue

401

The book of Chronicles is therefore a work of history. Its principal model was provided by earlier biblical historiography, but Chronicles deviates from this model not only in content and outlook, but also in form. It also differs from the historical writings of the Persian period, such as Ezra–Nehemiah, 21 and may thus be viewed as a unique stratum of biblical historiography. We have delineated two different and seemingly contradictory directions taken by the Chronicler: he moulds history in keeping with presuppositions demanded by his world-view and may even be said to “systematize” history; yet, he consciously creates an historical work, attempting to provide the broadest possible picture of Israel’s past within a historiographical framework. The tension between these two directions gives rise to a problem that has preoccupied scholarship on the subject of Chronicles: the book’s reliability as an historical source. 22 Doubts concerning the historical reliability of Chronicles were expressed already at the beginning of the Renaissance. 23 Early biblical criticism took an extreme position on the subject, maintaining that Chronicles has no value as historical testimony to the period it describes and can only shed light on the period in which it was written. 24 Reaction to this assertion took an equally extreme form in the twentieth century, when scholars claimed that Chronicles should be considered an absolutely reliable source. 25 Such unequivocal, all-embracing claims appear inadvisable to 21. Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah differ considerably in their literary method, and the entire subject merits a separate investigation. 22. See also above, p. 346. The development of research on this particular topic constitutes an interesting chapter in biblical scholarship, and I hope to examine it on a future occasion. 23. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (YaSHaR of Candia) expressed his view of Chronicles in general while discussing the question of angels: “Rather, [1 Chr 21:16a] is an interpretation, not an account, added by the writer, who lived long after the first destruction . . . That is why [Chronicles] is part of the Writings, and you know how narratives from the time after the destruction vary, in much the same way that no two modern historiographers can seem to agree on anything that happened” (Maz5ref laÓokhmah 29b, published in Ta’alumot ˙okhmah, edited by Samuel Ashkenazi in Basel, 1629). The role of Delmedigo in the study of Chronicles is discussed at length by Willi (Auslegung, pp. 23ff.). 24. This opinion was formulated unequivocally by de Wette and reasserted by Wellhausen in his Prolegomena (pp. 222ff.). 25. The advocates of this view were Albright in the United States and Benjamin Mazar in Israel, and their position can also be seen in their students’ work. See W. F. Albright, “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshafat,” in the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, ed. S. Lieberman (New York, 1950), pp. 61–74; B. Maisler (Mazar), “Early Israelite Historiography” (Heb.), Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1947 ( Jerusalem, 1952), I, pp. 359–361.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 402 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

402

Epilogue

me, as we are not really in a position to confirm or refute an opinion of this sort. Our approach should be based, not on a general assertion, but on a method of deliberation comprising two elements: the consideration of “historical probability” and the nature, methodology, and purposes of the book of Chronicles. Our examination has made it abundantly clear that the Chronicler’s account of history is subordinate to a particular world-view. Nevertheless, we have also seen that he often created a historical picture by reworking, that is, by reformulating existing source material. It may then be that Chronistic passages with no biblical parallel were not complete fabrications, or creations ex nihilo, but likewise contained data found in sources at the Chronicler’s disposal. This possibility adds another dimension to the problem of historical reliability, for we are unable to assess the nature of such sources, the way in which the Chronicler dealt with them, or the degree to which they (originally and in their reworked version) reflect the social and political reality of the Second Commonwealth. In the absence of adequate critical means of assessing the data found in Chronicles, we must rely primarily on the criterion of “historical probability”: is the information — or, at least, the information at its factual core — probable or improbable from an historical point of view? Using this criterion, we may compare two new, similar pieces of information provided by the Chronicler, one concerning Manasseh (“Therefore the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks and bound him with fetters of bronze and brought him to Babylon” — 2 Chr 33:11) and one concerning Jehoiakim (“Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon” — 2 Chr 36:6). We conclude that the former is probable in the light of both Israelite and non-Israelite evidence from the time of Manasseh and may therefore be historically accurate, 26 whereas the latter is not probable and apparently stems from the Chronicler’s distinctive approach to the period of destruction. 27 Thus, we must examine each case individually when it comes to the question of historical reliability. Our prospects of arriving at a convincing conclusion depends on two factors: knowing enough about the historical reality in its various aspects to weigh the question of probability and knowing enough about the Chronicler’s purposes and methods to understand how his presentation of history came to be formed. 26. For example, see M. Elath, “On the Political Status of Judah after Sennacherib’s Conquest of Lachish” (Heb.), Yediot (Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society), 31 (1967), 151–155. 27. See above, pp. 286–287.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 403 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Epilogue

403

Let us turn, in conclusion, to the most basic question of all: the very existence of Chronicles. Why did the Chronicler feel a need to retell the story of a period in the distant past, a period that had already been described at great length? What impelled him to write his book? 28 The answer to this question may be found in all that has been said up to now, but this is the main point: alongside the development of Israel’s religion, together with the process of self-understanding, we find a constant process of elevating the past. History is no longer a collection of events and data to be understood against their own specific background; it becomes a compelling standard or norm with eternal validity for the people and its religion. Early in Israel’s history, the first historical stages, particularly the wilderness period, were already considered formative; these ancient historical periods established the foundations of national existence — the binding patterns of belief, law, and institutions 29 — upon which Israel’s life in the future would be based. During the Second Commonwealth, this formative period was extended and came to include what might be termed, rather generally, the First Commonwealth — the period whose history, institutions, beliefs, and experiences later generations saw reflected in a biblical corpus of divine origin, inspired by the “holy spirit.” 30 The past was increasingly sanctified by later generations; yet, at the same time, there developed a gap, which steadily increased, between their own complex reality and the reality they found described in the Bible. A gap of this sort, the inevitable result of historical development, undermines the stability of both realities: first, early history becomes incomprehensible to the present generation, and the norms of a so-called formative period are in fact no longer appropriate to contemporary needs and aspirations; second, present-day institutions, religious tenets, and ritual observance are severed from their origins and lose their authoritative source of legitimation. The book of Chronicles represents a powerful effort to bridge this gap. By reformulating Israel’s history in its formative period, the Chronicler gives a new significance to the two components of Israelite life: the past is explained so that its institutions and religious principles become relevant to the present, and the ways of the present are legitimized anew by being connected to the prime source of authority — the formative period in the people’s past.

28. See Welch, Chronicler, p. 1. 29. See above, pp. 181–182. 30. See Yoma 9b: “After the later prophets Haggai, Zecharia and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.”

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 404 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

404

Epilogue

Thus, Chronicles is a comprehensive expression of the perpetual need to renew and revitalize the religion of Israel. It makes an extremely important attempt to affirm the meaningfulness of contemporary life without severing ties between the present and the sources of the past; in fact, it strengthens the bond between past and present and proclaims the continuity of Israel’s faith and history.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 405 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Bibliographical Abbreviations The following is a list of works that appear frequently and are cited in abbreviated form; it does not include all bibliographical references provided in the book. Aharoni, “The Districts of Israel and Judah”: Aharoni, Y. “The Districts of Israel and Judah” (Hebrew), in The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Hebrew), ed. A. Malamat, Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 110–131. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: Allen, L. C. The Greek Chronicles, SVT xxv, xxvii, Leiden, 1974. Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State”: Alt, A. “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson, Oxford, 1966, pp. 171–237. Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias”: Alt, A. “Die Rolle Samarias bei der Enstehung des Judentums,” in Kleine Schriften, Vol. II, Munich, 1953, pp. 316–337. Batten, Ezra–Nehemiah: Batten, L. W. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, ICC, Edinburgh, 1913. Baumgartner, Lexikon: Baumgartner, W. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd. rev. ed., Leiden, 1974. Bentzen, Introduction: Bentzen, A. Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. 2 vols., Denmark, 1952. Bickerman, Ezra to Maccabees: Bickerman, E. J. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Postbiblical Judaism, New York, 1962. Bowman, Ezra–Nehemiah: Bowman, R. A. The Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah, IB. New York, 1954. Bright, History: Bright, J. A History of Israel, London, 1960. Brunet, “Le Chroniste”: Brunet, A. M. “Le Chroniste et ses sources,” RB 60 (1953), 481–508; RB, 61 (1954), 349–386. Burney, Kings: Burney, C. F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford, 1903. Caquot, “Messianisme”: Caquot, A. “Peut-on Parler de Messianisme dans 1’Oeuvre du Chroniste?” RThP 99 (1966), 110–120. Clements, God and Temple: Clements, R. E. God and Temple, Oxford, 1965. Curtis, Chronicles: Curtis, E. L., and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles, ICC, Edinburgh, 1910. Danell, Israel: Danell, G. A. Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament, Upsala, 1946. Driver, Introduction: Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 9th ed., Edinburgh, 1913.

405

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 406 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

406

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Driver, Samuel: Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1913. EB: Encyclopaedia Biblica (Hebrew), ed. E. L. Sukenik and U. M. D. Cassuto, 7 vols., Jerusalem, 1950–1976. Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô: Ehrlich, A. B. Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô (Die Schrift nach ihrem Wortlaut): Scholien und kritische Bemerkungen zu den heiligen Schriften der Hebräer (Hebrew), 3 vols., Berlin, 1899–1901; rpt. New York, 1969. Ehrlich, Randglossen: Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 7 vols. Leipzig, 1908–1914. Eichrodt, Theology: Eichrodt, W. Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1961, 1967. Eissfeldt, Introduction: Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. R. Ackroyd, Oxford, 1965. R. Elijah of Vilna, Commentary: Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman (the Gaon) of Vilna. Commentary to Chronicles found in Sefer ªAderet ªEliyahu: Commentary to the Prophets and Writings (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1940/41. Elmslie, Chronicles (CB): Elmslie, W. A. L. The Books of Chronicles, CB., Cambridge, 1916. Elmslie, Chronicles (IB): Elmslie, W. A. L. The First and Second Books of Chronicles, IB., New York, 1954. ET: Talmudic Encyclopedia (Hebrew), ed. M. Berlin and S. J. Zevin, Vols. I–XV, Jerusalem, 1951–1976. Freedman, “The Chronicler’s Purpose”: Freedman, D. N. “The Chronicler’s Purpose,” CBQ 23 (1961), 436–442. Galling, Chronik: Galling, K. Die Bücher der Chronic, Esra–Nehemia, ATD, Göttingen, 1954. Gesenius: Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 28th ed. Trans. A. E. Cowley, Oxford, 1910. Graf, Geschichtlichen Bücher: Graf, K. H. Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Leipzig, 1866. Gray, Kings: Gray, J. I and II Kings, OTL, London, 1964. Hänel-Rothstein, Chronik: Rothstein, J. W., and J. Hänel. Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik, KAT, Leipzig, 1927. Hertzberg, Samuel: Hertzberg, H. W. I and II Samuel. OTL, trans. J. S. Bowden, London, 1964. Japhet, “Ezra–Nehemiah”: Japhet, S. “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968), 330–371. Johnson, Biblical Genealogies: Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, Cambridge, 1969. Kaufmann, Religion: Kaufmann, Y. The History of the Israelite Religion (Hebrew), 4 vols., Jerusalem, 1936/37–1955/56. Kittel, Chronik: Kittel, R. Die Bücher der Chronik, GHAT, Göttingen, 1902. Köhler-Baumgartner: Köhler, L., and W. Baumgartner, Lexikon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1953. Köhler, Theology: Köhler, L. Old Testament Theology, trans. A. S. Todd, London, 1957.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 407 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Bibliographical Abbreviations

407

Kropat, Die Syntax der Chronik: Kropat, A. Die Syntax der Autors der Chronik, BZAW 16, Giessen, 1909. Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll: Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQIsaa), Leiden, 1974. Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled”: Liver, J. “So All Israel Was Enrolled by Genealogies; and These Are Written in the Book of the Kings of Israel” (Hebrew), in dwdl z[: David Ben-Gurion Festschrift (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1964, pp.486–499. Liver, Chapters: Liver, J. Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1968/69. Loewenstamm, The Tradition of the Exodus: Loewenstamm, S. E. The Tradition of the Exodus in its Development (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1965. Malamat, History: Malamat, A. Part I: “Origins and the Formative Period,” in A History of the Jewish People, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson, Cambridge, Mass., 1976. Mekilta: Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, trans. J. Lauterbach. 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1933. Meyer, Enstehung des Judentums: Meyer, E. Die Entstehung des Judentums, Halle, 1896. Milgrom, Studies: Milgrom, J. Studies in Levitical Terminology, I, Berkeley, 1970. Montgomery, Kings: Montgomery, J. A., and H. S. Gehman. The Books of Kings, ICC, Edinburgh, 1951. Mosis, Untersuchungen: Mosis, R. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, Freiburg, 1973. Myers, Chronicles: Myers, J. M. I Chronicles, II Chronicles, AB, New York, 1965. North, “The Chronicler”: North, R. “Theology of the Chronicler,” JB 82 (1963), 369–381. Noth, Studien: Noth, M. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Tübingen, 1943. Noth, Könige: Noth, M. Könige, BK, Neukirchen, 1968. Noth, Stämme Israels: Noth, M. Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels, BWANT IV, No. 1, Stuttgart, 1930. Perush Talmid R. Saadya Gaon (Commentary by Pupil of R. Saadya Gaon): Ein Kommentar zur Chronik aus dem 10ten Jarhundert (Hebrew), ed. R. Kirchheim, Frankfurt am M., 1874. Pfeiffer, Introduction: Pfeiffer, R. H. Introduction to the Old Testament, New York, 1941. P1öger, Theocracy: Plöger, O. Theocracy and Eschatology, trans. S. Rudman, Oxford, 1968. Poulssen, König und Tempel: Poulssen, N. König und Tempel in Glaubenszeugnis des Alten Testament, Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien, 3 Stuttgart, 1967. Pseudo-Rashi, Commentary: Commentary on Chronicles attributed to Rashi (R. Solomon b. Isaac), found in editions of the Rabbinic Bible (twlwdg twarqm). (See L. Zunz, Toldoth Raschi (Heb.), trans. and ed. S. Bloch [Warsaw, 1862], p. 32b.) Von Rad, Geschichtsbild: Von Rad, G. Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, Stuttgart, 1930. Von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg: Von Rad, G. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, Zurich, 1951. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy: Von Rad, G. Studies in Deuteronomy, Studies in Biblical Theology 9, trans. D. Stalker, London, 1953.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 408 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

408

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Von Rad, Theology: Von Rad, G. Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols., Edinburgh and London, 1962, 1965. Rehm, Untersuchungen: Rehm, M. Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Königsbuecher und der Chronik, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 13, Münster, 1937. Rofé, Angels: Rofé, A. The Belief in Angels in the Bible and in Early Israel (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1979. Rowley, Election: Rowley, H. H. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, London, 1950. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia: Rudolph, W. Esra und Nehemia, HAT, Tübingen, 1949. Rudolph, Chronik: Rudolph, W. Chronikbücher, HAT, Tübingen, 1955. Sanda, Könige: Sanda, A. Die Bücher der Könige, EHAT, 2 vols., Münster, 1911, 1912. Sarna, “Psalm 89”: Sarna, N. M. “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, pp. 29–46. Schechter, Rabbinic Theology: Schechter, S. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 2nd ed., New York, 1961. Schürer, Geschichte: Schürer, E. Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 3 vols., Leipzig, 1901–1911. Seeligmann, “Historic Reality”: Seeligmann, I. L. “From Historic Reality to Historiosophic Conception in the Bible” (Hebrew), in: P’raqim: Yearbook of the Schocken Institute, Vol. II ( Jerusalem, 1969–1974), pp. 273–313. Segal, “Ezra–Nehemiah”: Segal, M. H. “The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah” (Hebrew), Tarbiz5 14 (1942/43), 81–103. Smith, Samuel: Smith, H. P. The Books of Samuel, ICC, Edinburgh, 1899. Smith, Parties and Politics: Smith, M. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York, 1971. Tadmor, History: Tadmor, H. Part II: “The Period of the First Temple, the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration,” in: A History of the Jewish People, ed. H. H. BenSasson, Cambridge, Mass., 1976. Thesaurus: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible, ed. S. E. Loewenstamm, J. Blau, and M. Z. Kaddari, 3 vols., Jerusalem, 1957–1967. Urbach, The Sages: Urbach, E. E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem, 1975. Vol. I. De Vaux, Ancient Israel: De Vaux, R. Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, trans. J. McHugh, London, 1961. Weinfeld, Former Prophets: Weinfeld, M. Studies in the Books of the Former Prophets and their Redaction (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1969/70 (Internal publication). Weinfeld, Deuteronomy: Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, 1972. Weiser, Introduction: Weiser, A. Introduction to the Old Testament, trans. D. M. Barton, London, 1961. Welch, Chronicler: Welch, A. C. The Work of the Chronicler, London, 1939. Wellhausen, Prolegomena: Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies, Edinburgh, 1885. Welten, Chronik: Welten, P. Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 409 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Bibliographical Abbreviations

409

De Wette, Beiträge: De Wette, W. M. L. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Halle, 1806. Wilda, “Das Königsbild”: Wilda, G. “Das Königsbild des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes,” Diss. Bonn, 1959. Willi, Auslegung: Willi, Th. Die Chronik als Auslegung, FRLANT 106, Göttingen, 1972. Yadin, “Army Reserves of David and Solomon”: Yadin, Y. “The Army Reserves of David and Solomon” (Hebrew), in: The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times (Hebrew), ed. J. Liver, Jerusalem, 1973, pp. 350–361. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: Zimmerii, W. Ezekiel, 2 vols., trans. R. E. Clements, Philadelphia, 1979–1983. Zunz, Vorträge: Zunz, L. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Frankfurt am M., 1892.

AB: The Anchor Bible, New York. AJSL: American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, Chicago. ANET: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1955. ASTI: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem, Leiden. ATANT: Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Zurich. ATD: Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Göttingen. BA: Biblical Archeologist, New Haven. BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven. BBB: Bonner Biblische Beiträge, Bonn. BDB: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Oxford, 1907. BH: Biblica Hebraica, 7th ed., ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart, 1962. BJRL: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester. BK: Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn. BWANT: Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart. BZAW: Beihefte zur ZAW, Giessen, Berlin. CB: Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Cambridge. CBQ: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington, D.C. EHAT: Exegetische Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Münster. EJ: Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols., Jerusalem, 1972. EvTh: Evangelische Theologie, Munich. FRLANT: Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Göttingen. GHAT: Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, Göttingen. HAT: Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Tübingen. HThR: Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, Mass. IB: The Interpreter’s Bible, New York, Nashville. ICC: The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh. IDB: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols., New York, Nashville, 1962.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 410 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

410

Bibliographical Abbreviations

JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven. JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia. JBR: The Journal of Bible and Religion, Boston. JPOS: Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, Jerusalem. KAT: Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Leipzig. MVAG: Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig. NEB: The New English Bible, Oxford, Cambridge, 1970. NJPS: New Translation of the Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society, 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1967–1982. OTL: Old Testament Library, London. PJ: Palästinajahrbuch, Berlin. RB: Revue biblique, Paris. RHR: Revue de l’histoire des religions, Paris. RSV: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, London and New York, 1952. RThP: Revue de théologie et de philosophie, Lausanne. SBL: Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia. StTh: Studia Theologica, Lund, Aarhus. SVT: Supplement to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden. TB: Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, English translation of ThWNT by G. W. Bromiley, 10 vols., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965–1978. TDOT: Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translation of ThWAT by J. T. Willis, 4 vols., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1974–1980. ThLZ: Theologische Literaturzeitung, Berlin. ThWAT: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, 5 vols., Stuttgart, 1970–1986. ThWNT: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, 9 vols., Stuttgart, 1933–1972. TJ: Talmud Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud). TZ: Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel. VT: Vetus Testamentum, Leiden. WC: The Westminster Commentaries, London. ZAW: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen, Berlin. ZDPV: Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Stuttgart. ZThK: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen.

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 411 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture Genesis 1 93 1:7 70 2–3 30, 119 2:4–25 31 2:4–3:24 30 9:6 145 9:15 83 12:7 302 13:14–17 302 13:16 74 14:4–5 132 15:7 302 15:8 31 15:16 124, 302 15:18 88 15:18–21 302 15:19–21 302 16:18 83 18–19 119 18:19 204 21:17 47 22:11 47 24:3 20 24:7 20 26:3 302 26:5 75 28:4 302 28:13 302 28:14 74 32:2 101 34 231 35:23–26 219, 277 38 271–272, 295–296 38:2 272 38:7 104 38:12 272 41:50–52 294 43:3 146 43:23 14 47:4–6 265 48:5 250 49 350

Genesis (cont.) 49:1–27 219 49:4 251 49:5–7 231 49:8 349 49:10 349 49:15 265 50:2 200 50:20 105 50:23 293 Exodus 1:6 293–294 1:8 265 3–4 12 3:6 11 3:8 302, 304 3:13 11–12 3:15 11–12 3:16 11–12 3:17 302 4:5 11–12 6 12 6:25 72 8:10 34 9:14 34 9:30 30, 32 12:7 189 12:8–9 190 12:13 189 12:21–23 189 12:43 270 12:44 270 12:48–49 270 12:51 300 13:3 14, 300 13:5 302 13:17 294 13:18 300 14:13–14 101, 201 14:15 94 14:24–25 99 14:25 103

411

Exodus (cont.) 15:11 34 15:17 48 15:24 202 15:25 193 15:26 193 16:2 202 16:6 300 16:10 52, 59 17:2 202 17:3 300 18:11 34 19:21 146 19:23 146 20:3 159 20:5 130 20:5–6 122 20:13 145 20:18 59 20:22 47 21:12 130, 145 21:19 200 21:29 146 22:19 22, 159 22:20 22, 264 23:9 264 23:15 300 23:18 189 23:24 159 23:32 88–89 23:33 159 24:3–8 83 24:10 59 24:16–17 52 25:8 48 25:12 190 25:12–14 190 25:12–15 190 25:15 190 25:16 78 25:21–22 78 25:22 51 25:26–27 190

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 412 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

412 Exodus (cont.) 25:31 183 27:4–7 190 27:21 78 30:4 190 30:6 78 30:8 63 30:14 180 31:2–5 379 31:18 77 32:15 77 33:1 300 33:3 302 34:6–7 122 34:12 88–89, 159 34:14 159 34:15 88–89 34:18 300 34:25 189 34:27 88 34:28 79 34:29 77 35:30–33 379 37:5 190 40:20 78, 190 40:34 51–52, 58 40:34–35 51, 58 40:35 51–52, 58 40:38 52 Leviticus 2:13 354 3:2 189 3:2–5 189 9:6 51 9:23 51 9:23–24 58 9:24 58–59 10:13 270 17:8 270 19:23 181 19:34 264 19:37 194 20:8 194 20:10 145 20:22 194 22:31 194 24:22 270 25:18 194 25:38 301

Index of Scripture Numbers 1 220 1:3 180 1:18 180 2 220 3:5 72 3:6 72 3:9 72 3:12 72 3:15 72 4:3 180 4:4–15 190 4:6 191 4:10 191 4:12 191 4:23 180 7:9 190 7:48 295 7:89 51 8:2–4 183 9:10 190 10:14–28 220 10:22 295 10:34 52 10:35–36 61 11:1–3 202 11:4–34 202 11:20 202 12:7 310 13:21 279 14:11 202 14:14 52 14:22–24 202 14:26–29 202 14:37 202 14:42 48, 60 14:44 60 15:15–16 270 16:19 51 16:40 63 17:7 51 18 354 18:1–7 345 18:19 81,354 20:14–21 299 21:30 356 25:7 230 25:12–13 355 26 220 26:5–51 219 26:20 295

Numbers (cont.) 26:29 273, 293 32:22 306 Deuteronomy 1:1 211 1:10–11 13 1:11 11, 13 1:21 13, 101 1:30 103 1:35 304 2:4–5 299 2:5 37 2:9 37, 299 2:12 305 2:19 37, 299 2:30 287 3:18 249 3:20 249, 305 3:21–22 302 3:22 103 3:24 31 3:25 304 4:1 11, 13 4:1–2 304 4:2 304 4:5–6 194 4:19 37 4:19–20 68 4:21 302, 304 4:22 304 4:24 311 4:28 38 4:32–39 68 4:35 33, 37 4:36 47 4:37 75 4:39 33 4:39–40 195 5:1 194, 211 5:2 88 5:2–3 83 5:3 13 5:10 76 5:31–33 194 6:2–3 194 6:3 11, 13 6:4 33, 205 6:10 302 6:10–11 302 6:17 194, 304

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 413 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 6:17–18 304 6:18 302, 304 6:20 156 6:23 302 6:24 194 7:1 181, 302 7:1–2 302 7:1–6 273 7:2 88–89 7:7–8 75 7:9 76 7:9–11 195 7:22–24 302 8:1 302 8:2 152 8:3 13 8:6 194, 304 8:7 304 8:7–10 302 8:10 304 8:11 156 8:12 203 8:12–17 203 8:16 13 9:3 302 9:4–6 302 9:5 119, 196, 302 9:6 304 9:7 300 9:9 77 9:11 77 9:15 77 9:26 31 10:1–5 77 10:8 72, 186 10:12 194, 205 10:12–13 156, 195 10:14–15 68 10:15 75 10:19 264 10:20 205 10:22 13 11:1 205 11:6 211 11:13 205 11:17 304 11:22 205 12 305 12:1 11, 13, 181 12:5 71, 182

Deuteronomy (cont.) 12:8 171 12:9 305 12:11 63, 71 12:14 63, 71 12:18 63 12:21 63, 71 12:26 63 13 141 13:2–6 141 13:3–4 152 15:10 194 15:18 194 16:1–7 189 16:7 190 16:18 182 17:8–9 192 17:9 192 17:15 182 17:20 202 18:5 72 18:10 167 18:10–12 145 21:5 72 23:4–9 273 23:14 48 24:16 130 25:19 305 26:7 11, 13 26:15 47, 65 26:16 194 27:3 11, 13 29:24 11, 13 29:25 37 30:6 195, 205 30:16 205 30:20 205 31:8 101 31:16 163 32:15 203 33:26 343 Joshua 1:13 1:15 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:17

305 249, 305 77 236 77 77 77 77

413 Joshua (cont.) 4:2 236 4:10 77 4:11 77 6:9 77 6:11 77 6:12 77 7:16 350 8:1 102 9:6 88–89 9:7 88–89 9:11 89 9:15 89 9:16 89 10:11 99 10:14 103 10:25 101 10:42 103 11:16 275 11:22 282 12:1 275 13 219, 280 13:1–6 280 13:2–5 280 13:3 279 13:6 304 13:15–31 236 14:1–5 236 14:3–4 237 14:4 237 15–19 236 15:21 336 15:26–32 222 15:54 326 16:4 237 16:10 304 17:1 237 17:14 237 17:17 237 18:1 280 18:3 11–12 18:7 237 19:2–8 222, 275 21 220, 236, 275, 277, 281 21:1 72 21:3 281 21:4 310 21:20–29 277 21:21 281 21:23 281

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 414 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

414 Joshua (cont.) 21:43–44 280, 305 21:44–45 305 22:4 305 22:5 157 22:18–19 132 22:22 132 22:29–31 132 23:1 305 23:3 103 23:10 103 23:13 304 23:15 304 23:16 304 24 83 Judges 1:2 237 1:3 237 1:17 237 1:27 237 1:27–28 265 1:30 237, 265 1:31 237 1:33 237, 265 1:34 237 2:2 89 2:12 11–12 2:22 152 4:6 237 4:6–7 237 4:10 237 5:8 230 5:14 237 5:15 237 5:15–16 237 5:17 237 5:31 76 6:22 31 6:35 237 7:23 237 7:24 237 8:22–23 312 8:23 312 9:23–25 103 10:1 237 10:6 158 11:13 300 11:15–27 299 11:24 36, 304–305 17:7 237

Index of Scripture Judges (cont.) 17:9 237 18 237 19–21 237 19:1 237 20:1 212 20:11 212 20:34 212 1 Samuel 2:2 34 2:27 141 4:3–5 77 4:9–10 99 4:12 238 5:1 212 5:4 77 6:3 77 6:5 23 6:7 23 6:9 23 6:18 77 6:20 30 7:1 77 7:3 197 7:13 282 8:5–7 312 8:7 313 8:19–20 313 9:1–10:16 347 9:16 316, 347 9:21 238 10:1 316 10:18–19 312–313 10:20–24 350 10:21 350 10:24 347 11:1 89 11:3 282 11:7 282 11:8 228, 237, 239 12:12 312–313 12:22 313 13:9–10 344 13:13–14 316 13:14 316, 318 13:19 282 13:19–22 337 14:15 99 14:49–52 239 14:52 337

1 Samuel (cont.) 15:4 237, 239 15:26 316 15:27–28 228 15:28 318 16 347–348, 352, 366 16:8 347 16:9 347 16:10 347 16:12–13 106 16:13 316 16:14 316 17 366 17:7 230 17:41 230 17:52 237, 239 18:16 237, 239 20:8 87 22:5 141 23:18 83 23:23 238 24:20 318 25:30 316 26:6 274 28:16–19 316 28:17 318 28:19 104 29–30 317 29:2–4 317 30:26 238 31 104 31:6 105 31:7 105 2 Samuel 2:1–4 239 2:2 320 2:4 237, 320 2:8–11 320 2:9 238–239 2:10–11 237 2:13 274 3 320 3:2–5 366 3:10 318 3:12 318 3:13 88 3:21 88 5:1 212 5:1–3 227, 323, 366–367 5:2 317–318

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 415 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

415

Index of Scripture 2 Samuel (cont.) 5:3 79, 83–84, 89, 322 5:4–5 227 5:6 214, 227 5:6–9 366 5:9 340, 366 5:10 19 5:11 112, 340 5:11–12 366 5:13–16 366 5:17 213 5:17–25 366 6 23, 279, 345, 367 6:1 337 6:1–16 177 6:2 19, 56, 76, 214, 279, 330 6:3 76 6:5 212, 215 6:6 76 6:6–10 370 6:7 76 6:10 76–77 6:11 76 6:12 30, 76, 214, 326 6:12–17 370 6:13 76, 345 6:14 345 6:14–18 344 6:15 76, 212, 215, 326 6:17 28, 76, 177, 345 6:17–18 177, 179 6:17–20 339 6:18 19, 326, 345–346 6:19 215, 326 6:20 365 6:21 316, 347 7 17–18, 352, 356, 358, 360–361, 370, 385 7:1 305 7:2 59–60, 76 7:2–5 59 7:3 28 7:5 60 7:5–7 370 7:6 297 7:7 212–213 7:8 19, 316 7:11 305 7:12 359, 386 7:12–13 351

2 Samuel (cont.) 7:13–14 362 7:14 321–322, 361–362, 386–387 7:14–15 356 7:14–16 359 7:15 318 7:16 309–310, 314 7:18 17, 32 7:19 17, 32 7:20 17 7:22 17, 30–35 7:23 297 7:25 30, 360 7:26 19, 55 7:27 19 7:28 17 7:29 17 8 280 8:2 341 8:2–6 366 8:6–8 341 8:8 380 8:9–10 366 8:10 366 8:11–12 328, 341 8:15 212 8:16 337 8:16–18 335 8:19 80 10 280, 366 10:1–11:1 366 10:2 112 10:15–16 112 10:17 212 11–12 207 11–21 365 11:1 280, 366 11:2–12:25 366 11:3 272 12 141 12:26 368 12:26–31 280, 366 12:30 341 13 352 15–18 352 15:8 158 15:19 272 15:27 281 15:36 281 17:25 272

2 Samuel (cont.) 18:19 281 19:12 237 19:41–20 239 19:41–44 237 20 237 20:4 337 20:6–7 337 20:23 337 20:23–26 335 21 116 21:1 365 21:2 237, 239 21:6 347 21:15–17 365–366 21:18–21 366 22–23 366 22:32 34 23 227, 240 23:5 80, 356 23:8 227, 337 23:8–9 366 23:8–39 240 23:9–11 366 23:13–23 366 23:17 68 23:36 238 23:37 240, 274 23:39 240, 272, 274 24 108–109, 116, 148, 369 24:1 114–117, 227, 237, 369 24:1–9 215 24:2 212 24:3 148, 369 24:8 215 24:9 215, 237 24:10 116 24:14 149 24:16 109–112 24:17 109, 111, 117 24:25 66, 344–345 28:5–16 351 1 Kings 1–2 352, 365, 373 1:9 352 1:25 352 1:32 367 1:35 237, 352

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 416 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

416 1 Kings (cont.) 2:1–9 373 2:3 184, 324, 360 2:3–4 359 2:4 195, 360 2:6 376 2:9 376 2:10–12 366 2:12 104 2:15 318, 352 2:26 77 2:32 237 2:46 104 3–5 374 3:1 273, 378 3:2–3 171 3:4 178, 215, 344–345 3:6 195–196, 360, 372 3:7–15 376 3:8–9 74 3:9 377 3:10 17 3:12–13 376 3:14 372 3:15 17, 178, 344 3:16–28 376, 400 3:28 376 4 337 4:1–6 377 4:2–6 335 4:4 176 4:7 335, 341 4:7–19 239, 334, 377 4:20 227, 237 4:21 341 4:27 341 4:27–28 377 4:29–34 376 4:29–35 376 4:31 376 5:1 379 5:3 305, 371 5:4 305 5:5 227, 237, 351 5:6 373 5:7 376–377 5:12 376 5:13 261, 377–378 5:13–14 262, 379 5:13–16 262 5:15 262–263

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 5:15–16 262–263, 378 5:17 371, 379 5:17–19 53 5:20–22 261 6–7 176 6:1 297, 340, 342 7 340 7:1 378 7:1–12 340 7:2 378 7:6 378 7:7 378 7:8 273, 378 7:9–12 378 7:13–14 379 7:14 379 7:40 379 7:46 341, 379–380 7:48–50 379 7:51 328 8 351 8:1 76, 178 8:1–61 50 8:2 212 8:3 76 8:4 76, 179 8:5 63, 345 8:6 76 8:7 76 8:7–8 190 8:8 76 8:9 60, 76, 78, 81, 297 8:10 52, 57–58 8:10–11 51, 57 8:11 51–52, 58 8:13 48–50, 60 8:14 212, 346 8:15 16 8:15–21 52 8:16 52, 70–71, 73, 212, 297, 347 8:16–28 376 8:17 16, 52, 360 8:18 52, 360 8:19–20 351 8:20 16 8:20–21 297 8:21 76, 78, 81, 297– 298 8:22 212

1 Kings (cont.) 8:23 16, 33, 195 8:24 360 8:24–26 359 8:25 16, 359–360 8:26 360 8:27 48, 53, 67 8:29 71 8:30 48, 53, 65 8:31 53 8:32 65 8:33 53, 200 8:34 53, 65, 303 8:36 53, 65 8:38 53 8:38–39 200 8:39 53, 65, 201 8:40 205, 303 8:43 42, 53, 56, 65, 205 8:44 70–71 8:44–45 53 8:44–53 52 8:45 65 8:46 382 8:47–48 197 8:48 70, 195, 303 8:48–49 53 8:49 65 8:50 291, 298 8:50–53 298 8:51 297–298 8:51–53 74 8:52 298 8:53 297–298 8:54 66 8:54–55 346 8:55–61 57 8:56 305 8:60 33, 36, 42 8:61 195–196 8:62 212 8:62–63 213 8:62–64 63, 345 8:64 344 8:65 212, 279 8:66 375 9:1 310, 328, 378 9:2 57 9:2–9 65 9:3 52, 62, 71, 375

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 417 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 9:4 195, 360 9:4–5 359 9:5 353, 360 9:6 23, 125 9:6–9 284 9:7 52, 303 9:9 11, 23, 297 9:10 328, 378 9:10–10:29 378 9:11 374 9:15 340, 378 9:16 273, 281 9:17–19 340, 378 9:19 328 9:20 263 9:20–21 261, 263 9:20–22 262 9:21 262, 378 9:22 262 9:24 378 9:25 176, 182, 344 9:26–28 341 10:1 151 10:4 376 10:6–8 376 10:9 74, 309 10:10–11 341 10:14–15 341 10:16 230 10:23–24 376 10:25 341 10:28–29 341 11 82, 163, 228–229, 373 11:1–12:24 228 11:4 195–196, 381 11:6 160, 372 11:7 39 11:7–8 161 11:11–12 318 11:11–13 122 11:12 228, 356 11:13 228, 356 11:14 116 11:23 116 11:26 228 11:26–40 242 11:28 239 11:29 243 11:29–39 141

1 Kings (cont.) 11:31 228, 318, 352 11:31–32 228 11:32 228, 375 11:33 161, 184, 372 11:34 347, 356 11:34–36 228 11:38 228, 247, 319, 352, 368 11:41 376–377 11:42 212 12 229, 242, 315 12:1 212 12:3 213 12:15 127, 243, 315 12:16 212–213 12:17 214, 229 12:20 227–229, 315 12:21 212, 229 12:21–24 229 12:22–24 141 12:23 214, 229 12:24 249 12:25 247 12:26–28 243 13 141 13:17 400 14 141 14:6 135 14:8 195, 318 14:9 160 14:13 123, 212 14:15 304 14:15–16 124 14:18 212 14:20 123 14:21 53, 70–71, 212 14:22 160, 172 14:22–24 46, 161, 163 14:23 171 14:23–24 171 14:25 45 14:25–26 284 14:25–28 132 14:26 176 14:26–28 46 15:1 106, 135, 315 15:1–2 135 15:3 135, 160–161, 163, 195–196, 372, 382 15:3–5 135, 363

417 1 Kings (cont.) 15:6 135 15:7 135 15:7–8 135 15:9 106 15:11 68, 158, 161, 368, 372 15:11–12 39 15:12–13 161 15:14 158, 171, 195– 196 15:17–22 153 15:18 176 15:19 79 15:22 340 15:25 106 15:26 160 15:27 212, 239 15:29–30 123 15:30 160 15:33 212 15:34 160 16:1–4 141–142 16:7 135 16:10 135 16:12 123, 135 16:12–13 135 16:13 123 16:16 212 16:19 160 16:30–33 161 17 82, 141–142 18:18 161 18:24 66 18:38 66 20:34 89, 341 21 207 21:25–26 161 22 141, 150 22:2 244 22:2–38 244 22:5 18 22:6 17 22:13 112 22:17 212 22:34 137 22:41 245 22:41–49 245 22:43 158, 161 22:43–44 171 22:44 245

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 418 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

418 1 Kings (cont.) 22:46–47 245 22:47 161 22:49 245 22:53 161 2 Kings 2 141–142 3:4 341 3:4–27 102 3:22–23 102 5:2 282–283 6:23 282–283 8:5–6 161 8:18 160–161, 244 8:19 127, 354 8:21 326 8:22 46 8:26–27 244 8:27 160–161 8:29 137 9:21–28 246 10 400 10:13–14 363 10:28–29 160 10:31 160, 184, 195 10:32–33 284 11 162, 331–332, 344 11:3 333 11:4 79–80, 176, 331– 333 11:4–12 323, 332 11:5–8 332 11:6 333 11:7 176 11:8 332 11:9 332 11:10 332 11:11 176, 332 11:12 323, 332 11:13 332 11:13–18 332 11:14 332 11:17 84–86, 332 11:18 161, 183, 332 11:18–20 332 11:19 332 11:20 332 12:2 136, 161 12:2–3 171 12:4–5 176

Index of Scripture 2 Kings (cont.) 12:4–16 136, 164, 176 12:5 164 12:5–17 342 12:6 164 12:8 164 12:11 340 12:12 164 12:13–14 164 12:16 176 12:17–18 136 12:18 46, 104, 176, 284 12:20–21 136 12:21 212, 274 13 163 13:3 284 13:3–6 121 13:22–23 121 13:23 82 14:3 161, 372 14:3–4 171 14:6 129, 184–186, 274 14:8 113, 329 14:8–14 141, 245 14:10 245 14:14 176 14:19 141 14:22 340 14:25 141, 279 14:26–27 122 15:2 135 15:3 158, 161 15:3–4 171 15:5 336 15:7–8 135 15:25 240 15:29 222, 232, 240, 284, 291 15:34 158, 161 15:34–35 171 15:35 176, 340 16:2 158, 160, 372 16:3–4 162, 166, 171 16:4 171 16:5 104, 240 16:5–6 284 16:7 113 16:8 176 16:10–11 176 16:12–13 176 16:12–16 344

2 Kings (cont.) 16:13–15 162 16:15 176 16:17–18 176 17 247, 255–257, 299 17:2 124, 160 17:6 255, 284, 291 17:7 125, 299 17:7–18 291 17:7–23 123 17:10 170 17:13 139, 184, 186 17:13–14 147 17:20 256 17:20–23 256 17:24 255 17:27 256 17:28 196 17:29 255 17:29–34 255 17:33 256 17:34 193 17:37 193 18:3 158, 161, 368, 372 18:4 170 18:5–6 125 18:5–8 121 18:8 341 18:11 255, 284, 291 18:12 82 18:13 284, 290 18:13–19:37 290, 330 18:15–16 176 18:17 167 18:28–35 39 18:35 39 18:36 331 19 108 19–20 20, 141, 400 19:2–20 346 19:9 113 19:14 113 19:15 20 19:15–19 36 19:18 38 19:19 30, 42 19:31 20 19:34 356 19:35 108 19:37 387 20:3 196

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 419 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

419

Index of Scripture 2 Kings (cont.) 20:6 356 20:12–19 152 20:16 20 20:16–18 152 20:19 153 20:20 329, 340 21:2 160 21:2–3 171 21:2–9 167 21:3 167, 171 21:3–9 162 21:4 53 21:5 162 21:6 167 21:7 53, 70–71, 162, 167, 212, 375 21:8 81, 303 21:10–15 284, 299 21:11 168 21:11–14 124 21:11–15 124 21:15 124, 299 21:20 160 21:20–21 39 21:22 11–12 22:2 161, 372 22:3 68 22:3–7 85, 176, 342 22:5–6 340 22:8 185 22:8–13 85 22:12 288 22:13 260 22:14 141 22:14–20 85 22:15 16 22:16–20 284 22:17 23 22:18 16 22:19 28 23 163 23:1–3 85 23:2 259 23:2–3 83 23:3 84, 195 23:4 258 23:4–7 162 23:4–20 85, 168 23:6 258 23:7 258

2 Kings (cont.) 23:8 170, 233 23:9 258 23:10–12 162 23:11 258 23:12 258 23:13 258 23:15 170, 233 23:19 233 23:20 258 23:21 85, 184, 260, 343 23:21–23 85, 343 23:22 292 23:22–23 343 23:24 39, 162 23:25 125, 161, 195 23:26 125 23:26–27 124, 284 23:27 256 23:31 284 23:31–34 285 23:32 160 23:34 286, 289 23:35 285–286 23:37 68, 160 24:1 286 24:1–2 286 24:2 341 24:3 124 24:3–4 284, 286 24:4 207 24:5 168 24:5–6 289 24:7 279, 285–286 24:8–17 285 24:9 160 24:13 176, 288 24:14–16 287 24:18 285 24:18–19 288 24:19 68, 160 25:5–7 290 25:9–10 288 25:11 288 25:13–17 176, 288 25:17 288 25:18 176 25:18–19 288 25:19 288 25:20 288 25:21 285, 288

2 Kings (cont.) 25:22 288 25:22–26 285 25:27–30 285, 290 Isaiah 1:2 43 1:4 158 2:6 159 2:6–22 195 2:7–8 203 2:8 159 2:20 203 3:15 18 3:17 18 3:18 18 5:1 76 5:19 119 6:11 18 7:4 195, 202 7:9 143 7:14 18 7:20 141 8:7 18 9:5–6 324 9:7 18 10:7–9 195 10:12–16 202 11:1 349, 368 11:1–5 324 11:1–9 349 11:10 349 11:16 300 14:1 269 14:1–2 269 14:2 269 14:24 116 16:5 324 17:8 203 19:14 20 21:16 18 23:3 279 24–27 389 27:9 170 27:12 279 28:2 18 28:14–15 202 28:16 18 28:22 18 29:13 196 30:1–2 202

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 420 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

420 Isaiah (cont.) 30:2–3 202 30:15 18, 195, 202 30:16–17 202 31:1 195, 202 31:7 203 33:5 48 36–37 290 37–39 20 37:16 20 37:22 202 37:32 20 37:36 109 38:3 196 39:5 20 40–66 268 40:22 49 41:8 75–76, 205, 304 42:19 113 44:26 113 45:5 33 45:6 33 45:14 33, 35 45:18 33 45:21 33 45:22 33–34 46:7 190 46:9 35 49:14 18 49:22 18 50:5 18, 32 52:4 18 55:3 357, 386, 388 56 268 56–66 268 56:3 267, 269 56:3–8 268 56:6 268 56:7 64, 268 57:15 48 60:13 61 61:1 18 61:11 18 63–64 287 63:7 357–358 66:1 61–62 Jeremiah 2:5–13 159 2:11 168 2:13 158

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 2:18 279 5:7 168 7:25 287 7:26 287 8:22 200 10:6 34 10:7 34 10:10 30 11:7 146 12:1–3 119 12:7 310 15:4 124 16:14–15 300–301 18:18 193 23:7–8 300–301 25:4–5 138 25:30 65 26:3–5 138 26:5 287 29:19 138, 287 30:9 158 31:15–21 256 31:16 143 31:29–30 126 31:31 91 31:36 94 33:17 360 33:17–26 80, 356 33:18 360 33:21 80, 356 34 84, 90 34:10 87 34:15 84 34:18 84 35:15 138 35:19 360 44:4 138 46:3 230 52:11 290 52:28–30 287 Ezekiel 3:16–21 138 3:18 146 3:18–19 138 3:20 138, 146 5:7 31 7:26 193 8 163 10–11 51

Ezekiel (cont.) 13:9 221 16:8 87 18 122, 126 18:2 126 18:3 128 18:13 127 18:20 126 19 287 20:7 125 20:34 301 20:37 87 23:24 230 26:8 230 27:17 282–283 28:2–10 202 29:3 202 29:9 202 33:1–6 138 33:1–9 138 33:8 146 33:8–9 138 33:10–20 122, 126 33:18–19 127 34:25 89 37:26 89 38:4 230 39:9 230 40:2 282–283 43:2 51 43:5 51 44:27 188 47:18 282–283 47:22–23 269 Hosea 2:16–17 301 3:1 159 4:1 195 4:12 159 6:6 195 8:13–14 202 14:4 203 Joel 2:27

48

Amos 3:2 69 5:5 231 6:14 279

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 421 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture Amos (cont.) 8:14 231 9:7–10 69 Jonah 1:9 4:6

21 30

Micah 5:1 388 5:2 349 7:18 34 Zephaniah 1:4–5 162 3:4 193 Haggai 1:13 113 2:11 193 Zechariah 1:4 138 2:13 65 3 114 3:1 115–116 4:10 143, 201 7:7–12 138 11:6 143 Malachi 2:7 113, 193 2:9 193 2:13 208 2:14 208 Psalms 2:4 47–48 5:12 230 7:10 196 10:17 197 11:2 196 11:4 47 14:1 119 17:7 358 18:10 47 18:32 34 24:5 x 25:6 358 25:10 81 26:8 65

Psalms (cont.) 32:11 196 33:11 116 35:2 230 35:10 34 36:10 196 37 119 37:33 133 38:16 31 39:12 265, 324 40:6 34 41:4 198 42–83 29 43:4 29 45:8 29 51:16 29 53:1 119 59:6 30, 32 64:10 196 65:2 200 65:7 44 67:7 29 68:5 65 68:9 29 68:16 49 71:19 34 72:18 30, 32 76:2 65 77:14 34 78 348–350 78:8 197 78:55–72 348 78:67–69 349 78:70–71 349 78:80 347 80:5 30 80:20 30 84:9 30 84:12 30 86:8 22, 24, 34 86:12 31 87:3 24 87:6 221 89 356–357, 386, 388 89:3 357 89:3–4 357 89:7–9 34 89:28 80 89:29–30 357 89:30–33 356 89:36–37 357

421 Psalms (cont.) 89:49 358 90:1 24 90:17 31 91:4 230 94:15 196 95:3 34 96 299 96:1–13 298 96:4 23 96:4–5 33 96:8 56 97:10 76 97:11 196 99:5 61 99:9 61 103:18 81 104 43 105 298–299, 303 105:1 56 105:1–15 298 105:3 56 105:6 74 105:8 80 105:8–11 303 105:12 303 105:14 303 106:1 298 106:47 55 106:47–48 298 106:48 16 110:1 61 113 67 115:3 66 115:4 38 119:7 196 119:19 324 131 202 132 32, 48, 62, 356, 359, 386, 388 132:5 62 132:7 61 132:8 60 132:8–10 32, 62 132:10 357 132:11 356 132:12 356 132:13–14 62 135:5 34 135:15 38 136:2 24

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 422 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

422 Psalms (cont.) 139:21–22 205 141 43 148 43 148:6 81 Job 1–2 114 11:13 197 33:3 196 Proverbs 1:1 376 6:16–17 202 10:1 376 15:29 200 16:5 202 Proverbs (cont.) 16:19 202 25:1 376 28:9 200 30:13 202 Song of Songs 1:1 376 Ecclesiastes 1:1 376 2:26 119 3:3 164 3:13 119 Lamentations 2:1 61 3:32 357 5:7 126 Esther 1:2 311 2:5 236 3:4 116 8:17 269 9:20–32 269 9:27 269 Daniel 1:1–2 286 2:11 25 2:18 21 2:19 21

Index of Scripture Daniel (cont.) 2:20 25 2:25 267 2:37 21 2:44 21 2:47 25 3:26 25 3:32 25 4:37 21 5:4 25 5:10 63 5:13 267 5:23 21, 25 6:14 267 7:10 311 8:25 116 9:3 31 9:9 31 9:15 31, 300 11:14 116 11:17 116 11:37 11, 14–15 12:13 116 Ezra 1:1 45 1:2 21 1:3 24, 38 1:5 235 1:11 267 2:1–70 235 3:10 367 4 256 4:1 235, 256, 266 4:2 256 4:6–6:18 256 4:9–10 256 4:14 355 5:11 21 5:12 21 6:9 21 6:10 21 6:16 267 6:19 266 6:20 266–268 6:21 266–267 7:10 197 7:12 21 7:12–10:44 15 7:21 21 7:23 21

Ezra (cont.) 7:27 11, 14 7:27–9:5 15 8:20 221 8:28 11, 14 8:35 266 9–10 273 9:1 235 9:1–2 208 9:2 268 9:4 267 9:10–11 186 9:10–12 208 9:11 268 9:12 304 9:14 208 9:15 90 10:3 88–90, 208 10:5 90, 235 10:6 267 10:7 266 10:8 267 10:9 235 10:11 11, 14–15 10:16 266 10:18–44 15 10:25 235 Nehemiah 1:3 260 1:4 21 1:5 21, 76 2:4 21 2:13 164 2:20 21 3:35 164 4:1 164 4:9 24 5:13 24 5:15 24 6:12 24 7:2 24 7:6–72 235 7:8–24 235 7:8–9:2 15 7:25 235 7:25–38 235 7:26 235 7:30 235 7:31 235 7:39–60 235

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 423 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture Nehemiah (cont.) 8:6 24, 30 9 146, 391 9:7 24, 30 9:9–13 300 9:9–21 300 9:10 147 9:16 146 9:26 147 9:26–30 138 9:28 133 9:29–30 147 9:30 268 10:1–8 224 10:28 267–268 10:28–30 267 10:31 273 10:32 81, 268 10:39 310 10:40 235 11:3 235 11:3–19 234 11:7 235 11:11 344 11:25 235 11:36 235 12:1–7 224 12:12–21 224 12:24 365, 367 12:36 365, 367 12:43 24 12:45–46 367 12:46 24 13:14 358 13:23–27 273 13:25 24 13:26 24 1 Chronicles 1 7, 275 1–9 7, 217–218, 275 2 272 2–4 276 2–6 275 2–8 216 2–9 220 2:1 218 2:1–2 219, 277 2:3 91, 104, 271–272 2:3–4:43 219 2:4 271

1 Chronicles (cont.) 2:6 272 2:10 296 2:13–15 272 2:13–17 272 2:16 272 2:17 271 2:19–24 273 2:20 296 2:21–23 296 2:23 276 2:34–35 271 2:34–41 272 2:42 271 2:42–46 275–276 2:46 273 2:47 271 2:48 273 2:50–52 276 2:50–55 275 2:52 276 3:1–8 366 3:2 273 3:5 272 3:9 272 3:17–24 364 3:22 272 3:23 272 3:24 272 4:10 15, 23, 92, 104, 200 4:11–12 275 4:12 276 4:18 271 4:21 295–296 4:21–23 275 4:22 271 4:28–33 275 4:31 218, 222 4:39–43 275–276 4:41 151, 218, 220–221 4:41–43 292 4:43 151 5:1–2 250–251 5:1–26 219 5:2 350 5:3–7 220–221 5:3–10 276 5:4–6 248 5:6 291, 308 5:8–9 276

423 1 Chronicles (cont.) 5:8–10 275 5:8–19 222 5:10 150–151, 218, 276, 292, 316, 319 5:11 275–276 5:11–13 276 5:11–17 220, 222 5:16 276 5:17 218, 248 5:18–22 150, 276, 292 5:20 23, 102, 200 5:22 23, 153, 222, 291 5:23 276 5:23–24 276 5:23–26 275 5:25 11, 16, 23, 39, 158, 163, 169, 291 5:25–26 150, 276 5:26 15, 45, 220, 222, 232, 240, 244, 291, 308 5:27–6:66 276 6 276–277 6:10 165 6:15 288 6:31 62, 179 6:32 178 6:35 281 6:48 22 6:49 22, 185–186 6:50–53 281 6:54 281–282 6:54–81 220, 275, 281 6:64 282 6:65 277 6:66–73 277 6:74–77 277 6:78–80 277 7:1–11 219 7:1–13 276 7:2 222 7:6–11 276 7:12 219 7:12–13 219 7:14 271, 293 7:14–15 273 7:14–29 219, 276 7:15 273 7:16 273 7:20 294

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 424 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

424 1 Chronicles (cont.) 7:21 275–276, 292, 295 7:21–22 121 7:24 276, 295 7:25–27 295 7:26–27 295 7:27 296 7:28–29 275–276 7:30–40 219, 277 8 219 8:1–40 276 8:3 296 8:6 276 8:6–8 275 8:8 271 8:12 276 8:12–13 275 8:13 276, 292 8:33 39, 316 8:33–40 319 8:34 39 9 7 9:1 216, 219, 235, 288 9:2 234–235 9:3 232, 234, 276 9:11 22, 344 9:13 22 9:17–23 58 9:19 101 9:20 367 9:22 367 9:26 22 9:27 22 9:29–32 175 9:39 39, 316 9:40 39 10 104, 217–218, 223, 315–317 10:1 47, 365 10:6 105 10:7 105 10:9 39 10:13 158 10:13–14 104, 131, 316 10:14 318 11 227 11–12 317 11:1 212 11:1–3 223, 323, 366– 367 11:1–47 317

Index of Scripture 1 Chronicles (cont.) 11:2 68, 316, 318 11:3 79, 318, 322, 352 11:4 214 11:4–6 150 11:4–7 366 11:8 340, 366 11:9 19 11:10 216, 227, 274, 318, 323 11:10–47 224, 367 11:11 338 11:11–25 366 11:17 352 11:19 68 11:26–47 240 11:38 274 11:39 274 11:41 274 11:46 272, 274 12 225 12:1 102, 316, 319, 338 12:1–22 226, 317 12:2 316, 338 12:4 338 12:8 267, 338 12:9 230 12:14 338 12:18 11, 68 12:19 316–317, 319 12:21–25 223 12:21–40 224 12:22 21–22, 101 12:23 226, 316, 318, 323 12:23–37 277 12:23–40 223, 225, 317, 322 12:24 224, 338 12:24–30 224 12:24–41 367 12:25 224, 230, 338 12:26 223 12:27–28 223 12:29 316 12:29–37 223 12:31 221 12:33 224, 338 12:34 230, 338 12:36 224 12:37 224, 338

1 Chronicles (cont.) 12:38 224–225, 276 12:39 196, 216 12:39–41 199 12:40 249 13 23, 177, 279, 367 13:1–5 215, 306, 330 13:2 68, 72, 150, 249, 260, 281–282 13:2–3 330 13:2–5 278 13:3 76, 316 13:4 330 13:5 22, 76, 216 13:6 19, 22, 56, 76, 214 13:6–13 370 13:7 22, 76 13:8 23–24, 212 13:9 76 13:10 23, 76, 104 13:12 22–24, 76 13:13 76 13:14 22, 24, 76, 104 13:15–16 342 14 26 14:1 112, 114, 340 14:2 68 14:2–3 366 14:4–8 366 14:8 213 14:8–16 150 14:9–17 366 14:10 23–24 14:11 23–24 14:14 23–24 14:15 23–24 14:16 23–24 14:18–20 150 15 175 15–16 279 15:1 22, 76 15:1–16:28 177 15:2 22, 70–71, 76, 186 15:3 76, 214 15:4 72 15:4–24 178 15:11–15 370 15:12 15, 72, 76 15:12–13 330 15:13 68, 186 15:14 15, 76

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 425 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture 1 Chronicles (cont.) 15:15 22, 76, 185–186, 190 15:16–25 199 15:23 76 15:24 22, 76 15:25 30, 76, 326 15:26 23, 76, 345 15:27 76–77, 345 15:28 76, 212 15:29 76, 316 16 175 16:1 22–24, 28, 76, 345 16:1–2 179 16:2 19, 345–346 16:4 15, 76–77, 178, 199 16:4–6 340 16:6 22, 76 16:8 56 16:8–36 298 16:10 56 16:13 74 16:14 68 16:15–17 80 16:15–18 303 16:21 303 16:22 298 16:25 23, 35–36 16:25–26 33 16:26 35, 38–39, 43 16:29 56 16:35 55 16:36 15–16 16:37 76, 178 16:37–38 340 16:38 179 16:39 172 16:39–40 111 16:40 185–186 16:41 221 16:42 22 17 17–18, 361 17:1 59–60, 76, 305 17:1–4 59 17:2 23–24, 28 17:3 22, 24 17:4 60, 371 17:5 297 17:6 68, 212 17:7 19, 68 17:9 68

1 Chronicles (cont.) 17:10 68, 305 17:11 386 17:13 321, 361 17:14 55, 309–311, 314, 386 17:16 17–18, 30, 32 17:17 17–18, 23–24, 30, 32 17:19 17 17:20 17, 23, 33–36 17:21 23, 68, 297 17:22 23, 68 17:24 19, 23, 55 17:25 19, 68 17:26 17, 23 17:27 17 18–20 280 18:2 341 18:2–6 366 18:3 308 18:5 308 18:6–8 341 18:8 380 18:9 308 18:9–10 366 18:10–11 341 18:11 328, 366 18:12–13 366 18:13 341 18:14 212–213 18:15 338 18:15–17 335 18:17 338 19:1–20:3 366 19:2 112, 114 19:4 329 19:13 68 19:16 112, 114 19:17 212 19:17–19 366 20:1 366 20:2 341 20:2–3 366 20:4–7 366 21 26, 108–109, 111– 112, 116, 369 21:1 114–115, 117, 227, 324, 369 21:1–5 215 21:1–22:1 177

425 1 Chronicles (cont.) 21:2 212, 278 21:3 148, 369 21:5 215 21:6 215, 369 21:7 23, 148 21:8 23–24, 26 21:12 109, 111 21:13 149 21:15 23, 109–112, 114 21:16 109, 111, 114, 401 21:17 23–24, 26, 68 21:18 109–111, 114 21:19 56 21:20 23, 109, 111, 114 21:26 66, 111, 345 21:26–22:1 112 21:27 109, 111, 114 21:28–30 110 21:29 172 21:30 109, 114 22–26 367 22:1 30, 32, 111, 369, 378 22:2 22, 180, 263, 265, 282–283, 378–379 22:2–4 180 22:2–26 177 22:4 379 22:5 54–55, 181, 324 22:5–11 55 22:6 15, 54 22:7 53, 68, 181 22:7–8 371 22:7–23:1 367 22:8 53, 207, 371 22:9 306, 373 22:9–10 322, 351, 361– 362, 373 22:10 53, 312, 321, 362 22:11 68 22:12 68, 137 22:12–13 158, 193, 325, 362 22:13 156–157 22:14 180, 379 22:14–16 324 22:15 180, 379 22:16 180

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 426 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

426 1 Chronicles (cont.) 22:17 328 22:17–19 180, 324, 330 22:18 68, 101, 306 22:19 30, 32, 54–55, 60, 68, 76, 197 22:28–29 177 23 180, 339, 367 23–26 326, 378 23–27 7, 175, 334 23:1 180 23:2 181, 326 23:3 180 23:4 180, 335 23:5 180, 365, 367 23:6 180, 326 23:6–24 175, 180 23:12 56 23:13 72 23:14 22 23:24 180 23:25 15, 68, 306 23:25–32 180 23:27 180 23:28 22 23:28–32 175 23:32 58 24 175 24:1–19 180, 340 24:3 181 24:3–6 327 24:19 15 24:20–31 180 24:31 327 25 175, 180 25:1 181, 186, 327, 365 25:2 186, 365 25:3 186, 365 25:4 180 25:5 22–23, 186, 365 25:6 22, 199 25:9–31 340 26:1 180 26:1–19 180 26:1–28 175 26:4–5 134 26:5 23 26:12 180 26:19 180 26:20 22 26:20–28 180

Index of Scripture 1 Chronicles (cont.) 26:26–27 328 26:26–28 320 26:28 292, 316, 319 26:29 335 26:29–32 180, 335 26:30 226, 276 26:31–32 226 26:32 22, 226, 276, 335 27 227 27:1–15 225–227, 334, 338 27:2–15 240 27:3 240 27:10 240 27:11 240 27:12 240 27:13 240 27:14 240 27:15 240 27:16 212 27:16–22 225, 277, 334 27:22 212 27:23–24 225 27:25–31 335, 341 27:32–34 335 28 350 28–29 367, 373 28:1 225, 334–335 28:2 60, 62, 68, 76 28:2–3 64 28:3 23, 54, 306, 371 28:4 15, 212, 216 28:4–5 73 28:4–6 70, 323, 348 28:5 309, 312, 350, 352, 373 28:6 55, 310, 321–322, 350, 373 28:6–7 361–362 28:7 193, 309, 312, 325, 362 28:7–9 157 28:8 68, 157–158, 214, 216, 304 28:8–9 325 28:9 196–197, 201, 204 28:9–10 362 28:10 32, 70, 350 28:11–18 181 28:11–19 180, 324

1 Chronicles (cont.) 28:12 22 28:12–19 378 28:13 181 28:15 183 28:18 76 28:19 181, 186, 365 28:20 29–30 28:21 22, 180, 324, 327 29 67 29:1 23, 30, 32, 70, 73, 324, 350 29:1–5 328 29:1–9 330 29:2 68, 379 29:2–5 379 29:2–9 324 29:3 68 29:6 180, 212, 225, 327, 334–335 29:6–9 328 29:7 22 29:7–8 329 29:9 196–198 29:10 15, 36, 43 29:10–12 67 29:11 43, 310 29:11–12 43 29:12 43–44 29:13 55, 68 29:14 44 29:14–15 324 29:15 265 29:16 44, 54, 68 29:17 68, 197–198, 201 29:18 11, 68 29:18–19 137, 199 29:19 157–158, 193, 196, 325 29:20 11, 13, 68 29:21–23 323 29:22 199, 312 29:22–24 352 29:23 59, 216, 309, 311, 373 29:24 315, 335–336, 352 29:24–25 373 29:25 104, 216, 373 29:26 216 29:26–28 366

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 427 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture 1 Chronicles (cont.) 29:28 289 29:29 191, 400 29:30 308 2 Chronicles 1:1 68, 104, 312 1:1–13 374 1:2 335 1:2–3 215 1:3 22, 172, 178, 373 1:3–5 172 1:4 22, 76 1:5 178, 373 1:6 345 1:7 23–24 1:7–12 376 1:8 23, 372 1:9 30, 32 1:9–10 74 1:10 68, 388 1:11 23, 68 1:12 377 1:13 172, 178 1:14 338 1:14–17 375, 378 1:16 338 1:16–17 341 1:17 338 1:18 54 2:1 310 2:2 262–263, 305 2:3 54 2:3–5 330 2:4 23, 33, 36, 68 2:4–6 63 2:5 23, 68, 374 2:5–6 373 2:6 67 2:7 379, 382 2:11 15, 43, 68, 74 2:12 310, 377 2:12–13 273 2:13 379 2:14 379 2:16 282 2:17 263, 265, 283 2:17–18 262–263, 378 3–4 175 3:1 297, 340, 369 3:1–2 297

2 Chronicles (cont.) 3:3 22, 24 4:7 183 4:11 22, 24 4:17 341, 380 4:19 22, 24 5:1 22, 24, 328 5:2 76 5:3 212 5:4 76 5:5 76, 179 5:6 63, 76, 345 5:7 76 5:8 76 5:8–9 190 5:9 76 5:10 60, 76, 78, 81, 297 5:11 57 5:11–14 57 5:12–13 175 5:13 57–58, 199 5:14 22, 24, 57–58 5:25–26 250 6 297 6:2 60 6:3 212, 346 6:4 15–16 6:5 53, 68, 212, 297 6:5–6 70, 73, 347 6:6 53, 68 6:7 15–16, 53 6:8 53 6:9 53 6:10 15–16, 53 6:11 76, 78, 81, 88, 297–298 6:12 212 6:14 15–16, 23, 33, 36, 196 6:16 15–16, 157, 325 6:16–17 361 6:17 15, 388 6:18 23, 48, 67 6:19 68 6:20 53 6:21 54, 65, 68 6:23 65 6:24 68, 200 6:25 54, 65, 68, 303 6:27 54, 65, 68 6:29 68

427 2 Chronicles (cont.) 6:29–30 200 6:30 65, 201 6:31 157, 205, 303 6:32 68 6:33 42, 56, 65, 205 6:34 53, 68, 70 6:35 65 6:36 382 6:37–38 197 6:38 53, 70, 303 6:39 65, 68 6:39–40 298 6:40 68, 298 6:41 30, 60, 76 6:41–42 32, 298, 388 6:41–43 62 6:42 30, 357–358 7:1 36, 58, 66, 346 7:1–2 58 7:1–3 57, 59, 63 7:2 63 7:3 58 7:4 345 7:4–5 63 7:4–6 213 7:5 22, 24, 345 7:5–6 175 7:6 214, 365, 367 7:7 63, 345 7:8 212–213, 279 7:10 375 7:11 310, 340, 378 7:12 62, 64, 70 7:12–16 71 7:12–22 65 7:13 68 7:13–14 65 7:14 56, 65, 68, 204 7:15 64 7:16 53, 62, 70 7:17 157 7:17–18 325, 361 7:18 89, 312, 353, 388 7:19 21, 23, 158, 193 7:19–22 284 7:20 53, 303 7:22 11, 21, 23, 157, 297 8–9 378 8:1 340, 378 8:2 374

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 428 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

428 2 Chronicles (cont.) 8:3 150, 342, 380 8:4–6 340, 378 8:5 338 8:6 338 8:7–9 262 8:8 262 8:11 76, 273, 340, 378 8:12 183 8:12–13 175 8:12–16 182 8:13 186 8:13–14 157, 182 8:14 22, 182, 185, 365, 367 8:14–15 175 8:14–16 339 8:15 185 8:16 182 8:17–18 341 9 217, 223 9:1 151 9:1–9 376 9:8 68, 74, 309, 312 9:9–10 341, 378 9:13–14 341 9:13–21 378 9:15–16 338 9:19 308 9:21 341 9:23 23 9:24 341 9:24–25 378 9:25 338 9:28 341 9:29 142–143, 191, 248, 377, 400 9:30 212 10 242–243, 297, 315 10–12 228 10–36 217, 227 10:1 213 10:1–11 127 10:2 248 10:3 213, 248 10:11 212 10:12 248 10:15 23–24, 27, 127, 243, 248, 315, 323 10:16 212–213 11 297

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 11–28 247 11:1 212, 312 11:2 22 11:3 213, 229, 252 11:4 248–249 11:5 341 11:5–12 133, 338 11:5–22 133 11:5–23 131 11:6–10 341 11:10 229 11:12 229–230, 338 11:13 216 11:13–14 229, 281–282 11:13–17 217 11:14 248 11:14–15 243 11:15 168 11:16 11, 13, 15, 197, 212, 216, 229, 242, 250, 258 11:17 132, 229, 375, 382 11:18–23 336 11:22 336 11:23 229, 259, 282, 336 12:1 132, 134, 157, 163, 203, 216, 312, 382 12:1–5 158 12:1–12 45 12:2 46, 131–132, 134, 151, 158, 163, 308, 382 12:4 134 12:5 46, 133, 140, 163 12:6 131, 133–134, 140, 163, 204, 217, 382 12:6–7 324 12:7 46, 131, 133, 163, 204 12:7–8 139 12:8 133 12:9 308 12:9–12 46 12:12 131–132, 134, 139, 157, 163, 204 12:13 53, 70, 212, 273 12:13–14 163 12:13–16 134

2 Chronicles (cont.) 12:14 135, 157, 163, 172, 197, 381 12:15 143, 191, 248, 400 13:1 248, 315 13:1–2 135, 382 13:2 247–248 13:2–20 243 13:3 247–248 13:3–20 315 13:4 216, 248, 252 13:4–12 242 13:5 15, 80, 242, 324, 354–355, 362 13:6 248 13:6–7 127, 242 13:7 241, 324 13:8 23, 243, 248, 309– 310, 312 13:8–9 168 13:9 23, 242 13:10 68, 382 13:10–11 135, 157, 175 13:10–12 131 13:11 68, 157, 163, 183, 249, 382 13:12 11, 23, 27, 101, 148, 242, 249, 330 13:13 248 13:13–20 99 13:14–15 200 13:15 23, 99, 107, 216, 248 13:16 23 13:17–19 100 13:17–20 130 13:18 11, 27, 131, 135, 249 13:19 135, 248, 277 13:20 27, 104, 106–107, 123, 248, 289 13:21 135, 382 13:22 400 13:22–23 135 14 153 14–15 230 14:1 135 14:2 68, 157–158, 381– 382 14:2–3 39

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 429 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 14:2–5 157, 343 14:3 158, 166, 173–174 14:3–5 342 14:4 11, 157–158, 173, 185, 230 14:5 166, 230 14:5–7 130 14:6 45, 149, 158, 230, 306 14:6–7 338 14:7 68, 131, 134, 157– 158, 230, 306, 330, 338 14:8 230, 338 14:8–14 99 14:9 47, 341 14:9–15 100–101, 151 14:10 100 14:11 56, 68, 153, 200, 324 14:11–12 200 14:11–14 130 14:12 99–100, 107 14:12–15 153 14:13 101, 278 14:14 100, 278 15:1 22, 143 15:2 36, 140, 156, 231, 251 15:3 185, 193 15:4 15 15:6 23, 143 15:7 139–140, 143 15:8 39, 140, 166, 183, 231, 382 15:8–9 343 15:8–15 157, 342 15:9 68, 231–232, 250, 258, 277 15:12 11, 157–158, 196–197 15:12–13 13 15:12–15 86 15:13 15, 88, 158 15:15 130–131, 140, 196–198, 306 15:16 39 15:16–17 157 15:17 135, 158, 172– 173, 196, 217

2 Chronicles (cont.) 15:18 22, 24 16–19 130 16:1 248, 315 16:1–6 243 16:1–7 151 16:2 308 16:2–3 200 16:3 79, 248, 315 16:4–7 339 16:5 248 16:5–6 153 16:6 248, 330, 340 16:7 68, 139, 143, 153, 200, 289, 308, 382 16:7–8 154, 200 16:7–9 130, 157 16:8 104, 131 16:9 143, 150, 196, 201 16:10 131, 141, 382 16:12 131, 158, 200, 289, 324, 382 16:12–13 200–201, 382 16:13 201 16:19 303 16:37–42 339 17:1 217 17:2 277, 336, 338 17:2–5 130 17:3 39, 104, 372 17:3–4 163, 169, 382 17:3–5 131 17:4 157–158 17:5 104 17:6 158, 166, 173, 204, 342 17:7 343 17:7–9 342 17:10 45, 308 17:10–19 130 17:11 341 17:12 338, 340 17:13 341 17:13–19 338 17:14–18 230 18 150, 243 18:1 244, 248 18:2 248 18:3 248, 315 18:3–34 244 18:4 249

429 2 Chronicles (cont.) 18:5 17–18, 23–24 18:7 248 18:8 248 18:12 112, 114, 248 18:13 68, 248 18:15 56 18:16 212 18:19 248 18:23 248 18:24 248 18:25 248 18:27 248 18:31 23, 27, 104, 131, 200–201 18:31–32 244 19:1–3 142 19:2 205, 244, 248–249, 382 19:2–3 139, 205, 244, 382 19:3 23, 39, 158, 197 19:4 11, 278, 342 19:5–11 336 19:6–7 207 19:6–11 330 19:7 36, 68 19:8 193, 217 19:9 196–197, 205 19:9–19 157 19:10 185, 192–193 20 67, 103 20:1 47, 342 20:1–29 99 20:1–30 130, 151 20:2 278 20:3 324 20:6 11, 23, 36, 44, 66– 67, 154, 308 20:7 68, 75–76, 205, 304 20:7–11 44 20:8 54 20:8–9 54, 300 20:9 54, 56 20:10–11 299 20:11 304–305 20:12 44, 68, 154, 200, 324 20:14 99, 143 20:15 23, 99, 101

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 430 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

430 2 Chronicles (cont.) 20:15–16 99 20:16 102, 278 20:17 27, 101, 201 20:19 15, 101 20:20 68, 141, 143, 278 20:21 101, 329 20:22 27, 99, 200 20:22–24 102 20:23 116 20:24 278 20:26 278 20:27 27 20:28 101 20:29 22, 28, 45, 103, 217, 308 20:29–30 154 20:30 68, 306 20:31–37 245 20:32 158, 381 20:32–33 135 20:33 11, 172–173, 197 20:34 248, 400 20:35 248, 382 20:35–37 131, 243, 245 20:37 139, 143, 248 21:2 217 21:2–3 336 21:4 217, 336, 363 21:5–6 381 21:6 135, 157, 163, 169, 212, 244, 248–249 21:7 80, 88–89, 127, 212, 354–355, 357– 358, 363 21:9 326 21:10 11, 46, 131 21:11 163, 172–173 21:12 142, 248 21:13 163, 173, 207, 216, 248–249, 315 21:13–15 201 21:15 107 21:16 45 21:16–17 151, 342 21:17 363 21:18 104, 107 21:18–19 289, 324 22:2 248 22:2–9 244 22:3 212, 248

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 22:3–4 163, 169, 249, 381 22:4 135, 157, 248 22:5 246, 248, 315 22:5–6 246 22:6 248 22:7 23, 212, 246, 248 22:8 246, 248, 363 22:9 196, 246, 248 22:10 212, 363 22:10–12 285 22:12 22, 24, 185 22:16–19 130 23 331, 344 23:1–2 332 23:1–3 79 23:1–11 323 23:2 217 23:3 22, 24, 80, 330, 332, 363 23:9 22, 24 23:11 323, 332 23:13 310, 323 23:16 68, 85 23:17 163 23:18 175, 185–186, 199, 367 23:18–19 183 24:2 135, 157, 172, 382 24:2–16 136 24:4 164 24:4–14 164 24:5 68 24:6–7 330 24:7 22, 39, 164 24:8 217 24:9 22 24:10 198 24:12 340 24:13 22 24:14 164–165 24:15–16 130 24:16 23, 55, 217 24:17 324 24:17–18 136, 382 24:17–19 131 24:17–27 136 24:18 11, 39, 165 24:19 136, 138–139, 147

2 Chronicles (cont.) 24:20 22–23, 133, 136, 140, 143, 156–158 24:21 136 24:21–22 131, 324 24:23 136 24:23–24 46, 104, 151 24:24 11, 131, 137, 157 24:24–25 137 24:25 131, 141 24:26 273–274 24:27 22 25:2 135, 157, 172, 196, 382 25:4 129, 185–186, 274 25:5 230 25:5–6 338 25:6 216 25:6–10 244 25:7 22, 216, 241, 251 25:7–8 139 25:7–9 143 25:7–10 131 25:8 23 25:9 22, 216 25:11–12 150 25:13 121, 244, 278 25:14 16, 23, 39, 141, 165, 246, 382 25:14–16 131 25:15 40, 140 25:15–16 143 25:16 23, 133, 140–141, 246, 324 25:17 113, 248, 315, 329 25:17–24 150, 244, 246 25:18 248 25:20 16, 23, 39, 246 25:21 248 25:23 248 25:24 22, 24 25:25 248 25:27 131 25:27–28 141 26:2 340 26:4 135, 158, 172, 382 26:5 23, 27, 143 26:6 338, 340 26:6–8 150, 342

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 431 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 26:6–15 130 26:7 23 26:8–10 341 26:9 338 26:9–10 340 26:10 341 26:11 230 26:11–13 338 26:14 230 26:14–15 338 26:16 55, 68, 203, 310, 382 26:16–20 131, 333 26:16–21 345 26:17–18 333 26:18 30, 32, 148, 345 26:19 333 26:19–20 107 26:20 104, 333 26:20–21 324, 382 26:22 400 27:2 55, 135, 158 27:3 340 27:3–4 338 27:3–6 130 27:4 340 27:5 150, 308, 341–342 27:6 68, 157 28:1 158, 372 28:1–4 135 28:1–5 246 28:2 39, 169 28:2–4 166 28:4 173, 309 28:5 40, 45, 68, 104, 315 28:5–8 151 28:5–15 244 28:6 11, 248 28:6–15 246 28:8 247, 249 28:9 11, 66, 143, 247 28:9–10 13 28:9–11 139, 247 28:10 68, 247 28:10–11 250 28:11 207, 249 28:13 247 28:14 207, 247 28:15 247

2 Chronicles (cont.) 28:16 113, 246 28:17 130 28:17–18 342 28:17–19 46, 151 28:19 40, 131, 158, 217 28:21 329 28:22 158 28:23 16, 39–40, 167, 201, 217 28:24 22, 167 28:25 11, 23, 167, 173 28:27 217 29 90, 176, 342 29–31 326 29:2 135, 158, 372, 382 29:3–5 343 29:4 344 29:5 11, 72 29:5–11 330 29:6 68 29:6–7 167 29:7 15 29:10 15, 88–90 29:11 70, 72 29:15 185, 187, 343 29:16 55, 344 29:18 343 29:20 184, 327, 343–344 29:21–22 344 29:23 327 29:24 216, 344 29:25 185–186, 365, 367 29:25–30 199 29:26 344, 365 29:26–27 367 29:27 365 29:30 186, 327, 365, 367 29:34 188, 197 29:36 23, 199 30 176, 232, 342 30–31 231, 250 30:1 15, 187, 216–217, 231–232, 257 30:1–31:1 250 30:2 187, 329 30:2–6 327 30:3 329 30:4 187, 329

431 2 Chronicles (cont.) 30:5 15, 81, 185, 187, 216–217, 231–232, 257, 278, 292 30:6 133, 216–217, 249, 257 30:6–8 148 30:6–9 133, 149, 244, 257, 291, 330 30:7 11, 169, 250 30:7–9 13 30:8 55, 68, 133 30:9 68, 133, 250, 291 30:10 231–232, 257, 278 30:11 204, 232, 250, 278 30:12 23, 137, 185, 187, 199, 327 30:15–16 188 30:16 22, 184–186, 190, 344 30:18 190, 232, 329 30:18–20 197 30:19 11, 23, 29, 196 30:20 200, 382 30:21 199, 344, 382 30:22 11 30:24 327, 329, 344 30:25 258, 265, 282– 283 30:25–26 199 30:26 184 30:27 65, 344, 346 31 340 31:1 173, 232, 258, 278 31:2 101, 184, 339, 344 31:3 165, 185–186 31:6 68, 258 31:8 68, 327, 344, 346 31:10 68, 344 31:13 22, 344 31:14 22 31:19 281 31:20 68, 157 31:21 22, 68, 185, 196 32 108, 400 32:1 47, 121, 290 32:1–21 151 32:1–23 290 32:2–4 329 32:3–4 340

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 432 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

432 2 Chronicles (cont.) 32:4 329 32:5 338, 340 32:6 338 32:6–8 324 32:7 154 32:7–8 200, 331 32:8 68, 103, 324 32:9 113 32:10–17 39 32:11 68 32:13 16, 39 32:14 39, 68 32:15 39, 68, 308 32:16 30, 32, 113 32:17 15, 40, 68 32:19 38–39 32:20 66, 154, 200, 324 32:20–21 200 32:21 108, 110, 112, 114, 201, 387 32:21–22 40 32:22 341 32:22–23 109 32:23 154, 341 32:25 382 32:25–26 203, 382 32:26 204 32:27–29 340 32:27–30 130 32:29 23 32:30 341 32:31 23, 151–153 32:32 358, 400 33:2 157, 382 33:2–9 135, 167 33:3 167, 173 33:4 53 33:6 167 33:7 22–24, 53, 70, 167, 212 33:8 81, 157, 185, 303 33:9–10 205 33:10 140–141, 299 33:11 45, 130, 205, 402 33:12 11, 13, 68, 149, 167, 204–205, 382 33:12–13 131, 200, 382 33:13 21, 23, 200, 205 33:14 338 33:15–16 167

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 33:15–17 205 33:16 15, 157, 167, 184 33:17 68, 173 33:18 15, 56, 68, 140, 143 33:19 39, 143, 173, 204, 400 33:21–25 285 33:22 39, 135, 169 33:22–24 167 33:23 204 34 233 34:2 135, 382 34:3 39, 168, 173 34:3–4 39 34:3–7 168, 259 34:3–13 85 34:4 39 34:5–7 233 34:6 231, 278, 292 34:6–7 250, 259 34:7 39, 282–283 34:8 68, 340 34:9 22, 25 34:14 184 34:14–21 85 34:15 185, 233 34:19 233 34:21 260 34:22–28 85 34:23 15–16 34:24–28 284 34:25 23 34:26 15–16 34:27 23–24, 28 34:29–32 85 34:29–33 83, 85 34:31 193, 196 34:32 11, 22, 29, 85 34:33 11, 13, 68, 157, 233, 250, 259, 278, 282 35 342 35:1 85, 343 35:1–19 85, 176, 343 35:2 343–344 35:3 68, 76, 190, 216, 343, 375 35:4 185, 344, 375 35:6 185–186, 190, 344

2 Chronicles (cont.) 35:7 343 35:8 22, 344 35:10 187, 343–344 35:11 189, 344 35:12 190, 344 35:13 190 35:14 189 35:15 68, 185–186, 344, 367 35:16 68, 185, 343 35:17–18 260 35:18 186, 260, 292, 343 35:18–19 343 35:20 47 35:21 23, 39, 41, 112– 114 35:21–22 40, 148 35:22 23, 41, 131, 382 35:22–24 382 35:23 68 35:26 358 35:29–30 85 35:32 85 35:33 85 36 288 36:1–23 285 36:2 47, 136 36:3 151 36:4 286, 289 36:5 68, 135, 168 36:6 47, 290, 402 36:6–7 151, 286 36:8 168, 290 36:9 135, 157, 168 36:9–10 287 36:10 47, 151, 287, 290 36:11–12 287 36:12 68, 135, 141, 143, 168 36:12–13 204 36:12–14 128 36:12–16 131, 287 36:13 15, 23, 147, 287 36:14 168 36:15 11, 55, 65, 140, 148–149, 287 36:15–16 113–114 36:15–19 285 65, 140, 148–149, 287

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 433 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

433

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 36:16 22, 141 36:17 45, 287 36:17–19 151 36:17–21 287

2 Chronicles (cont.) 36:18 22, 287 36:19 22, 287 36:20 290 36:21 143

New Testament James 2:21–23

75

2 Chronicles (cont.) 36:22 45 36:22–23 289 36:23 21, 68, 363

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 434 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Ancient Versions 1. Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah 3:15 18 3:17 18 3:18 18 6:11 18 7:14 18 8:7 18 9:7 18 19:14 20 21:16 18 28:2 18 28:16 18 28:22 18 30:15 18 49:14 18 49:22 18 50:5 18, 32 52:4 18 61:1 18 61:11 18

2. Samaritan Pentateuch Genesis 43:23 14 Exodus 3:6 11 9:30 30, 32

3. Targum 1 Chronicles 7:20ff. 294 14:1 114 16:39 172 19:2 114 19:16 114 21:15 114 21:16 114 21:18 114 21:20 114 21:27 114 21:29 172 21:30 114

1 Chronicles (cont.) 29:11–12 43 29:23 311 2 Chronicles 1:3 172 1:13 172 18:12 114 19:10 192 29:36 199 35:11 189 35:21 114 36:15–16 114

4. Septuagint Genesis 15:8 31 15:18 88 24:7 20 43:23 14 Exodus 8:10[8:6] 34 9:30 32 34:27 88 Leviticus 10:13 270 17:8 270 Deuteronomy 3:24 31 5:2 88 5:10 76 6:4 33 7:2 88 7:9 76 9:26 31 Joshua 3:13 77 3:15 77 4:10 77 4:11 77 6:9 77 6:11 77 6:12 77 18:3 11–12

434

Judges 5:31 76 6:22 31 1 Samuel 2:2 34 4:3–5 77 5:4 77 6:3 77 6:18 77 7:1 77 10:1 316 2 Samuel 3:13 88 3:21 88 6:10 77 6:12 30 7:7 213 7:16 314 7:22 17, 31 7:25 30 8:8 380 21:6 347 1 Kings 2:26 77 8:9 78, 81 8:16 348 8:27 48 11:32 228 11:33 161 2 Kings 11:17 86 Isaiah 5:1 76 14:1 269 41:8 76 56:3 269 56:6 269 Ezekiel 5:7 31 Psalms 97:10 76 Esther 9:27 269

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 435 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Apocrypha and Dead Sea Scrolls Ezra 10:3 89 Nehemiah 1:5 76 1 Chronicles 5:1 251 5:2 251 15:25 30 15:27 77 16:1 24, 28 16:4 77 17:2 28 17:14 311 29:23 311 2 Chronicles 5:10 78

2 Chronicles (cont.) 5:13 57 6:11 88 14:10 100 19:8 337 20:7 76 20:29 28 21:7 355 24:18 165 24:23 137 24:25 137 29:10 89 34:27 28 34:32 29 36:4 289 36:14 168

435

5. Peshitta 1 Chronicles 7:14 293 2 Chronicles 33:16 167 36:4 289

6. Vulgate 1 Kings 11:33 161 1 Chronicles 29:11 43 2 Chronicles 33:16 167

Index of Apocrypha and Dead Sea Scrolls Apocalypse of Baruch 14:18 93 Assumption of Moses 1:12–13 92, 94 12:4 92, 94 Ben Sira 36:1–17 392 51:21–35 392 1 Esdras 5:23–27 93 6:53–59 93 6:54 93 6:59 93 7:10–11 93 7:102–105 127 7:114–115 127 2 Esdras 4:46 4:58 4:60 4:62

21 21 15 15

2 Esdras (cont.) 7:10 94 7:22–24 94 Judith 5:7 15 5:8 21 6:14–15 236 6:19 21 7:28 14 8:1 236 8:18 159 9:2 236 10:8 15 11:17 21 1 Maccabees 1:21 183 4:49 183 Tobit 1:1 236 1:8 269, 270 1:18 21 6:18 21

Tobit (cont.) 7:12 21 7:13 21 7:17 21 8:5 15 8:15 21 10:13 21 10:14 21 13:9 21 13:13 21 13:17 21 14:4 282

Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Document II:2 88 VIII:4 88 Manual of Discipline 5:8 87 Hodayot 4:1 115 4:6 115

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 436 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Authors Adar, Z. 181 Aharoni, Y. 222, 237, 239, 278, 337–338 Ahlström, G. W. 356 Albright, W. F. 162, 170, 295, 337, 367, 401 Allen, L. C. 28–29, 76 Alt, A. 12, 134, 235, 237–240, 257, 264, 279, 376 Andrews, D. K. 21 Augustin, M. ix Bacher, W. 144 Bächli, O. 302 Baer, I. F. 283 Barber, A. ix Barrick, W. B. 170 Batten, L. W. 267 Baudissin, W. W. von 17–19 Baumgärtel, F. 10, 21 Baumgartner, W. 35, 50, 61, 71, 81, 112, 115, 138, 164, 170, 185, 264, 286 Begrich, J. 69, 88 Bendavid, A. 6 Bentzen, A. 99, 175, 252 Benzinger, I. 280 Bernhardt, K. H. 321 Bertholet, A. 266 Beyer, G. 134, 229 Bickerman, E. J. 118, 147, 175, 191, 374, 391, 397–398 Botterweck, J. 364 Bousset, W. 309 Bowman, R. A. 15 Braun, R. L. 3, 215, 364, 366, 372, 380 Brawer, A. J. 283 Bright, J. 162, 238, 244, 256–257, 259, 356 Brin, G. 321–322 Brunet, A. M. 2, 106, 150, 218, 252, 262, 276, 296–297, 308, 312, 315, 358, 361, 365, 368, 375, 384–386 Buber, M. 312–313 Buber, S. 88, 204 Budde 30 Burney, C. F. 136

Caquot, A. 175, 357, 369–370, 376, 384, 387, 391 Carlson, R. A. 356 Cassuto, U. 22, 31 Charles, R. H. 14–15 Childs, B. S. 262 Clemens, C. 93 Clements, R. E. 48–49, 60, 64, 67, 353 Cogan, M. 162, 256 Coggins, R. J. 255 Cook, S. A. 302 Cooke, G. 321–322 Couroyet, R. P. 41 Cowley, A. E. 62 Cowley, M. E. 14 Crenshaw, J. L. 37 Cross, F. M. 48, 261, 336 Curtis, E. L. 1, 33, 43, 54, 66, 100, 103, 106, 117–118, 136, 148, 151–152, 175, 178, 181, 188, 191, 193, 199, 203, 213– 216, 218–219, 221, 223–226, 230, 232, 241, 243, 247, 272, 274–276, 279–282, 289, 293, 295, 298, 305, 316, 324, 327, 331, 333, 337, 342, 346, 361, 372, 375, 380 Dalman, G. H. 16 Dan, J. 194 Danell, G. A. 2, 210–211, 214–217, 227, 230, 252–253, 259 Davies, H. 61 Déaut, R. le 172 Delcor, M. 42, 254, 386 Delekat, L. 282 Delmedigo, Joseph Solomon 401 Dibelius, M. 7 Diepold, P. 13, 302 Driver, S. R. 6–7, 15, 24–25, 30–31, 34, 60, 77, 81, 110, 135, 156, 158, 160, 176, 197–198, 204, 236, 272, 289, 350 Duhm, B. 349 Eckert, W.

436

302

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 437 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

437

Index of Authors Ehrlich, A. B. 48, 62, 65, 103, 151–152, 161, 164–165, 167, 169, 176, 182, 198– 199, 204, 305, 314, 347–348, 357 Eichrodt, W. 2, 4, 17, 19, 21, 24, 33, 44, 48– 49, 52, 56–57, 66, 69, 81, 91–92, 105, 107, 112, 114, 118–120, 126, 128, 149, 159, 195, 202, 205, 269, 325, 384, 389– 390 Eissfeldt, O. 10, 15, 92, 160, 175, 188, 236, 238, 252, 254, 256 Elath, M. 402 Elijah of Vilna 165, 204, 272 Elliger, K. 201 Elmslie, W. A. L. 3, 103, 257, 317 Epstein, I. N. 63 Fensham, F. C. 353 Flusser, D. 236 Fohrer, G. 99, 238 Fraine, J. de 325 Freedman, D. N. 242, 254 Fretheim, T. E. 73 Frost, S. B. 389 Galling, K. 7, 56, 103, 154, 165, 168, 192, 221, 252, 263, 280, 282, 285, 290, 317, 386 Geiger, A. 264, 266, 272 Gerleman, G. 77 Gese, H. 353 Gesenius, W. 22, 24, 115, 309 Gichon, M. 338 Gil, M. 217 Ginsberg, H. L. 63, 119, 363 Ginzberg, L. 376 Graf, K. H. 1, 7, 135, 223–224, 226, 234, 240, 337, 340, 373, 380 Gray, J. 50, 83–84, 86, 121–123, 139, 160– 162, 176, 228–229, 231, 255, 261–262, 269, 326, 332, 349, 379, 399–400 Greenberg, M. 11, 126, 128, 130, 163, 181, 206 Gressmann, H. 168, 309 Grether, O. 55–57 Grill, S. 103 Grintz, Y. M. 3, 235–236, 364–365 Grønbæk, J. H. 229 Gunkel, H. 30, 322 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 175, 353 Gutman, Y. 25, 33

Guttmann, J.

107

Hänel, J. 2, 5, 24, 26–27, 74, 98, 108, 111, 113–114, 191, 215, 218–219, 225, 251, 254, 279, 361, 369, 384–387 Hanson, P. D. 356 Haran, M. 12, 48–50, 62, 170, 189, 265, 268 Harnisch, W. 93 Heinemann, I. 69, 123 Heinemann, J. 14 Heller, B. 269 Hermann, S. 356 Hertzberg, H. W. 116, 178, 213, 345 Hölscher, G. 389 Honeyman, A. M. 43 Humbert, P. 43 Hurvitz, A. 278 Ibn Ezra, Abraham 52, 130,190–191, 269 Ibn Paquda, B. 194, 204 Isaiah di Trani 345 Iwry, S. 259 Jacob, B. 17–18 Janssen, E. 235, 287 Japhet, S. 3, 52, 204, 219, 234, 326 Jenni, E. 389–390 Jepsen, A. 399 Johnson, A. R. 339, 344 Johnson, M. D. 210, 219, 275–276, 278 Junge, E. 334 Kadushin, M. 96 Kapelrud, A. S. 15 Katz, J. 254 Kaufmann, Y. 2, 10, 33, 36–38, 50, 71, 105, 119–120, 122–123, 126, 128, 142–143, 159–160, 162–163, 165–166, 169–171, 177, 202–203, 206–208, 244, 255–257, 266–269, 275, 279, 281, 298, 302, 312– 314, 325, 349, 352, 364, 366, 380–381, 384–386, 391–392 Kaupel, H. 116 Kimhi, D. 61, 152, 198, 241–242, 250, 263, 269, 273, 281, 294, 371 Kittel, R. 6, 25, 85–86, 111, 186, 223–224, 234, 280, 297, 317, 333, 340, 380 Koch, K. 347 Köhler, L. 14, 16, 88, 115, 138, 164

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 438 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

438

Index of Authors

Konovitz, I. 94 Kosmala, H. 389 Kraus, H.-J. 10, 61, 87 Kropat, A. 65, 250, 268, 357–358 Kugler, F. X. 116 Kuhl, C. 250 Kuhn, K. G. 309 Kutsch, E. 69, 322 Kutscher, E. Y. 18

Mosis, R. 3, 6–7, 58–60, 62–64, 75, 105, 111, 118, 179, 229, 242–243, 245, 252, 305–306, 316–319, 361–362, 366, 372– 374, 376 Movers, F. C. 3 Mowinckel, S. 325, 389 Muilenburg, J. 301 Müller, H. P. 389 Myers, J. M. 2, 7, 93, 367, 385

Labuschagne, C. J. 35 Lance, H. D. 259 Langlamet, F. 159 Lemke, W. E. 6, 77, 111, 380 Lewy, J. 12, 286 Licht, J. S. 87, 106, 108, 151, 153, 155, 189, 310, 312–314, 321 Lindblom, J. 389 Liver, J. 3, 7, 175–177, 180, 216, 219, 221– 223, 276, 286, 312, 314–316, 336, 340, 344, 367, 384–385 Loewenstamm, S. E. 24, 116, 123, 133, 151, 189, 236, 270, 279, 295–298, 300, 302, 331, 337, 349 Lohfink, N. 302 Luzzatto, S. D. 43, 196, 267–268

Nachmanides 22, 190–191 Nelson, H. H. 48 Nestle, B. 17 Newsome, J. D., Jr. 3, 66, 139, 365 Noordtzij, A. 5, 384–387 North, C. R. 312, 321–322, 325, 344 North, R. 2, 116, 118, 175, 254, 296–297, 308, 369, 384, 386 Noth, M. 2, 4, 7, 58, 77, 83, 102, 134, 175, 178, 211, 218–221, 223, 225–226, 228– 229, 231, 233–234, 237–238, 242, 252, 254, 261–262, 276, 281, 295–298, 316, 318, 321, 336, 351, 355, 391–392

Maier, J. 61, 76 Maisler, B. 401 see also Mazar, B. Malamat, A. 40, 233, 238, 273, 280 May, H. G. 11–12 Mazar, B. 4, 220, 226–227, 279, 283, 335, 401 see also Maisler, B. McCarthy, C. B. 62 McCarthy, D. J. 353, 358 McCullough, W. S. 22 McKenzie, J. L. 113 Meek, T. J. 368 Mendenhall, G. E. 69, 72, 347, 352 Meyer, E. 234, 238, 256 Milgrom, J. 49, 158, 178, 180, 188, 233, 345 Mitchell, H. G. 201 Montgomery, J. A. 50, 53, 84, 86, 109, 121–124, 139, 176, 228, 255, 262, 274, 326, 332, 341, 347, 399 Moore, C. A. 236, 269 Moran, W. L. 75

Oesterley, W. O. E.

93, 107, 368

Paton, L. B. 269 Pfeiffer, R. H. 4, 254, 259 Plöger, J. G. 185, 302 Plöger, O. 2, 7, 252, 384 Poulssen, N. 2, 175, 187, 252, 296, 308, 310, 312, 344–345, 384–385 Procksch, O. 349 Prussner, F. C. 353 Pseudo-Rashi 54, 103, 152, 192, 199, 251, 273, 311, 365, 374 Pury, A. de 231 Quell, G.

83–84, 88–89, 107, 347

Rabin, C. 88 Rabinowitz, L. I. 179 Rad, G. von 2, 4–6, 10–11, 14–16, 24, 26– 28, 30, 45, 51–52, 57, 64, 70, 72–73, 76, 78, 81–82, 86, 91–92, 98–103, 105, 107–108, 114–115, 117–118, 120, 143, 156, 159, 174–175, 187–188, 191–192, 196, 202–203, 209–210, 212–218, 223– 224, 226, 242, 249, 251–254, 296–299, 302, 305–306, 308–309, 314, 317, 319,

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 439 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Authors

439

323–324, 355, 357–358, 364, 368, 384– 388 Rainey, A. F. 264 Rashi 22, 51, 78, 198, 203, 269, 356 Rehm, M. 353 Reviv, H. 161, 363 Robert, J. 172 Rofé, A. 107–112, 114, 116, 138, 400 Rost, L. 253–254, 351, 353 Rothstein, J. W. 2, 5, 24, 26–27, 74, 98, 108, 111, 113–114, 191, 215, 218–219, 223, 225–226, 251, 254, 279, 295, 361, 369, 384–386 Rowley, H. H. 69, 75, 187, 242, 254, 261, 296, 347 Rudolph, W. 2, 6–7, 15, 27, 32, 38–40, 42– 43, 45, 54, 57, 60–61, 65–67, 72–74, 78, 80–81, 84, 86–87, 90, 98, 100–103, 106, 113–118, 121, 132, 134–137, 139, 142, 148–149, 151–152, 154, 163–168, 170, 173–175, 178–179, 182–183, 186, 188, 191–193, 198–199, 203, 211–216, 218– 219, 221–227, 229–230, 232, 234, 243, 245–246, 248, 251–252, 257, 259–260, 262–263, 267, 272–276, 279–281, 285– 289, 291, 293, 295–298, 301, 305, 310, 316–319, 321, 323, 326–327, 331, 333– 337, 340–343, 346, 352–353, 355–357, 361, 364, 366, 370, 379, 382, 384–385, 387, 389, 391

Smith, M. 4, 398 Snaith, N. H. 187, 261 Soggin, A. 321 Speiser, E. A. 31, 271 Stade, B. 332 Staerk, W. 347–348, 352 Steuernagel, C. 15–16 Stinespring, W. F. 384, 386 Student of Saadia Gaon 293

Sanda, A. 48–50, 161, 228, 255, 348 Sarna, N. M. 351–352, 356 Schärf, R. 114, 116 Schechter, S. 95, 119, 127 Schmidt, K. L. 309 Schmidt, L. 316 Seeligmann, I. L. 19, 54, 105–106, 112, 138, 142, 187, 233, 241, 250, 262–264, 303, 305–306, 308, 310–312, 314, 322, 347, 349, 351–352, 356, 358–359, 370, 387 Segal, M. H. 3, 10, 21–23, 25, 30, 33, 39, 234, 364, 392 Sekine, M. 353 Sellin, E. 99, 201 Seyring, F. 77 Shmuel ben Meir 51, 130, 356 Skinner, J. 20, 30, 294 Smith, H. P. 33, 116, 274, 345

Weidmann, H. 12 Weinfeld, M. 7, 69, 78–79, 81, 138, 142, 158, 195–196, 268, 299, 322, 349, 353, 355, 357–359 Weingreen, J. 54 Weiser, A. 61, 252 Weiss, M. 119, 122, 126 Welch, A. C. 3–4, 7, 72, 139, 141, 209–210, 215, 224, 226, 232, 257, 282, 334, 364, 403 Wellhausen, J. 1, 4, 6, 40, 87, 102, 117–118, 121, 132, 135, 139, 151, 164, 173, 175, 178, 183, 188, 199, 209, 214–215, 217, 222–224, 234, 242, 245, 279, 312–313, 323, 334, 337, 339, 346, 351, 364, 367, 372, 380, 401 Welten, P. 6, 99, 135, 229, 334–335, 338, 341–342 Wenham, J. W. 329

Tadmor, H. 125, 162, 232, 238–240, 244, 255–257, 259, 265, 280, 287, 290, 336, 341 Talmon, S. 112, 222, 255–256 Thomas, D. W. 21 Torrey, C. C. 1–3, 126, 163, 254, 256, 289 Tur-Sinai, N. H. 31 Uffenheimer, B. 3 Urbach, E. E. 21, 25, 33–34, 96–98, 107, 119, 127, 154, 159–160, 193–194, 196, 199, 309, 372, 392–393 Vannutelli, P. 6 Vaux, R. de 48, 52–53, 56, 170–171, 176, 238, 247, 263–264, 296, 322, 328, 334– 339, 341–342, 344, 353, 391 Volz, P. 75, 301 Vriezen, T. C. 347, 389–390

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 440 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

440

Index of Authors

Wernberg-Møller, P. 87 Westermann, C. 62, 75, 268, 301 Wette, W. M. L. de 1, 3, 104, 163–164, 175, 178, 183, 241, 245, 323, 335, 401 Wharton, J. A. 202 Wheeler-Robinson, H. 325 Wijngaards, W. 300 Wilda, G. 2, 187, 254, 296, 308, 312, 334, 369, 380, 384, 392 Willi, T. 3, 5, 7, 58–59, 74–75, 102, 114, 139, 141–143, 175, 186, 188, 197, 218, 243, 247, 249, 297, 323, 366, 395, 398, 401

Williamson, H. G. M. 219 Wright, G. E. 48–49, 261, 337 Yadin, Y. 225, 334–335, 338, 341 Yeivin, S. 273, 295, 338, 368 Yellin, D. 133 Zakovitch, Y. 53 Zeron, A. 226 Zimmerli, W. 126, 138, 269, 283, 286, 301, 389 Zunz, L. 3, 15, 342

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 441 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Subjects and Names

Aaron 72, 225, 281, 310, 354–355 Abijah 99–101, 103, 106, 130–132, 135, 148, 150, 155, 160–161, 163, 166, 183, 195, 216, 242–243, 249, 252–253, 277, 285, 315, 324, 336, 354, 362–363, 372, 382 Abner 320 Abraham 12–13, 75, 205, 302, 304, 358, 386–387 Absalom 226, 351, 365 Adam 92–94, 119 administration 334–337, 339–340, 346, 366–368, 374, 376–377, 381, 398–399 Adonijah 352 adoption 322 Ahab 150, 161, 163, 167, 169, 173, 207, 212, 243–244, 246, 248–249 Ahaz 39–40, 130–131, 148, 151, 155, 160– 162, 166–169, 171, 173, 176, 183, 201, 221, 244, 246, 285–286, 342, 372, 382 Ahaziah, King of Israel 243–244, 248 Ahaziah, King of Judah 80, 131, 148, 160– 161, 163, 244, 246, 363 Ahijah the Shilonite 27, 123–124, 141–142, 228–229, 239, 243, 248, 352 Akiva, rabbi 146 altar 53, 57–58, 63, 66, 110–111, 161–162, 167, 171–172, 176, 179, 183–184, 189– 190, 258, 371 Amalek, Amalekite 151, 316 Amaziah 121, 130–131, 140–141, 143, 150, 155, 161, 165–166, 172, 176, 196, 230, 244–247, 251, 274, 338, 372, 382 Ammon, Ammonite 44, 47, 101–102, 150– 151, 154, 240, 274, 278, 299, 313, 341– 342, 366 Amnon 351, 365 Amon, King of Judah 148, 160–161, 167– 168, 204, 285, 382 ancestral merit 127, 129, 355 anointing 318, 322–323, 331, 347, 352, 366–367

Apocrypha 15, 92, 95, 107, 153, 396 Arabs 45, 151, 342, 363 Aram 39–40, 79, 130–131, 135–136, 151, 153, 167, 200, 240, 246, 366 Arauna 110–112 ark of the Lord 22, 26, 30, 49, 51, 56, 59– 62, 76–79, 81, 87, 177–179, 186, 190– 191, 199, 214–215, 278–279, 306, 326, 330–331, 339, 345–346, 367, 370, 388 army 223–224, 230, 239, 247, 334 Asa 39, 79, 83, 86–87, 90, 100–101, 103– 104, 130, 132, 134–135, 140–141, 149– 151, 153–154, 158, 161, 166, 172–174, 176, 183, 195–196, 198, 200–201, 230– 231, 234, 243, 247, 258, 277–278, 285– 286, 306, 324, 330, 338, 340–342, 372, 382 Asher 219, 225, 232, 237, 276–278 Asherah 162, 167, 171, 173 Assyria, Assyrian 38–40, 75, 108–109, 162, 255–259, 284, 291, 331 Athaliah 79, 148, 161–165, 167, 183, 285, 363 authority 184–188, 191–192, 260, 344, 403 Azariah the son of Oded 140, 143 Baal 66, 115, 160–165, 168, 244 Babylonia, Babylonian 75, 108, 124, 141, 151, 179, 203, 255, 267, 284–285, 288– 290, 301, 386 Baºasha 79, 123, 142, 151, 153, 239–240, 243, 247–248 Bathsheba 207, 272, 365–366 Bath-shua 271–272 Beer-sheba 215–216, 231–233, 278 Ben-hadad 79, 153 Benjamin 85, 110, 116, 215, 219, 224, 226, 228–230, 235, 271, 273, 276–277, 296, 350 see also Judah and Benjamin Bezalel 172, 296, 379 blessing 65, 72, 134, 339, 345

441

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 442 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

442 boundaries

Index of Subjects and Names 278, 280

Canaan, Canaanite 119, 124, 146, 161– 162, 170, 263–265, 270–273 causality, double 105–106 census 115–117, 148, 180, 215, 220–223, 225, 277, 369 choosing, chosenness 63, 68–75, 93, 96– 97, 314, 322–323, 347–353, 369, 373, 375, 396 Christian, Christianity 4–5, 120, 254, 309, 353, 389 chronology 125, 132, 134, 257, 398 cloud of God’s glory 51–52, 57–58 commandments 64, 70, 75, 81–82, 85–86, 90–91, 144–145, 152, 156, 184–185, 187, 191, 193–195, 204, 208, 249, 304, 307, 324, 352, 361–363, 392 conquest, conquest and settlement 97, 101, 119, 275, 284–285, 289–290, 292, 295– 296, 304–307 continuity 5, 14–15, 91, 98, 169, 174, 178, 183, 254, 277, 284, 289, 292–293, 301, 307, 317, 320, 364, 391, 396, 404 corporate personality 128, 325 covenant 69–70, 76–83, 85–91, 97, 259, 267, 303, 322–323, 332, 353–358, 385– 386 creation 9, 42–43, 92–98, 156, 161, 390, 395, 398 cult 4, 160, 170, 242, 334, 339, 342, 344– 345, 363–365, 398 centralization of 111–112, 177–179, 184, 194, 206, 242 see also sacrifice cumulative sin 123, 125–126, 129 Cyrus 21, 38, 98, 285, 289, 363 Dan 219, 224, 232, 237, 240, 276–277, 281 Daniel, book of 11, 15, 21, 24, 107, 286, 299 David, Davidic 5, 17, 43, 53, 59–60, 67, 70, 73, 79–80, 84, 98, 101, 106, 108, 110– 112, 115–117, 122–123, 127, 130, 132, 135, 148, 150, 165–166, 170–171, 177– 182, 184–187, 198–199, 207, 209, 211, 213–217, 222–227, 232, 237–242, 245– 246, 248, 253–254, 263–265, 267, 272, 274, 277–284, 292, 296–297, 304–306, 308–312, 314–320, 322–324, 326, 328– 331, 334–341, 344–381, 384–388, 392– 393

spread is 12 points short

Davidic dynasty 70, 80, 122, 130, 197, 209, 245, 310, 314–315, 347, 355, 358–364, 385 deification 321–322, 333 democratization 325–333 destruction and downfall 47, 120, 123–127, 140, 166, 168–169, 284–292, 383, 398, 402 Deuteronomist, Deuteronomistic 2, 5, 12, 16, 52–55, 64, 70–71, 77, 101, 118–124, 134–135, 141–142, 158, 195–196, 205, 211, 255, 289, 296–299, 305–306, 324, 347, 354, 356, 359–361, 372, 382, 399 Deuteronomy, deuteronomic 5, 11–14, 16, 37–38, 48, 52–53, 63, 68–73, 75, 78, 141, 156–157, 159, 170, 185–186, 189, 192, 194–196, 203, 205, 211, 270, 273, 300, 302, 304–306 devotion 194–208, 210 divisions 180–182, 184, 365, 367, 375, 377 dualism 27, 114 Ecclesiastes, book of 24–25, 29, 119, 376 economy 334, 341, 346 Edom, Edomite 40, 131, 141, 150, 165– 166, 246, 251, 299, 342, 366 Egypt, Egyptian 13, 40–41, 45, 69, 74, 82– 83, 97, 125, 146, 151, 202, 264–265, 272–273, 279, 286, 290, 293–302, 307, 387 election see choosing, chosenness Elephantine 21, 62 Eleazar ha-Modaºi 94–96, 193 Eliezer ben Hyrcanus 146, 294 Eliezer the son of Dodavahu 143, 245, 272 Elijah 66, 120, 141–142, 248 Elisha 120, 141–142, 248 Elishama the son of Ammihud 295 Ephraim 219, 224, 231–232, 234–235, 237–238, 240, 244, 251, 259, 276–278, 292–295, 349 eponym 276, 294, 296 eschatology 95, 97, 297, 314, 368, 384–393 Esther, book of 236, 269 etiology 110 evil 114, 117, 119, 121–122 exclusivity 24, 159, 161, 170, 184, 205 exile 124, 133, 222, 244, 250, 256–257, 266–269, 284–292, 307, 363, 393 see also destruction and downfall

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 443 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Subjects and Names exodus 13, 69, 74, 82–83, 124, 294–302, 307, 387 Ezekiel 125–128, 138, 146–147, 163, 207, 269, 285, 301, 396 Ezra–Nehemiah 3, 5, 7, 13–14, 21, 24, 52, 208, 210–211, 235, 266, 273, 289, 299, 301, 367, 385, 391, 398, 401 fire from heaven 57, 59, 66, 111 footstool 61–62, 64 forced labor 261–263, 265, 377 Former Prophets 5, 12, 45, 206–208, 220, 227, 236, 238, 241, 281, 319, 322, 325, 328, 333, 337, 339, 341–342, 350, 396 formula, standard usage 32–33, 63, 71–72, 88, 145, 158, 171–172, 184–185, 252, 262, 271, 282–283, 288, 299–300, 302, 322, 361 fortified cities 133, 338, 340 free will 47, 96, 137, 154–155, 198–199 Gad the prophet 186, 400 Gad the tribe 219, 225–226, 237–238, 267, 276–277 Galilee 233, 256 gatekeepers 178, 180–182, 235, 267, 367 Gath 292, 294 Gedaliah the son of Ahikam 285, 288 genealogy, genealogical 7, 72, 92, 98, 175, 180, 210–211, 216–223, 230, 271–277, 281, 284, 288, 292–293, 295–296, 307, 319, 363, 386 Genesis, book of 92–93, 124, 294–295, 397 genre 208, 321, 395, 399–400 geography 230, 240, 275, 283 ger 264–266, 269–270, 273–274 Gibeon, Gibeonite 89, 111, 171–172, 178– 179, 215, 235, 331, 373–374, 376 Gideon 312–313 Gilead 222, 293–294 glory 51–52, 56–59, 64, 95 God awe, fear of 99, 156, 205 compassion 121, 147–149 justice 44, 54, 117, 119–129, 134, 137, 145, 149, 166, 169, 386, 390, 392–393 kingdom 117, 308–321, 323, 385–386, 392 knowledge of 204, 206 love 74–76, 82, 96, 195, 205, 356, 359, 391

443

messenger of 108–110, 113–114, 141 name of 52–57, 64 wars of 99–104 gods of the nations 16, 22, 33, 35–42, 246 Haggai 20, 113, 193 Hamath, entrance to 278–280, 282 Hamath-zoba 150, 342, 380 Hanani the seer 131, 135, 140–143, 153, 244, 248 Hazael 136 Hebrew 6, 81, 115–116, 198 Hebron 223–225, 239, 317–318, 320 Hellenistic 4, 159, 283, 398 Hezekiah 36, 39, 42, 65–66, 83, 87–88, 90, 121, 125, 130, 148, 152–155, 161, 167– 171, 173, 176, 183–185, 187, 196–199, 203–204, 211, 221–222, 231–232, 234, 250, 257–258, 261, 271, 278, 283, 285, 290–292, 326–327, 329, 331, 338–342, 344, 365, 372, 381–382, 400 high place 160, 163, 167–168, 170–174, 178, 197, 255, 258, 373, 382 Hisda, rabbi 189 historical probability 374, 397, 401–402 historical reality 236, 263, 326, 349, 367, 402 historical reliability 1–2, 33, 87, 118, 122, 135–136, 221–223, 234, 238–239, 260– 263, 265, 275, 284, 291, 293, 295, 333– 336, 338, 341–342, 363, 367, 376, 398, 401–402 historiography 2, 5, 7, 9, 106, 120–121, 128–129, 143, 159, 208, 211, 275, 296, 321, 325, 329, 346, 398–401 Hosea, book of 163, 301 hubris 195, 202 Huldah 85, 141, 148, 284 humility 204–207 Huram, King of Tyre 43, 54, 63, 74, 263, 305, 366, 373–379 hypostasis 56 Iddo the seer 143 idealization 368–372, 375, 380–381, 383– 384, 388 idolatry 39, 41, 43, 85, 124, 136, 159–170, 173, 201, 203, 205–206, 258, 382 see also paganism, pagan intermarriage 89, 163, 208, 267, 271–274, 373

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 444 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

444

Index of Subjects and Names

intermediaries, angels 22, 98, 101, 103, 106–117, 207 Isaac 12–13, 75, 302 Isaiah 20, 66, 141–143, 152, 195, 203, 269, 301, 324, 346, 349, 396, 400 Ish-bosheth, Eshbaal 39, 320 Ishmaelite 272–273 Israel, Israelite 66, 84, 99, 156, 159–160, 163, 169, 174, 207, 209–213, 215, 232, 240–254, 258, 319 Northern Kingdom 120, 123, 130, 135, 148, 150, 168, 212, 216–217, 231– 232, 237–238, 241, 256–257, 259– 260, 277–278, 283–284, 291–292, 299, 315, 320, 400 Verus Israel 4, 214, 216, 252–254 Issachar 219, 232, 237, 240, 265, 276– 277 Jacob 12–13, 219, 250–251, 271, 292, 295– 296, 298, 302, 307, 349–350 Jahaziel 101, 143 Jehoahaz, King of Israel 248 Jehoahaz, King of Judah 136, 148, 155, 160–161, 168, 285–286, 289 Jehoiachin 125, 148, 160, 285, 287–288, 290, 382 Jehoiada 79–80, 86, 90, 130, 136–137, 140, 143, 161–162, 165, 176, 183, 274, 331– 333, 344, 363 Jehoiakim 126, 148, 160, 168, 285–290, 341, 382, 402 Jehoram, King of Israel 244, 246, 248 Jehoram, King of Judah 130–131, 142, 148, 151, 155, 160–161, 163, 172–174, 201, 207, 243–244, 246, 248, 286, 324, 336, 342, 363, 382 Jehoshaphat 44, 54, 65, 67, 101, 103, 130– 131, 141–142, 151, 154, 158, 161, 163, 166, 172–174, 192, 196–197, 201, 205, 230, 243–245, 248–249, 277–278, 285, 299–300, 306, 329, 331, 336–338, 341– 342, 372, 381–382 Jehu the son of Hanani 141–142, 244, 248 Jehu, King of Israel 160, 195, 244, 246, 248, 363 Jeremiah 16, 20, 52, 94, 126, 128, 138, 142–143, 147, 162–163, 168, 285, 287, 290, 301

Jeroboam the son of Joash 222, 248 Jeroboam the son of Nebat 99, 106, 123– 124, 130–131, 135, 160, 168, 170, 214, 228, 237, 240, 242–243, 247–248, 253, 315, 319–320, 323–324, 352 Jerusalem 38, 41, 49, 61, 70–71, 84–85, 87, 108, 110, 124, 132, 140–141, 152, 155, 161, 163–164, 171, 177–179, 192–193, 199, 203, 214–215, 217, 232–235, 242– 243, 257–259, 261, 271, 276, 279, 287– 288, 290, 299, 306, 323, 329, 331, 336, 339, 343, 345, 347–349, 356, 363, 366– 367, 369–370, 375, 378–379 Jesse 272, 348–350, 372 Joab 116, 148, 320, 335, 369 Joash, King of Israel 131, 141, 150, 244– 245, 247–248 Joash, King of Judah 46, 103–104, 131– 132, 136–137, 141, 151, 155, 161, 163– 167, 172, 174, 176, 198, 274, 363, 382 Job 114, 119 Jonah the son of Amittai 141–142, 248 Jordan 219, 222, 224, 226, 232, 240, 249, 276–277, 283, 291–293 Joseph 105, 219, 225, 250–251, 293–295 Joshua the son of Nun 83, 280–281, 295– 296 Joshua, book of 211, 219–220, 236–237, 275, 281–282, 292 Joshua, rabbi 193 Josiah 39–41, 83–87, 90, 125–126, 131, 134, 136, 148, 155, 161–163, 168–170, 173, 176, 184–185, 187, 189–190, 195, 211, 233–234, 250, 258–261, 277–278, 282–283, 285, 292, 340, 343–344, 372, 381–382 Jotham 130, 150, 161–162, 166, 172, 176, 222, 336, 338, 341–342, 381 joy see rejoicing Judah and Benjamin 85, 214, 216, 229– 231, 234, 238, 252, 256, 277, 336 Judah, Judean 47, 73, 91, 99–100, 123–124, 134, 219, 224, 226–227, 229–230, 234– 235, 237–238, 241, 250–251, 271–273, 277, 283, 293, 295, 335, 338, 349–350, 381–383 Judah, Kingdom of 216–218, 229–231, 234, 237, 241–244, 246–247, 251, 253, 258, 277 Judah, rabbi 41, 371

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 445 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

Index of Subjects and Names Judaism, Jewish 4, 21–22, 57, 98, 107, 114, 120, 169, 194, 196, 198, 254, 261, 265– 266, 269–270, 302, 309, 314, 353, 391 judges 180, 182, 192–193, 335–336 Judges, book of 121, 237, 292 judges, period of 238, 292, 312 Judith, book of 14–15, 21, 159, 236 Kings, book of 239–242, 271, 284–285, 287, 289, 319, 382 Kiriath-jearim 62, 177, 179, 279 “land of Israel” 282–284 see also boundaries, conquest, destruction and downfall, exile, exodus land, promise of 13–14, 75, 280, 302, 304, 307 law, legal 60, 81–82, 115, 130, 144–145, 147, 152, 181, 268, 336, 342 see also Torah Lebanon 262, 373, 379 Levi 72–73, 110, 116, 215, 219–220, 224– 225, 237, 276–277 Levites 65, 70–73, 88, 90, 101, 175, 180– 181, 186, 189–190, 235, 258, 267, 276, 281–282, 326–327, 337, 343–344 see also priests and Levites Levitical cities 220, 275–277, 281–282, 335 Libnah 46, 131 lists see genealogy, genealogical lots, lottery, allocation 180, 280, 350 Machir 293 Manasseh 286 Manasseh, King of Judah 39, 124–125, 128, 130–131, 141, 143, 148–149, 155, 160–162, 166–169, 171, 173–174, 184, 204, 207, 284–286, 299, 338, 381–382, 402 Manasseh, man and tribe 219–220, 224– 226, 231–235, 237, 240, 251, 259, 273, 276–277, 293–294, 296 Mareshah 100, 143, 295 measure for measure 133, 168 Messiah, Messianic see eschatology Micaiah the son of Imlah 141, 150, 248 Michal 339, 365–366 midrash 75, 78, 95, 145–146, 152, 169, 204, 294–295, 311, 333, 337, 356, 371

445

miracle 100–101, 105–106 Moab, Moabite 47, 102, 151, 154, 271–274, 278, 299, 341–342, 366 morality 206–208 mosaic style 58, 395 Moses 12, 29, 51, 58, 69, 83, 170, 172, 184–188, 191, 201, 344 music, musicians 178–181, 185, 198–199, 323, 327, 329–330, 365, 367 Nahshon 296 Naphtali 219, 225, 232–233, 237, 240, 259, 276–277 Nathan 141, 321, 351–352, 356, 358, 360– 362, 371, 385–387 Nebuchadnezzar 151, 286, 288, 290 Nehemiah 261, 358 see also Ezra–Nehemiah New Testament 75, 254, 389 Numbers, book of 220, 345 oath 83, 87–88, 90, 356 officers and judges 180, 182, 335–337 Omri 124, 244, 248 optimism 122, 390–391 Ornan 110–112 paganism, pagan 37–38, 48, 87, 159, 162– 163, 169–171, 174, 266, 347 see also idolatry Passover 84–85, 176, 186–190, 199, 231– 232, 234, 257–258, 260, 266, 268, 270– 271, 292, 327, 329, 331, 342–343 patriarchs, patriarchal 12–14, 69, 75–76, 80–81, 97, 298, 302–304, 307, 350 Pekah, King of Israel 240, 244, 248 Pentateuch 4–5, 10, 17, 20, 23, 37, 58–59, 78, 118, 144, 159, 177, 181, 187–191, 205, 207, 219, 236, 276, 293–296, 304, 355, 396 Persia, Persian 1, 4, 20–21, 33, 42, 108, 114, 236, 391–392, 401 persuasion 330–331 Pharaoh 40–41, 146, 273, 281 Pharaoh Neco 40–41, 47, 131, 148, 286 Philistines 47, 151, 213, 315, 341–342, 363, 365–366 Phinehas 355, 367

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 446 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

446

Index of Subjects and Names

polemic 4–5, 21, 23, 25, 42–43, 49, 52–53, 62–63, 65, 67, 78–79, 82–83, 97, 106, 249, 252, 254–255, 297, 314–315, 351– 352, 396–397 popular religion 37–40, 42, 44 post-exilic 113, 198, 208–209, 259–260, 266, 301, 314, 340, 388 see also Christianity, Judaism prayer 7–8, 14, 33, 36, 54–55, 63–68, 74, 100–101, 153, 179, 198–200, 298, 346, 360 priesthood, priest, priestly 44, 50, 72–73, 86, 91, 100–101, 113, 148, 158, 176, 178, 180–182, 185, 188–189, 193, 203, 220, 224, 235, 256, 258–259, 270, 281– 282, 333, 337, 339–340, 344–345, 354– 355, 391–392 Priestly literature 4, 37, 48–49, 64, 78, 175, 183, 188, 218, 266, 270, 332 priests and Levites 65, 72, 178, 183–184, 188, 224, 229, 267, 326 prophets, prophecy, prophetic literature 7, 20, 37, 40, 56, 64, 106, 113–114, 124, 131, 136–138, 149–150, 157, 159, 162– 163, 168, 186, 196, 202, 204–208, 247– 250, 268–269, 285, 307, 313, 321–322, 346, 349–351, 356, 365, 388–390, 399– 400 providence 9, 43–44, 118–120, 130, 137, 201, 347, 395 Psalms 20, 24–25, 29–30, 32, 106, 196, 265, 303, 321, 396 Qumran 6, 18, 88, 107, 115 quotations 101, 143, 191, 265, 360, 371, 388 rabbis, rabbinic 17, 25–26, 34–35, 41, 51, 92, 94–97, 107, 119, 123, 127, 144–147, 159, 189, 193, 196, 199, 267, 272, 311, 376, 396, 400 Ramoth-gilead 150, 243–244, 246 reform 86, 166, 168, 233, 258–259 Rehoboam 45, 122, 127, 131–132, 134– 135, 140, 155, 160–163, 166, 172, 176, 197, 203–204, 214, 228–230, 234, 237, 242, 247, 249, 258, 277, 282, 285, 324, 336, 338, 341, 382 rejoicing 199, 206, 322–323

repentance 125–126, 128, 133, 138–142, 144–149, 163, 166–167, 203, 250 rest 60, 62, 305–306 retribution 4, 46, 66, 117–120, 122–123, 126, 128–130, 139, 149–151, 154–155, 168, 200–201, 207, 243, 246, 249, 286, 289, 355, 392 Reuben 150–151, 219, 221, 237, 250–251, 276–277 revelation 49, 82, 98, 376 ritual see cult sacrifice 57, 62–64, 71, 111, 167, 182, 186, 189, 323, 339, 343–345, 348 Samaria 233, 246, 255–259, 261 Samaritan 4, 211, 252, 254–261, 297 Samuel the prophet 104, 141, 292, 313, 320, 348, 366–367, 400 Samuel, book of 209, 213–215, 238–239, 316, 339, 347, 364, 366–367 Samuel–Kings 1, 6, 11, 17, 20, 30, 45, 47, 66, 71, 104, 130, 177–178, 211–212, 236–237, 241, 273, 283, 297, 305, 340– 341, 345–346, 351, 357, 364, 367, 396, 398–400 Satan 114–115 Saul 104–105, 131, 211, 218, 222, 237– 239, 312–313, 315–320, 347–348, 350, 352, 359, 368 schism 228–230, 237–238, 242–243, 249, 261 Sennacherib 39–40, 47, 108, 113, 121, 151, 154, 284, 290, 330 Septuagint 17–18, 28–30, 32, 50, 75, 77– 78, 88–89, 114, 167, 241, 269, 289, 311 Sheba, queen of 74, 151, 376 Shemaiah the prophet 46, 132–133, 140– 141, 249 Shihor of Egypt 278–280 Shiloh 60, 348–349 Shimeon bar Yochai 146, 193 Shishak 45–46, 131–134, 151, 284, 382 Simeon 151, 219, 221–222, 224, 228, 231, 233–237, 259, 275–277 Sinai, Sinaitic 49, 52, 59, 69, 80, 82–83, 87, 91, 97, 202, 296–297, 386–387 singers see music, musicians

00-Japhet-Chronicles.book Page 447 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

447

Index of Subjects and Names Solomon 36, 48, 50, 52–55, 57–60, 62–67, 73–75, 122–123, 127, 132, 142, 150, 160–161, 163, 166, 168, 171–173, 176– 179, 182–183, 185, 195, 199–200, 205, 209, 211, 216–217, 223, 225–228, 230, 235, 237, 239, 242, 245, 247–248, 261– 265, 270–271, 273, 277, 279–284, 291, 297–298, 300, 304–306, 308–312, 314– 315, 318, 322–325, 328, 331, 334–335, 337–342, 344–346, 348, 350–353, 359– 362, 364, 367, 371–382, 392, 400 sources 6–7, 121, 134–137, 151, 177, 219– 223, 225–226, 229, 236, 241, 243, 257, 262, 271, 275, 285, 346, 360, 366–367, 372, 374, 378, 380, 395–399, 401 speeches 7, 36, 42, 101, 140, 143, 299, 330–331, 364 stewards 335, 341 synagogue 179 synchronization 135, 315 tabernacle 48–49, 51–52, 58, 111, 172, 178–179, 183, 379 Tamar 271–272, 365 targum 36, 38–39, 41, 43, 61, 114, 151– 152, 172, 189, 192, 199, 271, 294, 311 temple 4–5, 25, 43–44, 48–65, 70–71, 80, 84–85, 98, 101, 110–112, 120, 123, 125–128, 131–132, 136, 155, 159, 161– 171, 174–185, 187–194, 198–199, 203, 207, 242, 254, 256, 261, 263, 286–289, 297–298, 300, 305–306, 310, 324, 327– 329, 331, 334, 339–340, 342, 344–345, 349, 351, 353, 358–360, 363–365, 367, 369–375, 377–380, 387, 391–392, 398– 399 tetragrammaton 10–12, 17–19, 25–26, 29, 31 textual emendation 28, 32–33, 93, 165, 176, 182, 186, 251, 293, 314, 337 theocracy 312–314, 320, 358, 385–386, 391 theodicy 116, 119–120, 125–127, 129, 137, 300

throne 97, 310–312, 321, 332, 351–352, 359, 373 Tiglath-pileser 150, 222, 232, 248, 291 Tobit, book of 15, 21, 236 Torah 93–94, 96–97, 118, 144–145, 184– 191, 193, 201, 206, 208, 295, 304, 324, 387 see also law, commandments tradition 6, 80, 118, 143, 178, 227, 284, 367–368, 395, 397 transcendence 22, 26, 28, 30, 32–33, 47, 50, 56, 67, 98, 108, 114 transmission 22 tribes east of the Jordan 100–101, 150, 249, 276–277, 291, 293 trumpets 99 trust 200–202, 206–207, 331, 392–393 Uzzah 370 Uzziah 130–131, 148, 150, 155, 161, 166, 172, 203, 222, 230, 324, 333, 338, 341– 342, 345–346, 381–382 Vorlage 6, 28, 77, 111, 380 war, concept of 150–154 warning 138, 144–148, 396 wilderness 181, 218, 220 wisdom 374, 376, 400 Yohanan ben Zakkai, rabbi Yose ben Halafta 146

94, 146

Zebulun 219, 232, 234, 237, 276–278 Zechariah 20, 101, 114, 138, 141–143, 201, 248, 269, 344 Zechariah the son of Jehoiada 136–137, 140, 274 Zedekiah 84, 126, 128, 131, 141, 143, 147, 160–161, 166, 168, 176, 204, 285, 287– 290, 363–364, 382 Zerah the Cushite 47, 151, 153, 278, 341